Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights  
User currently offlineChicagoFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 272 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7990 times:

So after Canada refused to grant Emirates and Etihad additional landing rights, and faced retaliation, it seems some of the issue is settled over Tim Horton's coffee (what is a double-double?).

Looks like Canadians can again go to UAE visa-free, but can UAE carriers add more Canadian flights? The article is silent, so does anyone know?

104 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedumbell2424 From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 914 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7937 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ChicagoFlyer (Thread starter):
(what is a double-double?).
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Double-Double

This definition is Safe for Work.


User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2374 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7794 times:

Quoting ChicagoFlyer (Thread starter):
The article is silent, so does anyone know?

not really silent.

"although a Canadian source insisted no new concessions were offered to seal the visa-fee change."

Seems to me the U.A.E is coming to its senses on this issue without Canada having to increase landing rights. What the U.A.E did a few years ago was childish and they know it. This is them fixing it.

Additional landing rights will be granted throught proper diplomacy. This is them taking a step in the right direction.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2013-04-02 21:17:27]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineuaeflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 1023 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7776 times:

The landing right issue was never mentioned in the negotiations .. The focus more was into the business and political.


http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/...sa+requirements/8183509/story.html


User currently offlineQatarA340 From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1802 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7608 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 2):
Seems to me the U.A.E is coming to its senses on this issue without Canada having to increase landing rights. What the U.A.E did a few years ago was childish and they know it. This is them fixing it.

Is it childish to refuse landing slots for more than 6 flights a week to a country who is 3.855 million sq miles with 35 million people?



لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
User currently offlinejoecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5404 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7530 times:

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 4):

Nope...not if Canadians can be better served by airlines with bases having much larger O&D traffic than the UAE. Very few Canadians visit the UAE for vacation. There are significant numbers of Canadians living and working in the UAE, but those visas have always been paid for, usually by the hiring company as part of the employment package.

The visa restrictions were a pr move and had little effect on most Canadians...which is evident from the complete lack of complaints since the move.

While the public spat was catching headlines, (for a few days), it was business as usual behind the scenes between the UAE and Canada. Work visas for Canadians were the same as always and business conditions were also unchanged.

Some will claim that the move was just to protect Air Canada...and while there may be a small bit of truth to that, it is not nearly the primary reason. First, Air Canada doesn't fly to the middle east or most places Emirates would fly from Canada. Second, the slots would go to airlines from countries with significant O&D traffic...a great many of which are direct competitors of Air Canada.

Slots are a finite commodity and the travelling public is best served by travel options to where they are most likely to go.

As it is, there is no shortage of routes to the UAE from Canada. There are the 6 direct flights from YYC, and I rarely connected through

What the...?
User currently offlinejoecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5404 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7519 times:

Edit function gone mad.

Anyway, I was saying that I rarely connected through YYZ and it was never the best option for me.



What the...?
User currently offlinekevin From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 1140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7520 times:

Quoting uaeflyer (Reply 3):
The landing right issue was never mentioned in the negotiations .. The focus more was into the business and political

According to an article in The National, last month 6 Canadian MPs visited UAE and met up with Tim Clark to discuss the issue.


User currently offlinemarco From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2000, 4169 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7424 times:

I also think it's childish (and backwards) of the Canadian government to be promoting a protectionist environment in this day and age, under the disguise of "inadequate O&D". Anyone who's flown on AF/KL/BA/SR to Canada knows this is a ridiuclous argument. Apparently, it's not only Emirates that's "subsidised"!


Proud to be an Assyrian!
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7295 times:

First, an admission: I enjoy typing these posts as much as the vast majority of you enjoy reading my posts (which is to say, not a lot). However, I cannot, for the life of me, understand some Canadian posters' constant need to be paternalistic, and to attempt to obuscate and distort the fact. This moves me just enough to point out the following:

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 5):
Nope...not if Canadians can be better served by airlines with bases having much larger O&D traffic than the UAE.

That explains the daily flights to VIE or the 4 daily flights to AMS. This argument sounds great in theory, but it doesn't apply in practice.

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 5):
Some will claim that the move was just to protect Air Canada...and while there may be a small bit of truth to that, it is not nearly the primary reason. First, Air Canada doesn't fly to the middle east or most places Emirates would fly from Canada. Second, the slots would go to airlines from countries with significant O&D traffic...a great many of which are direct competitors of Air Canada.

'Some'? Underselling it a bit, don't you think. Theres an entire senate hearing on aviation that includes quite a few notable and well-informed people (senators, economists, industry experts) who state quite clearly that it was a move to protect AC.

The rest of your post is rather pointless. AC has a webpage on its own website dedicated to EK, which suggests to me that they are competing with it directly. And then there's the CEO stating on record that if YOW-FRA loses the 15% of its traffic that connects to the ME in FRA, the route will become unviable. So no, AC does not fly to the ME or most of the places EK flies to, but it its overlord in FRA does, and since AC is so dependent on moving connecting traffic to FRA (look at the amount of AC metal that goes there on a daily basis), it needs the protection both for itself or LH. If that traffic started moving away from FRA, AC would suffer. That's the CEO's claim, anyway.

So yes, this was about protecting AC. As for the O&D traffic claim, how many of those slots have gone to LH, OS, LX, all of which are essentially AC by any other name - and not "direct competitors". But that aside, there's also an issue with how you define significant O&D. There are any number of markets where potential exists, but which can't be served by the airlines of the respective nations because of financial or technical constraints. Do we just act like they don't exist?

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 5):
Slots are a finite commodity and the travelling public is best served by travel options to where they are most likely to go.

In IST or LHR, sure. In Canada? You're having a laugh. But aside from that, I agree. Let the travelling public decide how it is best served. As it turns out, that is one of AC CEO Rovinescu's big fears in the context of YOW-FRA:

"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. The other 85% are connecting in Frankfurt to fly somewhere else. If another carrier siphons off even just the 15% headed for the Middle East, then the route is no longer viable.""

He seems to be under the impression that that 15% of ME bound pax will choose a two-stop YOW-YYZ-DXB-Destination on EK over a YOW-FRA-Destination on AC/LH. And why not? If the travelling public feels that that caters better to their goals in terms of value-for-money etc, then why not give them free reign.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...essages-on-the-middle-east-349163/

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 5):

As it is, there is no shortage of routes to the UAE from Canada.

Thank you for letting us know that we have 'enough' options. Canadian paternalism at its best. Don't ask for more or better - make do with the current level of mediocrity because someone here deems it good enough for everyone. Why let pax make their own choices when the government/Canadian a.net posters can make it for them?


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12873 posts, RR: 100
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7186 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Good to hear one step is cleared. The trade is a bigger chunk of money than air rights.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 2):
Additional landing rights will be granted throught proper diplomacy. This is them taking a step in the right direction.

I wonder, AC has been on shaky ground for a while. Yet without granting the UAE carriers more rights, the UAE will be hesitant to grant Canada anything in bilateral negotiation. And the UAE is effectively the 'efficient middleman' for India...

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 9):
"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. The other 85% are connecting in Frankfurt to fly somewhere else. If another carrier siphons off even just the 15% headed for the Middle East, then the route is no longer viable.""

Interesting numbers. Thank you.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineCPA62 From Canada, joined Jan 2012, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7025 times:

Quoting marco (Reply 8):
I also think it's childish (and backwards) of the Canadian government to be promoting a protectionist environment in this day and age, under the disguise of "inadequate O&D". Anyone who's flown on AF/KL/BA/SR to Canada knows this is a ridiuclous argument. Apparently, it's not only Emirates that's "subsidised

I agree!!


User currently offlinesierra3tango From United Arab Emirates, joined Mar 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6983 times:

Quoting CPA62 (Reply 11):

Maybe slightly off topic but very much the same govermental mind set involved.

Is not Australia limiting QR's access to their market, using roughly the same argument ?


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24798 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6754 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 9):
First, an admission: I enjoy typing these posts as much as the vast majority of you enjoy reading my posts (which is to say, not a lot).

You have made all of your arguments many, many times before. Is it really necessary to go through all of this again? It would be simpler (and reduce your typing) if you just posted links to some of the many earlier threads.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks ago) and read 6689 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
You have made all of your arguments many, many times before. Is it really necessary to go through all of this again? It would be simpler (and reduce your typing) if you just posted links to some of the many earlier threads.

Truthbetold, I have a hard time finding old threads, let alone linking individual posts.

That aside, I will continue to challenge assertions that are questionable, no matter how often they show up.

What surprises me more than anything is the surprising frequency with which this issue comes up again and again. Granted, this time it was about the Visa issue, but I always thought the visa issue was based on the UAE's stated policy of visa reciprocity and not neccessarily linked to the EK issue. They have been lobbying for visa free access for all or some of their citizens (royal family, I think) for a while now. There is a tendency to link the visas with EK, but the visa issue has been around for equally long, if not longer.

While I don't expect any major concessions on the EK front anytime soon - certainly none related to the visa issue - I am curious to see if we have made any concessions on the visa front. Will we be granting them the visa/visa-free access that they want?

Edit: Found the link - it includes a quote by a Canadian Foreign Affairs Spokesperson stating that the decision to require visas was made in 2009.

“The policy is based on a policy of reciprocity,” Ambassador Mohamed Abdulla Al Ghafli said via his office Tuesday.

The line was echoed by officials at the Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa.

“In 2009 the UAE made a decision to pursue visa reciprocity with many countries, including Canada, that did not offer UAE citizens visa-free access,” spokesman Jacques Labrie said in an email.

“The UAE government is now implementing its 2009 decision.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...or-tat-visa-demand/article1216416/

Of course, the timing of the implementation was suspect - and many have understandably concluded that it was 'retaliation'. However, if the decision was made in 2009, as our own Foreign Affairs Department states, then, well, it isn't consistent with the Canadian narrative here on a.net (much like the Canadian narrative on EK and Australia).

[Edited 2013-04-03 17:38:45]

[Edited 2013-04-03 17:39:44]

User currently offlinemarco From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2000, 4169 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6527 times:

@ Viscount724

Well the usual anti-UAE/Emirates members have also made their points (many, many) times, so why the double standards?

I appreciate the fact that he actually responds to those allegations, some of which are just ridiculous!



Proud to be an Assyrian!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6498 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
You have made all of your arguments many, many times before

Well the usual crowd have also made their point many, many times but you didn't feel the need to chide them. Oh but of course, it doesn't fit your agenda  

El Pistolero's posts are actually quite refreshing (regardless of agenda) because he is one of the few posters who consistently uses sources to support his argument, something the anti-EK brigade rarely do.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 12):
Is not Australia limiting QR's access to their market, using roughly the same argument ?

Don't get me started! QR are entitled to 14 weekly frequencies for DOH-SYD/MEL/PER/BNE and unlimited frequencies to everywhere else. This means that unless they want to launch ADL, DRW, CNS, CBR etc QR are maxed out with 1 daily flight each to MEL and PER (14 flights per week)

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...ster_available_capacity_280313.pdf



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6296 times:

I still can't see more access for EK/EY anytime soon.

User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6175 times:

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 5):
Very few Canadians visit the UAE for vacation.
Quoting joecanuck (Reply 5):
The visa restrictions were a pr move and had little effect on most Canadians...which is evident from the complete lack of complaints since the move.

Exactly. This is a non-issue for the overwhelming majority of Canadians. The tiny Indo-Canadian community benefits from the geography of the UAE as a stepping stone for travel to India, but that's it. No one else.

Quoting marco (Reply 8):
I also think it's childish (and backwards) of the Canadian government to be promoting a protectionist environment in this day and age


Canada needs no lessons on backwardness from the any aspect of life in the UAE.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 2):
What the U.A.E did a few years ago was childish and they know it.

Exactly. Childish and embarassing diplomatic stunts such as this do little to improve the standing of the UAE in the world.

Nice to see Canada standing its ground against these UAE temper tantrums and the aggressive non-market driven and government-supported expansionism of the predatory UAE carriers.



[Edited 2013-04-04 22:58:17]


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24798 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5964 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 16):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
You have made all of your arguments many, many times before

Well the usual crowd have also made their point many, many times but you didn't feel the need to chide them. Oh but of course, it doesn't fit your agenda

My comments were intended to apply to the entire discussion of the Canada-UAE issues which have been repeated so many times and nothing has really changed to warrant a new thread every few weeks where the same arguments (on both sides) are repeated over and over.


User currently offlinegr8circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 3092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5920 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
And the UAE is effectively the 'efficient middleman' for India...

"Middleman"?  

Did you mean to say an efficient transit point or something like that?


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4913 posts, RR: 43
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5910 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
My comments were intended to apply to the entire discussion of the Canada-UAE issues which have been repeated so many times and nothing has really changed to warrant a new thread every few weeks where the same arguments (on both sides) are repeated over and over.

Hear hear!

I sometimes feel that people think if they win a "debate" here, then the Government of Canada will change their policies! My personal feeling is that if one feels so strongly, write your MP.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5898 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 18):
Nice to see Canada standing its ground against these UAE temper tantrums and the aggressive non-market driven and government-supported expansionism of the predatory UAE carriers.

It is hard to imagine the success of Emirates as "non-merket driven." It's not as if the planes are flying around empty.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5844 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 18):
Exactly. This is a non-issue for the overwhelming majority of Canadians. The tiny Indo-Canadian community benefits from the geography of the UAE as a stepping stone for travel to India, but that's it. No one else.

There are many others who also stand to benefit, not just Indians, but if you're a white Canadian and the entire scope of your travel includes Europe, US and the occasional trip "down south" then you are not too bothered so long as you see competition and cheap fares in these areas, as for the rest of the rabble, who really cares right?

And yes it is about saving AC. AC fill up a substantial amount of space in their flights to major hubs in Europe with transit pax moving onward, which no doubt EK will steal from them if they are given further landing rights. You're kidding yourself if you keep using these arguments about O&D traffic etc. especially when its already been proven that this same rule seems to be waived when it comes to some other carriers.


User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2225 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5826 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 9):
First, an admission: I enjoy typing these posts as much as the vast majority of you enjoy reading my posts (which is to say, not a lot).

You have made all of your arguments many, many times before. Is it really necessary to go through all of this again? It would be simpler (and reduce your typing) if you just posted links to some of the many earlier threads.

Non-issue for Canadians, non-issue for the majority of travelers, and non-issue for me. I am quite happy to have EK or any other carrier follow the same procedure as any other carrier. This merry go round every couple of weeks is so tiresome.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5945 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):

My comments were intended to apply to the entire discussion of the Canada-UAE issues which have been repeated so many times and nothing has really changed to warrant a new thread every few weeks where the same arguments (on both sides) are repeated over and over.

Agreed.

That said, if someone asks a question and another person responds with questionable assertions, I, for one, will contiune to challenge the assertions. I don't think its any great secret that I have plenty to say on this issue, but I've stuck to responding only to the very questionable assertions.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 21):
I sometimes feel that people think if they win a "debate" here, then the Government of Canada will change their policies! My personal feeling is that if one feels so strongly, write your MP.

I don't think anythings going to change anytime soon on this file. I'm pretty sure I've said that in quite a few of my many, many posts on this file.

That said, this isn't about "winning" a "debate". Its simply about injecting a little bit of objectivity, and when available, a few facts. If there is one thing the many, many threads on this issue have shown us, it is that the Canadian a.net narrative on this EK issue, that has grown over the years, has taken on a life of its own - with some aspects of it being completely disconnected from reality. My own observation is that many (but not all) of the anti-EK posters typically resort to questionable assertions, unsubstantiated allegations and ad hominems, which would not be out of place in Question Period.

One need only look at the whole EK versus Australia issue, where its becoming evident that the Canadian narrative, which is either based on, or which directly influenced, that interesting Air Canada webpage that is still available on their website, is increasingly at odds with what most Australians think of their own policies. On a recent thread on the Qantas/EK partnership, one Canadian poster went and posted something that would not be out of place on most Canada/EK threads or even (especially?) on Air Canada's website. He was roundly mocked for his insight.

As a Canadian, I feel strongly about the issue, but fortunately for me, TK has filled the void on a practical level, so I don't have all that much to gain from writing to an MP (who appear to be increasingly restricted by party affiliation, by the looks of it) and getting more access for EK. However, that is not going to stop me from challenging questionable assertions and logic. Therefore, if someone asks a question and someone responds with questionable assertions, I think it is incumbent on all of us to challenge these assertions. Whats the alternative? Look the other way? Thats not my style. Never has been. Never will be.

To be clear, this isn't about winning; this is about chipping away at some of the more questionable assertions that have become commonplace around here. Some of us are interested in getting a better understanding of the intricacies of this file (and I, for one, have learnt plenty - perhaps the greatest benefit of having one's views challenged).

