Wednesday, April 10, 2013

More Corporate Arrogance From Porter Air -UPDATED

I recently wrote a post on Porter Air and its shameful treatment of its fuel handlers, most of whom start that crucial position at about $12 per hour and are currently on strike while the airline uses scabs in their stead. Its corporate arrogance was once again on full display in Toronto today as it announced its desire (intention) to begin flying jets out of the Billy Bishop (or as it is known regionally, the island) airport, despite this inconvenient fact:

an existing tripartite agreement, signed in 1983 by all three levels of governments, which runs until 2033. That agreement prohibits the use of jet aircraft at the island except in certain circumstances such as medical evacuation flights or during the CNE.

The above agreement was put into place for a number of reasons, not the least of which was to avoid having noisy jets flying directly over downtown Toronto. As well, the airport itself in its current configuration is too short to accommodate jets. And much has transpired in terms of extensive albeit aesthetically questionable condo development along Toronto's waterfront, the owners of which will be obviously negatively affected by an amendment to the agreement.

And yet that is exactly what Porter president and CEO Robert Deluce expects, saying that Porter will ask three governments “shortly” to amend the tripartite agreement — to allow jets and permit a “modest 168 meter” extension at each end of the existing main runway.

Predictably, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, who has never met a development he hasn't liked (casino, casino, casino!) is enthused over the prospect, as is his always-present brother, Doug (he who explains away every criticism of Rob as 'a left-wing conspiracy'). Where the rest of Toronto's City Council stands on the issue remains to be seen.

Whether or not one cares about Toronto is largely irrelevant here. More germane is whether or not this situation will turn out to be just another rubber-stamp of the corporate agenda. Indeed, will the wishes of the taxpaying citizens of Canada's largest city fork any lightning at all? The answer could provide a template of things to come for the rest of us.

UPDATE: There are two columns in this morning's Star on the issue, one moderately in favour of Porter's plan, (Royson James), and one vehemently opposed, Christopher Hume. Each make some interesting points, but given my own bias against corporate arrogance, I find myself more disposed to Hume's piece. Take a look and see what you think.

14 comments:

  1. As someone who grew up with massive jets flying overhead (from Ottawa international) they are not a problem at all. This is pure and simple NIMBYism. All canadians, all Torontonians benefit from Porter and having improved transportation. Stop preventing my city from improving simply because you live near an airport.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment, Anon. For the record, I don't live in Toronto or anywhere near the airport. My real concern is over the question of whether the corporate wishes of Porter Air should simply override all of the legitimate objections that the citizens of Toronto might have to this expansion, including increased noise, pollution, and the dangers inherent in having jets fly right over the downtown. As well, don't forget, as noted by Adam Vaughn, the open skies policy means that all airlines will be able to apply for jet landing rights at Billy Bishop Airport; many of those craft will be heavier, noisier, and dirtier than the ones Porter hopes to buy.

      Delete
    2. "Corporate Interest" - Porter interest is in the 2.4 million passengers they serve across the region. "Inherent Dangers" - Transport Canada and other government organizations are paid to assess this risk and plan accordingly, needless to say, your input, although valid is illegitimate and clouds the issue. "The open skies policy" - You don't know what you're talking about. "all airlines will be able to apply for jet landing rights at Billy Bishop Airport". Wrong again, only the CS100 will be exempt from this jet ban, the quietest aircraft in production, as quiet as the Q-400. Get your facts straight, don't Fear Monger.

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure you are entirely correct here, Anon. A story in today's Star suggests that West jet and Air Canada are demanding greater access to Billy Bishop Airport if Porter is allowed to expand:http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/04/17/toronto_island_airport_allowing_jets_may_open_door_to_other_airlines.html

      Delete
  2. hi Lorne...I live very close to the island airport. The windows of my place sometimes vibrate when Porter's turbo props take off. The stench of jet fuel drifts across the lake and sometimes makes the waterfront sell like a gas station. Like most people here I had resigned myself to the present situation. But the idea of bringing in jets is simply the limit. I'm planning to write a post about this myself. But in the meantime let me just say that the people who live here will fight this outrageous plan, by whatever legal means necessary...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am also a resident of the Waterfront and your comment regarding smelling jet fuel is so false its funny! I think what you're smelling is the actual Gas station at Bathurst and Lakeshore. "Windows's rattling", another lie! I probably live closer to the airport than you do and the only planes that you hear are the non Porter Aircrafts. And please remember, the airport was there before you were. Toronto has plenty of real estate to choose from.

      Delete
  3. Good to hear from you, Simon. It will be very interesting to see the kind of campaign concerned citizens will mount on this issue. As well, it seems that if the existing tripartite agreement is amended, it will open a real Pandora's Box. As noted by Adam Vaughan yesterday, under the 'open skies' policy, all airlines will have the same right of jet access to the Island Airport as Porter, which means even noisier, dirtier, and heavier ones than those Porter plans to purchase will be buzzing the Toronto waterfront.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There seems to be an assumption from Deluce that Porter will get its way, despite the agreement. It tells you a great deal about the corporate mind set, Lorne, -- whether it's RBC or Porter.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In reading today's coverage of this issue, Owen, I couldn't help but notice the complete confidence Deluce seems to have in his requested amendment to the tripartite agreement. When you think about how our country has become the handmaiden of the business agenda, there is no reason, I guess, for him to have any doubts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am quite familiar with the Island. People built houses there to get away from the noise and pollution of Toronto. I knew a professor who taught at U of Guelph and lived on this Island. He commuted every day because he loved living there.

    It is indeed a very small airport and only small individual owned planes used it. This is very sad. I hope Council will show some guts and over-rule Rob Ford on this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've visited the island several times over the years, LeDaro, and always enjoyed its rustic ambiance. I hope Toronto Council does the right thing too, but I am not optimistic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Torontonians do not want a mediocre city. which is what you are proposing. Toronotonians want to be closer to the world, BBTCA WILL provide that.

      Delete
  8. Toronto Port Authority released a statement yesterday afternoon, that they would *NOT* be permitting Porter to expand it's business to include the the Bombardier CS-100 jet aircraft under the current Tripartite Agreement. Specifically:

    NOISE LEVELS:

    While the CS-100 noise profile would comply with the noise decibel ceiling that is already permitted under the existing 1983 Tripartite Agreement, the agreement clearly states that Jet aircraft of any kind are not permitted to land (with exception of emergency aircraft or special events such as the CNE Air Show) until the expiration of the agreement in 2033

    RUNWAY EXPANSION:

    "Existing runways would need to be extended by approximately 168 metres, which would be within the existing Marine Exclusion Zones which currently extend 309 metres into the Toronto Harbour area at each end of the airport."

    FOREIGN AIRLINE USAGE:

    "There are no new commercial available slots to grant to any airline for any purpose. If slots were to become available at a later date, under the terms of the BBTCA's Commercial Carrier Operating Agreement template, priority would first go to airline applicants that were proposing new destinations that are not currently served by the BBTCA"

    http://www.torontoport.com/About-TPA/Media-Room/Press-Releases/Background-Document-on-Tripartite-Agreement-and-Ot.aspx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for this very useful information, Sean.

      Delete