ktachiya
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:30 pm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041117/RGTAAFEES17/TPBusiness/Canadian

Yikes.......... YYZ is making a bad choice here. Do you think this will affect the Canadian economy (Ontario)?

There was another thread the other day about AC leasing six jets. If YYZ is this expensive to land in, then I think the new routes will be out of YVR.

I never knew YYZ was the second most expensive in the world after NRT. I always thought NRT and KIX were the two that were up there!!!

Any comments? (I don't need any geography lessons!!)

Thanks
Ktachiya
Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
 
captaingomes
Posts: 6251
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 1:33 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 am

I actually agree with you that YYZ's fees are out of control, and the city or airport do not warrant fees anywhere near the top 10 in the world. I was hoping with good ole' Louis departing, perhaps we'd see a shift in the policies at the GTAA, but maybe it will take a big reality check before that happens.

"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:43 am

The GTAA fee schedule is working. No need to change it. Revenue is growing briskly. The GTAA is executing a good business plan. The GTAA recognizes airport management as a BUSINESS, not a mecca for aircraft spotters. Th goal is not to maximize passengers per se, but airport revenue.

Passengers and/or airlines not willing to pay the GTAA fees are free to fly from YHM, YXU, BUF or even ROC.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
sebring
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:50 am

Thanks, Lou.

A dysfunctional airport with a dysfunctional cost structure. You have to be the only person on the planet willing to defend it.

Then again, if foreign airlines abandon YYZ, then the last few carriers will make enough money off it to support the costs.



 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:55 am

A dysfunctional airport with a dysfunctional cost structure. You have to be the only person on the planet willing to defend it.

The GTAA BoD and mgmt would also appear to support the current GTAA fee regime. As do all airlines at YYZ and passengers, since they are paying up. So I'm in good company.






I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
yukimizake
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:20 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:27 am

That article represents little that is new, the IATA and GTAA have been at each other for years on this issue. So should the GTAA not have built the new T1?, or should we expect the government to help pay for it? The GTAA is a business, they have gone in to significant debt to develop Pearson and now they need the revenue to make their interest payments.

No carriers have left YYZ because of the high fees. Actually, if the fees are so prohibitively expensive then how can a LCC (Westjet) move its operations there from YHM?

There is nothing dysfunctional about this business plan.

'Opfer müssen gebracht werden (Sacrifices must be made)' - Otto Lilienthal
 
accargo
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:19 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:30 am

The GTAA BoD and mgmt would also appear to support the current GTAA fee regime. As do all airlines at YYZ and passengers, since they are paying up. So I'm in good company.

It would seem that IATA doesn't agree with you or your friends at the GTAA.

Planned fee increase at Pearson outrageous, airline group says

'We don't need a Taj Mahal,' IATA argues

By BRENT JANG
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - Page B9


A planned increase in landing fees at Toronto's Pearson International Airport is outrageous, and could force some carriers to put the brakes on their growth plans for Toronto as a destination, says the global group representing airlines.

The jump for 2005, as high as 18 per cent according to a draft proposal by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, would be the latest in a series of landing fee increases hurting the Toronto airport's competitiveness, the International Air Transport Association said.

IATA represents 277 airlines accounting for more than 95 per cent of global scheduled air traffic.

"The airline industry has been moving in the direction of reducing costs and becoming more efficient, but Pearson has increased its landing fees by 208 per cent already since 1998," said Anthony Concil, IATA's director of communications.

Canada's largest airport, which unveiled its new $3.6-billion Terminal 1 in April, is out of step with cost-conscious airlines, Mr. Concil said.

"We need an efficient terminal, but we don't need a Taj Mahal, or Versailles, or whatever you want to call it. We can't have airports moving toward high-cost palaces," he said yesterday from Geneva, where IATA's executive offices are located.

Mr. Concil said Ottawa needs to relieve pressure on the GTAA, the operator of Pearson, to raise landing fees. He urged federal Transport Minister Jean Lapierre to reduce the rents that Ottawa charges to airports across the country.

"Toronto needs to get its costs under control," Mr. Concil said.

GTAA spokeswoman Connie Turner said no decision has been made yet on the level of landing fee increases, but it won't be 18 per cent. "That figure has been taken out of context," she said. "We have received very useful feedback from the airlines, and based on that, we are making adjustments."

