$18.68 - $34 flight cost increase

[ToadBrother]

But they are lying about it, constantly lying about it.

Well of course they're lying about it. Governments always lie about that sort of thing, because they know the phrase "raising taxes" generally creates an allergic reaction in the electorate.

Also the "use fee" is more than what the user is getting for it. It is punitive taxation, and the spending is unneeded and not applicable to any requirements that exist.

Probably quite true.

Also raising fees is indirect taxation without representation. They announced this before even seeing if it was accepted via a budget vote.

Now that I don't agree with. Yes, it's an indirect form of taxation (well, this case isn't, it's a direct tax on people who buy airplane tickets). But it's hardly a situation of tax without representation. Either there is a law on the books giving the Government the power to raise such fees as needed (in other words, Parliament passed it) or it will be part of amendments to current legislation as part of the budget (in other words, Parliament will vote on it). It's not nice, perhaps, but it is democratic.

[William Ashley]

Now that I don't agree with. Yes, it's an indirect form of taxation (well, this case isn't, it's a direct tax on people who buy airplane tickets). But it's hardly a situation of tax without representation. Either there is a law on the books giving the Government the power to raise such fees as needed (in other words, Parliament passed it) or it will be part of amendments to current legislation as part of the budget (in other words, Parliament will vote on it). It's not nice, perhaps, but it is democratic.

It isn't needed, and parliament hasn't been in session since the begining of september and I've seen no indication they have formally accepted it. Yet it is "effective april 1st." There is a throne speach and budget vote - parliament may not even be in regular session in april or year anyhting other than a budget before the.

[ToadBrother]

It isn't needed, and parliament hasn't been in session since the begining of september and I've seen no indication they have formally accepted it. Yet it is "effective april 1st." There is a throne speach and budget vote - parliament may not even be in regular session in april or year anyhting other than a budget before the.

If existing legislation permits Transport Canada, or whoever the heck is responsible for this, to raise the fee, then they can do it any time (Parliament already gave them the power). However, it is not uncommon for governments to announce user fee or even tax hikes on occasion even if Parliament hasn't voted on it. Obviously, it goes without saying that if the budget is changed (which it will undoubtedly be), that this tax hike might be reduced, eliminated or maybe even increased.

The fact that this doesn't into effect until April ought to suggest to you that the government is hedging its bets. By then, we'll know for certain whether Parliament approves or not. Now, if they said "It's happening March 1st", then you would have a point.

Edited February 26, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

I've heard a report saying that parliament has to pass this first.

[ToadBrother]

I've heard a report saying that parliament has to pass this first.

In which case it will be legislation, and will have to go through committee and be debated and so on yadda yadda. Clearly if the Government doesn't have a thumbs up by Parliament by the end of March, it can't do it. Saying "April 1st" is just shorthand for "Providing we can get this passed next month, the tax will go up April 1st". I honestly don't see what William's on about. I can well understand not agreeing with it (it is a helluva hike), but it's hardly an affront to democracy.

[Smallc]

I can well understand not agreeing with it (it is a helluva hike), but it's hardly an affront to democracy.

I meant to say, his numbers don't jive with with what I've heard. The total premiums will now range from $7 to $25 from what I heard last night on the news.

From Bloomberg:

Canada will boost air security fees by up to C$8.91 ($8.40) a flight starting April 1, Transport Minister John Baird said yesterday. The move will help pay for increased airport security, including body scanners, which will cost C$1.5 billion over five years, he said. Canada already collects C$5 to C$16 per flight in security fees.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-26/canada-s-opposition-says-airport-security-fee-hides-harper-tax.html

Edited February 26, 2010 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Things like landing fees have nothing to do with the government. I don't think you want me to compare that though. An AA flight from Buffalo to NY is over $600 return. I realize that in general flights are cheaper in the US, but it isn't all the government, and at times it is necessary. It is because of US security requirements that this fee increase is being put in place.

Landing fees are part of the cost of running an airline. It doesn't matter who is gouging you if the result makes you uncompetitive. Feel free to compare, Pearson is one of them most expensive in the world. In 2004 Pearson was number two in the world at $8203 for a 747-400. The only US airport in the top twelve was La Guardia at number six charging $5731 for the same aircraft.

Pearson also had the second-most expensive landing fees in 2004 in the two other aircraft categories surveyed, charging $1,715 for an Airbus 321-100 and $497 for a CRJ200-LR.

Source ATAC

Edited February 26, 2010 by Wilber

[Smallc]

I know Pearson is very expensive to land at. It's a nice airport and it was voted the best a couple of years ago. It cost a great deal of money to build, and that has to be paid for somehow. Either way, most Canadians do fly from Canadian cities and will continue to. Some go across the border, but that number is relatively small.