Semi-off topic, but the best use of cabbatoge would be on cruise ships, not planes. If I could take an overnight cruise ship from San Francisco to Seattle, or Los Angeles to Honolulu with out stopping in Mexico or Canada that would be awesome.

Be careful about "never."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabotag...enger_aviation

Australia and New Zealand have reciprocity and Chile has such with several countries as well. SQ can also fly domestic hops in the UK if it wants to.

Yes, but still, there are no domestic tags that have local traffic rights -- the only cabotage that goes on at the moment, AFAIK, involves LCCs that have bases outside their home country and are simply flying point-to-point domestically (e.g. Jetstar in New Zealand, Ryanair in Italy). Not saying that it's impossible, but it isn't done.

Canada's two largest cities re located south of Seattle. If Delta can make Detroit work, I am sure Air Canada could make Toronto work as a hub.

I know many people do the reverse, but I have not heard of people choosing Canada over the US unless it was for an international flight.

The thing I would be interested in seeing is Porter airlines. If they ever are able to fly the C-Series from YTZ, I could see them offering a strong connection network from the North East. Most other airports already have S preclearance, so US connections could easily be done without having to go through much. But then again I dont see either country in support of that idea.

IIRC at least one of the mid eastern carriers does Australia-NZ and vv. I guess it's a fifth freedom route but it still seems odd in light of the cabotage prohibitions.

TWA had a tag leg (IIRC sometimes flown with a much smaller plane but the same flight number) from CDG to MUC but wasn't allowed to serve local traffic, even for someone who flew TWA TATL to CDG and did a Paris stopover before continuing to Munich.

IIRC NW had intraAsian flights from NRT to a few other airports in Japan that were basically treated like international flights. I don't know whether local traffic was permitted.

What would the advantage be of a New York resident crossing into Canada to take a flight back into the USA? International might make sense but back into the USA doesn't.

As to the original question, Canada will never allow cabotage. Air Canada would be out of business in a year.

Someone in a different thread just last week mentioned going from Seattle up to YVR to catch a flight back to the US. If the price is right, why not? Crossing the US- Canada border twice in one trip is not a huge hassle for most people.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Even if it was allowed the high airport fees would make make it unappealing for other carriers who are not used to the domestic airline business north of the border. There is a reason Southwest or Jetblue has never expanded into Canada to even fly trans-border, and it certainly doesn't have to do with gaining slots at Canadian airports.

That is probably correct for Montreal and Toronto but perhaps not for Hamilton or Kitchener. YKF would fall all over itself if a U.S. carrier could offer Canadian destinations. Until recently they were subsidizing AA to keep its one daily flight to Chicago.

If Canadians will drive to Buffalo for cheaper flights to the U.S. they will most certainly drive to Kitchener or Hamilton for cheaper flights to Canadian destinations and the big loser would be Air Canada.

I think it could work with Canada/USA with the requirement at least one intermediate stop be in the other country. I don't think many passengers are all that interested in flying BOS-YYZ-SFO, or YYC-MSP-YYZ (or so on and so forth), but if such combinations make available a few extra seats without adding capacity on either side of the border and improve the efficiency of the overall system, I can't see a problem with it.

As have pointed out or implied, its probably only of interest/use to budget, bargain basement fare travellers who have no problem adding 3-5 hours to their journey each way. But on the upside, it could help to support marginal transborder services to smaller centres on both sides of the border. Western Canada, for instance, has atrocious air connectivity to the northwestern USA.

I've flown SEA-YVR-SFO on flight passes, and yeah, it was far more painful than it needed to be and wouldn't have fathomed if I wasn't on an unlimited pass.

It has been tried and failed out of YHM before with WS.

I think you answered yourself when you stated that the city and airport subsidized the flight. If the demand was there the competition would be there and they wouldn't have to pay an airline to fly in.

As for going to Buffalo, really doesn't come into play in this case as the conversation is whether it would be cheaper if US airlines were allowed to fly within Canada. Pax traveling to Buffalo generally only do so to take domestic flights within the US. Southern Ontario, BC, and Quebec have been flying out of border airports for over a decade now and it doesn't dent AC's business at all.

Even if the big American airlines come in they would only the big routes such as YYZ-YVR, but they would have to rely mainly on point to point travel which has failed for a graveyard of airlines who have tried it before. AC's route network provides enough connections for them to not worry. You really think AA is going to start flying to YYB or YTS to connect to their, at best twice daily, YYZ-YVR?

I think you have let your dislike of AC overpower common sense in this argument. Canada just is too geographically large and the airport taxes make it a long shot anyone could come in and significantly hurt AC without doing the same to their operating line. If you want lower domestic airfares ask the Federal government to cut the airport taxes. The Ontario government in adding even more tax it is only going to get more expensive for everyone not just AC. Not exactly an environment any real LCC or anyone else could really come in and undercut without creating a financial bloodbath for everyone.

Tried this YYZ to FLA the Wed. before US Thxgiving due to close-in ticket price. One way car rental from Upstate NY, 2 customs hurdles, a SSSS due to one way ticket and a 2.5 hour flight in A/C rouge make this an experience Im not about to repeat. Even the MLL in YYZ did not make this trip worthy.

But maybe the flight wouldn't need subsidy (or as much subsidy) if they could capture some of the intra-Canada traffic with a US connection. From an origin such as YKF, in nearly all cases, the passenger is going to be forced into a connection. Does it really matter if that connection to an onward Canadian destination is in Chicago, versus, say Toronto?

Likewise, airlines in Canada can capture intra-USA business as well. Syracuse-San Francisco is always going to be a connection -- why not allow AC into the game with YYZ? Any time you remove these artificial restrictions, you increase utilization of aircraft and efficiency on both sides of the border.

I don't know if this would be considered pure 'cabotage', but simply amending the rules to allow US and Canadian airlines to sell connecting flights in both countries (but maintain the rule that no foreign airline may fly revenue pax between two points in the same country) would definitely work. And occasionally, would likely make for some amazing mileage run opportunities on both sides of the border for those so inclined.

Low airport fees in the US are largely the result of deferred maintenance on facilities. The "heavy lifting" in terms of modernizing the airport facilities in Canada has been largely performed in the past decade of high AIFs, and expansion projects are now few and far between. Meanwhile, a whole plethora of US airports, particularly ones which do not charge significant AIFs, are in quite dilapidated condition and will likely be forced to increase their rates quite dramatically in the future. I think FT'ers are well aware of some prime examples.

Having said that, the whole idea of allowing carriers to sell connecting flights between two points in the 'other' country is relevant for mostly low-fare situations -- ie: grabbing any revenue they possibly can over and above the non-avoidable cost of flying a seat. Or very high-end traffic, ie: selling seats into a market when everything is full with the domestic carriers.

For instance, in Canada, Thanksgiving is in early October. It is in late November in the US. The planes run absolutely full in Canada domestically on the morning after Canadian Thanksgiving, but the transborder flights are quite empty. If AC could sell the 50 seats on YVR-SFO-YYZ that otherwise probably would go empty that day, that's more usable capacity to the market without putting a single additional flight onto the network. UA, AA, etc., could do the same. Likewise, Canadian connections would become useful during US Thanksgiving, usually a fairly boring low-load November days in Canada.

The one that *potentially* comes to mind is YYZ-HNL (or maybe YUL-HNL, if that exists). A bit of a drive plus a higher airfare, but you get a widebody nonstop flight.