Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is AC Starting Singapore?  
User currently offlinericardofg From Spain, joined Feb 2005, 677 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8538 times:

I have no articles or anything to support my theory, except for the fact that there are a number of jobs available on Air Canada's website for Singapore...anyone know anything?

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8519 times:

Such a route would need a connection at, lets say NRT or HKG. I don't think that SQ can take the route all the way like SQ does to LAX and EWR. The planes SQ uses for those direct routes were modified in order to save weight and burn fuel, and I'm not sure the 77W can do so.


次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8496 times:

Quoting ricardofg (Thread starter):
I have no articles or anything to support my theory, except for the fact that there are a number of jobs available on Air Canada's website for Singapore...anyone know anything?

Those are maintenance jobs. They're obviously contracting out some maintenance to someone in SIN due to the shutdown of Aveos.

Excerpt from the "Site Manager" vacancy bulletin:

To represent Air Canada Maintenance & Engineering at the MRO Vendor & provide management oversight of the accomplishment of all Air Canada Airframe maintenance being undertaken at the Vendor.

[Edited 2012-10-07 12:52:59]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8476 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
The planes SQ uses for those direct routes were modified in order to save weight and burn fuel, and I'm not sure the 77W can do so.

Air Canada does have the 777-200LR, which could comfortably handle that mission.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8431 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
The planes SQ uses for those direct routes were modified in order to save weight and burn fuel, and I'm not sure the 77W can do so.

Air Canada does have the 777-200LR, which could comfortably handle that mission.

Highly unlikely SIN is anywhere close to the top of AC's priority list of new destinations. Very small market, as indicated by SQ's withdrawal from the route some years ago. SQ had to rely on low-yield 5th freedom traffic YVR-ICN traffic to fill their flights. SIN also isn't well-located as a connecting hub for Canada. It's too far south. Only works for some peripheral (and small) markets like Malaysia and Indonesia.


User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8392 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
Highly unlikely SIN is anywhere close to the top of AC's priority list of new destinations. Very small market, as indicated by SQ's withdrawal from the route some years ago. SQ had to rely on low-yield 5th freedom traffic YVR-ICN traffic to fill their flights. SIN also isn't well-located as a connecting hub for Canada. It's too far south. Only works for some peripheral (and small) markets like Malaysia and Indonesia.

I very much agree with your assessment. It's more likely that the two new 77W being added to AC fleet next year will probably be placed on routes to China and/or Brazil.


User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2241 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8012 times:

Singapore is a long long way down AC's priority lists. Maybe once full blown Free Trade is signed for the Pacific Rim and it is matured enough to add traffic to the whole region it might happen. But that is a loooong way off.

User currently offlinechrisa330 From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 632 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7921 times:

SASCO in Singapore was chosen to perform MX on the A330/B777 fleets

User currently offlineinfinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7638 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
Highly unlikely SIN is anywhere close to the top of AC's priority list of new destinations. Very small market, as indicated by SQ's withdrawal from the route some years ago. SQ had to rely on low-yield 5th freedom traffic YVR-ICN traffic to fill their flights. SIN also isn't well-located as a connecting hub for Canada. It's too far south. Only works for some peripheral (and small) markets like Malaysia and Indonesia.

I also remember reading about SQ pulling out from Canada due to heavy protectionism imposed on them from the Canadian government. Is there any truth in that?

On the main topic, I doubt there would be much O&D traffic ffrom Canada to SIN and AC doesn't have a strong network within Southeast Asia or Asia in general for connecting passengers, but I might be wrong here.

Does anyone here know about AC's presence in Asia in general? I imagine they'd have decent links to North Asia but nothing much in the South or Southeast


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7560 times:

Quoting infinit (Reply 8):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
Highly unlikely SIN is anywhere close to the top of AC's priority list of new destinations. Very small market, as indicated by SQ's withdrawal from the route some years ago. SQ had to rely on low-yield 5th freedom traffic YVR-ICN traffic to fill their flights. SIN also isn't well-located as a connecting hub for Canada. It's too far south. Only works for some peripheral (and small) markets like Malaysia and Indonesia.

I also remember reading about SQ pulling out from Canada due to heavy protectionism imposed on them from the Canadian government. Is there any truth in that?

This is the SQ press release announcing the end of YVR service effective April 2009. They blamed it on the global economic downturn.
http://www.singaporeair.com/jsp/cms/...UK/press_release_news/ne090214.jsp


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25358 posts, RR: 49
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7482 times:

Back in the day, Air Canada did serve Singapore.

Recall it was - L-1011 YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7431 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
Back in the day, Air Canada did serve Singapore.

Recall it was - L-1011 YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN.

Yes, L-1011-500. It started January 15, 1985. Following from AC's special 75th anniversary history website.
http://75.aircanada.com/timeline/198...ting-off-on-the-longest-route-yet/

If memory correct AC had problems with the UK authorities who complained they were carrying too much 5th freedom traffic. Hardly anyone would fly all the way YYZ-SIN so by the time it got to SIN it was almost all 5th freedom, which is rarely very high-yielding. Same reason why SQ had problems on their YVR route as it had to rely on ICN-YVR 5th freedom traffic and compete with both KE and AC on that sector.


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9169 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7183 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
Highly unlikely SIN is anywhere close to the top of AC's priority list of new destinations. Very small market, as indicated by SQ's withdrawal from the route some years ago. SQ had to rely on low-yield 5th freedom traffic YVR-ICN traffic to fill their flights. SIN also isn't well-located as a connecting hub for Canada. It's too far south. Only works for some peripheral (and small) markets like Malaysia and Indonesia.

