Ottawa-Gatineau Tourism

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

Sure, Ottawa can work on being a bigger draw for foreign tourists. But that is only part of the demand equation. You seem to be ignoring the fact that there is also the outgoing demand that is probably the bigger factor for passengers numbers for most, if not all, major Canadian cities.

I'm not ignoring it. I said in the other thread that Ottawa has poor outbound demand. The comparison to Calgary was brought up. I pointed out that Calgary has an anchor industry that will routinely pay for expensive business travel to/from the city and pays very high wages that allow employees in said sector to have very high disposable incomes. Ottawa's main employer will demand three signatures and 3 months of approval before letting an employee fly economy class. And pays fair employees mostly enough to vacation at Caribbean all inclusives.

Originally Posted by phil235

Why do you think that a very affluent metro of 1.5 million people has such limited demand for direct air travel? On the face of it, it makes no sense that Quebec, at half the size and lower overall income levels has sufficient demand and we don't. Without an obvious explanation it's pretty clear that there are other factors at play than just demand.

Again with the conspiracy: "other factors". Nope. Just a lack of yield. We don't have the combination of foreign tourists inbound and locals with disposable incomes and/or business or cultural ties for outbound demand. And if the numbers are there, the willingness to pay isn't. Numbers aren't enough. Gotta be willing to pay fares that make setting up in Ottawa more profitable than adding another flight to Montreal or Toronto. That's admittedly a high bar.

Originally Posted by phil235

If you could show me that Quebec gets many times more international tourists than Ottawa, that might be an explanation, but I haven't seen anything to that effect from you. The official tourism numbers are actually higher for Ottawa.

I'll work on getting the numbers. But you haven't shown proof either. I don't doubt that Ottawa gets more tourists than Quebec City. But I doubt those tourists are high yielding or have a substantial foreign component. I suspect a good chunk of your 11M annual visitors to Ottawa are people from Ontario and Quebec driving up to visit Ottawa.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I totally agree that AC has an incentive to make people drive to Montreal. BA does not. If they let people drive to Montreal then they are in competition with dozens of transatlantic Star Alliance flights and One World really only has one. If they fly to Ottawa they would have an effective monopoly on the Ottawa transatlantic market. The only plausible reason is insufficient demand.

Yep. BA has to compete with Star Alliance, Air Transat (the largest Transatlantic carrier in Canada), and SkyTeam fed by WestJet, at Montreal. They have every incentive to come to Ottawa. This is exactly why I keep saying YOW authorities have to work on convincing Are Lingus (part of IAG) to fly to YOW. BA might be a reach for YOW.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I totally agree that AC has an incentive to make people drive to Montreal. BA does not. If they let people drive to Montreal then they are in competition with dozens of transatlantic Star Alliance flights and One World really only has one. If they fly to Ottawa they would have an effective monopoly on the Ottawa transatlantic market. The only plausible reason is insufficient demand.

That makes sense - though they would still be competing with AC's Heathrow flight here, would they not? So no monopoly, assuming that route is re-established (or would be as soon as BA came sniffing around).

[YOWhopeful]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yep. BA has to compete with Star Alliance, Air Transat (the largest Transatlantic carrier in Canada), and SkyTeam fed by WestJet, at Montreal. They have every incentive to come to Ottawa. This is exactly why I keep saying YOW authorities have to work on convincing Are Lingus (part of IAG) to fly to YOW. BA might be a reach for YOW.

I wonder if the Ottawa Airport Authority reads this thread.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWhopeful

I wonder if the Ottawa Airport Authority reads this thread.

They don't need a forum to figure this out. I'm an urbanist, transit and avgeek. If I can figure out the obvious, they should be able to as well. That's their day job. And they will have access to piles of statistics and operational data that they can use to make their case.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

That makes sense - though they would still be competing with AC's Heathrow flight here, would they not? So no monopoly, assuming that route is re-established (or would be as soon as BA came sniffing around).

