whopping 21% of Cdn. fliers depart out of U.S airports.

[bmc]

Nark...that works if the regional operator is flying under someone elses code and is providing a service to them. It's a sweet deal for the regional carrier and can be a good deal for the mailine due to the flow traffic it provides. But, if you're struggling on your own without a major to back you, it can be a different story. Who are you flying for now?

[Nark]

That is exactly it.

Independence Air failed miserably because the big guys pushed them out.
Mesa Air group spun off another one, that didn't work for the same reason (I can't remember the name).

My former company tried in Hawaii with Mokalale Air (partnered with Mesa), but they pulled out and stuck to the FFD model.

[double-j]

Nark I respectfully disagree.

Regional airlines operate under a CPA much like Jazz does with AC. The difference however is that competition is fierce with often one outfit undercutting another for a contract. You need not look any further than the Continental Express story. At one time Continental Express being 100% owned by Continental Airlines. However prior to its spinoff, Continental gave Continental Express a very lucrative CPA, to increase its IPO value only to threaten to pull it on them unless they signed a more favorable deal. It is no secret that the regional pilot salaries are disgusting as you no doubt can attest to, and nieve to believe that it is not a pronounced part of the penny-pinching that goes on to secure a CPA. An unfortunate reality is you can be flown by Captain Frank Fails-a-ride-five-times and First officer Sally Starbucks, ala Colgan.

But that is only partially what I am getting at.

Canadian Airlines are handcuffed by enormous taxes, surcharges, and airport rents that make us uncompetitive with secondary border town airports. An interesting factoid is that you are paying tax twice when a terminal gets an upgrade. For example. anytown airport upgrades its terminal at an expansion cost of 100 million, equipped with inukshuks, waterfalls, the works. All paid by you with AIF's. Now anytown is worth 150 million so the federal govt actually increases rent on the land due to the appreciation (which you paid for) without doing any improvements itself.

Canada leads the pack in taxing fuel, rent, Navcanada fees etc, and the Obama administration ordered an additional 5.50 for any passenger coming into the u.s.a (car pax excluded). Both jetblue and southwest said they would not consider canada due to the high prices and virgin america recently halted flights into toronto. You can see the disadvantage that plagues canadian airlines, but we as pilots should at least recognize that, yes?

It is a common pastime to rant and rave about the low starting wages at Jazz and the majors, that it is the unions fault/managements/rains but if we are the ones that choose to take our money south of the border can we not see that we are assisting in the demise of salaries ourselves by abandoning the airlines for the sake of a buck?

JJ

[NovaBoy]

I fly out of the US whenever we go on a family vacation. I have no trouble driving 3hrs to Bangor to get a flight. Going to Florida out of the Maritimes for a family of 4 on either Westjet or Air Canada is close to $4000. Out of Bangor direct is $1500.

[robertsailor1]

The problem is that the same argument can be made for anything that we as Canadians purchase. Whether its buying a new home or a car or a flat screen TV whoever gives us the best deal is where people shop. Vancouverites flock thru the border by the thousands each day to shop. Other than pilots themselves no one cares that they pay less in the USA.

[TheStig]

Interesting span of opinions on this thread. You can spin this in several different ways apparently, however, the base of the issue are the rent payments that the Canadian Federal Government charges the airport authorities who pass along their total operating cost to the traveler as part of the Airport Improvement Fee.

Those who say they fly out of BUF, SEA, BVT, ect because Air Canada is too expensive are neglecting to mention that they are also turning their backs on WestJet and several American carriers operating out of Canada because the are equally expensive.

For those who don't know, when the Canadian Federal Government handed over control of Canadian airports to the local airport authorities they burdened them with massive rent payments that go directly into general revenues. Turning Canadian airports into a 'cash cows', as opposed to a key to a thriving economy, that if relieved of these taxes could be developed into a leader in the global industry.

Look at the data on the link below and then imagine what the aviation industry in Canada could accomplish if these funds were being channelled back into consumers pockets (or the airlines).

http://www.atac.ca/en/ourissues/advocac ... _big3.html

[kevind]

YYZ

$145,000,000 per year paid to government
31,000,000 passengers per year

$4.60 per passenger.

Not much, but, one of many hidden fees.

Image the outcry if there was a guy at the gate taking 5 bucks (4.60 + HST) from every passenger

And not everyone has a close canadian airport. My parent leaving for cruise today. They are leaving from Spokane Washington. 2 hour drive... ( and no fee to cross the border) or fly out of Castlegar in winter to YYC or YVR then south.

