Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Is The Issue Between Canada And The UAE?  
User currently offlinemozart From Luxembourg, joined Aug 2003, 2236 posts, RR: 13
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10902 times:

I remember having read somewhere that Canada and the UAE had a row about traffic rights which in effect capped the number of flights between the two to a low number. Also, Canada is one of the few "rich friendly" countries whose citizens are required to get a visa to enter the UAE (unlike the USA or any of the EU countries).

What is the story there?

105 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinerwsea From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3133 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10836 times:

Here's some background reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%...ted_Arab_Emirates_aviation_dispute


User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1027 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10805 times:

Executive summary:

Canada has rules whereby new airlines are given three flights a week to start with, to one airport. As traffic is proven, more flights can be applied for.

The UAE's carriers (Etihad and Emirates) wanted more slots and more cities, and they wanted them right away. Canada said no, wait your turn like everybody else, and the UAE threw a hissy fit.



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10760 times:

All foreign citizens need visas to enter the UAE. The difference is that the cost for Canadian Citizens and the availability was changed to make life more difficult.

The story is just that Emirates want more flights into Canada and the Canadian govt wouldn't (still won't) allow it as there is fear about the consequences for AC. So they had a spat and the UAE government kicked out the Canadian Forces from a camp in the UAE and imposed the visa restrictions. Not much more else to it.
Currently the UAE has rights for six flights a week into Canada, split evenly between EY and EK.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10588 times:

The basics that the UAE requested additional access, including frequencies and gateways. Canada did offer to allow additional gateways but within the same overall number of seats sold. Effectively the Canadians were saying, "sure you can go to YVR but you'll have to sell fewer tickets out of YYZ." It was an offer intended to be rejected. The UAE took umbrage at this calculated insult and responded in kind.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 3):
All foreign citizens need visas to enter the UAE

Previously citizens of Canada could obtain a free visa on entry, unlike citizens of the UAE visiting Canada who have always had to apply and pay in advance.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 3):
government kicked out the Canadian Forces from a camp in the UAE

In accordance with the lease, which had expired (an extension had previously been granted) and Canada had already announced they would be winding down their presence.


User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10462 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
Previously citizens of Canada could obtain a free visa on entry, unlike citizens of the UAE visiting Canada who have always had to apply and pay in advance.

Can citizens of western countries enter the UAE for free? I'm sure they still have to pay something at the immigration counter.

I think what you are talking about is getting a visa on arrival, the privilege of which was cancelled for Canadians. Which is why I said "the availability was changed". The original poster said that " Canada is one of the few "rich friendly" countries whose citizens are required to get a visa to enter the UAE (unlike the USA or any of the EU countries)." No even citizens of the US and EU are required to get a visa, they just get it on arrival as opposed to getting it beforehand.


User currently offlineokees From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 424 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10418 times:

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 5):
Can citizens of western countries enter the UAE for free?

Before the visa restrictions, I went to Dubai and got a 60 day visa at the immigration counter for free. No I believe the visa for entry into the UAE is close to 1000 dollars!.



mobs jakis
User currently onlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10417 times:

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 5):
Can citizens of western countries enter the UAE for free? I'm sure they still have to pay something at the immigration counter.

I think what you are talking about is getting a visa on arrival, the privilege of which was cancelled for Canadians. Which is why I said "the availability was changed". The original poster said that " Canada is one of the few "rich friendly" countries whose citizens are required to get a visa to enter the UAE (unlike the USA or any of the EU countries)." No even citizens of the US and EU are required to get a visa, they just get it on arrival as opposed to getting it beforehand.

For Australian's there is no visa fee. I think that is the case for EU/US citizens as well. Like the Canadians, we still need to get a visa on arrival but it's free whereas the Canadians must pay a fee.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10361 times:

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 5):
Can citizens of western countries enter the UAE for free?

I have never been required to pay anything when I have entered the UAE. Sponsorship may be required and this can be arranged through the airline (for example EK, EY, FZ) or through a hotel where accommodation has been booked. Citizens of the following countries can obtain a visa on arrival free of charge:
Australia, Andorra, Austria , Brunei, Belgium, Denmark , Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein,Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America , The Vatican.

At immigration a stamp is placed in the passport and this is valid for 30 days. A 30 day extension can be applied for but this involves a charge. Different rules apply for those wishing to take up residence and employment.




Corrected spelling

[Edited 2013-02-18 04:26:46]

User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10275 times:

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I don't know of any other GCC state that lets anyone in for free. In Qatar you have to pay by credit card, no cash.

User currently offlinemozart From Luxembourg, joined Aug 2003, 2236 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 10106 times:

I am a EU citizen but not a UAE resident. and I use an "e-gate" access, basically a credit-card sized card that lets me use turnstyle checkpoints with biometric controls. I pay nothing and I do not get a visa. Only my ID is checked (biometrically so to speak), but no stamp is in my passport.

Thanks for the other background information.


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2240 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9747 times:

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 3):
The story is just that Emirates want more flights into Canada and the Canadian govt wouldn't (still won't) allow it as there is fear about the consequences for AC.

I think it's also important to note that there seems to be a lot of contention over what type of traffic each carrier is targeting (or protecting) and that's been the primary reason for the spat. EK claims that there is enough O&D demand between Canada and UAE to justify greater weekly frequencies into YYZ, as well as expand into YYC, YVR, YUL etc. AC, conversely, argues that EK simply wants to siphon off traffic between those regions and countries in SE Asia, Africa, Middle East, etc over the DXB connecting hub, which would be AC's loss. Although AC doesn't fly to virtually ANY of those cities nonstop from Canada on its own metal, it does so via Lufthansa thanks to the transatlantic JV between the two carriers. So not only does AC have something at stake here, but also its partner carriers.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlineBA0197 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2011, 333 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9720 times:

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 2):
Executive summary:

Canada has rules whereby new airlines are given three flights a week to start with, to one airport. As traffic is proven, more flights can be applied for.

The UAE's carriers (Etihad and Emirates) wanted more slots and more cities, and they wanted them right away. Canada said no, wait your turn like everybody else, and the UAE threw a hissy fit.
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 2):
All foreign citizens need visas to enter the UAE. The difference is that the cost for Canadian Citizens and the availability was changed to make life more difficult.

The story is just that Emirates want more flights into Canada and the Canadian govt wouldn't (still won't) allow it as there is fear about the consequences for AC. So they had a spat and the UAE government kicked out the Canadian Forces from a camp in the UAE and imposed the visa restrictions. Not much more else to it.
Currently the UAE has rights for six flights a week into Canada, split evenly between EY and EK.

There is both sides of the argument for you  


User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9700 times:

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 9):

It is the only GCC country for which is free for US/EU citizens. In Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar you can get it on arrival but you gotta pay a fee and in Saudi Arabia you need a pre-arranged visa.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9573 times:

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 3):
there is fear about the consequences for AC.

It's not about protecting AC. If that was the case, then the feds would limit all international airlines...especially those directly competing on AC routes.

Policy is that more slots are reserved for countries with the most O&D traffic. Since there is very little UAE O&D traffic, and slots are a finite commodity, countries with more direct passenger traffic between them and Canada are given priority.

The UAE got upset when they couldn't get what they wanted, so they started playing silly games which has netted them exactly nothing. Very few Canadians live in the UAE and most of the ones who do work there. That means their companies pay for their visas. Fewer Canadians visit the UAE so there has been very little impact with the visa changes.

It's basically a non issue for the vast majority of Canadians.

[Edited 2013-02-18 13:45:28]


What the...?
User currently offlineAirCanada787 From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9378 times:

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 2):

The UAE's carriers (Etihad and Emirates) wanted more slots and more cities, and they wanted them right away. Canada said no, wait your turn like everybody else, and the UAE threw a hissy fit.
Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 3):
Currently the UAE has rights for six flights a week into Canada, split evenly between EY and EK.

UAE carriers got six slots right away. Emirates said they wanted at least seven before they would begin service to Canada. While EK kept complaining Etihad decided to start their own service to Canada using three of the slots. EK was then only left with three for themselves but they could have had all six if they wouldn't have held out for seven.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 3):
there is fear about the consequences for AC.

It's not about protecting AC. If that was the case, then the feds would limit all international airlines...especially those directly competing on AC routes.

Policy is that more slots are reserved for countries with the most O&D traffic. Since there is very little UAE O&D traffic, and slots are a finite commodity, countries with more direct passenger traffic between them and Canada are given priority.

The UAE got upset when they couldn't get what they wanted, so they started playing silly games which has netted them exactly nothing. Very few Canadians live in the UAE and most of the ones who do work there. That means their companies pay for their visas. Fewer Canadians visit the UAE so there has been very little impact with the visa changes.

        

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
It's basically a non issue for the vast majority of Canadians.

Indeed many Canadians don't even know about this 'issue' much less care.



The mind, like a parachute, functions only when open.
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9306 times:

Oh dear.  
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 2):
Canada has rules whereby new airlines are given three flights a week to start with, to one airport. As traffic is proven, more flights can be applied for.

EK started serving two-three years before the spat started. They claim they proved there was enough traffic in that period. Read into that what you will.

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 2):
Canada said no, wait your turn like everybody else, and the UAE threw a hissy fit.

Not really. The landing rights got tied to a military base lease extension (it had been extended before allegedly on the basis of resolving the landing rights issue). The talks stalled. The lease expired. Relations are on the mend now.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 3):
The difference is that the cost for Canadian Citizens and the availability was changed to make life more difficult.

I believe that the visa fees are significantly lower if they fly EK or EY. It was an opportunistic shot at LH more than AC or Canada (unless the passenger is so wedded to AC/LH that he won't fly anyone else)

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 3):
So they had a spat and the UAE government kicked out the Canadian Forces from a camp in the UAE and imposed the visa restrictions.

Not quite. Lease expired. Talks on extending the lease stalled with the talks on landing rights.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 5):
Can citizens of western countries enter the UAE for free? I'm sure they still have to pay something at the immigration counter.

Yes. Apart from Canadians.

Quoting okees (Reply 6):
No I believe the visa for entry into the UAE is close to 1000 dollars!.

I've read that those fees are lower if you fly EK/EY. Some even claim its included in the cost of the ticket. Personally, I have no idea.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 11):
Although AC doesn't fly to virtually ANY of those cities nonstop from Canada on its own metal, it does so via Lufthansa thanks to the transatlantic JV between the two carriers. So not only does AC have something at stake here, but also its partner carriers.

In a nutshell.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
It's not about protecting AC. If that was the case, then the feds would limit all international airlines...especially those directly competing on AC routes.

Before the EU Open Skies agreement, AF couldn't fly to YVR - thats how restrictive Canadian rights were/are. Because of Open Skies with the EU ( a reflection of its strong links with the EU, as well as its mediocre/poor links with everyone east/.south of EU - the latest overtures to India/China/Asia notwithstanding), AC can't keep EU carriers out. Non EU carriers are restricted - TK and ET are both examples, not to mention QR and now SV. The 'AC routes' bit is irrelevant - AC opposed EK on the grounds of it affecting YOW-FRA.

AC TATL network relies (to whatever extent) on feeding traffic to partners at hubs - this was what AC itself cited in its plea for protection. Is this about protecting AC? If its not, why is it so difficult for us to hand out 1 daily frequency to every new airline, knowing full well that frequency affects a route's viability (whether they use it or not should be the airline's prerogative, not the Governments - or so says Canada's 'commitment' to 'free market' principles)? That said, to blame only AC for this would be wholly misleading, though one has to ask how much the interests of one private company should be allowed to dictate public and foreign policy.

The most absurd thing about it all is that AC claimed Canada would lose 10,000 jobs if EK got a daily flight. As it turns out, EK didn't get them. That didn't stop AC from playing a direct hand in the loss of 2700 high-skilled jobs. Waiting to see how long it takes for AC to blame EK/EY for those job losses.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
Policy is that more slots are reserved for countries with the most O&D traffic

Still waiting for KL and OS to prove they warrant the amount of frequencies they have. Or, to put it more succinctly, this is a smokescreen. Some airlines don't have daily frequency, let alone new cities, several years after they start serving. TK and its desire for YUL is one such example.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
The UAE got upset when they couldn't get what they wanted, so they started playing silly games which has netted them exactly nothing.

Correct. It also didn't cost them anything. Which is more than we can say about Canada.

A bizzare episode with no winners and only one loser. As both foreign ministers have pointed out, its in the past now. Nothing to look at. Canada's insularity will ensure its no great loss - after all, the only group that is actually affected is the South Asian minority, most of whom can benefit greatly from AC/LH's one stop service to South Asia (read India - no EU carrier flies to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka - aka the rest of South Asia). In fairness, PK has flights to Canada - not sure how many, but its not daily. 3 weekly or 5 weekly or something. And UL has apparently got an agreement with AC as well.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9275 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 16):
Before the EU Open Skies agreement, AF couldn't fly to YVR

AF was permitted to serve YVR under the old bilateral but only from PPT. They of course never served that route. QF did operate PPT-YVR with 5th freedom rights for a few years in the 1970s.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 16):
Still waiting for KL and OS to prove they warrant the amount of frequencies they have.

KL or OS or any other EU-based carriers don't have to prove anything. Under Open Skies they can operate as many frequencies as they want between all 27 EU countries (plus Switzerland, Norway, Iceland) and anywhere in Canada. Vice versa for Canadian carriers.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9220 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):

KL or OS or any other EU-based carriers don't have to prove anything. Under Open Skies they can operate as many frequencies as they want between all 27 EU countries (plus Switzerland, Norway, Iceland) and anywhere in Canada. Vice versa for Canadian carriers.

I know. Thats the entire point - namely that Canada engages in practices that are counter intuitive - allowing LH and KL to fly daily from four cities to any number of desintations (including ADD), while demanding that ET prove traffic on ADD with - what was it - two weekly? - even though the policy is, allegedly, to promote direct links.

Meanwhile, the rest of the developed world has no qualms about giving at least one daily frequenciy to anyone who asks.

Go figure.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
AF was permitted to serve YVR under the old bilateral but only from PPT.

I learn something new everyday. Thats an interesting tidbit.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9172 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 18):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):

KL or OS or any other EU-based carriers don't have to prove anything. Under Open Skies they can operate as many frequencies as they want between all 27 EU countries (plus Switzerland, Norway, Iceland) and anywhere in Canada. Vice versa for Canadian carriers.

I know. Thats the entire point - namely that Canada engages in practices that are counter intuitive - allowing LH and KL to fly daily from four cities to any number of desintations (including ADD), while demanding that ET prove traffic on ADD with - what was it - two weekly? - even though the policy is, allegedly, to promote direct links.

The Canada-EU Open Skies agreement doesn't necessarily permit KL or LH to operate daily between Canada and ADD. That depends on the bilaterals between the Netherlands/Germany and Ethiopia.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9134 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):

The Canada-EU Open Skies agreement doesn't necessarily permit KL or LH to operate daily between Canada and ADD. That depends on the bilaterals between the Netherlands/Germany and Ethiopia.

Of course. But one would imagine that if the goal was to pursue direct links with a wide range of countries (a very important sticking point, it should be noted, in the EK case), factors that would affect those links (like KL and LH) would also be taken into account while determining how many frequencies to provide.

To provide frequencies in isolation without actually considering whats going on out there would be akin to throwing a book down a flight of 5 stairs and providing frequencies according to the step the book landed on (fourth step = four, and so on). If the aim is to encourage Ethiopia-Canada links, then wouldn't it make more sense to give ET 7 frequencies and let it determine how many it wants to use? Or is that asking too much?

After all, EK, ET, TK, QR, EY, SV - all of these boil down to the whole 2/3 weekly policy, even while their main competitors are allowed daily flights. The UAE case is nothing special in this regard, though Canadians have a happy habit of pointing to the "direct links" clause everytime EK comes up. It is, of course, curiously absent when they defend the 2-3 weekly frequncies that everyone else gets.


User currently offlineandrefranca From Brazil, joined May 2011, 652 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9091 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 8):
I have never been required to pay anything when I have entered the UAE. Sponsorship may be required and this can be arranged through the airline (for example EK, EY, FZ) or through a hotel where accommodation has been booked. Citizens of the following countries can obtain a visa on arrival free of charge:
Australia, Andorra, Austria , Brunei, Belgium, Denmark , Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein,Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America , The Vatican.

At immigration a stamp is placed in the passport and this is valid for 30 days. A 30 day extension can be applied for but this involves a charge. Different rules apply for those wishing to take up residence and employment.

The "visa requirement" is a farse! yeah the "rich friendly" nations get on arrival, and most of the others get it when they book their flights with EK, on their website, in less than 24 hrs? WOW WHAT A SHOCK!...... Not  


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days ago) and read 8986 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 16):
Before the EU Open Skies agreement, AF couldn't fly to YVR

Yet dozens of other international airlines could.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 16):
The most absurd thing about it all is that AC claimed Canada would lose 10,000 jobs if EK got a daily flight. As it turns out, EK didn't get them. That didn't stop AC from playing a direct hand in the loss of 2700 high-skilled jobs. Waiting to see how long it takes for AC to blame EK/EY for those job losses.

Yah...just like they promised to fly to YYC...fantasy jobs just like fantasy routes.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 16):

Still waiting for KL and OS to prove they warrant the amount of frequencies they have.

Both have significantly more O&D traffic with Canada than the UAE.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 16):
Correct. It also didn't cost them anything. Which is more than we can say about Canada.

It didn't cost Canada a thing. Mirage was going to be shut down anyway and any costs of moving would have happened regardless. Canada does very little business with the UAE and what business there was, continued just fine. People working in the UAE have always had to pay for visas and their companies continued to do so. Very few Canadians ever chose to vacation in the UAE so any visa fees were a non issue.

Canadians weren't then, and aren't now and never will be, hampered in any way by the current level of flights to and from the UAE.



What the...?
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8908 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
Yah...just like they promised to fly to YYC...fantasy jobs just like fantasy routes.

I am assuming by "they" you are referring to EK rather than AC. If so, EK didn't promise anything. They provided an economic assessment to support their request for additional rights. Whether the assessment was correct is open to dispute and a request for rights is not a guarantee of the use of those rights. An example is access to Clark in the Philippines. EK obtained rights in 2009 but has only just announced the commencement of that route. EK could start (has rights to) Bratislava but I don't see them starting in the near future.

What is clear is that the UAE and EK were unwilling to accept a deal that offered slightly fewer seats overall than they currently sell. Starting YYC under Canada's offer would have meant either giving up a rotation at YYZ or purchasing smaller aircraft. At present EK may sell seats to operate 3 x weekly A380 or approx 1,550 seats weekly. If EK wanted to start daily to both YYC and YYZ they would need to purchase something a lot smaller than the aircraft in their current fleet or fly near empty. Unfortunately, Bombardier don't have anything to offer with sufficient range.

I am not competent to judge the state of the market in Canada and accept that the Government of Canada has the right to determine its own policies. But I believe the simple economics of Canada's "offer" meant that it was predictably unacceptable and was meant to be.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8670 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
Yet dozens of other international airlines could.

Thats nice, but it still raises the issue of undue Government interference in the supply and demand equation. Hence restrictive policy.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
Yah...just like they promised to fly to YYC...fantasy jobs just like fantasy routes.

I was referring to Aveos - the Canadian maintenance company. Heard of them? Try telling them they were doing 'fantasy' jobs. Well, I suppose you don't need to - AC already has. Jobs that existed were lost - hence "loss of 2700 jobs".



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):

Both have significantly more O&D traffic with Canada than the UAE.

Enough Netherlands-Canada traffic to warrant 20+ frequencies to 4 cities? Ironic, given your disdain for fantasy.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
It didn't cost Canada a thing.

