Transat or Porter?

[8895]

Porter has a pile of cash and plenty of ways to get more while the industry consolidates post Covid. Short to mid term I wouldn’t even bat an eye about worrying for the operation.

What are you basing this on?

The fact that he works there and it's information he wants to believe. Porter being a privately held company, he has no way of knowing its financials any further than what managers and executives tell them during townhalls. I wonder if said managers and execs ever have reason to lie or misrepresent the financial state of a company to their employees.

I don’t think they’d be lying about “9 figure investments” from existing backers coming out of Covid, in addition to the sale leaseback transactions on every new tail on property. You can be sour all you want but it’s not hard to look these transactions up. I’m a pilot and not that smart but even with my lack of business education I can put 2 and 2 together.

[fish4life]

What are you basing this on?

The fact that he works there and it's information he wants to believe. Porter being a privately held company, he has no way of knowing its financials any further than what managers and executives tell them during townhalls. I wonder if said managers and execs ever have reason to lie or misrepresent the financial state of a company to their employees.

I don’t think they’d be lying about “9 figure investments” from existing backers coming out of Covid, in addition to the sale leaseback transactions on every new tail on property. You can be sour all you want but it’s not hard to look these transactions up. I’m a pilot and not that smart but even with my lack of business education I can put 2 and 2 together.

I’m not saying Porter is in a good or poor financial situation but a 9 figure investment is nothing in aviation. Indigo was in for more than 100 million on Lynx and they never made it to 10 tails.
The risk with Porter which nobody on here is going to know is if they have the financial backing to make it through the growth phase into the consistently profitable point so they can get to an IPO. The sale and leasebacks should help get them there but nobody knows either way.

[SPR]

There's no way Porter is making money on sale-leasebacks; that's entirely speculation from people who think the Deluces are financial wizards and can make money appear out of thin air. Porter has to perform the sale-leasebacks because they don't have the cash to buy the planes themselves, and even lessors aren't willing to touch the E195-E2 with a ten-foot pole, so the only way to acquire the aircraft is to convince the lessors that they won't back out of the deal by performing a complex financial transaction. In other words, the lessors are the ones who are paying for the purchases, and they know exactly how much is being spent, but they won't buy the planes up-front because there's no market for them and they didn't want to get caught with a hundred useless aircraft if Porter backed out of the plan. Porter has to perform the sale-leasebacks in order to verify with the lessors that they're actually taking delivery of each one. The Porter Cult acts like this is some brilliant financial transaction from which the airline is making millions in profit off each delivery, but in reality the lessors hold all the cards, and they wouldn't get involved if they didn't know the specifics of the agreement between Porter and Embraer; they're not starry-eyed fangirls who swoon when someone whispers "Deluce" in their ears.

I've also repeatedly seen the claim that Porter has a bunch of cash in the bank from the sale of the YTZ terminal, but that money was spent almost immediately in order to pay off the outstanding debt on the Q400s. In the lawsuit with Nieuport, Porter admitted that they were losing $40 million per year, and Nieuport's counter-claim states that in December 2018 Porter advised that they were having liquidity issues and would become insolvent without immediate assistance. The company has never turned a profit and nearly went bankrupt, but suddenly it's somehow become the most financially brilliant airline in existence? Likewise, I've seen the sentiment that the development of the terminal at YHU is going to pump them full of money when they inevitably sell it, but that's just a massive assumption about how much they could sell it for, or whether there would even be a buyer, and of course it ignores the fact that they're spending money to get it built.

For some reason, a huge number of people think that slapping the name "Porter" on something multiplies its value, and that buyers and investors will come running to throw bags of cash at them. In reality, their financial track record is quite poor, and once they've burned through their "nine figures" of seed money they may not have much left to keep the lights on.