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 24):
I am quite happy to have EK or any other carrier follow the same procedure as any other carrier.

Or, you know, we could shake things up in order to make things better. Innovation, creativity and all that. How is Canada doing on Innovation and creativity these days?

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 24):
This merry go round every couple of weeks is so tiresome.

I agree. However, one need not participate in them if one does not wish to. Skipping the thread altogether might help one avoid/alleviate the tiredness.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5869 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 21):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
My comments were intended to apply to the entire discussion of the Canada-UAE issues which have been repeated so many times and nothing has really changed to warrant a new thread every few weeks where the same arguments (on both sides) are repeated over and over.

Hear hear!

I sometimes feel that people think if they win a "debate" here, then the Government of Canada will change their policies! My personal feeling is that if one feels so strongly, write your MP.


Oh noo...it's much more fun to post on here. My MP (Olivia Chow) has, probably, better things to worry about than temper tantrums from the UAE.
 
Quoting mariner (Reply 22):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 18):
Nice to see Canada standing its ground against these UAE temper tantrums and the aggressive non-market driven and government-supported expansionism of the predatory UAE carriers.

It is hard to imagine the success of Emirates as "non-merket driven." It's not as if the planes are flying around empty.

The UAE governments are building & funding the massive airports that enable EK and EY. If it smells like government support, it probably is.....

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 23):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 18):
Exactly. This is a non-issue for the overwhelming majority of Canadians. The tiny Indo-Canadian community benefits from the geography of the UAE as a stepping stone for travel to India, but that's it. No one else.

There are many others who also stand to benefit, not just Indians, but if you're a white Canadian and the entire scope of your travel includes Europe, US and the occasional trip "down south" then you are not too bothered so long as you see competition and cheap fares in these areas, as for the rest of the rabble, who really cares right?

Umm no. No one else stands to benefit from increased UAE airline rights into Canada. Really. No one.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 23):
And yes it is about saving AC.


It has nothing to do with AC. AC does not serve the Middle East (expect for prosperous Tel Aviv) and does not serve India. These markets (central to EK) are simply not core to AC.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 24):
Non-issue for Canadians, non-issue for the majority of travelers, and non-issue for me.

Fully agree.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 24):
This merry go round every couple of weeks is so tiresome.

Tiresome, but fun.   Poking holes in the sheer irrelevance of EK and Dubai to most Canadian travel needs is really quite fun.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 25):
TK has filled the void on a practical level,

What void? There is no void. Most Canadians xYYZ are flying to YVR, YUL, LGA, LAX, LHR, but certainly not BOM, DXB or DEL. These are remote, minor destinations. Just like 40 years ago, and (likely) in 40 years also.

[Edited 2013-04-05 23:31:25]

[Edited 2013-04-05 23:34:09]


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5955 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
The UAE governments are building & funding the massive airports that enable EK and EY. If it smells like government support, it probably is.....

Many governments help build airports, as a national resource. If the airlines can fill the planes to and from those airports, i don't see the problem.

Most of the European airlines used to serve UAE airports before the 747-400 came along and no one was complaining about who funded the airports then, when they needed the fuel stop.

You want your national airline to be protected from competition, it's your country, I don't have a horse in the race. But I wonder if it is the best thing for Air Canada, which may become insulated from market economics, market realities.

Tiny Air New Zealand (majority government owned) has to deal with some of the most liberal civil aviation policies in the world (and Emirates) and it is a signatory to MALIAT - open skies up the wazoo:

http://www.maliat.govt.nz

Yet the airline remained profitable throughout the GFC, has just recorded a handsome half-year profit and is in expansion mode.

mariner

[Edited 2013-04-06 00:09:52]


aeternum nauta
User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5814 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
Umm no. No one else stands to benefit from increased UAE airline rights into Canada. Really. No one.

Ok but what about:

Iranians
Iraqis
Sri Lankans
Pakistanis
Bangladeshis
Afghanis
Nepalis
Egyptians
Sudanis
Somalis
Syrians
Saudis
Bahrainis
Emiratis
Omanis

And don't give me the general rant about back tracking, because if the fare is right people are not so time sensitive.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
It has nothing to do with AC. AC does not serve the Middle East (expect for prosperous Tel Aviv) and does not serve India. These markets (central to EK) are simply not core to AC.

Have you ever taken an AC flight to FRA or LHR, have you ever seen with your own eyes how many transfer pax there are on board those flights, pax that will happily switch to EK and take pax off ACs aircraft. and 10% drop in LF is enough to seriously harm the bottom line, this is the aviation business not a bank, they need all the revenue they can get.

[Edited 2013-04-06 04:20:49]

User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5745 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
The UAE governments are building & funding the massive airports that enable EK and EY. If it smells like government support, it probably is.....

So do the Americans:

"U.S. airports pay virtually no rent, no municipal taxes and are able to issue tax-free bonds. In addition, they receive billions of dollars in U.S. government funding."

http://www.cacairports.ca/english/news/airportrent.php

"The committee heard that, while the air traffic control component of the cost in Canada is less than in the United States, other Canadian aviation charges or fees have no U.S. equivalent because U.S. airports are subsidized."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Co...ttee/411/trcm/rep/rep05jun12-e.pdf

What's your point?

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
Umm no. No one else stands to benefit from increased UAE airline rights into Canada. Really. No one.

GIven that India is a "Key Market" for Canadian tourism, I think there might be some people of non-Indian origin in Canada who would benefit from more tourists from India. Like hoteliers etc. India was the 8th largest source of tourists for 2011. EK's strength in India include its exceptionally strong brand, as well as its ability to offer one-stop connections from secondary Indian cities to Canada, something most European airlines can't or don't do.

"An estimated 7.7 million Indian tourists headed to long-haul international countries in 2011. Of those, Canada received a total of 162,900 overnight travellers—an 8.7% year-over-year gain—with travel receipts increasing 11% to $160.9 million."

http://en-corporate.canada.travel/markets/where-we-market-canada

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
certainly not BOM, DXB or DEL. These are remote, minor destinations. Just like 40 years ago, and (likely) in 40 years also.

I take it you believe that traffic between BOM/DEL and Canada is at the same level as it was 40 years ago?

I will note that "40 years ago" would put us in 1973, which reminds me of some words from our PM that I think bear repeating:

“We cannot be stuck in the 1970s,” Harper said during the interview in his Parliament Hill office. “We’re not in the 1970s any more.”

“The world is different. This country’s needs are different and this country can have a good, positive relationship with India — and, in my judgment, needs it.”

Harper said Canada needs to improve its trade and investment in India as part of a broader economic plan to rely less in future on “traditional export markets” such as the United States. “I think India will be a significant world economic power,” Harper said.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11...ionship-with-india-stephen-harper/

I find that trade links tend to increase traffic, so I imagine there will be a tad bit more traffic in 2053. What do you think?

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
What void? There is no void.

At least have the decency to read what I've written, preferrably before responding it.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 25):
fortunately for me, TK has filled the void on a practical level, so I don't have all that much to gain from writing to an MP

"me" as in I, me, myself. Not talking about a void for Canadians in general (though your post makes one wonder why AC is starting IST).

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
It has nothing to do with AC. AC does not serve the Middle East (expect for prosperous Tel Aviv) and does not serve India.

->

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 9):
"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. The other 85% are connecting in Frankfurt to fly somewhere else. If another carrier siphons off even just the 15% headed for the Middle East, then the route is no longer viable.""


[Edited 2013-04-06 05:32:27]

User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5611 times:

Might as well put one of these myths through the grinder:

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 5):
Some will claim that the move was just to protect Air Canada...and while there may be a small bit of truth to that, it is not nearly the primary reason. First, Air Canada doesn't fly to the middle east or most places Emirates would fly from Canada. Second, the slots would go to airlines from countries with significant O&D traffic...a great many of which are direct competitors of Air Canada.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):


It has nothing to do with AC. AC does not serve the Middle East (expect for prosperous Tel Aviv) and does not serve India. These markets (central to EK) are simply not core to AC.

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):
"Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government.
When the official opposition questioned the cost and consequences of the closure of Camp Mirage and the incompetence of the government in how it handled the negotiations, the Prime Minister referred to those questions and issues as “anti-Canadian”. That was the statement he made.
I would like to ask the government House leader this. If the official opposition is anti-Canadian for questioning the costs and consequences of that incompetence, why does the same test not apply to the Minister of National Defence?"

Hon. John Baird (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment, CPC):
"Mr. Speaker, we had negotiations with the United Arab Emirates. The offer that was on the table was not in the best interests of Canada. It would have cost Canada literally tens of thousands of jobs and was not in Canadian interests. That is why we said no."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBu...E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1#Para2178809

Let me emphasize that last line:

" It would have cost Canada literally tens of thousands of jobs and was not in Canadian interests."

Where did that number - tens of thousands - come from? Well, it bears a striking similarity to this tidbit, which was on the AC website for quite a while before the Minister actually went and said it on record:

"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

Perhaps its now time to stop claiming that it wasn't about protecting AC, given that AC fired the first shots in June 2009, over a year before the issue even flared up.

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

The CEO has made any number of speeches demanding protection, while a Minister has gone on record using the number's that appear to have been provided by AIr Canada to justify the decision. Its all fairly straightforward.

Will EK get access? I don't think so. Not anytime soon.

That said, credit is due to the Government for making the effort to mending ties with the UAE while agreeing to disagree on aviation.

If this relationship was as irrelevant as some claim it is, the Government wouldn't engage in the PR exercises (a cup of Tim Hortons in the UAE?) - after all, if there's no audience in Canada, whats the point? I don't think it was for an audience in the UAE - as one report so succinctly put it: "Members of the royal family don’t typically do coffee-shop photo ops."

Lets just take the slow steps back to sanity for what they're worth, instead of expecting them to turn into a sprint.

[Edited 2013-04-06 08:00:24]

User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2129 posts, RR: 9
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5556 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
What void? There is no void. Most Canadians xYYZ are flying to YVR, YUL, LGA, LAX, LHR, but certainly not BOM, DXB or DEL. These are remote, minor destinations. Just like 40 years ago, and (likely) in 40 years also.

When you refer to Dubai as a "minor destination" I understand you mean in terms of Canadian travelers rather than from a global perspective. However, your assumption of static Canadian air travel patterns is immensely flawed. For starters, let's omit all references in this debate to domestic routes, on which no foreign carrier competes. I'll agree that historically, US and western European countries have been the predominant O&D markets for Canadians, but the growth in travel to & from your labeled "remote, minor" destinations has skyrocketed. This is partly due to accelerating immigration from brown countries, if you'll forgive the term. But Indians and Chinese in particular have been present in significant numbers in Canada for more than a century. Only recently have we had aircraft able to make cost-effective air travel possible over long distances, coupled with the dramatic rise in prosperity of these people here and abroad. Hence we have non-linear increases in demand to formerly "remote, minor" destinations.

If you think that the social, racial and ethnic makeup in this country (and thus, travel habits) will remain the same as it was 40 years ago my friend, you are sadly mistaken. Living in Ms Chow's Toronto riding, I'd have thought you could see that on a daily basis.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

@YYZ717

And here's one more point: If it's no big deal and AC has nothing to lose, because they don't serve "those" markets that EK is targeting, why not just give EK more slots? Why make such a big issue out of it, isn't it in Canada's interest to give more slots to the UAE in exchange for contracts in Gulf? If I can give something away that doesn't cost me anything and get something valuable in exchange then why not do the deal? Like I give you my old pair of socks and you give me a Lamborghini. Well, the answer is it does cost Canada something, i.e. it hurts ACs bottom line.


User currently offlineupwardfacing From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Apr 2013, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5255 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 25):
One need only look at the whole EK versus Australia issue

A key difference between Canada and Australia is that Canadians can and do travel via the United States. From Western Canada, Alaska Airlines and Emirates have a partnership where AS feeds the SEA-DXB flight from a number of points in British Columbia and Alberta. Air Canada reportedly codeshares on United's IAD-DXB flight.

More generally, there is probably a steady stream of Canadians who drive, take a bus or train, or catch a cheap flight (maybe using points) on a separate ticket to take advantage of lower prices and a greater choice of flights from the USA, especially at JFK. Traffic of this nature ex-Canada may go unrecorded. This is obviously not an option for most non-Canadians flying EK or EY, who would require a US visa.

It's also worth speculating on the proposed Eithad-Jet Airways deal. If this goes through, the plan may well be for Jet to move its stopover point from BRU to AUH, thereby providing Etihad with a daily YYZ service, and enabling Eithad to move its 3x weekly rights to another Canadian destination. (All subject to regulatory approval, of course.)

It will be interesting to see how Air Canada and the Government of Canada react. AC may actually be pleased to see 9W out of YYZ-BRU so they can commence their own service free of competition.


User currently offlineupwardfacing From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Apr 2013, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5222 times:

For comparison, here are a few examples of O&D data from US metropolitan areas to Dubai:

Houston-Dubai
2003: 11,548
2011: 75,393

[Emirates commenced nonstop IAH-DXB service in 2007]

Los Angeles-Dubai
2003: 12,405
2011: 65,981

[Emirates commenced nonstop LAX-DXB service in 2008]

Washington DC-Dubai
2003: 14,777
2011: 50,642

[United commenced nonstop IAD-DXB service in 2008. Emirates did the same in 2012--no effect on the data above]

See: http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/aviation

The point is that new nonstop flights help increase O&D. I believe it's called market stimulation.

It would be interesting to see how much Toronto-Dubai O&D has grown in recent years. A daily service would probably mean greater growth.

It's fair to say that Abu Dhabi and Doha have very little O&D from the United States (as well as from many other parts of the world), but Dubai is another story: It's now a significant destination for both business and tourism.

For those who believe that travel patterns are the same as they were 40 years ago, the interactive link is full of surprises. Similar changes probably hold true for Canada as well. A simple reflection of changing immigration patterns and the growth of the 'emerging markets'.


User currently offlineupwardfacing From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Apr 2013, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5195 times:

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 28):
Ok but what about:

Iranians
Iraqis
Sri Lankans
Pakistanis
Bangladeshis
Afghanis
Nepalis
Egyptians
Sudanis
Somalis
Syrians
Saudis
Bahrainis
Emiratis
Omanis

And don't give me the general rant about back tracking, because if the fare is right people are not so time sensitive.

Don't stop there. You can add even more nationalities.

From eastern Canada and the United States, the Gulf carriers are a competitive option for the entire Indian Ocean region, from the Red Sea to the Gulf of Thailand, or from Cape Town to Perth if you like. There is little difference in doing a roundtrip/return between YYZ-ICN-KUL vs YYZ-DXB-KUL, for example.

It's virtually guaranteed that someone will bring up the issue of backtracking or circuitous routings. Besides price considerations, transiting Western Europe is becoming less and less of an option, particularly as Western European carriers continue to drop destinations across Africa and Asia. (For example, not too long ago we heard about KL dropping KRT, ADD, and IKA, with BA doing the same with DAR, LH with HYD and CCU, etc.)

Moreover, schedules via Europe are not always optimal. For example, flights from North America usually reach Europe in the morning, whereas flights to South Africa depart at night.

Others will bring up TK, but they have somewhat different strengths than their Gulf counterparts. TK has a stronger network in the Balkans, Iran, and former Soviet Union--from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. Meanwhile, the Gulf carriers are stronger elsewhere, not just in the ballyhooed area between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, but really across the entire Indian Ocean region--both destination-wise and schedule-wise.

[Edited 2013-04-07 01:08:11]

[Edited 2013-04-07 01:08:46]

[Edited 2013-04-07 01:09:49]

User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5092 times:

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 33):

A key difference between Canada and Australia is that Canadians can and do travel via the United States.

I think the comparison remains valid if only for one reason: key figures in the industry - some of the best informed people out there - think it is valid. As the AF/KL Country Head in Canada put it:

"The IATA secretary general recently compared Canada and Australia, countries that have similar air transportation needs. The results were self-explanatory. Australian air transportation finished ahead across the board in terms of growth and quality. The only category in which Canadian air transportation rated higher was airport taxes."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/411/TRCM/13EV-49827-E.HTM

FWIW

"Last year, there were a record 4.8 million one-way trips made by Canadians to U.S. airports, up 15 per cent from 2010, a new study shows. U.S. air terminals handled more Canadians in 2011 than the total number of passengers who went through Ottawa International Airport, the Canadian Airports Council said Tuesday in a report titled One of Our Airports is Missing."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...arch-of-cheap-fares/article535004/

A cursory glance at Wiki (not the best source, I know) indicates the following.

