Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
cirrusdragoon
Topic Author
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:42 pm

Porter receives lifeline

Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:44 am

Porter Airlines has received its support . Good news

https://business.financialpost.com/tran ... government
 
Insertnamehere
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:44 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:17 am

Happy to see, they are some much needed competition in Canada.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:43 pm

Good to hear. Porter’s low debt and refusal these past few years to grow beyond their niche mean they’re actually really well positioned to weather the storm.
 
User avatar
hic787
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:29 pm

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:43 pm

Great! Something Comforting for them
 
F27500
Posts: 831
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:36 pm

So, I'm curious . . if they own all (most) of their planes and have such low debt, what is this huge amount of money for? Is it to continue paying their employees, i hope? If they're not flying at all, then they have few expenses otherwise, I'd think. Please tell me its not strictly to keep paying upper level executives, when everyone else has been laid off.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8261
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:10 pm

Anybody recall a statement of cash burn or liquidity level from the last few weeks? How far is this CDN135 million going to carry them?
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:45 am

Dominion301 wrote:
Good to hear. Porter’s low debt and refusal these past few years to grow beyond their niche mean they’re actually really well positioned to weather the storm.

Most of their lack of growth was less about discipline and more that jets were not allowed at YTZ. This put the CSeries/A220 on hold.

Their financial position would be quite different right now with a bunch of new jetliners and no trans border routes on which to fly them.

But I agree, circumstances have left them in a good position.
 
Blerg
Posts: 4159
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:53 am

Weren't they loss-making in the past?
 
AA737-823
Posts: 5498
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:25 am

F27500 wrote:
So, I'm curious . . if they own all (most) of their planes and have such low debt, what is this huge amount of money for? Is it to continue paying their employees, i hope? If they're not flying at all, then they have few expenses otherwise, I'd think. Please tell me its not strictly to keep paying upper level executives, when everyone else has been laid off.


Running an airline is an extremely expensive prospect- high fixed costs mean that in a lot of ways, you don't save much money by flying less.
A lot of people (I'm not necessarily including you in that group) assume that if you don't fly plane, maintenance costs go to zero. That couldn't be any less true. Q400's, for example, require engine runs every seven days... unless you put the aircraft in long-term storage, which is another expense to complete, followed by another expense to un-do when you're ready to fly again.
And this doesn't take into account the calendar-requirement items for maintenance, either. Lots of things on an aircraft have expiration dates. Much of it is onboard safety equipment, but not all of it.

I don't know very much about Porter at all, but I do know a bit about maintaining aircraft. And it ain't cheap, even when you don't fly!
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:32 pm

AA737-823 wrote:
F27500 wrote:
So, I'm curious . . if they own all (most) of their planes and have such low debt, what is this huge amount of money for? Is it to continue paying their employees, i hope? If they're not flying at all, then they have few expenses otherwise, I'd think. Please tell me its not strictly to keep paying upper level executives, when everyone else has been laid off.


Running an airline is an extremely expensive prospect- high fixed costs mean that in a lot of ways, you don't save much money by flying less.
A lot of people (I'm not necessarily including you in that group) assume that if you don't fly plane, maintenance costs go to zero. That couldn't be any less true. Q400's, for example, require engine runs every seven days... unless you put the aircraft in long-term storage, which is another expense to complete, followed by another expense to un-do when you're ready to fly again.
And this doesn't take into account the calendar-requirement items for maintenance, either. Lots of things on an aircraft have expiration dates. Much of it is onboard safety equipment, but not all of it.

I don't know very much about Porter at all, but I do know a bit about maintaining aircraft. And it ain't cheap, even when you don't fly!


Well one of the big fixed costs for most airlines is leasing expenses. Something Porter doesn't have to worry about. They only have to worry about paying the financing costs for the three aircraft (I assume it's the batch of 3 that took their fleet to 29 from 26) that they don't yet 100% own. Definitely even with no flying there are fixed costs, but Porter avoid the biggest of those.

CrewBunk wrote:
Dominion301 wrote:
Good to hear. Porter’s low debt and refusal these past few years to grow beyond their niche mean they’re actually really well positioned to weather the storm.