Well, there was that odd UN Security Council episode. Oh, and a year scouting all types of Middle Eastern countries before settling on setting up a base in Kuwait. And the inconvenience of using Cyprus as a staging base - increasing the flight distance significantly. But as we all know, fuel in 2010/11 cost nothing.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
Mirage was going to be shut down anyway and any costs of moving would have happened regardless.

That explains the decision to open a new base in Kuwait to replace it. The UAE base itself is still open - apparently its being used by the Aussies and Dutch.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canadian-force...re-staging-base-in-kuwait-1.669135

Amusing revisionism. That said, its all but over. Relations are on the mend.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1932 posts, RR: 10
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8684 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
The UAE took umbrage at this calculated insult and responded in kind.

Calculated insult? The Canadian government was blocking UAE carriers from poaching non-O&D traffic (which everyone on A-net knows EK and EY rely on). If you consider that to be an insult, that's on you.

As for the "responded in kind" part, let's review: The UAE now charges Canadian citizens a visa fee of $250 for a 30-day and $1,000 for a 6-month visa. The UAE openly lobbied against Canada's bid at a UN Security Council seat due "trade policies". The UAE denied landing rights to a Canadian government aircraft carrying federal ministers which then had to reroute. The UAE ambassador to Canada considers their trade relationship "soured"

All of this over a couple of airlines who didn't get what they wanted. See the over-reaction?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
It's basically a non issue for the vast majority of Canadians.

True, but a major inconvenience for many in the business community.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 16):
I've read that those fees are lower if you fly EK/EY. Some even claim its included in the cost of the ticket. Personally, I have no idea.

I quickly tried to book a ticket just now from YYZ-DXB via the EK website and could not find any mention of such a discount or inclusion. The only mention is a warning at the top of the page to "review visa requirements", along with a small message that describes a couple of the conditions.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 16):
Still waiting for KL and OS to prove they warrant the amount of frequencies they have. Or, to put it more succinctly, this is a smokescreen.

I don't know about OS, but KL certainly warrants the capacity out of YYZ (I can't comment on YUL, YYC, or YVR). There is a massive Dutch community in Southern Ontario, especially in the rural areas.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 23):
Starting YYC under Canada's offer would have meant either giving up a rotation at YYZ or purchasing smaller aircraft. At present EK may sell seats to operate 3 x weekly A380 or approx 1,550 seats weekly. If EK wanted to start daily to both YYC and YYZ they would need to purchase something a lot smaller than the aircraft in their current fleet or fly near empty.

Let's do some math:

DXB-YYZ A380 = 496 X 3 = 1488 weekly seats

DXB-YYZ/YYC A330 = 237 X 3 X 2 = 1422 weekly seats

Remind me again why they would have to purchase anything "a lot smaller than the aircraft in their current fleet"?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24):
I was referring to Aveos - the Canadian maintenance company. Heard of them? Try telling them they were doing 'fantasy' jobs. Well, I suppose you don't need to - AC already has. Jobs that existed were lost - hence "loss of 2700 jobs".

I think that can of worms is best left closed for the sake of the topic at hand.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8530 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
Remind me again why they would have to purchase anything "a lot smaller than the aircraft in their current fleet"?

Because the request and preference is for daily flights and the calculations made are for daily flights - i.e 14x and not the 5x in your example. But even accepting your figures, that is still less than EK is able currently to provide (and not even taking cargo capacities into the equation) and ignores the fact that EK has commenced retiring the A332s from the fleet, although they could extend the leases.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8655 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
(which everyone on A-net knows EK and EY rely on).

As opposed to LH, KL, AF, LX....? Lets not forget that the UAE has a pretty significant O&D market, what with the large expat population there.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
The UAE now charges Canadian citizens a visa fee of $250 for a 30-day and $1,000 for a 6-month visa.

??????

1) U.A.E. Embassy in Ottawa

a. The Embassy issues three types of visit visas:

i. Short term visa (Single Entry), with a validity of 30 days (non-renewable) – CAD $165
ii. Long term visa (Single Entry), with a validity of 90 days (non-renewable) – CAD $330
iii. Multiple Entry Visa (Valid for 6 months, maximum stay in UAE 30 days each visit) – CAD $660

http://www.uae-embassy.ae/embassies/ca/content/2117

Incidentally, on the same page:

2) Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airlines

The National Airlines of the United Arab Emirates issue visit visas to Canadian citizens holding confirmed reservations only. The contact details for the two airlines are provided below.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
The UAE ambassador to Canada considers their trade relationship "soured"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...-with-nuclear-deal/article4552179/

I think things have changed for the better.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
All of this over a couple of airlines who didn't get what they wanted.

It wasn't a one way street. Sure they over-reacted. But there has to be an action to cause a reaction. And that action was to deny what - 4 more daily slots to EK? Worth losing a base over? The lease extension was explicitly tied to resolving the landing rights issue. Either we didn't realize what was at stake or we gambled and lost. They behaved very poorly, but it takes two hands to clap.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):

I think that can of worms is best left closed for the sake of the topic at hand.

I don't disagree. All I will do is point out that AC's 'argument' against EK included this particularly impressive tidbit:

"The impact of greater UAE access to Canada would mean the loss of nearly 2.5 million international passengers putting over 20 international flights at risk representing over 10,000 direct and indirect jobs*."

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/facts/industry/emirates.html

Protecting Canadian jobs was part of the justification for keeping EK out. It was used by a cabinet minister and AC. As it turns out, keeping EK out didn't save any jobs - AC managed to help Canada lose 27% of those jobs anyway - which begs the question: was it a valid reason to keep EK out?


User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day ago) and read 8534 times:

I'm waiting to see if either QR or FZ purchase the C-series in an attempt to gain more rights into Canada. Al-Bakr has been quietly hinting that he'd consider the aircraft.

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day ago) and read 8543 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24):
Thats nice, but it still raises the issue of undue Government interference in the supply and demand equation. Hence restrictive policy.

Governments all over the globe use aviation rights as pawns in their international games. Both EK and EY are doing the bidding of their respective govnerments...they just happen to do things differently than Canada...but it's naive at best to believe that the Emirati airlines aren't being used as part of a national agenda.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24):
Enough Netherlands-Canada traffic to warrant 20+ frequencies to 4 cities? Ironic, given your disdain for fantasy.

I guess there is since the flights exist. Nobody is forcing the airlines to fly the routes. If they were losing money, the flights would stop...and you're right...I do have a disdain for fantasy...that's why I prefer living in the real world.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):

True, but a major inconvenience for many in the business community.

Every been to the UAE? I don't think so. Business didn't change in the least. The visa processes didn't change in the least. Maybe the fees changed but not enough for Canadian companies to leave or Emirati companies to stop doing business.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24):
Well, there was that odd UN Security Council episode. Oh, and a year scouting all types of Middle Eastern countries before settling on setting up a base in Kuwait. And the inconvenience of using Cyprus as a staging base - increasing the flight distance significantly. But as we all know, fuel in 2010/11 cost nothing.

There's no evidence that Canada was going to get a security council spot so that really is fantasy. The UAE based the deal on flights on continuing the use of Mirage. Only a moron would cut a long term deal based on a short term lease. The Canadian forces left Mirage sooner than they planned but they were going to leave anyway. Paying more for fuel is a small price to pay for not bowing down to the Emirati's whims.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24):

That explains the decision to open a new base in Kuwait to replace it. The UAE base itself is still open - apparently its being used by the Aussies and Dutch.

Mirage was the name for the Canadian part of the base...and since Canada was leaving Afghanistan, Mirage was going to be closed. What anyone else does at the airport is their business.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24):
Amusing revisionism. That said, its all but over. Relations are on the mend.

Mirage was being leased short term. Losing Mirage wasn't nearly as stupid as having the UAE decided Canada's foreign policy.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27):
As opposed to LH, KL, AF, LX....? Lets not forget that the UAE has a pretty significant O&D market, what with the large expat population there.

The O&D market is for workers, not tourists so your price list doesn't apply. Those are just for tourist visas. Work visas were never free.

EK was kept out because it is federal policy to give preference to airlines from countries with significant O&D traffic. There are plenty of Canadian expats in the UAE, but most don't live in Canada. They either live in the UAE or elsewhere...Thailand is popular. Few actually commute.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27):
Protecting Canadian jobs was part of the justification for keeping EK out. It was used by a cabinet minister and AC. As it turns out, keeping EK out didn't save any jobs - AC managed to help Canada lose 27% of those jobs anyway - which begs the question: was it a valid reason to keep EK out?

Air Canada losing jobs and EK flying to Canada don't have much to do with each other. EK wouldn't have saved those jobs.

Not that it matters in the least. Until this thread, the topic wasn't anything related to actual news more than a few times in the past two years. It's ancient news, long past its best before date and not even remotely relevant anymore.



What the...?
User currently onlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 21 hours ago) and read 8343 times:

Quoting AirCanada787 (Reply 15):
Indeed many Canadians don't even know about this 'issue' much less care.

Exactly. It's really only an external issue for EK who are being thwarted in their expectations/demands for unfettered international authority, and perhaps a very tiny but vocal community of SE Asians in Toronto who benefit from EK.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
Canadians weren't then, and aren't now and never will be, hampered in any way by the current level of flights to and from the UAE.

If All EK and EY flights were banned, most Canadians would not even notice, let alone care. Our economy would continue to grow, life would go on.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
Yet dozens of other international airlines could.

Thats nice, but it still raises the issue of undue Government interference in the supply and demand equation. Hence restrictive policy.

That issue goes both ways. What about EK being owned by the Dubai government? What about the exaggerated growth of EK which exceeds all expectations of air travel growth in any market? Is EK financially supported by the Dubai govt? Or are their capital investments guaranteed? What about the massive airport infrastructure being funded by the Dubai government, which benefits EK? What about the exaggerated priority of international route authority for EK that the Dubai govt places near the top of any bilateral/national trade relationship? EK is clearly heavily favoured if not financially supported by the Dubai government. This is far more invasive to the supply and demand equation than the rather benign Cdn govt edict not to allow EK any more landing rights.

Holy moly....all this for a country (Dubai) that does not even share our Western values of democracy, rule of law and treatment of minorities.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24):
Enough Netherlands-Canada traffic to warrant 20+ frequencies to 4 cities? Ironic, given your disdain for fantasy.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
There is a massive Dutch community in Southern Ontario, especially in the rural areas.

Canadian-Dutch ties (ethnic and business) are very deep. Over 10% of Cdns have some Dutch background. The Dutch have been in Canada since before Confederation.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
It's basically a non issue for the vast majority of Canadians.

True, but a major inconvenience for many in the business community.

Naw. There is really no business traffic to Dubai from Toronto. I work on Bay St. I've never met a single business person who's travelled to Dubai on EK. The business community flies to YVR, YUL, YOW, NYC, LHR, ORD, YWG, YEG, LAX, YYC etc....the same cities they did 40 years ago and the same cities they will in 40 years from now. Yes, it's boring, but traffic patterns don't really change that much. The SE Asian community would have you believe that ALL roads lead to DEL or BOM but they really don't (and likely, never ever will).



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 20 hours ago) and read 8299 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 30):
Holy moly....all this for a country (Dubai) that does not even share our Western values of democracy, rule of law and treatment of minorities.

Aww .. but they provide evrerything for your types to enjoy from booze to prostitutin, to skimpy clad women walking around freely unhindered, clubs and even places of worship for the faithful.

And which minorities are you referring to? same that you are adressing in your post with obvious bias, the SE Asians, actually its South Asians, SE Asia is Thailand, Malaysia etc.


User currently onlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 20 hours ago) and read 8258 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 31):
And which minorities are you referring to?

South Asians. The ones who live for generations in Dubai but have no right of residency or citizenship. Do you support this policy? These are not Western values.

Dubai is not a country that Canada should align itself with, whether diplomatically or from a trade perspective. If Dubai wants liberal landing rights in Canada, they should adopt liberal human rights policies.

I'm big on commerce and business, but I'm bigger on human rights, which means that human rights can be used as a carrot or stick to reward good human rights records (as we see in all Western nations) and punish bad human rights records as we see in Dubai (and moreso, in Pakistan).

Anyone who supports additional landing rights for EK in Canada is tacitly (or directly) supporting the shameful human rights record of the Dubai givernment, and that is un-Canadian.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 8188 times:

Unfortunately things dont work the way you would like them to be, it might be un-Canadian/Western/Democratic but its also un-Diplomatic and foolish, Dubai cannot allow a large non-Arab majprity to become citizens making them a minority in their own country, will Canada do that? even Israel is not for a single state with a Palestinian majority, a Jewish country with a non-jew majority, same issues for Dubai more so since majoriity south asians there are Indians and majority of them are non-Muslim, so when Canada or israel accept change of demographics in their countries you can point a finger at the Gulf states.

BTW some Gulf states do allow nationaly to people under certain conditions in Bahrain one can get that after having lived and worked there for 25 years.

Back to main topic whiich I think is done with anyways.


User currently onlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 17 hours ago) and read 8072 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 32):
Dubai is not a country that Canada should align itself with, whether diplomatically or from a trade perspective. If Dubai wants liberal landing rights in Canada, they should adopt liberal human rights policies.

I'm big on commerce and business, but I'm bigger on human rights, which means that human rights can be used as a carrot or stick to reward good human rights records (as we see in all Western nations) and punish bad human rights records as we see in Dubai (and moreso, in Pakistan).

And so it is fine to do trade with China then? There are some well documented cases of human rights abuses there too.

I can understand both the UAE/Canadian perspective but not sure you can justify banning/limiting flights purely on human rights grounds (however how unjust that may be).

**For the record, there was this exact same debate put up by QF many years ago re: landing rights of EK. The Australian Govt went on and gave EK landing rights anyway. And now QF are getting into bed with EK  

I think it is very far fetched to also suggest Canada granting additional landing rights is equivalent to Canada "tacitly (or directly)" supporting the UAE's human rights policies. Does Australia granting EK up to 100 flights a week mean that Australia glowingly endorses the UAE's policies- I think not.

[Edited 2013-02-20 03:01:51]

[Edited 2013-02-20 03:02:22]


319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 16 hours ago) and read 7988 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
Governments all over the globe use aviation rights as pawns in their international games.

Some more than others. Australia, the US, EU (just about any developed country really) have more liberal aviation policies than us. Their threshold for using aviation rights as pawns in international games is a lot higher than ours (3 weekly - 1970s style).

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
but it's naive at best to believe that the Emirati airlines aren't being used as part of a national agenda.

That is very common knowledge. So common, that airlines are openly emulating it. Think TK.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
I guess there is since the flights exist. Nobody is forcing the airlines to fly the routes. If they were losing money, the flights would stop...

Or there is a lot of transitting traffic (not O&D). KL in Canada is doing what EK wants to do. The difference, of course, is that one is an European airline while the other is an Arab one.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
The Canadian forces left Mirage sooner than they planned but they were going to leave anyway. Paying more for fuel is a small price to pay for not bowing down to the Emirati's whims.

Keep making things up as you go along.

"Canada is working to establish a network of support hubs in strategic locations around the globe.

The military has an agreement with Germany for an operations hub in Cologne.

It also operates a base in Kuwait to supply Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Canada was forced to make those arrangements when its troops were evicted from their base at Camp Mirage in Dubai after a dispute erupted between Canada and the United Arab Emirates over landing rights for commercial airlines.

The Defence Department is reportedly in talks with Singapore to put a base there as well.

The military says its goal is to make it easier and cheaper to conduct and maintain international deployments anywhere in the world."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor.../canada-jamaica-military-base.html

http://www.cjoc-coic.forces.gc.ca/os-so/osh-cso-eng.asp

Mirage was always meant to be a long term setup (albeit in a dormant state post-Afghanistan) which could be activated when necessary. This now applies to Kuwait and that base in Germany. Mirage had the benefit of being close to Jebel Ali, which is arguably the best seaport in the region.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
since Canada was leaving Afghanistan, Mirage was going to be closed.

Nope. See above.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
Losing Mirage wasn't nearly as stupid as having the UAE decided Canada's foreign policy.

Agreed. That said, having AC decide Canada's foreign policy (as we did in that instance) didn't work out any better.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
Those are just for tourist visas. Work visas were never free.

It was in reference to the numbers the other poster provided.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
EK was kept out because it is federal policy to give preference to airlines from countries with significant O&D traffic.

KL would wilt if it had to prove that. As noted above, even AF couldn't go to YVR (from France - apparently they could from PPT) despite the obvious O&D on Canada-France (AC even created an airplane config especially for France). AF is now covered by the Open Skies agreement, but the same rules still apply to non-EU airlines, which is the crux of the issue here. Maybe federal policy should look at best practices from around the world, instead of staying so insular?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
Air Canada losing jobs and EK flying to Canada don't have much to do with each other. EK wouldn't have saved those jobs.

Oh I agree completely. I am just pointing out that it takes a special type of cynicism to put those lines on your website as an objection to EK when those jobs were at risk regardless of EK. EK wouldn't have saved those jobs - agreed - but to connect job losses to EK to deny EK rights, and succeed, and then cut those jobs anyway....its disturbingly cynical.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 30):
a very tiny but vocal community of SE Asians in Toronto who benefit from EK.

Are they Canadian citizens with equal rights? If so, how does the size of the community matter? Ever heard of tyranny of the majority?

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 30):
What about EK being owned by the Dubai government?

What about - ANZ, MS, SU, AI, PK, CI, CA, AY, LO? A moot point I think.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1932 posts, RR: 10
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 7765 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 26):
Because the request and preference is for daily flights and the calculations made are for daily flights

That's the whole crux of the argument - we aren't going to just give them what they want because they want it.

But to revisiting my numbers (completely forgetting about the A330s), even switching to a 772, the numbers still work. They can still open up a second route in Canada while keeping with similar seat numbers at the same frequency.

I've never flown EK, but a good Indian friend of mine does to go visit family, and he says that the A380 out of YYZ has never been close to full.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 26):
not even taking cargo capacities into the equation

I've never heard of cargo being a contentious issue in this debate.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27):
As opposed to LH, KL, AF, LX....?

I can't argue with LX, but LH, KL, and AF have plenty of O&D traffic. You can only really blame LH for poaching the African transit pax, which no Canadian airline flies anyway.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27):
Lets not forget that the UAE has a pretty significant O&D market, what with the large expat population there.

27,000 expats warrants A380 service?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...10/10/emirates-planes-landing.html

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27):
a. The Embassy issues three types of visit visas:

i. Short term visa (Single Entry), with a validity of 30 days (non-renewable) – CAD $165
ii. Long term visa (Single Entry), with a validity of 90 days (non-renewable) – CAD $330
iii. Multiple Entry Visa (Valid for 6 months, maximum stay in UAE 30 days each visit) – CAD $660

http://www.uae-embassy.ae/embassies/.../2117

My mistake. I was sourcing outdated information.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27):
Protecting Canadian jobs was part of the justification for keeping EK out. It was used by a cabinet minister and AC. As it turns out, keeping EK out didn't save any jobs - AC managed to help Canada lose 27% of those jobs anyway - which begs the question: was it a valid reason to keep EK out?

I believe those two issues are mutually exclusive. All I'll say is that AC's claims were definitely grasping at straws, but they weren't totally removed from reality. Revenue would have been hurt, just not to the tune of whatever ridiculous numbers they were claiming.

In hindsight, the Aveos mess was going to happen regardless of whatever happened with EK/EY.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 30):
Canadian-Dutch ties (ethnic and business) are very deep. Over 10% of Cdns have some Dutch background. The Dutch have been in Canada since before Confederation.

