Posts: 516
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
20
(06-23-2016, 01:24 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: (06-22-2016, 10:58 PM)SammyOES Wrote: This is a pretty huge blow. Especially because the planes did seem to have good passenger loads and the reason given will apply to a lot of other airlines the region would want to try and attract.
(06-23-2016, 09:59 AM)jgsz Wrote: I'm hoping business leaders, academics and politicians can get together to discuss their YKF needs and to develop strategies to make it happen.
Perhaps a small startup like NextJet (are they still flying??) can be nurtured so it can offer flights to some Canadian and American cities.
I don't know why residents would be opposed to a subsidy if we got another airline in... The money paid to AA was a refund of airport fees... so if they never flew in, we would never of earned that money in the first place. Instead, we got benefits to the local economy, and once the 2 year period elapsed, we started collecting the fees. I'd say its a win-win.
Flights are near full, so I'm surprised by this decision. If it is the Canadian dollar at fault, then why are they keeping YYZ over YKF? Airline industry is so frustrating!
Coke
One has to remember that while the IATA share code for this operator is an AA share code, unless things have changed since I did consulting work for Air Canada a number of years back, American Eagle flights are run by small private owners not by American Airlines. Small operators use the AA designation but are badged American Eagle and are not corporately controlled/owned by AA.
Things could have changed with all the consolidation in the industry but this has been why the "Hub and Spoke" systems work so well.
Posts: 2,015
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
77
Isn't part of the problem that the American system (the airlines, the airports, training, maintenance, etc.) is just more heavily subsidized than the Canadian, or is that just a myth?
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Posts: 1,099
Threads: 6
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
99
(06-24-2016, 12:22 AM)MacBerry Wrote: One has to remember that while the IATA share code for this operator is an AA share code, unless things have changed since I did consulting work for Air Canada a number of years back, American Eagle flights are run by small private owners not by American Airlines. Small operators use the AA designation but are badged American Eagle and are not corporately controlled/owned by AA.
Things could have changed with all the consolidation in the industry but this has been why the "Hub and Spoke" systems work so well.
The flights are in fact operated by Envoy Air.
Coke
Posts: 10,251
Threads: 64
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
If the load factors are OK but they are still losing money, then clearly they have their fares set too low.
Posts: 6,459
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
84
CTV News reported last night that New Leaf airlines was in town yesterday for talks with YKF. Since New Leaf is not serving YOW, the only attractive route I could see them offer might be a few flights a week to their hub in Winnipeg. Time will tell.
Posts: 73
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
1
Does anyone know where one can find typical takeoff and landing routes for YKF? I remember seeing some maps when the noise thing came up a couple of years ago, but I couldn't find anything after searching for a while.
Posts: 32
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2016
Reputation:
0
interesting article....i would personally be happy if this happens
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6790...f-breslau/
Posts: 10,251
Threads: 64
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
The 25% foreign ownership limit is really low. The US limit is 49%; EU limits to the same 49% for non-Europeans but there is no restriction within the various EU countries (roughly comparable to eliminating restrictions between US, Canada and Mexico).
Posts: 419
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation:
32
(08-01-2016, 08:27 PM)curiouschair Wrote: Does anyone know where one can find typical takeoff and landing routes for YKF? I remember seeing some maps when the noise thing came up a couple of years ago, but I couldn't find anything after searching for a while.
Here's the overflight diagram, which doesn't include YKF's routes, but gives you an idea of how many _other_ airplanes are up there and where they're likely to be on a given day in July: http://www.waterlooairport.ca/en/aboutth...930746.pdf
As for "typical takeoff and landing routes" I assume they line up with the runways, as, according to their Noise FAQ:
Quote:There are no approved or unapproved flight paths over the ground. Aircraft may fly over all areas in our community. Certain flight routes are selected and used to reduce the use/cost of fuel, and the duration of the flight.
Posts: 419
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation:
32
Oh, wait, I lied. Apparently there's some idea of what's most common, at least for departures.
According to a noise study from January of 2013, there are Standard Instrument Departure Procedures. They collected noise data for different plane types. (The maps start here)
So that's something.
Posts: 6,459
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
84
(08-02-2016, 12:41 PM)tomh009 Wrote: The 25% foreign ownership limit is really low. The US limit is 49%; EU limits to the same 49% for non-Europeans but there is no restriction within the various EU countries (roughly comparable to eliminating restrictions between US, Canada and Mexico).
Anybody know why there are any foreign ownership limits at all? It's not apparent to me why I should care who owns this or the other airline.
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
48
08-02-2016, 02:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2016, 02:01 PM by MidTowner.)
It's actually a neat reason (well, I think it's neat, anyway).
From this Industry Canada page:
Quote:International air relations are governed largely by bilateral air agreements, which have the status of treaties and which, for the most part, incorporate national designation clauses that state only air carriers that are "substantially owned and controlled" by their government or home country nationals may be designated to operate air services under these agreements. There is no single internationally agreed upon definition for the concepts of "substantial ownership and effective control," and contracting states have discretion in choosing how to interpret it...
...Internationally, some states have eased restrictions to allow up to 49 percent foreign ownership of their carriers. China and India are such examples. In addition, some also permit 100-percent foreign ownership for carriers offering domestic services only, such as Australia and New Zealand (subject to a national interest test) and the European Union (internal market).
Posts: 10,251
Threads: 64
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
(08-02-2016, 02:00 PM)MidTowner Wrote: It's actually a neat reason (well, I think it's neat, anyway).
From this Industry Canada page:
Quote:International air relations are governed largely by bilateral air agreements, which have the status of treaties and which, for the most part, incorporate national designation clauses that state only air carriers that are "substantially owned and controlled" by their government or home country nationals may be designated to operate air services under these agreements. There is no single internationally agreed upon definition for the concepts of "substantial ownership and effective control," and contracting states have discretion in choosing how to interpret it...
...Internationally, some states have eased restrictions to allow up to 49 percent foreign ownership of their carriers. China and India are such examples. In addition, some also permit 100-percent foreign ownership for carriers offering domestic services only, such as Australia and New Zealand (subject to a national interest test) and the European Union (internal market).
All that is correct. I don't think it's actually a rationale, though. You could say "national interest" but I'm not sure that having an airline 75% owned by nameless Canadian shareholders is more valuable to the country than having more alternatives for the consumers.
Posts: 73
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
1
(08-02-2016, 01:30 PM)chutten Wrote: Oh, wait, I lied. Apparently there's some idea of what's most common, at least for departures.
According to a noise study from January of 2013, there are Standard Instrument Departure Procedures. They collected noise data for different plane types. (The maps start here)
So that's something.
Thanks so much!!
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
48
(08-02-2016, 09:20 PM)tomh009 Wrote: All that is correct. I don't think it's actually a rationale, though. You could say "national interest" but I'm not sure that having an airline 75% owned by nameless Canadian shareholders is more valuable to the country than having more alternatives for the consumers.
If it's a legal requirement of treaties we're party to that airlines which fly internationally be domestically controlled, that's about the most concrete rationale anyone is likely to have. Whether you ascribe motives about national interest of protectionism to the requirement, I don't think you'll ever have the lawmakers spell it out like that- though sometimes they come close with other sectors.
I don't think panamaniac is likely to get a better rationale for the requirement than what Industry Canada provides there.
|
