Porter Airlines Nearing Sale Of Billy Bishop Terminal.....


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

MD2---we're going to sound like a concerted voice but I've got to chip in a few additional comments. There was a parcel of land that was lakefront and zoned commercial. There was a grocery store on th

What about restricting emissions from VIA Rail's locomotives based on an engine from the early 60's? To say nothing of VIA's other "emissions"

For our sake I hope Encore gets all AC's vacated slots. If only to force Bean to try some new material.

Exclusive: Porter nearing sale of Toronto airport terminal - sources

Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:16pm EST

By Jeffrey Hodgson and Euan Rocha

TORONTO (Reuters) - The parent of Canada's Porter Airlines is nearing the sale of a passenger terminal it operates at Toronto's Billy Bishop Airport, according to three sources familiar with the process.

The sources, who asked not to be named as they are not authorized to publicly comment on the matter, said a bidding process for the asset on the island airport is underway.

One of the sources familiar with the process said at least two separate bids are expected this week from pension fund manager Alberta Investment Management Corp (AIMCo) and Macquarie Group Ltd MQG.AX. The source did not specify whether Macquarie would be bidding directly, or through one of the funds it manages.

Porter Aviation Holdings Inc, the parent of upstart carrier, said in August it was considering selling and then leasing back the passenger terminal to focus on its core airline business.

AIMCo and Macquarie declined to comment. Porter could not immediately be reached for comment.

The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter, earlier this year reported that a sale could bring in more than $500 million.

The second source said AIMCo is bidding for the asset in partnership with an infrastructure development focused firm.

The second source also said a key consideration for buyers is the prospect for Porter's long-term success, including a controversial plan to get jets flying out of the hub.

Last year Porter Airlines unveiled a plan to more than double its fleet, with a conditional order worth up to $2.08 billion for Bombardier Inc's BBDb.TO new CSeries jets.

Porter said in August a deal would not change its operations, and it would still be based at the regional airport, on an island just off Toronto's downtown core. The airport itself is owned and operated by the Toronto Port Authority.

Canadian media reported earlier this year that Vantage Airport Group was another potential bidder. A spokeswoman for British Columbia-based Vantage was not immediately reachable for comment.

Vantage, which develops and manages airports around the world, is part a consortium bidding to re-develop the central terminal building at LaGuardia Airport in New York. It currently has a portfolio of nine airports on three continents.


(Additional reporting by Allison Lampert in Montreal; Editing by Bernard Orr)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a well placed, but odd story that sounds more like a real estate advertisement to drum up interest for Porter than an real meat and potatoes news story with milestones, facts set in stone instead of maybe/could be’s/we think Bobby and Judy will come to the party:

1) Why the privacy breaches when datarooms are usually closed shops and NDA’s signed-not just one but three leaks leads one to infer the leaks were not that taboo?

2) Identification of three potential bidders…is the purpose of the article to induce more to come into the bidding process? Is the data room slow?

3) Why is heavy weight and current investor such as OMERS not chomping at the bit to invest in the Billy Bishop terminal?

4) There is a mention of the $500 valuation from WSJ but the authors fail to ask the simplest of questions; Whom would invest in the terminal as a potential landlord unless Porter gives up slots to AC, WJ or UAL , etc..; thereby diversifying the new landlords revenue stream?

5) Is Porter profitable enough to be able to pay the rent?

6) Without Jets and extended runways-the Billy Bishop terminals value is impaired and full value not realized. A reasonable understanding of asset valuation won’t be known until next September at earliest as both the City and TPA have acknowledged the Jets proposal is way behind schedule?

7) What investor would invest now bid for Billy Bishop terminal now not knowing outcome of City Councils decision; unless the sale is based on an impaired value?

8) Do potential investors know that hundreds of millions dollars will be required to improve city side infrastructure improvements to Bathurst Quay and neither Porter, the TPA or the City are putting their hands up on whom will take care of this HUGE bill?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, the terminal is on leased land. That lease expires in June, 2033 - less than 19 years away, with no right of renewal, as that requires the tripartite agreement to be extended by the City.

The City has not indicated any interest in discussing that.

While ground rent is a paltry one dollar per passenger, who would buy a dissipating asset?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill C-43 will effectively nullify the tripartite agreement and none too soon, the City of Toronto has proven they're incapable of playing a productive role here.

Plus, the terminal is on leased land. That lease expires in June, 2033 - less than 19 years away, with no right of renewal, as that requires the tripartite agreement to be extended by the City.

The City has not indicated any interest in discussing that.

While ground rent is a paltry one dollar per passenger, who would buy a dissipating asset?

