June 21, 2007
Porter Air Says: Take That, YYZ
Nine months into their existence, Porter Airlines chugs along, still under the radar of most. As the Toronto Star recently reported, the young airline is still struggling to find a steady stream of regular business customers. With traffic on the 401 at an all-time high, getting to Pearson during rush hours can potentially take as long as a flight to Montreal. On a weekend getaway, the give-or-take ten hours spent traveling to La Belle Province and back are costly. And with flights available for not much more than a regular fare round-trip on VIA to Montreal, it made sense to give Porter a shot.
Flying out of the Toronto City Centre Airport (otherwise known as the Toronto Island Airport), Porter has transformed the rundown facility into a surprisingly posh terminal. The airline offers a free shuttle service to and from Union Station, although more people on this day seemed to prefer the taxi option. Billed as one of the world’s shortest ferry rides, the 120-metre trip from the bottom of Bathurst Street to the island is over in a flash. If you’re wondering, as any sane person might, why there isn’t a bridge, well, that's politics. It's been on the cusp of happening many times, but it just hasn't come to fruition. The place does have quite the checkered history though, which Torontoist recently delved into.
The waiting area is essentially a business class lounge, with everything free for the taking, including wireless internet access, non-alcoholic beverages and snacks. Slickest of all are the Porter-labeled bottles of water. It might well be tap water, but it still passed the better-than-Dasani test. The on-board snack even comes in a cute little box. Hey, presentation counts.
There's a small measure of class that Porter delivers that seems to escape competitors Air Canada and WestJet. It almost harkens back to the day when flying was a luxury and not the cattle-like security-theatre experience of today. But style might not be enough to help Porter compete; their strength is their downtown location, and they're going to need more people to be willing to break old habits. For those of us that live and/or work downtown, there simply is no better way to go to and from Montreal (or Ottawa, if you must), at least until VIA magically conjures up a Japanese bullet train. And for all the talk on this site about global warming, let it be noted that Porter's Bombardier Q400 twin-turboprop jets are more carbon-friendly than anything in the Air Canada or WestJet fleet.
The final product is something close to revelatory. It’s akin to having your own private jet service, which is both a testament to Porter’s superior service and near-empty flights. A mural in the Island Airport terminal implies that New York City will be on the short-list of Porter destinations, and the airline was officially cleared to fly to U.S. cities as of yesterday. But this likely won't happen until next year, if Porter is still around. If the 401 traffic keeps getting worse, they might want to think about adding Pearson as a destination.
Photo by Danu Mandlsohn.
|
I really hope Porter survives.. I've flown with them once, home to Ottawa, and it was an absolute treat. It was everything Air Canada/Pearson aren't: friendly, personal, and efficient.
To be honest, irrespective of how good the service is, I see it as essential that is airline go bankrupt!
The simple facts are these. The Island Airport has lost money every single year for the last 30.
The Toronto Port Authority, its owner, has lost money every year since its creation (about 10 years ago).
The Port Authority is nothing more than a gravy train for well connected Federal Liberals and now Conservatives, who have little or no business skills and no business being on any board, let alone this one.
Further, the residents of Toronto, as a whole, spoke clearly in electing an anti-island airport mayor and council.
But rather than respect the wishes of the citizens who live here and work here and vote here, the Port Authority, a government agency no less, chose to sue the City of Toronto (another level of goverment) as did Robert Deluce, the would be owner of Porter.
He essentially founded and funded the airline with taxpayer money.
That is the height of arrogance, and accounts for Porter's ability to offer little luxuries....that you may not have paid for with your ticket, but rather, with your taxes.
All the while, the landing fees at Pearson, over which the airlines have no control, have been jacked to literally the highest in the world, by the GTAA (The Greater Toronto Airports Authority), which, ironically, controls every airport, except the Island.
Aside from the scam involved in this airlines' creation, short-haul airlines are a large and unnecessary source of greenhouse gas emissions.
If your going to Ottawa, for goodness sake, take the train! And no, no one's time is so important that the extra hour will kill you. Read a book!
Finally, it should be said, that the number of workers and residents in or near harbourfront and the the south financial district are entitled to what little peace they can find near by.