Strange that CX does so well on the YVR market and not SQ. CX offers double daily while SQ can't even do a few times a week! Why is that?


User currently offlineCoal From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6505 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 12):
Strange that CX does so well on the YVR market and not SQ. CX offers double daily while SQ can't even do a few times a week! Why is that?

Because half of HK, and really, Guangdong, live in Vancouver. Also, it is a non-stop service, whereas YVR was one-stop for SQ.

Cheers
Coal



Nxt Flts: VA SYD-CBR-SYD | QF SYD-DFW | AA DFW-TLH-MIA-DFW | QF DFW-SYD
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5814 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Air Canada does have the 777-200LR, which could comfortably handle that mission.

That would comfortably make them even less profitable, so it has all the hallmarks of being true.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 12):
Strange that CX does so well on the YVR market and not SQ. CX offers double daily while SQ can't even do a few times a week! Why is that?

Not uncommon for people to call Vancouver Hongcouver, a lot of people went to Canada before the British handover, if I recall correctly if you invested something like $250,000 they would give you residency, people from HKG bought property for over that, it was much cheaper than HKG. The other factor is the good connections from the YVR flights to other regional destinations.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5495 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 12):
Strange that CX does so well on the YVR market and not SQ. CX offers double daily while SQ can't even do a few times a week! Why is that?

As mentioned previously, geography is a big factor. SIN is too far south to make a good connecting hub for Canada, and it's too far to operate nonstop economically. Even the few passengers that might use SIN to connect to places like KUL/JKT or southern India etc., can do it much more conveniently with one stop rather than two. Apart from the huge HKG immigrant community in YVR, HKG is also a good connecting point to/from mainland China and MNL, both major markets for Canada.

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
Quoting United Airline (Reply 12):
Strange that CX does so well on the YVR market and not SQ. CX offers double daily while SQ can't even do a few times a week! Why is that?

Not uncommon for people to call Vancouver Hongcouver, a lot of people went to Canada before the British handover, if I recall correctly if you invested something like $250,000 they would give you residency, people from HKG bought property for over that, it was much cheaper than HKG. The other factor is the good connections from the YVR flights to other regional destinations.

Visit the Vancouver suburb of Richmond (where YVR airport is located) and you will feel like you are in HKG. There are more signs in Chinese than English.


User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8114 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4718 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
Back in the day, Air Canada did serve Singapore. Recall it was - L-1011 YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN.

Quite right - remember it well. Both L1011s and 747s flew this route.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Udo K. Haafke
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Udo K. Haafke




fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8114 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4719 times:

And they even publicised the flight number in the special livery on this 747 Classic.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marc Hasenbein




fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4571 times:

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 16):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
Back in the day, Air Canada did serve Singapore. Recall it was - L-1011 YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN.

Quite right - remember it well. Both L1011s and 747s flew this route.

The "Singapore 85" decal on the tail doesn't necessarily mean those specific aircraft operated to SIN. Even the Gimli Glider had that decal at the time.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ted Quackenbush



User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
This is the SQ press release announcing the end of YVR service effective April 2009. They blamed it on the global economic downturn.

Didn't that have something to do with Canada only allowing 3 weekly frequency via Korea?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
Very small market, as indicated by SQ's withdrawal from the route some years ago. SQ had to rely on low-yield 5th freedom traffic YVR-ICN traffic to fill their flights. SIN

My understanding is that SQ was given direct rights, but only 3 weekly for its one-stop through Korea, and that it was lobbying for daily frequency on that route. Bit strange, I think, if it was low yielding. If there is any airline in the world that can charge a premium even on 5th freedoms, its probably SQ.

Either which way, my understanding was that SQ dropped it partly because it was a 3 weekly service (at least according to the BC MPP who appeared at the Senate), and that they would have kept it if they could have gone daily through Korea.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3828 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 19):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
Very small market, as indicated by SQ's withdrawal from the route some years ago. SQ had to rely on low-yield 5th freedom traffic YVR-ICN traffic to fill their flights. SIN

My understanding is that SQ was given direct rights, but only 3 weekly for its one-stop through Korea, and that it was lobbying for daily frequency on that route. Bit strange, I think, if it was low yielding. If there is any airline in the world that can charge a premium even on 5th freedoms, its probably SQ.

Either which way, my understanding was that SQ dropped it partly because it was a 3 weekly service (at least according to the BC MPP who appeared at the Senate), and that they would have kept it if they could have gone daily through Korea.

Also have to consider the volume of Canada-SIN traffic. If it's almost all 5th freedom as I believe it was, few governments are going to grant that kind of frequency, especially when both AC and KE are operating daily on Canada-ICN. Currently AC daily YVR-ICN and KE 10 x week total (5 each YVR-ICN and YYZ-ICN).

Does SIN-Korea bilateral give SQ daily 5th freedom rights on ICN-YVR?


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3642 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
Does SIN-Korea bilateral give SQ daily 5th freedom rights on ICN-YVR?

No idea. But they do allow SQ SFO daily, so I don't think they're against it. The BC MPP was pretty clear that it was a Canada issue (he linked it to AC losing interest in SIN).

Either which way, its not quite clear that SQ was unhappy with YVR in general - maybe was just unhappy about the 3 weekly frequencies that made it uneconomical. If they were allowed daily, they might have still been there. Whether they should be allowed daily - I won't go there on this thread. I think my views are well known enough. The only real question is whether the good folk of the west coast are better off without SQ serving them.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3478 times:

Quoting infinit (Reply 8):
I also remember reading about SQ pulling out from Canada due to heavy protectionism imposed on them from the Canadian government. Is there any truth in that?

