Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF

[tomh009]

I think the only real reason to have the bus start at YKF is if the goal really is to get permission to do security here and skip it at Pearson.  That could be a huge advantage.  Although tricky with US flights.  And I’m sure the Government Agencies would have a lot to say.

The idea of having the bus be pre-cleared is absolutely insane. But then again, since airplane security is mostly theatre, maybe they’ll do it — they already do lots of things that are insane from a security standpoint, if the purpose were actual security.

It doesn't appear to be security at YKF, just luggage check-in. Which might also mean that YYZ arrival doesn't have to be strictly one hour before departure.

The buses are 36 seats in a 1+2 configuration (12 rows) so definitely roomier than a GO bus. Typical layout would be 14 rows of 2+2.

[Rainrider22]

The idea of having the bus be pre-cleared is absolutely insane. But then again, since airplane security is mostly theatre, maybe they’ll do it — they already do lots of things that are insane from a security standpoint, if the purpose were actual security.

What a roller coaster of a post!

It’s not at all insane.  It’s easy to get the bus loaded/unloaded in the secure areas of the airports.  And it’s extremely easy to keep the inside of the bus with passengers “sanitized” from start to end of the journey.  If it gets compromised (like the bus has to pull over or open its door for any reason) you just make wverything reclear on the other end.

You could argue that the bus itself moving into and out of the airport would be an easy target but it’s literally no different than the hundreds/thousands of other vehicles that move into/out of the airport secure area every day.

For me it isn't a rollercoaster.  It is an ok idea. What I dont like is that it is a way for Air Canada not to service our airport with actual aircraft...

[danbrotherston]

The idea of having the bus be pre-cleared is absolutely insane. But then again, since airplane security is mostly theatre, maybe they’ll do it — they already do lots of things that are insane from a security standpoint, if the purpose were actual security.

It doesn't appear to be security at YKF, just luggage check-in. Which might also mean that YYZ arrival doesn't have to be strictly one hour before departure.

The buses are 36 seats in a 1+2 configuration (12 rows) so definitely roomier than a GO bus. Typical layout would be 14 rows of 2+2.

This just gets better and better...

Although it is ironic that they have chosen a layout with more space than a typical bus, given that a typical bus is vastly more spacious than a typical Air Canada seat, at this rate, the bus right might be the most comfortable portion of the trip.

[tomh009]

I tested pricing with a flight to London (UK) on a random date in June. The cost from YKF was exactly the same as from YYZ---effectively AC is providing the bus ("luxury motor coach") transportation free if you're flying with them. (I tried booking just the bus but that does not appear to be possible.)

[SammyOES]

It is an ok idea. What I dont like is that it is a way for Air Canada not to service our airport with actual aircraft...

Yes, I agree. And if it’s executed well and people like it, then that’s fine with me I guess. That’s business. But if it’s not really a benefit for the customer and it’s only purpose is to weaken an already vulnerable Flair to the point that it collapses and AC can then cut the service - that’s not ok. And I think either motivation is possible here.

[tomh009]

It is an ok idea. What I dont like is that it is a way for Air Canada not to service our airport with actual aircraft...

Yes, I agree.  And if it’s executed well and people like it, then that’s fine with me I guess.  That’s business.  But if it’s not really a benefit for the customer and it’s only purpose is to weaken an already vulnerable Flair to the point that it collapses and AC can then cut the service - that’s not ok.  And I think either motivation is possible here.

I don't see that it would steal that many passengers from Flair's direct service, at least for direct flights, as the bus connection will substantially increase flight time.

On the other hand, I will quite possibly take advantage of this in the summer for a flight to Europe, as it's much less expensive than parking at YYZ or using a taxi to get there.

[danbrotherston]

It is an ok idea. What I dont like is that it is a way for Air Canada not to service our airport with actual aircraft...

Yes, I agree.  And if it’s executed well and people like it, then that’s fine with me I guess.  That’s business.  But if it’s not really a benefit for the customer and it’s only purpose is to weaken an already vulnerable Flair to the point that it collapses and AC can then cut the service - that’s not ok.  And I think either motivation is possible here.

I don't even see why this is a bad thing...we should prefer to have more efficient ground transportation...preferring planes because we cannot get our shit together on building competent public transit isn't a win...it's an indictment of our failed policies.

As for whether the motivation is to kill the competition...I do agree that would be bad...but also like...capitalism baby....

[SammyOES]

I don't even see why this is a bad thing...we should prefer to have more efficient ground transportation...preferring planes because we cannot get our shit together on building competent public transit isn't a win...it's an indictment of our failed policies.

