boeingorbust From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 157 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 14974 times:
Looking at the current expansion of YYC it looks as though the airports size is basically going to be doubled. With new cargo facilities and new hangars being built all over the place not to mention a new even longer parallel runway to 34/16, the Airport Authority claims this new expansion and capacity increase will attract new customers with A380's... They expect increased capacity in large amounts over the next 20 years. Also there's talk that BA's first 787 route will be YYC as it's currently their longest haul 767 route (so I've been told by BA employees). Do we see the A380 doing scheduled service to YYC with YVR so close? Is YYC going to become another YYZ or YVR? I guess more than anything I'm looking for some opinions on what I've heard and read so far.
LH just pulled out of that route not too long ago for not making enough money. So currently it seems either the competition is too high with AC and BA flying similar routes and YVR being so close or the market is not there - yet.
It seems to be a growing area with oil etc so maybe in the not so far future this will change.
boeingorbust From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 14959 times:
I was referring moreso to the growing Asian market into YYC. LH pulled out because of lower yields. Economy was full but J class had lighter loads which didn't make the route viable to fly anymore. BA and AC loads as of recent have been very strong in both J and Y classes. I'm wondering if YYC isn't a bit of a white elephant..
Yes, LH was checking which routes doesn't make much money and they axed YYC. But when AC and BA make good money and the area is growing in the future there might be another LH flight. I haven't heard any rumours yet, but who knows.
Is YYC A380 ready? Would they be able to handle it?
boeingorbust From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 14909 times:
After the expansion is complete they will be A380 ready. My other questions is will airlines actually get the rights from the government to fly scheduled service to YYC? Emirates tried to no avail and have limited rights into YYZ. Canadian government seems very strict on forcing as many people onto AC as possible to support the Canada's national failing carrier.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14801 times:
Just because something gets built, it doesn't necessarily mean that airlines will come running to service YYC.
The market might be growing, but it will take time to find any real attractiveness to more carriers to come along. Atleast the expansion allows for airlines to add flights down the track though, which is always a good position to be in,
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted (5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14236 times:
YYC cheerleaders should keep in mind that, while YYC is a major market in the Canadian view, in the world view it is at best a "small town". There will be some growth in international service for YYC, but it will never rival YVR,let alone YYZ.
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 4): Canadian government seems very strict on forcing as many people onto AC as possible to support the Canada's national failing carrier.
Canada has a large number of Open Skies agreements, the EK/EY situation notwithstanding. Regarding the "failing carrier", with the recently resolved labour situation, AC's path forward is much clearer than it was 3-4 years ago. +$429M last quarter, not bad for a failing carrier.
bobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1365 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14001 times:
Here is something to consider. YUL has a population nearly 3x as high as YYC. Yet YYC and YUL are essentially tied in enplanements. Thus YUL is greatly underutlized and lots of traffic potential exists there, or YYC is greatly over-served and the market as a stimulated as it can get. Hard to see that YYC has lots of untapped potential, unless oil goes to $150 or more.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13957 times:
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 7): Here is something to consider. YUL has a population nearly 3x as high as YYC. Yet YYC and YUL are essentially tied in enplanements. Thus YUL is greatly underutlized and lots of traffic potential exists there, or YYC is greatly over-served and the market as a stimulated as it can get. Hard to see that YYC has lots of untapped potential, unless oil goes to $150 or more.
But you have to look at the mix of pax here. YYC is huge on domestic while YUL has very little domestic market. So YYC can never reach up to YUL's international numbers.
YYC will continue to do well, but other airpors are starting to catch up. YEG now has 13 or 14 nonstop destinations in the US and will reduce dependency on YYC.
factsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 323 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13959 times:
One airline that seems to be quite happy at YYC, especially since LH departed, is KLM.
The airline increased capacity on AMS-YYC-AMS last Summer with the introduction of the A330-300 on Sat. & Sundays and the airline has now published 2013 Summer schedule with the A330-300 (292 seats) operating daily in high summer replacing A330-200 (243 seats):
flyyul From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4930 posts, RR: 53 Reply 10, posted (5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13937 times:
YYC is not a sleeping giant other than a city that is very difficult to reach given its geographic location. EK has no interest in YYC - it was simply using Alberta/YYC has a ploy to get incremental landing rights to lucrative YYZ
As for Boeingandbust, may I remind him that Air Canada serves London, Frankfurt and Tokyo. How many other ciites in the USA with YYC pop.size have this kind of international reach?
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 11, posted (5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13901 times:
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 4): After the expansion is complete they will be A380 ready. My other questions is will airlines actually get the rights from the government to fly scheduled service to YYC?
Dozens of airlines have unlimited rights to start service to YYC tomorrow, including every carrier based in the 27 EU countries (plus Switzerland, Norway and Iceland). QF could start service to YYC tomorrow and the same applies for many other carriers from virtually every continent where existing bilateral rights are either unused or not fully used.
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 7): Here is something to consider. YUL has a population nearly 3x as high as YYC. Yet YYC and YUL are essentially tied in enplanements. Thus YUL is greatly underutlized and lots of traffic potential exists there, or YYC is greatly over-served and the market as a stimulated as it can get.
You also have to consider geography. YUL is almost on the U.S. border and a few hours drive from many major U.S. cities. That's not the case for YYC which means a much higher percentage of Canada-U.S. transborder traffic flies to/from YYC than to/from YUL where cars, buses and trains are convenient options. The closest U.S. cities to YYC with any amount of scheduled service (GTF and GEG) are a 5 hr. (GTF) to 8 hr. (GEG) drive and they're hardly major hubs.
For a city Montreal's size, it has a very extensive range of international and domestic service. How many U.S. cities of similar population have scheduled transatlantic service on at least 12 airlines, including nonstop service to Europe, the Middle East, and Canada's only nonstop service to 2 countries in Africa (Morocco and Algeria)?
SuperDash From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 563 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13835 times:
I have to laugh. Calgary is a wonderful city and the nearby national parks are spectacular. But with a population of only 1.2M, it really is a small market. Energy gives Calgary an added air boost. But with service to London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Tokyo (all on small planes - and some not even daily), there really aren't too many more markets available for Calgary (Paris, Beijing, Seoul - perhaps). And those markets will be flown more with 787 size planes. I think the only time Calgary will see the A380 is on a diversion. Domestically and to the US/Mexico, Calgary will do well - especially because of its energy sector.
Skywatcher From Canada, joined Sep 2002, 441 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13595 times:
In my opinion YYC is well served by the traditional carriers. Where I find that it is underseved is in the "holiday travel" sector. Given the very high disposable income levels of the city and the fact that it routinely plunges to -35C during the winter I'm surprised that Air Transat and Sunwing haven't grown far larger in this market.
LH just pulled out of that route not too long ago for not making enough money. So currently it seems either the competition is too high with AC and BA flying similar routes and YVR being so close or the market is not there - yet.
[quote=bobloblaw,reply=7]YUL has a population nearly 3x as high as YYC. Yet YYC and YUL are essentially tied in enplanements.
Why are you comparing YUL to YYC? They are 4 hours flight time apart. Over two time zones. Really doesn't make sense to draw any comparison to me or am I missing the point as usual?
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 8): YEG now has 13 or 14 nonstop destinations in the US and will reduce dependency on YYC.
YEG is a growing airport area and with the oil sands project up in YMM which is not able to handle the large aircraft.
Quoting SuperDash (Reply 12): But with service to London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Tokyo (all on small planes - and some not even daily),
I don't think that A333's and 763's to be small aircraft. If you think that maybe an A380 or B777 should be flying into YYC then maybe we should find a market for YYC that would warrent such a large aircraft.
SuperDash From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 563 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13133 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 14): I don't think that A333's and 763's to be small aircraft.
Yes the 767, 787 and A330 are small twin aisle airplanes (admittedly the 330-300 not so much). The 777-300ER, 747 and A380 are on the large side of the scale and not a plane that will routinely see YYC on a year round basis
Quoting brilondon (Reply 14): If you think that maybe an A380 or B777 should be flying into YYC then maybe we should find a market for YYC that would warrent such a large aircraft.
This might have been for the OP, but here is my quote in case you missed it.
Quoting SuperDash (Reply 12): I think the only time Calgary will see the A380 is on a diversion.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3179 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12945 times:
Quoting SuperDash (Reply 15):
This might have been for the OP, but here is my quote in case you missed it.
Quoting SuperDash (Reply 12):
I think the only time Calgary will see the A380 is on a diversion.
I did not miss it. I was responding to the OP. I agree with your assessment on the A380. I don't even think that a diversion would ever get to YYC, as there are so few airlines flying the A380 any where near YYC, they would divirt to YVR before they would need to get to YYC, wouldn't they?
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12815 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 16): I did not miss it. I was responding to the OP. I agree with your assessment on the A380. I don't even think that a diversion would ever get to YYC, as there are so few airlines flying the A380 any where near YYC, they would divirt to YVR before they would need to get to YYC, wouldn't they?
Actually, YYC and YEG are often used for diversion from and to Europe en route to and from California and to/from Asia to US east coast.
bobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1365 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12328 times:
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 8): while YUL has very little domestic market
Is YUL underserved and unstimulated or do the French Canadians just not travel to English Canada?
Quoting brilondon (Reply 14): Why are you comparing YUL to YYC? They are 4 hours flight time apart. Over two time zones. Really doesn't make sense to draw any comparison to me or am I missing the point as usual?
flying time and time zones arent really an issue here. The question is is there more growth potential at YYC. Considering YYC is smaller then AUS or BNA, given their level of service Id say no. The reason I mentioned YUL, is because YYC and YUL jockey for 3rd place among Canada's busiest airports. YUL is 3x the population of YYC.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, RR: 13 Reply 20, posted (5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12118 times:
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 19): Is YUL underserved and unstimulated or do the French Canadians just not travel to English Canada?
Quebecois really don't travel in bulk to the ROC, excepting Ottawa and/or Toronto. Ottawa is likely a drive, Toronto has rail, air,and car access. Quebec destinations are a mix or air or car. Ergo, YUL has relatively fewer enplanements given its' size compared to YYC.
Fiedman From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 184 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (5 months 1 day ago) and read 10652 times:
I know this is a little off topic but it does relate to the YYC expansion, first what is gonna happen to concourse C when the US airlines switch to the new transboarder concourse? and also where is Air Canada Jazz moving too when they close the walkway off concourse A?
YVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2095 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 months 1 day ago) and read 10453 times:
I think the only chance for massive expansion at YYC is if WS go for longhaul and make a hub operation from YYC. Although it is their base, I feel that even WS would not use YYC as their main international gateway, though could well operate a couple of P2P routes. All pretty hypothetical at this point anyway.
Because for half of the year its a right PITA to get there from anywhere, for example in summer here from YVR we would think about driving through, but in winter forget it. There is also very little loss of pax to US airports simply becuase it is too far north of the border with little of any real consequence immediately south of the border, compared to YVR, YUL or even YYZ.
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 4): After the expansion is complete they will be A380 ready
YVR is A380 ready, with multi international airlines operating daily flights to the largest airports on the planet, yet no need for any A380 - so if YVR cant justify an A380, I cant see YYC doing so.
(That being said, I do believe YVR is a prime 380 summer route for BA and believe it will be a fairly early route for the big Speedbird - but you know the BA position in YYC of course. CX is the only other airline thay may be able to use it to YVR even though they have lost of lot of traffic to CZ and 3U, but of course they dont have them on order - and YYC doesnt have the Chinese, specifically HK, population YVR does).
Quoting SuperDash (Reply 12): Energy gives Calgary an added air boost
No question this inflates the numbers passing through an airport representing a relatively small population base - I bet a decent percentage of these pax dont actually even go into Calgary itself other than maybe for a nights sleep.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (5 months 23 hours ago) and read 10285 times:
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 22): Quoting SuperDash (Reply 12):Energy gives Calgary an added air boost
No question this inflates the numbers passing through an airport representing a relatively small population base - I bet a decent percentage of these pax dont actually even go into Calgary itself other than maybe for a nights sleep.
I think both YEG and YYC do a lot of oil and gas labourer shuttle flights. Some of these flightes depart (in the case of YEG) from the special terminal and the pax figures aren't added to the total pasenger and I presume tha may apply to YYC.
But either way, YYC's growth is now at a point where any new overseas based airline will have to think twice about launching new flights. They can just add new flights to existing Canadian destinations (YVR and YYZ) which would be much less risky than flying to YYC.
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 24, posted (5 months 23 hours ago) and read 10229 times:
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 23): I think both YEG and YYC do a lot of oil and gas labourer shuttle flights. Some of these flightes depart (in the case of YEG) from the special terminal and the pax figures aren't added to the total pasenger and I presume tha may apply to YYC.
Most airport authorities have figured out a way to count those passengers, in doing so boosting the airport passenger numbers.
Where there is a will, there is a way !
Thenoflyzone
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5043 posts, RR: 29 Reply 25, posted (5 months 22 hours ago) and read 10247 times:
The Q's will let WS expand into the states and allow for more routes in Canada, too small to be profitable with the 737. I believe YYZ will also serve as a base for the Q's as well as major routing south, once the iron is sorted out.
Banff is a huge destination and getting bigger all the time, especially Asian and European tourists.
They really did need a new international terminal. Every time I flew to Europe from YYC, people were standing shoulder to shoulder waiting to board...the waiting areas are currently not nearly big enough.
