Simple question is this: when will the Canadian gov open up the market to JetBlue and other carriers for cross-border traffic? If taxes/landing fees are an issue - then bake them into the fare. If protectionism is so vital, just limit frequency. I'd like to see YUL, YOW, YYZ, YHM, YQB, and YHZ first. The agreement could be negotiated so that B6 would only fly CS100/300s on the routes - a win win for both.

Cyow wrote:

Simple question is this: when will the Canadian gov open up the market to JetBlue and other carriers for cross-border traffic? If taxes/landing fees are an issue - then bake them into the fare. If protectionism is so vital, just limit frequency. I'd like to see YUL, YOW, YYZ, YHM, YQB, and YHZ first. The agreement could be negotiated so that B6 would only fly CS100/300s on the routes - a win win for both.

B6 has little interest in Canada for the same reasons that VX ditched YYZ. The taxes and surcharges at Canadian airports inflate their overall ticket prices negating their ability to differentiate themselves and compete. Any exemptions made to B6 would have to be granted to others which would result in killing a government cash cow. The last part of your musing is moot as B6 already can fly from anywhere in the US to anywhere in Canada. Even if that was not the case attaching landing rights to the purchase of Canadian hardware would be a WTO violation.

YOWza

Canada has been open skies since the mid 1990s. JetBlue simply chooses not to fly there.

For them to start YYZ for example, they would instantly be up against AC, WS UA, DL, and AA who all run an immense amount of frequency to a whole host of destinations. It would force Jetblue or any other new competitor to offer a similar level of service to have any hope of competing, and that really isn't possible. They would have no market share to start, little brand awareness, and no ground support off the start, and many Canadian airports (YYZ, YVR) don't even have gates available during most of the day. It really isn't practical, it would be too little too late. Not to mention Canada-USA is overwhelmingly Canada point of sale dominated (I read on this site recently that Toronto-New York is 86% skewed in favour of Canadian carriers).

As alluded to earlier, there's nothing stopping any US airline from launching service from any market in the US to any market in Canada, nor has there been for 20+ years.

Airports like LGA, DCA and SNA are slot restricted. As we all know, slots at the first two airports are very expensive, slots at places like SNA and LGB are restricted for other reasons.

There are basically no slot restrictions in Canada, other than at YTZ.

Even YYZ will find gate space if a new operator really wanted to launch flights into Canada.

The problem is taxes. A $4.98 r/t base fare from YYZ to FLL attracts over $121 in mandatory US and Canadian taxes and fees, some of which are fixed, others are a percentage of the fare, and none of which the airline keeps. They simply collect the taxes for others.

If there was the opportunity to operate profitably, they'd do it. They don't.

That pretty much explains the situation.

When they spin off their ULCC, LabattBlue

smokeybandit wrote:

When they spin off their ULCC, LabattBlue

Well played. I think they have their hands full right now, but as they add to their fleet, adding routes to Canada (especially out of BOS) shouldn't be too far behind.

You can ask the same question to Southwest.

*Starts Praying That JetBlue will star LGB-YVR out of any reason whatsoever since preclearance*

Well, I don't think the perception that it's the taxes is really the cause. I recently flew on JetBlue from NAS to MCO one way. Ticket was $109, and taxes were $113.99. Taxes were about 50/50 US/Bahamas (US puts all its taxes for immigration etc on arrival; Bahamas has big departure taxes). Point is they fly to NAS from FLL, JFK, BOS...this doesn't seem to slow them down, so I suspect there has to be other market dynamics (maybe combined with the taxes) that makes them shy away?

they do have code share with Porter on the shorter east coast routes. Maybe they can try BOS/JFK to YYC/YVR/YEG. There is not much competition on these routes.

Cyow wrote:

Simple question is this: when will the Canadian gov open up the market to JetBlue and other carriers for cross-border traffic? If taxes/landing fees are an issue - then bake them into the fare. If protectionism is so vital, just limit frequency. I'd like to see YUL, YOW, YYZ, YHM, YQB, and YHZ first. The agreement could be negotiated so that B6 would only fly CS100/300s on the routes - a win win for both.

Oh really? Is the some mystery C Series order that you're aware of?