[TheStig]

Agreed $4.60 isn't much but there are several small fees that really start to add up. The fuel excise tax levied on aviation fuels is another. The inefficiencies that result from the monopolistic structures of air traffic control, the airport authorities, and security agencies also start to add up quickly.

That fact is that airlines make pennies on the dollar (in a good year), for example in 2010 WestJet earned around 5 cents on every dollar of revenue. On a sample flight from YVR to YYZ next week the airfare is $389, grand total with $52 HST, $15 AIF, $7 ATSC, and $23 NAV is $486, or about 25 cents for every dollar of revenue! Going back to where we started, that $4.60 would increase WestJet profit on this flight by roughly 25%

It is unacceptable for so many different hands to be in the pockets of our airlines who operate in such a competitive low yield industry. While small fees may not seem to be a burden on the consumer, they certainly are on Canadian airlines which balance on a very fine price point.

[Married a Canadian]

The inefficiencies that result from the monopolistic structures of air traffic control

You'll have to explain that one. How would splitting up a "monopoly" in air traffic control provision lessen the cost? It isn't really a service that has a competitive element. Cost are reduced from efficiency in the air traffic game.
If you can prove that since becoming NAV Canada that air traffic control has become less efficient than when it was under the Transport Canada banner than I would be happy to accept your point.

[bmc]

I just sent this link:

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Can ... 231111.pdf

It leads to a report issued by Deloitte on inbound and outbound tourism and travel. Page 18 of the report states that Canadians save, on average, $300 each by flying on a US carrier.

The report has other data worth reading.

[Colonel Sanders]

Canadians save, on average, $300 each by flying on a US carrier

I'm not sure who they asked, or how far in advance they're buying tickets, but in my experience the difference is more often $1000, which is insignificant pocket change to many people here, but is well worth the drive for the rest of us.

[bmc]

It depends on where you are going to.

[Colonel Sanders]

Also, it depends upon how far in advance you purchase a ticket.

I frequently will purchase a round-trip ticket to a destination inside
the USA with less than a week's notice.

From a Canadian airport, it might cost $2600. From a US airport,
it might cost $1600 (typical). That's a significant delta.

[tsgas]

I drive down to the US where the air fares are lower,the user fees are lower,the taxes are lower,the airport parking rates are lower. I also don't have to pay the US immigration fee like in Canada.
Then on my way back I fill up my tank with cheaper gas, buy cheaper groceries, buy footwear that works out to about 50% cheaper, if I have time I get an oil change which is about half of what it costs in Canada. So it works out to a lot of money saved.

One of the driving forces to save money is that, as a Canadian paying higher incomes taxes then my US counter part, I'm left with less net dollars to spend on goods and services.

[TheStig]

The inefficiencies that result from the monopolistic structures of air traffic control

You'll have to explain that one. How would splitting up a "monopoly" in air traffic control provision lessen the cost? It isn't really a service that has a competitive element. Cost are reduced from efficiency in the air traffic game.
If you can prove that since becoming NAV Canada that air traffic control has become less efficient than when it was under the Transport Canada banner than I would be happy to accept your point.

MaC my intention was not to belittle NavCanada's employees or even the organization, simply point out the nature of monopolistic organizations. They do a tremendous job ensuring the safely of thousands of us over a large area. I am not privy to the inner working of NavCanada, however, its position as the sole provider of air traffic control within Canada with 100% control over its price point does not lend itself well it being as cost conscious as other 'free-market' organizations. As a not for profit organization NavCanada doesn't have the same driving force to reduce it's costs, simply to not spend more than its revenues.

ATC in a lot of respects is like the military, also not a service that "has a competitive element", and not exactly something a country wants to have outsourced, nor does one size fit all with respect to what it is required to provide. The military provides national security and international influence. NavCanada provides air traffic control. However, NavCanada generates almost all of its revenues on the backs of the airlines, while it provides services to all aircraft and airports across the country. My initial comments were intended to highlight the burden placed on the Airlines. We don't ask private business' to fund the military through their operations, that burden is placed on all of the Canadian tax payers, but the burden of building airport terminals, runways, and air traffic control aren't.

Also, I have no argument that NavCanada is more efficient than it was when operated by TC, I would simply hope that NavCanada can keep moving in the right direction with respect to employee satisfaction, safety, and, of coarse cost efficiency.

[photofly]

As a not for profit organization NavCanada doesn't have the same driving force to reduce it's costs, simply to not spend more than its revenues.

Not true at all. All you need to do is base the CEO's bonus on the size of the operating surplus. Whether that gets reinvested in the business (in a not-for-profit) or returned to shareholders (in a for-profit organisation) makes not a whit of difference to how the organisation finds efficiencies.