I have no doubts YYC will keep with its steady growth for many years to come.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 26, posted (5 months 22 hours ago) and read 10056 times:
YYC will always be limited by the fact that it doesn't have large cities to pull passengers from. The fact that Encore is going to operate potentially more point to point flights means bad news for YYC and its dominance of connecting pax from Winnipeg to Kelowna and from Regina to Comox and so on and so forth.
Take also the fact that aiports like YMM will soon have direct flights to the US and multiple dailies into YYZ. And don't think for a moment that other Western Canadian airports aren't lobbying hard to get more service and atrying to avoid YYC (YEG has been doing it and so does YWG).
The Calgary region is growing and that will be the bulk of the growth for YYC IMO.
boeingorbust From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (5 months 20 hours ago) and read 9869 times:
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
Canada has a large number of Open Skies agreements, the EK/EY situation notwithstanding. Regarding the "failing carrier", with the recently resolved labour situation, AC's path forward is much clearer than it was 3-4 years ago. +$429M last quarter, not bad for a failing carrier.
I admit that AC is making a good turn around and has made some decent operational changes (some of which are ones made by the feds in recent aribitrary decisions during labour disputes). However they have a very long way to go which they have even admitted themselves. These earnings don't make up for the quarters of massive losses not to mention their mounting pension deficit which they are currently appealing to the feds for an extension for.
Also to those who are responding to me like I expect to see an A380 in YYC soon, I really don't. I doubt it'll be seen here for a looooooong time... maybe once Air Transat or Thomas Cook or another charter starts buying up used ones to fill it with seats for holiday flights. My topic was a discussion to hear opinions from others in the airline industry.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5043 posts, RR: 29 Reply 28, posted (5 months 20 hours ago) and read 9532 times:
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 26): The fact that Encore is going to operate potentially more point to point flights means bad news for YYC and its dominance of connecting pax from Winnipeg to Kelowna and from Regina to Comox and so on and so forth.
No it doesn't. Going point to point adds total flight to WS...but it doesn't eliminate or reduce flights to YYC. WS is still going to feed international flights to Calgary...which will always be bigger internationally and domestically than Winnipeg or Edmonton.
The 737's will be using YYC as a hub for expanding their transborder operations.
Edmonton feeds the EIA and western Canada feeds YYC and YVR. The extra few minutes flight to Calgary instead of Edmonton, from northern Alberta is nothing. There is little love lost for the so called gateway to the north.
Passengers have spoken to the tune of 2 to 1 which airport they prefer. Sure, YEG will still grow but just like every other time the economy slows, YEG will lose its links first.
Some airline will take their 380 into YYC on a promo flight or some such thing eventually. Too bad scheds won't happen in the near future but it would be fun. They should get their share of 787's and 777's.
YYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 809 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (5 months 19 hours ago) and read 9419 times:
the biggest upside is having the paralells so we can reduce the atc delays. only problem will be the single crosswind runway when you try to cram two runways of arrivals onto one during a chinook. The new terminal is just a bonus.
lets hope they rip down the B/C pier and completely re build it.
rikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1464 posts, RR: 2 Reply 31, posted (5 months 19 hours ago) and read 9178 times:
Quoting Fiedman (Reply 21): first what is gonna happen to concourse C when the US airlines switch to the new transboarder concourse? and also where is Air Canada Jazz moving too when they close the walkway off concourse A?
From what I have read, the original terminal will handle only domestic flights. I believe trans-border(US) and International flights will be all housed in the new terminal. Current trans-border area is better than originally designed, but still rather cramped during peak times.
Also, the expansions is being done during a time where they can afford to do so. The expansion was planned as long term capacity growth, rather than doing smaller incremental expansion....which has been the case since initially opening. My only hope is that the new terminal will be easily able to retrofit, if and when that need is there.
[Edited 2012-12-24 23:15:17]
Cessna 172; King Air 100; Twin Otter; SAAB 340; Dash 7; Dash 8-100,-200,-300,-400; CRJ-200,700,900; ERJ-170; F-28; DC 9-
yenne09 From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 184 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (5 months 12 hours ago) and read 8591 times:
As a Montrealer who went many times to Calgary, I have to admit that Calgary is to Vancouver what Montreal is to Toronto.
But we have to admit that Calgary has a good potential of developpement. In 2011, for the first time in the history of our country, there are more people living in the western part of the country (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) than in eastern part (New-Brunswick, Newfoundland-and-Labrador, Nova-Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec). For Canada, this is a radical change. Also, in Calgary there are a lot of poeple coming from Asia so in my opinion, even if its not a very large city, economically speaking it is a developping city.
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 33, posted (5 months 11 hours ago) and read 8504 times:
Quoting yenne09 (Reply 32): In 2011, for the first time in the history of our country, there are more people living in the western part of the country (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) than in eastern part (New-Brunswick, Newfoundland-and-Labrador, Nova-Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec).
Ontario + Quebec = 21.5 million people.
population of Canada: 35 million.
hit reset....try again ma belle !
Thenoflyzone
[Edited 2012-12-25 07:46:30]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 34, posted (5 months 11 hours ago) and read 8466 times:
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 26): YYC will always be limited by the fact that it doesn't have large cities to pull passengers from.
That same thing "limiting" YYC, as you say, is also what makes sure Calgarians will always "fly" out of YYC.
Anyone who wants to leave Calgary has no choice but to fly out of the city's international airport. The same cannot be said about the 3 biggest cities in Canada, where rail, car and U.S airports are increasingly taking a bite out the passenger numbers of the local airports.
Put YYC in a geographical position similar to YVR, YYZ and YUL, and the passenger numbers will instantly go down.
Fact.
Thenoflyzone
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 35, posted (5 months 9 hours ago) and read 8226 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 34): That same thing "limiting" YYC, as you say, is also what makes sure Calgarians will always "fly" out of YYC.
Anyone who wants to leave Calgary has no choice but to fly out of the city's international airport. The same cannot be said about the 3 biggest cities in Canada, where rail, car and U.S airports are increasingly taking a bite out the passenger numbers of the local airports.
Put YYC in a geographical position similar to YVR, YYZ and YUL, and the passenger numbers will instantly go down.
Fact.
Thenoflyzone
You obviously didn't get my point. YYC is no YYZ and no YUL in terms of international traffic and never will be. Calgary metro is 1.3 million. Southwestern Ontario has only one main airport - YYZ and and Quebec has one major airport YUL. Southwestern Ontario has 10 million in population while Quebec has 8 or 9 million. So how many more Calgarians you will need to reach the level that is required given that Calgary's traffic is dependent (whether you agree or not) on connecting pax from YEG, YXE, YQR, YMM, YLW, YQU, and so on and so forth. You will be kidding yourself if you think Calgary's 14 million pax are all Calgary based. More than 2 million pax in YYC's count originate or terminate in YEG.
So like I say, as western airports gain more flights, YYC will be losing dominance given that other metro areas are reaching a large enough critical mass.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 36, posted (5 months 8 hours ago) and read 8193 times:
Quoting yenne09 (Reply 32): In 2011, for the first time in the history of our country, there are more people living in the western part of the country (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) than in eastern part (New-Brunswick, Newfoundland-and-Labrador, Nova-Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec).
You are misreading the 2011 Canada census summary. They said that in 2011, for the first time ever, the population of the 4 western provinces exceeded the combined population of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. Ontario isn't part of that comparison as it accounts for 38.4% of Canada's population.
Regional population shares in % from 2011 census:
Ontario - 38.4%
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia - 30.7%
Quebec and Atlantic provinces - 30.6%
Territories - 0.3%
ElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 620 posts, RR: 2 Reply 37, posted (5 months 8 hours ago) and read 8179 times:
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6): YYC cheerleaders should keep in mind that, while YYC is a major market in the Canadian view, in the world view it is at best a "small town". There will be some growth in international service for YYC, but it will never rival YVR,let alone YYZ.
Whether YYC is a small town or not is irrelevant. What really matters is the nature of the demographics, particularly the presence of expats and 1st/2nd generation immigrants, as well as concentration of wealth. Dubai is, after all, only double the size of Calgary.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6): Canada has a large number of Open Skies agreements, the EK/EY situation notwithstanding. Regarding the "failing carrier", with the recently resolved labour situation, AC's path forward is much clearer than it was 3-4 years ago. +$429M last quarter, not bad for a failing carrier.
You can add ET and TK and basically any major non-EU/US carrier except one or two Asians ones to the list of carriers that will probably never be allowed to fly to YYC. The problem, however, is that these airlines are generally doing better than the EU carriers that can serve YYC and have both the capacity and wherewithal to serve YYC while EU carriers are dealing with scarcer and scarcer resources by the day.
I think the fundamental point being lost on many here is that we will never know YYC's potential unless demand and supply, and not government barriers, are allowed to dictate the terms. Lets not forget that a route that LH considers not profitable enough might well be sufficiently profitable for a carrier like TK, with lower costs. Of course, until Canada changes its aviation policy, an airport like YYC will have its potential constrained to whatever a few EU airlines + AC think of it (oligopoly comes to mind).
Quoting flyyul (Reply 10): YYC is not a sleeping giant other than a city that is very difficult to reach given its geographic location. EK has no interest in YYC - it was simply using Alberta/YYC has a ploy to get incremental landing rights to lucrative YYZ
With all due respect, YYC's potential as a market depends on the ability of an airline to make it work. Some can. Some can't.
FWIW, were you sitting in on the negotiations? How do you know it was a 'ploy'? Because the AC CEO said so? There are so many myths floating around on this issue that I have a hard time taking anyone associated with AC seriously on the EK bit. Just surprised that AC hasn't blamed the loss of Avios jobs on EK - after all, weren't those high-skilled, high paying jobs the type of jobs AC HQ claimed it was trying to save from EK?
Quoting flyyul (Reply 10): As for Boeingandbust, may I remind him that Air Canada serves London, Frankfurt and Tokyo. How many other ciites in the USA with YYC pop.size have this kind of international reach?
Questionable logic. As I stated above, there are many variables that go into this, including the presence of expats, 1st and 2nd gen immigrants, wealth etc. Unless you compare YYC with a city of similar characteristics, this comparison is meaningless.
As for the rest, if AC can operate those 3 routes profitably, imagine the routes that other airlines, with lower costs/greater capacity could operate if they were allowed to fly to YYC. Lets not forget that a route that isn't profitable for AC or LH or BA could be perfectly worthwhile for another airline.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11): Dozens of airlines have unlimited rights to start service to YYC tomorrow, including every carrier based in the 27 EU countries (plus Switzerland, Norway and Iceland). QF could start service to YYC tomorrow and the same applies for many other carriers from virtually every continent where existing bilateral rights are either unused or not fully used.
The potential of the market will only be known if suppliers are free to enter the market. Pointing to a handful of airlines (Lets be real - TAROM, CSA etc can't fly to Canada even if they want to due to lack of appropriate aircraft, so stating "27" EU states has more than an element of smoke and mirrors obfuscation to it) and saying that their success or failure represents the potential of the market is very questionable. For all the Open Skies we do have, we also have restrictions on certain suppliers - profitable suppliers who have time and again stated a desire to get greater access to Canada (and no, I m not referring solely to the ME3).
All of these statements about Open Skies and the EU - they have absolutely no bearing on the potential of YYC as an aviation market - a reality that seems to be lost on most Canadians. YYC not a good market for LH =/= YYC not a good market in general. If LH can't make enough money of it, that is not a YYC problem, that is an LH problem. As long as airlines that want to serve YYC are kept out, we will never know the potential.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11): How many U.S. cities of similar population have scheduled transatlantic service on at least 12 airlines, including nonstop service to Europe, the Middle East, and Canada's only nonstop service to 2 countries in Africa (Morocco and Algeria)?
Another meaningless comparison. How many US cities of the same size have the same demographic characteristics as Montreal?
Just using mother tongue as a criteria:
Arabic - 126,865
South Asian - ~53,000 (breakout below)
Bengali - 10,240
Gujarati - 5,895
Hindi - 2,635
Punjabi - 11,025
Tamil - 13,145
Urdu - 9,615
Spanish - 111,070
Italian - 110,125
Greek - 38,860
German - 10,155
Vietnamese - 24,610
Tagalog - 13,280
Russian - 22,480
Romanian - 28,975
Portugese - 29,225
Polish - 13,530
Persian - 17,895
Mandarin - 10,180
Cantonese - 10,515
Chinese (unspecified) - 39,095
I don't know too many US cities in the same size range with a similar demographic makeup, not to mention the affinity to France (how much of YULs international traffic ends up in France?)
Its an incredibly diverse city that could probably sustain even more aviation traffic if it was allowed to. If you think about it, there's nearly 190,000 South Asians/South East Asians and Arabs. For that entire chunk, YUL has non-EU service only to ...Algiers, Doha, Casablanca and Amman. The rest have to be routed through the EU, where carriers are constrained by high operating costs, low profitability, high taxes, fleet constraints etc. YUL could easily handle more traffic from the likes of TK etc. Will it be allowed to? Probably not for another couple of years.
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 27): These earnings don't make up for the quarters of massive losses not to mention their mounting pension deficit which they are currently appealing to the feds for an extension for.
Given that AC's return to profitability has been fuelled in part by concessions by unions (including pay freezes/cuts), it stands to reason that the moment the airline becomes sustainably profitable, the unions will try to clawback some of their past cuts, especially in light of recent corporate behavior and outright antagonism towards unionized workers. Whether AC's upturn will last...I don't know.