[SPR]

Some of Porter's December load factors were posted on another forum. This is second-hand data, and I haven't seen the sources, so I can't vouch for the numbers.
YYZ-FLL 80%
YYZ-RSW 65%
YYZ-MIA 63%
YYZ-MCO 77%
YYZ-TPA 62%
YYZ-YYC 65%
YYZ-YEG 61%
YYZ-YHZ 58%
YYZ-YUL 49%
YYZ-YOW 32%
YYZ-YYT 53%
YYZ-YVR 71%
YYZ-YYJ 61%
YYZ-YWG 61%
That's for December. Christmas. Peak travel season. Also, I find it interesting that Porter fans are so adamant that WestJet pulled out of the eastern triangle because they knew they were going to get their clock cleaned, but the numbers show that no one besides AC can make it work.
In addition, for the abbreviated period of January when Porter was operating YYZ-LAX, the load factor was 41%.

[8895]

Some of Porter's December load factors were posted on another forum. This is second-hand data, and I haven't seen the sources, so I can't vouch for the numbers.
YYZ-FLL 80%
YYZ-RSW 65%
YYZ-MIA 63%
YYZ-MCO 77%
YYZ-TPA 62%
YYZ-YYC 65%
YYZ-YEG 61%
YYZ-YHZ 58%
YYZ-YUL 49%
YYZ-YOW 32%
YYZ-YYT 53%
YYZ-YVR 71%
YYZ-YYJ 61%
YYZ-YWG 61%
That's for December. Christmas. Peak travel season. Also, I find it interesting that Porter fans are so adamant that WestJet pulled out of the eastern triangle because they knew they were going to get their clock cleaned, but the numbers show that no one besides AC can make it work.
In addition, for the abbreviated period of January when Porter was operating YYZ-LAX, the load factor was 41%.

Considering the loads yesterday leaving YYZ we’re mostly full on a midday Wednesday I think you can consider those VERY hand picked lol

I also operated during the holiday rush and they were pretty well all full flights aside from eastern triangle short hops.

Reading from the avcanada business experts making no sense is a great way to pass the time between sets at the gym

[Hangry]

The Porter cult is truly interesting. Much like the WJ cult of yore. Up to and including defending being groomers.

Never ever understood simping for a company. Is it a Canadian thing? Honestly wouldn’t know but very strange.

[flyinhigh]

Some of Porter's December load factors were posted on another forum. This is second-hand data, and I haven't seen the sources, so I can't vouch for the numbers.
YYZ-FLL 80%
YYZ-RSW 65%
YYZ-MIA 63%
YYZ-MCO 77%
YYZ-TPA 62%
YYZ-YYC 65%
YYZ-YEG 61%
YYZ-YHZ 58%
YYZ-YUL 49%
YYZ-YOW 32%
YYZ-YYT 53%
YYZ-YVR 71%
YYZ-YYJ 61%
YYZ-YWG 61%
That's for December. Christmas. Peak travel season. Also, I find it interesting that Porter fans are so adamant that WestJet pulled out of the eastern triangle because they knew they were going to get their clock cleaned, but the numbers show that no one besides AC can make it work.
In addition, for the abbreviated period of January when Porter was operating YYZ-LAX, the load factor was 41%.

Yeah every flight except the triangle that I operated was about 95% full so those numbers are certainly not accurate. End of January there was a lull that lasted about 2 weeks, however the E2 loads are right back up there in the 90-95% range, except on the odd route.

[goingnowherefast]

My simple observation.

Jets are expensive to operate. A fleet of 30 Q400s can't bankroll a fleet of 30 (and growing) 195s. If they were flying around empty jets, they'd have burned through all their cash by now. The expansion is either going relatively well, or they'd be gone. Porter is still here.

[fish4life]

The sale leaseback is a way to raise capital, eg buy from embreaer for 40 mill, sell to lesser for 45 mill and lease back based on a 60 mill valuation on the aircraft. Port gets 5 million now when the business is extremely capital intensive in exchange for a higher total investment on the aircraft if they just kept it themselves and financed it.

[8895]

The Porter cult is truly interesting. Much like the WJ cult of yore. Up to and including defending being groomers.

Never ever understood simping for a company. Is it a Canadian thing? Honestly wouldn’t know but very strange.

Aside from some very senior folks on the Q side of the operation I’ve never heard of anyone defending grooming. No one wants to do that.

