Originally Posted by zinneken

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!