Pearson landing fees tops globally
Surpasses Tokyo's Narita to grab title of most expensive place to land a plane
BRENT JANG

TRANSPORTATION REPORTER

TORONTO -- Toronto's Pearson International Airport has emerged as the world's most expensive place to land a plane, according to an annual survey.

It cost $10,986 (U.S.) for a Boeing 747 jetliner, for example, to land at Pearson last year, said a report to be released today by the Air Transport Research Society.

Tae Oum, the society's president and a professor at the University of British Columbia's Sauder School of Business, said two airports in Japan placed second and third -- Osaka's Kansai and Tokyo's Narita, which ranked as the priciest airport from 2001 through 2004.

Last year, it cost $7,546 for a Boeing 747 to land at Kansai and $7,040 at Narita. Birmingham, England, came fourth on the list, with $7,013 in landing fees.

The rise of the Canadian dollar against the U.S. currency contributed to Pearson taking the lead among 134 airports surveyed internationally. Prof. Oum added that Pearson did poorly in another category that measured operating efficiency. Other airports pull in a larger share of revenue from non-aeronautical sources such as retailing, fast food and leasing space to airport users, he said.

For operating efficiency, Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson ranked first.

Pearson's operator, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, played down the significance of the survey, saying that airlines get more service for their money at Canada's largest airport.

"We offer all-inclusive use of the gates and all the services that an airline would need. At other airports, it's an à la carte situation," said Scott Armstrong, the GTAA's manager of media relations.

Executives at Air Canada and WestJet Airlines Ltd. have been urging Ottawa to reduce federal ground rent charged to airports, but Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon said last week that no rental breaks are planned beyond those already announced in 2005.

Despite Mr. Cannon's comment, Pearson remains in talks with Transport Canada and is optimistic about developing a new formula to chop Toronto's ground rent, Mr. Armstrong said.

"If that rent was lowered or eliminated, then we would be in a position to reduce landing fees. We've committed to passing on those savings to the airlines," he said.

For an Airbus A320, Pearson also topped the 2005 list by charging $2,033 in landing fees. Next came Kansai ($1,537), Birmingham ($1,298) and Narita ($1,236).

The first four annual surveys showed Narita as the world's most expensive airport, so the statistics for 2005 mark the first time that Pearson has outpaced all of its rivals after being runner-up in 2003 and 2004, the Prof. Oum noted.

The study shows that Pearson's landing fees are more than double those charged at the second-priciest airport in North America, New York's LaGuardia, which levies $5,031 for a Boeing 747 to land. [Fishing the 747 out of the East River because it couldn't stop on the 7000' runways would cost a lot more!!! :) ]

One of the society's research directors, Chunyan Yu, is scheduled to present the findings of the 400-page report at an industry conference today in Montreal.

Industry analysts say that high landing fees are one of several challenges facing airlines. Other pressures include fierce fare wars, demands for wage increases from unions and soaring oil prices, Orion Securities Inc. analyst Ted Larkin said yesterday.

Red-hot oil prices, after wreaking havoc in the industry in the past, may continue to do so in the future, he said at an airline investment conference in Toronto organized by Insight Information Co.

Calin Rovinescu, a former senior executive at Air Canada who went on to help start Genuity Capital Markets, said investing in the airline industry isn't for the meek.

Many investors have been burned when they opted to keep their airline stocks for the long term, but nimble speculators have profited by timing their purchases for the short term, he said.

Yup....I think Toronto took this title in January......

Why the high landing costs?

^^Well to finance a 3bill terminal....as well as ridiculous taxes imposed from the government

Hey we got a brand new spanking terminal out of it so I don't mind. The huge government taxes are annoying though.

Sweet. A nice way to gouge ourselves.

wow, :eek:

I can't believe that they actually got LaGuardia Airport in NYC to give a quote for landing a 747 there. It would have to be stripped down to just an airframe and would be flying on jet fuel vapors. On the takeoff it would need to have only enough fuel to fly to JFK on the other side of Queens. Even then it would not be a smooth takeoff. Rev the engines to full throttle and hold the wheel brakes down. More like an aircraft carrier takeoff actually. :)

is Toronto's landing fees different from all the others because of the all-in-one nature of the fee. It includes things like de-icing and other extras, so the difference might not actually be so bad.

That's horrible! YYZ's pricing themselves out of new services and added frequencies. Why is Birmingham so expensive too? It's not like they have a new terminal or anything.

is Toronto's landing fees different from all the others because of the all-in-one nature of the fee. It includes things like de-icing and other extras, so the difference might not actually be so bad.