I'm not sure if that number applies to all of Canada, but it's certainly believable in Ontario. It's funny actually, just down the road from YKF there is a high school that is about 90-95% Dutch students. I wonder if KL should set-up shop in Waterloo Region  
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 32):
If Dubai wants liberal landing rights in Canada, they should adopt liberal human rights policies.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 32):
Anyone who supports additional landing rights for EK in Canada is tacitly (or directly) supporting the shameful human rights record of the Dubai givernment, and that is un-Canadian.

I don't think human rights has a card in the decision. As already mentioned, there are several other flights out of YYZ to countries with less-than-stellar human rights records.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 35):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
but it's naive at best to believe that the Emirati airlines aren't being used as part of a national agenda.

That is very common knowledge. So common, that airlines are openly emulating it. Think TK.

  



Flying refined.
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 7550 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 36):
I've never heard of cargo being a contentious issue in this debate.

I think he was referring to the cargo capacity that would be lost by switching to those aircraft (payload restrictions?).

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 36):
You can only really blame LH for poaching the African transit pax, which no Canadian airline flies anyway.

Errr...India? 9th biggest source of tourists for Canada in 2010, according to StatsCan. Throw in Canadians of Indian origin going in the other direction and you get an idea of why the ME3, with their extensive South Asia networks, want in.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 36):
27,000 expats warrants A380 service?
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 36):
but LH, KL, and AF have plenty of O&D traffic


AF, perhaps. LH.... I'll quote Rovinescu:

"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 and Frankfurt."

Granted, with LH its a bit difficult to tell, since AC is essentially managed by LH on TATL.

KL - 20+ flights to 4 cities ...I don't buy it. The vast majority of it is connecting traffic. OS is another example.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 7481 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 30):
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
There is a massive Dutch community in Southern Ontario, especially in the rural areas.

Canadian-Dutch ties (ethnic and business) are very deep. Over 10% of Cdns have some Dutch background. The Dutch have been in Canada since before Confederation.
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 37):
KL - 20+ flights to 4 cities ...I don't buy it. The vast majority of it is connecting traffic. OS is another example.

You have mentioned KL several times. The Netherlands has always been very liberal in granting traffic rights to foreign carriers. CP was operating from 5 cities in Canada to AMS almost half a century ago. How could Canada prevent the Netherlands from increasing their service from AMS? That would hardly be very fair. And note that KLM didn't even serve Toronto until 1974. Their only Canadian destination until then was Montreal., when CP had been operating from 5 Canadian cities to AMS since the mid-1960s.

The Netherlands was also very helpful when CP was on the verge of beginning service to London in the mid-1950s, until a new government came to power in the UK and revoked CP's landing rights before service started, arguing that only government-owned airlines should be permitted to operate between Canada and the UK. The Netherlands then quickly granted CP landing rights in AMS which became CP's only gateway to northern Europe for decades starting with CP's first service to AMS in mid-1955. At one time in the early 1980s CP had direct service from 7 cities in Canada to AMS. The Netherlands could have easily said no but they didn't based on their long-standing openness to foreign trade.

[Edited 2013-02-20 18:59:45]

[Edited 2013-02-20 19:01:44]

[Edited 2013-02-20 19:04:52]

[Edited 2013-02-20 19:06:13]

User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7377 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38):
How could Canada prevent the Netherlands from increasing their service from AMS?

I never said that. And I certainly don't want less of KL (or any carrier) in Canada. The point is that if KL can enjoy Carte Blanche without :

a) proving this O&D/direct links component that some folk here keep on harping about (the curious case of ET really should put an end to that)
b) Destroying AC's network despite being a more direct competitor to AC on TATL routes, unlike EK, which can only realistically compete with AC and its TATL overlord LH on some African routes, South Asia and the ME.

...then it stands to reason that the vast majority of excuses being offered up as reasons for keeping EK out(such as job losses, proving traffic and the prioritization of direct links - we are all seeing how that is working out for TK and ET)are largely moot. We can go around in circles trying to paint EK or AC as the demon in this issue, but the reality is that its down to an aviation policy that, while (perhaps justifiably) Eurocentric, is also not as liberal as the rest of the developed world. If anything, KL faces far more competition and a far more severe threat from EK than AC ever will, but that hasn't stopped the Netherlands from being more liberal with aviation than Canada. This is, for whatever reason, a reality that is lost on most Canadians.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4414 posts, RR: 2
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7338 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
QF did operate PPT-YVR with 5th freedom rights for a few years in the 1970s.

Was that a fuel stop when travelling from SYD to YVR and the rest of Canada?



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently onlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7348 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39):
We can go around in circles trying to paint EK or AC as the demon in this issue, but the reality is that its down to an aviation policy that, while (perhaps justifiably) Eurocentric, is also not as liberal as the rest of the developed world.

Maybe, but so what? Canada is extremely liberal (by world standards) in just about every other economic, political and social measure. We certainly don't need to bend over backwards just to satisfy the whining demands of UAE carriers, and if that makes us a tiny bit less liberal because of a bilateral philosophy based on O+D demand between nations, then so be it.

Canadians, by and large, have all the bilateral freedoms we need already. We travel primarily domestically and transborder. Canadians, by and large, do not travel to India and never will, so a change in the bilateral treaty with the UAE to satisfy the tiny minority of Canadians (or, more broadly, residents in Canada) who are of Indian background (perhaps 2% of our population at most) is not in Canada's interests for a host of reasons, first and foremost maintaining bilateral negotiation consistency with other nations.

[Edited 2013-02-20 21:23:01]


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7318 times:

I think that tiny minority might be pretty ok with the thrice weekly A380 and have no issue over EK non-expansion in Can, infact it might be EK using them as a card to gain greater access without their knowledge, why are you singling them out anyways?

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7301 times:

In 2012, around 850,000 tourists stayed at least one night in the UAE, with the average being just over 2 nights stay. That's the total number of tourists from everywhere.

In 2010, 2.3million European tourists travelled to Canada. 260,000 Canadians travelled to The Netherlands alone in 2009, averaging 10 night stays.

If Canadians really want to get to the UAE, there are plenty of ways to do it. If they're not happy with the number of Emirati flights from Canada, they can one stop from many locations in the US or Europe.

This is a non issue...for Canada, the UAE...everybody except a few who just can't enough of beating dead horses. The numbers justify the stance taken by the federal government and if Canadians are suffering from lack of service, you can't tell it by the deafening silence on the issue.

Of course, mere facts aren't nearly enough to quell the rabid enthusiasm of tin hatters for a juicy conspiracy, so have fun, eh?



What the...?
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7156 times:

Although this seems straightforward enough, it seems to be lost on a lot of folk here:

India =/= South Asia (and vice versa).

Most European carriers serve India. No European carrier serves any South Asian country other than India. The only one-stop options to the vast majority of cities in South Asia are offered by the ME3. TK is beginning to expand, but its a long way from matching the likes of QR.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 41):
Canadians, by and large, do not travel to India and never will, so a change in the bilateral treaty with the UAE to satisfy the tiny minority of Canadians (or, more broadly, residents in Canada) who are of Indian background (perhaps 2% of our population at most) is not in Canada's interests for a host of reasons, first and foremost maintaining bilateral negotiation consistency with other nations.

Thats nice, but India is one of the top 10 sources of tourism for Canada, and given our tourism deficit:

"When we presented to this committee in the last Parliament, I made mention of our travel deficit, which is the difference between what we, as Canadians, spend outside of Canada versus what we take in. For 2009, that figure was $12.2 billion. Last month, we received new data from Statistics Canada for 2011, and we are now showing a travel deficit of $15.9 billion, or an increase of $1.6 billion, over that period"

I really don't think we should scoff at sources of tourism. Just for the record, the Canadian Tourism Commission actually tracks 12 countries closely. India is one of them.

http://en-corporate.canada.travel/research/market-knowledge/india

But you're right - most Canadians will never go to India. They'd rather go to Cuba (third largest destination after the US and Mexico), that paragon of liberal...everything.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 41):
We travel primarily domestically and transborder.

People travelled primarily by train before air travel became affordable.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 43):
In 2012, around 850,000 tourists stayed at least one night in the UAE, with the average being just over 2 nights stay. That's the total number of tourists from everywhere.

Source?

FWIW, I can point to any number of sources that show that figure to be tin hat fantasy, but I'll provide you to the link of of a private company that actually spends a lot of money monitoring the market. Namely, Mastercard. They produce a Global Destination Cities Index. Here's what it says for 2012

London - 16.9 m
Paris - 16.0 m
Bangkok - 12.2m
Singapore - 11.8m
Istanbul - 11.6m
Hong Kong - 11.1m
Madrid - 9.7m
Dubai - 8.8m

...

Toronto - 3.6 m

http://newsroom.mastercard.com/wp-co..._Destination_Cities_Index_2012.pdf

Now, I m not saying that this is 100% accurate, but its a LOOOONG way off from the 850,000 you posit.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 43):
In 2010, 2.3million European tourists travelled to Canada. 260,000 Canadians travelled to The Netherlands alone in 2009, averaging 10 night stays.

I half suspect the UAE got more EU tourists than Canada.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 43):
If Canadians really want to get to the UAE, there are plenty of ways to do it.If they're not happy with the number of Emirati flights from Canada, they can one stop from many locations in the US or Europe.

Ah yes, the age old Canadian habit of telling other Canadians how to spend their money, instead of giving them the same market power that they themselves enjoy. Personally, when a supplier is willing to supply, I'm not a big fan of the Government or anyone telling me how I should use my money (especially fter artificial constraints stop that supplier from selling to me.) I know, I know...its a very American trait. Imagine spending your money by buying from your supplier of choice (value for money, quality and all that), instead of being told to make the best of whats available.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 43):
The numbers justify the stance taken by the federal government and if Canadians are suffering from lack of service, you can't tell it by the deafening silence on the issue.

Frankly, even I don't care about EK. Flown them once in 2005. Never will again (*A junkie and all that). That said, the EK case is a good example of how outdated Canadian policies are vis-a-vis the rest of the world. It is also arguably a case where a private airline's interests were put before the country's. After all, if you're going to get into a diplomatic spat, coming out with less than what you went in with is generally not a good outcome. In fact, its a pretty bad one.


User currently onlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7128 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 43):
In 2012, around 850,000 tourists stayed at least one night in the UAE, with the average being just over 2 nights stay. That's the total number of tourists from everywhere.

I think you got your figures wrong. There were alot more than 850,000 tourists (that stay > 1 night). Add one more zero to your number and you're closer to the right figure.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2296 posts, RR: 12
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6927 times:

My one and only post to this thread as I am bored silly of the argument is to correct some history being loosely thrown about. Frankly Canadians don't give a rats patootie about it either. You had better believe if there was a public outcry the government would have taken notice.

Despite the usual process of a carrier being given fewer slots (usually calculated on estimated demand) like Turkey who got 3 slots to Canada. And as demand is shown the bilateral is amended. The UAE and Canada negotiated 6 slots. Whether Camp Mirage was explicitly part of the negotiation or a nice thank you for it I don't have the specific information. At that stage EK publicly said they wanted daily to start service. That wasn't going to happen so no service started. Etihad then decided to ask for 3 of the slots and announced service. EK in order to not lose the rest of the slots took the remaining three and have since negotiated in the press. As the situation worsened and EK strongly pushed the UAE then the situation changed. The UAE was fine with 6 slots as that is what they negotiated. Etihad was quite fine with 3 slots. It was EK who has made all the noise. I am better connected in Abu Dhabi and hear quite a different story than is publicly portrayed by EK. EK has been even more pointed with their own government and loud with the UAE government. Since they are such a key component to the Dubai diversification strategy of course they will be listened to.

IF EK is correct at all the pent up demand in Toronto I would expect Etihad to very quickly put an A380 on the route when they have enough in their fleet. We will see. I know there have been some baby steps to improved relations and publically both seem to want to lower the heat, and EK isn't squawking as much in the press. However, I don't think the situation will change much until perhaps one of the other Emirs is elected to head the UAE IMHO.

In the meantime Turkey who has since increased their number of slots twice despite starting service much later than EK, has worked the process to their advantage. I think it is only a matter of time until they start service in another city (YUL) and become daily in Toronto. Same with Qatar, despite the frequent bluster that comes from the head of that airline on other topics. I fully expect them to convert more of the cargo slots to passenger and perhaps move them around to a different airport. Same with a number of new airlines regardless of Alliance membership.


User currently offlineC172Akula From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 1010 posts, RR: 4
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6896 times:

I can't wait until this gets resolved and EK can start daily A388 service to YYC...   

User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1027 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6846 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 44):
Most European carriers serve India. No European carrier serves any South Asian country other than India.

Hogwash.

British Airways serves Bangladesh and the Maldives, and will soon serve Sri Lanka again.

In addition, several European airlines serve the Maldives and Sri Lanka.

Only Pakistan and Nepal are without service from European airlines at present.



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6752 times:

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 46):
The UAE and Canada negotiated 6 slots.
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 46):
Etihad then decided to ask for 3 of the slots and announced service.
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 46):
I am bored silly of the argument is to correct some history being loosely thrown about.

"4. For the purposes of Article XI (Capacity) the Government of the United Arab Emirates shall be entitled to allocate the following capacity among its designated airlines for the operation of own aircraft and code sharing services:


- for direct own aircraft services, up to a maximum of four flights per week in each direction without restriction as to size of aircraft effective immediately, five flights per week effective June 1, 2001 and six flights per week effective June 1, 2003. Requests for seasonal increases in frequency shall be given sympathetic consideration consistent with paragraph 5 of Article XI. The operation of a frequency beyond three flights per week by any one designated airline shall be subject to the approval of the aeronautical authorities of both Contracting Parties."

http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=104312

I'll repeat that last line:

"The operation of a frequency beyond three flights per week by any one designated airline shall be subject to the approval of the aeronautical authorities of both Contracting Parties."

The treaty was signed in 2001. Etihad was founded two years later, in July 2003. Which begs the question - if the UAE had only one airline, then why was a restriction placed on the "operation of a frequency beyond three flights per week by any one designated airline."?

All of which is to say that for someone who talks about loose dissemination of history, you seem hell-bent on revising/distorting it completely. EK was never going to get all six slots wihtout Canadian approval (which, as we all know, is soooo forthcoming). Instead of leaving them empty, the UAE used them for its other airline.

I've noted before that some Canadians have been peddling all sorts of myths on this topic - I suppose we can now put the myth that EK could have had all six slots to rest (for the umpteenth time).

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 46):
In the meantime Turkey who has since increased their number of slots twice despite starting service much later than EK,

Turkey started serving Canada in 2009/10 with 3 frequencies. Its 2013. They have 5. This is despite the fact that Turkey has long replaced Canada in the list of top 10 tourist destinations in the world.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 46):
I think it is only a matter of time until they start service in another city (YUL) and become daily in Toronto.

3 years. 2 extra slots. If this is any indication, they should be daily in YYZ by 2015, three weekly in YUL by 2020 and daily in YUL by 2026. Or maybe they'll get three frequencies in YUL to start, in which case they should be at daily in YUL by 2021. I suppose its how you describe "only a matter of time". Personally, I see that as ridiculously slow.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 46):
Same with Qatar, despite the frequent bluster that comes from the head of that airline on other topics.

QR is still only on 3 frequencies and that is not going to change anytime soon. How long have they been in Canada? 2 years? With not one additional slot added.

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 48):
British Airways serves Bangladesh and the Maldives, and will soon serve Sri Lanka again.

BA stopped flying to DAC in 2009. Lots of immigrants in Canada from the Maldives these days? Because I know a lot of immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and even a couple from Nepal. I see now that BA is going to start LGW-MLE-CMB flights in April 2013.

Progress, I suppose. Not sure how that benefits any folk of Sri Lankan origin in Canada since it offers a rather brilliant routing - Canada - LHR-LGW-MLE-CMB. Sounds like fun. And I bet it would be affordable too. Or theres the ME 3 that offer YYZ/YUL-ME stop- CMB option. But you know - as long as they have the option to inflict that absurd routing on themselves, Canadians will tell them they have enough options.

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 48):
In addition, several European airlines serve the Maldives and Sri Lanka.

Nope. Apart from BA's LGW-MLE-CMB flight, which has not yet commenced, no European airline has a regularly scheduled service to CMB. As for Maldives, technically you're correct, it is a South Asian country, albeit one that has no discernible links to Canada - unlike, say, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and, to a lesser degree, Nepal. Maybe we should add Bhutan to the have nots list too.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6719 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 40):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
QF did operate PPT-YVR with 5th freedom rights for a few years in the 1970s.

Was that a fuel stop when travelling from SYD to YVR and the rest of Canada?

It was QF's only route to YVR for a few years in the '70s, SYD-NAN-PPT-YVR, with 5th freedom rights PPT-YVR, operated by the 707-338C. They tried that for a while instead of their previous SFO-YVR tag-on. It obviously wasn't profitable and they reverted to the SFO tag-on, about the the time they replaced the 707 with the 747 on those routes. While the QF route via PPT existed YVR-PPT was YVR's longest nonstop flight, 68 nm further than CP's YVR-AMS nonstops.

[Edited 2013-02-21 15:24:34]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6711 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 49):
The treaty was signed in 2001. Etihad was founded two years later, in July 2003. Which begs the question - if the UAE had only one airline, then why was a restriction placed on the "operation of a frequency beyond three flights per week by any one designated airline."?

All of which is to say that for someone who talks about loose dissemination of history, you seem hell-bent on revising/distorting it completely. EK was never going to get all six slots wihtout Canadian approval (which, as we all know, is soooo forthcoming). Instead of leaving them empty, the UAE used them for its other airline.

I disagree. I've been told by people who should know that the wording splitting the frequencies betweek EK and EY was a requirement of the UAE.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6685 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 49):
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 46):
Same with Qatar, despite the frequent bluster that comes from the head of that airline on other topics.

QR is still only on 3 frequencies and that is not going to change anytime soon. How long have they been in Canada? 2 years? With not one additional slot added.

Canada often bases such decisions on O&D traffic data. I doubt there's very much O&D to/from Qatar.

You may recall that AC was prevented from starting service to HKG alongside CP and CX since the bilateral then in effect required that O&D traffic reach a certain threshold (around 300,000 passengers a year both directions if not mistaken). Once that threshold was reached, AC was permitted to start service to HKG.


User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2296 posts, RR: 12
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6643 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 49):
QR is still only on 3 frequencies and that is not going to change anytime soon. How long have they been in Canada? 2 years? With not one additional slot added.

July 2011 was the inaugural flight. They haven't asked the government for more yet. They also aren't fully using their cargo frequencies.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 49):
Etihad was founded two years later, in July 2003.

Etihad's first flight was October 31, 2005.

Emirates first flight was October 29, 2007.

EK's stand that they wouldn't fly to Toronto until they got daily flights still stands.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 49):
I suppose its how you describe "only a matter of time". Personally, I see that as ridiculously slow.

Taking EK out of the mix all the others are based on trade relations, demand for the service, bums in seats. You can complain all you want about it not being fast enough for you, there is a formula that is used , and you don't have hard numbers that the airlines and the government have at their disposal. The government knows exactly how many bums are in seats, they don't necessarily know as easily how much was paid for the seat. If a Canadian corporation complained they could not get seats for their people on a flight or that their business was hampered, you know the government would listen.

I prefer my government, listen to the majority of fellow citizens, look after jobs here and not in another country, pursue free trade where ever possible and where ever advantageous than a blustery foreign government owned airline, supporting and playing a key role in its own interests. If that bothers someone then we will never agree. I also don't want any other government owned entity owning too high a percentage of any other key industry either.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6600 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 51):
I disagree. I've been told by people who should know that the wording splitting the frequencies betweek EK and EY was a requirement of the UAE.

