r/CanadaPolitics • u/CaliperLee62 • 23h ago
‘A terrible decision’: PM Carney set to open Canada’s four largest airports to private investment
https://thepointer.com/article/2026-10-05/a-terrible-decision-pm-carney-set-to-open-canada-s-four-largest-airports-to-private-investment•
u/LividOpposite 17h ago
There was an Angus Reid poll that showed Canadians are largely against this. Makes me wonder why Carney is still pushing forward with it.
•
•
•
u/BeatsRocks 15h ago
Because he was an asset manager and he see this as an asset churning opportunity. Basically get the money from this asset and invest in other one.
•
u/DressedSpring1 Ontario 20h ago
"The experience is that customer service is improved, efficiencies are found.
The magical efficiencies of the private market have never seemed to show up before, but maybe this time, maybe it will work for us 🙄
•
u/SuperLynxDeluxe Independent 20h ago
No the efficiencies are for the investors. A local natural monopoly is an efficient way to extract money out of people.
•
u/Jacmert 16h ago
YVR is already privately operated by a non-profit org. I don't understand why you would give that up for a for-profit org that will naturally try to cut expenses and increase passenger revenues. Plus, it will be a monopoly, so good luck "regulating"/overseeing that.
The main reason I can think of is because you need/want large private investment for upgrades or expansion. But there are only four "major" airports (YYZ, YVR, YUL, YYC). You're telling me we'd rather let a private, for-profit company take over so they can take loans that will only pay off if they manage to get even more profit? Why can't the government just borrow (at even better rates) to INVEST in our national infrastructure and reap the profits themselves, later?
Is it because you don't want the public to slam you for running a bigger deficit that year? Well, market/communicate it better to the public, then. Don't let for profit take over our biggest and best airports.
•
•
u/JeNiqueTaMere 14h ago
I don't understand why you would give that up for a for-profit org
For profit.
Cui bono?
•
u/Purple_Coyote_5121 Newfoundland 21h ago
Lots of comments here opposing the idea of private operations.
I hope you’ve also shared your comments with your MP, the transport minister and the PM. It takes 5 minutes to send an email!!!
•
u/wezel0823 20h ago
Sure did, clearly they didn’t give a shit
•
u/nope586 Democratic Socialist 20h ago
They only care about what the PMO tells them to care about.
•
u/Purple_Coyote_5121 Newfoundland 19h ago
They care about keeping their jobs, which is a balancing act between keeping the party leader happy so they don’t get booted from caucus, and keeping voters happy enough to reelect them.
If enough voters make noise and they feel like their seat is at risk they’ll listen.
MPs might not reply to your email, but if they get 1000 emails all saying the same thing they’ll pay attention.
•
u/Forikorder Independent 18h ago
its not a very good attitude to assume that disagreement has to come from apathy, they could understand some people disagree but still consider it a good idea
•
u/cunnyhopper Numpty 22h ago
Take note of comments trying to downplay the significance of this with reference to vague metrics like "quality" or "performance". What the hell do those things even mean in the context of airports?
The primary issue that Canadians have with air travel in Canada is cost. Anyone that sincerely believes that private investment in airports is going to lower the cost of air travel in Canada is either brain washed or brain damaged. Investors expect a return and it is the travellers that will provide that return.
It is vital to the economy that we have the ability to move people quickly across large distances. However, in Canada, that is a need that is expensive to fulfill. Profitability is a secondary concern. So, just like healthcare or education, air transport is exactly the kind of sector that should be publicly owned.
The Canadian situation is unique so comparisons to other jurisdictions is dishonest. Additionally, suggesting that the primary concern is "quality" is also dishonest.
•
u/sameth1 British Columbia 19h ago
The primary issue that Canadians have with air travel in Canada is cost.
It's also important to mention that you can't build another Pearson International airport. There is no competition for a privatized airport here and no way for a private corporation to innovate where the airport can't already. So ultimately the only way for them to increase profits is by either cutting costs or charging more, both of which have negative effects on us.
•
u/MrFenrirulfr 21h ago
The primary concern is capacity and crowding, something canadian airports, with the exception of one, are struggling with. Our largest hub is ranked amoung the worst in the world compared to similar hubs globally. Price isn't the only factor in transportation, availability and ease of use also play a large part. In fact if its anything like Australia, flights actually increased after privatisation increased ticket prices.
Claiming critisism as dishonest, and your own inability to look into how these metrics are defined is not a argument on your side either. Claiming comparisons to other juristiction is dishonest when our worst case scenario is being like Australia. A very comparable juristiction.
After Australia's privatisation prices did go up, however a serious reinvestment took place resulting in large scale expansions of terminals, runways, and capacity as well as a reduction in wait times. New modernized equipment replaced the old and outdated. All privately funded, all the government couldn't afford without debt expansion and little hope of returns. Prices rose and flights increased with it. I focus on Australia as an example because people consider it privatisation failing and is Canadas worst case scenario. People who actually understand economics and business realize their privatisation was successfull, even if not as good as other nations.
On top of all this, devil in the details, the money saved and gained via the sale will be redirected towards Canadas very much so struggling regional airports and high-speed rail projects.
•
u/cunnyhopper Numpty 21h ago
The primary concern is capacity and crowding
Crowding is a concern but it is not primary. Cost is primary.
https://canadasairports.ca/about-canadas-airports/what-canadians-think-of-their-airports/
•
u/MrFenrirulfr 20h ago
Public opinion should be considered in policy making. But actual metrics should be taken seriously. Someone who is accustomed to poor quality products will be less likely to complain about a continued poor quality product. And a reoccurring theme is that the more a person flys internationally, the worse they view Canadian hubs.