I myself also am not simping for a company. I’m taking a calculated risk in planning to stay here instead of going to AC. Well aware that the operation might not pan out, it is Canada after all and new competition often doesn’t stick around. I just view it as a once in a career chance to have gotten a seniority number in a company at a great time, same way the pilots who got on with WJ did in the early 2000’s. Not to mention everyone I know at AC, both junior and senior, hate their schedules. I’d rather control my schedule and enjoy life outside of work. ALPA and AC will have to come up with an offer that’s simply too good to pass up if they want to see my resume, and with how AC management operates I doubt that’ll happen.

[SPR]

Considering the loads yesterday leaving YYZ we’re mostly full on a midday Wednesday I think you can consider those VERY hand picked lol

I also operated during the holiday rush and they were pretty well all full flights aside from eastern triangle short hops.

What an unbelievably ironic statement. I posted actual data for the complete month of December, and your response was an anecdote from a single day of your own observation. Which of those is cherry-picked?

[SPR]

The sale leaseback is a way to raise capital, eg buy from embreaer for 40 mill, sell to lesser for 45 mill and lease back based on a 60 mill valuation on the aircraft. Port gets 5 million now when the business is extremely capital intensive in exchange for a higher total investment on the aircraft if they just kept it themselves and financed it.

That's the presumption that's been made on this and other forums by Porter fans, without any actual substance to back it up. There's no reason to assume that Porter is making money on those transactions besides the fact that you want it to be true. In order for the lessors to just accept the deal at face-value, they would have to be either stupid or naive, and I don't think they're either. If they could get the aircraft from Embraer for $5 million less than they can get them from the sale-leasebacks, why wouldn't they just go to the manufacturer? There's a reason no leasing companies are buying E195-E2s: airlines don't want them. Yet, apparently when Porter comes to them with this incredible bargain where they pay $5 million over asking price (all numbers made up, of course, because the people making this claim don't have anything to back it up), those same lessors swoon and throw money at them. They wouldn't get into these contracts unless they saw exactly what Porter is paying, and they would never spend more than they have to. Porter doesn't have nearly enough cash to pay for all these tails up-front, so the transactions are just complex ways to lock Porter into the leases and then have the lessors pay Embraer; the money might briefly pass through Porter's accounts for legal and tax reasons, but don't be deceived into thinking that they're getting anything out of it. The lessors are the ones who are paying Embraer, and Porter is not getting anything out of it besides a leased aircraft.

I really don't understand the blind faith that Porter fans have in the company's management. Their track record is terrible, and Michael Deluce is a textbook example of nepotism. I really don't think one could come up with a better example than "Founder and former CEO's son is given company"; he's only in that position because of the circumstances of his birth. In any other case, that would be a portent of doom, yet for Porter it's a boon, for some reason. The complete certainty that people have is really disconcerting, and it reminds me a lot of Theranos: don't worry about the problems, don't stress about questions that don't have answers, just put complete and utter trust in Elizabeth Holmes/Michael Deluce! They'll figure it all out! The data is inaccurate! I've seen a full flight, so the load factors are all incredible! Don't listen to the skeptics, trust that our lord and saviour the CEO is omniscient and omnipotent!

No airline in history has made a profit operating trans-cons with a 61% load factor, especially since on a 132-seat aircraft that only equates to 81 passengers.

[braaap Braap]

The sale leaseback is a way to raise capital, eg buy from embreaer for 40 mill, sell to lesser for 45 mill and lease back based on a 60 mill valuation on the aircraft. Port gets 5 million now when the business is extremely capital intensive in exchange for a higher total investment on the aircraft if they just kept it themselves and financed it.

That's the presumption that's been made on this and other forums by Porter fans, without any actual substance to back it up. There's no reason to assume that Porter is making money on those transactions besides the fact that you want it to be true. In order for the lessors to just accept the deal at face-value, they would have to be either stupid or naive, and I don't think they're either. If they could get the aircraft from Embraer for $5 million less than they can get them from the sale-leasebacks, why wouldn't they just go to the manufacturer? There's a reason no leasing companies are buying E195-E2s: airlines don't want them. Yet, apparently when Porter comes to them with this incredible bargain where they pay $5 million over asking price (all numbers made up, of course, because the people making this claim don't have anything to back it up), those same lessors swoon and throw money at them. They wouldn't get into these contracts unless they saw exactly what Porter is paying, and they would never spend more than they have to. Porter doesn't have nearly enough cash to pay for all these tails up-front, so the transactions are just complex ways to lock Porter into the leases and then have the lessors pay Embraer; the money might briefly pass through Porter's accounts for legal and tax reasons, but don't be deceived into thinking that they're getting anything out of it. The lessors are the ones who are paying Embraer, and Porter is not getting anything out of it besides a leased aircraft.

