Transat or Porter?

[SPR]

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

Because they existed solely by burning investors' money and making pie-in-the-sky promises that they could never keep. There was no chance their business model would ever be sustainable.

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.

Theranos had actual labs and ran actual blood tests, but using conventional means and equipment. They couldn't do it better or cheaper than anyone else, which was what they sold their investors. Those investors were ignorant of the field and dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the scheme because they bought into the Elizabeth Holmes cult of personality and just trusted that she would come up with a way to make it happen. Likewise, people all over Avcanada have jumped on the Porter train because of the Deluce cult of personality, and they just trust that the Deluces will find a way to reinvent the wheel before they burn through all the investor money. Their track record shows that they don't know how to make Porter profitable, and the entire thing is based on hype.

The reason I'm so passionate about this is because it seems like every thread here has someone posting about how pilots should go to work for Porter instead of any other company, like members of a multi-level marketing scheme who berate you to join their downline. Don't go to Transat/WestJet/Air Canada, go to Porter before the seniority list gets too long! Get in on the ground floor! It's the exact same bullshit tbaylx was spewing all over this board about Flair 18 months ago; every time someone asked about a specific company, he would jump in and declare that the best career prospects in history were at Flair, so everyone should go there as soon as possible. How's that working out?

[fliter]

heranos had actual labs and ran actual blood tests, but using conventional means and equipment. They couldn't do it better or cheaper than anyone else, which was what they sold their investors.

Theranos claimed they could do blood tests rapidly from a tiny amount of blood. They couldn't. Porter claims no middle seats and free alcohol for pax – and they deliver that. Whether either is profitable is an entirely different question. An important question – but different.

[Ozinater]

Well you have your answer, OP. Apparently Porter is a pyramid scheme, and I’m going to guess Transat is probably some sort of money laundering outfit for the Rizzuto family

Choose wisely.

[Me262]

heranos had actual labs and ran actual blood tests, but using conventional means and equipment. They couldn't do it better or cheaper than anyone else, which was what they sold their investors.

Theranos claimed they could do blood tests rapidly from a tiny amount of blood. They couldn't. Porter claims no middle seats and free alcohol for pax – and they deliver that. Whether either is profitable is an entirely different question. An important question – but different.

Before covid, free alcohol was standard for economy in Europe

[fliter]

Before covid, free alcohol was standard for economy in Europe

And this is relevant how?

Not trying to be snarky, just trying to understand, it seems like a totally irrelevant thing to mention.

[cdnavater]

Before covid, free alcohol was standard for economy in Europe

And this is relevant how?

Not trying to be snarky, just trying to understand, it seems like a totally irrelevant thing to mention.

lol, I had the same thought, who cares about before Covid. That was then, this is now and most companies are not going back to pre Covid ways of doing things.

[Me262]

Porter apparently is

[fliter]

Before covid, free alcohol was standard for economy in Europe

And this is relevant how?

Not trying to be snarky, just trying to understand, it seems like a totally irrelevant thing to mention.

lol, I had the same thought, who cares about before Covid. That was then, this is now and most companies are not going back to pre Covid ways of doing things.

Not only that, but also:

1) Porter isn't in Europe, and
2) No one is claiming that every aspect Porter's product offering is unique. Its product isn't required to be unique to be either real or profitable.

[Realitychex]

Porter's E2 utilization, and therefore operating economics, remain anemic.

On Weds 27 March, Porter managed an average of just 6 hrs 31 mins airtime and 2.3 sectors a day out their 30 tail fleet, with an ASL of 1,274 miles, just 7% shorter than Flair's asl, who got 11hrs 48 mins out their Boeing fleet the same day.

For an airline purportedly chasing higher yielding business traffic, the bulk of which falls into Mon-Weds, trailing off on Thursdays and even moreso on Fridays, this low utilization is extremely unusual.

On Thurs 28 March, heading into a l/w, Porter got an avg of 7 hrs 31 mins airtime and 2.7 sectors a day out their 30 tail fleet, with an ASL of 1,190 miles. Porter's OTP Thurs was no great shakes either, at 54.3%, with 28% of flights delayed for > than 1 hr.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/Airc ... lated.html

If one compares this utilization to the the Data from MIT, what becomes apparent is Porter is using it's 132 seat E2 fleet on the same sorts of routes as US operators with their >150 seat narrow body fleets, ie on flights with an ASL of 1,171 miles. The difference is, US operators average 10hrs 3 mins a day, 3 hours a day more than Porter.