BA is more concerned with traffic that has Ottawa as a destination. They get their feed at Heathrow. Air Canada is more concerned with passengers flowing through their hubs. They have feed in Ottawa. But it's minimal. BA would be on more even footing competing with AC at YOW.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Again with the conspiracy: "other factors". Nope. Just a lack of yield. We don't have the combination of foreign tourists inbound and locals with disposable incomes and/or business or cultural ties for outbound demand. And if the numbers are there, the willingness to pay isn't. Numbers aren't enough. Gotta be willing to pay fares that make setting up in Ottawa more profitable than adding another flight to Montreal or Toronto. That's admittedly a high bar.

I don't know about the lack of people with high disposable incomes here. That isn't supported by any numbers that I've ever seen. Willingness to pay is likely a factor. Or more accurately, a willingness to suffer through a drive to Montreal or a connection in Toronto for a cheaper price. If/when we get a few more destinations, that that theory will be put to the test.

It seems to me that a niche exists for a provider to establish number of direct US flights (Miami, California, Dallas) and a couple of direct European hubs (Paris, Amsterdam) with high O & D traffic, and to do that at a slightly higher price point. Even the budget conscious should be willing to pay extra to go direct from YOW rather than driving to YUL. Particularly with all of the connection issues these days, I'm willing to bet that the premium on direct flights is higher than it has ever been.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

I don't know about the lack of people with high disposable incomes here.

One look at the average pay vs. housing costs should tell you who has more disposable income. Though in the case of Calgary and Edmonton, business travel is a much larger driver.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

BA is more concerned with traffic that has Ottawa as a destination. They get their feed at Heathrow. Air Canada is more concerned with passengers flowing through their hubs. They have feed in Ottawa. But it's minimal. BA would be on more even footing competing with AC at YOW.

Makes sense.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

That makes sense - though they would still be competing with AC's Heathrow flight here, would they not? So no monopoly, assuming that route is re-established (or would be as soon as BA came sniffing around).

Are those flights coming back? They were very dependent on bureaucrats, and the Feds are in perpetual COVID mode.

[YOWhopeful]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Are those flights coming back? They were very dependent on bureaucrats, and the Feds are in perpetual COVID mode.

Were those flights ever that dependent on the feds? Was the almost daily AC888 mostly filled with government workers? I find that hard to believe.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWhopeful

Were those flights ever that dependent on the feds? Was the almost daily AC888 mostly filled with government workers? I find that hard to believe.

Given the size of the public service in the NCR and the need for contact with both NATO and Five Eyes Allies, along with other governmental cooperation, it's pretty likely that the feds provided enough of a base demand to establish a flight. Both in outbound and inbound traffic. If the feds provide demand of say 100 seats per day to/from LHR, it's a lot easier to launch service and try to sell another 200 seats. During the Afghanistan war, the amount of military, intelligence and development folks either going to Europe or transiting through was probably the profit margin on those Heathrow and Frankfurt flights.

Also, government travel rules say, you can get business class if a flight is more than 8 hrs or total travel exceeds 12 hrs. Departing straight from Ottawa reduces business class demand, but probably increases the number of full fare economy tickets sold. That was probably very profitable for the airlines.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Are those flights coming back? They were very dependent on bureaucrats, and the Feds are in perpetual COVID mode.

I, for one, am happy to see fewer useless junkets getting funded. 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 like 200 people going to a climate conference needs to end. They can work remotely, just like industry. Save the trips for absolutely critical travel.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWhopeful

Were those flights ever that dependent on the feds? Was the almost daily AC888 mostly filled with government workers? I find that hard to believe.

This is partially eyewitness account, partially Ottawa scuttlebutt, but I would say there were significant numbers of bureaucrats on those flights, particularly at the front of the plane, and particularly in winter.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Given the size of the public service in the NCR and the need for contact with both NATO and Five Eyes Allies, along with other governmental cooperation, it's pretty likely that the feds provided enough of a base demand to establish a flight. Both in outbound and inbound traffic. If the feds provide demand of say 100 seats per day to/from LHR, it's a lot easier to launch service and try to sell another 200 seats. During the Afghanistan war, the amount of military, intelligence and development folks either going to Europe or transiting through was probably the profit margin on those Heathrow and Frankfurt flights.