I believe YYC does have more potential than it is currently showing. But I believe that of virtually every international airport in Canada. What is letting Canada down is poor policies, not the potential of the 'market' in and of itself.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 38, posted (5 months 8 hours ago) and read 8169 times:
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 17): Quoting brilondon (Reply 16):
I did not miss it. I was responding to the OP. I agree with your assessment on the A380. I don't even think that a diversion would ever get to YYC, as there are so few airlines flying the A380 any where near YYC, they would divirt to YVR before they would need to get to YYC, wouldn't they?
Actually, YYC and YEG are often used for diversion from and to Europe en route to and from California and to/from Asia to US east coast.
YVR is not convenient for such stops.
Agree, YYC and YEG get far more diversions, usually for medical emergencies, than YVR, since both points are much closer to usual routes flown between between Europe and the U.S. west coast than YVR. YWG also gets quite a few diversions. YEG has already had at least one A380 diversion, a LH A380 en route FRA-SFO that diverted to YEG on October 21, 2012 due to a medical emergency. http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/...25&srchfldcd=3&txt=380&srchtype=1.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 39, posted (5 months 7 hours ago) and read 8082 times:
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 7): Here is something to consider. YUL has a population nearly 3x as high as YYC. Yet YYC and YUL are essentially tied in enplanements. Thus YUL is greatly underutlized and lots of traffic potential exists there, or YYC is greatly over-served and the market as a stimulated as it can get. Hard to see that YYC has lots of untapped potential, unless oil goes to $150 or more.
It's no so much city population but catchment area. Southern Alberta (south of Red Deer) has a population of about 1.7M which is the catchment area of YYC. YUL's catchment area is arguably the entire province of Quebec (excluding Hull) and perhaps YQB for shorthaul flights, which amounts to about 8M.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11): For a city Montreal's size, it has a very extensive range of international and domestic service. How many U.S. cities of similar population have scheduled transatlantic service on at least 12 airlines, including nonstop service to Europe, the Middle East, and Canada's only nonstop service to 2 countries in Africa (Morocco and Algeria)?
You have to figure in Montreal's (and Quebec's) extremely low per capital income (pci) compared to the rest of North America which absolutely puts downward pressure on pax numbers. Also, relatively low business activity, high taxes, the racist anti-English Bill 101 also serve to minimize traffic to/from YUL. IMO, the aforementioned demographic differences with Montreal have LESS of an impact on YUL traffic than its political and economic challenges.
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 26): The fact that Encore is going to operate potentially more point to point flights means bad news for YYC and its dominance of connecting pax from Winnipeg to Kelowna and from Regina to Comox and so on and so forth.
I disagree. Encore will add more point-to-point service but much of that will be thru YYC as smaller markets are added. Encore will serve to enhance YYC as a connecting hub which will grow YYC numbers.
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 26): Take also the fact that aiports like YMM will soon have direct flights to the US and multiple dailies into YYZ. And don't think for a moment that other Western Canadian airports aren't lobbying hard to get more service and atrying to avoid YYC (YEG has been doing it and so does YWG).
YMM, YEG etc passenger numbers all depend on oil just like YYC's numbers. So all will grow together. Also, the 2 primary routes from YYM are to YYC & YEG (more than 50% of YMM's pax count) so the growth of YMM-YYC and YMM-YEG will be more important to growing YMM than adding more YYX or DEN, etc.
Regarding YMM, their new customs clearance facility opened on Dec 19th btw. Sunwing began 738 service to YMM the same day.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 36): You are misreading the 2011 Canada census summary. They said that in 2011, for the first time ever, the population of the 4 western provinces exceeded the combined population of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. Ontario isn't part of that comparison as it accounts for 38.4% of Canada's population.
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia - 30.7%
Quebec and Atlantic provinces - 30.6%
Unfortunately, Quebec and Atlantic still have more MP's than the West. More favouritism to Quebec......
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 37): I have a hard time taking anyone associated with AC seriously on the EK bit.
Until AC starts generating profits, anything they say publicly will not be taken fully seriously. This extends to all AC employees who constantly tell us AC us JUST AROUND THE CORNER FROM GLORY which of course never happens.
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 37): For that entire chunk, YUL has non-EU service only to ...Algiers, Doha, Casablanca and Amman.
YYZ has nonstop service to TLV, IST, DXB and Abu Dhabi making YYZ perhaps a better Mid-East hub for Canada than YUL, esp given YYZ's superior hub.
Getting back to the thread topic, YYC is currently equal to YUL in terms of pax count, but the YYC will (likely) move firmly into 3rd for the following reasons:
1. The continued growth of oil related business in AB.
2. Continued population growth (due in part to oil).
3. The continued growth of Westjet (Canada's largest airline by profit and market capitalization).
4. Continued high PCI in Calgary and Alberta driving more disposable income towards travel.
YUL does not benefit from any of these factors and has been in long term (relative) decline in passenger traffic from decades dropping from 1st (in the early 60's) to its current 3rd place tie with YYC. YUL actually handles not much traffic than it did in 1975.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 40, posted (5 months 7 hours ago) and read 8012 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 39): IMO, the aforementioned demographic differences with Montreal have LESS of an impact on YUL traffic than its political and economic challenges.
If the thousands of people who I'm told drive between Montreal and Burlington Plattsburgh to use U.S. LCCs originated their trips at YUL, I expect YUL's total passenger count would be higher than YYC where driving to nearby U.S. border points isn't an option.
YUL also has some unique direct services from Canada including the only service to Algeria (in fact the only service from North America as there's no U.S.-Algeria service), the only Canada-Morocco service, and the only nonstop service to GVA.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 41, posted (5 months 7 hours ago) and read 8005 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 39): Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 26):The fact that Encore is going to operate potentially more point to point flights means bad news for YYC and its dominance of connecting pax from Winnipeg to Kelowna and from Regina to Comox and so on and so forth.
I disagree. Encore will add more point-to-point service but much of that will be thru YYC as smaller markets are added. Encore will serve to enhance YYC as a connecting hub which will grow YYC numbers.
Much of Encore's flying will be through YYC. You are dreaming. Watch how many aircarft will be deployed out in Ontario and to US cities on the Eact coast. Again, you have to look at the real numbers. I live in the DC area and every day there's at least 20 flights between Toronto and the Baltimore/DC region. You can never be able to build a hub in YYC where you can utlizie such type of traffic from YYC to points in the US - well aside from Houston where the demand is primarily O&D traffic.
The point is that where would Encore deploy from YYC in the US - SEA and PDX and that's it. And if the Encore metals are going to free up the 737's to be deployed on new routes out of YYC, then you are going to end up with a major capacity dump that will either squeeze players out of the YYC market (such as the SLC flights with DL and the AA flights to DFW and even the AS flights to SEA).
I think that a strategy to route everyone through YYC on Encore will be ineffective in my opinion and will fore airports to lobby other airlines to fly direct and provide real incentives. Time will tell!!!
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 42, posted (5 months 7 hours ago) and read 7969 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 40): YUL also has some unique direct services from Canada including the only service to Algeria (in fact the only service from North America as there's no U.S.-Algeria service), the only Canada-Morocco service, and the only nonstop service to GVA.
These are tiny, tiny markets catering mainly to low-yield ethnic traffic. Hence largely irrelevant, however unique (or quaint?) they may be.
More passengers fly from YYZ to each of YUL, YOW, EWR, ORD, LGA before 8am each day.
YUL's future (like YYZ's) is based on its past -- higth volume traffic to YYZ, LGA, YQB etc. In other words, the primary business markets. Quebec's poor PCI, high debt and poor business environment will keep these routes from growing.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
I think you argument is misplaced and not relevant. Please be kind with people.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 36): You are misreading the 2011 Canada census summary. They said that in 2011, for the first time ever, the population of the 4 western provinces exceeded the combined population of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. Ontario isn't part of that comparison as it accounts for 38.4% of Canada's population.
Regional population shares in % from 2011 census:
Ontario - 38.4%
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia - 30.7%
Quebec and Atlantic provinces - 30.6%
Territories - 0.3%
Even if I made some mistake, regarding the Census, there is a general trend, like in the US. The economy is more and more going to the west and it is surprising to se bilingual signs in Calgary hotels; English and mandarin. This wil not going down and eventually Calgary can become a second hub on the Pacific Rim. In the US LAX is the main hub but there is also Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Oakland (I am not sure) with flights over the Pacific.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 44, posted (5 months 6 hours ago) and read 7898 times:
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 41): The point is that where would Encore deploy from YYC in the US - SEA and PDX and that's it.
With the Q400, WS will be able to add many smaller markets from YYC, such as Penticton, Castlegar, Brandon MB. Also, replace most of their current 73G frequencies to YMM, YPQ, YXE, YQR, YLW, YKA with more Q400's. For example, the 5 daily YYC-YXE 73G route could go to 8x daily Q400 to cater to the business traveller, or a mix of the 2. The 2x daily YYC-YKA 737 could become 4x daily Q400. The freed up 737's will add more frequencies to trunk routes or open new markets ideal for the 737. Thisd will absolutely boost YYC as a hub, and boost YYC pax count.
Similarly, in YYZ WS could replace some of the YYZ-LGA flights with the Q400 and add more frequency to other markets eg YYZ-YQB could go from 1x daily to 3x daily Q400, etc.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
ElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 620 posts, RR: 2 Reply 45, posted (5 months 6 hours ago) and read 7873 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 40): YUL also has some unique direct services from Canada including the only service to Algeria (in fact the only service from North America as there's no U.S.-Algeria service), the only Canada-Morocco service, and the only nonstop service to GVA.
Air Algiers does not fly to YUL daily (I can't figure out how often it flies). That aside, I can't think of any US city with any sort of links to major francophonie countries like Morocco or Algeria. Certainly can't think of any US universities that offer Francophonie students a tuition rate that is what - 30-40% of what the average non-Quebecer in Canada pays?
The examples only serve to highlight the relative absence of non-EU carriers in YUL vis-a-vis other long haul carriers, especially in the context of the large concentration of immigrants from francohphonie and non-EU countries. Does Royal Air Maroc fly daily?
All of these destinations are meaningless platitudes, though they do admittedly show that Quebec's relationship with French speaking countries, particularly France and Switzerland, facilitate a lot more TATL traffic than your average American city (the ones that were, for whatever reason, being used to compare YUL to similar sized US airports to make it look like an overachiever, rather than the underachiever that it is). As for non-stop to Geneva, I see that UA (IAD, EWR) and LX (JFK) fly to the US from Geneva, presumably via ZUR?
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 46, posted (5 months 4 hours ago) and read 7734 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 44): With the Q400, WS will be able to add many smaller markets from YYC, such as Penticton, Castlegar, Brandon MB. Also, replace most of their current 73G frequencies to YMM, YPQ, YXE, YQR, YLW, YKA with more Q400's. For example, the 5 daily YYC-YXE 73G route could go to 8x daily Q400 to cater to the business traveller, or a mix of the 2. The 2x daily YYC-YKA 737 could become 4x daily Q400. The freed up 737's will add more frequencies to trunk routes or open new markets ideal for the 737. Thisd will absolutely boost YYC as a hub, and boost YYC pax count.
Similarly, in YYZ WS could replace some of the YYZ-LGA flights with the Q400 and add more frequency to other markets eg YYZ-YQB could go from 1x daily to 3x daily Q400, etc.
But the additional capacity out ot YYC must come at the expense of other airulines reducing capcity...Unless you think YYC will see a 20% increase each year.
Can you do the math....or you seem to think that adding new routes from YYC will automatically mean people will fly those planes. I mean something has to give. Just simple arithmitic.
I remember the days when YYZ used to get Olympic, Malev, Czech Airlines. They are now all gone. But they basically got replaced with the likes of EK, EY, TK and so on. There's no such thing called unlimited growth. And the same principles apply to your beloved YYC.
so when WS and Encore expand at YYC, AC and other airlines will need to shed capacity. Simple math. You try that for a change.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 47, posted (5 months 4 hours ago) and read 7684 times:
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 46): Can you do the math....or you seem to think that adding new routes from YYC will automatically mean people will fly those planes.
Well you clearly missed my math. 4x daily Q400's on (say) YYC-YKA is about the same capacity as the current 2x daily 736 service. 8 daily Q400's is about the same capacity as the 5x daily 736/73G capacity on YYC-YXE. So WS will not necessarily add much capacity to existing markets but the additional flights will generate more traffic as it will offer more flight options for business pax and connecting pax.
Also, look at WS's laod factor -- 80+%. Clearly many routes can handle more capacity.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 48, posted (5 months 4 hours ago) and read 7636 times:
^ You see that is not what I am referring to. As the Dash 8's handle regional traffic, where will WS send the 737's from YYC? Send more flights to PHX, LAS, FLL, etc....A bunch of low yielding routes that will sooner or later start to impact the WS bottom line. Unless you know something we don't.
I mean don't get me wrong...YYC is not at the doorsteps of India where there's ahuge untapped potential. There's only so much demand in Western Canada.
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2331 posts, RR: 2 Reply 50, posted (5 months 1 hour ago) and read 7491 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 39): You have to figure in Montreal's (and Quebec's) extremely low per capital income (pci) compared to the rest of North America which absolutely puts downward pressure on pax numbers.
Quebec's GDP per capita in 2011 was $43K. That was 15% lower than the average for Canada, 10% lower than the average for the US, but higher than the GDP per capita of states like North Carolina (which has CLT), Ohio (CLE), Utah (SLC), Georgia (ATL), Michigan (DTW) or Florida (MIA). So I wouldn't call Quebec's per capita income extremely low compared to the rest of North America...
ElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 620 posts, RR: 2 Reply 51, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7310 times:
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 46): But the additional capacity out ot YYC must come at the expense of other airulines reducing capcity...Unless you think YYC will see a 20% increase each year.