I really don't understand the blind faith that Porter fans have in the company's management. Their track record is terrible, and Michael Deluce is a textbook example of nepotism. I really don't think one could come up with a better example than "Founder and former CEO's son is given company"; he's only in that position because of the circumstances of his birth. In any other case, that would be a portent of doom, yet for Porter it's a boon, for some reason. The complete certainty that people have is really disconcerting, and it reminds me a lot of Theranos: don't worry about the problems, don't stress about questions that don't have answers, just put complete and utter trust in Elizabeth Holmes/Michael Deluce! They'll figure it all out! The data is inaccurate! I've seen a full flight, so the load factors are all incredible! Don't listen to the skeptics, trust that our lord and saviour the CEO is omniscient and omnipotent!

No airline in history has made a profit operating trans-cons with a 61% load factor, especially since on a 132-seat aircraft that only equates to 81 passengers.

Man it was a lot more fun when your sights were set on shitting on Flair.

You definitely make some great arguments. I would love to see some sources (besides a list of percentages off another forum).

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2 ... ultIndex=1

Here is the lawsuit between Porter and Neuport. Nowhere does it mention "losing $40 million a year" and from what I can see any claims of profitability of an operation in/out of YTZ are attached to arguments about slot allocation (variable vs fixed allocation) https://canlii.ca/t/jsws4#par252

Now I completely agree with you that the Porter cult needs to wake up and stop guzzling Deluce-aid. But, I do think the Deluce family is capable since their track record isn't terrible like you say it is.
Examples: Surviving for 16+ years in the Canadian 705 industry, YTZ Terminal, Reading the Covid tea leaves and shutting down instead of hemorrhaging money, dealings with Air Canada, and now - so far - a successful rollout of a new type and building a transcontinental network.

I don't think its inconceivable that as Covid leveled the playing field, some investors with deep pockets were willing to take a chance on a carrier with an established brand, history of being a disruptor, instead of battling it out in the ULCC start up trenches. If you were trying to enter the market as investor in 2021-2022 who/where would you have put your money?

As for the E2, I'm not even going to pretend to know more about the leasing world than you, but the Deluce's were interested in the C series before it was cool and I think much of the lack of interest is because it doesn't meet scope provisions. Who knows. Time will tell. Like 8895, I've been given a great opportunity and I'm willing to roll the dice at a place that treats/pays me well rather than lemming myself off to the corporate meat grinder, Air Canada (Is that how they get the red for the logo?).

[SPR]

The loads for the transborder flights are available from the US DOT. Porter's loads to LAX were actually worse than Lynx's, so that can't be a good portent.

Here is the lawsuit between Porter and Neuport. Nowhere does it mention "losing $40 million a year" and from what I can see any claims of profitability of an operation in/out of YTZ are attached to arguments about slot allocation (variable vs fixed allocation) https://canlii.ca/t/jsws4#par252

You only cited the judgement, not the suit itself or the counterclaims:

In or around December 2018, Porter advised Nieuport that it was experiencing
liquidity issues and asked Nieuport to permit it to reduce its letter of credit to half
the amount of the Slot Reserve. While it did not do so lightly, Nieuport agreed to
the reduced security in order to support Porter through its liquidity issues.
Importantly, Nieuport agreed to the amendment in exchange for the Guarantee from
PALC and security over the Secured Aircraft pursuant to the ASA.

https://porterfail.files.wordpress.com/ ... oapp-1.pdf

55. Nevertheless, in an effort to support its largest customer, between December 2018 and May
2019, Nieuport entered into without prejudice discussions to attempt to address Porter Airlines’
concerns surrounding the economics of the Terminal Fees at the Airport, as well as the Slot
Relinquishment Dispute. As part of those discussions, Porter Airlines disclosed that it was having
liquidity issues and would be insolvent without immediate relief.
56. As a result, on or around January 14, 2019, Nieuport and Porter Holdings entered into an
agreement (the “Cash Flow Agreement”), where Nieuport made certain financial concessions
(further described in paragraphs 94 to 96, below), to assist Porter through its period of financial
strain.

https://porterfail.files.wordpress.com/ ... stdc-1.pdf

As for the loss:

Porter's forecast net loss in 2019 was $35-million, Michael Deluce, who replaced his father as Porter CEO, wrote to Mr. Pakey on May 3, 2019.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busines ... os-island/

I actually stumbled across copies of the letters Michael Deluce sent to Nieuport, including this one in which he explicitly states how much they lost: https://ilercampbell-my.sharepoint.com/ ... ation&ga=1

I don't think its inconceivable that as Covid leveled the playing field, some investors with deep pockets were willing to take a chance on a carrier with an established brand, history of being a disruptor, instead of battling it out in the ULCC start up trenches. If you were trying to enter the market as investor in 2021-2022 who/where would you have put your money?

Elizabeth Holmes got $700 million out of deep-pocketed investors, and look how that ended up. Just because rich people buy into it, doesn't mean it's a good business plan.

[8895]

The loads for the transborder flights are available from the US DOT. Porter's loads to LAX were actually worse than Lynx's, so that can't be a good portent.

Whenever I’ve looked at LAX flights the loads have been great, but sure bud!

SFO hasn’t been performing as well whenever I look at it. I know that city has major issues right now though.

[Upgradeable]

Edited

[SPR]

Whenever I’ve looked at LAX flights the loads have been great, but sure bud!

SFO hasn’t been performing as well whenever I look at it. I know that city has major issues right now though.

Again, that's anecdotal. The actual, hard, statistical data is available: https://www.lawa.org/-/media/lawa-web/s ... -2024.ashx Are you saying that your random "looks" at the loads supercedes the actual numbers that have been published? It's easier to put your fingers in your ears than to listen to reason.

From all the information that's publicly available, Porter has never earned a profit; they've just been coasting on injections by investors and the sale of the terminal, which couldn't come close to making up for almost two decades of losses, even if they hadn't used the money to pay off the Qs. They lost $35 million in 2018 and would have gone bankrupt without Nieuport's generosity, projected a loss of $40 million in 2019, and shut down for 2020 and 2021 (which was probably a huge stroke of fortune to them, because they were able to stem the bleeding for a couple of years). And yet, we're supposed to believe that within a year of getting the jets going, with sub-70% load factors, they're suddenly profitable. They've taken on all the associated costs of starting a new operation, including training hundreds of pilots, and they're burning at least $200000/month on each tail, which aren't even operating seven hours a day, but incredibly they've found the magic sauce that has abruptly made them profitable! Why didn't they do this a decade ago?! Obviously the key to making money in aviation is to just get a bunch of jets and run them head-to-head against AC and WS!!!

I'm going to start calling Porter Th-air-anos.

[8895]

Whenever I’ve looked at LAX flights the loads have been great, but sure bud!

SFO hasn’t been performing as well whenever I look at it. I know that city has major issues right now though.

Again, that's anecdotal. The actual, hard, statistical data is available: https://www.lawa.org/-/media/lawa-web/s ... -2024.ashx Are you saying that your random "looks" at the loads supercedes the actual numbers that have been published? It's easier to put your fingers in your ears than to listen to reason.

From all the information that's publicly available, Porter has never earned a profit; they've just been coasting on injections by investors and the sale of the terminal, which couldn't come close to making up for almost two decades of losses, even if they hadn't used the money to pay off the Qs. They lost $35 million in 2018 and would have gone bankrupt without Nieuport's generosity, projected a loss of $40 million in 2019, and shut down for 2020 and 2021 (which was probably a huge stroke of fortune to them, because they were able to stem the bleeding for a couple of years). And yet, we're supposed to believe that within a year of getting the jets going, with sub-70% load factors, they're suddenly profitable. They've taken on all the associated costs of starting a new operation, including training hundreds of pilots, and they're burning at least $200000/month on each tail, which aren't even operating seven hours a day, but incredibly they've found the magic sauce that has abruptly made them profitable! Why didn't they do this a decade ago?! Obviously the key to making money in aviation is to just get a bunch of jets and run them head-to-head against AC and WS!!!

