Porter going public via IPO

[rudder]

If the Porter employees are so pumped up about the IPO then I am sure that they will be begging to swap pay for shares and place the same bet that WJ employees placed years ago.

[inchman]

If the Porter employees are so pumped up about the IPO then I am sure that they will be begging to swap pay for shares ...

.... which may be the biggest shame of this scam.

One thing I will observe though, in this discussion, is that a major argument against Porter's future success is the "fact" that they will face competition on their existing routes.

From the Toronto Port Authority's press release:

"Our objective remains simple: we want to increase and diversify the number of destinations serviced by the airport. There are many attractive short haul destinations that are currently not served by the BBTCA and we are anxious to continue improving choice and convenience for all travelers."

In other words, the TPA's "objective" is clearly not to allow new entrants to increase competition. Their objective is to only allow new entrants to go to destinations not currently served by Porter.

So, it is quite probable that Porter will continue to enjoy their monopoly on existing routes from BBTCA ... until, of course, the new entrants go through the process of petitioning the courts (once again) to actually make the process fair. The TPA has put up roadblocks and thrown haybales off the back of the truck for years, even convincing the media that "Air Canada" pulled out voluntarily a few years ago, when in fact they were pushed because the TPA had basically given control of all of the TCCA facilities to REGCO, who then cancelled Jazz's lease.

I'm guessing that the TPA will continue to provide as many obstacles as they can to support their buddy.

[MD2]

Mr. Bean, yes it is a competitive business, but for some one as informed as you say you are, I'm surprised you put so much stock into "competition arriving for Porter". For one thing, YTZ and YYZ are one common market called Toronto. Secondly, there are people that drive from as far away as Hamilton to fly with Porter, it's not just about the wealthy Bay street folks (AC's elite and super elite), although to be fair there are a lot of them who just love the convenience, much to the displeasure of AC. However, those folks want convenience and good schedule. They are less likely to fly with a carrier that offers 4 flights a day. Westjet does it, but because it is geared more towards leisure travel, not business.

Additionally, who has "lower cost structure" as you say that is going to arrive and upset Porter's yield?! WS and AC do not have lower cost structure, not to mention that AC and its JAZZ do not have a very good approval rate with the public, so I doubt people are lining up to fly with them out of YTZ. Now don't get me wrong, surely some folks will fly them, but I think more people will also come to the Island as a result. That competition will be good for the airport and help it get things done for its infrastructure. I wonder where they are going to park their planes and buy fuel though? Interesting.

Bottom line, I'm not trying to convince you or others to buy Porter, just like you, I have shared my personal views on this deal which I think is going to be successful. I never said I was going to invest my life's saving though, but just invest in a modest few thousand shares.

rudder, you're right maybe they should be, maybe they have, but in general employees should get some shares. Any company that gives shares, their stocks have performed well, and those that have not, seen their shares plummet. WS and AC are two prime examples.

inchman, of course the airport will be protecting its own business. If you owned the airport and had one company that had bankrupted a certain City Express flying 400,000 pax a year, and then gradually reduced service down to 22,000 pax a year, refused to sign a long term commitment to the airport and kept bullying you around on the one hand, and on the other had a new vibrant company that had a long term 30 year agreement with you, and as a token of its commitment dropped 50 million dollars to build a new terminal and really rejuvenated the airport and brought unprecedented traffic to your airport and kept flying to new cities, and both of these were looking to fly out of your airport, which one would you favour? Not to mention that knowing the history of the "bully" you have a pretty good hunch that he just wants to get rid of the other guy and then would retreat to his corner and leave your little airport in ruins, after all, he was the only game in town at your airport and didn't use it. The case is quite simple really and regardless of the number of futile "legal proceedings" that you say inchman, you may find it hard to give one "inch" to the bully. Naturally, they want to diversify the destinations served from YTZ.

[Thebean]

It'll be fun to watch the TPA's reaction when an established operator decides to liberate YTZ from the obscenely high fares currently on offer. Their arguments limiting competition are indefensible.

