Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service  
User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 640 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7421 times:

From an SIA press release issued yesterday:

Announcement of Reduced Flights To India Limits Options, Growth Potential
For Canadian Travelers, Regional Economy

Following the announcement of Air Canada’s termination of Toronto-Delhi flights, Singapore Airlines today reiterated its 20-year commitment to expanding options for travel between Canada and India, but cautioned that, unless the government-mandated restrictions on its operations are eased, Canadian travelers and tourist-reliant businesses may suffer.

The world’s largest airline by market value, Singapore Airlines operates to ten cities in India and transports ten thousand passengers annually between the two countries. However, the Asian carrier’s ability to meet Canadian demand for seats following Air Canada’s withdrawal from India is constrained by a limit, of just three flights per week, imposed by the Canadian government in 1992.

Singapore Airlines’ Vice President Canada, Campbell Wilson, summarized the situation: “With our Vancouver flights now averaging 90% full year-round, and being forbidden to add flights, our ability to meet passenger demand following Air Canada’s withdrawal from Delhi is limited. As a result, Canadian consumers will suffer from fewer options, and tourism-related businesses will see fewer inbound customers.”

Citing strong passenger demand, Singapore Airlines, which has operated flights to Vancouver for nearly two decades, has long sought to increase its thrice-weekly schedule to a daily service. Canadian authorities have repeatedly declined the request.

“Our understanding is that the restriction on our frequency was originally designed to protect Canadian airline interests. As no Canadian airline now serves India or South East Asia -- and Air Canada is now in robust financial health -- continued protection from competition appears unnecessary,” says Wilson.

“Canada’s air policy should be designed to benefit all Canadians, not just one constituency. As no Canadian airline is in a position to serve these regions, why must Canadian travelers and tourist-reliant businesses suffer inadequate air capacity to when Singapore Airlines, potentially among others, is prepared to meet that need?”

“This is not a zero sum game. As a Star Alliance and codeshare partner, Air Canada stands to gain from the increased traffic feed that more Singapore Airlines flights, drawing from regions no longer served by Air Canada, would bring. This is a critical opportunity for the Canadian government to implement the ideals espoused in its Blue Sky policy, and demonstrate its commitment to the Asia Pacific Gateway Initiative.”

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7108 times:

As a fellow *A carrier, would AC be supportive of this now that they are no longer on the route? If so, what objections would the Canadian govt. have to granting SQ's request?

User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8373 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7084 times:

Quoting Drgmobile (Thread starter):
Singapore Airlines’ Vice President Canada, Campbell Wilson, summarized the situation: “With our Vancouver flights now averaging 90% full year-round, and being forbidden to add flights, our ability to meet passenger demand following Air Canada’s withdrawal from Delhi is limited.

Sounds like if this is really true we'll be seing SQ's A380's flying into Vancouver sooner or later.


User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7052 times:

As a fellow *A carrier, would AC be supportive of this now that they are no longer on the route? If so, what objections would the Canadian govt. have to granting SQ's request?

No carrier WANTS increased competition. What has happened until recently (and it remains to be seen if this will still be the case), has been that the government queried the Canadian carriers to see if they are interested in a particular market. AC looked and said, "Nah, we're perfectly happy flying folks to our overseas gateways and passing them off to partner carriers there" and so the federal government concludes that the particular market is not a "Canadian priority."

Doogie


User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day ago) and read 6987 times:

Quoting Timboflier215 (Reply 1):
As a fellow *A carrier, would AC be supportive of this now that they are no longer on the route? If so, what objections would the Canadian govt. have to granting SQ's request?

They aren't asking for the right to fly nonstop between Canada and India. They are asking for increased access to Canada so they can fly more passengers to India. As the release mentions, they want the limit of three flights a week on Vancouver-Seoul-Singapore raised to daily. Now, that not only impacts AC's potential to serve India and southeast Asia which might not be that big of a deal, but it directly impacts AC's Vancouver- Seoul service, so while the two carriers are Star Alliance partners, I don't believe AC would bless SQ's proposal. It might have no choice in the end, but it's not going to be supportive.


User currently offlineFly2YYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 1045 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 22 hours ago) and read 6765 times:

Does anyone know if the Korean government might have any say in this if objections are raised by KE? At the moment does KE not have limits on the amount of flights it has into Canada and the amount of seats offered?