Top 15 airports Canada: ~105 million
Top 11 airports Australia (thats all I could find): ~120 million

Factoring in the 5 million Canadians who use US airports would take Canada to 110 million, still less than Australia, which, it should be noted, has a population that is 33% smaller than Canada's.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 33):
Air Canada reportedly codeshares on United's IAD-DXB flight.

Probably not from YOW, given Rovinescu's comments posted several times in this thread.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 33):
More generally, there is probably a steady stream of Canadians who drive, take a bus or train, or catch a cheap flight (maybe using points) on a separate ticket to take advantage of lower prices and a greater choice of flights from the USA, especially at JFK.

JFK is not particularly well connected to Canadian airports. YOW, for example, has no flights to JFK. Most traffic goes to LGA and EWR.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 33):
From Western Canada, Alaska Airlines and Emirates have a partnership where AS feeds the SEA-DXB flight from a number of points in British Columbia and Alberta.

AS only flies to YVR, though if you are correct, your larger point makes a mockery of Canada's handling of this file. If EK is still getting feed from YVR and BC, then wouldn't it be far more sensible to let it fly to YVR instead, generating some amount of tax revenue/landing fees and perhaps some additional employment there. As it stands now, if you are correct, they're still picking up pax - albeit with YVR getting precious little in return.

That said, I disagree with you on this - I don't think many western Canadians are using EK ex-SEA.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 33):
Traffic of this nature ex-Canada may go unrecorded.

I'm sure the Airport Council has tried to capture all the numbers - the greater the impact, the stronger their case. If they say its 5 million, I suspect the figure is very close to that.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 33):
It's also worth speculating on the proposed Eithad-Jet Airways deal. If this goes through, the plan may well be for Jet to move its stopover point from BRU to AUH, thereby providing Etihad with a daily YYZ service, and enabling Eithad to move its 3x weekly rights to another Canadian destination. (All subject to regulatory approval, of course.)

I guess that depends on the India-Canada Bilateral. If 9W has 5th freedom rights from any point, as opposed to specified points, perhaps, though I don't see it happening. (can't access the bilateral right now - website appears to be down).

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 33):
It will be interesting to see how Air Canada and the Government of Canada react. AC may actually be pleased to see 9W out of YYZ-BRU so they can commence their own service free of competition.

Doubt AC or the Government would allow it - it would simply put more pressure on YYZ-FRA since an AUH 9W hub would provide one-stop access to far more Indian cities than 9W can provide right now. Cursory glance says - AMD, BLR, MAA, BOM, DEL, HYD, COK, CCJ, TRV, as opposed to the current DEL, BOM, MAA.

A very interesting idea indeed. It might even allow 9W to tap into the underserved Pakistan market.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 34):
The point is that new nonstop flights help increase O&D. I believe it's called market stimulation.

A point lost on far too many people.


User currently offlinetheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4992 times:

It does seem strange that Air Canada has to have something on its website about a competitor like Emirates. They are obviously worried but as others have said Lufthansa would stand to lose more from increased Middle East access to Canada.

User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4846 times:

Quoting theginge (Reply 38):

It does seem strange that Air Canada has to have something on its website about a competitor like Emirates. They are obviously worried but as others have said Lufthansa would stand to lose more from increased Middle East access to Canada.

AC stands to lose to. Guess who provides LH the feed?


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24798 posts, RR: 22
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4797 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 36):
Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 33):
More generally, there is probably a steady stream of Canadians who drive, take a bus or train, or catch a cheap flight (maybe using points) on a separate ticket to take advantage of lower prices and a greater choice of flights from the USA, especially at JFK.

JFK is not particularly well connected to Canadian airports. YOW, for example, has no flights to JFK. Most traffic goes to LGA and EWR.

I believe the only current Canada-JFK service is from YYZ and YUL (all RJs except for Jazz Q400s from YYZ which recently replaced CRJs), plus the daily CX HKG-YVR-JFK 77W.


User currently offlineupwardfacing From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Apr 2013, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4647 times:

I think you may have missed the part about driving, taking a bus or train, or buying a separate air ticket.

It's not simply about JFK flight availability from Canada.

Just like people on a budget from Pittsburgh or Providence might drive or take a bus in order to get a cheaper fare ex-JFK than from their home city.

Unlike Australians, Canadians have such options, since they (1) share a continent with the USA, and (2) live mostly near the US border. That's all.


User currently offlineupwardfacing From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Apr 2013, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4620 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 36):
That said, I disagree with you on this - I don't think many western Canadians are using EK ex-SEA.

I have no hard data but am just going by what I have read elsewhere. If you investigate this further, you just might change your mind. AS and EK have a frequent flyer partnership. Alaska Airlines/Horizon Air fly to Kelowna, Edmonton, Whistler, Calgary/Banff, Victoria, and Vancouver from Seattle.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 36):
Doubt AC or the Government would allow it

Well then YYZ might lose 9W services period. This is a route that is consistently rumored to be on the chopping block, particularly after they dropped JFK.

It is hard to believe that LH and AC are so worried about YYZ-FRA when LH and EK compete and coexist even at smaller US markets like SEA.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4581 times:

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 41):
I think you may have missed the part about driving, taking a bus or train, or buying a separate air ticket.

I didn't. Buses from YUL take 6 - 8 hours to get to NYC. Its a little longer from YOW - the other major population center near NYC, is even further away. NYC is about 4-5 hours inside the US. Its not an easy place to get to. Getting there would take as long as a TATL flight flight to Europe. Given that most people in Canada work - and consequently don't have vacation time to burn, its not viable for the vast majority.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 41):
Just like people on a budget from Pittsburgh or Providence might drive or take a bus in order to get a cheaper fare ex-JFK than from their home city.

They don't have to navigate a border crossing which can be unpredictable.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 42):

I have no hard data but am just going by what I have read elsewhere. If you investigate this further, you just might change your mind. AS and EK have a frequent flyer partnership. Alaska Airlines/Horizon Air fly to Kelowna, Edmonton, Whistler, Calgary/Banff, Victoria, and Vancouver from Seattle.

Well, if its true, then it raises question about the oft-raised Canadian claim that EK has no intention of serving YVR - only EK is tapping into Western Canada, then it highlights a significant flaw in Canadian aviation policy - after all, that feed traffic could easily have gone to WS (to YVR) instead of AS, increasing revenues and benefits for YVR. If you are correct, as things stand, EK is effectively serving western Canada with zero benefit to most of the Canadian actors involved, be it the airlines or YVR.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 42):
Well then 9W services period. This is a route that is consistently rumored to be on the chopping block, particularly after they dropped JFK.
9W dropped off JFK after SN started. They have a partnership with SN and probably feed that flight. That said, 9W has been facing all sorts of trouble thanks to the Indian Government's incoherent aviation policy. I haven't heard about 9W dropping 9W AUH hub.


Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 42):
It is hard to believe that LH and AC are so worried about FRA when LH and EK compete and coexist even at smaller US markets like SEA.

Well AC does dedicate a whole website to it, so go figure.

[Edited 2013-04-07 20:40:17]

User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4500 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 27):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
The UAE governments are building & funding the massive airports that enable EK and EY. If it smells like government support, it probably is.....

Many governments help build airports, as a national resource. If the airlines can fill the planes to and from those airports, i don't see the problem.
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 29):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
The UAE governments are building & funding the massive airports that enable EK and EY. If it smells like government support, it probably is.....

So do the Americans:

My point is that the airport expansion in the UAE is all out of proportion to market growth, but is directly aligned to the growth of the UAE carriers who are not so much creating new traffic, but diverting it from existing hubs. This concerted, government-backed airport infrastructure growth in the UAE is a subsidy for the UAE carriers which distorts the market.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 29):
GIven that India is a "Key Market" for Canadian tourism,

In which direction? India to Canada or v.v.? Beyond the VFR market to India, I don't see non-Indian Canadians flocking to India other than the usual small # of student back-packers. With the recent highly publicized gang-rapes in India, I don't see tourism to India picking up for years and years....

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 29):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
certainly not BOM, DXB or DEL. These are remote, minor destinations. Just like 40 years ago, and (likely) in 40 years also.

I take it you believe that traffic between BOM/DEL and Canada is at the same level as it was 40 years ago?

No, it's risen of course, just like all markets. But relatively speaking, they remain minor markets x-Canada catering exclusively to the small Indo-Canadian immigrant community which is perhaps 2% of Canada's population.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 31):
When you refer to Dubai as a "minor destination" I understand you mean in terms of Canadian travelers rather than from a global perspective.

Yes, Cdn travellers.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 31):
but the growth in travel to & from your labeled "remote, minor" destinations has skyrocketed.

Skyrocketing from a small base, to a still small base.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 31):
But Indians and Chinese in particular have been present in significant numbers in Canada for more than a century.

Ummm no. Even today, The Indian and Chinese communities are perhaps each 2% of Canada's population. I read somewhere that Canadians of Chinese origin just hit 1M which represents just under 3% of Canada. 30 years ago, theser communities were tiny. A hundred years ago....almost non-existent.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 31):
If you think that the social, racial and ethnic makeup in this country (and thus, travel habits) will remain the same as it was 40 years ago my friend, you are sadly mistaken. Living in Ms Chow's Toronto riding, I'd have thought you could see that on a daily basis.

Travel habits HAVE remained the same. Compare the airline schedules to 40 years ago, the top 20 destinations from YYZ are pretty much the same......

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 32):
Why make such a big issue out of it, isn't it in Canada's interest to give more slots to the UAE in exchange for contracts in Gulf?

More slots should only be awarded in return for slots requests. Canadian airlines have no market need to serve the UAE (otherwise they would) hence are not requesting slots. So why should any be awarded to the predatory UAE carriers?



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4473 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 43):
This concerted, government-backed airport infrastructure growth in the UAE is a subsidy for the UAE carriers which distorts the market.

I don't see how it distorts the market - people are not forced to fly Emirates, there's no law saying they must - but, as above, governments all over the world build airports, as national infrastructure.

The usefulness of the UAE was well-known by all the European/Asian/Australian airlines, but none of them saw the potential. By dropping the UAE from their route maps when the 747-400 came along, those airlines created a vacuum.

Some airline was always going to fill that vacuum. It's the simplest market economics.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineupwardfacing From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Apr 2013, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4444 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 42):
Given that most people in Canada work - and consequently don't have vacation time to burn, its not viable for the vast majority

Sure, but you'd be surprised what kinds of things people on a budget do. Especially students, people who travel literally once in 5 years, retirees, etc. They will be traveling another 15 plus hours in any case. They might stay with friends in New York. The most savvy can use their Aeroplan or similar points and catch a quick flight to NYC. I do agree this is not going to be a very significant share of travelers. I believe Vancouver area residents using SEA is more common. As you point out, it's hard to accurately gauge these off-the-record patterns.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 42):
9W has been facing all sorts of trouble thanks to the Indian Government's incoherent aviation policy.

More thanks to their own incompetence. Maybe this is why they are looking for a lifeline from EY. As mentioned, this saga and its Canadian implications will be interesting to watch.

Regarding AC and its EK 'policy', LH probably would not be serving most of the secondary markets served by Emirates in any case, as the traffic volume from Germany is either too small and/or is rather low yielding/leisure in nature. As such the threat to AC/LH is not so clear.

Moreover, from Canada, EK and LH are certainly not competing for the exact same traffic. One would think that LH has other markets, like maybe Germany, Russia, Italy, Greece, Spain, Morocco, Israel, etc., to work with.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4383 times:

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 45):
Especially students, people who travel literally once in 5 years, retirees, etc.

That is low-yielding price-sensitive traffic that, one could argue, would simply not exist if it were not for the options provided by the US. Its not a market that the Canadian carriers have been interested in serving - its a group that has been consciously priced out of the market. Given the choice of paying ex-Canadian fares, or not travelling at all, they would choose the latter 90% of the time, purely out of necessity.

As such, I fail to see it as a 'lost' market. Its not. Its a market that, for the most part, simply wouldn't exist in the absence of the US alternative you mentioned. If anything, it inflates the number of Canadian flyers, since this group is reflected in the 5 million who go to the US to do their flying. I think the Canadian Airport Council's 5 million is at the high-end of the estimates for traffic 'lost' to the US.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 45):
Regarding AC and its EK 'policy', LH probably would not be serving most of the secondary markets served by Emirates in any case, as the traffic volume from Germany is either too small and/or is rather low yielding/leisure in nature. As such the threat to AC/LH is not so clear.

LH has invested heavily in India, but it is losing the battle for secondary cities. That said, the consensus is that LH is doing very well on premium heavy routes such as DEL. Its also a question of market share - LH does not want to concede ground in India. As for AC, please read Rovinescu's (AC CEO) comment above. AC will have diifculty filling its planes to FRA if it loses connecting traffic.

Whether this should be a concern for the Canadian Government or Canadian public is a separate question - after all, it was AC's choice and decision to put so many of its eggs in the LH basket. Like all choices and decisions, AC should face the consequences of that. As mentioned several times over on other threads, EK isn't necessarily the cheapest, but it does offer a better value-for-mony proposition - shorter connection times, better Y product, etc - its easy to see why AC/LH would lose that traffic, particularly given LH's exceptionally poor Y offering to India in 2010 (the time of this dispute). They've recently started sending 748s to India which are better than the old 744s (31", no IFE, LH catering).

As of now, the Canadian approach is simply to deny.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 45):
Moreover, from Canada, EK and LH are certainly not competing for the exact same traffic. One would think that LH has other markets, like maybe Germany, Russia, Italy, Greece, Spain, Morocco, Israel, etc., to work with.

I don't disagree. At all. Even I can't understand what AC's fixation with ME and South Asia is. Apparently the relatively low amounts of pax going there are crucial for keeping routes like YOW-FRA online. Again, this raises the question of whether routes that are so precarious viable should be kept afloat by shepharding a group of pax onto them by denying them the choice. Of course, the consequence of this is that the impact on the flying public is uneven - a pax going to Germany or Russia can choose from whatever the market has to offer. A pax going to India has to put up with an artificial restriction on what the market can offer vis-a-vis India.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 43):
My point is that the airport expansion in the UAE is all out of proportion to market growth, but is directly aligned to the growth of the UAE carriers who are not so much creating new traffic, but diverting it from existing hubs. This concerted, government-backed airport infrastructure growth in the UAE is a subsidy for the UAE carriers which distorts the market.

I don't see your point. What is wrong with diverting traffic from existing hubs? Do existing hubs have some kind of birthright? If anything, they held the advantage - established in the minds of the flying public, strong brands etc. That they have lost this traffic speaks more to their own incompetence than anything else.

To be fair, EK has created new traffic, particularly in South Asia (including India), which were/are by and large neglected by European carriers. The vast majority of international traffic from secondary Indian cities has been generated by these carriers. I suspect similar trends in the ME, especially for countries like Iran.

Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong with the government investing in infrastructure (as opposed to treating it like a cash cow as we do in Canada - notice the chorus of voices against it here?). The UAE has used its airlines and airports as a way of turning Dubai into a travel, commercial and tourism hub and, guess what: they've succeeded. It was a great idea - and it worked. I think so. Willie Walsh, the CEO at BA thinks so. And so on. Just because it goes against the western ideal of treating airlines/airports like cash cows does not make it wrong. Rather, it sheds light on how daft the cash cow philosophy is. After all, what is the point of having airlines and airports? Is it to have a profitable airline or airport for the sake of having one (with benefits such as employment for the "tens of thousands" working in the airline/airport industry), or is it to increase connectivity (which also has benefits insofar as it can stimulate tourism, create jobs across the board (including at airlines and airports), improve trade links)?

Nor does it neccessarily distort the market (which I take to mean free market, as opposed to North Korea's version of the 'market'). The market, as we in the West know it, is built for competition. One of its fundamental tenets is the assumption that innovation exists and that new entrants and incumbents will keep creating new products that will divert market share at regular intervals. Regardless of the industry, most new entrants do not create new markets or expand according to the speed at which that market is growing - if that were the case, new entrants would rarely get off the ground. At best they would be niche companies. The ease with which market share is lost and gained reflects the competitiveness of that market; the easier it is to gain/lose share, the more competitive the market is. IMHO, treating airlines and airports as strategic assets, be it by Singapore, Dubai or now Turkey, is innovative when compared to the way we in the West have started doing things. I don't think its any great secret that I support competition too, regardless of the contempt with which it is held in some protected industries in Canada.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 43):

In which direction? India to Canada or v.v.? Beyond the VFR market to India, I don't see non-Indian Canadians flocking to India other than the usual small # of student back-packers. With the recent highly publicized gang-rapes in India, I don't see tourism to India picking up for years and years....

