WestJet seeks to fly Boeing 737 jets from island airport.

[EA757]

http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/12 ... rport.html

This island isn't big enough for all those damn egos...

[photofly]

Spoiler tactic. If that was their real intent they'd keep quiet about it until they'd secured slots.

[brooks]

Why they hell would he do it with MAX's? The Q400 would be more than enough. Weird.

[Marinth]

Considering it's hairy as to weather the C-Series would even be able to get into Billy Bishop, would it actually be possible to get a 737 in there?

[dhc#]

WJ would go down an shithouse hole for 3 quarters, 2 dimes and a nickel if they could show a profit

[leftoftrack]

Wj wants in. They picked the wrong plane but they want to keep the competition out.

Any one remember cloves comments about the scary propeller jets that porter fly's.

[parallel60]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rio_d ... Dumont.jpg

Santos Dumont Airport in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil has two RWY's 4100' and 4300'. Flew as a passenger on a A319 out of there, and flew in on a B737-800 with the SFP(short field performance).

[photofly]

Wj wants in. They picked the wrong plane but they want to keep the competition out.

Any one remember cloves comments about the scary propeller jets that porter fly's.

I do still see comments online about how dangerous it's going to be at the island when all that kerosene has to be stored there for the jets, compared to the lovely safe gasoline (we put it in our cars!) that the propeller driven dash-8's burn.

[YVRDroider]

Here's the Toronto Port Authority response to this: https://www.torontoport.com/About-TPA/M ... eport.aspx

“We are delighted WestJet is interested in offering service from the popular Billy Bishop Airport, but find their approach through the media curious. When WestJet had the opportunity to secure BBTCA slots in 2009, they declined, even though the airline now uses Q400 aircraft which comply with our airport’s strict noise restrictions,” advised Geoff Wilson, President and CEO of the TPA. “Although the TPA continues to hear rumours about WestJet’s alleged interest in utilizing Billy Bishop at some point in the future, they’ve never actually contacted the airport’s operator – the TPA. Air Canada, Continental Airlines and Porter Airlines all participated in our 2009 slot allocation process, and each airline received a slot award in June 2010.” Coincident with its announced merger agreement with United Airlines, Continental Airlines, subsequently declined to accept its BBTCA slot award. At the present time, all 202 commercial BBTCA slots have been allocated via the TPA’s UK-based independent slot allocation coordinator. As per the TPA presentation to the Toronto Region Board of Trade in October 2013, the TPA does not anticipate any new commercial slots becoming available over the next few years.

“As with airports in New York, New Jersey and Washington, Billy Bishop is a slot controlled operation. In our case, no new commercial slots are currently available. This will not change next year, should Toronto City Council remove the current ban on commercial jets at Billy Bishop,” continued Mark McQueen, Chairman of the TPA. “There’s no room at the Inn.”

In addition to assessing any eventual formal WestJet request for slots at the airport, the TPA would also assess the suitability of its new 737 aircraft, which are scheduled to begin service in 2017. “All aircraft operating from Billy Bishop need to meet the strict noise output guidelines of the 1983 Tripartite Agreement, whether or not City Council approves jets down the road”, advised Wilson. “According to the expert consultants working for the City of Toronto, the Bombardier CS-100 is expected to comply with the existing strict ICAO noise ceiling in place at the BBTCA. It will be some years before it becomes clear if WestJet’s new 737 aircraft will also comply. In the meantime, WestJet’s lack of landing slots, with none on the horizon, makes this matter academic.”

[YYZSaabGuy]

In Westjet's defence, they weren't flying Q400s in 2009, so it's not really surprising they weren't interested in acquiring slots at what was at that time a non-jet airport. I'm not sure why the TPA pretends to find this so mystifying.

[DanWEC]

Could be a complete bluff. Think of how WestJet would feel about Porter encroaching on their regional domain?

By proposing that they would like to fly 737's out of the Island they are stretching the concept of Porter's proposal to the extreme, to show the "give an inch take a mile" scenario. With this "What If" snowballing scenario now in the minds of Councillors and residents, WJ just might have effectively kiboshed the entire jet traffic amendment and put a cap on Porter's expansion plans.
Calculatingly smart if it's true, but I'm just guessing.....

[photofly]

As per the TPA presentation to the Toronto Region Board of Trade in October 2013, the TPA does not anticipate any new commercial slots becoming available over the next few years.

If true, this is quite significant. It means that GA isn't going to get crowded out (yet). One of the Jacobs report scenarios was to end GA and apply the noise quota towards more commercial slots.