User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 21 hours ago) and read 6675 times:

Quoting Drgmobile (Thread starter):
Citing strong passenger demand, Singapore Airlines, which has operated flights to Vancouver for nearly two decades, has long sought to increase its thrice-weekly schedule to a daily service. Canadian authorities have repeatedly declined the request.

This is very frustrating for YVR?. SQ has expressed there desire to go daily but unfortunately no Bi-Lat in place.
SQ request additional flights this time each year via the CTA, my understanding of the situation is Air Canada will not agree to additional flights for SQ as long as they make a stop en route. Big problem i think is the bulk of the passengers are to SEL which makes YVR viable, any additional service cuts into Air Canada's traffic into Korea. BTW SQ does extremely well in business ex YVR usually filling each flight. I guess until Air Canada has the desire to go into SQ, they will be stuck at 3 flights.
Also, The YVR CEO indicates SQ will potentially move ops into Seattle if they can not get additional flights in YVR?

Just to vent, i understand Air Canada's position. What I dont understand is the Canadian Governments lack of granting additional traffic rights just impedes trade and tourism to the Western Canada. Passenger find alternate outlets via Seattle, L.A or other U.S. ports. Can not understand why they dont relax the stiffness and let the market decide who flies a particular route. This is a example of why airport like SEA/LAX/SFO should thank the Canada for adding bums to seats on flights ex their respective ports.

Quoting Fly2YYZ (Reply 5):
Does anyone know if the Korean government might have any say in this if objections are raised by KE? At the moment does KE not have limits on the amount of flights it has into Canada and the amount of seats offered?

I think the Koreans are very open minded to situations like this. they are also wanting additional flights for Korean into YVR as well Asian would like the same. Korea has expressed there desire to this along with access to Calgary.



AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
User currently offlineFly2YYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 1045 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 6583 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 6):
I think the Koreans are very open minded to situations like this. they are also wanting additional flights for Korean into YVR as well Asian would like the same. Korea has expressed there desire to this along with access to Calgary.

Yes, so they would not be opposed to SQ moving to daily ops rather than just 3? This would be taking away premium traffic for KE wouldnt it?


User currently offlineAccargo From Canada, joined Sep 2004, 610 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 6558 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 6):
What I dont understand is the Canadian Governments lack of granting additional traffic rights just impedes trade and tourism to the Western Canada. Passenger find alternate outlets via Seattle, L.A or other U.S. ports. Can not understand why they dont relax the stiffness and let the market decide who flies a particular route.

What is the Singapore gov't going to offer Canada in order for the Canadian gov't to grant SQ's request? The whole idea of bi-lateral treaties is to ensure both sides receive equal value for their countries.


User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8675 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 6553 times:

Quoting Fly2YYZ (Reply 7):
This would be taking away premium traffic for KE wouldnt it?

I guess. I hope SQ can go daily or AC begins SIN service.

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineNimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3235 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 6494 times:

Quoting Sebring (Reply 4):
but it directly impacts AC's Vancouver- Seoul service, so while the two carriers are Star Alliance partners, I don't believe AC would bless SQ's proposal. It might have no choice in the end, but it's not going to be supportive.

Why don't AC and SQ code share on this route? That might be a good face saving formula...

Quoting Accargo (Reply 8):
What is the Singapore gov't going to offer Canada in order for the Canadian gov't to grant SQ's request? The whole idea of bi-lateral treaties is to ensure both sides receive equal value for their countries.

Aren't Canadian citizens a part of Canada? If yes, won't Canada gain through the increased choices and better quality it's citizens get? sarcastic 



Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 6484 times:

[quote=Accargo,reply=8]What is the Singapore gov't going to offer Canada in order for the Canadian gov't to grant SQ's request?

Thats the problem really. Singapore is willing to go to the table to re-negotiate and i am speculating there has been no movement on re-nogatiation as Air Canada is not interested in serving Singapore via some point any time soon.
Should Canada not re-neogitate because our national flag carrier is not interested in a reciprocal traffic right? Why must we put the interest of our national carrier ahead of market demands. I really wish the Feds would put the interest of trade and tourism first, maybe force Air Canada to join the table in order to resolve this issue or perhaps let the provicial, airport authirties have some participation in the negotiatings.... just a thought. If Singapore was to drop YVR as a result it would be a loss and as blow to the economy of the immediate area. Canada is a very big country and there are regional interests that have to be considered not the interest of Air Canada or Toronto for that matter.



AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
User currently offlineAccargo From Canada, joined Sep 2004, 610 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 19 hours ago) and read 6413 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 11):
hats the problem really. Singapore is willing to go to the table to re-negotiate and i am speculating there has been no movement on re-nogatiation as Air Canada is not interested in serving Singapore via some point any time soon.
Should Canada not re-neogitate because our national flag carrier is not interested in a reciprocal traffic right? Why must we put the interest of our national carrier ahead of market demands. I really wish the Feds would put the interest of trade and tourism first, maybe force Air Canada to join the table in order to resolve this issue or perhaps let the provicial, airport authirties have some participation in the negotiatings.... just a thought. If Singapore was to drop YVR as a result it would be a loss and as blow to the economy of the immediate area. Canada is a very big country and there are regional interests that have to be considered not the interest of Air Canada or Toronto for that matter.

You seem fixated on this belief that the Federal gov't is being told what to do by AC. The Liberals had years to come to some agreement with Singapore and I hardly think that Milton was telling Collenette what to do. (okay he may have been telling him what he could do, but it was anatomically impossible even for a Liberal  Big grin )

Perhaps it is possible that the folks that negotiate these treaties feel that Singapore, it's citizens and it's companies would benefit far greater than Canada, it's citizen's, and it's companies.

How many people would actually benefit from a daily SQ flight? What is SQ offering that is not available by others?

Their argument about AC's withdrawal is bogus. How many pax from Western Canada were traveling to YYZ to fly to DEL? I imagine the total amount could easily be accommodated by that 10% gap in the current loads factors and being 100% full. If SQ were going non-stop YVR-DEL it might have a case, but it isn't. There are other airlines operating from YVR with connections to DEL that can serve the market. Just because you like SQ more than the other options isn't really a good argument for allowing Singapore to have a bi-lateral that doesn't offer Canadians an equal opportunity.

I'm not sure why you bought up YYZ at all.


User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 19 hours ago) and read 6335 times:

Quoting Accargo (Reply 12):
You seem fixated on this belief that the Federal gov't is being told what to do by AC. The Liberals had years to come to some agreement with Singapore and I hardly think that Milton was telling Collenette what to do. (okay he may have been telling him what he could do, but it was anatomically impossible even for a Liberal )

Perhaps it is possible that the folks that negotiate these treaties feel that Singapore, it's citizens and it's companies would benefit far greater than Canada, it's citizen's, and it's companies.

How many people would actually benefit from a daily SQ flight? What is SQ offering that is not available by others?

Their argument about AC's withdrawal is bogus. How many pax from Western Canada were traveling to YYZ to fly to DEL? I imagine the total amount could easily be accommodated by that 10% gap in the current loads factors and being 100% full. If SQ were going non-stop YVR-DEL it might have a case, but it isn't. There are other airlines operating from YVR with connections to DEL that can serve the market. Just because you like SQ more than the other options isn't really a good argument for allowing Singapore to have a bi-lateral that doesn't offer Canadians an equal opportunity.

I'm not sure why you bought up YYZ at all.

I do believe Collenette considered Air Canada situation and Milton's plight during the post 9/11 years and was certianly acting in Air Canada's best interest. The liberals really had no incentive at to open up talks with any country for the same reason. It was not until the last days of the Martin Government did Canada begin to open talks with China and India as they saw the benefit.

I think your second paragraph is agreeable, I am sure there was some traffic from YVR to India via YYZ but this is a political situation and that is how companies make a case for themselves,. happens every day. That aside, my point is vancouver may have more to loose but not allowing SQ more flights and let the market decide. I do believe Canada should get something in return from Singapore but neccesarily in the interest of Air Canada.

I mentioned Toronto only for the reason it is Air Canada's main hub.

one other point just for agrument sake., and this is not an agrument on whether the route would have been viable. Air France will service Seattle commencing this June. The Airport auhtority of YVR has been trying to lure Air France for years but Air frances hands are tied as the current bi-lateral agreement did not allow for the service. the local airport authority had lobbied the federal government for years to re-negotiate talks with France but AC would not come to the table. The result is:

1. Air France will surely draw passenger from the vancouver area
2. Air France will promote Seattle as a tourist destination in France in thier own best interest
3. there will be new markets for manufactureres in Washington State and France and trade will increase

So who is the winner in this, we know Seattle is (I wish them the very best), but the looser will be the local VAncouver economy, perhaps some empty seats ex YYZ-CDG on AC, local manufactures and producers, hotels, restaurants.
4. there will be a creation of jobs directly related the the new flight for the local economy. It is a case of opportunity cost, protecting the insterest of our national carrier versus the local economy and interest.



AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
User currently offlineFly2YYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 1045 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 18 hours ago) and read 6328 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 13):
The Airport auhtority of YVR has been trying to lure Air France for years but Air frances hands are tied as the current bi-lateral agreement did not allow for the service

Really?! So I guess Z4 s YVR-YYC-CDG is a special flight? Or is a "charter" route?


User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 6201 times:

Quoting Fly2YYZ (Reply 14):
Really?! So I guess Z4 s YVR-YYC-CDG is a special flight? Or is a "charter" route?

No offense, i was making a point about AF and SEA and opportunity cost not Z4.



AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
User currently offlineKohflot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 6149 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 6):
Also, The YVR CEO indicates SQ will potentially move ops into Seattle if they can not get additional flights in YVR?

Except SQ would likely have to find another connection city. I'm not sure there's enough traffic from SEA to Korea for KE, OZ, *and* SQ.. not to mention the connectors through NRT on NW and UA.


User currently offlineCyclonic From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 231 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 5627 times:

This is the one occasion where i'd happily give SQ more flights. Having flown this route, it is pretty much always full (to my annoyance as I like my room!) and with Vancouver hosting the Winter Olympics in a few years, this is a vital step in increasing its exposure to the rest of the world and boosting it tourism.

SQ only having three flights a week on this route when there is significant demand for more flights is simply mind boggling IMHO. I'd even goes as far as saying they could fill the YVR-SIN route twice daily!



Keith Richards: The man that Death forgot...
User currently offlineAccargo From Canada, joined Sep 2004, 610 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 5090 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 13):
I do believe Collenette considered Air Canada situation and Milton's plight during the post 9/11 years and was certianly acting in Air Canada's best interest. The liberals really had no incentive at to open up talks with any country for the same reason. It was not until the last days of the Martin Government did Canada begin to open talks with China and India as they saw the benefit.

I think your second paragraph is agreeable, I am sure there was some traffic from YVR to India via YYZ but this is a political situation and that is how companies make a case for themselves,. happens every day. That aside, my point is vancouver may have more to loose but not allowing SQ more flights and let the market decide. I do believe Canada should get something in return from Singapore but neccesarily in the interest of Air Canada.

I mentioned Toronto only for the reason it is Air Canada's main hub.

one other point just for agrument sake., and this is not an agrument on whether the route would have been viable. Air France will service Seattle commencing this June. The Airport auhtority of YVR has been trying to lure Air France for years but Air frances hands are tied as the current bi-lateral agreement did not allow for the service. the local airport authority had lobbied the federal government for years to re-negotiate talks with France but AC would not come to the table. The result is:

1. Air France will surely draw passenger from the vancouver area
2. Air France will promote Seattle as a tourist destination in France in thier own best interest
3. there will be new markets for manufactureres in Washington State and France and trade will increase

So who is the winner in this, we know Seattle is (I wish them the very best), but the looser will be the local VAncouver economy, perhaps some empty seats ex YYZ-CDG on AC, local manufactures and producers, hotels, restaurants.
4. there will be a creation of jobs directly related the the new flight for the local economy. It is a case of opportunity cost, protecting the insterest of our national carrier versus the local economy and interest.

Collennette did nothing for AC. Whatever he did was in Canada's best interests and AC was able to benefit in a small way. SQ was lobbying long before 9/11, so what's your excuse for why the Libs did nothing then?

YVR may have less to gain, not necessarily more to lose. SQ's talk about going to SEA is likely to another pressure tactic it's using. You know, that political stuff you mentioned? Why has it not done this already. It's been pushing for daily flights xYVR since the late 80's.

What does YYZ and it being AC's main hub have to do with SQ and YVR, other than the fact that you seem to believe that AC is in charge of the bilateral treaty negotiations? Your posts all seem to have this theme that YVR is not getting what it deserves and it is the fault of YYZ and AC.