There isn't limits on frequency but since there is a transit point needed AC didn't want a daily from any transit point and specified specific ones and ICN isn't one of them.

The same issue applied when AC did YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN, IIRC Singapore didn't allow AC to use VIE as a transit point on this route.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
Such a route would need a connection at, lets say NRT or HKG. I don't think that SQ can take the route all the way like SQ does to LAX and EWR. The planes SQ uses for those direct routes were modified in order to save weight and burn fuel, and I'm not sure the 77W can do so.

If anything it would be a 77L non-stop.

Also SQ uses an all business class A345 on these routes, remember SIN-EWR/LAX are 18+ hours and I really don't know a lot of people who would willingly do that flight in Y.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9169 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3340 times:

Quoting Coal (Reply 13):
Because half of HK, and really, Guangdong, live in Vancouver. Also, it is a non-stop service, whereas YVR was one-stop for SQ

From what I heard there are more Hong Kong people in vancouver than people from Canton

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
Not uncommon for people to call Vancouver Hongcouver, a lot of people went to Canada before the British handover, if I recall correctly if you invested something like $250,000 they would give you residency, people from HKG bought property for over that, it was much cheaper than HKG. The other factor is the good connections from the YVR flights to other regional destinations.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 15):
As mentioned previously, geography is a big factor. SIN is too far south to make a good connecting hub for Canada, and it's too far to operate nonstop economically. Even the few passengers that might use SIN to connect to places like KUL/JKT or southern India etc., can do it much more conveniently with one stop rather than two. Apart from the huge HKG immigrant community in YVR, HKG is also a good connecting point to/from mainland China and MNL, both major markets for Canada.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 15):
Visit the Vancouver suburb of Richmond (where YVR airport is located) and you will feel like you are in HKG. There are more signs in Chinese than English.

Oh yes. Lots of Hong Kong people in vancouver.

Fair enough


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4980 posts, RR: 42
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 22):
There isn't limits on frequency but since there is a transit point needed AC didn't want a daily from any transit point and specified specific ones and ICN isn't one of them.

These rules are dictated by the Canadian Government, not AC. Some feel the government is against AC, some feel they are favoured ... I think it's a wash.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 22):
The same issue applied when AC did YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN, IIRC Singapore didn't allow AC to use VIE as a transit point on this route.

This is not correct.

This thread explains it well:

*rumor* Info - Any Info On SQ And QR To YYZ? (by A6EGA Aug 9 2012 in Civil Aviation)

However, it invariably ended up in a discussion about Emirati air carriers, as most of these threads do.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 24):

In what way is the Government against AC? ACPPA? I don't recall them doing anything dramatic against AC - though they have taken sides on labor issues. The current stance on protecting incumbents (think the handling of ET - 2 frequencies et al) is definitely more beneficial for the largest incumbent -AC- than it is for other carriers. Whether policies should be this skewed towards protecting incumbents... is a topic for another day.

That said, at the recent Senate hearings, at least two witnesses (maybe more) and one Senator were critical of the role AC played in the entry of foreign airlines to Canada. SQ was the example the BC MLA used - and he cited AC directly in that one.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4980 posts, RR: 42
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3074 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 25):
In what way is the Government against AC? ACPPA?


Like I said ... these threads usually drift.

That has nothing at all to do with AC and SIN. If you wish however, to start another thread on the topic of Canada's Government and AC, I will certainly participate.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3095 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 26):
If you wish however, to start another thread on the topic of Canada's Government and AC, I will certainly participate.

...and if it's no trouble,please start by giving it a clear title so that I know to avoid it. The constant thread drifts ruin what can be very interesting topics.

[Edited 2012-10-09 09:27:05]

User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3005 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 24):
These rules are dictated by the Canadian Government, not AC. Some feel the government is against AC, some feel they are favoured ... I think it's a wash.

My mistake. I know better and that is what you get for posting at midnight when jet-lagged.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 24):
This thread explains it well:

*rumor* Info - Any Info On SQ And QR To YYZ? (by A6EGA Aug 9 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Thank you for clearing that up.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 25):
That said, at the recent Senate hearings, at least two witnesses (maybe more) and one Senator were critical of the role AC played in the entry of foreign airlines to Canada. SQ was the example the BC MLA used - and he cited AC directly in that one.

Show a link to that claim.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 25):
In what way is the Government against AC? ACPPA? I don't recall them doing anything dramatic against AC - though they have taken sides on labor issues.

Well under the ACPPA AC has to be HQ'ed in YUL when it makes perfect sense that it should be HQ'ed in YYZ. Also it requires there always be service in French (which I agree with) however if they have to do it then all other airlines in Canada should have to as well.

These costs are not the solution to bigger issues at AC but they do contribute as everything matters.

Regarding Labour issues its something this government should have kept their butts out of! I would expect the NDP to meddle in the affairs of private corporations and not the conservatives.
The only exception to this is if a corporation is breaking a law then they should be tried in court.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 25):
The current stance on protecting incumbents (think the handling of ET - 2 frequencies et al) is definitely more beneficial for the largest incumbent -AC- than it is for other carriers. Whether policies should be this skewed towards protecting incumbents... is a topic for another day.

You complaints should be focused on the federal government who makes these rules and not AC. Saying that if you feel that AC's management is the reason for all of this then boycott them.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2993 times:

Agreed. To a certain extent.

That said, it is difficult to discuss the entry of certain airlines into Canada without referring to available information on the issue. Without trying to go off-topic, the most recent thing I read about SQ and Canada was from the senate hearings over the past two years. There isn't much else out there, beyond anecdotal and often unsubstantiated info put up by a.net contributors.