I find it very odd that "people who should know" are sharing details with people who "shouldn't know" (what with the apparent secrecy surrounding these meetings).

So lets stick to what we do know:

1) Canada has a habit of giving 2-3 weekly frequencies. TK, QR, ET ...all recent examples. Giving a maximum of 3 frequencies to any one designated airline with the rest of them being left at the discretion of the Governments is a little too consistent with longstanding Canadian policy. Trying to put it on the UAE seems odd. I don't recall UAE being particularly restrictive with its bilaterals. In fact it was quite generous with LH in the 1980s, much to the chagrin of LH today. Long story short - the 3 weekly per airline policy has 'Canada' stamped all over it.

2) The treaty was signed in June 2001.

Consider Etihad's history:

Founded in July 2003: 2 years. 1 month after the treaty was signed
First Commercial ops in November 2003: 2 years 5 months after the treaty was signed
First flight to Toronto: 31 October 2005: 4 years 4 months after the treaty was signed.

Which begs the question: why would the UAE Government put aside 3 slots for a carrier that didn't exist when the treaty was signed, and which wouldn't fly to Canada for 4.25 years after the treaty was signed? Why would it choose instead to impose restrictions on the only carrier that existed when the treaty was signed?

Therefore, I don't buy this argument of splitting frequencies between EK and EY. EY didn't exist at the time, and the 3 weekly frequency looks like its straight out of Canadian aviation policy (TK, QR). Attributing it to people who "should know" simply raises questions about why they're disclosing confidential information, particularly given that the then Minister of Foreign Affairs himself told a former leader of the Opposition that he could not disclose the details because they were too sensitive.

Makes one question the credibility of this person "who should know", unless the goal was to cast aspersions and obfuscate, in which case, job done. But not quite.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 52):
You may recall that AC was prevented from starting service to HKG alongside CP and CX since the bilateral then in effect required that O&D traffic reach a certain threshold (around 300,000 passengers a year both directions if not mistaken). Once that threshold was reached, AC was permitted to start service to HKG.
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 53):
July 2011 was the inaugural flight. They haven't asked the government for more yet. They also aren't fully using their cargo frequencies.


I don't know much about HKG. I suspect those requirements are legacies of the 1980s? Because most developed countries have moved on since then.

On QR,the myths continue....

“Qatar is of course interested in forging even closer ties with Canada but we are struggling with being granted additional landing rights,” Akbar Al Baker said in a speech Thursday to the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations.

That is from April 2012.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ore-landing-rights/article4099795/

FWIW, QR has 7 cargo aircraft - 3 A300s (can't fly nonstop to Canada) and 4 777Fs. Those 3 A300s are used for mid-haul, while the 777Fs are used primarily for the Far East. I don't think its any great surprise that they're not using their cargo component - they probably have more lucrative routes to use their small fleet on.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 53):
EK's stand that they wouldn't fly to Toronto until they got daily flights still stands.

Source?

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 53):
You can complain all you want about it not being fast enough for you, there is a formula that is used

Sure there is. Its the same formula that every other developed country used in the 1970s. Incidentally, they've all abandoned it now. Perhaps its time to ask why they've abandoned it?


User currently onlinehoons90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 3077 posts, RR: 52
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6439 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 52):
Canada often bases such decisions on O&D traffic data. I doubt there's very much O&D to/from Qatar.

You may recall that AC was prevented from starting service to HKG alongside CP and CX since the bilateral then in effect required that O&D traffic reach a certain threshold (around 300,000 passengers a year both directions if not mistaken). Once that threshold was reached, AC was permitted to start service to HKG.

That's true. Wasn't it only recently that Canada signed an open skies agreement with South Korea? Even despite the fact that there has been substantial traffic between the two countries for years. This deal greatly benefited KE btw, which is not a partner of AC.



The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2356 posts, RR: 25
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6309 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24):
And the inconvenience of using Cyprus as a staging base - increasing the flight distance significantly. But as we all know, fuel in 2010/11 cost nothing.

We were already staging through Cyprus. Just cause you don't read about it in the papers....

As to the whole issue, I think the part that bothers most Canadians is how the UAE government went to bat for EK/EY. I'm no fan of protecting AC. And I've come to support more open competition. But at the end of the day, Canadians do get their heckles up when they perceive a lack of fairness and in this case, rightly or wrongly, many sided with the government of Canada on this one because there was a perception that the UAE government was attempting strongarm Canada into a deal more beneficial to them.

There is this constant suggestion that there was some kind of quid pro quo with the basing rights. I've never seen any basing agreement to be understood like that. Indeed, it was all viewed as a contribution to the security of the UAE to have Canadian Forces operating from Mirage. And the UAE had forces in Kandahar under direct protection of the CF. Most would consider protecting their forces the big quid pro quo. But apparently not significant enough for the Sheikhs who also owned the airlines.

While you might argue that Canada hurt its interests, I'd argue that the whole episode has really shown the rest of the world how much of an arm of the state EK and EY are. They may be private enterprises owned by the Sheikhs. But even in Canada, nobody would expect basing rights tied to access for Air Canada. Indeed, as the dispute went on, the UAE Air Force had fighter pilots training in Moose Jaw. Voting against Canada's UNSC membership (though I consider it blessing not to end up with the privilege of pitching in more for a toothless and useless international body) and charging visa fees for Canadians maybe a short-term hit for us. But I would argue that it's a PR blunder for them. Nothing proves them to be a ward of the state like massive execution of state policy over a dispute over landing slots. Can you imagine the UK reacting the same way for BA or Germany for LH or even Singapore for SQ? I cant.

Add to that, I don't think the UAE would have reacted as harshly to the EU or the UK. They thought they could push Canada around and found out otherwise. Canada could have easily made life quite difficult for EK and EY. Imagine if Canada had retaliated by suspending First freedom rights for EK and EY. Personally, I would have loved to have seen that just to put the UAE government and the Sheikhs in their place. Fight fire with fire.

And I don't think the relationship is as much on the mend as the injury simply simmering down. The government now simply views the Gulf countries led by unelected Sheikhs as unreliable. So no more permanent basing in the region. Work with the Turks (through NATO) or the Cypriots or the Germans or Brits (C-17s make that possible). And use Gulf bases (Oman, Bahrain and Qatar are staunch allies...Kuwait is developing relations) only when absolutely necessary.


User currently onlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6260 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
I'd argue that the whole episode has really shown the rest of the world how much of an arm of the state EK and EY are. They may be private enterprises owned by the Sheikhs. But even in Canada, nobody would expect basing rights tied to access for Air Canada.
Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
I think the part that bothers most Canadians is how the UAE government went to bat for EK/EY.
Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
there was a perception that the UAE government was attempting strongarm Canada into a deal more beneficial to them.
Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
Nothing proves them to be a ward of the state like massive execution of state policy over a dispute over landing slots. Can you imagine the UK reacting the same way for BA or Germany for LH or even Singapore for SQ? I cant.

I agree with you on all these points. The UAE govt has come to expect carte blanche rights into every target country for EK, EY, etc. They came across as appalled (and perhaps nervous) when Canada balked at their demands. It would be good to see another Western nation get tough with the UAE.

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
Add to that, I don't think the UAE would have reacted as harshly to the EU or the UK. They thought they could push Canada around and found out otherwise. Canada could have easily made life quite difficult for EK and EY. Imagine if Canada had retaliated by suspending First freedom rights for EK and EY. Personally, I would have loved to have seen that just to put the UAE government and the Sheikhs in their place. Fight fire with fire.

Agree again. Canada could have considered banning EK and EY, and even restricting Canadian airspace. That we didn't shows that we were not escalating the issue.

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
charging visa fees for Canadians maybe a short-term hit for us.

Not really. Very few Canadians ever travel to the UAE. The Visa fee is a complete non-issue.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6095 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
I think the part that bothers most Canadians is how the UAE government went to bat for EK/EY.

Is it really any different than Canada batting for AC by imposing restrictive frequencies on airlines from any country that AC isn't interested in flying to? I mean, in EK/EY's case, the UAE Government is acting in the interest of both its airline and people (both of whom stand to benefit). In Canada's case, AC's interests don't necesarilyy align with Canadian interests: even if we overlook the MIrage incident, there are a lot of routes that are not served properly because AC can't make money of them for a host of reasons (legacy costs, lack of resources), but which do work for other airlines and which would benefit Canadians. I am sure all countries bat for their own corporations (the business delegations accompanying heads of government are getting larger and larger). Thats not really an issue. It only becomes an issue when the country chooses to support one group at the cost of another (AC vs military, airline vs consumer). While I don't mind that the Government is batting for AC, I do mind the fact that it was done at a cost to other segments. That said, to say only the UAE bats for its airlines is simply not true. The bilats show that any airline coming from a country that AC isn't interested in serving, faces restrictive policies.

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
Canadians do get their heckles up when they perceive a lack of fairness and in this case, rightly or wrongly,

I think its fair to say that there was a lot of biased information and not a few myths being propagated by both sides. That said, Canada's public and media insularity didn't help.

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
There is this constant suggestion that there was some kind of quid pro quo with the basing rights.

The lease expired. The extension was tied up to the aviation rights, as was the visa issue and possibly a nuclear fuel issue. Suffice it to say, the basing rights card wasn't played until the extension talks started (8 years after the base was made available to Canada?) and an extension was granted on the basis of resolving the issue. When it wasn't resolved the talks were put on hold. We certainly didn't stop talking to them completely after that. In the mean time, the lease expired.

FWIW, tying basing rights to economic/trade issues is not unheard of. Yes, its very Cold War-esque (very common during the Cold War) and outdated, but then again, so is Canada's penchant for handing out restrictive frequencies.

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
Indeed, it was all viewed as a contribution to the security of the UAE to have Canadian Forces operating from Mirage.

By whom? The UAE, with its infrastructure and Jebel Ali, knows its vital to the US. I don't think its worried about its security. At least not for however along Iran keeps posturing against the US.

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
I'd argue that the whole episode has really shown the rest of the world how much of an arm of the state EK and EY are.
Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
But I would argue that it's a PR blunder for them.

Was it? Perhaps in the eyes of Canadians, but I don't think anyone who affords the UAE daily frequencies knows or cares. One need only look at the foreign coverage to gauge what the rest of the world was thinking. Take for example, the Economist:

"The Canadian government seems to have realised belatedly that it had little to gain from squabbling with the UAE: John Baird, who became its minister of foreign affairs following a national election on May 2nd, met the Emirati ambassador at last on July 5th. Had his predecessor done so earlier, Canadian soldiers might still be based in Dubai today."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/ameri...07/canada-and-united-arab-emirates

As PR goes, the Economist has a very international audience. I don't think they came away with the impression that this was a PR blunder. If any of them even noticed ( i really don't think anybody did).

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
Add to that, I don't think the UAE would have reacted as harshly to the EU or the UK.

Would they have had to? Their ties with the EU and UK are manifold stronger than their ties with Canada, mostly because, by virtue of their location and historical ties. That aside, both those entities have liberal aviation policy regimens, effectively denying the UAE the opportunity to pick a fight on them.

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
They thought they could push Canada around and found out otherwise.

Perhaps. But then you have to ask yourself why our Foreign Minister was refusing to meet the Ambassador of a country in which we were operating a base. Who was pushing who around there?

I'll simpy say that it looks an awful lot like both countries thought they could push the other around. I mean, some of the jingoism here in Canada (and I don't just mean on this board) was cringe worthy:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ed-arab-emirates-where-to-get-off/

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
Imagine if Canada had retaliated by suspending First freedom rights for EK and EY.

Retaliate to what? A lease expiry because talks stalled? The talks stalled because both sides couldn't reach an agreement. Thats just the way it goes. If Canada had been booted in the middle of a lease, I would agree with you. But they weren't - they were booted later.

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
And I don't think the relationship is as much on the mend as the injury simply simmering down.

We've found a new market for nuclear fuel. Its our biggest trading partner in the ME. I think its on the mend. I mean, the man who stood against EK has made several very public overtures towards the UAE. I think we can both agree that no one would have cared if he hadn't.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7718 posts, RR: 21
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6073 times:

Meh, if they want to reduce the number of people spending loads of cash in their ridiculous desert shopping mall let them let them get on with it. A ridiculous overreaction to an aviation issue, with no real meaningful downside for Canadians other than perhaps choosing a different holiday destination.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2185 posts, RR: 9
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5930 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 57):
Canada could have considered banning EK and EY, and even restricting Canadian airspace. That we didn't shows that we were not escalating the issue.

Playing the airspace-restriction card would be a very serious escalation, tantamount to an act of aggression. This dispute hardly warranted such action. One can only imagine the collective opposition from the Asian, European and American airlines that depend on Canadian first-freedom rights. There is no way Canada would emerge in a good light from such a move, and it would certainly provide some considerable blowback.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 57):
Not really. Very few Canadians ever travel to the UAE. The Visa fee is a complete non-issue.

It may be a non-issue for those who don't travel to the UAE, but contrary to repeated assertions, Canadians DO travel to the UAE for work, pleasure and transit. That the numbers might not be gigantic bears little weight in the argument; there are considerations of principle beyond inconveniencing a relatively small number of travelers.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3410 posts, RR: 9
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5786 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 54):
Which begs the question: why would the UAE Government put aside 3 slots for a carrier that didn't exist when the treaty was signed, and which wouldn't fly to Canada for 4.25 years after the treaty was signed? Why would it choose instead to impose restrictions on the only carrier that existed when the treaty was signed?

The bi-lateral stated 6 daily frequencies between Canada and the UAE. EK initially refused to serve YYZ unless it got a daily service which wasn't granted, EY then took 3 of the slots leaving EK to take it or leave it with the remaining 3.

Bi-laterals are not negotiated considering airlines but from slots.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 57):
I agree with you on all these points. The UAE govt has come to expect carte blanche rights into every target country for EK, EY, etc. They came across as appalled (and perhaps nervous) when Canada balked at their demands. It would be good to see another Western nation get tough with the UAE.

Isn't Germany also restricting them with some frequencies.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 59):
Meh, if they want to reduce the number of people spending loads of cash in their ridiculous desert shopping mall let them let them get on with it.

As Canadians if we want a desert shopping mall we will go to Vegas and in Vegas we don't have to worry about getting arrested for having sex with someone we aren't married to   .



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinedarkroast From Canada, joined Jan 2011, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5727 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):
As Canadians if we want a desert shopping mall we will go to Vegas and in Vegas we don't have to worry about getting arrested for having sex with someone we aren't married to   .

Heck, we barely have sex with people we ARE married to. Birthday and anniversary excluded.

Sorry, couldn't resist that one. And StarAC17 WAS stirring up the pot...


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7718 posts, RR: 21
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5709 times:

Quoting darkroast (Reply 62):
stirring up the pot...

Oh yeah, and on the matter of pot - that's another thing you could face jail for, accidentally having stepped on it in the street in the UAE and 'posessing' an amount essentially invisible to the naked eye......super place.

[Edited 2013-02-22 14:20:35]


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5668 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):
The bi-lateral stated 6 daily frequencies between Canada and the UAE. EK initially refused to serve YYZ unless it got a daily service which wasn't granted, EY then took 3 of the slots leaving EK to take it or leave it with the remaining 3.

Is there any source that says that EK would have taken all 6 slots if it could have, and that Canada would not have objected to this?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):

Isn't Germany also restricting them with some frequencies.

Correct.

EK wants to start Stuttgart and Berlin. However, the Germany-UAE bilateral is already very liberal, and even I would think twice before giving them more frequencies. As things stand, they have

EK
FRA: 3 daily 773s
HAM: 2 daily 773s
DUS: 2 daily 773s
MUC: 1 daily 773, 1 daily A380

EY
FRA: 2 daily
DUS: 1 daily
MUC: 1 daily

For a total of 13 daily flights or 91 weekly flights. At that point, they placed a restriction. Canada, with a population of 34 million, places the restriction at 6 weekly. The math is amusing: Germany has 2.4 times the population, but has no qualms about offering the UAE 15 times the amount of access before putting restrictions in place. Go figure.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5520 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 64):
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):Isn't Germany also restricting them with some frequencies.Correct.

My understanding of the current agreement is that Emirates can only fly to four destinations within Germany but there are no limits to the frequency of flights or what model of aircraft is deployed. In other words, the only limitation on capacity at the destinations presently served is slot availability. While Emirates wishes to add Berlin and Stuttgart they can only do so if the give up one of the current destinations.

In addition to the 63 passenger flights listed, Emirates has been operating all-cargo flights (eight weekly?) to DUS and FRA.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 64):
joined exactly 1 years ago today! ,

Happy anniversary!  


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3410 posts, RR: 9
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5501 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 64):
Is there any source that says that EK would have taken all 6 slots if it could have, and that Canada would not have objected to this?

They probably had a shot at them but EY actually started serving YYZ first so EK had to take the remaining slots, because the Canadian government hasn't increased them yet.

EK has their chance at 6x weekly and blew it.

I can't say all bi-laterals are like this but most of them allow frequencies to each country with perhaps city restrictions, transit points etc. But it is up to the airlines to fight it out for the slots.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5411 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 65):
Happy anniversary!

  . Thanks.

I did not know that.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 66):
EK has their chance at 6x weekly and blew it.

EK is pretty outspoken - if they have this stance, then its bound to be out there in the public record. When did they say they would only fly to YYZ if it was daily? The facts, as they stand, are:

1) For some reason, the bilateral, signed 2 years before the UAE got its second airline, restricts any one airline from flying more than 3 weekly - a fact conveniently (deliberately?) overlooked in many discussions and Canadian media reports on this topic since 2010.
2) Canada has a long history of preferring these restrictive 2-3 weekly frequencies. That policy continues even today - QR, TK, ET, SV. AFAIK, the UAE does not have a policy of offering these types of limited frequencies (barring reciprocity if the other country insists on it).

Simple logic suggests that that the 3 weekly rule was put in place by Canada, despite all kinds of conspiracy theories suggesting otherwise. This notion that EK could have all six slots has all the characteristics of revisionism. If they could have had all six slots, then why was the 3 weekly restriction placed a good two years before the UAE even got its second airline? One poster has even gone so far as to suggest that the UAE demanded the restriction, which, again, makes no sense. Was its planning based on the assumption that the number of slots would remain non-negotiable 3-4 years into the future, if/when a new airline was created? That is a very odd assumption to operate on, particularly with regard to negotiations.

I find it very odd that some here expect us to believe that the UAE chose to penalize one of its own airlines in the hope of benefitting a second airline that didn't yet exist, instead of opening a new round of negotiations two or three years later if/when the new airline came online. IMHO, that seems like the logical way to approach this situation.

IMHO, it just doesn't add up.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 66):
I can't say all bi-laterals are like this but most of them allow frequencies to each country with perhaps city restrictions, transit points etc. But it is up to the airlines to fight it out for the slots.

Don't airlines normally fight it out for the slots on a domestic level with their own aviation authority? I don't think UAE airlines go to the Indian or German or British Aviation authorities and say: "you choose which of us will be allowed to fly here, and how often, because our own aviation authority can't make that call". As far as I can tell, any regional rivalries within countries are addressed within their own national institutions, and not referred to other nations to make a decision for them.

I may be wrong, but AFAIK, the UAE does not face this issue with any other countries. Does it? Have they done something similar with the UK? After all, thats a far more lucrative market for these two airlines than Canada will ever be for these airlines, Kangaroo/Falcon route and all.


