YOW Alt Hotel [1085 Airport Pkwy] | ?m | 7f | Completed

[lrt's friend]

City Councillors are hearing from taxpayers. Need I say more?

[phil235]

Not sure I trust the development of economic policy to be based on calls from "taxpayers".

The proof will be in the pudding on this one. Some of the opponents claimed that the tax break wasn't needed as this would be built anyway. We'll see if that pans out. Personally I hope they were right (and that the airport doesn't squander too much money that could be used for route development).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

Not sure I trust the development of economic policy to be based on calls from "taxpayers".

The proof will be in the pudding on this one. Some of the opponents claimed that the tax break wasn't needed as this would be built anyway. We'll see if that pans out. Personally I hope they were right (and that the airport doesn't squander too much money that could be used for route development).

Given that no representatives of airlines presented themselves before council, I would say it is not particularly relevant whether it is built or not. I personally think it is the airport authority grasping at straws. They know people are voting with their feet at YUL and don't know how to fix it.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Given that no representatives of airlines presented themselves before council, I would say it is not particularly relevant whether it is built or not. I personally think it is the airport authority grasping at straws. They know people are voting with their feet at YUL and don't know how to fix it.

I wouldn't have really expected airlines to be present - this is more the airport looking for a revenue stream to boost its development fund. Tourism Ottawa and the Board of Trade spoke in favour.

Being able to provide more direct flights would substantially reduce the leakage of passengers to YUL.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Given that no representatives of airlines presented themselves before council, I would say it is not particularly relevant whether it is built or not. I personally think it is the airport authority grasping at straws. They know people are voting with their feet at YUL and don't know how to fix it.

Deputations aren't permitted at Council. They could have presented at Planning Committee but not Council.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Deputations aren't permitted at Council. They could have presented at Planning Committee but not Council.

Did they?

If a rep from British Airways told th committee they have teed up a direct flight to LHR, but the airline has a policy of not flying to airports without terminal attached hotels I think it would have switched a few votes at least.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Did they?

If a rep from British Airways told th committee they have teed up a direct flight to LHR, but the airline has a policy of not flying to airports without terminal attached hotels I think it would have switched a few votes at least.

I'm certain that is not the case. Lots of airports have no terminal Hotel. Sure it's becoming more common but huge airports and small airports with explosive growth lack an in terminal hotel. San Francisco just opened an in terminal hotel for example.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Given that no representatives of airlines presented themselves before council, I would say it is not particularly relevant whether it is built or not. I personally think it is the airport authority grasping at straws. They know people are voting with their feet at YUL and don't know how to fix it.

Why would airlines send representatives to fight for little old YOW? They don't care. They don't have skin in the game. This is like the bank expecting a small business owner to bring a NHL player to tell them the loan would be great so the business owner can bonify his hockey stick selection. \

YOW needs to compete for business. The airlines will go to the airport that offers the best amenities.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I'm certain that is not the case. Lots of airports have no terminal Hotel. Sure it's becoming more common but huge airports and small airports with explosive growth lack an in terminal hotel. San Francisco just opened an in terminal hotel for example.

Not every airport has a terminal hotel, but it does offer a competitive advantage, and that's the point. In the case of Canada, most (all?) airports do have a terminal hotel, so it's catching up.

Again, this CIP is not about whether or not the hotel would be built anyway, and it's certainly not up to a bunch of politicians to make that determination. It's not about guarantees that it will bring x number of new international flights. It was about helping the airport through hard times. Even if Covid is more or less over, passenger volumes have not recovered. Deficits of the last 3 years are still in the books. Costs to build have gone up. Germain might very well need that 10 year tax break to bridge the gap to profitability.

If a CIP app qualifies, it should go through. This is not the time to debate it's value. City Council did not pause the program when they had a chance. That's on them.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Again, this CIP is not about whether or not the hotel would be built anyway, and it's certainly not up to a bunch of politicians to make that determination. It's not about guarantees that it will bring x number of new international flights. It was about helping the airport through hard times. Even if Covid is more or less over, passenger volumes have not recovered. Deficits of the last 3 years are still in the books. Costs to build have gone up. Germain might very well need that 10 year tax break to bridge the gap to profitability.

If a CIP app qualifies, it should go through. This is not the time to debate it's value. City Council did not pause the program when they had a chance. That's on them.

I find this argument strange and very much a bureaucratic/Ottawa viewpoint. The question is does the X$million provide good value it doesn't matter what the criteria were unless we set it up without discretion and will be sued politicians absolutely should be weighing the value of the expenditure when they vote.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Why would airlines send representatives to fight for little old YOW? They don't care. They don't have skin in the game. This is like the bank expecting a small business owner to bring a NHL player to tell them the loan would be great so the business owner can bonify his hockey stick selection. \

YOW needs to compete for business. The airlines will go to the airport that offers the best amenities.

The airport authority argued that this project was needed to attract airlines. If that is the case that airlines want this then they should have gotten involved.

