(07-19-2021, 03:29 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]What's wrong with spending tax money on developing our airport? Some people want tax dollars spent on bike lanes, some of us want it spent on improving general travel throughout our country. This is one step in improving our airport. If they stick around, I'm sure it will boost our economy in many ways as well, which is a benefit. It can also attract more airlines, which again can improve our economy and provide jobs. I've yet to use Flair but I most definitely will do so because getting to Pearson sucks for casual travel. I'm more likely to take a flight out west or east from here rather than figuring out a way to Toronto and wasting half a day on various buses and trains, sitting in an airport and then sitting on a flight. That's incredibly inconvenient.
We're an incredibly rapidly growing region. We need to start investing in stuff like this so we can continue to be an important destination for people and providing people with cheap flights around Canada is great. We all know we're never going to see high speed trail across this nation even if we lived for another 250 years so providing cheap flights around the country is a good thing.
Leaving aside the environmental issues, there are more people and certainly more equality from investing in cycling lanes, than from investing in our airport. And I support improving travel, but I don't support spending 40 million dollars on an airport that consistently fails to attract flights. I hate traveling to Pearson as much as anyone, God knows you've all heard me complain about it. But 40 million dollars could run buses to Toronto, Guelph, Stratford, that transit improvement would make a much
bigger impact in
more people's lives than simply adding a few flights to our airport.
And frankly, if we're giving up on HSR, that's pointlessly defeatist...if we can invest in an airport, we can invest in rail.
(07-19-2021, 02:29 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't say I am uninterested in having a local airport. I am uninterested in spending 40+ million dollars of our funds on it. I think we have much higher priorities. If an airport can be self-sufficient, I have no problem with it.
The expected increase in subsidy for the Flair expansion is $2/household/year. So while yes, the total bill is $40M, a large amount of that is expected to be recovered via fees. The amount of "our funds" spent is less. The percentage of the airport operating budget coming from taxes would decline significantly in this plan, even though the dollar amount of subsidy increases slightly.
(07-19-2021, 02:29 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I guess that could be the case, but do you have concrete examples of how they changed their approach. Route exclusivity seems meaningless when we can't really attract one airline let alone competing interests. AFAIK all our previous routes have been exclusive. But if we are offering this kind of non-monetary incentive, that further strengthens the argument that we are overspending on this private for profit sector. IMO.
You have to look at the history of ULCCs in Canada to understand why route exclusivity is important. When New Leaf started offering ULCC-like fares from YHM, WestJet immediately launched Swoop which offered the same routes at even lower fares out of YHM. Swoop was of course operating at a loss, but that was okay for WestJet. The objective of Swoop was to drive New Leaf out of business, to protect the high domestic air fares currently enjoyed by the AC/WJ duopoly. If Canada had anti-trust enforcement with actual teeth that would be classic predatory pricing, and quite illegal, but Canada basically doesn't enforce anti-trust laws against major Canadian companies (see Rogers/Bell/Telus). Rogers did the same thing with Chatr right after Wind launched, operate at a loss and only in the same areas to bankrupt the competition before they could pose a real threat.
YKF never had route competition before because there was no reason to. YKF has had service by West Jet and AA, which are mainline carriers charging the same high fares. YKF management realized that by offering 3 year route exclusivity they could give a ULCC a chance to get off the ground, without the danger of predatory pricing from AC/WJ, and to become the ULCC airport for the GTA.
Ultimately there's non-zero risk with Flair, but the route exclusivity gives them a huge boost in their ability to get off the ground. It might cost YKF some theoretical landing fees from AC/WJ flanker brands, but given their only objective would be to bankrupt Flair then raise prices, those landing fees would overall be a net negative (as without Flair there'd be no reason for people to drive out to YKF for low fares, and result in the flights being cut).
(07-19-2021, 05:18 PM)taylortbb Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2021, 02:29 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't say I am uninterested in having a local airport. I am uninterested in spending 40+ million dollars of our funds on it. I think we have much higher priorities. If an airport can be self-sufficient, I have no problem with it.
