Porter and the CSeries

[flyincanuck]

Because in Canada we cater to the minority.

[photofly]

If I were better at understanding product marketing though, I might better understand why an airline would accept operating an extremely capable aircraft such as the C series at anything less than a full load with appropriate fuel quantity and find it acceptable just to maintain its fleet out of a particular base or hub

Because that's where the customers are.

The purpose of an airline isn't to fly cool airplanes. It's to earn money!

[Gino Under]

"The purpose of an airline isn't to fly cool airplanes. It's to earn money!"
There's the gold nugget I was missing. Who knew airlines wanted to make money? Certainly not someone like me who's been in the airline industry for over 35 years.

If an airline's purpose is to fly passengers off Toronto island, AND make a profit, great. To my way of thinking, why spend $50 million on a 109 passenger aeroplane and not use it to it's fullest capability because the runway isn't long enough?

Simple. Make the f**in' runway longer, don't buy the aeroplane or go somewhere you're welcome.

...that's why I don't own or run an airline. WTF do I know?
Maybe Porter's just another break even airline.


Gino Under

[Deltawidget]

As fanblade has shown above, there is plenty of reason to be highly skeptical of the numbers.

I support Porter, but even as a CPL/IFR student, the published takeoff run/range numbers from BBD and Porter's plans to go as far as LAX seem unrealistic. That said, we are all assuming the plans are to go YTZ-WestCoast NON-STOP. Sounds like these YTZ-WestCoast routes could be similar to the LCY-JFK route. Re-fuel on the outbound leg, non-stop inbound.

Also, the additional 1000ft may open up some new routes for the Q.

just my 2 cents...

[dhc#]

Deluce defends against "Takeover" speculation.

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/ ... eculation/

[aileron]

As fanblade has shown above, there is plenty of reason to be highly skeptical of the numbers.

I support Porter, but even as a CPL/IFR student, the published takeoff run/range numbers from BBD and Porter's plans to go as far as LAX seem unrealistic. That said, we are all assuming the plans are to go YTZ-WestCoast NON-STOP. Sounds like these YTZ-WestCoast routes could be similar to the LCY-JFK route. Re-fuel on the outbound leg, non-stop inbound.

Also, the additional 1000ft may open up some new routes for the Q.

just my 2 cents...

Well here is your answer: Range Capabilities - Straight from the source

[FICU]

Well here is your answer: Range Capabilities - Straight from the source

What it doesn't answer is the amount of payload it can lift to make that range estimate.

[aileron]

Well here is your answer: Range Capabilities - Straight from the source

What it doesn't answer is the amount of payload it can lift to make that range estimate.

Okay, here is your easy button: Range Capability Assumptions

[FICU]

So they are assuming they can fly full pax with bags from 5000 feet of runway off Billy Bishop at 14.5 degrees to Vancouver non-stop with 85% average head winds?

Good luck!

[YVRDroider]

I doubt they're just assuming. I bet there may be some maths involved.

Edit: Yes I know they say "assumption" on the website, but I take as a mathematical term, i.e. a logical base upon which to built a mathematical theory, and not the English word assumption as in "I just assumed nice new plane would be awesome and perform great!".

[FICU]

It's all about sales and marketing and I suspect they are reaching to get clients interested. I think there will be a large payload reduction to make those numbers work from Billy Bishop once reality sets in.
I'll only believe it when I see it.

[learcapt]

I'm with you FICU...the performance of this aircraft has to be something that no one saw coming to make it work. Unless I missed it here, we have not even considered wet or contaminated runway issues.

[justwork]

I'm with you FICU...the performance of this aircraft has to be something that no one saw coming to make it work. Unless I missed it here, we have not even considered wet or contaminated runway issues.

Wet runway - it will be grooved
Contaminated runway - Great snow removal equipment and a short runway, I've had 1 day in 3 winters that it wasn't %100 bare and dry.

[learcapt]

justwork, does CARS 705 negate a wet runway condition because of grooving? I have not heard of that, but Im 704/604.

What do you fly?

[justwork]

justwork, does CARS 705 negate a wet runway condition because of grooving? I have not heard of that, but Im 704/604.

What do you fly?

I couldn't tell you, compared to other avcanada members I am far from a CAR's aficionado. It is however my understanding that a grooved runway maintains effectively dry braking during periods of rain fall.

[midwingcrisis]

Wonder the reason(s) why the CS was complete flop for NEW sales at the recent Paris Show. Others filled their demos with cash deposits. BBD virtually came home empty

[dashx]

BBD virtually came home empty

Its like bringing kobe beef to Calgary for a barbeque..........

BTW interest has already been expressed for a corporate C series.

[learcapt]

Just work, I thought I was missing something there..how can you make a statement about a wet runway when you obviously know nothing about it. Wet and contamination will be an issue.

[justwork]

Just work, I thought I was missing something there..how can you make a statement about a wet runway when you obviously know nothing about it. Wet and contamination will be an issue.

Maybe you should email bob and let him know.

[learcapt]

What a stupid response...All I was trying to say here is that we were all looking at numbers that were already tight, never mind contaminated ones. You pipe up with a dumb ass response.