I'm happy it is AF that is providing service to YQB, gives them an international airline prestige and it's a vote of confidence that an international airline would use their metal on a route like this. AC wouldn't have made the first move on starting this route, but maybe they will jump in now, who knows. AF booted AC off the YVR-CDG route, AC discontinued it after COVID but AF kept it up, which is more preferrable for me anyways. I hope people in YVR and YQB support AF for providing them with non stop service, and shun AC which makes them connect in YYZ or YUL...

It would, but AC seems content to leverage their main hubs as best they can at the moment. Apart from resuming 1 non-hub European route, YHZ-LHR, all they've done since the pandemic began is leverage their main hubs of YYZ, YUL and YVR.

Same for WS. (YHZ-Europe being the exception, again)

With 2 carriers now on the route, it's highly unlikely AC starts up YQB-CDG. Let's see if the market can support 2 carriers first.....

They seem happy with the loads to SAN. The route was initially planned to be 3x weekly summer seasonal. It has now been extended to year round and it will also get a bump to 5x weekly in Sept and October. So good news....

And switch from 220 to 7M8.

Interesting, Flair has an exclusivity on certain routes out of Waterloo.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8848749/f...t-exclusivity/

Not certain why WestJet wants to run its Swoop brand on some of these, but they should be given the opportunity if they want to operate the route.

WestJet/Swoop was told they were not permitted to operate Waterloo-Halifax or Waterloo-Edmonton.

YKF must be desperate for flights to be signing deals like that. I would rather hitch my wagon to the WestJet train if I was an airport authority.

This is interesting.

And even though the article mentions that experts think there is nothing illegal here, I would tend to disagree.

This isn't YTZ, a busy airport where the lone terminal building was owned by one carrier. This is an underserved airport and an airport authority putting restrictions on where a carrier can/can't fly. And that, in my view, is illegal.

An airport authority's main goal is to run an airport. Not dictate to airlines where they can/can't operate to. This goes well above their purview. The CTA should investigate the legality of this ASAP. At the very least it is anti-competitive, and at most, downright illegal. Neither of which is in the best interest of Canadians.

As the article notes, YKF decided to offer exclusivity agreements (2 years duration, iirc) in order to entice airlines to serve the airport. The idea that this is Flair not playing fair is shoddy journalism.

This definitely seems like more of a YKF issue, but it still seems so odd that they'd have exclusivity on certain routes. I've never heard of any airport in Canada doing that.

Flair can ask for the world, they are a business, knock themselves out. It's desperation on YKF's part to sign a deal like that in my opinion. WestJet was there before Flair, and will be there after Flair is gone, I don't think it's good business for the airport to restrict an existing business partner from growing there. If YKF said no to the deal, what was Flair going to do? They would either enter the market anyway, knowing the possibility exists they might face competition, or take their plane and go somewhere else where they know they will face competition.

It is kind of a neat concept for a smaller airport to build a little stability with a route. The fact it is time limited makes a lot of sense of course.

Basically YKF is saying we have a better shot at giving our clients better service with a carrier having some time to get their feet under them. Make no mistake that Swoop only wants to talk about these routes now so that they can hurt Flair, not in the best interest of the Waterloo patrons. This is just a different way of going about a route subsidy in a sense.

I doubt any airport in Canada has had YKF's history of attracting/losing flights.

I think you are missing the point - it was YKF that initiated (a number of years ago) and pursued the exclusivity arrangements, in the hopes of attracting airlines.

It is very unusual, and I think it is a grey area at best, and illegal at worst.

The article mentions that Flair isn't the first airline to take advantage of this kind of agreement at YKF. The other must have been Sunwing to CUN (assuming it's not WestJet to YYC, since they're the ones complaining !).

Now that this is public knowledge, I'm very interested to see what the CTA will do.

Airport authorities shouldn't have the right to dictate to airlines where they can or can't fly.

Having a subsidy or discount policy on new destinations makes sense. First come first served. That I get. Plenty of airports do it. But exclusivity agreements are pushing it, according to me.

YKF should have told Swoop, "ok. You want to launch YEG or YHZ, that's fine, but I'm not giving you any subsidies since we already have an operator on both those routes".

Nothing more.

Allowing exclusive rights to a route is hardly a new thing. Prior to deregulation, it was the norm, and it still exists for a lot of international routes. Similarly, I have a hard time seeing what exactly would be illegal here. It's one business making a deal with another. It's no more anticompetitive than McDonald's only serving Coke.

This offer was an attempt by the airport to attract and sustain service, and it was available to all airlines. The fact that WestJet choose not to take it is their fault.

Yes, as long as it is enforced by governments through ATAs (air transport agreements).

Not by airport authorities.

A Canadian carrier has the right to fly between any two points in Canada. An airport authority refusing that right based solely on an exclusivity agreement is nonsense in my book.

I wanted to say apples and oranges, but it's more like apples and peas. Besides, we all know Coke is better than Pepsi. ;)

You say they have this right, but I don't believe they do. I would be curious to hear what you believe is the basis for such a right.

YKF is not a federally owned airport, so the federal government can't force access that way (not does it do so at YTZ, which they do own through the Port Authority). And domestic air travel is deregulated... forcing route competition would be a form of regulation. You could argue that the agreement is invalid because it is anticompetitive, but these sorts of limited exclusivity agreements are common in other industries and I think it would be a tough argument for Swoop to make that it is against public interest.

Victoria (YYJ) closed to commercial flights due to police incident but no details....

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-...celled-5402622

No details on this police incident at YYJ. Airport is closed to commercial flights due to police call for service.

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-...celled-5402622

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/faq-air-licensing

Point 1.

As to what consitutes an air service:

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/notice-ind...es-air-service

An airport authority refusing that right based on exclusivity is very much contestable, as they are quashing an airlines' right to provide an air service, a right which is granted to them based on their domestic license.