Porter Airlines: In a League of its Own

Porter snack box

This past week I finally had the opportunity to fly Porter, the airline I've been watching for a while now. Never have my expectations for an airline been so high.

And Porter delivered. Every element of the experience was satisfying. The planes are quiet. The seats are comfortable. The snacks are of high quality. Coffee is served in actual cups, the supply of which unfortunately ran out on my second flight—see paper cup substitute above. Beer and wine are complimentary. The flight attendants are friendly and nattily clothed. The in-flight magazine, on sturdy paper and looking for all the world like a Monocle special edition, is full of interesting tips and beautiful graphics. (The Chicago briefing includes a write-up of the great 'hood of Andersonville, along with a mention of Scout, my favorite Chicago home furnishings den.)

What else? Toronto City Centre airport is possibly the most conveniently located airport I've ever come across, lying as it does a few minutes from downtown by ferry. Departing from Toronto City Centre is—how shall I put this?—similarly awesome. Due to the airport's size and flight volume, it's possible to check in as late as thirty minutes before a domestic flight or sixty minutes before an international flight. And then there's the gorgeous lounge, with a bank of shiny computers, a snack and drink station, and newspapers for the taking. All of this is gratis. 

Best of all for budget travelers, the airline operates a three-part fare structure. Tickets purchased in advance can be quite affordable. To illustrate, the cheapest advance roundtrip fare I've found between Newark and Toronto over the winter is C$243.43 (just under US$192 as of right now.)

On my way in I chatted with Brad Cicero, Porter's Communications and Public Affairs manager. He told me that the airline's main focus is on expanding routes between Toronto and various U.S. destinations. The in-flight magazine lists Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Timmins, and Windsor as proposed domestic destinations as well as Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington DC as proposed US destinations.

(Here's another, completely unexpected perk of flying Porter from Newark to Toronto in the morning. Flights leave from the international terminal, which is dead in the a.m. There was nobody ahead of me in line going through security.)

I have but one caveat, and it's not an insignificant one. There appear to be some maintenance issues which obviously need to be rectified. My flight from Newark into Toronto included many passengers from an earlier, canceled flight.

I'll put this matter aside for the moment, because I want more than anything to claim that I've seen the future of commercial aviation. Most likely, Porter will merely designate a sideline of the future of aviation, and, granted, I have no idea how well the airline is doing. But it strikes me as a truly fantastic business model. One fantasizes readily about a West Coast version of Porter, based in Seattle or Portland, with routes to Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Boise, Reno, San Francisco and San Jose. Or a Western/Central European Porter. Or a Mediterranean Porter. Or a Porter for Japan.

If good service and dashing aesthetics are enough to lure a bargain-hunting shoestringer like me into the Porter orbit, I can only imagine the prospective fan base for it and other airlines of its ilk.

Comments

[Barry Lipton]

I read your blog this evening.

I would like to give you another view about flying out of the Island Airport.

The airport is Taxpayer subsidized beyond you wildest imagination.

The Toronto Port Authority the Federal organization that runs the airport.
According to the Canada Marine Act requires Port Authorities to operate without a deficit; the cumulative deficit of the TPA is about 32 million dollars.

Federal Agencies do not pay property taxes but are supposed to pay "Payments in Lieu of Taxes" (PILTs). The City of Toronto has not been paid a penny since the Port Authority was formed. The City is claiming it is owed over 36 million in unpaid PILTs.

The Port Authority sued the City for over a billion dollars and accepted a settlement of over 48 million.

When the bridge to the Island Airport was blocked by the City, the Federal government paid out 35 million for a bridge that was only supposed to cost
22 million. Porter got 20 million because they couldn't start an airline without a bridge. Porter then used that money to start their airline.

The total for this airport is over 154 million dollars of subsidy.
The so-called Sponsorship Scandal that caused the fall of the Paul Martin government was only 100 million dollars

The only reason that Porter exists is because they and the Port Authority are subsidized by the taxpayer. Your wonderful experience is only do to a major taxpayer rip-off.

There is an legal agreement called the Tripartite Agreement between the City of Toronto, the Federal Government, and the Port Authority that governs the operations of the airport. It covers such things as the amount of noise that is allowed and the hours of operation of the airport.
The noise generated by the Q-400 on landing and take off exceeds the allowable limit in Tripartite Agreement. The agreement calls for a $5,000.00 dollar fine in constant 1981 dollars which equals $ 11,410 in 2008, for each breech on take off and landing at this airport. If the Tripartite Agreement was enforced the Q-400 would be banned from the airport.

Porter and other air operators break the 11 P.M. curfew as well.

If you come to Harbourfront or the Music Garden this coming summer you will notice the noise interruptions of concerts and conversations.

