Porter/Bombardier set to announce CS100 order . . .

[slowstream]

For myself I say a very big CONGRATULATIONS to Porter and Bombardier!

I wish you both all the luck in the world with the new C series!

[TheStig]

Mr. Deluce isn't stupid if everyone hasn't figured that out yet. This is just Plan A, and Plan B is definitely standing by. They will warn of the deal being likely cancelled but the inevitable will happen and the jets will just be flying out of YUL or YOW. After all, I suspect there is 40% of unused empty seats on the Q400s that can be used to link YYZ passengers to the jets elsewhere.

Plan A was to go public and get rich(er), Plan B was to sell Porter to Westjet, this seems more like plan C. Pretty evident already that there is a ton of politics behind the scenes and a lot of money on the line for the Canadian economy. As it stands there are a lot of 'ifs' standing in the way of this happening.

I'm not familiar with what sort of STOL/Cruise performance BBD is advertising for the CS100 but using a 4000' runway (mixed with Toronto's winter weather!) to carry 100+ passengers 1800nm while providing seat mile costs comparable to Boeing and Airbus narrow bodies seems too good to be true. London City Airport is frequently referenced in these contexts but doesn't the Ba146 cruise at mach 0.68 (while burning a tonne of gas) with half the range required to reach the West Coast? Seems like the runway would have to be doubled to be actually useful with the proposed route structure.

[fingersmac]

I'm not familiar with what sort of STOL/Cruise performance BBD is advertising for the CS100 but using a 4000' runway (mixed with Toronto's winter weather!) to carry 100+ passengers 1800nm while providing seat mile costs comparable to Boeing and Airbus narrow bodies seems too good to be true.

Just a side note: the airport snow removal equipment at YTZ is extremely efficient. It's very rare that the runway is ever considered contaminated since they upgraded the equipment.

London City Airport is frequently referenced in these contexts but doesn't the Ba146 cruise at mach 0.68 (while burning a tonne of gas) with half the range required to reach the West Coast? Seems like the runway would have to be doubled to be actually useful with the proposed route structure.

The Bae146 isn't the only aircraft that operates out of LCY. The A318, E170/190, E135 and Do328 are all approved for scheduled service. The C Series will also join the list. There is already one LCY startup, Odyssey, that has order the airplane to compete with the British Airways A318 service from LCY-JFK.

[props ahead]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/toron ... ice=mobile

What many of us have already said but still interesting....

[PAXUNK]

How much would the runway and terminal improvements cost? Where on earth would Porter find that money?

[fingersmac]

How much would the runway and terminal improvements cost? Where on earth would Porter find that money?

Runway construction, much like the pedestrian tunnel, would be the responsibility of the Toronto Port Authority.

City Centre Terminal Corp. would be responsible for any terminal improvements. City Centre Terminal Corp., like Porter Airlines, is a subsidiary of Porter Aviation Holdings. While all are private companies and thus their financials aren't public knowledge, I'm sure they'll find a way to secure financing for any improvements or expansion to the terminal.

[PAXUNK]

Thanks for the info. Just as long as no taxpayer money is used to benefit Porter.

[TheStig]

I'm not familiar with what sort of STOL/Cruise performance BBD is advertising for the CS100 but using a 4000' runway (mixed with Toronto's winter weather!) to carry 100+ passengers 1800nm while providing seat mile costs comparable to Boeing and Airbus narrow bodies seems too good to be true.

Just a side note: the airport snow removal equipment at YTZ is extremely efficient. It's very rare that the runway is ever considered contaminated since they upgraded the equipment.

Unless they plan to blow dry it, 5000' feet is still going to be too short.

London City Airport is frequently referenced in these contexts but doesn't the Ba146 cruise at mach 0.68 (while burning a tonne of gas) with half the range required to reach the West Coast? Seems like the runway would have to be doubled to be actually useful with the proposed route structure.

The Bae146 isn't the only aircraft that operates out of LCY. The A318, E170/190, E135 and Do328 are all approved for scheduled service. The C Series will also join the list. There is already one LCY startup, Odyssey, that has order the airplane to compete with the British Airways A318 service from LCY-JFK.

Just a few points to consider: the LCY-JFK service BA operates makes a fuel stop in Shannon, Ireland for Westbound flights despite being configured with only 32 first class seats. Going back to my comment with respect to CASM, this is a niche route between the 2 largest financial centres on the planet, and uses the original Concord flight numbers. The A318 hasn't proven to be cost competitive in any 'normal' airline operation. The backlog of orders the A320neo and 737max have racked up compared to the CS give some insight as to what airlines think of its competitiveness. None of the other aircraft you've listed could come close to operating YTZ-YVR or YTZ-LAX either. The A320neo and 737Max will have the same engine as the CS100, do you think the higher engine thrust rating will be the much noisier? Should if they meet the proposed noise requirements should they be allowed to operate from YTZ too?