If you're going to make questionable assertions and then not bother to read the data provided to show why it is questionable, then why bother engaging me?

That is India to Canada traffic. 162,900 in 2011. That is 446 passengers a day. From India -> Canada. That doesn't include business traffic, Indian Immigrant landing in Canada for the first time (24.965 in 2011 or 68 passengers a day), or Canada -> India traffic.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/annual-report-2011.pdf

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 43):

No, it's risen of course, just like all markets. But relatively speaking, they remain minor markets x-Canada catering exclusively to the small Indo-Canadian immigrant community which is perhaps 2% of Canada's population.

As of 2006, there were 962,655 East Indians in Canada in a population of 31,241,030. Thats 3.08%. Given that India is one of the larger sources of immigrants to Canada (3rd largest in 2011) that has probably increased.

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recen...&Sort=3&Display=All&CSDFilter=5000

Now, assuming that 1/4,1/2 or 2/3rds 66% (fair? too high? too low? I've been to India twice already this year and will likely be back there in September) of these East Indian go back to India to VFR once in any given year, thats:
240,000, 480,000 - 634,000
or
630, 1260, or 1736 pax per day.

Plus 446 visitors from India. Plus 68 new arrivals.

And thats not counting business traffic at all. Or Canadian tourists to India (statistically insignficiant - Canadians are hardly world travellers like Australians, who quite like travelling to India despite the distance - we go to Cuba instead - our curiosity of the world largely limited to the interior of beach resorts apparently). Thats literally VFR and tourism. Your low end - which I contend is too low is around 1100 pax per day. The mid end is 1700, the high end 2200 per day. All the hallmarks of a minor destination. How many seats does AC fly to FRA on a daily basis?

AC keeps saying it wants to fly to India. In fact, its tried and failed. Nevertheless, it seems interested in opening India up again when the 787 comes.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4343 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 46):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 43):

In which direction? India to Canada or v.v.? Beyond the VFR market to India, I don't see non-Indian Canadians flocking to India other than the usual small # of student back-packers. With the recent highly publicized gang-rapes in India, I don't see tourism to India picking up for years and years....

If you're going to make questionable assertions and then not bother to read the data provided to show why it is questionable, then why bother engaging me?

Your comment was unclear, and I think backwards. You said India is a "Key Market" for Canadian tourism, but then went on to quote that India was the 8th largest source of tourists for Canada. I think perhaps you meant to say the opposite ie. Canada is a "Key Market" for India.

That is India to Canada traffic. 162,900 in 2011. That is 446 passengers a day. From India -> Canada.

446 passengers a day. In other words, the same one-way traffic as perhaps the YYZ-YXE or YYZ-YQR markets. A small market indeed.....

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 46):
AC keeps saying it wants to fly to India. In fact, its tried and failed.

Pulling out of a market is not necessarily a failure, it is arguably a success if no profits can be made. AC has tried India a couple of times and it has not worked. Air India has tried YYZ several times only to abandon the market. Perhaps there is no market. Meanwhile.....numeorus other Asian nations have nonstop flights to Canada: China, HKG, Taiwan, Pakistan, Philippines, Korea.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4116 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4336 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
I believe the only current Canada-JFK service is from YYZ and YUL (all RJs except for Jazz Q400s from YYZ which recently replaced CRJs), plus the daily CX HKG-YVR-JFK 77W.

Jazz only flies from YYZ to JFK. This is only for connections to airlines that fly only into JFK, there are plenty of other choices going to LGA and EWR, and I believe into Westchester as well.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4287 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 47):

YYZ - FRA

2 X 773 = 698 seats
1 X 340 = 266 - 306 seats

For a total of a shade over 1000 seats.

What does that make FRA? An average market?

India -> Canada traffic (not including Canada -> India) generates half as much despite visa issues and any number of more attractive destinations. As noted above, India generates 7.7 million Longhaul international tourists - we get a tiny fraction of that. The UAE is a popular destination but the number of tourists going there is not reflected in this 7.7 million. Not sure if Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, all popular destinations but medium haul flights are reflected in this either. The number of Indian tourists in Canada has been increasing year-on-year and has the potential to keep increasing if links improve.

By way of comparison, 688,000 Indian tourists visited the US (Jan - Nov 12 - not full year figures) making India the 12th largest source of tourism to the US.

http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2012...001/documents/top_20_countries.xls

Given that Indian tourists face similar challenges travelling to the US as the do to Canada (difficulty getting visas, distance) etc), there's obviously room for growth in Canada. Now, I don't know if you want more Indian tourists in Canada, but your focus on where Canadians want to go, while ignoring those who want to come to Canada, has contributed to our remarkable tourism deficit - $17 Bn in 2012.

http://tiac.travel/cgi/page.cgi/_zine.html/TopStories/statcan

It's a natural repercussion of Canadian travel patterns to countries like Cuba and DR, which generate precious little tourism in return. Growing traveller numbers from China are testament to the impact that better air links have on tourism and travel. Air India's success or failure is poor indicator of, well, everything. It is probably the most mismanaged airline in the world. Furthermore, growth of tourism from India had been increasing despite the fact that AC doesn't fly there and LH has pulled out of two Indian cities. Why contain it on the basis of LH or AC's ability to compete on India?

I note that you've ignored the stats about the number of Indo-Canadians who travel to India, which would make a mockery of your assertion that Canada-FRA is a major market but Canada-India is minor, particularly in light of the fact that a lot of that traffic isn't staying at FRA.

But don't let the numbers get in the way of whatever it is you're trying to say.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4201 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 47):
AC has tried India a couple of times and it has not worked.

I've come to the conclusion that AC will never serve India. Their cost base is too high to compete with virtually any non-Western airline. Their commitment to developing new markets too low. And they will never be able to negotiate a suitable agreement with their *A partners (namely LH) to drop that feed.

If AC had any intention to actually try (and I won't count that two stop via Switzerland milk run), they could have done it by now. The GTA has the second largest South Asian diaspora in North America (New York is the largest). And I daresay it might even be in the top 5 Indian diasporic communities in the world. To think that over half a million people would not be able to support a daily flight to say DEL is laughable. If AC really wanted to, they could have already struck up quite a partnership with 9W feeding them in DEL. Even as a secondary hub, 9W operates more connections from DEL than even EK (and certainly any European carrier) could ever hope for. Instead, AC prefers to feed LH and LX and 9W in LHR.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 47):
Meanwhile.....numeorus other Asian nations have nonstop flights to Canada: China, HKG, Taiwan, Pakistan, Philippines, Korea.

Quite a few of those places are somewhat closer (at least 1 hrs less flying time than say DEL)....particularly to YVR.

Beyond that, I fail to see how this excuses non-cooperation with the UAE. It's clear that while we have great links with East Asia. But few links with South Asia (Pakistan excepted....and that's the smallest South Asian community in Canada). This adds justification for EK/EY/QR/TK growth. Why should Indo-Canadians face a less competitive market than Chinese or Fillipino-Canadians? This is like arguing that Russian Canadians could be offered a less competitive market because German Canadians are properly served.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4119 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 49):
Now, I don't know if you want more Indian tourists in Canada, but your focus on where Canadians want to go, while ignoring those who want to come to Canada, has contributed to our remarkable tourism deficit - $17 Bn in 2012.
Quoting YTZ (Reply 50):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 47):
AC has tried India a couple of times and it has not worked.

I've come to the conclusion that AC will never serve India.

I'm sure AC will serve India eventually as the Indo-Canadian community grows and if/when business traffic grows in concert with India's economic growth. The problem with the India-Canada market is it needs an aircraft than can fly nonstop for 13+ hours (and preferably 15+ hrs) which means the latest 777/787....the very aircraft not suited to VFR routes (now) due to their high capital costs. In time, as AC's 787 fleet grows (and eventually ages), India routes will become more feasible.

Indeed, the biggest eventual threat to ME3 is the home carriers of their significant spokes offering nonstops that bypass DXB and make it a pain to hub through. I can't wait for the eventual humbling of EK.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24798 posts, RR: 22
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4086 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 50):
If AC had any intention to actually try (and I won't count that two stop via Switzerland milk run), they could have done it by now.

Two stops? It was YYZ-ZRH-DEL to the best of my memory. Where was the 2nd stop?

AC had also announced and was accepting reservations for YVR-DEL nonstop seasonal service to begin around October 2001 using the A343. That route was dropped before it started due to 9/11.

AC did operate nonstop YYZ-DEL seasonal service using the A343 for some time in the 1990s or possibly later. I recall Russia prohibiting AC from overflying Russia on that route which prompted a diplomatic reaction that resulted in Canada banning Russian aircraft from Canadian airspace for a few weeks, except for limited SU scheduled service to Toronto. SU flights to the U.S. had to take very roundabout routes during that dispute.

AC of course also served BOM for several years in the 1980s, routing YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN. Both the L-1011 and 747 were used at various times. They dropped that route eventually. BA complained that AC was carrying too much 5th freedom traffic on the LHR-BOM-SIN sectors, which wasn't surprising since DEL is a much larger destination for Canada-India traffic than BOM, but AC couldn't obtain DEL traffic rights then. And Canada-SIN was and still is a very small O&D market.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4040 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 52):
AC did operate nonstop YYZ-DEL seasonal service using the A343 for some time in the 1990s or possibly later.

It was 2004/2005. The 343 and 345 were used on this route. The 343 sometimes refueled at Stockholm.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/agents_n...sh/canada/2004/document/040805.pdf



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4020 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 52):
It was YYZ-ZRH-DEL to the best of my memory.

It was YYZ-ZRH-DEL.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 52):
AC did operate nonstop YYZ-DEL seasonal service using the A343 for some time in the 1990s or possibly later.

Don't know about the 1990s, but there was definitely a flight in the mid-2000s. I flew the direct route in summer 2004 on a return trip. It was a looooong flight, especially without IFE (I had the 343 both ways). Some folk I know lucked out with the 345, which had PTVs. There was, in fact, the possibility of a refuelling stop at Stockholm on the DEL-YYZ leg (the pilot said it was a possibility prior to take off, but in the end we didn't need a technical stop). Quite a few pax on board appeared to be connecting to US destinations.

Might even have the boarding pass somewhere.


User currently onlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3967 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
Oh noo...it's much more fun to post on here. My MP (Olivia Chow) has, probably, better things to worry about than temper tantrums from the UAE.
 

Like a 2014 mayoral run   

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 32):
And here's one more point: If it's no big deal and AC has nothing to lose, because they don't serve "those" markets that EK is targeting, why not just give EK more slots?

Because they can't hub anywhere that is efficient which is why they have their *A partnerships and several agreements to serve those cities. I actually think AC would benefit from partnering with a gulf carrier

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 36):
Factoring in the 5 million Canadians who use US airports would take Canada to 110 million, still less than Australia, which, it should be noted, has a population that is 33% smaller than Canada's.

You have to fly to get anywhere in Australia much less anywhere outside the country where that is the only option. Major urban centers down under are much further apart than in the highly populated areas of Canada. We have alternatives and Australia is debating potential things like high speed rail between SYD and MEL and perhaps up to BNE to take the stress off air travel.

In Canada you have a much more developed road network across the areas of population than in Australia and can always travel across the US as well. In essence, we have more alternatives which explains the lower flying numbers.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 42):
I didn't. Buses from YUL take 6 - 8 hours to get to NYC. Its a little longer from YOW - the other major population center near NYC, is even further away.

Driving from SYD to MEL takes 9 hours and driving from SYD to BNE is about the same and driving from ADL to PER actually takes some serious planning or you may not actually be able to complete the drive.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
It has nothing to do with AC. AC does not serve the Middle East (expect for prosperous Tel Aviv) and does not serve India. These markets (central to EK) are simply not core to AC.

I think BEY is in the cards if Syria stabilized as it is something that has been tossed around for as long as I have been on here. Many political factors have stopped that route from starting from YUL.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2129 posts, RR: 9
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3890 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 36):
Factoring in the 5 million Canadians who use US airports would take Canada to 110 million, still less than Australia, which, it should be noted, has a population that is 33% smaller than Canada's.

Not to belabour the points made by StarAC17, but you fail to take into account the unavoidable variables of geography and proximity to popular destinations that dictate most Canadians' and Australians' travel habits.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 41):
Alaska Airlines/Horizon Air fly to Kelowna, Edmonton, Whistler, Calgary/Banff, Victoria, and Vancouver from Seattle.

If by 'Whistler' you mean 'Vancouver' or if by 'fly' you mean 'transfer to a bus', then yes they do.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 42):
Buses from YUL take 6 - 8 hours to get to NYC. Its a little longer from YOW - the other major population center near NYC, is even further away. NYC is about 4-5 hours inside the US. Its not an easy place to get to. Getting there would take as long as a TATL flight flight to Europe

Montreal to NYC: less than 6 hours door to door with average border waits. When one considers the time spent traveling to & from airports on either end, plus the waits associated with check-in, baggage claims, etc, flying between the two takes 3-4 hours. Cost then becomes a huge consideration, and for most, land transport remains the preferred option...an option Australians don't have when departing their country.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 43):
Travel habits HAVE remained the same. Compare the airline schedules to 40 years ago, the top 20 destinations from YYZ are pretty much the same......

I'm not disputing the claims of what our travel habits were as opposed to what they will be . And the next 40 years will not resemble the past 40.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 50):
Instead, AC prefers to feed LH and LX and 9W in LHR.

Prefers or is obliged to? AC does not wear the trousers in the Star Alliance relationship.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 55):
driving from ADL to PER actually takes some serious planning or you may not actually be able to complete the drive.

The only serious planning required (apart from ensuring you have an adequate playlist on your iPod) is not running out of fuel, which is the primary consideration regardless of your journey anywhere on the planet. Outback petrol stations are not situated further apart than a tank of fuel will take you.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3859 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting threepoint (Reply 56):
Prefers or is obliged to? AC does not wear the trousers in the Star Alliance relationship.

If it does not wear the trousers, then get out of the relationship.

Any airline must do what is right for that airline and its shareholders.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3793 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 55):
You have to fly to get anywhere in Australia much less anywhere outside the country where that is the only option. Major urban centers down under are much further apart than in the highly populated areas of Canada. We have alternatives and Australia is debating potential things like high speed rail between SYD and MEL and perhaps up to BNE to take the stress off air travel.

In Canada you have a much more developed road network across the areas of population than in Australia and can always travel across the US as well. In essence, we have more alternatives which explains the lower flying numbers.

I've never cared for Canadian exceptionalism. These strike me more as excuses than as explanations.

If Australia can generate 120m pax, then the corresponding figure with a population of Canada's size would be 180m. As of now, Canada generates 105 million + 5 million to the US - so make that 110 million. That's 70 million less pax than what it should proportionately be generating.

Now, factoring in what you say , the total number of people flying SYD-MEL (8.1m), MEL-BNE (3.2) and SYD-BNE (4.4) comes to a total of 15.7 million.

http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications...Domestic_airlines_January_2013.pdf

Subtract that from 120 million and you get 104 million - or roughly the number of people flying in/from/to Canada, despite the fact that Canada's figures include the YOW-YYZ-YUL triangle, which are the most heavily used in this country even though they are geographically much closer to each other than any of the Australian cities.

The truth, as always, lies closer to home.

"What is less well known is that we also have an enormous flight gap with respect to domestic travel. My research shows that domestic air travel in Canada, measured by passenger miles flown per-capita, is only about 40 per cent of the corresponding U.S. level.

This is especially surprising given that Canadian cities are generally further apart than are U.S. cities; if anything, we should be flying more than Americans, for whom driving is often a feasible alternative.

While lower levels of interprovincial integration may be partly to blame, there is no doubt that this situation is exacerbated by dramatically more expensive air travel in Canada."

And why are prices high?

"I do not believe that lowering ground rents at airports will lead to significant price reductions for air travellers. Economic theory has convincingly shown that firms with a lot of pricing power do not respond much to lower costs by reducing final prices. The real driver of such price reductions is competition, and this is something that we have very little of."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edito...yhigh_air_fares_back_to_earth.html

As far as I'm concerned the comparison with Australia is valid simply because people who're better versed in the industry than me, including country heads in Canada, think so. I mean its one thing to keep pointing out that YYZ and YUL are so close to each other, but realistically speaking, who drives from YYZ to YYC or YHZ to YEG or YUL to YVR?

Some are always ready with an excuse in hand, but there is growing evidence that these explanations are losing their sheen and substance. The numbers are beginning to tell a different tale.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 56):
Not to belabour the points made by StarAC17, but you fail to take into account the unavoidable variables of geography and proximity to popular destinations that dictate most Canadians' and Australians' travel habits.

