From a consumer, unless its cheaper why would someone not just fly direct on a jet on AC or WS - take off it seems every other hour.

Looking at November on google flights, you can get RT for $500 bucks. With about $150 being taxes, AIF security. So how much under can Porter get fares than $350 before taxes/fees?

Could this just be a move to attract new staff and keep them in a city where it is cheaper to live, so don't have a big pressure on salaries.

I think it's just a trial balloon by Porter to go father west. They have to try something.

Given the constraints the company has (no jets out of YTZ) and the equipment that it is stuck with (the Q400), it is effectively maxed out in terms of growth.

They've actually dropped a few of their US destinations (Pittsburgh and Charleston), so I guess those markets aren't as robust there as they have hoped.

If they wanted to expand out west, and needed a connection - isn't there a better option?

Fly people to Ottawa, than send them west on Jets? They already have what 18 flights a day to Ottawa. Maybe this works, I just don't see this as a great plan.

I could see them making a go of it into Saskatoon and Regina. These cities can be expensive to fly into and they currently there is only non-stop into Winnipeg and Toronto (with Ottawa tossed in during the summer).

Any movement on Billy Bishop runway extension? I thought Porter had thoughts of landing c-series jets at that airport and that the SPL of those jets was below the threshold.

That proposal is dead. The federal Liberals put the kibosh on it after the election - they will not reopen the agreement that forbids jet aircraft at Billy Bishop.

That would require a commitment to the CSeries. That's risky, given the fact if the expansion flops, they have these jets that they can't use at their primary hub. Porter's unique selling point has always been service to downtown Toronto. Without that, they're just another airline.

Running west out of Thunder Bay can be done with the Q400. Not well, mind you, but it can be done. They do something similar out to Newfoundland - all flights have a stopover in Halifax.

Does porter still have all its Halifax flights stop in Montreal or Ottawa?

I did that a few years ago, not sure why people would do that route vs AC or WS. I just didn't know when I booked.

I wonder with the porter announcement for Thunder Bay, they will use Waterloo as a feeder for flights out west. Waterloo wants new routes, could be opportunity to give them a monopoly on Sask and Manitoba from Waterloo for 2 years. Could also open up porter to
Op up flights to Montreal and Ottawa (which can connect to halifax, Saint John, Fredricton, and Moncton from this two cities)

Porter can take a stab at a region with about a million people and while it's close to Pearson, it's 2 hours at rush hour.

Porter has no planes that will reach out west from Waterloo.

The CSeries (which they have a deposit on) will be able to, but taking on those planes would be a high-risk move, as they cannot be operated out of Porter's current hub at Billy Bishop, which is what their business is built around.

I think they have a seasonal service direct from Billy Bishop to Halifax, but otherwise, yes, the flights are stopping in Ottawa and Montreal.

I think that person meant having those planes stop in Thunder Bay on the q400, like the Halifax flights stop in Ottawa/Montreal when they head east.

Like already said DEAD! And thank god. Those C-Series Jets while quieter then most jets are still really loud. Also we don't need to want to extend the runway 300m into our inner Harbour.

Porter was trying to tell us these are quiet. Imagine the sound echoing off Toronto's skyscrapers around our harbour.

• Video Link

Dude, those CSeries are quieter than the Q400 turbopros that already fly out of there. They wouldn't have increased noise pollution out of Billy Bishop...in fact, if those flights would have replaced Q400 flights, they would have reduced noise pollution at Billy Bishop.

Your loss, man.

Edmonton International Airport

Updated Passenger Statistics for August 2017 --

Highlights:

§ Terminal Traffic: 722,794 passengers (4,954,722 Year-to-date)
Q Domestic 632,864 passengers (4,039,590 Year-to-date)
Q Transborder 61,117 passengers (581,670 Year-to-date)
Q International 28,813 passengers (333,462 Year-to-date)

§ FBO Traffic*: 38,370 passengers (281,652 Year-to-date)

§ Grand Total: Overall 761,164 passengers (5,236,374 Year-to-date)


Growth%:

§ Terminal: 8.0% (5.0% Year-to-date)
Q Domestic 8.0% (7.4% Year-to-date)
Q Transborder 6.9% (-6.9% Year-to-date)
Q International 10.5% (-0.7% Year-to-date)