That "all in one" fee crap is Public Relations BS. I suppose they also throw in a cockpit window cleaning for free. Or maybe the airport version of the maid leaves a mint on the pilots' seats.

From what I understand based on previous threads on SSC on this subject, the Canadian Government has some bizarre fee that it charges airports. Something similar to renting the land the airport sits on. Pearson has always been very expensive to land at but the only reason I started another thread on it is because it is now Numero Uno in the world. And yes, it has played a significant role in getting many foreign airlines to pull up stakes from Pearson. Check for the previous thread for my list of airlines.

^^Well to finance a 3bill terminal....as well as ridiculous taxes imposed from the government



totally agree. :runaway:

The GTAA will have to dramatically lower its fees. I don't understand the rationale in alienating the people you are trying to attract.

I know that Copenhagen Airport has one of the highest landing fees/taxes/whatever in the world as well, but it feels somewhat more justified considering it's one of the most efficient and well designed airports on the planet.
I visited YYZ last summer and it was just any other North American airport. Ugly and boring as hell.

^ which terminal? the new one is still in development.

^It's opened, but not completed, I think you mean

no i meant its still in development, i.e. not finished. sections become available all the time for such projects, but the project itself isnt finished.

I visited YYZ last summer and it was just any other North American airport. Ugly and boring as hell.

Were you in the new terminal or one of the old ones?

I love the new monorail... maybe that's the cost they're trying to recover.

I visited YYZ last summer and it was just any other North American airport. Ugly and boring as hell.


Or maybe you went to the interim "infield terminal".

Anyways, the new T1 (terminal one) is somewhat like Chep Lap Kok, although at a smaller scale. It's quite airy and open and it is plenty bright.

http://www.gtaa.com/Images/TerminalNewGallery/images/NewTerminal5.jpg

hkskyline
http://img27.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/toronto/RIMG0013c.jpg
http://img27.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/yyz01.jpg
http://img27.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/toronto/RIMG0005c.jpg

Regarding the high landing fees... of course it's going to be expensive to fly to the Centre of the Universe! :cheers:

I know that Copenhagen Airport has one of the highest landing fees/taxes/whatever in the world as well, but it feels somewhat more justified considering it's one of the most efficient and well designed airports on the planet.
For Toronto, you're actually paying so much because it's one of the most inefficiently run airports on the planet. It's the 2nd most inefficient major North American airport (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149545411508&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851).

Not good for Canada.

For Toronto, you're actually paying so much because it's one of the most inefficiently run airports on the planet. It's the 2nd most inefficient major North American airport.

Well, we just need to give GTAA some time to complete the new spanking terminal. After that, it would be very efficient.

TORONTO

Kansai had a new terminal on a brand new island, yet the landing fee disparity is huge vs. Toronto. They seemed to have managed their much larger engineering project far more successfully to keep their charges lower.

I flew from Melbourne AU to Toronto in I think it was 2004 and it cost me an extra AUD$300 to fly there than to New York which is actually further. Since I flew via SFO on an Air Canada flight I didnt get to use the new terminal and the one I did use at YYZ left a lot to be desired. Next time I will look at alternatives such as Buffalo, JFK, or Detroit and take a train over. Flying from here to practically anywhere in the US is cheaper than to practically anywhere in Canada.

Just I like Canada too much that I keep spending my money on plane tickets to go there!

^^^ Flying into Buffalo and driving to metro Toronto is a great alternative to flying straight into Pearson. BUF is modern and has a variety of low-cost-carriers, including AirTran and Southwest Airlines. From BUF to metro Toronto is only a two hour drive at the most. I've done it many times and have saved a bundle.

^^^ Flying into Buffalo and driving to metro Toronto is a great alternative to flying straight into Pearson. BUF is modern and has a variety of low-cost-carriers, including AirTran and Southwest Airlines. From BUF to metro Toronto is only a two hour drive at the most. I've done it many times and have saved a bundle.

The problem is that if you don't have a car, or friends/family to pick you up...... you will be spending a hell of a lot of money on a taxi ride.........

What pisses me off is all the airlines that have cut their Toronto route probably because of the insanely high landing costs... One of them.. Swiss international airlines has stopped flying altogether (while it still has a route to YUL) I'm pretty damn sure there's more demand in Toronto for Swiss.. But the costs deter them....

Any ranking about airports with the highest taxes, please?
:?

