Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
*rumor* Info - Any Info On SQ And QR To YYZ?  
User currently offlineA6EGA From United Arab Emirates, joined Aug 2012, 7 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11782 times:

Hi All!

Just wondering if anyone has heard anything about SQ starting YYZ - does anyone know about the bilateral - has it been amended since the last YVR route?

And anyone heard of QR to YYZ - is the bilateral 3 x a week to one destination or numerous but to a max 3 x a week?

Thanks!

139 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4915 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11457 times:

Quoting A6EGA (Thread starter):
Just wondering if anyone has heard anything about SQ starting YYZ - does anyone know about the bilateral - has it been amended since the last YVR route?

There currently is "open skies" between Singapore and Canada, with no restrictions. If SQ wished to fly to YYZ they could .... daily. That they don't, nor YVR, is an indication that the traffic is not there. SQ have been asking for Fifth Freedom rights from other countries to Canada, which have been denied. Mainly because the countries they named already have at least daily flights to Canada.

Quoting A6EGA (Thread starter):
And anyone heard of QR to YYZ - is the bilateral 3 x a week to one destination or numerous but to a max 3 x a week?

The bilateral with Qatar allows 6 weekly flights, 3 passenger and 3 cargo. QR named YUL (a wise move in my opinion) as their passenger destination. They could have picked any Canadian city, to a maximum of 3 a week. If Qatar can show that there is sufficient O&D demand for increased rights to Canada, it will be reviewed and likely allowed.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineHOONS90 From Malaysia, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 3003 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11282 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

It's a shame that SQ discontinued YVR-ICN-SIN. If AC really does go ahead with their proposed transpacific LCC and if YVR-ICN gets transferred over, there wouldn't be any nonstop premium Star Alliance service between Canada and Korea.

If SQ starts Canada again, whether it is to YVR or YYZ, I would assume that a good chunk of the traffic would be fifth-freedom just like on their previous YVR-ICN-SIN flight. I've heard that one of the reasons why the route didn't work was because they were restricted to having a 3x weekly frequency, making them uncompetitive with other airlines offering more frequent service on that route.



The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8061 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11240 times:

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 2):
It's a shame that SQ discontinued YVR-ICN-SIN. If AC really does go ahead with their proposed transpacific LCC and if YVR-ICN gets transferred over, there wouldn't be any nonstop premium Star Alliance service between Canada and Korea.

I think KE have a nightly 747 nonstop ICN-YYZ?



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineAA94 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 579 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 11106 times:

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 3):
I think KE have a nightly 747 nonstop ICN-YYZ?

According to KE's timetable, KE073/KE074 operates ICN-YYZ-ICN 5 weekly, excluding Monday and Thursday. Currently being operated by a 772.



Choose a challenge over competence / Eleanor Roosevelt
User currently offlinehuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1113 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10977 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1):
There currently is "open skies" between Singapore and Canada, with no restrictions. If SQ wished to fly to YYZ they could .... daily. That they don't, nor YVR, is an indication that the traffic is not there. SQ have been asking for Fifth Freedom rights from other countries to Canada, which have been denied. Mainly because the countries they named already have at least daily flights to Canada.

"Open skies" from who's perspective? Canada's. True open skies agreements Singapore has inked with other countries do not involve restrictions on 5th freedoms, and are sometimes even more liberal than that. If there is no change in the status quo with regards to air rights, I hope SQ keeps itself out of Canada. If will not help SQ's profit margins, and a population supporting protectionist measures do not deserve more choices.



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineAA767LOVER From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2007, 595 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10956 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 2):

And if they discontinue, who will benefit on either side?
In the mid 90s, IIRC, SQ did YYZ-AMS-VIE-SIN ? whatever for, I don't know.
SQ had 343's doing the YVR-ICN-SIN, no?

If choice of aircraft were to change, YVR-ICN-SIN (if SFO can do it, what's wrong with YVR? YVR is even closer) could see a 333 with the stop in ICN. If YYZ, they could do a YYZ-FRA or MUC-SIN on all SQ metal. Possible? Just my two cents.



J.I. Tsui, American Advantage Member, United Mileage Plus (Premier)
User currently offlineARN From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10821 times:

How about SIN-ARN-YYZ? There are no flights between YYZ and ARN. Feeds at both ends being Star hubs. And SIA and SAS has a joint venture pending approval from authorities.

User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10700 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1):
There currently is "open skies" between Singapore and Canada, with no restrictions.

I'm pretty sure I've read - on this forum - that Singapore unilaterally suspended/terminated the bilateral with Canada. Might be wrong.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1):
SQ have been asking for Fifth Freedom rights from other countries to Canada, which have been denied.

How do fifth freedom rights fit into Open Skies agreements? Aren't they part and parcelf of any true Open Skies agreement?

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 2):
If AC really does go ahead with their proposed transpacific LCC and if YVR-ICN gets transferred over, there wouldn't be any nonstop premium Star Alliance service between Canada and Korea.

THe LCC is aimed at serving less than premium destinations. I suspect ICN, NRT, PVD etc generate enough premium traffic to keep justify mainline service. Furthermore, if AC goes LCC, there's no reason to believe Korean Air wont up its game and try to cash in on the premium traffic.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 5):
If will not help SQ's profit margins, and a population supporting protectionist measures do not deserve more choices.

