Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Airlines Again May Fly Within Canada  
User currently offlineDtwintlflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 301 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3442 times:

This has now come up again within the Canadian govt. The fact is flying within Canada usually is very expensive. With the introduction a few years ago of WestJet and CanJet and Jetsgo, prices have come down a bit, but they still are usually very high. I don't know if allowing a US carrier to fly point to point within Canada is a good idea as it would allow Canadian carriers to do the same within the States. I am NOT opposed to competition, but there already is too much capacity.

We need to weed out the weak airlines that have been failing for many years (ie ...US Airways) and let capacity and availability adjust. I know .... no one get pissed off at me for saying that. No one wants to see another carrier go away. People loosing jobs is never good, but after deregulation and the post 9-11 downturn in travel, hard decisions must be made. That opens up another debate, but anyway....I just don't know if allowing both countries to fly point to point is a good idea.

Here is the story from USA Today web site.........

U.S. airlines to fly within Canada? New Transport Minister Jean Lapierre says the Canadian government is again considering expanding a free trade pact that would open Canadian routes to competition from U.S. airlines. He's expected to float the idea Friday in parliament. "Consumers are not only very, very conscious of prices but they also want competition because in every market where you have competition, prices drop," he said in a Canadian Press dispatch carried by The Globe and Mail of Toronto. Washington wants to build on a 1995 bilateral agreement that eased air travel between the two countries. That sparked a jump in business and tourist traffic, and Lapierre now wants to examine total free trade in North American skies. Opponents contend that U.S. carriers choose only to fly the best routes, with competition possibly forcing prices so low that Canadian carriers couldn't compete. One player just out of bankruptcy, Air Canada said it favors free trade because it would provide access to lucrative U.S. routes. Posted at 10:30 a.m. ET

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

Excerpt from The Wall Street Journal:

NEW YORK -- Canada's Transport Minister Jean Lapierre said Friday that he won't rule out allowing U.S. airlines greater access to domestic routes or greater foreign ownership of Canada's airlines, even if the U.S. government doesn't reciprocate, Canadian Pres reported.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3022 times:

I don`t agree flying in Canada is expensive, especially if you look back 10 years or more and compare fares. Personally I think it would be disastrous for Canadian aviation. Parliament should be looking at what is best for the Canadian industry, not trying to save pax $20 on the cost of visiting Grandma. Right now there are enogh choices for travel and I don`t see the need for Us carriers here.

User currently offlineYulguy From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2999 times:

I agree. The minister of transport and the government will experience big political repercussions. It is not that expensive to fly in the country and there is enough competition. Is Jean Lapierre on crack when he is saying that there doesn't have to be any reciprocation from the Americans? What a sell out! This is proof that Paul Martin and the new Liberals are nothing more than Tories in disguise.


"Celui qui diffère de moi, loin de me léser, m'enrichit." - Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlineDtwintlflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2977 times:

This will not work. It can't. It is one of those issues they like to talk about, but they know it is not viable. Can you imagine UA operating three flights a day from YUL to YYZ (or any carrier for that matter). Or AC flying four flights a day from JFK to LAX. Talk about bankruptcy for AC and a drop in yield for transcon US operators.

User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2976 times:

Unfortunately, there are more voters that buy plane tickets than there are laid off airline employees.So these twits put out this idea as a good thing, and you end up with the Walmart scenario in the airline business- massive US business with economy of scale comes into the Canadian market and undercuts everyone, pushing Canadian companies under. Great plan!

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2956 times:

Dtwintlflyer:

Who cares about specific operators. Open it all up and let the market sort it out with no supports. Anyhow, I'm guessing that (in your example), UA would run YYZ<->YVR people through, say, ORD. IMHO, the two countries should have a unified border and unified aviation market.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineFlaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1277 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2943 times:

I don't see either market doing very well at the moment. Why not shake things up a bit? There isn't really that much of a capital imbalance at this point in time anyway. All of the majors are reeling on both sides of the border. The greater economies of scale alluded to above would be more than offset by the huge market potential that would be available to Canadian carriers.

