[rbt]

There are now rumours of numerous new carriers about to start a Toronto route. Guess that minimal reduction actually pulled a few strings!

No.

New carriers take 2 to 3 years of negotiations and approvals to get online.

These new carriers are the result of Pearson having space available to hold them. That is the result of Pier F opening. They started actively seeking new airlines when Pier F construction began as it was the first time in decades that Pearson would have excess terminal capacity.

If they can drop or hold fees again next year, you may see lots of new airtraffic in 2010.

 

[Filip]

No.

New carriers take 2 to 3 years of negotiations and approvals to get online.

These new carriers are the result of Pearson having space available to hold them. That is the result of Pier F opening. They started actively seeking new airlines when Pier F construction began as it was the first time in decades that Pearson would have excess terminal capacity.

If they can drop or hold fees again next year, you may see lots of new airtraffic in 2010.

There are a few places where Canada already has agreements with (airlines that used to fly in the mid 1990's). Many of those will be restarting.

 

[ShonTron]

What do you mean? If I were to go out and rent land, I would pay the same amount for it no matter what I use it for. I don't see why we should subsidize air travel's extravagant land use.

Hmm. I see your point about not subsidizing airport land use (we should promote alternative modes of transport more). Air travel is very unsustainable, with fuel consumption and pollution and the vast amounts of land required.

The counter argument though is that it's an airport. It can not be used for any other purpose (unlike other nearby land where one may calulate market rent) , so the land really is worth less than if it could be used for better purposes, and this is one reason I think Pickering is such a boondoggle - once it's an airport, it's hard to go back. Roads and railways and their related uses (rail yards, parking lots) also take up land that could theoretically be used for other purposes as well. Though few are advocating taxes on road users to pay for the land that could be used for something else.

So a part of me agrees with you, but the other part sees the $150 million as an unfair cash cow (and that's what it is, it has nothing to do with the validity of the market rent argument) that doesn't exist in so many other jurisdictions, and which is less significant even in other Canadian international airports.

 

[rbt]

There are a few places where Canada already has agreements with (airlines that used to fly in the mid 1990's). Many of those will be restarting.

That is true, but it doesn't bypass the fact they will require recent approval to operate routes from a host of different agencies.

Just because you have zoning approval to build doesn't mean you have approval to block off lanes, install shoring, create noise, etc.

Same goes with airlines. Having a pre-existing inter-government agreement for those routes is reduces the number of steps remaining.

Either way it's good news, and we can expect much more news along this line over the next couple of years.

 

[CDL.TO]

I'd love to see Virgin Atlantic return.

 

[Hydrogen]

That's kind of a silly question. When you own your own house, do you pay rent to yourself? Then why should you collect rent when you lease it out to someone else? I guess the point is that if the price the government is charging now is fair, they were subsidizing it before.

The point is that the government owned the land and the airport facilities, so they obviously were not charging themselves rent. Now they are charging rent for the land, and making money doing so. It no longer matters if the land is private or public, it is generating a big profit for the government year after year.

 

[interchange42]

Air travel is very unsustainable, with fuel consumption and pollution and the vast amounts of land required.

Air travel is not about to end. As necessity is the mother of invention, there will be ways found to keep airplanes aloft as the fuel crunch worsens. New planes are much more fuel efficient than older ones, and innovation will continue.

While necessity may also mean that we will finally get high speed rail connecting us to close cities more easily, rail will never replace air travel for longer distance trips.

42

 

[ShonTron]

Oh, of course we will need air travel until someone invents the teleporter and that improvements have been made (though it still remains unsustainable for the time being), and these are some reasons why I take issue with Unimaginative's argument accepting the status quo.

 

[rbt]

Air travel is not about to end. As necessity is the mother of invention, there will be ways found to keep airplanes aloft as the fuel crunch worsens. New planes are much more fuel efficient than older ones, and innovation will continue.

Heck, Porter actively advertises that they use less fuel per passenger on the Toronto to Ottawa corridor than the train.

You don't even need to improve the technology if you can fool the population.