The original IPO didn't gain traction despite a near monopoly on the island and a good business plan. I sure hope Porter isn't relying on an IPO to finance these jet because this announcement while fun, ambitious, politically charged, and newsworthy; has too many variables to risk money on.

[fingersmac]

Thanks for the info. Just as long as no taxpayer money is used to benefit Porter.

Well, the TPA is a Crown corporation so I guess your tax money is benefiting Porter and to a lesser extent Sky Regional/Air Canada. Keep in mind, the TPA only recently became profitable from passenger traffic generated by Porter.

[PAXUNK]

Runway Extension
But isn't Porter the only carrier at present to require a runway extension?
Perhaps if the extension is built, other carriers will be attracted to bring jets into YTZ.

[fingersmac]

Unless they plan to blow dry it, 5000' feet is still going to be too short.

Listen, I'm just telling you how it is. The runway at YTZ is almost never considered contaminated and the CRFI is rarely reported below 0.50. Anyone flying out of there will tell you the same thing. The TPA bought the best snow removal equipment possible to keep the runway clear.

And you said it yourself, you're not familiar with the performance aspects of the C Series. Obviously Bombardier are and one would assume Porter has some understand of what to expect from the CS100 version they intend to buy. Similar performance concerns plagued Porter when it started operations with the Q400 out of YTZ.

Just a few points to consider: the LCY-JFK service BA operates makes a fuel stop in Shannon, Ireland for Westbound flights despite being configured with only 32 first class seats. Going back to my comment with respect to CASM, this is a niche route between the 2 largest financial centres on the planet, and uses the original Concord flight numbers. The A318 hasn't proven to be cost competitive in any 'normal' airline operation. The backlog of orders the A320neo and 737max have racked up compared to the CS give some insight as to what airlines think of its competitiveness. None of the other aircraft you've listed could come close to operating YTZ-YVR or YTZ-LAX either. The A320neo and 737Max will have the same engine as the CS100, do you think the higher engine thrust rating will be the much noisier? Should if they meet the proposed noise requirements should they be allowed to operate from YTZ too?

As for LCY, I think people like to compare it to YTZ because it's a city centre airport. I just saw you mentioned only the Bae146 and thought I would mention that there are other jets that operate out of there. And yes, BAs A318s are all business class interiors and so will Odyssey's CS100s. No one is expecting Porter's CS100s to be flying YTZ-LCY.

The A320neo and 737max are indeed popular, no doubt about that. I think the bulk of their orders are coming from existing Airbus and Boeing customers. If they can meet the criteria to operate out of YTZ, then by all means (highly unlikely). And you're right, the A318 hasn't proven to be very popular, but the E170/190 family has. I'm trying to be optimistic and hope that Bombardier has a successful aircraft on their hands. Also, the PW1000G is only available for the A320neo and it's a larger, more powerful variant than the one used on the C Series.

I sure hope Porter isn't relying on an IPO to finance these jet because this announcement while fun, ambitious, politically charged, and newsworthy; has too many variables to risk money on.

My guess is loans from EDC and the Quebec government. And from what I understand, the order with Bombardier is conditional on being able to operate out of the island.

[Hozer]

[quote][/quote]Unless they plan to blow dry it, 5000' feet is still going to be too short.

What if they grooved the RWY at YTZ, would that not help the performance?

[TheStig]

Fingersmac,

I'm glad you're optimistic, I'm trying to be realistic. I have no ill will towards Bombardier or Porter, just don't think this is a great idea.

I've read and heard reference to LCY-JFK numerous times already so I just wanted to add a few points by (not-so) simply stating that it isn't a non-stop flight to JFK. There aren't any flights from LCY (or DCA for example) which are greater than 500nm. Nor do I think there should be from YTZ.

What I'm really trying to get across is that there is no magic formula to make the 'perfect' airplane with respect to finding the ideal balance between payload/range vs efficiency vs take-off/landing performance. There are very few aircraft that are capable of flying 100 passengers 1900nm at 400+kts, from a 5000' wet runway, the C-17 comes to mind.

[flyincanuck]

@ Dash-Ate:

My point was that JetsGo had significantly deeper-rooted problems other than a second type in the fleet. For instance, its CEO.

Valid point re: fleet diversification, associated cost, and financial transparency. But I highly doubt Porter would pay less on the C than on the Q400.

Performance and pilot-talk aside:

IMO, a very serious threat to the TPA (and inherently Porter) is the completion of Metrolinx UPE (Union-Pearson-Express). International passengers will finally be able to connect to the city center in an efficient and affordable way. You know like most grown-up, world-class cities.