Now on to AF. Once again it's AC's fault. Never mind the fact that France has one of the most restrictive policies when it comes to bilateral treaties. How about France allow carriers (not just AC, I'm sure Transat would love access) to fly to more destinations than just CDG (and I believe one other city is in the current bi-lateral).

NEWS FLASH : THE FEDERAL GOV'T DOES NOT NEED AC AT THE TABLE TO NEGOTIATE BILATERAL TREATIES.

They will consult with all airlines for feedback and take all arguments into consideration. Civil servants from both sides then sit down and try and come to agreement.

Those civil servants have to consider not only the passengers in an area that may benefit from a change in a bilateral but also other airlines, their employee's, their suppliers and all other businesses that may be affected. The change you want for YVR could affect Canadians all across the country in some way or other and they need to take all that into consideration. Elect Harper and perhaps he'll put someone from YVR in charge of Transport and then you can pressure them to give you what you want. There is also the possibility that Canada negotiates other bi-laterals with other countries that allow for increased frequencies to DEL by other airlines xYVR. I doubt that this woud be acceptable to you though. You want your preferred carrier to get what it wants and it doesn't matter to you if it harms others. There are other options besides SQ and AC to get from YVR to DEL. Why are you not campaigning for them to get more frequencies?


User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 4680 times:

I guess until Air Canada has the desire to go into SQ, they will be stuck at 3 flights.
Also, The YVR CEO indicates SQ will potentially move ops into Seattle if they can not get additional flights in YVR?


Well the point of the new international air policy was that it was supposed to change this. Rather than our government agreeing to meet with a country based on whether any of Canada's air carriers are interested, the government also is supposed to consider the interests of passengers, shippers and airports.

Just to vent, i understand Air Canada's position. What I dont understand is the Canadian Governments lack of granting additional traffic rights just impedes trade and tourism to the Western Canada. Passenger find alternate outlets via Seattle, L.A or other U.S. ports. Can not understand why they dont relax the stiffness and let the market decide who flies a particular route. This is a example of why airport like SEA/LAX/SFO should thank the Canada for adding bums to seats on flights ex their respective ports.

Absolutely. That is why this Singapore example is a test of whether the government really is serious about Blue Sky.

NEWS FLASH : THE FEDERAL GOV'T DOES NOT NEED AC AT THE TABLE TO NEGOTIATE BILATERAL TREATIES.

They will consult with all airlines for feedback and take all arguments into consideration. Civil servants from both sides then sit down and try and come to agreement.


Well agreed, but NEWSFLASH: The federal government has always had, and continues to have AC AT THE TABLE. In the U.S. airports are represented, but in Canada only the air carriers are there.

Another element that isn't being discussed here is the bureaucracy. We have a new minister and political staff, but the thousands of folks at Transport Canada with experience in this stuff, the folks who actually are responsible for making policy happen -- they are all the same as unde the Liberals. Cultural change does not happen over night, especially when there is a minority government in place and the new political bosses could be out next month.

Their argument about AC's withdrawal is bogus. How many pax from Western Canada were traveling to YYZ to fly to DEL? I imagine the total amount could easily be accommodated by that 10% gap in the current loads factors and being 100% full. If SQ were going non-stop YVR-DEL it might have a case, but it isn't. There are other airlines operating from YVR with connections to DEL that can serve the market. Just because you like SQ more than the other options isn't really a good argument for allowing Singapore to have a bi-lateral that doesn't offer Canadians an equal opportunity.

SIA is just a single example of a much bigger problem. It isn't just SIA that is kept out. Emirates can't get the frequencies it wants to even offer daily service to Canada, let alone multiple flights. Because of the same UAE bilateral, Etihad is limited. There is no Qatar bilateral. No Bahrain bilateral. Restrictions on bilaterals with several European nations limiting fifths. The macro result of all this is limited competition. As a result, Canadian travellers have fewer choices and pay higher fares or travel through the U.S. (or both).

This benefits one Canadian carrier, but as another poster pointed out, Canadian policy should benefit Canada as a whole. That means not only Air Canada and its employees, but also consumers, airports and their employees, the Canadian employees of foreign carriers, the hotels and their employees that would enjoy increased demand with lower air costs, etc....