If referring to what the BC MLA had to say about SQ marks a drift off-topic... well how do you discuss this topic? Ultimately, non-EU/US airlines' decisions to enter Canada are dictated by government fiat, not the airline's strategy, merits or strengths. The latter are all irrelevant - and acknowledging them as such requires acknowledging that SQ coming to Canada depends almost entirely on the government and those who inform its policies (which includes local incumbents).

I m sure this thread would be very interesting without acknowledging these realities, but it wouldnt have much basis in reality. At the end of the day, here is what we know: Will SQ come back to Canada on Canada's terms? No( what with them leaving). Will Canada accept SQ requests? Firm no. Is there anything left to discuss?


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2951 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 28):

Can't post links on my phone, so you ll have to google the following:

Rob Howard (BC Provincial Air Lead)
Ambrish Chandra (U of Toronto economist)
Senator Mercer (AC/Duncan Dee hearing).
Michael Trethaway (Intervistas)

I should issue a mea culpa. Rob Howard talks about SQ but doesn't link it to AC (he does link AC to that 'other' airline). Trethaway, of intervistas, provides his own explanation of SQ and Canada which I will copy and paste when I get home.

That's three witnesses and one senator (relying on memory mostly). There may be others. The hearings resumed on 25 September.


User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2241 posts, RR: 12
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 26):
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 25):
In what way is the Government against AC? ACPPA?


Like I said ... these threads usually drift.

That has nothing at all to do with AC and SIN. If you wish however, to start another thread on the topic of Canada's Government and AC, I will certainly participate.

The old addage of, if you repeat something enough times it begins to be true seems to be the mantra of this round and round argument. Like the song on Southpark with editorial license, Blame "Air" Canada.

The Canadian Government has a policy of strongly favouring any direct service over any connecting service. That is government policy nothing to do with AC or protecting AC. It was started when there were two strong Canadian carriers, Air Canada and CPAir. The connecting option was only used when it allow service to start on a new route, when a route wasn't already covered by a direct carrier, and as a way of increasing travel on specific routes for specific reasons. With direct service by two carriers, plus a bunch of connecting options such as Cathay, already on the route, there clearly is no need for another carrier a la SIN. Adds nothing.

There are a bazillion quotes on the increased benefits of direct travel having a much more profound impact on economics and travel volume over connecting flights. But I am simply tired of this circular argument that goes round and round to go to any effort.

AC has always gone on record as wanting less government restrictions on routes and open competition. For example they are in favour of 5th Freedom rights into the US for airlines on both sides of the border. The biggest proof of the government not favouring AC is the people who drive hours to fly out of US Airports because of the taxes imposed by the Canadian government is so high. If AC was such a priority as claimed taxes would be moved to parity so that AC and other carriers would lose less business to the lower taxed neighbouring US cities.

[Edited 2012-10-09 10:26:12]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2729 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 21):
The only real question is whether the good folk of the west coast are better off without SQ serving them.

I expect SQ's reasons for dropping YVR were as they stated, based on uneconomic operations following the global financial crisis and, although they don't mention it, obviously also their need to rely too heavily on low-yield 5th freedom traffic, which seems contrary to SQ's high-cost type of service. YVR-ICN (and YVR in general for all routes) isn't a big market for premium class traffic.

You will also recall that another carrier, MH, with very similar service to SQ on a route too long for nonstop operations and minimal O&D demand, pulled out of YVR in 1999 after about 5 years service due to uneconomic operations. Their 5th freedom stop was TPE.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Yu



User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):
I expect SQ's reasons for dropping YVR were as they stated, based on uneconomic operations following the global financial crisis and, although they don't mention it, obviously also their need to rely too heavily on low-yield 5th freedom traffic, which seems contrary to SQ's high-cost type of service. YVR-ICN (and YVR in general for all routes) isn't a big market for premium class traffic.

...which provides an interesting contrast with Michael Trethaway's comment on the subject in front of the Senate:

"Some of you may have heard about Singapore Airlines. Singapore Airlines used to fly into both Vancouver and Toronto. That is when Air Canada used to fly there. Air Canada decided it did not want to fly there anymore, so it pressured the government to cancel the treaty.

Singapore still wanted to fly, so I do not understand this. It is Air Canada's right, in its commercial interest, to choose not to fly anywhere. I would discourage the government ever to pressure Air Canada to fly anywhere it did not want to; it is a commercial decision. However, if Air Canada makes the commercial decision not to do that, why does the foreign airline now have to leave and tourism suffer right away?

When we cancelled the treaty with Singapore, what was left in place is that Singaporeans were flying via London into Canada, because you could not fly non-stop; you had to come one way or another. They were only allowed to fly three times a week to Vancouver.

That does not work. Today airlines need to have daily service. You cannot attract the business travellers if you do not have a daily service. The meeting got done on Tuesday, a couple of days early, but I have to hang around until Thursday until the next flight. If it is only three times a week, you have to wait one or two days or maybe you will be lucky on the day you want to go. You cannot sell business tickets that way. It has to be daily service. Singapore Airlines cancelled that service.

They tried to keep it in place. Here is the interesting thing. They were operating with 90 per cent load factors. Ninety per cent of the seats on average were full, which means most of the flights were going out completely full. For some flights, like December 25, you cannot get people into those seats except airline employees flying on passes.

When some financial pressures came, Singapore Airlines had to decide what to do. It had to cut someplace. We cannot make Canada work, so cut it. Some people said it cut the service because of the economic conditions at the time. It cut the service because it could not make three-times-a-week service work.

In my view, Singapore Airlines is highly likely to return to this market if we give it the right to fly daily. I suspect it would eventually increase that to double daily, and that would be a big tourism benefit to Canada. Singapore Airlines will bring people in from places like India. Canada has a huge population of people who have family and other connections in India. They would come in here."

