Seriously? Do people not want a ULCC to survive in this country?

I have a bad feeling we will regulate them out of existence.

Considering the recent news of even the full carriers (or whatever they're called) planning to charge for carry-on as well as checked baggage, it seems like either this regulation needs to be altered altogether, or it needs to start actually being enforced, for everyone.

I'm fairly confident in my original analysis.

Taking the approach as suggested above, the problem then becomes jurisdictional. How the "or" and "such fares" clauses interrelate could be considered a matter of law (interpretation of the Transport Canada Act) rather than a matter of fact. Only the courts can determine matters of law. In raising a CTA complaint, Lukacs is going to the wrong forum (he's done this a couple times all ready).

The CTA has a dual mandate; (1) protect consumers of transportation, (2) protect the economy of the transport sector. In making a ruling the CTA must balance out these two mandates. This manifests in the undue hardship defense that airlines frequently use. In one case a PTSD survivor needed to be seated at with a bulkhead behind behind them. The solution was to require airlines to alter the Computer systems to allow for a such a request to survive an aircraft swap. Airlines responded the request would take $500,000 to fix and only the complainant would benefit. The case was dismissed due to undue hardship of requiring the airline to pay $500,000 to accommodate one person.

The complaint requires the CTA to reverse their original grant/acceptance of the Swoop tariff. They would also have to rescind the Flair tariff and possibly others.

The regulation is being enforced today and correctly applied by the CTA. Lukacs has been in fight with the CTA for a couple years now. I suspect the real point Lukacs is trying to make is to force the CTA's hand and admit they made a mistake. However in order to do this, Lukacs has to file with the Federal Court, something that going to cost lots of dollars. It's cheaper to go through the court of public opinion as adjudicated in the CBC.

Max Domi (or his dad) have a long way to go in order to be considered in the same league as Gabor Lukacs.

That's like the equivalent of winning the stanley cup 2 dozen times. How many stanley cups has Domi (senior or junior) won?

Nice try though....:cheers:

Plus, we all know the Habs management is certifiably nuts.... Watch Patches score 30+ with Vegas this year......

Just download the report. I aint gonna spoon feed you everything ;)

I will say this though: apart from PTY, YUL is the least crowded airport (in terms of passengers) on that list. That's pretty impressive, to be a top 50 megahub with lower passenger numbers! Truly says a lot about the destinations on offer at YUL and AC's recent success there.

You'd expect YYZ and YVR to be on that list. Less so YUL.

If the CTA made a mistake, good on Lukacs in bringing it to light. Plus, it's not like he's never taken the CTA to federal court before (successfully, might I add).

Does Flair have a fare level that includes “reasonable” baggage? If not, why is Swoop being singled out?

Yes, they have 4 fare levels.

Not everyone wants to divulge personal information. It's fine if you don't want to but thought I'd ask any way. :)

You're lucky i'm in a spoon feeding mood.....;)

Thank you. I and my mouth really appreciate it. :dancing:

Correct. However with the transfer of all Rouge 767's out east, there is some potential there for new routes.

YVR-NGO is not returning next summer, and YVR-DUB is in limbo. That frame could be used to launch 2 routes (maybe even 3) from YYZ/YUL. I'm expecting that announcement shortly.

I could see YVR-DUB move to A333 (rotated through a domestic YUL-YVR)

I also read a rumor that a certain European LCC is looking into launching BOD-YUL in 2019.

Or through YYZ-DUB, which uses A333 too.

That was the original set up when AC first launched YVR-DUB a few years ago.

YVR-DUB would need to get bumped up to daily for that W pattern to work.

Wow YVR is way above some bigger cities!

Maybe I'm missing something but that list makes no sense.

YVR ahead of SFO??

YYZ ahead of JFK?

KUL ahead of HKG?

How in the world does any of that make sense?

SFO and JFK probably each have a very high number of American destinations, which lowers the overall proportion of international destinations.

I clearly don't understand the criteria if having MORE destinations harms an airports rankings.

The ranking is based on a ratio of international destinations to total destinations from each airport. The more domestic destinations served the lower the overall ratio is going to be. Reference high school math - total destination are the denominator in a fraction so the more there are (the higher the number) the smaller the fraction. Canadian airports likely have a relatively small number of domestic destinations compared to most other countries due to our small population.

Well that doesn't make any sense then as Singapore and Hong Kong should be number 1 and 2 since they don't have any domestic at all?

ORD second in the world? It's a primarily domestic airport.

The whole thing is just bizarre.