El Al to reduce Toronto flights due to fees
Chris Sorensen
17 June 2006
National Post

Israeli airline El Al says it has decided to cut Toronto out of its North American expansion plans because of sky-high fees at Pearson International Airport, stirring fears that other foreign airlines may soon decide to follow suit.

El Al said yesterday that, as of July 23, it will reduce the number of flights it offers from Toronto to Tel Aviv to five a week from eight a week, including two flights that originate in Los Angeles.

The number of non-stop flights between Toronto and Tel Aviv will be reduced on Sept. 1 to three a week as El Al's Los Angeles to Tel Aviv through Toronto route is scheduled to be scrapped entirely.

"Our operational costs on this route were just too high," explained Stanley Morais, the Canadian general manager of El Al and an outspoken critic of the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA), which operates Pearson.

El Al, known for its intense security procedures, has been warning for over a year that it may drop or reduce service to Toronto if something is not done to rein in rising costs at the country's largest airport, which holds the dubious title of being the most expensive airport in the world to land a plane.

The airline is hoping to save about $2-million annually because of the changes. In part, that's because the airline was considering flying the Los Angeles-to-Tel Aviv route with a stop in Toronto with a larger Boeing 747 aircraft because of rising demand from U.S. travellers.

But, according to Mr. Morais, landing a Boeing 747 in Toronto costs about $13,490 plus another $3,754 in terminal fees. That's compared to the $6,433, plus another $2,150 in terminal fees, that El Al now pays to land a smaller Boeing 767 in Toronto.

The good news is that, with the absence of U.S. passengers on the remaining flights, the number of seats available between Toronto and Tel Aviv will increase, although there will be fewer flights a week to choose from.

El Al's move came one day after Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government introduced a bill that seeks to increase oversight of airport authorities and the way they set their fees.

For its part, the GTAA has said its high costs are mainly driven by Ottawa's airport rent scheme, a vestige of Ottawa's decision to spin off the country's airports to not-for-profit authorities in the early 1990s. It has promised to pass any savings from the federal government along to airlines and their passengers.

However, critics say excessive spending by airport authorities has also contributed to the problem, citing massive capital projects like the $4-billion redevelopment program underway at Pearson.

Fred Gaspar, the president of the Air Transport Association of Canada, said there is more than enough blame to go around, but stressed Ottawa and the airport authorities need to work together to bring down the cost of commercial aviation in this country.

If not, Canadians can expect to see more foreign airlines trimming their service to Toronto. "We may very well see more international airlines following suit," Mr. Gaspar said. "Everybody has their breaking point."

The problem is that if you don't have a car, or friends/family to pick you up...... you will be spending a hell of a lot of money on a taxi ride.........

I've rented a car everytime. There is no problem with taking a car rented in the US into Canada and then returning it to the US airport. No extra insurance or any extra BS charges. And rental cars are fairly inexpensive. And at BUF you can be out of your plane, grab your luggage and at the rental car garage (under the parking garage) in about 20-30 minutes. It really is no big deal. :)

I've rented a car across the border before, but only one large rental agency seemed able to let me. I believe it was an insurance issue, and that since one side of the border sells cars at a lower price, some people would rent and re-sell it in the other country for a profit.

I've rented a car across the border before, but only one large rental agency seemed able to let me. I believe it was an insurance issue, and that since one side of the border sells cars at a lower price, some people would rent and re-sell it in the other country for a profit.

^^ That is weird. I've never heard that reason stated before. All that I know is that I've rented numerous cars from Hertz at BUF and told them that I was taking the car to Toronto and would be returning it at BUF airport. It's a fairly common practice for the car rental agencies at BUF airport.

I assume that you have a HKSAR passport hkskyline so that might be the cause of the problem, solely due to the fact that Hertz and the other car rental agencies would have a much more difficult time bringing a lawsuit against someone who lives in HK versus someone who lives in Atlanta.

If they want cheaper landing fees theres Hamilton International only 45mins-1 hour away. I'm if a few of the cheaper airlines decided to start using hamilton our airport focused council would cough up the dough for an express bus service to downtown to.This would prolly be faster than by car because of the new HOV lanes being installed on the QEW.

Pearson sucks! Honeslty....

i cannot go there..it has nice infrasturcutre and its new terminal is really something...
but why shoudl fees be high for?

For Las Vegas, if i had gone to Buffalo i would pay like 290 USD whereas, going from Pearson is 500+tax which comes to no more than 710 dollars :mad:

come on!!!!!!!!!!

^^ That is weird. I've never heard that reason stated before. All that I know is that I've rented numerous cars from Hertz at BUF and told them that I was taking the car to Toronto and would be returning it at BUF airport. It's a fairly common practice for the car rental agencies at BUF airport.

I assume that you have a HKSAR passport hkskyline so that might be the cause of the problem, solely due to the fact that Hertz and the other car rental agencies would have a much more difficult time bringing a lawsuit against someone who lives in HK versus someone who lives in Atlanta.
No, my passport is North American and I have a local drivers' license. From what some agencies have told me, it doesn't have anything to do with the passport but rather the price differences between the two countries. They never asked me what passport I carried when I rented the car anyway.

In the end, we rented from Hertz as the other firms couldn't accomodate.

My favourite line came when the Minister (from Montreal) who's portfolio included airports when he said that if airlines didn't want to land at Toronto then they could just land at Montreal.

Thankfully his government got voted out yet the tax rates haven't been cut yet :(

Quote: If they want cheaper landing fees theres Hamilton International only 45mins-1 hour away. I'm if a few of the cheaper airlines decided to start using hamilton our airport focused council would cough up the dough for an express bus service to downtown to.This would prolly be faster than by car because of the new HOV lanes being installed on the QEW.

Hamilton would have to build a terminal much much bigger than it has right know. It would cost like $15,000,000 for a termianl like Rochester Int. Then you would have to build bigger runways. The new runways would cost like $4,000,000(that includes some extra stuff like de-icer). But on top of that, in order to fit the new terminal and runways the airport would need more land. So land might be like $2,500,000. The overal cost of a completly new airport to acomidate todays modern standerds might be like $21,500,000. I bet that is cheaper than it really is though.

the pearson airport is really nice and neat and has easy access but they need to reduce thier fees or its going to be bufalo that needs an expansion.

Buffalo will need an expansion soon. They already expanded a runway, but it has only made a slight difference.

There's a reason why Hamilton Airport announced a few weeks ago that it's going to be doubling the size of its International Terminal (completion slated for early 2007) and expanding its north-south runway, the city is purchasing the land necessary for the extension, about 110 acres.

Quote: If they want cheaper landing fees theres Hamilton International only 45mins-1 hour away. I'm if a few of the cheaper airlines decided to start using hamilton our airport focused council would cough up the dough for an express bus service to downtown to.This would prolly be faster than by car because of the new HOV lanes being installed on the QEW.

Hamilton would have to build a terminal much much bigger than it has right know. It would cost like $15,000,000 for a termianl like Rochester Int. Then you would have to build bigger runways. The new runways would cost like $4,000,000(that includes some extra stuff like de-icer). But on top of that, in order to fit the new terminal and runways the airport would need more land. So land might be like $2,500,000. The overal cost of a completly new airport to acomidate todays modern standerds might be like $21,500,000. I bet that is cheaper than it really is though.

steeltown beat me to it but yeah were building that....

cool...cant wait to check it out

The expansion projects and plans are on this site somewhere

http://www.flyhi.ca/index.shtml

^^ Here's the link to the Master Plan for Hamilton Int'l. I didn't see anything that mentioned a lower landing fee that Pearson, which you would think would be its main selling point.

http://www.flyhi.ca/pdf/amp_update.pdf

^^ Here's the link to the Master Plan for Hamilton Int'l. I didn't see anything that mentioned a lower landing fee that Pearson, which you would think would be its main selling point.

http://www.flyhi.ca/pdf/amp_update.pdf

I don't think the Master Plan is a promotional document....

I don't think the Master Plan is a promotional document....

It's a hundred and fifty pages long. And it even lists Hamilton's weaknesses as a larger airport. I was just hoping it would list cheaper landing costs as one of its strengths, if it would actually be cheaper.

I would hope they are....

we don't have to pay the rent if i'm not mistaken as the airport is city owned not an airport authority...

Yea i was going to ask who the owners are for hamilton and pearson respectively. I looked in Hamilton when I flew in last time except it seem only a few Canadian domestic short haul flights use it atm?

Hamilton is poorly-connected to Toronto by transit, so it is hard to justify sending the international flights there. A taxi ride to downtown Toronto is far too expensive and out of the price range to the average traveller.

Hamilton is poorly-connected to Toronto by transit, so it is hard to justify sending the international flights there. A taxi ride to downtown Toronto is far too expensive and out of the price range to the average traveller.