There are already too many cars, too much smog, and excess noise in abundance.
The ability to take a walk along the water's edge or visit the islands and be unfettered by such things is a priceless asset for the City.
Diminishing that with the noise of turbo-props and their associated exhaust, along with traffic at the foot of Bathurst is unnecessary, unwise and puts some of out tourist-related jobs at risk.
For the record, I neither live, nor work at Harbourfront, or the Islands, nor for any competing air carrier.
I simply feel strongly, as do many Torontonians, that the place for planes is at an airport, and the place for an airport is an industrial area at a city's edge, no where near the waterfront or the downtown or anyone's residence.
I feel equally that if one could justify such an offensive adventure without the use of tax dollars subsidizing it, it might at least be more justifiable based strictly on greed.
Lastly, whatever happened to concern about terrorism and planes.
I don't want to exaggerate the risks thereof, I think that's been done plenty. But surely, it doens't make the most sense from a security perspective to have flight paths in or near the most densly populated districts of Canada's largest city, adjacent to some of Canada's most prominent landmarks and easy targets?
In conclusion there really is no excuse for Porter or the airport it calls home, it fails every test: Economic, Planning, Environmental, Cost and Security.
And I hope few choose to patronize this infuriating service.
The planes actually aren't as loud as one would think (in fact from within my apartment near the airport, they can't be heard at all). Much louder on Queens Quay is the street car which you can hear rumble towards you from down the road.
And for anyone who finds planes fascinating to watch, to see the come and go from outside your window is very cool.
I do think there could be better uses for the airport land, but it's not nearly as much of a detriment to the area as it's made out to be.
Further, the residents of Toronto, as a whole, spoke clearly in electing an anti-island airport mayor and council.
Math question for you, is 43% a majority?
But rather than respect the wishes of the citizens who live here and work here and vote here
So I ask again, given that 57% of Toronto voters voted for the various pro-airport candidates exactly who's wishes are we talking about?
He essentially founded and funded the airline with taxpayer money.
They raised $250 Million to found and fund the airline, then they settled a lawsuit for much less than that. Suggesting that taxpayer money is funding the airline is like suggesting that T-shirt sales could fund the TTC.
he GTAA (The Greater Toronto Airports Authority), which, ironically, controls every airport, except the Island
Not true, they don't control Buttonville (although the feds force them to give Buttonville's owners a subsidy they would rather not. There is another small and expandable airport in Markham that they don't control. Never mind Hamilton.
f your going to Ottawa, for goodness sake, take the train!
and if the train had a higher carbon footprint than the plane? How would you respond? I've looked and I've been unable to find accurate carbon footprint information for these modes, all the information about trains assumes European electrified trains, not North American diesels with heavier rolling stock and nobody has published accurate data about short haul turboprops, all the "short haul" numbers I've seen from Suzuki and others are for jets. It's possible, maybe even probable that flying to Ottawa on Porter is actually lower carbon than the train, I just can't prove it.
here are already too many cars, too much smog, and excess noise in abundance.
So force more cars and taxis to make runs to Pearson on the Gardiner, that will help...
"If your going to Ottawa, for goodness sake, take the train! "
I don't know if you've ever taken the train to Ottawa, but frankly it's a disaster. I've taken it roughly 20 times each way in the last 4 years, so I've had plenty of experience.
*Every single* trip home I have ever made has been late, sometimes only 20-30 minutes, sometimes up to an hour. The food service is useless, they offer no decent vegetarian options, and what they do sell is overpriced and stale. They make a minimum of 6 stops on the way to ottawa, each time announcing the stop at full volume even in cars where nobody is supposed to be getting off, ensuring that it's impossible to sleep for more than 45 minutes at a time. To top it all off, if any of the airlines have a seat sale on (and one of them always does), it will invariably be roughly the same price, if not cheaper than VIA.
Don't get me wrong, I'm honestly a car-hating, bike-riding, downtown-loving hippie wannabe, but I refuse to accept that I should hate Porter because the train is a viable option.
While I'm at it, the notion that those planes are noise-pollution is laughable. Stand at the foot of Bathurst, and what to you hear? Planes taking off ranks somewhere below trucks on the Gardiner, friction noises from streetcars turning, and island ferries honking from across the lake.