As for whether the motivation is to kill the competition...I do agree that would be bad...but also like...capitalism baby....

The problem is if the service is removed once competition is eliminated. Then consumers just lose overall.

I don’t think it would have a huge effect on Flair. But I also don’t know how razor thin their margins are and how much breathing room they have.

[plam]

For me it isn't a rollercoaster.  It is an ok idea. What I dont like is that it is a way for Air Canada not to service our airport with actual aircraft...

I really don't think AC would service YKF anytime soon. They are really not into serving small airports these days. Heck, they're not even flying Edmonton-Ottawa nonstop, and these airports are neither small nor close to other airports.

This just gets better and better...

Although it is ironic that they have chosen a layout with more space than a typical bus, given that a typical bus is vastly more spacious than a typical Air Canada seat, at this rate, the bus right might be the most comfortable portion of the trip.

A lot better than the average bus, but it's still running on the 401, so absolute comfort is sort of limited. Certainly sounds like more legroom. But that is an undersold advantage of being short: I don't need as much legroom as taller people.

I don't see that it would steal that many passengers from Flair's direct service, at least for direct flights, as the bus connection will substantially increase flight time.

It's actually pretty hard for me to guess how people would make Flair vs AC purchasing decisions with the bus involved.

There is surely a "minimum connection time" stated with the bus that prevents booking it too close to the plane departure time.

[ijmorlan]

The idea of having the bus be pre-cleared is absolutely insane. But then again, since airplane security is mostly theatre, maybe they’ll do it — they already do lots of things that are insane from a security standpoint, if the purpose were actual security.

I don't know why this is insane...there are plenty of airports that use a bus as their transportation from the gate to the plane, this is no different, the gate is just really far away from the plane.

Specifically, far enough away from the plane that it has to travel through a non-secure area for most of its trip, leaving all sorts of room for stuff to happen that shouldn’t. It’s just not prudent. Not at all the same thing as a bus which never leaves the secure area.

But, as I said, airline security is mostly security theatre. We know this with certainty because (among other reasons) liquids are still restricted, approximately 20 years after there was a scare about binary explosives which turns out not to be a feasible terrorist plot. So adding the buses wouldn’t really make much difference.

I was thinking in terms of actually securing the planes, though, not implementing security theatre. Which implies that many things should be done differently from how they are. For example, all people entering the secure area, without exception, should have to pass through the screening checkpoint. Furthermore, even the people who work at the screening checkpoint should be rigidly split into inside and outside, with a wall separating those areas; the only holes in the wall should be the luggage screening tunnels and the metal detector gates. I remember once going through a checkpoint and watching a CATSA worker — or rather, a person wearing what appeared to me to be a CATSA uniform — just walk right around the checkpoint. Absolute insanity.

I also have heard that some airport workers don’t have to clear security; only the ones who go on the planes have to clear. If true, this is obviously insane, because it introduces a huge range of maintenance people, restaurant and retail workers, cleaners, and others who could smuggle things into the supposedly secure zone. Once I accidentally ended up riding an elevator to the secure zone. It was only because somebody in the secure zone called the elevator, and when the door opened to let them on they said I couldn’t get off there, but still.

[danbrotherston]

I don't even see why this is a bad thing...we should prefer to have more efficient ground transportation...preferring planes because we cannot get our shit together on building competent public transit isn't a win...it's an indictment of our failed policies.

As for whether the motivation is to kill the competition...I do agree that would be bad...but also like...capitalism baby....

The problem is if the service is removed once competition is eliminated.  Then consumers just lose overall.

I don’t think it would have a huge effect on Flair. But I also don’t know how razor thin their margins are and how much breathing room they have.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be bad if Flair went away...although given their consistent troubles, I don't think they actually need AC to die...

[danbrotherston]

For me it isn't a rollercoaster.  It is an ok idea. What I dont like is that it is a way for Air Canada not to service our airport with actual aircraft...

I really don't think AC would service YKF anytime soon. They are really not into serving small airports these days. Heck, they're not even flying Edmonton-Ottawa nonstop, and these airports are neither small nor close to other airports.

This just gets better and better...

Although it is ironic that they have chosen a layout with more space than a typical bus, given that a typical bus is vastly more spacious than a typical Air Canada seat, at this rate, the bus right might be the most comfortable portion of the trip.

A lot better than the average bus, but it's still running on the 401, so absolute comfort is sort of limited. Certainly sounds like more legroom. But that is an undersold advantage of being short: I don't need as much legroom as taller people.

I don't see that it would steal that many passengers from Flair's direct service, at least for direct flights, as the bus connection will substantially increase flight time.

