Why do Canadians pay so much when it comes to flying?
#16
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: YYC/MNL
Programs: Marriott Bonvoy SE
Posts: 520
Biggest reason.
Air Canada and WestJet has the duopoly. There are tiny ones and charters but they can't compete with the big 2 at the moment.
Uhhh... What?
Calgary to Vancouver is a cakewalk lol.
Rail isn't an option right now because no one wants to cough up the money. VIARail is also very pricey.
Red Arrow isn't too bad. Has WiFi in the bus.
Air Canada and WestJet has the duopoly. There are tiny ones and charters but they can't compete with the big 2 at the moment.
Perhaps part of it is that in Canada, one cannot drive from Calgary to Vancouver in a day. In Europe, I suspect one could drive from London to Dover in the same day. Even if the distances are similar, you have so many more options in Europe.
As mentioned, Canada does not have an efficient and affordable rail system. The buses are also inefficient.
CK.
As mentioned, Canada does not have an efficient and affordable rail system. The buses are also inefficient.
CK.
Calgary to Vancouver is a cakewalk lol.
Rail isn't an option right now because no one wants to cough up the money. VIARail is also very pricey.
Red Arrow isn't too bad. Has WiFi in the bus.
#17
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 283
Let me rephrase that. For somebody who is used to driving many hours, it might be a day trip. I personally stop off halfway and grab some sleep. I am not as confident in winter or night travel as I once was. Especially in my older SUV, it's probably not a great idea.
I think one can fly from Calgary to Vancouver for a few hundred bucks. I haven't flown to Vancouver lately, and these days, most of my flights are to Toronto or Montreal from Calgary. In these situations it makes more sense to fly, and often by WJ.
To be honest, when I fly out of Calgary, I often take the Greyhound from my city to Calgary. It is possible to fly, but the costs just pile up, and there are two flights a day from Calgary to my home city, both of which are about 4x the cost of a Greyhound ticket.
I think one can fly from Calgary to Vancouver for a few hundred bucks. I haven't flown to Vancouver lately, and these days, most of my flights are to Toronto or Montreal from Calgary. In these situations it makes more sense to fly, and often by WJ.
To be honest, when I fly out of Calgary, I often take the Greyhound from my city to Calgary. It is possible to fly, but the costs just pile up, and there are two flights a day from Calgary to my home city, both of which are about 4x the cost of a Greyhound ticket.
Last edited by CKA1; Dec 8, 2014 at 4:32 pm
#18
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,378
Perhaps part of it is that in Canada, one cannot drive from Calgary to Vancouver in a day. In Europe, I suspect one could drive from London to Dover in the same day. Even if the distances are similar, you have so many more options in Europe.
As mentioned, Canada does not have an efficient and affordable rail system. The buses are also inefficient.
CK.
As mentioned, Canada does not have an efficient and affordable rail system. The buses are also inefficient.
CK.
As others have said - it's supply and demand. There is much more demand in Europe. Our population is about 750 million in comparison to Canada's 35 million. Loads more people = many more airlines = much more competition = lower prices.
#19
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Programs: CX*G, AF*G; BA, UA
Posts: 90
Very interesting arguments all, most seem to try to justify high prices on "make belief" reasons anchored in Canadian society. OPEN YOUR EYES CANADA!
You don't need rail to compete with flight. Ever tried to train from London to Vienna, from Brussels to Madrid, from Amsterdam to Rome? There is no competition in that, not on price, not on comfort, not on time. The only competition there may be is fear of flight.
You don't need cars to compete with flight. Yes, you could drive from London to Vienna, from Brussels to Madrid, from Amsterdam to Rome. But, unless you're a family of 5 (and even then) there is no competition in driving: not on price, not on comfort, not on time. The only competition there may be is fear of flight, or the caravan-ing stopover journey along the way.
You don't need buss services to compete with flight. While organised tours (including hotel, meals and visits) by bus surely exist (much like cruises on the road kind of thing), there is no competition on price and time. While some buses are high on comfort, most of these trips are done with regular long distance buses. There is no competition on price and time or comfort.
