Thursday, January 26, 2012

YVR and the AIF Ripoff

Why does YVR's Larry Berg hate being grilled about the Airport Improvement Fee (AIF) so much? Because it's not an AIF, it shouldn't be called an AIF and he knows it. If it were an AIF, he would not keep justifying part of his addiction to it by saying costs are escalating and YVR needs more money to pay them. However he knows if he rightly calls it a user fee he will face the more difficult question which is, if the money is needed for operating costs then what are they doing with all the revenue and fees they already receive to operate the airport... besides building an opulant palace as a centerpiece for YVR's marketing?

In 1993 YVR unilaterally imposed an "airport improvement fee (AIF)" in which they extorted money from travelers to pay for an airport improvement that they were not yet using. Although they called it an AIF, it wasn't really an AIF, it was a User Fee. In fact, anybody who rightly objected and refused to pay for the airport use (they had already paid for in their tickets and through taxes and fees), was threatened by the then quasi crown corporation. Those who refused to pay were informed they could be removed for trespassing and prevented from boarding their planes.


YVR promised to remove the AIF by 2004, but that year the corporation not only reneged on the promise but increased the fee and then hid it in the cost of tickets to further drive up the price of already expensive air travel to and from Vancouver. What was one of the reasons Larry Berg gave that YVR had to raise the fee? He said it was to pay the Feds more rent which implies that it wasn't really an improvement fee after all, rather it was a user fee. But it wasn't a user fee, it was an airport improvement fee. Wait a second, never mind. Anyway, neat trick... airlines and consumers alike were given the shaft.

It does beg the question; if I have paid through my taxes to build an airport (back in the days when Transport Canada owned and operated Canadian airports) and then pay a fee to use the airport, then why should I pay an AIF? And if it's really a fee to improve the airport, why would YVR not finance a capital expansion on the future revenue flow from the user fees (just like any other business)? What effect do rising costs and rents have to do with the need for an improvement fee? Nothing.

The accounting does not add up... and it's particularly galling when you consider the original $10 fee was promised as "temporary" by YVR's CEO.

YVR was originally built by the taxpayers and we now pay to use the (improved) airport through a series of user fees which are passed on by the airlines. How and why is YVR in a position to continue to impose and increase fees to "improve" an airport? Good question you should ask your MP.

The fact that they keep coming back for more money to finance something yet to be built indicates to me some very bad planning.... not to mention the fact that the CEO seems clueless when it comes to living within ones' means. He's not clueless though. YVR is marketing themselves as airport operators and they are using Vancouver as their showpiece to the detriment of local travelers. Berg doesn't seem to give a damn about local travelers just as David Hahn thought he could ignore them in BC. Now look at BC Ferries.


Admittedly YVR is a nice airport and some might even call it luxurious. However it's not the job of government or "not for profit corporations", as Larry Berg is so fond of calling YVR, to confiscate money for luxury. As a frequent traveller, what I want is cheap, efficient travel and good food. Personally I can do without the stereo chirping birds, Whistler-esque motif and expensive artwork when I arrive at an airport. YVR is expensive, yet the food in the US departure terminal is appalling. One can find better, healthier food at Indianapolis airport which is hosted by a city not known for it's cuisine. Taxi service from YVR domestic arrivals is sometimes very frustrating and they've had years to fix the problem yet seem to still be challenged by it. Parking, sometimes necessary for pick up at arrivals particularly when flights are delayed, is over the top expensive.

Vancouver is an expensive place to get in and out of and it's one of the reasons that cruise companies with razor thin margins take their business elsewhere. There is something wrong when one can travel for a week on a ship, be entertained and dined for the same price as a 5 hour flight in and out of Vancouver. Think the fees YVR charges have no impact on the success of air travel and related tourism? Think again. The BC Ferry Corporation is currently learning the hard way that consumers aren't a bottomless pit when it comes to travel costs. This fee is dishonest. It's bad for travelers, bad for tourism, bad for business and bad for Vancouver.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Vancouver Parking Rates "Progressive"?

Today Jeff Lee wrote in The Vancouver Sun newspaper that Vancouver City is eyeing high-tech pilot projects in San Francisco and Los Angeles where on-street parking rates are varied and change according to demand. Vancouver's Director of Transportation, Jerry Dobrovolny is said to have admitted that Vancouver has the highest peak on-street parking rates in North America but he calls the policies "progressive".

Question: Do you think that nosebleed parking rates create more places for people to park? I don't. Two things happen: 1. People stop going downtown and they go somewhere else to conduct their business, and / or 2) They go downtown anyway and make do. If the space is too expensive, which some may argue it is at this point, some drivers simply drive around without parking and exacerbate the situation. This is neither solving congestion nor saving energy and curbing pollution. It's the Vancouver parking equivalent of solving the landfill problem by shipping garbage elsewhere.

In the most extreme situation (like NYC and London), people hire drivers who simply keep driving the car around in circles until a meeting is finished... and then on to the next meeting to do the same. I know this because I've done it.

The $60m generated in fees and fines is telling about the real motivation. It's mean, uncivilized... and in the case where people are living on a shoe string or simply down on their luck, it's just downright cruel.
I think there is something very immoral about relying on fines (of any kind) as part of a city budget. It's despicable actually.