|
Pearson dropped from survey after academic threatened to be sued
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yohan |
What do you do when someone writes something bad of you and you have the money? Threaten to sue!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/National/home
| quote: |
Pearson dropped from critical report after complaint
DEAN BEEBY
Canadian Press
March 23, 2008 at 12:45 PM EDT
OTTAWA — Toronto's Pearson airport is being dropped from a global review of airport efficiency after a complaint about its embarrassingly low ranking.
The president and CEO of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority demanded the removal of Pearson from the annual survey of more than 150 major airports in a toughly worded letter last August.
“Should you decline this request, I see no other recourse than to pursue all means at our disposal to receive fair treatment,” Lloyd McCoomb warned the lead researcher at the University of British Columbia.
Dr. McCoomb cited a “total lack of academic rigor” and “unsupported findings” in the survey, saying the research was “threatening potential harm to our reputation.”
The 2007 edition of the report found that Pearson was among the least efficient airports in the world, and that its cost competitiveness was low. The survey noted that aircraft landing fees at Pearson — Canada's largest airport — are the highest in the world.
The survey is published by an international research group of 13 academics, headed by Tae Oum, a business professor at UBC. Detailed results are available for a fee of $500 (US), to help underwrite research costs, though a free summary is posted on the Internet (www.atrsworld.org/publications.html).
Dr. Oum said Dr. McCoomb's “intimidating” letter rattled him and, fearing legal action, he consulted the university's lawyer and others. In the end, the research group agreed to cut Pearson from the efficiency analysis in the 2008 edition of the survey, due in late May.
“I have to protect myself,” Dr. Oum said in an interview.
The 2008 survey, however, will continue to rank Pearson's landing fees and other factual information that is generally available from public sources.
Dr. Oum declined to comment on his latest internal findings about Pearson's efficiency, citing Dr. McCoomb's letter, but said the airport's ranking has been relatively low for several years.
A spokesman for Dr. McCoomb said the president was not threatening legal action but, as a former professor of civil engineering at the University of Toronto, was simply speaking “academic to academic.”
“There's no attempt to shut down research,” Scott Armstrong said in an interview. “Academic freedom is not an issue.
“What's at issue is we're simply asking that if someone is going to go around making accusations about our company, as any business would be, we're concerned about that, so we want to know where they're coming from.”
Dr. McCoomb challenged Dr. Oum's methodology and asked for access to the raw data so that a third party, hired by the GTAA, could make an independent assessment, Mr. Armstrong said. “That request was not honoured.”
Dr. Oum says the research group decided “to keep the (international) data in house for competitive reasons,” but offered to provide Dr. McCoomb all the raw data about Pearson, most of which the GTAA itself supplied last summer.
He acknowledged that the group's methodology — well-known among economists — is not the only one applicable, but said even when other analyses of efficiency are used, Pearson's results are similar.
“Basically, your airport needs to improve operating efficiency by benchmarking with more efficient airports,” Dr. Oum told Dr. McCoomb in a written exchange last summer.
The Canadian Press obtained copies of relevant correspondence in the dispute.
At least one subscriber to the three-volume survey said both sides need to resolve the impasse.
“This does concern us,” said Fred Gaspar of the Air Transport Association of Canada, representing commercial airlines.
“Clearly, it is in the interest of every stakeholder in commercial aviation to have access to full and transparent information about the costs of the aviation system.
“Dr. Oum is a highly respected academic international aviation researcher, so it would be our hope and expectation that he and the GTAA would be able to sort out any questions related to methodology.”
Between 100 and 200 copies of the full airport survey are sold each year, mostly to airlines, investment bankers, airports and industry groups. No other airport has ever demanded to be dropped from the study, Dr. Oum said.
The 2007 study's findings echo those of internal Transport Canada “scorecards” for 21 airport authorities across the country, obtained by The Canadian Press.
An analysis of the scorecards by the non-partisan lobby group Transport 2000 found that Pearson ranks poorly on efficiency when measured against comparable airports, such as Calgary and Vancouver.
Critics say an overly ambitious $4.4-billion construction program, along with high rents charged by Transport Canada, have made it difficult for the GTAA to operate efficiently.
|
|
|
|
| El K Dee |
| score....lets just sweep it under the rug...it aint bad unless u mention it |
|
|
| Search&Rescue |
| quote: |
Mar. 24, 2008
Pearson airport earns low marks in internal Transport Canada documents
OTTAWA
Toronto’s Pearson airport gets low marks for efficiency and fee levels in an internal “scorecard” created by Transport Canada to monitor the financial health of Canada’s major airports.
The rankings help confirm Pearson’s global reputation as a high-cost facility for both airlines and passengers.
The draft scorecards, created for all 21 airports that Transport Canada has transferred to local management groups in the last two decades, were obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
They measure the productivity and efficiency of the facilities between 2002 and 2006 based on 29 categories, such as the number of passengers processed daily for each airport employee.
Transport 2000, a non-partisan lobby group, analyzed the numbers, specifically ranking Pearson’s performance against two other comparable airports in size and growth, Calgary and Vancouver.
“For all measures of cost efficiency . . . Toronto was significantly poorer than either Vancouver or Calgary,” says the report by the non-profit agency.
“Operating expense per passenger is significantly higher for Toronto than either Vancouver or Calgary.”