The expected increase in subsidy for the Flair expansion is $2/household/year. So while yes, the total bill is $40M, a large amount of that is expected to be recovered via fees. The amount of "our funds" spent is less. The percentage of the airport operating budget coming from taxes would decline significantly in this plan, even though the dollar amount of subsidy increases slightly.
This is under the assumption that this airline succeeds where a half dozen others have consistently failed--in an era where climate change is becoming increasingly problematic and expensive, and where air travel is at record lows due to the pandemic.
(07-19-2021, 05:18 PM)taylortbb Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2021, 02:29 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I guess that could be the case, but do you have concrete examples of how they changed their approach. Route exclusivity seems meaningless when we can't really attract one airline let alone competing interests. AFAIK all our previous routes have been exclusive. But if we are offering this kind of non-monetary incentive, that further strengthens the argument that we are overspending on this private for profit sector. IMO.
You have to look at the history of ULCCs in Canada to understand why route exclusivity is important. When New Leaf started offering ULCC-like fares from YHM, WestJet immediately launched Swoop which offered the same routes at even lower fares out of YHM. Swoop was of course operating at a loss, but that was okay for WestJet. The objective of Swoop was to drive New Leaf out of business, to protect the high domestic air fares currently enjoyed by the AC/WJ duopoly. If Canada had anti-trust enforcement with actual teeth that would be classic predatory pricing, and quite illegal, but Canada basically doesn't enforce anti-trust laws against major Canadian companies (see Rogers/Bell/Telus). Rogers did the same thing with Chatr right after Wind launched, operate at a loss and only in the same areas to bankrupt the competition before they could pose a real threat.
YKF never had route competition before because there was no reason to. YKF has had service by West Jet and AA, which are mainline carriers charging the same high fares. YKF management realized that by offering 3 year route exclusivity they could give a ULCC a chance to get off the ground, without the danger of predatory pricing from AC/WJ, and to become the ULCC airport for the GTA.
Ultimately there's non-zero risk with Flair, but the route exclusivity gives them a huge boost in their ability to get off the ground. It might cost YKF some theoretical landing fees from AC/WJ flanker brands, but given their only objective would be to bankrupt Flair then raise prices, those landing fees would overall be a net negative (as without Flair there'd be no reason for people to drive out to YKF for low fares, and result in the flights being cut).
Well, that's a fair argument, I guess we will see how it goes. That being said, I'm generally surprised by consumer behaviour around airports. I know that KW flights were slightly more expensive, but the cost of going to Pearson in terms of time and stress was massive. There are like 2.5 million people living west of Toronto who could at least have considered flying through KW rather than Pearson for destinations that KW serviced. Obviously some could fly from Buffalo or Detroit, and London offered *some* of the same destinations. But honestly, I'd avoid Pearson if at all possible.
(07-19-2021, 05:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Leaving aside the environmental issues, there are more people and certainly more equality from investing in cycling lanes, than from investing in our airport. And I support improving travel, but I don't support spending 40 million dollars on an airport that consistently fails to attract flights. I hate traveling to Pearson as much as anyone, God knows you've all heard me complain about it. But 40 million dollars could run buses to Toronto, Guelph, Stratford, that transit improvement would make a much bigger impact in more people's lives than simply adding a few flights to our airport.
And frankly, if we're giving up on HSR, that's pointlessly defeatist...if we can invest in an airport, we can invest in rail.
By investing in this airport, we help to hopefully build another major international airport destination in the country. By having a ULCC here that flies all across our nation, it helps brings in more people to Waterloo Region. It helps boost our economy, our education, our tax revenue, our employment numbers and so much more. Having an airliner willing to gamble millions of dollars into this region to fly all around the country is a pretty big deal, but it can be very rewarding. If we can attract more airliners, that's even better. Even if we can attract more tourists or business workers here, that's great too. I don't think you really know a whole lot about infrastructure to be honest, but having a major airliner here is a pretty big economic deal. You might think the money might be better spent so you can safely ride your bicycle down Homer Watson Road or whatever is the most currently problematic street in WR for you, but when you're dealing with massive infrastructure investments, people are looking to airports...especially in a region that will probably be nearing 3/4th of a million people in the next year. If you want to think about infrastructure, you need to think grand, not just want impacts you.