Not necessarily. Markets are not static. Prices will have a direct impact on the expansion and contraction of the market. Additional capacity will drive down prices and stimulate more demand, particularly with price-sensitive pax. In layman's terms, more empty seats will result in lower prices and, as we all know, more people will fly at $300 than at $500. It won't be as substantial as 20%, but it won't be small either (population growth in YYC alone is 1.2%, so slightly lower fares could easily mean 4-5% growth in the market)
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 46): Can you do the math....or you seem to think that adding new routes from YYC will automatically mean people will fly those planes. I mean something has to give. Just simple arithmitic.
Math is one thing. Economics is another. Populations grow and prices have an effect on demand. The best example is the rise of LCCs in Europe or India, and the increase in the size of the aviation market since they arrived. Sure some airlines have gone bust, but all in all, the markets have expanded significantly over a short span. Its not exactly a zero sum game - cheap prices will stimulate more demand (larger market), though this relies on demand not outstripping supply. Given that Canadian airfares are amongst the highest in the world, I think there's a lot of price-sensitive demand that will open if up prices go down.
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 46): I remember the days when YYZ used to get Olympic, Malev, Czech Airlines. They are now all gone. But they basically got replaced with the likes of EK, EY, TK and so on. There's no such thing called unlimited growth. And the same principles apply to your beloved YYC.
Not sure what that means. Canada has had more air pax in 2009 than it did in 1999, so the market is clearly growing (ie not static, as you suggest). EK hasn't replaced CSA - insofar as the A380 isn't exactly a like for like substitute for an A310. Its a significant upgrade.
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 46): so when WS and Encore expand at YYC, AC and other airlines will need to shed capacity. Simple math. You try that for a change.
Nope, not simple math. Far more complicated than that. You're assuming that for route YAA to YBB, WS will add new aircraft BUT charge the same price as AC ($500 - hypothetical). At that price, yes, the market is finite, and in order to maintain that price, AC will have to shed capacity. But that assumes that AC, which sold 100 seats at $500, would rather sell 50 seats at $500 and let the remaining 50 seats go to WS. That wouldn't be wise, particularly if they could sell 100 seats at $400 instead to retain market share and fend off WS.
The extra capacity that WS brings will be sold at a lower price to gain market share (ie grab some of those 100 people buying $500 tickets by selling the same route for $400). AC can either match (in which case its profit margins will dip) or relinquish the market. You seem to think AC will give up those seats and wave the white flag. I disagree. They'll accept lower profits as long as they can hold on to market share. In the long run, if that profit margin is too low or negative, AC will withdraw, and it will stay out until the price goes to a profit sustaining level, whereupon it will move in again, which limits WS' ability to raise prices too high. Low prices stimulate demand - people who wouldn't fly at $500 are more likely to fly at $400, even more likely to fly at $300, even more likely to fly at $200 and so on. The lower the price, the greater the size of the market. Looking at the market at one price point and declaring it finite on that basis...is not a good idea.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3179 posts, RR: 1 Reply 52, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7200 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38): Getting back to the thread topic, YYC is currently equal to YUL in terms of pax count, but the YYC will (likely) move firmly into 3rd for the following reasons:
1. The continued growth of oil related business in AB.
2. Continued population growth (due in part to oil).
3. The continued growth of Westjet (Canada's largest airline by profit and market capitalization).
4. Continued high PCI in Calgary and Alberta driving more disposable income towards travel.
You forgot to add the anticipated flood west of the Quebec populace if the separatist government gets its way and separates from Canada.
MrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 911 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7154 times:
Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 13): Given the very high disposable income levels of the city and the fact that it routinely plunges to -35C during the winter I'm surprised that Air Transat and Sunwing haven't grown far larger in this market.
YYC is already quite well served in the vacation market. WS flies a pile of flights south during the winter on behalf of nearly every major tour operator in the country.
Quoting brilondon (Reply 52):
You forgot to add the anticipated flood west of the Quebec populace if the separatist government gets its way and separates from Canada.
Huh?
Just because the PQ got elected doesn't mean there's any real support for separatism in Quebec. Their recent rise to power was more of an anti-Liberal protest vote than anything.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, RR: 13 Reply 54, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7061 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 52): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38):
Getting back to the thread topic, YYC is currently equal to YUL in terms of pax count, but the YYC will (likely) move firmly into 3rd for the following reasons:
1. The continued growth of oil related business in AB.
2. Continued population growth (due in part to oil).
Absolutely no guarantee that the oil biz will continue to grow. Many oil patch watchers think the price could fall to $50/bbl, which makes the oil sands unsustainable in the long run. As oil shuts in, population growth will cease.
Quoting brilondon (Reply 52): You forgot to add the anticipated flood west of the Quebec populace if the separatist government gets its way and separates from Canada.
Quoting MrChips (Reply 53): Just because the PQ got elected doesn't mean there's any real support for separatism in Quebec. Their recent rise to power was more of an anti-Liberal protest vote than anything.
Well stated, MrChips. With a very weak PQ minority, Ms Marois will do nothing on the separatism file. Brilondon, no need for near flame-baiting. It's a sensitive subject.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 56, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6737 times:
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 4): Canadian government seems very strict on forcing as many people onto AC as possible to support the Canada's national failing carrier.
AC is doing well and would be doing even better if it hadn't had massive profit centers, like Aeroplan, stripped away in that absolutely criminal BK process.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 42): These are tiny, tiny markets catering mainly to low-yield ethnic traffic.
1) "Ethnic" traffic doesn't mean low yield. Ask the EU airlines - especially LH and KL - about the money they make carrying people to Iran and Armenia from the US, especially LAX.
2) Those North American monopoly routes allow AC to pull significant traffic.
Quoting brilondon (Reply 52): You forgot to add the anticipated flood west of the Quebec populace if the separatist government gets its way and separates from Canada.
That is never going to happen. Ever.
Quoting MrChips (Reply 53): Just because the PQ got elected doesn't mean there's any real support for separatism in Quebec. Their recent rise to power was more of an anti-Liberal protest vote than anything.
Agreed, and will ad that it was Anti-Liberal yet Anti-Conservative. The NDP hasn't made the same in-roads into Quebec that it has in Ontario, so the PQ was well positioned.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 57, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6733 times:
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 37): As long as airlines that want to serve YYC are kept out, we will never know the potential.
Lol.....
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 39): YUL does not benefit from any of these factors and has been in long term (relative) decline in passenger traffic from decades dropping from 1st (in the early 60's) to its current 3rd place tie with YYC
An yet both in 2010 and 2011, it showed roughly a 6% increase y.o.y, better than YYZ, YVR, YYC, YEG and YOW. Not bad for an aiport residing in one of the lowest GDP provinces and states in North America.
Now, i admit that in 2012, things aren't looking as bright for YUL, only a 0.7 % increase so far compared to 2011, whereas YYC numbers have picked up, but who's to say what will happen in 2013. If the price of oil drops down, you can kiss any passenger increase at YYC goodbye.
Thenoflyzone
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 58, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6567 times:
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 51): Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 46):
But the additional capacity out ot YYC must come at the expense of other airulines reducing capcity...Unless you think YYC will see a 20% increase each year.
Not necessarily. Markets are not static. Prices will have a direct impact on the expansion and contraction of the market. Additional capacity will drive down prices and stimulate more demand, particularly with price-sensitive pax. In layman's terms, more empty seats will result in lower prices and, as we all know, more people will fly at $300 than at $500. It won't be as substantial as 20%, but it won't be small either (population growth in YYC alone is 1.2%, so slightly lower fares could easily mean 4-5% growth in the market)
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 46):
Can you do the math....or you seem to think that adding new routes from YYC will automatically mean people will fly those planes. I mean something has to give. Just simple arithmitic.
Math is one thing. Economics is another. Populations grow and prices have an effect on demand. The best example is the rise of LCCs in Europe or India, and the increase in the size of the aviation market since they arrived. Sure some airlines have gone bust, but all in all, the markets have expanded significantly over a short span. Its not exactly a zero sum game - cheap prices will stimulate more demand (larger market), though this relies on demand not outstripping supply. Given that Canadian airfares are amongst the highest in the world, I think there's a lot of price-sensitive demand that will open if up prices go down.
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 46):
I remember the days when YYZ used to get Olympic, Malev, Czech Airlines. They are now all gone. But they basically got replaced with the likes of EK, EY, TK and so on. There's no such thing called unlimited growth. And the same principles apply to your beloved YYC.
Not sure what that means. Canada has had more air pax in 2009 than it did in 1999, so the market is clearly growing (ie not static, as you suggest). EK hasn't replaced CSA - insofar as the A380 isn't exactly a like for like substitute for an A310. Its a significant upgrade.
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 46):
so when WS and Encore expand at YYC, AC and other airlines will need to shed capacity. Simple math. You try that for a change.
Nope, not simple math. Far more complicated than that. You're assuming that for route YAA to YBB, WS will add new aircraft BUT charge the same price as AC ($500 - hypothetical). At that price, yes, the market is finite, and in order to maintain that price, AC will have to shed capacity. But that assumes that AC, which sold 100 seats at $500, would rather sell 50 seats at $500 and let the remaining 50 seats go to WS. That wouldn't be wise, particularly if they could sell 100 seats at $400 instead to retain market share and fend off WS.
The extra capacity that WS brings will be sold at a lower price to gain market share (ie grab some of those 100 people buying $500 tickets by selling the same route for $400). AC can either match (in which case its profit margins will dip) or relinquish the market. You seem to think AC will give up those seats and wave the white flag. I disagree. They'll accept lower profits as long as they can hold on to market share. In the long run, if that profit margin is too low or negative, AC will withdraw, and it will stay out until the price goes to a profit sustaining level, whereupon it will move in again, which limits WS' ability to raise prices too high. Low prices stimulate demand - people who wouldn't fly at $500 are more likely to fly at $400, even more likely to fly at $300, even more likely to fly at $200 and so on. The lower the price, the greater the size of the market. Looking at the market at one price point and declaring it finite on that basis...is not a good idea.
Its simple economics. Not math.
No Airline in Canada can drop prices significantly as you are suggesting to be able to stimulate demand and generate those types of numbers. Yes, the YYC market is growing, and remember that the thread here is : YYC is a sleeping giant. All I am saying is that growth will be limited. The low WS prices are nothing but a perception
The day WS drops its prices like you are suggesting, their share will drop like a stone as their bottom line will take a hit big time. it's easy for you to talk about economics but I would be surprised if WS wasn't bleeding money on their LGA flights and if their PHX, LAS and PSP flights are extremely low yielding.
Skywatcher From Canada, joined Sep 2002, 441 posts, RR: 4 Reply 59, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6483 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 39): YUL does not benefit from any of these factors and has been in long term (relative) decline in passenger traffic from decades dropping from 1st (in the early 60's) to its current 3rd place tie with YYC. YUL actually handles not much traffic than it did in 1975
I checked the numbers. YYC was 12,073 million in 2011 while YUL was 13,229 million. How is a 1,156 million difference a tie? I also tried to check back to 1975 but could only find that total Canadian traffic in that year was 25,626 million. I highly doubt that YUL had 13,229 million of that total. If people are going to throw facts around to bolster their points of view please make sure that the numbers are accurate at least.
One of the biggest growth factors in the YYZ, YUL, YQB, YOW numbers has been the holiday travel market over the last few years. Sunwing alone has experienced massive growth in these markets but very little at YYC. I realize that Westjet does serve the holiday market out of YYC but if you take a look at Air Canada, Sunwing, Westjet and Air Transat together YYC is vastly underserved compared to the larger Eastern cities. I predict that it is in this market segment that Westjet will re-deploy their 737's when the Q's arrive. Given YYC's superior disposable income numbers I forecast significant growth.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 60, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6458 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 52): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38):Getting back to the thread topic, YYC is currently equal to YUL in terms of pax count, but the YYC will (likely) move firmly into 3rd for the following reasons:
1. The continued growth of oil related business in AB.
2. Continued population growth (due in part to oil).
3. The continued growth of Westjet (Canada's largest airline by profit and market capitalization).
4. Continued high PCI in Calgary and Alberta driving more disposable income towards travel.
You forgot to add the anticipated flood west of the Quebec populace if the separatist government gets its way and separates from Canada.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 61, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6419 times:
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 37): For that entire chunk, YUL has non-EU service only to ...Algiers, Doha, Casablanca and Amman.
And Geneva and Zurich (Switzerland is not an EU member but, like Norway and Iceland, it does have an Open Skies agreement with Canada).
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 42): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 40):YUL also has some unique direct services from Canada including the only service to Algeria (in fact the only service from North America as there's no U.S.-Algeria service), the only Canada-Morocco service, and the only nonstop service to GVA.
These are tiny, tiny markets catering mainly to low-yield ethnic traffic. Hence largely irrelevant, however unique (or quaint?) they may be.
YUL-GVA is most definitely not a low-yield ethnic market. Look at AC's J class loads.
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 45): As for non-stop to Geneva, I see that UA (IAD, EWR) and LX (JFK) fly to the US from Geneva, presumably via ZRH?
UA operates nonstop daily IAD-GVA and EWR-GVA. LX is nonstop daily JFK-GVA. Those are all very high-yield routes.
Skywatcher From Canada, joined Sep 2002, 441 posts, RR: 4 Reply 62, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6264 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 39): Unfortunately, Quebec and Atlantic still have more MP's than the West. More favouritism to Quebec......
