Originally Posted by someone123
Pearson is nice but to be honest I'd rather just go to an average airport and not have to pay ticket prices that must support some of the highest landing fees on the planet.
I'd say that Pearson *is* an average airport, for its age and size. It's nice, but so should any brand new airport be. It certainly isn't excessive. Heathrow's terminal 5 is similar in age and passenger capacity, but cost almost twice as much.
From what I recall reading, more than a third of the landing fees are due to disproportionately high government rents. And I would submit that the remaining portion being high doesn't have much to do with the airport itself, but rather the fact that it's one of the fastest growing hubs in the world, requiring a lot of capital expenditure (that is financed privately, and thus passengers pay the brunt of it). I'm sure that if it had been possible to predict the growth in 1939 that they would have simply charged slightly higher fees the subsequent 70 years, resulting in current fees being much lower.