User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5299 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 63):

Oh yeah, and on the matter of pot - that's another thing you could face jail for, accidentally having stepped on it in the street in the UAE and 'posessing' an amount essentially invisible to the naked eye......super place

lets not forget the canning that american teen got in Singapore for vandalism.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 67):

I find it hard to believe EK shunned six weekly which is almost daily service, were they even offered six weekly, like you said the others only got 2-3 weeklies.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3070 posts, RR: 37
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5219 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 51):
I've been told by people who should know that the wording splitting the frequencies betweek EK and EY was a requirement of the UAE.

It was.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 54):
Which begs the question: why would the UAE Government put aside 3 slots for a carrier that didn't exist when the treaty was signed

Maybe because EK and EY are controlled by competing princes from different royal families (we've been over this on about 137 threads so far). There was no Canadian conspiracy.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):
The bi-lateral stated 6 daily frequencies between Canada and the UAE. EK initially refused to serve YYZ unless it got a daily service which wasn't granted, EY then took 3 of the slots leaving EK to take it or leave it with the remaining 3.

  

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 54):
I find it very odd that "people who should know" are sharing details with people who "shouldn't know"

Look at Viscount724's industry background.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 54):
Attributing it to people who "should know" simply raises questions about why they're disclosing confidential information, particularly given that the then Minister of Foreign Affairs himself told a former leader of the Opposition that he could not disclose the details because they were too sensitive.

You're assuming that the information came from a Canadian government official. There were other participants in the negotiations.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 54):
Makes one question the credibility of this person "who should know", unless the goal was to cast aspersions and obfuscate, in which case, job done.

There really, really isn't a Government of Canada conspiracy to deny you access to daily EK flights.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5117 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 69):
It was.

Why isn't this thread replete with examples of the UAE including similar clauses in its other bilaterals?

Why did it choose to do so only with Canada, a country which, rather curiously has a longstanding policy of offering 2-3 weekly frequencies (QR, TK, ET, SV - in the last 5 years alone)?

Why would the UAE not decide who gets access to slots 4, 5 and 6 in-house, within its own national agencies?

Why would they give Canada an effective veto power over the use of slots 4,5 and 6 for their only existing airline, particularly given Canada's longstanding penchant for offering only 3 slots?

Why would they give Canada an effective veto over their power to reallocate slots 4, 5 and 6 in the event that the second airline took longer to get going than it did?

Why would they operate on the assumption that they were only ever going to get six slots and that this was never going to be negotiable in the future?

Why would they restrict their own use of the slots and choose instead to gamble on the success of a second airline that wasn't founded until a good two years after the bilat was signed? Why would they not gamble instead on a new round of negotiations if/when the second carrier was ready to expand?

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 69):

Maybe because EK and EY are controlled by competing princes from different royal families (we've been over this on about 137 threads so far).

And I will happily repeat all of the questions in another 137 threads - or however long it takes to get to the bottom of some of the claims that have become common place here.

Trying to attribute it all away to warring factions in the UAE is a bit disingenuous when you consider the simple fact that Canada, not the UAE, has a longstanding policy of handing out 2-3 weekly frequencies. The simplest explanation is usually the best one.

FWIW, the UAE does not strike me as a country that would allow another nation to arbitrate and impose binding decisions on its domestic issues.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 69):
You're assuming that the information came from a Canadian government official. There were other participants in the negotiations.

1) Canada has a policy offering 3 weekly frequencies
2) The UAE-Canada bilateral offers six weekly frequencies, but has a restriction on any one airline operating more than 3 weekly frequencies, even tthough he UAE only has one airline (and won't get its second for another two years - which won't start operating to Canada for another 4 years - clearly no time there for negotiating additional slots for a second carrier if/when it becomes a reality).
3) Canadians claim the UAE placed the restriction of 3 slots and gave Canada effective veto over the use of those by any one carrier becuase it was in the UAE's interest to do so (????). These claims continue even after Canada hands 2-3 weekly frequencies out to QR, TK, ET, SV in the last 4 years.

Now we have claims that its true because 'somebody - possibly not a Canadian' said so. No offense, but It looks like run-of-the-mill obfuscation.

There have been so many things said on these 137 threads that I can't help but feel that some claims are bieng perpetuated without any evidence/substance simply because its become nigh on impossible to discern what's true and what's not. Its like a case of "if you repeat something enough, people will believe its true". The issue, however, is that questions still remain.

In this case, we're expected to believe that both the UAE and Canada deviated from the way they normally behave, with Canada being willing to give the EK all six weekly slots (flying in the face of its 2-3 weekly initial frequency policy which it is still implementing, for example with NATO ally Turkey in 2009) and the UAE placing restrictions (effectively giving Canada a veto over how the UAE itself could use its slots a good two years before it even got a second airline).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It just doesn't add up.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 69):
There really, really isn't a Government of Canada conspiracy to deny you access to daily EK flights.

I might have disagreed once, but I agree now.

There is no conspiracy against me or EK. It is merely a case of an outdated policy. As is evident in the case of ET, TK, QR, SV. Canada simply has a policy of not granting daily access to any country that AC isn't interested in flying to. The case of EK and EY is no different than the case of ET or TK in this regard. The only thing that makes it stand out is tha the UAE responded to Canada's Cold War-esque aviation policy by playing a very Cold War-esque card and tying military basing rights to economic/commercial issues.

I am not the biggest fan of this policy, since there are any number of routes that might not work for AC (due to legacy costs, mismanagement etc) but which can work for other airlines. I fail to see the point of restricting consumers choice according to AC's assessment of the market and how AC can thrive in it, given its own unique ...requirements.

I don't think theres a Government of Canada conspiracy against anything anymore. I simply think that after long history of owning entities like AC, its having a hard time detaching itself from AC's interests and focusing instead on what is in the consumer's interest. As it stands, more, not less, air connectivity is a good thing. And by more, I don't mean 'unlimited'; I mean at least daily frequency, if only because I drink the same koolaid as the folks at Intervistas, who emphasise the importance of having a daily flight to make long-haul routes viable. I, and some of their clients, seem to be under the impression that they may know a little more about the economics of aviation than Governments do, what with being specialists in the field.

[Edited 2013-02-23 07:16:27]

[Edited 2013-02-23 07:18:45]

[Edited 2013-02-23 07:19:30]

User currently onlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4994 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 64):
The math is amusing: Germany has 2.4 times the population, but has no qualms about offering the UAE 15 times the amount of access before putting restrictions in place. Go figure.

Sounds more like Germany is a bilateral negotiation pushover. I prefer Canada's more principled, consistent stand.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 70):
As it stands, more, not less, air connectivity is a good thing.


Not always. Not with nations such as the UAE whose airlines aggressively dump capacity in markets courtesy of overt government support. The massive government support of UAE carriers distorts the market place. Canada should not be opening its market further to such un-level competition, especially to airlines from non-Western and non-liberal countries who do not share our values and whose social policies are odious to most Canadians.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3410 posts, RR: 9
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4918 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 70):
The UAE-Canada bilateral offers six weekly frequencies, but has a restriction on any one airline operating more than 3 weekly frequencies, even tthough he UAE only has one airline (and won't get its second for another two years - which won't start operating to Canada for another 4 years - clearly no time there for negotiating additional slots for a second carrier if/when it becomes a reality).

I'm betting that EY was in the works long before this bi-lateral was negotiated.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 70):
It is merely a case of an outdated policy. As is evident in the case of ET, TK, QR, SV. Canada simply has a policy of not granting daily access to any country that AC isn't interested in flying to.

AC will start IST this summer and while I'm not sure of the frequency will be the *A code-sharing with TK means that TK gets a capacity increase without additional costs of serving the additional 2 days.

Also how do you know where AC is interested in serving?? Their fleet is maxed out at the moment and with the 787 issues they can't expand and with their current bottom line it probably isn't advised to start the gulf cities or ADD at the moment because they aren't going to be profitable right away if ever. AC needs to figure out how to make money at the moment with what it has.

All of the airlines you mention have started serving really recently and are getting more services added (just not fast enough for you) the UAE airlines (EK really ruined it for EY) would have more now if they hadn't thrown hissy fits about this.

In the adult world you get punished for that behaviour.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3070 posts, RR: 37
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4857 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 72):
I'm betting that EY was in the works long before this bi-lateral was negotiated.

   Airlines don't get established overnight.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 70):
It is merely a case of an outdated policy.

I have no problem with Canada putting its own economic, trade and strategic interests ahead of the commercial interests of a foreign airline owned by the ruling family of a country that has a demonstrated history of capricious decision-making. In fact, I'd be really upset if Canada didn't put it's own interests first.

There is a national interest in ensuring that there is an airline with the viability and financial capacity to provide service to provincial and territorial capitals and secondary cities.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 70):
As is evident in the case of ET, TK, QR, SV. Canada simply has a policy of not granting daily access to any country that AC isn't interested in flying to.

Canada's bilateral air services negotiations are largely driven by the trade negotiation agenda. Take a look at Canada's Latin America trade policy and air service bilaterals over the last few years.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4831 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 72):

I'm betting that EY was in the works long before this bi-lateral was negotiated.

Perhaps, but it still wouldn't make sense for the UAE to restrict their own (only) airline by giving the Canadian Government the power to decide how many of those slots go to which UAE airline. That is a decision that is made in-house, not given to an external arbitrator with its own vested interests. It stands to reason that it would make more sense to wait for the new airline to go online, build the capacity to serve the market, and then open a new round of negotiations (roughly in the midst of the 8 or 9 year base lease, if they were so inclined to use that card. They didn't play it, it should be noted, until the base lease expired, and even after that they offered a short extension). Why would they give Canada an effective veto over how their own airlines use slots 4,5 and 6?

I think part of the Canadian narrative being put forth on a.net is built less on facts and more on assumptions and lack of knowledge of the ME. Its easy to say that the UAE is made of seven sheikhdoms that are competing with each other (which country doesn't have provinces and states that compete), but does that automatically mean that they set out to undermine each other in international treaties? I think not. The UAE's national government is stable and generally gets things done. Why would they go and air their dirty laundry in bilats and give other countries vetos over what may or may not be in their own interests? Do they really need the Canadian Government to step in and sort out issues about distribution of slots between EK and EY? And if so, why aren't we seeing it in other countries.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 72):
Also how do you know where AC is interested in serving?? Their fleet is maxed out at the moment and with the 787 issues they can't expand and with their current bottom line it probably isn't advised to start the gulf cities or ADD at the moment because they aren't going to be profitable right away if ever. AC needs to figure out how to make money at the moment with what it has.

Its very simple - if you take a list of countries that have 2-3 weekly frequencies to begin with, and compare them to those have more than that, it won't take you long to notice that the ones who get these frequencies are the ones that AC was not, at the time the bilaterals were negotiated, interested in flying to.

OF course AC has to decide what works for it. Thats only fair. The issue is that there are routes that AC can't sort out for any number of reasons (lack of aircraft for example) which make it unable to serve these routes. Does that mean that those routes aren't viable? Of course not. You mention IST. It is a good example. IST-YYZ has been a success story for TK for four years, which means that that 'proven demand' clause has been met. Does that mean it was viable for AC all along? Maybe, maybe not - AC had its own priorities, and now that it can free up aircraft thanks to the arrival of the new aircraft, it can serve IST.

As I've noted several times before, there are many routes that may not be viable for some carriers but which may be viable for others. Should the latter be restricted on account of the former, as is the case with AC and the ME?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 72):
All of the airlines you mention have started serving really recently and are getting more services added (just not fast enough for you) the UAE airlines (EK really ruined it for EY) would have more now if they hadn't thrown hissy fits about this.

Of all the airlines I have mentioned, only one has gotten 2 additional slots over a four year period. The suggestion that EY would have gotten additional slots is pure speculation, given the none too subtle AC campaign against the UAE (think website). If you go back all the way to 2009, a year before this whole issue went into overdrive, you will see that the first shot was fired by AC, not EK. AC threw a hissy fit long before the UAE took an antagonistic stance and refused to renew the base lease.

Here's an article from June 2009:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...-clash-over-access/article1365249/

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 72):
In the adult world you get punished for that behaviour.

Agreed.

pun·ish·ment

/ˈpəniSHmənt/

Noun

1.The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.
2.The penalty inflicted.

The only thing remotely resembling a penalty in all of this was one party's loss of access to a base. One party left with no more and no less. The other one left with less than what it started with. I suppose its fair to say that the latter party got punished.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4807 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 73):
I have no problem with Canada putting its own economic, trade and strategic interests ahead of the commercial interests of a foreign airline owned by the ruling family of a country that has a demonstrated history of capricious decision-making.

That really depends on whether Camp Mirage was a strategic asset or not. We know what at least one minister thought. In fact, he wore a cap to that effect.

That aside, I agree with you. I do, however, disagree with the notion that the airline's interest should supercede the taxpayers interest. If a route is not viable for Air Canada, does that automatically mean it is not beneficial to Canadian citizens? That is the question that is being posed. For example, we know AC can't/won't fly to the Middle East (other than Turkey and Israel), but does that mean that Canada- Middle East is not in the interest of any Canadian taxpayers?

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 73):
There is a national interest in ensuring that there is an airline with the viability and financial capacity to provide service to provincial and territorial capitals and secondary cities.

How many destinations does AC fly to in the territories?

FWIW, WS must have very poor marketing folk. Your statement seems to suggest that they don't exist. Not to mention any of the smaller airlines that connect the North to the rest of the country. Lets put it this way - giving EK daily or even double daily access to YYZ would not have resulted in the collapse of AC's international and domestic network, which kind of renders this point moot. AC is not the only carrier in the country, nor does it play much of a role in the North.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 73):

Canada's bilateral air services negotiations are largely driven by the trade negotiation agenda. Take a look at Canada's Latin America trade policy and air service bilaterals over the last few years.

Thats great, but I don't see your point. We don't trade enough with the ME, so we don't need flights there? That ignores the fact that we get immigrants from all over the world, not just from nations we trade with. Are we interested in connecting Canada to the rest of the world, or only the countries we trade with?


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2356 posts, RR: 25
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4496 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 58):
Is it really any different than Canada batting for AC by imposing restrictive frequencies on airlines from any country that AC isn't interested in flying to?

Quite different. Canada has had numerous trade disputes with the US and the EU. Have we ever tied our military relations to those disputes?

Heck, remember the laughable turbot wars? Spanish warships deployed to the Grand Banks facing off across Canadians frigates, while I personally knew off of a Spanish fighter pilot posted on exchange to Cold Lake.

And again. We had lots of UAE personnel training here (largely because the US had reservations about letting them loose on American bases). We didn't decide that training arrangements wouldn't be renewed because of some dispute over slots.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 58):
The extension was tied up to the aviation rights

No it wasn't. Not until the UAE decided it had to be. It was not as though the UAE made it clear when they gave basing rights, that they were only being given if we guaranteed more slots later. Are you going to suggest that every country who operated through that airbase now owes trade concessions to the UAE? Or was it just Canada that was singled out?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 58):
FWIW, tying basing rights to economic/trade issues is not unheard of.

In the middle of a shooting war, between supposed allies?

I guess if we look at the UAE like we do at Pakistan then perhaps such behaviour should be expected. Other than that, particularly among western allies there has always been a distinct separation between military and trade relations.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 58):
The UAE, with its infrastructure and Jebel Ali, knows its vital to the US.

Who said I was talking about the UAE itself? I was referring to UAE forces operating in Kandahar, under direct protection of the Canadian battle group. They got to have restrictive ROEs so that they didn't have to engage fellow Muslims in combat. Meanwhile, our guys would take incoming fire to afford them that PR facade.

As for the US considering them important. They shouldn't kid themselves. At the end of the day, if Saudi were more stable or had the same facilites or if relations were better with India, the UAE would be disposable. Ever wondered why US CENTCOM is in Qatar and not the UAE? Or why the US Navy operates out of Bahrain? Or why the RAF, RN and RCAF operate out of Oman (UAE wasn't our only friend in the area)?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 58):
Would they have had to?

Just look at how the UAE has reacted to Germany refusing to expand access for EK. Sure, they have more than they have to Canada. But at this stage, it's about expansion. Oddly enough I don't see the UAE threatening to buy only Boeing aircraft until Germany grants more access.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 58):
Retaliate to what? A lease expiry because talks stalled?

All's fair. They decide to tie the lease extension to air rights. And subsequently voted and actively campaigned against our membership in the UNSC. The latter in particular, seemed deserving of that kind of response. On this, I wished the government grew a pair.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 58):
Its our biggest trading partner in the ME.

And in the grand scheme of things, insignificant. By and large trade with the UAE consists of arbitrage owing to the regulatory and geopolitical complications of operating in India, Iran, etc. If the West had great relations with Iran and if India wasn't as dysfunctional, there'd be a lot of folks still riding camels instead of driving MBs in the desert.

You've been there and you know exactly what I'm talking about. How many Arabs are skilled enough to keep that place at the level it's at? What if all that Indian talent was centred in Bombay or Bangalore? Dubai exist exactly because Bombay is such an epic fail as a major centre.


Now I am not saying EK doesn't deserve more access or that our policy doesn't need to be fixed to promote more competition. But defending the UAE through this is utter tosh. They got 6 slots. I think that's plenty. The only poor choice made was restricting the UAE to 3 slots per airline. I would like to see the government give the UAE 7 slots and lifting the slots per airline restriction. Beyond that? Giving them another 7 slots so both EK and EY can go daily is ridiuclous. So if FZ decides to do long-haul someday and launch to Canada or if Sheikhs of Sharjah or Ajman or Ras-al-Kaimah decide they want to launch airlines too, does that mean that we should be facilitating an extra 7 slots per airline? 7 slots to the UAE, no restrictions is fair. We don't owe them anything beyond that. I'd rather see TK, QR and ET go daily.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4367 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 76):

Quite different. Canada has had numerous trade disputes with the US and the EU. Have we ever tied our military relations to those disputes?

Are you really comparing Canada-EU and Canada-US relations to Canada-UAE relations?

I don't think Canada or the UAE need each other as much as Canada needs the EU or the US in terms of both trade and military (no idea how mutual that need is).

The kind of spat we have seen between the UAE and Canada is the kind of spat that can only take place between two relatively mid-level countries (as opposed to great or even regional powers) that don't have a whole lot to do with each other on an official basis (that isn't to say that there are no links between the two countries). Between you and me, I doubt it would even happen with the US; the UAE needs the US more than the US needs the UAE.

FWIW, basing rights and commercial/economic ties have been tied together for a long time (and not just in disputes). Castro was using it in Cuba. India used it with the Soviets all the time - got a full commercial and naval port out of it (Vizag). In fact, I'm willing to bet that every base outside the NATO/Warsaw Pact umbrella was acquired through economic/financial/commercial inducements.

Quoting ytz (Reply 76):
We had lots of UAE personnel training here (largely because the US had reservations about letting them loose on American bases).

I have a hard time believing that. Didn't the UAE participate in Red Flag quite recently?

Quoting ytz (Reply 76):
Not until the UAE decided it had to be.

Would that be before or after our Foreign Minister refused to meet their Ambassador here in Ottawa?

Quoting ytz (Reply 76):
It was not as though the UAE made it clear when they gave basing rights, that they were only being given if we guaranteed more slots later.

The initial lease lasted until June 2010. The UAE did not link landing rights to the extension of the lease expired, even though EK and AC were exchanging 'pleasantries' in 2009, a year before it expired. Everything I have read indicates that negotiations were going on in June 2009, a full year before the lease actually expired. They probably started before that. For whatever reason, they succeeded in going nowhere. For a full year. A year in which, I might add, our foreign minister refused to talk to the Ambassador.