Also, we're never gonna get HSR here before every one of the users on this forum has grey hair and is in geriatric care, so stop dreaming about it lol...
(07-19-2021, 07:57 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]By investing in this airport, we help to hopefully build another major international airport destination in the country.
How many times has that been said in just the 32 years that I have been a voting citizen? How many air lines have come that this Region has pinned their hopes on to do exactly that over those same 32 years? A dozen?
If it hasn't worked before, why would it work now?
Mumble, mumble, definition of insanity…
I don't think ULCCs are actually a net win in the sense that they're not actually as cheap as they market themselves being, and they have lots of externalities that are not priced into their financial models, carbon emissions most importantly. Like, ULCCs have not been a win in Europe, really, and I'd rather not see them here. France is starting to aggressively make it difficult to have short-haul flights in particular. I'm fortunate enough to be able to buy tickets on legacy airlines, so maybe it's no fair saying that, but I will spend a few hours getting to Pearson by transit at least.
(07-19-2021, 10:59 PM)Bytor Wrote: [ -> ]Mumble, mumble, definition of insanity…
It was literally laid out how this is not the same thing. There are many arguments to be had against this and they are being made well, but this is very far from that.
Mumble mumble, definition of reading comprehension.
(07-20-2021, 10:02 AM)robdrimmie Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2021, 10:59 PM)Bytor Wrote: [ -> ]Mumble, mumble, definition of insanity…
It was literally laid out how this is not the same thing. There are many arguments to be had against this and they are being made well, but this is very far from that.
Mumble mumble, definition of reading comprehension.
I was also pointed out that in terms of public policy, it is the same thing, and that the only difference is the airline's target market. Is that difference enough to make a difference in outcome from the last several times this was tried? I guess we'll have to wait and see, but it is not bad reading comprehension to be skeptical of this based on the past history of similar attempts.
Just to add to this. What was the regional population 32 years ago? Sub 400k, now it's nearly 700k (almost double) and rapidly heading towards 1 million. The population of the whole golden horseshoe cant have been more than 4 or 5 million 30 years ago, now its 10 and headed for over 13m in the next 20 years even with conservative estimates.
This is one of the busiest and fastest growing metropolitan regions in the world. Look at other major global cities and metros, many of the largest need more than just one airport and YKF is perfectly situated to start picking up pearson traffic way more than it was 30 years ago. May it be a little longer still before we see true success sure, but upgrading the airport is much like building the LTR in my opinion, it's not getting built and upgraded for now, its getting ready for future demand and need. Its always better to be ahead than playing catchup.
(07-31-2021, 09:34 PM)Bjays93 Wrote: [ -> ]Just to add to this. What was the regional population 32 years ago? Sub 400k, now it's nearly 700k (almost double) and rapidly heading towards 1 million. The population of the whole golden horseshoe cant have been more than 4 or 5 million 30 years ago, now its 10 and headed for over 13m in the next 20 years even with conservative estimates.
This is one of the busiest and fastest growing metropolitan regions in the world. Look at other major global cities and metros, many of the largest need more than just one airport and YKF is perfectly situated to start picking up pearson traffic way more than it was 30 years ago. May it be a little longer still before we see true success sure, but upgrading the airport is much like building the LTR in my opinion, it's not getting built and upgraded for now, its getting ready for future demand and need. Its always better to be ahead than playing catchup.
First of all, the regional population is ~617,000 as of 2019. I don't think this is "nearly 700k".
But I'm not sure why you're talking 32 years ago. The airport flight arrangements we are talking about happened all of 5-7 years ago. Our region has not changed much since then.
As for the airport, the difference is that air travel is not necessarily a good investment for the future. Short haul flights are some of the most tenuous flights that should be eliminated to help reduce GHG emissions. Long haul flights do not have an alternative now, but with more space open at Pearson if flights to locations like London, Montreal, Ottawa are eliminated, there will be less need for other airports.
(07-31-2021, 11:15 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2021, 09:34 PM)Bjays93 Wrote: [ -> ]Just to add to this. What was the regional population 32 years ago? Sub 400k, now it's nearly 700k (almost double) and rapidly heading towards 1 million. The population of the whole golden horseshoe cant have been more than 4 or 5 million 30 years ago, now its 10 and headed for over 13m in the next 20 years even with conservative estimates.
