Skip to main content

Calin Rovinescu is the president and chief executive officer of Air Canada.

There is an irony not lost on us where, as a former Crown Corporation celebrating 30 years of privatization in 2018, Air Canada emerges as distinctly anti-privatization when it comes to Canadian airports – in effect, public facilities that airlines such as Air Canada have invested billions in helping to develop.

But it is not inconsistent for us to make this argument.

Story continues below advertisement

Yes, some changes are in order. Airport security needs to be streamlined if not overhauled. Governance of airports needs to change to provide more accountability. And, above all, the federal government needs to reduce the infrastructure fees, taxes and charges imposed on aviation that make many of our airports uncompetitive and drive up airfares. Privatization will not fix this and, indeed, risks exacerbating it.

Opinion: Let's not get railroaded again on infrastructure

Subscribers: Selling off Canada's airports no panacea to resolving high costs

Read more: Alberta strongly opposed to privatizing Canada's airports, minister says

In our view, airport privatization is likely to further drive up the already high usage costs of Canadian airports and, with it, ultimately airfares. Therefore, it's not a good thing for airlines or our customers.

According to a Conference Board of Canada survey, airport and navigational fees, taxes and charges already account for approximately 40 per cent of the total airfare difference between the United States and Canada – and that does not include the difference in after-tax fuel costs. Canada ranks 130th of 140 countries when it comes to governmental taxes, rates and charges, as ranked by the 2015 World Economic Forum Tourism Competitiveness Report.

This is the real problem with Canadian airports, and privatization would only make it worse. The monopoly position that "for-profit" airports would hold virtually throughout the country, together with necessary return on investment requirements, would very quickly drive up the costs both for airlines and ultimately, our passengers. Privatized airport models in other parts of the world are often situated in geographically small countries surrounded with high-density populations, allowing for real competition between airports. In contrast, with our vast geography, our ability to provide direct international service to Canadians (largely from hub airports) relies heavily on having a fully integrated system with feed traffic from regional communities. Privatizing key airports risks destabilizing this critical balance.

Story continues below advertisement

A fundamental principle of the National Airport Policy, which was introduced in 1994 and which currently governs the operations of airports, is its not-for-profit cost-recovery structure. Some airports are better than others at keeping costs down while creating efficiencies. This is an area where support on improving operations could be useful. However, as we have witnessed in previous airport privatizations, the seller of the asset does profit while the other stakeholders and users of the airport (i.e. airlines and consumers) carry the financial burden indefinitely.

In addition to streamlining airport security infrastructure and reducing rates and charges, another area of reform we would support is around airport governance and accountability. This is an issue that should be addressed, and a privatized model is not needed to do so.

The Canadian model is not broken, only dented. It does not need to be fixed by a quick solution of selling our public airports to the highest bidder. Improvements may be needed but, in general, the National Airport Policy still provides a sound foundation and one that all stakeholders could work toward reinforcing.

With some smart thinking and thoughtful improvements, the Canadian model can be enhanced to become an example for the industry worldwide.

Report an error
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter