Mr Iller,

Another day another Porter rant. I would like to say not everybody sees the world like you and that might be the reason why the newspapers are not taking what you provide as gospel. Or could it be that you have not evolved your arguements. Your issue of complaint claims to be anti-airport and all you appear to be doing is slagging Porter, a legally operating firm.

Looking at your list:

1)Air Canada was under utilizing the airport. They only moved 50000 passengers a month. Porter now moves that in about 2.5 days. Did it make sense to block Air Canada? Yes, as Air Canada would have taken steps to drive Porter out of business and then go back to the status quo. Also, the new slots were allocated based upon international standards.
2)I some how doubt that the $20M settlement was all of their start up money. Also, the government violated an agreement and they paid compensation. I do not consider that to be a subsidy.
3) Massive taxpayer money went to fund the planes? I do not think so. EDC provides financing to several airlines including Jazz Aviation. If you have an issue with funding, it should not be Porter specific.
4)The airport would not have needed the ferries if the bridge was built. See point 2
5)Back to my point, what does TPAs tax dispute with the City have to do with Porter.

That all being said, you focus on Porter's financial stability. If we follow you logic, we should stop putting money into Pearson because Air Canada has lost money for an extended period of time and did a dance with bankruptcy. Seeing that AC is the dominant airline at Pearson, we should stop doing any more work to enhance it, because who knows they could go bankrupt. Last but not least, Porter expanded quickly, which would explain higher losses due to start up. I bet if you took out their start up expenses, they would be profitable.

As I always say, can we focus on the real issue of debate, which is should there be an airport on the island.