You don't need more people to create a base for competition. Less people may mean less justification for 3 airlines each with 5+ flights a day between two airports, but less people could also mean more wish to fly back-and-forth.
You don't need excess airports and capacity to create competition. The route Geneva-Brussels is a highly profitable one for example, yet you can fly for well under €100 on the low cost easy(sh*t) and ... for often for roughly €100 on Swiss and Brussels Airlines luggage inclusive. That is for a highly profitable route between "premium" airports. And, many "low cost" airports were mere simple airfields before the low cost airlines had them upgraded with tarmac and a low cost shoebox building.
What is the problem in Canada? Not a lack of people, but a lack of consumer base who can afford the current prices.
There is a lack of airline competition and consumer lobbying to break the circle installed and maintained by monopolist airlines: monopolist airlines who lobby to keep or increase taxes and price justification in order to avoid any truly low prices, truly low prices which create a large consumption base because people suddenly can actually afford it very regularly, and a large consumption base fuelling competition which in turn lobbies for lower taxes and costs.
How many people can afford Vancouver to Toronto at +$400 versus how many people can afford Vancouver to Toronto at $100, and because of that actually will? That's what has happened in Europe.
When ryanair started people screemed it would never work, and the lobbying of the big airlines to stop them was surreal. I personally hate them and make it a point to never fly them. Yet, it only takes 1 airline crashing prices to open people's eyes they too have the budget to fly, create the competition and market all at the same time, and force extensive price drops throughout the industry. 80% of the people who fly Easy(sh*t) and Ryan(you pay f*ck-all you get f*ck-all) would never have been able to fly 15 years ago from a price perspective. Yet nowadays, in Europe, everybody can fly financially speaking if they so wish, as there is always a 50 euro return flight to be found somewhere.
What when low cost airlines emerge in Canada? Partly they go out of business because Canadians look at them as charters, and feel insecure they will actually be able to fly fur such low money. Perception! I like the comment about Norway because it shows that with perception and accessible prices even remote communities with relatively few people get accessible air travel.
While I don’t think 35 million people feel the money on flights is well spent, I also think from the comments in this thread there is a long way to change people’s minds. Canada needs a Ryanair or EasyJet set of balls, and to open its eyes!
You don't need rail to compete with flight. Ever tried to train from London to Vienna, from Brussels to Madrid, from Amsterdam to Rome? There is no competition in that, not on price, not on comfort, not on time. The only competition there may be is fear of flight.
You don't need cars to compete with flight. Yes, you could drive from London to Vienna, from Brussels to Madrid, from Amsterdam to Rome. But, unless you're a family of 5 (and even then) there is no competition in driving: not on price, not on comfort, not on time. The only competition there may be is fear of flight, or the caravan-ing stopover journey along the way.
You don't need buss services to compete with flight. While organised tours (including hotel, meals and visits) by bus surely exist (much like cruises on the road kind of thing), there is no competition on price and time. While some buses are high on comfort, most of these trips are done with regular long distance buses. There is no competition on price and time or comfort.
You don't need more people to create a base for competition. Less people may mean less justification for 3 airlines each with 5+ flights a day between two airports, but less people could also mean more wish to fly back-and-forth.
You don't need excess airports and capacity to create competition. The route Geneva-Brussels is a highly profitable one for example, yet you can fly for well under €100 on the low cost easy(sh*t) and ... for often for roughly €100 on Swiss and Brussels Airlines luggage inclusive. That is for a highly profitable route between "premium" airports. And, many "low cost" airports were mere simple airfields before the low cost airlines had them upgraded with tarmac and a low cost shoebox building.
What is the problem in Canada? Not a lack of people, but a lack of consumer base who can afford the current prices.
There is a lack of airline competition and consumer lobbying to break the circle installed and maintained by monopolist airlines: monopolist airlines who lobby to keep or increase taxes and price justification in order to avoid any truly low prices, truly low prices which create a large consumption base because people suddenly can actually afford it very regularly, and a large consumption base fuelling competition which in turn lobbies for lower taxes and costs.
How many people can afford Vancouver to Toronto at +$400 versus how many people can afford Vancouver to Toronto at $100, and because of that actually will? That's what has happened in Europe.
