Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Bi-latteral Talks With Canada  
User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3345 times:

I am just wondering if any body out there knows of any upcoming Bi-latteral talks coming up. Larry Berg, the YVR CEO
has been expressing his frustration with the FEDS on the slow pace of talks particularly with Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Korea, Taiwan, France and Thailand. Carriers from these countries have expressed interest in serving or increasing service to YVR but can not due to the current agreements. Feds seems to be concentrating negotiations with carriers wanting to serve Toronto.
This argument has come up before but does Air Canada have a role in which countries Transport Canada/CTA negotiate with?
Look forward to any replies.


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
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3269 times:

Quoting DYK (Thread starter):
This argument has come up before but does Air Canada have a role in which countries Transport Canada/CTA negotiate with?

AC has zero input to this process. It's government -to-government.
Once the bilateral is signed then the government can assign rights, usually on a use it or lose it basis.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineMSYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 851 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3207 times:

I , on the contrary , believe that AC has a big say on who flies to where in Canada . 2 Airlines i can remember have endlessly expressed their wish to serve Toronto but never got the permission from the Canadian Authorities under the pressure of Air Canada : Turkish Airlines and Egypt Air . AC are very satisfied with feeding passengers to FRA where LH flies them to Turkey,the Middle East and beyond .
Another Airline that is suffering from AC pressure on Canadian Authorities , inspite of being a fellow Star Alliance member , is Singapore Airlines .
AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service (by Drgmobile Feb 21 2007 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2007-06-09 23:55:58]


A346,A343,A342,A332,A333,A310,A300,AB6,A319,A320,A321,B741,B744,B777,B767,B732,B735,B727,B707,B757,MD80,F-70,E-170,B738
User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

Quoting MSYYZ (Reply 2):
, on the contrary , believe that AC has a big say on who flies to where in Canada . 2 Airlines i can remember have endlessly expressed their wish to serve Toronto but never got the permission from the Canadian Authorities under the pressure of Air Canada :

This is what I am wondering, is the lack of movement on new Bi-latteral talks with countries wanting to serve YVR is a direct result of no interest on Air Canada's part? If AC has no interest in service a particular route ex YVR to the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand etc., then there is basically no chance for a new bi-latteral agreements, since AC would have lots to loose in terms of revenue on other routes they do serve such as YVR to PVG, HKG, ICN etc. In which case the YVRAA PAcific Gateway plan is kind of wishful thinking? I am sure airports such as SEA and PDX must be the beneficiaries of this?



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 offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3121 times:

Quoting MSYYZ (Reply 2):
I , on the contrary , believe that AC has a big say on who flies to where in Canada . 2 Airlines i can remember have endlessly expressed their wish to serve Toronto but never got the permission from the Canadian Authorities under the pressure of Air Canada : Turkish Airlines and Egypt Air . AC are very satisfied with feeding passengers to FRA where LH flies them to Turkey,the Middle East and beyond .
Another Airline that is suffering from AC pressure on Canadian Authorities , inspite of being a fellow Star Alliance member , is Singapore Airlines .
AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service (by Drgmobile Feb 21 2007 in Civil Aviation)

AC's desires are not paramount, but are listened to. The easiest bilateral deals involve situations where AC and the national carrier of the foreign country involved have either common interests. Take a situation where the foreign carrier wants to fly to Canada, and AC is content to access that country by code-share. There have been a number of situations like that. So I don't believe the Turkish or Egypt Air examples. AC has no interest whatsoever in flying to those countries - at least it's nowhere near the top of any wish list - and the traffic AC gets to those countries via FRA is just to small to sweat.

The Canadian government does have some caveats in its negotiating policy, even in Blue Skies, that we negotiate deals which do press our own national interests as well as those of other countries. In other words, when we go to the bargaining table, we ask for things as well as offer things. And we have to be cognizant of any impacts that might impact third countries. Sometimes, we run up against a country that wants everything its way. South Africa is an example of that. South Africa doesn't want to give any canadian carriers codeshare rights via Europe. They would only allow AC or another Canadian carrier to deliver SAA traffic at the closest points the US SAA serves so that SAA would get the bulk of the revenue - as opposed to AC giving off South Africa traffic to LH or LX.

