YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[Rusty Gull]

It's all about jobs and regional favoritism.

The feds will continue to plow money into Montreal and Toronto airports, and the way to do is through propping up certain routes and engaging in monopolistic behaviours.

The free market, as you implied, is not in play in Canada's airline industry. Why do you think our airfares are twice the price of same-distance routes in the US?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by bar1967

I've been reading through this thread and have a question regarding the comment above as well as similar ones. I do not understand why and how the feds would prefer to grant airlines access to Toronto/Montreal over lets say YVR. Isn't it all just economics? Additionaly how do you create a link between Airline access and a voter base? I never hear of any Federal Govermnent promises regarding access in an attempt to sway votes.

They don't grant airline access to sway votes. They are simply catering to the larger population base that exists in Tonronto/ Montreal. More people means a larger number of seats in Parliament, and that's what determines who gets elected - and who gets the jobs in Ottawa.

The current Transport Minister, John Baird, has done nothing, and expressed no interest, in increasing destinations out of either Vancouver OR Calgary. His predecessor, Lawrence Cannon, similarly never once addressed the needs of YVR, despite the fact that neighbouring SEA-TAC is ramping up, and poses a genuine economic threat to YVR.* (as does much smaller Bellingham) !!

Why the lack of interest? The votes are back east, and the MPs' jobs are based who wins the elections. And that is decided - you got it - Back East.

All you need to do is look at history a little bit and this becomes apparent. That white elephant - and financial disaster - Mirabel Airport, was a "cadeau" to Québec to keep them happy at a precarious time in Canada's history.

Now, with the spread of the reform Party, and the manifestation of the Bloc Qébecois, it's Ontario's turn to be kept happy, and that includes a sleek, monstrously huge, and VERY EXPENSIVE new airport, designed to be the pivot point for flights in and out of Canada.

You want to fly somewhere? "Change in Toronto!"

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Rusty Gull

It's all about jobs and regional favoritism.

The feds will continue to plow money into Montreal and Toronto airports, and the way to do is through propping up certain routes and engaging in monopolistic behaviours.

The free market, as you implied, is not in play in Canada's airline industry. Why do you think our airfares are twice the price of same-distance routes in the US?

No airports get money from the feds. There is no institutionalized favoritism except bilaterals.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Rusty Gull

It's all about jobs and regional favoritism.

The feds will continue to plow money into Montreal and Toronto airports, and the way to do is through propping up certain routes and engaging in monopolistic behaviours.

The free market, as you implied, is not in play in Canada's airline industry. Why do you think our airfares are twice the price of same-distance routes in the US?

Thanks Rusty!! You just said in several terse sentences what it took me a paragraph and a half to do. You got it. Right on. Exactly!!

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

No airports get money from the feds. There is no institutionalized favoritism except bilaterals.

could you give me, underinformed on this suject, several examples of bilaterals? I need to have it defined, listed out, and explained with examples. Sorry to be so over-present on this page. Thanks for understading.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

could you give me, underinformed on this suject, several examples of bilaterals? I need to have it defined, listed out, and explained with examples. Sorry to be so over-present on this page. Thanks for understading.

They're are all here: Bilateral Air Agreements and Designated Air Carriers

Basically they are a mini-treaty, usually established by diplomatic note (or in some cases like Open Skies a full treaty) between Canada and another country governing how much capacity, and what routes they should be allowed on.

For example, the treaty with the Netherlands allows Dutch flights to Calgary and Vancouver but not Edmonton.

[bar1967]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

They don't grant airline access to sway votes. They are simply catering to the larger population base that exists in Tonronto/ Montreal. More people means a larger number of seats in Parliament, and that's what determines who gets elected - and who gets the jobs in Ottawa.

The current Transport Minister, John Baird, has done nothing, and expressed no interest, in increasing destinations out of either Vancouver OR Calgary. His predecessor, Lawrence Cannon, similarly never once addressed the needs of YVR, despite the fact that neighbouring SEA-TAC is ramping up, and poses a genuine economic threat to YVR.* (as does much smaller Bellingham) !!

