One of the more blatantly anti-competitive moves in this business. New Leaf Announced AZA and WS announced essentially a duplicate schedule 2 days later.

"So we made that decision to go in there and within eight hours of our decision, an airline also chose to put service in to that airport as well, and also run flights basically matching the same schedule," said Rempel, who clarified that Westjet was the competitor in question.

Rempel would not speculate on why Westjet, which already offered flights to the Phoenix Sky Harbour International Airport, decided to mirror the NewLeaf's offerings, saying "you probably have to ask them that question." Westjet said by email that the Phoenix area is a very competitive market. "The airline business is more challenging than it seems and this airline appears to be blaming one airline for their woes in a particular market without providing the travelling public the full story," wrote Westjet spokesperson Lauren Stewart.

When asked at what point Westjet decided to start flying into Mesa and why, Stewart declined to comment further.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/n ... -1.3920153

Same as BA flying OAK-LGW.

enilria wrote:

One of the more blatantly anti-competitive moves in this business. New Leaf Announced AZA and WS announced essentially a duplicate schedule 2 days later.

"So we made that decision to go in there and within eight hours of our decision, an airline also chose to put service in to that airport as well, and also run flights basically matching the same schedule," said Rempel, who clarified that Westjet was the competitor in question.

Rempel would not speculate on why Westjet, which already offered flights to the Phoenix Sky Harbour International Airport, decided to mirror the NewLeaf's offerings, saying "you probably have to ask them that question." Westjet said by email that the Phoenix area is a very competitive market. "The airline business is more challenging than it seems and this airline appears to be blaming one airline for their woes in a particular market without providing the travelling public the full story," wrote Westjet spokesperson Lauren Stewart.

When asked at what point Westjet decided to start flying into Mesa and why, Stewart declined to comment further.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/n ... -1.3920153

Please don't take offense at anything I say here. I have admired almost all of the threads you have started at a.net, and have only rarely failed to agree with your positions. This one is different, I especially don't like your calling WestJet's actions blatantly anti-competitive.

First, this "news" story strikes me as a pure PR spin job. Without any other evidence, I am supposing that it was written as a sour-grapes attack by NewLeaf against WestJet, handed to a CBS News "reporter," who filed it during a slow news cycle. Sounds to me like NewLeaf is looking for sympathy while also trying to paint WestJet with a PR black eye.

I checked flight arrivals at Phoenix Sky Harbor for the last 24 hours (FlightRadar24). Phoenix is served by flights from Canada by WestJet (Calgary (2), Regina, Toronto and Vancouver), American (Edmonton), and AC Rouge (Calgary, Toronto (2) and Vancouver).

NewLeaf's entering of the Phoenix market can only be seen as an attempt to take business away from existing carriers (unless they were going to offer substantially lower fares that generated new business). Why shouldn't those carriers fight to retain their market shares? The fact that NewLeaf's strategy (similar to many other LCCs) to use the less expensive (?) Phoenix-Mesa airport makes no difference. Meeting that strategy with direct competition is simply smart business practice.

Why did NewLeaf also cancel plans for Edmonton-Phoenix? Did American, the only competitor at Edmonton, take any action against them?

I suggest that NewLeaf's trial balloon route offerings failed to generate sufficient ticket sales to warrant starting the service. The news story states "..... NewLeaf has "abruptly" canceled its newly announced flights...." The routes were not newly announced. They were announced almost two months ago. I suppose you can say that any action is abrupt since it was not taken until it was taken. The use of "abrupt" makes it sound like it was an emergency decision.

In my opinion, labeling WestJest as blatantly anti-competitive is improper. In a sense, ANY competition is anti-competitive since competition is always against others. But an action is anti-competitive, blatantly or not, only when it prevents competition from taking place. No one has prevented NewLeaf from trying to compete, and they in fact claim "that we're here to stay" (rather meaningless PR spin). The article mentions plans by NewLeaf to release a new flight schedule soon.

We shall see.

BobPatterson wrote:

Please don't take offense at anything I say here. I have admired almost all of the threads you have started at a.net, and have only rarely failed to agree with your positions. This one is different, I especially don't like your calling WestJet's actions blatantly anti-competitive.

First, this "news" story strikes me as a pure PR spin job. Without any other evidence, I am supposing that it was written as a sour-grapes attack by NewLeaf against WestJet, handed to a CBS News "reporter," who filed it during a slow news cycle. Sounds to me like NewLeaf is looking for sympathy while also trying to paint WestJet with a PR black eye.

I checked flight arrivals at Phoenix Sky Harbor for the last 24 hours (FlightRadar24). Phoenix is served by flights from Canada by WestJet (Calgary (2), Regina, Toronto and Vancouver), American (Edmonton), and AC Rouge (Calgary, Toronto (2) and Vancouver).

