Super Genius
Posts: 1,458 
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
November 16th, 2005, 08:10 PM
The Star
The Star
Quote:
Edited: my emphasis in bold... another example of Ontario, GTA in particular getting the shaft?
Pearson to be world's costliest
Airport to raise landing fees up to 8 per cent, source says
Facility's board blames federal rent, fears losing business
Nov. 15, 2005. 06:54 AM
KEVIN MCGRAN
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER
The world's airlines are braced for fee hikes that will make Toronto Pearson International the world's most expensive airport at which to land.
The Greater Toronto Airports Authority will announce fee hikes for 2006 today, which are expected to be between 6 and 8 per cent, sources told the Toronto Star. It will be the eighth year in a row for such hikes; landing fees will have risen 289 per cent since 1998.
The cost for an airline to land a 747-400 at Toronto would be more than $13,000, surpassing Tokyo Narita, which recently announced 20 per cent reductions that will drop the landing price for a similar jet to the equivalent of $7,300.
"If it's true, it just perpetuates the depressing reality that Pearson is unfortunately not a very competitive airport internationally," said Fred Gaspar, vice-president of policy and strategic planning for the Air Transport Association of Canada. "Their fees area already too high thanks to government rents, and any further increases only demonstrate how the government's rent reform policy didn't really do anything to fix the problems at Pearson."
Air Canada, Pearson's largest tenant, would fly more planes out of Toronto if the rent would come down, president Robert Milton said in this month's edition of Airline International, an industry magazine.
"It is difficult to be happy when Toronto has now evolved to be the most expensive airport in the world. This dubious honour comes after pressure from IATA resulted in ... reductions at Narita, the previous record-holder," Milton told the magazine.
"With its high prices, Toronto's task will become increasingly difficult. Remember that it does not have a market the size of Tokyo to anchor its operations. People will start to fly around it. Our new regional jets are allowing us to do just that in order to avoid its high costs. It is very disheartening as the home-town airline that would really like to develop a bigger hub with frequencies and connectivity," Milton said.
The airports authority would not confirm the size of the hikes. Spokeswoman Connie Turner would only say "there will be increases and a very large portion of those will be due to rents."
She added it's not fair to compare landing fees at Pearson with other airports because Pearson charges one "all-in" fee while others have many more user fees, such as gate fees and apron fees. Tokyo Narita, for example, would collect another $900 for a 747-400 that is parked for four hours.
"Yes, we are expensive and if we want to compete internationally, we have to find a way to get these costs down," Turner said.
She pointed out that while landing fees have nearly tripled, rent paid to Ottawa has doubled, with the GTAA poised to pay about $144 million next year.
Ottawa announced airport rent reform last May that will see Toronto's rent reduced by 6 per cent by 2012, while the next five biggest airports in Canada will see their rents reduced by an average of 52 per cent. By then, Toronto will pay 63 per cent of all airport rent in Canada, while carrying only 33 per cent of the air traffic.
The GTAA has been lobbying for changes, fearing it will lose market share not just to Canadian airports but also to nearby American airports that are subsidized.
Ottawa's new rent formula charges rent at a higher rate for airports with the highest revenues. Toronto is the only one to qualify at the highest rate. The GTAA, a not-for-profit corporation, says the only reason it needs the higher revenue is to pay for the $6 billion debt it had to take on to pay for the $4.415 billion airport redevelopment.
The GTAA says it's not fair that it was told to build a new airport through private financing and then have to pay higher rent.
Transport Minister Jean Lapierre has defended the new rent policy, calling Toronto the big winner because it will save $5 billion over the next 50 years. But Lapierre is facing heavy criticism from local boards of trades and municipal politicians.
He faces the Liberals' GTA caucus tomorrow
Airport to raise landing fees up to 8 per cent, source says
Facility's board blames federal rent, fears losing business
Nov. 15, 2005. 06:54 AM
KEVIN MCGRAN
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER
The world's airlines are braced for fee hikes that will make Toronto Pearson International the world's most expensive airport at which to land.
The Greater Toronto Airports Authority will announce fee hikes for 2006 today, which are expected to be between 6 and 8 per cent, sources told the Toronto Star. It will be the eighth year in a row for such hikes; landing fees will have risen 289 per cent since 1998.
The cost for an airline to land a 747-400 at Toronto would be more than $13,000, surpassing Tokyo Narita, which recently announced 20 per cent reductions that will drop the landing price for a similar jet to the equivalent of $7,300.