Doogie


User currently offlineYOW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 4619 times:

Quoting Fly2YYZ (Reply 14):
Quoting DYK (Reply 13):
The Airport auhtority of YVR has been trying to lure Air France for years but Air frances hands are tied as the current bi-lateral agreement did not allow for the service

Really?! So I guess Z4 s YVR-YYC-CDG is a special flight? Or is a "charter" route?

Z4's service is sked. The Canada-France bilateral only permits AF to serve YYZ and YUL. YVR, YOW, YQB, etc. who would all love to have AF, can't due to the archaic rules. So even though AF is a French company, Canadians still suffer from nonsensical rules.

Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 19):
Well the point of the new international air policy was that it was supposed to change this. Rather than our government agreeing to meet with a country based on whether any of Canada's air carriers are interested, the government also is supposed to consider the interests of passengers, shippers and airports.

Exactly. When will free market economics finally be able to reign over international aviation in Canada? Almost every other industry doesn't have to deal with these rediculous restrictions. The Tories have recognized this are are slowly starting to make some progress. A Canada-EU Open Skies deal would be fantastic, with fifth freedoms it would be even better. If the Liberals get back in later on this year, any progress will surely die.

With SQ and AC being Star partners, AC still stands to gain by allowing SQ to tailor capacity to demand. Think of the thousands of additional pax SQ would hand off to AC with a daily SIN-YVR flight.


User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 6 hours ago) and read 4570 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 13):
I do believe Collenette considered Air Canada situation and Milton's plight during the post 9/11 years and was certianly acting in Air Canada's best interest.

The Canadian government did the minimum to ensure that it wouldn't be blamed for AC's demise. It removed onerous merger obligations from AC because it would have been blamed for AC's demise in the wake of Sept 11. When AC went into CCAA in 2003, the federal government did nothing whatsoever - it wasn't in a position to be blamed for the SARS epidemic - and left it to private investors to rescue AC.

Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 19):

This benefits one Canadian carrier, but as another poster pointed out, Canadian policy should benefit Canada as a whole. That means not only Air Canada and its employees, but also consumers, airports and their employees, the Canadian employees of foreign carriers, the hotels and their employees that would enjoy increased demand with lower air costs, etc....

Canada should benefit as a whole, but clearly you are not interested in all of Canada, only Vancouver. Singapore and Emirates have no de facto obligation to serve all of Canada, including smaller cities and communities that won't ever get service from Emirates or Singapore. No, Air Canada is expected to do that, and while it is not a legal obligation, it is a practical reality if the airline wants any policy considerations favorable to its interests. So if you live in Prince George, Grande Prairie, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Ottawa, Moncton or St. John's your interests are a lot different than those of Vancouver.

The singlemost important factor that will drive tourism growth in this country is the addition of direct (same plane) or nonstop services to other countries. SQ and EK are not proposing nonstop services except to the city states of Singapore and Dubai. They would actually undermine the development of nonstop services by either Canadian or other foreign carriers. I have no problem whatsoever with Air France launching nonstop service between Vancouver and Paris as the likely tourism benefit is huge, far greater than the benefit that would be delivered by a hub connection on EK or SQ, especially since the latter is mainly poaching Korean traffic which two airlines (AC and LE) are capable of handling.

Here's a simple solution for SQ. If it wants a daily flight, launch nonstop YVR-SIN service. It already flies EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN, so it has no excuse really. It has behind the hub support, so if it really wants to serve the BC-India market, a nonstop with coordinated connections to India would be more attractive without the stop in Korea. That stop and the more roundabout routing currently makes SQ's routing less desirable than even BA vis LHR or LH via FRA, both of whom offer coordinated connections to India via their hubs.

For there to be a real benefit to Canada, the priority has to be nonstops, because if poachers like SQ undercut new nonstops, Canada loses, not wins. This week, we seem likely to get AKL-YVR service from NZ, and AC is contemplating YVR-SYD nonstops for next winter. This is the kind of expansion Canada needs because it makes it attractive not only to fly to YVR, but also to make coordinated connections on AC or WS to points in the interior.

As for whether the government is "serious" about Blue Sky, you would be well advised to go read the policy on the Transport Canada website. For it is not the blanket open skies or open access you think it is. It does tilt more towards liberalization, but has specific caveats that appear to apply most definitely to a carrier like SQ.


User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 4256 times:

Quoting Drgmobile (Thread starter):
Singapore Airlines operates to ten cities in India

I know that SQ operates to DEL, BOM, MAA, CCU, BLR, HYD and AMD

What are the other 3?