There's a reason why a short 672 mile YTZ-EWR round trip booked today for todays service costs $1,674, when I can book and fly today to Las Vegas from Vancouver, a r/t distance of 1,984 miles, for $672.

No one questions Porter's amenities, but for $1,000, most passengers can live without a comfy chair, free internet and a beer.

It's called a monopoly and Canadians do not like monopolies.

I doubt very many people will demand that no competition should be allowed at YTZ on Porter's routes so monopolistic high fares can be maintained.

I don't recall Calgarian's demanding that no further competition be allowed on Calgary - Vancouver because it would be unfair to Canadian Airlines if the one way fare dropped from $234 + taxes to $59+ taxes. Come to think of it, I don't recall Torontonian's being particularly upset about the prospect of a new entrant offering $99 fares on many as 5x daily sched flights to Halifax.

I wouldn't want to have to sell the monopolist arguement to my constituents or argue that case in front of the Competition Bureau, especially when there are numerous examples of defacto monopoly markets in Canada where low fares are common-rated. Hamilton/Toronto and Vancouver/Abbotsford come to mind.

What's next? The Feds not allowing lower cost cruise ship competition at Canada Place in Vancouver for fear of upsetting the existing operators?

[MD2]

Oh Lord, my dear Bean, you keep missing the forest for the tree!

[Thebean]

If it's a common market, why is Porter so keen on protecting it's monopolist position at YTZ?

Even Southwest is starting to rationalize it's strategy of dominating markets by flooding them with capacity to keep competition away.

Funny thing. About 15 years ago, a couple of airlines also wondered about who would be able to enter the market with lower costs and a couple of flights a day between some key city pairs when collectively, they had upwards of 30 flights each direction a day. With no frequency, why would anyone fly them? Here's why: low fares. Ever wondered what happened to the yields on those markets when the new entrant arrived?

Here's an idea: When competition arrives with walk up fare 75% of Porters, be a good chap and have your marketing department match across the board and then spend a ton of dough advertising the new low fares. That'll help spread the word and keep fare expectations low.

Um. Nope, you better not do that because your yields will collapse.

Here's a better plan. Simply match fares on the flights departing at the same time as the competition and then advertise the living snot out of those matched fares. The add will read something along the lines of NEW LOWER FARES! $159 walk up to Montreal!! That'll do the trick!

Err...., or maybe not. People have a habit of being pi$$ed of at seeing fares advertised at $159, but then discovering the fare is double at times when there's no competition. The low fares will canibalize all the nearby flights as folks gravitate to the lower fares flights operated at peak times. Hmm. $159 at 8:00pm, $399 at 9:00pm. Which flight should I take?

Result? Higher loads on those flights, lower loads on adjacent flights and significantly lower overall revenues. Here's the kicker. With lower costs, the other guys are making money flying full to the point where they add capacity and increase frequency.

It's the classic trap high fare, high cost airlines get caught in world wide. Fortunately, most of them have other markets to play in so they don't get caught with all their eggs in one basket. Could you remind us as to what percentage of Porters eggs are in the YTZ basket again?

Porter doesn't exactly have a glowing fiscal track record to begin with, having lost at least $30m since launch.

If nothing changes on the cost side of the equation, (and it certainly it will, starting with fuel and maintenance), based on 2009 numbers, every 1% reduction in yield, (equaling $1.68 cents off the average fare), increases the annualized operating loss rate by $1.5m.

Do you want to risk your kids college fund betting that fares are going to stay the same when competition arrives?

I wouldn't take that bet.

[Guest rozar s'macco]

Furthermore, MD2, it doesn't matter what the operator of the airport thinks or who they favour. Airports are public utilities in Canada, not private companies. They are there for the use of all, not just the ones they like.

[Thebean]

Oh Lord, my dear Bean, you keep missing the forest for the tree!