Why the lack of interest? The votes are back east, and the MPs' jobs are based who wins the elections. And that is decided - you got it - Back East.

All you need to do is look at history a little bit and this becomes apparent. That white elephant - and financial disaster - Mirabel Airport, was a "cadeau" to Québec to keep them happy at a precarious time in Canada's history.

Now, with the spread of the reform Party, and the manifestation of the Bloc Qébecois, it's Ontario's turn to be kept happy, and that includes a sleek, monstrously huge, and VERY EXPENSIVE new airport, designed to be the pivot point for flights in and out of Canada.

You want to fly somewhere? "Change in Toronto!"

I honestly think your grasping at strings here a bit and maybe layering on other personal dislikes for the East. John Baird is not touring the 'East' promising more routes for YYZ/YUL. Yes, I am sure there are backroom deals that go on - that's politics and I'm sure it happens in BC as well. In order to get ‘said’ votes, do promises not have to be made to voters to entice them to vote?

YYZ was not built with Federal or Provincial dollars. Where did you get that one from? It is private.

I now have to fly through YVR to get to Hawaii/Sydney whereas I used to go direct from YYZ. It's all economics. More people from the West go to Hawaii than from the East due to proximity. Reverse is true for the Caribbean and the East.

[Rusty Gull]

^ Why are all of the Toronto/YYZ defenders flocking to this forum to defend the federal government's aviation policy?

Anyways, here's the latest from Business in Vancouver on this issue. Apparently the feds are peeved about the bad press they received from the recent open skies summit in Vancouver.

Transport Canada defends Blue Sky policy

Federal government responds to calls for greater foreign airline access in Western Canada

Andrew Petrozzi

Canada’s Blue Sky policy is designed to yield “sustainable benefits” to the country as a whole and does not favour one region over another.

So says Transport Canada in response to a BIV cover story on calls at a recent summit to negotiate “open-skies” deals for Western Canada with Asian and Middle Eastern states.

In a wide-ranging response to “Open skies advocated for B.C.” (issue 1041, October 6-12), the federal government offered its perspective on its oft-maligned Blue Sky policy. Transport Canada had failed to respond by press time to requests for comment for the previous story.

According to Transport Canada, the Blue Sky policy, which was introduced in 2006 to negotiate agreements that give more airlines greater access to Canada’s airports, doesn’t discriminate in favour of one carrier over another.
Critics have charged that Ottawa is attempting to preserve Air Canada’s monopoly in some international markets. But Transport Canada pointed out that several Canadian carriers operate international scheduled air services under Canada’s bilateral air-service agreements.

Negotiations are sought to secure necessary bilateral rights to accommodate Canadian interests, according to Transport Canada.
“In some bilateral markets, Air Canada is the only Canadian carrier operating service because [it is] the only one with an interest and/or capability.”
Transport Canada also addressed calls by Emirates Airlines for improved access to Canadian airports.

Andrew Parker, Emirates Airlines’ senior vice-president, previously told BIV that his airline has been seeking “reasonable access” to Canada since the late 1990s. It’s still restricted to three flights per week to Toronto. The airline also wants permission to fly to Vancouver and Calgary.

But Transport Canada said the Canada-UAE air agreement allows UAE carriers to provide service to any city in Canada.

“Both Emirates and Ethiad have chosen to operate their entire service from Toronto instead of splitting it up among other Canadian cities.”
Transport Canada said the Blue Sky policy and bilateral air agreements are not hindering tourism.

“There is excess capacity in many of Canada’s bilateral agreements and this is supplemented by Canada’s liberal charter air-service regime, which is particularly well-suited for inbound tourism.”

The Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia (COTA BC) disagrees. The matter is highlighted in its 2008 federal tourism issues booklet.
According to Transport Canada, the federal Blue Sky policy is pro-economy and pro-consumer in so far as it accommodates the overall national interest.

“Unique business models chosen by foreign airlines should not be the determining factor for air-transportation policy decisions by the Canadian government.”