This is yet again factually incorrect. In terms of population per Federal riding based on the new 338 member house only Ontario (112k), BC (110k) and Alberta (115k) have a higher number than Quebec (104k). Every other province has a lower figure (Newfoundland = 73k, PEI = 37k, Nova Scotia = 86k, New Brunswick = 76k, Manitoba = 91k, Saskatchewan = 78k and the territories = 38k).
The true favoratism is for the territories and PEI specifically and the Maritimes in general. It could be argued that favoratism is also granted to Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The Canadian average is 104k, exactly the figure for Quebec.
Please, please use accurate facts. You can't just make things up to suit your biased viewpoints.
Quoting N1120A (Reply 56): 2) Those North American monopoly routes allow AC to pull significant traffic.
Which North American Monopoly routes? Algiers, Casablanca and Amman aren't served by AC.
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 58): No Airline in Canada can drop prices significantly as you are suggesting to be able to stimulate demand and generate those types of numbers. Yes, the YYC market is growing, and remember that the thread here is : YYC is a sleeping giant. All I am saying is that growth will be limited. The low WS prices are nothing but a perception
That means they can drop the prices by 10-15% tomorrow and maintain a healthy profit, albeit not one as large as they would like. So yes, there is room for WS to drop prices significantly. So far, it hasn't had to. With AC being able to offer lower fares, it will have to.
Granted, that means $425 to $440 tickets as opposed to the $400 I suggested above.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 61): And Geneva and Zurich (Switzerland is not an EU member but, like Norway and Iceland, it does have an Open Skies agreement with Canada).
I meant European. I tend to (wrongly) use EU and European as interchangeable. Doesn't change anything though.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, RR: 13 Reply 64, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6155 times:
Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 62): The true favoratism is for the territories and PEI specifically and the Maritimes in general. It could be argued that favoratism is also granted to Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The Canadian average is 104k, exactly the figure for Quebec.
Please, please use accurate facts. You can't just make things up to suit your biased viewpoints.
As a Manitoban, Manitoba IS over represented. So is Saskatchewan. Quebec being right on the number is no accident: it is the basis for the distribution of seats, in the Constitution I believe.
Some people never let facts get in the way of prejudice.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 65, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6031 times:
Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 62): Quoting yyz717 (Reply 39):
Unfortunately, Quebec and Atlantic still have more MP's than the West. More favouritism to Quebec......
This is yet again factually incorrect.
No, it factually CORRECT. The 4 Western provinces have 92 federal MP's. Quebec and the Atl provinces have 107 MP's, despite a lower population.
Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 62): In terms of population per Federal riding based on the new 338 member house only Ontario (112k), BC (110k) and Alberta (115k) have a higher number than Quebec (104k).
Ths hasnt taken effect yet! The current parliament has 308 seats!
Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 62): Please, please use accurate facts. You can't just make things up to suit your biased viewpoints.
And back at you! You also can't make up things to suit your distorted "rationales".
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 64): As a Manitoban, Manitoba IS over represented. So is Saskatchewan.
Correct. They arguably should lose 1 seat each, at least, SK's population is on the rebound again.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 64): Some people never let facts get in the way of prejudice.
I agree.
Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 59): I checked the numbers. YYC was 12,073 million in 2011 while YUL was 13,229 million. How is a 1,156 million difference a tie?
Within 10% makes them comparable sized airports. YYC has stronger growth numbers than YUL in 2012 so it will move closer.
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 57): An yet both in 2010 and 2011, it showed roughly a 6% increase y.o.y, better than YYZ, YVR, YYC, YEG and YOW. Not bad for an aiport residing in one of the lowest GDP provinces and states in North America.
YUL is growing from a low base. Also, how much of that growth is new routes YYZ-(YUL)-BCN/BRU/GVA on AC whereby YYZ origin pax are force-transferred thru YUL?
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 57): Now, i admit that in 2012, things aren't looking as bright for YUL, only a 0.7 % increase so far compared to 2011, whereas YYC numbers have picked up, but who's to say what will happen in 2013.
There is nothing in Quebec's economic outlook to indicate a sizeable uptick in traffic for 2013.
Quoting UALWN (Reply 50): Quebec's GDP per capita in 2011 was $43K. That was 15% lower than the average for Canada,
Quebec is about 22% of Canada's population (and about 19% of its GNP) and is included in that average, so the PCI for English Canada ALONE is more like 20% higher than Quebec alone. This is HUGE and no doubt figures strongly into YUL's stunted pax numbers and dismal outlook.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 66, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5991 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 60): Quoting brilondon (Reply 52):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38):Getting back to the thread topic, YYC is currently equal to YUL in terms of pax count, but the YYC will (likely) move firmly into 3rd for the following reasons:
1. The continued growth of oil related business in AB.
2. Continued population growth (due in part to oil).
3. The continued growth of Westjet (Canada's largest airline by profit and market capitalization).
4. Continued high PCI in Calgary and Alberta driving more disposable income towards travel.
You forgot to add the anticipated flood west of the Quebec populace if the separatist government gets its way and separates from Canada.
That's not my quote.
It's my quote. These 4 factors (and the absence of any growth oriented economic or demographic trends in Montreal) will drive YYC traffic firmly into 3rd place this decade, well above YUL. IMO.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 67, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5998 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 65): Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 57):
An yet both in 2010 and 2011, it showed roughly a 6% increase y.o.y, better than YYZ, YVR, YYC, YEG and YOW. Not bad for an aiport residing in one of the lowest GDP provinces and states in North America.
YUL is growing from a low base. Also, how much of that growth is new routes YYZ-(YUL)-BCN/BRU/GVA on AC whereby YYZ origin pax are force-transferred thru YUL?
AC operates YYZ-YUL-GVA with the same aircraft and a single flight number. YYZ-GVA passengers don't have to transfer at YUL and would not appear in YUL traffic statistics.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 68, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5962 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 67): AC operates YYZ-YUL-GVA with the same aircraft and a single flight number. YYZ-GVA passengers don't have to transfer at YUL and would not appear in YUL traffic statistics.
I think they are still counted in YUL passenger numbers. I believe this is standard for all airports.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 69, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5912 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 68): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 67):
AC operates YYZ-YUL-GVA with the same aircraft and a single fhelight number. YYZ-GVA passengers don't have to transfer at YUL and would not appear in YUL traffic statistics.
I think they are still counted in YUL passenger numbers. I believe this is standard for all airports.
In my experience passengers are only counted if they have a flight originating or terminating at an airport, not when they're on a through flight where the airport in question doesn't even appear on the passenger's itinerary. Would be interested to know how YUL obtains the data for those through YYZ passengers if in fact they are counted in YUL's traffic.
WS has many 2 and 3-stop flights. If a passenger is booked all the way on such a flight with intermediate stops I'm quite certain those passengers only appear in the traffic data for the airports at the point of origin and destination, not at the intermediate stops where they remain on the same aircraft. There's no reason for YUL do do it any differently on a YYZ-YUL-GVA through flight.
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2331 posts, RR: 2 Reply 70, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5903 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 65): Quebec is about 22% of Canada's population (and about 19% of its GNP) and is included in that average, so the PCI for English Canada ALONE is more like 20% higher than Quebec alone. This is HUGE and no doubt figures strongly into YUL's stunted pax numbers and dismal outlook.
Maybe I didn't make my point clear above. Let me repeat it:
Quoting UALWN (Reply 50): Quebec's GDP per capita in 2011 was $43K. That was 15% lower than the average for Canada, 10% lower than the average for the US, but higher than the GDP per capita of states like North Carolina (which has CLT), Ohio (CLE), Utah (SLC), Georgia (ATL), Michigan (DTW) or Florida (MIA).
So, MIA, DTW, ATL, SLC, CLE and CLT are all located in states with lower PCI than Quebec. Yet they seem to be doing just fine.
Yes, Quebec's PCI is almost 19% lower than that of the rest of Canada. Is that huge? I don't know. The PCI of Michigan is over 20% lower than that of the US as a whole, yet DTW seems to be doing fine.
And, by the way, the PCI of the US is about 8% lower than that of Canada. Is that huge? It doesn't seem to have much of an influence on air travel.
ElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 620 posts, RR: 2 Reply 71, posted (4 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5825 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 69): WS has many 2 and 3-stop flights. If a passenger is booked all the way on such a flight with intermediate stops I'm quite certain those passengers only appear in the traffic data for the airports at the point of origin and destination, not at the intermediate stops where they remain on the same aircraft. There's no reason for YUL do do it any differently on a YYZ-YUL-GVA through flight.
Wouldn't they CBSA at YUL on the inbound (assuming the flight operates YYZ-YUL-GVA-YUL-YYZ)? That could result on a double count due to having to clear security/reboard.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 72, posted (4 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5785 times:
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 71): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 69):
WS has many 2 and 3-stop flights. If a passenger is booked all the way on such a flight with intermediate stops I'm quite certain those passengers only appear in the traffic data for the airports at the point of origin and destination, not at the intermediate stops where they remain on the same aircraft. There's no reason for YUL do do it any differently on a YYZ-YUL-GVA through flight.
Wouldn't they CBSA at YUL on the inbound (assuming the flight operates YYZ-YUL-GVA-YUL-YYZ)? That could result on a double count due to having to clear security/reboard.
You still only have a single boarding pass GVA-YYZ. Customs/immigration no doubt maintain their own records but those passengers normally wouldn't be counted as YUL airport passengers since it's not an origin/destination or connecting point.
That means they can drop the prices by 10-15% tomorrow and maintain a healthy profit, albeit not one as large as they would like. So yes, there is room for WS to drop prices significantly. So far, it hasn't had to. With AC being able to offer lower fares, it will have to.
Granted, that means $425 to $440 tickets as opposed to the $400 I suggested above
Look, YYC will grow as the population in AB continues to grow. No questions about it. Remember this thread was about YYC being a sleeping giant...which I do not believe it to be simply because other airports in Western Canada are growing and are reducing their dependency on YYC.
Recent examples:
YEG - EWR
YMM - DEN
YLW - LAX
Now you say that WS will turn their 737's into YYC to open up new routes. I say: What routes? WS serves ORD and EWR as pure business destinations from YYC. But keep in mind that AC and AA exited the YYC - ORD market and United hasn't flown YYC - EWR for many many years. Alaska ued to fly YYC - LAX...they don't anymore, Delta even flew YYC-LAS and YYC-LAX back in the 90's and YYC-ATL in the 2000's. NW used to fly YYC-DTW during the summer in the 90's and 2000's....I can name a whole bunch of destinations that diappeared from the YYC FDS.
You see a pattern here.
You can't just throw these statements. You are assuming thet either other carriers will exit the market or stay silent. Look at US Airways for example. They have allowed WS to capture way too much market share on PHX - Alberta, so US now flies 2 dailies to YEG and 2 dailies to YYC. But look at fares between YYC and PHX...they are so low, I question how much money either US or WS are making?
That is the "economics" that ultimately matter at the end - or WS ends up like CP and the current state of AC.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 74, posted (4 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5725 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 72): You still only have a single boarding pass GVA-YYZ. Customs/immigration no doubt maintain their own records but those passengers normally wouldn't be counted as YUL airport passengers since it's not an origin/destination or connecting point.
I've seen a couple of airport authorities (US and Cdn) in the past break out transiting passengers, including at least 2 airports count the "en route" pax that remain on-board a visiting aircraft.
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 73): Now you say that WS will turn their 737's into YYC to open up new routes. I say: What routes?
WS has an LF of about 85% so many routes can handle add'l NG frequencies. Don't just think of new routes, their bread and butter will always be YYC-YVR/YXX/YEG/YXE/YQR/YWG/YYZ -- adding just 2 RT's to each market would likely require 5-7 new (or displaced) NG's. Also, the Q400 network will eventually routes that will out-grow the Q400 enabling NG service. This is all organic growth. Also, WS has alot of growth opportunities at YYZ where it remains well behind AC in terms of market share.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Skywatcher From Canada, joined Sep 2002, 441 posts, RR: 4 Reply 76, posted (4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5674 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 65): Ths hasnt taken effect yet! The current parliament has 308 seats!
The current parliament (308 seats) favours Sask/Man/PEI/NS/NB/NF even more than the corrected one that will be in effect for the next Federal election (338 seats). You are just digging yourself deeper into a hole. Please just accept the facts.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 77, posted (4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5680 times:
Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 76): Quoting yyz717 (Reply 65):
Ths hasnt taken effect yet! The current parliament has 308 seats!
The current parliament (308 seats) favours Sask/Man/PEI/NS/NB/NF even more than the corrected one that will be in effect for the next Federal election (338 seats). You are just digging yourself deeper into a hole. Please just accept the facts.
No. You had your facts wrong. The West has fewer MP's than the East (Quebec and Atl). 92 vs 107 despite a higher population. Your refuted it and I corrected you.
You're digging, but I'm filling in you holes (yet again). Read the ACTUAL discussion (West provinces population and MP's, vs East) and you will see where you erred, and then lashed out.
Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 75): I have always found it interesting how YYC can support flights to London but not NYC!
You mean London YXU? serves as a hub for Western Canada and there is sufficient traffic for nonstops from YYC to numerous smaller ON cities (YQG, YXU, YKF, YHM). WS has done a good job of developing these markets. WS also flies YWG-YXU in the summer. There possibly is a market for YXU-EWR but likely smaller commuter aircraft and with EWR slots scarce, it's noth worth anyone's efforts.
