why fly

Its time for the Govt to stop funding for these airport all over the country.... consolidate airports.... save costs.
Put a train between Calgary and Edmonton and make one airport international.

acysb87

Easy for you to say when YYZ is in your back yard,and Buffalo not that far either.

Altaflyer

On this analysis we would need to close YOW and YQB and just have YUL - nice one. PS - I didn't think that gov't funded YEG/YYC anymore and that we are paying for these through AIF???

YOWkid

This is correct for the "rented" airports.

WR Cage

And if the Feds got out of airport landlord business entirely we could save the FT community big $$$$.

Why Fly, the only airport not self sufficient is YYZ/GTAA. All other major airports are solvent and some have a big war chest. A trip through CCAA is good possibility and gov't bailouts might be in order.

YOWkid

Really? Have you actually done the math to figure out how much you would save?

tcook052

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../23/c8797.html

Porter Airlines will announce details of its plans to bring a new air travel experience to Ottawa. The airline, to be based at Toronto City Centre Airport, will offer a convenient alternative to Pearson airport.

WR Cage

Figures from GTAA website under investor relations

Q1-2006 pax is 7.279 million

Q1-2006 Canada Rent/Lease: $36.875 million

Savings per pax if Canadian Gov't removed rent all together: $5.00

Given the number of times some people fly per annum, the savings could be quite significant.

Shareholder

Now we see the real plan being played out. Kick JAZZ off the Island. Instead of launching transborder routes that have been said to be the key ones for this carrier, head right into the YOW-YUL-Toronto Island fray. I can see the court action between JAZZ/ACE and the Toronto Ports Authority moving into high gear come Monday morning...

YOWkid

Actually, this number is a dollar or two lower.

And, it's also assuming that GTAA would lower fees immediately and appropriately. This, I highly doubt -- they may lower fees immediately, but they'll slowly (more likely quickly) creep back up.

To add, maybe if they didn't spend so much money in general, they could actually remove some of their fees and save pax $5 without government lowering rents.

So, again, blame the airport authority and not the government.

Shareholder

Just received the July issue of my community newspaper, THE BULLETIN, which services the downtown neighbourhoods west of the Don, east of Yonge and south of Dundas to the lake. The lead story is "Can Porker Air Fly?" and in this exclusive, they have asked Mark Hill for his assessment of Porter and its business plan. (No other reference than he was a co-founder of WestJet and consultant to Virgin Ble and JetBlue.)

"Porter has no hope of success. He's trying to bamboozle folks so they'll pay him not to do it...Porter's business plan is a stupid one, written by Deluce's MBA son who hasn't a clue how the industry works. 99% of all airline startups fail within 14 months and this will be one of them." The son is later referred to as "a 25-year old marvel out of MBA school". "Some pretty very sophisticated investors have invested in some pretty dumb airlines," Hill remarks explaining why OMERS and other investors have put their money into Porter.

In more detailed analysis he points out that:

1. AC will decimate Porter by locking in business customers, as will US transborder carriers. Having established FF programs and elite perks will keep these critical customers flying out of YYZ.

2. Prices will be cut by AC and others to ensure cabins don't lose customers, and undermine the Porter business plan which relies on high end business fliers opting for the Island and paying current fare levels. As soon as Porter starts flying fares will drop in all classes. (Pass product will also lock in prime customers).

3. Weaknesses of point-to-point route system and lack of feeder in either direction will create reliance on limited customer base.

4. He claims A400s need to fly 10-hrs daily,7-days a week and with limited weekend ops this is unachievable.

5. Limited viable markets within practical 500-mile range for turboprops.

Greywolf, thanks for locating this link to the article:

http://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin/...0&cnid=1000816

In other news, the Toronto Port Authority has now started suing its critics to shut them up. Several community groups have received legal service. The sooner the Inquiry reports, and this entity is shut down by Ottawa, the better Toronto will be.

greywolf

Goshdarnit, Shareholder, you beat me by 5 minutes. I truly love the headline - "Can Porker Air Fly?"

LOL

WR Cage

The cost figures are audited/reviewed, doubt the GTAA is fudging the numbers here. Canada Lease is a very specific term and will not have other items in the cost bucket. If you have other numbers, please provide reference, I will eat crow if I am wrong.

Assumption is somewhat okay as GTAA have said a rent reduction would transpose into a fee reduction to airlines or users. Whether the fees are AIF or charged to airlines, the end customer will cover the costs. In fact, dropping airline charges would result in more savings in airline administration.

Agreed, but the spending is done and the company still has to cover the debt servicing costs. The problem with Canada Lease is that payments increase as the not for profit builds better facilities. This puts Canadian airports at major disadvantage to competitors as most major airports don't pay this type of system. Further, with the exception of Calgary, airport authorities got buildings at the end of their service lives and need replacement any ways. I can agree that users should fund the redevelopment, but to also pay the landlord a large dividend is outrageous because its like paying for the facilities a second time.

Government is taking major $$$ in rent at a time when airport authorities need to redevelop. When the buildings are fixed, the government takes more money which further hinders the redevelopment. The government also has no risk in the redevelopment, so why should they get the rewards.

exAC

The original leases also contained a requirement that Airport Authorities 'spend' certain moneys to maintain and develop better facilities OR the rents would increase anyway. The way that the original leases were structured there was an incentive to spend money on capital improvements.

The airports were going to lose the money anyway, so spend it on something that was to their benefit.

LeSabre74

From the article:

Porter Air has pledged to buy 10 of Bombardier’s 70-seat A400 turboprop planes that need to fly 10 hours a day, seven days a week to turn a profit. “There is no demand for that on a regional air line,” says Hill.

Now, from what I understand Jazz's Dash-8s are in the air that kind of time, is that correct? Is Hill blinded by love for 737's to the extent of not appreciating turboprop economics? I'm also curious, what was his airline experience pre-Westjet?