ATQ, TRV and COK ?


User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 4116 times:

Canada should benefit as a whole, but clearly you are not interested in all of Canada, only Vancouver. Singapore and Emirates have no de facto obligation to serve all of Canada, including smaller cities and communities that won't ever get service from Emirates or Singapore.

Not sure where you got the idea I am biased toward Vancouver. I am biased in favor of air carriers interested in bringing new service, increased tourism links and competition to Canada. Period. (And this includes Canadian carriers, by the way).

No, Air Canada is expected to do that, and while it is not a legal obligation, it is a practical reality if the airline wants any policy considerations favorable to its interests. So if you live in Prince George, Grande Prairie, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Ottawa, Moncton or St. John's your interests are a lot different than those of Vancouver.

No, a carrier like SIA or Emirates is not going to serve Grande Prairie anymore than it is going to serve Hobart, Australia or Plymouth, England. And yet those carriers have lots of access into Australia and the UK and the sky has not fallen on Qantas or BA -- in fact they are rather successful airlines. Meanwhile Air Canada is under no obligation to serve any of these communities either (it has pulled out of many smaller communities) and to the extent it does so is because it makes business sense under the carrier's network system.

The singlemost important factor that will drive tourism growth in this country is the addition of direct (same plane) or nonstop services to other countries. SQ and EK are not proposing nonstop services except to the city states of Singapore and Dubai.

This assertion is based on what? It is arguable that a connecting service to a hub can provide just as much benefit to consumers and the Canadian tourism sector than would a single nonstop service to a spoke - maybe even more. Nonstop service to Dubai, for example, puts travellers between India and Canada in range of quick, one-connection, one-airline service to half a dozen cities in the Indian sub-continent.

They would actually undermine the development of nonstop services by either Canadian or other foreign carriers. I have no problem whatsoever with Air France launching nonstop service between Vancouver and Paris as the likely tourism benefit is huge, far greater than the benefit that would be delivered by a hub connection on EK or SQ, especially since the latter is mainly poaching Korean traffic which two airlines (AC and LE) are capable of handling.

Well first of all, the same thinking that has kept out SIA is keeping out these "other foreign carriers" you refer to that could launch nonstop service. But the bigger point is that this is the mistake that governments have been making for years: Too many folks trying to "manage" market and think we all need protection from ourselves and the Big Bad Wolf.

Here's a simple solution for SQ. If it wants a daily flight, launch nonstop YVR-SIN service. It already flies EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN, so it has no excuse really. It has behind the hub support, so if it really wants to serve the BC-India market, a nonstop with coordinated connections to India would be more attractive without the stop in Korea.

Has this been ruled out? I've never heard of it being ruled out, but it misses the point anyway. Emirates wants to operate nonstop service, and it hasn't been able to get the time of day from Ottawa either.

For there to be a real benefit to Canada, the priority has to be nonstops, because if poachers like SQ undercut new nonstops, Canada loses, not wins.

The managed approach doesn't work One-stops today could lead to nonstops to more than one destination in Canada three years from now if the business is successful. It is time for departmental managers and arm chair cheerleaders to stop trying to "play airline."

Doogie


User currently offlineTPEcanuck From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 89 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3659 times:

Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 19):
SIA is just a single example of a much bigger problem. It isn't just SIA that is kept out. Emirates can't get the frequencies it wants to even offer daily service to Canada, let alone multiple flights. Because of the same UAE bilateral, Etihad is limited. There is no Qatar bilateral. No Bahrain bilateral. Restrictions on bilaterals with several European nations limiting fifths. The macro result of all this is limited competition. As a result, Canadian travellers have fewer choices and pay higher fares or travel through the U.S. (or both).

I think in essence, Drgmobile's point is spot on. As a frequent traveller on TPE-YVR, it amazes me the difference in price to connect via LAX (a much longer flight) on AC/SQ than it is to take AC's codeshare on BR. In addition, if anyone here has taken CI's daily YVR-TPE you will know that this flight is essentially the first leg of YVR-DEL as roughly 75%+ of the passengers are travelling to India.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 21):
The singlemost important factor that will drive tourism growth in this country is the addition of direct (same plane) or nonstop services to other countries.