I've actually had many great experiences taking the train to Ottawa, but it has a time and place. The train to Ottawa (in my experience) is leisurely, scenic, and is nice when you have a lot of time to spend in our nation's capital.
However, when you're in business and need to get out there for an in-person meeting, or if you only can take a weekend for a vacation, a 4+ hour train ride can seriously eat into your time. Convenience is key for many travellers. Businesses can also save on hotel fees for their travelling employees. It makes more sense to fly, especially if the price is comparable. Environmentally, I am interested in finding out whether a four-hour diesel train ride pollutes more per passenger than a one-hour flight.
Regardless, I kind of want to take Porter just for the spiffy snack boxes.
...and the free wine. I wonder how drunk someone could get in the up-down flight that is the air-trip to Ottawa.
I live in London, Ont. and I would love to be able to take a short plane hop to downtown Toronto and then transfer over to the subway.
Beats the hell out of driving in bumper to bumper traffic or waiting for the train.
If they open up service to London I will make it a point to be on the very first flight as a showing of support!
Miller ran against the bridge, not the airport.
Kevin - have you ever taken the train to Ottawa? I have, and in VIA1 it's a decent enough experience. But I just can't take it for work as I can't justify 8-9 hours travel time when Porter will give me at least four hours more in Ottawa. Give me that TGV and I'll ride it, but until then I'm going Porter, and VIA will get my Kingston/London business.
Hourly departures, 90-120 minutes platform to platform. Non stop except maybe Kingston. That's the requirement. Closing the Island Airport will not put a single new person on a train, it will just send them back to Pearson where they came from.
Miller ran against the bridge, not the airport.
You must have been watching a different election campaign than I was, the flyers with the fleets of 737s over the lagoon for one, certainly the people who knocked on my door implied that a vote for Miller was a vote against the Airport.
From the last election's coverage at CTV.ca:
"Campaigned on: Miller campaigned hard to stop the building of a bridge to the Toronto City Centre Airport and expanding the facility. He argued any growth would have been destructive to the surrounding environment and most residents did not want it.
Delivered: Soon after his election win, he led council to reverse its previous support for the island airport structure. His achievement, however, may be overshadowed with the creation of Porter Airlines this year, which will increase traffic at the island airport with its daily flights."
You folks seem to all want to revitalize the waterfront and downtown. It seems to me that having some day, 120 daily flights [Regulated maximum] at a maximum of 70 seats per plane would add up to a lot of people [8400 per diem maximum]. That would add up to a maximum of 3,066,000 or roughly the same amount of people who visit LL Bean in Freeport, ME. Having that many people come downtown and spend money at local businesses and enjoy activities in the parks would seem to me like an excellent way to get people downtown.
Also, Porter's Q400's break even, depending on how much pay have paid for tickets, at around 30 seats. A typical 50 seat CRJ breaks even around 40 seats. That's why they are going to survive. They don't need full or even nearly full planes, just around half full.
Toronto isn't the only city in the world with a downtown airport. Boston Logan, New York La Guardia, Washington National, London City and Rio de Janerio's Santos Dumont[Whose runway is about the same size as Island's but they allow 737-800's [160 seats] to use it]. They are great assets to their cities.
Also, why can't a pedestrian bridge be built? Cover it with glass sides and roof and it would be a work of art.
Personally, I don't have problems with Porter as a company, but rather the fact that the Toronto Port Authority is an out-of-control entity that has been given a sickening amount of power—which they've completely abused—and who have neither delivered on what they are mandated to do, nor care one iota about non-business (i.e. public) interests. Dissolve the TPA. Now.
What is the carbon footprint of the ferry service for that 120 metre wide gulf? I don't have strong opinions on the Island Airport but I am against a private vehicle bridge. However, a *streetcar* and pedestrian bridge I would fully support.
Have I taken VIA to Ottawa?
YES
Did I find it comfortable and more or less on schedule (+/- 15 minutes)?
YES for both.
Does it take about 4 hours?
Yes
Is this longer than flight time via the Island?
