City officials were blindsided by Porter Airlines’ latest proposal to extend the runway at Toronto’s island airport even farther into the lake so that jets can land there.

“We only received it yesterday afternoon. We haven’t had a chance to review it or consult with our consultants,” said Christopher Dunn, the city’s project manager overseeing the review of Porter’s expansion plans, at the outset of the first general public consultations held Wednesday.

Deputy city manager John Livey acknowledged: “It obviously sends us back to the drawing board. We have to look at it.”

Porter spokesman Brad Cicero said the airline didn’t give the city any advance warning of the new proposal, sent Tuesday, that calls for a runway extension of 200 metres at each end — longer than the original 168 metres at each end.

“We thought it was important to present it to them with the public consultations taking place,” Cicero said in an interview.

“Obviously, this is some new information, but it’s not going to be starting at Square 1,” he said, noting studies on economic impact or traffic congestion would be unaffected. “A lot of the work on the 168-metre runway version should be applicable to the 200-metre version.”

After Dunn outlined the studies that have been done, the meeting quickly fell apart as the angry crowd at Fort York accused city officials of touting the Porter plan to lift the ban on jets at the airport. Others, noting it takes years for the city to make a decision on transit, said the process was being rushed, with a recommendation due in December.

“I have no confidence that the city wants to represent me,” said Teresa Ascencao, a university design teacher. “It’s outrageous. We’re not stupid. Nobody believes the city. It’s being pushed through.”

Community Air chair Brian Iler added the city’s brochures and information do not include opposing views, rather focus on the economic benefits of the airport.

“Why should we trust the process when the process to date has been so appallingly awful?” he asked.

Sensing fury and frustration among the 200 participants in the room, city officials abandoned plans to break out into smaller groups, opting instead for a question-and-answer session, though dozens of participants walked out.

Porter CEO Robert Deluce told the Star that both runway extensions are viable, and he doesn’t favour one over another, though the longer runway will offer benefits, including less noise on takeoff.

“Our objective has always been to design a runway that doesn’t change the enjoyment of Lake Ontario by Torontonians,” Deluce said. “Both achieve that objective.”

Other benefits would be that the runway would serve as a natural breakwater at the Western Gap, making it easier for boaters to navigate through, and possibly reducing sediment buildup there, Deluce added.

“We are not saying one is better or worse,” he said. “We are putting the option on the table. It’s for others to decide.”

In April, Porter Airlines announced that it placed a conditional order for 12 of Bombardier’s new CSeries jets that could fly to destinations as far away as Vancouver or Miami. Its current fleet of Q400 turboprops limits it to regional flying.

Bombardier’s all-new aircraft, made of composite materials and a quieter engine, is due to have its maiden flight within weeks. It received a flight permit last Friday, but high-speed taxiing tests, scheduled for this week, were postponed due to rain at Mirabel airport.

“There are a lot of unknowns,” said Anshul Kapoor, head of the citizens group NOJetsTO, opposed to Porter’s expansion plans. “We don’t know what this plane needs. This plane hasn’t even taken its first flight yet.”

Before Porter can operate the new CS100 jet, it must win changes to a tripartite agreement that governs operations at the airport, including lifting the ban on jets as well as permission to lengthen the runway.

Several participants at Fort York asked why the city was rushing the studies through with the goal of delivering a final report to executive committee by December with a final vote by city council later that month.

But Livey said officials are responding in an expedited process as ordered by city council, based on a formal request submitted by Porter Airlines.

Councillor Adam Vaughan has always insisted that Porter’s original proposal of 168 metres at either end was simply not long enough for the plane.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“This is a really bad idea that just got worse,” Vaughan said, questioning Deluce’s assertion that boaters would be unaffected and the marine exclusion zone untouched.

He also worries that if the jet ban is lifted, it will open the door to other commercial planes as well as noisy corporate jets to land there.

Note – September 5, 2013: This article was edited from a previous version.