§ FBO Traffic: -11.7% (-22.7% Year-to-date)

§ Grand Total: Overall 6.8% (3.0% Year-to-date)


*FBO passengers are passengers using the fixed base operators at YEG and not the main terminal. Most of this traffic serves energy and mining projects in the north.

little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In the long term it will be a big loss for toronto
I hope Porter can still continue to expand though, maybe a proper hub at YUL or somewhere in western canada

Great numbers for YEG, glad to see that the bleeding seems to have stopped and things are on the upswing.

lol, where were these extra 13,000 transborder passengers last week? Seems EIA is cooking the books.....:runaway:

Stick to topics you know & understand. This clearly isn't one of them.

Shelved is a more accurate assessment. Another proposal for runway expansion/approval of jets will surface when the political climate is more favourable. They wouldn't propose such a thing unless demand dictated expansion. We may not see another proposal for a long time, but it will re-surface eventually.

TS to resume year round YQB-CDG as of December.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/...-round-in-s18/

Non stop was temporarily suspended since May 1, 2017, due to runway construction in YQB.

There's really no reasoning with people who have made up their mind. Furthermore, the overall operation of the C-Series would be significantly more quiet than the Q400 (or ATRs and any other turbo-prop, aircraft for that matter) because turboprop aircraft need to do engine run-ups that create a lot of noise in frequency ranges that travel a great distance. YVR invested a lot of resources to build noise-shielding for their ground run-up area to reduce the noise impacts on the neighbouring areas of Richmond and the City of Vancouver.

Here's a page about the recently-completed project: http://www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/noise...n-up-enclosure

It strikes me as a 'But Why?' moment. Porter already has a Toronto hub (arguably in the best spot in the city) , which is fairly protected because of the ban on jets and the fact that Billy Bishop doesn't work with Air Canada's or Westjet's strategy.

At Waterloo, Westjet can stomp all over Porter if they want. Look at how Westjet is protecting their market share in the face of Flair Airlines' operation.

Fair enough.

Porter wants to expand, they appear to be going west, the planes need to stop stop somewhere on route.

Waterloo has very limited service out west, and airport is desperately trying to get some traction, especially for an area with a population that size.

The airport can also do something no other airports can, give someone a monopoly on routes, if porter says you cannot offer another airline flights to Manitoba and Sask, the airport can agree since it's owned by municipality. Porter gets to run its business as monopoly and try to make it work.

Can the Airport Authority legally do that, though? Especially since they're owned by a municipality?

I'd imagine Westjet would scream about the anti-competitive behavior if preference were given to an airline.

The Region of Waterloo has already decided to give it a try, as I understand it. Proposals for exclusive rights for 24 months to flights originating at YKF are going to be received starting in October until January. Since Westjet already serves Calgary out of YKF, I don't imagine it could be considered for such a proposal.

I stand corrected.

Interesting. That's a pro-active and smart strategy. Do people call the airport 'Lexington' or is that a name no one uses? Given the population growth in southern Ontario both Lexington and Munro could develop into major GGH airports one day. Having one big airport in Pearson won't work indefinitely.

I'm Kitchener born and raised and I have never heard of "Lexington Airport". I wonder if that doesn't relate to an earlier airstrip? The most common name for it would be "the Breslau airport", or just "Breslau". Years ago, when the City of Guelph also had an interest in it, it was the "Waterloo-Wellington Airport".

It always seems Hamilton's day is just 5 years off in the distance.

But yes, I agree - Pearson will eventually become too congested. I imagine it will end up being like the situation at Heathrow and Gatwick - one handles more low-cost and leisure carriers and the other is the premium international/domestic airport.

Mama wants!!!

https://cdn-enterprise.discourse.org...0262ee08c7.jpg

Google has 'Lexington' as its other name besides 'Waterloo Regional'. It's in reference to Lexington Road, apparently.

Maybe it finally will be Hamilton's time. Their economy has re-invented itself, GO Transit expansion is connecting it properly with Toronto, and real estate prices are taking off. Would be nice if one could take a GO Train directly from Hamilton to KW. I suppose that would be the next step after the current multi-year build concludes.