Simple answer: "baking" taxes and landing fees into the fare doesn't get over the show stopper: it's simply much, much cheaper to pull those Canadian customers into BUF and BTV. You think BUF-LAX is catching traffic from western NY? It's stealing traffic from Canada.

It's not a win-win if it doesn't make sense for JetBlue to serve it. YHZ, YHM, YOW, YQZ...so laughable.

cluseau wrote:

Well, I don't think the perception that it's the taxes is really the cause. I recently flew on JetBlue from NAS to MCO one way. Ticket was $109, and taxes were $113.99. Taxes were about 50/50 US/Bahamas (US puts all its taxes for immigration etc on arrival; Bahamas has big departure taxes). Point is they fly to NAS from FLL, JFK, BOS...this doesn't seem to slow them down, so I suspect there has to be other market dynamics (maybe combined with the taxes) that makes them shy away?

Internally they talk all the time about the tax structure in Canada, and how it precludes service.

YVR is one of BOS largest, if not the largest unserved market. A BOS YVR would do well.

PanzerPowner wrote:

*Starts Praying That JetBlue will star LGB-YVR out of any reason whatsoever since preclearance*

Still wouldn't work.

You still need FIS at the destination airport in order to have scheduled service from a US pre-cleared gateway, in the instance a breach is determined at the time between departure and arrival.

AS found this out the hard way, back before SNA offered FIS. They scheduled a flight and sold tickets, before getting the kibosh from the Feds.

tphuang wrote:

they do have code share with Porter on the shorter east coast routes. Maybe they can try BOS/JFK to YYC/YVR/YEG. There is not much competition on these routes.

There is also much less of a market for these routes.

cluseau wrote:

Well, I don't think the perception that it's the taxes is really the cause. I recently flew on JetBlue from NAS to MCO one way. Ticket was $109, and taxes were $113.99. Taxes were about 50/50 US/Bahamas (US puts all its taxes for immigration etc on arrival; Bahamas has big departure taxes). Point is they fly to NAS from FLL, JFK, BOS...this doesn't seem to slow them down, so I suspect there has to be other market dynamics (maybe combined with the taxes) that makes them shy away?

While high taxes on certain sparsely served routes is tolerable, high taxation on denser routes with more frequencies will result in a bloodbath and the aforementioned inability to stand out on price. NYC(all airports)-NAS has only two direct dailies for a random date I looked up (Sep 13). YTO(all airports)-NYC(all airports) has 80 direct flights for the same day. Where do you think B6 is likely to make more money and so deploy precious resources? This same situation exists in all other viable Canadian markets; they are already very well served in terms of US service. I'm not saying never but I think you will see B6 in Europe before Canada.

YOWza

richierich wrote:

tphuang wrote:

they do have code share with Porter on the shorter east coast routes. Maybe they can try BOS/JFK to YYC/YVR/YEG. There is not much competition on these routes.

There is also much less of a market for these routes.

There should be a market to Vancouver from Boston and New York. And not much competition.

catiii wrote:

cluseau wrote:

Well, I don't think the perception that it's the taxes is really the cause. I recently flew on JetBlue from NAS to MCO one way. Ticket was $109, and taxes were $113.99. Taxes were about 50/50 US/Bahamas (US puts all its taxes for immigration etc on arrival; Bahamas has big departure taxes). Point is they fly to NAS from FLL, JFK, BOS...this doesn't seem to slow them down, so I suspect there has to be other market dynamics (maybe combined with the taxes) that makes them shy away?

Internally they talk all the time about the tax structure in Canada, and how it precludes service.

The thing is on a transborder ticket, it's actually the US taxes are even more utterly insane than the Canadian ones. There are 7 different US taxes on a transborder flight SEVEN! Imagine going to McDonald's and paying 7 different taxes on a Big Mac. There would be a societal outcry. But for air travel not enough people are aware or have a vested interest in raising a stink.

Couple that with 4 Canadian taxes + a $23-$30 Canadian airport improvement fee and you can see why transborder traffic is stagnant. Yet our governments don't even acknowledge there's a serious problem. In Canada we scratch our heads over the leakage to border town airports, yet refuse to do anything about the ridiculous taxation.

