Landing Horizon

Monday, January 07, 2008 04:00 AM

Prince George, B.C. – There just may be another airline landing at Prince George Airport.

Together with the Airport Authority, Initiatives Prince George is hoping to land Horizon Airlines for daily flights between Prince George and Seattle, and connections throughout North America and the world.

Horizon is owned by the Alaska Air Group which also owns Alaska Airlines. Based in Seattle, Horizon currently has 48 destinations, including four in B.C., (Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna and Kamloops /Sun Peaks).

According to Initiatives Prince George, having this airline serve Prince George would have a direct impact on wages ( an extra $1.4 million dollars worth) and add another $2 million in GDP. There are also the advantages of having Prince George closer to international travellers

It all comes with a price. In this case, it’s a $400 thousand dollar guarantee.

Initiatives Prince George would have to (on behalf of the City) enter into a “Transportation Partnership Agreement” at least for the first year. That means, if after one year, the airline has to cancel service, the airline will be paid the difference between what the airline picked up in passenger revenue and the actual costs, to a maximum of $400 thousand dollars U.S.

The experts say the airline will only fail if its passenger load drops below 61% and according to Horizon’s web site, its passenger load in 2006 ( latest year for stats) was 74%.

Prince George City Council will decide this evening if the City will back up that $400 thousand dollar guarantee.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, January 07, 2008 04:00 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: lmorg on January 7 2008 5:47 AM

PG does not have the attractions that the other cities mentioned in this article do.
Why should PG have to pay an airline to land here if PG is so attractive? This is a gamble....and if I wanted the city to gamble with my tax dollars (or anyone else's) gimmie back my money - I'd rather go to the casino.

Posted by: owl on January 7 2008 6:31 AM

"The experts say the airline will only fail if its passenger load drops below 61% and according to Horizon�s web site, its passenger load in 2006 ( latest year for stats) was 74%."

??????? Those stats are company wide from the sounds of it. With a PG to Seattle run, I would expect the stats to be either higher or lower than the average of all runs.

So, if the company does poorly overall, no matter how well the PG-Seattle run may do, then it looks like we would be in for a payout. Is that what this means?

Or does it mean 61% of the specific PG-Seattle run?

Remember, the C$ is up and the US is the place to go once more. What a great opportunity to make it easier for us to dump our hard earned C$ into someone else's hands and watch our economy tank.

On the bright side, the C$ will go down, we will shop at home once more, and the airline will tank, and we will be paying Horizon for doing exactly what the reason for bringing Horizon in was.

The ups and downs of an economy ..... finding a new equillibrium for itself.

Never mind this "shop at home" stuff.

;-)

Posted by: owl on January 7 2008 6:37 AM

"According to Initiatives Prince George, having this airline serve Prince George would have a direct impact on wages ( an extra $1.4 million dollars worth) and add another $2 million in GDP."

That is only one side of the equation. I doubgt too many US citizens will flock to fly from Seattle to PG to bring dollars into this part of the world instead of some other part. I suspect most of the passengers will be locals who will fly back and forth taking away business from YVR.

So, what is the other side of the equation? Will more people be flying as a result of better options, or will there be a passenger loss to other airlines who fly into here?

If more people will be flying, will they be spending less in PG as a result?

Give us the rest of the picture please, not just the income side of the ledger!!

Posted by: owl on January 7 2008 6:42 AM

Kamloops/Sun Peaks?????

First time I have heard combination. Interesting.

Time we renamed Purden to "Snow Valley" or something more exotic and billed ourselves as "Prince George/Snow Valley"

;-)

Posted by: metalman on January 7 2008 7:03 AM

PG to Seattle direct would open up cheaper air travel to more folks. I assume cheaper, since a lot of Canadian people used to fly out of Bellingham because they saved a ton of money.
metalman.

Posted by: Parrothead on January 7 2008 7:45 AM

Owl - DAMNED FINE IDEA. I like it!
Metalman - I used to travel for a living. Whenever leaving the country on business, I flew Horizon out of Kelowna (lived in the Shuswap) to Seattle and on from there. Saved a FORTUNE in money. The connections from Sea-Tac are vastly superior to Vancouver outside of Canada - including direct flights to Copenhagen and Moscow.

Posted by: Parrothead on January 7 2008 7:49 AM

Also Owl - there are probably opportunities to develop new hills in the Purdon, Bowron and Goat River areas.

Posted by: Parrothead on January 7 2008 7:51 AM

To Gordon Campbell, Premiere, Province of British Columbia.

Dear Sir, on behalf of myself and a partner currently known only as Owl, I would like to apply for an exclusive permit to investigate development of new recreational spaces in the northern Cariboo Mountain region.

RSVP.

Regards,
Parrothead.