Access to the internal US market might allow Canadian carriers the opportunity to achieve better economies of scale and allow them to compete on a more level playing field in and certainly between both markets. Outside of a few major markets there isn't that much to interest US carriers. Consumers on both sides of the border could benefit and since the airlines themselves are falling apart anyway it might not end up being any worse.


User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2933 times:

I`ll admit up front that I am biased, but to heck with the consumer. Frankly I don`t see any airline operating much cheaper than what we`ve got now, and there`s a pile of people laid off up here right now, and this screwball idea won`t help.

User currently offlineKohflot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2916 times:

Isn't the problem with flying in Canada these days the taxes that are imposed? I just priced a YVR-YYZ roundtrip on Westjet, and 1/3 of the total is composed of various taxes....

I'm not sure how having US airlines fly domestic Canadian routes would help. Southwest or JetBlue would probably charge about as much as WestJet, and their passengers would have to pay the same taxes....


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

This will not work. It can't. It is one of those issues they like to talk about, but they know it is not viable. Can you imagine UA operating three flights a day from YUL to YYZ (or any carrier for that matter). Or AC flying four flights a day from JFK to LAX.

Exactly. US carriers are generally not interested in non-hub point-to-point flights which rules out their interest in Canada domestic flights, and no Cdn airline is financially strong enough to offer any meaningful expansion in US domestic markets, except for maybe WJ and they have their hands full elsewhere.

This is nothing but smoke.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2090 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2852 times:

If this was pushed through you're not necessarily going to see a massive push by the US majors into Canada. Likewise, AC is hardly going to go for a big expansion in the US. It could encourage low cost growth though, i.e. JetBlue, WN. Look at Europe where we have internal open skies. FR and U2 have operations out of several European hubs - heck FR is an Irish carrier but has a big base at STN. Who wouldn't say the European passnger hasn't benefited from this air liberalisation. Mind you, I'd be wary if the Canadian government allowed US carriers to operate domestically in Canada if Canadian carriers couldn't do the same in the US.


Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineEnviroTO From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2840 times:

I guess the question is why the airline industry should be treated differently than other businesses? In almost every other industry there seems to be Canadian subsidiaries in the US and US subsidiaries in Canada. Why is air travel any different? I would force foreign airlines to have local subsidiaries operating any domestic legs so that they are playing on the same regulatory and taxation playing field and force reciprocal arrangements, but other than that I don't see any problem with it. US companies in Canada have Canadian subsidiaries employing Canadian employees and Canadian companies in the US have US subsidiaries employing US employees. I don't see why we should assume there will be a loss of employment opportunities on either side of the border.

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

EnviroTO:

Exactly. In most of those other industries (specifically technology, publishing, automotive, and defense) from a corporate standpoint there's little difference. The airline industry is one of the few where that seems to be a big deal.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineFLYACYYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2765 times:

Enlighten me. From a consumer, schedule and price point of view, to cite the above example, what is the big difference between UA operating YYZ > ORD > YVR as a direct service/single flight number versus a connection? The bottom line is point to point convenience. Why would somebody want to turn a 4:30 flight into a 6:00 hour plus journey?

I agree with the others. Think there's alot of smoke blowing here, and what would be the advantage of unilateral implementation. Also to reiterate, base fares per seat mile on the domestic scene are highly affordable. It's the taxes, and various user fees that are outrageous. A family member recently booked a Jetsgo "loonie sunday" fare to Calgary for $2.00 return!! Don't care to tell you what the taxes amounted to!!



Above and Beyond
User currently offlineAC7E7 From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 646 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2660 times:

Jean Lapierre is a separatist mofo who saw his "political cause" failing and decided to jump ship to the Liberal Party. He likes to blow hot air up everyone's skirts. If the separatist movement ever gained momentum again, he would be the first one to jump back in with the Bloc Quebecois.