Ms. Turner said any reduction in Ottawa's airport rental rates would translate into lower landing fees for airlines. About $160-million, or 20 per cent of the GTAA's $800-million in annual operating costs, goes to rental payments to Ottawa.

She also disputed IATA's assertion that Pearson is a high-cost operation, saying the Toronto airport offers value for the money, compared with other airports that have extra fees.

"We're not outrageous at all. We are not overpriced."

Air Canada spokeswoman Laura Cooke said the Montreal-based airline is concerned about the escalating cost of doing business at its Pearson hub.

"Regardless of the rate increase proposed, given the multiple increases imposed to date by the GTAA, any further fee increase simply contributes to the uncompetitiveness of Pearson and Toronto as a destination," she said.

The Air Transport Research Society said yesterday that Pearson ranked as the most expensive North American airport in its survey of 2003 landing fees in three aircraft categories: $7,965 (U.S.) for a Boeing 747-400, $3,311 for an Airbus 300 and $483 for a CRJ200-LR.

The society, which represents transport researchers around the world, released its survey in Vancouver at a joint conference of the Air Transport Association of Canada and the Canadian Airports Council.

Globally, Pearson ranks second behind Tokyo's Narita Airport as the most expensive airport at which to land, said University of British Columbia Business Professor Tae Oum, who delivered the society's report to conference delegates.

The survey also measured "operating efficiency" and ranked airports in Atlanta and Vancouver as the No. 1 and No. 2 performers in North America. Pearson placed 20th in that ranking of more than 40 North American airports.



 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:31 am

So should the GTAA not have built the new T1?, or should we expect the government to help pay for it?

Exactly. The users (airlines and passengers) should pay for the terminal. Not the govt.

No carriers have left YYZ because of the high fees.

Exactly. More proof the GTAA fees are sustainable and manageable.

Actually, if the fees are so prohibitively expensive then how can a LCC (Westjet) move its operations there from YHM? There is nothing dysfunctional about this business plan.

Nice to see another business-minded anet member!  Big grin





I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
AlekToronto
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 7:42 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:33 am

I have to say that GTAA should charge what they want but number 2 does seem a little high in the world as Toronto is not in the top 10 busiest airports.

Evidently the airlines are still making money flying out of Toronto..if the fees were unsustainable then major airlines would start leaving. For one Westjet and Jetsgo are very concerned about costs and I have not heard them bitch about the fees. I am sure that if the large carriers..AC, WS, BA were leaving then the fees would drop.

On another note I won't be surprised to see some of the smaller cash strapped carriers leave next year..i.e. Alitalia, Olympic, Malev.

Its a business and they will charge what the market will handle.
Now if only the Canadian Government would end their relentless overtaxing of our airline tickets!!
cheers
Alek
 
GuyBetsy1
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 4:00 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:48 am

YYZ - remember what has happened to YMX?
 
ba777-236
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 11:35 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:49 am

Ya know, I really have a hard time understanding why the GTAA keeps doing this - besides the fact that they can, and no one can stop them.

Ask any business (or retail) expert how the best way to make money is. They'll say to have a lower cost and sell more stuff.

Pearson could (theoretically of course) have LOW landing fees and have tons more traffic. Would this not increase revenue for the airport? I'm sure it would. And if not, it would still help YYZ's rankings among the worlds airports.

In this day of airlines continually loosing money, I simply see no reason why they have to keep doing this.
I like British Airways! I'm not sure why, but I do! ;-)
 
Cessnapimp
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 11:46 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:12 am


I'll tell you what's not viable... that Pickering idea. I mean seriously, what do they hope to accomplish? What destinations? YOW/YUL? I think they underestimate the ability of Pickerinians (?) actually driving there instead. Seriously though, can someone explain? I'm at a loss here.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:12 am

YYZ - remember what has happened to YMX?

The 2 are in different leagues. Incomparable.

Ask any business (or retail) expert how the best way to make money is. They'll say to have a lower cost and sell more stuff.

