Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF

[Pheidippides]

Isn't part of the problem that the American system (the airlines, the airports, training, maintenance, etc.) is just more heavily subsidized than the Canadian, or is that just a myth?

[Coke6pk]

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.

The flights are in fact operated by Envoy Air.

Coke

[tomh009]

If the load factors are OK but they are still losing money, then clearly they have their fares set too low.

[panamaniac]

CTV News reported last night that New Leaf airlines was in town yesterday for talks with YKF. Since New Leaf is not serving YOW, the only attractive route I could see them offer might be a few flights a week to their hub in Winnipeg. Time will tell.

[curiouschair]

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.

[kevinchoi519]

interesting article....i would personally be happy if this happens
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6790...f-breslau/

[tomh009]

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).

[chutten]

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.

Here's the overflight diagram, which doesn't include YKF's routes, but gives you an idea of how many _other_ airplanes are up there and where they're likely to be on a given day in July: http://www.waterlooairport.ca/en/aboutth...930746.pdf

As for "typical takeoff and landing routes" I assume they line up with the runways, as, according to their Noise FAQ:

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.

[chutten]

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.

[panamaniac]

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).

Anybody know why there are any foreign ownership limits at all?  It's not apparent to me why I should care who owns this or the other airline.

[MidTowner]

It's actually a neat reason (well, I think it's neat, anyway).

From this Industry Canada page:

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).

[tomh009]

It's actually a neat reason (well, I think it's neat, anyway).

From this Industry Canada page:

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).

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.

[curiouschair]

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.

Thanks so much!!

[MidTowner]

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.

If it's a legal requirement of treaties we're party to that airlines which fly internationally be domestically controlled, that's about the most concrete rationale anyone is likely to have. Whether you ascribe motives about national interest of protectionism to the requirement, I don't think you'll ever have the lawmakers spell it out like that- though sometimes they come close with other sectors.

I don't think panamaniac is likely to get a better rationale for the requirement than what Industry Canada provides there.

[MacBerry]

It's actually a neat reason (well, I think it's neat, anyway).

From this Industry Canada page:

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).

The issue of ownership goes back to the privatization and public sale of Air Canada in 1988. The real issues are where the airlines would fly if they were owned by say American Airlines or another international carrier.  As a subsidized carrier then known as Trans Canada Airlines, routes were established based on the needs of the country. There were great concerns that a foreign owned carrier would not  be interested in serving places like Edmonton, Winnipeg, Quebec City or any city in the Atlantic region. Lastly places like Regina or Saskatoon or Iqaluit would likely only have very limited passenger service if any.

The big issue from an economic point of view was what is referred to as passenger capitation. Every flight and every ticket price was approved by Transport Canada and thus there was a "national carrier".

If a free market situation including ownership were allowed there was great fear that the much larger U.S. airlines would fly from (example) NYC  to Toronto and on to Vancouver or Japan Or to Europe. This would have caused Air Canada and Pacific Western to be priced out of their own markets mostl likely disappearing entirely. No foreign carrier can  pick up passengers in Canada and fly them to another canadian airport.