Quote:
Originally Posted by NetMapel
Just hearing about these recent stories about people stuck at the airport (mostly in Toronto and Ottawa) made me think about this whole air travel issue. People are stuck because there's a lot of snow and there's a lot of travellers. Now, had the government be more willing to redirect more stops to other airports instead of concentrating them all in Toronto, maybe this wouldn't be as bad. I see all kinds of stories on CTV and whatnot about people traveling from, say, BC to PEI but is stuck in Toronto because that's where they get their connection flight. There's a huge backlog of flight that needs to leave/arrive at Toronto airport because, well, that's Canada's central airport.
Therefore, I say we need more direct flights around Canada and other places instead of it all being concentrated in Ontario  |
I agree with you about how good it would be to have more direct flights from Vancouver (and Calgary, Edmonton, and so forth) to other parts of Canada (take Halifax, as an example) but in all fairness to Air Canada, there is yield management to be considered. I'll try explaining using a simplistic example: imagine you want to fly Vancouver to Halifax. A regularly scheduled daily nonstop to Halifax from Vancouver would be flying about half empty, as the two cities do not have the market size to fill up a plane. The air route, or any route like it, would have a low yield factor and would lose a lot of money. Otherwise stated, there aren't enough people in these cities to warrant a daily service. There is a lot of traffic to Toronto from Vancouver, with a number of nonstops per day, and enough traffic between Toronto and Halifax to warrant a couple of nonstops per day. Toronto is a bigger market with more people, and Halifax is to the east of it, so travellers bound for Halifax from Vancouver are obliged, for financial reasons to the airline, to change in Toronto. This, by the way, is not only a "Toronto" syndrome; parallel circumstances exist in the USA around major hubs like Chicago, Denver, Atlanta, Dallas, etc. -> Therefore, the idea of of flights criss-crossing the country, avoiding Toronto (in addition to those whose destination really IS Toronto) is indeed a very attractive one, but would lower the load factor, and thus the yield factor, to the point where the airline would lose enormous revenues, sending prices up. This is the unpleasant reality
of having that smug, arrogant, manipulative city on the lake as our largest air market, located where it is. It's a question of market size, location, and logistics - within Canada.
But ..... overseas to Europe from Western Canada, (Vancouver being the major market with enough population to generate high enough traffic volume) ..... that's
another story; one which, as I have mentioned here before, may change relatively soon thanks to the Open Skies agreement with the EU.
Right now, the Canadian government, (which promotes Air Canada, and caters to the large voting base in Southern Ontario and to Montreal) obliges someone flying, for example from Vancouver to Paris, or Vancouver to Rome, or to any other major European destination that, theoretically COULD provide a yield factor high enough to warrant nonstops between two given points, as above, to change in Toronto. This is a bit different. This is
forced 
yield management, not yield management out of logistical and economic
necessity.
(yes, I know many of you dislike my emoticons, but I use them to make a point).
In these cases, the federal government -
UP UNTIL NOW - has had the right to dictate which foreign carriers can or cannot land where in Canada.
For example, the feds had arranged it with the French government that only TWO cities in Canada could be served by Air France (Toronto and Montreal, obvously) and the French in return said that Air Canada could fly nonstop between TWO cities in France, which are Paris and Nice. So we have Toronto-Paris, Toronto-Nice, and Montreal-Paris, and Montreal-Nice. Air France is not allowed to land at any other Canadian airports, although a run from Paris to Vancouver is large enough to justify itself, and would be even moreso, with a stopover in Calgary. But, to protect Air Canada, YYZ, and the voters of Central Canada, Vancouver travellers are obliged to transfer in Toronto or Montreal, or else to transfer in London Heathrow (which is the chaotic lost-luggage champion of the world; Amsterdam, or Frankfurt.) Transferring through Europe can mean you spend nearly five hours in Frankfurt (as I did), or just barely catch your plane if you run hard enough, by going through Amsterdam, even though polar routes are, theoretically much quicker - as long as they're nonstop. (Total flight time: about nine hours) However, the only alternative to that is going to Toronto (four hours), waiting for the Paris-bound flight, (which could be anywhere from 45 minutes on up - more like three hours), then onward to Paris (six hours). As you can see, THIS aspect of yield management means far more transit time for Western Canadian travellers (does Ottawa care? Three guesses,) and many more hours actually spent in the air (tally it up!!) than if Vancouver (Calgary and Edmonton, too, if worked in as stopovers from YVR) had the direct European connections to Paris, Zurich and Rome that took the polar route. But we don't.
YET. The current worldwide recession will snarl things up a bit, but when air travel regains its footing, and the Open Skies agreement comes into effect, Toronto will lose its position as a "forced stopover" to Europe that it enjoys now
. However, as for intra-Canadian routes go, you'll only see nonstops cirumventing Toronto (and Montreal) if/when there's a load factor - and resulting yield factor - high enough to warrant it. And this will only happen when the cities (and accomanying air markets) get big enough. So, your idea is very praiseworthy, and something a lot of travellers would like to see, but not yet very feasible at the domestic level. Overseas to Europe? Aha... That's another story. Watch and wait on that one as it unfolds. The results should be interesting.
Prev
....oh wouldn't that be nice .....
encore de champagne, madame, monsieur?
If someone can tell me how to insert an image....
Great idea, but a few complications
Linear Mode