"If it's true, it just perpetuates the depressing reality that Pearson is unfortunately not a very competitive airport internationally," said Fred Gaspar, vice-president of policy and strategic planning for the Air Transport Association of Canada. "Their fees area already too high thanks to government rents, and any further increases only demonstrate how the government's rent reform policy didn't really do anything to fix the problems at Pearson."
Air Canada, Pearson's largest tenant, would fly more planes out of Toronto if the rent would come down, president Robert Milton said in this month's edition of Airline International, an industry magazine.
"It is difficult to be happy when Toronto has now evolved to be the most expensive airport in the world. This dubious honour comes after pressure from IATA resulted in ... reductions at Narita, the previous record-holder," Milton told the magazine.
"With its high prices, Toronto's task will become increasingly difficult. Remember that it does not have a market the size of Tokyo to anchor its operations. People will start to fly around it. Our new regional jets are allowing us to do just that in order to avoid its high costs. It is very disheartening as the home-town airline that would really like to develop a bigger hub with frequencies and connectivity," Milton said.
The airports authority would not confirm the size of the hikes. Spokeswoman Connie Turner would only say "there will be increases and a very large portion of those will be due to rents."
She added it's not fair to compare landing fees at Pearson with other airports because Pearson charges one "all-in" fee while others have many more user fees, such as gate fees and apron fees. Tokyo Narita, for example, would collect another $900 for a 747-400 that is parked for four hours.
"Yes, we are expensive and if we want to compete internationally, we have to find a way to get these costs down," Turner said.
She pointed out that while landing fees have nearly tripled, rent paid to Ottawa has doubled, with the GTAA poised to pay about $144 million next year.
Ottawa announced airport rent reform last May that will see Toronto's rent reduced by 6 per cent by 2012, while the next five biggest airports in Canada will see their rents reduced by an average of 52 per cent. By then, Toronto will pay 63 per cent of all airport rent in Canada, while carrying only 33 per cent of the air traffic.
The GTAA has been lobbying for changes, fearing it will lose market share not just to Canadian airports but also to nearby American airports that are subsidized.
Ottawa's new rent formula charges rent at a higher rate for airports with the highest revenues. Toronto is the only one to qualify at the highest rate. The GTAA, a not-for-profit corporation, says the only reason it needs the higher revenue is to pay for the $6 billion debt it had to take on to pay for the $4.415 billion airport redevelopment.
The GTAA says it's not fair that it was told to build a new airport through private financing and then have to pay higher rent.
Transport Minister Jean Lapierre has defended the new rent policy, calling Toronto the big winner because it will save $5 billion over the next 50 years. But Lapierre is facing heavy criticism from local boards of trades and municipal politicians.
He faces the Liberals' GTA caucus tomorrow
Bright Spark
Posts: 334
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
November 20th, 2005, 05:56 PM
Quoting
Montreal cant handle all or even a signifcant amount of traffic from Pearson, theres a reason why Pearson is so big. That being said I think this is more the GTAA's fault than the government. The GTAA chose to pursue the construction of terminal without government money or through private sponsorship like they did for terminal 3. The 4.1 Billion dollar cost is the biggest percentage of the landing fee and had they waited for government funding or gone to a private company they would end up with lower landing fees. Mind you the government shouldnt be putting salt on the wound.
yay nmore trafic to montreal then once our nrew terminal is finished
Executive Member
Posts: 9,137 
December 7th, 2005, 10:30 PM
MMMike,
could I introduce you to http://www.tinyurl.com for your long url in this thread. Thanks..
MMMike,
could I introduce you to http://www.tinyurl.com for your long url in this thread. Thanks..
Clever Clogs
Posts: 730
December 10th, 2005, 08:40 AM
What do they care?
The costs are passed on to the users as higher fare tickets. It's an indirect form of extra taxation.
Canadians are taxed to the max and this is a way around taxing us more without calling it a tax.
If you travel your ticket includes these extra revenues for government administrators to rake in and spend at their whims and pleasure.
What do they care?
The costs are passed on to the users as higher fare tickets. It's an indirect form of extra taxation.
Canadians are taxed to the max and this is a way around taxing us more without calling it a tax.
If you travel your ticket includes these extra revenues for government administrators to rake in and spend at their whims and pleasure.
Bright Spark
Posts: 334
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
December 15th, 2005, 11:13 PM
Quoting
they make the airport uncompetitive and ppl substitute away from it to nearby airports such as hamilton and montreal, in the shorterm this can eb expensive for the airline as they loose business and in teh long run even more expensive as they must renegotiate with teh new airport to capture the lossed market
What do they care?
The costs are passed on to the users as higher fare tickets. It's an indirect form of extra taxation.
Canadians are taxed to the max and this is a way around taxing us more without calling it a tax.
If you travel your ticket includes these extra revenues for government administrators to rake in and spend at their whims and pleasure.
The costs are passed on to the users as higher fare tickets. It's an indirect form of extra taxation.
Canadians are taxed to the max and this is a way around taxing us more without calling it a tax.
If you travel your ticket includes these extra revenues for government administrators to rake in and spend at their whims and pleasure.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 730
December 16th, 2005, 07:38 AM
It's only a question of how much the traveler is prepared to pay extra or how much everyone dependant on travel money is prepared to pitch in to relive the travelers of extra cost to keep them comming.
Everyone pays for it one way or another, directly or indirectly. Government puts sums of money together and find ways to spend it. Too much government spending is done backwards. i.e., 'we have x dollars, how can we spend it to avoid gioving it back to the taxpayers".
Justifying existing taxes collected and looking for new ways to take more is the main occupation of Government Bureaucracy.
Private Business grows by doing more business for the purpose of making more money for its shareholders. It is however controled by competitive forces that keep things in check.
Public business grows by increasing activity and bureaucracy for the purpose of taxing people more, spending more, and employing more people in public sector. There are no control or things that keep things in check. No matter how much money they tax us for, it is never enough.
It's only a question of how much the traveler is prepared to pay extra or how much everyone dependant on travel money is prepared to pitch in to relive the travelers of extra cost to keep them comming.
Everyone pays for it one way or another, directly or indirectly. Government puts sums of money together and find ways to spend it. Too much government spending is done backwards. i.e., 'we have x dollars, how can we spend it to avoid gioving it back to the taxpayers".
Justifying existing taxes collected and looking for new ways to take more is the main occupation of Government Bureaucracy.
Private Business grows by doing more business for the purpose of making more money for its shareholders. It is however controled by competitive forces that keep things in check.
Public business grows by increasing activity and bureaucracy for the purpose of taxing people more, spending more, and employing more people in public sector. There are no control or things that keep things in check. No matter how much money they tax us for, it is never enough.
Bright Spark
Posts: 334
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
December 16th, 2005, 09:57 AM
Quoting
the GTAA is governemnt spinoff corporation.
It's only a question of how much the traveler is prepared to pay extra or how much everyone dependant on travel money is prepared to pitch in to relive the travelers of extra cost to keep them comming.
Everyone pays for it one way or another, directly or indirectly. Government puts sums of money together and find ways to spend it. Too much government spending is done backwards. i.e., 'we have x dollars, how can we spend it to avoid gioving it back to the taxpayers".
Justifying existing taxes collected and looking for new ways to take more is the main occupation of Government Bureaucracy.
Private Business grows by doing more business for the purpose of making more money for its shareholders. It is however controled by competitive forces that keep things in check.
Public business grows by increasing activity and bureaucracy for the purpose of taxing people more, spending more, and employing more people in public sector. There are no control or things that keep things in check. No matter how much money they tax us for, it is never enough.
Everyone pays for it one way or another, directly or indirectly. Government puts sums of money together and find ways to spend it. Too much government spending is done backwards. i.e., 'we have x dollars, how can we spend it to avoid gioving it back to the taxpayers".
Justifying existing taxes collected and looking for new ways to take more is the main occupation of Government Bureaucracy.
Private Business grows by doing more business for the purpose of making more money for its shareholders. It is however controled by competitive forces that keep things in check.
Public business grows by increasing activity and bureaucracy for the purpose of taxing people more, spending more, and employing more people in public sector. There are no control or things that keep things in check. No matter how much money they tax us for, it is never enough.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 730
December 19th, 2005, 01:45 PM
The GTAA is a government bureaucracy. They can call things fully funded public non-profit organizations, crown corporations, private/public joint ventures etc., but thay are all nothing but Government pure and simple.
In the case where a private entity is paticipating in a JV then its just government bureaucrats playing businessmen among friends.
None of it is business.
The GTAA is a government bureaucracy. They can call things fully funded public non-profit organizations, crown corporations, private/public joint ventures etc., but thay are all nothing but Government pure and simple.
In the case where a private entity is paticipating in a JV then its just government bureaucrats playing businessmen among friends.
None of it is business.