The Canadian population does not support protectionist measures. Most of the people in the Canadian aviation industry (some of whom are active on this board) do. Its an important distinction. It is to the detriment of consumers and the Canadian economy - on a per Capita basis, Canadians fly a little over half as much as Americans. This is not an encouraging indicator given that Canada is the second largest land mass in the world, encompassing four time zones, and with cities spread right across the country (east-west). The point is that air travel isn't a major issue for most Canadians, since most of them don't use it much.

To top it off, the line between the government and AC (which utterly dislikes competing with superior carriers) is very blurred. The last COO lived in Ottawa, a city that isn't even a minor hub for AC. He was there presumably first to fight EK, and later to fight against the employees he was protecting from EK. This isn't getting much better - AC's new VP for government affairs and corporate strategy is the current Prime Minister's former Deputy Chief of Staff.

As such, one would be foolish to anticipate that Canadian consumers' views will be considered in light of these developments. AC will continue to block competition to whatever extent it can. It has to. Its not a very well-run airline. It has a product that is better than most of its immediate competitors (the very mediocre US and EU airlines), but I think its given up any hope of competing with the SQs and QRs of the world.

As a consumer, I would love to see more competition. However, I m not stupid enough to believe it will actually happen.


User currently offlineyowza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4865 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10392 times:

Quoting A6EGA (Thread starter):
And anyone heard of QR to YYZ - is the bilateral 3 x a week to one destination or numerous but to a max 3 x a week?

It's max 3 pax flights at the moment as Longhuler has pointed out.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1):
The bilateral with Qatar allows 6 weekly flights, 3 passenger and 3 cargo. QR named YUL (a wise move in my opinion) as their passenger destination. They could have picked any Canadian city, to a maximum of 3 a week. If Qatar can show that there is sufficient O&D demand for increased rights to Canada, it will be reviewed and likely allowed.

QR have made a brilliant move though. They just inked an interline agreement with Porter that will allow them to serve (and prove demand for) the Toronto market with connections in YUL and IAD. Presumably they will use this to position for more frequencies. Smart.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 5):
"Open skies" from who's perspective? Canada's.

Jesus Christ, do you ever get tired of this rant? Any Singaporean carrier can operate any number of flights to any airport in Canada. That *is* open skies. Period. If you're assuming/expecting a similar agreement as Singapore has with the USA you're dreaming. Even the EU/USA open skies arrangement is not as liberal as what Singapore enjoys.

Quoting ARN" class="quote" target="_blank">ARN (Reply 7):
There are no flights between YYZ and ARN.

For good reason, just not enough traffic.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4915 posts, RR: 43
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10339 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 5):
"Open skies" from who's perspective? Canada's.

BI-lateral. TWO sides, TWO countries. Two countries agreed to open skies. And both countries had unlimited access.

Singapore decided that it was not enough and wanted to involve more countries. That would be more than "open skies". Singapore wanted to fly people from Korea to Canada, Japan to Canada, Austria to Canada .. sure who wouldn't? But those markets are already well served. Including the 4 times weekly they were already flying from Korea to Canada.

It is interesting to note that because I am old enough, I remember when Air Canada had Fifth Freedom rights from the UK and India to Singapore. That route was very successful, and when Air Canada wanted to increase capacity on the route it was denied. That was the start of the "bad blood" between Canada and Singapore. Especially when later Singapore wanted to increase capacity from Korea to Canada using its then current Fifth Freedom rights, and was of course denied.

Apparently Singapore wants full unlimited Fifth Freedom rights when it benefits them, but no one else. Karma.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4915 posts, RR: 43
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10279 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 8):

I agree with all you state, however you missed out one important point.

The Air Canada Public Participation Act.

This severely hobbles Air Canada from competing both domestically and internationally. It has always been my opinion that if Canadians want true unlimited competition, then they need to remove the restrictions placed on Air Canada. Then, it would take years to "re-jig" the airline from a Government body aimed at spreading wealth throughout the country, to a lean well run competitor.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2950 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9789 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 8):
The last COO lived in Ottawa, a city that isn't even a minor hub for AC. He was there presumably first to fight EK, and later to fight against the employees he was protecting from EK.

He lives in YOW for family reasons. The commute to AC HQ at YUL probably took him about 45 minutes.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlinehuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1113 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9780 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 8):
I'm pretty sure I've read - on this forum - that Singapore unilaterally suspended/terminated the bilateral with Canada. Might be wrong.

The bilateral agreement is still in force. SQ simply decided not to use it because Canada refused to liberalise it further.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 8):
How do fifth freedom rights fit into Open Skies agreements? Aren't they part and parcelf of any true Open Skies agreement?

Precisely. Canada's version of "Open Skies", which they call "Blue Sky" actually still involves full 5th and 6th freedom rights. That Singapore is not granted this right does not make it open or in whatever shade of colour.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 8):
The Canadian population does not support protectionist measures.

I am of course presuming that the Canadian population votes their government in, and it is their government who caves in to pressure from corporations and public pressure to enforce such measures.

Quoting yowza (Reply 9):
Jesus Christ, do you ever get tired of this rant? Any Singaporean carrier can operate any number of flights to any airport in Canada. That *is* open skies. Period. If you're assuming/expecting a similar agreement as Singapore has with the USA you're dreaming. Even the EU/USA open skies arrangement is not as liberal as what Singapore enjoys.