Posted by: owl on January 7 2008 8:09 AM

Sugarbowl/Grizzley Den, now a Provincial Park, just a few more minutes east of Purden had been suggested at one time.

That still makes it an hour less than Powder King and visually a much more attractive area than Powder King in my mind. No transmission lines, for starters.

Elevation from base to top is about 3,500 feet, about twice the height of Purden if it was extended to the road.

I think Purden has a better chance since it is not in a Park and, like most of the other aras that have been developing, has an existing infrastructure. In addtion, it has a lake at the base with potential for a year around situation with a possible golf course, and other ammenities.etc.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on January 7 2008 8:24 AM

Sounds like of risky.

Do people really have the confidence that PG has enough to offer?

I know one of my favorite past times of snowmobiling in the mountains may be about to removed. I've met tourists from around the world and across Canada in the mountains in the winter.

Although I do remember a meeting at BC Parks where the Sierra Group parachuted their man into PG to fight us, and tell BC Parks how things should be run. So I can see where it would be convenient to have an airline flying direct to PG for when us red necks need to be tuned in by the elite of the world on how we should live in PG. That way they wouldn't have to spend too much time in PG and could fly home right after the meetin'. Plicks.

Posted by: realitysetsin on January 7 2008 9:15 AM

Owl, good post as usual.

I'd drive to PG just to get the Seattle transfer. Cheapest westjet fair I could find to Cabo (when I was looking) was $800 return all in. Out of Seattle (via Priceline) I could get it for $350 all in. That is a huge savings, but a hassle driving to Seattle. But still worth the $900/per couple savings.

I've heard, though I am not 100% sure, that Air Canada has some kind of Similar agreement with Central Mountain Air. Central Mountain air is guaranteed X amount of seats per flight as a feeder to the Air Canada system. (you can get your air canada boarding passes at the central mountain air gate)

I wonder, if this is true, why Horizon wouldn't have a similar setup with it's parent company, Alaska Airlines. Hmm

Posted by: Andyfreeze on January 7 2008 9:15 AM

While I do agree with much of Owls logic,YamaDooPolCat probably has a valid point as well.
Somebody with a political connection of some sort is bound to screw the idea up, for purely selfish reasons!
Seems like that's how it works in the north!

Posted by: northman on January 7 2008 9:29 AM

YamaDooPolcat.. Get your mineral titles licence and carry your rock pick in your snowmobile's trunk.. You can already do this with quads and ride above the ristricted altitudes in "Protected" areas as long as your contributing to economimc development then your protected. If some pansy down in vancover f@*cks our mountain riding up then they should shut whistler down too..

Posted by: Palopu on January 7 2008 9:37 AM

This is another total waste of taxpayers dollars. Why should the taxpayers of Prince George gaurantee the success of a foreign airline.

Let them do their own market research, and if it is not feasible dont come here.

IPG should be terminated as soon as possible they are nothing but a joke.

Where will our Mayor and Councillors get the right information to make this decision. Once they gaurantee the money the Airline cannot lose for the first year, but we stand to lose $400,000.00

Posted by: Bridge on January 7 2008 10:02 AM

You got it Pal. Sounds like Horizon is taking the City for a nice ride with tax dollars.

Cheers

Posted by: southfortguy on January 7 2008 10:53 AM

This is exactly why nothing ever happens in Prince George.

IF there is a sound business plan then we should take the risk - whats the point of having an "international" airport that does not have any foreign destinations?
If Prince George is to become the so called transportation hub then this will be another step in the right direction.

The airport should sock away the landing fees for a year for Horizon - earn interest on it and if it fails use that money as the guarantee.

I myself would love to have a Seattle connection to speed up international travel.

It is time to think globally people and take some risks - oh wait we could always spend the money on studying if its feasible for an arts facility.....

Posted by: diplomat on January 7 2008 11:14 AM

"In this case, it�s a $400 thousand dollar guarantee."

What kind of a *guarantee* did Kamloops have to sign with the airline if any?

What about Victoria and Kelowna?

"Where will our Mayor and Councillors get the right information to make this decision. Once they gaurantee the money the Airline cannot lose for the first year, but we stand to lose $400,000.00"

I can see another $100,000 dollar study (funded by P.G. taxpayers) on the horizon, no pun intended.

Posted by: giterdun on January 7 2008 11:30 AM

IF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE WON'T DO IT OWN THEIR OWN, CHANCES ARE IT ISN'T A GOOD DEAL.WE WOULD PROBABLY BE FINANCING A STUDY. IF THERE IS PROFIT IN IT THEY WILL COME ON THEIR OWN NICKLE.WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF TO SPEND THE 400 GRAND AND GET RID OF OFFIT.

Posted by: seamutt on January 7 2008 11:34 AM

Hey folks I have a great idea!!! Lets just shut PG down now. Why try anything. I guess we are just a bunch of losers.