Link to post
Share on other sites

143. The Aeronautics Act is amended by adding the following after section 4.3:

4.31 (1) The Minister may make an order prohibiting the development or expansion of a given aerodrome or any change to the operation of a given aerodrome, if, in the Minister’s opinion, the proposed development, expansion or change is likely to adversely affect aviation safety or is not in the public interest.

(2) An order under subsection (1) is exempt from examination, registration or publication under the Statutory Instruments Act.

144. Section 4.9 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (k):

(k.1) the prohibition of the development or expansion of aerodromes or any change to the operation of aerodromes;

(k.2) the consultations that must be carried out by the proponent of an aerodrome before its development or by the operator of an aerodrome before its expansion or any change to its operation;

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amendments to The Marine Act are also applicable.

But yeah, one order-in-council and the YTZ gong show is over. Slots, curfew, jet ban, everything.

The federal expropriation of the city's sliver of land in the middle of the airport is also on the agenda.

Yes, a unilateral act like that will be the end of the airport, because the city will not only not lift a finger to improve access, there will be enough s--t raised to ensure that the existing access is impeded. Unilateral action would be a politically stupid at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I arrived at the Island on Saturday. The loads on arriving aircraft were so high that it took forever to load the ferry. I was told that it is the ferry which limits slots and that additional slots will become available once the pedestrian tunnel opens. The rumour is that tunnel construction has slowed in an effort to delay those additional slots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a unilateral act like that will be the end of the airport, because the city will not only not lift a finger to improve access, there will be enough s--t raised to ensure that the existing access is impeded. Unilateral action would be a politically stupid at this point.

What new **bleep** is there to be raised? This is the most stagnant issue I have ever seen. The war will be over Pickering, this won't even be a sideshow. Any unilateral action will most likely concern extending the runways to accommodate the 150m RESA's.

Olivia Chow, Adam Vaughn and a mangy bunch of squatters with their "Take the Train" signs will protest for a few weeks and that will be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What new **bleep** is there to be raised? This is the most stagnant issue I have ever seen. The war will be over Pickering, this won't even be a sideshow. Any unilateral action will most likely concern extending the runways to accommodate the 150m RESA's.

Olivia Chow, Adam Vaughn and a mangy bunch of squatters with their "Take the Train" signs will protest for a few weeks and that will be it.

The war with Pickering will have nothing to do with city council. So you're mixing apples and oranges. and unless the issue of who pays for transportation and road access upgrades to YTZ is settled to the city's satisfaction, any unilateral expansion project is doomed, as will be any lingering hopes by the federal conservatives of holding a seat in southern Ontario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dagger, your partisan politics aside, exactly what is your point? Your antagonistic oppositions are biased and motivated by your employment it seems.

For the first time the city has made great progress in partnership with the TPA. Both are making money off the City airport. They've settled on the PILT, working on improved road access, EA, airport master plan, all things are coming together and parties involved have patiently and systematically went through the process, and even indulged the less than objective opposition. The naysayers cannot hold the city and the airport hostage forever...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The war with Pickering will have nothing to do with city council. So you're mixing apples and oranges. and unless the issue of who pays for transportation and road access upgrades to YTZ is settled to the city's satisfaction, any unilateral expansion project is doomed, as will be any lingering hopes by the federal conservatives of holding a seat in southern Ontario.

I didn't say it would. Just relatively speaking the battles to be fought over the new Pickering Airport will far exceed anything related to YTZ. I have met precious few people who live within a mile of YTZ who have strong feelings on the subject. Your's and Bean's fixation on the place is probably as broad as the issue gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CYTZ will only work with the support of the city. Any attempts to circumvent the city's current rights in respect of CYTZ will simply complicate an already complicated relationship.

It would get a bonehead move for the Feds to attempt to remove the city from the CYTZ decision making process and an even bigger bonehead move for other parties to be seen to be encouraging the Feds to do so.

If the CYTZ expansion proponents cannot win the debate in city hall then an attempted 'end run' will only create more acrimony and guaranteed grief when some type of cooperation is required on matters on the city side of the ferry/tunnel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MD2,

Your vision of cooperation with the City is the "glass half full" analogy.....geez give me a break that the City of Toronto is making money from the airport-they've been subsidizing it for years whereby PILTS doesn't even come close to covering the expenses the City spent on this pig....from hard costs to Porters constant pushing of the envelope of airline plans over the last decade.

Do you think PILTS has come even close to covering the City's staff costs constantly studying Porters issues/plans hopefully they wish to implement?

And MD2, is Porter ready to tear up a legally binding agreement (the Tripartite Agreement) at the same time tearing up the current Porter slot monopoly agreement at the TCCA??

