Porter Airlines needs to stay!

Tal, great response. Please excuse my suspicious attitude. It's a part of an occupational illness I suffer -  I call it "black heart disease"  (as opposed to miners' black lung disease) -  the product of some 30 years as a hack reporter. So many thanks for your kind, moderate response...hope you stick around and keep us posted about MBAs without Borders.

ANG 

ps. I love it when people congratulate others for their good efforts - I make it a point to tell business managers when employees have gone beyond the call of duty. I fill in customer comment cards at every legitimate chance I get. People - and companies - don't get enough recognition for the good they do. Thanks for doing this for Porter (btw, in the interest of full disclosure, I am neither an employee, contractor or shareholder!)

I totally agree with this story. I often have to fly to Ottawa, and it used to be a huge pain in the neck having to get a limo through busy highway traffic to Pearson roughly two hours in advance of my flight, navigate through busy crowds to find my airline check-in counter, get hearded like sheep with hundreds of other people through security, and walk through long corridors  to get to my departure gate.

Since Porter came along, I now just take a 10 minute cab ride to the Toronto Island Airport ferry terminal, take a short ferry ride to the airport, do a very quick check-in and security check, and then head to Porter's luxurious passenger lounge for free coffee, latte or  expresso, orange juice, pop or water, and then either read the paper or surf the Internet on Porter's free passenger Internet terminals. One of the first things you notice when you board a Porter flight is the cool, jazzy lounge music on board, and the classic style of the crew's uniforms. When you take off, you see Lake Ontario and the downtown Toronto skyscape out your window, unlike the ugly industrial wasteland you would see around Pearson. The Porter staff are extremely pleasant, and the flight to Ottawa is just so relaxing.

There is a small movement againt Porter, from those who suggest that Toronto Island Aiport should be turned into a big yuppie dog park. They often cite environmental concerns with regard to exhaust from Porter planes. I'm making a moderate guess that around 500 to 1,000 people fly Porter every day, if not more. Assuming that even 200 people a day drove or cabbed it for the 30-km ride to Pearson, including all the rush hour idling that comes with it, that would equate to about 6,000 km of collective car travel per day and a lot of car exhaust. So the environmental argument doesn't hold water with me. Toronto Island already has a huge system of parks, and I think the people of Toronto, and yes, the environment, are better served by having a downtown airport and an excellent airline like Porter. 

If you're going to calculate pollution by estimating car traffic, please add the following

Porter's buses make 6 to 8 trips an hour from the Royal York to the airport - - most of the time they have fewer than 4 people on them;

When7 people fly on a 70 passenger airplane, the amount of pollutants per passenger is significant;

It is not that we need more parkland -- we don't want airplanes making noise and exhaust on the people who use those parks, sail in the harbour, or live at the Waterfront.  Have you noticed how close the school, community centre, and park are to the ferry dock.  Do you really want those kids to breathe this stuff all day long?

The Island Aiport is for the convenience of a very small group of people at the expense of large numbers of Torontonians and visitors. 

Hi all,

Recently I received this letter, by email, which had some good information while critizing my comments about Porter, so I thought I would share. I have also included my reaction to the email following the post. For purpose of privacy I have kept the individual's name confidential:

"Sir:

I find it strange and a bit disconcerting that an organization that is
so focused on helping third world countries could have such a blatant
disregard for environmental problems in Canada.

Did it not occur to you as one of seven passengers on a 70 passenger
aircraft that you could have taken a much larger aircraft out of
Pearson with no discernible increase in carbon emissions?

There is a reason why so few people fly this airline despite the
alleged benefits you cite. It is the same reason why the voters have
elected David Miller twice, Olivia Chow as an MP, and Adam Vaughan as a
Councillor -- a downtown airport is fundamentally inimical to the use
of the Waterfront for recreation, tourism, and housing.

I would encourage you to study the history of Porter Airlines and the TPA:

-the "secret" $35 million startup gift (finally revealed by a document
leaked to the Globe & Mail)obtained by Porter's bullying and
threatened lawsuits;

-the secret operating agreement that prevents competitors from using the Island Airport;

-the environmental assessment to justify airport development that was
prepared by Dillon Consulting who also happened to be the engineering
company given the design work.

This is what you are holding up as a "hero"!  

- Professor, Canadian University 

Dear X,



I agree that as of right now the rate of carbon emission to person is too high
flying 7 people in Porter and hence why I believe a need to increase the
numbers of passengers.  If we have a full plane of 45-60 people who live
downtown and take the train, walk or even a short cab ride to get to 
Porter as opposed to the long highway hall and average number of cars to make
the 30km+ ride to Pearson, it will be a better benefit financially and
environmentally. I'm not a carbon expert and so I'm doing the numbers roughly
in my head...please correct me if I'm wrong.



My reason for taking it was cost and that alone...it's that simple.  I
don't have the luxury right now of making expensive choices. My intention was
not to provide ill-effect to the environment but to get very quickly to
Montreal to help increase awareness to future business leaders of their role in
the developing world and environment. At this point, I'm sure you’re
saying...well "practice what you preach." To that effect I would
say...can you help me do the month ...in terms of my carbon output to the
possible outreach and awareness provided to future business leaders who will
have a positive effect on the globe. As well, you can now criticize
Al Gore or David Suzuki for taking a plane to educate the world. No, I am not
comparing myself to either A.G. or D.S.



I am not a hero or calling Porter a hero...was just playing on words which you
took to literally...I'm practical. In general, I'm not saying the environment
always comes first in my decision but it is always considered and then it's a
decision I have to make.  That's the unfortunate reality of being a
business person trying to manage and build a not-for-profit (MBAs Without
Borders) as opposed to having the luxury of sitting in an office, researching
all day long, with a secure paycheck and criticizing everything because the
institution of education has made you a cynic.

With all that said, I do appreciate people like you who do take the time to
get deep into the issues because people like me can't. Your information, though
could have had better tact, was helpful and insightful.

Thank you.