NewLeaf's entering of the Phoenix market can only be seen as an attempt to take business away from existing carriers (unless they were going to offer substantially lower fares that generated new business). Why shouldn't those carriers fight to retain their market shares? The fact that NewLeaf's strategy (similar to many other LCCs) to use the less expensive (?) Phoenix-Mesa airport makes no difference. Meeting that strategy with direct competition is simply smart business practice.

Why did NewLeaf also cancel plans for Edmonton-Phoenix? Did American, the only competitor at Edmonton, take any action against them?

I suggest that NewLeaf's trial balloon route offerings failed to generate sufficient ticket sales to warrant starting the service. The news story states "..... NewLeaf has "abruptly" canceled its newly announced flights...." The routes were not newly announced. They were announced almost two months ago. I suppose you can say that any action is abrupt since it was not taken until it was taken. The use of "abrupt" makes it sound like it was an emergency decision.

In my opinion, labeling WestJest as blatantly anti-competitive is improper. In a sense, ANY competition is anti-competitive since competition is always against others. But an action is anti-competitive, blatantly or not, only when it prevents competition from taking place. No one has prevented NewLeaf from trying to compete, and they in fact claim "that we're here to stay" (rather meaningless PR spin). The article mentions plans by NewLeaf to release a new flight schedule soon.

We shall see.

I agree. While I did roll my eyes pretty hard when WS made their announcement the day after New Leaf, I also saw it as WS protecting a market share they've worked hard to gain here in Phoenix, particularly the Canada-centric east valley. Fact is, I'm skeptical of just how long New Leaf could have made it work anyway. I don't know of many virtual airlines that don't ultimately go bust on short notice. WS's presence at the very least brings relative stability.

It's very rare for one airline to fly to both Phoenix area airports. The fact that WS jumped in just two days after New Leaf, with a similar schedule to boot, showed that they were going to do everything in their power to kill the competition. If WS pulls out, we'll have our answer to that one. It'd be interesting to know when WS first decided to enter AZA? I'm going to guess within 48 hours of New Leaf announcing service.

I'll defer to some of the anti-competitive cases out there, not all of which were successful. However, clearly there is anti-competitive behavior at times and this may or may not be an example of that.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

It's very rare for one airline to fly to both Phoenix area airports. The fact that WS jumped in just two days after New Leaf, with a similar schedule to boot, showed that they were going to do everything in their power to kill the competition. If WS pulls out, we'll have our answer to that one. It'd be interesting to know when WS first decided to enter AZA? I'm going to guess within 48 hours of New Leaf announcing service.

I'll defer to some of the anti-competitive cases out there, not all of which were successful. However, clearly there is anti-competitive behavior at times and this may or may not be an example of that.

F9 operated at both airports for about a year. For years, the airport has been attempting to court a number of carriers already serving PHX to entice them to also serve AZA/IWA. I have no doubt that WS was one of those carriers. There is already a CBP facility at the airport making preclearance a possiblity, and given the large Canadian snowbird population in the east valley, I feel that it is potentially sustainable to operate both airports on a seasonal basis.

I don't so much see this as anti-competitive; I see it more as WS protecting the market share they currently have. Perhaps it is predatory to a degree, but even without WS, I'm not convinced New Leaf would have lasted anyway. The fact that WS pulled the trigger so quickly tells me they were already seriously considering the service to begin with. Yes, it was reactionary, but WS is a very well run airline, and I would find it hard to believe they would add a route without having some ideas for success in mind. And after all, they were here first -- they have every right to defend the success they've spent several years building.

My hope is that New Leaf dropping out doesn't cause WS to simply reconsolidate back at PHX. I hope they actually give AZA a chance first.

atcsundevil wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

It's very rare for one airline to fly to both Phoenix area airports. The fact that WS jumped in just two days after New Leaf, with a similar schedule to boot, showed that they were going to do everything in their power to kill the competition. If WS pulls out, we'll have our answer to that one. It'd be interesting to know when WS first decided to enter AZA? I'm going to guess within 48 hours of New Leaf announcing service.

I'll defer to some of the anti-competitive cases out there, not all of which were successful. However, clearly there is anti-competitive behavior at times and this may or may not be an example of that.

F9 operated at both airports for about a year. For years, the airport has been attempting to court a number of carriers already serving PHX to entice them to also serve AZA/IWA. I have no doubt that WS was one of those carriers. There is already a CBP facility at the airport making preclearance a possiblity, and given the large Canadian snowbird population in the east valley, I feel that it is potentially sustainable to operate both airports on a seasonal basis.