According to Transport Canada, Canada has 87 bilateral air-service agreements and two extra-bilateral air- service arrangements.

“Under the Blue Sky policy, Canada has ‘open’ agreements with 34 of these countries representing 71% of Canada’s international air traffic including the U.S., 27 E.U. states, Iceland, New Zealand, Barbados, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica and South Korea.”

The Canada-EU Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement was announced in December 2008.
According to a Transport Canada spokesman, the agreement, which is scheduled to be finalized by year’s end, equates to 27 open bilateral agreements.

While it claims that none of the bilateral agreements prevent either Canadian or foreign carriers from servicing Western Canada, Transport Canada conceded that there are exceptions.

For example, 32 of the pending bilateral agreements restrict access in Western Canada, but Transport Canada pointed out that nine are superseded by the Canada-E.U. air-transport agreement, which provides access to all Canadian cities.

Transport Canada said the remaining 23 agreements are outdated and the bilateral partner involved either doesn’t have an airline suitable to serve Canada or is not interested in serving Western Canada. •

[email protected]

[Rusty Gull]

bar1967 and other YYZ cheerleaders: Please read this article from Business in Vancouver published earlier this fall:

Analysts say Ottawa’s continued focus on preserving Air Canada’s monopoly is stifling international air transportation opportunities in Western Canada
Andrew Petrozzi

Ottawa should negotiate “open-skies” deals between Asian governments and B.C. and Western Canada even if it continues to refuse to open the entire country to international air carriers.

So says Tae Oum, UPS foundation chairman at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business and president of the Air Transport Research Society.

Oum chaired a recent panel discussion in Vancouver on the economic benefits of open-skies agreements, which give more airlines greater access to the country’s airports.

During a BIV interview, Oum cited the example of a 2006 bilateral agreement between Korea and China that includes transborder open skies between Korea and the Chinese provinces of Sandong and Heinan.

Oum’s suggestion was one among many aimed at realizing gains for B.C. and Western Canada under the federal Conservative government’s 2006 blue-sky policy, which was designed to liberalize Canada’s policies that preserve a monopoly for Air Canada, the country’s former national airline.

While there have been some recent gains (see “Canada-South Korea air agreement to provide $300 million tourism boost to B.C.” – issue 1031; July 28-August 3), many carriers, including Emirates Airlines and Singapore Airlines, want to increase service to Canada in general and B.C. in particular, but their requests have fallen on deaf ears in Ottawa.

Oum said the federal government and Transport Canada need to change their approach to the airline sector.

As an air-transport industry matures, its direct contribution to the economy becomes smaller relative to the size of tourism, foreign trade and direct investment generated by expanded air access.

“We’re spending a lot of time and effort trying to protect this small pie at the expense of consumers and the national economy as a whole including tourism and international trade,” said Oum.

According to Oum, air transportation’s contribution to Canada’s economy was $5.9 billion in 2008 compared with $30 billion for tourism and $932 billion in international trade. He said the antiquated policy of protecting national airlines is inconsistent with maximizing national economic benefits.

Oum added that Canadian air policy needs to become pro-economy and pro-consumer as are policies in jurisdictions like the European Union, the U.S. and Australia.

Andrew Parker, Emirates Airlines’ senior vice-president, also spoke at the September 25 B.C. International Open Skies Summit. He told BIV that his airline has been seeking “reasonable access” to Canada since the late 1990s. But it remains restricted to three flights per week to Toronto. The airline also wants to fly into Vancouver and Calgary.

“Other than Transport Canada and Air Canada, we have met no one who is opposed to letting carriers like Emirates have reasonable access to bringing tourists and carry goods out of Canada in a reasonable way.”

Vancouver is a desired tourist destination, and business connections between the gas and oil industries in Alberta and the Middle East make it a natural choice for direct air flights.

“We are very frustrated that this policy remains that very heavily restricts international carriers from getting access,” said Parker.

He estimated that every landing of a Boeing 777, which is what Emirates flies to Canada, generates about 800 direct employment hours in Canada.

