PLEASE READ AND SCROLL DOWN!
By clicking “I AGREE”, you indicate that you understand and intend these terms and conditions to be the legal equivalent of a signed, written contract and equally binding, and that you accept such terms and conditions as a condition of viewing any and all Moody’s information that becomes accessible to you (the “Information”). References herein to “Moody’s” include Moody’s Corporation. and each of its subsidiaries and affiliates..
Terms of One-Time Website Use
1. Unless you have entered into an express written contract with www.moodys.com to the contrary and/or agreed to the Terms of Use at www.moodys.com or ratings.moodys.com, you agree that you have no right to use the Information in a commercial or public setting and no right to copy it, save it, print it, sell it, or publish or distribute any portion of it in any form.
2. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S MATERIALS FOUND ON WWW.MOODYS.COM OR SITES OTHER THAN RATINGS.MOODYS.COM MAY NOT BE DISPLAYED IN REAL TIME. FOR REAL-TIME DISPLAYS OF CREDIT RATINGS AND OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED BY MIS PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAW OR REGULATION, PLEASE USE RATINGS.MOODYS.COM.
3. You acknowledge and agree that Moody’s credit ratings: (i) are current opinions of the future relative creditworthiness of securities and address no other risk; and (ii) are not statements of current or historical fact or recommendations to purchase, hold or sell particular securities. Moody’s credit ratings and publications are not intended for retail investors, and it would be reckless and inappropriate for retail investors to use Moody’s credit ratings and publications when making an investment decision. No warranty, express or implied, as the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose of any Moody’s credit rating is given or made by Moody’s in any form whatsoever.
4. To the extent permitted by law, Moody’s and its directors, officers, employees, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for: (i) any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with use of the Information; and (ii) any direct or compensatory damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud or any other type of liability that by law cannot be excluded) on the part of Moody’s or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with use of the Information.
5. You agree to read and be bound by the more detailed disclosures regarding Moody’s ratings and the limitations of Moody’s liability included in the Information.
6. You agree that any disputes relating to this agreement or your use of the Information, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise, shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York located in the City and County of New York, Borough of Manhattan.
New York, September 15, 2022 — Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) has completed a periodic review of the ratings -and other ratings that are associated with the same analytical units for the rated entity(entities) listed below.
The review was conducted through a portfolio review discussion held on 8 September 2022 in which Moody’s reassessed the appropriateness of the ratings in the context of the relevant principal methodology(ies), recent developments, and a comparison of the financial and operating profile to similarly rated peers. A possible outcome from periodic reviews is a referral of a rating to a rating committee.
This publication does not announce a credit rating action and is not an indication of whether or not a credit rating action is likely in the near future. Credit ratings and outlook/review status cannot be changed in a portfolio review and hence are not impacted by this announcement.
Key Rating Considerations
The principal methodology used for the rated entities listed below was Generic Project Finance Methodology published in January 2022. Please see the Rating Methodologies page on https://ratings.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.
Key rating considerations on a forward-looking basis may include but are not limited to the following summarized below.
Generic Project Finance Methodology
Size and Market Profile: Metrics may include but are not limited to scope of operations as measured by operating revenue or usage volume (such as annual ridership or traffic volume) and service area population, network, project or facility size, physical limitations on types of services which can be provided and ease of expansion; strategic positioning exhibited by pricing power, competitive profile including proximity to competing facilities and sustainability of such competitiveness, monopoly position, essentiality of an asset to users, ability to generate demand based on strength and size of service area; capital investment funding and flexibility, diversity as measured by ratio of single largest revenue source to operating revenue; charter renewal risk, ownership and affiliation; service area wealth, economic diversity, income, size and growth rate as measured by data provided by the US Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics and commercial data vendors (where applicable).
Operating Performance and Risk: Metrics may include but are not limited to annual revenue, 3 year average operating margin, 5 year compound growth rate of operating revenue, stability and predictability of revenues, diversity of revenue from various payors/contributors/ operations; size and trend of operating cash flow margin or EBITDA; service area trend and utilization data, fixed costs as a portion of operating expenditures; measures of historic and expected usage measured by standard deviations of year over year; length of time in operation of asset; historic demand and revenue trends, demonstrated ability and willingness to raise rates and/or economic regulation; complexity of relevant technology; availability of cash flow to fund capital needs, operating performance relative to industry norms; quality of operator & experience with the asset type; strength and commitment of sponsor & likelihood of operational and financial support; protections in the concession and regulatory framework; restrictions on business activities, use of debt and revenue distributions.
Financial Position, Policy and Ownership: Metrics may include but are not limited to amount of cash & investments; days cash on hand; ratio of total cash and investments to operating expenses; debt service coverage; level of self-support; budget flexibility, operating cash flow margin, liquidity to demand debt, liquidity reserves or contractual arrangements. Assessments may include but are not limited to an Issuer’s desired capital structure / credit profile, and its adherence to its commitments and our views on the ability of the company to achieve its targets, an assessment of the likelihood and potential negative impact of M&A or other types of balance-sheet-transforming events, and the likelihood of uncontracted financial support being provided by owners; and the protective terms of debt documentation including but limited to restrictions on business activities, use of debt and revenue distributions; and control and liquidity afforded to creditors.