Only in a perfect market with unlimited growth oppty. These dont exist. Profit is the name of the game, not revenue. Hence, maximization of passengers is not the answer in and of itself.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
sebring
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:35 am

The fact that T1 had to be built doesn't mean it had to be this costly. And the terminal is dysfunctional. It is a lot less convenient for connections that T2 was. There has been no attempt by the GTAA to refinance its debt, nor has it lent its support to the airlines' attempt to get the feds to lower its fees. It is a cynical monopoly, and it is losing money. You are first to bash Air Canada for being a one-time monopoly that couldn't make money. If you were at all consistent, you would have to admit the enormous flaws in the GTAA, the airport authority concept, and this particular project. For one, why charge the airlines now full price as if the terminal was finished? It is garbage, dysfunctional. If you want to go from one international flight to another, you get bussed in from the infield terminal to clear Canada Customs at T1, only to get bussed back to the infield terminal. If you want to fly international to transborder, you have to come off the infield terminal, clear Canada Customs at T1 and go to T2 to clear US customs. Anybody who goes through connections at Toronto calls it a disaster and tries to route through other airports. So the service now provided is not worth the premium fees charged. Maybe when the project is finished, you could justify premium fees, but not now. And you will see AC using its new Embraers to do a lot of Pearson overflying for just that reason. The situation sucks.

I would remind you that Air Canada presented the GTAA with a terminal replacement for T1 which would have cost a fraction of the cost. The AC design, similar to Denver and Atlanta, would have been completed years ago. Instead we have this dog which won't be really finished until 2008 or later.

And yes, the media is increasingly critical of the GTAA. As to whether WJ likes YYZ, their earnings have been going down almost from the day they moved. Let's see how much they like it a year from now. We have also seen airlines downgauging in YYZ. British Airways for one. And you can expect a lot more of this.



 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:45 am

The fact that T1 had to be built doesn't mean it had to be this costly.

Perhaps.

And the terminal is dysfunctional.

Then why did AC fight to keep all 14 gates? Why not let WJ in?

There has been no attempt by the GTAA to refinance its debt

There is no need. The debt servicing is manageable.

nor has it lent its support to the airlines' attempt to get the feds to lower its fees

That is the airlines' issue.

It is garbage, dysfunctional. If you want to go from one international flight to another, you get bussed in from the infield terminal to clear Canada Customs at T1, only to get bussed back to the infield terminal. If you want to fly international to transborder, you have to come off the infield terminal, clear Canada Customs at T1 and go to T2 to clear US customs.L

Then fly from a different airport!

I would remind you that Air Canada presented the GTAA with a terminal replacement for T1 which would have cost a fraction of the cost.

AC has zero credibility regarding any cost estimates. Surely you know this by now.









I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
yukimizake
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:20 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:06 am

Ba777-236, if they lowered the landing fees do you really think they would have tons more traffic? Where would this come from? Would there suddenly be a massive influx of foreign carriers? Would new domestic carriers emerge? I doubt if these would happen. What you are suggesting would only make sense if there was an open market of multiple international airports in Toronto all competing against one another.

Guybetsy1 "remember what has happened to YMX"
You can't be serious, how are these even remotely related?

YYZ is in the midst of a privately funded $4.4 Bln development program. In addition, compared to other airports (LHR, LAX, ORD, JFK, NRT, CDG) YYZ has much less of the lucrative heavy type traffic (747, 777, 340). Put these two together and the fact that YYZ has the second highest landing fees should come as no surprise.
'Opfer müssen gebracht werden (Sacrifices must be made)' - Otto Lilienthal
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:12 am

It is garbage, dysfunctional. If you want to go from one international flight to another, you get bussed in from the infield terminal to clear Canada Customs at T1, only to get bussed back to the infield terminal. If you want to fly international to transborder, you have to come off the infield terminal, clear Canada Customs at T1 and go to T2 to clear US customs.

May I remind you that the Infield terminal is a temporary solution until the terminal is FINISHED?

Just like typical Canadians, we're all ready to jump all over the GTAA before the gosh-damned thing is finished.

Give them a chance, holy.

1011yyz.
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:05 am

May I remind you that the Infield terminal is a temporary solution until the terminal is FINISHED?

I sometimes wonder whether the GTAA made a mistake by building the new Terminal where it is. If they had put it in the infield where the hold terminal and the cargo facilities are, they could have completed it before closing any existing terminals. Then they could have either converted T2 to a cargo facility; or if that was not practical, built new cargo facilities - which take a lot less time to build than passenger terminals, in its place.

They could then have turned T1 into a spotters paradise  Smile
 
martinairyyz
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 6:42 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:00 am

Exactly. The users (airlines and passengers) should pay for the terminal. Not the govt.
Hey, what about your favourite company? Why doesn't the GTAA RIGHTFULLY PAY FOR IT?

