Toronto Pearson International Airport

[1overcosc]

Not anymore. Every AC European flight I have been on in last couple years has had a large and very noticeable contingent of Americans heading to or returning from Europe. This is core to AC's strategy and in London for example they are heavily marketing themselves as a way to get to the US (with giant ads in the Tube etc). Was also on an NY Metro North train recently that was totally wrapped in AC ads offering the vice-versa.

The International-US connections process has also been dramatically improved at T1. Considering the shambolic state of much of JFK, O'Hare etc it's a compelling alternative especially for people traveling to smaller US cities that lack non-stop overseas service.

I was flying Air Canada from Tel Aviv to Pearson a few months ago, and more than half the plane was connecting to the US, San Francisco being the most common.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Not anymore. Every AC European flight I have been on in last couple years has had a large and very noticeable contingent of Americans heading to or returning from Europe. This is core to AC's strategy and in London for example they are heavily marketing themselves as a way to get to the US (with giant ads in the Tube etc). Was also on an NY Metro North train recently that was totally wrapped in AC ads offering the vice-versa.

The International-US connections process has also been dramatically improved at T1. Considering the shambolic state of much of JFK, O'Hare etc it's a compelling alternative especially for people traveling to smaller US cities that lack non-stop overseas service.

Good friend of mine does Houston >> Europe (usually Frankfurt) through Toronto all the time.

 

[Burnt creek]

What they are targeting or should be targeting is the european or latin american travelers who want to avoid the security hassels and red tape that US airports subject you to. There are a lot of people who hate or try to avoid as much as possible transiting through US airports when traveling bettween europe and Latin america / the carribean. Add to that, the fact that US airports often rank near the bottom of any list for international travels in terms of being modern, overall infrastucture, amenities and overall attractivness.

There is a huge opportunity here for Toronto and Canada. Everytime some has to transit through here, there is portion of the ticket price that goes into public coffers.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

What they are targeting or should be targeting is the european or latin american travelers who want to avoid the security hassels and red tape that US airports subject you to. There are a lot of people who hate or try to avoid as much as possible transiting through US airports when traveling bettween europe and Latin america / the carribean. Add to that, the fact that US airports often rank near the bottom of any list for international travels in terms of being modern, overall infrastucture, amenities and overall attractivness.

There is a huge opportunity here for Toronto and Canada. Everytime some has to transit through here, there is portion of the ticket price that goes into public coffers.

I have no proof, but I think, in fact, they're actually doing this. AC's many South American routes make no sense otherwise.

 

[amnesiajune]

AC's many South American routes make no sense otherwise.

You know that there are more than 400,000 Latin Americans living in Canada, right? And Air Canada doesn't even have that many South American routes. There's one flight to Bogota, one to Sao Paulo, one to Rio (which is being cancelled) and one to Santiago/Buenos Aires.

 

[Burnt creek]

You know that there are more than 400,000 Latin Americans living in Canada, right? And Air Canada doesn't even have that many South American routes. There's one flight to Bogota, one to Sao Paulo, one to Rio (which is being cancelled) and one to Santiago/Buenos Aires.

Yes. But that the fact that there this many or that many south american ex pat living in canada or toronto does not necessarily make those route profitable or viable. Under a yield management model of pricing (as is the case with airfares and acommodation cost) whereby the price increases as you get closer to the date of travel, It's the business traveler that drive the margins and makes most routes viable or profitable. Thats because business travelers are more likely to book at the last minute and pay the biggest premium. So, to be viable the south american route need to be viable for business travel from europe and south america.

If the viability of routes was based solely on the number of ex pats living in a certain country, then you would have seen tons of competition for flights to southern europe in the last century. But that was never the case. Thats because there was/are very many ex pats from those countries living in canada but very little in in relative business ties and trade with those countries. How else does one explain the gazillion of daily flights to London, New york and chicago, but the relatively few to Rome, Athenas, Lisbon and Madrid.

 

[amnesiajune]

Under a yield management model of pricing (as is the case with airfares and acommodation cost) whereby the price increases as you get closer to the date of travel, It's the business traveler that drive the margins and makes most routes viable or profitable.

This is how every single flight works. Prices are set at what people will pay. They're lower in advance to entice leisure travellers, and higher at the last minute, aside from vacation-only flights, because business travellers can pay more and don't shop around for a cheaper route with stopovers. And the people who really subsidize the lower prices in economy in are the ones who fly in first class.

If the viability of routes was based solely on the number of ex pats living in a certain country, then you would have seen tons of competition for flights to southern europe in the last century. But that was never the case. Thats because there was/are very many ex pats from those countries living in canada but very little in in relative business ties and trade with those countries.

How likely people are to travel to those countries, or to have people visit from those countries, is also a large factor. You don't see many Italians who are going back to Italy every couple of years because their entire family still lives there.