The new Highway 6 expressway makes the trip much faster now. Its only a few minutes to the 403 which offers and pretty straight route to the QEW (both directions) and 407.

The main problem with hamilton is we never seem to be able to keep momentum. For example our council hmmm-ed and haaaa-ed and didn't build the expansion in time to keep westjet and combining that with air canada going bankrupt for a while, completely destroyed the immediate future of the airport. Hopefully airport fees at pearson will climb high enough to get westjet back a bit more.

Hopefully airport fees at pearson will climb high enough to get westjet back a bit more.
That's not something good to hope for.. A large chunk of the GTA's economy (including Hamilton) is generated at Pearson. No matter how high fees will rise at Pearson, airlines won't switch to Hamilton, either they'll pay the exhorbitant fees or simply move to Montreal (which is also unlikely). The fees at Pearson can only go down from this point. International pressure and pressure from the GTAA will MAKE Ottawa reduce the taxes.

The fees at Pearson can only go down from this point. International pressure and pressure from the GTAA will MAKE Ottawa reduce the taxes.

They have'nt flinched yet! :)

Hopefully airport fees at pearson will climb high enough to get westjet back a bit more.

If you noticed over the last few months WestJet has increased flights from YHM, think we got back 40 to 50% of the flights that we lost from WestJet when they moved the hub to Toronto. For example last month we got back Hamilton to Vancouver. More flights to Calgary and gained Orlando.

Really it's all up to Air Canada to expand its Jazz airline. Hamilton would make perfect sense to be Jazz airline hub for domestic flights to compete with WestJet discount price.

Here's the site plan for Hamilton Airport International Terminal expansion, which construction starts next month. The blue is the new International Terminal. Yellow is for domestic, if the demand is there the Tradeport will expand that.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Aallen396/expansionairport.jpg

Adding jetports is completely up to the airline. Some airlines don't like jetports because of the cost, hence why WestJet doesn't want it at Hamilton Airport.

they are more likely to go up, GTA's debt load has increased over the last 3 years not decreased.

-I will never fly Air Canada from Atlanta to Toronto until they put back some mainline planes and drop Jizz (oh, I mean Jazz.)

-How can you not have jetbridges at Hamilton or Pearson airport? It does still get incredibly cold in southern Ontario doesn't it?

No apologies for Pearson
Chris Sorensen
5 July 2006
National Post

Toronto's Pearson International Airport -- among the world's most expensive in terms of fees charged to airlines -- is set to unveil today a new terminal-to-terminal tram. It's among the final pieces of the airport's dramatic $4.4-billion redevelopment project, an effort that has come under sharp criticism in recent months. In May, the Wall Street Journal portrayed Pearson, with its "soaring ceilings, terrazzo floors and millions of dollars of modern art," as an airport that is out of step with the current airline industry focus on cost-cutting. Last week, Air Canada CEO Montie Brewer said Pearson's high cost structure threatened to drag down the economy of Canada's largest city by discouraging travel in and out of the airport. The Financial Post's Chris Sorensen sat down yesterday with John Kaldeway, CEO of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), to get the view from inside the eye of the storm.

Q Toronto has become the poster child for lavishly designed airports around the world and is frequently criticized for passing its high costs along to airlines and passengers. How do you respond to all of the negative publicity?

A There is little question that it costs a bunch of money to build a new airport. And Toronto is different than a lot of cases because when control of the airport was transferred [from the federal government to the airport authority], we inherited an airport that was desperately in need of rebuilding. There used to be huge complaints about how bad this place was and how embarrassing it was for the biggest city in Canada to have the worst airport around.

Q So the $4.4-billion would have needed to be spent regardless of who was running Pearson?

A Other airports in Canada had already undergone redevelopments on the government's dime. I think you're going to find that over the next decade, there will be many airports that have to rebuild, and they will rebuild at bigger costs than this.

Q Do you think the criticism levelled against the GTAA is unfair given the situation you just described?

A It's not so much a case of whether it's fair or not. The issue [high landing fees] boils down to the fact that airports like Toronto -- particularly Toronto -- have built a fee regime that includes everything. In other words, airlines pay only three fees -- landing fees, terminal charges and space rental -- and everything else is included. At most other airports, airlines have to pay for other services separately. Some charge for check-in counters and others charge for gates. Some airports have a list that's three or four pages long of things that they can charge for. So it's really difficult to compare and figure out who is more costly.

Q Many critics tend to focus on the most extravagant aspects of the new facilities, which, I believe, included a sculpture so massive it had to be installed before the building that houses it. How do you justify those sorts of expenses?