[Edited 2012-12-26 21:40:19]
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1012 posts, RR: 3 Reply 78, posted (4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5585 times:
During my years living in and near Calgary which ended only 3 years ago, I never found YYC to be overly busy, crowded or in need of expansion. US Customs was usually a short wait as was incoming Canadian Customs. Gate waiting areas were comfortable and rarely packed, both international, domestic and US departure gates. Calgary is a great town and it is reasonably well connected to the US and relevant international destinations, what exactly the big expansion is suppose to do for YYC that it didnt already have is...mysterious. Its true, Calgary is not a huge city, Denver is more than twice as big and I always thought it was comparable in many ways.
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 79, posted (4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5425 times:
Quoting woodsboy (Reply 78): what exactly the big expansion is suppose to do for YYC that it didnt already have is...mysterious.
YYC handles 230,000 aircraft movements a year. The parallel runway is needed. Almost all intl airports handling 200,000+ movements a year have parallel runways (barring LGW, which only uses one runway, and a few others airports as well).
Now as for the new international terminal, that is not needed at the moment, nor in the short term. I suppose YYC is planning for the long term here........they have the cash now, so they are spending it.
Let it be clear however that there will be no new international service just because YYC has a shiny new terminal or a 14,000 ft runway.
Airlines wishing to serve YYC can do so now. So the ''build it and they will come'' mentality that YYC is adopting isn't necessarily going to pan out, at least not in the short term.
Quoting woodsboy (Reply 78): I never found YYC to be overly busy, crowded or in need of expansion. US Customs was usually a short wait as was incoming Canadian Customs. Gate waiting areas were comfortable and rarely packed, both international, domestic and US departure gates.
You think its not busy now, wait til the new terminal opens up. It's going to be deserted for most of the day. 22 gates for barely 3.5 million people a year. Whereas 8 million people who travel domestic will keep using the same old facilities.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 65): Also, how much of that growth is new routes YUL)-BCN/BRU/GVA on AC whereby YYZ origin pax are force-transferred thru YUL?
First of all, YYZ-BCN is non-stop, and second, don't kid yourself, there are more YULers connecting in YYZ than the other way around !
No one is ''forced'' to take YYZ-YUL-BRU, you can always fly Jet airways non stop YYZ-BRU.
As for GVA, the bulk of the AC flight boards at YUL. Same for BRU incidentally, which is why AC chose non stops from YUL.
Thenoflyzone
[Edited 2012-12-27 06:27:21]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1344 posts, RR: 0 Reply 80, posted (4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5249 times:
Quoting Fiedman (Reply 21): I know this is a little off topic but it does relate to the YYC expansion, first what is gonna happen to concourse C when the US airlines switch to the new transboarder concourse? and also where is Air Canada Jazz moving too when they close the walkway off concourse A?
I'm also curious as to where the AC Express turboprop operation will be moved to once the new international terminal is completed. It currently appears to be situated temporarily in it's original location other than the extension of the passenger tunnel/covered walkway. Considering WS will also have a turboprop operation in the form of DH4's, would an ideal location be the current B/C concourse? I could see it as ideal location if it were to be demolished/renovated and turned into something similar to what YVR has for the AC Express turboprop operation. It could serve both WS and AC as it would be positioned well for both carriers connecting passengers.
GentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2074 posts, RR: 2 Reply 81, posted (4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5238 times:
Quoting boeingorbust (Thread starter): of YYC it looks as though the airports size is basically going to be doubled. With new cargo facilities and new hangars being built all over the place
The national biz media is reporting this is primarily being driven by oil production. The YYC airport expansion appears to be on the fast track. YVR was also mentioned in the fray; both Alberta and British Columbia are anticipating significant shortages of qualified oil sector professionals which has Canadian oil recruiting in the U.S. A journeyman pipe fitter was reported to be receiving $150,000.00 annually with a significant signing bonus.
I think this is this is the precursor for the Keystone pipeline which will ultimately transport Canadian oil into the great plains of the U.S.
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
Skywatcher From Canada, joined Sep 2002, 441 posts, RR: 4 Reply 82, posted (4 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5101 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 77): You're digging, but I'm filling in you holes (yet again). Read the ACTUAL discussion (West provinces population and MP's, vs East) and you will see where you erred, and then lashed out.
I did not lash out. I was simply responding to your original statement about how the seat count results in "more favoratism" to Quebec. It does not. I agree that B.C. and Alberta (only a portion of "the west") and Ontario are under-represented. However it is not Quebec that receives the above average favoratism that you contend. It is all 4 maritime provinces as well as Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Your original statement was provocative and based on twisted facts. All I'm trying to do is to present the actual numbers and to highlght where the specific favoratism really occurs. I will not post any more on this particular issue since we clearly see things very differently.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 83, posted (4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5062 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 79): As for GVA, the bulk of the AC flight boards at YUL. Same for BRU incidentally, which is why AC chose non stops from YUL.
AC now only operates YUL-BRU. The flight no longer originates at YYZ.
MrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 911 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4892 times:
Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 81):
The national biz media is reporting this is primarily being driven by oil production. The YYC airport expansion appears to be on the fast track. YVR was also mentioned in the fray; both Alberta and British Columbia are anticipating significant shortages of qualified oil sector professionals which has Canadian oil recruiting in the U.S. A journeyman pipe fitter was reported to be receiving $150,000.00 annually with a significant signing bonus.
I think this is this is the precursor for the Keystone pipeline which will ultimately transport Canadian oil into the great plains of the U.S.
It's all being driven by oil and gas production, which is a double-edged sword. When times are good, they're really good; when they're bad, they're really bad. Ask anyone who was riding high here in 2004-2006 how they did in 2008. As for the pipe-fitter story, that's kind of the exception to the rule, but not by much. Back in the crazy days of 04-06 there were even basic, unskilled labourers up in Fort Mac who would take a job at company X, only to leave for Company Y a month later because Y offered them $20k/year more, plus a signing bonus. Repeat that three or four times and all of a sudden you're clearing $120k/year. Granted, living in Fort Mac is expensive and awful, but most of these guys would commute from Edmonton or Calgary (or even further; lots of Maritimers did and still do commute from there).
Finally, on Keystone XL, it's actually going to be largely irrelevant to Canadian interests in 10 or so years. With the huge forecast expansion of the shale basin production in the Dakotas, there will be more than enough oil production there to fill that pipeline without any need for Canadian oilsands production.
Skywatcher From Canada, joined Sep 2002, 441 posts, RR: 4 Reply 85, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4716 times:
The hydrocarbon industry in N.America is undergoing huge changes right now for sure. How this will impact Alberta in general and YYC in particular will be interesting to observe. As oil demand in N.America drops (better vehicle fuel efficiency/demographic changes etc.) and gas/alternative energy supply increases (fracked gas/Muskrat Falls/wind etc.) there may be a new dynamic emerging. I'm not so sure that the expansion of YYC is justified. Nothing lasts forever, maybe not even the Alberta oil boom.
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3650 posts, RR: 1 Reply 86, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4464 times:
Odd thread premise. Calgary isn't a 'sleeping' anything.
Even its former lack of diversity (formerly the 'whitest' major city in Canada) seems to be taking care of itself.
On the other hand, if YYC wanted to do something useful, it could drag the C-train from Falconbridge over to the airport. In addition to aiding travelers, dozens of industrial estates circling YYC would say 'thank you.'
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 87, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4356 times:
Quoting MrChips (Reply 84): Finally, on Keystone XL, it's actually going to be largely irrelevant to Canadian interests in 10 or so years. With the huge forecast expansion of the shale basin production in the Dakotas, there will be more than enough oil production there to fill that pipeline without any need for Canadian oilsands production.
Over the next 10 years or so we will all be on an unpredictable path.
With potential American oil self-sufficiency possibly on the horizon (according to the IEA), being landlocked seems to be the Canadian tar sands' nightmare. The Gateway pipeline doesn't look too promising at the moment since an anti-pipeline government looks like it will be probably be soon elected in the adjoining coastal province. And without a pipeline to the west coast the tar sands' growth will be severely curtailed (for obvious reasons).
Even with a pipeline to the coast (east or west), with the "boom" in fracking, many countries are poised to develop their own shale formations (I couldn't believe it but even Israel is drilling some wells!). With all these new global reserves the price of oil could drop enough to make tar sand production economically unattractive.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
NYCFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1381 posts, RR: 10 Reply 88, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4164 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 77): You mean London YXU? serves as a hub for Western Canada and there is sufficient traffic for nonstops from YYC to numerous smaller ON cities (YQG, YXU, YKF, YHM). WS has done a good job of developing these markets. WS also flies YWG-YXU in the summer. There possibly is a market for YXU-EWR but likely smaller commuter aircraft and with EWR slots scarce, it's noth worth anyone's efforts.
No, I mean London, England! Why is it that YYC can support double daily 767s to LHR (AC, BA), while AC can barely fill an E190 to EWR?
I just find it very odd that YYC is a burgeoning city with transcon service, but so little n/s service to the biggest business hub in North America. One would think that demand for NYC service would precede that for LON, that's all.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 89, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4148 times:
Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 88): No, I mean London, England! Why is it that YYC can support double daily 767s to LHR (AC, BA), while AC can barely fill an E190 to EWR?
I just find it very odd that YYC is a burgeoning city with transcon service, but so little n/s service to the biggest business hub in North America. One would think that demand for NYC service would precede that for LON, that's all.
any thoughts on this?
Sure....YYC is not the business capital of Canada. It's Toronto. And while Calgary is such a large white collar business city (given its size), and has a huge concentration of large companies, most financing deals are done through either Toronto, Houston and possibly London.
And two daily flights to the NYC area should be plenty enough given that you can fly AC, WS, UAL, DL with easy one stop convenient schedules to any of the three NYC airports.
Think about this. YYC will soon have 7 dailies to IAH....That's where the business is.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 91, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4112 times:
Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 88): Why is it that YYC can support double daily 767s to LHR (AC, BA), while AC can barely fill an E190 to EWR?
A high pecentage of passengers on YYC-LHR flights are connecting beyond LHR.
Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 88): I just find it very odd that YYC is a burgeoning city with transcon service, but so little n/s service to the biggest business hub in North America.
NYC is not the business hub for YYC. That's Toronto and YYC has 17 daily nonstops to YYZ.
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3650 posts, RR: 1 Reply 92, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4067 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 91): Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 88):I just find it very odd that YYC is a burgeoning city with transcon service, but so little n/s service to the biggest business hub in North America.
NYC is not the business hub for YYC. That's Toronto and YYC has 17 daily nonstops to YYZ.
And also Vancouver for pan-Pacific business. YYC has 27 nonstops to YVR.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 93, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4064 times:
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 92): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 91):
Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 88):I just find it very odd that YYC is a burgeoning city with transcon service, but so little n/s service to the biggest business hub in North America.
NYC is not the business hub for YYC. That's Toronto and YYC has 17 daily nonstops to YYZ.
And also Vancouver for pan-Pacific business. YYC has 27 nonstops to YVR.
I would disagree that YVR is the business hub for YYC for the Pacific, with very minor exceptions. YVR is not a major head office city, again with some exceptions involving industries that don't affect YYC to any extent such as mining and forest products.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 94, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3817 times:
YYC has more head offices than the all of Western Canada combined (including Vancouver).
The YYC-YVR high frequency is due to YVR being a major hub for flights to Asia and YYC being a hub in the prairie provinces and obviously a lot of O&D traffic. Even YEG has at least 17 or 18 dailies to YVR.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 95, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3610 times:
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 94): YYC has more head offices than the all of Western Canada combined (including Vancouver).
It is a volatile statistic as the majority of HQ's are tied to the fortunes of the oil and natural gas industry.
As has been highlighted by a few people, among several uncertainties in the global petroleum industry, if a pipeline west to the Pacific and/or south to the Gulf are not built, the number of "HQ's" could begin to drop off noticeably. YYC could, in fairly short order, become a "Rip Van Winkle" and not a "giant."
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 96, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3621 times:
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 86): Even its former lack of diversity (formerly the 'whitest' major city in Canada) seems to be taking care of itself.
What does that mean?
Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 88): Why is it that YYC can support double daily 767s to LHR (AC, BA), while AC can barely fill an E190 to EWR?
WS also operates YYC-EWR in the summer months.
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 94): YYC has more head offices than the all of Western Canada combined (including Vancouver).
Calgary is #2 in Canada for HQ after Toronto. Montreal is now in 3rd place (and with the anti-business and anti-English PQ govt, Montreal is not likely to rebound anytime soon, if ever).
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Quote: Indeed, 84 of Calgary's top 114 head offices, or 73.7 per cent, hail from the energy sector.
The economic development agency sees this as both threat and opportunity. It's a threat because this success in energy could breed complacency and suck dynamism from other sectors. But there is the opportunity to build a global centre that cuts across all forms of energy.
So Calgary faces a dilemma. To rise farther as a head office city - and strike fear into rival Toronto - it has to get beyond oil and gas. But not too far. Oil, after all, is what carried it to this point.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
YYCspotter From Canada, joined Jul 2012, 97 posts, RR: 0 Reply 99, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3450 times:
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 22): I feel that even WS would not use YYC as their main international gateway, though could well operate a couple of P2P routes. All pretty hypothetical at this point anyway.
AC does it too. their HQ is YUL but their main operating base (domestic and international) is YYZ
Your quote from the Globe article isn't just a warning of things to come, it's happening in a huge way right now here in YYC. The draw of high wages in the energy industry is sucking the talent out of just about every other industry in town. Many people working in that industry are from other sectors; teachers, nurses and the like - they're pulling talent from industries that really need it. I've even been asked myself occasionally, "Why are you working for such low pay in aviation? With your experience in management, you could easily clear $100k per year in an O/G company!" In my case, at least, the answer is "Because airplanes!", but sometimes I honestly wonder.
