AVCANADA

It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:29 am

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:15 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm
Posts: 2358
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e22329902/

_________________
http://www.collegeofpilots.ca/


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:21 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:10 pm
Posts: 163
I guess those 24 CRJ are going to Sky Regional now.

Flamecaway



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:51 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:50 pm
Posts: 1
what CRJ are you talking about?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:45 pm 
Online
Rank 7
Rank 7
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:27 am
Posts: 714
Wasn't AC paying a pretty penny for those landing slots? How would their absence affect Porter? Could they absorb the loss and offer more flights or routes?

Interesting to see this unfold. When Porter first started from the island, AC reacted as though they were a direct threat. Now it seems as though they're willing to leave them be. Understandable, Porter hasn't expanded at all. I remember rumours of a western expansion but the advent of Encore has squashed that. What's next?



Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:01 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Posts: 665
Location: On glideslope.
Call me a cynic, but I have to wonder whether Air Canada's musings about its future at Billy Bishop may in part be linked to Porter's ongoing attempts to complete a sale/leaseback on its terminal: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-07/porter-said-to-near-sale-of-toronto-island-terminal.html. It seems that Porter may be making progress.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:02 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:52 pm
Posts: 159
This is posturing. AC is trying to get a better deal on its YTZ real estate as it negotiates w/Porter et al. Word is that there will be more Island flying in the future, not less.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:29 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:48 pm
Posts: 205
WestJet will purchase the terminal, then purchase Porter in their initiative to compete in the East.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:12 pm 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am
Posts: 1659
Don't know much about Porters operations but every few days my MS Outlook J-Email folder gets notification of Porter discount fares and sales, way more than AC or WJ. Having said that, the very few and in-between flights I did with them, service was quite good.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:59 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm
Posts: 517
Here's the $750 million dollar question. If (and it's a big if) Porter isn't profitable...and they are responsible for 95% of the airports revenues, what is the airport really worth to investors? That is what this statement from AC is telling investors.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:45 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Posts: 665
Location: On glideslope.
TheStig wrote:
Here's the $750 million dollar question. If (and it's a big if) Porter isn't profitable...and they are responsible for 95% of the airports revenues, what is the airport really worth to investors? That is what this statement from AC is telling investors.

Well..........from a pure corporate finance perspective, Porter could discontinue revenue operations tomorrow and the terminal and runways would still have tremendous value to other airlines interested in flying out of that location: the receiver-manager hired to sell the terminal building and the Toronto Port Authority would ensure that. Porter's profitability doesn't really say much of anything about the value of the underlying airport infrastructure in the medium to longer run.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:48 pm 
Online
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 5894
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.
YYZSaabGuy wrote:
Porter's profitability doesn't really say much of anything about the value of the underlying airport infrastructure in the medium to longer run.
It does, rather. If AC can't turn a profit there, and if Porter can't turn a profit there, it suggests nobody can. And if nobody can turn a profit there, nobody can make rent. Without rent the infrastructure becomes a white elephane with no commercial value.


_________________
Control the horizon, control the airplane


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:34 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Posts: 665
Location: On glideslope.
photofly wrote:
YYZSaabGuy wrote:
Porter's profitability doesn't really say much of anything about the value of the underlying airport infrastructure in the medium to longer run.
It does, rather. If AC can't turn a profit there, and if Porter can't turn a profit there, it suggests nobody can. And if nobody can turn a profit there, nobody can make rent. Without rent the infrastructure becomes a white elephane with no commercial value.

Ongoing public speculation about yields aside, we don't actually know that Porter can or can't turn a profit at Billy Bishop because it's privately owned and doesn't have to report its financial results. As to Air Canada: it doesn't break out Billy Bishop as a reportable segment, so again, we don't know whether that operation is or is not profitable.

