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

[moeman]

Nice place for an outlet mall...

[Maverick]

Nice place for an outlet mall...

Or a real airport...

[vikingwarrior]

Porter’s passenger terminal a non-core asset: CEO

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/1/8/Porter-said-near-deal-to-sell-Toronto-island-terminal.aspx

Tell Air Canada that Billy Bishop terminal isn't a non-core asset for Porter-how else did Porter FBO keep Air Canada out of YTZ for the first five years? Without this asset, Air Canada would have had a whole whack of new slots by now-isn't it just coincidental that most of the slot growth happened when AC was banned from The Island?

Of note, is the admission by Deluce that that debt has to be paid down (or what was not said was capital repatriated to initial shareholders)

"CEO Robert Deluce says selling the passenger terminal at Toronto’s island airport will allow the company to pay down its aircraft debt and put additional cash in their balance sheet."

While the OVER $750 million dollars is a ridiculous number for the terminal sale....a big piece of the puzzle has been left out of the discussion-TAXES to the FEDS, ONT and TORONTO??

Video Clip: http://www.bnn.ca/Video/player.aspx?vid=526021

[J.O.]

I smell a big, sweaty rat. Anyone who would even contemplate paying that amount for the terminal should have their picture placed on PT Barnum's Wikipedia page, right next the quote of his favourite saying.

[vikingwarrior]

Bean we must remember that not even a fool would pay Porter FBO $750 million dollars (or whatever todays asking price is...) for an asset with a 18 year shelf life...the Tripartite is dead in 2033 with no right of continuance...

"Third, the TPA recently advised the City that an extension of the Tripartite Agreement would be necessary if Porter Airlines' request is approved. At present, the Tripartite Agreement expires in 2033 with no provision for renewal or extension, and additional information is needed to understand the implications for the City of its extension"

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-64318.pdf

Now we are also aware of Porters tactics at City Council-approval of the Jets scheme was needed immediately last year as professed by Mr. Deluce on more than one occasion or the CS100 deal was dead as deposits were due..yet we find out that this was no deal breaker at all as their favourite operating vehicle is that non-transparent conditional offer mechanism.

Adam Vaughan at the moment correctly sized up the situation being pushed by Porter;

"Mr. Deluce wanted jets last July, he wanted them by Christmas and he wanted them by this term of council. He's not getting them. There are no jets coming." - Councillor Adam Vaughan, whose ward includes the Island airport."

Correct in the fact that there would be no quick and easy on this scheme/plan and we are coming up to 2 years that this issue has been put forward-it's not going to happen tomorrow, maybe not at all!

So here we are trying to try to understand and justify a $750 million dollar investment for wasting asset (the Tripartite ticking clock)....unless as proposed and indicated by the TPA the Tripartite gets opened (and approved by City council) to a NEW 50 or 99 year amended tripartite agreement-this has to be the mechanism that the sale of Billy Bishop terminal can be counted on to support this lofty valuation.

And of course as usual to justify the $750 million you need two things(actually three); a longer lease on the lands, jets at the airport and longer runways, and actually a 4th scenario-more slots and other air carriers diversifying the new landlord's revenue stream. If the purchase is leveraged as expected then the banks WILL 100% WANT new carriers and that therefore means giving up slots from Porter or kicking out the GA group to allow the NEF 25 contour to expand to allow for more slots...so the STOL AND GA group will for sure be butting heads likely going forward on this issue. We also know of the suit filed in Federal court last year that the GA's rights and use under the 1983 Tripartite likely has been allegedly violated by certain parties at the airport.

So this whole shaky and risky house of cards rests on getting City Council to amend the tripartite and allow jets-which will not happen prior to this fall at the earliest; although Mr. Deluce is saying that he expects this asset saale to close in Q1 2014 hopefully...which means an conditional offer now on the terminal and a closing only if council approves a new Tripartite and Jets; or a near term closing sooner with a severely discounted asset value....no where near $750 million.

Tick, tock, tick tock-a shoe is going to have to drop somewhere in this developing fiasco....

