(02-13-2021, 02:13 AM)plam Wrote: Pearson is probably one of the slowest airports for luggage delivery by the way. I talked to a guy who was involved in system design. He said it was terrible. Almost any airport anywhere else is faster. 30 minute waits at Pearson aren't unusual, 10 minute waits at Wellington are. Both Wellington and Zurich have predicted luggage arrival times.

Quote:WATERLOO REGION — Regional councillors approved plans to spend $44 million and double the staff at the Region of Waterloo International Airport over the next two years, even though the pandemic has severely limited travel and the airport has no guarantees of promised increases in passengers.

[...]

The money would pay for the expansion of the terminal with a permanent addition and two modular “relocatable” additions, a new baggage-handling system, as well as adding parking.

[...]

The airport master plan, approved in 2017, calls for airport improvements in two phases, when passenger levels hit 250,000 a year and then 500,000 a year. But the recent plans from the two new airlines means the airport is “leapfrogging” over those targets.

Staff project that the new flights will boost the number of passengers at the airport from an estimated 99,000 to 220,000 by the end of this year; 750,000 passengers by the end of 2022 and 1 million or more by 2023.

(04-16-2021, 03:31 PM)taylortbb Wrote: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/04/16/waterloo-region-approves-44m-in-improvements-doubling-of-airport-staff.html
https://outline.com/YTfjNg

Quote:WATERLOO REGION — Regional councillors approved plans to spend $44 million and double the staff at the Region of Waterloo International Airport over the next two years, even though the pandemic has severely limited travel and the airport has no guarantees of promised increases in passengers.

[...]

The money would pay for the expansion of the terminal with a permanent addition and two modular “relocatable” additions, a new baggage-handling system, as well as adding parking.

[...]

The airport master plan, approved in 2017, calls for airport improvements in two phases, when passenger levels hit 250,000 a year and then 500,000 a year. But the recent plans from the two new airlines means the airport is “leapfrogging” over those targets.

Staff project that the new flights will boost the number of passengers at the airport from an estimated 99,000 to 220,000 by the end of this year; 750,000 passengers by the end of 2022 and 1 million or more by 2023.

If we actually see 1M passengers/year I think the investments will be well worth it, but I think staff may be slightly underselling the risks of the airline business. That said, if we don't try then YKF will probably forever remain a tiny airport. For comparison, 1M passengers/year is very slightly more than what the Halifax airport sees.

(04-16-2021, 03:48 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'd say it's more than slightly...we're in the middle of a global pandemic that has cut air travel to nothing.

It's insane that we are making such a huge investment right now.

Given that we apparently can't afford to provide childcare, I think this is a gross missuse of money.

(04-16-2021, 04:04 PM)taylortbb Wrote:

(04-16-2021, 03:48 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'd say it's more than slightly...we're in the middle of a global pandemic that has cut air travel to nothing.

It's insane that we are making such a huge investment right now.

Given that we apparently can't afford to provide childcare, I think this is a gross missuse of money.

I don't think it's insane. Ticket sales are making it very clear that there's a huge pent-up demand for air travel. If we suddenly spike to above-2019 levels (which I consider very likely in 2022) there's not going to be capacity at Pearson. This spike in demand is a rare opportunity for new airlines to get off the ground, if we want to ever get YKF to being a large enough self-sustaining airport this is the time to do it.

Every business that 2020 was a bad time for, will likely see a record-setting 2022 as demand swings back the other way.

There's plenty of valid complaints about the childcare decision, but the regional budget isn't zero-sum (taxes can be increased).

(04-16-2021, 03:31 PM)taylortbb Wrote: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/04/16/waterloo-region-approves-44m-in-improvements-doubling-of-airport-staff.html
https://outline.com/YTfjNg

Quote:WATERLOO REGION — Regional councillors approved plans to spend $44 million and double the staff at the Region of Waterloo International Airport over the next two years, even though the pandemic has severely limited travel and the airport has no guarantees of promised increases in passengers.

[...]

The money would pay for the expansion of the terminal with a permanent addition and two modular “relocatable” additions, a new baggage-handling system, as well as adding parking.

[...]

The airport master plan, approved in 2017, calls for airport improvements in two phases, when passenger levels hit 250,000 a year and then 500,000 a year. But the recent plans from the two new airlines means the airport is “leapfrogging” over those targets.

Staff project that the new flights will boost the number of passengers at the airport from an estimated 99,000 to 220,000 by the end of this year; 750,000 passengers by the end of 2022 and 1 million or more by 2023.

If we actually see 1M passengers/year I think the investments will be well worth it, but I think staff may be slightly underselling the risks of the airline business. That said, if we don't try then YKF will probably forever remain a tiny airport.