The lease ended in 2010 and extension talks began. A full year had passed at this point. The UAE appears to have gotten fed up with the never ending negotiations at this point, and linked the extension of the base to the negotiations. I don't think anybody on the Canadian side was unaware of what was at stake when this happened. Those talks stalled and the lease expired. If the UAE had been so intent on using the base as a bargaining chip, they could have used it in 2005, when EY started, or 2007, when EK started, yet they waited till the lease expired in 2010 to make a link. I suspect it was out of sheer frustration after being jerked around - what with the negotiations going nowhere, and their ambassador in Ottawa being treated like an outcast.

What do you think it was? UAE recalcitrance? I think its fair to say that both sides screwed up a lot on this one.

Quoting ytz (Reply 76):
Are you going to suggest that every country who operated through that airbase now owes trade concessions to the UAE? Or was it just Canada that was singled out?

Hold on. The base was provided with no conditions attached for 9 years. When the lease extension came in, negotiations on a separate (landing rights) issue had been going on for at least a year (if not longer) with no progress. The UAE linked the two.

Did the UAE single out Canada? That is an interesting question, to which I could pose the following question: Did Canada single itself out by virtue of its aviation policy?

The other countries also probably got the base wihtout any conditions attached. The difference between them and us is that they have very liberal aviation policies (as is common with developed countries, with one notable exception) , and I suspect they treat the UAE ambassador a little better than we did for those one or two years. If Australia or the Netherlands had been in our position, then depending on how mature their ties are (and lets face it, our ties with the UAE were superficial at best), yes, I think they would play the same card with them too. Thats usually how negotiations go. You leverage something they want against something you want. And in Canada and the UAE's case, the base and the landing rights were the only tangible aspects of the relationship at the time.

Quoting ytz (Reply 76):
In the middle of a shooting war, between supposed allies?

Allies. Superficial relations at best, not dissimilar to Canada's relations with India. Lots of polite words. And no substance. Did you miss the part about ignoring the UAE Ambassador in Ottawa? Thats very poor form between allies. They did us a favor by leasing a base with no conditions attached, and we apparently returned it by looking after their boys in Afghanistan. Granted, by the time they pulled the plug, we were what 6-8 months away from leaving Kandahar. Impeccable timing.

Quoting ytz (Reply 76):
I guess if we look at the UAE like we do at Pakistan then perhaps such behaviour should be expected.

Another brutal reality check: every country will always act in its own interests. In the Canada-UAE case, however, its not clear that Canada was acting in the interest of taxpayers; it seems as though it was fixated on the interests of a private airline. Thats my only beef with it. Giving an airline four extra frequencies for a base... I don't see that as much of a concession. Particularly since the plan was to keep this base, albeit in a dormant state, well into the future (that whole support hub thing).

Quoting ytz (Reply 76):
As for the US considering them important. They shouldn't kid themselves. At the end of the day, if Saudi were more stable or had the same facilites or if relations were better with India, the UAE would be disposable. Ever wondered why US CENTCOM is in Qatar and not the UAE?

No foreign military will ever be allowed to operate out of India. Even the Soviets couldn't, and they tried their damndest - built Vizag in the hope of securing basing rights there, but never got them. Sure the UAE would be disposable (if there is a better option available, everythig is disposable). Of course, if Iran were to threaten the UAE, I expect the US to come rushing in regardless of how much they needed the UAE.

I don't know why CENTCOM is in Qatar, but I do know that Jebel Ali is the US Navy's most used port outside the United States. If it has no value to them, why do they keep using it? Granted, this is all irrelevant. It keeps coming up in the context of the UAE owing Canada something for its protection.

Quoting ytz (Reply 76):
Or why the RAF, RN and RCAF operate out of Oman (UAE wasn't our only friend in the area)?

Oman-UK ties have always been very, very strong, so that doesn't surprise me in the least bit. The only thing that surprises me, in this case, is our choice of Kuwait over Oman.

Quoting ytz (Reply 76):

Just look at how the UAE has reacted to Germany refusing to expand access for EK. Sure, they have more than they have to Canada. But at this stage, it's about expansion. Oddly enough I don't see the UAE threatening to buy only Boeing aircraft until Germany grants more access.

Again, apples to oranges. UAE-Germany ties are light years ahead of UAE-Canada ties. Germany has a very large footprint in the UAE. Virtually every major German company is doing business there and Government to Government ties are strong. I think its fair to say that both sides have a lot more at stake there than Canada did in the UAE and vice versa.

Quoting ytz (Reply 76):
And in the grand scheme of things, insignificant.

Of course. But aren't we the ones sending out massive trade delegations in the hopes of finding new markets? I wouldn't scoff at trade - everybody's dollar has the same value. I'm going to bet that the trade balance is in our favor, which is also a good thing.

Quoting ytz (Reply 76):
Giving them another 7 slots so both EK and EY can go daily is ridiuclous. So if FZ decides to do long-haul someday and launch to Canada or if Sheikhs of Sharjah or Ajman or Ras-al-Kaimah decide they want to launch airlines too, does that mean that we should be facilitating an extra 7 slots per airline?


You know my views on this. Give every countriy at least 7 slots to begin with. Let their aviation authorities sort out who gets to go where (instead of inserting clauses saying any airline can fly only 3 slots, with slots 4,5,6 and 7 at Canada's discretion). My criticism of Canada on the UAE file rests primarily on the aviation policy - I simply don't see a couple of additional slots here and there (not unlimited)as a major compromise - God knows there are benefits attached to air links.

Of course, the UAE file is a bit special in a different sense: the Canadian tendency on a.net to revert to ad hominems and a blatant reluctance to acknowledge any faults in Canada's handling of the file, not to mention the constant obfuscation. I'm no fan of the UAE (if we had no bilat with them and neither EK or EY flew here, it wouldn't bother me in the least), but fair is fair. Their is a tendency to believe that the UAE is the only country that acted wrongly, not neccessarily because the facts support this, but because, well, they're some tiny country far away who we knew nothing about until 2001. This was a poorly handled file; nothing more. It could have been avoided, and frankly we didn't come out any better for it.

My focus is not on the UAE or what it does; my focus is on Canada's aviation policy and how it affects Canadian taxpayers. And while we're at it, getting the facts straight (a surprisingly big ask).


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2356 posts, RR: 25
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4119 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 77):
Between you and me, I doubt it would even happen with the US; the UAE needs the US more than the US needs the UAE.

Exactly my point. They thought, we'd cave, because we aren't as big as the US or the UK or Germany.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 77):
FWIW, basing rights and commercial/economic ties have been tied together for a long time (and not just in disputes). Castro was using it in Cuba. India used it with the Soviets all the time - got a full commercial and naval port out of it (Vizag). In fact, I'm willing to bet that every base outside the NATO/Warsaw Pact umbrella was acquired through economic/financial/commercial inducements.

Meh. We've transited through India. You just never read about it in the papers. There's countries that we've overflown in the region too, that you'd never think we would. When countries realize common interests, they are usually fairly accommodating, if it costs them nothing to do so.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 77):
I have a hard time believing that. Didn't the UAE participate in Red Flag quite recently?

There are countries that come to Red Flag, that would never see their personnel given regular access to US facilities. Exercises like Red Flag are just shows of military diplomacy. Like our inviting Singapore and Israel to Maple Flag.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 77):
Would that be before or after our Foreign Minister refused to meet their Ambassador here in Ottawa?

Relevance?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 77):
What do you think it was? UAE recalcitrance? I think its fair to say that both sides screwed up a lot on this one.

This is my point. You've gone around portraying this entirely as our loss. It's not. And that's all I'm saying. It's time you acknowledged that the UAE dropped the ball here too.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 77):
Did the UAE single out Canada? That is an interesting question, to which I could pose the following question: Did Canada single itself out by virtue of its aviation policy?

There were forces from a certain other country operating through there, which the UAE wanted expanded access to. Did they get booted? Of course not. So yes, we were singled out.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 77):
Allies. Superficial relations at best, not dissimilar to Canada's relations with India. Lots of polite words. And no substance.

FWIW, our relations with India are improving at a rapid clip. Sure, there's different viewpoints across the government. Heck, even inside DND, you have reluctant offices and those (usually at the Command level) that are exceptionally enthusiastic. But since this government has decided that India is the future, ties are improving. And I'd argue that they are certainly more substantial than those with the UAE.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 77):
Giving an airline four extra frequencies for a base... I don't see that as much of a concession. P

I do. For the precedent it would set. They already had 6 slots. So they should get 4 more to get EK to go daily? And what happens when the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi decides that EY should be going daily too? We have personnel posted at Centcom in Qatar. Does this mean that we owe the Qataris daily service at YYZ too when they ask? After all, if the Qataris decide to follow UAE precedent, they could easily deny our personnel visas (possibly risk angering the US as well, but viable course of action for the Qataris). So where does all this end? I suspect, this is exactly why the government had reservations about negotiating under duress.

I have agreed with you that 7 slots unrestricted is appropriate. And that's exactly what the UAE should have been given right away. But a bonus 4 just because two sheikhs decide to run competing airlines?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 77):
My focus is not on the UAE or what it does; my focus is on Canada's aviation policy and how it affects Canadian taxpayers.

RIght. Then stick to that. You've gone from arguing about 7 slots unrestricted per new country to arguing extra slots for EK. That's where I disagree.

I would only agree to 14 slots for the UAE if they were restricted to 7 slots per city. Encourage them to serve YVR or YUL or YYC. I was glad to see QR launch in YUL. And I do agree they should have been given 7 slots.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3923 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 80):
Quoting ytz (Reply 78):
They thought, we'd cave, because we aren't as big as the US or the UK or Germany.

Or they used their only bargaining chip after a year of talking and no progress. For whatever reason, we thought we could get away with ignoring their ambassador and dragging out negotiations for years.

It has nothing to do with us being as big or small as anyone. They probably wouldn't do it to tiny Bahrain either, not because of its size, but because their ties with it are stronger. It says a lot that despite eight years of 'cooperation', government-to-government relations never amounted to anything more than pleasantries (towards the end, they became petty and vicious). As with any relationship, both governments are obviously to blame. I have no idea what the UAE's policy towards North America is, but Canada's longstanding neglect of South Asia and the ME probably factored into it too. Prior to Afghanistan, our footprint east of Israel was minimal.

So no, nothing to do with size. Everything to do with the strength of the relationship, which was sadly lacking.

Quoting ytz (Reply 78):
We've transited through India. You just never read about it in the papers.


Theres a big difference between transitting and basing.

Quoting ytz (Reply 78):
There are countries that come to Red Flag, that would never see their personnel given regular access to US facilities.

In other words, the US treats the UAE the same way it treats India. I don't think anyone expects the US to accord the UAE the same type of access that it does to the UK or Canada. But that aside, what were these UAE folk doing in Canada that they weren't allowed to do in the US (for which they presumably owe us something, because God knows they can't train in Europe or South Asia or South East Asia)?

Quoting ytz (Reply 78):

Relevance?

Relevance? Its generally a bad idea to go out of your way to ignore the representative of a country with whom you have ongoiing negotiatons for something you would like to have. There are consequences. Reverse the situation. Imagine Canada had something that some other country wanted but that country refused to talk to the Canadian ambassador. What kind of mood do you think the Canadian negotiators would be in when they entered the negotiation hall?

Quoting ytz (Reply 78):
You've gone around portraying this entirely as our loss.

Yes. On the very simple premise that two countries entered negotiations. One came out with what it entered with. One came out with less than what it entered with. I think its fair to say that the latter did suffer a loss of some sort, no?

Quoting ytz (Reply 78):
It's time you acknowledged that the UAE dropped the ball here too.

Of course they did. The UNSC antics were childish and amateurish. The visa debacle was precisely that - a debacle - essentially a self-inflicted wound. They handled it terribly. As everyone here has pointed out with some glee. But few have acknowledged that Canada also dropped the ball on this. Even now, your posts seem to suggest that you think they owe Canada a lot. I simply say that they owe Canada nothing (and vice-versa).

That said, I don't see anything wrong with demanding something in return for access to bases. And I don't see anything wrong with Canada giving them a few slots for it (its a relatively small price). At the end of the day, negotiations are about incentives and concessions. Give something. Get something.

Quoting ytz (Reply 78):
There were forces from a certain other country operating through there, which the UAE wanted expanded access to. Did they get booted? Of course not. So yes, we were singled out.

Again, it goes back to the strength of the ties. Both countries considered the other disposable - that much is clear. Were we singled out for having relatively weak ties with the UAE? Of course. That I can agree to. However, the blame for that lies with both parties. Not one.

Quoting ytz (Reply 78):
For the precedent it would set. They already had 6 slots. So they should get 4 more to get EK to go daily? And what happens when the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi decides that EY should be going daily too? We have personnel posted at Centcom in Qatar. Does this mean that we owe the Qataris daily service at YYZ too when they ask? After all, if the Qataris decide to follow UAE precedent, they could easily deny our personnel visas (possibly risk angering the US as well, but viable course of action for the Qataris). So where does all this end? I suspect, this is exactly why the government had reservations about negotiating under duress.

Duress? If you want something, then you have to be prepared to give something in return. And if it isn't worth it, you can walk away. Thats why I find this talk of being 'kicked out' so bizzare. We weren't kicked out. At some point in the negotiations, we decided that we would rather leave than give up X slots. I, personally, think this was a bad deal for the Canadian taxpayer, since the cost of giving up 4 slots was far less than moving, but thats just my humble opinion. Others obviously disagree. That said, if Canada wants something from Qatar, it should be prepared to give something in return. And if Qatar has nothing to offer, then Canada can tell them to take a hike.

The only 'precedent' being set here is that Canada might have to make some concessions here and there to get what it wants. I don't know if that qualifies as a 'precedent', because that is what negotiations are. Nations are not altruistic charitable organizations. This so-called precedent that would arise if Canada handed the UAE extra slots would only apply under certain conditions, namely Canada wanting access to a base, and the host nation wanting access to landing slots in Canada. I don't think Canada wants all that many bases around the world (certainly not enough to cost our aviation industry tens of thousands of jobs), and I really doubt many of them would be located in countries that want more aviation access to Canada.

Where does it all end? It ends when we decide that the cost outweighs the benefit. SImple as that. Did we really come out any better for it? Thats the most important factor in my criticism of Canada's handling of this file, because IMHO, we actually came out a little worse for it.

Quoting ytz (Reply 78):
But a bonus 4 just because two sheikhs decide to run competing airlines?

No. A bonus of 4 slots because they had something that was useful to us.

Quoting ytz (Reply 78):
You've gone from arguing about 7 slots unrestricted per new country to arguing extra slots for EK. That's where I disagree.

I say give 7 slots to a country regardless of whether they have a base or something else tangible to offer (ET, TK whatever). And give extra slots, if need be, to the ones who have something more useful to us. Is that asking too much?Its not like we're negotiating for bases with every country in the world.


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2356 posts, RR: 25
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3745 times:

@El Pistolero

Quote wars are getting tiresome. Let's condense the discussion.

My key argument is as follows.... I do agree that the UAE shoudl have gotten more slots. But I disagree with how many. I would have added one slot and lifted the restrictions on them. Then the UAE could decide whether EK or EY gets to run daily service.

Beyond that, giving them more slots to preserve the base? Where does this end. Like I mentioned earlier. We have personnel based in Qatar. How many slots should QR get for letting them work there? We routinely operate out of Oman, over the Arabian Sea. Does that mean Oman should also get extra slots, over and above say the 7 that you would start with? Turkey is a huge ally for us. It's the home of NATO's Southeastern Command. We have personnel there. We routinely use Incirlik. How many slots should Turkey get for that? When aircraft break down in the northern middle east, they put down in Israel (far better than Jordan or Iraq or ...Syria). How many slots should Israel get?

Sure, our aviation policies need to open up to competition. I don't disagree with you on that. But tying slots to military relations. This is a deep rabbit hole. Today the UAE. Tomorrow anybody and everybody we have military relations with.

By all means amend the aviation policy. But making Swiss Cheese out of it to make concessions to every ally we have would quickly render the policy irrelevant.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7718 posts, RR: 21
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3728 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 68):
lets not forget the canning that american teen got in Singapore for vandalism.

That's a totally different kettle of fish. Vandalism is a readily-identifiable crime. Having a speck of a drug in the tread of your shoe which could have been picked up from anywhere, and which by any reasonable standard is not a measurable quantity, is a ridiculous thing to get banged up for.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3647 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 49):
The treaty was signed in 2001. Etihad was founded two years later, in July 2003. Which begs the question - if the UAE had only one airline, then why was a restriction placed on the "operation of a frequency beyond three flights per week by any one designated airline."?

Gulf Air. Until 2005 Gulf Air was partially funded by Abu Dhabi, and around that time was flying intercontinental flights from Dubai.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3563 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 80):
Quote wars are getting tiresome. Let's condense the discussion.

And mine is equally simple: if you want something, be prepared to give something in return. My 7 a week stance applies to countries that have 'nothing' to offer and which run the risk of being neglected, despite being sources of immigrants, simply because of the limited scope of our foreign policy. Ethiopia, for example. 'Nothing to offer', relatively speaking, to the government or AC, but plenty useful to immigrants of East African origin.

Above and beyond that, yes, be prepared to make concessions. If Oman asks for concessions, then make a call on how much we need their facilities. If we don't, find a replacement. The decision, however, should be based on the taxpayers interests, and no matter how much you spin it, 10 or 14 frequencies to the UAE would not / could not destroy Canadian aviation. If they asked for unlimited access, I would agree with you in keeping them out. But 4-8 slots? For a base we expected to use in the future? A small price to pay.

Where will it end? It's not a slippery slope. You're basing your argument on 2 very questionable assumptions:

1) Canada needs many bases abroad.
2) All the countries Canada wants bases in want more aviation access to Canada.

I don't think either is an acceptable assumption, though I would derive great amusement out of the unlikely event that every country Canada wants a military base in wants more aviation rights to Canada. That would really be a sign of the success, or lack thereof, of our aviation policy. Granted, it's not going to happen. We even tried to give Kuwait 'expanded air rights' two months after securing a base there. See a lot of Kuwaiti aircraft in YYZ? If the goal was to not set a precedent, why did we do precisely that with Kuwait? Mostly because it's an irrelevant precedent.

At the end of the day, my criticism of Canada's handling of the UAE file is based on the simple premise that the cost of moving bases was higher than the cost of giving up 4 slots or even 8 slots. Would Canadian aviation collapse over these slots? No. It was a move aligned with the interests of Air Canada, not the Canadian taxpayer. How is the Canadian taxpayer better off for it? I clearly don't think so. As a value-for-money exercise, it was handled very badly.

If you want to talk about Swiss cheese, you need look no further than the absurd combination of open skies for some and 2 weekly frequencies for others. We have this bizzare policy of making new entrants take on established incumbents on uneven terms. And then theres the incredibly daft reliance on O&D, which for all it's wonderful logic, rests on the incredibly faulty assumption that the nations hosting the two points have airlines that have the capacity to serve those two points (a point largely lost on Canadian a.netters - they think Canada-Pak traffic should fly only on PK, with it's apparently questionable maintenance record). ET has to prove O&D with two frequencies, while KL and LH eat it's lunch. Can anybody prove O&D on that route when it's passengers are being pilfered by incumbents who can provide more flexibility?