You can't have your cake and eat it too, sir....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

vikingwarrior, (looking for a war perhaps!) You remind me of someone else who is equally fixated on this issue and uses the same lines, perhaps you two know each other?! No point having the same debate over again...but suffice it to say that the costs of the studies are covered by the TPA. Over and out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MD2 - the TPA/Porter did not reimburse the City for any of its staff costs - only the cost of outside consultants. And even that tap has been turned off, leaving all of the work the Council required to be done to be able to move forward to considering Porter's jets proposal in limbo. No work is underway at the City save the Planning Department's Bathurst Quay Precinct Planning exercise, and that should place further constraints on airport expansion, if proper planning principles are followed.

I suspect City staff have more important things to do than accommodate Mr. Deluce's whims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Iler, the city should support anyone's "whims" that creates hundreds of jobs and puts hundreds of millions into the city's and country's economy in the best possible responsible way, and showcases a Canadian product in the largest Canadian city; at least I hope it would. What is the cost of your "whims" and your very few albeit vocal friends? It's easy to find faults, to offer a solution, well, I hope you start some day. Happy holidays.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Iler, the city should support anyone's "whims" that creates hundreds of jobs and puts hundreds of millions into the city's and country's economy in the best possible responsible way, and showcases a Canadian product in the largest Canadian city; at least I hope it would. What is the cost of your "whims" and your very few albeit vocal friends? It's easy to find faults, to offer a solution, well, I hope you start some day. Happy holidays.

Who is to say that YTZ adds anything in the way of jobs and economic activity? A job at YTZ might be a job lost at YYZ or at Union Station. Same bogus argument that is made any time someone tries to snow the public with the idea that taxpayers dollars should be used to build stadiums or sports arenas. The sports arena is a dollar less spent at restaurants, theatres, maybe on clothing or other personal items.

Nor is it the City of Toronto's responsibility to showcase an aircraft manufacturer's products, especially since very little if anything in the CSeries is built in Toronto.

So quit with the economic arguments before you dig yourself a deeper hole.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really. We still have no legitimate ecomonic study that addresses the negative impact of Mr. Deluce's operation. Nothing about how much of the Island Airport business would hve happened anyway - at Pearson, where there is unused capacity. And how much tourism spending is lost to other detinations from Toronto by the Porter convenience. Or how property values - and property tax revenue - are affected by the Island Airport. All we get are flimsy pieces of work produced by Porter or the TPA that are flaunted to gullible media.

And I know this won't be popular on this site, but the dire impact of climate change is finally getting mainstream attention. Surely short-haul flying, Porter's specialty, has to be looked at when we start searching for practical ways to substantially reduce our carbon footprint, as we must. The last thing we should be doing is investing in infrastructure like airport expansion that requires the burning of fossil fuels to generate a return on that investment.

A few of us? At one time that might have been true. But not now. Look at the last public meeting on the TPA's new environmental assessment earlier this month. 500 people in a jam-packed room, with no evident support for Porter, and tons of questions as to how jets would impact our waterfront. And, as yet, not many answers. Bald assurances from Mr. Deluce and TPA chair Mark "Do No Harm"" McQueen certainly haven't cut it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I know this won't be popular on this site, but the dire impact of climate change is finally getting mainstream attention. Surely short-haul flying, Porter's specialty, has to be looked at when we start searching for practical ways to substantially reduce our carbon footprint, as we must. The last thing we should be doing is investing in infrastructure like airport expansion that requires the burning of fossil fuels to generate a return on that investment.

Good plan. When you're done closing YTZ, your group can work on LGA, EWR, ATL, MIA, LAX, LHR, HGK, NRT, PEK, JFK, DBX, ORD, DFW........
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

dagger, this is the kind of philosophical argument that starts with nothing and ends in nothing. By your argument, there should be no bridges built, no roads built, no tall buildings, nothing new tried, because it's easy to kill any idea. In truth though, these ambivalent remarks bring Air Canada under question with regards to City airport. If Air Canada wants more access, what is it doing to help its expansion? Otherwise why should an airport operator be anxious to give more access to an airline that is threatening its very existence?! As for the airport, various surveys, and especially the growing traffic seem to indicate very high approval rate. And with Toronto growing and increasing events and activities, such as the Pan-Am games, multiple easy accesses are needed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

... And how much tourism spending is lost to other detinations from Toronto by the Porter convenience. Or how property values - and property tax revenue - are affected by the Island Airport.

Speaking of property taxes, what exactly is the arrangement on the properties on the Islands, how much do those people pay? And did you say business is lost due to CONVENIENCE of Porter? Wow! Next you're going to argue for Air Canada (that your friends over there will like) that revenue of Air Canada is lost due to lower prices of Porter! With opponents like these, Porter needs no supporters!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.