daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Airports and Aviation > Airports

Airports discussions about existing airports



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 23rd, 2010, 08:39 PM   #1301
Toronto_41
Registered User
 
Toronto_41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: YUL, YYZ, CDG, LGA
Posts: 256
Likes (Received): 65

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
Australia actually has to put up with significant levels of international competition, and I think they're far more liberalized than Canada in general. Any flight out of there to Europe requires 1-stop, and passengers have plenty of competition to choose from. They can transit in Hong Kong, Dubai, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, or even Bangkok on a whole array of different carriers. Sure, they can't drive across the border to take another airline, but they can freely choose to fly a foreign carrier from their home city. The transpacific sector is not as competitive, although there are American and New Zealand carriers available in addition to the Australian ones (Qantas, Virgin).

Qantas is indeed worried any passenger leaving Oceania can choose the likes of Cathay, Emirates, United, Air New Zealand, or Singapore Airlines. But Australia hasn't closed the door to international competitionbut Qantas has been able to survive, even though their transit market is extremely small. New Zealand and the Pacific Islands have miniscule populations compared to the Canadian case where a giant USA stands next door to capture some traffic.

So the cost of protecting AC's job base is increased fares for all. Why should the consumer be subsidizing all this? This is also why there is an irony in the Canadian aviation industry. We have a huge population sitting across the border with close economic and cultural ties, yet AC hasn't successfully captured a major slice of the transit market. Price is key.
Protecting AC costs the consumer, I am sure that it does. But by having them not around costs the taxpayer. After all, they do pay a hefty tax bill and maintain jobs here, which also goes into the tax pool. Their employees in turn, own homes, which helps the city and provincial taxes and I can go on and on. So, it is a do or die situation. Maybe we can all do with some cempetition, slowly it is changing.

I still dispute the liberalization because if they were so open to competition, then NZ and AC would have been allowed to do their codesharing. Ragardless of what you say, there is still some level of protectionism in Australia. And again, the similarties are there but there are some vast differences. If Australia was right beside China, then I can understand the comparisson. If Australians could drive over the border for cheaper fares, in the worlds largest airline market, then I could understand. If more than 80% of the population lived within a 2-3 hour drinve from the largest market, then I could understand.

You cannot compare an apple to an orange. Different tastes and different colours, textures and so on. They are both round (sort of) and grow on trees. We need to understand the reasoning behind what is being done. Yes I agree that thier is protectionism but do you think it would be better if AC was not around, jobs were lost, the tax base was reduced, smaller communities lost their services (more so than now) and the list goes on? Is it not the fudiciary responsibility of the government to look after the well being of their citizens?

Things are not as simple as opening up the market and let competition run free. This benefits the larger urban centres (of which I am part of). How does this help out North Bay, Sudbury, or other smaller communities? I am all for competition and reduced fares because I want to travel the world. But, I also have to realise that at the end of the day, most people are not travelling to Sudbury or North Bay from Dubai or other major centres.

If AC was only serving the big cities, across Canada, then bring on the competition. They are somewhat forced to maintain that support of those communities. That is just how it is and how things have evolved.
__________________
Life is like a box of Chocolates! If you know better then everyone, then why ask?

Asia, here I come!!!
J.
Toronto_41 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 23rd, 2010, 08:54 PM   #1302
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,929
Likes (Received): 18195

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toronto_41 View Post
Protecting AC costs the consumer, I am sure that it does. But by having them not around costs the taxpayer. After all, they do pay a hefty tax bill and maintain jobs here, which also goes into the tax pool. Their employees in turn, own homes, which helps the city and provincial taxes and I can go on and on. So, it is a do or die situation. Maybe we can all do with some cempetition, slowly it is changing.

I still dispute the liberalization because if they were so open to competition, then NZ and AC would have been allowed to do their codesharing. Ragardless of what you say, there is still some level of protectionism in Australia. And again, the similarties are there but there are some vast differences. If Australia was right beside China, then I can understand the comparisson. If Australians could drive over the border for cheaper fares, in the worlds largest airline market, then I could understand. If more than 80% of the population lived within a 2-3 hour drinve from the largest market, then I could understand.