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

Its your word against his. I'm sorta inclined to take his word by virtue of his job background, what with people paying him good money to study these things. I don't think he'd risk his reputation by making such statements not only in public, but in front of the Senate.

And then theres the BC Provincial lead:

"Singapore Airlines flew into YVR for about 20 years. They came three days a week. For them, it just did not make sense. It was kind of like operating a hotel three days a week and there were not enough options for their business travellers. They wanted to come daily. They pursued this with their federal government for a few years. They got turned down, and eventually tired of asking, they left. They pulled their service. Now I guess that traffic comes either through San Francisco or Los Angeles, but it is big loss to the community."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/411/TRCM/49434-E.HTM

Could it be that these people actually know more about it than you and I?

But yes, I suppose I agree with you that it was down to economics. What we disagree on is the role that government policies played in making the route uneconomical.

I'll repeat a line from Trethaway's analysis:

"Some people said it cut the service because of the economic conditions at the time. It cut the service because it could not make three-times-a-week service work."

"In my view, Singapore Airlines is highly likely to return to this market if we give it the right to fly daily."

Its a pretty blunt assessment and to be quite honest, it cuts right through the smoke and mirrors game that is being played out here. Bit disingenuous to argue SQ couldn't make it work without acknowledging that the government did its damndest to make it very difficult for SQ.

In fact, by the very logic reiterated here several times over, by virtue of flying to Canada for over 20 years, SQ should have earned its daily frequency by 2009. Apparently not. Wonder why. Who would have been affected adversely by it? Lets face it - theres only one or two actors who would suffer any consequences, and even that would have been negligible given the rise of East/South East Asia as an aviation market.

I'll refrain from commenting on the rest with the aim of keeping this topic on topic.

I suppose someone will tell me that what is written above is not on-topic. Sadly, that is about the entirety of tangible information we have on this issue. Looking forward to reading information of similar caliber.

[Edited 2012-10-09 15:52:22]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2574 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 33):
When we cancelled the treaty with Singapore, what was left in place is that Singaporeans were flying via London into Canada, because you could not fly non-stop; you had to come one way or another. They were only allowed to fly three times a week to Vancouver.

That does not work. Today airlines need to have daily service.

I would just point out that SQ codeshares with AC on several daily connections SIN-Canada via both LHR and FRA. That's probably much more profitable for them than flying themselves since they would by flying with most of the premium seats empty.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 33):
Singapore Airlines will bring people in from places like India.

He's overlooking that India-SIN-ICN-YVR is much further (roughly 1500 to 2500 nm) than other logical routings. And a 2-stop service isn't competitive with so many 1-stop options. SQ would have to offer even lower fares to convince passengers to take a routing like that involves several hours additional travel. Doesn't sound very economic, and again very llittle premium traffic. I just can't see SQ fighting for access to markets like that. And if they want to fly nonstop Canada-SIN the new bilateral permits them to do that daily, or several times daily, from anywhere in Canada.

Examples (using DEL because that's by far the largest Canada-India market):

YVR-PEK-DEL 6657 nm
YVR-ICN-DEL 6955 nm
YVR-PVG-DEL 7200 nm
YVR-NRT-DEL 7258 nm
YVR-HKG-DEL 7580 nm
YVR-AMS-DEL 7617 nm
YVR-FRA-DEL 7679 nm
YVR-LHR-DEL 7746 nm

YVR-ICN-SIN-DEL 9172 nm (18% to 38% further than other 1-stop options)

If SQ's reason for dropping YVR was because they couldn't operate daily, why didn't they say so in their press release? You would think they would make a big issue of that to obtain political support, which gives me the impression that it wasn't one of their top priorities at the time.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2526 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34):
That's probably much more profitable for them

Your word against Trethaway's.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34):
since they would by flying with most of the premium seats empty.

A conclusion based on.... what exactly? They couldn't sell premium ticket 3 weekly, but Trethaway and Howard think they could do it on a daily basis. In their own words.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34):
He's overlooking that India-SIN-ICN-YVR is much further (roughly 1500 to 2500 nm) than other logical routings. And a 2-stop service isn't competitive with so many 1-stop options.

I've read elsewhere on this forum that SQ does pretty well carrying Indians to SFO and LAX. SFO is routed through ICN. Is LAX direct? (I think it goes through NRT but I may be wrong). SQ has a very strong brand in India and has been a major player on the West Coast - India traffic for decades. In fact, the thread I am thinking of on a.net was the one comparing CX and SQ schedules - how SQ offered better India-West Coast connections than CX. Can't find it though.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34):
I just can't see SQ fighting for access to markets like that.

Which explains their attempts to go daily over several years.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34):
If SQ's reason for dropping YVR was because they couldn't operate daily, why didn't they say so in their press release? You would think they would make a big issue of that to obtain political support, which gives me the impression that it wasn't one of their top priorities at the time.

After 20 years of serving Canada and not getting daily access after lobbying for several years, they shut shop. What would issuing a press release achieve, apart from agonizing the jingoistic crowd in the Government (and here on a.net)? Would it change anything? SQ's quiet and diginified withdrawal - no accusations of anything, simple acceptance of reality, is very much in keeping with their modus operandi, no?

I think its a bit disingenuous to infer that Trethaway and Howard don't know what they're talking about simply because SQ didn't engage in some (the airline that cannot be named)-type PR antics.