I'm going to start calling Porter Th-air-anos.

Yea I only had to read the first sentence of that reposnse before I wasted my time reading the rest of that novel LOL OH NO there’s ONE route that was JUST launched by a carrier entering their second year of the operation, they my be failing…. See how uneducated you sound?

Obviously it’s reading week and hey guess what, the lowest load I see leaving YYZ today is the YYJ flight with 77 bookings, everything else is packed. You can speculate all you want, but you don’t see what we do.

Also jimbo is that you?

[SPR]

Yea I only had to read the first sentence of that reposnse before I wasted my time reading the rest of that novel

You think three paragraphs is a novel, and you find that too onerous to read?

LOL OH NO there’s ONE route that was JUST launched by a carrier entering their second year of the operation, they my be failing…. See how uneducated you sound?

I acknowledged that it was only their first two weeks of operation on the route, but I also drew a direct comparison to Lynx's loads on the same route, which is quite relevant considering the latter just went bust. Why do facts make you so defensive?

Obviously it’s reading week and hey guess what, the lowest load I see leaving YYZ today is the YYJ flight with 77 bookings, everything else is packed. You can speculate all you want, but you don’t see what we do.

AGAIN, that's anecdotal, not data. However, that gives a 58% LF on that route, which is in line with the number from December. To reiterate, that's the average LF on that route for the whole month of December. If the current flight is in-line with that, it indicates that the route is consistently not full and is likely not sustainable. Furthermore, saying what the emptiest flight is tells us nothing about the operation overall. What's the most-full flight? If it's 78, then telling us that YYJ has 77 is a pretty meaningless defence. More importantly, what's the average LF for the whole operation? That's actual, useful data that can be used to evaluate the financial status of the airline, rather than a single anecdote that tells us nothing besides the fact that YYJ is not a success.

[8895]

Yea I only had to read the first sentence of that reposnse before I wasted my time reading the rest of that novel

You think three paragraphs is a novel, and you find that too onerous to read?

LOL OH NO there’s ONE route that was JUST launched by a carrier entering their second year of the operation, they my be failing…. See how uneducated you sound?

I acknowledged that it was only their first two weeks of operation on the route, but I also drew a direct comparison to Lynx's loads on the same route, which is quite relevant considering the latter just went bust. Why do facts make you so defensive?

Obviously it’s reading week and hey guess what, the lowest load I see leaving YYZ today is the YYJ flight with 77 bookings, everything else is packed. You can speculate all you want, but you don’t see what we do.

AGAIN, that's anecdotal, not data. However, that gives a 58% LF on that route, which is in line with the number from December. To reiterate, that's the average LF on that route for the whole month of December. If the current flight is in-line with that, it indicates that the route is consistently not full and is likely not sustainable. Furthermore, saying what the emptiest flight is tells us nothing about the operation overall. What's the most-full flight? If it's 78, then telling us that YYJ has 77 is a pretty meaningless defence. More importantly, what's the average LF for the whole operation? That's actual, useful data that can be used to evaluate the financial status of the airline, rather than a single anecdote that tells us nothing besides the fact that YYJ is not a success.

I said everything else was packed smart one lol like 132. Max capacity.

[Timetoflyagain]

…load means nothing. Yield is the true measure of profitability. Lynx could have sold 189 seats at $50 per ticket all in yielding $0 net revenue after AIF, NavCanada, fees etc. Porter can sell 77 to YYJ, mostly retirees, who clean out the buy on board, bring (and pay for) luggage and that flight is in the black. Who really knows?…the beancounters…not me, not you.

[rudder]

…load means nothing. Yield is the true measure of profitability. Lynx could have sold 189 seats at $50 per ticket all in yielding $0 net revenue after AIF, NavCanada, fees etc. Porter can sell 77 to YYJ, mostly retirees, who clean out the buy on board, bring (and pay for) luggage and that flight is in the black. Who really knows?…the beancounters…not me, not you.

