yyzprincess

It cannot come soon enough. Just had a rude agent on SE Desk.Unfortunately it is too late for me to book YYZ-YUL for Sunday with UA via ORD,so I hung up called Westjet and booked with them. What a pleasant experience. So I will lose some status miles and will not have MlL access.
AC has continued to give its passengers poor service in spite of JETSGO & WESTJET,because they know that status hungry passengers will continue flying them. AC does not see Jetsgo & WJ as a threat.
With US Airlines within Canada,AC will be forced to improve its service,no longer the only game in town for status hungry passengers.
AP Benefits will improve.Like getting 100% status miles on all non-Tango fares as we do on transborder.

boymimbo

We'll get 100% benefits, sure, until AC is bought out or bankrupted by some other airline(s). Then that's the end of *A in Canada.

And as for the "status hungry" passengers, I am quite sure that the 180 or so pax on a typical 767 YYZ-YVR are not all looking for status; they are looking for a good flight time, a meal, a safe plane, decent service, and connections, all at a competitive price.

All the US airlines will do is continue to lose money, get bailed out by their government, offer cheap "loss leader" fares, force the other Canadian carriers to follow suit, and then reap the rewards when AC goes belly-up! I am talking about the most pessimistic situation mind you, but does anyone see a long term healthy, profitiable AC out of this measure? Does Milton think that AC can compete and win against the US carriers? Will AC compete with US hub cities? Maybe AC will start its own hub in St. Louis? New Orleans? Can't see it.

This argument parallels free trade agreements I know. Free trade ultimately drives further competition, and improves pricing and service, as long as the protectionist barriers are not there. In the end, the hope is that we end up with the winner being the consumer whom will reward the airline with the best safety, value, and service out there. My hope is that AC doesn't go bankrupt trying to be that way, as three other US carriers currently are and as AC just was.

yyzprincess

Exactly,if AC has competition it will be force to improve the service,have good flight times and all other issues you have mentioned.And AC will survive,people tend to support companies which give them value for their money.AC's survival be in its hands.
RM is a fighter and I am confident he make the neccessary improvements.
It is only in the last two years that AC's service has gone downhill.In the late nineties as I have posted in my other posts,you could not get me to fly on another carrier if AC flew that route.
I recall,I met many American passengers who would rather fly AC from Europe via YYZ not because of low fares,but because of AC service.Many told me that they could have got lower fares on US carriers.This was well before pre 9/11.
It is amazing what competition can do.

Ace Cdn

I think what everyone is missing here is if it does happen the US carriers will have a definate advantage. They are taxed alot less than the airlines in Canada and therefore they would have an unfair advantage. Also they would come in and compete on all the cherry routes and that would be it. If you think that you would see AA fly from Winnipeg to Toronto or any smaller route then you are fooling yourself.

Ken hAAmer

Then exactly how do you explain the number of airlines and number flights into and out of places like Green Bay, and Appleton, 35 minutes away by car?

Cascadia

Open markets are better for everyone. I don't even care if AC makes it. Let Jet Blue merge with WJ and it will all be good.

LeSabre74

One is tempted to ask what the he!! you're doing on the AC forum then. As to WS merging with Jet Blue and it will all be good - how exactly?

I'm surprised the Liberals are pushing this Mulroney-era-think crap. The business media love to moan how Cdn incomes are standing still and then blame it on taxes. Why not blame it on the real culprits like corporate greed and offshoreing jobs. One can only hope the coming meltdown caused by GW Bush and his out of control deficits etc will discredit this kind of economic theory for another generation.

YOWkid

Don't forget, Martin is a Red Tory... or Ble Liberal depending on whether you look at the glass half empty or half full.

I think the first step would be to come to an agreement on selling YVR-YYZ tickets via ORD and LGA-SEA tickets via YYZ. That's the first step. See how that goes and then phase in the second process if both countries agree.

I don't think there's much harm in doing the first part. The second part is another debate altogether.

tcook052

I agree. Willy nilly open skies would be more destructive than constructive, IMHO, and I would favor a more graduated process as you've proposed. But what makes good sense and what government delivers are most often very different things...

notam2

If Canada and the USA would grant eachother reciprocal cabotage rights, AC would have a major competitive advantage against the American legacy carriers. Let's take a look at the breakdown:

#1) The Canadian domestic market is saturated with respect to airlines. Competition is fierce, and I don't think any American legacy carrier would even want to try and compete on ANY Canadian route. They'd lose their shirt, and they've got their own problems to worry about.

#2) American legacy carriers fly very few point-to-point routes. For instance, how many big-6 carriers fly DTW-LAX non-stop? Only 1 - NW. The rest connect traffic through their hubs. Given this fact, I highly doubt any big-6 US carrier would fly YYZ-YVR non-stop. They'd rather connect traffic through their hubs.

#3) No American legacy carrier will setup a hub in Canada unless they've lost their mind. AC might benefit from setting up a hub (or mini-hub) in the USA.

#4) After the new terminal is built at YYZ, USA-USA connections might not require passing through Canada Customs. Any Canadian flying YYZ-ORD-YVR (or similar) would have to pass through US and Canadian customs. Point for AC.

#5) Say DL decided to fly SLC-YYZ-YUL. Everybody would have to deplane at YYZ and clear customs. Now say that AC decided to fly YYZ-DTW-SLC. Nobody would have to clear customs in DTW (although the bags would need to clear security). AC wins again.