Either which way, you are entitled to believe what you want to. I've just put out some informed opinions out there. At the end of the day, however, the question remains. Are Canadians better off without SQ? As a general rule, I tend to prefer more choice to less choice, but I have come to understand that many of my compatriots don't 'need' or even like the idea of choice. Reading some of the comments above, you would think they would demand the cessation of more than one airline flying any route, simply on the basis that it is enough. Prices, quality of service, value-for-money ...we're Canadian. We don't think like that. Read the OECD report today?


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4980 posts, RR: 42
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2475 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 33):
Could it be that these people actually know more about it than you and I?

Except that you and I see several inaccuracies in those diatribes.

For example:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 33):
Some of you may have heard about Singapore Airlines. Singapore Airlines used to fly into both Vancouver and Toronto. That is when Air Canada used to fly there. Air Canada decided it did not want to fly there anymore, so it pressured the government to cancel the treaty.

The treaty still exists and has not changed in the 25 odd years that Singapore Airlines flew to Canada. Air Canada had nothing to do with "canceling of the treaty", as it didn't change.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 33):
When we cancelled the treaty with Singapore, what was left in place is that Singaporeans were flying via London into Canada, because you could not fly non-stop; you had to come one way or another. They were only allowed to fly three times a week to Vancouver.

We didn't cancel the treaty. SQ could have flown to YVR daily, twice daily, a dozen times daily under the existing treaty! And they still can. And ... Singaporeans could never fly non-stop to YVR, either three times a week, or daily.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 33):

"In my view, Singapore Airlines is highly likely to return to this market if we give it the right to fly daily."

Ditto.

These inaccuracies being the case therefore, and the main force of his argument is that SQ can not fly daily (when they can), why would anyone believe his word?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 35):
A conclusion based on.... what exactly? They couldn't sell premium ticket 3 weekly, but Trethaway and Howard think they could do it on a daily basis. In their own words.

Are Trethaway and Howard (and you) not aware that the existing bilateral agreement between Canada and Singapore allows for unlimited access between the two countries. Meaning right now, as we speak SQ could fly daily to YVR and daily to YYZ.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4980 posts, RR: 42
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2430 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 35):
SQ's quiet and diginified withdrawal - no accusations of anything, simple acceptance of reality, is very much in keeping with their modus operandi, no?

What accusations could they make?

They already have unlimited access to Canada, as often as they want, to anywhere in Canada from Singapore. In fact "that other airline we are not talking about" could only dream of such access!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2427 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 35):
SQ has a very strong brand in India and has been a major player on the West Coast - India traffic for decades

But they still have to offer competitive fares, and India is one of the most price-sensitive markets, and also very seasonal. Making that kind of 6th freedom traffic a priority on a route that's not very direct and involves 2 stops doesn't seem to fit SQ's usual strategy. The U.S.market is different as there's a lot of high yield business traffic between India and SFO etc. due to the many Indian companies involved in high-tech industries.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 35):
n fact, the thread I am thinking of on a.net was the one comparing CX and SQ schedules - how SQ offered better India-West Coast connections than CX. Can't find it though.

I think most Canada-India traffic is via the Atlantic. Would be interesting to know how the traffic is distributed. Looking at some random dates in November the lowest fares YVR-DEL-YVR are on the mainland Chinese carriers.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38):
But they still have to offer competitive fares, and India is one of the most price-sensitive markets, and also very seasonal.

Do they? Don't they? I don't know what kind of fares they're offering. They don't seem to be having a problem with filling up Indians on their West Coast flights.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38):
I think most Canada-India traffic is via the Atlantic.

I know Korean picks up some traffic. JAL and CX don't have friendly schedules. Not really sure who else is plying that route.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38):
Looking at some random dates in November the lowest fares YVR-DEL-YVR are on the mainland Chinese carriers.

Indians travelling on Chinese carriers...   .

Sorry, I personally would love to know how they're doing, but Chinese carriers and Indians...thats got to be an interesting dynamic aboard those planes.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 36):

Ditto.

These inaccuracies being the case therefore, and the main force of his argument is that SQ can not fly daily (when they can), why would anyone believe his word?

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think its abundantly clear, particularly in the context of this thread, that he is referring to the service via ICN. I think its common enough knowledge that SQ can fly direct to Canada as has been noted above by myself and others (not sure what the frequency allowed is, but lets go with twice daily), but they want the interim stop on the way.

I suspect you knew that already.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 36):

The treaty still exists and has not changed in the 25 odd years that Singapore Airlines flew to Canada. Air Canada had nothing to do with "canceling of the treaty", as it didn't change.

It didn't change in 25 years? Is SQ still allowed to fly to Toronto via <acronym title=" london="" heathrow="" egll="" united="" kingdom="">LHR?

Before going around accusing others of inaccuracy, check your own "facts".

My own understanding is that the treaty was either cancelled or extensively revised a while back. Then a new/revised treaty was signed in the mid-2000s that gave SQ relatively liberal rights for SIN-CAN routes with no stopovers (with SIN-ICN-YVR being a 3 weekly).



Canada And Singapore Sign A Bilateral ASA (by Singapore_Air Nov 7 2007 in Civil Aviation)

In any event, does anyone have the text of the Singapore-Canada bilateral? The document isn't available on the Canadian Government's own Treaty website.


[Edited 2012-10-09 18:17:59]

[Edited 2012-10-09 18:23:17]

[Edited 2012-10-09 18:25:33]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2346 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39):
Quoting longhauler (Reply 36):

The treaty still exists and has not changed in the 25 odd years that Singapore Airlines flew to Canada. Air Canada had nothing to do with "canceling of the treaty", as it didn't change.

It didn't change in 25 years? Is SQ still allowed to fly to YYZ via LHR?

Before going around accusing others of inaccuracy, check your own "facts".