I don't so much see this as anti-competitive; I see it more as WS protecting the market share they currently have. Perhaps it is predatory to a degree, but even without WS, I'm not convinced New Leaf would have lasted anyway. The fact that WS pulled the trigger so quickly tells me they were already seriously considering the service to begin with. Yes, it was reactionary, but WS is a very well run airline, and I would find it hard to believe they would add a route without having some ideas for success in mind. And after all, they were here first -- they have every right to defend the success they've spent several years building.

My hope is that New Leaf dropping out doesn't cause WS to simply reconsolidate back at PHX. I hope they actually give AZA a chance first.

1. I think F9's experiment in Phoenix highlighted the oddity of serving both airports.
2. By it's very nature, "competing" is often about protecting market share, and "anti-competitive" behavior grows from that. Somewhere in there is a line that by definition evolves from "competing" to "being anti-competitve", though I'd certainly agree that it seldom is provable.
3. We've seen airlines announce almost immediate responses a number of times in the past. I think it's "Announce first. Ask questions later." No doubt that scenarios aren't envisioned, but that doesn't mean they were planning to serve (in this case) AZA. In fact, I'd argue that there was no incentive to UNTIL New Leaf announced their service.

Anyhow, not trying to be argumentative, as I don't have any legal insight on this area. However, when a big guy instantly squashes a little guy in this way, particularly when they announce immediately, schedule match, drop airfares, and (we'll see) pull out when the new entrant dies off/goes away, I think you have to ask yourself if that's really how we want to see competition working in the industry.

I bet WS will not begin AZA or stick with it for a short time and then pull out.

atcsundevil wrote:

I don't so much see this as anti-competitive; I see it more as WS protecting the market share they currently have...I hope they actually give AZA a chance first.

I agree, and I do think they'll do what they can to make AZA work. Back when he was with AS, Gregg Saretsky told me personally that he saw long-term opportunity at AZA, given the growth of the East Valley. Obviously AS never pursued it, but it clearly never left Gregg's mind.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

1. I think F9's experiment in Phoenix highlighted the oddity of serving both airports.

I think that has more to do with F9 and many of the questionable management decisions they made rather than the judgement of serving both airports being sound or not. Many other cities similar in size to Phoenix manage to function with more than one airport, and many of them function with airlines utilizing split operations. I'm not trying to say is easy, but I think it can be done in Phoenix under the right circumstances.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

In fact, I'd argue that there was no incentive to UNTIL New Leaf announced their service.

I agree. I would say New Leaf certainly forced their hand, but it's impossible for those of us on the outside to know if such a conclusion might have ever been reached on their own. It will be telling if WS does indeed stick around.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Anyhow, not trying to be argumentative, as I don't have any legal insight on this area. However, when a big guy instantly squashes a little guy in this way, particularly when they announce immediately, schedule match, drop airfares, and (we'll see) pull out when the new entrant dies off/goes away, I think you have to ask yourself if that's really how we want to see competition working in the industry.

I agree with you completely, but this has been a fixture of the business in the US since deregulation, and that much more so in today's age of consolidation.

That said, I just can't say that I'm shedding many tears for New Leaf, and here's why: they're a virtual airline with little hope for a future regardless of any kind of predatory behavior on the part of larger carriers.

My beef with virtual airlines is that they exude "fly by night" tendencies (evidenced here, in that they're picking up and running away before they've even gotten started), and the lack of aircraft, pilots, or crew means there's no actual buy-in. It's too easy to take off (definitely no pun intended) and leave passengers stranded or with busted travel plans.

If New Leaf were an actual upstart carrier trying to make a real go of things, I would completely share in your sentiments, and feel legitimate concern for our industry. After all, that is precisely what WS fought against in their early days. But I would rather see dirty tricks like shoving the little guy out of the market than see virtual carriers gain increased success, because I feel that they too often give the industry little guys trying to do things the right way a bad name.

EA CO AS wrote:

I agree, and I do think they'll do what they can to make AZA work. Back when he was with AS, Gregg Saretsky told me personally that he saw long-term opportunity at AZA, given the growth of the East Valley. Obviously AS never pursued it, but it clearly never left Gregg's mind.

That's very interesting to hear. I think there are some real opportunities at AZA, and surely some carriers have taken notice (what you've said apparently confirms that), but it's never quite been given a fair shake. F9 was operating under....whatever you'd call their old business plan....a dart board strategy? And NK really only used AZA to get their feet wet in Phoenix before settling down at PHX.