There also is the question of the added air pollution from both the aircraft and the extra car traffic in the area. There are 2 schools and a day-care centre within 500 meters of the runway.

The Airport takes up one quarter of the area of the Toronto Islands. There are now over ten thousand more residents in the Waterfront area than there were
10 years ago. These people need access to park an recreational areas close to home. Opening the Airport lands to park usage would solve this problem.

If you would like to find out more about the Island Airport you could go to the Community Air website http://www.communityair.org/.
Or you could watch this Powerpoint on the airport http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsDLSpawyrU

Barry Lipton

[Rob White]

Wow! You really memorized your propaganda. This war is over. It's time to move on to something else. Do you like wind turbines?

A happy Porter customer.

[Edward Myers]

BARRY LIPTON GIVE UP!! You people at Community "Hot Air" just don't get it. You lived with the airport for years through multiple airline comings and goings until Porter arrived. You tried to prove the airport was unsafe with lies, you tried to prove the planes are noisy, again with lies, you've called various people names and been warned to cease and desist. You choose to see things from only one uninformed point of view.

The Toronto Port Authority actually turned a profit last year. City Centre Airport helps bring people to Toronto and enhances the city's competitiveness at a time when it really needs it.

Porter makes money on its own, not with assistance as you allege. It takes far more than $20 million to start an airline of this nature, and millions more to survive in the Canadian market. Porter's success today more than two years after starting operations is owed to smart management, cautious expansion, a first rate service product, and the most modern and fuel efficient turboprop aircraft in the world, one which has hundreds of orders worldwide.

The airport was here long before you were. If you don't feel that a successful business, one which respects all existing laws of the city and country, is not suitable for your back yard, suggest you might want to relocate.

[poetloverrebelspy]

Alex, who could have known this post would cause such controversy?!

Can you compare Porter and AirBerlin?

[Barry Lipton]

Dear Mr White

You accuse me of lying in your response to my post to this blog. I can back up every one of the claims that I have made with - facts, not like your innuendo.

The Toronto City Centre Airport has many safety warnings around it compared to Pearson that has none. There is a large bird sanctuary right beside the airport on the Island. Porter has more bird strikes here in Toronto than anywhere else. The runway is short and there are totally inadequate stopways. The real stopway is the water.

The noise levels that the Q-400 makes are measured by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The ICAO is recognized in the Tripartite Agreement as the authority to determine the sound levels. The ICAO measurements are above the levels allowed in the Tripartite agreement. Where does your “true” information come from Mr. White, could you please give me a reference, other than your own head.

I have never called anyone names or been warned to cease and desist.

The Port Authority lost $ 1,096,000 during fiscal 2007 which is the last financial statement available from the Port Authority. They have lost over 32 million in the eight years since its formation in 1999.

Porter got the 20 million of taxpayers money because they claimed that they could not start an airline after the bridge was cancelled. They then used that money as seed money to get other investments. I think that Porter should repay that 20 million to the government since they started an airline.

My community was here 70 years before the airport. The Q-400 breaks the existing rules every time it takes of and lands. Porter Air has broken the nighttime curfew on many occasions. All I want is the existing regulations enforced.

Barry Lipton

[Rob White]

Dear Mr. Lipton.

I'm not even going to touch your comments about payments to Porter or how much the Port Authority makes or doesn't make because that has nothing to do with this really. Your organization will say or do anything to have the airport closed. Mouthing off on things which you clearly do not understand, in particular alleging that safety is being compromised, is way out of line.

The only leg you have to stand on is the night time curfew. If it is proven that Porter breaks curfew then indeed it should be fined, and no doubt has. Everyone must act within the law.

Innuendo in my statements? Are you a pilot Mr. Lipton? Do you understand the aircraft and airport certification process? Allow me to enlighten you and Community Hot Air with the FACTS and laws regarding aviation:

1. You allege the airport has many so called "safety warnings". FALSE. You have been misinterpreting and misrepresenting safety remarks listed in the Canada Flight Supplement and other documents required for safe aircraft operation.

What you speak of are published REMARKS TO PILOTS, indicating simply that procedures may differ from those at other airports. They DO NOT imply the airport is unsafe. If it were otherwise, this conversation would not be taking place because the airport would not exist. TCCA is certified by Transport Canada meaning it is by definition SAFE and conforms to all regulations. Let us not forget there has been commercial air service at this airport for decades and the arrival of Porter nor the Q400 does not change this. The airport is certified, and is safe for commercial operations. The Q400 by law is certified to operate SAFELY at TCCA.

Furthermore, Porter has spent millions of its own dollars, unprecedented in Canadian Aviation in fact, to upgrade instrument landing systems and install other equipment in order to enhance both the reliability and safety at an already safe and CERTIFIED SAFE airport.

