What if Porter bought Transat? Lots of debt, some assets. How expensive can Transat as a business entity actually be? Can Porter, and their private investors support that kind of purchase?
Now we're concerned about merging again.
Timetoflyagain wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:54 pm
….there’s this little thing called the Canada Labour Code and Canadian Industrial Relations Board that deals with all of this…and of course ALPA doesn’t want you to know about it because then they’d have to tell you that the CIRB is the actual one in charge of deciding who gets what, why, when and how much…not the ALPA merger policy. Proof? See Sunwing/Westjet…it’s happening now. The merger committees can certainly advocate a position but the decision rests with the CIRB…and there’s loads of precedent they will draw from.
I do completely agree there’s no one with either the $ or desire to merge with Porter…that would also then have to get the sign off from the competition bureau. (They’re even looking now at not enough competition…so ya really think if anyone bigger than North Cariboo or Pascan takes a run at Porter it’s gonna get approved?). AirCanada would probably like to try just to be rid of the current headache/future migraine….see AirTransat and that failed merger attempt. …also…Porter has an established seniorty list, established work rules etc..all things said CIRB will look at in any merger… airline or dog biscuit factory….it doesn’t need to be under a union’s umbrella. A CBA is what ALPA pilots work under. The FOAG is what Porter pilots work under. In the eyes of the CIRB…easily similar enough.
CIRB is like the judge. Each pilot group needs experienced lawyers to make their case before the CIRB. Who's going to draft the case and research the precidents? The union's lawyers. I wouldn't want my career to be put before the CIRB without anyone to argue my case. Same way you need a lawyer to argue your legal case before a judge.
Lovely numbers and yes, all of the above drivers you allude to, and plenty more, are accounted for in any granular analysis.
You’ll find that regardless of the fee methodology at airports, (and even on the net acquisition cost of airframes), they are basically pricing per seat. It’s very close to a linear scale. It always results in lower trip costs, but not unit costs.
US$250k a month + reserves is a reasonable number for the E2 lease cost. But the additional dollars being provided as part of the sale/lease back has to be incorporated above and beyond that number. Add the forex and the c$365k a month being used isn’t a stretch. Indeed, it might be a little light.
Fuel burns and maintenance costs come directly from
Embraer, and other proprietary sources. There’s really no mystery there. Every airline that’s assessed the E2 has those numbers.
The piece you may be missing in all of this, and why the operations numbers are so important, is that all these numbers and drivers have to be linked to a real world frequency schedule. Doing so generates a far more accurate picture of the costs (and with a separate and complex undertaking, the revenues), associated with ops at all the particular airports utilized and specific routes and frequencies flown.
That’s where it gets complex.
And this is where the numbers start to fall apart. Airplanes need to generate revenue to cover the fixed and variable costs of any airline’s operation. Aircraft don’t generate revenue on the ground. Once the fundamental design of the airline is set and operating, (ULCC, LCC, full service etc), its almost impossible to change and it becomes a pure revenue game.
Once the fixed and variables are covered, about 75% of the revenue is gravy. That’s the allure of the business and what keeps schemers and dreamers coming back for more.
In the US, an MIT study shows that aircraft with the size and range characteristics of the E2 average over 10 hours a day hours airborne. With this utilization, the aircraft cover all the costs of operations and a, (hopefully), nice profit over and above.
Porter’s problem is they aren’t getting enough utilization out of their fleet to accomplish this.
Even peak summer, it was around 8.5 hrs a day. It’s currently averaging about 6hrs a day. Yesterday it was about 5hrs 44 mins.
There are too many aircraft costing too
much money, all requiring people and infrastructure to support them that are underutilized or not flying at all.
Yesterday, there were 11 aircraft in the weeds for one reason or another.
If the operation was humming along with each tail operating an average of 10.25 hrs a day with their current asl, with a couple of spares and provision for heavy checks as they come due, things would be far more intriguing to filthy capitalists like myself. Porter’s fundamental problem is they haven’t found enough work for what they have, yet they keep adding more.
The bottom line is that they’re likely not generating enough revenue. But as long as there’s cash to underwrite the shortfall, (be it proceeds from the sale of YTZ or sale lease back cash, or someone winning the Powerball), it’s business as usual.
So what does this all mean?
Anyone making a career choice (and with options at other airlines available), should be aware that all the sunshine may not be as advertised. There may be a better long term career option available.