“We would employ thousands of extra people in Western Canada if we were given access,” said Parker. “Clearly we think there would be, in the first 10 years of operations, a multibillion-dollar injection of tourism, exports and direct economic activity.”

Parker said that while summits and the support of provincial premiers such as B.C.’s Gordon Campbell and Alberta’s Ed Stelmach generate momentum, his airline and others who have been “in the queue for a long, long time” are resigned to “continue politely writing letters” to the federal government.

Canada needs to adopt open skies as a principle when negotiating air bilateral agreements with foreign governments, Oum said.

He added that Ottawa must also abolish the confidential addenda connected to bilateral air-services agreements, because they’re “fundamentally undemocratic.”

“Confidential addenda are not about security questions. [They are] about how prices will be regulated, how frequencies and capacity will be regulated and all commercial matters.

“There is virtually nothing about security matters. They are signing confidential agreements to hide true information from independent analysis by academics like myself.”

According to the B.C. government, Canada has 82 bilateral air-service agreements, but only eight classify as open skies. The other 74 have restrictions that prevent airports in Western Canada from competing with airports in the U.S. and Central Canada for international air travel and commerce.

By press time, Transport Canada had not responded to requests for comment from BIV. •

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Rusty Gull

bar1967 and other YYZ cheerleaders: Please read the various articles devoted to this topic earlier this fall.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=174826

Whenever the Open Skies With Europe is finalized and given an implementation date, Air France can try to start service to Vancouver. There is little point at doing a new bilateral when Open Skies was already announced, which was May 6th.

As for Emirates, until they allow fifth freedom unlimited access through Dubai, since there is very little Origin and Destination between Canada and Dubai, they [UAE] will not have access to more than 6 flights a week into Canada. Especially when there is more than enough capacity available.

[trofirhen]

Related to all this, if this link conncets, try it. It illustrates the Canadian preference for restriction instead of more aviation market freedom.
Canada did not attend, nor is a signatory to this. But the article explains it better...........

http://www.aviation.ca/content/view/8191/117/

[Davel]

Originally Posted by Rusty Gull

While there have been some recent gains (see “Canada-South Korea air agreement to provide $300 million tourism boost to B.C.” – issue 1031; July 28-August 3), many carriers, including Emirates Airlines and Singapore Airlines, want to increase service to Canada in general and B.C. in particular, but their requests have fallen on deaf ears in Ottawa.

Didn't Singapore Airlines, within the last year, cut back service to Vancouver?
On a slightly different topic, I would love to see air travel between Canada and the US less regulated in order to make discount air travel more probable e.g. Easyjet and Ryan Air in Europe. I would love to see that business model successfully established locally.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ With airports and navigation required to be self financing in Canada, and most flights in Europe being international and therefor having access to untaxed jet-a (to my knowledge), there is a big difference in base costs that removes the advantages of an Easy Jet model.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Davel

Didn't Singapore Airlines, within the last year, cut back service to Vancouver?
On a slightly different topic, I would love to see air travel between Canada and the US less regulated in order to make discount air travel more probable e.g. Easyjet and Ryan Air in Europe. I would love to see that business model successfully established locally.

What about the North American market? You mention Easy Jet and Ryan Air in Europe. What about airline pair or group competion and co-operation in the Canada-USA Market.

I can see an alliance of some sort betweenWestjet and Southwest Airlines.
But what about eastern Markets?

If you're willing to come up with some ideas I'm very interested.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Davel

Didn't Singapore Airlines, within the last year, cut back service to Vancouver?
On a slightly different topic, I would love to see air travel between Canada and the US less regulated in order to make discount air travel more probable e.g. Easyjet and Ryan Air in Europe. I would love to see that business model successfully established locally.

Singapore cut service between Singapore-KOREA-Vancouver. They could not make a go of it without siphoning off travellers from an intermediate market. There is little (read almost none) demand between Singapore and Vancouver.