Then why did AC fight to keep all 14 gates? Why not let WJ in?


Umm..... becuiase they're their rivals who offer better service and comfort, who WOULD let rivals in? Those AC hogs........

Then fly from a different airport!

Thanks for that, but I didn't need someone to tell me. I'm flying from JFK on my next trip to Europe.

And yes, the media is increasingly critical of the GTAA. As to whether WJ likes YYZ, their earnings have been going down almost from the day they moved. Let's see how much they like it a year from now. We have also seen airlines downgauging in YYZ. British Airways for one. And you can expect a lot more of this.


I agree, this is a very good point, in a year we'll see the airlines that serve YYZ and compare it to now.....



Hmm.......... Anyone think that the money-grabbing bone of a company also wants to build Pickering Airport to ease YYZ congestion when you can't fill all the gates? I don't think so................ I think $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The government should take control of YYZ..... only way to make it with less fees once more... or sell it to Richard Branson! YAAAY

Martin
Chelsea Football Club supporter.
 
ktachiya
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:01 am

But this might have impacts on future growth. Or certain cuts to YYZ. As noted in the article, AC is concerned about the rising prices of YYZ. So is many other carriers I suppose. But then this will delay the growth of for instance Asian traffic when YVR already had an advantage. I don't specifically know about their strategies but I would guess the the GTAA wants more Asian traffic to compete against YVR?
Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
 
b741
Posts: 677
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:09 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:38 pm

It is very unfortunate YYZ has suffered in the past moreso than other large airports. Pax. and movements are still down compared with 2000 levels whilst other airports are finally surpassing 2000 levels. I think that SARS thing really factored heavily in the equation.
Being Bilingual, I Speak English And Aviation
 
ba777-236
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 11:35 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:56 pm

Yukimizake and Neil: Yes, I do believe there would be more flights to YYZ were the fees to be lower.

Airlines are trying to save as much money as they can in every way, does this not apply to landing fees as well? If an airline thinks that YYZ may be profitable, but then shudders at the outrageous fees, they'll simply walk away and go on to their next destination.

Just think, Toronto is one of the largest cities in North America in terms of multicultural population. How many international carriers serve the airport? How many others could serve the airport if it was cheaper? I'm sure airlines like Emirates, Virgin Atlantic, Air India etc who all are thinking twice about coming here wouldn't have a hard time about it if it was cheaper.
I like British Airways! I'm not sure why, but I do! ;-)
 
yukimizake
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:20 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:44 pm

Ktachiya, I see little, if any, competition between YYZ and YVR. (p.s. Sake ga suki desu ka)

Ba777-236, if YYZ had lower fees how many more flights could they expect? An increase of 10%, 20%, or more? Which other carriers do you think would come?

The actual $ value of the fees at YYZ is roughly equivalent to a single business class ticket on a flight, (1st class for a 747), so although YYZ's fees are expensive in comparison to other airports I think they are still manageable by the airlines. Its the IATA's job to vocally advocate for lower fees, but I don't think the fees are at a level where airlines are seriously reconsidering operating out of YYZ, as I mentioned in my earlier post a LCC (Westjet) recently moved their Southern Ontario operations from YHM to YZZ.
'Opfer müssen gebracht werden (Sacrifices must be made)' - Otto Lilienthal
 
VonRichtofen
Posts: 4260
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:15 pm

"p.s. Sake ga suki desu ka"

Me too!  Smile

Been awhile though Big grin
 
ktachiya
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:42 pm

Sake ga suki desu ka

Yes, thanx for the humor Yukimizake san. Well, I can definetely tell in your name that you love watching "snow while you drink." Same here.

No, but I was just really really suprised. I always thought in terms of landing fees, KIX was more expensive than NRT and those were the top two. But turns out that I am dead wrong. And true, YVR and YYZ can't compete directly, excuse my post.

But an airport, which is not major (ultra major like LAX, SFO, ORD, JFK) but the landing fees are that expensive. So it exceeds KIX? Then KIX is doing relatively well I suppose.
Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:49 pm

Then fly from a different airport!