I will never get tired of it as long as protectionism abound, which they will anyway. As I mentioned above, an air service agreement without 5th and 6th freedoms is *not* open skies, even by the definition of the Canadian authorities. I dare not even compare this with the OSA standard set by the US, which also includes 8th freedom, or the one Singapore signed with the UK, which is even more liberal than the US OSA, allowing 9th freedom and the right to actually base an airline in each other's territory, subject to corporate ownership rules of course.

Canada is not prepared to even offer Singapore a Blue Skies agreement by its own definition of Open Skies, and that is fact. Period.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 10):
BI-lateral. TWO sides, TWO countries. Two countries agreed to open skies. And both countries had unlimited access.

Accept that there is no open skies in this case. If Canada thinks it is open skies, then that is unilateral. Actually they did not, but some a.netters here think they did.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 10):
Singapore decided that it was not enough and wanted to involve more countries. That would be more than "open skies". Singapore wanted to fly people from Korea to Canada, Japan to Canada, Austria to Canada .. sure who wouldn't? But those markets are already well served. Including the 4 times weekly they were already flying from Korea to Canada.

Complete nonsense. These rights are 5th freedom rights, and are considered part of open skies even by Canada's own definitions. SQ only has rights for up to 3 flights a week...which is ridiculous in today's competitive climate against the competition SQ is flying against. This "the route is well-served" claim is as nonsensical as it can get. How is anyone to determine how well-served a route is? If this is really an issue, why is Japan, Korea, Hong Kong or Taiwan not revoking the air rights they offer to Singapore to fly across the Pacific in competition with their own carriers?

Read the following for some arguments in support of more rights for airlines like SQ:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Co...anguage=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&comm_id=19

Quoting longhauler (Reply 10):
It is interesting to note that because I am old enough, I remember when Air Canada had Fifth Freedom rights from the UK and India to Singapore. That route was very successful, and when Air Canada wanted to increase capacity on the route it was denied. That was the start of the "bad blood" between Canada and Singapore. Especially when later Singapore wanted to increase capacity from Korea to Canada using its then current Fifth Freedom rights, and was of course denied.

And I suppose you conveniently refused to discuss how Air Canada lobbied to get SQ off Toronto because they were doing too well there too? Or that Air Canada wanted to get SQ completely out of Canada because they decided not to fly to Singapore? While there are reports which directly showed these stances, I have yet come across an actual admission from SQ or the Singapore government that they deliberately kept Air Canada out. Some sources, please?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 10):
Apparently Singapore wants full unlimited Fifth Freedom rights when it benefits them, but no one else. Karma.

Air Canada could benefit...if they know how to compete with Singapore Airlines that is. Duh.

[Edited 2012-08-10 09:16:40]


It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1985 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9654 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 13):
Complete nonsense.

Are you suggesting the history that longhauler detailed is untrue?

I didn't know it. But if true, then I fully support the Government of Canada's stance. I have no issues with opening up fifth freedom as long as the Govt of Singapore is open to the same. If what longhauler says it true, that would not seem to be the case.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9530 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 11):

It goes without saying that ACPPA is utterly obsolete. It should be tossed out. For as long as it exists, politicians will treat AC as answerable to the Govt. it shouldnt be. It should be answerable to shareholders and the like. By the same token, however, the Government should stop doing AC's bidding. I can't think of very many airlines in the west that have benefitted as much from the government.

To be honest, I am far from impressed by Canada's aviation policies. And so I ask supporters of this Blue Skies regime some simple questions:

1. Which other developed countries base their policies on 'prove O&D'? It's an honest question- I don't have a clue.
2. Which developed countries are more liberal in their approach?
3. How do the two sets compare in terms if pax movent per capita, airfares, seat availability etc?

I really think there might be some revelations in there that would make at least one side rethink its approach. Either I ve lost the plot or Transport Canada has. Either which way, the answers will likely tell us the way forward.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 12):

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Toronto is a 1hr commute. I m sure one can list any number of personal reasons, but the proximity to a government that has been far too involved in the airlines affairs makes his choice too convenient to ignore. He's been actively lobbying ministers...


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4915 posts, RR: 43
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9452 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 13):
SQ simply decided not to use it because Canada refused to liberalise it further.
Quoting huaiwei (Reply 13):
Accept that there is no open skies in this case. If Canada thinks it is open skies, then that is unilateral. Actually they did not, but some a.netters here think they did.

This is Canadian law, I am going to guess that no one in Ottawa cares that Singapore doesn't like it.

Looking at the reaction of the current government to the UAE requests, I am also going to guess that the Harris Government does not like being told how to run the country by some external country.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 13):
And I suppose you conveniently refused to discuss how Air Canada lobbied to get SQ off Toronto because they were doing too well there too? Or that Air Canada wanted to get SQ completely out of Canada because they decided not to fly to Singapore? While there are reports which directly showed these stances, I have yet come across an actual admission from SQ or the Singapore government that they deliberately kept Air Canada out. Some sources, please?

I was there. One of the advantages of being over 50.

Air Canada started into Singapore with the then current bilateral, of four flights a week YYZ/YVR-LHR-BOM-SIN. Equipment used was the L1011-500. Much to the annoyance of the Singaporean government, the flight was very successful. A request was made to upgauge to a daily L1011-500, this was denied. Then a request was made to upgauge to a B747-200 using the existing schedule, this too was denied. AC had to settle on using a combi B747-200C and capping the passenger capacity with the L1011-500 capacity. This was marginally better due to the freight uplift which was not restricted under the current bi-lateral.