I think there are several carriers who have the potential to make split ops work, while taking advantage of the low cost structure at AZA and accessing an increasingly affluent part of the valley. If WS can make it work, then maybe that's the catalyst needed to entice other carriers. My understanding is that both UA and DL took a serious look a few years ago at adding RJ flights to ORD and SLC respectively, but ultimately backed out. I'm just hoping that one of these days, AZA gets a chance to prove its worth.

The fact that New Leaf also cancelled Hamilton - Orlando/Sanford, a route that had no n/s competition as WJ doesn't operate Hamilton to Sanford or even Hamilton to Orlando, tells me this was more about New Leaf's inability to generate ticket sales on transborder offerings due to lack of interest.

New Leaf are too stupid to realize that there was a reason WJ didn't start schedule trans-border until they'd developed a domestic network with 40+ tails so they could generate feed and flow into the US.

New Leaf runs the equivalent of about 2 tails on a full time basis.

Best to learn how to walk before you try to run.

Airlines are free to compete. That means a new entrant is free to add flights, but that also means that an established competitor is free to respond.

enilria wrote:

One of the more blatantly anti-competitive moves in this business. New Leaf Announced AZA and WS announced essentially a duplicate schedule 2 days later.

When asked at what point Westjet decided to start flying into Mesa and why, Stewart declined to comment further.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/n ... -1.3920153

I said it a few weeks ago in the initial thread, this was blatantly an anti-competitive move by WS. The fact that WS' spokesperson refused to answer a simple question, 'why suddently Mesa?' speaks volumes. Remember post-CP merger how WS cried foul at AC for anti-competitive behaviour? Yet WS still profess to be so 'caring'. I sure hope the CTA get involved in this one.

commavia wrote:

Airlines are free to compete. That means a new entrant is free to add flights, but that also means that an established competitor is free to respond.

Not when it means it's a blatant attempt to crush the little guy with the sole purpose of maintaining their national duopoly with AC. Not only did WS add AZA within hours of New Leaf, they also flooded the market with capacity (i.e. offering way more than what New Leaf were planning). Remember how WS used to pound their chest at AC 15-18 years ago when they were the 'little guy'?

EA CO AS wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

I don't so much see this as anti-competitive; I see it more as WS protecting the market share they currently have...I hope they actually give AZA a chance first.

I agree, and I do think they'll do what they can to make AZA work. Back when he was with AS, Gregg Saretsky told me personally that he saw long-term opportunity at AZA, given the growth of the East Valley. Obviously AS never pursued it, but it clearly never left Gregg's mind.

...and the timing of when it popped back into his mind was purely a coincidence to New Leaf's announcement. Hey I'm not saying New Leaf would have succeeded (as I personally think they have a terrible business model), but WS' tactics just about guaranteed its failure.

WestJet ain't choir boys anymore. The bigger they get the more they resemble AC. At the same time they try to retain the "little nice guy" image in the media however.

Dominion301 wrote:

Not when it means it's a blatant attempt to crush the little guy with the sole purpose of maintaining their national duopoly with AC.

So, in other words ... WestJet is competing. WestJet is "blatantly" responding to a new competitor by adding capacity to match said competitor.

Dominion301 wrote:

Not only did WS add AZA within hours of New Leaf, they also flooded the market with capacity (i.e. offering way more than what New Leaf were planning).

Nobody seems to have any objection when small, new entrants "flood the market with capacity," but somehow it's bad when big carriers respond in kind.

So whose fault is it that New Leaf couldn't begin to fill 80% of a 156 seats a week on a monopoly route from Hamilton, with a cachement area of at least 750,000 people within a one hour drive radius to Orlando, one of the largest leisure destinations on the planet?

WestJet?

Give me a break.

The reason they couldn't fill their Orlando flights from Hamilton is the same reason they couldn't begin to fill their Mesa flights from Alberta.

If they can't figure it out, they deserve the fate they are hurtling towards.

[email protected] wrote:

I bet WS will not begin AZA or stick with it for a short time and then pull out.

If AZA yields and loads are profitable then WS will stay. The difference between NewLeaf and WS is that WS has an extremely large network to draw from, not just YEG and YYC. It took WS eight years of patience before it attempted the US market and by then it had a well established domestic network to feed those flights from.

I said it a few weeks ago in the initial thread, this was blatantly an anti-competitive move by WS. The fact that WS' spokesperson refused to answer a simple question, 'why suddently Mesa?' speaks volumes. Remember post-CP merger how WS cried foul at AC for anti-competitive behaviour? Yet WS still profess to be so 'caring'. I sure hope the CTA get involved in this one.