RASM - CASM

[braaap Braap]

The loads for the transborder flights are available from the US DOT. Porter's loads to LAX were actually worse than Lynx's, so that can't be a good portent.

Here is the lawsuit between Porter and Neuport. Nowhere does it mention "losing $40 million a year" and from what I can see any claims of profitability of an operation in/out of YTZ are attached to arguments about slot allocation (variable vs fixed allocation) https://canlii.ca/t/jsws4#par252

You only cited the judgement, not the suit itself or the counterclaims:

In or around December 2018, Porter advised Nieuport that it was experiencing
liquidity issues and asked Nieuport to permit it to reduce its letter of credit to half
the amount of the Slot Reserve. While it did not do so lightly, Nieuport agreed to
the reduced security in order to support Porter through its liquidity issues.
Importantly, Nieuport agreed to the amendment in exchange for the Guarantee from
PALC and security over the Secured Aircraft pursuant to the ASA.

https://porterfail.files.wordpress.com/ ... oapp-1.pdf

55. Nevertheless, in an effort to support its largest customer, between December 2018 and May
2019, Nieuport entered into without prejudice discussions to attempt to address Porter Airlines’
concerns surrounding the economics of the Terminal Fees at the Airport, as well as the Slot
Relinquishment Dispute. As part of those discussions, Porter Airlines disclosed that it was having
liquidity issues and would be insolvent without immediate relief.
56. As a result, on or around January 14, 2019, Nieuport and Porter Holdings entered into an
agreement (the “Cash Flow Agreement”), where Nieuport made certain financial concessions
(further described in paragraphs 94 to 96, below), to assist Porter through its period of financial
strain.

https://porterfail.files.wordpress.com/ ... stdc-1.pdf

As for the loss:

Porter's forecast net loss in 2019 was $35-million, Michael Deluce, who replaced his father as Porter CEO, wrote to Mr. Pakey on May 3, 2019.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busines ... os-island/

I actually stumbled across copies of the letters Michael Deluce sent to Nieuport, including this one in which he explicitly states how much they lost: https://ilercampbell-my.sharepoint.com/ ... ation&ga=1

I don't think its inconceivable that as Covid leveled the playing field, some investors with deep pockets were willing to take a chance on a carrier with an established brand, history of being a disruptor, instead of battling it out in the ULCC start up trenches. If you were trying to enter the market as investor in 2021-2022 who/where would you have put your money?

Elizabeth Holmes got $700 million out of deep-pocketed investors, and look how that ended up. Just because rich people buy into it, doesn't mean it's a good business plan.

Thanks for the links. Definitely adds some more context but I still don't see mentioning of losing $40 million and I think a lot of that is conjecture/posturing from Porter Execs trying to paint a sob story so they could get off the hook for Neuport.

I don't know why you keep referencing Theranos and Holmes. Apples to Orange situations here. Whatever the truth is neither you nor I will ever know.

Sidenote: How bad did Mr. Porter hurt you (not you directly, SPR) to run a blog like Porterfails.

[fliter]

I don't know why you keep referencing Theranos and Holmes. Apples to Orange situations here.

Indeed. Theranos's issue was that it turned out they didn't actually have a product. Speculate all you want about Porter's financials but you can't deny they have an actual product. Planes are flying and taking people places for real.

[SPR]

Thanks for the links. Definitely adds some more context but I still don't see mentioning of losing $40 million and I think a lot of that is conjecture/posturing from Porter Execs trying to paint a sob story so they could get off the hook for Neuport.

You're right, they only lost $35 million.

Porter's forecast net loss in 2019 was $35-million, Michael Deluce, who replaced his father as Porter CEO, wrote to Mr. Pakey on May 3, 2019.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busines ... os-island/
That means they're actually in excellent financial shape! If they had lost $36 million, that would have been indicative of financial mismanagement, but losing $35 million is basically a profit.

If it was just a sob story, then management isn't trustworthy, and considering that story resulted in an amended contract then if it wasn't true it would have been fraud. Are you saying that Porter's management was losing tens of millions of dollars a year, or are you saying they committed fraud?