Airport Courts Developers

[building babel]

None of us wants to pay any more than we absolutely have to for anything, but I don't see how raising landing fees and having those expenses passed on to passengers will make the airport "uncompetitive" for significant numbers of people. Annoying and more expensive, yes, but uncompetitive? Where's the competition coming from? For instance, when I go to England a couple of times a year they'd sure have to raise the fees a lot to make me put up with the inconvenience and time-wasting of going all the way to Montreal or somewhere to catch a cheaper flight from there instead.

And do we know if all of those additional landing fee expenses are passed on to customers? Some destinations - such as Toronto, at the present - have always been more expensive to land at than others. Carriers may complain, but they will factor that into their over all costs. As simply Dan points out, several major carriers are adding flights to Pearson.

 

[alklay]

My 'empire building' quip did not refer to this development, which I think is a good thing. I am sorry for the confusion.

 

[alklay]

If its expensive to fly in and out of the city, we will simply see less tourists and business people using the city. The competition is every other city in the world.

If its expensive to fly into the city, less airlines will use Toronto as a stop-over or hub.

And this thread is full of stories of people using Buffalo for flights.

This is only off the top of my head. There must be numerous other ways having a high airport costs are bad for a region.

 

[blixa442]

I don't know too much about it, but from what I gather Pearson uses a flat fee structure, whereas other airports apply basic landing fees and add on other charges for other services as they are used. Personally, I think the feds should lay off a little bit and give our airports a break.

 

[building babel]

What kind of marginal business would someone be involved in for them to cancel a trip here to do it because they couldn't afford to land?

 

[EnviroTO]

The most expensive moniker is a myth in that it doesn't compare apples to oranges. Does Toronto have the most expensive landing fee... yes. Does that landing fee include far more services that are charges "a la carte" at other airports... yes. Unless landing fee + gating fee + de-icing fee + aircraft overnight parking fee + customer service fee + etc, etc are added up for each airport the comparison of the landing fees are useless because at Pearson the landing fee covers more.

Looking at the fees on a ticket out of Pearson the airport improvement fee is a fraction of the other fees on the ticket. A lot of money is being collected by the federal government on those tickets which is one of the bigger issues when comparing total price flying out of Buffalo versus flying out of Toronto. The federal government is taking all of that money on the ticket despite the fact they are already taking a fortune for airport rent which is passed on to the airlines in the landing fees and then passed on to the consumer in higher ticket prices.

Perhaps the GTAA should nickel and dime with other fees and lower the landing fee so that it can announce it has a landing fee comparable to other jurisdictions.

 

[simply Dan]

A few points to consider:

Canadian airports have all benefited since 9/11 as stricter visa requirements have meant more international travellers are avoiding connecting through the United States and travelling through airports in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver instead.

Air Canada and Westjet have recently celebrated record load factors on both domestic and international flights. Canadians are flying in record numbers - the majority of them through YYZ.

The only airline to actually REDUCE service to Toronto Pearson in the last year is ElAl Israeli Airlines - and that has more to do with the airline hardly making a profit as fewer people are travelling to Israel. Every other airline has expansion plans for YYZ.

It has been proven that despite what you may read in tabloids like the National Post or hear from paranoid forumers - high landing fees at Toronto Pearson have done nothing to reduce service. In fact, the number of travellers who land at YYZ is growing like never before!

 

[alklay]

"What kind of marginal business would someone be involved in for them to cancel a trip here to do it because they couldn't afford to land?'

Plenty of businesses, both large and small, restrict and reduce air travel because of costs.

 

[yyzer]

Lots of great posts in this thread...a topic near and dear to my heart..:smokin

Where to begin? the rent that the federal gov't charges is truly outrageous...my understanding is that when the charter for the GTAA was being created, the feds wanted rent to recover their investment in the previous incarnations at Pearson...although I don't know the exact figures, what has already been paid has completely covered the cost of the land, and now continues at exorbitant amounts. ...again, from my understanding, most of the smaller airports in Canada lose money, and YYZ was seen as the "cash cow" to fund these less-efficient airports. So the money that we all pay at Pearson, and that the airlines pay at Pearson, goes to fund places like Regina and Moncton. So it is a form of equalization.