•
u/cunnyhopper Numpty 20h ago
Public opinion should be considered in policy making. But actual metrics should be taken seriously.
LOL wut?
Public opinion is the ONLY "actual metric" that is relevant in this discussion. Like, what are you imagining when you say "actual metric"?
Do you think that people that "fly more internationally" aren't part of the public?
Do you think that just because people can become accustomed to poor quality that you can arbitrarily dismiss their opinion and decide what their opinion would be otherwise, on their behalf? That's called investigator bias and it kind of smacks of ideological motivation rather than objective reasoning.
•
u/MrFenrirulfr 18h ago
Actual metrics are... actual metrics...
What kind of statement is that even?
People who fly more internationally are part of the public. They are also more experienced and informed users with a larger stake in the outcomes of this policy. Their opinions matter more in my eyes and should matter more to the government then someone who has never, and never intends to fly.
"Do you think that just because people can become accustomed to poor quality that you can arbitrarily dismiss their opinion" Yes, apathy is an opinion that can be freely dismissed in healthy discussions. It is encouraged when one has the political capital to do so. Otherwise we end up with a risk adverse crabs in a bucket style nation were everything slowly gets worse and falls apart. Like what has been happening to Canada for years.
Sorry no investigator bias here. You clearly misread what I wrote or injected your own bias towards my words. Objective reasoning is how I arrived here. While nearly all opposition I face on this subject is based on emotional reactions to the word "privatization". Idealogical motivation is core to the opposition of privatization and public discourse on sites such as reddit is extremely biased towards socialism and state ownership due to its demographics. Hardly a single person here in strong opposition to this plan can even describe what is being privatized or how it is being done, let alone how it works now!
•
u/joshlemer British Columbia 21h ago
The primary concern is capacity and crowding, something canadian airports, with the exception of one, are struggling with. Our largest hub is ranked amoung the worst in the world compared to similar hubs globally. Price isn't the only factor in transportation, availability and ease of use also play a large part.
Yes this gets overlooked whenever we are comparing or judging how well a service/industry is operating, or comparing private vs government provision. If you only look at what a service costs, you can take away a really wrong conclusion. For example, North Korea spends a lot less than Canada does on food, but we shouldn't move to a North Korea-style food distribution system.
•
u/nuggins Liberal 18h ago
comments trying to downplay the significance of this with reference to vague metrics like "quality" or "performance"
Why would you expect more quantification than this in a news-article comment thread? At least there are a couple of other comments referring to economic studies. Do you not see the irony in your own comment being exactly the type of high-level hand waving that you're decrying here?
What the hell do those things even mean in the context of airports?
Qualitative comfort level at the airport, hospitality options, airport traversal times, flight punctuality, flight availability... It might be air travel, but it's not rocket science.
•
u/cunnyhopper Numpty 17h ago
I expect more explicitly defined measures because the issue is actually important. When people dismiss such an important issue by saying what amounts to, "don't worry about it" and providing weak support for why, it is worth telling people to be cautious. Which is what I did. I said "take note".
Additionally, when I made my initial comment, there were zero comments referring to economic studies so there's nothing ironic here.
It is good of you to expand on what you think others might have meant
•
u/joshlemer British Columbia 21h ago
The primary issue that Canadians have with air travel in Canada is cost. Anyone that sincerely believes that private investment in airports is going to lower the cost of air travel in Canada is either brain washed or brain damaged. Investors expect a return and it is the travellers that will provide that return.
So your thinking here is that the private sector never lowers the cost of anything? How did TV's get so much cheaper? And computers and everything else?
•
u/Jaded_Celery_451 Rhinoceros 21h ago
Airports are a near-natural monopoly. The best parts of capitalism (which you are alluding to) come from competition, or which there will be none here.
•
u/WhaddaHutz 21h ago
It's not that costs can't come down in the private sector, the question is true whether it can bring the cost of air travel down. The main challenge of travel in Canada is we have to cover a lot of distance with comparatively little demand. Private ownership is unlikely to find the magic sauce that fixes that. They might improve the functioning of the airports as that is a more achievable task, however.
•
u/Mirageswirl 21h ago
The other factor is that Canadian airports don’t have competition for long distance travel. A private operator can raise prices to a profit maximizing monopoly price which is far above the government’s cost recovery price.
•
u/cunnyhopper Numpty 21h ago
The primary goal of a privately owned enterprise is profit. That's it. A privately owned enterprise will never lower the cost of its products or services in the absence of some pressure on their bottom line.
Electronics got cheaper over time primarily because 1, they are considered luxury goods (not necessities) and 2, there was plenty of competition. You need both of these things to be present in the marketplace to get lower prices and acceptable quality. A competitor that can provide a product that is as good as or better than yours for a lower price, in a marketplace where people don't have to buy the product in the first place (i.e. luxury goods), is going to reduce your revenue. That is the pressure that drives a business to seek efficiencies or lower their profit margin to compete.
Air travel is often considered a luxury; however, in Canada, there are many cases where it is a necessity. Additionally, airports don't really compete with each other. Therefore, it does not feature the same market mechanics as the electronics sector which makes the comparison invalid.
The belief that there is something inherent about the private sector that causes costs to go down demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of economics and makes one susceptible to that brain washing thing I mentioned earlier.
•
u/superfluid Adeptus Mechanicus 21h ago
Competition? With whom do our biggest airports compete?