Sure, Neil - Southern Ontario is littered with International Airports for us to choose from. That kind of suggestion is equivalent to me saying to you, "You don't like Air Canada? Then go live in another country"  Smile
 
ba777-236
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 11:35 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:59 am

"if YYZ had lower fees how many more flights could they expect? An increase of 10%, 20%, or more? Which other carriers do you think would come? "

Yukimizake, I don't think that travel at YYZ will 'sky-rocket' if they have lower fees, but I think airlines would have a better time here (financially) and that is something important.

One example being BMI.They are currently flying here, but it is expected that they will soon scrap flights due to poor load factors. That may be true, but they may be more willing to keep the flights on (or just reduce the frequencies) if the fees are lower. And then there's Air Canada who (until recently) was bleeding quite a bit in terms of $$. Would they not have benefited by lower fees? I think they would have with so many flights heading in and out of Toronto.

Oh well, I doubt anyone from the GTAA reads this forum, so not much point in us trying to convince them to lower their fees  Insane
I like British Airways! I'm not sure why, but I do! ;-)
 
ba97
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 9:42 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:15 am

YYZ is viable and will be--the business and economics are a little off for many reasons.

Why do people fly to one airport over another?
a) it is their destination
b) the airport is a good one to connect through (ease of connection or convenience)

If YYZ is on the wrong course, it will show in the # of passengers in b). Look to the threads here on who is better, Frankfurt, Heathrow or CDG or AMS...We pick which airport we wish to use.
Option a) will be fixed. Except for discount ticket passengers, one will not fly to Buffalo if Toronto is the real destination. Buffalo or Niagara Falls will not be a destination base for 747s.

Why does an airline fly to an airport?
a) they make money by flying to pick people up
b) they make money by flying to drop people off.
c) they make money elsewhere by the linkages a) or b) provide in the overall company strategy.

If BA, or any airline, can not make money under a) b) c), then they leave. Simple.

Landing fees do not determine if the money is there to make a flight worthy. Who is fooling who? If the fees for a 747 were $10,000, how many empty seats, upgrades and points seats are given away a flight that if the seat had a posterior in it would add up to more than $10,000?

Having Hamilton airport so close to Toronto and not developing the links is a bad decision. Promote cargo in Hamilton. Pickering is even worse for all reasons.

Having people use the infield terminal is a poor decision-it is a reality for now- but the system is not designed for smooth transits. This was one of the reasons I switched to BA from AC, I land after a 8 hour flight, and no separation of premium to economy in service. door opens, you walk, wait, bus, walk, wait, customs.... At least at Heathrow they do bus, walk, customs.

Most of the bickering and complaining is noise. If people did not B#@$@# about higher prices, they would not look good infront of the customer. The silly part is the landing fee makes up so little of the over all cost to fly the plane but plays well in the press.

For those of you in the business end of the business- what percentage of the customer base is using the airport as a connection? That is the only base to which improvements would increase passengers because that is the only portion that one choses and has options. The rest is all based on many other factors independent of the airport.





there is economy class, business class, first class...then Concorde..pure class
 
Qb001
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:42 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:58 am

I'm not worried about YYZ. If it really runs into problems, the federal government will run to its rescue, just like it did with the Ontario auto industry back in April.

I mean, the Liberals in Ottawa will never let their main electorate down... This symbiosis is too perfect.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:06 am

The GTAA is a not-for-profit organization. Its directors are appointed by the various municipalities that make up the Greater Toronto area, and also the Provincial and Federal governments. So, if their fees seem too high it is not because they are greedy. However, there does not seem to be much control over capital spending. Who determines whether a project is necessary, or if something less costly would work as well?

For instance; who decided that YYZ had to have 5 runways - with a sixth on the near horizon. Many major International airports - LHR, LGW, and MAN for example make do with 1 to 3 runways. Also, I have heard (unconfirmed rumour) that use of the word "Security" is all that is needed to get all the money one asks for. Do the various supervisors etc. really need expensive SUVs to ride around in? How much money was spent on replacing miles and miles of fencing around the airport? The new fences are two or three feet higher than the old ones. Is that supposed to deter terrorists. Or just make it harder to take photos over the top  Big grin
 
sebring
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:22 am

I'm not worried about YYZ. If it really runs into problems, the federal government will run to its rescue, just like it did with the Ontario auto industry back in April.