[bmc]

By proposing that they would like to fly 737's out of the Island they are stretching the concept of Porter's proposal to the extreme, to show the "give an inch take a mile" scenario. With this "What If" snowballing scenario now in the minds of Councillors and residents, WJ just might have effectively kiboshed the entire jet traffic amendment and put a cap on Porter's expansion plans.
Calculatingly smart if it's true, but I'm just guessing.....

I think you nailed it to large degree.

Traffic flying to/from the island is largely high yield business traffic. No airline operating out of Toronto really wants to see the island used for commercial traffic. It means incurring double the expense by hanging two airport operations (Pearson and the Island), to carry the same train. Ideally, for airlines except Porter, the island gets closed down.

With Deluce making noises about adding jets, AC wants in. And now WJ. Any why shouldn't they? It's the traffic base that they all want.

Knowing that the island is a political hot potato and any hint of expansion makes headlines, the WJ news of this week might break the camels back and see the foot put down putting an end to the concept of jets on the island. If everyone else can get a piece of the action, WJ should too. If they can't, nobody should. It's either available to all.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

[2R]

Many big cities have used garbage as landfill if Toronto used its garbage for landfill it could build a ten thousand foot runway structure in as little as two years. Saving millions in not shipping garbage to landfills.

Toronto could burn their garbage in a high temperature furnace similar to the Trax furnace in London, the energy given off in the clean burning furnace can be used to generate electricity or pump hot water to provide central heating as some Swedish cities utilize when they burn their garbage.
The Ash made in the Trax is used in Drywall gyproc production. The ash could also be used as landfill to expand the land mass on the shore line creating more lake shore property. The ash could also be used expand the runway .Rather than pay to ship garbage hundreds of miles away Toronto should exploit this very valuable resource to provide building materials and heat homes, and help extend the runway at an airport that is very close to being blended into the rest of the cities transit.
An airport with close links to a subway and railway station just like Paris, London ,who would have thunk it.

Toronto has enough population to warrant two major airport operations.

Or Toronto could get back to talking about cycle lanes. Discussions about how much navel fluff they can harvest seems to be all that some of the previous council could muster.

[Realitychex]

Could be a complete bluff. Think of how WestJet would feel about Porter encroaching on their regional domain?

By proposing that they would like to fly 737's out of the Island they are stretching the concept of Porter's proposal to the extreme, to show the "give an inch take a mile" scenario. With this "What If" snowballing scenario now in the minds of Councillors and residents, WJ just might have effectively kiboshed the entire jet traffic amendment and put a cap on Porter's expansion plans.
Calculatingly smart if it's true, but I'm just guessing.....

Porter could order 100 more Q400's and encroach on WestJet and Air Canada's regional market at their leisure. There are no restrictions at any other airport in Canada and very few in the US.

The difference is that whilst Porter could expand to any airport they choose, they steadfastly hide behind restrictions that prevent their competitors from doing the same at Porter's home base airport.

WestJet wasn't particularly impressed when Air Canada "discovered" Hamilton and Abbotsford and began service there at various times, buts that's the nature of free, consumer friendly competition.

The market took care of the situation as neither forays lasted very long. One can only assume the yields in the market, whilst compensatory for WJ, were not high enough for higher cost operators to justify the service.

Porter is scared witless that the same would happen at YTZ as WJ knocked down yields levels, making Porter's operation even less economic than it is now.

No business has a devine right to exist. If it can't survive in a normal competitive marketplace, it fails. Too bad. So sad. Others will rise from the ashes.

Does anyone really miss Eatons?

[2R]

The Eaton store was great, and I do miss the high quality chocolate. The high quality made in Canada clothing. The Eaton store was the place to go if you wanted quality made in Canada goods. It all went downhill when they started selling the same crap made in bunga walla land as the other stores that promote child labour and slave wages in the factories producing consumer goods.
So yes I do miss the Eaton store as it was a symbol of decency and dignity in a world of gangster slave owner stores.

[Realitychex]

I miss buggy whips, 8 track tapes and my betamax VCR too. I'll probably miss my Blackberry one day too, but times change.

I can't think of too many consumer products over the last 100 years that have had the luxury of being sold under near monopoly conditions.

Apparently an airline seat out of Billy Bishop Airport in Toronto, Canada's largest city, is one of those few items.

It's patently absurd, but if you're a monopolist, it's something you'd never want to see changed.

[photofly]

Any discussion of monopoly has to decide what a "market" is. It suits anyone trying to knock down a business to define a market as narrowly as possible so they can scream "monopoly! Unfair!".

