SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Canada (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Canadian Airport Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153826)

DDP Sep 22, 2018 4:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG (Post 8322699)
whiners

Passenger rights advocate launches complaint, calls Swoop's baggage fees 'deceptive'

Advocate is claiming new low-cost airline unlawfully charges baggage fees
The Canadian Press · Posted: Sep 21, 2018

https://i.cbc.ca/1.4713156.152943994...swoop-plan.jpg
Swoop is a low-cost airline with 'a la carte' service. (Shawn Benjamin/CBC)

An air passenger rights advocate has filed a regulatory complaint against Swoop Inc. claiming the new low-cost airline is unlawfully charging baggage fees.

In a complaint to the Canadian Transportation Agency, Gabor Lukacs says the commercial carrier is flouting Canadian law by failing to offer passengers a basic fare that includes a carry-on and a checked bag.

The Canada Transportation Act requires domestic airlines to offer a basic fare for travel within the country that has no restrictions with "reasonable baggage."

...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...tive-1.4833062

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

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

GlassCity Sep 22, 2018 5:16 PM

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.

Cage Sep 22, 2018 6:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer (Post 8323137)
You can't read that "or" without also reading the "such fares" that follows. The complaint would seem to have a reasonable basis.

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDP (Post 8323259)
Seriously? Do people not want a ULCC to survive in this country?

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity (Post 8323293)
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.

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.

thenoflyzone Sep 22, 2018 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyeg66 (Post 8323103)
Max Domi is the son of a Canadian hockey dad. If he gets to lace up the skates, it’s likely because he’s well known by his name.

The Montreal Canadians know him very well and acquired him, because they’re convinced he’s good.

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

Quote:

Since 2008, Gábor has filed more than two dozen successful complaints with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency), challenging the terms, conditions, and practices of air carriers, resulting in orders directing them to amend their conditions of carriage and offer better protection to passengers. He has also appeared before the Federal Court of Appeal, and successfully challenged the Agency's lack of transparancy and the reasonableness of the Agency's decisions.

In 2013, the Consumers' Association of Canada awarded Gábor its Order of Merit for singlehandedly initiating legal action resulting in the revision of Air Canada's unfair practices regarding overbooking. His advocacy in the public interest and expertise in the area of air passenger rights have also been recognized by both the Federal Court of Appeal and the legal profession.
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......

thenoflyzone Sep 22, 2018 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 8323245)
Do you have the top 50?

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.

thenoflyzone Sep 22, 2018 7:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cage (Post 8323352)
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.

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).

YYCguys Sep 22, 2018 9:34 PM

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

TheGreatestX Sep 22, 2018 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYCguys (Post 8323468)
Does Flair have a fare level that includes “reasonable” baggage? If not, why is Swoop being singled out?

Yes, they have 4 fare levels.

isaidso Sep 22, 2018 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 8323405)
Just download the report. I aint gonna spoon feed you everything ;)

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

thenoflyzone Sep 23, 2018 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 8323535)
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.....;)

Quote:

The top 50 International Megahubs are those airports with the highest ratio of
possible scheduled international connections to the number of destinations served by
the airport. Online and interline connections are included and utilising the power of
Connections Analyser, low-cost carriers (LCC) connections are also included.

1. LHR
2. ORD
3. FRA
4. AMS
5. YYZ
6. LAX
7. ATL
8. SIN
9. CDG
10. CGK
11. MUC
12. KUL
13. HKG
14. BKK
15. ICN
16. JFK
17. IST
18. DXB
19. MIA
20. MEX
21. HND
22. IAH
23. EWR
24. PVG
25. DEL
26. DFW
27. YVR
28. FCO
29. SYD
30. SFO
31. CAN
32. PEK
33. MNL
34. MAD
35. SEA
36. SVO
37. GRU
38. BOM
39. BOG
40. BOS
41. ZRH
42. NRT
43. JNB
44. YUL
45. VIE
46. PHL
47. PTY
48. FLL
49. SGN
50. BCN


isaidso Sep 23, 2018 3:18 AM

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

thenoflyzone Sep 24, 2018 8:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDP (Post 8323257)
They have 6 widebodys coming from now and end of 2019. 4 A330, 2 789's.

They have 6 widebodys leaving from now and end of 2019, all of them 767's. Not being transferred to Rouge, just leaving the fleet.

There widebody growth is done, unless they take on some leases, which right now they have not announced.

Narrow body will see some growth

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.

nname Sep 24, 2018 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 8324999)
I could see YVR-DUB move to A333 (rotated through a domestic YUL-YVR)

Or through YYZ-DUB, which uses A333 too.

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

thenoflyzone Sep 25, 2018 2:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname (Post 8325085)
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.

Denscity Sep 25, 2018 4:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 8323540)
You're lucky i'm in a spoon feeding mood.....;)

Wow YVR is way above some bigger cities!

LeftCoaster Sep 25, 2018 9:32 PM

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?

Hali87 Sep 26, 2018 1:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster (Post 8326162)
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.

LeftCoaster Sep 26, 2018 6:08 PM

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

lubicon Sep 26, 2018 6:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster (Post 8326985)
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.

LeftCoaster Sep 26, 2018 6:59 PM

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.