I wish Porter well. The right amount of competition can be good. Hydro Quebec excluded, Porter was the first Canadian carrier to poke holes in the sky with the Q400. Would the other regional carriers have upgrade from their old dash's?

[aileron]

If the runway is extended, I doubt the 737 Max or 320 Neo could operate... the 737 Max will be 42,000lbs heavier than the urban CS100 and the 320 Neo is reported to be over 600kg heavier than the "classic". The PCN may also over-ride too.

I'm sure the TPA would love to have WS and AC operate from the island, but remember we are talking about "real" limits to the possible extension of the runway in order to not penetrate the MEZ and therefore the harbour usage; to all you so-called keyboard experts, do you realize that of the proposed 500' additions, 300' are already on the island?!

Also, I can count on 1 hand - in 4 years - when the CRFI was an issue. As mentioned earlier the TPA attack contaminate like a "Fat kid on a Smartie". The real issue is a wet runway, and grooving will eliminate that problem.

If WS and AC want to join the party, then order an aircraft that is promised to be capable.

[Chaxterium]

Well this didn't take long!

The heads of both Air Canada and WestJet Airlines Ltd. say if Porter Airlines is allowed to start flying jets into Billy Bishop Toronto City airport, then they want in too.

WestJet has even punched the numbers and thinks it could land one of its larger Boeing 737s at the Toronto Island airport, if jets were allowed.

Porter said this week it wants to buy up to 30 of Bombardier Inc.’ s new CSeries aircraft, which it hopes to fly from its home on the island. However, the order is conditional on wresting concessions from the federal government, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Port Authority that would lift a ban on jets at the airport and allow for two 168-metre extensions on either end of the runway to accommodate the CSeries' landing requirements.

The proposal was the buzz in Montreal Thursday at the Canadian Airport Council conference, where federal Transport Minister Denis Lebel was the keynote speaker. Mr. Lebel said in an interview the federal government would be willing to review Porter’s proposal.

“We will analyze that,” he said. “But for the moment, I think, we have received no request. We will have to wait for that.”

Toronto’s mayor Rob Ford has also thrown his support behind Porter's plan. But several other city councilors have gone on the record to oppose the move.



Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/business/Ott ... z2QDPG8gbS

[photofly]

Porter has said the terminal at Billy Bishop would need to be expanded to accommodate the CSeries and that it would need an additional 50 landing slots at the airport for the first 12 CSeries when they arrive in 2016 and 2017.

50 new slots and a bigger terminal. That's going to make life interesting, there.

[Gino Under]

Sorry, but I think the bigger MAX and NEO are out of the game. Not even close to competing with the C. Too heavy and not even a B737 short field will do it. A WJ 600 would be full of water before it hit V1.
ACs purchase of a CS100 will work. Wetjet can only look at the Q or joining the club by buying a C Series if it wants to use the "island".
Since we don't know what the Hippies in Toronto want to do, it's all a crap shoot.
Interesting potential for Porter though.
YHZ-LCY
YHZ-CDG
YHZ-FRA

fun to speculate...in' it?

Gino Under

(Hard to imagine a Canadian airplane could be serious competition for A and B, but it is)

[Bolter]

Just a side note: the airport snow removal equipment at YTZ is extremely efficient. It's very rare that the runway is ever considered contaminated since they upgraded the equipment.

I didn't realize that the army had a permanent detachment on Taranta Island!!

[justwork]

Just a side note: the airport snow removal equipment at YTZ is extremely efficient. It's very rare that the runway is ever considered contaminated since they upgraded the equipment.

I didn't realize that the army had a permanent detachment on Taranta Island!!

No need for sarcasm, Fingersmac speaks the truth. I've been flying there for 3 winters and have very rarely had a contaminated runway. I've had wet runway, very rarely a CRFI, but typically it's %100 bare and dry.

[matrix]

Sorry, but I think the bigger MAX and NEO are out of the game. Not even close to competing with the C. Too heavy and not even a B737 short field will do it. A WJ 600 would be full of water before it hit V1.
ACs purchase of a CS100 will work. Wetjet can only look at the Q or joining the club by buying a C Series if it wants to use the "island".
Since we don't know what the Hippies in Toronto want to do, it's all a crap shoot.
Interesting potential for Porter though.
YHZ-LCY
YHZ-CDG
YHZ-FRA

fun to speculate...in' it?

Gino Under

(Hard to imagine a Canadian airplane could be serious competition for A and B, but it is)

WRONG!

I just ran the numbers. At 15c 2992. A 737-600 on the current runway in YTZ would lift aprx 80
people and fly to YYC with an alternate. Adding an extra 1000' will most likely push this over 100.