For instance there's no doubt that Porter has an absolute monopoly on all flights scheduled to leave CYTZ between 905 and 907 on Wednesdays in an aircraft with blue livery. How unfair to Air Canada et al.

But a more realistic market for flights out of Toronto includes YYZ and clearly Porter has no significant market power there.

It also ignores that Porter created the demand from CYTZ which is why it holds the majority of slots.

You can't just march into LHR and demand landing rights there either - be it in the name of competition or just plain "me want some of that, too".

[Realitychex]

Any discussion of monopoly has to decide what a "market" is. It suits anyone trying to knock down a business to define a market as narrowly as possible so they can scream "monopoly! Unfair!".

For instance there's no doubt that Porter has an absolute monopoly on all flights scheduled to leave CYTZ between 905 and 907 on Wednesdays in an aircraft with blue livery. How unfair to Air Canada et al.

But a more realistic market for flights out of Toronto includes YYZ and clearly Porter has no significant market power there.

It also ignores that Porter created the demand from CYTZ which is why it holds the majority of slots.

You can't just march into LHR and demand landing rights there either - be it in the name of competition or just plain "me want some of that, too".

Right out of the Porter PR manual. Anything to defend a near monopoly.

Porter could launch service from YYZ tomorrow if they wanted to, and with the brand loyalty they claim, surely they'd have no problem carving out a niche there.

Does any one airline have a monopoly at any of EWR, ISP, LGA, JFK, or TTN? How about LAX, BUR, SNA, LGB, PSP or ONT? BWI, DCA or IAD? Does BA have a monopoly at Luton, Stansted? Gatwick? Heathrow?

Southwest pretty much MDW on the map, yet it doesn't have a monopoly there.

WestJet created the market in Abbotsford, Hamilton, Brandon and for all intents and purposes, Comox and Kitchener-Waterloo. Air Canada is creating a market in Red Deer and I am sure others in the past.

There's nothing stopping Porter from starting 30 times a day from Hamilton to pretty much anywhere in North America except LGA, DCA, SNA and ORD, no different than any other airline in Canada.

WestJet didn't bother with YTZ in the past because it didn't have equipment that could operate from that airport. Why is that such a tough concept to understand? They do now, and should the runway be extended, they'll have 2 aircraft capable of doing so.

I'm pretty sure WestJet won't be looking for slots at Haneda or Hong Kong until they have an aircraft that could operate from Canada to those two airports either. That would make about as much sense as WestJet looking for slots at YTZ when they didn't have equipment that could operate in there.

If Porter has a loyal following at YTZ who will use their services no matter what, why are they so petrified of competition?

[photofly]

Porter could launch service from YYZ tomorrow if they wanted to

Er, right, but they don't want to. They're very happy serving the airport they built up. What's your point?

Are you saying that the TPA should withdraw some of Porter's slots in favour of Westjet? That would make no sense at all.

don't you think it's strange for Westjet to issue a statement to the press without talking to the airport operator? Its just a tactic to put the wind up city council. Nothing more.

[Realitychex]

Porter could launch service from YYZ tomorrow if they wanted to

Er, right, but they don't want to. They're very happy serving the airport they built up. What's your point?

Are you saying that the TPA should withdraw some of Porter's slots in favour of Westjet? That would make no sense at all.

don't you think it's strange for Westjet to issue a statement to the press without talking to the airport operator? Its just a tactic to put the wind up city council. Nothing more.

The US DoJ did precisely that at DCA.

AA and US Airways had 65% of the DCA market and that was deemed anti competitive, even with competition available at both IAD and BWI about 40 minutes away, according to Mapquest.

They have been forced to divest numerous slots to competitors to ensure their dominance is kept in check. The US DoJ, at this juncture, will apparently limit bidders to LCC's, recognizing quite correctly that without LCC competition in a market, fares remain artificially high.

One has only to compare fares between Toronto and NYC, where LCC competition is alive and well with WJ in the market, compared to fares between Toronto and Boston, Washington and Chicago to see that the US DoJ has apparently made the correct decision in this matter.

Porter has 85% of the slots at YTZ and according to Mapquest, it's a 37 minute drive between the two airports.

In the US, airports 40 minutes apart are considered distinct markets. In Canada, airports located in, far and away, the nations largest metropolitan area, 37 minutes apart are considered common markets.

Porter's cosy defacto monopoly would not be permitted in the United States. It would be deemed anti-competitive. End of story.