My own understanding is that the treaty was either cancelled or extensively revised a while back. Then a new treaty was signed in the mid-2000s that gave SQ rights for SIN-CAN routes with no stopovers (with SIN-ICN-YVR being a 3 weekly).

New bilateral was agreed in 2007. Details of such things as 5th freedom rights etc. are shown as "confidential" for now, although it permits any number of airlines from both countries to operate an unlimited number of NONSTOP flights between anywhere in Canada and SIN, which I can't see happening anytime soon.

If the Singapore government wasn't happy with what they negotiated, why did they agree?


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4980 posts, RR: 42
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2330 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39):
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think its abundantly clear, particularly in the context of this thread, that he is referring to the service via ICN.

Yes, we know that. He knows that. SQ knows that ... but they don't wont Joe-Public looking from the outside to know that. It was almost like trying to mislead the public (and the Government). In my opinion they want the public to be sorry for them, and allow them the already granted daily rights ... then quietly state they meant Fifth freedom rights all along.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39):
Before going around accusing others of inaccuracy, check your own "facts".

You mean like this one?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39):

It didn't change in 25 years? Is SQ still allowed to fly to LHR?

SQ never flew from LHR to Canada ... you mean that "fact"?

What has not changed in 25 years is that ICN (or anywhere) was and still is allowed as a Fifth Freedom stop. It is limited by number of seats, and with the aircraft SQ was using that meant three times a week. When AC used those rights 25 years ago, it mean 4 times a week with either the L1011-500 or the B747-200 Combi with a capped load. When asked for increased rights, Singapore declined. As has now Canada.

That has not changed and still exists. SQ used those rights to stop at ICN, AC used those rights to stop at LHR and BOM. Since then, the treaty has become MORE liberalized, in that full unlimited access between Canada and Singapore is now allowed.

I have no problem being corrected and graciously accept any "facts" I stated to be untrue. But ... I am left wondering which facts you claim I stated are incorrect.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2308 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 40):
Details of such things as 5th freedom rights etc. are shown as "confidential" for now,

5 years later, its still confidential? A matter of national security, no doubt!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 40):
If the Singapore government wasn't happy with what they negotiated, why did they agree?

I don't care much for this line of argument. Its like asking why ET accepted two weekly frequencies. The simple response is: what was the other option - turning it down completely? SIN-ICN-YVR was, as we now know, protected in the treaty in its limited form (it ended up operating until 2009). I suspect they opted simply to maintain status quo since it was obvious to them (as it is becoming obvious to everyone now) that negotiating with Canada for more frequency is an exercise in futility if AC is not interested in flying to your country (well, that is pretty much what it boils down to - where AC goes, daily frequencies follow. Where they don't, we get thise 1970's nonsense about proving demand).


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2240 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 41):
In my opinion they want the public to be sorry for them, and allow them the already granted daily rights

In other words, Rob Howard, an elected member of the provincial legislative assembly, and Michael Trethaway, president of InterVistas Canada, whose clients include Canadian airlines, are both actually simple agents for SQ, trying to stir up public sympathy for SQ. This might have been credible if SQ was trying to come back to Canada. Frankly, I don't think they are. This type of conspiracy theory thinking....

I think you'll find that the point they are both trying to make is that more flights = better for Canada in general. Thats the overarching theme in their testimonies. These are mere snippets in the larger context. I don't think Joe Public cares about which airline he is flying from A -> B, as long as it offers a good value for money. I don't think they care about fifth or sixth freedoms. Nor should they. As consumers, they have the right to spend their money how they see fit, and the presence of ample choice helps them do precisely that. I'm not a fan of government's deliberately restricting that choice.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 41):
When asked for increased rights, Singapore declined. As has now Canada.

Interesting. Where is this information available?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 41):
SQ never flew from LHR to Canada ... you mean that "fact"?

Yeah, my bad. I just realised he said 'Singaporeans', not SQ. SIngaporeans apparently had to fly through London once the treaty was allegedly cancelled. Apparently SQ flew AMS-YYZ? Or VIE-YYZ? (According to the posts on a.net in 2001 - I can only open the cached version on google titled SQ at YYZ).

Canada apparently cancelled the fifth freedom rights for AMS-YYZ? As one of the posters (a Canadian by the name of Guy Betsy 1 ) so succinctly puts it:

"It WAS Air Canada who was nudging the Canadian government to cancel SQ's traffic rights to Toronto. It wasn't so much as the full payload SQ was carrying to YYZ but rather AC was complaining that SQ should only carry passengers from SIN and not pickup passengers from VIE and AMS. They claim that SQ was pilfering possible passengers who could have otherwise travelled on Air Canada. Interesting fact then was that neither AMS or VIE were served by ANY scheduled Canadian carrier!

AC withdrew from BOM/SIN on its own accord. As usual, yield came to light and AC decided that even though its flights were full between LHR/BOM/SIN, it was not making enough money on the route and axed it. So by being a sore loser, it didn't want SQ enjoying glory status when it announced its first Transatlantic flights to YYZ then. It was actually in the early 90's!

SQ decided that it was not feasible to fly to YYZ without picking any passengers enroute when the Canadian government cancelled their 5th Freedom rights for VIE and AMS."

That would be the "fact" I seem to be misunderstanding you on. Cancelling 5th freedoms on the route does mark a significant change in the treaty, no?

Theres's also several posts like this one from good old Yyz 17 about no bilateral in 2001. What gives?


"Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15638 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted Wed Oct 31 2001 17:15:51 your local time (10 years 11 months 1 week ago) and read 488 times:

Canada & SIN have no bilateral agreement regarding air traffic rights."