2. You allege the runway is short and that in particular the stop-ways are inadequate. FALSE.

Short for what?

Definition of a stopway from Transport Canada: "A Stopway is defined as a rectangular area on the ground at the end of the runway, in the direction of takeoff, prepared as a suitable area in which an aeroplane can be stopped in the case of an abandoned takeoff and is marked over the entire length with yellow chevrons." (TC Aeronautical Information Manual, 2008 TP312E).

A stopway is built to handle the weight of an aircraft should it have to be brought to a stop on the runway in an emergency. By law the length of the runway along with the length of the stopway available must conform to the aircraft's performance as published in a legal document called the Aircraft Flight Manual, approved by Transport Canada. The length of pavement required to safely stop an aircraft in the event of an emergency is published in this Aircraft Flight Manual. If it were not the case Porter would not be flying out of TCCA.

Therefore your comment that "the real stopway is the water" is incorrect. Actually if you are really interested, the water is part of something called the Clearway. If you care to do so you can look up the definition of a clearway in the Transport Canada Aeronautical Information Manual.

Porter, like all airlines around the world, is obliged to operate within the limits of the infrastructure provided. The Aircraft Flight Manual is respected by all pilots and cannot be violated. Transport Canada does not grant operating licenses to air carriers unless they conform to the Aircraft Flight Manual.

Given all the above, it did not surprise me to discover that Porter Q400's hold only 70 passengers. That's almost 10 seats fewer than the Q400's maximum design capacity. The same logic applies with regards to the self-imposed limit of its scheduled service from TCCA to destinations within 500 nautical miles. According to the manufacturer's website the Q400 has a maximum range well beyond 500 nautical miles. The length of runway at TCCA is a limiting factor in this regard. Porter operates within the limits of the runway and the aircraft.

3. The ICAO is indeed recognized in the Tripartite Agreement as the authority to determine the sound levels. That these norms are being violated is FALSE.

ICAO Annex 16 is available for anyone to view online. You obviously haven't read ICAO Annexe 16 on noise regulations because if you had you'd understand that the Q400 MEETS ICAO Annex 16. Get the numbers and do the analysis for yourself. In fact the older Dash 8-100/200 which Air Canada Jazz operated into TCCA has a higher noise footprint according to Annex 16. Furthermore if the Q400 didn't conform to the latest stipulations of Annex 16 there would be few airports anywhere in the world at which it would be permitted to operate, let alone TCCA.

To learn more about airports and airlines you might want to enroll in a flight training course. The one at TCCA I'm told is actually pretty good.

[Dave I.]

Grumble Grumble. I am a very satisfied Porter user, and wish they would expand their services from Ottawa. The Ottawa to Toronto route is wonderful. I can get into a meeting in the morning and then lessen not only driving time but also time spent in a hotel -- the savings from a downtown hotel stay almost pay for the relaxing, enjoyable flight. The waiting area in Toronto is without comparison. I was on their inaugural flight from Ottawa to Toronto, and it is my airline of choice whenever I go to Toronto.

Well done Porter. And to the people against the airline's use of Island Airport, maybe you should take a flight and see for yourself. I CAN'T imagine how you could find fault....

[PS]

Porter is an amazing airline, I flew it for the first time to Newark this past week. I love the fact that customs is on the other end. This enables travelers to arrive only 1 hour prior versus Pearson, whereby you need to prep for a 1 hour wait in line to get the pleasure of talking to a customs agent.

Also, I live in a condo 300 meters from the airport and have no issue with noise. I really hope Porter makes it through these tough economic times.

[David P]

Perhaps the solution is to stop renewing leases for homes on the islands, and returning all the non-airprot area to parkland for all to enjoy.

Oh, it's not about preserving nature, but about preserving privilege? Shocked I am. Shocked.

As a sometimes Porter flyer, I'll say that the service is terrific, the immediate access to downtown is wonderful (reducing my carbon footprint since I can avoid buses or taxis from Pearson); all that's needed is a pedestrian bridge to the Island so people can visit and see it.

[Diane]

I wonder if you would still take Porter if it flew over your house and school, and dropped CO2 into one of your Great Lakes- intensified 2.7 times as it is expelled higher up in the atmosphere.

How selfish of you to not care about the residents (over 100,000) who live on the waterfront, and are affected by the flights of these planes. Torontonians voted against Porter Airlines, and as the city becomes more and more dense, respect Porter less and less as it is located in the center of one of our major parks, and tries to hide this fact.

So hurrah for your chic snack box- those who subsidized your flight with their tax dollars did not benefit from your flight in the least.