Granted, it's a different jurisdiction with different rules, but there are few north of the border who would suggest that our system has resulted in more competition and therefore lower fares.

At a time when Canadians are tripping over themselves to drive across the border to access low fares that are purportedly the result of a far more competitive playing field, it defies any logic or common sense for any publicly owned airport, let alone an airport located in the downtown core of Canada's largest city, and within spitting distance of the nations largest surface transportation hub, to be dominated to the degree that Porter dominates Billy Bishop airport. The arrangement serves no one but shareholders of a privately held corporation, who, last time they made their numbers known, and even after repeatedly making public claims to the contrary, proved their consistent inability to operate a profitable business, even with an 85% share of the market.

The last verifiable data in 1Q 2010 indicated that Porter's average fare, excluding taxes, was $175.64 over an average flight length of 350 miles. During the same quarter, WestJet's average fare ex taxes was $155.43 over 963 miles. Porter lost $5.9m that quarter. WJ made $13.8m that quarter. See Porter's SEDAR filings and WJ's 1Q 2010 report. It's all there in black and white.

Porter have had seven sheltered years to establish themselves at YTZ. That's plenty long enough. It's time the training wheels were removed and the mollycoddling ended. Canadians demand competitive air service and the resultant low fares. Porter's own fare data clearly proves they haven't delivered. Their monopoly has resulted in a consumer rip off of scandalous proportions. The average WJ flight is 3 times as long as an average Porter flight and WJ's average fare is still LESS than Porters.

If no one else wants to operate at YTZ, that's fine. As it stands, no one seems particularly interested in YXX or YHM, but that could change tomorrow and there's nothing WJ could, or would do about it.

However, if there are airlines that want to provide a competitive service at YTZ and drive fares lower for consumers, then they should be allowed a reasonable allotment slots to be able to do so, together with access to gate facilities at rates consistent with those at other other airports of similar size.

And for the record, WestJet publicly mused on more than one occasion about obtaining slots at LGA and SNA and more recently, they suggested they'd be interested in slots at DCA.

As much as Porter would like to believe its all a big conspiracy to muddy the waters, everything WestJet has done regarding this file is entirely consistent with its MO over the past 17+ years.

WestJet now has a fleet type that can operate into YTZ and has made it clear that fleet type will make an appearance in Central Canada in 2014. Furthermore, there is discussion of the runway being lengthened and jets being permitted there. That will give WJ, and others, the ability to operate jets out of the airport.

WJ is not afraid of competition, having gone head to head with dozens of far larger competitors over their history.

Porter, on the other hand, who are entering their 7th year, still remain deathly afraid of ever having to face any real head to head competitor. They will stop at nothing to ensure their anti-competitive defacto monopoly and high fares remain in place in perpetuity. With this in place, Porter's shareholders hope profits will result, and with profits, an exit strategy, selling their holdings at a substantial profit.

Follow the money. That's what this is all about. The rest is window dressing.

[bmc]

The last verifiable data in 1Q 2010 indicated that Porter's average fare, excluding taxes, was $175.64 over an average flight length of 350 miles. During the same quarter, WestJet's average fare ex taxes was $155.43 over 963 miles.

There's a bit of apples to oranges in this. Porter, operating smaller capacity over shorter stage lengths, probably has higher seat costs. The bigger the equipment, flying longer distances, has a better opportunity to spread fixed costs. A new A380 should have lower seat costs than a new Q400. It may even be half as much. Arguably, it should be a fraction of the Q400.

Sorry for the diversion.

[leftoftrack]

DCA is a perimeter airport nothing further than 1500 miles. Or about the same as the Range of a fully loaded Q400 in a porter configuration

[photofly]

AC went to court over the slot allocation procedure and got a drubbing, so the conspiracy between Porter and the TPA extends to the courts too.

I don't imagine that Porter actively seeks competition - no company does - but allegations of corporate cowardice because they aren't queuing up to hand over slots to WJ are just silly talk.

If WJ really wants slots at YTZ why not approach the TPA? And if that doesn't work, then whatever competition authorities exist in Canada. That would be evidence of some serious intent. Have they done so?

As for follow the money, I am: all of which has been invested by Porter, and none by WJ. Mere statements to the media are of course free.

[photofly]

Do you think the chances of City Council approving runway extensions at CYTZ are improved or worsened by comments like those of WJ? Worsened, I would say, as I think would most people watching the controversy. Including WJ's CEO.

In which case for an operator without slots there who genuinely wants to operate jets the only sensible thing is to keep very very quiet. Not shoot its mouth off about 737s that don't exist yet.