Or this:

"Polaris From Canada, joined Feb 2000, 1106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted Wed Oct 31 2001 10:39:33 your local time (10 years 11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 516 times:

You know, to me, the "politics" of aviation is always fascinating. The more information that comes to light the better!

...and now, past competitors operate the route together.

As it stands now, because of all this, there is no bilateral between Singapore and Canada."

Where did this idea of no bilateral existing come from? It definitely isn't consistent with your statement.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 43):
AC withdrew from BOM/SIN on its own accord. As usual, yield came to light and AC decided that even though its flights were full between LHR/BOM/SIN, it was not making enough money on the route and axed it.

I also have a recollection that AC was coming under some pressure from the British government for carrying too much 5th freedom traffic beyond LHR, no doubt prompted by complaints from BA.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4980 posts, RR: 42
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2170 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 43):
Frankly, I don't think they are. This type of conspiracy theory thinking....

I agree, I was really only playing the Devil's Advocate. As they kept saying that there were no daily rights, when everyone knew there were, one had to wonder ... were they being deliberately misleading?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 43):

Interesting. Where is this information available?

As I stated on previous threads, this is one of the advantages of "being there" at the time it occurred. Namely AC doing well on the LHR-BOM-SIN route wanted increased access above the stated seat limit. It was turned down. I wont review the chain of events again, as it was laid out in this thread:
*rumor* Info - Any Info On SQ And QR To YYZ? (by A6EGA Aug 9 2012 in Civil Aviation)

But it has always been my opinion that the reason the AMS/VIE-YYZ flights were turned down was due to the actions of the Singaporeans on the LHR-BOM-SIN route, which at the time had only recently been shortened to LHR-BOM.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 43):
That would be the "fact" I seem to be misunderstanding you on. Cancelling 5th freedoms on the route does mark a significant change in the treaty, no?

Those Fifth Freedom rights stand, as they did in 1985, and have not changed. In fact they stood unchanged right until SQ stopped flying to Canada in 2009. SQ or more correctly Singapore could have picked any en-route city to which they already had rights and stopped on a flight from Singapore to Canada. SQ was already currently using the rights to stop at ICN, they wanted further rights to stop in AMS/VIE. Those increased rights were declined, as were the increase of capacity for AC on the LHR-BOM-SIN route.

What I can not recall, is if SQ ever actually did fly to YYZ from Europe, or were the rights declined before they started.
GuyBesty states they did start, but I don't think they ever did, or if they did, it was for less than a month.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 43):
Canada & SIN have no bilateral agreement regarding air traffic rights
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 43):
As it stands now, because of all this, there is no bilateral between Singapore and Canada

Clearly these two quotes are mistaken, as SQ has flown from SIN to Canada from 1985 to 2009. There must have been a bilateral agreement. Showing on the Canadian Government website shows an existing treaty amended in 2007 to the present ... so one has to think there has been a treaty from 1985 to the present. The 2007 amendment liberalised the treaty to unlimited flights between the two countries.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4980 posts, RR: 42
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2163 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 44):
I also have a recollection that AC was coming under some pressure from the British government for carrying too much 5th freedom traffic beyond LHR, no doubt prompted by complaints from BA.

This is plausible, as AC was carrying a lot of passengers out of LHR to France, Germany, India and Singapore. They were "tag-on" flights as everything arrived in LHR at the same time, from 5 or 6 Canadian cities, then connected passengers from other AC flights and continued. I understand local traffic could be carried per the bilateral with the UK, as BA was carrying passengers between Canada and the US.

However, with the change of the route from LHR-BOM-SIN to LHR-BOM, would not the same number of passengers be carried? Just to a different destination?



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1958 times:

Well, unless someone conjures up the bilat, whether it was cancelled or not, and what its provisions were for one-stop service, I don't have much to add.

FWIW, I recall reading on another thread that PK flies to Canada even though there is no bilateral with Pakistan. Is this correct? If so, it would explain some of the confusion. Surrounding the SIN bilat and its cancellation



(Original post edited to avoid going off topic.)
[Edited 2012-10-10 04:16:17]


[Edited 2012-10-10 04:17:42]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1646 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 47):
FWIW, I recall reading on another thread that PK flies to Canada even though there is no bilateral with Pakistan. Is this correct?

There is a bilateral with Pakistan.
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/pakistan

It's true that occasionally international services operate without a bilateral, based on a less formal agreement. I believe Canada-Taiwan is the only example of that currently, no doubt related to political sensitivities with mainland China.
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/taiwan


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...
Is Aeroflot Starting SVO-MAN On 10/03/14? posted Mon Aug 6 2012 06:11:03 by 8herveg
How Is AC YVR-SYD Doing? posted Wed Dec 21 2011 14:34:05 by staralliance85
How Is AC Performing In CPH (YYZ-CPH)? posted Tue Jul 13 2010 07:55:57 by BrisseDK
Is AC Happy With Their Embraers? posted Thu Apr 29 2010 09:04:59 by Boeing744
What Is AC's Longest A32x Flight? posted Fri Aug 21 2009 07:12:08 by YYZatcboy
Is LAN Starting YYZ Service? posted Mon Jul 28 2008 15:22:48 by CayMan
Is Iberia Starting DFW? posted Sat May 3 2008 13:22:46 by Copa737DFW
Is AirOne Starting ORD/BOS-MXP This Summer? posted Sat May 3 2008 10:25:58 by LHUSA
Is KF Starting BLR-SFO Nonstop On Aug 27, 08? posted Thu Jan 24 2008 16:52:51 by Jlk
Is DL Starting A Meal Service? posted Mon Jul 16 2007 04:17:37 by Boeing743