At the end of the day, one would prefer an even-handed policy. The current policy is practically punitive on new entrants from east of the EU. They have to compete with EU carriers that think they have a birthright to carry Canadian traffic. Most new carriers can't compete on EU-Canada TATL routes; they typically carry traffic on South Asia and ME routes. FWIW, since we do place such an emphasis on O&D, it stands to reason that EU carriers should not be worried, since their O&D is, by default, proven. If they can't sustain their routes on the basis of O&D, should we be concerned? Why does one set of rules apply to one set of airlines, and another to the other set. We need the direct flight to VIE apparently, even if it can't sustain itself on O&D, the standard applied to other airlines. Quite a lot of holes in that cheese, eh? Imagine if Turkey was part of the EU .... unlimited rights and all. Would AC collapse then? And would it be okay?

Perhaps it would be better if we just got rid of the cheese altogether, a la Australia or the US. Our airlines are trying to emulate the Aussie model, so why not?

Quoting luckyone (Reply 82):
Gulf Air. Until 2005 Gulf Air was partially funded by Abu Dhabi, and around that time was flying intercontinental flights from Dubai.

Interesting, but it still doesn't make sense. Even if we assume the three slots were cordoned off for GF by Abu Dhabi, why would they give Canada the authority to approve the 3 additional slots? Wouldn't this still be an in-house decision? After all, the Treaty states that the UAE, as a contracting party, would have to nominate its designated airlines. If Abu Dhabi nominated GF and Dubai disagreed internally, the Canadian government wouldn't be in a position to recognize the airline, let alone give it landing rights. The internal mechanism for deciding the airlines was in place, so why would they add a foreign government, with its own vested interests, into the mix?

Furthermore, its a little bit too consistent with Canada's brand of limited frequencies. That aside, seeing as it was, at the time, the flag carrier for four countries, how would that work anyway? Would DOH-AUH-YYZ constitute a violation of the Qatar-Canada Bilateral?


User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2745 posts, RR: 4
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3544 times:

It may be an issue that's "behind us" but its ramifications are ongoing. A recent visit to Canada highlighted just how amazingly restrictive commercial practices are there.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 30):

If All EK and EY flights were banned, most Canadians would not even notice, let alone care.

When has this ever been a reason for not doing something? What plethora of examples should I dip into to prove this argument utterly baseless, particularly in the airline sector? And who are you to say Canadians wouldn't notice/care? Shouldn't you let them decide that by providing market access?

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 30):
Holy moly....all this for a country (Dubai) that does not even share our Western values of democracy, rule of law and treatment of minorities.

Another terribly flawed point. If you want to restrict Canada's trade and economic relations to only those nations with values that you "share", you're going to have to discard just about every growing economy on earth right about now. And what's the threshold fo"r "sharing values"? Does the death penalty count? No? Why not?

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 41):
Canadians, by and large, have all the bilateral freedoms we need already.

I'm so glad you've decided this on behalf of Canadians, but again, shouldn't the market decide this?

[Edited 2013-02-26 16:22:41]

User currently onlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3466 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 84):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 41):
Canadians, by and large, have all the bilateral freedoms we need already.

I'm so glad you've decided this on behalf of Canadians, but again, shouldn't the market decide this?

I haven't "decided" anything. Merely stating facts. Canada's trade flows are overwhelmingly domestic and to/from the US. Almost all the rest is with OECD countries along with China. Very little is to anywhere else. Trade to/from the UAE is absolutely miniscule. This "spat" with the UAE over their landing rights is arguably far too unimportant to have occupied our country's diplomatic time to begin with; there are bigger trade issues around.

Hence, the following remains accurate:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 84):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 30):

If All EK and EY flights were banned, most Canadians would not even notice, let alone care.
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 84):
And who are you to say Canadians wouldn't notice/care? Shouldn't you let them decide that by providing market access?

Well, become a Canadian citizen then and lobby your (new) Canadian MP to change our bilateral negotation strategy to allow full freedom to foreign carriers on Canadian soil. Good luck with that.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2745 posts, RR: 4
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3357 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 85):
I haven't "decided" anything. Merely stating facts.

What fact? That you think Canada has all the bilaterals it needs? That's an opinion, an extremely narrow one at that. Remember the old US patent office story about everything that could be invented has been invented?

The only fact is that neither you nor I know how additional EK access will work out. If it grows the market, then everyone wins. If it doesn't, then EK pulls out. If it takes passengers from AC, then, well, shouldn't AC up its game? No?

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 85):
Good luck with that.

No. Don't want to - there are enough issues in my own country to fix. Fortunately none of them is aviation policy.

As a passive observer, I'm simply stunned at an extremely paternalistic mindset towards interaction with the rest of the planet being expressed here. How do you know that additional EK access doesn't grow the travel market for Canada? But you won't know because you refuse to let the market decide. Perhaps it would be a complete failure, in which case EK withdraws. So?

And nicely avoided confronting the issue of only working with countries whom values you "share". It was your point, afterall. Interesting also then that you noted the US-Canada relationship. Hrmmmmm. And China? And of course, if you genuinely do care about the behaviour of other governments, you could equally go and become a citizen, petition them or struggle for change.

Let's face it, Canada's aviation policy is geared towards one thing - protecting AC. But there's a cost to that, an opportunity cost, which is hard to quantify for the travelling public but remains nonetheless.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3240 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 86):
Let's face it, Canada's aviation policy is geared towards one thing - protecting AC. But there's a cost to that, an opportunity cost, which is hard to quantify for the travelling public but remains nonetheless.

It's hard to justify that statement when you consider that Canada has long had one of the world's largest open skies agreements with the U.S., which gives every U.S. carrier (including several much larger than AC) completely unrestricted access to Canada. The same applies for Europe where open skies also applies for all 27 EU countries (plus Switzerland, Norway, Iceland). And Canada previously negotiated open skies agreements with several countries in Europe long before the U.S., including the UK and Germany.


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2356 posts, RR: 25
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 83):
Where will it end? It's not a slippery slope. You're basing your argument on 2 very questionable assumptions:

1) Canada needs many bases abroad.
2) All the countries Canada wants bases in want more aviation access to Canada.

I don't think either is an acceptable assumption, though I would derive great amusement out of the unlikely event that every country Canada wants a military base in wants more aviation rights to Canada.

It's an entirely relevant matter. I won't go too deep on this forum. But we are looking at establishing rapid reaction bases in some key locations. Not large bases. Some key stocks, just to facilitate quick movements to different parts of the world. Several of those key locations also happen to have airlines that largely rely on transfer traffic. Now imagine the precedent it sets if the government gave the UAE all it wanted.

Sure, the government has obligations to the taxpayer. But it also has an obligation to ensure the best economic outcome out of any agreement it signs. Now, I would concur with you that our aviation market is too protected. But the government doesn't think so. And with that in mind, it's entirely consistent that it did not want to hand out slots liberally.

And we aren't talking about 4 slots here. Last I heard, the UAE wanted 14 slots just for YYZ and they were talking about substantial expansions from there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they had suggested that they wouldn't expand outside of YYZ till EK was double daily to YYZ or something like that (I could be wrong...going off memory here). Now unfortunately we don't know what they would have gotten. The talks fell apart and they got absolutely nothing.

I simply don't think tying the issues together helps either one. Does tying basing rights to aviation rights, help liberalize our aviation policy in the end? So EK/EY got 14 slots. And then what? They'd have to wait till the next war to hope we base there till they get more access? Yes, our aviation policy needs to be fixed. You won't find me arguing against that. But I don't see how the UAE really accomplished anything by all that they did. In the end, what did they get out of the dispute? As for Canada, spending $100 million to move the base. Since we didn't spend much to begin with, that impact was hardly considerable over the duration of the whole war. A bigger impact has been taking the UAE out of the running from that future quick reaction basing plan. Who and how much that hurts or helps is debatable.

As for the long term. I don't think pursuing O/D is necessarily a bad policy. Especially in South Asia. Sooner or later, the airlines in India will get their game together. And when that happens, this policy will strongly favour links with them. And shelther them from the likes of EK/EY/QR/TK as well.

I will admit that the O/D policy made a lot of sense for historical travel patterns with Europe. It makes far less sense when dealing South Asia and South-East Asia.


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2356 posts, RR: 25
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3172 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 87):
It's hard to justify that statement when you consider that Canada has long had one of the world's largest open skies agreements with the U.S., which gives every U.S. carrier (including several much larger than AC) completely unrestricted access to Canada. The same applies for Europe where open skies also applies for all 27 EU countries (plus Switzerland, Norway, Iceland). And Canada previously negotiated open skies agreements with several countries in Europe long before the U.S., including the UK and Germany.

This, then raises the question, if we are open to Europe and the US, what is the issue with opening up to the UAE, Turkey and Qatar?


User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3181 times:

^ Dare I say all white, judeo-christian, western, democratic, makes you wonder if racial preference is the dominant factor in Canada's dealings, I know they are taking immigrants from everywhere but maybe westerners dont want to move there so they have no choice but to take in the others.

User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2356 posts, RR: 25
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3128 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 90):
^ Dare I say all white, judeo-christian, western, democratic, makes you wonder if racial preference is the dominant factor in Canada's dealings, I know they are taking immigrants from everywhere but maybe westerners dont want to move there so they have no choice but to take in the others.

More nonsense from you. This is a country that has had a Sikh Punjabi non-native born premier, elected in a province where (although the immigrant population is high in a few areas), the majority is still very white. And unlike Nikki Haley (nee Nimratta Randhawa) of South Carolina or Bobby Jindal (nee Piyush Jindal) of Louisiana, Ujjal Dosanjh didn't have to ditch his Indian name or suddenly find Jesus to get elected.

This is also a country that has elevated a Chinese refugee (Rt. Hon. Adrienne Clarkson) and subsequently a Haitian refugee (Rt. Hon. Michaelle Jean) to the highest offices in the land (the Governor-General), in the last decade and a half.

Please refrain from commenting about Canada or Canadians if you don't know much about the subject.

Or better yet, let's talk when Pakistan decides that they'll remove restrictions on non-Muslims serving in high office. Or heck, we can start to talk when Pakistanis decide that it's not open hunting season on minorities anymore (ethnic or religious).

Or the best. Stick to the topic at hand. Race is not at all an issue in Canada. Especially when it comes to governmental policy.

[Edited 2013-02-27 12:58:21]

User currently offlinesebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1666 posts, RR: 14
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3049 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39):

I never said that. And I certainly don't want less of KL (or any carrier) in Canada. The point is that if KL can enjoy Carte Blanche without :

a) proving this O&D/direct links component that some folk here keep on harping about (the curious case of ET really should put an end to that)
b) Destroying AC's network despite being a more direct competitor to AC on TATL routes, unlike EK, which can only realistically compete with AC and its TATL overlord LH on some African routes, South Asia and the ME.

As Viscount has noted, the KL bilateral was negotiated in an entirely different era, when route rights were dispensed with an eye-dropper, and were very liberal. In fact, the last version of that bilateral granted Canada almost unlimited access for TWO carriers along with generous fifth freedoms. These generous rights were very valuable in theory, even though in practise they were never used to the fullest or even close because of the availability of direct rights to multiple points in France, Britain and Germany. Now, of course, they have been rolled into Canada-EU open skies. To even bring them up is a red herring, but if one must, I'd make these two points.

1. Some of KL's O&D is going to places like Belgium and western Germany, so the real catchment basin and O&D interest is greater than the Netherlands itself.

2. Even ignoring that, these rights should be viewed historically like the MacArthur rights that US airlines enjoy in Japan. They have their own historical context and do not represent a precedent for other countries/airlines.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 70):

I don't think theres a Government of Canada conspiracy against anything anymore. I simply think that after long history of owning entities like AC, its having a hard time detaching itself from AC's interests and focusing instead on what is in the consumer's interest. As it stands, more, not less, air connectivity is a good thing. And by more, I don't mean 'unlimited'; I mean at least daily frequency, if only because I drink the same koolaid as the folks at Intervistas, who emphasise the importance of having a daily flight to make long-haul routes viable. I, and some of their clients, seem to be under the impression that they may know a little more about the economics of aviation than Governments do, what with being specialists in the field.

On this issue, please keep in mind that in a country Canada's size, the consumer's interest is heavily influenced by where he or she resides. If protecting/safeguarding South Asia or South Africa traffic for AC allows it to maintain YOW-FRA or YEG-LHR service, then that serves the consumer in Edmonton and Ottawa. The consumer in Toronto or Vancouver has access to so many more nonstop destinations to begin with, which creates a great deal of competition. But if you pull enough people off AC flights from Toronto to, say, Frankfurt, it can undermine the ability of the airline to offer international services from Ottawa, Edmonton, St. John, etc, or from Montreal to Germany, etc. People in these markets want their international services, too. So don't go on about the Canadian consumer as if he or she has one set of interests that never clash.

Finally, one point on policy. The current global aviation policy of the Canadian government is to encourage as many nonstop point to point routes as possible, so if a foreign carrier pursues a growth agenda that could undermine, say, the creation of a Toronto-Mumbai or Toronto Joburg service, regardless of whether the airline starting such a service is Canadian or foreign, it has given itself the right under policy to act for the preservation of nonstop services. That's why TK is operating within the policy, launching YUL-IST to go with YYZ-IST and collaborating with Air Canada to move Canada-Turkey to a daily offer, and eventually, I suspect, to a double daily offer, Turkey also offering a lot more O&D than the UAE.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 88):
Now imagine the precedent it sets if the government gave the UAE all it wanted.

Sure. How many are we setting up? And how many of them will be set up in ME countries that want to fly to Canada? And more to the point, why did we decide to expand rights with Kuwait months after securing a base there, given that neither airline has shown any real interest to flying to the other country? Was it to improve links with Kuwait? Or just to thumb the nose at the UAE. Either which way, its set the precedent you speak of. Which remains irrelevant.

No matter how many bases we want to set up, the likelihood of them being in a country with a large airline that wants direct links is simply too low. Several is a bit much. Realistically speaking, there's only a handful of ME airlines that have the money, the aircraft and the location to capitalize on the bases. On the west - Japan, China, Korea - AC wants access to them, so they have fairly liberal treaties. How many countries even have airlines that can fly directly to Canada? I'll stand by my words - any precedent is irrelevant.

Going to rever to quotes - its easier

Quoting ytz (Reply 88):
And with that in mind, it's entirely consistent that it did not want to hand out slots liberally.

Its inconsistent because it benefits some and is punitive towards others.

Quoting ytz (Reply 88):
I thought they had suggested that they wouldn't expand outside of YYZ till EK was double daily to YYZ or something like that (I could be wrong...going off memory here).

Another problem with the UAE file - nobody knows what they asked for. Some think they would have settled for a daily. Some say they wanted two daily. Would they negotiate for substantial expansion thereafter (in the next decade, two decades or three decades)? Of course. Most airlines do. if they're still around. If they asked for unlimited frequencies across Canada, then I will agree that we did the right thing. However, by most accounts, it was about daily access initially, with double daily down the road (presumably subject to negotiations). Thats hardly a new tactic. KL flies a daily A330 and 4 747s to YYZ. There's clearly enough traffic.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...r-access-in-canada/article4388369/

Quoting ytz (Reply 88):
The talks fell apart and they got absolutely nothing.

Or they got nothing more than what they began with, while we walked out with less.

Quoting ytz (Reply 88):
They'd have to wait till the next war to hope we base there till they get more access?

Pretty much. If they don't have anything we want, we don't have to give them anything.

Quoting ytz (Reply 88):
But I don't see how the UAE really accomplished anything by all that they did. In the end, what did they get out of the dispute?

Nothing. ANd they lost nothing.

Quoting ytz (Reply 88):
As for Canada, spending $100 million to move the base.

$100 million more than we needed to spend.

Quoting ytz (Reply 88):
A bigger impact has been taking the UAE out of the running from that future quick reaction basing plan.

Because they really wanted to host a dormant base? I really don't think they care.

Quoting ytz (Reply 88):
I don't think pursuing O/D is necessarily a bad policy. Especially in South Asia. Sooner or later, the airlines in India will get their game together.

India =/= South Asia. PK, BG, UL are all a long way from having the fleet or even management to fly to Canada.

Other than that, I agree. O&D is not a bad policy. But if you are going to apply it, apply it equally, or not at all. Asking ET to prove O&D on YYZ-ADD while making them compete with LH and KL (who for all practical purposes, are no better than EK, aside from being European), is, well, the sign of a policy that is thoroughly inconsistent. Either which way, if we are going to run things by O&D, lets apply them to European airlines too. Otherwise, its a pointless policy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: O&D policies assume that the points hosting the policy have airlines that can serve those routes. In many cases, due to financial or logistical constraints, some routes never materialize. Does that mean we shouldn't encourage travel on them? Most Central/East European countries do not have airlines that can serve Canada. And AC does not have a fleet, or a cost structure, that can allow it to serve those countries. Fortunately other airlines can pick up the slack. Why do we treat that as a bad thing for other countries (South Asia (>India), Iran - sources of immigrants that aren't well connected)?

Quoting ytz (Reply 88):
And when that happens, this policy will strongly favour links with them. And shelther them from the likes of EK/EY/QR/TK as well.

But not from LH, KL, OS, LX - which are performing a similar function. After all, AC couldn't maintain its India route even when there were no Indian airlines serving the route, nor any ME ones. They lost it to the EU airlines.

Quoting sebring (Reply 92):
1. Some of KL's O&D is going to places like Belgium and western Germany, so the real catchment basin and O&D interest is greater than the Netherlands itself.

Isn't O&D determined on a nation-by-nation basis? The catchment would only be based on national boundaries, would it not?

Quoting sebring (Reply 92):
2. Even ignoring that, these rights should be viewed historically like the MacArthur rights that US airlines enjoy in Japan. They have their own historical context and do not represent a precedent for other countries/airlines.

Fair enough, though that speaks more to the precedent point being made by the other poster. OS?

Quoting sebring (Reply 92):
If protecting/safeguarding South Asia or South Africa traffic for AC allows it to maintain YOW-FRA or YEG-LHR service, then that serves the consumer in Edmonton and Ottawa. The

Which consumer? YOW-FRA for example. What is it - 10 or 11% O&D? The rest connect. For those who connect to other EU destinations, there's plenty of connections available from YYZ, YUL, LHR (enough to upgrade YOW-LHR to a 330 perhaps?). If they're going beyond the EU, again, most cities are connected to LHR. As for the crowd that flies to South Asia, most of them, barring those bound to DEL, BOM, MAA, BLR, are looking at two-stops anyway - what difference does it make to them if that route is YOW-FRA-DOH/DXB/AUH-South Asia or YOW-YYZ/YUL-DXB/AUH/DOH - South Asia.

That YOW-FRA flight doesn't "benefit" consumers. It benefits AC and LH. Trying to spin blatant protectionism as good for consumers is very questionable. As for YEG-LHR, YYC seems to be doing a better job than EK.

Perhaps you'll explain how YOW-FRA benefits consumers. I don't understand how YEG-LHR gets affected, unless everyone flying that route suddenly wants to connect to EK in YYZ. Doubt thats going to happen.

Mind you, all of this is over 4 extra slots. EK must be particularly potent. Given that they can't serve TATL EU routes, they must really have some kind of special portion that is enough to wreck AC out of YYZ.

Quoting sebring (Reply 92):
if you pull enough people off AC flights from Toronto to, say, Frankfurt, it can undermine the ability of the airline to offer international services from Ottawa, Edmonton, St. John

Now you've got me confused. AC needs X number of pax to fly YYZ-FRA to keep YOW-LHR/FRA viable? Which effectively amounts to saying that YYZ-FRA isn't in and of itself competitive enough to fight off 4 extra flights from EK, even though it has no problems holding of AF/KL and BA, both of which operate significantly more capacity to Canada? The numbers don't add up. Nor do I think the number of pax on YYZ-FRA will go down. There will still be enough pax. Prices - and yields - might go down. But is that a bad thing? I have long contended that airfares ex-Canada are higher than they are relative to other developed countries. Perhaps we should try to bring our airfares down a little (competition has a great way of doing precisely that).