In other situations, Canada agrees to more liberal access to Canada, but has asked for either more landing slots (CDG for example), or more fifth freedoms, and the parties have to work through that. Maybe it reflects an AC need, but virtually all trade agreements Canada negotiates, in any industry, you don't just drop your pants and allow yourself to be abused. You have to have assurances you will have equivalent access, even if the rights being bartered are not USED equally.

Finally, the SQ situation has been written of in depth. You can find these threads in the archives here.. SQ is a big whiner, the issues that led to being denied access to YYZ have been the subject of various threads. Suffice to say that in the past, when SQ negotiated liberal access, it objected to liberal pricing by Air Canada. So it was open skies for us, but not for you. The Canadian government rightly balked, and will continue to balk, when a foreign country is not willing to agree to balance in any agreement.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24639 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3080 times:

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 1):
AC has zero input to this process. It's government -to-government

Not correct. As well-summarized by Sebring, the Canadian government has always considered the input of Canadian carriers both before they hold bilateral talks with other governments and during the talks themselves. Unless this has changed recently, airline representatives (both AC and CP when both carriers existed) always attended the actual negotiating meetings as observers, and the government negotiator certainly discussed the issues with the airline representatives and obtained their input during breaks in the meetings.


User currently offlineEVA777SEA From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3038 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 3):
I am sure airports such as SEA and PDX must be the beneficiaries of this?

What asian carrier serves SEA but not YVR? PDX has one flight to asia and that is on NW.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24639 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

Quoting EVA777SEA (Reply 6):
Quoting DYK (Reply 3):
I am sure airports such as SEA and PDX must be the beneficiaries of this?

What Asian carrier serves SEA but not YVR? PDX has one flight to Asia and that is on NW.

Believe Asiana (OZ) is the only Asian carrier serving SEA but not YVR (with their own metal). They codeshare on AC flights YVR-ICN.

If not mistaken, Japan/Asia carriers currently serving YVR and SEA are:

YVR: JL, KE, CX, CA, MU, CI, BR, PR, SQ (and HKG-based low-cost carrier Oasis Hong Kong starting June 28)

SEA: OZ, KE, BR

[Edited 2007-06-10 04:27:13]

User currently offlineEVA777SEA From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2921 times:

Cl serves SEA also. As you can see, it does not appear that these restrictions had much effect on service to YVR...

User currently offlineLurveBus From Philippines, joined Mar 2007, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

Funny, PR has been frustrated lately with not being able to go daily to YVR. There was an article here that indicated that the Canadian government wasn't really interested in more frequencies to the Philippines, despite PR's load factors hitting 90%.

User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
Not correct. As well-summarized by Sebring, the Canadian government has always considered the input of Canadian carriers both before they hold bilateral talks with other governments and during the talks themselves. Unless this has changed recently, airline representatives (both AC and CP when both carriers existed) always attended the actual negotiating meetings as observers, and the government negotiator certainly discussed the issues with the airline representatives and obtained their input during breaks in the meetings.

And most other countries do it the same way.


User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

I'd also add that there may be situations where it is in Air Canada's interest to allow more competition, and it may be in the airport's interest to be patient about allowing in more competition.

Scenario: Emirates will fly to Toronto. We know that for reasons of geography, its core market will be the Indian subcontinent and Middle East, because the Canadian O&D market to DXB as a destination is very small, Europe is a big backhaul from DXB and flying time to Eastern Asia and the South Pacific is much shorter via the Pacific. The arrival of EK will have a modest impact on Air Canada's ability to share in traffic to the Indian subcontinent and to the Middle East via LHR and FRA, but it will have have a huge impact on European carriers serving Canada who have a tendency to fill a significant portion of their Canadian departures in the winter schedule with traffic to India. Knock out a good portion of that traffic because it moves via the Gulf (either EK, EY which is going nonstop to DXB or possible future services on QR or others) or on new nonstop services by JET or possibly AI and it's not hard to see the traditional role of the European megahubs (CDG, LHR, FRA, AMS) knocked down more than a peg, with a commensurate reduction in either frequency or gauge, ergo less competition, or less compelling service competition, on the North Atlantic for AC. This is a case where allowing more competition would work for AC's advantage, because it could then put a 787 or two into India and focus on the smaller market for Canadian-origin business travel and other time-sensitive business they couldn't get over the past decade with a larger, less cost-effective aircraft. To this end, AC would not block competition so much as lobby for the Canadian government to ensure that Canada (meaning AC) gets access to attractive market opportunities as part of the deal, and in EK's case, it might want timely slot guarantees and anti-dumping assurances as part of that as well as liberal pricing rules for any fifth freedom operations it might mount were it to fly through DXB.