How else does one explain the gazillion of daily flights to London, New york and chicago, but the relatively few to Rome, Athenas, Lisbon and Madrid.

Those are all big hubs. Chicago is a common stopover on the way to the west. Charlotte and Atlanta are common stopovers on the way to the southern US. London Heathrow/Gatwick is the closest airport to North America that has connections to everywhere in Europe - 300 km closer than CDG and 600 km closer than Frankfurt.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Correct me if I'm wrong on this but at a presentation I went to it was mentioned that Pearson ranks very high on the number of international direct flight routes. Higher than many airports in other countries with higher passenger volumes (who do more domestic or regional traffic). This has some advantages for the connection hub strategy.

Also, I know we like to complain about Toronto in Toronto but I find that Air Canada and Pearson are very competitive experiences particularly in comparison to other North American and European carriers and airports (even if they are lower in my mind to some Asian examples).

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Pearson's Global Hub strategy report indicated that it was second only to JFK in terms of number of international direct connections in North America.

 

[TransitBart]

Correct me if I'm wrong on this but at a presentation I went to it was mentioned that Pearson ranks very high on the number of international direct flight routes. Higher than many airports in other countries with higher passenger volumes (who do more domestic or regional traffic). This has some advantages for the connection hub strategy.

Also, I know we like to complain about Toronto in Toronto but I find that Air Canada and Pearson are very competitive experiences particularly in comparison to other North American and European carriers and airports (even if they are lower in my mind to some Asian examples).

We do like to complain which is unfortunate because we overlook what is positive, good and working. Air Canada is extremely well run ( compared to many airlines) and has direct flights to all continents except Africa from Pearson. You are correct in saying that with the sole exception of JFK in North America, Toronto Pearson is connected to more cities than any other airport on the continent.

 

[Burnt creek]

We do like to complain which is unfortunate because we overlook what is positive, good and working. Air Canada is extremely well run ( compared to many airlines) and has direct flights to all continents except Africa from Pearson. You are correct in saying that with the sole exception of JFK in North America, Toronto Pearson is connected to more cities than any other airport on the continent.

You can look at it another way. You can fly direct to every continent except Australia from Pearson. There are only a distinct few that can make that claim and its a huge benefit to TO. Last year, there was a big debate and media discussions in Montreal over how poorly served Quebec/ Montreal was by fact that there were no direct flight to asia, latin america and many key business hubs in the US. And, this was seen a huge impediment to business and economic growth. The governements in Quebec and even Alberta are agressively pursuing airlines from China and the chinese authorities to start service. Thats now the case with air china flying to Montreal. Similarly, In other parts of the country, when a new airline starts a new service to their town (as was the case when Edmonton received a new route from Icelandic airlines) it's a news item. Here, we take it for granted. In fact, there often every couple months a foriegn airline that a starts a new route out of TO and it's really not news worthy.

What this all means that there is competion for air travel here and this means that we get fares that the rest of the country (execpt maybe Vancouver) can only dream of.

 

[cdosrun]

You can look at it another way. You can fly direct to every continent except Australia from Pearson. There are only a distinct few that can make that claim and its a huge benefit to TO. Last year, there was a big debate and media discussions in Montreal over how poorly served Quebec/ Montreal was by fact that there were no direct flight to asia, latin america and many key business hubs in the US. And, this was seen a huge impediment to business and economic growth. The governements in Quebec and even Alberta are agressively pursuing airlines from China and the chinese authorities to start service. Thats now the case with air china flying to Montreal. Similarly, In other parts of the country, when a new airline starts a new service to their town (as was the case when Edmonton received a new route from Icelandic airlines) it's a news item. Here, we take it for granted. In fact, there often every couple months a foriegn airline that a starts a new route out of TO and it's really not news worthy.

What this all means that there is competion for air travel here and this means that we get fares that the rest of the country (execpt maybe Vancouver) can only dream of.

AC33 flies direct from Pearson to Sydney, Australia. It's not a non-stop, but it's direct.

 

[ticky]

AC33 flies direct from Pearson to Sydney, Australia. It's not a non-stop, but it's direct.

Direct (adjective) — extending or moving from one place to another by the shortest way without changing direction or stopping.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Direct (adjective) — extending or moving from one place to another by the shortest way without changing direction or stopping.

Semantics, in airline terminology a direct flight is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_flight
"A direct flight in the aviation industry is any flight between two points by an airline with no change in flight numbers, which may include a stop at an intermediate point.[1] The stop over may either be to get new passengers (or allow some to disembark) or a mere technical stop over (i.e., for refuelling)"

 

[mdrejhon]

Good explanations. I was unaware of that aviation parlance... Context is everything.

I took a "direct flight" more than 30 years ago where I landed but stayed on the plane. Every landing since then has always been a flight change for me.

Direct flights used to be far more common, and that was one of the a raison d'etre of Montreal's Mirabel airport -- back in the day, Montreal was a common stopover for international flights.