You cannot compare an apple to an orange. Different tastes and different colours, textures and so on. They are both round (sort of) and grow on trees. We need to understand the reasoning behind what is being done. Yes I agree that thier is protectionism but do you think it would be better if AC was not around, jobs were lost, the tax base was reduced, smaller communities lost their services (more so than now) and the list goes on? Is it not the fudiciary responsibility of the government to look after the well being of their citizens?

Things are not as simple as opening up the market and let competition run free. This benefits the larger urban centres (of which I am part of). How does this help out North Bay, Sudbury, or other smaller communities? I am all for competition and reduced fares because I want to travel the world. But, I also have to realise that at the end of the day, most people are not travelling to Sudbury or North Bay from Dubai or other major centres.

If AC was only serving the big cities, across Canada, then bring on the competition. They are somewhat forced to maintain that support of those communities. That is just how it is and how things have evolved.

But then, if more carriers fly into Canada, then that creates a lot of jobs and tax revenues as well, and these would reduce prices and benefit the consumer.

Australia is a very isolated place, and does not enjoy the large market size that Canada enjoys across the border. Yet they have embraced liberalization and has worked fairly well, albeit with some bumps along the way. Canada, meanwhile, chose to keep its doors fairly closed, even though they can far better take advantage of siphoning American traffic. The Australians don't have that luxury, yet it's the Canadians that don't want to liberalize.

The fact is, Australians are far luckier than Canadians. They don't need to drive hours to cross the border to find a cheaper alternative. They're provided with that alternative right in their backyard.

If you only want to start comparisons based on exact literal similarities, then no comparison can ever exist. Even a Fuji apple cannot compare to a delicious apple. Australians and Canadians have taken different strategies with their aviation industries. Either set of principles can be applied to each other's countries. If Australia is trying to pull Canadian policy to its shores, then Australians will likely pay much higher fares to fly out, making them even more isolated.

I don't think Canadians would find it hard to swallow to have a cheap alternative flying right in their home cities. So this apple would be much tastier than an orange in Buffalo.

Nobody is saying let the market run completely free. The Australians have become quite liberal but they remain very sticky with some routes, especially along the transpacific sector. However, they are able to keep their vast country quite decently-connected. Tiger Airways and Virgin Blue have decent networks, and we haven't yet seen the smaller centres completely being cut off from the rest of humanity. I think there is a fear in Canada this would take place, but it doesn't have to happen this way.

The key problem is AC is mandated to provide service even for unprofitable routes. It's clear some towns ought to be shut out from air service, but no politician will ever want that to happen. So how much more taxpayer's money needs to go in to subsidize this black hole? That's the ultimate question that needs to be asked to each taxpayer. All this doesn't come free.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2010, 10:37 PM   #1303
Toronto_41
Registered User
 
Toronto_41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: YUL, YYZ, CDG, LGA
Posts: 256
Likes (Received): 65

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
But then, if more carriers fly into Canada, then that creates a lot of jobs and tax revenues as well, and these would reduce prices and benefit the consumer.

Australia is a very isolated place, and does not enjoy the large market size that Canada enjoys across the border. Yet they have embraced liberalization and has worked fairly well, albeit with some bumps along the way. Canada, meanwhile, chose to keep its doors fairly closed, even though they can far better take advantage of siphoning American traffic. The Australians don't have that luxury, yet it's the Canadians that don't want to liberalize.

The fact is, Australians are far luckier than Canadians. They don't need to drive hours to cross the border to find a cheaper alternative. They're provided with that alternative right in their backyard.

If you only want to start comparisons based on exact literal similarities, then no comparison can ever exist. Even a Fuji apple cannot compare to a delicious apple. Australians and Canadians have taken different strategies with their aviation industries. Either set of principles can be applied to each other's countries. If Australia is trying to pull Canadian policy to its shores, then Australians will likely pay much higher fares to fly out, making them even more isolated.

I don't think Canadians would find it hard to swallow to have a cheap alternative flying right in their home cities. So this apple would be much tastier than an orange in Buffalo.

Nobody is saying let the market run completely free. The Australians have become quite liberal but they remain very sticky with some routes, especially along the transpacific sector. However, they are able to keep their vast country quite decently-connected. Tiger Airways and Virgin Blue have decent networks, and we haven't yet seen the smaller centres completely being cut off from the rest of humanity. I think there is a fear in Canada this would take place, but it doesn't have to happen this way.