Yield is driven by the walk up fares. Those are the fares that will be hammered with competition and will cause a sharp yield decline.

Let's explore a theoretical scenario.

Let's say Delta's reported plan of slot divestment at LGA is accurate and WJ gets 5x daily service perhaps with the benefit of a code share arrangement that drives US originating traffic on the route from the get go.

I think it's fair to say that YYZ-LGA equates equally, and perhaps a little better than YTZ-EWR in terms of overall convenience. Newark is at least a $50 cab fare and not a lot of fun to drive during most parts of the day. YTZ-LGA is not likely to happen anytime soon.

As it stands, the walk up one-way fare to LGA / EWR from Toronto, a distance of barely 360 miles is $721 and $697 respectively.

With a 5x daily schedule to LGA, it is likely WestJet will have a schedule that will attract business and leisure flyers.

Given walk up fares on routes of a similar distance, and taking into account both the added block times required flying into the NYC area as well incremental airport charges, it remains a pretty safe bet that walk up fares wouldnt be close to the $700 mark.

Id be thinking in terms of a max fare of about $400, but with dynamic pricing, I suspect youd see numerous walk up fares priced in the mid $200 range.

WestJet has carefully developed its low fare brand and I doubt it would alter that message for one specific market. Theyve never done that before and I cant see them starting now.

We know that all fares will be matched to a greater or lesser degree.

I would expect to see the market expand as the lower fares stimulate demand. Porter will see a fairly sharp decline in overall route revenue as that average fare tumbles as a result of $697 fares turning into $300 fares.

The higher loads wont compensate for lower yields. Im hard pressed to think of an example of where they have. If it were that simple, LCCs wouldnt exist.

Porters Newark operations are, at best, marginal. Adding this potential scenario to the equation isnt going to help the situation.

[rudder]

MD2 - everybody hopes that Porter, or whomever their employer is, will be successful. The Porter IPO represents the moment in time that Porter must disclose fully or risk regulatory consequences. The only wiggle room is trying to paint the rosiest of pictures in areas that are not black and white such as Income Statement or Balance Sheet which must be pro forma. Porter has chosen to do so in describing the competitive environment.

Can you identify just one industry analyst that is on the record as recommending a 'buy' on Porter stock (recognising that some may be waiting for pricing details)?

[Cargo Agent]

It's seems obvious MD2 has some connection with Porter as an employee of some sort. He/she is not able to provide any kind of argument to show that Porter can be profitable going forward given the numbers dissected from the IPO. Heck, maybe it is even Deluce himself as it has been known for airline exec's to frequent the AEF to troll the competition. I guess the world has been put out by head office- "get out there and sell this damn IPO"

[MD2]

Mr. Bean, I'm touched by your concern about my kids' education, I truly am and willing to accept contributions towards it now!! Mr. Bean, I like you, you amuse me! Now you're implying WJ has a lower cost than Porter. My dear those Q400s don't actually burn fuel, they just smell it. On top of that, they don't make any noise either. Not to mention that 48% BELF is the average, US destinations are much lower as they enjoy much higher yield. All the same, I like your story. Now you're expanding your launch story to Porter and YTZ. Good, I'd like to see a couple of your "footballs" there too. I'm sure the socialist neighbours will be really impressed. I'm surprised to see you (and WJ?) more perturbed by Porter's fantastic rise, which begs the question why? Anyhow, Porter has reached critical mass that it can hold its own against any competitor in its specialty. They're picking up at least 7 more Q400s, I wonder where they're going to put them? If WJ were smart, for shareholders sake I hope they are, they would sign a partnership with Porter and make a bunch of money for their respective investors. Although unfurling toilet paper may not sit well with the Bay Street crowd!

rozar s'macco, you're right, airports are for public use and for the benefit of the public. As such, they couldn't care less if your company "needs a certain number of slots to be profitable". AC's profitability is not their concern, it's AC's, and frankly they haven't been very good at it for quite a while. Furthermore as you say, since AC had voluntarily scaled back their operation to 5 a day from YTZ, how can they expect more than 10 slots really? Anyhow, A decade later, you may thinking that you should have taken the "blue (ONEX) pill", if only!