When ryanair started people screemed it would never work, and the lobbying of the big airlines to stop them was surreal. I personally hate them and make it a point to never fly them. Yet, it only takes 1 airline crashing prices to open people's eyes they too have the budget to fly, create the competition and market all at the same time, and force extensive price drops throughout the industry. 80% of the people who fly Easy(sh*t) and Ryan(you pay f*ck-all you get f*ck-all) would never have been able to fly 15 years ago from a price perspective. Yet nowadays, in Europe, everybody can fly financially speaking if they so wish, as there is always a 50 euro return flight to be found somewhere.
What when low cost airlines emerge in Canada? Partly they go out of business because Canadians look at them as charters, and feel insecure they will actually be able to fly fur such low money. Perception! I like the comment about Norway because it shows that with perception and accessible prices even remote communities with relatively few people get accessible air travel.
While I don’t think 35 million people feel the money on flights is well spent, I also think from the comments in this thread there is a long way to change people’s minds. Canada needs a Ryanair or EasyJet set of balls, and to open its eyes!
#21
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 902
Some of the market for low cost carriers in Canada goes to the US: Vancouver uses Bellingham, WA; Toronto/Hamilton uses Buffalo, NY.
Also, the lack of a large metro area in the middle to serve as a hub makes a difference. And that the middle half of the country is sparsely populated (sorry Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Regina).
Also, the lack of a large metro area in the middle to serve as a hub makes a difference. And that the middle half of the country is sparsely populated (sorry Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Regina).
#22
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,378
Very interesting arguments all, most seem to try to justify high prices on "make belief" reasons anchored in Canadian society. OPEN YOUR EYES CANADA!
You don't need rail to compete with flight. Ever tried to train from London to Vienna, from Brussels to Madrid, from Amsterdam to Rome? There is no competition in that, not on price, not on comfort, not on time. The only competition there may be is fear of flight.
You don't need cars to compete with flight. Yes, you could drive from London to Vienna, from Brussels to Madrid, from Amsterdam to Rome. But, unless you're a family of 5 (and even then) there is no competition in driving: not on price, not on comfort, not on time. The only competition there may be is fear of flight, or the caravan-ing stopover journey along the way.
You don't need buss services to compete with flight. While organised tours (including hotel, meals and visits) by bus surely exist (much like cruises on the road kind of thing), there is no competition on price and time. While some buses are high on comfort, most of these trips are done with regular long distance buses. There is no competition on price and time or comfort.
You don't need more people to create a base for competition. Less people may mean less justification for 3 airlines each with 5+ flights a day between two airports, but less people could also mean more wish to fly back-and-forth.
You don't need excess airports and capacity to create competition. The route Geneva-Brussels is a highly profitable one for example, yet you can fly for well under €100 on the low cost easy(sh*t) and ... for often for roughly €100 on Swiss and Brussels Airlines luggage inclusive. That is for a highly profitable route between "premium" airports. And, many "low cost" airports were mere simple airfields before the low cost airlines had them upgraded with tarmac and a low cost shoebox building.
What is the problem in Canada? Not a lack of people, but a lack of consumer base who can afford the current prices.
There is a lack of airline competition and consumer lobbying to break the circle installed and maintained by monopolist airlines: monopolist airlines who lobby to keep or increase taxes and price justification in order to avoid any truly low prices, truly low prices which create a large consumption base because people suddenly can actually afford it very regularly, and a large consumption base fuelling competition which in turn lobbies for lower taxes and costs.
How many people can afford Vancouver to Toronto at +$400 versus how many people can afford Vancouver to Toronto at $100, and because of that actually will? That's what has happened in Europe.
When ryanair started people screemed it would never work, and the lobbying of the big airlines to stop them was surreal. I personally hate them and make it a point to never fly them. Yet, it only takes 1 airline crashing prices to open people's eyes they too have the budget to fly, create the competition and market all at the same time, and force extensive price drops throughout the industry. 80% of the people who fly Easy(sh*t) and Ryan(you pay f*ck-all you get f*ck-all) would never have been able to fly 15 years ago from a price perspective. Yet nowadays, in Europe, everybody can fly financially speaking if they so wish, as there is always a 50 euro return flight to be found somewhere.
