16 thoughts on “New Wings

  1. What was the price of the Plane? What are the annual operating costs, as compared to paying for trips on a meeting by meeting basis. Are there no public conveyances? What is out liability and the cost of the insurance.? What costs have I missed. One final question? Who can use this plane from the company and is it only for offical purposes and are official purposes defined somewhere?


  2. I have to admit that the company’s leadership is picking out good airplanes for the mission required – Dallas to Midland and back, even if they are wasteful and Southwest probably flies out there 5X daily. The initial cost of a King Air versus a jet that would seat that many would be over $30,000,000 and the operating costs would be much higher for a super midsize or large corporate jet. The time saved on a trip that short would be minimal for the distance that the trip is. At least, their aviation advisor is top notch.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. This is the A/C they sold. We don’t know what they bought to replace it. Either way, they don’t need one to collect royalty revenues or the short trips to Midland. Another way to take money out of our pockets. They suck and Stahl & Oliver don’t have the board votes to stop this crap.


  4. is it that hard to just take cash from the bank and just buyback shares? need an aircraft to collect royalties? having said that, i thank management for their stupidity and greed to allow for opportunities to grab shares at a lower price. The company itself is a world class business with some of the best assets in the world, this gem is currently being masked by their greedy management which i hope will get kicked out soon


  5. Somebody has to get to the analysts that are “blessed” enough to ask question on the earnings call to ask about the freaking plane and justification. This is just so freaking wrong. Do I sound pissed???


  6. TPL is covered by Credit Suisse, an analyst name Chris Baker covers the stock.

    Recent report in January written by him, extraction as follows:

    Voting results in-line with our expectations; though raises several unanswered
    questions. After market close yesterday, TPL released the voting results from its first
    Annual General Meeting as a C-Corp. Overall the outcome was as we’d expected, with
    Director Dana McGinnis not re-elected to the board and a majority of shareholders
    supporting Gabriel Gliksberg’s proposal to de-stagger the board. In our view, shareholders
    have sent a clear message that there is more work to be done to further strengthen
    governance and accountability; however, as we discuss below it’s now up to the board to
    follow through on that mandate.

    Majority of shareholders vote against Dana McGinnis’ re-election. Amongst the
    three Director’s up for re-election this year, both Directors Glover and Duganier received
    over 81% shareholder support. Director McGinnis however only received 49.09% of the
    vote. And amongst those who voted against McGinnis were Directors Stahl and Oliver,
    putting them in clear violation of the stockholders’ agreement which requires they vote with
    the board’s recommendations. The board will disclose within 90 days if they will accept
    McGinnis’ resignation. Questions: Why did Stahl vote against McGinnis if the board looked
    into earlier concerns and was satisfied that McGinnis’ firm was in-fact the #2 TPL
    shareholder back in early 2019? Will the board accept McGinnis’ resignation? What action
    (if any) will TPL take in response to Stahl and Oliver violating the stockholders’ agreement?

    De-stagger proposal receives majority shareholder support. The non-binding
    advisory proposal to de-stagger the board submitted by Gabriel Gliksberg received 55.92%
    support from shareholders despite the board’s opposition to the proposal. We continue to
    believe de-staggering the board represents an opportunity for the company to further
    modernize its corporate governance and increase accountability to shareholders. Questions:
    Given proxy advisor ISS’ earlier recommendation and now majority shareholder support,
    why doesn’t the board take immediate action to de-stagger?


Comments are closed.