[moeman]

Mr. O'Leary makes some comments on the issue at the 4:30 mark.

http://www.bnn.ca/Video/player.aspx?vid=526033

[vikingwarrior]

Specifically Mr. O' Leary felt that Jets are needed, runways need to be extended at the airport; and for airport (but hey Porter is 85% of the airport) to be competitive.

http://www.bnn.ca/Video/player.aspx?vid=526033

Now down to the terminal....it wouldn't be good for Dr. Deluce if Air Canada is seen to be pulling out of Billy Bishop as a new purchaser of the terminal would be at risk of a sole source tenant; thereby increasing the new purchasers risk as already identified on this chat thread

[blues deville]

I think that is the reason for AC's recent YTZ departure threat.....to make a sale of the terminal less attractive. I believe we are witnessing an interesting game between these two groups.

[Fido]

O'Leary says that the island airport needs the runways extended 'to be competitive'.

Competitive with what?

[J.O.]

His real motive - he wants the jet ban lifted so he can fly his own piece of pig iron in there.

[moeman]

It would also make a really nice FBO for the rich and famous...

[MD2]

Well, I'm no financial genius...

Well, I let the readership be the judge of that based on your analysis and predictions on Porter over the years, however for years you have been seizing any opportunity to remonstrate lack of access for WestJet, that it didn't have the right aircraft before and now it does and all it takes is a handful of flights for WestJet to slash prices and so on... Lo and behold now they may have the opportunity. Are you/they going to back your words with actions? Or like Air Canada it is all talk.

Of course Air Canada has been running the most ambivalent campaign for years on City airport; and nothing has changed. "We are back and THIS TIME we mean business" has been their motto. Clearly showing that they didn't mean business in the past! As it turns out they don't mean business this time either. From the one hand they demand more access but do nothing to help the airport expand and create more slots! How can the airport trust such a corporation that openly attacks it and whose elements and proxies advocate its closure and conversion into a casino!! This is the level of its contempt that it prefers the City airport turned into a casino so that its grasp on the market and consumers is maintained.

More likely this is another ploy to muddy the waters for Porter. This much is clear because the terms of their agreement with the terminal have not changed over the years (which naturally should go up with inflation). Now that the terminal is being sold they put on this little show. It's not even clear if they really want to leave, but they should, because they have never been committed to Toronto City airport, they do not advocate its cause, WestJet won't either, but others will, life will go on and consumers will like it!

[inchman]

Having 15 departures a day is useless for any airline of any size. I tried to find a flight to YOW a couple of weeks ago and was surprised that AC doesn't even have enough slots to service 2 major business destinations from YTZ.

This situation is not Air Canada's fault (I predicted you would blame them a few posts ago).

It is simply fallout from Porter's greed for slots and lack of foresight in scarfing them in. I find it interesting that Porter forced them out before and blamed AC, now you're upset that they are leaving on their own from an untenable arrangement, letting Porter have their little fiefdom. Porter has what they always wanted... a monopoly.

I would expect Porter to again insist on half of the abandoned slots leaving 7 departures for the new "competition".

If AC sticks a needle in Porter's eye, that's just business. AC wouldn't be pulling out if they had a decent sized, profitable operation. If there was really money to be made, why would they pull out? In theory, they will lose at least some, if not many of those passengers who obviously would prefer to fly out of the island and may now fly on Porter.

If you had a burger joint and were only able to sell 15 hamburgers a day, would you stay or leave?

Bottom line... if Porter wants AC to stay so that they can sell their overpriced terminal, it's time to put something on the table to make it worth AC's while.

[MD2]

inchman, certainly I can't presume to speak for them, but likely Porter is not too concerned about Air Canada and is focused on its own business. And now that the terminal is being sold, Porter itself is a rent-paying tenant. For years many of you here have been complaining about Porter owning the terminal. It was explained to all of you then, as I do again to you now, that it was a necessity to build the infrastructure at a time when others may not do it. Now that it's being sold, Air Canada wants to stick a needle in Porter's eye as you say. The question should be why would our so called national airline be inclined to stick a needle into the eyes of its competitors when (more likely IF) it can run an honest business that can sell to the consumers based on its own merit as opposed to some sense of entitlement to consumers' business lingering from the crown corporation days?

As for the slots my dear, do some reading and discover the truth for yourself. Back in 2006 Air Canada only operated 5 flights a day by its Jazz (meaning 10 out of the 120 available slots). Porter took the other 110 slots that were abandoned by Air Canada over the years after it bankrupted City Express. You can't complain about that. You're basically saying Air Canada didn't want those slots and no one else should have had them either! Later, additional slots were distributed by an independent firm based on international standards. Had Air Canada stayed and used its 10 slots, it would have had more slots, but like always, Air Canada's biggest downfall is its own ego and vanity.