Anti-competitive? How so? To allow a competing carrier to steal market share aware from you is not the basis of how a business works. Last I checked the airline business was a deregulated meaning if a carrier wants to compete directly with a competitor it has the ability to do so.. Is WS supposed to sit back and watch their yield erode on a key market? NewLeaf here you go have some of our seats to Phoenix. The airline business is commodity based, and prices are set on the demand to a certain destination. I would suggest that NewLeaf miscalculated their move into the Transborder market and maybe should have concentrated on strengthening their domestic network before entering the US market.

Not when it means it's a blatant attempt to crush the little guy with the sole purpose of maintaining their national duopoly with AC. Not only did WS add AZA within hours of New Leaf, they also flooded the market with capacity (i.e. offering way more than what New Leaf were planning). Remember how WS used to pound their chest at AC 15-18 years ago when they were the 'little guy'?

National Duopoly on Transborder flying? Transborder flying is most certainly not a duopoly and never will be. With US carriers competing at significantly lower costs based on taxation, exchange rate and networks, Canadian carriers are already at disadvantage in that market space.

I don't think we can call WS's decision to go to Mesa anti-competitive. It's like if Exxon opens a gas station in the middle of nowhere on a remote highway, and then Shell decides to open another gas station next to it. That's not anti-competitive. That is actually "competitive". It would be anti-competitive only if WS is offering the Mesa service below cost, which is difficult to determine and prove.

commavia wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

Not when it means it's a blatant attempt to crush the little guy with the sole purpose of maintaining their national duopoly with AC.

So, in other words ... WestJet is competing. WestJet is "blatantly" responding to a new competitor by adding capacity to match said competitor.

Dominion301 wrote:

Not only did WS add AZA within hours of New Leaf, they also flooded the market with capacity (i.e. offering way more than what New Leaf were planning).

Nobody seems to have any objection when small, new entrants "flood the market with capacity," but somehow it's bad when big carriers respond in kind.

What I'm trying to say is it's rather ironic how WS used to cry foul at 'big bad AC', when AC employed the same tactics on them 15-20 years ago, but now that they're the predator and are called out on it, the WS spokesperson pleads the 5th. Here take a trip down memory lane: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Commi ... &comm_id=3

It is quite possible for the dominant carrier, for example, Air Canada, to flood the market with seats. I believe that was WestJet's allegation when the Moncton route was opened. That is another issue that they are following at the tribunal, but it was not covered by the cease and desist powers because it was enjoined before the bill was passed.

This is not about the people in this room; this is about the majority of Canadians, who want cheap travel. You look at all the indices, and people want safety, which they get, and the best price. That means that an airline such as Air Canada can redeploy assets because they have the equipment. They have about 350 planes versus WestJet's 28 or 29, although WestJet keeps adding them. They have more flexibility to add capacity and flood a market with seats. It is to prevent this kind of predatory behaviour in this unique situation. I do not know of any other industry in the country where one company has 80 per cent of the market.

- Substitute that last bit for AC + WS control 95% of the market.

The difference, of course, is that WJ never pulled out if Moncton. In fact, they expanded in the Maritimes within a few months.

How quickly people forget that WJ went head to head against AC, CP, Royal, Transat, VistaJet, Greyhound, C3 and more, and rarely backed off a route.

New Leaf has the staying power of a gnat.

[email protected] wrote:

I bet WS will not begin AZA or stick with it for a short time and then pull out.

raylee67 wrote:

I don't think we can call WS's decision to go to Mesa anti-competitive. It's like if Exxon opens a gas station in the middle of nowhere on a remote highway, and then Shell decides to open another gas station next to it. That's not anti-competitive. That is actually "competitive".

rrapynot wrote:

Same as BA flying OAK-LGW.

If Sunoco (imagine a much smaller version of Exxon, lets use Sunoco) opens a station in the middle of nowhere and Shell builds one next to it and then Sunoco never opens and Shell shuts down shortly afterward it was pretty clearly just intended to send the message that Sunoco should stay out of Shell territory and that they will make irrationally expensive decisions to make sure challengers lose money by cross-subsidizing the loss versus other markets (the smaller player does not have that luxury, i.e. the law of deep pockets) where they have little competition due to this ongoing activity...then you have what I would call a dominant company bullying upstarts into not competing by making an example of those that try. The cost of driving one competitor into the ground does not make financial sense, but if you consider that it may discourage 50 others from competing with you in the future it is money well spent on bullying...which is why government is needed to police the inmates.

enilria wrote:

One of the more blatantly anti-competitive moves in this business. New Leaf Announced AZA and WS announced essentially a duplicate schedule 2 days later.

"So we made that decision to go in there and within eight hours of our decision, an airline also chose to put service in to that airport as well, and also run flights basically matching the same schedule," said Rempel, who clarified that Westjet was the competitor in question.