The big question in my mind is whether is whether American legacy carriers could fly YYZ - LON non-stop or AC could fly LAX-NRT non-stop. This wouldn't be covered by cabotage rights, and I'm doubtful the Canadian gov't would want this, but even if they did allow this, I think the American carrier would need consent from the "other" country too (England in my example). As long as AC is Canada's sole international carrier, they're guaranteed a life.

-notam

ALW

No, but American Eagle might fly short routes. Or Mesaba feeding a Northwest operation.

=aw

Shareholder

I agree with Notam's points. This dog won't hunt, and every minister brings it up to appear to be hip and understanding, while really reflecting an abject lack of understanding likely foisted on him by a bureaucracy bereft of any ideas of how to oversee a consumer-focussed policy. [If they really had the consumer in mind, taxes and fees we pay at the user level would be halved, and the airport authorities would be reformed and reigned in.]

But yes, AC would certainly benefit more than any US carrier were this to happen, which is why the Americans will not let it happen. Look at the reality: Canada now has competition on every domestic route worthy of sustaining competition. WestJet has frequency to match AC on most major city pairs, CanJet and JetsGo supplement this and keep pricing pressure on AC and WJ.

There are only a half-dozen city pairs within Canada that make economic sense and might sustain another flight or two without plunging all carriers below the profit edge once more. How many times do we have to go through airline bankruptcies not to realize the stasis in economical and viable operatons?

To compete UA or AA or NW or DL or CO would have to reassign aircraft and crews to these few routes, and offer a frequency that will attract fare-paying customers at a level that will make the service(s) profitable. They would have to sustain losses for several months or even years before profits could be generated, something none can afford today. As for SouthWest, why would it want to fly in a market that is plagued by bad weather for half the year? Same goes for JetBlue. As it stands both these carriers are free to fly transborder routes and hub into their major US networks, but neither have opted for this option because the Canadian market is not viable for them.

Yes, AC would come out the winner. There are dozens of intra-US city pairs onwhich it could likely offer frequency to challenge current carriers. Which is exactly why the Americans would never permit this to happen. Particularly as its major legacy carriers are almost all in bankruptcy, or teetering on the edge.

All I could see the UA permitting is transcons by hubbing in each other's country: i.e. NW selling YYZ-YVR via MSP or DTW, AA selling the same route via ORD, etc. But such flights would only be viable competitively if these carriers ate the US$50 or so that goes to customs/immigration/ag and other fees for crossing the border. Thus these would be top-up, low margin services.

Any US ragional services will be seasonal as we have seen of late with new ones being introduced to places like Charlottetown. However, when virtually all these carriers, like their legacy "parents", are economic basketcases, they are not likely to sustain route expansion to cover off margin Canadian domestic routes. Not only that, but operating costs in Canada are higher than in the US, for both fuel and general ops. And even with low fares, there is a drag on entering new markets because the lower the fare, the higher is the percentage of those fees/taxes. When consumers buy at $100 return flight, a real bargain, and find another $100 tacked on in fees/taxes, it destroys the marketing advantage.

We have a Canadian solution in place and plenty of domestic competition, so why start "fixing" something that isn't broken?

boymimbo

I agree that for some cities, the Canadian market is saturated. I also can't see the US airlines opening any kind of hub in Canada. Someone made a point about the number of flights in and out of Green Bay and nearby Appleton. It's pretty incredible to see AA UA DL NW flying out of these smaller cities. I don't know if it makes sense, but it is incredible.

I guess Green Bay with a metro area of 220K which would compare to say Kelowna or Charlottetown?

It's pretty clear that the regional model with the hub is quite alive and well. AC has this model well in place with little or no competition. So, will the US airlines come in and complete in Canada with US hubs? Say, buy a ticket from Thunder Bay to Charlotte with choices of DL (CVG), UA (ORD), or NW (MNL)? I could see this happening fairly quickly and be good for consumers. It would force AC to compete on connection routes and would drive down the prices overall there.

I can't see US airlines opening intra-Canada services just as I can't see AC opening intra-US services. But I could see US carriers opening up regional services in Canadian cities with connections to hubs in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, Boston, and Minneapolis. Whether anyone would use these hubs to connect to other Canadian cities doesn't really make sense, unless you were on say, YUL/YOW/YYZ to a western Canada service. Even then, the natural shortest route for these flights are usually over YAM or further north, so even a stop in Minneapolis seems to be a bit out of the way. I guess it depends on how cheap the ticket is?

airbus320

SH: I agree.

Let's take YWG-YYZ-YWG as an example.

This city pair is profitable for AC. On 14 FEB: There are 8 flights YWG-YYZ (Two are RJ flights and the other six are a mix of 320 and 319) The same frequency and aircraft are found on YYZ-YWG pairfor the same date.

WestJet flies the same city pair. On 14 Feb, they fly 4 fllights in both directions.

JetsGO for the same date has 3 flights in both directions.

In total, 15 flights a day between those city pairs.

Introducing American carriers on this city pair would only hurt the Canadian carriers. I don't think that there is much more growth left in traffic and the American carriers would only syphon away from the Canadian carriers.

There is already competition on this route and this keeps prices down.

Legacy American carriers still have high cost and I don't see them making much money on YWG-YYZ-YYZ

ACArbeiter

what would help and could be easily arranged is if you could transit Canada without clearning customs. Eg:
A) YYZ-FRA-CAI
B) MEX-YYZ- FRA

A) the pax will not clear German customs, bags go though to ATH
B) Welcome to Canada! Pls fill out your Cdn immigration cards, pick up your bags, then take the skylink back to the Infield terminal you just left. And you will be doing this on the return flight as well.

If other countries let foreign nationals transit without going though customs, why don't we?