[Briler]

Last time we had information (from Porter's failed IPO), in 2010 - admittedly now a bit stale, credit card companies held up to 85% of the revenue from Porter’s advanced ticket sales as security against loss. Not surprisingly WestJet, with retained earnings of $713 million at that time, had to give no security and even Air Canada, that has accumulated losses of $126 million, only had to give 2%. Porter can't be getting much benefit from those 60-70% advance sales, if the situation has not changed. And there's no evidence it has.

As others have pointed out here, Porter's load factors still seem dismal, and we know passenger growth stopped in 2012.

Porter's struggling to keep its existing slots, it would seem.

[DEFCON]

It's all been uphill, but they're still here contrary to all the ill wishing & negative economic predictions and it appears it they will be for some time to come.

GO PORTER!

Has anyone stopped to consider the possibility a new master plan for the airport that will satisfactorily serve most interested parties including, the Feds, the Province, the City, AC, WJ, Porter's investors, the Hedge Fund gang, Bombardier and the Airport Authority has been crafted and will be announced soon enough?

[Thebean]

Well, I let the readership be the judge of that based on your analysis and predictions on Porter over the years, however for years you have been seizing any opportunity to remonstrate lack of access for WestJet, that it didn't have the right aircraft before and now it does and all it takes is a handful of flights for WestJet to slash prices and so on... Lo and behold now they may have the opportunity. Are you/they going to back your words with actions? Or like Air Canada it is all talk.

Of course Air Canada has been running the most ambivalent campaign for years on City airport; and nothing has changed. "We are back and THIS TIME we mean business" has been their motto. Clearly showing that they didn't mean business in the past! As it turns out they don't mean business this time either. From the one hand they demand more access but do nothing to help the airport expand and create more slots! How can the airport trust such a corporation that openly attacks it and whose elements and proxies advocate its closure and conversion into a casino!! This is the level of its contempt that it prefers the City airport turned into a casino so that its grasp on the market and consumers is maintained.

More likely this is another ploy to muddy the waters for Porter. This much is clear because the terms of their agreement with the terminal have not changed over the years (which naturally should go up with inflation). Now that the terminal is being sold they put on this little show. It's not even clear if they really want to leave, but they should, because they have never been committed to Toronto City airport, they do not advocate its cause, WestJet won't either, but others will, life will go on and consumers will like it!

I still await some sort of verifiable evidence that Porter is net profitable, as opposed to a cash flowing entity that uses tomorrow's bookings to pay todays bills.That can go on for a long, long time, much to the chagrin of the shareholders who have been sitting on dead money for goodness knows how long now.

I'm not in the GTA so I don't see the daily newspapers. Perhaps someone who is there could comment on the degree of daily print advertising Porter does these days. I know for years, it was full page ads daily, designed to keep that critical daily inflow of cash coming in.

That revenue stream keeps editors in check, eh?

I wonder what the new landlord will be charging in rent in order to achieve a decent return on their um, $750m investment, given that current rents are based on an asset valuation of about $50m.

Geez. That's one expensive warehouse, with the potential of a shaky business as it's sole tenant and source of revenue.

Would YOU buy piece of real estate at a cost that is 15x the price to build it less than 5 years ago, on leased land, that is at least 85% and could be 100% rented out to a tenant that has a very shaky financial covenant, and knowing that should the lead tenant fail, it's unlikely anyone will use the building anywhere close to the same utilization it was used before?

That's one heck of a gutsy move by a fund manager responsible for $750m of other peoples money. If I were in that fund, I'd be pulling out post haste. Their is WAY better, low risk, steady return real estate out there to invest in. Indeed, I'm doing so now.

[MD2]

Bean, I take that as a "no" to my question! For years you had been saying that WestJet didn't have the right equipment then, now it does and a couple of flights a day, according to you, was all it took to slash the "high walk-up fares", your favourite topic! I asked you, now that space may be available would you back your words with actions, and your answer is basically a diplomatic no! And why would you care about Porter's profits? For years you have been saying that Porter albeit a good product, doesn't know how to run a business and make profit. Therefore, one would naturally assume that you do and would be able to make a larger profit and beat Porter to its own game. With all due respect, evidently not!

