HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #581  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2008, 4:11 AM
LikeHamilton's Avatar
LikeHamilton LikeHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,708
That was awful quick of the most expensive airport in Canada to think that they will get the flights. Right now Southwest does not like to serve expensive and congested airports. Can’t make money that way.
I know that Hamilton International has had several meetings with Southwest. End of 2009 for the start of service would allow the airport to expand. They are going to their board in September for approval for the next expansion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #582  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2008, 11:00 AM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is online now
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 19,889
WestJet deal with Southwest will expand flight options

July 09, 2008
Lisa Grace Marr

A new deal between WestJet and Southwest airlines holds promise for Hamilton, says an airport official.

"Both Southwest and WestJet are focused on low cost and high service. That's always been the model of the Hamilton Airport to be a low-cost ... alternative," said Steve Howse, director of communications for Hamilton International Airport.

A memo of understanding signed by both airlines yesterday means that by late 2009, travellers could seamlessly fly in and out of Canadian and American cities served by the two airlines.

Under the deal, travellers will soon be able book a WestJet flight on Southwest's website. The airlines plan to announce flight schedules and additional features regarding the partnership by late next year.

YVR Airport Services Ltd. of Vancouver, parent company of Tradeport, which manages the Hamilton airport, announced in May it would be bidding on the management of Chicago Midway Airport, Southwest's operational hub.

Richard Bartrem, WestJet's vice-president of culture and communications, said it's too early to tell what impact the deal will have and where.

"We need to look at our entire network from a capacity standpoint.

"It's not just about from which cities, it's a much more holistic approach.

"From a guest perspective, it's certainly cheaper to park (in Hamilton), it's easy to get there.... We have to just make sure we fly from destinations our guests are looking for."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #583  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2008, 9:57 AM
7890 7890 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Anybody got any pictures of the first 737-800 of Flyglobespans to come to YHM in 2008?
It wasn't scheduled to operate this flight but had to be used because the there were crewing problems for the 752 so it was switched to Euopean routes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #584  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2008, 2:17 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
Airport flights take steep drive

The number of flights in May into and out of Hamilton’s airport dropped sharply, continuing a long term decline that has seen the Mount Hope facility fall to it’s lowest ever ranking among Canadian airports. Total flights in the country as a whole declined slightly in the same month after registering strong growth for most of the previous year.

Transport Canada reports there were 22.4 percent fewer Hamilton flights in May 2008 than in May 2007. That was the second biggest drop among the 42 Canadian airports with air traffic control towers – exceeded only by Oshawa’s 28.2 percent decline.

London scored the biggest gain in May – up 48.3 percent. Waterloo improved a more modest 2.4 percent. Total flights at the 42 airports declined 0.3 percent, only the second drop in the past year that previously saw double digit increases in five months and year over year rises exceeding five percent in four others.

The sharp decline at Mount Hope pushed its ranking down to 33rd busiest airport. Waterloo stood at 19th in May, and London rose to 12th. Hamilton was also lower than Oshawa, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay, but was busier than the airports in Windsor and Sudbury.

As recently as June of last year, Hamilton ranked 25th, but has been at 30th or lower for nine of the last twelve reported months. A CATCH comparison of Hamilton’s May numbers for the past eight years shows a significant long term decline in both total flights and itinerant ones (see table below). In May of the previous four years (2003-2006) it was 22nd and ranked 17th in May 2002.

Transport Canada divides flights into two categories – local ones that take off and land at the same airport, and itinerant flights that travel to another airport. Declines in Hamilton have been greater in local flights, but itinerant ones are also falling.

In May 2008, there were 3802 itinerant flights – down ten percent from May 2007. The decline over the full twelve months ending in May was 11.7 percent in total flights, and 8.4 percent in itinerant ones.

These numbers, the latest available from Transport Canada, do not reflect the recent decision of Air Canada to end its flights to and from Hamilton’s airport at the end of July. 

A private company, Tradeport International, operates the airport on behalf of the city on a 40-year lease. It released its 2007 annual report in mid-June, announcing “another successful year” including its “third consecutive year of growth” in passengers. It reported 2007 revenues of $16.9 million and before tax earnings of $4.3 million.

Drawing on net retained earnings, the company paid over $5 million in dividends to its shareholders. It’s rent payment to the city for 2007 was $162,000. Under the leasing agreement, half of that amount must be used by the city for airport purposes.