By using their fleet at the same utilization levels as US carriers with the same sort of average stage length, Porter could forgo the equivalent of at least 4 tails, $120m in capex, the better part of 150 FTE employees and a host of other expenses.

And even then, although Porter would enjoy lower trip costs, their unit costs would be at least 15% higher than their 150+ seat narrow body competitors operating over the same routes.

Looking at it another way, US operators with sub 150 seat narrow body fleets got an average of 7 hrs 55 mins from their fleets, but over a much shorter ASL of 691 miles, resulting in an average of 5 departures per air frame per day vs half of that at Porter. With a much longer ASL, Porter should be generating far more utilization as a much greater proportion of their day is spent in the air, not on the ground.

So unless Porter can achieve a hefty 15% + yield premium on every seat sold, no easy task in a commodity business, Porter's economics will remain, to be diplomatic, difficult.

It's up to individuals to figure out how there career path is best served. I'd probably focus on the airlines who's economics would suggest a long path forward of profitable operations, thus eliminating the "snakes and ladders" career scenario where every few years, one ends up at the bottom of the seniority list.

[8895]

Porter's E2 utilization, and therefore operating economics, remain anemic.

On Weds 27 March, Porter managed an average of just 6 hrs 31 mins airtime and 2.3 sectors a day out their 30 tail fleet, with an ASL of 1,274 miles, just 7% shorter than Flair's asl, who got 11hrs 48 mins out their Boeing fleet the same day.

For an airline purportedly chasing higher yielding business traffic, the bulk of which falls into Mon-Weds, trailing off on Thursdays and even moreso on Fridays, this low utilization is extremely unusual.

On Thurs 28 March, heading into a l/w, Porter got an avg of 7 hrs 31 mins airtime and 2.7 sectors a day out their 30 tail fleet, with an ASL of 1,190 miles. Porter's OTP Thurs was no great shakes either, at 54.3%, with 28% of flights delayed for > than 1 hr.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/Airc ... lated.html

If one compares this utilization to the the Data from MIT, what becomes apparent is Porter is using it's 132 seat E2 fleet on the same sorts of routes as US operators with their >150 seat narrow body fleets, ie on flights with an ASL of 1,171 miles. The difference is, US operators average 10hrs 3 mins a day, 3 hours a day more than Porter.

By using their fleet at the same utilization levels as US carriers with the same sort of average stage length, Porter could forgo the equivalent of at least 4 tails, $120m in capex, the better part of 150 FTE employees and a host of other expenses.

And even then, although Porter would enjoy lower trip costs, their unit costs would be at least 15% higher than their 150+ seat narrow body competitors operating over the same routes.

Looking at it another way, US operators with sub 150 seat narrow body fleets got an average of 7 hrs 55 mins from their fleets, but over a much shorter ASL of 691 miles, resulting in an average of 5 departures per air frame per day vs half of that at Porter. With a much longer ASL, Porter should be generating far more utilization as a much greater proportion of their day is spent in the air, not on the ground.

So unless Porter can achieve a hefty 15% + yield premium on every seat sold, no easy task in a commodity business, Porter's economics will remain, to be diplomatic, difficult.

It's up to individuals to figure out how there career path is best served. I'd probably focus on the airlines who's economics would suggest a long path forward of profitable operations, thus eliminating the "snakes and ladders" career scenario where every few years, one ends up at the bottom of the seniority list.

Hi jimbo

[Mac08]

It's up to individuals to figure out how there career path is best served. I'd probably focus on the airlines who's economics would suggest a long path forward of profitable operations, thus eliminating the "snakes and ladders" career scenario where every few years, one ends up at the bottom of the seniority list.

Because anyone should take career advice from someone who got forced out for corporate spying.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/westje ... g-1.503757

It's only been 15+ years since you said Porter won't last.... Any day now.... Any day.

[Realitychex]

Wow.

Still dragging up ancient news from 20 years ago?

Someone had to take the hit. That's how it works.

And don't forget the 3 other very successful start ups since, currently operating a total of 432 tails in North America, with nice flight benefits on all 4.

And guess what: other than the cost of on board wi-fi, I can't think of a significant new cost driver in the past 25 years.

It's just math. It always has been.

The only unknown is how large is the mound of shark repellent, how can that mound be increased, (will lightning strikes twice with YHU?), and how much of it is the BoD prepared to spend for how long?