I think a large chunk of what drives Canadians' and Australians' travel habits is the affordability of air travel. Affordable prices stimulate traffic.


Quoting threepoint (Reply 56):
Montreal to NYC: less than 6 hours door to door with average border waits. When one considers the time spent traveling to & from airports on either end, plus the waits associated with check-in, baggage claims, etc, flying between the two takes 3-4 hours. Cost then becomes a huge consideration, and for most, land transport remains the preferred option...an option Australians don't have when departing their country.

Fair enough. But then again, those trips to NYC are captured in the 22 million trips that Canadians take to the US (which includes flights). Even if we factor those in to the numbers as all flights (thereby double counting flights to the US), Canada would stand at 132 million to Australia's 120 million - thats 10% more air travel than Australians despite being 33% larger. To be clear, the numbers driving to the US are significant, but they're not going to tip the scale back to even or explain the discrepancy. They only help explain a part of it.

The reason Australia has more travellers is because it is, by and large, more competitive. AC and Canadians, for reasons known only to themselves, have been vocally critical of Australia and QF, but that doesn't change one simple fact: if the goal of Australian policy was to increase air travel and connectivity, they are doing a far better job of it than Canada. Their policy seems to focus on connections and the economic benefits of aviation. Ours? we prefer to make life easy for AC at cost to the larger economy.

"The choice here is clear: we can either continue to favour large private corporations such as Air Canada by creating ever more favourable conditions for them. Or we can challenge them to innovate and lower costs in the face of foreign competition, as many other Canadian industries have had to do in recent years."

Quoting mariner (Reply 57):
If it does not wear the trousers, then get out of the relationship.

Any airline must do what is right for that airline and its shareholders.

Most of its shareholders buy shares when the price is below $2.00 and sell when it goes above $2.50. That is to say, AC shares are great for making a quick buck, but no one is invested in them.

As for *A, look at the amount of AC metal dedicated to LH owned hubs - FRA, MUC, BRU and ZRH - and then you'll understand why its simply not an option. If LH stops playing ball, AC will take a beating on TATL.

However, that is AC's choice and AC should face the consequences. As of now, Canada is effectively doing LH's bidding because AC needs LH. Its not a great situation.


User currently onlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1068 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3762 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 58):


somehow I think you're painting a pretty DIRE picture of AC and the LH *A relationship. AC is one of the oldest members in Star. They could have easily aligned with The AF/KLM group had they wanted to . They are getting Feed From and to both UA and LH in their respective areas and their flights are jointly listed along with ANZ, THAI, SQ, LH and UA..on their departure boards
(at least at ORD,LAX,IAD and SFO where I primarily fly to and from)
I wasn't aware that AC was doing that badly. Are they? or is all of this rhetorical??


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3715 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 59):

AC is doing better than it has in years, though questions remain about how well it would be doing without the government protecting it from competition, protecting it from unions and protecting it from its pension contributions. I don't think it's doing badly; I m just not convinced that it would do well without Canadas artificially inflated airfares.

AC's partnership with LH, which includes metal neutral revenue sharing according to some, enables it to maintain pricing power on TATL. If you look at the capacity that AC, LH,OS, LX have the lions share of the market - they are effectively one airline with different colored liveries. This type of consolidation may be great for competitive markets like Germany and the US, but in Canada's case, when combined with additional protection such as staggering new carriers entry into the market, it is punitive for TATL consumers. I don't care for EK. But the reason I champion EK, TK etc is because they pose the best hope of cracking the current status quo on TATL by making it difficult for incumbents to fill their planes, instead of handing them pax on a platter. That might even spur some innovation and lower prices.

Furthermore, I note that nobody paints a more dire picture of Air Canada than, you know, Air Canada. Especially when issues involving EK come up. The last three years have been amusing: one day they warn about the loss of tens of thousands of jobs related to aviation in order to get protection; the next day, after getting government protection, they send 2700 high skilled technicians packing. You can't make this up.


User currently onlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 58):
"The choice here is clear: we can either continue to favour large private corporations such as Air Canada by creating ever more favourable conditions for them. Or we can challenge them to innovate and lower costs in the face of foreign competition, as many other Canadian industries have had to do in recent years."

Are you talking only on domestic flights or all flight combined??

If you are talking about international agreements then you have a case that the government is possibly restricting competition. However if you are referring to domestic operations then any Canadian entrepreneur is free to start another airline to challenge AC and WS to lower fares. One of the reasons that isn't happening is that airlines create a very low ROI so good luck finding investors.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 56):
Montreal to NYC: less than 6 hours door to door with average border waits. When one considers the time spent traveling to & from airports on either end, plus the waits associated with check-in, baggage claims, etc, flying between the two takes 3-4 hours. Cost then becomes a huge consideration, and for most, land transport remains the preferred option...an option Australians don't have when departing their country.

  



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3667 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):

You brought up domestic routes. I just pointed out that some Canadians have a happy knack for critiquing Australian policies - even AC criticizes it on a web page about EK. This Canadian alternate reality is very inaccurate but it appears to be informing the views of our policy makers (the critique of Australia is in the same note as the claims about losing tens of thousands of jobs - a claim that was repeated by a minister in parliament).

The reality is that Australia is outperforming Canada in aviation - the AF/KL country head said as much. Yet the Canadian attitude towards the AUS model is to deride it openly, or to deem it not relevant. Perhaps we should be looking there for lessons learned. For example, can Virgin start a Canadian equivalent of virgin blue or virgin Australia?

Granted, I digress. The issue is about EK access to Canada, and for the most part, the Australian model tells us that EK's presence in the market has generally been beneficial; Australia hasn't suffered for it (you wouldn't know that from AC's take on things). Some will argue that QF has withdrawn from Europe, but let's be honest - how many one-stop flights does AC operate that are comparable in length to what QF operated. The last I remember was YYZ-ZRH-DEL. as for EU carriers dropping off the route, is that any surprise given the relative mediocrity of their products?

All of which is to say that the EK Australia story, like many Canadian narratives about EK, is very different to the manner in which it is portrayed by Canadians. There are a lot of questionable assertions made on this file on a regular basis. Whether they are made by error by people who know no better, or are deliberate attempts at obfuscation with the hope of reinforcing a narrative- I don't know. Either which way, it seems the Canadian narrative needs to be subjected to a more critical eye.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 63, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3633 times:

Quoting threepoint (Reply 56):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 43):
Travel habits HAVE remained the same. Compare the airline schedules to 40 years ago, the top 20 destinations from YYZ are pretty much the same......

I'm not disputing the claims of what our travel habits were as opposed to what they will be . And the next 40 years will not resemble the past 40.

The next 40 years just might be the same in terms of travel patterns. Economic growth in India and China could easily stall and both countries could easily become broiled in wars.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 58):
If Australia can generate 120m pax, then the corresponding figure with a population of Canada's size would be 180m. As of now, Canada generates 105 million + 5 million to the US - so make that 110 million. That's 70 million less pax than what it should proportionately be generating.

I've seen the same stats and it seems astounding that Aus can generate so much more traffic than Canada in real and proportional terms. I think the MAIN contrubitor is that MOST ASM in Aus now are with LCC's (Jetstar and Virgin) which stimulates traffic (the WN effect). We've seen the same market stimulation in Canada on a smaller scale with WS and PD.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 62):
The issue is about EK access to Canada, and for the most part, the Australian model tells us that EK's presence in the market has generally been beneficial; Australia hasn't suffered for it

Beneficial to who? To EK for sure, but has it stimulated traffic or just shifted it (with UAE government subsidies) from SIN, HKG, KUL and BKK to DXB? I suspect more the latter than the former.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3616 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 63):

Consumers.

If they choose not to fly EK, those other airports won't lose pax. Either which way, the Australian government is/should be more concerned about consumers than about foreign airports. Either which way, given the Australian penchant for travel, including to SEA, those airports should emerge fine.

TG/SQ/MH/CX/QF/VA/EY/QR/EK ... to name a few. All great airlines.


User currently onlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3580 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 63):
I think the MAIN contrubitor is that MOST ASM in Aus now are with LCC's (Jetstar and Virgin) which stimulates traffic (the WN effect).


Not just domestic I might add. JQ and VA fly long tasman routs, long haul routes to Asian hubs as well as LAX, HNL and JNB. Also and VA is giving a run to QF on it's cash cow high yield domestic network which WS has certainly been doing to AC. I would love to see WS get in on international routes that AC rouge and TS will operate an and that will hopefully happen within the next 10 years

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 62):
For example, can Virgin start a Canadian equivalent of virgin blue or virgin Australia?

I would like to see it but that VA's role in Australia is WS's role here. In terms of additional competitors, airlines globally produce some of the lowest ROI of any industry (IIRC its less that 1% globally) so getting the dollars for a startup airline is very difficult and I do not want Ottawa interfering.

IIRC PD isn't making a sustained profit as of yet.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 59):
I wasn't aware that AC was doing that badly. Are they? or is all of this rhetorical??



I think in terms of operations its ok, but the legacy costs are killing them and making any sustained profit very difficult. Ottawa hasn't helped things by interfering in the labour disputes with AC where had the strikes and lockouts happened a better deal would have been reached. What irked me more about this is that a conservative government did it when you expect this from the liberals or the NDP.

Also requiring AC crew to be bilingual while WS and PD are exempt, increase costs to AC. The enire Air Canada Public Participation Act needs to go and all carriers that operate in Canada should operate on a level playing field. Will this fix all of AC's woes? No, but it will help in some ways.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3542 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 58):
Most of its shareholders buy shares when the price is below $2.00 and sell when it goes above $2.50. That is to say, AC shares are great for making a quick buck, but no one is invested in them.

My point remains. Air Canada's primary loyalty should be to Air Canada and it's owners, which may include, overtly or covert, the taxpayer:.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 58):
As for *A, look at the amount of AC metal dedicated to LH owned hubs - FRA, MUC, BRU and ZRH - and then you'll understand why its simply not an option. If LH stops playing ball, AC will take a beating on TATL.

My only interest is in passivity and who wears the trousers in the relationship? The needs of the alliance should not dominate the needs of an individual member.

People found it very difficult to imagine that Qantas would ever end its JV with British Airways, but it happened and the world has not ended.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 67, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3499 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 63):
Beneficial to who? To EK for sure, but has it stimulated traffic or just shifted it (with UAE government subsidies) from SIN, HKG, KUL and BKK to DXB? I suspect more the latter than the former.

Can you explain to us why the Government of Australia or Australian citizens should be concerned about traffic being diverted from SIN or HKG to DXB? I don't see any particular national interest at stake. If you do, please spell it out.

Ditto for why I as a Canadian citizen should be concerned about traffic being diverted from Europe to Dubai. And that's on top of your very inconsistent positions. On one hand you say India traffic isn't substantial. On the other you maintain that it shouldn't be allowed to be diverted because of the harm such a diversion could cause. Which is it? Is it inconsequential or not? If it is not substantial, I fail to see what harm could happen if diverted. And if it is substantial, I fail to see why the North American and European carriers should be protected on this front.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 65):
Ottawa hasn't helped things by interfering in the labour disputes with AC where had the strikes and lockouts happened a better deal would have been reached.

Actually, Ottawa has helped them a ton. What would AC's financials look like if the government hadn't jumped in? Just imagine if the government hadn't exempted them from their pension obligations. The government is screwing over AC employees, not AC.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 65):
What irked me more about this is that a conservative government did it when you expect this from the liberals or the NDP.

No. It's exactly what I'd expect from a Conservative government, favouring a corporation over its employees. What I didn't expect from a conservative government is their aversion to truly free markets on everything from milk to telecoms to aviation.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 65):
The enire Air Canada Public Participation Act needs to go and all carriers that operate in Canada should operate on a level playing field.

I agree. Drop ACPPA and then open up to foreign competition. I couldn't care less if AC is reduced to being a domestic/North American feed carrier for LH at YYZ.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 63):
The next 40 years just might be the same in terms of travel patterns. Economic growth in India and China could easily stall and both countries could easily become broiled in wars.

You're dreaming. They talk about India having an effective recession...and they are at 5% growth. China has being growing at near 10% for decades. Contrast that with growth rates in the developed world. This is where the future is, plain and simple. And it's not just traffic from economic growth. Canada will be a majority-minority country by 2030 or shortly thereafter. And guess where the bulk of our immigrants come from?

Now AC can keep swimming up stream and making all kinds of excuses for why they can't serve India. But I can guarantee you the day will come, sooner or later, that this exact issue will come up at an election and will become a topic of discussion in the GTA. When that happens, AC better be prepared to move quick, as I expect all the parties will throw them under the bus then. Could be 5 years. Could be 10 years. But it will happen as some point. Too many immigrants in the GTA and too many seats for the issue not to end up having a political consequence.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3454 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 66):
My point remains. Air Canada's primary loyalty should be to Air Canada and it's owners, which may include, overtly or covert, the taxpayer:.

I dislike covert interests. And that's all that government protection of Air Canada is, at this point. If we have a national interest in protecting AC, let's spell it out in actual policy.

AC is not a government owned airline. Yet, the government mediates labour disputes, provides them with exemptions from pension regulations and may even be cutting bilat air services agreements with an eye to their protection.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 69, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3425 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 67):
Can you explain to us why the Government of Australia or Australian citizens should be concerned about traffic being diverted from SIN or HKG to DXB? I don't see any particular national interest at stake. If you do, please spell it out.

Here's a good human rights issue:
http://www.ibtimes.com/australian-mp...jewish-christian-travellers-793754

There is a serious risk of discrimination of elements of Australia's population connecting through Dubai. This alone should be enough for Australia to cut all air links between Dubai and Australia until Dubai civilizes itself.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 67):
Ditto for why I as a Canadian citizen should be concerned about traffic being diverted from Europe to Dubai.

Simple: because as a Canadian citizen you benefit from democracy, human rights and rule of law, just like everyone at those European hubs. Dubai does not respect your democratic needs, human rights or rule of law....they just want your money to enforce legislation against you. Every Canadian hubbing through Dubai is thumbing his/her nose (yes, perhaps only a little bit) at our cherished institutions. Yes, the same goes for Canadians visiting Cuba but that's for a different thread.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 67):
And that's on top of your very inconsistent positions. On one hand you say India traffic isn't substantial. On the other you maintain that it shouldn't be allowed to be diverted because of the harm such a diversion could cause.

It's a nuanced argument. Sometimes it needs to be spelled out slowly (for some). Here goes: there seems to be no business case for any nonstop traffic between Canada and India (witness the lack of flights) while numerous Asian nations have such nonstops to Canada, meanwhile, suddenly, what budding traffic exists is being scooped up by heavily subsidized and aggressive carriers from the UAE for which there is little to no demand for service. Why is it in Canada's or India's interest (2 democracies) to allow an undemocratic nation (and its carrier) scoop traffic? It's not. Cancel the UAE rights to Canada and let Canada and India create market opportunities between its own nations with its own carriers.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 67):
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 65):
What irked me more about this is that a conservative government did it when you expect this from the liberals or the NDP.

No. It's exactly what I'd expect from a Conservative government, favouring a corporation over its employees.

Not me. I'd expect and want a Conservative government to cancel the ACPPA and allow the unions to strike. Allowing the right of a union to strike is actually a free market position. I would also expect a Conservative government to never implement BTW legislation and to disallow pension obligations. By favouring AC in these ways, the Cons are actually discriminating against WS, PD et al.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 67):
Dr. op ACPPA and then open up to foreign competition.

Foreight competition yes, but only from democratic nations with rule of law and good human rights records.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 67):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 63):
The next 40 years just might be the same in terms of travel patterns. Economic growth in India and China could easily stall and both countries could easily become broiled in wars.

You're dreaming. They talk about India having an effective recession...and they are at 5% growth. China has being growing at near 10% for decades. Contrast that with growth rates in the developed world. This is where the future is, plain and simple. And it's not just traffic from economic growth. Canada will be a majority-minority country by 2030 or shortly thereafter. And guess where the bulk of our immigrants come from?

You're the one dreaming (or wishful thinking). You think Canada will go from an overwhelming white majority (as in now, with Chinese and Indian minorities of 2-3% each) to an Indian-Chinese majority in 40 years? Such nonsense. No country could survive such social upheaval. Even the federal riding I live in in DT TO is still overwhelmingly white.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 67):
ow AC can keep swimming up stream and making all kinds of excuses for why they can't serve India. But I can guarantee you the day will come, sooner or later, that this exact issue will come up at an election and will become a topic of discussion in the GTA.
Quoting YTZ (Reply 67):
Too many immigrants in the GTA and too many seats for the issue not to end up having a political consequence.