Most of their lack of growth was less about discipline and more that jets were not allowed at YTZ. This put the CSeries/A220 on hold.

Their financial position would be quite different right now with a bunch of new jetliners and no trans border routes on which to fly them.

But I agree, circumstances have left them in a good position.


The thing is Porter could have taken the 220s and used them at YOW and YUL, but never did/haven't yet.
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:41 pm

Blerg wrote:
Weren't they loss-making in the past?


Last time anyone had a peek under the hood was about 10 years ago, I think. Making losses as an airline in 2010 only meant you were in good company...
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 3:04 pm

Dominion301 wrote:
The thing is Porter could have taken the 220s and used them at YOW and YUL, but never did/haven't yet.


They could have, but in my opinion, they were wise not to. At YUL and YYZ, they’d be just another airline. What would/could they offer that AC or WS were not?

It was the virtual monopoly of YTZ airport that gave them their “edge”. With a runway extension and relaxing the jet restriction, the thought of nonstop YTZ-LAX or YTZ-YVR was enticing.
 
aamd11
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2001 11:54 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:38 pm

wrongwayup wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Weren't they loss-making in the past?


Last time anyone had a peek under the hood was about 10 years ago, I think. Making losses as an airline in 2010 only meant you were in good company...

Ask anyone who has worked there on the front line in the last ten years when the last "profit sharing" payments were made (outside of the two payments in 2015 and 2016 that resulted from the sale of the terminal building).
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:11 pm

aamd11 wrote:
wrongwayup wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Weren't they loss-making in the past?


Last time anyone had a peek under the hood was about 10 years ago, I think. Making losses as an airline in 2010 only meant you were in good company...

Ask anyone who has worked there on the front line in the last ten years when the last "profit sharing" payments were made (outside of the two payments in 2015 and 2016 that resulted from the sale of the terminal building).


The thing is, while their net profits may be low, the fact they're almost debt-free indicates that Porter have taken the wise strategy of putting debt repayments ahead of profits. To do so, they'd have to be consistently cash flow positive.
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 8:16 pm

aamd11 wrote:
wrongwayup wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Weren't they loss-making in the past?


Last time anyone had a peek under the hood was about 10 years ago, I think. Making losses as an airline in 2010 only meant you were in good company...

Ask anyone who has worked there on the front line in the last ten years when the last "profit sharing" payments were made (outside of the two payments in 2015 and 2016 that resulted from the sale of the terminal building).


"Profit-sharing" is often discretionary, meaning it's up to management whether they give it out or not. If there's not some sort of formula built into the employment agreements it might just be management choosing to hang on to cash, rather than a sign of a lack of profits.
 
jimbo737
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:18 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 8:29 pm

I wonder how Porter got to the front of the lineup and received funds when no such programs / policies / mechanisms have been announced or implemented for the other airlines, indeed, most other Canadian industries.

Seems a little strange.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8261
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 8:36 pm

Dominion301 wrote:
aamd11 wrote:
wrongwayup wrote:

Last time anyone had a peek under the hood was about 10 years ago, I think. Making losses as an airline in 2010 only meant you were in good company...

Ask anyone who has worked there on the front line in the last ten years when the last "profit sharing" payments were made (outside of the two payments in 2015 and 2016 that resulted from the sale of the terminal building).


The thing is, while their net profits may be low, the fact they're almost debt-free indicates that Porter have taken the wise strategy of putting debt repayments ahead of profits. To do so, they'd have to be consistently cash flow positive.


The statement 'putting debt repayments ahead of profits' makes no sense. Cash flow starts from Net Income.

Underinvesting in the business is another way to maintain free cash flow. That doesn't work long term, however - assets age out/wear out, and competitors come in and take share.
 
rampbro
Posts: 546
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:00 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 9:39 pm

jimbo737 wrote:
I wonder how Porter got to the front of the lineup and received funds when no such programs / policies / mechanisms have been announced or implemented for the other airlines, indeed, most other Canadian industries.

Seems a little strange.