Debt Affordability: Metrics may include but are not limited to size and scope of multi-year CIP (capital improvement plan) relative to condition of assets that will rely on debt for funding; ratio of total cash and investments to debt and/or interest payments; ratio of debt to operating revenue; debt service coverage and ratios; ratio of debt to cash flow and to operating revenue; interest coverage metrics and concession life coverage ratios; debt and debt equivalents.
• Alstef YUL LP
• Calgary Fuel Facilities Corporation Ltd.
• Calgary Glycol Facilities Corporation
• EQUANS YUL Services L.P.
• Montreal International Fuel Facilities Corp.
• Pearson International Fuel Facilities Corp.
• Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corp
The principal methodology used for the rated entities listed below was Privately Managed Airports and Related Issuers published in September 2017. Please see the Rating Methodologies page on https://ratings.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.
Key rating considerations on a forward-looking basis may include but are not limited to the following summarized below.
Privately Managed Airports and Related Issuers
Size and Market Profile: Metrics may include but are not limited to scope of operations as measured by operating revenue or usage volume (such as annual ridership or traffic volume) and service area population, network, project or facility size, physical limitations on types of services which can be provided and ease of expansion; strategic positioning exhibited by pricing power, competitive profile including proximity to competing facilities and sustainability of such competitiveness, monopoly position, essentiality of an asset to users, ability to generate demand based on strength and size of service area; capital investment funding and flexibility, diversity as measured by ratio of single largest revenue source to operating revenue; charter renewal risk, ownership and affiliation; service area wealth, economic diversity, income, size and growth rate as measured by data provided by the US Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics and commercial data vendors (where applicable).
Operating Performance and Risk: Metrics may include but are not limited to annual revenue, 3 year average operating margin, 5 year compound growth rate of operating revenue, stability and predictability of revenues, diversity of revenue from various payors/contributors/ operations; size and trend of operating cash flow margin or EBITDA; service area trend and utilization data, fixed costs as a portion of operating expenditures; measures of historic and expected usage measured by standard deviations of year over year; length of time in operation of asset; historic demand and revenue trends, demonstrated ability and willingness to raise rates and/or economic regulation; complexity of relevant technology; availability of cash flow to fund capital needs, operating performance relative to industry norms; quality of operator & experience with the asset type; strength and commitment of sponsor & likelihood of operational and financial support; protections in the concession and regulatory framework; restrictions on business activities, use of debt and revenue distributions.
Financial Position, Policy and Ownership: Metrics may include but are not limited to amount of cash & investments; days cash on hand; ratio of total cash and investments to operating expenses; debt service coverage; level of self-support; budget flexibility, operating cash flow margin, liquidity to demand debt, liquidity reserves or contractual arrangements. Assessments may include but are not limited to an Issuer’s desired capital structure / credit profile, and its adherence to its commitments and our views on the ability of the company to achieve its targets, an assessment of the likelihood and potential negative impact of M&A or other types of balance-sheet-transforming events, and the likelihood of uncontracted financial support being provided by owners; and the protective terms of debt documentation including but limited to restrictions on business activities, use of debt and revenue distributions; and control and liquidity afforded to creditors.
Debt Affordability: Metrics may include but are not limited to size and scope of multi-year CIP (capital improvement plan) relative to condition of assets that will rely on debt for funding; ratio of total cash and investments to debt and/or interest payments; ratio of debt to operating revenue; debt service coverage and ratios; ratio of debt to cash flow and to operating revenue; interest coverage metrics and concession life coverage ratios; debt and debt equivalents.
• JFK International Air Terminal, LLC
• JFK NTO LLC
• LaGuardia Gateway Partners, LLC
• NAV CANADA
The principal methodology used for the rated entities listed below was Publicly Managed Airports and Related Issuers published in March 2019. Please see the Rating Methodologies page on https://ratings.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.
Key rating considerations on a forward-looking basis may include but are not limited to the following summarized below.
Publicly Managed Airports and Related Issuers
Size and Market Profile: Metrics may include but are not limited to scope of operations as measured by operating revenue or usage volume (such as annual ridership or traffic volume) and service area population, network, project or facility size, physical limitations on types of services which can be provided and ease of expansion; strategic positioning exhibited by pricing power, competitive profile including proximity to competing facilities and sustainability of such competitiveness, monopoly position, essentiality of an asset to users, ability to generate demand based on strength and size of service area; capital investment funding and flexibility, diversity as measured by ratio of single largest revenue source to operating revenue; charter renewal risk, ownership and affiliation; service area wealth, economic diversity, income, size and growth rate as measured by data provided by the US Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics and commercial data vendors (where applicable).
Operating Performance and Risk: Metrics may include but are not limited to annual revenue, 3 year average operating margin, 5 year compound growth rate of operating revenue, stability and predictability of revenues, diversity of revenue from various payors/contributors/ operations; size and trend of operating cash flow margin or EBITDA; service area trend and utilization data, fixed costs as a portion of operating expenditures; measures of historic and expected usage measured by standard deviations of year over year; length of time in operation of asset; historic demand and revenue trends, demonstrated ability and willingness to raise rates and/or economic regulation; complexity of relevant technology; availability of cash flow to fund capital needs, operating performance relative to industry norms; quality of operator & experience with the asset type; strength and commitment of sponsor & likelihood of operational and financial support; protections in the concession and regulatory framework; restrictions on business activities, use of debt and revenue distributions.
Financial Position, Policy and Ownership: Metrics may include but are not limited to amount of cash & investments; days cash on hand; ratio of total cash and investments to operating expenses; debt service coverage; level of self-support; budget flexibility, operating cash flow margin, liquidity to demand debt, liquidity reserves or contractual arrangements. Assessments may include but are not limited to an Issuer’s desired capital structure / credit profile, and its adherence to its commitments and our views on the ability of the company to achieve its targets, an assessment of the likelihood and potential negative impact of M&A or other types of balance-sheet-transforming events, and the likelihood of uncontracted financial support being provided by owners; and the protective terms of debt documentation including but limited to restrictions on business activities, use of debt and revenue distributions; and control and liquidity afforded to creditors.
Debt Affordability: Metrics may include but are not limited to size and scope of multi-year CIP (capital improvement plan) relative to condition of assets that will rely on debt for funding; ratio of total cash and investments to debt and/or interest payments; ratio of debt to operating revenue; debt service coverage and ratios; ratio of debt to cash flow and to operating revenue; interest coverage metrics and concession life coverage ratios; debt and debt equivalents.
• Aeroports de Montreal
• Calgary Airport Authority (The)
• Edmonton Regional Airports Authority
• Greater Toronto Airports Authority
• Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier Int’l Airport Auth.
• St. John’s International Airport Authority
• Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc.
The principal methodology used for the rated entities listed below was Government-Related Issuers Methodology published in February 2020. Please see the Rating Methodologies page on https://ratings.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.
Key rating considerations on a forward-looking basis may include but are not limited to the following summarized below.
Government-Related Issuers Methodology
Assigning a Baseline Credit Assessment (BCA): The majority of Government-Related Issuers (GRIs) begin with an assessment of the GRI’s standalone strength (i.e. BCA) – its ability to service and repay outstanding debt without recourse to extraordinary support from the supporting government – using the published sector-specific methodology that is most suitable for the predominant activities of the GRI. Our assessment of standalone strength includes any day-to-day support received from the government that can be clearly distinguished from extraordinary support. Support mechanisms, such as an obligation of the government to ensure the GRI’s solvency and liquidity, are reflected in the BCA when they are legally or contractually documented.
Government uplift: The GRI’s ratings include any uplift due to systemic support and typically focus on three structural factors and three factors explaining the level of the government’s willingness to provide support. Structural factors address the legal and quasi-legal aspects of the government’s relationship with the GRI and include: (1) guarantees, (2) ownership level and (3) barriers to support. The factors underlying willingness consider the softer connections between the two entities and include (4) the likelihood of government intervention, (5) political linkages and (6) economic importance. Support is determined using a joint default analysis framework which considers an estimate of the likelihood of extraordinary support, an assessment of the credit quality of the supporting government, and default correlation between the two entities.
GRIs without a BCA: In limited instances, it is not possible or meaningful to assign a BCA. The GRI is so inextricably linked to the government that a meaningful standalone BCA cannot be derived. In such cases, a top-down analytical approach is used that chiefly considers the ability and willingness of the government to provide timely support, instead of the usual bottom-up approach of starting with the BCA and then considering uplift towards the government’s rating.
• Aeroports de Montreal
• Calgary Airport Authority (The)
• Edmonton Regional Airports Authority
• Greater Toronto Airports Authority
• NAV CANADA
• Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier Int’l Airport Auth.
• St. John’s International Airport Authority
• Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc.
This announcement applies only to Rated Entities with EU rated, UK rated, EU endorsed and UK endorsed ratings. Rated Entities, with Non EU rated, non UK rated, non EU endorsed and non UK endorsed ratings may be referenced herein to the extent necessary, if they are part of the same analytical unit.
Please see the Issuer page on https://ratings.moodys.com for each of the ratings covered, most updated credit rating action, rating history, and Credit Rating action Press Release including the rating rationale and factors that could lead to a rating upgrade or downgrade.
This publication does not announce a credit rating action.
For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the issuer/deal page on https://ratings.moodys.com
for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history.
Releasing Office:
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
U.S.A.
JOURNALISTS: 1 212 553 0376
Client Service: 1 212 553 1653
https://Moodys.ethicspoint.com
Dial 1-866-330-MDYS (1-866-330-6397)
Dial the AT&T Direct Dial Access® code for
your location.
Then, at the prompt, dial 866-330-MDYS
(866-330-6397).
About Author