Also, government travel rules say, you can get business class if a flight is more than 8 hrs or total travel exceeds 12 hrs. Departing straight from Ottawa reduces business class demand, but probably increases the number of full fare economy tickets sold. That was probably very profitable for the airlines.



I, for one, am happy to see fewer useless junkets getting funded. 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 like 200 people going to a climate conference needs to end. They can work remotely, just like industry. Save the trips for absolutely critical travel.

100 federal public servants a day travelling on business on the flight to London seems like a helluva lot. Obviously on some days there will be way more - they might fill up most of the plane.

My sense is that the average would probably be more around 25.

I could be out to lunch, though.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

100 federal public servants a day travelling on business on the flight to London seems like a helluva lot. Obviously on some days there will be way more - they might fill up most of the plane.

My sense is that the average would probably be more around 25.

I could be out to lunch, though.

I'd tend to agree with you. In any event, those days are probably now gone.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

100 federal public servants a day travelling on business on the flight to London seems like a helluva lot. Obviously on some days there will be way more - they might fill up most of the plane.

My sense is that the average would probably be more around 25.

I could be out to lunch, though.

From a total federal workforce of > 130 000 employees in the NCR? Not that much at all. A company that had that many employees would probably fill an entire widebody flight themselves. You should see how much service, for example, Amazon wanted for HQ2 when studying where to locate. Government, with the nature of its work, does tend to travel less.

You have to consider that it's not just those traveling to London. Military going to NATO HQ in Brussels. Nuclear scientist going to IAEA HQ in Vienna. Cultural advisor going to Francophonie HQ in Paris. Climate scientist going to UN Climate HQ in Bonn. Patent expert going to the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva. All of them will be on that flight to London, and connecting onwards to their final destination. Aggregating all of them on a flight, is what makes a daily flight to Heathrow possible.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

From a total federal workforce of > 130 000 employees in the NCR? Not that much at all. A company that had that many employees would probably fill an entire widebody flight themselves. You should see how much service, for example, Amazon wanted for HQ2 when studying where to locate. Government, with the nature of its work, does tend to travel less.

You have to consider that it's not just those traveling to London. Military going to NATO HQ in Brussels. Nuclear scientist going to IAEA HQ in Vienna. Cultural advisor going to Francophonie HQ in Paris. Climate scientist going to UN Climate HQ in Bonn. Patent expert going to the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva. All of them will be on that flight to London, and connecting onwards to their final destination. Aggregating all of them on a flight, is what makes a daily flight to Heathrow possible.

I think you are right there is heavy usage but the flights to the destinations you are showing are almost never connected via London. I know lots of public servants who travelled a lot and the Frankfurt flight was very popular. Knew a colleague going to Africa frequently business class who used KLM from Montreal.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I think you are right there is heavy usage but the flights to the destinations you are showing are almost never connected via London.

What? Heathrow is connected to all those places in Europe. The exceptional thing about Heathrow is that it's an amazing hub for Star Alliance despite being the home of British Airways. Most of those destinations are covered by more than one airline (usually BA and and LH Group carrier (LH, Eurowings, Austrian, Swiss, Brussels Airlines) usually) and often multiple times a day. There's a reason LHR is the most important international destination in Air Canada's network. This is also exactly why BA would be such a huge threat to Air Canada in Ottawa: single carrier from Ottawa to virtually anywhere in Europe.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I know lots of public servants who travelled a lot and the Frankfurt flight was very popular.

That's not preference. That's a function of Air Canada and Lufthansa forcing traffic through Lufthansa's Frankfurt hub. And it kinda 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 for a lot of Western Europe since you end up backtracking for France, Iberia, Low countries, British Isles, etc.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Knew a colleague going to Africa frequently business class who used KLM from Montreal.

KLM and Air France have exceptionally strong networks in Africa.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

IKnew a colleague going to Africa frequently business class who used KLM from Montreal.

How would they get to Montreal?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

How would they get to Montreal?

I assume the KLM-AF bus.