Interesting point. I guess they're a relatively easier deal to make than one of the larger majors. Maybe it's also probably a pragmatic decision to retain the flying capacity "on-demand" - having quick access to a fleet of Q4s at this time is a good thing.
The above notwithstanding, I am not discounting the role of politics in this.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14558
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Tue Mar 31, 2020 10:04 pm

rampbro wrote:
jimbo737 wrote:
I wonder how Porter got to the front of the lineup and received funds when no such programs / policies / mechanisms have been announced or implemented for the other airlines, indeed, most other Canadian industries.

Seems a little strange.


Interesting point. I guess they're a relatively easier deal to make than one of the larger majors. Maybe it's also probably a pragmatic decision to retain the flying capacity "on-demand" - having quick access to a fleet of Q4s at this time is a good thing.
The above notwithstanding, I am not discounting the role of politics in this.


They’re also in a position where they can’t/shouldn’t operate at all because more distanced modes of transport can replace all of their flying. So, it’s not quite apples to apples with WS or (especially) AC.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4435
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Wed Apr 01, 2020 3:24 am

I have always been fascinated with Porter. I think it's safe to agree that they didn't bite off more than they could chew. I also believe they have invested their profits into paying debt.

I would love to see Porter get the 220. The future is still possible, but for now. I am glad to see them hanging in there. Really hopeful they can weather these difficult times.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
airnorth
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:30 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:50 am

Cubsrule wrote:
rampbro wrote:
jimbo737 wrote:
I wonder how Porter got to the front of the lineup and received funds when no such programs / policies / mechanisms have been announced or implemented for the other airlines, indeed, most other Canadian industries.

Seems a little strange.


Interesting point. I guess they're a relatively easier deal to make than one of the larger majors. Maybe it's also probably a pragmatic decision to retain the flying capacity "on-demand" - having quick access to a fleet of Q4s at this time is a good thing.
The above notwithstanding, I am not discounting the role of politics in this.


They’re also in a position where they can’t/shouldn’t operate at all because more distanced modes of transport can replace all of their flying. So, it’s not quite apples to apples with WS or (especially) AC.


It looks like they secured a commercial financing through Export Development Canada, so technically, its not free money, also sounds like they are a repeat customer, so maybe they have a decent credit rating.
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:29 pm

airnorth wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
rampbro wrote:

Interesting point. I guess they're a relatively easier deal to make than one of the larger majors. Maybe it's also probably a pragmatic decision to retain the flying capacity "on-demand" - having quick access to a fleet of Q4s at this time is a good thing.
The above notwithstanding, I am not discounting the role of politics in this.


They’re also in a position where they can’t/shouldn’t operate at all because more distanced modes of transport can replace all of their flying. So, it’s not quite apples to apples with WS or (especially) AC.


It looks like they secured a commercial financing through Export Development Canada, so technically, its not free money, also sounds like they are a repeat customer, so maybe they have a decent credit rating.


I think this has got to be it airnorth. EDC can finance used/in-service Canadian-built aircraft through their 12th (or is it 15th) year of build under the rules of the OECD without EDC having to even change their mandate. This all could be as simple as Porter having taken out a loan against their current fleet, which appraises for between $200-300M USD.
 
aamd11
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2001 11:54 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Thu Apr 02, 2020 8:08 pm

wrongwayup wrote:
aamd11 wrote:
wrongwayup wrote:

Last time anyone had a peek under the hood was about 10 years ago, I think. Making losses as an airline in 2010 only meant you were in good company...

Ask anyone who has worked there on the front line in the last ten years when the last "profit sharing" payments were made (outside of the two payments in 2015 and 2016 that resulted from the sale of the terminal building).


"Profit-sharing" is often discretionary, meaning it's up to management whether they give it out or not. If there's not some sort of formula built into the employment agreements it might just be management choosing to hang on to cash, rather than a sign of a lack of profits.

It used to be in the contracts for all employees.

Funnily enough, starting last year, I gather profit sharing was abandoned, and bonuses are paid based on operational performance metrics instead. A maximum of 6% of pay in total, with 3% being driven by local targets and 3% by overall company performance. Less than the 7.5% maximum that came with profit sharing.