Moreover, if you read it carefully, nowhere in Air Canada's press release does it state that this operation isn't profitable; it says simply that AC is reviewing the "imposed" (interesting wordsmithing for a negotiated commercial lease, but whatever) terminal rates and terms: "While Air Canada’s traffic and load factor at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport increased in 2014 over the previous year, as part of its continuing cost transformation initiatives, Air Canada is assessing the viability of Billy Bishop operations based on current imposed terminal rates and terms,” the airline said in a statement."

Which could as easily mean that the operation doesn't hit internal return targets as that it's losing money. Quite apart from the fact that Air Canada can, within reason, load or unload costs from any of its operations as necessary to drive a desired P&L outcome.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:53 pm 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:17 am
Posts: 451
Location: Terminal 4
Does any one else think that it's a probably a bit of a stretch for Porter to propose to operate a 100 or 110 seat jet RELIABLY and without tech-stopping off of what MAY be a 5,000 foot runway (with very wet over-runs) on 4 or 5 hour flights to YVR and LAX? What will happen to the available payload on the inevitable wet and/or contaminated runway days?

What effect will the Union-Pearson Express have on YTZ airline operations? Won't the train to YYZ eliminate at least some of City Centre's supposed advantage? It would be interesting to see a race between 2 passengers from Union Station to their respective airplane seats at YTZ and YYZ and then on to YVR or LAX. Notwithstanding the free Steam Whistle, which trip will be quicker and more hassle-free?



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:52 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm
Posts: 517
photofly wrote:
YYZSaabGuy wrote:
Porter's profitability doesn't really say much of anything about the value of the underlying airport infrastructure in the medium to longer run.
It does, rather. If AC can't turn a profit there, and if Porter can't turn a profit there, it suggests nobody can. And if nobody can turn a profit there, nobody can make rent. Without rent the infrastructure becomes a white elephane with no commercial value.



There are a couple of things I find interesting about this sale. When the NBA forced the owner of the LA Clippers to sell the franchise Forbes had its value priced at about a billion dollars, it sold for 2. Why? First, although the Clippers aren't the Lakers, they still share the largest basketball market in the country, and secondly they were the only franchise for sale. Its easy to draw parallels to the sale of YTZ and see why buyers are willing to pay such a large sum.

However the bigger question, and the one Toronto City Counsel is going to have to answer is. What role is Billy Bishop Airport going to play in the future of the cities, provinces and countries infrastructure? We're all aware of Porters' ambitions to operate C Series jets from the island. But should YTZ be turned into a hub airport? 'Downtown' airports have traditionally catered to niche markets.

Porter has done a wonderful job of demonstrating the usefulness of the airport and provided a wonderful service, but its time for its monopoly and control to end. My inclination is that the runway extension will be approved, but as with everything in life there is give and take, and Porter will be forced to give up its stranglehold on the airport.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:33 pm 
Online
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 5894
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.
TheStig wrote:
Porter has done a wonderful job of demonstrating the usefulness of the airport and provided a wonderful service, but its time for its monopoly and control to end. My inclination is that the runway extension will be approved, but as with everything in life there is give and take, and Porter will be forced to give up its stranglehold on the airport.

Which agency do you imagine has the power and the motivation to force porter to give up its stranglehold?

The TPA's sole - and legislated - motivation is to make the airport self-financing. That is to say, to run as profitably as possible as though it were a private company. That's a matter of law, and a matter of Geoff Wilson's bonus structure, without the slightest doubt. They don't have to be "fair to the market" or "serve the public of Toronto" or any other wishy-washy crap.

So if the TPA decides that the revenue from Porter-alone will beat the potential revenue from Porter-et-al - the stranglehold will stay.

Given AC's at best luke-warm support for operating out of YTZ (and Rovinescu's latest bullet through the foot hardly heats those waters any) - how would you decide?


_________________
Control the horizon, control the airplane


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Inverted2, ToolShed and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]

For questions/comments please send them to
avcanada@gmail.com


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a topic or post is inappropriate email us at avcanada@gmail.com .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site. 

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.