YEG USER

Out of curiosity, why should the FBO "double counting" be noted? What makes the fact that pax are connecting to/from charter flights any different than pax connecting to/from scheduled flights? AFAIK connecting pax are always counted twice; once for arriving and once for departure.

upgradesecret

Nope
Connecting passengers are not counted as Origin and Destination. This is easy to distinguish because they are on the same ticket.
Since the Northern crowd connect without the same ticket they show up twice.

This then makes a drop in traffic larger than it really is, but then the airport authority claimed the reverse as a big gain when the numbers were climbing.

YEG USER

I'm pretty sure connecting pax are double counted. I've checked the annual numbers for several Canadian airports and they all report numbers based on "Enplaned and Deplaned Passengers" - that is every passenger that boards a plane and gets off a plane at that airport. Whether that airport is the origin or final destination is not a factor. This is why hub airports generally report much higher numbers than non-hub airports for similar sized cities. Look at YYC vs. YEG - 15M vs 8M. I'll concede that YYC likely has much more O&D traffic that YEG, but there is no way it is almost double. YYC is a hub for both AC and WS - connecting pax will comprise a very large part of this differential.

Here are several reports from Canadian airport authorities - you'll notice they're all based on "Enplaned and Deplaned Passengers."

YYC: http://www.yyc.com/Portals/0/MEDIA/M...r_paxtotal.pdf
YEG: http://flyeia.com/sites/default/file...eport_p1_0.pdf
YVR: http://www.yvr.ca/Libraries/Aviation...2015.sflb.ashx
YYZ: http://www.torontopearson.com/en/gtaa/statistics/#

yulred

IME it disappears from the schedule every now and then. Had a couple of cases where it's been cancelled (forcing a reroute via YYZ) and only one case where it wasn't on the schedule - a Monday in late April 2014z

But, accepting it at face value, that is still a YoY decline of between 20% (min) and 40% (max) Who would you like to blame that on?

I'm going to go with government cuts on travel in YOW - and I expect something similar would have happened in YEG with oil companies. And in both cases, AC walks.

CloudsBelow

Sure ....... Fed cuts had a significant impact, no doubt. Lower TATL Winter demand, the connecting nature of YOWFRA, the proximity of enormous hubs also played a big role.
Realize YEG is dealing with deep cuts as well but the (relatively) strong O/D numbers to London and the feed from various cities would have kept the route going through Winter with day of week reductions if they were the only game in town. Just my opinion.

Altaflyer

In response to an Inquiry above, AC resumed LHR flights from YEG in 2007 after having been off the route for a few years.

yulred

Sure, but to what end? Just for the sake of having that direct flight to LHR?

With regard to FI, AC apparently thinks the market will speak in FIs favor. If YEGers valued that YEG LHR flight as much as some folk here contend they should, AC wouldn't have withdrawn.

Leads me to think they don't value that non stop flight as much as AC wants to charge them. FI in, AC out. Market has spoken.

If the market doesn't know what's best for it, who does? AC?

Dorian

I agree.

Really it is too bad as it no doubt impacts the economy of the city.

CloudsBelow

Full Year Service continuity, local demand, feed from smaller cities, WX/MX IROPS relief for YYC/YVR-LHR, lack of competition .... Each of those would have played a role to keep an LHR flight above water through Winter, all things considered.
My "AC-thru-Winter" position on this assumes there is NO FI in YEG. As soon as another carrier is introduced on YEG-TATL, the business case for AC to LHR turns upside down very quickly.
No doubt.
And then EIAA grease KLM to distort the Market further.
At the end of the day, the Market will prevail. EIAA thinks FI + KLM > AC. They better hope KLM is committed to YEG as EIAA is to KLM.
No one.
Let's see what the Edmonton market (*+ EIAA incentives) compels KLM to do in coming weeks and months.

jbus

EIAA is hardly the first airport authority to provide incentives to new carriers though. Aside from the marketing spat with AC last year over FI, what is suddenly so awful about EIAA providing the subsidies and pursuing new carriers? Why does YEG receive so much flak for it when other airports regularly provide incentives to new airlines too?

Dorian

The way they go about it.

ProudEdmontonian

AC gets everything it deserves from Edmonton no matter which group gives it flak.

Face it, AC has no interest in anything but treating Edmonton as a 'captive' market. There are no plans for any ex-Canada routes from YEG in the near future if at all and the one sporadic route to LHR is all that I see ever coming from AC.

Thank goodness the EIAA finally woke up to that fact and has provided incentives to other airlines.

yulred

I think the point seems to be that YEG is somehow worse off without AC service. This conclusion is drawn primarily from the fact that AC's J cabin is superior and most YEGers have no interest in flying J, making it a great alternative to AC's LHR product ex YVR.

FI year round service at lower prices than AC counts for nought. Except for people who who're using it. Who are irrelevant of course.

CloudsBelow

An Airport Authority’s goal is to leverage their intimate knowledge of local viable air travel demand to engage airlines and entice sustainable service. They’re a conduit between paying passengers and airlines.
EIAA might have oversold the local market - Felt they deserved more service, went out and made it happen. The local provider said no way and pulled back. EIAA went out and got more service. The local provider pulled back even further. This is a big game of chicken. Sadly, the provider pulling further out of the market is the one playing with their own money and cold, hard returns.

Let's not overthink this - Airlines will fly planes anywhere "better-than-the-next-best-option" returns are guaranteed. Money smells the same whether it’s in the form of paid-J sales or Airport Authority money transfers. “Getting more service” is not the mandate of EIAA or they’d triple the AIF and BA/AF/LH would be fighting for YEG gate space until the subsidies ran out.
I’d like to hear the local view on the mandate of EIAA - What events over the next 12 months would lead to a Successful view of EIAA, What events would be considered a Failure?
I'm sure KLM is very thankful for the reduced financial exposure EIAA incentives are providing them.
The discussion revolves around the views of EIAA and AC on the viability of YEG TATL service.
Either AC has walked away from profits or EIAA oversold their market or the market is not compatible with AC's offering and higher cost base
FI service + KLM service MINUS the service cuts from AC. The exYEG PAX now connecting through YYC/YYZ are as relevant as the PAX boarding FI

Dorian

When is an airport, citizens and a city NOT worse off when a carrier cuts back or pulls out entirely?

It is a service reduction, less local dollars being pumped in, fewer jobs and often higher airfares due to reduced competition. It also hurts business as freight services are reduced and shipment times increased. Imagine the freight difference between YEGREK and YEGLHR?!

I have no idea what you are arguing as it is illogical.