If B6 wants to be more than just a notch above a large, regional carrier, they should seriously consider starting up flights to Canada. Whether or not it makes money is irrelevant. Making money is nice but its not the end all be all

[threeid][/threeid]

jumbojet wrote:

If B6 wants to be more than just a notch above a large, regional carrier, they should seriously consider starting up flights to Canada. Whether or not it makes money is irrelevant. Making money is nice but its not the end all be all

What do you care so long as delta flies there, right? As much as you troll jetblue threads I'm starting to think you are a disgruntled employee

I mean routes like JFK-YUL, YOW and YYZ are really short hops wouldn't take too much plane time to operate them. Actual time in the air is short, usually takes longer waiting to takeoff. Montreal is 330 miles. The problem i think is since they are so short, frequency is high of carriers and fares are pretty low in general minus all taxes since its an "international flight". B6 would face some real tough competition if they tried any of those routes, low risk since they are short but not much potential to make alot since they are competitive.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I mean routes like JFK-YUL, YOW and YYZ are really short hops wouldn't take too much plane time to operate them. Actual time in the air is short, usually takes longer waiting to takeoff. Montreal is 330 miles. The problem i think is since they are so short, frequency is high of carriers and fares are pretty low in general minus all taxes since its an "international flight". B6 would face some real tough competition if they tried any of those routes, low risk since they are short but not much potential to make alot since they are competitive.

Out of those 3, YOW is the market with high fares due to a lack of competition. It's also the only one of the 3 without any flights to JFK. Having said that, the US LCCs have largely avoided Canada like the plague and I think it mostly has to do with taxes. It's tough to have a low fare when you're at a minimum of $100 in taxes and fees before the airline even charges anything. That's more than the all-in fare for some of the fare buckets on some border town ULCC flights to Florida.

jumbojet wrote:

If B6 wants to be more than just a notch above a large, regional carrier, they should seriously consider starting up flights to Canada. Whether or not it makes money is irrelevant. Making money is nice but its not the end all be all

33 international destinations in central and South America, but JetBlue needs Toronto for credibility? What a joke...

Blueballs wrote:

[threeid][/threeid]

jumbojet wrote:

If B6 wants to be more than just a notch above a large, regional carrier, they should seriously consider starting up flights to Canada. Whether or not it makes money is irrelevant. Making money is nice but its not the end all be all

What do you care so long as delta flies there, right? As much as you troll jetblue threads I'm starting to think you are a disgruntled employee

Exactly, consider the poster right?

But hey, at least Robin doesn't take off for a cushy Palm Beach vacation during a crippling 4 day blue sky IROP.

jumbojet wrote:
If B6 wants to be more than just a notch above a large, regional carrier, they should seriously consider starting up flights to Canada. Whether or not it makes money is irrelevant. Making money is nice but its not the end all be all

Respectfully, don't airlines need to make money to remain in business, or am I missing something here? I can't see any airline operating nonprofitable routes for very long (Smisek's funny business excepted!).

jumbojet wrote:

Making money is nice but its not the end all be all

Perhaps not for a state-owned carrier but B6 is very much in it for the money, not for the impressive route map...

YOWza

JetBlue would add another flight to the DR vs flying to Canada. The profits per flight going to the DR and the demand is too high vs risking going into a new market with high costs.

catiii wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

If B6 wants to be more than just a notch above a large, regional carrier, they should seriously consider starting up flights to Canada. Whether or not it makes money is irrelevant. Making money is nice but its not the end all be all

33 international destinations in central and South America, but JetBlue needs Toronto for credibility? What a joke...

Meant to say Central and South America, and the Caribbean.

cluseau wrote:

Well, I don't think the perception that it's the taxes is really the cause. I recently flew on JetBlue from NAS to MCO one way. Ticket was $109, and taxes were $113.99. Taxes were about 50/50 US/Bahamas (US puts all its taxes for immigration etc on arrival; Bahamas has big departure taxes). Point is they fly to NAS from FLL, JFK, BOS...this doesn't seem to slow them down, so I suspect there has to be other market dynamics (maybe combined with the taxes) that makes them shy away?

I don't think that the taxes matter much. All the airlines pay it as a fixed cost so no one is getting an advantage on it. It is a saturated marketplace for YYZ and YUL. maybe B6 would have some luck with YOW, YHZ or YYC/YVR.