During the same time, SQ was flying SIN-SEL-YVR four times a week using the same bilateral.

Understand that Fifth Freedom rights were allowed to both countries. (it is granted to the country, not the airline). However, AC was using two countries, the UK and India, as both were allowed with bi-laterals with those countries. SQ though, was only using one, Korea. So, the Singaporean government unilaterally decided that Fifth Freedoms could only allow one country per flight, so AC was told pickup rights from either the UK or India had to be dropped!!!

This now made the flight uneconomic, so Singapore "won" and AC pulled out, the flight continued as YVR/YYZ-LHR-BOM. SQ continued with SIN-SEL-YVR, as per the adjusted existing bilateral.

Fast forward to the instance you cite. Singapore requested rights from somewhere in Europe, I think it was VIE to YYZ. Not "conveniently" forgotten, as I did mention Austria above. Of course Canada denied those rights. After the previous dealings with the LHR-BOM-SIN route, why on earth would Canada grant further rights to Singapore?? However, no, AC never lobbied to get SQ out of YYZ, right up until SQ sulked and pulled out of Canada completely, SQ could have flown as many flights they liked to any city in Canada, YYZ included, from their own country! Rights that the UAE could only dream of!

That "bad blood" exists today. Singapore continued to request further rights, and those rights were denied. I am guessing that if the Singaporean government had allowed Canada further rights on the LHR-BOM-SIN route from the beginning, this would never have been an issue.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9319 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 13):

The Canadian people, rightly or wrongly, have bigger issues to deal with than aviation. It is a major concern for people who fly, but the again people don't fly a lot around here.

Canada is indeed a democracy and we do get the government we deserve. Which is a little different from democracies that have presidents-for-life who retire at extremely advanced ages.


User currently offlineYYZAMS From Canada, joined Feb 2011, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8932 times:

If EK can operate an A380 daily to YYZ I am sure SQ can make something work.  


In wishing and hoping terms, I would love to see a non-stop YYZ-SIN maybe with all business like the one on the EWR-SIN route...but that is wishful thinking. SQ would probably be more profitable on YYZ-YVR-SIN.   

But on that note, why not have more traffic from the states connect in YYZ to SIN than Canadians having to go through the US to a SQ flight. (and save from going through US customs   )
 


User currently offlinesebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8659 times:

Oh, boo hoo for poor SQ.

It wants the world to bend to its desires but has next to nothing to offer in return.

I remember the 1984 air services dispute from personal participation, and it began with SQ getting its government to disallow Air Canada prorates. Everything spiralled out of control from there, and I'm afraid I can't take a Singapore newspaper as the unbiased gospel.

Canada is not a city state. It's the second largest land mass on earth with a well-dispersed population and serving that is infinitely more complex than flying out of a single airport. You'll pardon us for having multiple interests in how we structure our aviation policy. If it doesn't suit SQ, well, tough bananas.

So let's just let bygones be bygones. SQ has a lot of world it can approach with reciprocal benefits. It offers the Aussies a critical intermediate path to Europe. It can offer the Indians good access to eastern Asia. It simply has little to offer Canadian carriers for the right to unfettered access to Canada, and via fifth freedoms, beyond Canada to the US, Europe or South America.

But thank you for asking.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8623 times:

Quoting sebring (Reply 21):
It simply has little to offer Canadian carriers for the right to unfettered access to Canada

Which begs another question: What comes first - Canada's itnerests or Canadian carriers interests?

Suffice it to say, I don't think that what is in Canadian carrier's interests is necessarily in Canada (and its people's) interests. We saw that with the UAE which, self-righteous moralizing aside - we (Canadian taxpayers, not Canadian aviation industry) came out worse for wear. The UAE started with 6 slots and ended with 6 slots. We ended up one base lighter and not a couple of hundred million dollars poorer. But we showed them and the whole world took notice. Apparently. Or not. Who knows.

That aside, IMHO, is the big problem with Canadian aviation today. In fact, if you think about it, most of the countries that have 'liberal' aviation policies pay short shrift to the idea of their own carriers' interests (US, Aus).

Those countries also boast higher aviation use per capita, lower airfares, higher frequencies, higher connectivity.

Ultimately, one must ask what the point of Canada's aviation policy is? Is it to facilitate more air travel or is it to stifle it? And how does it compare to other countries like Australia, which face similar geographical challenges?


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8608 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 16):
Much to the annoyance of the Singaporean government, the flight was very successful.

This is a baffling claim. Why would Singapore be unhappy with any other airline being successful? At the end of the day, that airline is bringing more pax and cargo to Singapore, so no matter how you play, there is still a net-benefit for Singapore. After all, the airline was, as in the case of UAE, a key part of building the local economy and setting Singapore up as a financial and aviation hub. Even if SQ wasn't doing well on one or two routes (LHR, BOM), AC's success would directly contribute to the latter goal of turning the city-state into a global hub of sorts.