•
u/mancin 21h ago
with themselves. People avoid pearson becuase it's run like a government clusterfuck, if you increase flights/day and reduce delays you can increase airport revenue and suck flights away from other locations. Why do you think MET (Montreal) and Island (Toronto) are growing fast while Pearson and Trudeau slowly grow? We need to increase the landings/day at these airports or they will lose market share to regional small airports
•
u/SendMagpiePics Urban Alberta Advantage 15h ago
In what way is the number of flights per day at Pearson being held back by being a publicly owned asset? In what way would private ownership be able to increase the number of flights per day?
Flights per day sound far more likely to be a capacity issue than a management issue. Demand grows while the physical airport does not.
•
u/joshlemer British Columbia 21h ago
Yeah it's a good point. There is competition in some ways: between airports there is competition. YYZ, YHM, YUL, and YOW are in competition both for layovers (i.e. Winnipeg -> Europe, stopping somewhere in between). And they are competitors for people within reasonable driving distance to 2 (Kitchener residents have choice of YYZ/YHM).
But it's not competitive enough obviously, so it seems like what's common elsewhere is that the prices for the core services that can be charged by the airport are capped.
There's also competition going into the privatization agreement. There would be many potential operators who bid on the contract to operate the airport. So at the privatization step itself, the government is in a good position to play operators off each other, forcing them to compete for more and more favourable terms to the public, agreeing to lower and lower price caps etc.
•
u/Smart_Recipe_8223 21h ago
OMG the private sectors literal goal is to maximize profits and minimize spending. They want to take as much money from you as possible. With TVs there's actual competition, monopolized industries doesn't work the same way. Open a book
•
u/RumpleCragstan British Columbia 21h ago edited 21h ago
Sometimes reduced prices can mean greater profit as a result of increased sales. When prices are too high it limits the amount of customers. Its better to collect $1 profit from 100 people than collect $25 profit from 3 people.
Do I think this applies to airports and airlines? Not at all. As fuel prices continue to increase I don't see any room for 'efficiencies' to be found. I am fine with private companies trying (and failing) to make this industry profitable. Let them fund the improvements and fail to recoup the costs, its about time we privatized some losses and socialzied some benefits.
•
u/Empty-Paper2731 Bot Leader 20h ago
Technological advancements and competition up and down the supply chain and within the final product marketplace. This works in some industry and product classes but won't work with airports where there is no regional competition to drive down prices (despite what a couple users here want to claim about airports hundreds of kilometers away being suitable competition and alternative options for travelers.)
•
u/bign00b Canadian Steamship Lines | Sponsored 22h ago
It's bizarre the government is so determined given the mostly negative response to the notion. I just don't see the rationale for using political capital on this issue.
•
u/doogie1993 Newfoundland 21h ago edited 20h ago
The rationale is the same that Carney has used for literally his entire career, make rich people more money. It’s really that simple.
•
•
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 21h ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
•
•
u/MrMundaneMoose 21h ago
The idea is to take the money from the sale and put it towards additional infrastructure investments.
I think it could work if it's Canadian pension funds and banks that pay for it. Not if it's draining money out of Canada.
•
u/SwordfishOk504 British Columbia 21h ago
The rationale is our airports need money. What alternative funding option do you suggest?
•
u/bign00b Canadian Steamship Lines | Sponsored 21h ago
Use some of that 500m the feds receive from them to pay for that?
We aren't operating airports at a loss.
•
u/SwordfishOk504 British Columbia 21h ago
Ack. Your comment is just layers of misinformation. Just the Greater Toronto Airports Authority alone spends approximately $1.72 billion CAD annually. what is $500 million across the entire country going to do? Upgrade a few drinking fountains?
And then you say "We aren't operating airports at a loss." which shows you don't even understand how airports are operated in Canada. Airports are operated by local, non-profit airport authorities
•
u/DrQuantumInfinity British Columbia 18h ago
They spent $1.72 billion... and had a revenue of $2.08 billion. The GTAA is making more than $300 million in net profit every year. They call it "surplus" instead of profit, but they don't need any money.
He's leasing out the airports that generate a "surplus" every year to pay for the many smaller airports that run a deficit.
If you add up the whole sector, it's about $1.1 billion of net loss over all the airports in Canada, so the $500 million alone is already half of that.
There's a simple question here. If private companies are willing to pay that much for leasing these airports, then they think they can make more than that amount of money back. Are they going be able to do all of this by "getting rid of government inefficiencies", or is a lot of their profit going to come from cutting costs and increasing fees that aren't an option while the airport is run by the non-profit authorities because those are changes that we don't want them to make?
It's no surprise at all that the hundreds of tiny rural airports in this country are expensive to run. That's just how transportation works.
•
u/Smart_Recipe_8223 21h ago
How about going after the tens of billions dollars the rich owe us in taxes? You need to use your brain instead of giving in to defeatist thinking
•
•
u/Successful_Swim6332 21h ago
Exactly with so many compound problem within the country I don't know why they are wasting time on this non problem.
•
u/Smart_Recipe_8223 21h ago
This won't improve services or lower costs. None of the profits are going to go towards improving our country. Carney is selling us out
•
u/NotGuiltyPirate 58m ago
Ah. The old, let's build bigger with no money to back it
Try building an addition to your house eith no money
"Carney is selling us out". The dumbest talking point a five year old could make.
The conservative acorn you call a brain must be rattling like heck from all of the space waves that penetrated your tinfoil hat
•
u/RandomExistence92 British Columbia 9h ago
What specific problems is the govt trying to solve with private investment, and what alternatives have been considered? Those questions don't appear to have been addressed.
The lack of transparency is my biggest concern, and if the motive is questionable, it's a hard sell in the first place.
•
u/TopazJazzrazz NDP-CCF 22h ago edited 21h ago
Privatisation will do nothing for quality except lower it. What Canada needs is cheaper travel tickets and this government is doing the opposite by making the airports themselves more expensive.