Oh give me a break. The 97-98% of Canadians who are not Indo-Canadians don't give a rats ass about whether there are nonstops flights to India. And I bet most of the 2-3% don't care either. No government can dictate where AC or TS or whoever flights to whether India, Timbukto or Saskatoon.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 70, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3404 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 69):
There is a serious risk of discrimination of elements of Australia's population connecting through Dubai. This alone should be enough for Australia to cut all air links between Dubai and Australia until Dubai civilizes itself.

You can't be serious. If that's the case, let's cut trade links with China. They are actually far worse in many ways than the UAE.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 69):
Simple: because as a Canadian citizen you benefit from democracy, human rights and rule of law, just like everyone at those European hubs.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 69):
Yes, the same goes for Canadians visiting Cuba but that's for a different thread.

Again. As long as we trade with China, this is not an acceptable argument at all.

And for the record, as someone serving full-time in the CF, I find this tone and argument quite patronizing. I am wearing the uniform because I believe those values are worth defending and protecting. And I'm willing to put my life on the life for that belief.

To argue that just because someone chooses to fly through DXB (which is in many cases the only 1-stop option from
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 69):
Not me. I'd expect and want a Conservative government to cancel the ACPPA and allow the unions to strike. Allowing the right of a union to strike is actually a free market position.

Exactly what I said. This Conservative government though has proven to be anything but conservative. Exactly why I won't be voting for them again when the next election comes around. I was under the impression that they would support free markets. Instead, they plod on without liberalizing the telecom sector. They haven't opened up aviation. Farmers still have their ridiculous quota systems which means I pay twice as much for milk as my American relatives every week at the grocery store.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 69):
You're the one dreaming (or wishful thinking). You think Canada will go from an overwhelming white majority (as in now, with Chinese and Indian minorities of 2-3% each) to an Indian-Chinese majority in 40 years? Such nonsense. No country could survive such social upheaval. Even the federal riding I live in in DT TO is still overwhelmingly white.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/cana...-a-majority-in-20-years-31164.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/.../09/statscan-minority.html?ref=rss


I never said it would be only Chinese or Indian minorities. But yes, if immigration trends keep up Canada will be a majority-minority nation before I retire. And Canada has survived such upheavals before. Remember when this country was almost entirely consisting of British or French stock?

As for downtown TO, you should go out to the burbs where the less moneyed live. It might be an eye-opener for you. Whites are a minority in most of the inner burbs. Even if it's not the country at large, it's clear that Toronto and Vancouver will get there very, very soon.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 69):
The 97-98% of Canadians who are not Indo-Canadians don't give a rats ass about whether there are nonstops flights to India.

The 97-98% of Canadians who this does not concern also don't live in the vote-rich GTA. And they particularly don't live in the immigrant-dominated suburban belt. Depending on the geographic definition, 20% of the next parliament will come from the GTA. And more than half of those ridings have large South Asian populations. You can bet that the issues that concern them are electoral issues. Find me a political party that does thinks it can win by completely ignoring the GTA. Even this Conservative government goes out of its way to court the immigrant communities in the 905 all while it ignores downtown Toronto.

I'm not saying EK access will become an electoral issue soon. But in due course, it will happen. If the trends hold and 25% of the GTA's population is South Asian, you can bet there will be some politician who will be bright enough to figure out that he can get a few more votes by pushing for expanded access to foreign carriers in lieu of AC's inability to serve his constituents.

[Edited 2013-04-09 16:57:14]

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3361 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 69):
There is a serious risk of discrimination of elements of Australia's population connecting through Dubai. This alone should be enough for Australia to cut all air links between Dubai and Australia until Dubai civilizes itself.

It always amuses me when those on the right suddenly embrace homosexual rights in order to bash Islam.

What she fails to mention is that homosexual activity is illegal in Singapore, the previous stopover point, too:

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/s...019t-repeal-anti-gay-sex-law180213

"Singapore law minister: we won't repeal anti-gay sex law"

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 72, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3359 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 71):
It always amuses me when those on the right suddenly embrace homosexual rights in order to bash Islam.

What she fails to mention is that homosexual activity is illegal in Singapore, the previous stopover point, too:

And the Jewish issue? Do Australian Jews have legitimate concerns about connecting thru DXB? Should Australians (Jewish or not) be denied entry to Dubai if they have an Israeli stamp in their passport? Or denied entry for being Jewish?

And by extension, if Dubai can discriminate against Aussie Jews, they can certainly discriminate against Canadian Jews.

Quoting mariner (Reply 71):
It always amuses me when those on the right suddenly embrace homosexual rights in order to bash Islam.

So gay rights are to be laughed at if their only guarantors are on the right-wing?

Dubai seems to want a liberal aviation environment without the equally (or more) important liberal human rights environment. Trade and human rights liberalization go together (or should).



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 73, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3345 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 72):
And the Jewish issue? Do Australian Jews have legitimate concerns about connecting thru DXB?

Not according to Qantas. And the Jewish community in Australia, who have sought and received, they say, assurance:

http://www.jewishnews.net.au/reassur...ce-received-over-qantas-deal/28692

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 72):
So gay rights are to be laughed at if their only guarantors are on the right-wing?

Fairly obviously I would never laugh at gay rights - I'd be laughing at myself - it's the hypocrisy of her position that amuses me.

mariner

[Edited 2013-04-09 18:19:07]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3341 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 63):
I think the MAIN contrubitor is that MOST ASM in Aus now are with LCC's (Jetstar and Virgin) which stimulates traffic (the WN effect).

This is an interesting argument coming from you. On the one hand, you claim that low prices can stimulate traffic. On the other hand, you claim all EK will do is cannibalize traffic with low prices. There is a disconnect here. If EK uses low prices, as you claim, then the WN effect that you refer to would mean that they are stimulating new markets which, by virtue of being new, never belonged to incumbents anyway, so how can they be cannibalized?

You're contradicting yourself.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 65):
I would like to see it but that VA's role in Australia is WS's role here. In terms of additional competitors, airlines globally produce some of the lowest ROI of any industry (IIRC its less that 1% globally) so getting the dollars for a startup airline is very difficult and I do not want Ottawa interfering.

From international funding, perhaps? If I m not mistaken, Virgin and Tiger are both owned by companies based outside Australia. Interestingly enough, our own Competition Bureau endorses the Australian model as a way of increasing competition. I recently came across a rather interesting submission by the Competition Bureau (its 5 years old). Noteworthy points:

On Government policies

"The Government of Canada should consider the effect of its own regulations and laws on Canadian competitiveness. While there are legitimate reasons for governments to intervene in the economy, policymakers should be required to identify and weigh the effect of such policies on competition. This approach, already in use in Australia, is aimed at cultivating a culture among policymakers wherein market forces are favoured over regulation."

On Foreign-owned Carriers

"In respect of domestic routes, Canada should allow for wholly foreign owned carriers that only serve routes within Canada. Such an approach has been successfully adopted in Australia. Pursuant to such a policy, foreign carriers could draw upon their knowledge and expertise to establish new operations in Canada. Such “Canada-only carriers” could also generate greater feed traffic beyond the major international gateways thereby allowing international carriers to serve a greater number of routes to and from Canada."

"A Canada-only carrier would use Canadian crews, be required to comply with all Canadian laws and regulations and be subject to the same competitive conditions and input costs as any other Canadian carrier operating in the domestic market. At the same time, this would open the market to new entry, or the threat of new entry, which would allow consumers to benefit from more competitive markets. Accordingly, the Bureau recommends that the Canada Transportation Act be amended to allow for the licensing of Canada-only carriers, free of any Canadian ownership or control restrictions."

On (of all things) Cabotage:

"The Bureau recognizes that there is an important policy question of whether rights of establishment or cabotage should be granted only on a reciprocal basis. Based on competition grounds, a strong case exists supporting the implementation of such measures unilaterally."

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/e..._Bureau_Submission_to_the_CPRP.pdf

These policy recommendations, coming from the only agency in this country that takes a long, hard look at competition, is very revealing, about aviation policy and the state of competition in Canada. That a strong case exists supporting the implementation of cabotage unilaterally, without caring if other nations allow Canadian carriers to do the same thing, speaks volumes.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 65):
IIRC PD isn't making a sustained profit as of yet.

Who knows whats going on with that airline.

Quoting mariner (Reply 66):

My point remains. Air Canada's primary loyalty should be to Air Canada and it's owners, which may include, overtly or covert, the taxpayer:.

To put things in perspective, FRA alone gets 3 AC 777s, 1 330 and 1 767 on a daily basis. If AC were to jettison its ties with LH, where would those aircraft go? And more importantly, how would AC cope with the competition that LH would subsequently provide. LX sends 1 A330, OS sends 1 767 and LH sends, 3-4 (?) A 330s and 340s? Right now, thanks to revenue sharing, AC is making good money of those flights, not to mention maintaining pricing power on TATL routes. It can't afford to give that up. The key objection to EK is essentially that they will challenge AC's pricing power. And AC's pricing power is built on its domination of TATL through LH and its subsidiaries. The flip side is that AC has to protect LH's interests, which becomes uncomfortable for us taxpayers when Canada starts doing a foreign airline's bidding.

Quoting mariner (Reply 66):
My only interest is in passivity and who wears the trousers in the relationship? The needs of the alliance should not dominate the needs of an individual member.

AC needs the alliance. If LH becomes a competitor instead of a metal neutral partner, AC's will struggle to compete until it joins a new alliance.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3326 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 72):
And the Jewish issue? Do Australian Jews have legitimate concerns about connecting thru DXB? Should Australians (Jewish or not) be denied entry to Dubai if they have an Israeli stamp in their passport? Or denied entry for being Jewish?

And by extension, if Dubai can discriminate against Aussie Jews, they can certainly discriminate against Canadian Jews.

Just to be clear, if anyone is uncomfortable connecting in DXB or AUH, they can connect through KUL, SIN, BKK, HKG, even CAN instead. No one is being forced to fly through Dubai., nor are those other routes going away. QF has simply determined that, by and large, most people are comfortable using these airports, and that the incidents that you have mentioned are relatively isolated.

The good thing about open, competitive markets is that you always have options. Your argument is completely irrelevant in the context of this thread.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3325 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 74):
To put things in perspective, FRA alone gets 3 AC 777s, 1 330 and 1 767 on a daily basis.

I get the perspective.

It is being the "subservient" partner that puzzles me., Still, if that's what you want your airline to be, hey, I'm no't Canadian, I don't have a horse in the race.

As a neutral observer, I watch the restructuring of various airlines - and the changing alliances as the world market changes - with great interest, but that's all.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3356 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 74):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 63):
I think the MAIN contrubitor is that MOST ASM in Aus now are with LCC's (Jetstar and Virgin) which stimulates traffic (the WN effect).

This is an interesting argument coming from you. On the one hand, you claim that low prices can stimulate traffic. On the other hand, you claim all EK will do is cannibalize traffic with low prices. There is a disconnect here. If EK uses low prices, as you claim, then the WN effect that you refer to would mean that they are stimulating new markets which, by virtue of being new, never belonged to incumbents anyway, so how can they be cannibalized?

You're contradicting yourself.

Jetstar, Qantas and Virgin all operate in the same environment (none receive government subsidies denied to the others, none have airports built for them to the exclusion of the others). So the playing field is level. Lower fares and the market grows, as witnessed in Aus.

To compare this to the EK is nonsensical. EK is heavily subsidized by its government in a fashion no competitor carrier can even dream of. Moreover, numerous random price checks done by anetters in a previous EK-Canada thread showed that EK did not offer lower fares. Anecdotal perhaps. But if EK is not offering lower fares and is heavily subsidized, they are actually distorting the market and merely just transfering existing traffic through a subsidized hub, without stimulating the market.

Far from contradicting myself, I can see the difference between a competitive and equal open domestic market and a subsidized entrant into an international market. Others cannot see this difference, it seems.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 78, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 76):
It is being the "subservient" partner that puzzles me., Still, if that's what you want your airline to be, hey, I'm no't Canadian, I don't have a horse in the race.

I'm sure the good folk at AC don't think AC is subservient. I'm sure they'll spin a more optimistic tale. My conclusions are simply my own. They are based on the observations listed above, namely that LH augments AC's network to the extent that it increases AC's TATL traffic.

For example, the oft-repeated YOW-FRA trip, where 85% of the traffic gets onto LH metal at FRA to carry on their journey. If you take LH out of that equation, that YOW-FRA route would simply not exist; O&D amounts to only 15% on that route. When you have this level of dependence on connecting traffic on a partner airline, you are always going to be subservient. If AC drops out of the partnership, LH will start competing with it. LH has the brand power, the capacity and the ability to cause problems for AC if it starts competing with it. AC can't afford that, so AC stays in the relationship, subservience though it may require.

Do I want it to be like that? Of course not. You've read my posts. You know how I feel about the lack of compeittion that characterizes Canada. I'd rather have AC compete with LH than do its bidding against EK.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 77):
But if EK is not offering lower fares and is heavily subsidized, they are actually distorting the market and merely just transfering existing traffic through a subsidized hub, without stimulating the market.

If they are not offering lower fares - that is to say that they are charging higher fares than AC, then how are they taking market share away?

Take a look at AC's newest offering: a low cost carrier named Rouge. AC believes that the market is price-sensitive - so price-sensitive that its unveiled a new product. On the other hand, not only is EK pricing high, it is doing so in price-sensitive market. How in the world can it distort any market under these conditions? Will price-sensitive flyers suddenly be willing to pay more to fly EK? And if so, what is wrong with that? Is that distortion or just plain competition?

As for subsidies, you reminded me of an Andrew Coyne article:

"Opening the Canadian airline market to competition, from Emirates Airlines or anyone else, is not something we should grudgingly concede under pressure, but embrace in our own interest, for the lower prices and better service it promises Canadian travellers. If it costs Air Canada a few bucks, tough: we do not put planes in the skies to give airline workers something to do, but to fly airline passengers where they would like to go. (Emirates is subsidized, you say? Then it is Canadian passengers who are the beneficiaries.)"

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/18/why-harper-should-hire-bob-rae/


User currently onlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 79, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3322 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 74):
From international funding, perhaps? If I m not mistaken, Virgin and Tiger are both owned by companies based outside Australia. Interestingly enough, our own Competition Bureau endorses the Australian model as a way of increasing competition. I recently came across a rather interesting submission by the Competition Bureau (its 5 years old). Noteworthy points:

I don't care where the money comes from as long as its from a legitimate source. But airlines as an aggregate (and transportation in general) generate a very low ROI meaning its hard to attract investors for a very capital heavy industry.

In essence its very hard to make money in the airline industry and I could assume the reason why an airline like WS knows that if they start expanding to different types of equipment costs will start to go up. They have a good thing going so they will grow as long as that model lets them to.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3303 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 79):
I don't care where the money comes from as long as its from a legitimate source. But airlines as an aggregate (and transportation in general) generate a very low ROI meaning its hard to attract investors for a very capital heavy industry.

I don't disagree, but its hard to know if capital will come unless we create the conditions for it to come. If it still doesn't come, then fair enough, but it should be because our markets can't support it, and not because our policies are too short-sighted to allow it.

My criticism of Canadian aviation policy is not simply related to bilaterals; it extends to the failure to create the conditions for an air travel market resembling those in other developed parts of the world. Open aviation up to foreign ownership a la Australia (we'll ignore cabotage for now), get rid of these ACPPAs etc. And stop protecting AC. Let the Canadian market develop according to market forces, rather than stay fixated on what suits AC.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 78):
As for subsidies, you reminded me of an Andrew Coyne article:

"Opening the Canadian airline market to competition, from Emirates Airlines or anyone else, is not something we should grudgingly concede under pressure, but embrace in our own interest, for the lower prices and better service it promises Canadian travellers. If it costs Air Canada a few bucks, tough: we do not put planes in the skies to give airline workers something to do, but to fly airline passengers where they would like to go. (Emirates is subsidized, you say? Then it is Canadian passengers who are the beneficiaries.)"

He has a point I suppose. A narrow point.

But it's a vicious circle. When EK can fire aging FA's and keep hiring younger ones to keep costs low (and there are no labour laws to protect workers in Dubai), and AC can't due to our humaritarian labour laws (which keeps costs high, and keeps AC from competing), then we are giving away the store.