Suffice it to say, the only country I know that would get unhappy in such a situation is Canada, as we've seen with EK, ET etc and the ongoing willingness to restrict capacity (or 'prove O&D' or somesuch nonsensical approach) that actually limits the number of people and cargo coming to/ leaving Canada. Its done ostensibly on the grounds that these airlines will dissuade other carriers from starting direct routes, but one need only look at the ET case (2 weekly) to wonder how its supposed to work. ET has to make a go of Canada from a starting point of twice weekly, which makes it remarkably uncompetitive not only to the airlines its allegedly being protected from (EK, EY, TK), but other airlines that are fulfilling the EK, EY, QR role, like the European carriers, albeit with Canadian approval. Its a policy at odds with itself, which explains the odd allegations about countries being unhappy about another airline's success. I mean, why? In overall terms, Singapore still wins.

I somehow doubt they would be unhappy. The Canadian Government on the other hand, has shown a propensity for seeing negative outcomes in what the rest of the world deems positive.

That, incidentally, is why I posed the questions that I did. Namely, who else has Canadian style aviation policies? How is it working out for them relative to the rest of the world? And are there some lessons that our brilliant bureaucrats can learn? Or have they just picked a bad idea, found a way to justify it to themselves, and gone into hibernation in a Plato-esque cave, oblivious to changes around them?

Aviation is a global issue. Surely there are lessons to be learned form other nation's experiences. If AC can learn from QF and JQ, why can't Canada learn from Australia?


User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2229 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8551 times:

This exact thread gets repeated every few months or so and the same people make the same points over and over because there isn't any new information. I am shocked someone hasn't put in EK yet and thrash that around again.

If Singapore was a decent sized market AC would be itching to get in there. Also other carriers would be making a huge push to market the City as a destination using their hubs. As far as I have seen, Cathay occasionally markets connecting flights from YYZ through Hong Kong to secondary markets in Southeast Asia. Singapore was on the list of the last one I saw. But again one of a few secondary cities. The Canadian public doesn't care a whit, despite claims above, about this issue because so few people travel the route and many easy connections through US or other centres for the few that travel the route.

I think QR (if seat demand is there) will get extra frequency with little problem similar to TK. Whether that is additional frequency to YUL (most likely) and possibly YYZ (less likely). TK has easily increased its frequency easily and steadily and I think will go daily soon. The demand for seats has to be there.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8532 times:

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 22):
TK has easily increased its frequency easily and steadily and I think will go daily soon.

Two additional frequencies in two years, to take it to 5 weekly. That's hardly 'easily'. They're itching for daily. That they haven't been able to get it in 2 years.... does not bode well for anyone, let alone QR.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 22):
The demand for seats has to be there.

The demand for O&D seats you mean.

The demand for seats is always there. Increasing supply can stimulate demand by putting downward pressure on prices, so I m not sure if that criteria makes sense in any case.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4915 posts, RR: 43
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8465 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 21):
This is a baffling claim. Why would Singapore be unhappy with any other airline being successful? At the end of the day, that airline is bringing more pax and cargo to Singapore, so no matter how you play, there is still a net-benefit for Singapore.

If I recall correctly, the SIN-SEL-YVR route was not doing all that well at first. When Canada asked for increased access to SIN, there was nothing that Singapore wanted in return. I do remember that an increase to daily on the SIN-SEL-YVR route for SQ was offered, but declined.

In my opinion, had SQ been doing better on SIN-SEL-YVR, then likely the Singaporeans would have been more open to allowing AC daily access to the LHR-BOM-SIN route, and not coming up with the "only one fifth freedom country per flight" rule.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 22):
As far as I have seen, Cathay occasionally markets connecting flights from YYZ through Hong Kong to secondary markets in Southeast Asia.