[thor]

Mr. Bean, I'm touched by your concern about my kids' education, I truly am and willing to accept contributions towards it now!!  Mr. Bean, I like you, you amuse me!  Now you're implying WJ has a lower cost than Porter.  My dear those Q400s don't actually burn fuel, they just smell it.  On top of that, they don't make any noise either.  Not to mention that 48% BELF is the average, US destinations are much lower as they enjoy much higher yield.  All the same, I like your story.  Now you're expanding your launch story to Porter and YTZ.  Good, I'd like to see a couple of your "footballs" there too.  I'm sure the socialist neighbours will be really impressed. I'm surprised to see you (and WJ?) more perturbed by Porter's fantastic rise, which begs the question why? Anyhow, Porter has reached critical mass that it can hold its own against any competitor in its specialty.  They're picking up at least 7 more Q400s, I wonder where they're going to put them?  If WJ were smart, for shareholders sake I hope they are, they would sign a partnership with Porter and make a bunch of money for their respective investors.  Although unfurling toilet paper may not sit well with the Bay Street crowd!

rozar s'macco, you're right, airports are for public use and for the benefit of the public.  As such, they couldn't care less if your company "needs a certain number of slots to be profitable".  AC's profitability is not their concern, it's AC's, and frankly they haven't been very good at it for quite a while.  Furthermore as you say, since AC had voluntarily scaled back their operation to 5 a day from YTZ, how can they expect more than 10 slots really?  Anyhow, A decade later, you may thinking that you should have taken the "blue (ONEX) pill", if only!

MD2

It seems that you are dreaming about Porter in technicolor with dolby sound .  Porter's numbers don't seem to indicate any profit in contrast to WestJet's numbers before their IPO.

[Cargo Agent]

Hey Bean, this clown is starting to sound like you did way back in the good ole days before you were Bean.

"Mr. Bean, I like you, you amuse me" No offence meant.

This troll isn't going to dispute your numbers, it's just trying to convince some (perhaps itself as well) that the IPO is a good buy and also massage that huge chip on it's shoulder from bygone days about AC ops at YTZ.

[CanadaEH]

Mr. Bean, I'm touched by your concern about my kids' education, I truly am and willing to accept contributions towards it now!! Mr. Bean, I like you, you amuse me! Now you're implying WJ has a lower cost than Porter. My dear those Q400s don't actually burn fuel, they just smell it. On top of that, they don't make any noise either. Not to mention that 48% BELF is the average, US destinations are much lower as they enjoy much higher yield. All the same, I like your story. Now you're expanding your launch story to Porter and YTZ. Good, I'd like to see a couple of your "footballs" there too. I'm sure the socialist neighbours will be really impressed. I'm surprised to see you (and WJ?) more perturbed by Porter's fantastic rise, which begs the question why? Anyhow, Porter has reached critical mass that it can hold its own against any competitor in its specialty. They're picking up at least 7 more Q400s, I wonder where they're going to put them? If WJ were smart, for shareholders sake I hope they are, they would sign a partnership with Porter and make a bunch of money for their respective investors. Although unfurling toilet paper may not sit well with the Bay Street crowd!

rozar s'macco, you're right, airports are for public use and for the benefit of the public. As such, they couldn't care less if your company "needs a certain number of slots to be profitable". AC's profitability is not their concern, it's AC's, and frankly they haven't been very good at it for quite a while. Furthermore as you say, since AC had voluntarily scaled back their operation to 5 a day from YTZ, how can they expect more than 10 slots really? Anyhow, A decade later, you may thinking that you should have taken the "blue (ONEX) pill", if only!