You say you are no financial genius and respectfully I see that! I hasten to add that neither am I! At the same time I see that the terminal buyers are buying its potential. They have the expertise to run successful terminals and make money at it; Porter does not. Porter is an airline that was forced to build its own terminal because at the time, no one else would. Porter was willing to back up its word by its action and investment and seven years later it has proven its point. Speaking of potentials, say we went to see a vacant lot for a future house. An untrained eye would see dirt and rocks covered with snow in the bitter cold and wonder how could this be a home for me with the warmth to eat and sleep in? A trained eye can see the kitchen table and the fire place and the family gatherings too.

Likewise in the case of the terminal the trained eye can see its potential, it can see that the revenue stream is not only the rent paid by its tenants. That is only a fraction of it. It can see the many businesses, restaurants, car rentals, gift shops and many other revenue opportunities that we do not see. Imagine, if you could buy one of the terminals at Pearson, how much would you pay for it? 500 millions, 1 billion, several billions? This is the potential: buying the terminal at Canada's 9th busiest airport. Some see the potential and past the mere bricks and mortars...

[Thebean]

Bean, I take that as a "no" to my question! For years you had been saying that WestJet didn't have the right equipment then, now it does and a couple of flights a day, according to you, was all it took to slash the "high walk-up fares", your favourite topic! I asked you, now that space may be available would you back your words with actions, and your answer is basically a diplomatic no! And why would you care about Porter's profits? For years you have been saying that Porter albeit a good product, doesn't know how to run a business and make profit. Therefore, one would naturally assume that you do and would be able to make a larger profit and beat Porter to its own game. With all due respect, evidently not!

You say you are no financial genius and respectfully I see that! I hasten to add that neither am I! At the same time I see that the terminal buyers are buying its potential. They have the expertise to run successful terminals and make money at it; Porter does not. Porter is an airline that was forced to build its own terminal because at the time, no one else would. Porter was willing to back up its word by its action and investment and seven years later it has proven its point. Speaking of potentials, say we went to see a vacant lot for a future house. An untrained eye would see dirt and rocks covered with snow in the bitter cold and wonder how could this be a home for me with the warmth to eat and sleep in? A trained eye can see the kitchen table and the fire place and the family gatherings too.

Likewise in the case of the terminal the trained eye can see its potential, it can see that the revenue stream is not only the rent paid by its tenants. That is only a fraction of it. It can see the many businesses, restaurants, car rentals, gift shops and many other revenue opportunities that we do not see. Imagine, if you could buy one of the terminals at Pearson, how much would you pay for it? 500 millions, 1 billion, several billions? This is the potential: buying the terminal at Canada's 9th busiest airport. Some see the potential and past the mere bricks and mortars...

It may be lost on you, but other than as a shareholder, I have no say whatsoever in what WJ conjures up, and haven't for more than 10 years. One of the nice things about that is I can say all kinds of things that would be impossible for me to say 10+ years ago.

As a result of the above, I have no idea what WJ is up to, so it's rather strange you would take me to task for the behavior of a corporation I have, at best, tenuous connections to.

WJ took 3+ years to move east of the Manitoba border way back when in order to build critical mass and network capability, even though they had the "right" equipment to operate YWG-YYZ pretty much from day one. They had the "right" equipment to easily handle YYC to any of the US desert markets from day one, but didn't touch them for about 10 years. It shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone that the same might occur with Encore.

What I do know is there are, as I understand it, about 15 more Q400's entering the fleet this year and WJ's CEO has publicly, and recently stated there will be an emphasis on central Canada with this iron. It sounds as if they'll be announcing where the iron will go within the next 45 days.

If I had to guess, they'll focus on substitutional capacity first, with one, maybe two new markets feeding into the network at YYZ. As a shareholder, I wouldn't be offended to see some connect the dots stuff resurrected, if only on a summer seasonal basis.

Has WJ bothered to apply for slots at an airport with no slots available, no mechanism to purchase them and from an airport authority that has already told them they are not interested in competition? Who knows? At this juncture, with all the other juicy markets to exploit, I'm not sure if I'd spend much time pushing water uphill either. I wouldn't be basing my future on whether or not the most monopolized airport in the western world will be open for business anytime soon.

I'd go out on a limb to say the days of the $400 one way trips from the GTA to domestic points a couple hundred miles away will be a distant unpleasant memory by this time next year. Perhaps Porter learned from the experience of Canadian North and First Air. Alas, I somehow doubt it.