I don't agree with this actually. First, I don't think the ease of flying to a country is the singlemost important factor in determining where tourists visit. But more fundamentally, Singapore has built it's tourist base largely around encouraging transit passengers to stop over in Singapore for a few days. I think flights that drive new traffic to YVR for whatever reason, indirect or non-stop, increase revenues for at least some parts of the tourism market/airports. (Yes, obviously people who stop and stay are more valuable than people who just transit.) What I do find galling however is that due to Canadian government policy that restricts access to Canadian airports, I am frequently forced to pay a 30% premium on TPE-YVR compared to TPE-LAX. This is not serving Canadians, nor does it serve the tourist market. As you know, tourists pick flights based a lot on price. So if I'm a Taiwanese tourist, where am I going to go? Go check out Whistler and the Rockies or Sunset Blvd and the Hollywood sign? Well, if the costs difference in the flights alone pay for 3 or 4 nights in a hotel at my destination, I'll be checking out the Hollywood sign. I think this anecdote ought to illustrate how by restricting access to Canadian airports, the government is increasing the price of tickets based on limiting the supply, driving up profits for certain airlines at the expense of Canadian travellers and businesses that would benefit from increased number of visitors.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 21):
For there to be a real benefit to Canada, the priority has to be nonstops, because if poachers like SQ undercut new nonstops, Canada loses, not wins.

Sebring, I REALLY don't mean this sarcastically, as I have read a number of your posts and REALLY appreciate your knowledge and insight. But, I just don't think it's fair to call competition poachers. Your argument that AC is, de facto, obliged to serve smaller Canadian markets and thus is owed some favours on international routes doesn't make sense to me. If AC cannot serve these markets profitably, it should stop. Either a new carrier will step in, or people in those communities would become willing to pay a market price for the benefits of regular air service to their communities. Afterall, living in a small community comes with its share of benefits and costs, and if an individual feels the cost outweigh the benefits, they are of course free to move to a larger community with more comprehensive services that better meet their individual needs.

Bring on the competition! It will help all of us in the long-run by lowering costs, increasing the number of passengers, and creating a more robust market of travellers who frequently ply these routes and thus benefitting the airlines that best meet the needs of their customers!

Cheers!


25 Sebring : In the real world, the politicians for whom AC depends on in such matters as international rights do not want the blame laid on their doorstep for fa
26 Post contains images Kiwiandrew : I may be reading you wrong but you seem to be saying that CP sometimes had full a/c and couldn't make money even on a 100% load , then you have said
27 Jamincan : That's cute, but I don't think Sebring suggested CP had a 100% load factor. Every carrier fills a flight on occasion.
28 Nimish : If you're not going to listen, then please (edited to maintain decorum). Unfortunately for you SQ is doing a splendid job serving the US-India market
29 Viscount724 : Should be noted that YVR-India via SIN, especially DEL which is the major origin/destination for the Indian ethnic market from/to Canada, is between
30 Drgmobile : In the real world, the politicians for whom AC depends on in such matters as international rights do not want the blame laid on their doorstep for far
31 Sebring : That is simply not true. Fuel for domestic flights is subject to the federal excise tax. Fuel for international operations is not subject to the fede
32 Drgmobile : That is simply not true. Fuel for domestic flights is subject to the federal excise tax. Fuel for international operations is not subject to the feder
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Aloha Asks For More Concessions posted Sat Dec 18 2004 02:08:37 by Ha763
AC Announces New Routes For Eastern Canada posted Thu Jan 4 2007 23:36:59 by Cslusarc
Iberia Drops A318 For More A319s... posted Mon Feb 13 2006 20:31:51 by CRJ900
More New Service For LEX posted Mon Mar 28 2005 17:21:40 by PVD757
Air Canada Now Sueing Westjet For More? posted Mon Apr 26 2004 09:09:54 by Dash8King
Is IT Likely For More Service posted Fri Feb 27 2004 02:06:46 by Ramerinianair
More Int'l Service For Cali's Secondary Airfields? posted Tue Oct 7 2003 19:15:33 by ConcordeBoy
More Turbulence For Air Canada - The T.O. Star posted Sat Feb 8 2003 22:06:47 by Canadi>nBoy
AC Flights For Air Canada Vacations posted Mon Aug 12 2002 17:14:40 by Matt
New Air CAnada Service For Yeg? posted Wed Jun 6 2001 22:59:41 by Lubicon