(06-23-2016, 01:24 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:

(06-22-2016, 10:58 PM)SammyOES Wrote: This is a pretty huge blow.  Especially because the planes did seem to have good passenger loads and the reason given will apply to a lot of other airlines the region would want to try and attract.

(06-23-2016, 09:59 AM)jgsz Wrote: I'm hoping business leaders, academics and politicians can get together to discuss their YKF needs and to develop strategies to make it happen.

Perhaps a small startup like NextJet (are they still flying??) can be nurtured so it can offer flights to some Canadian and American cities.

I don't know why residents would be opposed to a subsidy if we got another airline in... The money paid to AA was a refund of airport fees... so if they never flew in, we would never of earned that money in the first place.  Instead, we got benefits to the local economy, and once the 2 year period elapsed, we started collecting the fees.  I'd say its a win-win.

Flights are near full, so I'm surprised by this decision.  If it is the Canadian dollar at fault, then why are they keeping YYZ over YKF?  Airline industry is so frustrating!

Coke

(06-24-2016, 12:22 AM)MacBerry Wrote: One has to remember that while the IATA share code for this operator is an AA share code, unless things have changed since I did consulting work for Air Canada a number of years back, American Eagle flights are run by small private owners not by American Airlines. Small operators use the AA designation but are badged American Eagle and are not corporately controlled/owned by AA.

Things could have changed with all the consolidation in the industry but this has been why the "Hub and Spoke" systems work so well.

(08-01-2016, 08:27 PM)curiouschair Wrote: Does anyone know where one can find typical takeoff and landing routes for YKF? I remember seeing some maps when the noise thing came up a couple of years ago, but I couldn't find anything after searching for a while.

Quote:There are no approved or unapproved flight paths over the ground.  Aircraft may fly over all areas in our community.  Certain flight routes are selected and used to reduce the use/cost of fuel, and the duration of the flight.

(08-02-2016, 12:41 PM)tomh009 Wrote: The 25% foreign ownership limit is really low.  The US limit is 49%; EU limits to the same 49% for non-Europeans but there is no restriction within the various EU countries (roughly comparable to eliminating restrictions between US, Canada and Mexico).

Quote:International air relations are governed largely by bilateral air agreements, which have the status of treaties and which, for the most part, incorporate national designation clauses that state only air carriers that are "substantially owned and controlled" by their government or home country nationals may be designated to operate air services under these agreements. There is no single internationally agreed upon definition for the concepts of "substantial ownership and effective control," and contracting states have discretion in choosing how to interpret it...

...Internationally, some states have eased restrictions to allow up to 49 percent foreign ownership of their carriers. China and India are such examples. In addition, some also permit 100-percent foreign ownership for carriers offering domestic services only, such as Australia and New Zealand (subject to a national interest test) and the European Union (internal market).

(08-02-2016, 02:00 PM)MidTowner Wrote: It's actually a neat reason (well, I think it's neat, anyway).

From this Industry Canada page:

Quote:International air relations are governed largely by bilateral air agreements, which have the status of treaties and which, for the most part, incorporate national designation clauses that state only air carriers that are "substantially owned and controlled" by their government or home country nationals may be designated to operate air services under these agreements. There is no single internationally agreed upon definition for the concepts of "substantial ownership and effective control," and contracting states have discretion in choosing how to interpret it...

...Internationally, some states have eased restrictions to allow up to 49 percent foreign ownership of their carriers. China and India are such examples. In addition, some also permit 100-percent foreign ownership for carriers offering domestic services only, such as Australia and New Zealand (subject to a national interest test) and the European Union (internal market).

(08-02-2016, 01:30 PM)chutten Wrote: Oh, wait, I lied. Apparently there's some idea of what's most common, at least for departures.

According to a noise study from January of 2013, there are Standard Instrument Departure Procedures. They collected noise data for different plane types. (The maps start here)

So that's something.

(08-02-2016, 09:20 PM)tomh009 Wrote: All that is correct.  I don't think it's actually a rationale, though.  You could say "national interest" but I'm not sure that having an airline 75% owned by nameless Canadian shareholders is more valuable to the country than having more alternatives for the consumers.