Rempel would not speculate on why Westjet, which already offered flights to the Phoenix Sky Harbour International Airport, decided to mirror the NewLeaf's offerings, saying "you probably have to ask them that question." Westjet said by email that the Phoenix area is a very competitive market. "The airline business is more challenging than it seems and this airline appears to be blaming one airline for their woes in a particular market without providing the travelling public the full story," wrote Westjet spokesperson Lauren Stewart.

When asked at what point Westjet decided to start flying into Mesa and why, Stewart declined to comment further.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/n ... -1.3920153

As an enthusiast I like to see as much service in airports as they can get. However, airlines are businesses. Ever since deregulation, carriers have a long history of doing what WS is doing here to kill off the competition. Then, eventually drop the route. So I don't see how this is "blatantly anti-competitive".

DFW789ER wrote:

As an enthusiast I like to see as much service in airports as they can get. However, airlines are businesses. Ever since deregulation, carriers have a long history of doing what WS is doing here to kill off the competition. Then, eventually drop the route. So I don't see how this is "blatantly anti-competitive".

Just because it happens routinely doesn't mean it isn't anti-competitive. And just because the govt decides not to pursue it also does not mean it is not anti-competitive.

The definition is : "tending to stifle or suppress competition, especially when this violates antitrust laws." The apparent goal is to stifle or suppress competition by a) getting New Leaf to leave the market and b) set an example to discourage others from competing. That's the definition. Antitrust law violation is not necessary to the definition.

I believe all this WS bullied New Leaf stuff is nonsense just a smoke screen. How about this one?
New Leaf is piggy backing off of Flair Air's operating certificate. While Flair Air is licensed to fly scheduled domestically, it is not however authorized to fly scheduled international trips only domestic scheduled services and international charter services. Flair Air has not applied for international scheduled services through the CTA. Makes me wonder if Flair cannot provide the lift into the US and New Leaf prematurely announced service (like they did in February) without getting all their ducks in a row with the CTA. Instead of admitting this for second time they are blaming WS.

https://forms.otc-cta.gc.ca/licences/liste-list_eng.cfm?CarrierName=Flair%20Air&LicenceNum=&LicenceType=0&ServiceClass=0&LicenceStatus=0&Nationality=0

enilria wrote:

DFW789ER wrote:

As an enthusiast I like to see as much service in airports as they can get. However, airlines are businesses. Ever since deregulation, carriers have a long history of doing what WS is doing here to kill off the competition. Then, eventually drop the route. So I don't see how this is "blatantly anti-competitive".

Just because it happens routinely doesn't mean it isn't anti-competitive. And just because the govt decides not to pursue it also does not mean it is not anti-competitive.

The definition is : "tending to stifle or suppress competition, especially when this violates antitrust laws." The apparent goal is to stifle or suppress competition by a) getting New Leaf to leave the market and b) set an example to discourage others from competing. That's the definition. Antitrust law violation is not necessary to the definition.

Regardless of the definition, and the right/wrong discussion, pretty much every airline has done it at one time for another. It may seem unethical, but since when, in any industry, has ethics been a part of a business?

So the question remains, will westjet keep AZA? Doubtful but it will certainly reflect poorly on themselves! Anticompetitive watchdogs will be all over them should that be the case. Perhaps a slow withdrawal to not make it so obvious? (Worth the loss)

I cannot comprehend why wja would even consider blowing their brains out on something so insignificant? Makes you wonder about this management team??

WJA flies to countless sun destinations on a less than daily basis in the winter months.

AZA is simply the latest.

Don't underestimate the number of Canadian snowboards in the SE valley.

WS didn't force New Leaf to leave...they left on their own volition. What WS did was offer the same service, in fact, compete. Did New Leaf expect to never have any competition in Mesa? Does WS offer their services at a loss? How long is an appropriate time for WS to wait for New Leaf to establish itself in a market before it's allowed in?

And if WS decides to leave AZA...so what? WS has gone into and then dropped a lot of routes. You can do all of the market research you want but until you're actually landing there, you never know whether or not there will be enough traffic to make the route successful. WS has dumped a lot of money losing runs.

New Leaf isn't going to be around very long if they can't handle the heat.

I still believe DL would be successful at a IWA-SLC route, The East Valley and Utah have many genealogical ties. The success of this market is seen in G4's IWA-PVU route which is the most popular of all IWA routes. cc http://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.a ... rier=FACTS

JoeCanuck wrote:

WS didn't force New Leaf to leave...they left on their own volition. What WS did was offer the same service, in fact, compete. Did New Leaf expect to never have any competition in Mesa? Does WS offer their services at a loss? How long is an appropriate time for WS to wait for New Leaf to establish itself in a market before it's allowed in?