London, UK has 6 airports serving it: Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, City, and London Southend. Only the last 2 are small. Eventually I can see the GGH having 5 significant airports over 10 million PAX: Billy Bishop, Pearson, Munro, Lexington, and a new one in Durham somewhere.

I looked on-line and it seems that "Lexington" airport was the K-W Municipal Airport located on the "east" side of Waterloo (on Lexington Rd) from 1930 to around 1951. The Waterloo-Wellington Airport, now Waterloo Region International, opened in 1951 and is located in Breslau, just across the Grand from the "east" side of Kitchener. The land on which the Lexington airport was located was sold and redeveloped.

I'd say that it will be 3 - 4 at most:

Pearson = Heathrow
Munro = Gatwick
Billy Bishop = City
Waterloo = Luton/Stansted (that'll be way in the future)

Currently, London airports have 165m passengers passing through them, whereas Toronto area airports have less than 50 million, so I'd be very surprised if a Pickering Airport ever came to fruition.

Vancouver International Airport wins World Routes 2017 Marketing Awards

http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/...keting-awards/

"Vancouver is North America's fastest growing international airport" I'm kinda surprised?

They also won in the 20-50 million category.

London UK also has a metro population of 14 Million people, on an island so people pretty much have to fly, EU actually has real low cost carriers and a bigger tourist destination than most places in NA.

The UK is also very liberal and open to airline regulations, we in Canada are still very restrictive.

London needs all the airports, we just need Hamilton and Waterloo to start feeding some other big city hubs and link cities that are relatively close (Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City, Calgary, Vancouver, some sun spots and a major US hub or two).

Or cut some of the taxes, and make flying cheaper and that may change.

The uk well connected to content by rail.

A key driver to the situation in London is Heathrow
An airport that is operating at over capacity. Pearson still has lots of land available for terminal constriction and the runways are not overly committed.

London is also, essencially, the capital of the world. To draw parallels with Toronto is absurd.

The scale is different, but the parallels are (somewhat) there.

Each city has one 'premium' major international airport that serves most of the intercontinental flights. Those airports are limited in growth by the surrounding development, Heathrow more than Pearson.

Each has a small in-city airport close to the central business district. Those airports have restrictions place that prevent operation beyond a select few types of aircraft to certain destinations.

The parallels start to break down after this, but should growth in Toronto continue at the rate it does, might potentially happen in the future.

Each city has a smaller airport(s) located father from the city in a less developed area. These airports have the advantage of space to expand and lower costs, which make them appealing to low-cost airlines. Hamilton is far behind Gatwick in the percentage of flights handed in the area, but could see growth should Pearson start getting over capacity.

It's not a perfect comparison, certainly.

Not surprising at all. YVR had a 9.7% increase last year. As the article says, the North American average was half that.

Although i have to say, so far this year, YUL is outpacing YVR by around 1 %. :tup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...senger_traffic

Exactly, London's #2 airport (Gatwick) does the same traffic as Pearson. While British airways does a lot out of it, its the LCC that dominate here, something we won't get in Toronto. At least not to same way we will ever have here.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/londo...port-1.3606967

London's Heathrow world's most connected airport, Toronto's Pearson is 5th: Report

Not sure how accurate this list is. FRA has the most international destinations of any airport in the world and YYZ has quite a few more than ORD. Also surprised JFK wouldn't make the cut.

Apparently Westjet has some exciting international announcements coming soon for Vancouver's YVR!

Apparently WestJet will bring back Hamilton to Las Vegas, starting December 2017.

Counting "international" destinations isn't really a fair comparison given the size of European cities. We could equivalently count interprovincial or interstate flights in North America and they'd be equivalent.

Airlines such as AirTransat, Skyservice and WestJet can't effectively operate out of Heathrow. They can at Pearson.

New international airlines that want to add new flights to London have to buy slots from existing airlines that want out or go to Gatwich.

That was my point - should Pearson hit capacity and be unable to expand, I'd expect that the leisure carriers would be the first to depart to cheaper alternatives.

Thus, Hamilton would become the Gatwick to Toronto's Heathrow.