I totally understand why left seaters have no choice but to buy into the concept. No one wants, (or can afford), to vacate that seat and start again as an FO at AC, WS or elsewhere. So it’s natural that they’ll be a bit of denial going on.
The bottom line is to assess the info available out there and choose wisely.
Nope this isn’t happening ever. Deluce’s have a hardon for screwing AC over and are continuing to enjoy doing it. Chorus and their jazz baby already have all the reasons to not merge. The Porter family is more than happy running full E2 loads across the country and the south US.
We don’t need underpowered E1s and clapped out RJs
I am pretty certain there is change of control language in the AC/CHR CPA. So, any new owner (other than AC) would be subject to AC approval or forfeit of the CPA.
As is pointed out above, there is not much of an asset base at Jazz (aging fleet/no fleet renewal).
Jazz is on the path to 2035. Other than an AC purchase, the only potential suitor I could see is EIC (subject to AC approval).
Funny you mention this. I think EIC actually had the regional fleet that would be required to fly AC routes more efficiently than what jazz can do. Move some airplanes around and bob’s your uncle
Hey now, Bob's the owner. I know he makes you feel like he's your uncle
Yea dude. You really getting yourself confused as to distances.
Nautical miles are used to measure the distance traveled through the water. A nautical mile is slightly longer than a mile on land, equaling 1.1508 land-measured (or statute) miles. The nautical mile is based on the Earth’s longitude and latitude coordinates, with one nautical mile equaling one minute of latitude.
I can’t believe I have to spell this out for someone good in numbers. Let’s look at it in the same unit, let’s use feet
1 nautical mile =
6076 feet
1 statute mile =
5280 feet
Which one has more feet?
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by CaptDukeNukem on Fri Nov 08, 2024 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
I think we may actually be arguing the same thing.
Statute miles, not nautical miles, are utilized when calculating ASL. That’s always been the case.
And YYC - YYZ is indeed 1,675 statute miles. Surprisingly, that hasn’t changed in at least 30 years.
With that confusion cleared up, I note Porter’s ASL was a record, (for them), 1,396 statute miles on Thurs Nov 7th with an average airtime of 3hrs 4 mins and a block time of 3hrs 28 mins.
10 tails were parked, resulting in the fleet generating just 2.07 sectors per tail per day, with 6hrs 21 of airborne utilization per tail in the fleet.
On Thursday May 16th, utilization was 8hrs 20 mins with 3.1 sectors a day per tail. On Thurs Feb 15th it was 7hrs 8mins and 2.6 sectors a day per tail
Although still anemic, it is an improvement over the 5hrs 47 mins on Tues and 6hrs 0 mins on Weds.
But it’s still at least 3hrs per tail per day where it should be.
All good grist to the mill when assessing career prospects.
Realitychex wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 11:03 am
I think we may actually be arguing the same thing.
Statute miles, not nautical miles, are utilized when calculating ASL. That’s always been the case.
And YYC - YYZ is indeed 1,675 statute miles. Surprisingly, that hasn’t changed in at least 30 years.
With that confusion cleared up, I note Porter’s ASL was a record, (for them), 1,396 statute miles on Thurs Nov 7th with an average airtime of 3hrs 4 mins and a block time of 3hrs 28 mins.
10 tails were parked, resulting in the fleet generating just 2.07 sectors per tail per day, with 6hrs 21 of airborne utilization per tail in the fleet.
On Thursday May 16th, utilization was 8hrs 20 mins with 3.1 sectors a day per tail. On Thurs Feb 15th it was 7hrs 8mins and 2.6 sectors a day per tail
Although still anemic, it is an improvement over the 5hrs 47 mins on Tues and 6hrs 0 mins on Weds.
But it’s still at least 3hrs per tail per day where it should be.
All good grist to the mill when assessing career prospects.
No we are not arguing the same thing. Khedrei and I called out your crap about a statute mile being longer than a nautical mile.
Admit you’re wrong, pay him a million dollars, then we can review your financials and CASM analysis
Trying to steer us back on topic, i know people bring up “protections” of a CBA, but we constantly see cba’s violated and all the unions can do is grieve it in a process that can take years. I’ve seen it personally at Cargojet. Management makes a new memo with a change of “Policy” circumventing the union entirely after negotiations are fruitless. So I don’t think Alpa gives you the protection you think it does the FOAG seems just as formal to me at least. More importantly is a good relationship with management cause I’ve seen the adversarial side
Realitychex wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:19 am
A statute mile is about 15.1% longer than a nautical mile.