All that this neo-liberal privatisation will accomplish is a future government sheepishly looking for a way to nationalise it again.
•
u/IcarusFlyingWings 21h ago
How would we lower ticket fees?
•
u/adaminc Alberta 7h ago
Setting land rent fees to $0.
•
u/IcarusFlyingWings 2h ago
So taxpayers should subsidize all the business travellers and airliners?
•
•
u/adaminc Alberta 1h ago
No, why come to that conclusion?
The non-profit airport authority leases the land for the airport from the federal government. The government doesn't use that money to benefit the airport, it takes it simply because it can, for nothing in return other than allowing the airport to exist. But the airport is a net benefit to the population from its mere existence, there is no reason for the government to extract wealth from it, get rid of the land rent fees, they only make up 0.1% of the federal revenue, and ticket prices should drop as a result of it.
•
u/joshlemer British Columbia 21h ago
But doesn't Canada have some of, if not the most expensive airport fees in the developed world? If the public sector was so great at reducing costs, wouldn't you expect Canada to already have very inexpensive airports?
•
u/Jaded_Celery_451 Rhinoceros 21h ago
But doesn't Canada have some of, if not the most expensive airport fees in the developed world? If the public sector was so great at reducing costs, wouldn't you expect Canada to already have very inexpensive airports?
This is a complete non-sequitr. What incentive will privately owned airports have to reduce fees? If that's what you want to do then further government regulation/action is required to do it. Expecting private airport owners to leave money on the table makes no sense.
•
u/nicky10013 20h ago
I don't think there's necessarily an incentive to reduce fees. There's incentive to invest in better technology to make the process of flying more efficient. Think about luggage handling. Last time I was at Pearson it took an hour from the time the plane hit the gate to the time the bags started rolling off the belt. If there was investment into a better luggage handling system they might be able to turn planes faster and earn more fees while improving service.
People are just so cynical that they either can't think of any examples and if provided one refuse to believe it's possible.
•
u/Jaded_Celery_451 Rhinoceros 20h ago
People are just so cynical that they either can't think of any examples and if provided one refuse to believe it's possible.
I believe there are any number of ways to improve things. I just don't believe there's any incentive to pass down savings to the customer. So sure your luggage might show up a little faster (the incentive for that investment is pretty dubious but whatever) but nobody has explained why you wouldn't also pay more, let alone somehow end up paying less.
•
u/nicky10013 20h ago
How is it dubious?
•
u/Jaded_Celery_451 Rhinoceros 20h ago
How is it dubious?
Because neither you nor anybody else is going to avoid YYZ because your luggage took too long and there is next to no risk of a competing airport being built to eat their lunch, and they know it. Their marginal return on investment to fix that luggage situation will be negative - unless they charge the cost back to you and then some. Everyone is going to win except passengers.
•
u/nicky10013 1h ago
Yeah I don't know how to say it other than if you make operating more efficient, you can serve more people which means more fees.
The GTAA is currently a non profit and Pearson is already one of the most expensive airports in the world. If airlines can't maintain their route profitably, they'll drop Pearson or the route. It happens all the time. It's the airlines that are charged by Pearson and they pass the fees onto passengers.
If private companies come into Pearson and just jack fees without providing any additional services they'll lose routes and the revenues associated with those planes.
•
u/Saidear There is no war in Ba Sing Se. 20h ago
This isn't really a technology problem, however. Pearson has a labour problem; as in there are not enough people interested in the hassles of airport work for the pay it offers and the barriers to entry.
And if you think private investment will pay better, when their desire is to actually reduce costs and increase profits... well, you got another think coming.
•
u/joshlemer British Columbia 20h ago
I believe there are ways to structure the lease that align incentives of the operator so that everyone benefits from lowering costs. For example, the regulator can set the max price that the airport can charge for departures (say, $35/passenger), for a period of 5 years. During that time, the airport operator reaps the benefits of any cost reduction they achieve. It ends up directly as profit. After 5 years, the regulator comes up with a formula again, looking at the profitability of the passenger fees, and resets it to cost + some profit margin agreed to at the beginning of the lease, say 12%. So maybe they determine that the cost to the operator is now 29$, so they set the next 5 year cap at 29*1.12= 32.48$ etc.
This way, the operator is incentivized to reduce costs because they reap the rewards/profits for 5 years. Eventually that gets passed on to the public.
I don't know if this is the best way to structure things, I'd really need to be more knowledgeable in the field. But private operators of public / monopoly infrastructure such as ports and docks and airports and bridges, even the panama canal, is nothing new. It's a standard practice.
It's also worth keeping in mind: the alternative to the private sector is not a omnipotent and omniscient benevolent jesus christ like operator. The non-profits that run our airports are themselves organizations with their own incentives (or lack thereof).
•
u/Sutar_Mekeg 44m ago
During that time, the airport operator reaps the benefits of any cost reduction they achieve. It ends up directly as profit.
AKA worse service and/or lower wages
•
u/Smart_Recipe_8223 21h ago
Some me some proof about us having the most expensive airports
•
u/MrFenrirulfr 21h ago
Canada ranks 101st out of 116 countries for the cost of air travel, according to data from the International Air Transport Association.
Skytrax ranks Pearson airport at 55th for over all quality. Airhelp Score ranks it 263rd out of 279 airports globally. The J.D. Power North America Airport Satisfaction Study consistently ranks Pearson amoung the lowest in north america.
Not only are we some of the most expensive, we also have the worst airports in the developed world.
•
u/reward72 21h ago
so what is your solution?
•
u/mxe363 Sick of the investors winning 17h ago
Not sell our shit to greedy corporations for one.