I'm not sure what you've missed in all of this but Porter has not been and, from what I've read, still isn't making money. Why should an investor invest in Porter when it hasn't proved it is capable of making money? You haven't answered any question about its profitability, whatsoever.

[Thebean]

Mr. Bean, I'm touched by your concern about my kids' education, I truly am and willing to accept contributions towards it now!! Mr. Bean, I like you, you amuse me! Now you're implying WJ has a lower cost than Porter. My dear those Q400s don't actually burn fuel, they just smell it. On top of that, they don't make any noise either. Not to mention that 48% BELF is the average, US destinations are much lower as they enjoy much higher yield. All the same, I like your story. Now you're expanding your launch story to Porter and YTZ. Good, I'd like to see a couple of your "footballs" there too. I'm sure the socialist neighbours will be really impressed. I'm surprised to see you (and WJ?) more perturbed by Porter's fantastic rise, which begs the question why? Anyhow, Porter has reached critical mass that it can hold its own against any competitor in its specialty. They're picking up at least 7 more Q400s, I wonder where they're going to put them? If WJ were smart, for shareholders sake I hope they are, they would sign a partnership with Porter and make a bunch of money for their respective investors. Although unfurling toilet paper may not sit well with the Bay Street crowd!

rozar s'macco, you're right, airports are for public use and for the benefit of the public. As such, they couldn't care less if your company "needs a certain number of slots to be profitable". AC's profitability is not their concern, it's AC's, and frankly they haven't been very good at it for quite a while. Furthermore as you say, since AC had voluntarily scaled back their operation to 5 a day from YTZ, how can they expect more than 10 slots really? Anyhow, A decade later, you may thinking that you should have taken the "blue (ONEX) pill", if only!

Ah. The "low cost" Q400's. I was waiting for that one. 25.18 cent casm over 374 miles. Have you ever wondered what WJ's casm would be over the same 374 miles, (roughly YYC-YXX)? Have you ever wondered why no one has ever tried to go head to head with a 320/737 LCC with those fuel sipping Q400's?

You want to talk about trip costs? Sure. Why not? My X5 has lower trip costs than a Greyhound bus. My CDory has way lower trip costs from Sidney to the lower mainland than BC Ferries. Funny how neither Greyhound is replacing their bus fleet with X5's nor is BC Ferries ditching their fleet for a couple of hundred CDorys. They would if trip costs really mattered. They don't. It's the unit costs that matter. I'll leave you to figure that one out.

Seven more aircraft eh? I didn't see that disclosed in the Prospectus, but then again, neither were the abysmal loads to MDW and any reference to why Porter is the only airline in the world operating sched into the US that unilaterally decided not to report it's numbers to the US DoT starting last August. There's lots more obstrufications in the Prospectus. It might be fun to have a contest to see who can come up with the most.

Porter's fantastic rise? If you are talking about the product, I'm not going to disagree with you. It is a good product that has benefitted from it's monopoly at an airport located minutes from the downtown core and rapid transit. It's hard not to acquire 100% marketshare in a monopoly market. No one buys into the argument that YTZ and YYZ are a common market. They aren't.

Critical mass? Withstand anything? I can think of a couple of airlines that, collectively operated 30+ times a day on a 75 minute sector in western Canada 14 years ago that thought the same thing. That market went into a freefall with a new entrant offering the grand total of 12 non stops a week with dramatically lower walk up fares, even with a schedule made it practically impossible to do a same day roundtrip in one direction. It doesn't take much to dramatically alter the fare structure on a route.

From a financial standpoint, Porter can only be described as a mess. I'm impressed that anyone would consider a start up with a cozy monopoly in the nation's largest single aviation market with 48 cent yields that lost $30 million in three years to be a "fantastic rise". What do you think the numbers might have looked like had there been any direct competition to face? Do you think Porter would be around today if YTZ didn't exist?

