International airports allow for the rapid increase and spreading of global diseases. Cities like Vancouver have plans and facilities in place to deal with these threats. Our hospital can not even keep up with the cases it has on a daily basis. While making our airport an international destination has benifits, we must also accept the enevitable consequences as well. Without the proper infrastructure to deal with global pandemics we are puting ourselves at tremendous risk. Food for thought amungst the current greed trend.

Makes one wonder if PG is a cargo pickup and dropoff location first and foremost. Or, will it be a destination for travellers from around the world?

Based on how we are handling RV travellers and the bus travellers that over night in our city, we haven't developed a marketing plan that caters to the visitor at all. So, I don't think we need to worry too much about a huge increase in international tourist traffic in Prince George. Chester

Chester: naturally, I agree that P.G. will not be the dream destination for a huge new tourist class but, one Asian buisnessman who flies to P.G. direct could have come from a city with several million citizens and thus the possiblitiy of the more rapid spread of virus type infections increases. Not only are health issues involved but, thanks to the Americans interference throughout the world, terrorism is now a very real possibility. Our airport will need near military control of customs. My point is that while the benifits of having an international airport are great so too are the responsibilities of running such a facility. Who will pay the price of these facilities? The public once again. Politicians decry the wonderful benifits of their efforts but, few care to address the very real cost both monitary and social.

Chester is right. VR handles emnormus volumes of humans. It's getting worse, but they aren't going to be scurring around our airport anytime soon.
I was through VR a few years ago on a connector with another buddy and we got swamped by a couple 747 drop offs from the Far East. We were separated as they swarmmed into the terminal, but it wasn't that bad as we both stood a head taller than the swarm and could still keep track of each other. It was quite an experience for one just out of the bush, but just normal for VR.
I can see where VR has to be ready to handle a pandemic as it will hit there the same hour as Hong Kong or where ever.

First you have to get the money and build the extension. Then you have to get the Airlines to stop here ((Funny you dont hear of any Airlines that have indicated that they will do so)) Then you have to get tourists to come here. They dont now, so why would they??

Dont hold your breath for any great new business, or tourism from this pipedream. If it happens at all it will be a long way in the future.

Prince George is not unique ansd will not be a major tourist destination in the next few decades or longer. People do not come to a city to look at runways. The reason for the runway, as I understand it is cargo traffic, not passenger traffic. Any passenger traffic increase will be impacted more by the building of tourist facilities and identification and promotion of such facilties, including any existing facilities.

There was no talk of a Customs facility, increased parking, or a runway extension, when the Airport was run by the Federal Government. Now that it has been taken over by the Airport Society we get talk of all this activity. Why??

Well for one reason the mandate of Airport Authoritys is that money generated from the Airport Improvement Fees. ((This is actually a tax on air travellers)) has to be put back into airport improvements, therefore once you set up a Airport Society that generates revenue, you then have to find improvements to spend the money on. That is why the Vancouver Airport has had such huge improvements in the last number of years, and why they will continue to have improvements. If they were to stop, then they would have to reduce or eliminate the Airport improvement fees.

The same thing applies to the Prince George Airport, and is why the improvements are either taking place or planned. This does not necessarily mean that any new business will be generated by the improvements, however it allows the Society to continue to collect the fees and spend the money. The extension may be built with money loaned from the Federal Government but it is highly unlikely that a lot of additional business will be forthcomeing as a result.

The Federal Government abdicated its responsibility for running the Airports in Canada and downloaded the responsibility to the Airport Societys and allowed them to Tax Air Travellers for revenue to run them. The Feds continue to make money on the Airports, as do the Societys,(Through taxation) and the Air travellers pay for most of the cost.

In other words, we have been duped once again. Ta Ta

Which comes first? The need to charge improvement fees or the needs and wants to make improvements? Logically, I would think the latter.

There is no one forcing the authority to charge improvement fees as I understand it. There are those who feel that improvements are needed and thus charge fees based on those needs and wants.

Governments all over are into "privatization" wherever possible. This is just one of those efforts.

The question is, who benefits from having an aiport in the first place, and the various optional services it supplies in the second place?

Lets say the airport was demolished. What effect would it have on Prince George? Fewer people living here due to time to travel and thus a greater inconvenience than living in a community with an airport? Fewer companies located here due to lack of reasonable access to specialized maintenance personnel? Fewer people having regional gatherings here? Longer time for goods delivery? More use of highways? More use of teleconferencing? and on and on.

So, it is not only the individual traveller who benefits, but the entire community since it is an essential service in today's urban world, especially one which is 8+ hours drive from the next largest city.

Thus, not all of the cost of the airport should be borne by the individuals using the airport services.

What the breakdown is, I do not know, but I would think it is not a secret. I would not be surprised if the traveller pays most of it through the various fees that airlines are charged plus the improvement fees, plus the purchases of goods at the airport, a component of which goes to the rent, plus parking fees, etc. etc.

Finally, any free enterpriser has to analyze the market opportunities and take some chances in order to create or grwo a business. The chance typically involves making an investment to provide services where it appears such services will be used to the extent that they will cover the cost of the investment andsubsequent operation costs at a minimum and even make money at the best.

This is public money, so how do we know a wise investment is being made? We don't. We have to trust the people in place to direct and manage that "business". And if it isn't proven to be wise after 10 years? The government that supported the investment by paying for part of the infrastructure cost will likley be gone by then, so it may very well not be possible to vote them out.

Cargo airlines make a careful balance between distance to travel, required fuel and payload.

If the amount of cargo can be increased by carrying less fuel the bean counters will go for it.

Planes that are headed for Alaska and across the Pacific will land here in P.G. to top up fuel if it means an increase in overall valuable payload capacity.

They will pay a landing fee and buy fuel.

Same story on the return flights.

Apparently all the math has been done and the interest is there as well.

Well I think that my point has been missed. All the talk of expansion etc came after the Government turned the running of the Airport over to the Airport Society. As previously stated they have to plow any money they make into improvements of the Airport, they will have to do this even if they do not get any increase in traffic, or they will have to reduce the Airport Improvement Fees. Its pretty obvious that they will spend the money on improvements, however it does not logically follow, that the improvements will generate any more business. Its possible, but certainly not gauranteed. My guess is that we have now built the New Customs area for one plane a week during the winter months to mexico. We will increase the parking from 500 vehicles to 800 even if the extra space is not used, and finally we will increase the length of the runway even if no additional planes ever land here.

The Vancouver Airport Society is a cash cow and has more money than it can possibly spend on improvement, however it continues to try. It has over 500 Million in investments, and has put 300 Million into the RAV line, and still has money left over. This is all about spending money. Air travellers end up paying for it all.

I think I got your point Palopu and then some. That is why I asked waht effect getting rid of the airport would have on the economy of this city. Most certainly the operation of the airport should not be paid for entirely from the pockets of the traveller as far as I am concerned.

As far as diplomat pointing out that the math has been done, I understand that it has been. No oen is willing to sign on the dotted line until the facility is in place. Let's make a deal when you have everything ready. In the meantime, while we twiddle our thumbs, other opportunities will arise for those who may have signed up if we had the capacity and that opportunity will thus be lost.

As far as the math goes, the best, of course, is to stay in the air from origin to destination since takeoff and landing take considerably more fuel than cruising at 35+ thousand feet. However, once you have to put down, almost anywhere close to halfway on the route should do, especially if landing fees and facility rentals are cheap. If it is much more than halfway, I would think that you would have to reconfigure your cargo weight in relation to the fuel which has to be on board for the longest leg.

Owl. I didnt suggest getting rid of the Airport. I beleive that it should have remained the responsibility of the Federal Government and the running of it the Responsibility of the Feds and paid for by tax dollars. This system worked fine for the last 60 years and would have done so in the future. By turning it over to the Airport Society the Feds have abdicated their responsibility and still continue to make money on the operation. This is double taxation, and taxation by a society rather than a Government and should not be allowed. In any event its here now and we will have to live with it, however I do not expect any big changes to the traffic at this Airport in the near future.