(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.
I'm not saying they're the only options, I'm saying they're the options I'd support. I think the worst case scenario is steady state. We keep spending money on the airport, never enough to make it successful, but never recognizing we've failed. The airport slowly but constantly bleeds millions a year from the regional budget, while also not delivering value to local residents. We get a flight, a couple years later we lose a flight, the small but constant subsidy continues. The airport should either get large enough it's self-sustaining (like most large Canadian airports are), or we stop funding it. Millions per year for one flight to Calgary is the worst outcome.
Previous services aren't a good guide here, as they've all been services by regular mainline carriers. There isn't enough local demand to support a large airport, the only way YKF can be a large airport is by drawing passengers from the GTA. A ULCC is probably the only way we're going to draw passengers from the GTA, as service by a major carrier won't be any cheaper than YYZ.
(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.
Fuel costs aren't reduced, crew costs definitely are (though whether this is a good thing is a separate issue). I disagree the prices aren't sustainable though, the cost difference is no larger than any other ULCC. I think you underestimate the savings of not having a complete route network, and underestimate the degree to which ULCCs monetize other aspects of the service. They'll charge for carry-ons, they'll charge for a can of pop, they'll charge for phoning their call centre, etc. That's how ULCCs make their money, not on the ticket price (which you're right is at a loss).