News   Aug 23, 2024
The RIV Bumped to 37 Storeys in Exchange for Community Benefits
 1.3K     0 
News   Aug 23, 2024
252 Church Tops Off with 'Piano Key' Cladding
 2.2K     4 
News   Aug 23, 2024
News Roundup for August 23, 2024
 562     0 

Pearson to reduce landing fees

unimaginative2

unimaginative2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
10
Location
New York
Fees reduced at Toronto Pearson


TORONTO, Oct. 16 /CNW/ - The Greater Toronto Airports Authority
(GTAA) is
pleased to announce a reduction in fees charged to airlines for all services as of January 1, 2008. Landing fees will be reduced by 3.1% and terminal charges will be reduced by 4.7%.
"This is fantastic news for our airline partners," said Lloyd McCoomb, President and CEO of the GTAA. "By pricing Toronto Pearson more competitively we are able to decrease the cost of doing business, which is good for airlines, good for passengers and good for the region."
Mr. McCoomb gave high praise to employees of the GTAA for their ideas to increase revenue and efficiencies. "The people that keep this airport running have stepped up and shown initiative in suggesting ways to make Toronto Pearson more competitive. We are proud of all of their work, and are pleased to pass the savings on to the airlines."
The GTAA will continue to work to make Toronto Pearson competitive through cost containment, revenue generation and by working with air carrier partners.
Landing fees are charged to the airlines to operate at Toronto Pearson, the busiest in Canada. Terminal charges are set to cover the operating costs for the common areas in the passenger terminals.

The GTAA is the non-share, not-for-profit authority that operates Toronto Pearson. All revenue generated by the GTAA is reinvested back into the airport. In 2006, 31 million passengers travelled through Toronto Pearson.




-30-

/For further information: Scott Armstrong, Manager, Media Relations (416)
776-3709/
 
they should do that...
Hamilton is stealing some of there local air flights however how many places overseas can you go from Buffalo...
 
GTAA to trim landing fees at Pearson airport
TheStar.com - Business - GTAA to trim landing fees at Pearson airport

October 16, 2007
Romina Maurino
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Toronto's Pearson airport, long criticized for being one of the world's most expensive to use, is reducing its landing fees and terminal charges in a bid to attract more passenger and airline traffic.

The Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which operates the airport, said Tuesday that landing fees charges to airlines will decrease by 3.1 per cent and terminal charges will drop by 4.7 as of Jan. 1.

"This is fantastic news for our airline partners," stated GTAA chief executive Lloyd McCoomb.

"By pricing Toronto Pearson more competitively we are able to decrease the cost of doing business, which is good for airlines, good for passengers and good for the region."

The move was cheered by travel groups and airlines, who have long pushed for a reduction in fees and charges by both airports and the federal government, saying they affect the competitiveness of Canada's air carriers.

"Air Canada is pleased by today's announcement that the GTAA is cutting fees at Toronto airport and we commend the authority for finding savings and alternative revenue sources," stated Montie Brewer, CEO of Pearson's largest tenant.

"(We) now ask the Federal Government to follow the GTAA's example by reducing the rents it charges airports each year ... Ultimately, this is a regressive tax that stifles economic growth."

Landing fees are charged to the airlines to operate at Toronto Pearson, the busiest airport in Canada, with 31 million passenger in 2006.

They are also passed on to travellers – raising their ire when they discover the ticket price skyrockets once taxes and airport fees are included. Some Canadians instead choose to drive to U.S. airports, such as Buffalo, to save on their flights.

Terminal charges, for their part, are set to cover the operating costs for the common areas in the passenger terminals.

Same Barone, CEO of the Air Transport Association of Canada, also highlighted the ongoing issues of airport rents, fuel surcharges and security costs – all constant sticking points between travel groups and the government.

"This year, Pearson will pay more than $150 million to Ottawa (in rent)," he said.

"Our passengers really are paying that additional tax back to Ottawa, which does nothing for stimulating traffic growth."

But, he added, ATAC is "always pleased to have the cost that gets passed through to our passengers reduced," saying the airport authority "does deserve quite a bit of credit for that achievement."

"We also encourage them to do more for travellers because we're in a very competitive environment."

The GTAA did say it would continue to work to make the airport competitive "through cost containment, revenue generation and by working with air carrier partners."
 
"This year, Pearson will pay more than $150 million to Ottawa (in rent),"
Click to expand...

Imagine, having to pay almost $500,000 dollars per day in rent, getting almost no services in return....
 
the federal govt is mostly like that.


has more and more money every year and is in charge of less and less...
 
Why were the airport improvement fees directly charged on each ticket not lowered? What's the chance that the lower fees now being charged to the airlines will be passed on to the consumer?

42
 
unimaginative2 said:
Nothing, except the use of 4,430 acres of prime real estate in the middle of the country's biggest metropolitan area.
Click to expand...

Except the old days, before airport privatization, Transport Canada owned and operated the airports - the $150 million per year is a nice cash cow for the feds (for Pearson alone), for the privilege for operating and rebuilding the airport, funded by high airport fees and the retail rents. The model is screwed up.
 
yyzer said:
Imagine, having to pay almost $500,000 dollars per day in rent, getting almost no services in return....
Click to expand...

unimaginative2 said:
Nothing, except the use of 4,430 acres of prime real estate in the middle of the country's biggest metropolitan area.
Click to expand...