I have always used CX as an example that always "played by the rules" and abided by Canada's aviation policy. CX developed the market over decades and currently are reaping the rewards of that hard work.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
25 ElPistolero : That is very interesting to know. Thank you. One can only hope that this kind of petty reciprocity has been put aside in favor of economics. I don't
26 pnwtraveler : I don't think the measure of anything should be what a company wants. I am sure lots of companies want to ignore labour laws, environmental standards
27 ElPistolero : I'll bite. How does the public benefit from giving ET two flights a week when LH can shunt it off to the side with its multiple daily frequencies? Ho
28 YYZAMS : I agree this post gets posted over and over, but now that TG has an A380 maybe it will send an extra plane or 2 to Canada!
29 Kaiarahi : Evidence? And while we're on comparability, Canadians pay more to stay warm in winter than Mexicans or Fijians. You're way over-estimating AC's influ
30 Post contains links ElPistolero : http://www.fraserinstitute.org/resea...ch-news/news/display.aspx?id=18704 http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2012/06/flying-fees http://www.thest
31 Kaiarahi : They're mostly about taxes and fees. Do you have any comparative studies of Canadian and Australian fares to back up: In my experience (anecdotal, bu
32 Post contains links ElPistolero : There's a reason I put that Economist article there. Most studies attribute fare differences to taxes and fees. The Economist article cites a study t
33 Post contains links Docpepz : Discussed to death, starting here Canada And Singapore Sign A Bilateral ASA (by Singapore_Air Nov 7 2007 in Civil Aviation) The Singapore-Canada ASA s
34 ytz : Personally, I could go either way on this. I understand and appreciate what competition would do for the aviation sector. But on the other hand, just
35 a6ega : I was jut asking if anyone knew if they had plans to fly based on their bilaterals, and it turned into a why is AC protected
36 pnwtraveler : Yes you asked a simple question. Others then used it to rehash what they have said many times before and around and around it goes. The positions are
37 jfk777 : How can Air Canada and Singapore Airlines be part of the Star Alliance and have such poisionous political relations. LHR-BOM-SIN happened a generation
38 sebring : Well, Air Canada was one of the three founders of the alliance, and operates as part of UA/AC/LH transatlantic joint venture, so maybe you had better
39 ElPistolero : I do. More competition = better. Its that simple. And yet the Canadian Government - and Air Canada - threw a hissy fit when the UAE linked a free mil
40 a6ega : If ek is such a threat, can someone pls answer this: before ac flew from yeg to lhr and yow to fra etc, and ek steals all the traffic, why does fra t
41 MaverickM11 : I think most of these arguments come back the fact that the Canadian government wants AC to conform to politicians' whims, yet AC wants to run a prof
42 sebring : There are lots of options to get to India in particular. I have no idea what the FRA-Dubai route has to do with this at all. People don't all fly "St
43 Post contains images ElPistolero : Free trade is becoming the norm. And India is moving forward in spite of the government. Lets not forget that India was one of the most autarchic eco
44 ElPistolero : If there are, then why is there such concern about throwing a couple more carriers into the mix? Its counterintuitive to say a route is already compe
45 MaverickM11 : They're watching out for their own vested interests clearly. It'd be nice if everyone freed up their economies but that's just not the reality. I thi
46 ElPistolero : I meant watching from a policy perspective. Its not uncommon for countries to learn lessons from other 'like-minded' nations. Or so I've heard in Ott
47 ytz : This is brought up again and again. Take it from someone inside the CF who worked at NDHQ, there's a lot more here than meets the eye. UAE forces wer
48 Viscount724 : What US Open Skies agreements include 8th freedom cabotage rights? I'm not aware of any. The otherwise very liberal US-EU Open Skies agreement certai
49 sebring : Except the government kept most of the proceeds when AC was privatized, and the govnerment got dividends year after year from Air Canada when it was
50 mogandoCI : That's the type of stupidity of the Australian government that got QF to where they are today - barely offer ANY flights to non-partner-hub if it's o
51 Post contains links ElPistolero : I see. The whole set up, particularly the howls of derision that come from Ottawa everytime a YOW route is dropped, just makes the entire relationshi
52 ytz : LOL. Exactly. Talk about diplomatic failure. They think imposing a cost on Canadians visiting and doing business in DXB is going to bolster their cas
53 ytz : Canada needs the UAE? I don't think so. Canada has business interests there to be sure. Large engineering contracts. Ties between the two oil sectors
54 Post contains links ElPistolero : I really don't know what you are on about. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor.../pol-baird-mideast-uae-kuwait.html http://www.theglobeandmail.com/n
55 ElPistolero : Then why did Baird go to the UAE to make nice? If we didn't need something from them, we could just have carried on with status quo, no? Why waste mo
56 ytz : I don't quite get where you're going with this. You have suggested that we "need" Dubai. Can you explain that statement? What pressing geostrategic o
57 ElPistolero : Oh fair enough. We 'want' something from them? How about that? Its a nicer way of saying that while we may not like them, its not in our interests to
58 ytz : I'm guessing some execs at SNC Lavalin and Bombardier (Transport and Defence Services) called up the CPC HQ and told them to make nice so that they c
59 Post contains images Kaiarahi : This assumption underlies your posts. Unfortunately, it's not true, as Oz/NZL pax will attest. There's periodic discussion on the Oz/NZL threads. All
60 ElPistolero : Still not convinced by the 'billions'. I doubt we would have spent all that And yet it cost $200-$300 million to relocate. Seems awfully high for som
61 ElPistolero : Its an assumption based on a Competition Bureau report... I know OZ pax are hit by high J fares. Their Y fares, on the other hand...well that would e
62 StarAC17 : Bi-laterals are negotiated between countries and not airlines, Canada negotiated 6x weekly slots to the UAE and when EK complained about it EY came i
63 ytz : Is it really that hard to comprehend that countries can have many and sometimes conflicting interests in a region? That was DND accounting. It had to