And if WS decides to leave AZA...so what? WS has gone into and then dropped a lot of routes. You can do all of the market research you want but until you're actually landing there, you never know whether or not there will be enough traffic to make the route successful. WS has dumped a lot of money losing runs.

New Leaf isn't going to be around very long if they can't handle the heat.

The major problem if WS does leave is that they essentially prevented this market from having any business. In other words, instead of having any business, even if it was on a virtual airline, now we get nothing at all. It is also would create negative PR, making it more difficult for Mesa to court new airlines, something that the airport authority has been aggressively trying for years. That would be a huge slap on the face to IWA fanatics like me, and the continued development of the east valley as a whole,
I do think WS will give us a shot, but they already accomplished their major goal, so who knows.

allegiantflyer wrote:

The major problem if WS does leave is that they essentially prevented this market from having any business. In other words, instead of having any business, even if it was on a virtual airline, now we get nothing at all. It is also would create negative PR, making it more difficult for Mesa to court new airlines, something that the airport authority has been aggressively trying for years. That would be a huge slap on the face to IWA fanatics like me, and the continued development of the east valley as a whole,
I do think WS will give us a shot, but they already accomplished their major goal, so who knows.

Your last sentence really is all that matters.

No one knows whether NewLeaf would ever have provided any service to Mesa. This "so called" airline, having been in existence for only 6 months, already has quite a history of backing out of announced routes before opening day. They obviously have difficulty in making enough advance ticket sales to justify even a single flight to Mesa or Orlando (and four Canadian cities). They apparently do not have pockets deep enough to actually invest in true airline startup costs. If they can skim enough business from other airlines they might fly a few routes before (as I hypothesize) they go belly up.

Others harp on WestJet engaging in anti-competitive practices.

Well, what constitutes competition might depend on the definition of the word that one chooses to adopt. A "virtual airline" (NewLeaf) cannot and does not "compete" with real airlines (WestJet). Virtual airlines are market disrupters and business cream skimmers. They skirt or avoid normal/customary business requirements and regulations and come very close to being fly-by-night operations. They come and go in the "vacation travel industry" with quite some frequency. They are mere ticket sellers. You can't even compare NewLeaf with a reputable business such as Sunwing Airlines, a real airline although heavily involved with vacation travel.

allegiantflyer wrote:

I do think WS will give us a shot, but they already accomplished their major goal, so who knows.

The WS flights to AZA end April 30, so they are already ending. The question is whether they will resume next year and I give that close to 0% unless New Leaf returns.

JoeCanuck wrote:

WS didn't force New Leaf to leave...they left on their own volition. What WS did was offer the same service, in fact, compete. Did New Leaf expect to never have any competition in Mesa? Does WS offer their services at a loss? How long is an appropriate time for WS to wait for New Leaf to establish itself in a market before it's allowed in?

And if WS decides to leave AZA...so what? WS has gone into and then dropped a lot of routes. You can do all of the market research you want but until you're actually landing there, you never know whether or not there will be enough traffic to make the route successful. WS has dumped a lot of money losing runs.

New Leaf isn't going to be around very long if they can't handle the heat.

Hard to say. Regulatory watch dogs are on the look out and can label this as anti competitive. The perceptive of Westjet from the public's eye will certainly be negative. Consumers will have less choice & therefore the market will complain over lack of competition.

With the Liberal government trying to encourage more competition in the industry, I doubt they will be pleased with this situation.

I personally think WestJet should have never entered the AZA market. They shot themselves in the foot!

1900Driver wrote:

With the Liberal government trying to encourage more competition in the industry, I doubt they will be pleased with this situation.

What "liberal" government are you thinking of?

BobPatterson wrote:

1900Driver wrote:

With the Liberal government trying to encourage more competition in the industry, I doubt they will be pleased with this situation.

What "liberal" government are you thinking of?

My guess is Justin Trudeau and party in Canada. Liberal isn't a word you hear very often in Arizona, at least not in a positive comment.

Let's please try to keep politics out of this discussion. Political policies and agendas is a discussion for the non av forum.

✈️ atcsundevil

EA CO AS wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

I don't so much see this as anti-competitive; I see it more as WS protecting the market share they currently have...I hope they actually give AZA a chance first.

I agree, and I do think they'll do what they can to make AZA work. Back when he was with AS, Gregg Saretsky told me personally that he saw long-term opportunity at AZA, given the growth of the East Valley. Obviously AS never pursued it, but it clearly never left Gregg's mind.

Also agree. Had hoped AS would add AZA as part of its SLC build-up.

BobPatterson wrote:

1900Driver wrote:

With the Liberal government trying to encourage more competition in the industry, I doubt they will be pleased with this situation.

What "liberal" government are you thinking of?