I'll bet you a round of golf in Scottsdale any time you'd like that Porter's fully allocated casm is at least 16.35 cents a mile over their current asl.

I sure hope they have the rasm to match it 'cause if they're coming up a penny a mile short, their annualized cash bleed based on what they flew on Sunday, is about $140k a day, with that number climbing as every new tail is added.

And then there's the continuing anemic utilization; last Sunday was a record 7hrs 40 mins air time, but seeing air times in the 6hr 30min per frame per day is not unusual a couple days a week. That'll keep those unit costs low......

The 2019 US industry average for sub 150 seat narrow bodies is 7hrs 56 mins a day, but with an asl of 691 miles and each tail generating 4.98 sectors a day with 134 seats per departure. That's 667 higher yielding, (shorter asl = higher yield), seats per airframe per a day available to sell.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/Airc ... lated.html

Porter's asl is closer to 1,200 miles and it's a rare day when they get more than 2.5 departures per tail per day. That's just 330 seats a day to sell.

Congrats to Embraer for doing what no other airframer in the history of commercial aviation has ever done: build a US$30.5m 132 airframe that prints money with 21% fewer asm's and half the seats available for sale generated daily.

And yet even having done this, Embraer can't give these aircraft away.

Gee. I wonder why.

[cdnavater]

Wow.

Still dragging up ancient news from 20 years ago?

Someone had to take the hit. That's how it works.

And don't forget the 3 other very successful start ups since, currently operating a total of 432 tails in North America, with nice flight benefits on all 4.

And guess what: other than the cost of on board wi-fi, I can't think of a significant new cost driver in the past 25 years.

It's just math. It always has been.

The only unknown is how large is the mound of shark repellent, how can that mound be increased, (will lightning strikes twice with YHU?), and how much of it is the BoD prepared to spend for how long?

I'll bet you a round of golf in Scottsdale any time you'd like that Porter's fully allocated casm is at least 16.35 cents a mile over their current asl.

I sure hope they have the rasm to match it 'cause if they're coming up a penny a mile short, their annualized cash bleed based on what they flew on Sunday, is about $140k a day, with that number climbing as every new tail is added.

And then there's the continuing anemic utilization; last Sunday was a record 7hrs 40 mins air time, but seeing air times in the 6hr 30min per frame per day is not unusual a couple days a week. That'll keep those unit costs low......

The 2019 US industry average for sub 150 seat narrow bodies is 7hrs 56 mins a day, but with an asl of 691 miles and each tail generating 4.98 sectors a day with 134 seats per departure. That's 667 higher yielding, (shorter asl = higher yield), seats per airframe per a day available to sell.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/Airc ... lated.html

Porter's asl is closer to 1,200 miles and it's a rare day when they get more than 2.5 departures per tail per day. That's just 330 seats a day to sell.

Congrats to Embraer for doing what no other airframer in the history of commercial aviation has ever done: build a US$30.5m 132 airframe that prints money with 21% fewer asm's and half the seats available for sale generated daily.

And yet even having done this, Embraer can't give these aircraft away.

Gee. I wonder why.

Thanks for that, I love it when someone puts the Porter cheer section back in their place!

[CaptDukeNukem]

Porter's E2 utilization, and therefore operating economics, remain anemic.

On Weds 27 March, Porter managed an average of just 6 hrs 31 mins airtime and 2.3 sectors a day out their 30 tail fleet, with an ASL of 1,274 miles, just 7% shorter than Flair's asl, who got 11hrs 48 mins out their Boeing fleet the same day.

For an airline purportedly chasing higher yielding business traffic, the bulk of which falls into Mon-Weds, trailing off on Thursdays and even moreso on Fridays, this low utilization is extremely unusual.

On Thurs 28 March, heading into a l/w, Porter got an avg of 7 hrs 31 mins airtime and 2.7 sectors a day out their 30 tail fleet, with an ASL of 1,190 miles. Porter's OTP Thurs was no great shakes either, at 54.3%, with 28% of flights delayed for > than 1 hr.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/Airc ... lated.html

If one compares this utilization to the the Data from MIT, what becomes apparent is Porter is using it's 132 seat E2 fleet on the same sorts of routes as US operators with their >150 seat narrow body fleets, ie on flights with an ASL of 1,171 miles. The difference is, US operators average 10hrs 3 mins a day, 3 hours a day more than Porter.

By using their fleet at the same utilization levels as US carriers with the same sort of average stage length, Porter could forgo the equivalent of at least 4 tails, $120m in capex, the better part of 150 FTE employees and a host of other expenses.