Scenario: Airport A - let's say Vancouver - wants as many airlines and as many flights as possible. However, if one airline moves in with 3 or 4 A380 flights per day and depresses pricing, it might preclude several other airlines starting new nonstop services. Ultimately, YVR would end up with few nonstops to fewer places. Call the Wal-Mart syndrome. The arrival of Wal-Mart in your community can destroy a lot of competitors but also preclude other Big Box stores from opening up. Ultimately, it's in a community's interest to have Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Nordstrom's, etc., but if the Wal-Mart is oversized, some of the others may never come and Main Street - with its personalized service - can be eviscerated. A lot of communities that have lived the Wal-Mart experience have come to regret it, but can't do anything about it. However, the Canadian government, in negotiating new bilaterals, can regulate competition in a manner that defines competition not just as a commodity (a seat), but as a service (access) and can ensure that YVR's aviation role grows horizontially as well as vertically because the needs of the community are best-served not just by adding seats but by ensuring the seats come from different carriers in different places. That's not an argument that airports make, because they are volume driven and really care less about the community's needs than they claim.


User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2646 times:

Quoting Sebring (Reply 11):
Scenario: Airport A - let's say Vancouver - wants as many airlines and as many flights as possible. However, if one airline moves in with 3 or 4 A380 flights per day and depresses pricing, it might preclude several other airlines starting new nonstop services. Ultimately, YVR would end up with few nonstops to fewer places. Call the Wal-Mart syndrome. The arrival of Wal-Mart in your community can destroy a lot of competitors but also preclude other Big Box stores from opening up. Ultimately, it's in a community's interest to have Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Nordstrom's, etc., but if the Wal-Mart is oversized, some of the others may never come and Main Street - with its personalized service - can be eviscerated. A lot of communities that have lived the Wal-Mart experience have come to regret it, but can't do anything about it. However, the Canadian government, in negotiating new bilaterals, can regulate competition in a manner that defines competition not just as a commodity (a seat), but as a service (access) and can ensure that YVR's aviation role grows horizontially as well as vertically because the needs of the community are best-served not just by adding seats but by ensuring the seats come from different carriers in different places. That's not an argument that airports make, because they are volume driven and really care less about the community's needs than they claim.

Its a good argument, particularly if YVR was situated on an island or had no competition. It would work for a Sydney or an Auckland but YVR competes with nearby airport such as SEA, PDX and even SFO and LAX. The U.S. is much more open to allowing foreign carriers traffic rights. Prices from Seattle particularly with the current Can $ level, using Korean, Northwest, EVA, SAS from SEattle is an attractive option. So what it comes down to is opportunity cost, do you allow the market to decide who flys what route and at what price or do place place Draconian trade barriers to regulate competition impeding trade, tourism and employment. I wonder sometimes if it is fed really that care so little about the community needs as they are of insuring Air Canada's flights are profitable? This is extremely frustrating situation for not only YVR but all airports in Canada including YYZ!



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 offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2629 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 12):

Its a good argument, particularly if YVR was situated on an island or had no competition. It would work for a Sydney or an Auckland but YVR competes with nearby airport such as SEA, PDX and even SFO and LAX. The U.S. is much more open to allowing foreign carriers traffic rights. Prices from Seattle particularly with the current Can $ level, using Korean, Northwest, EVA, SAS from SEattle is an attractive option. So what it comes down to is opportunity cost, do you allow the market to decide who flys what route and at what price or do place place Draconian trade barriers to regulate competition impeding trade, tourism and employment. I wonder sometimes if it is fed really that care so little about the community needs as they are of insuring Air Canada's flights are profitable? This is extremely frustrating situation for not only YVR but all airports in Canada including YYZ!