I'm still awaiting your analysis of how Porter is going to produce net earnings of $13.4m in 2010 to support a 15x multiple and a $10 issue price. So far, the best we've seen in their best quarter was $455,000 and that had the benefit of the 4 year maintenance holiday, what will be looked back upon as low fuel costs and the ability to charge $700 for a walk up fare to Newark. That's going to change dramatically with competition which is why the original investors want to substitute your cash for their cash so you get to take the risk, not them.

As the share price swoons, it will become cheaper and cheaper for someone to buy up shares in the company and then do what they want with it, which would be to either shut it down or undergo a drastic restructuring so that it can actually be made profitable. By that time, the initial investors will be long gone having taken their 10 bagger and moved on to bigger and better things

There's no doubt in my mind there is enough stupid money out there to buy into this concept. There always is. Investment bankers get rich off fees from IPO's and there haven't been many lately. I'll bet many of the lead guys have already figured out how to spend their $500k bonus checks.

The great advantage to going public is that it offers liquidity to founding shareholders as the paper they have held turns into cash when the lock up period is over with. The disadvantage is that as a public company, everyone gets to see pretty much everything you do every three months. Claims have to be substantiated and feet get put to the fire.

We all get to see the quarterly numbers and watch what happens to the share price as the earnings simply don't materialize.

I might even by a share or two so I can attend the AGM down the road and participate in the fun in person.

[MD2]

Ah. The "low cost" Q400's. I was waiting for that one. 25.18 cent casm over 374 miles. Have you ever wondered what WJ's casm would be over the same 374 miles, (roughly YYC-YXX)? Have you ever wondered why no one has ever tried to go head to head with a 320/737 LCC with those fuel sipping Q400's?

I suspect they will. The Q400 will match/beat the 737 on short missions under 500 NM,especially with YYZ long taxi time. Fuel burn, about a third, no comparison in other costs either.

Seven more aircraft eh? I didn't see that disclosed in the Prospectus, ...

It's all in there, they said at least nine including the last two of the twenty, plus maybe more, maybe even other types.

I might even by a share or two so I can attend the AGM down the road and participate in the fun in person.

There you go. If you buy and I buy, maybe we'll see each other there!! Mr. Bean, where did you see the possibility of vested period reduction from 6 months to 45 days, reference page perhaps?

[Thebean]

I suspect they will. The Q400 will match/beat the 737 on short missions under 500 NM,especially with YYZ long taxi time. Fuel burn, about a third, no comparison in other costs either.

It's all in there, they said at least nine including the last two of the twenty, plus maybe more, maybe even other types.

There you go. If you buy and I buy, maybe we'll see each other there!! Mr. Bean, where did you see the possibility of vested period reduction from 6 months to 45 days, reference page perhaps?

I don't think you'd be particularly impressed with the Q400's fully allocated unit costs on a 500 mile sector. I'm not. They are not low enough to compete with LCC competition. That's why Q400's steadfastly avoid direct competition with low cost carriers world wide. They are best operated on thin routes that will never see low cost carrier operations.

What's interesting about Canada compared to the US is that WJ figured out how to profitably operate the LCC model into low frequency markets that would never be considered by the likes of Southwest or Air Tran. As has been proven over and over, all it takes is one frequency a day to turn a market's economics upside down. See YZF for details.

As it stands, Porter has the last two of the first twenty. There are no more confirmed orders. That will likely change.

If you lose a little on each asm flown, the more you fly, the more you lose. Please remind us all of the various airlines that were losing money hand over fist that tried to break the cycle by expanding into profitability. It is a fatally flawed strategy. It has never worked.

The vesting period is set at 6 months. From experience, I can tell you that should the stock take off on a sustained basis, and providing there is no underlying knowledge that would result in the stock cratering with the release of following quarters numbers, the vesting period could be reduced to as little as 45 days with the approval of the consortium.

Insiders are highly restricted to when they can sell. It's usually about a 10 day window starting about 36 hours after the release of quarterly numbers. Permission for insiders to sell would like come from the CEO.

