Wpgjetse

Tell that to the guy that started the action. I don't think it will get approved.

ensco

I believe something like 65% of all transborder traffic originates in Canada, so we will never see meaningful US service to Canada in any open skies arrangement.

The problem isn't necessarily that AC is a monopolist (although that may be the case on quite a few routes), but that the whole industry needs regulation because it has an oligopolistic structure in which players "signal" to each other (via capacity announcements mostly). Same as the telecom industry.

SFO777

If you meant "SFO and LAX aren't hubs for non Star Alliance carriers, LAX is both an AA (OneWorld) and DL (SkyTeam) hub.

Apparently you've never heard the term "centre of the universe".

I'm guessing that geography isn't your strong suit. Nor metro area population count.

why fly

lets hope it is approved, the courts seem the only way we can get AC to act as a responsible corporation. I did enjoy Porter winning its case when AC sued. Interesting how, the court thought AC suit was frivolous and gave all costs to Porter.

Its also interesting how some people on FT seem to think when AC sues airlines its OK, but when AC is being sued its not ok.

respectable_man

It's a smaller DL hub, but point made.

That doesn't make YYZ Central Canada though....

Point is: SFO-YYZ is a bad example because (as pointed unthread) there is so much connectivity from UA and AC at both ends that most carriers cannot compete. Maybe DL will start LAX-YYZ, but they will never compete with AC/UA.

It is difficult to make the case for collusion as it will involve comparing with a period where airlines were loosing money. I still maintain that withdrawal of service to a hub is more problematic than hub-to-hub competition.

Some destinations are marginal - like the examples I provided elsewhere - so they are low hanging fruits for the cost-cutting CEO. This is not done without economic justification, but could be done in an atmosphere where it is understood that, if I withdraw from this (marginal) market to your benefit, you will do the same in another market which is marginal to you. This is a direct consequence of reduced competition.

On the other hand, airlines are (finally) profitable so it is easy argued there needed to be some adjustments in the route network of most carriers.

canopus27

Totally correct on all counts.

I made the foolish mistake of relying on the interwebs to help me with facts that really didn't seem critically important to get right anyway ... so if you could help correct the internet, that would be awesome.

Here, let me point you at some of the most obvious errors, where your corrections would be most appreciated:

• Where is Central Canada?
• What is the population of Toronto?
• What is the population of San Francisco?

Thanks! It's only through the sort of careful attention that you're paying, that the internet will get better. Good man!

respectable_man

Sorry but I can't resist:
1. The longitudinal centre is near Springfield, Manitoba, as per here . As indicated, the town of Landmark lies in this line. I actually remember seeing the sign on the highway a few years ago. The latitudinal centre would be much more north of course, but certainly nowhere near Southern Ontario: the very southern part of Ontario is actually south of the most northern point in California.

I guess the answer to your query must have been edited by someone from Toronto (or Ottawa).

canopus27

My last post on this topic, I promise ... but I was honestly curious about the disconnect that I've obviously stumbled upon.

I do recognize the folly of depending on wikipedia for answers, but the article regions of canada seems like reasonable view.

• The "four region model" lists western, central, atlantic, and northern as the regions of Canada.
• The "three region model" lists western, eastern, and northern as the regions of Canada.

For no good reason at all, and certainly not (prior to this) with any careful thought, I have always thought about Canada using the four region model. The best reason I can think of, is that I never felt that Toronto had much affinity with Newfoundland - so thinking about "the middle" (loosely speaking) as distinct from the "next to the Atlantic ocean" region, made sense to me.

But obviously this is a hot button for some people, so if you're upset at my simplistic characterization of canada, then I honestly apologize. This is really not a battle that I'm heavily vested in, so if it means a lot to you - then I cede; you win.

We now return you to the much more exciting conversation - that of lawyers, lawsuits, and the fine distinctions between price fixing, collusion, and international airline alliances.

respectable_man

No worries... This central Canada thing is always good fun.

I too am curious to see where this lawsuit goes (but give it no chance of success).

i59bravo

If we are talking about who is served by YYZ and SFO, it is more relevant to look at metropolitan areas rather than municipal boundaries.

The Toronto census metropolitan area is 5.6 million people.

The San Francisco combined statistical area is 8.2 million people. Giving the population of San Francisco as 837,442 people is misleading for most purposes.

D582

How is it price gouging if people pay the fares being asked and the planes fly full? Should an airline not be allowed to charge fares that people will pay?

If there are restrictions or significant barriers to entry that would preclude another carrier from offering services on a particular route, then you can argue that AC has a monopoly or almost monopoly. Not in the case of YYZ-SFO though.

However if you look at services between Canada and Australia for example, AC is the designated Canadian carrier to provide service and QF is the designated Australian carrier to provide services (but currently chooses not to) on the bilateral agreement. From a Canadian perspective you can argue that AC is in a monopolistic position on flights because WS for example could not suddenly decide to start serving Australia without having to go through significant hurdles, if it would even be possible at all.

Wpgjetse

If it works out, maybe a class action against oil companies? They have been ripping us off for years.

1Newflyer

Not all sell directly to you, indeed only few in Canada. With the price of oil they are being ripped off on its own. Does not help us much.

SFO777

Yeah, I'm sure that will work well. If you really think the oil companies are to blame, how you do explain cheap US prices vs. not so cheap prices in most provinces? Perhaps you meant a class action suit against your own government(s) for sky high fuel and sales taxes.

Sebring

Qantas does serve Vancouver seasonably, and traffic between most of Canada and most of Australia requires a connection at one, if not both ends. From Toronto or Montreal, travelling on code-shared services - be it Star, OneWorld through SFO or LAX – is roughly comparable, and competitive, so it's hard for me to see a suit based only on head to head corridors. The whole lawsuit is basically mixing apples, oranges and pomegranates, and will come to nothing, no matter how hard Why Fly hopes otherwise.