 

TABLE: Flights at Hamilton Airport:  May 2001-2008
(including rank among 42 Canadian airports with air traffic control towers)

 
Month/
Year

Total
Flights

Rank
of 42

Itinerant
Flights

Rank
of 42

May 2008

5,914

33

3,802

29

May 2007

7,623

27

4,231

27

May 2006

7,252

22

4,170

24

May 2005

7,528

22

3,980

25

May 2004

6,739

22

3,987

25

May 2003

8,041

22

4,661

21

May 2002

9,663

17

5,075

22

May 2001

10,287

18

5,134

21

 

Source: Transport Canada: Aircraft Movement Statistics http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/Report/tp141e/tp141.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #585  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2008, 2:18 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
sorry about the goofy setup of the chart. I copied this from a CATCH email.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #586  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2008, 2:42 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is online now
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 19,889
There's a huge difference between the number of fights and the number of passengers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #587  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2008, 2:43 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
I predicted that CATCH would spin this as an airport failure months ago, and I was right.

Fact is, flyglobespan had to cut their service to 1/3 what it was last year. Not due to a decline in air travel demand to Hamilton, but due to a shortage of long haul aircraft in their fleet. All their flights remain highly successful and they average well above 90% load factors on all their flights to YHM. They have made arrangements to ensure their long haul fleet is restored so they can return to their previous levels from last summer.

Having my previous CATCH prediction come true, I now predict that CATCH will conveniently neglect to compare next May's passenger counts to prior year numbers, because, barring unforseen circumstances, will reflect a 300% increase in flights offered by flyglobespan. Instead, they will have a headline comparing the numbers to those a decade previous. Because, as far as the airport goes, it is not so much about CATCH passing on facts in context, it's about skewing the facts to promote their narrow agenda.

CATCH has lost any credibility on their discussions regarding the airport, and their articles on the topic would be more useful as birdcage lining these days.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #588  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2008, 4:02 PM
7890 7890 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Flyglobespan may use a 767 to Hamilton next year if they can't source another 752 because of high demand for them and the only available ones being the 2 icelandair a/c that were used in 2007 and cost Flyglobespan with constant breakdowns. So they will bring back all 3 of there 767-300's.

1x 767
1x 752-Hamilton

767 would probably be used on London via Glasgow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #589  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2008, 4:11 PM
LikeHamilton's Avatar
LikeHamilton LikeHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,708
So this year, Flyglobespan started a little later than last year with 1 flight a day. Last year they started earlier in May with 2 flights and went to 3 fights a day @ 96% average load factor for the season! What was May in 2006?

This year they’re where 8 flights a week to Florida alone and more flights to the Caribbean and Mexico than ever with bigger planes. But they ended the season earlier this year in April as not many people are going south in May. Why lose money on empty planes.

May/ June and October/ Novembers are always a slow time of the year for travel. It is also a seasonal turn over time when planes change from winter warm destinations to Canadian and European destinations. Even a lot of the Canadian charter companies bring in more planes in the fall and get rid of them in the spring.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #590  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2008, 5:19 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
fellas, no offense, but I'll say what I've always said - I don't believe this airport will ever 'take off' until I see several years of stats and numbers that prove otherwise.
Being ranked 33rd by Transport Canada is a fact. It's not CATCH or anyone else spinning anything.
CATCH even did the service of providing a link to Transport Canada.
You can only blame the messenger for so long. Eventually the hard truth has to be accepted.
this airport has never, and probably never will, be anything big.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #591  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2008, 5:33 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is online now
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 19,889
Yea 33rd busiest airport, yet if some airport that only gets say one airplane in an entire month suddenly gets 2 extra planes than the previous year, that's a 66% increase and therefore probably one of the top 5 busiest airport in May.

Be careful with these statistics. That’s why passenger numbers is more important.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #592  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2008, 7:06 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
That's what I mean by keeping things in proper context. Ranked 33 by Transport Canada, but in what category? Number of aircraft movements. It has been pointed out repeatedly that number of aircraft movements is in no way a reliable indicator of an airport's success.

Since passenger counts is the most relevant number to an airport's income, why doesn't CATCH look at these numbers? The most recent stats available are for 2006 (just released January of this year), which showed Hamilton increasing its passenger counts by a whopping 35% over the previous year to just under 600,000. The airport ranks 16th in Canada for passenger counts. Why did CATCH not report this?

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...00/t008_en.htm

Cargo stats are even more impressive, though their impact on airport income is not as significant. Again the most recent numbers are for 2006. YHM handled 12.5 thousand tonnes of cargo in 2006, ranking 8th among all Canadian airports.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...00/t011_en.htm

Why didn't CATCH provide these links to Statistics Canada? Oddly enough, they have never referenced these stats, much more relevant than counting planes. Rest assured, when 2007 results are released next January, they will overlook them as well, seeing as 2007 passenger counts were even better than 2006.

