Thanks, Geoff.

 The 2010 decision had nothing to do with the basis for the calculation of the $35 million.

 And while the Tripartite Agreement establishes some capacity constraints, the bridge settlement clearly proceeded on the basis of another, more stringent, constraint.

 It seems to us that if the TPA was going to take taxpayers’ money calculated on the basis that, absent the bridge, only 120 slots are available for the remainder of the term of the Tripartite Agreement, then it should either honour that limit, or pay the money back.

 Or was there really no intention of honouring that 120-slot limit, and the calculation therefore was only a ruse to get money for Porter’s start-up? Or did they not think that the basis of their deal would become public?

 Ms. Raitt was the key participant in those settlement discussions. Perhaps she could inform you, and all of us, how that decision was made.

Brian Iler