FWIW, you seem to be advocating that the Government should make sure that a certain number of pax pay a certain amount of money to fly AC, regardless of whether or not it is the best product for them, in order to allow AC to make apparently unviable routes viable. If AC was a state-run airline, I would understand, but it has pretensions of being a private airline (a point repeatedly brought up in the context of the ME3). If this is the case, then the viability of routes like YYZ-FRA or YOW-FRA should be of no concern to the consumer. If the market can support it, great. If the market can't, too bad. Isn't that how AC operates domestically? No issues with dropping routes when they are not profitable - I believe AC recently dropped a route to the North (Iqaluit?).

Your approach and argument reveals a rather amusing and ridiculously paternalistic solution: You want a certain number of 'consumers' to be shepharded onto flights that don't neccessarily cater to their needs or provide them with a good value-for-money proposition, in the name of benefitting the 'consumers'? Big fan of Kim Jong Un and Juche economics, I take it. Why not just ask the Government for subsidies instead? Same principle.

Quoting sebring (Reply 92):
The current global aviation policy of the Canadian government is to encourage as many nonstop point to point routes as possible

We've been over this. Give ET/SV two frequencies and tell them to compete with the daily one-stop service provided by much larger airlines that provide more flexibility, and then expect them to make a decent run of it. But hey, we can say "look, we're promoting (token) direct links". We both know this argument amounts to little more than nonsense when one factors in reality. Great in theory, but still pretty pointless. Sadistic, even.

Quoting sebring (Reply 92):
That's why TK is operating within the policy, launching YUL-IST

When are they starting? All in favor of TK over EK. Not that they're doing anything different.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3070 posts, RR: 37
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2962 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 90):
Dare I say all white, judeo-christian, western, democratic, makes you wonder if racial preference is the dominant factor in Canada's dealings

Yeah right. That would explain recent new/expanded bilaterals with Algeria, Barbados, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Curacao, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Panama, Phillipines, Qatar, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Trinidad, Tunisia, Turkey. If you're looking for racial / ethnic / religious prejudice, you'd be better off looking closer to home.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3070 posts, RR: 37
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2957 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 90):
I know they are taking immigrants from everywhere but maybe westerners dont want to move there so they have no choice but to take in the others.

While you're at it, you may want to inform yourself on Canada's immigration policies and immigrant selection criteria instead of throwing around baseless and ignorant allegations.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3410 posts, RR: 9
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2834 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 93):
Pretty much. If they don't have anything we want, we don't have to give them anything.

That's how the business world works and life in general works, its all about leverage. If you can't give me anything of value then why should I give you my valuables.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 93):
But not from LH, KL, OS, LX - which are performing a similar function. After all, AC couldn't maintain its India route even when there were no Indian airlines serving the route, nor any ME ones. They lost it to the EU airlines.

Perhaps AC realized that serving India is really low yielding to operate non-stop and ran services through FRA with LH.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 93):
India =/= South Asia. PK, BG, UL are all a long way from having the fleet or even management to fly to Canada.

PK serves YYZ 3x weekly from Islamabad, Karachi, and Lahore once each week and IIRC UL codeshares with AC.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 93):
Asking ET to prove O&D on YYZ-ADD while making them compete with LH and KL (who for all practical purposes, are no better than EK, aside from being European),

There is an established relationship between Canada and Europe which means that they produce far more O&D traffic to the Netherlands and Germany and the rest of the continent that is hi-yielding where ADD likely isn't and at the present moment neither is AUH, DXB, DOH, etc. Where as the China-Canada and the Canada-Latin America relationships are growing and that is why they are getting more services

Oddly where is JJ and AR, I am surprised they don't serve YYZ at least a few times a week where AC serves EZE and GRU daily. LA served YYZ but couldn't make a go of it it operating through JFK and being in OW they likely codeshare with AA to YYZ.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 97, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2632 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 91):
quote]

Its good to know Pakistan is of such relevance to you even after moving to Canada.
[quote=Kaiarahi,reply=94]

Those werent mentioned by the poster, therefore benefit of doubt.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 94):
If you're looking for racial / ethnic / religious prejudice, you'd be better off looking closer to home.

Guess who's financing that.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 96):
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 93):India =/= South Asia. PK, BG, UL are all a long way from having the fleet or even management to fly to Canada.
PK serves YYZ 3x weekly

Serving the place since 1988 with 747-200 / 300, A310 and 772ER, before the current 777LR since those joined the fleet, a 77W was also used last year for one or more flights, variety of enroute stops included Damascu, Frankfurt, Birmingham, Manchester, Shannon, New York and Wasington.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 98, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2573 times:

Quoting sebring (Reply 92):
If protecting/safeguarding South Asia or South Africa traffic for AC allows it to maintain YOW-FRA or YEG-LHR service, then that serves the consumer in Edmonton and Ottawa.

I'm still not comfortable with that statement. Equalization payments are one thing. At the very least, they are race/ethnic/ national origin neutral. In this case, what you are suggesting is a policy that almost exclusively affects people of certin ethnic/race/national origin, even if it benefits the larger good. I don't know if you're speculating or endorsing something tangible but this policy would be/is inherently unfair. If the goal is to benefit consumers in Edmonton and Ottawa by subsidizing those routes through money made on other routes where certain pax are "protected/safeguarded", then the question arises: Why?

If this is somehow in the national interest or for the greater good (or however you want to spin it), then the easier solution is simply to spread the burden of those costs across the entire population, instead of advocating the 'safeguarding/protecting' of one group on the basis of their national origin or where they're travelling to. The latter point is particularly important; for whatever reason, you don't want the YOW-FRA or YEG-LHR flights to reflect the actual cost of the route, probably because the 'consumers' will be priced out of the direct flight and will choose cheaper one-stop alternatives (no shortage of those to Europe).

Should that really be anybody else's concern? Or problem? I don't think so. If the Government of Canada is so hellbent on keeping AC on YOW-FRA or YEG-LHR then they should subsidize it, instead of putting the burden on any group that doesn't actually use that route. Or AC should charge what the route costs. Now if AC can't operate those routes at a lower price due to its own cost structure....welllll...who's problem is that?

Furthermore, if the point of origin is not used as a discriminatory factor, then the final destination should not be used as one either (South Africa or South Asia, as you put it). Either which way, the maintenance of YOW-FRA and YEG-LHR are very questionable excuses for keeping EK or any airline out. If AC is so determined to keep them, it should ask the Government to subsidize it, instead of advocating a policy that, by and large, discriminaties (politely referred to 'safeguards'/'protects' ) almost exclusively against any one group (be it on the basis of race, ethnic or national origin). If one wants to fly YEG-LHR, they should cough up how much ever it costs instead of transferring part of the cost to someone else by denying them the same choice/value for money.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 96):
PK serves YYZ 3x weekly from Islamabad, Karachi, and Lahore once each week and IIRC UL codeshares with AC.

Yes, I am aware of both. UL doesn't fly to Canada because its fleet is tiny. PK....having some problems with their maintenance I hear. Half their fleet is grounded for maintenance issues? Yes, lets stuff people onto those aircraft and congratulate ourselves on yet another token direct link. I really doubt that 3 weekly is a coincidence.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 96):
Perhaps AC realized that serving India is really low yielding to operate non-stop and ran services through FRA with LH.

Then why is it so adamant in keeping out an airline that will, for the most part, be serving only that low-yielding market?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 96):
There is an established relationship between Canada and Europe which means that they produce far more O&D traffic to the Netherlands and Germany and the rest of the continent that is hi-yielding where ADD likely isn't and at the present moment neither is AUH, DXB, DOH, etc. Where as the China-Canada and the Canada-Latin America relationships are growing and that is why they are getting more services

I don't disagree. There is a huge Canada-EU market. However, if that's the case, why are pax who travel well to the East of Europe (given that DXB is 6 hours flying time from LHR, FRA) so important? You're effectively arguing that Canada-EU routes can survive on their own merits. Sure. Why, then, is the arrival of EK such a big deal, especially since it doesn't compete on Canada-EU routes themselves?

Also, what do you mean by relationships? Should we only have aviation links with the countries we trade with? Or should we have links with countries from which we get immigrants as well? Its great that we have growing links with Lat Am and China, but does that mean there is no scope for more?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 96):
Oddly where is JJ and AR, I am surprised they don't serve YYZ at least a few times a week where AC serves EZE and GRU daily. LA served YYZ but couldn't make a go of it it operating through JFK and being in OW they likely codeshare with AA to YYZ.

I read somewhere that LA had to fly through JFK under the bilateral. Is that true? Not surprised by the others, given the fleet/financial constraints and what not. Question is: should we be upset at the American for carrying one-stop traffic there?

Maybe its just me, but I would prefer to be connected to the world at large, as opposed to just this point and that point. Its certainly the principle that most, if not all, developed countries in the world are using.


User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 99, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 98):
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 96):PK serves AC.
Yes, I am aware of both.

But you said this before.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 93):
PK, BG, UL are all a long way from having the fleet or even management to fly to Canada.


And then.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 98):
PK....having some problems with their maintenance I hear. Half their fleet is grounded for maintenance issues? Yes, lets stuff people onto those aircraft and congratulate ourselves on yet another token direct link. I really doubt that 3 weekly is a coincidence.

Isnt that irrelevant? the point is/was pointed out by the poster that PIA fliy to Canada and since over 20 years no matter what or how, its catering fairly well to the Pak community there even according to routing experts here who are not particularly fond of the airline and rather not waste their time talking about it, I know of quite a few in my own circle people who have switched from foreign carriers to PK on the pak-YYZ route due to sheer convinience, infcat in overa decade i have not heard of peopel flying with foreign airline sto YYZ from here, not even EK, EY and QR, prior to that they had flown with Egyptair, KLM, Lufthansa and British airways maybe Air France too.

also the third weekly PK were only allowed to operate via a European point or linked to Montreal, anot sure if it translates to once weekly flight to YUL, and this is some permission granted to them by Canada which needs to be approved every year it was discussed on the local foroms some years back a copy of the document was also somewhere online.

[Edited 2013-02-28 15:43:54]

User currently offlinesebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1666 posts, RR: 14
Reply 100, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2543 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 98):
I'm still not comfortable with that statement. Equalization payments are one thing. At the very least, they are race/ethnic/ national origin neutral. In this case, what you are suggesting is a policy that almost exclusively affects people of certin ethnic/race/national origin, even if it benefits the larger good. I don't know if you're speculating or endorsing something tangible but this policy would be/is inherently unfair. If the goal is to benefit consumers in Edmonton and Ottawa by subsidizing those routes through money made on other routes where certain pax are "protected/safeguarded", then the question arises: Why?

Listen, this is what it is all about, and if you want to deflect a purely economic issue into some kind of racial subsidy, you are entitled to do so but invite ridicule.

Every airline flying the North Atlantic is carrying a substantial amount of traffic between North America and South Asia/Africa. That applies to Air Canada, British Airways, KLM, Lufthansa, Turkish, whatever. And the Gulf carriers are no different. There is a negligible O&D market between Canada and the Gulf countries. EK and EY are carrying large amounts of traffic to points south, southeast and southwest of the Gulf. That's a fact that anyone with knowledge of the industry will confirm for you.

As for cross-subsidization of routes, there is hardly an airline in the world that doesn't have variable route profitability. Many have their share of routes that lose money at least some of the time, but are part of offering the largest possible network to their national or home market.

Canada is more than Toronto, and a lot of people happen to support the idea of locally originating international services. The airlines are trying to oblige. It's also true that there are innumerable ways to get from Canada to places like India, via any number of gateways, even via Kazakhstan, and get a really cheap price, but those carriers are not doing what EK in particular tries to do - dumping capacity into markets and subsuming the cost in a global network. That's a form of predation and if you are being intellectually consistent, no less unfair that cross-subsidizing a route you hope will turn profitable at some point in the future.

[Edited 2013-02-28 15:35:02]

User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 101, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2470 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 99):

But you said this before.

No, you're right. I did say that. It was more of an oversight that anything. That said, the point remains - namely that airlines like PK and UL face fleet constraints that will never allow them to fully serve the routes, so why stop airlines from stepping in and filling the gap.

Quoting sebring (Reply 100):
Listen, this is what it is all about, and if you want to deflect a purely economic issue into some kind of racial subsidy, you are entitled to do so but invite ridicule.

Deflection?

The crux of the matter is that AC needs certain pax numbers/ yields to cross-subsidize routes. The addition of competition lowers these pax numbers/yields. So a barrier is placed to avoid this. This is done on the argument that:

Quoting sebring (Reply 100):
. That's a form of predation and if you are being intellectually consistent, no less unfair that cross-subsidizing a route you hope will turn profitable at some point in the future.

Fair enough. However, we do have a Competition Bureau that takes dumping and predatory pricing very seriously. Come to think of it, didn't they once find AC guilty of predatory pricing? I think it was because WS complained in the maritimes. All of which is to say that if EK dumps or engages in predatory pricing, there are mechanisms to stop it. Keeping them out on the assumption that they are engaging in it without proving it....is quite odd.

FWIW EK operates to many countries with very strong predatory pricing and dumping laws. How come they aren't being sent packing by all of them?

Quoting sebring (Reply 100):
a lot of people happen to support the idea of locally originating international services.

If they support them, they will pay for them. As an argument, this is a non-starter - about as relevant as the ringing endorsements that EK gets in YUL and YVR. You know what else people are clamouring for: all types of direct domestic flights. AC has no qualms about dropping those regardless of how much it is supported - on the same grounds as I mentioned earlier - the people who want to use them aren't paying enough. I agree - we need more consistency.

Quoting sebring (Reply 100):
It's also true that there are innumerable ways to get from Canada to places like India,

Which begs the question: why does the addition of one more carrier tip the balance completely, to the point that AC goes on record claiming tens of thousands of jobs will be lost. How much of this argument is based in reality? And how much of it boils down to AC doing LH's bidding - after all, AC without the LH group would be a very interesting airline. Should the Government of Canada really be doing LH's bidding because AC relies on it on TATL routes that might be affected by EK?

I'm not turning an economic issue into an issue about subsidies - you already did that. 'Protecting/safeguarding' (or limiting) any group on the basis of their national origin (in this case, by virtue of their final destination) is a fairly straightforward application of that. I just pointed it out.

This issue seems to be about AC struggling to compete - no less and no more. Predatory pricing and dumping are relevant concerns, but the mechanisms to address them are already in place. Safeguarding passengers to put them on any airline is paternalistic and condescending; if one Canadian has the choice of choosing how to spend his money in a market free of artificial government constraints, then so should every other Canadian. Its really that simple.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 102, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 98):
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 96):
Oddly where is JJ and AR, I am surprised they don't serve YYZ at least a few times a week where AC serves EZE and GRU daily. LA served YYZ but couldn't make a go of it it operating through JFK and being in OW they likely codeshare with AA to YYZ.

I read somewhere that LA had to fly through JFK under the bilateral. Is that true?

No, the Canada-Chile bilateral is very liberal and permits the Chilean designated carrier to operate an unlimited number of nonstop flights between any points in Canada and any points in Chile.

The only restriction is on 5th freedom rights which are limited to MIA and JFK and not more than 7 flights a week with 5th freedom rights between MIA/JFK and points in Canada.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3410 posts, RR: 9
Reply 103, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2440 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 98):
I read somewhere that LA had to fly through JFK under the bilateral. Is that true? Not surprised by the others, given the fleet/financial constraints and what not.

Well AC serves SCL directly so I would assume any carrier out of Chile would have the same rights, however that could be tied in with an agreement with Argentina as well as that flight continues on to EZE.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 98):
Then why is it so adamant in keeping out an airline that will, for the most part, be serving only that low-yielding market?

They aren't out and I'm sure that Harper may have wanted to kick them out.

The current policy is that airlines that serve point to point get preference and perhaps when the next government in elected federally perhaps they may change the policy. The UAE wasn't happy that Harper won a majority in 2011 because they think he is the barrier to more services.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 98):
Also, what do you mean by relationships?

There are more established trade and co-operation with European nations and Canada that there is out of the middle east and more transparency between the regions, hence a more liberal aviation policy. Latin America and China are more of a priority for Canada because they are bigger markets that the Canadian government is looking to trade with.

Not to say that the middle east or anywhere else is not valued by Canada but it is of lower priority as the gulf region is relatively small.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 98):
Question is: should we be upset at the American for carrying one-stop traffic there?

No because AA's routes to Canada are largely based on a good chunk of O&D traffic and there is an open skies agreement anyways now.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2419 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 93):
Quoting sebring (Reply 92):
If protecting/safeguarding South Asia or South Africa traffic for AC allows it to maintain YOW-FRA or YEG-LHR service, then that serves the consumer in Edmonton and Ottawa. The

Which consumer? YOW-FRA for example. What is it - 10 or 11% O&D? The rest connect. For those who connect to other EU destinations, there's plenty of connections available from YYZ, YUL, LHR

Disagree. There are far more one-stop connecting destinations in Europe, Africa the Middle East and Asia via FRA than via the other connecting points mentioned which in many cases require a double connection. No other hub in Europe has as many directly-served destinations than FRA (CDG and AMS are next; all 3 well ahead of LHR) . Most consumers find a single connection much more convenient than a double connection. That's the big consumer advantage of AC's YOW-FRA service.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 105, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 104):
Most consumers find a single connection much more convenient than a double connection. That's the big consumer advantage of AC's YOW-FRA service.

We can keep going in circles over this one. If people prefer that single connection, they have the option of paying up whatever it takes to make that flight viable, or they can accept that while convenient, the market isn't willing to sustain it (I remember a heck of a lot of noise here in YOW over the cancellation of some YOW-Saskatchewan flight a couple of years ago). It stands to reason that if FRA is superbly well-connected and pax benefit from it, they will pay enough to keep that route sustainable. If they don't it's likely because they prioritize something more.

I'm sure its a great route, but using it as an excuse to deny EK daily rights simply doesn't fly. For every pax benefitting from the one-stop to a tier 2 Euro city, there is probably one pax benefitting from a one-stop EK/EY/QR flight to a tier 2 South Asian city. Neither ought to be more important than the other.

In the larger scheme, I find it interesting that everyone is convinced that its a zero sum game - that you can't have both at the same time. Apparently low yielding South Asia-bound pax are critical to ensuring that AC can keep flying to FRA from YOW.

In any event, I don't think I have anything more to add on this topic. Learnt a lot.   


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...
What Is The Difference Between A342 And 343/346 posted Wed Jul 5 2006 18:48:39 by Myk
What Is The Difference Between ER And LR? posted Tue Aug 3 2004 22:58:24 by BoeingPride800
What is the difference between the B737-300, -400 etc posted Mon Mar 15 2004 18:51:03 by Catholic2006
What Is The Difference Between Chinese Airlines? posted Tue Feb 24 2004 15:34:51 by Amirs
What Is The Diff Between An MD-80 And A Super-80 posted Fri Oct 10 2003 00:52:18 by Startvalve
What Is The Difference Between A Saab 340A & 340B? posted Sun Oct 27 2002 04:23:02 by Aussie_
What Is The Difference Between Lease And Wet-Lease posted Thu Sep 5 2002 20:38:50 by Ptica2000
What Is The Difference Between A MD82 And MD83? posted Sat Mar 30 2002 00:45:23 by 9Y-ISA
What Is The Difference Between ER/ERX/LR/X? posted Wed May 16 2001 08:04:22 by Jiml1126
What Is The Difference Between 747, 747sp.. posted Tue Apr 24 2001 23:43:16 by SEA nw DC10