One forgets that 2 of WJ's co-founders were involved in commercial real estate and development prior to WJ and have more than a basic knowledge of how to make money in that game. Indeed, I remain actively involved in a number of developments, largely in Alberta.

When it comes to retail, it's all about traffic. I could point you to a block in d/t Calgary where, on one side, net rents were $50 20 years ago, and on the same block, around the corner, we were lucky to get $6. The difference was the proximity to 7th Ave and the C Train.

An airport terminal is no different. If there is no traffic, there is no business and with no business, no tenants, and with no tenants, there is no rent.

Any lessee with a brain, and these days, that's most of them, would have the lease contingent upon some sort of metric based on traffic activity, which as you correctly point out, is based on Porter's ability to survive. If traffic disappears, so does the rent owed, to the point where below a certain threshold, the lessee would probably negotiate the ability to walk.

That sort of thing makes bankers very nervous.

Once again, all roads lead to Porter's ability to survive long enough for the purchaser to cover off all the expenses of operating the building, together with some sort of annual return to investors, who put their money into the fund so it'd grow, and not shrink. Ultimately, they'd want to see the value of the asset increase so the next guy who wants to buy the terminal pays something well over the current purchase price. The asset cash flow is almost entirely contingent upon the viability of a sole tenant.

Now, I might be able to convince myself that Porter will last for ever and ever, but whether we're talking $50m or $750m, some third party financeer is going to be taking paper on this deal and they are going to have to be convinced as well. You can imagine how happy the bankers would be to be left saddled with a white elephant terminal building. In saying that, I kinda like Dagger's idea of turning it into a casino.

Everything that makes a deal at ANY price is entirely conditional on Porter's ability to continue in business. Too add to that, given Porter's historically anemic loads, even if the company folded tomorrow, I highly doubt all the other airlines combined would operate the same number of departures as Porter today resulting in a reduction of landing fees, terminal fees and the like. They don't need to. Everyone knows the reason Porter operates all the flights it does today is not because there is a commercial demand for the all the capacity offered at the prices charged, it's because Porter has to use all the slots for fear that if they don't someone else will. Porter's model requires an utter dominance of the O&D traffic between YTZ and the other airports it serves. As we all know, other than YUL, Porter has 100% market share of all n/s traffic to about a dozen markets in the US and Canada from YTZ.

Porter's business plan gambled that they'd be able to create compensatory demand out of YTZ with all the slots that were available to them. Although I suspect their plan probably contemplated loads in the 40-50% range over the first few years of operation, I'll bet ya a Timmy's Apple Fritter the plan never contemplated the loads to be stuck in the upper 50% low 60% range for 7+ years. In retrospect, had the total slots available been limited to about 2/3 what they are now, the plan might have worked. Like another airline I can think of, the excess capacity they haul around is killing them.

Oh, and for the record, I've put my money where my mouth is on, cumulatively, about 50 acres of frozen rocks and dirt in NW BC, Alberta and the NWT to see the potential of building real estate and creating value for investors. Although I'd like to take credit for the amazing success of these projects, I can't, but a young guy who worked for and with me at WJ way back when most certainly can.

Like anything, there is always a price that makes economic sense to at least one party of any transaction. I guess what I'm saying is that I'd be very surprised to see that number be anything close to the number that's being thrown around.

Should the building be sold, Porter is probably under no obligation to reveal the purchase price. Although I haven't checked, I would assume AGF would likely have to disclose the purchase price to it's shareholders.

If Porter is able to extract $750m for an asset that's on their books for about $50m, then hats off to you. That'll go down as one of the most profitable real estate transactions in history.

Of course, there is the small matter of the massive increase in rents, fees, charges and everything else that will be required for the buyer to make his monthly debt service payments, not to mention keeping the investors of the fund happy.

Let's just say it won't result in a lowering of fares at YTZ anytime soon.

I leave you with yet another Porter goofball fare anomaly.

Tomorrow morning, Saturday Jan 10th, Porter wants $847 for it's 9:40am flight from Toronto to Boston. However, if you fly Porter to San Diego tomorrow, leaving on the same 9:40am flight to Boston, and then connecting on jetBlue to San Diego, the fare is $834, $13 less. Go figure, eh?

Meanwhile, WJ, and presumably AC, will fly you from YYZ to anywhere in Florida for less than half what Porter wants for their pond hopper flight to Boston.

One has to be deaf, dumb and stupid to not be able to se the correlation between the YTZ monopoly and the high fares charged on Porter's routes.

[MD2]

It may be lost on you, but other than as a shareholder, I have no say whatsoever in what WJ conjures up, and haven't for more than 10 years. One of the nice things about that is I can say all kinds of things that would be impossible for me to say 10+ years ago. As a result of the above, I have no idea what WJ is up to, so it's rather strange you would take me to task for the behavior of a corporation I have, at best, tenuous connections to...

That's fair; at the same time, perhaps calls for less rhetoric going forward! Best of luck in 2015!

[DEFCON]

If Porter can offer a seat at whatever the price of the day may be and the public accepts it, where’s the wrong?

The GTA is a large market place by any measure. Porter found a niche environment within from which they deployed pond hoppers in an apparently somewhat successful strategy. I think they’d be doing a lot better if not for the need to continuously defend against attack from the giants.

I never paid all that much attention, but back in the day, if WJ prevailed on a particular route and forced the competitor, say AC, to capitulate and withdraw, I’m certain cheers would have been heard emanating from your office Bean, even though the publics interest in competition would have been diminished as a result.

The sad story at CYTZ for WJ; they were too conservative with their expansion strategy and missed the opportunity.

[Thebean]

If Porter can offer a seat at whatever the price of the day may be and the public accepts it, where’s the wrong?

The GTA is a large market place by any measure. Porter found a niche environment within from which they deployed pond hoppers in an apparently somewhat successful strategy. I think they’d be doing a lot better if not for the need to continuously defend against attack from the giants.

I never paid all that much attention, but back in the day, if WJ prevailed on a particular route and forced the competitor, say AC, to capitulate and withdraw, I’m certain cheers would have been heard emanating from your office Bean, even though the publics interest in competition would have been diminished as a result.

The sad story at CYTZ for WJ; they were too conservative with their expansion strategy and missed the opportunity.

YTZ was a non-starter for WJ at the time. In Canada, it's a far better strategy to be the tortoise than the hare.

One has only to look at C3000 and Jetsgo's attempts to do in a year what others did in five to recognize this.

WJ, and it's shareholders would never have tolerated the anemic financial results Porter has had to deal with from the get go.

There's probably a modest market there, but it doesn't require anywhere close to the sort of capacity Porter continues to throw at it and it certainly not at the high fares offered.

[MD2]

AGF-led consortium buys Porters Toronto island air terminal

BNN.ca staff

3:14 PM, E.T. | January 27, 2015

Canadian

Porter Aviation Holdings Inc., the biggest operator of flights at Torontos island airport, has signed a deal to sell its passenger terminal to a consortium of infrastructure investors including InstarAGF Asset Management Inc., Partners Group, Kilmer Van Nostrand and institutional investors advised by JP Morgan Asset Management

Porter Aviation is the parent company of Porter Airlines Inc. and City Centre Terminal Corp., which operates the terminal. The purchase price was not disclosed, but company said in August it was exploring a sale-leaseback of the terminal in order to focus on its airline business. It plans to use proceeds to fund expansion of the airline, which operates to 19 destinations in eastern Canada and the U.S. using a fleet of Bombardier Q400 turboprops.

InstarAGF, a joint venture between AGF Management Ltd. and Instar Group Inc., was created a year ago to target investments including infrastructure. Toronto-based AGF has more than $35 billion in assets under management and InstarAGF and Instar Group are run by Gregory Smith, a former executive at Brookfield Financial and Macquarie Capital Funds Canada Ltd.

Source: http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/1/27/AGF-led-consortium-buys-Porters-Toronto-island-air-terminal.aspx

[Lando Calrissian]

Awww, how cute- Daddy and Mikey get to do their little touchdown dance.

[vikingwarrior]

So it's not $500 million, $750 million or a kajillion bid put in by Doctor Evil.......but maybe $400 million, oooh!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/agf-led-consortium-wins-auction-for-porters-toronto-island-air-terminal/article22653924/

Has the sale been completed and final (and passing of cheques) or is it contingent on Jets and extended runways?? We haven't seen a press release from City Council approving the new runways....have the new investors taken such a risk with 85% of the slots tiedup to one airline?

Bombardier is in a serious cash situation that causes another twist to this whole story...how much will it be before the CS100 is certified by Transport Canada? 2400 flying hours are needed.

Final comment is....how bad is the rent going to be Robbie??