Perhaps Andrew Coyne would adjust his opinion if he could be fired (without severance) by the Globe and Mail using the brutish labour laws of Dubai -- the very country whose aggressive airline he so unabashedly favours having a free run in Canada.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2129 posts, RR: 9
Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3260 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 63):
The next 40 years just might be the same in terms of travel patterns. Economic growth in India and China could easily stall and both countries could easily become broiled in wars.

And pigs might fly.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 63):
I've seen the same stats and it seems astounding that Aus can generate so much more traffic than Canada in real and proportional terms.

What you keep ignoring is the millions of Canadians who drive across the border to fly a US carrier to their destination and who aren't counted against Canadian stats. So yeah, as a nation we're flying lots...but many are taking a hop to Bellingham, Buffalo or Burlington to do so. Which, as I pointed out, is not an option for Australians.

Quoting mariner (Reply 66):
My point remains. Air Canada's primary loyalty should be to Air Canada and it's owners, which may include, overtly or covert, the taxpayer:.

And by partnering with LH, they're doing exactly that - gaining as much as they can given current market circumstances.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 69):
Dubai does not respect your democratic needs, human rights or rule of law....they just want your money to enforce legislation against you. Every Canadian hubbing through Dubai is thumbing his/her nose (yes, perhaps only a little bit) at our cherished institutions. Yes, the same goes for Canadians visiting Cuba but that's for a different thread.

I suppose we'd better get used to self-righteous nose-thumbing whenever we fly through any of a hundred other countries - including some very good friends of ours - that have less robust human rights principles than we enjoy at home.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 69):
You think Canada will go from an overwhelming white majority (as in now, with Chinese and Indian minorities of 2-3% each) to an Indian-Chinese majority in 40 years? Such nonsense. No country could survive such social upheaval. Even the federal riding I live in in DT TO is still overwhelmingly white.

Yes, I do think so. And strangely, so does Stats Canada. I wonder if you're living in 2013 or 1913? Do you realize that the Asian population in Canada was 16% in the 2006 Census (just the Chinese & Indians together amounted to 8% or double your stated figures) and that non-whites are forecast to number a third of our population within two decades from today? I'm not suggesting you like this fact, but at least recognize that Canadians' travel patterns are rapidly changing from those of 40 years ago. Not only is the racial makeup of our population changing quickly, but our business ties and leisure destinations are also markedly different than before.

Quoting mariner (Reply 76):
It is being the "subservient" partner that puzzles me., Still, if that's what you want your airline to be, hey, I'm no't Canadian, I don't have a horse in the race.

It's not a matter of what we want at all. Explain to us how we can dictate to a private corporation their partnership arrangements.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 83, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3251 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 78):
I'm sure the good folk at AC don't think AC is subservient. I'm sure they'll spin a more optimistic tale. My conclusions are simply my own. They are based on the observations listed above, namely that LH augments AC's network to the extent that it increases AC's TATL traffic.

If it is to the airline's advantage then I don't have a problem with it. I simply picked up on this:

Quoting threepoint (Reply 56):
Prefers or is obliged to? AC does not wear the trousers in the Star Alliance relationship.

I've never been particularly fond of the alliances and I am pleased to see that the patterns of them are changing.

There will always need to be code shares/joint ventures. Qantas (Oneworld) may have moved away from British (OW) but is as close as ever to American (OW).

But it has to be a two-way street and the centres of gravity may have changed since the alliances were formed. I don't understand Air Canada's relationship with Asia, for example.

People can huff and puff about the ME carriers all they want, but they're not going to blow them down, and the ME carriers may be dwarfed by what the Chinese airlines eventually do.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 84, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3237 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting threepoint (Reply 82):
Explain to us how we can dictate to a private corporation their partnership arrangements.

People "dictate" to private corporations all the time, by buying or not buying their products. The only question is how sensitive (or reactive) the corporation is to that - and how much choice there is in the market.

You raise the matter of Canadians driving across the border to get flights - those folk are voting with their wallets, and it may not be only for cheaper fares, although those fares are probably the original driver.

The question shouldn't be "isn't Emirates awful?" but rather "why do so many people fly with Emirates?"

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineupwardfacing From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Apr 2013, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3208 times:

El Pistolero, it was not my intent to excuse the Government of Canada or Air Canada for the current state of aviation there. Rather, I was simply pointing out that the two airlines involved (EK, EY) are finding ways around the landing restrictions. For their part, passengers--who face the consequences of these restrictions--can find ways around them as well.

The point is: why not make it easier for passengers to travel by directly offering them more of these choices?

The various regions served by the Gulf carriers from Canada are simply too far away, and the traffic simply too leisure oriented, for nearly any nonstop services. For smaller cities, even nonstops to Europe are increasingly unviable, for similar reasons.

Many of the local airlines serve just their immediate neighborhood, or they operate up to Europe. A few can make New York or maybe Washington work, but there is typically a stronger premium component in the traffic to these cities than there would be to Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver.

As others say on various EK threads, Emirates may very well lose money on many of their own North American routes, but they can afford to operate them because they make up for it elsewhere in their network. (This may be why their expansion in the USA has been gradual--they even dropped second dailies to LAX and IAH last year.) For consumers, Emirates means there is the option of an easy one-stop connection to where they want to go.

I looked through older threads, and this one stood out for some very candid statements on Canadian aviation policy by some members, and for proposals on how to increase landing rights in a measured way.

EK Wants To Add YVR, Calgary And Up Toronto #2

Obviously events since then, particularly the actions by some combination of UAE interests, have had a negative effect to say the least. Yet, it is in the interest of both countries to move past this dispute.

As such, we should ask whether the Government of Canada is willing to implement its own stated O&D based policy in a clear, predictable, and non-discriminatory manner with respect to the UAE, and increase traffic rights accordingly.


User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2129 posts, RR: 9
Reply 86, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3195 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 84):
The question shouldn't be "isn't Emirates awful?" but rather "why do so many people fly with Emirates?"

For me, the question is neither, sir. To borrow a term, I too have no horse in this race. It's obvious to me what EK is doing in terms of making their money by siphoning fifth-freedom traffic via their global hub. Is this a bad thing? LH and KL and to a lesser extent BA have done this from Canada for decades and they have not been the subjects of such polarized opinion. Amusingly, Lufthansa has gone to great lengths to draw attention to EK's business plan with no sense of irony over its own website's claim that >80% of its Canadian passengers travel beyond Germany.

People like Yyz717 have spouted ad infinitum about the inherent social and market evils of Emirates' plans in this country. Given that we can travel to the US, South America, Europe, Australia and the Far East directly (ie: not via Dubai), the entry of EK should affect only travelers between Canada and certain parts of Africa and South Asia - a demographic he claims amounts to negligible percentages of our population. So I among others am left to wonder from which side of their mouths many of these debaters are speaking.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineupwardfacing From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Apr 2013, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3187 times:

Plus the Arabian Peninsula and greater Middle East, Central Asia, much of Southeast Asia, and the Indian Ocean islands.

BTW, there are other airlines with this type of transfer diversion model: Icelandair, COPA, how about KLM?

As others here have said, Singapore Airlines was arguably the inspiration for Emirates.

With respect to immigrants within Canada, I don't know if that should be the only consideration. What about international businesspeople, tourists, students, healthcare seekers, scientists, artists, diplomats...?

[Edited 2013-04-09 22:50:36]

[Edited 2013-04-09 23:16:01]

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3161 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting threepoint (Reply 86):
For me, the question is neither, sir.

I very much hope that some people, at least some of the people who matter, are asking themselves why so many people choose to fly Emirates.

I also hope those same people are asking themselves why so many choose to fly Ryanair, because, in either case, if they're just looking at it from the outside, they may come to the wrong conclusions.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 87):
As others here have said, Singapore Airlines was arguably the inspiration for Emirates.

  

And at the time that Singapore was making its mark in the world, the same accusations were thrown at it, especially in Australia, that they paid their people peanuts and were (somehow) subsidized by their government.

And that their ads were sexist and designed to appeal to the imperialist fantasies of middle-aged white men.  

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 89, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3087 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 81):
When EK can fire aging FA's and keep hiring younger ones to keep costs low (and there are no labour laws to protect workers in Dubai), and AC can't due to our humaritarian labour laws (which keeps costs high, and keeps AC from competing), then we are giving away the store.

While that may be true, its equally true that over the past couple of years AC has been working hard to dis-incentivize its own FA jobs. Where EK shows them the door, AC nudges them out by devaluing their jobs slowly but surely.

The means may be different because of prevailing laws, but the end result is the same: both airlines (like many airlines around the world), don't want career FAs. They prefer the McDonalds model - pick up some young kids, show them the world for 3-5 years, albeit while working them into the ground, and then hope they'll leave for better jobs.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 81):
Perhaps Andrew Coyne would adjust his opinion if he could be fired (without severance) by the Globe and Mail using the brutish labour laws of Dubai -- the very country whose aggressive airline he so unabashedly favours having a free run in Canada.

If Andrew Coyne knew the terms of his contract, as I am sure most EK FAs do, he would either not accept the contract, or he would accept it knowing the consequences. Either which way, there's what, 27,000 Canadians in the UAE who think those easily terminable contracts are acceptable.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 82):

And by partnering with LH, they're doing exactly that - gaining as much as they can given current market circumstances.

Thats one way of putting it. I just really don't like the fact that they're influencing current market circumstances by lobbying for the Government to keep intervening, possibly at the behest of a foreign carrier.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 85):
For their part, passengers--who face the consequences of these restrictions--can find ways around them as well.

Of course they can. As a whole, humans are resourceful. The point is: should they have to? Especially when others don't. People have to find workarounds not because of the market, but because of government intervention in some aspects. To top it off, the Government doesn't intervene everywhere, which makes the intervention inherently unfair, insofar as the burden falls on one (unspecified) group over the other. Governments shouldn't be doing htat.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 85):
Obviously events since then, particularly the actions by some combination of UAE interests, have had a negative effect to say the least. Yet, it is in the interest of both countries to move past this dispute.

A sordid affair all round. Glad they're mending fences.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 85):
As such, we should ask whether the Government of Canada is willing to implement its own stated O&D based policy in a clear, predictable, and non-discriminatory manner with respect to the UAE, and increase traffic rights accordingly.

This is essentially the crux of my argument. Canadian aviation policy is not only stuck in the 1970s - it is at odds with itself. On the one hand it wants to create more O&D routes to other parts of the world. On the other hand, it hands out 2-3 weekly frequencies and expects these airlines to compete. ET, TK, SV - all prime examples. TK has been in the market for over 3 years now and is still not allowed to fly daily, while KL flies to 4 cities.

I won't call for unlimited access - that can be staggered - but at least give them a fighting chance by letting them fly daily. If they don't want to, let them turn it down, instead of dictating it to them.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 86):
Lufthansa has gone to great lengths to draw attention to EK's business plan with no sense of irony over its own website's claim that >80% of its Canadian passengers travel beyond Germany

Thats amusing. Do you have a link?

Quoting mariner (Reply 88):
I very much hope that some people, at least some of the people who matter, are asking themselves why so many people choose to fly Emirates.

Ha, no chance. Three years in Ottawa have taught me that this city is more insular than most of us would like to admit, and that most of the powers-that-be, elected or otherwise, rarely travel beyond sun destinations on their own dime. I don't think they have any sense of how far behind Canada lags on competition and airfares, nor do they know about the better value-for-money/quality offered by carriers from other parts of the world, if only because they have no intention of flying to those destinations.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24798 posts, RR: 22
Reply 90, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 83):
I don't understand Air Canada's relationship with Asia, for example.
AC's Asian network was largely inherited from their takeover of CP. CP began service to Tokyo and Hong Hong in 1949, soon after they began service to Fiji and Australia (and a little later to New Zealand). AC has of course added many new Asian routes since. Many of AC's current transpacific flight numbers were inherited from CP. For example AC1 and AC2 Toronto-Tokyo-Toronto were CP1 and CP2.

[Edited 2013-04-12 15:59:53]

User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2225 posts, RR: 12
Reply 91, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2840 times:

If EK was a publicly traded company with securities oversight, publicized full financial statements, we wouldn't be having this discussion to the same degree and I would have no problem with them negotiating and obtaining rights that made sense for trade and Canada. EK is part of a cohesive and from a marketing strategy, brilliant package and state sponsored program, to diversify and change for the future the Emirate of Dubai. 20 or 30 years ago a lot of air travel happened and relied on this same way of promoting trade and building countries. Admiring the marketing, tourism and infrastructure program, that is funded from extremely deep pockets, and allowing this strategy to impact your own airline strategy and/or aviation service is totally a different thing.

No amount of railing against the current aviation policy, nor misrepresentation against the oft hated Air Canada's power, and any of the arguments made over and over again have changed my mind on the matter. This is not a normal case of free trade with two companies equally battling for their company. I am not obstinate normally and usually see both sides of cases easily and easily change my mind based on facts. Nothing I have seen has swayed my analysis of the core of this issue. Why support a company that is clearly functioning in the scheme of another government over the cost of jobs and service in my own country.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 92, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2786 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 91):

If EK was a publicly traded company with securities oversight, publicized full financial statements, we wouldn't be having this discussion to the same degree and I would have no problem with them negotiating and obtaining rights that made sense for trade and Canada.

I've read Emirates financial reports, which seem quite detailed to me, and are audited by Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PWC), a multinational accounting firm based in London.

If you believe the numbers in those financial reports are fudged, I guess you must also believe that PWC is in on the fudging, and - for me - that would be a considerable stretch.

If the private ownership offends you, then perhaps you feel the same way about Air New Zealand, which is majority owned by the NZ government.

But then I puzzle about articles like this:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/07/...r-canada-gets-bailout-from-ottawa/

"Air Canada Gets Bailout From Ottawa

Air Canada has secured a 1.02 billion Canadian dollar ($922 million) lifeline with some help from the federal government, giving the carrier a crucial infusion of cash to help it survive the recession and avoid another trip through bankruptcy protection, The Globe and Mail reported."


It was said to be in the "national interest" - as with Air NZ - and that's fair enough, but surely you can understand that others might see it differently.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 93, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2772 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 92):
I've read Emirates financial reports, which seem quite detailed to me, and are audited by Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PWC), a multinational accounting firm based in London.

If you believe the numbers in those financial reports are fudged, I guess you must also believe that PWC is in on the fudging, and - for me - that would be a considerable stretch.

What about the labour laws of Dubai? The ability of EK to fire any employee without severance, which ensures a low cost, low tenured employee based. No Western airline can do this.

And what about the indirect subsidies of EK then? The quick ability of the Dubai government to fund massive airport infrastructure growth in lock-step with EK's growth plans? This could never happen in the West. Was land expropriated quickly? Were environmental assessments conducted? Were funds allocated to airport infrastructure by a dictatorial Dubai government that did not have to answer to social spending on issues such as education, equal treatment of immigrants, etc? Hey, how about the New Zealand government suspend all social spending growth and instead fund massive airport projects in AKL? The fact is that is in not a level playing field. EK has advantages based in a dictatorship like Dubai that Western airlines do not benefit from, so EK should not be given free reign in any Western nation wrt route authority. EK authority should in fact be severely restricted in all Western nations.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 91):
Why support a company that is clearly functioning in the scheme of another government over the cost of jobs and service in my own country.

Why indeed. Moreover, a government that is not democratic and is not subject to the usual checks and balances we see in the West.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 94, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2750 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 93):
What about the labour laws of Dubai? The ability of EK to fire any employee without severance, which ensures a low cost, low tenured employee based. No Western airline can do this.

How did industrial relations get into this? I was responding to comments about financial reports.

Will it be the religion next?

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 93):
The quick ability of the Dubai government to fund massive airport infrastructure growth in lock-step with EK's growth plans?

We;'ve been through this before. Governments all around the world build airports. Taken a look at Beijing airport recently?

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 93):
The fact is that is in not a level playing field. EK has advantages based in a dictatorship like Dubai that Western airlines do not benefit from, so EK should not be given free reign in any Western nation wrt route authority.

Qantas seems to be benefitting from it - and who is asking for free rein?

But I note you avoid commenting on the Canadian governrment assistance to Air Canada.

mariner

[Edited 2013-04-13 00:14:26]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 95, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 91):
If EK was a publicly traded company with securities oversight, publicized full financial statements, we wouldn't be having this discussion to the same degree

Theres a very interesting Porter thread going on elsewhere. Many Canadian a.netters seem befuddled by the fact that an airline can offer superior service to Air Canada and still be profitable. PD claims its profitable (in fact it claims its been profitable for a couple of years) but we have any number of folk who claim that its not, simply because it does not disclose its numbers (when the truth of the matter is that it doesn't have to). This sanctimoniousness (some of it is outright derision on that thread and this one) towards airlines that claim that they are doing well, despite their refusal to disclose their financials, points more to beliefs grounded in ideology than objectivity. This 'guilty until proven innocent' approach, often evident at CBSA posts when one has the (mis?)fortune of travelling outside Canada on a regular basis, is one of the less appealing Canadian traits.