I would insist that Canadian airlines have reciprocal rights to the U.S.
Cabotage would benefit Canadian airlines more than it would benefit U.S. carriers, who have continuing financial problems. Canadian carriers would gain access to a market of what, 290 million people, while the U.S. carriers would only gain access to a market with a population of 32 million. The U.S. government would not allow it, at least not in the industry's present situation.

Maybe they would allow certain routes to be flown instead. For example, YUL-YYZ for JFK-ORD.

-AC7E7


User currently offlineCoronado From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1177 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2633 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

EnviroTO

Well said. Here in Eagan MN a few years back Thompson bought the West Publishing company and they have several thousand employees. Not a beat was missed.

I think certainly here in the upper Midwest, that Americans would gladlly fly Air Canada, West Jet and Jetsgo if they offered service in the US. Overall Canadian airlines in spite of their issues still over a more personable service than American carriers. Let's face it 9 out 10 Canadians are really nice, polite, competent, tolerant, sociable people. That is a far higher ratio than I see here in the US!



The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9641 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2637 times:

One airline I can see benefiting in AS. They would probably develop YVR as a hub to go along with SEA and PDX. They already have significant flights out of there and would probably increase service if they are able to fly domestically.

A huge benefit would be the opening of ORD, MSP, DTW, YYZ as competing connection points. US carriers can't carrier passengers on YYZ ORD YVR now, and likewise AC can't do the same with a stop in YYZ. I think it could be good to open up more competition however I don't see the US agreeing anytime soon.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineNjdevilsin03 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

With USAir making FLL a semi-hub, focus city, international hub what ever you want to call it maybe they will look into some FLL-yyz,yul flights?


717, 727, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 752, 753, 762, 763, 777, DC9, MD80, DC10, L1011, ERJ, CRJ, ATR, DH8, A300,
User currently offlineEnviroTO From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2345 times:

I don't understand why the US government would not allow it. Currently, with no changes to any policy Air Canada can fly US passengers anywhere in the world except the US using mostly Canadian crews so what would the US government be protecting against?

As is done in other industries, a US domestic operation of Air Canada would need to be run by a US subsidiary (often they are named something like ACE Holdings USA) and would operate US domestic flights as Air Canada using US crews, US maintenance, US everything else, and would need to pay US taxes, but ACE Holdings would own it and this corporation can be bought on the stock exchange by US citizens, Canadian citizens, and people around the world. The US operation of Air Canada would benefit Americans as much as any other business in the US would except for the few top jobs of ACE Holdings of which there are only a few. If you look at Air Canada the CEO is from the US, and the old CEO of AA was a Canadian so when you think about it does it really make any difference?

As long as airlines are forced to have local subsidiaries run domestic operations like other industries do I don't think anyone looses because these local subsidiaries end up being run under the same rules, tax laws, and playing field as any other local company.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Airlines May Be Soon Allowed To Fly In Canada posted Wed Mar 2 2005 04:57:15 by STARAC17
Should US Airlines Fly Routes Within Canada? posted Fri Nov 9 2001 07:42:09 by Mfricke
Help - Which Non-US Airlines Fly To Grand Cayman? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 03:22:47 by Nickofatlanta
Macon Airport Grant May Fly Again posted Fri Sep 16 2005 19:51:24 by KarlB737
Why No US Airlines Fly To Iceland? posted Mon Sep 12 2005 06:59:44 by Whataboutme
DL's Retired Pilots May Fly Again posted Wed Sep 15 2004 17:56:17 by ATLhomeCMH
Hawaiian Airlines #1 On Time US Airline (again)! posted Tue Jun 8 2004 21:07:05 by HALFA
Where Does UAL 744 Fly Within US posted Mon May 24 2004 19:54:19 by Repaulson
Aero Lloyd May Fly Again posted Wed Oct 22 2003 18:28:49 by Stratofish
Why Don't US Airlines Fly To Eastern Europe? posted Fri Sep 5 2003 12:52:06 by Codeshare