Dominion301 wrote:

catiii wrote:

cluseau wrote:

Well, I don't think the perception that it's the taxes is really the cause. I recently flew on JetBlue from NAS to MCO one way. Ticket was $109, and taxes were $113.99. Taxes were about 50/50 US/Bahamas (US puts all its taxes for immigration etc on arrival; Bahamas has big departure taxes). Point is they fly to NAS from FLL, JFK, BOS...this doesn't seem to slow them down, so I suspect there has to be other market dynamics (maybe combined with the taxes) that makes them shy away?

Internally they talk all the time about the tax structure in Canada, and how it precludes service.

The thing is on a transborder ticket, it's actually the US taxes are even more utterly insane than the Canadian ones. There are 7 different US taxes on a transborder flight SEVEN! Imagine going to McDonald's and paying 7 different taxes on a Big Mac. There would be a societal outcry. But for air travel not enough people are aware or have a vested interest in raising a stink.

Couple that with 4 Canadian taxes + a $23-$30 Canadian airport improvement fee and you can see why transborder traffic is stagnant. Yet our governments don't even acknowledge there's a serious problem. In Canada we scratch our heads over the leakage to border town airports, yet refuse to do anything about the ridiculous taxation.

I don't think the big Canadian airports (YYZ, YUL, and YVR)care much about the leakage to border towns as those pax are usually looking for the cheapest option and with the dollar as it is I am not sure what if there is a huge benefit in doing it anymore.

Regarding a route like BUF-LAX that might attract some but AC and AA have a lot of business traffic on this route and that is the Hi-Rev traffic.Furthermore all these airports have growing passenger numbers even if trans-border isn't growing and I don't think it affecting their pocketbooks a whole lot.

Personally living in Mississauga I have never seen a benefit of using BUF over YYZ. When I consider the time commitment involved I simply cannot justify it and most flights have been pretty comparable with actually more options and better times out of YYZ.

StarAC17 wrote:

cluseau wrote:

Well, I don't think the perception that it's the taxes is really the cause. I recently flew on JetBlue from NAS to MCO one way. Ticket was $109, and taxes were $113.99. Taxes were about 50/50 US/Bahamas (US puts all its taxes for immigration etc on arrival; Bahamas has big departure taxes). Point is they fly to NAS from FLL, JFK, BOS...this doesn't seem to slow them down, so I suspect there has to be other market dynamics (maybe combined with the taxes) that makes them shy away?

I don't think that the taxes matter much. All the airlines pay it as a fixed cost so no one is getting an advantage on it. It is a saturated marketplace for YYZ and YUL. maybe B6 would have some luck with YOW, YHZ or YYC/YVR.

Dominion301 wrote:

catiii wrote:

Internally they talk all the time about the tax structure in Canada, and how it precludes service.

The thing is on a transborder ticket, it's actually the US taxes are even more utterly insane than the Canadian ones. There are 7 different US taxes on a transborder flight SEVEN! Imagine going to McDonald's and paying 7 different taxes on a Big Mac. There would be a societal outcry. But for air travel not enough people are aware or have a vested interest in raising a stink.

Couple that with 4 Canadian taxes + a $23-$30 Canadian airport improvement fee and you can see why transborder traffic is stagnant. Yet our governments don't even acknowledge there's a serious problem. In Canada we scratch our heads over the leakage to border town airports, yet refuse to do anything about the ridiculous taxation.

I don't think the big Canadian airports (YYZ, YUL, and YVR)care much about the leakage to border towns as those pax are usually looking for the cheapest option and with the dollar as it is I am not sure what if there is a huge benefit in doing it anymore.

Regarding a route like BUF-LAX that might attract some but AC and AA have a lot of business traffic on this route and that is the Hi-Rev traffic.Furthermore all these airports have growing passenger numbers even if trans-border isn't growing and I don't think it affecting their pocketbooks a whole lot.

Personally living in Mississauga I have never seen a benefit of using BUF over YYZ. When I consider the time commitment involved I simply cannot justify it and most flights have been pretty comparable with actually more options and better times out of YYZ.

I used to live between home in the US and the Halton RM and we used BUF more than YYZ. Fares were WAY cheaper, and when you multiply that by four, it adds up. Perhaps they weren't going so much for business traffic but instead are targeting leisure/VFR traffic?