News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.8K     0 
trtcttc said:
The operating model of Canadian airports are already very similar to a private airport.
Click to expand...
But, in a private model, our airport, and maybe YYZ or YVR would be in a global airport company, also running maybe LHR, FRA, AMS, or SYD.

We don't know if fees would go up, or down. A private firm's debt might be priced very differently than a single airport authority's. There is more than a single, simplistic lever in privatization.

Innovation, scale, access to expertise, access to capital--I think those could all benefit.

As for small airports: Kamloops and Red Deer keep with runways clear today. So do Grande Prairie and Ft McMurray. What would make them unviable?
 
darwink said:
But, in a private model, our airport, and maybe YYZ or YVR would be in a global airport company, also running maybe LHR, FRA, AMS, or SYD.

We don't know if fees would go up, or down. A private firm's debt might be priced very differently than a single airport authority's. There is more than a single, simplistic lever in privatization.

Innovation, scale, access to expertise, access to capital--I think those could all benefit.

As for small airports: Kamloops and Red Deer keep with runways clear today. So do Grande Prairie and Ft McMurray. What would make them unviable?
Click to expand...
There's airport operators and airport owners, they are not always the same. LHR is owned by a bunch of Middle East Investment funds that's purely financial and self-operates. JFK is owned by the Port Authority but terminal 4 is operated by a subsidiary of Schiphol (AMS). If what we were looking for is outside operating capabilities, we can do that through an agreement with an operator like Schiphol, Fraport, or similar - Canadian pension funds actually owns a bunch of airports globally. Portugal does this, Athens, DEL/BOM, LGA/JFK (on a terminal by terminal basis).

There's obviously the possibility it goes lower and the process of privatization probably matters a lot. it's just the downside of it not working and resulting in higher fees is high. Australia is probably the most similar to us (large land mass, low density concentrated at a few cities) and their airport privatization has resulted in higher fees from day one. We don't have a competitive airport environment outside of GTA and maybe Montreal, that whoever buys YYC has absolute monopoly power over the entire market. Cities in Europe often have at least 2 or more airports near their major cities.

"Airlines and their passengers have paid up to $1.6 billion too much for airport access over the past decade due to a textbook example of how not to privatise monopoly assets, the [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission] said."
www.abc.net.au

Lack of airport regulation costs consumers up to $1.6b in fees: ACCC

Airlines and their passengers have paid up to $1.6 billion too much for airport access over the past decade due to a textbook example of how not to privatise monopoly assets, the competition regulator says.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

The overwhelming international examples is that privatization works for large hubs but kills small regional airports. The big difference is that governments can sustain operations over short term dips. When oil prices collapsed, we didn't need to close Ft. McMurray because it wasn't profitable. Private investors have no such obligations. They usually threaten to close airports which then forces the governments to buy it back including all the accrued debt. Look at Glasgow Prestwick, Cariff, a bunch of small UK and Australian airports. It doesn't offload any financial risk, because when it doesn't pencil financially, private investors cut and run. In a country as vast as Canada, losing air access for some communities is extreme, so government will buy it back and bail them out.
 
darwink said:
But, in a private model, our airport, and maybe YYZ or YVR would be in a global airport company, also running maybe LHR, FRA, AMS, or SYD.

We don't know if fees would go up, or down. A private firm's debt might be priced very differently than a single airport authority's. There is more than a single, simplistic lever in privatization.

Innovation, scale, access to expertise, access to capital--I think those could all benefit.

As for small airports: Kamloops and Red Deer keep with runways clear today. So do Grande Prairie and Ft McMurray. What would make them unviable?
Click to expand...
Gosh, a private for-profit company with a 100% guaranteed monopoly on something; it's hard to guess whether they would increase or decrease their fees. They'd probably pay us to fly!
 
ByeByeBaby said:
Gosh, a private for-profit company with a 100% guaranteed monopoly on something; it's hard to guess whether they would increase or decrease their fees. They'd probably pay us to fly!
Click to expand...
We regulate plenty of monopolies quite successfully. Why do you think we’d fail at regulating private airports?
 
Screenshot_20260503_233212_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20260503_233350_Chrome.jpg
 
CalgaryTiger said:
Transborder being below Q4 '25 is interesting. I thought we may see some recovery in the numbers... happy we didn't. I wonder if those International numbers make international carriers think.
Click to expand...
wonder how the passenger figures compare to load factor. Part if it might be it takes time for airlines to adjust their schedule, put a 737-700 on a route instead of an -800, that there' just much less available seats on transborder flights.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top