Yes
Does saving 1 - 2 hours travel time justify a larger carbon footprint, adverse impacts on quality of life for residents, lost tourism dollars and a giant sucking sound from the taxpayers teat?
NO
Is the Island airport making money today?
NO
Does this therefore indicate that Porter is receiving a taxpayer subsidy, since they are the sole commercial user of said airport?
YES
Is there any good reason they should be subsizdized when no other airline is, and when Pearson is not?
NO
Is it reasonable that in fact, most carriers are put at a disadvantage through artificially high landing fees at Pearson, forced on them by the Federal government, who then uses the funds to subsidize money-losing airports, including Toronto Island?
Mo
Why should those who travel from Pearson pay a Porter Airlines subsidy tax?
No Reason
Do some other cities have small airports vaguely comparable to Toronto Island?
Yes
How many?
One (London, England)
(The other examples such as New York are predicated on accepting larger commercial aircraft and considerably higher volumes of traffic than are or ever will be permitted at the Island)
Is the current level of Porter traffic an inestimable distaster from noise and pollution?
Not Yet! For Now, its just yet another annoyance!
But, if Porter and the Island Airport are both to be viable, the business model would reqire a 500% increase in current flight traffic! That would be a disaster!
Is the Gardiner an unfortuate mess down there too?
Sure. Is the solution adding to the problem? NO
Instead, after we close the airport, let's ditch the Gardiner too!
Finally, does it cause some pollution when people commute from downtown to Pearson, in excess of a similar commute to the Island.
Yes. But marginal given the currently miniscule traffic using the Island.
The longer term answer is GO service to the airport, from downtown, and 1 or more other lines.
Simply put, as stated before, there is no real case for Porter, from a business, poltical, environmental or other perspective.
****
Oh....., and survey of our council reveals....33 councillors ready to vote for closing the Island Airport....that would be 75% of Council membership.
While each did not obtain an absolute majority of the vote, their opponents were not all pro-airport, and it would be very misleading to suggest that there is less than a clear plurality of Torontonians in favour of closing the airport.
With the clearest majority obviously being those who find themselves immediately adjacent to or beneath the flight path.
If you want all your elections to have 50% plus results for the winner, that requires amending the electoral law to feature run-offs. Not a bad idea actually, but a completely separate issue.
TPA is stupid and out of control. I don't think there's even one Porter passenger who would disagree - but part of that is because the City of Toronto refuses to appoint the nominees it is entitled to, because the legislation won't let it be councillors. As we have seen with TTC Councillors don't trust civilians.
The City has its own out of control agency - TEDCO. If Porter is getting an indirect subsidy what is CORUS getting for having the City let Jack Diamond build a box on the waterfront for them?
Kevin - did you take VIA for work? If you did, I'd like to work for your company which doesn't mind me being on a train rather than in their office. As for Porter being the sole user, Air Canada can come back as soon as they sign a new commercial carrier agreement, and US Airways did get agreement from the PA but did not start the service (the latter fact came from the Dept of Transportations ruling re: Newark)
rek & Zack Rules:
What a great idea! A pedestrian bridge with a bicycle lane, and served by the streetcar from Union.
It makes so much sense you know no politician will go for it though.
Any bridge to the airport may have to allow vehicles - at least in emergency situations - if the services at YTZ had to be supplemented. The existing ferry does allow cars to be taken. It would also have to allow marine traffic to pass underneath the span or there would be objections from port users.
If I had the power, I'd build a dedicated high speed rail link to Ottawa and Montreal, put Porter out of business and hire its cabin staff for the trains. It would cost billions to do it but the reduction in air pollution from Air Canada and Westjet as they were forced to downsize their planes would be huge.
I think flying Porter was one of my best flying experiences ever.
Go ahead - enjoy a flight that is being subsidized by your tax money to fund a private company, and pollutes an entire city with constant air traffic creating excessive noise and pollution. Torontotonians did elect Mayor Miller, who said he would stop the expansion of the airport and has been unable to stop the gladhanding TPA with Porter Airlines. An inner city airport is an exceptionally bad idea environmentally- every expert would agree that short haul flights are very destructive. Those who take the flights tend not to live in Toronto- they are executives who do not have houses underneath the flight paths.