As mariner pointed out, EK is audited by a global multinational firm. PWC is one of the big 4 accountancy firms in the world (if you haven't heard of them, you should look them up). You're free to ignore their assessment, but don't expect anyone to believe its because of the quality or accuracy of their reporting and not one's own personal beliefs. .

Furthermore, we do have a Competition Bureau here that, despite its relative lack of teeth, is very good at investigating unfair practices, particularly predatory pricing. Lest we forget, it has even found an airline guilty of predatory pricing, namely Air Canada.

Air Canada Charged With Predatory Pricing (by Watewate Mar 7 2001 in Civil Aviation)

Therefore, EK's entry worries me not; if EK cheats, it will be caught.

Perhaps its time to accept that who doesn't disclose their numbers are not automatically guilty of cheating, particularly when they're being audited.

Also, this implicit glorification of publicly traded companies reveals an ignorance of one of the most basic principles of running a business: if your company is making as much money as you want it to make, why in the world would you dilute your control/ownership by going public? Publicly traded companies are not necessarily better run than non-publicly traded ones. Its a red herring - a questionable argument couched in financial language that hints at a poor understanding of economic motives and the market.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 91):
I would have no problem with them negotiating and obtaining rights that made sense for trade and Canada.

And back we go to the same old question: What makes sense for Canada?

Is it:

1) To provide consumers with the widest array of products so that they can choose what works best for them?
2) To keep Air Canada afloat?

Consumer-oriented folk like myself will always point towards the former. Let the consumer choose. Let the suppliers adapt. And so on. Australia, which I tout often, is a good example of this policy. The Government has opened the market up and QF has to fight with the rest.

The other approach - the Canadian approach - (and my feelings about it) can be best summed up by the words of our Commissioner of Competition:

"Aitken says Air Canada suggests it should be allowed to dominate parts of its home market to ensure it can thrive as a Canadian champion internationally. She rejects that economic strategy. “Canadian consumers and businesses,” she says, “ought not to pay the price for a company to be coddled at home so that it can stride about on the world stage.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/28/ahead-of-the-competition/

There are many proponents of this argument on a.net. Their affiliation (or lack thereof) with AC is not known.

So what is in the interests of Canada? Competition is certainly in the interests of consumers, who make up the majority of Canadians, but it clearly scares the executive at AC.

As for trade, what is trade? Is trade limited to existing trade? Does it encompass potential future trade? If its the latter, shouldn't we be trying to increase links with a country that posseses some of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds? Not to mention air links with a region that provides far more air access to the emerging market in India than Western Europe does?

All of which brings your statement into question. Is it empty rhetoric or is based on some objective criteria? And if the latter, what is your criteria?

As things stand, it is difficult to believe that EK's release of its financials would change anyones minds. Ideologues rarely accept evidence that is not consistent with what they want the evidence to be.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 91):
Why support a company that is clearly functioning in the scheme of another government over the cost of jobs and service in my own country.

And what do we do with bilateralis that are "clearly functioning in the scheme of another government over the cost of jobs and service in my own country", for example, the bilaterals with Cuba and the Dominican Republic. We send a lot of Canadians there - and a lot of Canadian money. What do we get in return? Some tan, some peeling skin and a tourism deficit of $17 billion dollars? Meanwhile, our Tourism industry keeps whining, while the Cuban government is laughing all the way to the bank.

I don't know what sense of protectionist nationalism you're appealing to, but it seems rather confused given the tunnel vision with which its applied. In the case of Cuba, you might with the consumer, but in other cases, you don't want the consumer to have too much choice. What gives?

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 93):
The ability of EK to fire any employee without severance, which ensures a low cost, low tenured employee based. No Western airline can do this.

And there goes trade with China and India.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 93):
The quick ability of the Dubai government to fund massive airport infrastructure growth in lock-step with EK's growth plans?

What, exactly is your objection here? That country's should take longer to address infrastructure requirements? How does that help anyone? Look at the mess at LHR right now - I am sure most airlines serving it would give an arm and a leg for expansion there. Said it before and I'll say it again - some democratic countries need to get their act together and start balancing national interests against NIMBYs, instead of putting it off and hoping the problem will just go away.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 93):
Was land expropriated quickly? Were environmental assessments conducted? Were funds allocated to airport infrastructure by a dictatorial Dubai government that did not have to answer to social spending on issues such as education, equal treatment of immigrants, etc?

Its not the sentiment I object to. Its the lack of uniform application. I don't disagree with you, but then you would have to rewrite the rules for all international trade, and given the financial problems in the west, I fail to see how that would be in Canada's interests. If this is about protectionism from any country that doesn't have the same tax structure, labour laws etc, then we might run into a little bit of financial turbulence, but what is money when you have principles, eh?

By the way, I imagine you are telling all and sundry to close their RBC accounts.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 93):
Hey, how about the New Zealand government suspend all social spending growth and instead fund massive airport projects in AKL?

Thats like telling India to suspend funding for its space program and instead focus on eliminating poverty. On the face of it, it is a sensible statement. Until you realise that the logic underlying it is very, very faulty.

Here are my questions: Is it a zero-sum game? And why can't the two be done simultaneously?

For example, India's space program might seem like poor prioritization, but when you look closer, you realize that it is actually an income generator. Earlier this year, a couple of Canadian satellites were flown halfway around the world to be launched from, you guessed it, India. On Indian launch vehicles. They didn't do it for free. The income coming in from that - foreign income - can be used to address poverty, while simultaneously allowing India to benefit from cheaper access to space based technology, which also contribute to the generation of wealth. That said, India is addressing poverty and building up its space program simultaneously.

The same logic can apply to airports. You don't need to suspend social spending to fund an airport. You can do the two simultaneously, though the former might be a little less substantial, and the latter a little bit slower, but in the long run, tourism and usage revenue will still end up covering the cost of building a larger airport, and then the excess funds can be used for social spending. That is to say; tourism and airport revenue generation will eventually grow the pot of money being used for social spending.

I'm sure you disagree.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 93):
The fact is that is in not a level playing field.

Unless we create a clone of Canada, there is never going to be a level playing field with any of our trade partners. We aren't even on a level playing field with the US - their companies benefit from larger economies of scale, different laws, easier access to foreign investment, lower tax rates depending on the state etc etc.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 93):
EK authority should in fact be severely restricted in all Western nations.

Oh. Okay. That will do everyone a world of good, I am sure. Except consumers, who also happen to be the majority of people in any western country.

Quoting mariner (Reply 94):
But I note you avoid commenting on the Canadian governrment assistance to Air Canada.

Thats only a facet of it. The other three recent examples:

1) Protection from foreign competition
2) Protection from unions. If AC unions threaten to strike, the Government comes charging in and bans them. It reached a point where AC workers were suspended after they started sarcastically slow-clapping when the Labour minister walked through an airport. How's that for government intervention?
3) Protection from pension contributions - and this after other airlines complained that it would affect competition in Canada.

As an aside, these threads would be a lot less repetitive if people actually explained their stance instead of hiding behind empty (and often misleading) rhetoric.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24798 posts, RR: 22
Reply 96, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2530 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 95):
As mariner pointed out, EK is audited by a global multinational firm. PWC is one of the big 4 accountancy firms in the world (if you haven't heard of them, you should look them up). You're free to ignore their assessment, but don't expect anyone to believe its because of the quality or accuracy of their reporting and not one's own personal beliefs. .

You can't compare an audit of a government-owned entity with no legal requirement to issue financial reports to audits of a publicly-traded company. Regardless of whether it's a big 4 accountancy firm, they still have to rely on the data the company provides.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 95):
And what do we do with bilateralis that are "clearly functioning in the scheme of another government over the cost of jobs and service in my own country", for example, the bilaterals with Cuba and the Dominican Republic. We send a lot of Canadians there - and a lot of Canadian money. What do we get in return? Some tan, some peeling skin and a tourism deficit of $17 billion dollars? Meanwhile, our Tourism industry keeps whining, while the Cuban government is laughing all the way to the bank.

You seem to be overlooking all the jobs created and revenues generated for the airlines, airports, catering companies etc. etc. due to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who visit Cuba.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 97, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2490 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 96):
You seem to be overlooking all the jobs created and revenues generated for the airlines, airports, catering companies etc. etc. due to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who visit Cuba.

It would be interesting to know how much of the revenue trickles down to the Cuban workers - in one form or another.

I know many who say that Air Canada flies to a Communist dictatorship so that Canadians can enjoy tropical vacations on the backs of under-paid and ill-represented workers, a place where prostitution - even child prostitution - is common.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013...ers_in_cubas_child_sex_market.html

"Canadians are major customers in Cuba's child sex market"

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 98, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2462 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 96):

You can't compare an audit of a government-owned entity with no legal requirement to issue financial reports to audits of a publicly-traded company. Regardless of whether it's a big 4 accountancy firm, they still have to rely on the data the company provides.

Everybody has to rely on data that the company provides, including shareholders in publicly traded companies. Enron comes to mind, though there was plenty of concern about Nortel as well.

A big 4 accountancy firm relies on its reputation, which can disappear very fast if its caught out. Arthur Anderson, for example, disappeared with Enron. Big 4 accountancies have plenty to lose. If their reputation takes a hit, so does their standing.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 96):

You seem to be overlooking all the jobs created and revenues generated for the airlines, airports, catering companies etc. etc. due to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who visit Cuba.

Only insofar as everyone on this thread is overlooking the jobs created and revenues generated for the airports, catering companies etc by EK. An EK 380 probably requires more catering than both the AC 777s flying from Toronto to FRA (based on the very simple calculation of a 400 load X 2 meals + snacks, versus 2 X 350 X 1 meal and 2X 350 X 1 muffin). For one, they serve two meals in Y that are substantially larger than the kiddy meals AC serves in Y, and EK's version of a 'snack' is probably much larger than AC's 'continental breakfast' (a muffin) or those posh wraps that don't expire for a year.

That said, any route international route would generate those jobs. I'm not overlooking them any more than anyone overlooks the impact that a TK or EK or EY or ET or SV would have on the same jobs. Its a non issue as far as I'm concerned. Any airlines would generate these jobs - some would also generate higher revenue by demanding higher quality items, larger portions and a greater attention to detail, and if there's one thing we know about AC Y meals, its that quality or quantity is not a concern; passable/edible is good enough. Contrast that to an airline like EK or TK, where the meal is an integral part of the level of service that they advertise.

Just to put it in context, contrast AC's meal picture (presumably a part of its marketing):

http://www.emirates.com/ca/English/flying/dining/economy_class.aspx

Or for that matter, TK.

http://www.turkishairlines.com/en-int/travel-experience#EconomyClass

See what I mean about the emphasis on meals as part of the product on the latter two carriers versus AC?

Which is to say that just about any ME or international carrier will bring benefits with regard to airport services like baggage handling and catering. After all, domestic catering has shrunk significantly over the past few years, and continues to do so- AC has taken to handing out biscotti and chocolate bars in J on flights less than 1.5 hours. The benefit of allowing more foreign carriers is self-evident in this context.

What I will point out is that according to StatsCan, Canadians spent $750 million in Cuba. How much money did Cubans spend in Canada in return? I doubt it even amounts to $2 or $3 million. I'm not opposed to travel to Cuba, mind you. I just think that perhaps we should also start expanding air links to markets that are generating tourists for us, regardless of where they stop (Europe or the ME).

Quoting mariner (Reply 97):
It would be interesting to know how much of the revenue trickles down to the Cuban workers - in one form or another.

He's probably referring to Canadian workers. A slightly odd point to bring up, particularly give the way AC has been reducing its meals services (and by extension, jobs at catering companies). Particularly ironic given that Canada is trying to stagger the entry of longhaul flights which, by their very nature, require substantial catering, baggage handling and other services.

[Edited 2013-04-13 16:48:55]

[Edited 2013-04-13 16:49:23]

[Edited 2013-04-13 17:02:36]

[Edited 2013-04-13 17:03:26]

[Edited 2013-04-13 17:06:39]

User currently offlineturjo101 From Canada, joined Apr 2008, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

I am sorry if this has been discussed before; but could EK form some kind of partnership with Westjet or Porter, the way they did with Qantas, in order to have more flights to YYZ and perhaps start new cities like YYC or YVR? What I mean is without them being granted more slots, could they operate flights under WS, or PD code?

User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24798 posts, RR: 22
Reply 100, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2309 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 97):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 96):You seem to be overlooking all the jobs created and revenues generated for the airlines, airports, catering companies etc. etc. due to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who visit Cuba.It would be interesting to know how much of the revenue trickles down to the Cuban workers - in one form or another.

I was referring to jobs for Canadian workers handling the dozens of daily peak season flights to/from Cuba.

And are you implying that workers in hotels and restaurants etc. in Cuba aren't Cuban? They certainly are and depend on tourism for their livelihoods.


User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 101, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 98):
or SV

they don't serve Canada.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 98):
Just to put it in context, contrast AC's meal picture (presumably a part of its marketing):

http://www.emirates.com/ca/English/f....aspx

Access denied, and why is it opening to Air Canada site on EK link?


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 102, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 101):
they don't serve Canada.

Not yet. They're starting some time this year. With the usual 2/3 weekly routinely. I think its 2 weekly for them (like ET).

Quoting 777way (Reply 101):
Access denied, and why is it opening to Air Canada site on EK link?

See that long list of edits under my post? I was trying to sort that out. In the text box they're typed properly, but for whatver reason, a.net is combining them (its done that again in this post, so I have to remove the Air Canada link). The edit function seems to go wonky when it involves Canada - I try not to type in airport codes anymore.

This year old report tells you what AC serves on London - West Coast. Note that the catering on this flight is for a flight of 8-9 hours (usually a little longer westbound). I suppose they do a get a little more food than London - East Coast in so far as we east coasters don't get that little cup of yogurt - only the muffin.

To Beautiful Vancouver: Air Canada (Y) LHR-YVR (by captainsloo Mar 26 2012 in Trip Reports)

[Edited 2013-04-14 10:43:52]

User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 103, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2150 times:

It should be noted Cubana doesn't do much flying to Canada. But Cuba is probably more repressive than the UAE and Cubana still has more slots than EK/EY.

And while flights to Cuba serve Air Canada's interests, I fail to see what Canadian national interests are preserved. If that's the justification for how we handle air travel......


User currently offlineupwardfacing From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Apr 2013, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

Quoting ChicagoFlyer (Thread starter):
Looks like Canadians can again go to UAE visa-free, but can UAE carriers add more Canadian flights? The article is silent, so does anyone know?

I think that there will be movement on this in the months ahead, even if it's a minor face-saving deal. Perhaps an agreement has even been made awaiting public release on a hot summer day when everyone is away.

Like them or not, the GCC countries are more influential on the world stage than their small sizes suggest. They have numerous tools to project power and are not afraid to exercise it. Whether it's from lost opportunities for Canadian business or from being diplomatically sidelined, the Canadian authorities may be realising they are losing more than they are gaining with the status quo.

The shift is clear: so-called emerging and developing countries are increasingly flexing their political and economic muscles. Smaller Western countries in particular can no longer count on getting their way simply on the basis of being Western.


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...
Int'l Carriers With Rights On MIA-NY? posted Mon Mar 13 2006 20:33:15 by USADreamliner
Which U.S. Carriers Have Rights To Southeast Asia? posted Fri Mar 22 2002 22:38:45 by Bigmo747
Why No Low Cost Carriers - UK To Dubai/UAE? posted Mon Jun 18 2012 13:09:12 by gilesdavies
U.S. Secure Flight Policy - Canadian Carriers posted Wed Nov 17 2010 15:16:26 by Kaiarahi
UAE Closes Airspace To Canadian Ministers... posted Mon Oct 11 2010 13:21:44 by JoeCanuck
Cuba Landing Rights For USA Carriers posted Fri Mar 26 2010 15:23:22 by bjorn14
Any Asian Or Canadian Carriers Looking @ San Jose? posted Thu Oct 30 2008 18:29:40 by Juventus
CO And United Eye UAE Landing Rights posted Fri Apr 27 2007 09:02:01 by BigTom
USA-Canadian Carriers Sche-char Into ACA, Mexico? posted Sun Oct 29 2006 18:43:24 by Ghost77
India Overlooked By Canadian & US Carriers? posted Sat Oct 9 2004 09:52:13 by Asianguy767