The use of 4,430 acres to do what? Make scads of profit for a private firm?

That's not happening here. It is just a cash cow for the feds, and Pearson is unfairly shouldering a much higher percentage of the taxes scooped from airports across the country. Pearson has not been asking for a free ride tax-wise, just a fair one. They shouldn't be paying more per passenger than other airports in the country. It's classic Toronto-bashing.

42
 
CBC: Pearson reducing landing fees

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/10/17/pearson-fees.html

Pearson reducing landing fees

Toronto's Pearson airport, long criticized for being one of the world's most expensive to use, is reducing its landing fees and terminal charges in a bid to attract more passenger and airline traffic.

The Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which operates the airport, said Tuesday that landing fees charged to airlines will decrease by 3.1 per cent and terminal charges will drop by 4.7 as of Jan. 1.

"This is fantastic news for our airline partners," stated GTAA chief executive Lloyd McCoomb.

"By pricing Toronto Pearson more competitively, we are able to decrease the cost of doing business, which is good for airlines, good for passengers and good for the region."

The move was cheered by travel groups and airlines, who have long pushed for a reduction in fees and charges by both airports and the federal government, saying they affect the competitiveness of Canada's air carriers.

"Air Canada is pleased by today's announcement that the GTAA is cutting fees at Toronto airport and we commend the authority for finding savings and alternative revenue sources," said Montie Brewer, CEO of Pearson's largest tenant.

"(We) now ask the Federal Government to follow the GTAA's example by reducing the rents it charges airports each year.… Ultimately, this is a regressive tax that stifles economic growth."

Landing fees are charged to the airlines to operate at Toronto Pearson, the busiest airport in Canada, with 31 million passenger in 2006.

They are also passed on to travellers — raising their ire when they discover the ticket price skyrockets once taxes and airport fees are included. Some Canadians instead choose to drive to U.S. airports, such as Buffalo, to save on their flights.

Terminal charges, for their part, are set to cover the operating costs for the common areas in the passenger terminals.

Same Barone, CEO of the Air Transport Association of Canada, also highlighted the ongoing issues of airport rents, fuel surcharges and security costs — all constant sticking points between travel groups and the government.

"This year, Pearson will pay more than $150 million to Ottawa (in rent)," he said.

"Our passengers really are paying that additional tax back to Ottawa, which does nothing for stimulating traffic growth."

But, he added, ATAC is "always pleased to have the cost that gets passed through to our passengers reduced," saying the airport authority "does deserve quite a bit of credit for that achievement."

"We also encourage them to do more for travellers because we're in a very competitive environment."

The GTAA did say it would continue to work to make the airport competitive "through cost containment, revenue generation and by working with air carrier partners."
 
interchange42 said:
The use of 4,430 acres to do what? Make scads of profit for a private firm?

That's not happening here. It is just a cash cow for the feds, and Pearson is unfairly shouldering a much higher percentage of the taxes scooped from airports across the country. Pearson has not been asking for a free ride tax-wise, just a fair one. They shouldn't be paying more per passenger than other airports in the country. It's classic Toronto-bashing.

42
Click to expand...

What do you mean? If I were to go out and rent land, I would pay the same amount for it no matter what I use it for. I don't see why we should subsidize air travel's extravagant land use. I believe in a market system, so I think that the rents should be based on fair market rates. That land at the heart of Toronto is extremely valuable, but if it needs to be lowered compared to other airports (I can imagine Vancouver's land also being quite valuable), then it should be. I don't see anything inherently wrong with large land rent cost, as anything less is a major government subsidy to an environmentally-damaging industry with users that can quite easily afford an average of $5 a ticket.
 
The government owns the land, so I'm not exactly sure how it fits into the standard market system. Did they charge rent to themselves when the airports were under their direct control? As for the extravagent land use for air travel, it is dwarfed by the land allotted for train travel in this country.

Concerning land prices and charges of air travel being an environmentally-damaging industry, the charge for airport land rents has zero to do with environmental issues. As a form of transportation, air travel has made considerable strides in reducing its negative impact - and is still moving forward with respect to this issue.
 
There are now rumours of numerous new carriers about to start a Toronto route. Guess that minimal reduction actually pulled a few strings!
 
Hydrogen said:
The government owns the land, so I'm not exactly sure how it fits into the standard market system. Did they charge rent to themselves when the airports were under their direct control? As for the extravagent land use for air travel, it is dwarfed by the land allotted for train travel in this country.

Concerning land prices and charges of air travel being an environmentally-damaging industry, the charge for airport land rents has zero to do with environmental issues. As a form of transportation, air travel has made considerable strides in reducing its negative impact - and is still moving forward with respect to this issue.
Click to expand...

That's kind of a silly question. When you own your own house, do you pay rent to yourself? Then why should you collect rent when you lease it out to someone else? I guess the point is that if the price the government is charging now is fair, they were subsidizing it before.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top