News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

TAS said:
I find it difficult to criticize Edmonton Global on this without knowing what they tried to do or not do.

Do you know what cities were prioritized to establish flights? How do you know British Airways was not offered money?

To that point, given that this was public money, is Edmonton Global going to be providing a report on the outcome of this initiative? Or is this not the kind of info you would want to share publicly in case you offend a competing airline - like what happened with AC when we landed Icelandair?
Click to expand...
Yes that's part of the problem--because tax dollars are going to incentivize particular services, taxpayers have a right to be extremely critical of any "results" achieved.

If Airline X looks at passenger forecasts and projected cargo volume and decides on its own initiative and resources to introduce a new route, that's entirely on them. It's their money on the line, I have no input other than as a potential customer. But if taxpayer funds are being used to help convince Airline X to introduce a given route, that's my money being spent. I have a right to question why my tax dollars were spent to get a non-stop to Quebec as opposed to a non-stop to, say, Chicago.

Is 2X a week to Quebec City really a win? Is it a big enough win to justify an outlay of public money?

It's only really a win if there is major demand for an Edmonton-Quebec City non-stop. But then again, if the demand is there, public money shouldn't be needed to convince a carrier to offer the route.
 
Last edited:
TAS said:
In reality, flying Edmonton to London via Toronto, for instance, is actually about 70 minutes exta flying time than air time from here to YYC to London, but if your mind feels like it's a win to go through eastern Canada, then that's probably the way to go.
Those are the two main routes to London from here.
Click to expand...
You also might have more choice of flights from Toronto and better connections. I try to avoid the Calgary airport, but I remember one flight back sitting in the Calgary airport for a very long time wishing I could have got a non stop flight instead. That time counts too.
 
yeggator said:
True Gigachads fly from Edmonton to Amsterdam via KLM and then take the Eurostar to London 🗿
Click to expand...
I haven't done it, or until now thought of it, but actually it would appeal to me. I would like to take the Eurostar and see more of Europe than just London.

It could be a more interesting trip with more variety.
 
David A said:
You also might have more choice of flights from Toronto and better connections. I try to avoid the Calgary airport, but I remember one flight back sitting in the Calgary airport for a very long time wishing I could have got a non stop flight instead. That time counts too.
Click to expand...

In terms of shortest flight time offered daily to London from Edmonton, including wait time in the airport, it's through Calgary. In fact one of the connections only has 50 minutes between it. All the other stuff about not supporting YYC as a hub is valid and a different issue. In terms of time to get to London, Calgary is the fastest daily option. There are other considerations that trump that for many people, but until Edmonton gets a direct flight, that's the fastest where there is a daily option.
 
TravellingChris said:
Yes that's part of the problem--because tax dollars are going to incentivize particular services, taxpayers have a right to be extremely critical of any "results" achieved.

If Airline X looks at passenger forecasts and projected cargo volume and decides on its own initiative and resources to introduce a new route, that's entirely on them. It's their money on the line, I have no input other than as a potential customer. But if taxpayer funds are being used to help convince Airline X to introduce a given route, that's my money being spent. I have a right to question why my tax dollars were spent to get a non-stop to Quebec as opposed to a non-stop to, say, Chicago.

Is 2X a week to Quebec City really a win? Is it a big enough win to justify an outlay of public money?

It's only really a win if there is major demand for an Edmonton-Quebec City non-stop. But then again, if the demand is there, public money shouldn't be needed to convince a carrier to offer the route.
Click to expand...
You have to play the game... I think it's guaranteed money would be there for Chicago but you take the possibilities presented to you. Quebec City is one of the largest population centers in Canada that we didn't have direct service to so it was a key gap from YEG on domestic side. 2x week is a starting point but if it goes well the goal would be more. This route is a very good fit for an ULCC to create market stimulation.
 
TAS said:
In terms of shortest flight time offered daily to London from Edmonton, including wait time in the airport, it's through Calgary. In fact one of the connections only has 50 minutes between it. All the other stuff about not supporting YYC as a hub is valid and a different issue. In terms of time to get to London, Calgary is the fastest daily option. There are other considerations that trump that for many people, but until Edmonton gets a direct flight, that's the fastest where there is a daily option.
Click to expand...
If I'm heading to London and HAVE to connect in a Canadian city (a non-stop would still be better) I like the Toronto options. AC 850 from Calgary doesn't get into Heathrow until 11:50 a.m. If there are delays, particularly with baggage claim, you're likely not on the train into the city centre until 1 p.m.

By contrast AC 856 gets you into Heathrow almost three-and-a-half hours earlier, at 8:35 a.m. My personal preference is AC 854 which lands at 6:35 a.m. This provides plenty of margin for delays either in the air or at UK Border services, and you still have a good chunk of the morning left to you upon arrival in the city. Things have gotten even better now that Canadians and other citizens of low-risk countries can use the UK e-gates. This is MUCH faster than the old system of queuing up where bored immigration officers would ask everyone pointless supplementary questions about what they intended to do and see in London.

But as I've said before I often travel on points so I don't always get the flight I would like.
 
Toronto is much bigger detour than Amsterdam on the way to London.

Screenshot 2023-07-09 8.14.50 PM.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top