And even then, although Porter would enjoy lower trip costs, their unit costs would be at least 15% higher than their 150+ seat narrow body competitors operating over the same routes.

Looking at it another way, US operators with sub 150 seat narrow body fleets got an average of 7 hrs 55 mins from their fleets, but over a much shorter ASL of 691 miles, resulting in an average of 5 departures per air frame per day vs half of that at Porter. With a much longer ASL, Porter should be generating far more utilization as a much greater proportion of their day is spent in the air, not on the ground.

So unless Porter can achieve a hefty 15% + yield premium on every seat sold, no easy task in a commodity business, Porter's economics will remain, to be diplomatic, difficult.

It's up to individuals to figure out how there career path is best served. I'd probably focus on the airlines who's economics would suggest a long path forward of profitable operations, thus eliminating the "snakes and ladders" career scenario where every few years, one ends up at the bottom of the seniority list.

Not discounting your statistics, but can you provide a reference for your analysis of Porter’s ASL and airtime? I’d like to take a look at this data also

[CaptDukeNukem]

I also would like to suggest that like any start ups, route network is new and marketing needs to be done. Yes you are comparing data from markets and routes that have long been established and connect to basically everywhere in the world.

These things take time.

Also, I don’t really see your point about how embraer’s issues regarding the development and sale transactions are Porter’s issues. The US won’t be buying these unless scope is changed, which is highly unlikely. But I fail to see why the aircraft itself is a negative for porter. They purchased an aircraft that works for them….

[CaptDukeNukem]

Wow.

Still dragging up ancient news from 20 years ago?

Someone had to take the hit. That's how it works.

And don't forget the 3 other very successful start ups since, currently operating a total of 432 tails in North America, with nice flight benefits on all 4.

And guess what: other than the cost of on board wi-fi, I can't think of a significant new cost driver in the past 25 years.

It's just math. It always has been.

The only unknown is how large is the mound of shark repellent, how can that mound be increased, (will lightning strikes twice with YHU?), and how much of it is the BoD prepared to spend for how long?

I'll bet you a round of golf in Scottsdale any time you'd like that Porter's fully allocated casm is at least 16.35 cents a mile over their current asl.

I sure hope they have the rasm to match it 'cause if they're coming up a penny a mile short, their annualized cash bleed based on what they flew on Sunday, is about $140k a day, with that number climbing as every new tail is added.

And then there's the continuing anemic utilization; last Sunday was a record 7hrs 40 mins air time, but seeing air times in the 6hr 30min per frame per day is not unusual a couple days a week. That'll keep those unit costs low......

The 2019 US industry average for sub 150 seat narrow bodies is 7hrs 56 mins a day, but with an asl of 691 miles and each tail generating 4.98 sectors a day with 134 seats per departure. That's 667 higher yielding, (shorter asl = higher yield), seats per airframe per a day available to sell.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/Airc ... lated.html

Porter's asl is closer to 1,200 miles and it's a rare day when they get more than 2.5 departures per tail per day. That's just 330 seats a day to sell.

Congrats to Embraer for doing what no other airframer in the history of commercial aviation has ever done: build a US$30.5m 132 airframe that prints money with 21% fewer asm's and half the seats available for sale generated daily.

And yet even having done this, Embraer can't give these aircraft away.

Gee. I wonder why.

Thanks for that, I love it when someone puts the Porter cheer section back in their place!

We should definitely have a beer or two one day lol.

[Realitychex]

Porter generated 7hrs and 41 mins airtime per tail per day with an ASL of 1,184 miles on a peak Thursday April 4th coming out of Easter Break weekend.

Come Monday April 8th, things, (loads and therefore yields), slow down until a little bump for May l/w and then again around June 20 as summer kicks off. Go back into the history of airlines in Canada and you will find 2Q is never very strong. Even when WS was printing cash for 49 out of 50 straight quarters back in the day, 2Q was always the weakest quarter.

Porter's air time utilization is 2hrs 20 mins less than the US industry daily avg for the narrow body fleet with an asl of 1,171 miles. It's those last couple of flights a day where the money is made.

Porter requires 32 E2's each worth about us$30.5m to do the work that would require 24.5 tails in the US.

I wonder what the capex / monthly nut is on US$228.9m of excess aircraft capacity, not to mention reserves and the typical 70 FTE's per airframe, required to operate an airline these days?