But your argument is undermined by the fact that the competitor airports you cite are not attracting the carriers you claim are beating down the door to serve YVR. All you do is lapse into the old, tiring whining about how the government is serving AC, not the consumer. How would adding PR flights to MNL impact AC and its pricing to Japan or Korea or China? Korean serves YVR-SEL. Why not ask it why its YVR-SEL prices are higher than its SEA-SEL prices if that is indeed the case. EVA flies TPE-YVR. Ask it why its TPE-SEA fares are cheaper than its TPE-YVR fares, if that's indeed the case. AC doesn't even fly its metal to Taipei but it is supposedly the reason fares to Taipei are so high? Really, this is a ridiculous argument which can basically be summarized : Blame the eastern boogyman for everything wrong in our lives.


User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2603 times:

Quoting Sebring (Reply 13):
But your argument is undermined by the fact that the competitor airports you cite are not attracting the carriers you claim are beating down the door to serve YVR. All you do is lapse into the old, tiring whining about how the government is serving AC, not the consumer. How would adding PR flights to MNL impact AC and its pricing to Japan or Korea or China? Korean serves YVR-SEL. Why not ask it why its YVR-SEL prices are higher than its SEA-SEL prices if that is indeed the case. EVA flies TPE-YVR. Ask it why its TPE-SEA fares are cheaper than its TPE-YVR fares, if that's indeed the case. AC doesn't even fly its metal to Taipei but it is supposedly the reason fares to Taipei are so high? Really, this is a ridiculous argument which can basically be summarized : Blame the eastern boogyman for everything wrong in our lives.

On the contrary, they are attracting carrier which have been beating down YVR door, an example is AIr France and SQ has recently gone on record indicating they may move down the road if the they can not increase service to YVR, idle threat who knows? NW does a great job of attracting YVR passenger to there Asian flights ex SEA. Additional PR flights would possibly impact AC flights to HKG or ICN, Air France to CDg would certainly effect AC load ex YYZ to CDG. You can summarizer as whining, crying, bitching but the oppressive whining eastern boogie man is the blame for everything wrong in our lives.



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 offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 14):

On the contrary, they are attracting carrier which have been beating down YVR door, an example is AIr France and SQ has recently gone on record indicating they may move down the road if the they can not increase service to YVR, idle threat who knows? NW does a great job of attracting YVR passenger to there Asian flights ex SEA. Additional PR flights would possibly impact AC flights to HKG or ICN, Air France to CDg would certainly effect AC load ex YYZ to CDG. You can summarizer as whining, crying, bitching but the oppressive whining eastern boogie man is the blame for everything wrong in our lives.

What planet are you on? How will AC's loads or fares to HKG be affected by PR when Oasis is opening up daily 747 service to HKG with fares well below what PR can afford to charge. And look on a map? What moron is going to fly to MNL to go to Seoul?

Seattle: it is common industry practice to discount heavily when selling transoceanic flights on indirect routings. AC often charges less for a flight to NRT or HKG from a secondary US market than it does online. Right now, AC is aggressively pricing all of the US from Israel at fares lower than they charge for TLV-YYZ. That's the way the entire industry operates. As for SQ, it is always playing political games, but there is no way they are moving flights and the government is right to call that bluff. Just as EK whined and cried for many years that the three frequencies available to it under the Canada-UAE bilateral were not financially viable and they needed daily rights to start service to Toronto. Well, guess who is finally starting service with the three frequencies that have been available to it for over a decade? (Actually, it would be six frequencies by now had EK moved a few years ago to start service with three frequencies.)

You should also acquaint yourself with the existing bilaterals and ask yourself why there are unused rights available to carriers of several countries, including Korea, China, Taipei and Japan. If fares are so high, it must be questionned why the carriers of those countries aren't using the existing rights and just scooping up some easy profit.