As for the actual airline charges, this is no myth - but what is the end result, is that the airlines simply increase the fares to cover these charges, and the passenger ends up paying. So far the U.S. discount carriers like Southwest and JetBlue have not been able to make their business models work here, but there may be other factors in current U.S. travel patterns which contribute, and also there may be a vested interest in keeping the flights in Buffalo (up to 20 percent of BUF's total traffic comes from southern Ontario!)

As for the international carriers, they seem to have no problem with Pearson's fees, El Al notwithstanding, and there is a long list of foreign airlines who have expressed interest in coming here, should bilateral agreements permit. I have heard, up to 40 additional carriers, in addition to the 80 which already fly here. Look for some interesting announcements in the coming weeks.

yyzer

 

[LordMandeep]

its working

YYZ had 29 million flyers in 2005. In 2006 they had 31 million flyers.

 

[p5archit]

Re: its working

I was just reading some pretty interesting information, unconfirmed mind you, but none-the less tantalizing. According to the source:

-Virgin is going to resume flying to Toronto sometime this year (2007)

-Croatian and Serbian Airlines are also interested in flying to Toronto, especially now that they have signed an open-skies agreement with Canada.

-KLM will infact operate two daily flights to Toronto starting in April-except on weekends (not sure what that is about?)

-JAT Airways or Airlines, is also expected to begin scheduled flights to Toronto via Dusseldorf from India.

-Emirates is also planning to make scheduled flights between Dubai and Toronto.

-Some other unconfirmed Airlines are interested in making flights to Toronto, but according to the information they remain merely rumors: Quantas and Philippines....

p5

 

[mreclectic]

"The site, formerly designated for a runway clearing and deemed surplus, is serviced by highways 409, 401, 427 and Airport Rd., and will be connected to the airport through the LINK train station."

I know that Pearson has/had plans to eventually build a sixth runway. I'm assuming this is where they planned to build it (????) Will they still consider building a sixth runway, and if so, where?

I think something other than a hotel would be best suited for this area. A lot of tourists to Toronto have commented on there not really being much to do here which they can't do in their own home towns. What about a tourist attraction of some sort? I have no idea what that could be in such a space, but people are creative. I'm sure they could find something. A casino? Ugh. I shutter at the thought, too.

Nevertheless, I'm happy with what they're considering. Like others have mentioned, they should have leased more spaces in T1 to retailers but......I think it's good what they hope to do.

 

[circuitboy84]

As far as the GTAA looking to expand their "empire" and unnecessarily looking to Pickering. These are a few of their reasons for looking at a Pickering site:

-the recognition of physical and operational constraints at Buttonville and Oshawa Municipal Airports, and the need to plan for their eventual replacement

- the need for long-term airport capacity, recognizing that Toronto Pearson cannot fulfill on its own all the aviation requirements of the GTAA and that it could reach its capacity in the next 20 years

-the need for a regional/reliever airport to the east of Toronto Pearson that complements Hamilton Airport to the west

-the opportunity for strong economic development support to the eastern region of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

 

[spmarshall]

Good to see that the 1970s thinking that brought us the fiasco called Pickering is alive and well.

The arguments for building Pickering back then:
- Would balance the GTA with a second airport to drive economic growth to the east.
- Pearson (whose lands are bigger than most large international airports) would not be able to handle continuing growth by 1990 (later changed to 2000!)
- Toronto would decline without a second airport.

Pickering is a terrible location for an airport - it is in some of the best agricultural land in southern Ontario, and it's very hilly, which would require a lot of levelling. It didn't even make a long-list for potential sites for airports in the late 1960s/early 1970s, and certainly was not even on the radar when the short-list was released. Politics got in the way.

The same thinking brought us Mirabel, which if Pickering was built, would be one. Mirabel is as useful as Downsview Airport is now - the only user is Bombardier!

The GTAA does not control Oshawa or Buttonville. It already controls the Pickering airport lands. Sounds like empire-building to me.

I urge you to read a dated book (but still very relevant - politics and the culture of new sexy but unnecessary infrastructure hardly change - see the Sorbara line) called Paper Juggernaut by Walter Stewart - published in the early 1980s, it explains exactly why Pickering was such a mistake in the first place.

 

[alklay]

To date, there has been no report, no independant assessment, no group and no expert that has called for the Pickering airport. Nobody but the GTAA thinks the Pickering airport is necessary.