Bear in mind that Southwest Airlines had 91.6 FTE's per tail at year end 2023 so 70 at Porter is a very conservative number.

It matters not if they are employed by Porter or are contract. They all have to be paid.

To think that Porter has any sort of unit cost advantage over anyone operating over the same sort of network, typically with significantly larger avg capacity, is absurd.

The only way it works is if Porter can achieve a significant yield premium over even AC to counter their much higher unit costs.

It's not impossible, but I've never seen it happen for a new entrant, esp one that has a high proportion of leisure flying vs high frequency business markets.

And increasingly, we're seeing Porter going after the same market that CanJet tried to make hay out of twice.

[up on one]

I think you missed the part where Duke was asking for valid sources/references for all those numbers

[Realitychex]

Cdn operational data is compiled from FR24.

WJA historical data is widely available on line via quarterly, annual and AIF forms.

US industry data is via the MIT Airline Data Project.

Southwest data is from their 2023 Annual Report.

Porter's importation cost for their E2 C-GZQF on 4 Oct 2023, (Emb Invoice 111011351 to Porter Aircraft Leasing Corp), was for us$30,621,988. It circulated briefly on line before being removed. The invoice and pricing was validated by more than one airline CEO I am familiar with, including one who's airlines currently operate both Emb and A220 equipment.

[cjp]

Porter's E2 utilization, and therefore operating economics, remain anemic.

On Weds 27 March, Porter managed an average of just 6 hrs 31 mins airtime and 2.3 sectors a day out their 30 tail fleet, with an ASL of 1,274 miles, just 7% shorter than Flair's asl, who got 11hrs 48 mins out their Boeing fleet the same day.

For an airline purportedly chasing higher yielding business traffic, the bulk of which falls into Mon-Weds, trailing off on Thursdays and even moreso on Fridays, this low utilization is extremely unusual.

On Thurs 28 March, heading into a l/w, Porter got an avg of 7 hrs 31 mins airtime and 2.7 sectors a day out their 30 tail fleet, with an ASL of 1,190 miles. Porter's OTP Thurs was no great shakes either, at 54.3%, with 28% of flights delayed for > than 1 hr.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/Airc ... lated.html

If one compares this utilization to the the Data from MIT, what becomes apparent is Porter is using it's 132 seat E2 fleet on the same sorts of routes as US operators with their >150 seat narrow body fleets, ie on flights with an ASL of 1,171 miles. The difference is, US operators average 10hrs 3 mins a day, 3 hours a day more than Porter.

By using their fleet at the same utilization levels as US carriers with the same sort of average stage length, Porter could forgo the equivalent of at least 4 tails, $120m in capex, the better part of 150 FTE employees and a host of other expenses.

And even then, although Porter would enjoy lower trip costs, their unit costs would be at least 15% higher than their 150+ seat narrow body competitors operating over the same routes.

Looking at it another way, US operators with sub 150 seat narrow body fleets got an average of 7 hrs 55 mins from their fleets, but over a much shorter ASL of 691 miles, resulting in an average of 5 departures per air frame per day vs half of that at Porter. With a much longer ASL, Porter should be generating far more utilization as a much greater proportion of their day is spent in the air, not on the ground.

So unless Porter can achieve a hefty 15% + yield premium on every seat sold, no easy task in a commodity business, Porter's economics will remain, to be diplomatic, difficult.

It's up to individuals to figure out how there career path is best served. I'd probably focus on the airlines who's economics would suggest a long path forward of profitable operations, thus eliminating the "snakes and ladders" career scenario where every few years, one ends up at the bottom of the seniority list.

What's the current staffing level at those U.S carriers to be able to maintain that utilization? They likely are heavily loaded with flight crew to be able to have normal coverage and plentiful reserve.

[CaptDukeNukem]

Cdn operational data is compiled from FR24.

WJA historical data is widely available on line via quarterly, annual and AIF forms.

US industry data is via the MIT Airline Data Project.

Southwest data is from their 2023 Annual Report.

Porter's importation cost for their E2 C-GZQF on 4 Oct 2023, (Emb Invoice 111011351 to Porter Aircraft Leasing Corp), was for us$30,621,988. It circulated briefly on line before being removed. The invoice and pricing was validated by more than one airline CEO I am familiar with, including one who's airlines currently operate both Emb and A220 equipment.

Since this thread is about Transat or Porter. Maybe you can give us some numbers regarding Transat on the same dates you looked at porter and also compare those to the USA. Thanks