This is one of the busiest and fastest growing metropolitan regions in the world. Look at other major global cities and metros, many of the largest need more than just one airport and YKF is perfectly situated to start picking up pearson traffic way more than it was 30 years ago. May it be a little longer still before we see true success sure, but upgrading the airport is much like building the LTR in my opinion, it's not getting built and upgraded for now, its getting ready for future demand and need. Its always better to be ahead than playing catchup.
First of all, the regional population is ~617,000 as of 2019. I don't think this is "nearly 700k".
But I'm not sure why you're talking 32 years ago. The airport flight arrangements we are talking about happened all of 5-7 years ago. Our region has not changed much since then.
As for the airport, the difference is that air travel is not necessarily a good investment for the future. Short haul flights are some of the most tenuous flights that should be eliminated to help reduce GHG emissions. Long haul flights do not have an alternative now, but with more space open at Pearson if flights to locations like London, Montreal, Ottawa are eliminated, there will be less need for other airports.
Another issue is that people in the area, and a little bit abroad, simply don't know about this airport and what it has to offer. Everything is Pearson this, Pearson that. And I mean, people literally don't realize we have an "international" airport, and one that can handle major airlines. I have a buddy flying out to western Canada -- he could have chosen Flair, it probably would have been cheaper as well, and much closer. But for whatever reason, "Pearson" is baked into our minds.
Two things I don't think we'll see before we're dead: HSR, and a busy airport. I hope I am wrong for both. But the attitude of people really needs to change for things to change.
(07-31-2021, 11:15 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2021, 09:34 PM)Bjays93 Wrote: [ -> ]Just to add to this. What was the regional population 32 years ago? Sub 400k, now it's nearly 700k (almost double) and rapidly heading towards 1 million. The population of the whole golden horseshoe cant have been more than 4 or 5 million 30 years ago, now its 10 and headed for over 13m in the next 20 years even with conservative estimates.
This is one of the busiest and fastest growing metropolitan regions in the world. Look at other major global cities and metros, many of the largest need more than just one airport and YKF is perfectly situated to start picking up pearson traffic way more than it was 30 years ago. May it be a little longer still before we see true success sure, but upgrading the airport is much like building the LTR in my opinion, it's not getting built and upgraded for now, its getting ready for future demand and need. Its always better to be ahead than playing catchup.
First of all, the regional population is ~617,000 as of 2019. I don't think this is "nearly 700k".
But I'm not sure why you're talking 32 years ago. The airport flight arrangements we are talking about happened all of 5-7 years ago. Our region has not changed much since then.
As for the airport, the difference is that air travel is not necessarily a good investment for the future. Short haul flights are some of the most tenuous flights that should be eliminated to help reduce GHG emissions. Long haul flights do not have an alternative now, but with more space open at Pearson if flights to locations like London, Montreal, Ottawa are eliminated, there will be less need for other airports.
32 years was a response to bytor. that was the exact number he used.
(08-01-2021, 09:26 AM)Bjays93 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2021, 11:15 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]First of all, the regional population is ~617,000 as of 2019. I don't think this is "nearly 700k".
But I'm not sure why you're talking 32 years ago. The airport flight arrangements we are talking about happened all of 5-7 years ago. Our region has not changed much since then.
As for the airport, the difference is that air travel is not necessarily a good investment for the future. Short haul flights are some of the most tenuous flights that should be eliminated to help reduce GHG emissions. Long haul flights do not have an alternative now, but with more space open at Pearson if flights to locations like London, Montreal, Ottawa are eliminated, there will be less need for other airports.
32 years was a response to bytor. that was the exact number he used.
Fair enough...I lost that part of the thread.
But he wasn't talking about something that happened 32 years ago, he's talking about something that has been repeated constantly over the past 32 years.
Any anecdotal reports yet on how Flair flight(s?) out of YKF are doing?
(07-31-2021, 11:15 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]First of all, the regional population is ~617,000 as of 2019. I don't think this is "nearly 700k".
Isn't it over 700k if you include Guelph?