As for SQ, it has claimed that it wants to serve the Indian market, but wants to do it via SEL and SIN. That's hypocrisy. If the Indian market is so lucrative, there is a simple solution for SQ: Fly YVR-SIN nonstop, cutting out one stop for all of those Indian passengers. If that's SQ's goal, it should stop serving the Korean market altogether so a carrier like Asiana can get on the route.


[Edited 2007-06-10 20:59:03]

[Edited 2007-06-10 21:01:28]

User currently offlineEVA777SEA From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2581 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 14):
On the contrary, they are attracting carrier which have been beating down YVR door, an example is AIr France and SQ has recently gone on record indicating they may move down the road if the they can not increase service to YVR, idle threat who knows? NW does a great job of attracting YVR passenger to there Asian flights ex SEA. Additional PR flights would possibly impact AC flights to HKG or ICN, Air France to CDg would certainly effect AC load ex YYZ to CDG. You can summarizer as whining, crying, bitching but the oppressive whining eastern boogie man is the blame for everything wrong in our lives.

Since when has AF been serving YVR? AF did not choose SEA because they could not get access to YVR, AF chose SEA over DFW and DEN. NW flies SEA-NRT-ICN. SEA has a larger Japanese and Korean population than YVR does yet YVR has more flights to Korea and Japan, perhaps it is the other way around?


User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2558 times:

Quoting EVA777SEA (Reply 16):
Since when has AF been serving YVR? AF did not choose SEA because they could not get access to YVR, AF chose SEA over DFW and DEN. NW flies SEA-NRT-ICN. SEA has a larger Japanese and Korean population than YVR does yet YVR has more flights to Korea and Japan, perhaps it is the other way around?

Read first then answer, AF does not serve YVR. YVR and SEA both wanted AF. YVR was not an option as AF can not fly to YVR. Who cares if Seattle has more Japanese and Korean than Vancouver? KE can not increase service to Vancouver, they started operating ex SEA probably for the reason you stated. Korean operated ICN-SEA opposite days to the YVR as to cover the Northwest on a daily basis. I am sure KE could fill a daily 747 ex YVR.



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 offlineEVA777SEA From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 17):
Who cares if Seattle has more Japanese and Korean than Vancouver?

It was simply my response to this...

Quoting DYK (Reply 14):
NW does a great job of attracting YVR passenger to there Asian flights ex SEA

You made it sound like the NW flight relies off of traffic from YVR.


User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2442 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 14):

On the contrary, they are attracting carrier which have been beating down YVR door, an example is AIr France and SQ has recently gone on record indicating they may move down the road if the they can not increase service to YVR, idle threat who knows? NW does a great job of attracting YVR passenger to there Asian flights ex SEA. Additional PR flights would possibly impact AC flights to HKG or ICN, Air France to CDg would certainly effect AC load ex YYZ to CDG. You can summarizer as whining, crying, bitching but the oppressive whining eastern boogie man is the blame for everything wrong in our lives.

You also neglect to mention that AC isn't even Canada's largest carrier in the Canada-France market. That's Transat, hands down, and its concerns would be listened to by the government.


User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 23 hours ago) and read 2275 times:

Ahemm... Back to the original question of the post. The prime minister just announced an ambitious timeline target for EU-Canada talks to begin in the fall. At the same time, the Canadian government is pursuing bilaterals with other markets, including some key markets in Asia, for conclusion hopefully this year.

Apparently most of what has happened recently (ie Croatia) is due to talks having been scheduled before the Blue Sky policy was announced. Certainly Asian markets are a big priority for Western Canada. The foreign markets aren't always interested in playing ball though. Japan has not been interested in Open Skies, for example.

I am cautiously optimistic that there is a truly new approach to this issue in Ottawa. Things take time.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 2198 times:

Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 20):
The prime minister just announced an ambitious timeline target for EU-Canada talks to begin in the fall.

Has the Council given the Commission the mandate yet? AFAIK they only have the 'horizontal mandate' to negotiate the community air carrier clause so far. Don't think the Canadians would be too interested in limiting the discussions to one item, with nothing in it for the Canadian side.