CATCH routinely decides to use irrelevant stats that do not accurately reflect what is going on at the airport so to advance CATCH's particular agenda and leave an inaccurate impression on how our airport is performing. That is why CATCH lacks any credibility when discussing the airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #593  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2008, 11:39 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is online now
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 19,889
Airport Officials Say Drop In Flights Is Easily Explained

Ken Mann
7/14/2008

Officials at Hamilton International Airport are downplaying a steep drop in flight numbers.

Tradeport's Richard Koroscil says a 22% decline in landings and takeoffs this May, when compared to May of 2007, is a result of smaller personal aircraft moving to other airfields in the area. He says that move has occured because of the conflict that arises between small and large aircraft.

Koroscil adds that Hamilton International continues to pursue large aircraft growth, both cargo and passenger service, which he terms the bigger "economic driver".

As a result of the decline in flights, Hamilton has slipped from 27th to be the country's 33rd busiest airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #594  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 2:07 AM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
ok, so it was the 27th busiest airport last May.
Great.
I don't see any evidence that it'll ever gain top-10 or 15 status as a norm.
I'm talking about the last 50 years here, not one month or one year or three years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #595  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 2:09 AM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
In 1993, when I was first licensed to drive--I would drive out to YHM on my spare periods from high school. At the time--USAir Express ran a 19 seat Fairchild Metro III to Pittsburgh 4 times a day. There was no other commercial service at the airport.

I judge the airport's success on it's growth over a period of time which encompasses the time before WestJet came along in 1999. CATCH does not deserve an ounce of credit (or publicity) for their bogus, ridiculous, spin-doctored anti-airport campaign. I believe elsewhere within the context of this Forum these 'types' are called squelchers--yet here their agenda is promoted. Perhaps things would be different if the airport were downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #596  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 4:19 AM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 1,809
Yeah I think someone has become the BCTed of this thread. My parents just booked a flight to Glasgow for the end of August on FlyGlobeSpan. I think it is great people can fly from there, rather than schlepping out to Malton and keeping some of that spending within Hamilton.

Sometimes I wonder what the people who work at the airport think of CATCH, as it seems they would celebrate every job lost. What happens if CATCH actually gets their wish and the airport were to close down completely? Who would CATCH next turn their guns to?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #597  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 11:09 AM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
no chance of me being Ted.
I linked to Statscan and am bringing numbers to the discussion.
I really just want to know what I'm missing. Some of you seem bullish on the future of YHM, but to me it seems that when someone new comes to the airport, someone else pulls out or scales back.
The terminal is bigger than in previous years, but other than that, where's this unbridled optimism coming from?

Yes, I agree it's better to fly out of. I wish I could fly out of it for 100% of my flights. But I can't. Will I ever be able to? And if yes, please explain why I should believe it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #598  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 11:46 AM
BCTed BCTed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,221
Interestingly, I can actually think of a couple of people who are new to Toronto who have heard about Hamilton only because of advertising for the airport. These people did not know about Stelco or Dofasco or McMaster University or the Tiger-Cats or waterfalls or the Harry Stinson pie-in-the-sky project that will never be built. Granted, this is only anecdotal evidence, but it would be enough for some people to proclaim that the airport is the number one most well-known institution in Hamilton.

The airport certainly has grown since 10 or 15 years ago, and although passenger numbers seem to have stalled a bit in the last couple of years, the overall trajectory still seems to be upward. Even with the pull-out of Air Canada, you can still take flights through WestJet, flyglobespan, Air Transat, and Sunquest to a relatively good number of destinations in comparison to the Pittsburgh of the early 90s.

Why is CATCH so against the airport? Is it really because it is not located downtown?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #599  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 1:08 PM
the dude the dude is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,812
CATCH exists to keep the city in line and the public informed. too much corruption has gone unchecked in this city for longer than i've been around. they're fearful that hundreds of millions of dollars will soon be flowing into the airport and its surrounding lands, when it could be spent on land closer to the city centre. but apparently our brownfields are insufficient for employment purposes. in reality, those brownfields are insufficient for building homes, unlike the airport lands. that's the real deal and we've been told as much but people outside CATCH.

i understand why people like airplanes. i happen to be a fan of trains. same difference. but i don't share the optimism that others display. if we're to invest in it then we must be smart: show us that it's worthy of investment; guarantee that no homes will be built on that land; show us the list of companies waiting to use the land. investment dollars are scarce. let's not waste it on the likes of losani and friends.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #600  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 1:12 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
you're talking about two different things.
Aerotropolis supporters have gone out of their way recently to make the point that it has nothing to do with being close to the airport. It's just the available land near 'a highway' that makes it viable.
Again, this concerns me - are they that negative on the future of the airport that now they are trying to distance aerotropolis from the airport itself??
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:14 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.