64 Post contains links ElPistolero : Canada approved three flights by any one designated airline. Did Canada offer the other three to EK? Did EK turn them down? Or did Canada never allow
65 ElPistolero : No, I m just confused by why some priorities are higher than others. In this case, commercial priorities (AC, SNC) appear to be higher than the cost
66 Post contains images lightsaber : Countries that do business instead of holding onto old grudges grow quicker. There is a book called "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" that goes into the
67 flyyul : Emirates wants to serve every major primary and secondary city in the world. Do you not believe that this includes Vancouver and Montreal (see Qatar).
68 ElPistolero : That appears to be the crux of the debate, no? Is the aviation policy supposed to improve accessibility to/from Canada or is it meant to make sure th
69 flyyul : This discussion on ACPPA has very little to do with the financial performance of Air Canada. Many major Canadian companies have their HQs outside of T
70 ytz : Exactly. I get ElPistolero's point. Consumers will surely benefit from a more open market. I don't question that. I do question if it's as much as so
71 flyyul : Are you telling me that the airline with more A380s, B77Ws and A350's than any other airlines out there wouldn't want to serve a fairly decent sized
72 ElPistolero : ACPPA seems to be a bugbear for many. Fair dos - i take it at face value that it may have a negative impact. The Canadian aviation international bila
73 ytz : Doesn't that really depend on where most YUL travellers are going? From Europe, it can make sense to go through DXB, if only because many of the smal
74 flyyul : Do you think Emirates has a profit motive? Their hub in DXB connects the 5 corners of the world - doesn't really matter what the demand is... they wi
75 Viscount724 : Nonstops generate higher yields than connections. You have to consider geography. If ADL was a 2 hour drive (or train ride) from SYD like YOW is from
76 ytz : While I'm not a fan of how things transpired, I can see justification to EK, EY, ET, TK, QR getting daily slots. This could create an interesting prob
77 ytz : Yes. And if they don't, they should definitely be excluded from further expansion in Canada (that would make them a state-funded carrier dumping capa
78 Post contains links ElPistolero : Hmmm? No, I m talking about connectivity to the rest of the world. Connecting to LGA is pretty pointless unless you're going to NYC alone. Its a pet
79 ElPistolero : I understand that, but if YEG folk are already circumventing YEG for YYC and lower fares, then why would anything change. The high-yielding folk usin
80 ytz : They drive at least that. If you live in Kingston or London or Hamilton, it's not unusual to drive to an airport. Heck, Torontonians will drive and h
81 ytz : You put it much better than me. That's what I was getting at. Australia has something to teach us. But I don't think it's absolutely analogous, just
82 ElPistolero : Take TK for example. They fly Thurs and they fly Sat. If you're working and Fri-Sun (including a week inbetween) is all you can get, then you either
83 StarAC17 : It's not a valid comparison for many reasons, Australia may be smaller but the population is spread out differently where land transportation is far
84 ElPistolero : There's never a valid comparison for Canada, is there? Canada is so special it can't possibly be compared to anyone else. Except that the Center for
85 Kaiarahi : I know you're beyond persuasion, but it just doesn't work like that.
86 jfk777 : Air Canada cover the UK very well with flights from St. Johns and Halifax in the east to Vancouver in the west plus all the big cities from Calgary a
87 Post contains images ElPistolero : Well, why not? (you don't have to answer that). To be honest, I don't understand the rationale, beyond the 'that's how we've always done it' argument
88 jamincan : YOW and YHZ both have many more scheduled international airlines than AC. Both are served by a number of US airlines. You might scoff, but it is one o
89 drgmobile : This is incorrect. Open Skies is a proper noun that describes a well established concept for a bilateral agreement that includes certain criteria, on
90 ElPistolero : I m not scoffing at it. The statements were made in response to claims that Canada's policy goals are to maintain diversified long haul direct flight
91 longhauler : That is why I referred to it as "open skies" and not Open Skies. Semantics at best. That being said though, I say again ... right now, the Bilateral
92 ytz : After flying TK Y+ last Christmas, I fully agree. But I think you can concede that you and I (and virtually everybody on a.net) are not average consu
93 Post contains links Kaiarahi : Here's a presentation made by the Chief Air Negotiator to the BC Open Skies Summit in 2009 - as I've mentioned before, the process is as transparent
94 ytz : ElPistolero, Don't forget. TK is going to 5x this October. There really will be only two days a week where us TK Y+ fans will be inconvenienced. That'
95 ElPistolero : Many thanks. I ll try to keep my views to myself. You don't expect me to stop complaining, do you? It's not that I don't understand the nuances or su
96 ytz : Nope. And I to a large extent I'm sympathetic to your arguments. I'm just not an absolutist.
97 Post contains images StarAC17 : That is the fact, Alan Joyce wants to serperate QF domestic and international as the domestic makes a lot of money and the international bleeds red.
98 pnwtraveler : Not true at all! Many one stop options abound to India. The volume far exceeds the AC/LH option and I would daresay many more people fly the alternat
99 Viscount724 : As has already been mentioned several times, the most recent Canada-Singapore bilateral permits any number of carriers from both countries to operate
100 jfk777 : The concept of a flight from Canada to the USA being " international" is obserd. They are "domestic" flights. An AC 777 from YVR to Tokyo or Toronto
101 Viscount724 : Canada-USA is most definitely "international" and requires a bilateral between the two governments (now Open Skies). Just look at the taxes that appl
102 Post contains links and images ElPistolero : I think it stems from the fact that AC made the most noise objecting to it, including a special website with that most interesting of claims: "The im
103 Post contains images pnwtraveler : You may think of it that way but excuuuuuuse me, NOT! That kind of thinking south of the border is part of the one of the problems in our relationshi
104 jfk777 : MY dear Canadian cousin, you are right that Homeland security and the TSA are a bit OVERBOARD and aggressive in the name of National Security. My mot