User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 2190 times:

Has the Council given the Commission the mandate yet? AFAIK they only have the 'horizontal mandate' to negotiate the community air carrier clause so far. Don't think the Canadians would be too interested in limiting the discussions to one item, with nothing in it for the Canadian side.

I am not familiar with the technical details of what has gone on in Europe but the comments were in a joint EU-Canada statement issued at the summit. I don't think that would have happened if it was expected that political forces were such that there was going to be notable opposition from members at the council level.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 2019 times:

Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 22):
I am not familiar with the technical details of what has gone on in Europe but the comments were in a joint EU-Canada statement issued at the summit. I don't think that would have happened if it was expected that political forces were such that there was going to be notable opposition from members at the council level.

Negotiation of Air Services Agreements in the EU was normally a matter for individual Member States (except DK & SE who did it jointly with NO). Following the 'open-skies' case that went to the European Court of Justice, the council of ministers (representing the Member States) gave the European Commission a 'horizontal mandate' to negotiate revised ownership and control clauses with third countries (with one exception) on behalf of all Member States. The one exception was with the US, where the EC was given the mandate to negotiate an open skies agreement on behalf of the EU27.

Canada has asked the EC to enter into negotiations on an open-skies agreements, and the council was to consider it - but I've seen nothing where the EC now has the mandate.

Don't forget that the EU has three branches - The council of ministers representing the 27 Member States (For Air Transport matters this would be the 27 Minsters of Transport from each MS), The European Parliament - directly elected by Eu citizens, and the European Commission - (the administrative branch), one each from each MS and appointed by them subject to approval by parliament.


User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month ago) and read 1940 times:

Canada has asked the EC to enter into negotiations on an open-skies agreements, and the council was to consider it - but I've seen nothing where the EC now has the mandate.

Don't forget that the EU has three branches - The council of ministers representing the 27 Member States (For Air Transport matters this would be the 27 Minsters of Transport from each MS), The European Parliament - directly elected by Eu citizens, and the European Commission - (the administrative branch), one each from each MS and appointed by them subject to approval by parliament.


I am very familiar with the three branches of the EU. My point is that the Canadian government and the European Commission also are very familiar with the branches as well. Decisions don't happen in a vacuum. Everybody involved will be aware of the particular political temperatures in the various levels of government. All indications are that the Commission will get its required mandate == if they weren't, I wouldn't expect such confident high-level statements coming out of a joint EU-Canada statement because to do so would be embarrasing down the road if the Commission didn't get its mandate.


25 ANother : Well, I wouldn't put it beyond the Commission to announce a fait accompi, just to put pressure on the Ministers - they've done it before and they will
26 TK787 : Yesterday in a Turkish website (airporthaber.com), there was an article from TK's Head of Board of Directors, that TK hopes to start IST-YYZ by April
27 Sebring : Just for the record, TK has had an office - an expensive, downtown, street level office - for many, many years. On University Avenue.
28 Post contains images MSYYZ : I hope so , THY will be a great addition to YYZ . Would be very nice to see their A340's in The Canadian skies .
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...
Virgin In Talks With Boeing/Airbus On New Aircraft posted Fri Mar 2 2007 15:42:56 by Pilot21
U.S., Canada To Start New Open Skies Talks posted Wed Oct 19 2005 00:51:36 by Searpqx
KLM Has New Partner + Talks With TAM posted Thu Oct 3 2002 11:17:02 by Lj
Air France New Service To Dzaoudzi With KQ posted Wed Jun 6 2007 18:12:21 by Jimyvr
Boeing In Talks With Airlines On BWB Freighter posted Mon May 21 2007 10:43:05 by Bells
CX New F/J Seats Are Ready! With Schedule posted Thu Apr 19 2007 23:39:04 by YLWbased
AP: Boeing In Talks With Potential 747 Customers posted Wed Feb 28 2007 20:44:00 by USAF336TFS
ANA In Talks With Asiana About Tie-up posted Sun Feb 25 2007 13:49:43 by Columba
Iberia Deny Merger Talks With Lufthansa posted Thu Feb 22 2007 02:20:29 by Jimyvr
New : DOH-GVA-EWR With Qatar Airways posted Fri Feb 16 2007 14:48:23 by Beijing21