I haven't seen a lot of evidence that airport amenities are a big concern for airlines (they fly to lots of airports with few amenities and certainly lots without terminal-connected hotels).

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Not every airport has a terminal hotel, but it does offer a competitive advantage, and that's the point. In the case of Canada, most (all?) airports do have a terminal hotel, so it's catching up.

Toronto has one in-terminal hotel that was built in the 80s. Terminal 1 does not have a terminal hotel (despite being a relatively new construction) and travelling from Terminal 1 to Terminal 3 takes longer than it takes the shuttle to get to either of the hotels on the YOW property.

Instead of a rump 2 stop transit line to South Keys I think it would have made more sense to build a people mover to line 2 that would have stopped at the hotel area (sort of like the Alt in Toronto)

[YOWflier]

When a CIP is in place any application should be evaluated against the criteria and approved if it meets them. There should be no politicization of that process. That’s how the playing field becomes unlevel.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The airport authority argued that this project was needed to attract airlines. If that is the case that airlines want this then they should have gotten involved.

I don't think that accurately reflects the airport's position. The airport said that the development of this hotel would provide it with lease payments that would increase the stream of money available for the route development fund so they could provide incentives to airlines. The airport is still struggling under debt incurred during COVID and doesn't have the resources to do that otherwise.

I find the suggestion that airlines would send representatives to and Ottawa city council committee a bit odd. Do you think that they are doing this in every city they don't fly to in hopes that hotels are built?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

I don't think that accurately reflects the airport's position. The airport said that the development of this hotel would provide it with lease payments that would increase the stream of money available for the route development fund so they could provide incentives to airlines. The airport is still struggling under debt incurred during COVID and doesn't have the resources to do that otherwise.

I find the suggestion that airlines would send representatives to and Ottawa city council committee a bit odd. Do you think that they are doing this in every city they don't fly to in hopes that hotels are built?

No, I don't think airlines make decisions about scheduling flights based on whether there is a terminal connected hotel. The airlines have a use for hotels near the airport for their staff or to put people in situations where they are obligated to pay for accommodation, but don't use in-terminal hotels for either of those purposes. If Ottawa didn't have two hotels on property I would think it might be more of an interest for them.

However, if it was something they really cared about, one would expect an intervention of some sort, which they do all the time for other government processes.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

No, I don't think airlines make decisions about scheduling flights based on whether there is a terminal connected hotel. The airlines have a use for hotels near the airport for their staff or to put people in situations where they are obligated to pay for accommodation, but don't use in-terminal hotels for either of those purposes. If Ottawa didn't have two hotels on property I would think it might be more of an interest for them.

However, if it was something they really cared about, one would expect an intervention of some sort, which they do all the time for other government processes.

I agree that for airline staff or people they are putting up, a connected hotel is probably not that critical. I could be wrong, but I think that it would be pretty unusual for an airline to participate in municipal government processes.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

I agree that for airline staff or people they are putting up, a connected hotel is probably not that critical. I could be wrong, but I think that it would be pretty unusual for an airline to participate in municipal government processes.

It is also pretty unusual for municipalities to fund hotels on airport properties.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is also pretty unusual for municipalities to fund hotels on airport properties.

Sure, still not a reason for airline representatives to show up at city council (or to draw any conclusions when they don't).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

Sure, still not a reason for airline representatives to show up at city council (or to draw any conclusions when they don't).

Airlines have government relations departments. These government relations departments lobby governments when they want something.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Airlines have government relations departments. These government relations departments lobby governments when they want something.

Yeah, but in this case we want them more than they want us. Hence the route development fund.

[roger1818]

Even if YOW was applying for relief to avoid bankruptcy and closing for good, none of the airlines would bother showing up.

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Why would airlines send representatives to fight for little old YOW? They don't care. They don't have skin in the game. This is like the bank expecting a small business owner to bring a NHL player to tell them the loan would be great so the business owner can bonify his hockey stick selection. \

YOW needs to compete for business. The airlines will go to the airport that offers the best amenities.



Not every airport has a terminal hotel, but it does offer a competitive advantage, and that's the point. In the case of Canada, most (all?) airports do have a terminal hotel, so it's catching up.

Again, this CIP is not about whether or not the hotel would be built anyway, and it's certainly not up to a bunch of politicians to make that determination. It's not about guarantees that it will bring x number of new international flights. It was about helping the airport through hard times. Even if Covid is more or less over, passenger volumes have not recovered. Deficits of the last 3 years are still in the books. Costs to build have gone up. Germain might very well need that 10 year tax break to bridge the gap to profitability.

If a CIP app qualifies, it should go through. This is not the time to debate it's value. City Council did not pause the program when they had a chance. That's on them.

At first, it felt like Alt was just using this as collateral and holding the project hostage, but now I see with CIP, it is a program that they are eligible for - so the politicization of this is just going to waste more city funds than not. They already agreed to a lower amount, and now there's a potential for a lawsuit to go for the full amount again. Would've been better off just accepting the reduced amount at this point. You and the others have convinced me.