What when low cost airlines emerge in Canada? Partly they go out of business because Canadians look at them as charters, and feel insecure they will actually be able to fly fur such low money. Perception! I like the comment about Norway because it shows that with perception and accessible prices even remote communities with relatively few people get accessible air travel.
While I don’t think 35 million people feel the money on flights is well spent, I also think from the comments in this thread there is a long way to change people’s minds. Canada needs a Ryanair or EasyJet set of balls, and to open its eyes!
You don't need rail to compete with flight. Ever tried to train from London to Vienna, from Brussels to Madrid, from Amsterdam to Rome? There is no competition in that, not on price, not on comfort, not on time. The only competition there may be is fear of flight.
You don't need cars to compete with flight. Yes, you could drive from London to Vienna, from Brussels to Madrid, from Amsterdam to Rome. But, unless you're a family of 5 (and even then) there is no competition in driving: not on price, not on comfort, not on time. The only competition there may be is fear of flight, or the caravan-ing stopover journey along the way.
You don't need buss services to compete with flight. While organised tours (including hotel, meals and visits) by bus surely exist (much like cruises on the road kind of thing), there is no competition on price and time. While some buses are high on comfort, most of these trips are done with regular long distance buses. There is no competition on price and time or comfort.
You don't need more people to create a base for competition. Less people may mean less justification for 3 airlines each with 5+ flights a day between two airports, but less people could also mean more wish to fly back-and-forth.
You don't need excess airports and capacity to create competition. The route Geneva-Brussels is a highly profitable one for example, yet you can fly for well under €100 on the low cost easy(sh*t) and ... for often for roughly €100 on Swiss and Brussels Airlines luggage inclusive. That is for a highly profitable route between "premium" airports. And, many "low cost" airports were mere simple airfields before the low cost airlines had them upgraded with tarmac and a low cost shoebox building.
What is the problem in Canada? Not a lack of people, but a lack of consumer base who can afford the current prices.
There is a lack of airline competition and consumer lobbying to break the circle installed and maintained by monopolist airlines: monopolist airlines who lobby to keep or increase taxes and price justification in order to avoid any truly low prices, truly low prices which create a large consumption base because people suddenly can actually afford it very regularly, and a large consumption base fuelling competition which in turn lobbies for lower taxes and costs.
How many people can afford Vancouver to Toronto at +$400 versus how many people can afford Vancouver to Toronto at $100, and because of that actually will? That's what has happened in Europe.
When ryanair started people screemed it would never work, and the lobbying of the big airlines to stop them was surreal. I personally hate them and make it a point to never fly them. Yet, it only takes 1 airline crashing prices to open people's eyes they too have the budget to fly, create the competition and market all at the same time, and force extensive price drops throughout the industry. 80% of the people who fly Easy(sh*t) and Ryan(you pay f*ck-all you get f*ck-all) would never have been able to fly 15 years ago from a price perspective. Yet nowadays, in Europe, everybody can fly financially speaking if they so wish, as there is always a 50 euro return flight to be found somewhere.
What when low cost airlines emerge in Canada? Partly they go out of business because Canadians look at them as charters, and feel insecure they will actually be able to fly fur such low money. Perception! I like the comment about Norway because it shows that with perception and accessible prices even remote communities with relatively few people get accessible air travel.
While I don’t think 35 million people feel the money on flights is well spent, I also think from the comments in this thread there is a long way to change people’s minds. Canada needs a Ryanair or EasyJet set of balls, and to open its eyes!
You cannot scale down a huge aviation market like Europe and claim that it could work in Canada on a smaller scale. It just can't.
Can there be new entrants to the Canadian market? Yes. Can fares drop a bit? Yes. Can fares drop to the level seen in Europe? NO. I'd love to see your evidence that the numerous LCC failures in Canada is because Canadians "view them as charters" and don't believe you can fly that cheaply!
#23
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Programs: CX*G, AF*G; BA, UA
Posts: 90
No, no, no, no, no. Canada needs competition, which is not present due to the small population. It really IS that simple. Stop comparing it to Europe. The population density of Europe is 112 people per square kilometre. In Canada it's 3.4.