Because of this, and because YYC is such a one-dimensional town with most of its residents coming from elsewhere, I fear a massive day of reckoning is coming at some point. Basically, like what happened in Detroit but with less of the ugly racist undertone.
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 98): ^ I don't disagree with you. Someone was wondering why not a lot of capacity on YYC-NYC.
There is a fair bit more YYC-NYC traffic than is immediately evident, but I would imagine most of it still connects through YYZ, just as it has for years now. Non-stops to NYC are a relatively recent thing.
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2046 posts, RR: 12 Reply 101, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3332 times:
Also it isn't always just the head office that generates a lot of travel. The huge growth in Head Office locations in YYC is predominantly oil and gas, and related industries as the above quote states. They seem to be less travel oriented and those who travel seem to be in specific roles rather than widespread. A high amount of shuttle between key offices rather than widespread sales travel etc. There are mind you a lot of regional offices for other corporations in Calgary who have head offices mostly in Toronto, like the banks etc. But those too involve a lot of shuttling. A manufacturer with international sales teams and service calls do a lot more widespread and international travel.
So the future for YYC is good with expanded volume. But no where near if there was international business and manufacturing at the same levels as the Petro industries.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, RR: 13 Reply 102, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3381 times:
Quoting MrChips (Reply 100): Because of this, and because YYC is such a one-dimensional town with most of its residents coming from elsewhere, I fear a massive day of reckoning is coming at some point. Basically, like what happened in Detroit but with less of the ugly racist undertone.
Actually, already happened in YYC in the early 80s. Oil prices collapsed and people left the city by thousands. On the way out, many simply stopped at the bank where they had their mortgage written up and simply dropped the keys off.
YYC is at some risk being so dependent on O/G. With shale gas & oil coming on, declining usage in the USA overall, a goal of energy independence by the end of the decade could be achieved. Since Gateway appears dead in the water for now, there might not be a large-scale customer for Alberta oil, which will gut the local economy. And poof, there goes the boom. Tar sands oil is going to cost $50/bbl whatever, so if the market price for oil collapses to, say, $40/bbl, that's not a good picture.
GentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2074 posts, RR: 2 Reply 103, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3335 times:
Whether commercial or private something tells me we are going to see an uptick with more flights between the big oil cities of OKC, Dallas and Houston to YYC in the not to distant future.
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 104, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3293 times:
Quoting MrChips (Reply 100): Because of this, and because YYC is such a one-dimensional town with most of its residents coming from elsewhere, I fear a massive day of reckoning is coming at some point. Basically, like what happened in Detroit but with less of the ugly racist undertone.
WOW!! But I guess that if oil were to go to $40/bbl or less, as some predict, the economy would contract severely... and government royalties would drop off precipitously.
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 101): Also it isn't always just the head office that generates a lot of travel.
As MrChips has pointed out, wages are high in Calgary... and with no sales taxes, more disposal income across all sectors of economy/society. Also, as he pointed out, Calgary is a "town with most of its residents coming from elsewhere" and hence a lot of family related travel. There are several other reasons for the growth in traffic.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 102): Tar sands oil is going to cost $50/bbl whatever, so if the market price for oil collapses to, say, $40/bbl, that's not a good picture.
Quote: In the third quarter, Connacher Oil and Gas Ltd. sold its oil sands crude for just $38.12 a barrel.
Quote: For Canadian oil producers, the market has responded ruthlessly. Though oil is a commodity, prices vary widely. The global benchmark, Brent crude, currently fetches about $109 (U.S.) a barrel. The U.S. benchmark, West Texas intermediate, stands at just $86 or so because of the continental surplus, driven in part by North Dakota. And with Canadian oil even more backed up, prices north of the border are even weaker.
Quote: “Canada historically provided the U.S. market with approximately 15 per cent of its natural gas – and we’ve already found that’s dropped off by about half, and it’s going to go to zero,” said Bernard Roth, a Calgary partner in the energy regulatory practice for Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP. “The same thing is replicating itself now with respect to oil. ... It’s an extremely serious risk to the Canadian oil patch.”
[Edited 2012-12-29 17:54:57]
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3650 posts, RR: 1 Reply 105, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3241 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 96): Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 86):Even its former lack of diversity (formerly the 'whitest' major city in Canada) seems to be taking care of itself.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 106, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2982 times:
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 101): The huge growth in Head Office locations in YYC is predominantly oil and gas, and related industries as the above quote states. They seem to be less travel oriented and those who travel seem to be in specific roles rather than widespread. A high amount of shuttle between key offices rather than widespread sales travel etc.
Are there any stats that indicate O+G HQ's are less travel oriented? Given than YYC (a small city by NA standards) has NS flights to LHR, FRA, AMS and NRT, I would argue the opposite is more true of O+G.
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 105): Quoting yyz717 (Reply 96):
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 86):Even its former lack of diversity (formerly the 'whitest' major city in Canada) seems to be taking care of itself.
What does that mean?
It reads pretty clear to me.
So how does this apply to YYC generating more traffic? Is a demographically "whiter" city more, or less, likely to generate more traffic? What is the point you are trying to make?
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3650 posts, RR: 1 Reply 107, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2952 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 106): Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 105):Quoting yyz717 (Reply 96):
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 86):Even its former lack of diversity (formerly the 'whitest' major city in Canada) seems to be taking care of itself.
What does that mean?
It reads pretty clear to me.
So how does this apply to YYC generating more traffic? Is a demographically "whiter" city more, or less, likely to generate more traffic? What is the point you are trying to make?
It was an anecdotal comment relevant to the YYC catchment area past and present.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 108, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2881 times:
YYC draws traffic from across Western Canada. Between YVR and YYZ, there's only one airport that has flights overseas (except for the few AC flights to LHR from YEG). So naturally, people might see YYC as a sleeping giant or whatever you want to call it.
MrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 911 posts, RR: 0 Reply 109, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2782 times:
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 102): Actually, already happened in YYC in the early 80s. Oil prices collapsed and people left the city by thousands. On the way out, many simply stopped at the bank where they had their mortgage written up and simply dropped the keys off.
I know - my parents went though that one back in 1984-1986 (I did too, but I was only a couple of years old at the time). It was as bad as you make it out to be. The silly thing is that the majority of people here blame the recession on Pierre Trudeau and his NEP, which had nothing to do with the worldwide collapse of oil prices.
Things were also pretty lean in the mid-1990s, when oil and gas prices took a nosedive again...only this time, there was no convenient Liberal scapegoat.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, RR: 13 Reply 110, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2750 times:
Quoting MrChips (Reply 109): Things were also pretty lean in the mid-1990s, when oil and gas prices took a nosedive again...only this time, there was no convenient Liberal scapegoat.
Yah, will be interesting to see if the younger Mr Trudeau gets scapegoated the same way when he becomes PM. But that's enough thread drift for now.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5043 posts, RR: 29 Reply 111, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2731 times:
The NEP wasn't a joke...I was one of the guys who lost his job the day the NEP went into effect. That has nothing to do with finding a scapegoat...that is fact.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 112, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2723 times:
^ funny enough you say that.
I see that some of the biggest oil patch companies getting picked up by state owned companies - ala CNOOC and Petronas.
I wonder what a giant national Canadian oil company would have looked like today.
Fact is that the oil companies in Alberta are getting sold left and right to foreign companies.
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 20 Reply 114, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2657 times:
Good discussions all, everybody has had valid inputs to both the ins and outs of the YYC realm. As a long time member on this site and having seen many previous versions of discussions relating with YYC, this thread is very well discussed and is refreshing to get a 2012 update on where this city is going and what other Canadians (esp. PQ) thinks.
Overall Calgary is definitely on the right track even if at times it seems a bit ambitious. The city is rich with money and the airport authority has enough AIF fees and rental fees collected to start putting a major part of its grand plan forward. The oil biz will be the bread and butter and will diversify a bit more with other sectors like HIgh Tech and Transportation growing, we have more downtown office towers being built/developed now (6 towers 5+mill sq.ft) than any other city in the country except Toronto ONTOP of the ones already built to date. For a city of 1.2mills our skyline of commerce power is on par with the likes of Toronto, Chicago and Manhattan in terms of economic generators (billions of dollars each month). Cowtown is so important to the rest of the country, its quite evident how well YYC does getting pax records at the end of each year. All sectors benefit no matter how big or small the chunk of the pie is. It will continue to remain that way for the foreseeable future unless some other province discovers oil or dilithium and shifts the balance of power away from us.
YYC strength as we all know will be domestic and with Encore coming online, I expect that to strengthen significantly as under served or untapped markets start to take growth. Ontop of the BC interiors and prairie provinces I also predict that some US states will get Encore service as long as its within the range of the DH4Q. I can see places like GEG coming back in the long run after the Canadian market is tapped. Washington and Oregon would be best bets for Encore penetration for seasonal, tourist based traffic and hopefully business too someday. Those two states have almost the same pop. as Ontario so there definitely is huge money making potential and the DH8Q might just be the right equipment for it and flight times are shorter than flying to Winnipeg.
Some factors that still interfere with YYC prosperity are of course the Government policies with the bilateral. Somebody has raised a good point on this earlier on, why can't they relax to allow supply and demand to dictate who flies in and how often? Even if major world carriers like LH does not find YYC to be a viable market there are countless airlines that operate a cheaper model that could give YYC a good shot and probably make a profit. I have heard that KLM has a lower operating cost model than BA or LH and look how well they are doing. TK is another fine example on the same ranks of KL, they have the most international destinations over all airlines in the world right now. They have a cheaper operating model (whatever that means comparing to the legacy's, maybe no unions!)
Therefore equivalent airlines in Asia or Mid east regions could prove to be attractive choices for YYC and I'm optimistic the expansion will help make sure "they will come". Remember, $2bill worth of work is definitely for LONG term growth or i"ll be a monkey's uncle!
Somebody has also mentioned the so called 'one dimensional' mentality or character of the city. This may be referring to the dependence of the oil sector or maybe the conservatism of many people, businesses and developers which restrains the potential of what YYC and Calgary as a whole could truly become. This aspect is where I admire the likes of YYZ,YUL & YVR since they have a huge diversity and are much more liberal cities flourishing with culture and vibrancy. They are lucky to get all those variety of worldly destinations even if its to places like Algiers or Qatar and there is no doubt a part of that is because they are both exciting cities to be in. Cowtown still goes to sleep on most nights of the week and most Calgarians don't travel very much other than for Business or for Family and Winter getaways to resorty places despite the high income. Only in recent years has it attracted more international demographics and that has thankfully dimmed down the so called 'redneck' mentality that many attribute to our fine city. Just look at our architecture to see first hand how conservative we are. Outsiders had to be hired to show us how its done and I think this kind of principle will have to apply in the airline biz to the point where some carrier say NP will give YYC a run and grind out the kinks to fix our habits so our citizens fly them to Asian countries. (I say NP cuz they already flew to YYC in the past during summer season charters and they may be a contender to supplement the AC japan flights) Question is not if but when will change occur where this city could truly become a 'giant' in the Canadian market.
Somebody was also spot on about aircraft equipment that will likely be our official bird after the Liebherr Tower Crane. Add in the Boeing 767, 787 and the A330 for our main calling cards to the world. At best case YYC will attract enough biz to warrant 77L or 77W but no double deckers or humpbacks anytime soon. I see a greater chance of A380F one off flights every few months than the pax ones. There already is 748F service from CLX and several AN124's every few months.
The New Int'l Terminal will be nice and flexibility is built in to allow adjustments to accommodate transborder flights too, so it won't be that empty!
Our two major FBO's contribute to a significant amount of aircraft movements and I'm not sure if those numbers are included in the stats as I assume they are pax traffic thru the terminals only. Include the FBO's and we would be 3rd place, fact!
I say this as a Calgarian living here for the past 28 years who is the main a.net contributor of plane photos taken at YYC that also lives and works downtown in the developer run industry which ties heavily with all those sectors.
Also well traveled enough to see the bad 'habits' the city continues to do which inhibits our potential as a 'world class city'. (I see the odd news paper article labeling this term like last week, and honestly we are not there yet)
Lastly, apparently YMM has direct flights to the states, now I'm getting anxious...
Expanding my global domination one spotter at a time..
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 20 Reply 115, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2633 times:
I dont like our most valuable companies being sold off to foreign entities, it threatens our stake in our most prized possession which is the oil. But could that translate to increased Canada-China traffic to warrant new air services to Beijing? I hope so, that might change my mind.
Expanding my global domination one spotter at a time..
MrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 911 posts, RR: 0 Reply 116, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2625 times:
Quoting BO__einG (Reply 114): For a city of 1.2mills our skyline of commerce power is on par with the likes of Toronto, Chicago and Manhattan in terms of economic generators (billions of dollars each month).
Comparing Calgary to the likes of Chicago and NYC in terms of commerce is laughable. If we were to consider these cities as countries, NYC would make as much GNP in a week as Calgary would in a year, with Chicago not far behind.
As much as this will offend some people's sentiments, but based on my experience traveling, Calgary is really nothing more than a sleepy, provincial backwater on the world scale. There are too many narrow-minded people here who seem to still think of the city as it was twenty or thirty years ago and because of their attitude, it really holds the city back from truly developing into what it should or could be. As much as it's warm and comforting to think of Calgary as a friendly, small town, it just isn't anymore. We need to start thinking and acting like a big city; it's time to "grow up", both literally and figuratively. Only then can we get this city off of this ultimately unsustainable model of development.