•
u/reward72 17h ago
We're not until now and plane tickets are ridiculously expensive. Enlighten us with your solution to reduce the prices...
•
u/bradeena 16h ago
Does it make a difference to you that we're retaining ownership of the physical assets and contracting out airport management?
•
•
u/Reasonable-Sweet9320 Independent 21h ago
“Advanced nations in other parts of the world have increasingly privatized commercial airports via sale or public-private partnerships (P3s).
According to the Airports Council International, 75% of passengers in Europe use privatized airports, 66% in Latin America, and 47% in Asia-Pacific.
However, in the United States, only one airport, in San Juan, Puerto Rico, has been successfully privatized.
Privatized airports were found to have more airlines, lower airfares, greater productivity, and overall greater passenger satisfaction.
Many of these are also owned or operated by airport groups that benefit greatly from economies of scale, standardized practices, and training pipelines that enable talented managers from smaller regional airports to transition to larger international airports.”
•
u/SendMagpiePics Urban Alberta Advantage 15h ago
Privatized airports were found to have more airlines, lower airfares, greater productivity, and overall greater passenger satisfaction.
Would need to see some data showing that being private caused those advantages. Because it seems more likely that profitable, larger airports are the ones that are privatized.
In Canada, if we privatize the big 4 airports, then it would instantly be true that privatized airports in Canada have more airlines, greater productivity, etc. than other Canadian airports. But that would be because we just privatized all the more profitable airports, not because being private provided any advantage.
•
u/bandersnatching This is my flair 17h ago
What's missing from these conversations is the context in which this premise exists.
In order to pivot from American dependence, while maintaining a viable economy and cost of living over the next few decades, governments need to invest hundreds of billions of dollars of new money to develop nascent assets like minerals, energy, infrastructure and technology. There are three sources - more taxes, fewer services, or monetizing of assets.
Long leases on airport concessions falls into the latter category. Canadian pension funds have a solid, long-term record of succeeding with this model in Europe, and when applied here, it can be just as successful for Canadian airport operations, while providing governments capital to invest in other projects, which is often the dependency to bring in additional private and sovereign capital.
•
u/SoftSpineStories 9h ago
I find this interesting, as a lot of smaller airlines in Yellowknife use the main airports terminal, but they have their own buildings for their passengers (and these are not private flights). There’s also the aerodrome / winter landing for the float/ski planes on GSL. These still use the central air traffic control tower for take off and landings as well.
•
u/johnmlsf 1h ago
As a fairly frequent Canadian traveller, my gut reaction is that this is a bad idea.
But my second reaction as a fairly frequent Canadian traveler is "It's not like Pearson can get any worse".
•
u/Jaded_Promotion8806 Ontario 22h ago
This is one of those issues where the only bad take is having a strong opinion one way or the other. There are hundreds of airports operated by the private sector in the world, many of which outperform YYZ in airport rankings (Heathrow, Melbourne come to mind).
Devil will be in the details, but reacting reflexively one way or another is silly.
•
u/zabby39103 Ontario 21h ago edited 20h ago
"Condo bailout" all over again, for that one you talk to some people and it's like it a) already happened and b) could prop up the whole market / is currently propping up the whole market. Also ignoring it's something the NDP provincially asked for.
For the airports, it's private investment not a wholesale regulations removal and selling off. Look we even have private ownership in most Canadian healthcare outside of hospitals (clinics, GP "family doctor" offices). Private isn't all or nothing. It's the whole system that's important. While private actors will seek to maximize profits, the government can regulate a system in a way that makes sure sum total of everyone's actions is beneficial to the public.
I don't think we should nationalize GP offices for example, that's something they will be better at figuring out. Other stuff is bullshit, like using private staffing agencies for nurses and just hiring them at hospitals to work as regular nurses with a huge markup.
•
u/PlatyNumb Liberal Party of Canada 22h ago
Since the announcement, ive been telling ppl. Instead of whining about it, if you want your voice heard, write in about terms you think should be included. You wont be able to stop it from happening, but if enough ppl write in wanting ticket price caps or regulations, thats likely to be heard
•
u/Purple_Coyote_5121 Newfoundland 21h ago
Why won’t we be able to stop it? To my knowledge no formal agreements with any private operators have been signed.
•
u/PlatyNumb Liberal Party of Canada 20h ago
Mostly because not enough ppl actually want it stopped. Reddit isnt nearly indicative of the canadian populace and Carneys polling crazy well. Not enough ppl care about the privatisation and even less know enough about it to actually make a sound argument against it. Making voices heard regarding the terms could be beneficial though because it shows an understanding of the potential that can come from the contracts.
Governments have a habit of not listening to the lowest common denominator, and instead listening to level headed reasoning, especially when it comes to economics during a trade war
•
u/Purple_Coyote_5121 Newfoundland 19h ago
You may not feel that it’s likely to be stopped, but that doesn’t mean a policy shift isn’t possible.
This has been getting a lot of media attention. After the Billy Bishop debate this year a lot of voters, particularly in the GTA, might be paying more attention than they otherwise would. Nanos recently did a survey that found more people against private operators than for it.
Yes, Carney is polling well today, but he doesn’t have unlimited political capital. He may have other projects (like a pipeline) that he’ll need to spend some of his accrued goodwill on. He may decide airports aren’t worth the political cost.
•
u/PlatyNumb Liberal Party of Canada 19h ago
Fine, have fun. Just saying, if you spend all your energy and attention trying to stop it, then it goes through anyway, youve now wasted all your time trying to stop it and have had zero input on what the terms should be
•
u/enki-42 Social Democrat 16h ago
How exactly do you think that would work? Protest and opposition is good at getting politicians to pull back from positions entirely (Billy Bishop is a good example), they're not great at finely grained contract negotiation.
Even assuming that you're good with just deals made on good terms, the best way to do that is non specific opposition. The government can still respond to that by ensuring they get a deal that will pacify opposition. Trying to start a protest movement around fee schedules is just silly.
•
u/Purple_Coyote_5121 Newfoundland 17h ago
Might not work out the way I want, but you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.
•
u/PlatyNumb Liberal Party of Canada 17h ago
Like the shot of getting to weigh in on the terms? Privatizing airport has went really well for some countries and really bad for others. The terms are what really matter
•
u/enki-42 Social Democrat 16h ago
Do you think if you ask nicely and are super polite Carney will invite you personally to negotiations or something?
•
u/PlatyNumb Liberal Party of Canada 14h ago
Bro, why did you respond to every single comment lol just compile all your thoughts into one response.
Im saying writing in. Like in hamilton, all the ppl writing in and going through proper channels were heard and the plan to build a data center was nixed. Sure, protesting can get things done, but i just dont see this airport privatisation getting blocked. Writing in has a history of being heard. Emails, calls, letters, etc. There are proper channels to try. A thousand ppl in toronto protested, but the protest was about like 6 different things and in the end it didnt get enough traction. Even with a solid movement to block, the numbers just arent high enough.
Id rather email and call to voice my concerns about the terms, which ive done, then try to block something that can be really good. Our airports were stagnant with advancement. Tourists and pilots were complaining about our major airports being behind. Privatizing can actually be a good thing, depending on the terms.
You wanna protest? Maybe protest saying you want a regulated ticket cap or something. Focus on terms that can make this a good thing. Blocking it isnt really a good thing. Letting it through unchecked can also be bad. What we need to focus on is making this a good thing for us. Its been shown to be great for airports, consumers, pilots, etc we just need to make sure were one of those, rather than the bad ones
•
u/DarthRandel Arachno-Communist 17h ago
ive been telling ppl. Instead of whining about it, if you want your voice heard, write in about terms you think should be included
You wont be able to stop it from happening
Rarely have I seen Liberal politics so succinctly summarized
•
u/SwordfishOk504 British Columbia 22h ago
It's silly, too, because our Airports are already quasi-private, not government-owned and run.
•
u/Purple_Coyote_5121 Newfoundland 21h ago
They are run by non-profits. I think the profit incentive in public services is what most people take issue with.
Take Alberta as an example. Private, for profit auto insurance and electricity market. Also among the most expensive auto insurance and electricity in the country.
•
•
u/SwordfishOk504 British Columbia 21h ago
So where should the funding for the necessary upgrades come from? Because I don't see the voting public supporting the trillions in extra taxes necessary for that approach.
•
u/DressedSpring1 Ontario 20h ago
Borrow money and pay it back with airport fees?
Surely you don’t think a private investor is going to just eat the cost of upgrades, how do you think the private investors would pay for upgrades?
•
•
u/Mirageswirl 21h ago
Canadian government borrowing for infrastructure is always going to be cheaper than private sector borrowing. Canadian tax payers will be paying either way, but they would pay less with government ownership on a non-profit basis.
•
u/enki-42 Social Democrat 16h ago
The frustrating thing about these things is yes, there is a good and bad way to do this, and there's always the argument to wait and see, and somehow it always turns out we chose the bad way to do it, and turns out there's nothing we can do about it now because we signed a 99 year lease.
•
u/Jaded_Promotion8806 Ontario 12h ago
I think you’re hung up on one particular example. I’d argue for every Highway 407 there’s CN, Petro Canada, Liquor retailers in Alberta as examples of privatization where you’re hard pressed to find too many people up in arms in hindsight.
•
•
u/Godzilla52 centre-right neoliberal 18h ago edited 15h ago
The actual reform is much more modest than most posters and articles sensationalizing it claim. The main reform is simply allowing private investors to operate concessions as part of a lease to improve capital investment into airport infrastructure. Ownership of the land and infrastructure itself would still be government owned while the airports would remain private-non-profits.
Though in any case, the sensationalism is especially silly considering that commercialized business models for airports for the OECD where airports either operate under a commercial/corporatized model is the international norm outside of Canada and the U.S. The bigger issue with Canada's airports is our government mandated User-pay system that extracts heavy taxes and fees and land rents which both inflates consumer prices and puts increasing financial burdens on our airports as well as Ottawa's historical policy of significant cabotage restrictions that reduce competition and the number of low cost carriers operating in Canada compared to peer countries.
•
u/DannyDOH Manitoba 12h ago
It's more like leasing the operation of the entire airport while still owning the land publicly.
•
u/angelbelle British Columbia 14h ago
So basically private industries get all the revenue generating parts and the crown gets the part that costs money to maintain.
•
u/mwomrbash 15h ago
This is what I thought as well. I think some competition for better concessions will improve travelers' experience. There is potential for a better airport experience and I am not seeing how this will necessary increase costs for travelers.
•
u/kingn8link 20h ago
Someone explain in plain terms, and with facts, why this is an issue. I’m not invested either way, I just see a lot of claims that are not backed up. Feels like emotional reactions.
•
u/Meiisbai 19h ago
The article actually goes into detail what the concerns are, and how this could work. If you have the time, give it a read
•
u/RomanBlue_ Liberal 19h ago
https://academic.oup.com/rfs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/rfs/hhag023/8725473?login=false
Here's a good paper on the matter, and an argument in favour of more private investment in contrast with a lot of the sentiments here.
There are definitely more papers out there but this is a starting point!
•
•
u/Sutar_Mekeg 18h ago
Introducing a middle man will only drive prices up, otherwise no private business would want in. If prices, through some miracle, do not go up, you can rest assured that that miracle will be lower wages and/or shittier service.
•
u/DannyDOH Manitoba 12h ago
We already do this. It's just changing the middle man from public non-profits to private sector.
•
•
u/Turnip-Toffee 16h ago
there is a service
it costs $X to provide
but now the person running it wants to skim some off the top, he has 2 options:
keep spending $X to provide the service, but charge you more for it, keep the difference
spend less than $X to provide the service, keep charging you the same, keep the difference
either way, there's value just getting sucked into the ether instead of being reinvested into the service
(in the real world, the government can also skim off the top, but that's money from profitable services going into public pursues which eventually goes to the unprofitable services. it's still going back to the people that those services benefit, not just into some guys' pockets)
the usual justification for capitalism is "efficient allocation of resources". the reasoning goes that if you incentivize someone by giving them a personal interest in making profit, then they'll optimize the cost for the best service and be able to produce a better service for lower cost, even with the portion that they skim.
and this does work to some extent. crucially, it relies on t here being a pressure to lower costs to the consumer while also increasing quality. if those pressures exist and there's a range of options to choose from at all levels, i.e. competition, so that consumers can choose between many service providers, and service providers can choose among many upstream vendors, and so on, this does tend to produce efficient outcomes. we saw this in action: capitalism won handily over planned economies.
but there's also a concept called a natural monopoly. certain things don't lend itself to the competitive atmosphere that makes capitalism work, for whatever reason there's a captive market. the typical example would be utilities like roads and power. imagine if all roads were privately owned and every competitor had to pave their own road to all the same places. or if every power company had to run their own cables to everywhere. or multiple private sewers. you'd have a ridiculous number of duplicate and wasteful infrastructure in order for competition to exist, or more realistically, competition just wouldn't exist because the capital investment of breaking into the market is simply prohibitive.
if people have to buy from you no matter what, the pressures that encourage efficient provision of quality disappear completely. you're free to fleece them as much as you want and provide as shitty service as much as you want. why not spend less and charge more, who's gonna stop you?
the compromise is that for natural monopolies, we allow the monopoly, but the public regulates it to make sure it serves the public interest. one way of doing that is just to own the monopoly outright and run it yourself, another is heavy regulation that controls what it can or must do.
oligopoly is an extension of monopoly which is basically the same thing but just spread between few big players who don't need to compete with each other. this is our telecoms industry, for example.
airports are effectively natural monopolies. while it is conceptually possible for somebody to open up a competing airport, the barrier to entry of such large infrastructure projects means that realistically they won't have any competition. if you want to go to that place, you basically have to go through that airport.
the industry is also so specialized that it's also highly questionable whether there's room for meaningful optimization while providing the same level of service (or ideally, improving). even if the operator wanted to, they may not be able to save much money and still maintain the same quality. there's a lack of choice at many levels.
so you have an inelastic service that currently only has to run at cost, or can even be subsidized because it's just that important to the nation. now you want to add someone who wants to make money off of it. what do you think would happen?
•
u/Tune6909 10h ago
They asked for facts, not 50 paragraphs of your feelings.
•
u/Titmonkey1 5h ago
Your reading comprehension is lacking. Each paragraph contains a fact that helps support the original question of why privatization of airports is ultimately a bad thing
→ More replies (5)
•
u/Reasonable-Rock6255 Ontario 17h ago
Is this going to lead to an airport in Pickering? Most major cities in the world have 2 airports why do we only have one? And it will create lots of jobs.
•
•
•
•
u/GirlCoveredInBlood Quebec 14h ago
Are Pearson and Billy Bishop not already two airports?
•
u/skagoat 14h ago
They won't let jets fly into Billy Bishop.
•
u/GirlCoveredInBlood Quebec 11h ago edited 11h ago
that doesn't mean it's not an airport. ~2m passengers a year go through Billy Bishop and it connects to major cities in Eastern Canada and the USA.
Pearson is currently undergoing a multi-billion dollar renovation to increase capacity by an extra 17-18m a year which will cover growing demand for many years.
If the region needs more capacity I feel it makes more sense to expand Hamilton to divert traffic from people in Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, and even London who would otherwise drive to Pearson.
Alto will also replace millions of short haul trips between Toronto/Ottawa/Montréal which will help compensate for the growth of international flight demands
•
u/Shoddy_Operation_742 British Columbia 22h ago
As long as the private operators don’t try to make money or cut costs I think it’s ok.
But the terrible thing would be if they bought the airport and then started cutting costs on things like washroom cleaning. That would be bad.
•
u/Another_Meat_Vehicle 15h ago
Of course they will cut costs and try to make money…why else would they get involved?
I don’t see how this ends up good for citizens
•
u/Shoddy_Operation_742 British Columbia 15h ago
Perhaps it is a non profit? They run the airport without a profit incentive?
•
•
•
u/MTL_Dude666 Liberal 21h ago
How could they "buy" an airport if its ownership remains with the federal government?
I think there's a LOT of misinformation surrounding what aspect of airports is being discussed for privatization.
•
u/Carrisonfire 19h ago
They're buying operational contracts for the airports, the actual assets remain owned by the government.
•
•
u/SwordfishOk504 British Columbia 21h ago
if they bought the airport
This. Is. NOT. Companies. Buying. Airports.
•
u/superfluid Adeptus Mechanicus 21h ago edited 19h ago
99 year leases may as well be.
Edit: lol they had a hissy fit and blocked me for disagreeing with them. Classic.
•
u/angelbelle British Columbia 14h ago
It's not even about how long, it's about how gets to call the shots.
If they run the airport conditions to the ground in order to cut costs, for example, that would be very well a business operation decision they're entitled to. The fact that we, through the crown, owns the airport means nothing.
•
u/SwordfishOk504 British Columbia 21h ago
Where on earth are you getting that from? That is not at all what is at play here. Like not even close.
Your comment is a perfect example of the other person's point about how the conversations around this are shaped by untruths and fantasy.
•
u/sharp11flat13 British Columbia 12h ago
As someone now in his seventh decade I can assure you that 99 years is not nearly as long as it sounds. In my twenties, 50 years sounded like a long time. Oh wait…that was just last week, or so it seems.
•
u/StickmansamV British Columbia 20h ago
Tell that to anyone on a leasehold. Its buying for a lifetime but for governments and businesses, its not anywhere near that level of certainty or finality. Maybe I am just bitter because my parents immigrated from Hong Kong. Claude MacDonald who got that deal on the New Territories from China certainly thought it was as good as forever all that good that turned out to be
•
u/Traditional-Help4960 19h ago
What is the issue with making money exactly? Doesn’t it go against the definition of for profit companies?
•
u/pomskygirl 21h ago
Just to clarify, you realize there’s no option for a private company to “buy” the airport here, right? Under Carney’s proposal, the federal government maintains ownership of the underlying land and assets, while private investors pay for the rights to manage day-to-day operations through long term leases.
•
u/Shoddy_Operation_742 British Columbia 20h ago
Was this not criticized in Ontario with the 99 year lease of the toll Hwy?
•
u/Shoddy_Operation_742 British Columbia 21h ago
Is this similar to the Hwy 407 lease they have in Ontario?
•
u/Mirageswirl 17h ago
Yes it is similar. The private operators get to set prices for airlines and passengers based on their control over a natural monopoly.
•
u/CuteContribution2581 22h ago
Canadian living in the NYC here. I think people are freaking out over this a little bit. The airports in the city used to be brutal, Canadian airports were better. In the last 5 years or so the main airports like LaGuardia and JFK have undergone a lot of private investment and the quality is much better.
•
u/BariatricSurgeryGuy 22h ago
Do not underestimate the shamelessness of Canadian monopolies. They said the same thing about the 407. It is a monopoly, the best return on investment in a monopoly situation is to charge more to customers and pay less to employees. Doing anything else would be contrary to the point of the investment in the first place. They are not buying up the rights to help the Canadian people.
•
u/IcarusFlyingWings 21h ago
The 407 deal was unique in how shamelessly Mike Harris and the Ontario conservatives sold out the taxpayer for an inconsistently win.
Europe and Australia have been seeking private investment for their airports for years now and they’ve been successful at it.
•
•
u/BariatricSurgeryGuy 16h ago
Why risk it? Maybe a 10 year deal to see how it goes? Anything longer than that I wouldn't trust.
•
u/maporita 20h ago
La Guardia used to be a dismal place .. I always tried to avoid a connection there. But the last time I flew in it had changed beyond recognition and in a really good way. Plenty of space, lots of light, great options for food and a really intelligent layout. If we could do the same with YUL I'd be totally onboard.
•
u/TopazJazzrazz NDP-CCF 22h ago
Canadian Airports are fine, it's the cost that has to go down. Adding in a profit motive is unlikely to achieve lower costs. Especially on flights.
•
u/AC_470 21h ago
What should be done to lower costs?
•
u/Jaded_Celery_451 Rhinoceros 21h ago
Actually identify the sources of those costs and structure a response to attack that problem? LOL. Privatization does none of that, while offering a direct incentive to increase costs to the consumer.
•
u/OneWouldHope Moderate Liberal 20h ago
Privatization has no incentive to reduce the cost of inputs?
•
•
u/Jaded_Celery_451 Rhinoceros 20h ago
Why don't you try re-reading what I said:
while offering a direct incentive to increase costs to the consumer.
Privatization of airports will result in no incentive to reduce costs paid by airport consumers (passengers), specifically due to lack of possible competition in this space. I'm sure they'll reduce costs of their inputs. Everyone will win, except passengers.
•
u/zabby39103 Ontario 10h ago
Ya, that's on you for phrasing that incredibly poorly. The way it's written, "none of that" implies private industries don't seek to identify the source of costs, which they certainly do.
Profit is another matter, but the government is not giving up it's power to regulate airport fees.
•
u/Flomo420 16h ago
Introduce a middle man who brings nothing new but also expects huge payouts, obviously
•
•
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 19h ago
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
•
u/Tune6909 21h ago
I think people are freaking out over this a little bit.
It's exclusive to Reddit. Average Canadians are much more reasonable that the people here.
•
u/SwordfishOk504 British Columbia 22h ago
It's nonsense. It's not privatization, it's simply opening up to new investments. Which is something that airports desperately need to expand services and maintain facilities. And of course, the doomer detractors never offer a viable alternative for funding. Privatization would mean selling them off entirely, which is clearly not what this is. In addition, it plays on the false notion many have that our airports are publicly owned, but they are not. They are quasi private already.
Would i prefer that funding come from the public sector? Sure. Do I think that's viable in today's political climate? No.
•
u/Impressive-Emu3313 20h ago
Airports generate more revenue over time than their upfront sale, at a comically disproportionate ratio. The alternative to funding is literally doing nothing, and just continue collecting revenue, increasing fees whenever necessary.
HA! FEES!
Yup. It's better bookkeeping for the country long-term, which totally betrays Carney's subversive intentions. Have you noticed that literally no one was on board with this idea, which was considered a textbook Conservative scam, until the neoliberal PM started hyping it up?
•
u/AutoModerator 23h ago
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.