The key problem is AC is mandated to provide service even for unprofitable routes. It's clear some towns ought to be shut out from air service, but no politician will ever want that to happen. So how much more taxpayer's money needs to go in to subsidize this black hole? That's the ultimate question that needs to be asked to each taxpayer. All this doesn't come free.
We could debate this forever. Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Whether Canadians or Australians have it better, that is incumbent on each person to decide.

As for the airlines, they are coming. Slowly, but surely they are coming. That is the whole policy of blue skies but like the Australians you talk about, they want to protect the fat profit routes over the Pacific to North American. Just like Canada wants to protect their fat profit routes. It is the nature of the game.
__________________
Life is like a box of Chocolates! If you know better then everyone, then why ask?

Asia, here I come!!!
J.
Toronto_41 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2010, 03:33 AM   #1304
urbanfan89
Registered User
 
urbanfan89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,502
Likes (Received): 67

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toronto_41 View Post
Protecting AC costs the consumer, I am sure that it does. But by having them not around costs the taxpayer. After all, they do pay a hefty tax bill and maintain jobs here, which also goes into the tax pool. Their employees in turn, own homes, which helps the city and provincial taxes and I can go on and on. So, it is a do or die situation. Maybe we can all do with some cempetition, slowly it is changing.
This is the same fallacy which justifies restricting the imports of cheaper consumer goods. Sure, in the short term protecting AC may produce some savings here, but those are more than offset by, for instance, the budding entrepreneur who has to fly to new markets in China and who either doesn't go or pays through the nose because of the high price. Or the family who forks over an extra $1000 to vacation in Mexico instead of investing the $1000 in the Canadian economy. Or so forth.

Quote:
You cannot compare an apple to an orange. Different tastes and different colours, textures and so on. They are both round (sort of) and grow on trees. We need to understand the reasoning behind what is being done. Yes I agree that thier is protectionism but do you think it would be better if AC was not around, jobs were lost, the tax base was reduced, smaller communities lost their services (more so than now) and the list goes on? Is it not the fudiciary responsibility of the government to look after the well being of their citizens?
To suggest that AC will not be around at all if the skies were freer is a fallacy. Even if AC went bust, *some* Canadian flag carrier will exist; that's the purpose of the free market.

Quote:
Things are not as simple as opening up the market and let competition run free. This benefits the larger urban centres (of which I am part of). How does this help out North Bay, Sudbury, or other smaller communities? I am all for competition and reduced fares because I want to travel the world. But, I also have to realise that at the end of the day, most people are not travelling to Sudbury or North Bay from Dubai or other major centres.

If AC was only serving the big cities, across Canada, then bring on the competition. They are somewhat forced to maintain that support of those communities. That is just how it is and how things have evolved.
Businesses shouldn't be required to do things at a loss, and AC shouldn't be forced to fly to unprofitable destinations (but if flying to such places increases numbers on connecting long-haul flights, increasing AC's bottom line, all power to them).

Instead, the national and provincial governments should set up a body to tender out subsidies for airlines to fly to unprofitable places. AC could then focus more attention on more profitable long-haul markets instead of fixating about North Bay, Timmins, etc. The extra taxpayer cost should be more than offset by the increased flights to destinations further afield, which benefit the country as a whole.
urbanfan89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2010, 08:35 PM   #1305
Toronto_41
Registered User
 
Toronto_41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: YUL, YYZ, CDG, LGA
Posts: 256
Likes (Received): 65

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanfan89 View Post
This is the same fallacy which justifies restricting the imports of cheaper consumer goods. Sure, in the short term protecting AC may produce some savings here, but those are more than offset by, for instance, the budding entrepreneur who has to fly to new markets in China and who either doesn't go or pays through the nose because of the high price. Or the family who forks over an extra $1000 to vacation in Mexico instead of investing the $1000 in the Canadian economy. Or so forth.


To suggest that AC will not be around at all if the skies were freer is a fallacy. Even if AC went bust, *some* Canadian flag carrier will exist; that's the purpose of the free market.


Businesses shouldn't be required to do things at a loss, and AC shouldn't be forced to fly to unprofitable destinations (but if flying to such places increases numbers on connecting long-haul flights, increasing AC's bottom line, all power to them).