Really?

cumulushumilis wrote:

I believe all this WS bullied New Leaf stuff is nonsense just a smoke screen. How about this one?
New Leaf is piggy backing off of Flair Air's operating certificate. While Flair Air is licensed to fly scheduled domestically, it is not however authorized to fly scheduled international trips only domestic scheduled services and international charter services. Flair Air has not applied for international scheduled services through the CTA. Makes me wonder if Flair cannot provide the lift into the US and New Leaf prematurely announced service (like they did in February) without getting all their ducks in a row with the CTA. Instead of admitting this for second time they are blaming WS.

https://forms.otc-cta.gc.ca/licences/liste-list_eng.cfm?CarrierName=Flair%20Air&LicenceNum=&LicenceType=0&ServiceClass=0&LicenceStatus=0&Nationality=0

All of Flair's New Leaf flying is charter service. New Leaf are chartering Flair to operate flights for them.

Flair have the authority to fly international charters, so they would have no issue flying chartered routes to the U.S. with New Leaf being the chartering company. In other words the lack of scheduled international route authority for Flair had nothing to do with this. This is no different than back in the day when the likes of Sunquest would charter now-defunct Skyservice to operate a whole plane on their behalf to sun destinations. Nowadays Sunquest just buy blocks of seats on airlines instead of chartering an entire aircraft.

1900Driver wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

1900Driver wrote:

With the Liberal government trying to encourage more competition in the industry, I doubt they will be pleased with this situation.

What "liberal" government are you thinking of?

Really?

We have been admonished not to introduce politics into the discussion. I would rephrase my question simply to ask what or which government you make reference to.

But since you have just indicated your unwillingness to provide a simple answer to a simple question, it would probably be pointless to attempt to engage you in conversation.

Have a nice day.

Last year, there was no service from Canada to AZA.

This year, there is service from Canada to AZA.

How is this anti-competitive? How have consumers been hurt?

I'd say it was anti-consumer of New Leaf to launch flights from Hamilton to Melbourne Florida, not to mention a number of other markets , and cancel the flights before even generating a single asm on the route. There is no doubt consumers are far worse off in this scenario rather than in the AZA scenario.

I doubt consumers would buy another ticket on New Leaf if they had access to their current financial statements. They make jetsGo look like a going concern.

jimbo737 wrote:

I doubt consumers would buy another ticket on New Leaf if they had access to their current financial statements. They make jetsGo look like a going concern.

Where did you access financial statements provided by NewLeaf?

Looks like Westjet is trying to wipe out New Leaf in Hamilton also, just recently starting to fly to Edmonton Winnipeg and Halifax all year round now, all routes flown by New Leaf.

Has anyone else noticed that the Mesa fares are actually quite a bit more than the SkyHarbo(u)r? Maybe they will stay...

BobPatterson wrote:

1900Driver wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

What "liberal" government are you thinking of?

Really?

We have been admonished not to introduce politics into the discussion. I would rephrase my question simply to ask what or which government you make reference to.

But since you have just indicated your unwillingness to provide a simple answer to a simple question, it would probably be pointless to attempt to engage you in conversation.

Have a nice day.

He/she is referring to the Canadian government, currently in control by the Liberal party of Canada, under PM Justin Trudeau. They are very much trying to increase competition and choice in Canadian markets. That wasn't necessarily a politically-charged post.

More good news for New Leaf and Flair Air.

This warning is unpredented in Canadian Aviation history.

http://www.consumer.ca/en/issues-and-ac ... r-tickets/

jimbo737 wrote:

More good news for New Leaf and Flair Air.

This warning is unpredented in Canadian Aviation history.

http://www.consumer.ca/en/issues-and-ac ... r-tickets/

Wow. That's a very strong vote of no confidence. I can't say that I disagree, either. The existence of virtual airlines is seemingly predicated by being "fly by night" (no pun intended). Bad press like this is potentially enough to put New Leaf out of business, because I can't imagine they're in a very strong business position currently as it is.

atcsundevil wrote:

Wow. That's a very strong vote of no confidence. I can't say that I disagree, either. The existence of virtual airlines is seemingly predicated by being "fly by night" (no pun intended). Bad press like this is potentially enough to put New Leaf out of business, because I can't imagine they're in a very strong business position currently as it is.

There is just a bit more information in a press blurb at CBC News (British Columbia): http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3968761

The announcement from Consumers' Association of Canada strikes me as very odd since they did not offer much in the way of details. What provoked them to issue this announcement?

On their website, under the "Issues and Activities" tab, they have a category for airlines. Other than the present case, they show only one other from October 10, 2010.

What kind of watchdog group is this? What or who urged their current interest in New Leaf / Flair?