105 Fly2yyz : Please go to Terminal 3 at YYZ when SU or VV is checking in and you will see the comparison of Russian/Ukrainian passengers to those who are continui
106 Viscount724 : I've connected in the US between Europe and Canada many times and never had a problem, and with connecting times much less than 3 hours. I agree it's
107 ElPistolero : Alright, I will stop disagreeing about how much Canadians use inconvenient options or not. I will simply ask (and comment on) whether they should have
108 jamincan : My point was simply that a fair chunk of passengers travelling between Canada and overseas destinations can use the US as an intermediary.
109 Post contains links Kaiarahi : They have. You can read it here: http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/policy/bluesky.pdf There's also a raft of information on airport policy here: ht
110 drgmobile : Open Skies is a proper noun that refers to a specific type of bilateral. If that's not what you meant, then don't use the term. It's like saying "I d
111 Kaiarahi : Rubbish. If you google the term, you'll find it refers to a wide range of different things. For example, the 1992 Treaty on Open Skies is a multinati
112 ytz : To be fair, the amount of Canadians travelling to other than DEL or BOM would not really justify additional frequencies for EK/EY/QR. Just saying....
113 ElPistolero : I m not accusing any individual of being racist (but you knew that already). Rather, I m pointing out that the structural rigidity combined with very
114 ElPistolero : Given that tourism from India is increasing at a fair clip, I think one can argue in favor of using greater connectivity within India as an argument
115 ytz : I just want to point out that this does not mean that the majority of traffic is South Asia bound. A good proportion of FRA traffic is bound for EU (
116 ElPistolero : Air Canada's Rovinescu cites Ottawa-Frankfurt as an example. "When you look at who travels on this flight, only 15% are people going between Ottawa an
117 ytz : Perhaps. But it's quite disingenous to centre the discussion around the 15% of pax that are terminating at FRA, insinuating that 85% are bound for ME
118 ElPistolero : How is it disingenuous in the context of maintaining direct long haul flights? I mean, the people travelling to the rest of Europe are just as easily
119 Kaiarahi : It's a policy (i.e. high-level framework), not a recipe. Specific negotiating mandates for each bilateral negotiation are jointly approved by the Min
120 ElPistolero : Again, I m not saying the intentions are racist, but the consequences certainly are. The sorta 'open skies' thing we're doing is great and all, but i
121 drgmobile : Every bilateral is different, but for it to be considered "Open Skies," a certain set of minimum characteristics must be present. An agreement that d
122 longhauler : So what you are saying is that the Open Skies agreement between Canada and the United States is not really Open Skies. As it does not allow full Fift
123 drgmobile : The 2005 Canada - U.S. agreement does allow for open and unlimited passenger and cargo fifth freedom rights, both intermediate and beyond. You may be
124 ytz : Actually, most of these pax then end up with a two-stop solution. That's the problem. Regional balancing of access to international air service. It's
125 ElPistolero : Can't copy quotes, so point by point: 1. Which cities served from FRA are not served by LHR by air? And how many YOW pax get one-stop access to a seco
126 Emirates773ER : This has been one of the most informative threads on airliners for quite some time. Thank you ELPisterlo for making us all aware of the facts about th
127 Viscount724 : Many dozens. FRA/CDG/AMS all have far more directly-served destinations than LHR.
128 ElPistolero : You re probably right, but how many people from Ottawa actually travel to those cities, as opposed to the usual slew of relatively major cities that
129 Viscount724 : Considering all the embassies in YOW and other government traffic I would think some of those destinations served only from FRA/CDG/AMS (including so
130 ElPistolero : Is this going to become about LH and its treatment of Berlin? :P Either which way, using this as a justification is a bit of a stretch given that for
131 pnwtraveler : Not as long as the Canadian government levies so many taxes on air travel. Adding frequencies with a single carrier won't put Canadian costs on par w
132 Post contains links ElPistolero : Agreed. But think of the long game. Additional carriers will bring competition = downward pressure on prices. Over time, it will become apparent that
133 Kaiarahi : There you go again. Yet another generalization. What about the Sikh community in BC? The Tamil community in Toronto? I'll take trade growth over mino
134 Post contains images ElPistolero : Bureaucratic inertia is a well known phenomenon. That said, I think its a perfectly viable explanation of Canada's aviation policy in light of develo
135 Post contains images pnwtraveler : That is the whole core of this argument that is just going to keep going being made. Convenience - despite the fact that all carriers we are talking
136 ElPistolero : Perhaps one day you'll come around to seeing that trade and convenience are not mutually exclusive. Apply this logic equally. Advocating some degree
137 Post contains images yowza : I was wondering when you were going to pop up Flying the old country's flag too I see I wouldn't overestimate this body of travelers. Given Canada's
138 ElPistolero : Agreed, but I don't know many 'political' forums where bureaucrats around. This thread is about aviation and aviation policies, so fair game methinks
139 Post contains images yowza : for the record I wasn't telling you to beat it or anything. That was more for your sanity than anything. YOWza
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...
Any Idea Whether SQ Ever Flew To YYZ posted Sun May 27 2001 05:39:09 by SQFFP
Info Needed On TG's 744 Flights To Sydney! posted Fri Nov 3 2006 07:53:14 by ThaiA345
Any Updates On EK Or QR Svcs To The BeNeLux? posted Sat May 28 2005 13:27:05 by QM001
Any Plans For SQ 001/002 To Go A380? posted Sun May 13 2012 21:44:41 by United Airline
QR To YYZ?! posted Fri Nov 12 2010 01:49:21 by turjo101
Any Word On WN And The 738? posted Thu Nov 4 2010 20:33:21 by rj777
How Are The Loads On EK A380 Flight To YYZ? posted Fri Jul 9 2010 14:47:48 by airplaneguy
Any News On ZA005 And ZA006? posted Mon Mar 22 2010 16:26:24 by hannahpa
Any Impact On The Airports Due To The CA Fires? posted Sun Aug 30 2009 15:28:28 by Contrails15
Any Update On SQ 747s? posted Sun Jun 1 2008 22:01:29 by AF022