You cannot scale down a huge aviation market like Europe and claim that it could work in Canada on a smaller scale. It just can't.
Can there be new entrants to the Canadian market? Yes. Can fares drop a bit? Yes. Can fares drop to the level seen in Europe? NO. I'd love to see your evidence that the numerous LCC failures in Canada is because Canadians "view them as charters" and don't believe you can fly that cheaply!
You cannot scale down a huge aviation market like Europe and claim that it could work in Canada on a smaller scale. It just can't.
Can there be new entrants to the Canadian market? Yes. Can fares drop a bit? Yes. Can fares drop to the level seen in Europe? NO. I'd love to see your evidence that the numerous LCC failures in Canada is because Canadians "view them as charters" and don't believe you can fly that cheaply!
#24
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hawai'i Nei
Programs: Au: UA, Marriott, Hilton; GE
Posts: 7,093
Originally Posted by callum9999
No, no, no, no, no. Canada needs competition, which is not present due to the small population. It really IS that simple. Stop comparing it to Europe. The population density of Europe is 112 people per square kilometre. In Canada it's 3.4.
You cannot scale down a huge aviation market like Europe and claim that it could work in Canada on a smaller scale. It just can't.
Can there be new entrants to the Canadian market? Yes. Can fares drop a bit? Yes. Can fares drop to the level seen in Europe? NO. I'd love to see your evidence that the numerous LCC failures in Canada is because Canadians "view them as charters" and don't believe you can fly that cheaply!
You highlight my point about mentality of strong belief in reasons not valid. Nothing to do with small population, I'm afraid you fail to see fares can drop exactly like in Europe, if there are too many people for you in Europe, see Iceland, or Norway, or so many other examples. And I do not think the greater Toronto area 5 million (like the whole of Norway) or Vancouver area 2.3 million is a few people which may wish to fly between those 2 locations or to other Canadian destinations for $100. The argument of "low" population or density is not a valid one, it is only one used to validate a continuation of the monopolists.
Even if there was marginal profitability, entry into competition would spur a fare war, depressing profits to the point that ROI would be better achieved by assets placed in another market.
Last edited by EmailKid; Dec 13, 2014 at 9:42 am Reason: Fixed multiquote
#25
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canada
Programs: Star Alliance G*, Marriott Bonvoy Titanium,
Posts: 3,573
You highlight my point about mentality of strong belief in reasons not valid. Nothing to do with small population, I'm afraid you fail to see fares can drop exactly like in Europe, if there are too many people for you in Europe, see Iceland, or Norway, or so many other examples. And I do not think the greater Toronto area 5 million (like the whole of Norway) or Vancouver area 2.3 million is a few people which may wish to fly between those 2 locations or to other Canadian destinations for $100. The argument of "low" population or density is not a valid one, it is only one used to validate a continuation of the monopolists.
FT is all about sharing experiences. Try it, you will enjoy it more than arguing.
ps With 89 posts to date you have a ways to go!
Last edited by Antonio8069; Dec 14, 2014 at 5:24 am Reason: additional information
#26
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Programs: CX*G, AF*G; BA, UA
Posts: 90
While I (obviously) agree that Canadians do pay more for air travel, I find your approach needlessly argumentative. FTs willingly answered your question and you respond by picking apart their arguments? In the alternative, why not use your next FT post to suggest ways Canucks can save $$$ on travel (as others have done!).
FT is all about sharing experiences. Try it, you will enjoy it more than arguing.
ps With 89 posts to date you have a ways to go!
FT is all about sharing experiences. Try it, you will enjoy it more than arguing.
ps With 89 posts to date you have a ways to go!
I like to use real world examples to try to illustrate a point, and am sorry if that seems argumentative for you.
Believe me, if there were offers or airlines to save in Canada on flights, I'd be "shouting" it out like a true "activist".
We seem to have different definitions on what free enterprise is and can achieve? I disagree with the Canadian market not being attractive enough. And the fare wars of successful (low cost) airlines do not have depressing profits to them. I agree the establishment would bleed of course.