Perhaps profit has been made and just not disclosed to the front line, but the company does often paint a bleak picture internally - profit never seemingly made, then more cuts being necessary, rinse and repeat.

Perhaps things have improved substantially in the last few years as a result of the drastic changes, including closing lounges, adding yet more seats to what used to be 70-seaters, cutting capacity substantially for 2020 (even before th crisis and grounding). But they had a long way to go based on where they were in the run up to the terminal sale.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2520
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:35 pm

aamd11 wrote:
adding yet more seats to what used to be 70-seaters,


I am curious to know how adding four seats to the Q's affected their performance out of YTZ. I always thought 70 seats were the maximum they were able to have to operate out of YTZ.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:37 pm

aamd11 wrote:
wrongwayup wrote:
aamd11 wrote:
Ask anyone who has worked there on the front line in the last ten years when the last "profit sharing" payments were made (outside of the two payments in 2015 and 2016 that resulted from the sale of the terminal building).


"Profit-sharing" is often discretionary, meaning it's up to management whether they give it out or not. If there's not some sort of formula built into the employment agreements it might just be management choosing to hang on to cash, rather than a sign of a lack of profits.

It used to be in the contracts for all employees.

Funnily enough, starting last year, I gather profit sharing was abandoned, and bonuses are paid based on operational performance metrics instead. A maximum of 6% of pay in total, with 3% being driven by local targets and 3% by overall company performance. Less than the 7.5% maximum that came with profit sharing.

Perhaps profit has been made and just not disclosed to the front line, but the company does often paint a bleak picture internally - profit never seemingly made, then more cuts being necessary, rinse and repeat.

Perhaps things have improved substantially in the last few years as a result of the drastic changes, including closing lounges, adding yet more seats to what used to be 70-seaters, cutting capacity substantially for 2020 (even before th crisis and grounding). But they had a long way to go based on where they were in the run up to the terminal sale.


The last Porter flight I was on was on a refurb’d cabin aircraft. It wasn’t as nice. The seats are slimline, meaning the legroom is the same as before. The old seats are/were definitely more comfortable.
 
aamd11
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2001 11:54 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:41 am

INFINITI329 wrote:
aamd11 wrote:
adding yet more seats to what used to be 70-seaters,


I am curious to know how adding four seats to the Q's affected their performance out of YTZ. I always thought 70 seats were the maximum they were able to have to operate out of YTZ.

MTOW out of the island can be restricted quite often. 61,000lbs MTOW not uncommon on departure at certain times. Warmer weather, wet or contaminated runway, de-icing etc. With an OEW of 40,000lbs, anything needing more than about 5,000lbs of fuel on departure is getting tight for payload. YTZ-YOW would normally take 4,000lbs or so, but obviously in adverse conditions with challenging Alternates on your flight plan, you're in to payload restriction territory. Then places like YQT which are two hours away, you're tight right off the bat.

In the days of 70 seats, you weren't coming up on limits too often, except around Christmas and back-to-school when baggage loads were sky high, and once in a while on a bad fog day. At 78 seats, that's potentially an extra 1600lbs to accommodate, and there's been no change to the equation otherwise - the runway is no longer, the aircraft are no lighter or more capable...

Dominion301 wrote:
The last Porter flight I was on was on a refurb’d cabin aircraft. It wasn’t as nice. The seats are slimline, meaning the legroom is the same as before. The old seats are/were definitely more comfortable.

I've only seen pictures. They look bloody awful. Beach chairs locked bolt upright.

The previous seats were very comfortable, and the cabin used to be very pleasant back in the days of 70 seats. The extra four made the aircraft feel quite ordinary - pitch was good in theory, but the seats were rather substantial in all directions, which impinged on the legroom (especially in row 19 which was an inch shy of the rest of the cabin).
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:32 pm

aamd11 wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:
aamd11 wrote:
adding yet more seats to what used to be 70-seaters,


I am curious to know how adding four seats to the Q's affected their performance out of YTZ. I always thought 70 seats were the maximum they were able to have to operate out of YTZ.

