SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Canada (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Canadian Airport Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153826)

DDP Sep 21, 2017 5:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 7929052)
YQT-YYC is 971 nm. Q400 range is 1100 nm. It will be tight with the headwinds, but is definately doable, even if they have to leave a few seats open. Not saying this is their plan, but if they want to enter the Alberta market, it's not ideal, but doable.

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.

wave46 Sep 21, 2017 5:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDP (Post 7929126)
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.

DDP Sep 21, 2017 6:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 7929171)
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.

casper Sep 21, 2017 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 7929010)
I'm kind of curious where they'll go from Thunder Bay.

Regina, Winnipeg and Saskatoon, certainly, but the Q400 won't make it to Calgary or Edmonton, which would be two big markets they'd be missing out on.

The idea of flying direct to downtown Toronto diminishes when you have to do a layover in Thunder Bay. Why bother when Westjet or Air Canada will take you to Pearson and you can take the train downtown? You'll probably come out ahead in travel time that way.

I guess they have to try something in the meantime, as Billy Bishop is mandated to hold the status quo for now.

Edit: Maybe they're doing what they do for Newfoundland, but out west?

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).

Jaws Sep 21, 2017 11:42 PM

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.

wave46 Sep 22, 2017 3:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaws (Post 7929563)
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.

wave46 Sep 22, 2017 3:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDP (Post 7929234)
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.

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.

Zmonkey Sep 22, 2017 3:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 7929777)
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.

DDP Sep 22, 2017 5:40 PM

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.

wave46 Sep 22, 2017 5:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDP (Post 7930367)
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.

wave46 Sep 22, 2017 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zmonkey (Post 7930156)
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 think they have a seasonal service direct from Billy Bishop to Halifax, but otherwise, yes, the flights are stopping in Ottawa and Montreal.

Zmonkey Sep 22, 2017 6:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 7930380)
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 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.

TorontoDrew Sep 22, 2017 6:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaws (Post 7929563)
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.

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

chris Sep 22, 2017 6:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew (Post 7930454)
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.

Coldrsx Sep 22, 2017 7:36 PM

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.

Canadian74 Sep 22, 2017 8:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew (Post 7930454)
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


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

LeftCoaster Sep 22, 2017 8:32 PM

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

thenoflyzone Sep 23, 2017 1:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx (Post 7923719)
Edmonton International Airport
Passenger Statistics for August 2017 --

Highlights:
§ Terminal Traffic: 709,609 passengers (4,941,537 Year-to-date)
Q Domestic 632,864 passengers (4,039,590 Year-to-date)
Q Transborder 47,932 passengers (568,485 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 747,979 passengers (5,223,189 Year-to-date)


Growth%:
§ Terminal: 6.0% (4.7% Year-to-date)
Q Domestic 8.0% (7.4% Year-to-date)
Q Transborder -16.2% (-9.0% Year-to-date)
Q International 10.5% (-0.7% Year-to-date)

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

§ Grand Total: Overall 4.9% (2.7% 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx (Post 7930504)
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.

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

cyeg66 Sep 23, 2017 4:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew (Post 7930454)
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.

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

isaidso Sep 23, 2017 6:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 7929771)
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.

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.