The analysis showed Toronto processed just 79 passengers daily for each airport employee over the five-year period, compared with 131 for Vancouver and 173 for Calgary.
The report also confirmed what many airlines and passengers know well: landing fees, terminal fees, parking fees and other revenue generators are much higher at Toronto.
Parking revenue over the five years averaged $3.12 for every passenger that passed through Pearson, twice as much as at Calgary and Vancouver.
“This area is a very profitable one for Toronto,” says the report by Transport 2000’s Gerry Einarsson.
A spokesman for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which runs Pearson, said the analysis needs context.
“It is important to remember that during this time (2002-2006) Toronto Pearson was being rebuilt, which explains the additional expenses and debt that other airports did not incur during the same time frame,” Scott Armstrong said in a e-mail.
“The construction program was completed in early 2007, and the GTAA has been able to increase revenue and decrease expenses since the variable of construction and terminal changes has stabilized.”
He noted that landing fees were trimmed by 3.1 per cent on Jan. 1.
The president of Transport 2000 says Pearson’s ambitious $4-billion construction program may be a financial albatross for years to come.
“The airport itself greatly exceeds the capacity that’s required right now,” said David Jeanes. “They’ve built for future growth that may not materialize” because increasing fuel costs may curtail air travel.
“We may find . . . that Pearson ends up being a white elephant. It may be overbuilt and have built-in costs that in the long term won’t be sustainable.”
And an airport facility can’t readily be converted to other uses, such as housing, Jeanes said.
An industry spokesman laid much of the blame for Pearson’s financial performance at the door of the federal government, which leases the property to the GTAA.
“The overall rent burden is way too high,” said Fred Gaspar of the Air Transport Association of Canada.
Gaspar said the current GTAA administration is squeezed between debt-servicing for its massive construction program and a demanding landlord, Transport Canada.
Canadian Press
Those two factors make it much tougher to be cost-competitive and efficient.
Nevertheless, “we think they’re headed in the right direction,” Gaspar said, citing the recent cuts in landing fees and terminal charges for airlines.
Transport Canada created its airport scorecards under pressure from the federal auditor general, who in a 2005 report criticized the department for failing to properly monitor the impact of its airport policies.
Department spokesman Patrick Charette said the scorecard categories are being modified and shouldn’t be used to rank one airport against another.
“For now, it’s still an internal document,” he said.
A recent global comparison by an expert at the University of British Columbia determined that Pearson is the world’s most expensive airport to land an aircraft, far more expensive than the previous highest-cost facility, Tokyo’s Narita International.
Canadian Press
|
it makes you wonder if that spending was even worth it |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
typical..
youd think they would be better off heeding the advice of the report. I can tell you based on my own experience that pearson is the most expensive and definately the most disorganized airport ive ever been in. Thats why more and more and more people go to buffalo and hamilton these days! |
|
|
| Yohan |
I'll definitely give props to Hamilton airport.
Though not as busy as Toronto, very efficiently run. |
|
|
| Search&Rescue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
typical..
youd think they would be better off heeding the advice of the report. I can tell you based on my own experience that pearson is the most expensive and definately the most disorganized airport ive ever been in. Thats why more and more and more people go to buffalo and hamilton these days! |
+1 definitely the most expensive, its a proven fact.
i will most likely be flying to boston from buffalo this summer..reduces my travel cost by 50% as opposed to flying out from toronto |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Search&Rescue
+1 definitely the most expensive, its a proven fact.
i will most likely be flying to boston from buffalo this summer..reduces my travel cost by 50% as opposed to flying out from toronto |
The only time ive flown out of toronto recently was on a reward flight for air miles. And what a disaster it was! Otherwise i avoid it like the plague. Been flying from buffalo since 2001 |
|
|
| Chris Allen |
| I try to avoid Toronto Airport at all costs because of how expensive it is. DTW ftw. |
|
|
| Search&Rescue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
The only time ive flown out of toronto recently was on a reward flight for air miles. And what a disaster it was! Otherwise i avoid it like the plague. Been flying from buffalo since 2001 |
well my problem is that I don't have a drivers' license. So I'll have to take greyhound and then cab it to the niagara airport. do you know how far apart are they? drive from the greyhound station to the airport? |
|
|
| Stilez |
| why not just bus it to Boston? only 8hrs? and under 1bill. I used to go often cause of my fam. in Matapan and Winthrop |
|
|
| Search&Rescue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stilez
why not just bus it to Boston? only 8hrs? and under 1bill. I used to go often cause of my fam. in Matapan and Winthrop |
8hrs from Toronto? I checked the schedules on the greyhound site and it takes a minimum of 13-14 hours with at least one transfer.
if you know of any other options I should look at besides greyhound, let me know! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Search&Rescue
well my problem is that I don't have a drivers' license. So I'll have to take greyhound and then cab it to the niagara airport. do you know how far apart are they? drive from the greyhound station to the airport? |
dont cab it im sure there are airport express shuttles from downtown buffalo to the airport. Or stay at a reputable hotel downtown that has free airport shuttle. Even after the cost of the hotel stay you will save a lot of $$$
Come to think of it, i believe there are also private busses that shuttle from toronto right to buffalo airport. But i cant remember the names. Not greyhound though. |
|
|
|
|