Instead, the national and provincial governments should set up a body to tender out subsidies for airlines to fly to unprofitable places. AC could then focus more attention on more profitable long-haul markets instead of fixating about North Bay, Timmins, etc. The extra taxpayer cost should be more than offset by the increased flights to destinations further afield, which benefit the country as a whole.
Sir, to suggest that the governments of Canada and the US would not save GM or Chrysler would also have been a fallacy yet it happened. To suggest that the US gov't would not rescue AIG or the banks (specifically Citi) was also a fallacy.

Whether or not it is or not, it happens (airlines or not). As it did when the Cdn gov't provided funds for Canadian Airlines by purchasing the Airbus planes from them.

Reality is that in some form or another, AC would be provided some funds to keep it going until WestJet or AirTransat would be able to get up to speed and provide some rescue lifeline.

As for the suggesting AC would not be around if the skies were freer, then I would say that you should take it in the context in which it was said. If the whole comments were takein into consideration, you would note that I said if AC was flying to just the major centres and not mandated to fly to the smaller ones they would be in a better position to compete.

Emirates, Ethiad, Lufthansa and so on are not relyiant on the smaller centres. They are looking at the catchment of the centre they are flying too. The bigger, the better because within the GTA, you are looking at some 6 million people.

If we truly had a free market, then there would be no need for the WTO to handle disputes between nations. AIG would have gone under, Citi would have been not too far behind, Dexia in Europe would have been gone and the lists go on.
__________________
Life is like a box of Chocolates! If you know better then everyone, then why ask?

Asia, here I come!!!
J.
Toronto_41 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2010, 10:16 PM   #1306
YYZplanner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 94
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by yyzhyd View Post
You think so? How many Canadians are Aeroplan members? If they had a choice of flying and getting Aeroplan miles over Skywards miles most if not all would take the Aeroplan as they can use those not only on AC but many more airlines for travel.
AC may not win outright, but EK won't be filling up those A380s ex-YYZ I can assure you of that.

Hey yyzhyd,

Amazing posts you have here. Very informative. It really shows the greediness of EK.

Just one question though. Let me relate this to Emirates in Toronto. If Air Canada is allowed 5th and 6th freedoms lets say to fly to dubai from toronto and then dubai to India, wouldnt they loose out on the competition? I mean, I think that Emirates and other middle east carriers are more well known through out the Middle East, and Asia than Air Canada and other people would prefer to fly them instead of AC because of the better service they offer.

As for gaining Aeroplan on AC and using those points on other airlines, I still think that Emirates will outweigh all of those other airlines because people would choose Emirates over AC and other airlines due to the better service and quality of the service that Emirates offers compared to those other airlines. I mean wouldn't you agree? I'm sure you have travelled on many different airlines.

Can you imagine that Emirates is already beating Saudi Arabian Airlines in the competition.
YYZplanner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2010, 11:06 PM   #1307
urbanfan89
Registered User
 
urbanfan89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,502
Likes (Received): 67

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toronto_41 View Post
Sir, to suggest that the governments of Canada and the US would not save GM or Chrysler would also have been a fallacy yet it happened. To suggest that the US gov't would not rescue AIG or the banks (specifically Citi) was also a fallacy.

Whether or not it is or not, it happens (airlines or not). As it did when the Cdn gov't provided funds for Canadian Airlines by purchasing the Airbus planes from them.
Apples and oranges.

At no point did the US and Canadian governments tried to protect GM and Chrysler by restricting the import of Toyota or Volkswagen. At no point did the Canadian government restrict competition in order to save Canadian Airlines (before it actually went bust). The banks are another matter entirely.

Quote:
As for the suggesting AC would not be around if the skies were freer, then I would say that you should take it in the context in which it was said. If the whole comments were takein into consideration, you would note that I said if AC was flying to just the major centres and not mandated to fly to the smaller ones they would be in a better position to compete.

Emirates, Ethiad, Lufthansa and so on are not relyiant on the smaller centres. They are looking at the catchment of the centre they are flying too. The bigger, the better because within the GTA, you are looking at some 6 million people.
That's exactly why the current regime of forcing AC to fly to unprofitable places should be replaced by another regime where the government competitively awards subsidies for airlines to fly to small places. But, if AC finds that flying to unprofitable places will increase sales on their long-haul network, all power to them.

