News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

northlands said:
RE: airport fees & paying rent to fund the Feds, I don't know if the solution is scrapping airport fees or rent paid to the feds altogether. Not really a fan of subsidizing businesses that require air travel regularly or those privileged enough to fly regularly for leisure.

Possibly a tax credit for private individuals available to $X spent on airfare would make more sense to help alleviate costs on consumers? Especially if it was on domestic travel... sometimes the unbelievable cost of domestic travel in this nation really hampers unity. I would love to see the Maritimes of Canada, but it's hard justifying when it's more expensive than flying to Europe.
Click to expand...
Im not sure you understand what I am pointing out.

Right now Airports exist on Federally Owned Lands. These lands must be rented. Hence we, the airport users, pay that rent through user fees amongst other revenue streams.

In turn the feds create very restrictive rules regarding who can fly into the country, how many flights they are allowed and, thusly, inadvertently dictating most major airlines into key hubs.

So it begs the question.. If the feds are collecting rent and restrict access/flights (to protect air canada) what are we getting in return? Id venture to say not much from my point of view.
 
Here is a glowing review and explanation from a body that supports the current structure.

canadasairports.ca

Canadian Airport Model - Canadian Airports Council

canadasairports.ca

I would venture to say that an Airports user should not pay the full cost of said improvements as we all benefit from a highly connected airport regardless if we use it or not.

My spouse and his family have business interests on the airport lands. Getting anything done on this property is extremely arduous and is overly difficult. This extends all the way down to hooking up your internet services which require specialized techs with high level security clearance as all services on the land need to be centralized due to law. The non profit airport authority, in turn, must recoup these cost via some pretty startling fees and processes.

But, we get a new overpass i guess.
 
Yeggy said:
Im not sure you understand what I am pointing out.

Right now Airports exist on Federally Owned Lands. These lands must be rented. Hence we, the airport users, pay that rent through user fees amongst other revenue streams.

In turn the feds create very restrictive rules regarding who can fly into the country, how many flights they are allowed and, thusly, inadvertently dictating most major airlines into key hubs.

So it begs the question.. If the feds are collecting rent and restrict access/flights (to protect air canada) what are we getting in return? Id venture to say not much from my point of view.
Click to expand...
Yes my apologies, misinterpreted what you'd said with other arguments surrounding airport fees that have been a hot topic since WJ CEO's chatter about it the other day

Interesting links, never knew so many int'l airports around the world were privatized.
 
northlands said:
Yes my apologies, misinterpreted what you'd said with other arguments surrounding airport fees that have been a hot topic since WJ CEO's chatter about it the other day

Interesting links, never knew so many int'l airports around the world were privatized.
Click to expand...
some level of.... as many are still gov’t owned but the operations are pvt. Like the arena.
 
As I understand it, airport fees were to cover the cost of maintaining and expanding our airports at a time when the Canadian Federal government did not have the money or interest to do so.

I prefer it to the US model which relies on the government to cover those costs - some decades the government is generous, others it stagnates based on politics, and here the people who use the airport pay for it.

Of course WestJet would like lower fees, so it can then take the credit for lower prices and/or raise their prices, probably a bit of both.
 
David A said:
As I understand it, airport fees were to cover the cost of maintaining and expanding our airports at a time when the Canadian Federal government did not have the money or interest to do so.

I prefer it to the US model which relies on the government to cover those costs - some decades the government is generous, others it stagnates based on politics, and here the people who use the airport pay for it.

Of course WestJet would like lower fees, so it can then take the credit for lower prices and/or raise their prices, probably a bit of both.
Click to expand...
I can get behind this statement in principle, in practice where has the 65 billion (direct quote) in fees gone? and who continues to benefit the most?

If we take a “market” approach, what in the current regulatory regime of laws and protectionist regulations supports a model where we see millions of people drive past our airport to Calgary’s?

I am not saying privatization would instantly change things but i feel its would be naive to think a partisan political layer is helping Edmonton.
 
They have airport fees in Calgary too, so I doubt that is the main reason people are driving there, if in fact they are, instead of flying from here.

I suspect a privatized owner would favour the bigger larger facility more than the current local management does.

However, I do think there needs to be less restriction on flights by international carriers, which hurts places further from the border like here.

That would be one regulatory change that would benefit Edmonton, passengers, but not the current duopoly, which includes WestJet.
 
Ft Mac Has the same issues. But instead of people driving to YEG to catch a flight they continue all the way to YYC. But a kind of catch 22. if we had flights people wouldn't drive but people drive so we don't get the flights.
 
Yes, I suspect the biggest reason for people driving is for more or cheaper flights. I am hopeful that the increasing trans-border/international traffic here will start to reduce that.

Ft Mac is a place of under 100,000 so it is difficult for them to get many flights, Edmonton at 1.5 million and growing at a good pace now, is a different situation.
 
Since I don't fly out of the main terminal anymore for work.....has there been any movement of the old "Deluxe Burger Bar" space?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top