Is it me or Toronto Airport is just plain Rape in the amount of Taxes to fly of Pearson Inter. i could be wrong , but It seem the bloody airport tax that is the Shafting point!? I don't think the Fuel Sir charge is still an issue. Some how Buffalo is on par to Fly to Europe!? Would i want to fly an american plane if they are a target?...sorry for the Rant...but F#$K
WTF ..Toronto airport the most costly to fly out
- Thread starter herames
- Start date
C
crystalpalace
The airport tax is to pay for all those retards who work for the GTAA doing nothing more than trivial jobs such as holding idiotic signs to refer passenger to the correct customs hall (easily rectified with better signage and/or better displays) or the infamous world's fastest moving sidewalk, except that it's never actually worked from day one. They have a couple of mechanics and a security guard there working on it a few days a week, every week ever since they opened this idiotic airport and still no joy.
the high cost of Pearson airport is well know all over the world. It has the highest costs of any airport on the planet . Thats all thanks to the GTAA the overseers who manage the place, and the multibillion dollar overhaul that you and I are now paying for in all those wonderfull add ons to your trip. The place is so high priced several airlines stopped or reduced service due to the landing and nav canada charges.
Speaking of Rail Link it is absolutely beyond me how the most expensive Airport can not manage a rail link to downtown or at least the subway. They've been talking about this for years, but sometimes politicians are so caught up in studies that they forget to make a decision.HafDun said:
Same with the high speed rail between TO and Montreal, we'll still be talking about this in 20 years.
Pearson is frequently more expensive to fly out of than from Buffalo connecting through JFK. If you are that concerned about being on a U.S. carrier price out taking a non-U.S. carrier on the JFK to the U.K. or JFK to the Continent leg of the flight.herames said:
Because Hong Kong can bring in as many Chinese nationals it wants and tell them to "build airport or die". It's still $160 HKD to Kowloon and the First Class lounge for Cathay Pacific if catered by The Peninsula (really good food).HafDun said:
Gyaos Baltar.
I understand that you If you are concerned with safety on board a US air carrier, but I wouldn't be. True, there is a threat for a terrorist attack, no denying that. But if you look at the statistics, US airlines are remarkably safe, ESPECIALLY considering the sheer numbers of flights per day.herames said:
Check out this link to accident rates:
http://www.airsafe.com/airline.htm
As far as major airlines go, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, United, and US-Air all rank better than Air Canada for fatal accident rates.
NO US airline has put a scratch on a passenger since 2006. Thats a LOT of people moved around the world.
I wouldn't go that far. Non-fatal incidents happen all the time (turbulence, collisions during taxi, pilot mistakes, mechanical issues, etc.) Airline passengers do get injured... nothing is 100% safe... but I suspect little or no statistical difference between US and Canadian airlines in this respect.jaykraus242 said:
anyone know if its better to use montreal airport as a jumping off...from Hamilton airport.. i can dodge alot of shit and fly to Montreal ...think its 3 times daily
I wasn't denying your credibility, just wondering what specifically you viewed as bad enough to classify them with out of touch with reality.
They have been known to spend money on shit they don't need just because it would be "cool" for lack of a better word. The baggage thing is one of those things, another is having Cat 3 runways when I don't think weather in Toronto has ever been below Cat 2 conditions.
As for the snowplows, I hadn't heard about that, and I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Are you saying they overpaid?
And the consolidated thing is, as you say, consolidated's fault.
Yes, the GTAA has had their fair share of screw ups, and I'll certainly not defend everything they've done/ But they've had a fair number of successes as well. The CDF, for example, is a huge improvement in de-icing efficiency. Overall, I think they do a pretty good job.
As for whether Hamilton to Montreal is better, you may save money on the flights, but is that enough to offset the added time and cost of getting to Hamilton in the first place? For me it isn't, if it is for you, more power to you.
They have been known to spend money on shit they don't need just because it would be "cool" for lack of a better word. The baggage thing is one of those things, another is having Cat 3 runways when I don't think weather in Toronto has ever been below Cat 2 conditions.
As for the snowplows, I hadn't heard about that, and I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Are you saying they overpaid?
And the consolidated thing is, as you say, consolidated's fault.
Yes, the GTAA has had their fair share of screw ups, and I'll certainly not defend everything they've done/ But they've had a fair number of successes as well. The CDF, for example, is a huge improvement in de-icing efficiency. Overall, I think they do a pretty good job.
As for whether Hamilton to Montreal is better, you may save money on the flights, but is that enough to offset the added time and cost of getting to Hamilton in the first place? For me it isn't, if it is for you, more power to you.
herames said:
There is a lot more too it than the tax... take the rent that the GTAA pay to the Feds.... Pearson ( and I believe my figures are accurate) handles approx 33% of all air traffic in Canada but pays 66% on the TOTAL rent paid by ALL airports in Canada. Also the US, FAA & local airport authorities have a simpler (therefore) cheaper rent structure. The GTAA is now in cost saving mode .. have you seen all the advertising banners in T1; Lou Turpin the former CEO was dead set against that kind of revenue generating concepts, now if it doesn't move it has some form of commercial/advertising on it
Actually, even if the federal government lease rate dropped to ZERO and the GTAA were allowed to operate the airport completely rent-free, Pearson's landing fees would STILL be higher than the world's 2nd-most expensive airport (Tokyo's Narita airport).qwertyuio said:
Reason? While the federal government rent accounts for about 33% of Pearson's costs, Pearson's large-aircraft landing fee is a whopping 80% (!) higher than Narita's.
Land leases have nothing to do with the amount of traffic, but is tied to the value of the land. Pearson occupies prime real-estate land and thus the GTAA must pay premium rates, that's only fair. If they had moved Toronto's main airport to Pickering (as once planned) then they wont have these problems now since the land value would've been much cheaper.gdog said:
