nfitz said:
Is that policy? When you click on the video, your name is attached to it, it hasn't been copied from where you put it.

How far do we take that - do we provide info on every photo? I don't see that this is necessary as long as it's clear when you go to the link.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, it's considered good practice to cite the source in the thread.

AoD
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
A sale of the terminal might change the dynamics dramatically down there. Does the new owner lower fees in order to attract new entrants without need for expansion? Does Porter ask for a guarantee of slots/gates dedicated to them -- or does the terminal owner not get any say whatsoever into those airport management details?
Click to expand...

Depends on the terms of the sale I suppose. Does Porter retain the operational rights to the terminal. Kind of like BMO Field and/or Ricoh both are owned by the city but operated by MLSE, MLSE organizes and chooses which events to host at the venue. Basically anything up to major decisions would be at MLSE/Porter's discretion.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
A sale of the terminal might change the dynamics dramatically down there. Does the new owner lower fees in order to attract new entrants without need for expansion? Does Porter ask for a guarantee of slots/gates dedicated to them -- or does the terminal owner not get any say whatsoever into those airport management details?
Click to expand...

The new owner does not have any direct control over new entrants. TPA controls number of slots and who gets them. So unless as part of the deal Porter agreed to give up some of their slots the change in ownership of the terminal lease doesn't change much.

However if someone is going to pay the mind-boggling sum of $750 million for this, we can expect some serious lobbying and/or litigation to force an expansion.
 
Grimace said:
However if someone is going to pay the mind-boggling sum of $750 million for this, we can expect some serious lobbying and/or litigation to force an expansion.
Click to expand...

Or, conversely, a purchase agreement that is conditional (or the price of which is conditional) on expansion. Which, I guess, ultimately takes the form of serious lobbying and/or litigation.
 
As I understand it, what is being negotiated is a sale-leaseback....so party A will pay a sum of money (say, $750 million) to Porter Aviation and Porter would lease the place for an agreed rent and Porter would continue to operate as is...except they would be renting the place from Party A. The rent would be geared towards providing Party A with a return on their investment that meets/exceeds their investment hurdle rates.
 
TOareaFan said:
As I understand it, what is being negotiated is a sale-leaseback....so party A will pay a sum of money (say, $750 million) to Porter Aviation and Porter would lease the place for an agreed rent and Porter would continue to operate as is...except they would be renting the place from Party A. The rent would be geared towards providing Party A with a return on their investment that meets/exceeds their investment hurdle rates.
Click to expand...

I assume Porter needs the money to expand (and/or to buy out some investors). They can get a lower interest rate by leasing out a fixed asset that will not depreciate in value significantly over time compared to a conventional loan or a lease of an airplane.

This is financial management 101...nothing complex.

I wonder if Air Canada has a plan to pull out (once the train is complete to Pearson) or was there pull-out just talk?

Instead of hourly service to each airport it could become half hourly to Pearson. Basically show up and a flight is ready to leave...pretty compelling for the frequent flyers.

Only issue would be capacity at Pearson. The commuter gates are pretty full already (and the seating area is limited).

Another alternative is to put bigger planes on this route (they need to figure out how to quickly board and disembark passangers). Then the smaller planes can be used to compete against WestJet and the new start-ups out West on regional routes.
 
This is very interesting news. I wonder if the new arrangements would open the way for a wider range of uses on this property such as hotel/commercial/office uses? In addition, if the airport uses of this prime waterfront real estate should no longer be viable, would the terminal owners be in a very advantageous position?
 
drum118 - a blast wall would be concrete to take exhaust temperatures and forces but what we're principally discussing is a noise wall. It is unlikely that most of the length of the noise wall as indicated would be anything but lateral to engine effects. While there might be some subsidiary wish to screen sensitive operations, the notion of erecting a Berlin Wall on the waterfront blocking the view of taxiing aircraft will bring nothing but joy to the enemies of the airport and thus the TPA should think carefully before discounting any way to soften the impact of a noise wall.

As for Air Canada, I hope WestJet stick a Q400 into YTZ some day soon with decals of "bye bye AC, we'll take your slots". One political move deserves another.
 
Dirigible-related posts have been moved to a new thread where fruitful discourse can occur.

Now back to your regularly-scheduled Porter/BBTCA discussion.
 
It will be interesting if the UPE train takes a chuck of Billy Bishop's biz travelers. I live in Cabbagetown, but it can take forever for a taxi to get to the ferry, and/or parking my own car is a time wasting pain. If I could jump on the streetcar and go to Union, and then catch the express train, the time savings going via Porter may evaporate. I expense the trips, so the cost isn't important, but the time is.
 
If you're willing to jump on a streetcar and go to Union, why wouldn't you be willing to transfer to the 509 and go to Porter that way? Faster than taking the train out to Pearson.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top