Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF

[ac3r]

I think the ULCC business model is terrible for climate and for passengers.

I love them. I travel light and if I'm flying somewhere, all I need is a seat on a plane and a nook to stash my bag in, not all the frivolous extras as I can tolerate a 8-10 hour flight no problem. I'd rather pay as little money as possible for a ticket so I can use that money for other things.

I guess it's bad for the environment but I'd be on a plane either way, so if I'm going to mess up the environment I'd rather pay as little money as possible to do so.

[tomh009]

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.

I'm confused, you ay that it isn't any worse for the climate, then you explain how it is worse for the climate?

On a per-pax basis, it's likely a bit better than a full-service airline. But if the pricing substantially increases air traffic, it's worse.

But there are a ton of assumptions in those two statements.

[ijmorlan]

I'm confused, you ay that it isn't any worse for the climate, then you explain how it is worse for the climate?

On a per-pax basis, it's likely a bit better than a full-service airline. But if the pricing substantially increases air traffic, it's worse.

But there are a ton of assumptions in those two statements.

The right way to fix that is with an appropriate carbon tax. A correctly set carbon tax can replace all other government-led carbon mitigation strategies by fully internalizing the cost of emitting carbon dioxide.

Of course in practice a 100% carbon tax approach may not necessarily be the best approach; for example also explicitly funding public transit is a good idea for many other reasons and including it in the carbon dioxide mitigation strategy then makes sense as well.

I’m not sure where this leaves airport expansion. With the correct carbon tax in place, air travel prices will be higher than without the carbon tax, which means quantity traded will be lower, which might by itself change the economic feasibility of a proposed airport expansion; but on the other hand airport expansion is an action explicitly planned by government so it is reasonable to look at societal goals, not just the immediate business case, when doing that planning.

[nms]

Now imagine if every municipality between here and Toronto committed a similar amount of funds to support better train travel in and out of their Regions? It wouldn't get you a cheap flight to Halifax, but it would give you hope for better car-free access to the rest of the province (and the other airports too).

[ac3r]

Council approves $18M improvements for Waterloo Region airport: https://outline.com/UGJFX7

Regional council approved $17.8 million in contract to expand and improve Waterloo Region’s airport. The three contracts include $226,000 to widen the existing runway by less than a metre, $3.9 million for a new baggage handling system and $13.7 million for two new modular terminals to handle anticipated increases in passenger traffic.

[nms]

I guess if the school boards aren't using their school portables, someone else might as well use them...

I'm interested in the runway widening. Was it a case of penny wise, pound foolish the last time it was paved? Or is there a certain type of aircraft that they are anticipating?

[Rainrider22]

Transport Canada requires a specific width for Boeing 737 Max-8's

Those planes weren't around when the runway was repaved.

[SammyOES]

What’s the deal with the runway extension? I thought that was approved a few months ago. Was I wrong or is the money for that still to come?

[KevinL]

With the Flair flights ramping up I'm realizing I'm hearing planes on approach to the airport with some regularity now. Been well over a year since I could say that.

[Bytor]

I seems like every five to seven years we're welcoming new airlines to YKF that disappear two or three years later. Something like that colloquial definition of insanity. But I'm totally sure this time it will work.

[taylortbb]

Something like that colloquial definition of insanity.

In this case we're not doing the same thing though. Previous new airlines have all been about attracting local KW demand. WestJet flies from Pearson far more than YKF, no one from Toronto would drive out here for them.

Flair is all about offering lower fares to GTA people from YKF, due to the lower landing costs than Pearson (which is one of the most expensive airports in the world). YKF showing up under the YTO city code is a large part of why this makes sense.

The ULCC model, and enticing people from the GTA to drive out here for cheap fares, is a real strategy change. I don't know if it'll work, but it's definitely not doing the same thing over and over.

[danbrotherston]

Something like that colloquial definition of insanity.

In this case we're not doing the same thing though. Previous new airlines have all been about attracting local KW demand. WestJet flies from Pearson far more than YKF, no one from Toronto would drive out here for them.

Flair is all about offering lower fares to GTA people from YKF, due to the lower landing costs than Pearson (which is one of the most expensive airports in the world). YKF showing up under the YTO city code is a large part of why this makes sense.

The ULCC model, and enticing people from the GTA to drive out here for cheap fares, is a real strategy change. I don't know if it'll work, but it's definitely not doing the same thing over and over.

You're referring to the airline business model. That's different from the public policy. From a public policy perspective, we continue to spend vast sums of money on an airport in the hopes that airlines will stick around. This airline has different business model, but it is the same public policy we are implementing. I am frankly sick and tired of seeing my tax dollars sunk into this.

[taylortbb]

You're referring to the airline business model. That's different from the public policy. From a public policy perspective, we continue to spend vast sums of money on an airport in the hopes that airlines will stick around. This airline has different business model, but it is the same public policy we are implementing. I am frankly sick and tired of seeing my tax dollars sunk into this.

If you're uninterested in having a local airport that's a reasonable position to take. But I think it's a serious misrepresentation to suggest it's the same public policy. After seeing the failure of the previous attempts, the region set out specifically to attract a ULCC. That's why they did the route exclusivity guarantees, after seeing what happened with Swoop at YHM. The region has significantly adjusted its approach, to attract a different kind of airline that would be more likely to be successful, and that is a public policy change.

[danbrotherston]

You're referring to the airline business model. That's different from the public policy. From a public policy perspective, we continue to spend vast sums of money on an airport in the hopes that airlines will stick around. This airline has different business model, but it is the same public policy we are implementing. I am frankly sick and tired of seeing my tax dollars sunk into this.

If you're uninterested in having a local airport that's a reasonable position to take. But I think it's a serious misrepresentation to suggest it's the same public policy. After seeing the failure of the previous attempts, the region set out specifically to attract a ULCC. That's why they did the route exclusivity guarantees, after seeing what happened with Swoop at YHM. The region has significantly adjusted its approach, to attract a different kind of airline that would be more likely to be successful, and that is a public policy change.

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.

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.

[ac3r]

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.