About snowmobiling, we have some great country to ride in from trails to mountains. I have never seen PG tourism advertise this fact. Has anyone else?

Posted by: diplomat on January 7 2008 12:31 PM

"The experts say the airline will only fail if its passenger load drops below 61% and according to Horizon�s web site, its passenger load in 2006 ( latest year for stats) was 74%."

Who are the "experts"? Experts of what?

Are we talking about the *failure of the airline* or about the *failure of the proposed Seattle to Prince George run* of the airline?

Gee, is this whole thing a murky proposal or what?

The experts (mayor and councilors) at City Hall better hire Conrad Black's lawyer to throw some light on what exactly it is they are about to sign on the dotted line for.

How much time will they have to get real legal advice or will they sign first and worry later?

The pressure is on.

Posted by: southfortguy on January 7 2008 12:33 PM

Lots of other cities have Public Private Partnerships or "triple P's". This is really no different..no different than the city funding the CN Centre which technically should make its own money...whats the difference?

Wake up people - have you all been in Prince George too long? Does the city not give tax breaks to businesses locating downtown?? - guess we should stop that as well....do those business pay those taxes back if they fail??

Encourage diversity, investment and stimulate the economy...or maybe we should wait for forestry to rebound??

Posted by: redneck on January 7 2008 12:38 PM

Prince George has always lived in the small time.Its time to start thinking big.I am not sure airlines are the place to start though.I don't think anyone should have to pay to fund an airline if they fall short.Can we not find anyone to do it on their bill

Posted by: turbocat on January 7 2008 12:47 PM

Why would a private business need tax dollars to come here....they can either make it on their own, or go elsewhere.
I do not have my hand out for the city to fill it with 400grand, so why should they.

If the city signs this deal, I think they owe every business already here 400,000 as well.

Thats my opinion.

Posted by: southfortguy on January 7 2008 12:50 PM

Does anyone recall the deals cut for the call centres? They are still here.....

Posted by: palomino on January 7 2008 1:39 PM

I think we need some more details on this one. Are we talking about the difference between GROSS revenue in total passenger fees collected in one year, and $400,000.00, or NET profit achieved in one year, and $400,000.00?

Big, big difference here, but it shouln't be too hard to collect $400,000.00 in gross fees in one year with flights to Seattle if that's what we're talking about.

Does Alaskan fly over or near us now on flights to Seattle? If they do, then a stop here would seem to be more feasable than a dedicated flight to and from here.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on January 7 2008 2:34 PM

So if PG doesn't cover the $400,000 big ones,will that mean no deal?
It could be a good arrangment I guess, and Seattle would be a good run.Lots of connections for airlines,cruiseships etc.made there.
But the 400,000 just seems like a bit of blackmail.
As in pay up or we take our ball and go home?
If it was such a good deal,why wouldn't they just do it on their own?

Posted by: bronco on January 7 2008 5:19 PM

The service to Kamloops is only during the winter when Sun Peaks is open. I wonder what the service to PG would be?? Year round or only during the summer. It would be good to attract all the rv'ers to start or end their trip in PG. Well worth the investment. Plus much cheaper to fly from Seattle than Van. (taxes, fees,etc)

Posted by: bronco on January 7 2008 5:42 PM

Posted by: EdH on January 7 2008 5:55 PM

The best news is the competition in airlines.

Since Air Canada connects to the US from Vancouver (via itself or United; Westjet's connections don't compete), they owned the market on the PG to Vancouver flight for travelers connecting into the US. If Horizon establishes this flight to Seattle, then Air Canada will have to actually compete for US-bound travelers.

Posted by: Chester on January 7 2008 7:30 PM

I would ask what the demand is for people willing to fly to Seattle rather than Vancouver? I am very aware of the lower costs flying across the US via the US compared to Canadian Flights. So, when I travel, I would definitely consider Seattle.

I love Westjet and will choose them first, where ever they do fly. But, they don't fly everywhere.

Secondly, can the city follow through with the guarantee, if the $400,000 isn't met?

There is some risk, but I believe the risk is worth it to test the waters and see how much support we can muster up. It does have to be beneficial for the travellers, or it won't fly for very long. I say let's bet on success and thank Horizon for investing some time and money in our market for our benefit. Chester

Posted by: NMG on January 7 2008 10:44 PM

This could certainly open up some doors for tourism related traffic from the US. RV tours, fishing/hunting guiding, eco-tourism, skiing, snowmobiling, etc.

$400K does seem like a fair chunk of dough, however, I'd like to see more details before deciding one way or the other. Like others have said, we do need to try different things and depending on the details, this could be a good move.

YamaDooPolCat, why the heck don't we have groomed trails around here for snowmobilers? Is it just sheer numbers and not enough people to make it viable?