Emirates and Etihad function entirely on the "Everywhere to everywhere via our Middle East hub" model. Lufthansa flies to plenty of small places across Germany, and it doesn't seem to hold them back. So a problem does exist somewhere.

Quote:
If we truly had a free market, then there would be no need for the WTO to handle disputes between nations. AIG would have gone under, Citi would have been not too far behind, Dexia in Europe would have been gone and the lists go on.
Red herring, red herring, red herring.
urbanfan89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2010, 11:37 PM   #1308
Toronto_41
Registered User
 
Toronto_41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: YUL, YYZ, CDG, LGA
Posts: 256
Likes (Received): 65

LOL. Red Herring it is then.

So, now back to Pearson. It was fun and good to have the rebuttal. Live and learn.
__________________
Life is like a box of Chocolates! If you know better then everyone, then why ask?

Asia, here I come!!!
J.
Toronto_41 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2010, 07:41 AM   #1309
YU-AMC
Aviation/Travel Nerd
 
YU-AMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Whitchurch, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,248
Likes (Received): 1036

Anyways as someone said , back to Pearson.
YU-AMC está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2010, 08:44 PM   #1310
ACT7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,402
Likes (Received): 77

Seems like Egyptair may be using newly acquired 777-300's for the CAI-YYZ run...whenevr the bilateral is finalized and the announcement is made.
ACT7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2010, 06:15 PM   #1311
yyzhyd
Registered User
 
yyzhyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 646
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACT7 View Post
Seems like Egyptair may be using newly acquired 777-300's for the CAI-YYZ run...whenevr the bilateral is finalized and the announcement is made.
Wow that's interesting!
Previously the talk was that MS would be using their new A333s on the CAI-YYZ route.
Any source on the B77W equipment change news?
yyzhyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2010, 04:27 AM   #1312
ACT7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,402
Likes (Received): 77

Quote:
Originally Posted by yyzhyd View Post
Wow that's interesting!
Previously the talk was that MS would be using their new A333s on the CAI-YYZ route.
Any source on the B77W equipment change news?
http://www.travelweekly.com/article3_ektid211724.aspx

Maybe it's interpretation, but I would suggest that "candidate cities" means that it will be 777 candidate cities. Seems like they're growing faster than expected.
ACT7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2010, 07:36 PM   #1313
p5archit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Toronto, Vienna, Amsterdam
Posts: 533
Likes (Received): 1

Noticed EVA Air at Pearson last night - I was coming in from San Salvador and saw that they are now offering flights between Taipei and Toronto. Are these direct?

Also, while in the airport last week, I overheard some people talking about Southwest making a venture north of the border? Not sure.
__________________
..unc!
p5archit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2010, 01:46 AM   #1314
killerk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 1120

The Southwest venture in Canada is through a codeshare with Westjet!!!
killerk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2010, 02:26 AM   #1315
yyzer
Registered User
 
yyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 1,195
Likes (Received): 45

Quote:
Originally Posted by p5archit View Post
Noticed EVA Air at Pearson last night - I was coming in from San Salvador and saw that they are now offering flights between Taipei and Toronto. Are these direct?

Also, while in the airport last week, I overheard some people talking about Southwest making a venture north of the border? Not sure.
Hey P5, that EVA flight that you saw last night was their inaugural into YYZ...it is nonstop in both directions, and is operating 3 x's weekly with 777-300ERs (originally westbound had a stop in ANC - they have since revised it to operate nonstop, with an approved departure out of YYZ at 0130!)
yyzer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2010, 02:27 AM   #1316
yyzer
Registered User
 
yyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 1,195
Likes (Received): 45

Quote:
Originally Posted by killerk View Post
The Southwest venture in Canada is through a codeshare with Westjet!!!
There are local rumblings that the codeshare between WS and WN is dead, and that WS will instead codeshare with DL.....
yyzer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2010, 06:47 AM   #1317
YU-AMC
Aviation/Travel Nerd
 
YU-AMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Whitchurch, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,248
Likes (Received): 1036

Why such a late departure time for Eva?
YU-AMC está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2010, 06:53 AM   #1318
yyzer
Registered User
 
yyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 1,195
Likes (Received): 45

it gives them a perfect arrival time in Taiwan, to make their morning connecting bank to Saigon, Manila, etc....what's interesting is that the GTAA has been quietly approving flights during curfew hours///

/curfew, what curfew?
yyzer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2010, 09:24 PM   #1319
GlasgowMan
AirGlasgow.com
 
GlasgowMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: GLA, ALC, AYT, SSH, KGS, FAO
Posts: 2,644
Likes (Received): 88

Skyservice announces shutdown of operations



TORONTO — The Skyservice chartered airline is going out of business and will wind up its operations, affecting 860 workers, as the company cited competitive changes in the Canadian vacation tour market and its high debt.