It's actually pretty hard for me to guess how people would make Flair vs AC purchasing decisions with the bus involved.

There is surely a "minimum connection time" stated with the bus that prevents booking it too close to the plane departure time.

I am perhaps approaching this from a different position than others...YKF will never fly to Schiphol...my choice isn't with direct from YKF and my destination...it's "how do I get to/from Pearson"...

But I think that's actually the most likely scenario...even Flair only serves a small number of destinations. At best, you might have the choice of "...get to Pearson and fly direct..." or "...fly YKF and connect somewhere other than Pearson..." and I think in both cases, AC going up the 401 with a guarantee of a transfer is going to be compelling. The 401 was always the riskiest part of my trip and AC taking the risk (if there's a crash and I'm stuck for 3 hours, I just get put on the next flight instead of being out of pocket 3k dollars) is a massive feature.

[danbrotherston]

I don't know why this is insane...there are plenty of airports that use a bus as their transportation from the gate to the plane, this is no different, the gate is just really far away from the plane.

Specifically, far enough away from the plane that it has to travel through a non-secure area for most of its trip, leaving all sorts of room for stuff to happen that shouldn’t. It’s just not prudent. Not at all the same thing as a bus which never leaves the secure area.

But, as I said, airline security is mostly security theatre. We know this with certainty because (among other reasons) liquids are still restricted, approximately 20 years after there was a scare about binary explosives which turns out not to be a feasible terrorist plot. So adding the buses wouldn’t really make much difference.

I was thinking in terms of actually securing the planes, though, not implementing security theatre. Which implies that many things should be done differently from how they are. For example, all people entering the secure area, without exception, should have to pass through the screening checkpoint. Furthermore, even the people who work at the screening checkpoint should be rigidly split into inside and outside, with a wall separating those areas; the only holes in the wall should be the luggage screening tunnels and the metal detector gates. I remember once going through a checkpoint and watching a CATSA worker — or rather, a person wearing what appeared to me to be a CATSA uniform — just walk right around the checkpoint. Absolute insanity.

I also have heard that some airport workers don’t have to clear security; only the ones who go on the planes have to clear. If true, this is obviously insane, because it introduces a huge range of maintenance people, restaurant and retail workers, cleaners, and others who could smuggle things into the supposedly secure zone. Once I accidentally ended up riding an elevator to the secure zone. It was only because somebody in the secure zone called the elevator, and when the door opened to let them on they said I couldn’t get off there, but still.

I'm very much confused as to what you think "could happen" that the bus operator wouldn't notice. I think they'd notice if someone boarded the bus, and that's really the security risk they are concerned about.

The point is the bus would be the secure area, people are going to notice if the bus is compromised.

As for airport security, my partner actually worked in Pearson for a few years, she had a pretty high clearance...she could even enter the US zone...but to get that, there were extensive background checks that a normal passenger does not have to pass (she even had to send finger prints to the FBI). In fact, this really is the main way airports are actually secured...is by background checking the people who are there. And I believe this does work quiet well: terrorists--even those involved with large well funded plots--have never chosen to compromise security by infiltrating airport staff. As you say, the actual security apparatus that you see as a passenger is mostly theatre.

[SammyOES]

I'm very much confused as to what you think "could happen" that the bus operator wouldn't notice. I think they'd notice if someone boarded the bus, and that's really the security risk they are concerned about.

The point is the bus would be the secure area, people are going to notice if the bus is compromised.

You don’t even need to rely on the bus driver (although it would be fine to do this). It’s trivial to know if a door/window has been opened on a trip.

[ijmorlan]

I'm very much confused as to what you think "could happen" that the bus operator wouldn't notice. I think they'd notice if someone boarded the bus, and that's really the security risk they are concerned about.

Real security is not done by requiring those pushing for security measures to prove existence of a scenario which defeats the alternative.

That being said, it’s not hard to come up with a scenario: the bus driver could be compromised. Now of course anybody anywhere could be compromised, but having a person drive an entire bus into and out of the secure area with little supervision (drivers normally work alone) is obviously imprudent.

Just have the bus pull up to a platform from which the passengers can easily reach the security checkpoint. Inconvenient if somebody is going plane → bus → plane but otherwise it’s just doing the same things in a different order.

Or not. It’s mostly security theatre anyway, so it really doesn’t matter what security practices are applied to the buses.

If you want to see real security, check out a bank branch. It just looks like a nice office like any that deals with paperwork and forms and the public. But try robbing it (not legal advice, don’t actually try this); good luck getting away with more than a couple of thousand dollars. You’d have to pull a heist every week indefinitely to maintain even a middle-class lifestyle.