The staggering cost of flying within Canada has ignited a fierce national debate, creating a significant rift between the government’s official explanation and the lived reality of travelers. While Federal Minister of Transport Steven MacKinnon publicly defends the exorbitant prices as an inevitable result of the nation’s immense geography and harsh climate, a compelling body of evidence from policy experts and frustrated consumers suggests that correctable government policies and specific airline practices are the true drivers of the financial burden. This fundamental disagreement lies at the heart of why it can often be cheaper to fly to another country than to another province, leaving many to question the fairness and structure of Canada’s aviation market. The discussion moves beyond simple economics, touching on issues of national connectivity, consumer rights, and federal oversight in an industry critical to the country’s cohesion.
A Case for Unavoidable Costs
The federal government’s core defense rests on the assertion that Canada’s inherent national characteristics make affordable domestic air travel an elusive, if not impossible, goal. During a session with the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, Minister MacKinnon laid out three principal factors he deems responsible: geography, climate, and market realities. He emphasized that Canada’s status as the world’s second-largest country by land area, coupled with a highly dispersed and relatively small population, creates immense logistical and economic hurdles that are unique on a global scale. Characterizing Canada as a “Nordic country,” he pointed to the severe and often unpredictable weather conditions that consistently complicate airline operations. These challenges, he argued, not only increase direct operating costs related to de-icing, delays, and cancellations but also fundamentally challenge the reliability of service, making the provision of comprehensive air travel an inherently expensive proposition for any carrier operating within its borders.
Further expanding on this position, MacKinnon addressed the complex economics of serving a vast and varied landscape, pushing back against calls for increased foreign competition as a simple solution to high fares. He suggested that international carriers would naturally gravitate toward the most lucrative, high-density routes connecting major hubs like Toronto and Vancouver, a practice that would fail to benefit smaller and more remote communities. Cities such as Kelowna, British Columbia, or Wabush, Labrador, which are critically dependent on reliable air links, would be left underserved. Consequently, he stressed the vital importance of maintaining strong national airlines, specifically citing Air Canada and WestJet, as they fulfill the essential role of connecting these less-profitable markets. While acknowledging the positive contributions of emerging competitors like Porter Airlines, MacKinnon maintained that all Canadian airlines operate within the same high-cost structure, concluding that “it’s going to be expensive to travel by air in Canada, unfortunately.”
The Squeeze on Passengers and Airlines
This official explanation provides little comfort to a public that feels increasingly squeezed, with travelers reporting that they are not only facing higher base fares but are also being “nickel-and-dimed” for services that were once included in the ticket price. This growing frustration is compounded by a broader economic climate of stagnating wage growth and financial uncertainty, making the rising cost of travel feel particularly acute. The trend toward unbundling services became starkly evident when WestJet began charging for carry-on baggage on its most basic domestic fares in 2024, a policy Air Canada is set to adopt in 2025. In a more contentious move late in 2025, WestJet initiated a process of retrofitting aircraft with denser seating layouts and fixed, non-reclining seats for its basic economy cabins. The decision was met with such intense public backlash that the airline was forced to pause the retrofitting process just before the holiday season, highlighting the deep-seated consumer dissatisfaction with paying more for a diminished travel experience.
Simultaneously, the airlines themselves are navigating significant structural cost pressures that ripple through to ticket prices. The post-pandemic inflationary environment has driven up the costs of two of their largest expenditures: fuel and labor. Labor relations, in particular, have emerged as a significant source of both instability and expense. In 2025, Air Canada was rocked by a major flight attendant strike involving over 10,000 workers, which triggered nationwide disruptions and forced the airline to absorb hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue and increased labor costs. WestJet has not been immune to these tensions, having faced its own labor challenges, including job actions by its mechanics in 2024. The industry faces continued uncertainty, as major carriers like Air Canada, WestJet, and Porter are all scheduled to enter critical contract negotiations with various unions in 2026, raising forecasts of potential operational risks and further financial pressures that could ultimately be passed on to the consumer.
A Counter-Narrative of Policy Choices
A compelling counter-argument presented in a 2025 report from the public policy think tank MEI directly challenged the government’s narrative that geography and climate are the primary culprits for high airfares. The report asserted that federal government policy and a complex web of fee structures were themselves major drivers of the final ticket price paid by Canadians. According to MEI’s detailed analysis, a substantial portion of a domestic airfare is composed of government-imposed taxes, security charges, and various airport fees, rather than direct airline operating expenses. This finding shifted the focus of the debate away from unchangeable natural factors and toward deliberate policy decisions made at the federal level. The think tank’s position suggested that while Canada’s size and weather are undeniable challenges, they do not tell the whole story, and that policy choices have significantly compounded the problem for travelers.
The MEI report’s critique focused heavily on Canada’s “user-pay” model for airport infrastructure, which stood in stark contrast to the system in the United States. Unlike their American counterparts, Canadian airports were mandated to be financially self-sufficient, meaning they had to fund all of their operations and capital projects through fees charged to airlines and passengers. A key component of this was the significant federal airport rent that airports must pay to the government. These costs were invariably passed on to the traveler. The analysis from the think tank concluded that Canada’s cumulative fees and charges were often higher than those in comparable jurisdictions, a fact that directly undermined the claim that natural factors were the definitive cause of high prices. It was argued that these policy choices created a high-cost environment that was within the federal government’s power to alleviate, framing the issue not as an unavoidable reality but as a situation that could be improved through legislative and regulatory reform.