MTOW out of the island can be restricted quite often. 61,000lbs MTOW not uncommon on departure at certain times. Warmer weather, wet or contaminated runway, de-icing etc. With an OEW of 40,000lbs, anything needing more than about 5,000lbs of fuel on departure is getting tight for payload. YTZ-YOW would normally take 4,000lbs or so, but obviously in adverse conditions with challenging Alternates on your flight plan, you're in to payload restriction territory. Then places like YQT which are two hours away, you're tight right off the bat.

In the days of 70 seats, you weren't coming up on limits too often, except around Christmas and back-to-school when baggage loads were sky high, and once in a while on a bad fog day. At 78 seats, that's potentially an extra 1600lbs to accommodate, and there's been no change to the equation otherwise - the runway is no longer, the aircraft are no lighter or more capable...

Dominion301 wrote:
The last Porter flight I was on was on a refurb’d cabin aircraft. It wasn’t as nice. The seats are slimline, meaning the legroom is the same as before. The old seats are/were definitely more comfortable.

I've only seen pictures. They look bloody awful. Beach chairs locked bolt upright.

The previous seats were very comfortable, and the cabin used to be very pleasant back in the days of 70 seats. The extra four made the aircraft feel quite ordinary - pitch was good in theory, but the seats were rather substantial in all directions, which impinged on the legroom (especially in row 19 which was an inch shy of the rest of the cabin).


Yep no recline. I believe I was on FIN 813. The seats when standing look nothing out of the ordinary, but when seated and looking across the aisle and down, the seats look very industrial and cheap. Even with an extra row, I would be shocked if the net weight of the seats isn’t at least 50 kgs lighter per aircraft. They’re fine for the 1 hour-75 minute hops to YOW, YUL, YQG, etc., but for places like YQT, MYR, YYT, etc., it’ll certainly diminish/cheapen the Porter ‘upscale’ experience.

The Jazz DH4s also have 78 seats, but theirs are way nicer than the new Porter seats.
 
A380MSN004
Posts: 738
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Porter receives lifeline

Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:20 pm

Dominion301 wrote:
aamd11 wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:

I am curious to know how adding four seats to the Q's affected their performance out of YTZ. I always thought 70 seats were the maximum they were able to have to operate out of YTZ.

MTOW out of the island can be restricted quite often. 61,000lbs MTOW not uncommon on departure at certain times. Warmer weather, wet or contaminated runway, de-icing etc. With an OEW of 40,000lbs, anything needing more than about 5,000lbs of fuel on departure is getting tight for payload. YTZ-YOW would normally take 4,000lbs or so, but obviously in adverse conditions with challenging Alternates on your flight plan, you're in to payload restriction territory. Then places like YQT which are two hours away, you're tight right off the bat.

In the days of 70 seats, you weren't coming up on limits too often, except around Christmas and back-to-school when baggage loads were sky high, and once in a while on a bad fog day. At 78 seats, that's potentially an extra 1600lbs to accommodate, and there's been no change to the equation otherwise - the runway is no longer, the aircraft are no lighter or more capable...

Dominion301 wrote:
The last Porter flight I was on was on a refurb’d cabin aircraft. It wasn’t as nice. The seats are slimline, meaning the legroom is the same as before. The old seats are/were definitely more comfortable.

I've only seen pictures. They look bloody awful. Beach chairs locked bolt upright.

The previous seats were very comfortable, and the cabin used to be very pleasant back in the days of 70 seats. The extra four made the aircraft feel quite ordinary - pitch was good in theory, but the seats were rather substantial in all directions, which impinged on the legroom (especially in row 19 which was an inch shy of the rest of the cabin).


Yep no recline. I believe I was on FIN 813. The seats when standing look nothing out of the ordinary, but when seated and looking across the aisle and down, the seats look very industrial and cheap. Even with an extra row, I would be shocked if the net weight of the seats isn’t at least 50 kgs lighter per aircraft. They’re fine for the 1 hour-75 minute hops to YOW, YUL, YQG, etc., but for places like YQT, MYR, YYT, etc., it’ll certainly diminish/cheapen the Porter ‘upscale’ experience.

The Jazz DH4s also have 78 seats, but theirs are way nicer than the new Porter seats.


Can you guys imagine Spicejet is running 90Y slimline seat version.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos