Super 80 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 That's far-fetched, infrastructure leasebacks are customarily a hundred years and provide a high level of security to the tennant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 It continues to amaze me that some folks within our community seem to want to see Porter fail. As long as Porter continues to operate, pay it;s bills and most importantly pays it's staff, I for one could care less what their actual balance sheet looks like. Congratulations to the Porter staff for working hard and I hope I can say the same 10 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I could care less whether they do well or not...What annoys many of Porter's critics is the artificial monopoly that Porter has been given and uses to create the illusion of their "success".This monopoly created with a public owned asset.Former CPAir - how would the public and aviation community feel about Air Canada controlling 80 or 85% of CYYZ's slots?Throw in all the BS that MD2 and Bob Deluce ( or is that the same person) spew and that's enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Irrelevant. Air Canada is a public trade company and there is vast material available that explains AC's assets, liabilities, etc in great detail. And if Air Canda chooses to add an asset, or sell an asset, it is accounted for in the quarter results, annual results, or annual information filing with securities regulators. If the lease terms on a terminal aren't specified, there is no secret as to the operating results, cumulative fleet and other asset value, debt instruments including interest rates, fuel prices, etc. There are little about AC's financial situation that isn't disclosed. As for Porter, the intended audiences as you call them include stakeholders who aren't necessarily customers, but are neighbours and a community being asked to fund transit and access to the airport. If Porter has as much money as it wants people to think - it continues to hide all information about the net proceeds of the terminal sale - then it should fund those improvements. Really, irrelevant! Porter engages its stakeholders and neighbours just as much if not more than Air Canada, the only thing that seems to bother you is that you can't know the financial details which is common with any private company. If what you say is true then Air Canada should have paid for the terminal and roads around Pearson too. Did it? If memory serves it was behind on a lot of rent and fees and some of was written off, was it not? The biggest downfall with Air Canada is always its own arrogance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I could care less whether they do well or not... Former CPAir - how would the public and aviation community feel about Air Canada controlling 80 or 85% of CYYZ's slots? The fact that you continue to post means you care a lot, but whatever your reasons, your comments are incorrect. Air Canada does in fact hold more than 85% on some of the international routes which it takes for granted and instead of focusing on them focuses on the area that it has competition. And unless you landed from a distant planet just recently, Air Canada did have 100% control of the Toronto City airport for many years, but it did nothing to develop it. Then Porter appeared and started developing the market, then all of a sudden Air Canada had a change of heart and came back; however recently again it announced it wants to leave it, there is a pattern of lack of commitment and to be fair to Air Canada it's understood because it has its major hub just a stone throw away at Toronto's other airport and therefore cannot justify duplicating the costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I could care less whether they do well or not...What annoys many of Porter's critics is the artificial monopoly that Porter has been given and uses to create the illusion of their "success".This monopoly created with a public owned asset.Former CPAir - how would the public and aviation community feel about Air Canada controlling 80 or 85% of CYYZ's slots?Throw in all the BS that MD2 and Bob Deluce ( or is that the same person) spew and that's enough...they did exactly that in the past as TCA but they also had control of the number of Transcon flights allowed across Canada. They were also a public owned asset but i don't remember any major outcry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Really, irrelevant! Porter engages its stakeholders and neighbours just as much if not more than Air Canada, the only thing that seems to bother you is that you can't know the financial details which is common with any private company. If what you say is true then Air Canada should have paid for the terminal and roads around Pearson too. Did it? If memory serves it was behind on a lot of rent and fees and some of was written off, was it not? The biggest downfall with Air Canada is always its own arrogance!Air Canada is not Pearson's sole user, now you're really diverging into Cloud coo-coo land. It's not even half of the airport's passenger and cargo traffic. Pearson has slots and terminal space for all comers, both current users and new arrivals. Etihad just re-allgned its slots at YYZ for competitive reasons. No problem. There are no slot controls. As a taxpayer, however, I would want to know details about Porter and the terminal left we Torontonians be left holding the bag. The airline and port authority have their own agenda, yet they expect others to pay for landslide improvements that are not a priority for the city. So yes, Porter's viability is important, as is the future agenda if the operation is expanded. Basically, Porter and the TPA want someone to write a BLANK CHEQUE to a monopoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 There are no slot controls. I wonder then why the airport authority goes to all of the IATA slot meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Air Canada is not Pearson's sole user, now you're really diverging into Cloud coo-coo land. It's not even half of the airport's passenger and cargo traffic. Pearson has slots and terminal space for all comers, both current users and new arrivals. Etihad just re-allgned its slots at YYZ for competitive reasons. No problem. There are no slot controls. As a taxpayer, however, I would want to know details about Porter and the terminal left we Torontonians be left holding the bag. The airline and port authority have their own agenda, yet they expect others to pay for landslide improvements that are not a priority for the city. So yes, Porter's viability is important, as is the future agenda if the operation is expanded. Basically, Porter and the TPA want someone to write a BLANK CHEQUE to a monopoly. The developments at the City airport have been and will be paid still by the users and the studies have been paid by Ports Toronto. And if you ever want to diverge into cloud coo-coo land, look no further than the Swiss mansion in your own back yard and the events of Air Canada's recent bankruptcy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 The developments at the City airport have been and will be paid still by the users and the studies have been paid by Ports Toronto. And if you ever want to diverge into cloud coo-coo land, look no further than the Swiss mansion in your own back yard and the events of Air Canada's recent bankruptcy.Recent bankruptcy... meaning April 1, 2003. Not exactly recent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 What a load of hogwash!!I can name a number of public companies that struck deals with municipal and provincial governments that would not have withstood close economic scrutiny.Cadillac-Fairview comes to mind.Unlike anonymous, when I say I don't care---- I really don't care but I do take exception to characterizations that are inaccurate and unreasonable.AC announced an intention to withdraw from the Island to impact upon the valuation since its lease payments were a factor in that valuation.The bands will play and the marionettes dance no matter what is said on this forum. Some are Patriots fans and others cheer on the Seahawks but it is just a game and no matter who wins ( or loses), come Monday none of it will really matter or affect the lives of us--the spectators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I could care less whether they do well or not...What annoys many of Porter's critics is the artificial monopoly that Porter has been given and uses to create the illusion of their "success".This monopoly created with a public owned asset.Former CPAir - how would the public and aviation community feel about Air Canada controlling 80 or 85% of CYYZ's slots?Throw in all the BS that MD2 and Bob Deluce ( or is that the same person) spew and that's enough...The situation on the island was the result of completely legal processes, Porter's own investment and incompetence on a monumental scale within Jazz and Air Canada.I seriously doubt Porter's business plan ever contemplated AC's strategy would be an ineffectual five year long temper-tantrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Recent bankruptcy... meaning April 1, 2003. Not exactly recent.I realize that. I also realize that in tough times sacrifices have to be made and even acknowledge that some executives are greedier than others and do not lead by example. The point is how can one praise those who lined their own pockets at the expense of others, but find faults with a legal mutually-agreed-upon private deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lando Calrissian Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Not only does Porter want everyone else to pay for what it wants, but it skirts the government- and, yes, the law- if it finds any impediment.And bullies anyone who objects, even if those people have been sustaining it with their tax dollars.Corporate welfare, at its worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lando Calrissian Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I could care less whether they do well or not...What annoys many of Porter's critics is the artificial monopoly that Porter has been given and uses to create the illusion of their "success".This monopoly created with a public owned asset.Former CPAir - how would the public and aviation community feel about Air Canada controlling 80 or 85% of CYYZ's slots?Throw in all the BS that MD2 and Bob Deluce ( or is that the same person) spew and that's enough...Bob Deluce is simply incapable of making a fact-based argument.That he's buddies with Rob Ford, another pathological liar, should say enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Nobody is hoping they fail. What people want is a little more transparency and honesty. We know from the failed IPO that the finances were in trouble, that cannot be argued. What has changed since then? Are they in a better position? Why in heck would someone pay and UNDISCLOSED ($700 M) for a $50M terminal building. That has shady deal written all over it.Good for Bob for getting so much but something else is going on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Nobody is hoping they fail. What people want is a little more transparency and honesty. We know from the failed IPO that the finances were in trouble, that cannot be argued. What has changed since then? Are they in a better position? Why in heck would someone pay and UNDISCLOSED ($700 M) for a $50M terminal building. That has shady deal written all over it. Good for Bob for getting so much but something else is going on here. boestar, here you go with another ambivalent masked remark! I see you speak for the "people" too now? What is your point exactly? What gives you (or your people!) the right to expect to know the financial details of a private company? Do you also knock on doors in the street and demand to know how much they paid for their homes and what their taxes and utility bills are?!! And because you don't understand it, then it must be a shady deal! What sound logic! Porter paid for bricks and mortar to build a terminal and develop it in a growing airport in Canada. The buyers are now buying the only terminal in Canada's 9th busiest airport, because of its potential. Those that discover potential make lots of money. Others seem to be happier to theorize about conspiracy. Perhaps time to find a new hobby (with your people), the end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I speak for no one but myself.The difference is that what Porter does, DIRECTLY IMPACTS thousands of property and condo owners on the Toronto waterfront. These dealings have a direct impact on the outcome of the other dealing that Porter is involved in.Does it not look a slight bit shady to sell an asset for about 15 times what is was deemed worth? Could it be that there are other under the table dealings? We ( I ) will likely never know until it makes the papers. Every economic lesson I ever had says that buying something for 15 times what its worth is a bad investment UNLESS there is a serious return on investment. Frankly I just don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I speak for no one but myself. The difference is that what Porter does, DIRECTLY IMPACTS thousands of property and condo owners on the Toronto waterfront. These dealings have a direct impact on the outcome of the other dealing that Porter is involved in. Does it not look a slight bit shady to sell an asset for about 15 times what is was deemed worth? Could it be that there are other under the table dealings? We ( I ) will likely never know until it makes the papers. Every economic lesson I ever had says that buying something for 15 times what its worth is a bad investment UNLESS there is a serious return on investment. Frankly I just don't see it. Ok, fair enough, I see your point of interest now. From the perspective of properties downtown, if you have been there for a while, all you have to do is ask yourself: have the prices gone-up or down since Porter's arrival? My guess is that they have gone-up and in some cases substantially. I would not believe the doom and gloom that NoJetsTo and seemingly their reps here try to spread. With more activity, there is more demand. Not all properties may go up 15 times, but they will go up. As I said before the price that Porter paid for the terminal was the bricks and mortar when no one else would take the risk, naturally it was very low. Over the years the airport and its passengers have increased substantially to become the 9th busiest airport in Canada. Ask yourself this, if you could buy one of the terminals at Pearson, how much would you pay for it? 500 millions, 1 billion, 10 billions? That's the potential the buyers see, owning the only terminal at Canada's 9th busiest airport. Porter doesn't know how to run a terminal and only built it out of necessity, but the buyers know how to do that and take advantage of its every opportunity, like restaurants, shops, car rentals, etc. In a few years, it will likely be worth a few times that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 ...to sell an asset for about 15 times what is was deemed worth?... Every economic lesson I ever had says that buying something for 15 times what its worth.One other thing, you used the word "WORTH". That is a very loaded word in real estate and you may have heard it this and it's a little cliché I know, but there is no such thing as absolute worth in real estate, and any property on any given day is "worth" whatever someone is willing to pay for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 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 the property but the community didn't provide enough support and the store closed.At the same time, lakefront property once shunned was becoming marketable.As that trend grew, an investment group purchased that parcel of land at a price that reflected its limited value for commercial use. No one was looking at a re-zoning.The investors first converted the old grocery store into a bar/restaurant and then brought an application to sever and re-zone the remainder of the property from commercial to higher density.Who objected? The property owners further back from the lake who argued that they would lose their view and their property would be de-valued. Seriously---that was their argument; "You should not be able to make full use of your property because it will impact upon my ability to enjoy your land as obstruction free vacant property."The municipality didn't fall for that argument and the property was re-zoned to permit of the construction of 20 new homes.Those investors through foresight and planning and the acceptance of risk made a multiple of their original investment without deception or chicanery.And they did not broadcast their intentions.Robert DeLuce and his fellow investors took a gamble in developing the terminal. They took a gamble in starting the airline. They appear to have sold the terminal at a substantial return; the greater the risk, the greater the return. They owe no one any explanation or an accounting. If you want a guarantee that your property will not be negatively impacted by adjacent land use, all you can do is buy the adjacent land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 ...If you want a guarantee that your property will not be negatively impacted by adjacent land use, all you can do is buy the adjacent land.Very true. I can think of many examples for this. Some real estate office should frame this and put it on their wall! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.