Then we can have an intelligent debate.
Ill make THIS really simple for you and quote AGAIN what you said.
Feel free to debate gravity if you want Einstein! I will stay true to my commitment and not resort to name calling. People who behave like you do really make it hard though. I had my work cut out for me here.
cjp wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 7:30 am
Realitychex is alluding to the same idea, that 1 NM is approximately 1.15 SM. I don't think anyone is debating that.
The issue is with the use of the word, LONGER.
Gentlemen, guns down please, back on topic, union or no union at Porter.
Well said.
It’s been a common practice for folks who can’t come up with a credible counter argument to simply obfuscate and throw in red herrings.
This little diversion was a classic example of this.
Back to the topic for those folks pondering career decisions at Porter vs elsewhere.
Porter managed 6hrs 28 mins airborne, an asl of 1,347 miles and 2.14 sectors flown per each of the 42 C- registered E2 aircraft yesterday, with 8 tails idle for one reason or another, and 8 tails with fewer than 5hrs utilization.
If anyone can provide a shred of evidence of any sched operator on the planet that can show verifiable profitability, (meaning sustainability without regular large infusions of cash), with that sort of utilization on a Friday heading into a defacto l/w, the only revenue bright spot between Oct 15th and Dec 19th, I’d be very keen to see it.
cjp wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 7:30 am
Realitychex is alluding to the same idea, that 1 NM is approximately 1.15 SM. I don't think anyone is debating that.
The issue is with the use of the word, LONGER.
Gentlemen, guns down please, back on topic, union or no union at Porter.
Well said.
It’s been a common practice for folks who can’t come up with a credible counter argument to simply obfuscate and throw in red herrings.
This little diversion was a classic example of this.
Back to the topic for those folks pondering career decisions at Porter vs elsewhere.
Porter managed 6hrs 28 mins airborne, an asl of 1,347 miles and 2.14 sectors flown per each of the 42 C- registered E2 aircraft yesterday, with 8 tails idle for one reason or another, and 8 tails with fewer than 5hrs utilization.
If anyone can provide a shred of evidence of any sched operator on the planet that can show verifiable profitability, (meaning sustainability without regular large infusions of cash), with that sort of utilization on a Friday heading into a defacto l/w, the only revenue bright spot between Oct 15th and Dec 19th, I’d be very keen to see it.
Is it just me, or is this guy completely incapable of admitting he made a mistake? Completely void of any sense of accountability? How hard is it.... hey sorry guys, I made a mistake, but I stand by the rest of my points...?
Too hard for this guy is guess.
It's wild to read actually. Classic snobby executive attitude. You're doing the right job for your personality I guess.
cjp wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 7:30 am
Realitychex is alluding to the same idea, that 1 NM is approximately 1.15 SM. I don't think anyone is debating that.
The issue is with the use of the word, LONGER.
Gentlemen, guns down please, back on topic, union or no union at Porter.
Well said.
It’s been a common practice for folks who can’t come up with a credible counter argument to simply obfuscate and throw in red herrings.
This little diversion was a classic example of this.
Back to the topic for those folks pondering career decisions at Porter vs elsewhere.
Porter managed 6hrs 28 mins airborne, an asl of 1,347 miles and 2.14 sectors flown per each of the 42 C- registered E2 aircraft yesterday, with 8 tails idle for one reason or another, and 8 tails with fewer than 5hrs utilization.
If anyone can provide a shred of evidence of any sched operator on the planet that can show verifiable profitability, (meaning sustainability without regular large infusions of cash), with that sort of utilization on a Friday heading into a defacto l/w, the only revenue bright spot between Oct 15th and Dec 19th, I’d be very keen to see it.
Is it just me, or is this guy completely incapable of admitting he made a mistake? Completely void of any sense of accountability? How hard is it.... hey sorry guys, I made a mistake, but I stand by the rest of my points...?
Too hard for this guy is guess.
It's wild to read actually. Classic snobby executive attitude. You're doing the right job for your personality I guess.
This is the guy that was harvesting competitor loads through an internal employee travel website (Obviously not his own) and saw nothing wrong with it
