No Jets? Why? I understand your point to reduce noise and pollution, but the irony here is that they are, technically speaking, already flying jets. The aircraft that porter flies is the Bombardier Dash 8-Q400, which uses a Pratt and Whitney PW150 Twin spool, Two stage, centrifugal compressor, turboprop engine. Technically speaking, how jet engines work is that air is compressed by the compressor, is ignited with fuel, and then spins a turbine which is connected to the compressor, which in turn compresses the air again. leftover air is shot out the back. In a turboprop, a second turbine spins a gearbox to a propellor, and powers the plane. A turboprop would actually be louder than a jet and may be less efficient as it has a jet with a propellor on the front, and is not encased in a nacelle. a diagram is here:http://www.pawsplay.talktalk.net/uniweb/images/prop2.jpg

To fully prove my point the video above is a side by side noise comparison of the Q400 and the CS100.

Also, the bombardier Q400 is much older and dated. 

The new jets porter planned to use, were bombardier CS100s. They are substantially quieter and are extremely modern, with Pratt & Whitney PW1500G turbofan engines. They themselves, are not true jets as well, (they are turbofans, diagram here:http://www.helicoptercrashes.com/images/diagrams/turbofan-engine.jpg but would be quieter, more efficient, and generate less pollution as the propellor in the front is replaced by a spinning fan inside the engine nacelle. which generates the majority of the thrust. The centrifugal flow compressors have been replaced with axial flow compressors, and They also have many modern noise reduction features. These planes are all modern and computerized, so these new features would actually do more good than bad.

I understand, but the planes they are flying now are actually worse than the new ones. It is just that on the outside, the jet looks closer to a true turbojet. Nowadays, almost no planes use turbojets anymore. Due to the outer nacelle, turbofans are much quieter than the current turboprops that look like propellor planes. They are also much faster and efficient than the current planes. Also with the new planes, due to their high range they could fly as far as south america.

So to conclude, the turbofans which were given the no by ottawa would be quieter, safer, faster, and more efficient than the noisy, outdated turboprops in use right now. Actually, the turboprop airliner in use now would cause more pollution, more noise, and more health problems. they would ruin the waterfront more.

Now I will disprove of No Jets TO's claims. 

False Claim #1 "The jets are twice as big and heavy" 

Unfortunately, the CS100 has a maximum landing weight of 52,390 kg, and the Dash 8 Q400 has a maximum landing weight of 61,750 kg, so it is in fact, not 'twice as heavy' and Porter will not be using the aircraft at full weight because the runway isn't long enough. Besides, I'm not too sure what weight has to do with the airport expanding. 

False Claim #2 "It will cost 300,000,000 tax dollars" 

Unfortunately, that is extremely exaggerated, as a mere 200 meters of runway expansion will only cost at the most, in a worst case scenario, 70,000,000. People who know about aviation should know this. 

False Claim #3 "It will increase Traffic " 

Well if those numbers that are claimed by No Jets TO are accomplished the airport will have to move. The small jets that are being proposed will not be able to handle that traffic. The ground handling will not be able to handle that kind of traffic and fuel delivery will not be able to handle that kind of traffic.

False Claim #4 "It will bring noise and pollution to Toronto's waterfront, ruining it forever. 

Referring to my previous argument, the aircraft that porter flies is the Bombardier Dash 8-Q400, which uses a Pratt and Whitney PW150 Twin spool, Two stage, centrifugal compressor, turboprop engine. Technically speaking, how jet engines work is that air is compressed by the compressor, is ignited with fuel, and then spins a turbine which is connected to the compressor, which in turn compresses the air again. leftover air is shot out the back. In a turboprop, a second turbine spins a gearbox to a propellor, and powers the plane. A turboprop would actually be louder than a jet and may be less efficient as it has a jet with a propellor on the front, and is not encased in a nacelle. The new jets porter planned to use, were bombardier CS100s. They are substantially quieter and are extremely modern, with Pratt & Whitney PW1500G turbofan engines. They themselves, are not true jets as well, (they are turbofans, diagram here:http://www.helicoptercrashes.com/images/diagrams/turbofan-engine.jpg but would be quieter, more efficient, and generate less pollution as the propellor in the front is replaced by a spinning fan inside the engine nacelle. which generates the majority of the thrust. The centrifugal flow compressors have been replaced with axial flow compressors, and They also have many modern noise reduction features. These planes are all modern and computerized, so these new features would actually do more good than bad. To fully prove my point the video above is a side by side noise comparison of the Q400 and the CS100.

False Claim #5 "We accept the current airport as is, with all it's flaws"

So here, you are being a hypocrite. The Q400 is WORSE than the CS100 for many reasons. It uses older, very dated technology, and most of all, with all my points stated above, it causes more noise and pollution than the CS100. So you are willing to accept something worse that will cause more damage than a less damaging one? And even if you get porter out, the airport will get EVEN LOUDER with more Cessnas and helicopters flying around. I was at the harborfront, and I actually found the turboprops  quieter than the Cessnas and Helicopters. Which means you are campaigning for MORE NOISE? Who comes up with these arguments? whoever you are, you will be a good tabloid author. 

False Claim #6 "It will cause millions of health problems among children"

Seriously? What are you thinking? You do realize, as stated before, that the CS100 is much more efficient, quieter, and less polluting than the Q400 Right? The Q400, in aviation terms, is a jet. It is a turboprop powered plane that has a two stage centrifugal compressor which is very loud. Then you have the propellor which has no nacelle, making it even louder. The turboprop also causes more pollution. Even with all these aside, how will burning kerosene cause health problems? Since they are already flying turboprops there have not been any adverse health effects, and the turboprops are, as I mentioned, worse. 

False Claim #7 "Whisper jets is an oxymoron. They are jets. Plain (no pun intended) and simple.

First of all, you are not accepting the fact that turboprops are jets and the CS100 would be quieter than the Q400 as it has turbofans in nacelles with all sorts of noise reduction features To fully prove my point the video above is a side by side noise comparison of the Q400 and the CS100....

False Claim #8 "Jets will be louder" 

Unfortunately, the current turboprops are louder than turbofans. http://airinsight.com/2011/08/19/jet-vs-turboprop-a-debate-that-dates-from-the-early-1950s/ second of all, the CS100 has more noise reduction features. To fully prove my point the video above is a side by side noise comparison of the Q400 and the CS100.

False Claim #9 "Jets cause more pollution" 

Umm... They burn the same kerosene fuel and the Q400s use centrifugal compressors which are less efficient than the improved axial compressors on the CS100.

And also, you clearly don't know what you are doing because you were showing Boeing 737-800s in American Airlines Livery in your PSA. Link Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqJNA0mtF3k you could tell it is a 737 because of the deformed shape of the engine as a result of ground clearance issues. You clearly do not know in detail about the new CS100 and it's benefits. Heck, most of you don't even know in detail about porter airlines! 

So No Jets TO is wrong. Jets will bring much benefit to us and will be better than turboprops.

No Jets TO was started by wealthy condo owners that like to prey on innocent citizens with limited knowledge of aviation. If everyone knew what I knew, almost no one would support No Jets TO.  

and also, you should realize the fact that the jets would fly in for a few seconds before landing and leave immediately after takeoff. This is not enough for sufficient pollution and "Adverse Health Effects" you claim.