(04-17-2021, 03:47 PM)Bytor Wrote: "If we actually see…"

That's the problem, though, since even before the pandemic we were seeing declining passengers through the airport. And since that's the case WTF are they doing ignoring the targets set out in 2017

(04-17-2021, 04:13 PM)taylortbb Wrote:

(04-17-2021, 03:47 PM)Bytor Wrote: "If we actually see…"

That's the problem, though, since even before the pandemic we were seeing declining passengers through the airport. And since that's the case WTF are they doing ignoring the targets set out in 2017

What changed is Flair started selling tickets. Just did a search on Kayak for Toronto -> Halifax June 7-14 (YKF is under the YTO Toronto code), and it's $86 return if you fly from YKF, but $407 return to fly from YYZ. Unsurprisingly, a lot of people from Toronto are willing to drive out to YKF for the much cheaper Flair pricing.

Flair says they've already sold lots of tickets out of YKF, it's their best-selling airport, and they want to add more flights. But now YKF doesn't have the passenger capacity for the flights Flair wants to add.

Flair doesn't start flying from YKF til May 1, so right now the passenger volumes aren't there at YKF. But it's pretty easy to look at tickets sold and project that they'll turn into passengers.

I do think Flair might delay flights starting til July 1, when we'll see far more people vaccinated. However, I also think it's silly to not look at sold tickets and make some forecasts about passenger volume. There's definitely risk that Flair goes out of business from AC or WJ competing sufficiently aggressively with them, but it's not like the region decided to expand the airport speculatively.

(04-17-2021, 04:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: And so we're betting 44MM of our taxpayer dollars (or, 25MM if you want to be generous) on the success of a small startup airline.

I certainly wouldn't invest my money on that...it's a foolish thing to do.  Airlines usually fail...

(04-17-2021, 04:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I have no idea how they are pricing tickets that much cheaper than from Toronto, but I'm going to bet that isn't a sustainable business.

(04-17-2021, 05:55 PM)taylortbb Wrote:

(04-17-2021, 04:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: And so we're betting 44MM of our taxpayer dollars (or, 25MM if you want to be generous) on the success of a small startup airline.

I certainly wouldn't invest my money on that...it's a foolish thing to do.  Airlines usually fail...

Flair has been around for 16 years, mostly operating charter and cargo flights. They're not AC or WJ, but they're probably the most serious attempt at a ULCC in Canada ever. You're right there's some risk involved, but if the region isn't interested in the risk of getting a new passenger airport off the ground it should really cut its losses and end passenger service at YKF.

I think it's also fair to point out that much of the work isn't Flair-specific. The expanded runway will make it significantly easier to attract any airline.

(04-17-2021, 05:55 PM)taylortbb Wrote:

(04-17-2021, 04:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I have no idea how they are pricing tickets that much cheaper than from Toronto, but I'm going to bet that isn't a sustainable business.

It's the ULCC business model, best known from airlines like Ryanair and EasyJet. Single class in a high density config, single aircraft model, nothing included (not even a carry-on), operate out of smaller cheaper airports. It's new to Canada, but it's hardly a new business model. The only reason we don't have ULCCs already in Canada is foreign investment restrictions, and anti-competitive behaviour by AC and WJ (e.g. Swoop).

(04-17-2021, 07:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(04-17-2021, 05:55 PM)taylortbb Wrote: Flair has been around for 16 years, mostly operating charter and cargo flights. They're not AC or WJ, but they're probably the most serious attempt at a ULCC in Canada ever. You're right there's some risk involved, but if the region isn't interested in the risk of getting a new passenger airport off the ground it should really cut its losses and end passenger service at YKF.

I think it's also fair to point out that much of the work isn't Flair-specific. The expanded runway will make it significantly easier to attract any airline.

This is a false dichotomy. Regardless of what I think, it's totally false to claim the choices are spending 44MM or closing the airport, they literally are doing 44MM in place of a plan to spend 19MM over a slightly longer timeline.

As for Flair, sure, they existed before, this is the first launch of scheduled passenger service. This isn't unusual for launches like this to happen. It's extremely rare for them to succeed.

Heck, our airport has constantly seen service added, then cut back because it isn't profitable.

(04-17-2021, 07:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I am well aware of the ULCC model. But that model does not cut costs 80% over traditional air travel models. I mean, fuel and crew costs
alone exceed 20% and those aren't reduced in the ULCC model. So they are not going to be able to sustain an 80% cost advantage over AC flights.

(04-17-2021, 10:36 PM)plam Wrote: I think the ULCC business model is terrible for climate and for passengers. But it's got to be profitable with the hidden charges since it operates successfully in Europe. And Flair is definitely that.

(04-17-2021, 10:46 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(04-17-2021, 10:36 PM)plam Wrote: I think the ULCC business model is terrible for climate and for passengers. But it's got to be profitable with the hidden charges since it operates successfully in Europe. And Flair is definitely that.

While I personally prefer a full-service airline, I'll say that the ULCC model isn't any worse for the climate as such. If anything, flying a few more pax for the same amount of fuel is probably a bit better. What is potentially not good, though, is excessive growth (however that is defined!) in air travel, and ULCC pricing might certainly encourage that.