[EI-EIO]

A few things:

1. I don't think anyone believes the Port Authority with their "who me" posture, surely?

2. Big risk by Porter on the PR front. They are asking for exactly the thing they said they would never ask for and would never need in their business model.

3. With Olivia Chow tiptoeing around the mayoral race her handlers would have to be shot if they aren't already making hay from this before announcing a run in January. David Miller already did a slot on Metro Morning where he refused to give an inch on the idea that the world didn't end when PD ops began. Clearly the ground hasn't been prepared with the mushy middle like Stintz or Carroll who have declared themselves for the status quo. That this announcement came right after the PILT deal was refused was woeful timing. At the same time the Fords immediately beating their chests for it is likely to do more harm than good given their record on proposing the casino, Woodbine Live!, the ferris wheel...

4. I think if PD/YTZ are to have any chance of pushing this through they are going to have to offer something tangible to the City, similar to what the casino proponents are being pressured on. Pushing a tunnel under 08/26 or constructing one as part of the build of the new east stopway permitting no-ferry access to the Islands proper would be one idea, since reducing the need for ferry movements might help smooth the feathers of the other water users.

5. PD wrapping themselves in the flag won't go as far as before - the engines are PW rather than PWC and the assembly won't be in Downsview so the union local probably won't pack the Council chamber this time. Hilarious that Miller claimed "I love Bombardier - look at how many subway cars I bought" when he sent billions of $ to Thunder Bay which is over twice as far away as Montreal, and made no attempt to have BBD do local assembly at the same time the auto sector in the GTA imploded. That said there should be no problem with federal approval, as even if the Tories weren't already on side the guys who hand out the corporate welfare to BBD must have been weeping at the slow C-Series sales, just like back when Q400 sales were slow, oil prices hadn't yet savaged the RJ sector and there was doubt that Downsview would stay open much longer.

6. What are the chances of a CS100 shooting an approach or even finagling a landing permit during CIAS, assuming first flight in the next few months? If they had a very public way to demonstrate how loud (or not) the plane is...

[mulligan]

With a 4800' take off "run", balanced field length would have to be 6000+. Closer to 7000'. Something a little fishy here?

[Gino Under]

I know most of us are speculating...but,

Matrix
Thanks for the numbers. I'll check your performance calculation and get back to you. Here's a couple of factoids I like to look at.
The 600 will have a larger noise footprint.
It will have a higher DOC.
It will burn more fuel.
It doesn't have steep approach capability.
To meet the present suggested TORA it will have to take a reduced revenue load while the C takes a full revenue load. Really? That doesn't sound competitive.

I have no doubt a bean counter somewhere is okay with that math. (hopefully, not at WJ)
How does it compare on YTZ-LAX?
How many fare paying PAX get bumped off the 600 when the C is still taking 109?

EI-EIO
The PW engine comes from Longueuil (St. Hubert).
Corporate welfare? Huh? I don't think the 'possibility' of selling the CSeries is the saving grace for one of the best corporations in Canada. Nor does it mean if they don't sell a single additional C that the company is going out of business or likely to any time soon. I doubt it will ask the sacred tax payer for a handout. But I do think as a corporate tax payer and employer of thousands of Canadians it is entitled to taxpayer support (in whatever form it takes) which is usually dispensed by the feds. Bombardier aren't living "tax free". I think you could read a little more about transportation and Bombardiers role in it. You'll find they are more than just planes and have income from other sources. Unlike Airbus, Boeing and Embraer.

I like your suggestion they demo during the CIAS. Why don't you write Bombardier and make that suggestion to them?
Great idea!

Mulligan
The take off run is not 4800 feet. Think about it.
Make sense?
I didn't think so.

Gino Under

[Gino Under]

matrix

I took a deeper look into the numbers.
The C would likely operate off the island under Bombardier's Urban Ops performance numbers.
The weight and range limitations would mean the aircraft is unable to fly YTZ-LAX non-stop so, I was wrong about it being able to do so. However, it could do YYC with a full load.
A runway extension is necessary to enable better performance, for sure.
If they lengthen it enough, the 600 would likely work out of the island much better along with the A318.

mulligan

The figure quoted for Urban Ops at MTOW is 3999 feet, not 4800. I believe the island is 4000 feet, so we're not that far off. I'd agree, they're probably looking at closer to a 6000 foot requirement by the time the dust settles. That seems to be the norm for any runway these days.
C series 117,000 lb
B737-600 145,500 lb
A318 150,000 lb
This composite aircraft is way lighter than A or B with similar high lift devices. With the new Pratts if it turns out to actually need a similar take off run or balanced field requirement as the other two, it's going to be a huge disappointment.

Gino