A The total artwork budget was $10-million. Now you do the math: What is that as a total percentage of the airport redevelopment? It's miniscule, although I realize there are optics that have to be considered.

Q But is it necessary to the operation of the airport? Does it add value?

A That's a difficult question for me to answer. I recently said to someone, "Do you really want me to tear down the building because it looks too nice?" Personally, I don't think it was out of line. Many public buildings around the world spend a small amount of their budgets to add cultural items and art in order to enhance their buildings. That's what we did and we don't need to apologize for it.

Q You have been very vocal about the role of Ottawa's airport rent scheme in driving up costs, saying Pearson pays about two-thirds of the country's airport rent, despite handling only a third of the traffic. Is rent relief the only option left to bring Pearson's costs down?

A Airport rent is 34% of our landing fees. That's a huge number. So it's a big deal if you take that away, which is what we're working on right now with the federal government. I'm cautiously optimistic that will happen.

Q Is there anything the GTAA can do in the interim? What about following the lead of some European airports that generate additional revenue by turnin g parts of their airports into shopping malls?

A We're doing more on that front. The new international pier will have a very sizable duty-free shop, which, from a concessions perspective, provides us with a lot of revenue. We're also getting a lot of revenue from parking, which is actually being utilized more than we forecast. We will also be adding more concessions in Terminal 3 and the existing part of Terminal 1. And we're allowing more advertising [inside the terminals] than we used to.

Q This phase of Pearson's redevelopment is almost finished. Is there anything you would have done differently had you been able to foresee the devastating impact of 9/11, SARS and soaring fuel prices on the airline industry?

A In terms of overall concept -- no. I think this airport will serve this community for decades and serve it extremely well.

http://travelcanada.sympatico.msn.ca

MONTREAL (CP) - Toronto's Pearson International Airport was singled out as "the world's most expensive airport" at an international conference on the future of global air transport.

Air Canada (TSX:ACE.B) President Montie Brewer said in an interview that operating out of Pearson affects the airline's cost structure and the fares consumers in the Toronto area have to pay.
"And I truly believe it stunts the potential growth of the economy in Toronto and Ontario," Brewer said Thursday.

Jim May, President and CEO of the Air Transport Association of America, zeroed in on the Toronto airport during a speech to airline decision-makers from around the world.

May pointed out that Pearson charges more than double the rate charged at New York's La Guardia airport.

"A big part of that is the Crown rents environment that adds tens of millions of dollars to the cost structure of the airport without any discernible aviation benefit," he added.

Brewer also echoed the complaint about the high rents paid by the airport.

"It's a fairly significant part of the cost structure that needs to be addressed. . This is an issue all across Canada, but it's more pronounced at Pearson," he added.

May cited the Toronto airport as one of the many obstacles the troubled airline industry in the United States has had to deal with lately.

The airline executive said since the terrorists attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, overall airport fees, taxes and surcharges in the U.S. have risen to 30 per cent of a typical airline ticket.

In his speech, May also complained about air traffic control systems in the United States, saying even Mongolia is moving to a satellite-based modern system.

"The reality is our radar-based human-intensive analogue navigation forces us to operate in the 21st century using World War Two era technology," May said.

May said the U.S system was "old, antiquated and needs to be retired to the Smithsonian Museum in Washington as a relic of the past."

He noted that in 2005 air traffic control delays cost U.S. carriers an estimated $6 billion dollars US.

The head of Air Canada agreed, saying anything that slows down an efficient operation impacts the customer.

"Right now, there are a number of airports along the eastern seaboard where afternoon thunderstorms do show up and do slow down the routes you can use to access those airports" Brewer said.

"(It's) to the point where we are gonna start notifying customers who fly to La Guardia that if it's bad weather they should allow extra time in their plans because it is harder and harder for airlines to deliver on time when the infrastructure can't support the volume."

The air transport outlook conference was hosted by the International Civil Aviation Organization and the Airports Council International.

Shares in ACE Aviation, parent company of Air Canada, closed at $31.17, down three cents, on Thursday on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

"Toronto now most expensive airport to land at!!"

For all the wrong reasons.

This is going to test Air Canada since they will have to compete with cheaper transfer airports in the U.S. Who will want to pay more money just for the privilege to transfer in Toronto? If Air Canada cuts back in Toronto the airport will be in bigger debt. I see this as a potential nightmare for GTAA that might spiral out of control.