There is no regulation prohibiting any US carrier starting service between the USA and Canada. Its totally Open Skies. The fact that Allegiant, Southwest, Jetblue, Virigin America etc haven't started service should tell you something. Despite all the Air Canada-bashing here, it was Air Canada that grabbed the opportunity to serve Canada-US markets and ran with it. Hate to burst folks anti-East bubble.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Singapore cut service between Singapore-KOREA-Vancouver. They could not make a go of it without siphoning off travellers from an intermediate market. There is little (read almost none) demand between Singapore and Vancouver.

There is no regulation prohibiting any US carrier starting service between the USA and Canada. Its totally Open Skies. The fact that Allegiant, Southwest, Jetblue, Virigin America etc haven't started service should tell you something. Despite all the Air Canada-bashing here, it was Air Canada that grabbed the opportunity to serve Canada-US markets and ran with it. Hate to burst folks anti-East bubble.

Yes, but is THIS AC bashing? There isn't a word against Air Canada, or the evil east, just an interest in easier transborder flights and airline alliance possibilities.

However:
The fact that the four mentioned carriers do not serve YVR seems to indicate we are not yet a large enough market to call any shots.

[bar1967]

Originally Posted by Rusty Gull

^ Why are all of the Toronto/YYZ defenders flocking to this forum to defend the federal government's aviation policy?

Originally Posted by Rusty Gull

bar1967 and other YYZ cheerleaders: Please read this article from Business in Vancouver published earlier this fall:

Honestly, I am not defending anyone - Feds or otherwise. Nor am I here cheerleading YYZ. I was trying to get a better understanding of how the system works but have seemingly stumbled on to something a bit larger than I'm willing to get into here.

My original question was a very simple one. I do not understand how parliament seats/votes could influence why the Feds would prefer to grant YYZ/YUL, etc, etc access to more airlines. That's it.

For what it's worth, thanks for the articles though. It did help shed some light on what is going on.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Related to all this, if this link conncets, try it. It illustrates the Canadian preference for restriction instead of more aviation market freedom.
Canada did not attend, nor is a signatory to this. But the article explains it better...........

http://www.aviation.ca/content/view/8191/117/

Thanks, that was very insightful.

[deasine]

Shifting gears here...

YVR ready for winter blast and Olympic crush: officials

Updated: Tue Nov. 17 2009 17:29:14

The Vancouver International Airport unveiled a plan Tuesday to show that it's ready to handle a major snow storm and the expected crush of visitors during the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games.
Last winter, record snowfall crippled YVR, causing chaos and delays for thousands of travellers. One night, 225 centimetres of snow fell, and the airport simply didn't have the equipment to cope.
Airport officials say they have spent $30 million on aircraft de-icing systems and snow plows and are ready for anything that Mother Nature brings.
"You will not see wholesale flight cancellations," Brett Patterson, manager of airside operations, told reporters Tuesday. "What you'll see is aircraft moving through with minor delays. Passengers will get in and out of there. They're going to get home for the holidays."
The airport - not the airlines - will now handle all aircraft de-icing. That should mean shorter delays, officials said.
"The airport authority believes we've done everything we need to handle the winter conditions that are possible for Vancouver," said Don Ehrenholz, YVR's vice president of air operations.
Officials said they are also ready to deal with the onslaught of Olympic visitors.
In February, the airport will see almost 300 additional flights.
And on March 1, the day after closing ceremonies, a record 39,000 people are expected to fly out, along with 77,000 pieces of luggage.
Officials said they have bolstered baggage handling, check-in and security services.
That includes full airport check-in facilities at the Athletes Village in Vancouver and Whistler.
The airport is also building a temporary terminal just to handle departing Olympic athletes, their families and other Olympic clients.
There will also be extra staff and volunteers working alongside translators who speak 170 languages.
With a report from CTV British Columbia's Mike Killeen and files from The Canadian Press

(CTV, 2009)

[Gordon]

The media reports on yvr 's Olympic plans mention temporary terminal facilities being built.
Does anyone know where it is being built?

[SpongeG]

virgin america is going to start is it not?

I read someone's facebook and he sais he was flyng virgin america to california - I assumed he left from here as he lives here