The company entered receivership in Ontario Superior Court Wednesday after cancelling most of its scheduled flights out of Toronto's Pearson International Airport.

"Recent changes in the Canadian vacation tour market combined with Skyservice Airlines' debt level have rendered the company unable to maintain profitable operations," the airline said in a statement.

"As a result, one of the company's secured lenders applied for the appointment of the receiver."

The shutdown resulted in the cancellation of one flight that was scheduled to depart Canada for the Dominican Republic on Wednesday as well as other flights planned for April.

The company, which owns 17 aircraft, said it will work with the company's tour operator customers and others to ensure that passenger issues are resolved promptly.

It is uncertain what long-term impact the collapse of Skyservice will have on the Canadian travel industry and whether the reduced competition will lead to a rise in prices for vacation travel.

Signature Vacations spokeswoman Janine Chapman said her company -- a Skyservice client -- was prepared to deal with either a continuation of Skyservice operations or a shutdown, since Signature has access to parent company Sunwing's fleet of planes.

Skyservice client Sunquest Vacations, owned by global travel giant Thomas Cook PLC, said it has organized replacement flights with Air Transat and Enerjet for customers affected by the shutdown of Skyservice flights to the Caribbean and Mexico.

"Since it is late in the winter season, a relatively small number of our passengers were booked on Skyservice flights and we have the capability to respond effectively to this situation," Thomas Cook North America CEO Michael Friisdahl said in a statement.

He added that travel agents and Sunquest representatives were attempting to contact customers with updated flight details by the end of Wednesday.

"The loss of Skyservice is regrettable for us and the Canadian travel industry," Friisdahl said.

"However, we have long-established relationships with a number of flying partners and we are able to turn to these partners to quickly and seamlessly arrange alternate flights for our customers scheduled to travel with Skyservice."

Skyservice has been an important part of Canada's travel industry, although not one of the better-known players since it's primary role is to supply planes and seating capacity to other companies such as Signature Vacations.

Canada's major publicly traded air carriers and travel companies -- Air Canada (TSX:AC.B), Westjet (TSX:WJA) and Transat AT (TSX:TRZ.A) -- have been struggling to cope with the impact of last year's recession on the industry.

They were all dealt a major blow when Canada issued a travel warning for Mexico at the early stages of the H1N1 flu pandemic, which eventually spread around the world.

Skyservice has historically provided little information about the state of its business, which is privately owned and not required to disclose financial information to the public on an ongoing basis.

However, it has been able to step in at critical points when other Canadian airlines collapsed suddenly -- quickly making its fleet of aircraft available to surviving companies that had to adjust their capacity quickly.


http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local.../?hub=CP24Home
__________________
AirGlasgow.com | Fly direct from Glasgow to 120 worldwide destinations

As your Scottish airport to the world, you can fly direct from Glasgow to 120 worldwide destinations, more than any other Scottish Airport. As well as listing all flights and destinations on offer from Glasgow's Airports, you can also view all the latest news and see a full list of all new routes on offer from Glasgow. You can also view our tourist guide to Glasgow, Scotland's largest city.
GlasgowMan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2010, 08:33 AM   #1320
YU-AMC
Aviation/Travel Nerd
 
YU-AMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Whitchurch, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,248
Likes (Received): 1036

Quote:
Originally Posted by yyzer View Post
it gives them a perfect arrival time in Taiwan, to make their morning connecting bank to Saigon, Manila, etc....what's interesting is that the GTAA has been quietly approving flights during curfew hours///

/curfew, what curfew?
Yeah I suspected that was the case for such a late departure. Isn't AC flight to LHR the last to depart just before midnight?
YU-AMC está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
canada, canadian airports, northamerica airport hubs, toronto

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium