VIA Rail

[acottawa]

Anti-competitive behaviour against who? Air Canada is the only airline that operates in the corridor except for Porter’s service to the Island (which would still be the fastest option if HFR were built). It is the only source for diverting passengers to the train.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Anti-competitive behaviour against who? Air Canada is the only airline that operates in the corridor except for Porter’s service to the Island (which would still be the fastest option if HFR were built). It is the only source for diverting passengers to the train.

Nobody says that you can only enter code-share agreements with railroads where you previously operated flights. Anti-competitive behaviour is not limited to unfairly harm a competitor‘s existing operations, but also to unfairly hinder them from copying their own innovations…

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Nobody says that you can only enter code-share agreements with railroads where you previously operated flights. Anti-competitive behaviour is not limited to unfairly harm a competitor‘s existing operations, but also to unfairly hinder them from copying their own innovations…

Again though, they are one member of a consortium. And it's the consortium who would have to engage in anti-competitive behaviour in favour of Air Canada. Why would they do that? What's in it for them?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Nobody says that you can only enter code-share agreements with railroads where you previously operated flights. Anti-competitive behaviour is not limited to unfairly harm a competitor‘s existing operations, but also to unfairly hinder them from copying their own innovations…

Code sharing doesn’t encourage Air Canada to push its passengers onto trains and does not drive ridership.

“ but also to unfairly hinder them from copying their own innovation” is not uncompetitive behaviour. We have an elaborate legal system of property rights, patents and trademarks to help companies protect innovations from being copied.

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Code sharing doesn’t encourage Air Canada to push its passengers onto trains and does not drive ridership.

“ but also to unfairly hinder them from copying their own innovation” is not uncompetitive behaviour. We have an elaborate legal system of property rights, patents and trademarks to help companies protect innovations from being copied.

I don't know if it is still case (I don't fly much on regional routes in Ontario any more) but for years Air Canada and Via rail had an agreement in place.

If your Air Canada flight was delayed, you could ask the Air Canada agent to flag the boarding pass as being transferred to Via. Go down to the Via station and trade your Air Canada boarding pass in for an equivalent ticket on Via.

The number of routes where this was at all useful was limited.

If inter-city passenger server were ever to be extended to Pearson I could see interline/codeshare on rail become quite popular.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Code sharing doesn’t encourage Air Canada to push its passengers onto trains and does not drive ridership.

Why? If its more profitablefor AC to slap an AC flight number on a train than to transport their passengers themselves, then they wouldn‘t they do it?

“ but also to unfairly hinder them from copying their own innovation” is not uncompetitive behaviour. We have an elaborate legal system of property rights, patents and trademarks to help companies protect innovations from being copied.

Indeed, we have an elaborate legal system to determine whether certain competitive methods are „fair“ or „unfair“, i.e., something competitors must accept or not. I‘m only opinionating on the kind of legal arguments we might hear, not on whether they would have any success in court…

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Why? If its more profitablefor AC to slap an AC flight number on a train than to transport their passengers themselves, then they wouldn‘t they do it?

1) it is highly unlikely it is more profitable. They would just be buying train tickets from the rail operator on the passengers behalf.

2). Even if it were more profitable, they only care about 2 things a) getting people into some sort of premium seat b) feeding people into their long distance flights. Code sharing doesn’t help either (particularly when all of its competitors can code share the same train). An equity stake might, particularly if it allows more direct integration.

As an example, type in Ottawa-Cairo on the Air Canada website. You basically get two options: transatlantic on Air Canada or transatlantic on a Lufthansa Group airline (where Air Canada shares profits). You don’t get the (Star Alliance) EgyptAir from Toronto to Cairo, (Star Alliance) Turkish through Istanbul (the best option), (Star Alliance) Aegean through Athens any code-sharing through the Gulf.

[Truenorth00]

For AC, their booking priorities in order are:

1) Metal neutral Joint Ventures (primarily AC-Lufthansa (including Austrian and Swiss)

2) Star Alliance Codeshares

3) Non-allied Codeshares.

That's the order in which they make the most profit too.

So when it comes to switching to rail, their calculation is whether a rail codeshare makes more or less than a feeder flight. They really don't care how it compares to other carriers. What rail let's them do is offer more convenient departure times at lower cost. The train ticket is definitely going to be cheaper than their own operating costs and cheaper to the passenger than airfare. Any hourly train schedule is already going to beat Ottawa-Montreal and Montreal-Quebec City for flight schedules. AC might also take the opportunity to reduce its TOM flights to every 1.5-2 hrs on larger aircraft to cut costs and free up slots at YYZ and YUL, something highly valuable to them. None of this would suggest they aren't incentivized to make rail work.

[acottawa]

I think they absolutely care what their competitors are doing. If the train has open code-sharing as Urban Sky says they should then here is absolutely no reason to encourage their customers to take trains. Their customers will quickly discover all of the other airlines flying out or Montreal offer the same codeshare and Turkish Airlines will eat their lunch.

Frankly they could codeshare the route now, central Ottawa to Dorvsl by train is already comparable to the flight and the train schedules line up pretty well with the late afternoon and early evening departures of most of the international flights.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think they absolutely care what their competitors are doing. If the train has open code-sharing as Urban Sky says they should then here is absolutely no reason to encourage their customers to take trains. Their customers will quickly discover all of the other airlines flying out or Montreal offer the same codeshare and Turkish Airlines will eat their lunch.

People who want to fly Turkish can do that today without a codeshare. It won't make much of a difference to AC. It's only marginally more competition since I guess a codeshare departure would show up on search engines.

That additional competition has to be balanced against opportunities for AC. Everything from cost reduction and efficiency improvements, with fewer pilots and slots for short haul, to improved timetable. Rail can offer a more consistent schedule that AC operating at slot controlled airports can ever pull off.

But if your argument is that AC is incentivized to kibbosh the project, then you're finding common ground with Urban Sky, to which I ask again, why would all the other consortium partners let them in?

Originally Posted by acottawa

Frankly they could codeshare the route now, central Ottawa to Dorvsl by train is already comparable to the flight and the train schedules line up pretty well with the late afternoon and early evening departures of most of the international flights.

The transfer at Dorval isn't that great right now. Not enough schedule alignment. No alignment in baggage policies. And then you have to deal with both VIA and airline check in policies and counter staff. You also have to take a shuttle between the station and terminal. Not long. But just enough to be annoying with all that luggage. It's all friction to users.

And it's not worthwhile for Air Canada. That will change with more reliable and frequent services. And possibly a REM extension to Dorval or even a long movator.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

People who want to fly Turkish can do that today without a codeshare. It won't make much of a difference to AC. It's only marginally more competition since I guess a codeshare departure would show up on search engines.

That additional competition has to be balanced against opportunities for AC. Everything from cost reduction and efficiency improvements, with fewer pilots and slots for short haul, to improved timetable. Rail can offer a more consistent schedule that AC operating at slot controlled airports can ever pull off.

But if your argument is that AC is incentivized to kibbosh the project, then you're finding common ground with Urban Sky, to which I ask again, why would all the other consortium partners let them in?



The transfer at Dorval isn't that great right now. Not enough schedule alignment. No alignment in baggage policies. And then you have to deal with both VIA and airline check in policies and counter staff. You also have to take a shuttle between the station and terminal. Not long. But just enough to be annoying with all that luggage. It's all friction to users.

And it's not worthwhile for Air Canada. That will change with more reliable and frequent services. And possibly a REM extension to Dorval or even a long movator.

Flying Turkish now requires buying a separate ticket to Toronto or Montreal or a consolidated ticket that adds considerable cost (or driving). Air Canada throws in the connection basically for free because they want the transatlantic flight.

A DB model such as the one Urban Sky is advocating for is unlikely to include luggage integration, schedule integration, check in desks, etc. it is just a train ticket. More robust integration would require a lot of investment, which would require an airline to have more skin in the game than just a codeshare.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Flying Turkish now requires buying a separate ticket to Toronto or Montreal or a consolidated ticket that adds considerable cost (or driving). Air Canada throws in the connection basically for free because they want the transatlantic flight.

Which is a cost to them. And not a cheap one per se. $100-150 loss leader (Ottawa-Toronto) on a $2000 TATL is not minor. Far better to pay $80 in train fare. Especially, when your know they competition like Turkish, Qatar Airways, Emirates, etc are slot limited in Canada and basically capped on aircraft growth. They'll be redirecting a lot more YOW-YYZ connections to YUL post HFR. At YYZ, they'll be replacing flights to YQG and YXU.

Originally Posted by acottawa

A DB model such as the one Urban Sky is advocating for is unlikely to include luggage integration, schedule integration, check in desks, etc. it is just a train ticket. More robust integration would require a lot of investment, which would require an airline to have more skin in the game than just a codeshare.

Investment that arguably AC considers mutually beneficial that's why they joined a consortium. I can't imagine that consortium members let them in, for free without any benefit. Also given the location of Dorval and Woodbine GO relative to YUL and YYZ, when existing plans at both stations for transit hubs (and even more ambitious plans), AC may be looking to leverage what is probably inevitable investment if HFR goes through.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Investment that arguably AC considers mutually beneficial that's why they joined a consortium. I can't imagine that consortium members let them in, for free without any benefit. Also given the location of Dorval and Woodbine GO relative to YUL and YYZ, when existing plans at both stations for transit hubs (and even more ambitious plans), AC may be looking to leverage what is probably inevitable investment if HFR goes through.

Yes, they are going to want some benefit from joining the consortium, which is almost certainly some sort of preferred access for airport transfers, which is why I have been saying they are not looking for a DB type arrangement.