ACT7 From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 117, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2616 times:
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 46): I remember the days when YYZ used to get Olympic, Malev, Czech Airlines. They are now all gone. But they basically got replaced with the likes of EK, EY, TK and so on. There's no such thing called unlimited growth. And the same principles apply to your beloved YYC.
Olympic, Malev, and Czech stopped flying to NA entirely because they were money losing airlines, Malev going completely bankrupt and Olympic basically bankrupt. Canada imposed visa restrictions on the Czech Republic and one of the conditions was no non-stop flights from Prague to anywhere in Canada. It had nothing to do with growth in those markets and those routes are certainly not being "replaced" by EK, EY, and TK. If anything Austrian and LOT have picked up the slack, but LH I'm sure still feeds those markets well.
Now, as for YYC being a sleeping giant, I know I will be pegged as a YYC hater, but the truth is that YYC is primarily a domestic market (70% of its pax traffic is domestic vs. about 40% for YYZ and YUL). No matter what AC says in its inflight magazines, YYC is not a hub city - it's a focus city. And one only has to look at the number of destinations the single largest carrier there serves with its mainline frames. 13 (three of which are long-haul with one originating at YYZ) and 5 seasonal. And as has been mentioned, almost half that total traffic is to YYZ and YVR. Even with a continued strong petro-economy, YYC would NEED to be a MAJOR connecting point in order to be the so-called sleeping giant that some would like it to be. I'm afraid that that's simply not in the cards, WJ flying long haul or not. YYC's international pax traffic YTD has grown by about 8,600, so virtually nothing YoY.
The fact that YYC is building an over-sized pier is not an indication of future potential. I wouldn't necessarily call it a white elephant, but with just over 1 MM international pax a year, it's likely to be VERY empty most of the time.
c172akula From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 979 posts, RR: 5 Reply 118, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2573 times:
Why do so many people think the new terminal is just for international flights? It will be used for the transborder operations to the USA as well. So it won't be as empty as most seem to think, still quite large for the near future, but not a ghost town by any means.
ACT7 From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 119, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2562 times:
Quoting c172akula (Reply 118): Why do so many people think the new terminal is just for international flights? It will be used for the transborder operations to the USA as well. So it won't be as empty as most seem to think, still quite large for the near future, but not a ghost town by any means.
Okay, but even with about 3.3 MM pax total between transborder and international, it's still far too big for the current and foreseeable numbers. The pier is almost 184,000 sq. m which almost puts it on par with YYZ Terminal 1 international hammerhead pier. T1 hammerhead handles handles approx 7 MM international pax, and about 6.5 MM transborder pax, so about 4 times as much as YYC's, and it's still not at capacity. YYC's international and transborder traffic would have to grow consistently at 10% for the next 14 years in order to hit that number and I doubt that will happen given the arguments several people have already made.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 120, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2477 times:
Quoting ACT7 (Reply 117): Olympic, Malev, and Czech stopped flying to NA entirely because they were money losing airlines, Malev going completely bankrupt and Olympic basically bankrupt. Canada imposed visa restrictions on the Czech Republic and one of the conditions was no non-stop flights from Prague to anywhere in Canada. It had nothing to do with growth in those markets and those routes are certainly not being "replaced" by EK, EY, and TK. If anything Austrian and LOT have picked up the slack, but LH I'm sure still feeds those markets well.
My point was that when airlines go out of business, some other airline comes in and fills the void. The concept of stimulating international traffic from YYC overseas makes no sense if more airlines start flying there.
ACT7 From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 121, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2312 times:
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 120): My point was that when airlines go out of business, some other airline comes in and fills the void. The concept of stimulating international traffic from YYC overseas makes no sense if more airlines start flying there.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 122, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2126 times:
Quoting ACT7 (Reply 119): YYC's international and transborder traffic would have to grow consistently at 10% for the next 14 years in order to hit that number and I doubt that will happen given the arguments several people have already made.
If the perfect storm were to hit, what was previously posted... "I fear a massive day of reckoning is coming at some point. Basically, like what happened in Detroit but with less of the ugly racist undertone", really could happen. And it seems that few want to acknowledge or deal with that contingency... including, it seems, YYC.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Skywatcher From Canada, joined Sep 2002, 441 posts, RR: 4 Reply 123, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2106 times:
I was in Vancouver this summer and a friend I was visiting stated "real estate prices in Vancouver never go down". Similarly, over Christmas my brother-in-law from Toronto stated "real estate prices in Toronto always go up". Neither of them was interested in my statements to the contrary. The YYC airport pro-expansion mentality reflects the same self serving , stubborn idea that if you say something loud and long enough it becomes true.
I for one will be looking to trim my oil and gas stock holdings in 2013.
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2046 posts, RR: 12 Reply 124, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1990 times:
Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 123): I was in Vancouver this summer and a friend I was visiting stated "real estate prices in Vancouver never go down". Similarly, over Christmas my brother-in-law from Toronto stated "real estate prices in Toronto always go up". Neither of them was interested in my statements to the contrary. The YYC airport pro-expansion mentality reflects the same self serving , stubborn idea that if you say something loud and long enough it becomes true.
I for one will be looking to trim my oil and gas stock holdings in 2013.
Well Real Estate in Vancouver has gone done down. Toronto has cooled from the overheated market that was prevalent, however there are still more high rise buildings (condo's) under construction than in NYC by a large margin. I don't think prices have dropped yet but that could easily happen in the New Year. The strong demand for investment condos as rental suites is still a cushion. Anytime an economy is overly dependent on one source it is prone to peaks and valley's.
I am not down on Calgary but rather a realist. A friend (who is a born and raised Calgarian) is the Office Manager for one of the larger petro companies in Calgary and she said their travel is almost exclusively to related companies, key conferences, and the vast majority being shuttling between Toronto, key US cities that fit the above and occasionally Europe. Compared to the income levels of the company, travel is much more minor compared to the manufacturing firms she has worked for. She thought it was rather typical of the other petro related companies in Calgary. That is what influenced me to say that Calgary's travel patterns were different from other "head office" cities in the US and Toronto that have more manufacturing and service oriented companies.
cyeg66 From Canada, joined Feb 2011, 166 posts, RR: 1 Reply 125, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1990 times:
So we all agree, then. YYC will be a ghost town in a few years; oil will no longer power vehicles, the multicultural flow observed over the past decade will ebb, Calgary real estate values will tumble, and the rest of Canada can start to feel better about themselves. Have I missed anything? Oh, and YEG will become Alberta's premiere airport... This thread......... Same usual regurgitations. Kill it mods.
slow to 160, contact tower, slow to 160, contact tower, slow to....ZZZZZZZ......
Sheesh, somebody is a little touchy. All I (we?) were stating was that the oil/gas sector may have peaked and that a downturn is likely. As a result the YYC expansion plans are overdone in the short term at least. Yikes.
I was specifically pointing out that whether people like to believe it or not things like oil/gas and real estate fluctuate. In my opinion both are ripe for a fall off in 2013. Sorry if anybody takes this prediction personally.
PITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2691 posts, RR: 3 Reply 127, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1931 times:
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 124): Compared to the income levels of the company, travel is much more minor compared to the manufacturing firms she has worked for.
Taken at face value, that statement can simply mean that energy companies are more profitable than manufacturing firms, not that they travel less when compared on a per capita basis.
c172akula From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 979 posts, RR: 5 Reply 128, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1680 times:
I think I've figured out the CAA's plan. Should the economy completely self destruct and our passenger numbers decline and we have this shiny new terminal they can just shutter the original terminal and use our nice new one instead for all flights.
I think a significant problem are AIF's ($30 on Mar. 1)... they facilitate delusions of grandeur by airport authorities.And the airlines are happily complicit in this pax money grab since they don't pay the AIF. If you eliminate the AIF the airlines would hold the airport authority a lot more accountable for some needless or "luxe" capital projects. Since when does anyone pay an MIF (Mall Improvement Fee) to buy something from Neiman Marcus at the mall?
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 130, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1530 times:
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 129): I think a significant problem are AIF's ($30 on Mar. 1)... they facilitate delusions of grandeur by airport authorities.
I don't disagree, but the airport authorities implementing these fees are accountable to their BOD's who ultimately must approve them. Airport authorities must also maintain good relationships with municipal governments. So there are checks and balances on the AIF's.
Also, we've seen a huge improvement in airport terminals (functionality, size and aesthetics) since they have been run by airport authorities in the last 20 years. So AIF's have their purpose.
In the final analysis, anyone put out by the $30 AIF in YYC, can choose simply not to fly and hence not pay it. Flying is always voluntary.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2046 posts, RR: 12 Reply 131, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1467 times:
Quoting PITrules (Reply 127): Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 124):
Compared to the income levels of the company, travel is much more minor compared to the manufacturing firms she has worked for.
Taken at face value, that statement can simply mean that energy companies are more profitable than manufacturing firms, not that they travel less when compared on a per capita basis.
Not how she meant it. Profit obviously at the Petro firm is through the roof compared to the major name manufacturing. The petro company can afford much more private travel with both chartered and private aircraft.
The manufacturers had to travel more, work harder and push sales, and show face much more often than the petro company. Private travel was only for teams or very senior execs at the manufacturers. They had a formula that measured time including connections, number of people traveling, and seniority in order to book private flights. For example to visit a plant in a smaller centre in Ohio it was cheaper to fly 6 or 8 people on a Citation when a VP was also flying, than to connect to get to the town as there were no direct flights. They also had a very stringent business class policy that made economy necessary except for much longer flights. YYZ to LHR didn't qualify for business class except for VP level.
My point is, IF her experience and comments about the other petro companies is true, it means that while growth will continue at Calgary, unless major manufacturers locate there (shortage of workers is an issue there), the size of city, catchment area, type of travel currently taking place, means there isn't room for Calgary to become a "giant". That doesn't preclude new services, new airliners, and connections, but there is a long long way to go to become a Giant.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 132, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1416 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 130): but the airport authorities implementing these fees are accountable to their BOD's who ultimately must approve them.
AIF approval is perfunctory. In most cases, most BOD's (which are not elected by shareholders but appointed) just say yes to whatever the airport CEO says. You can bet that if the airlines' had to shoulder the AIF, as they should as the airport's tenants, it would be a lot less!
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 130): Airport authorities must also maintain good relationships with municipal governments. So there are checks and balances on the AIF's.
In "theory" but not in practice. But it is a mute point since there shouldn't even be an AIF.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 130): Also, we've seen a huge improvement in airport terminals (functionality, size and aesthetics) since they have been run by airport authorities in the last 20 years. So AIF's have their purpose.
The tenants' should pay for it. Moreover, for the most part, they are "Taj Mahals"... way over cost and beyond what is required... delusions of grandeur.
In the final analysis, the pax AIF shouldn't exist. The airport tenants' (airlines) are the ones that should be paying for capital improvements. No mall charges customers directly for capital improvements... the tenants' (stores) pay for it. The AIF is in practice a tax that is easy to collect because there is little recourse from the pax. Airport Authorites that charge AIFs have taken Richelieu's maxim to heart...
Quote: The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing
You know that the airlines would be "hissing" extremely loudly and collectively if they had to include $30 in their ticket price for a flight to Kelowna!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 132): The airport tenants' (airlines) are the ones that should be paying for capital improvements.
The tenants, meaning the airlines, would simply pass the fee onto the customer, so we, as passengers, pay anyway.
The current setup, with the AIF, is best. It keeps the fee transparent (since the AIF is a tax).
Calgary passengers could organize a massive campaign to have the AIF reduced if they (collectively) wanted, but they won't.
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 132): You can bet that if the airlines' had to shoulder the AIF, as they should as the airport's tenants, it would be a lot less!
If the airlines had to build their own terminals (as many airlines have done, and still do), the fees could be higher, not lower.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 134, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1025 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 133): The tenants, meaning the airlines, would simply pass the fee onto the customer, so we, as passengers, pay anyway.
Again, there should be no "fee". Airport capital improvements should be budgeted and financed normally and those costs are then passed on to the tenants. However, unlike pax, the tenants collectively hold the airport much more accountable and the fees would be less. As I pointed out earlier, shopping malls don't make retail stores tack on a $30 Mall Improvement Fees when someone buys a jacket.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 133): The current setup, with the AIF, is best. It keeps the fee transparent (since the AIF is a tax).
The whole point is that there shouldn't be an additional "tax" on pax. They are already paying for some of the capital improvements via the air fares that the tenants charge. So... "the AIF is best" for the airport bureaucrats because they are able to "extort' more money for their 'Taj Mahal' delusions of grandeur, and best for the airlines (since they don't have to pay the full "freight" rent costs.) Moreover, among many negatives is that the AIF is not efficient and reduces accountability.
[quote"freight=yyz717,reply=133]Calgary passengers could organize a massive campaign to have the AIF reduced if they (collectively) wanted, but they won't. [/quote]
The AIF is still wrong. And pax grumble but don't do anything don't because of Richelieu's Maxim.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 133): If the airlines had to build their own terminals (as many airlines have done, and still do), the fees could be higher, not lower.
The fees wouldn't be higher... airlines still have to compete on fares... while the airport authority doesn't since it is the only game in town.
Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 126): All I (we?) were stating was that the oil/gas sector may have peaked and that a downturn is likely. As a result the YYC expansion plans are overdone in the short term at least. Yikes.
I was specifically pointing out that whether people like to believe it or not things like oil/gas and real estate fluctuate. In my opinion both are ripe for a fall off in 2013. Sorry if anybody takes this prediction personally.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 157 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8476 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1365 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 323 posts, 
From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4930 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, 
From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2331 posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, 
Same usual regurgitations. Kill it mods.
Printer friendly format 