No, there is zero need for the government to bail out Pearson. Just let enough airlines move out or downgauge, and the airport will go bust, restructure under bankruptcy protection - with the banks getting a brushcut that they deserve for bankrolling these profligate spenders - and all will be fine. It's not as if you can move the assets of an airport like you can move the assets of an airline.
 
EuroLeb
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:05 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:29 am

Blaming it on the Federal Government (100%), and the Feds should pay the price for it in the next Federal election (in my opinion). I wonder why the Canadian Tax federation hasn't done anything yet, to bring those outrageous fees/taxes down!!!

Unfortunately, the successive Canadian government(s) have done nothing to transform Canada's major airports into transit hubs in and out of North America, particularly for strategically located Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Many major international airports such as LHR, CDG, JFK, FRA as well as Schiphol, Singapore and Dubai draw most of their major growth from transisting passengers. The successive Canadian governments have had no vision and have done nothing at all to promote and develop Canada's Air Transport sector. I don't care how much money they spend on terminal buildings and runways as long as they have no clear vision as how to make Canada's Air Transport sector more competitive internationally. Could someone tell me why a relatively small nation like the Netherlands would have an international airport that is almost twice as busy as Canada's busiest airport? I have no doubt that there's tremendous room for growth for most major Canadian airports, particularly the 3 mentioned above. I hope that one day, we will have responsible governments and Departments of Transport which are willing to encourage air travel domestically and internationally, by lowering air travel taxes and promoting Canada's airports as gateways into the North American continent...
Calgary is my home...
 
EnviroTO
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:11 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:05 am

I don't have any problem with GTAAs business plan except for the Pickering airport idea. I think that they need to finish Pearson before going and building another airport.

The GTAA can't be blamed for the high costs of flying into Toronto. The old T1 and T2 were seriously outdated and needed to be replaced and there was more space and better access to transportation by locating it on the site they did. When the federal government ran the airport they never properly kept the airport up to date and when you don't properly maintain something the costs will eventually catch up to you all at once. To have an air terminal in 2003 that isn't properly wheelchair accessible acting as the gateway to your largest city and to send all arriving passengers to a dingy basement for customs is crazy.

The federal government charges the GTAA a significant rent but provides nothing for that money in return. The federal government charges more per ticket just in special security taxes than the GTAA charges per passenger (averaged by seats) for landing fees and the landing fees include services that many other airports would charge separately, including airport security and policing which with all the security charges the federal government has on the ticket still isn't covered.

If you look at the taxes and fees on a US ticket versus a Canadian ticket, and realize that the FAA in the US is paid for by the US government and also realize that on top of the ATSC, Security Charge, and GST, that the Canadian government is charging the GTAA rent... the problem is the federal government. The federal government didn't have a proper plan to run the airport and to upkeep the airport when it ran it necessitating a huge redevelopment, and it charges like crazy but doesn't provide value for that money.

[Edited 2004-11-20 21:15:44]
 
yhmfan
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:44 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:44 am

As you can tell from my username, I am a proponent of YHM as TO's secondary airport.
Having said that, YYZ is simply charging what the market can absorb. If an airline does not like the fees, it can always switch to YHM.
As much as I like the idea, it has not and will not happen to any great extent. This means that the YYZ rates are, therefore, competitive.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
 
ktachiya
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:05 am

Sorry I just have a question out of interest.

When did the provincial government hand YYZ to GTAA?
Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
 
palebird
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 1:41 pm

RE: YYZ, Not Viable In The Future?

Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:50 am

For all of the experts out there the margins in the airline business are very thin. If you were an "expert" you would know that. Oh well. Landing fees are a big chunk of cash every time the aircraft visits an airport. Do not kid yourself. Airlines will not wholesale abandon YYZ because to service TO they need to fly out of YYZ. But... future planning will definitely take the high fees into consideration, you can be sure of that. So a year or two down the road YYZ may be smarting from reduced traffic. Neither Toronto nor any Canadian city comes nowhere near being classified as a world class city/airport. And YYZ is one of the poorest laid out airports anywhere. Always has been. The new terminal is a joke. I have flown to India twice out of YYZ this year and I never want to return to YYZ if I do not have to. I know Toronto Tonto's believe they are the best but YYZ is a ripoff.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, A332DTW, Alsatian, Baidu [Spider], Bluebird191, comairguycvg, cvgComair, Kiwirob, Mani87, qf002, reality, S75752, Yahoo [Bot], zombie and 249 guests