Conversely, if the stock sinks, the consortium may require the vesting period be extended beyond six months to ensure insiders don't flood the market and cause a further meltdown.

I'd love to make a healthy profit on an IPO investment. Nothing would make me happier. I'm risk adverse and there are just too many unanswered / glossed over questions with this one for me to play and you haven't presented any compelling evidence to change my mind.

[Fido]

....

You want to talk about trip costs? Sure. Why not? My X5 has lower trip costs than a Greyhound bus. My CDory has way lower trip costs from Sidney to the lower mainland than BC Ferries. Funny how neither Greyhound is replacing their bus fleet with X5's nor is BC Ferries ditching their fleet for a couple of hundred CDorys. They would if trip costs really mattered. They don't. It's the unit costs that matter. I'll leave you to figure that one out.

.....

Well then why did you not get Westjet to sign up for a whack of A380s (or 747s in those days)? They have way better CASM than any 737-200 or -700. But then you would want to talk about trip cost wouldn't you.

Oh, and you state that YTZ and YYZ are not the same market but then you state that Porter is in the largest Canadian market. Would that be YTO? It is either the same market or it is not.

[Thebean]

Well then why did you not get Westjet to sign up for a whack of A380s (or 747s in those days)? They have way better CASM than any 737-200 or -700. But then you would want to talk about trip cost wouldn't you.

Oh, and you state that YTZ and YYZ are not the same market but then you state that Porter is in the largest Canadian market. Would that be YTO? It is either the same market or it is not.

The key is to find the right capacity equipment for the markets contemplated that produces the lowest unit costs. As we all know, the two types mentioned wouldn't work in Canada. What's often glossed over is that lower trip costs also means lower trip revenue.

YTZ and YYZ both serve Toronto, which is the largest Canadian market. YHM serves a small subset of the market. YTZ has the advantage of being far more convenient for a portion of the marketplace, just as JFK is more convenient to some than EWR. The problem is that unlike EWR/LGA/ISP/JFK or LAX/BUR/SNA/ONT, Toronto area airports aren't open equally to all resulting in a skewed, artificial marketplace.

I can't think of another situation like this anywhere in the western world.

It will not continue in perpetuity and when competition hits, fares will come down. If profits are unachievable after 3 yers with a monopoly, how will they be achieved in a more normalized operating environment?

[AME]

Mamma

[and more pure nonsense entirely unrelated to anything]

[AIP]

I suspect they will. The Q400 will match/beat the 737 on short missions under 500 NM,especially with YYZ long taxi time. Fuel burn, about a third, no comparison in other costs either.

But, But, But, Props are for boats, and Jets are Cool !!!

[AME]

But, But, But, Props are for boats, and Jets are Cool !!!

Jets are just ducted, fixed pitch, multi bladed, props and are for those who find power AND condition levers too complex

[AIP]

Jets are just ducted, fixed pitch, multi bladed, props and are for those who find power AND condition levers too complex

Condition Levers ?? What are those ?? I do seem to vaguely remember from a long time ago !!

[Mitch Cronin]

Condition Levers? Puh... ptui.... Our oldest, little, round, dinosaurs had the features automated. Apparently, some pilots are too dumb to handle the specific needs of a jet engine,... Those APU driven, paddle-wheeled things are so simple our janitors could handle 'em.

[Moon The Loon]

I'm firmly behind Bean on this one especially after having suffered (if only mildly, unlike many of my former C3 colleagues who lost 10's of thousands) the C3 IPO, the sudden change of direction less than 6 months after the initial share offering and the tanking of the shares in concert with the Royal acquisition.

No way, not a nickel for these upcoming shares.

As stated, I was one of the lucky ones. I only lost $2,000 in the initial offering. The day our doors were closed, the shares were trading ~2.95. I put in a "sell" order within minutes of hearing the news and got $0.96 per share. Those who waited a day got nothing.

I'm not saying Porter is going down this road, but there are a lot of similarities in the accounting irregularities...