#27
Moderator: Budget Travel forum & Credit Card Programs, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYJ/YVR and back on Van Isle ....... for now
Programs: UA lifetime MM / *A Gold
Posts: 14,413
In fact, almost closed the thread earlier in my role as moderator.
I must say your original title was asking for an argument
#28
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Scarborough
Posts: 596
non-existant competition, and monopolies and govt protection for these corporations to let them do whatever they want
No rights (or little recourse) for consumers against these big airlines/monopolies in Canada
it's like they collude the pricing, very little difference many times between these 3 airlines (westjet, porter, aircanada) . If 1 of them starts charging for something, the rest follow.
airlines, telecoms, etc same crap....they all pricefix and all in bed together to rip off the Canadian people!
No rights (or little recourse) for consumers against these big airlines/monopolies in Canada
it's like they collude the pricing, very little difference many times between these 3 airlines (westjet, porter, aircanada) . If 1 of them starts charging for something, the rest follow.
airlines, telecoms, etc same crap....they all pricefix and all in bed together to rip off the Canadian people!
#29
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 283
I know that because my home has 3 flights a day going to Calgary and Calgary has dozens of flights a day elsewhere with domestic carriers, the cost is lower to combine bus and plane travel.
If you live in a larger center, you will have lower prices. Therefore, if you live in London, England you will pay less than if you live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (that is a real city that my Dad used to fly into virtually every week).
I have noticed that prices to fly wherever you want are higher than sticking to mainline carriers which have both volume and the logistics to operate only out of main airports.
I often notice among my circle of friends, many of whom work for the government that for them, price isn't a factor. However, due to my part of Canada, most of us have private cars, and if you're in business for a private firm, cost is a factor. Meaning that if you are flying, you drive to a major center first.
Why do I pay more? As others have pointed out, the population is a factor. Also, it doesn't make sense for a small airport to be expanded in some cities. Last time I caught a plane from my smaller city, it was an 18-seater. If I were to assume that 3 flights a day were fully booked, that means that 54 passengers are going out of that airport. It doesn't make sense to build a major airport for that volume. Therefore, flying short distances is not practical. Nor does the airport have an incentive to make it cheap. They have no or very, very little competition. I'm not expecting to fly out of Milk River off their municipal landing strip in a 747 for 600 bucks to Montreal. But I can fly from Calgary to Montreal, one way, for a lot less. Lack of competition but sometimes it just isn't worth making it cheap.
CK
If you live in a larger center, you will have lower prices. Therefore, if you live in London, England you will pay less than if you live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (that is a real city that my Dad used to fly into virtually every week).
I have noticed that prices to fly wherever you want are higher than sticking to mainline carriers which have both volume and the logistics to operate only out of main airports.
I often notice among my circle of friends, many of whom work for the government that for them, price isn't a factor. However, due to my part of Canada, most of us have private cars, and if you're in business for a private firm, cost is a factor. Meaning that if you are flying, you drive to a major center first.
Why do I pay more? As others have pointed out, the population is a factor. Also, it doesn't make sense for a small airport to be expanded in some cities. Last time I caught a plane from my smaller city, it was an 18-seater. If I were to assume that 3 flights a day were fully booked, that means that 54 passengers are going out of that airport. It doesn't make sense to build a major airport for that volume. Therefore, flying short distances is not practical. Nor does the airport have an incentive to make it cheap. They have no or very, very little competition. I'm not expecting to fly out of Milk River off their municipal landing strip in a 747 for 600 bucks to Montreal. But I can fly from Calgary to Montreal, one way, for a lot less. Lack of competition but sometimes it just isn't worth making it cheap.
CK
#30
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,134
I agree with the lack of competition as a major factor (Canada is highly protectionist when it comes to the airline markets, so there's an infamous "cross-border penalty" that once left taking the Acela out of Washington and connecting to the Adirondack cheaper than flying). However, I get a feeling there's another factor which hasn't been mentioned: The Canadian dollar has generally been a lot weaker than it has been in the last 4-6 years, and the big swing in currency rates from before seems to have distorted prices in Canada on a long-term basis (since Canadian pay is in CAD). It's worth noting that VIA is often not cheap, either, almost regardless of where you are in the country.