drgmobile
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:06 am

AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:48 am

From an SIA press release issued yesterday:

Announcement of Reduced Flights To India Limits Options, Growth Potential
For Canadian Travelers, Regional Economy

Following the announcement of Air Canada’s termination of Toronto-Delhi flights, Singapore Airlines today reiterated its 20-year commitment to expanding options for travel between Canada and India, but cautioned that, unless the government-mandated restrictions on its operations are eased, Canadian travelers and tourist-reliant businesses may suffer.

The world’s largest airline by market value, Singapore Airlines operates to ten cities in India and transports ten thousand passengers annually between the two countries. However, the Asian carrier’s ability to meet Canadian demand for seats following Air Canada’s withdrawal from India is constrained by a limit, of just three flights per week, imposed by the Canadian government in 1992.

Singapore Airlines’ Vice President Canada, Campbell Wilson, summarized the situation: “With our Vancouver flights now averaging 90% full year-round, and being forbidden to add flights, our ability to meet passenger demand following Air Canada’s withdrawal from Delhi is limited. As a result, Canadian consumers will suffer from fewer options, and tourism-related businesses will see fewer inbound customers.”

Citing strong passenger demand, Singapore Airlines, which has operated flights to Vancouver for nearly two decades, has long sought to increase its thrice-weekly schedule to a daily service. Canadian authorities have repeatedly declined the request.

“Our understanding is that the restriction on our frequency was originally designed to protect Canadian airline interests. As no Canadian airline now serves India or South East Asia -- and Air Canada is now in robust financial health -- continued protection from competition appears unnecessary,” says Wilson.

“Canada’s air policy should be designed to benefit all Canadians, not just one constituency. As no Canadian airline is in a position to serve these regions, why must Canadian travelers and tourist-reliant businesses suffer inadequate air capacity to when Singapore Airlines, potentially among others, is prepared to meet that need?”

“This is not a zero sum game. As a Star Alliance and codeshare partner, Air Canada stands to gain from the increased traffic feed that more Singapore Airlines flights, drawing from regions no longer served by Air Canada, would bring. This is a critical opportunity for the Canadian government to implement the ideals espoused in its Blue Sky policy, and demonstrate its commitment to the Asia Pacific Gateway Initiative.”
 
timboflier215
Posts: 804
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 7:54 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:38 am

As a fellow *A carrier, would AC be supportive of this now that they are no longer on the route? If so, what objections would the Canadian govt. have to granting SQ's request?
 
airbazar
Posts: 6943
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:45 am

Quoting Drgmobile (Thread starter):
Singapore Airlines’ Vice President Canada, Campbell Wilson, summarized the situation: “With our Vancouver flights now averaging 90% full year-round, and being forbidden to add flights, our ability to meet passenger demand following Air Canada’s withdrawal from Delhi is limited.

Sounds like if this is really true we'll be seing SQ's A380's flying into Vancouver sooner or later.
 
drgmobile
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:06 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:55 am

As a fellow *A carrier, would AC be supportive of this now that they are no longer on the route? If so, what objections would the Canadian govt. have to granting SQ's request?

No carrier WANTS increased competition. What has happened until recently (and it remains to be seen if this will still be the case), has been that the government queried the Canadian carriers to see if they are interested in a particular market. AC looked and said, "Nah, we're perfectly happy flying folks to our overseas gateways and passing them off to partner carriers there" and so the federal government concludes that the particular market is not a "Canadian priority."

Doogie
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:17 am

Quoting Timboflier215 (Reply 1):
As a fellow *A carrier, would AC be supportive of this now that they are no longer on the route? If so, what objections would the Canadian govt. have to granting SQ's request?

They aren't asking for the right to fly nonstop between Canada and India. They are asking for increased access to Canada so they can fly more passengers to India. As the release mentions, they want the limit of three flights a week on Vancouver-Seoul-Singapore raised to daily. Now, that not only impacts AC's potential to serve India and southeast Asia which might not be that big of a deal, but it directly impacts AC's Vancouver- Seoul service, so while the two carriers are Star Alliance partners, I don't believe AC would bless SQ's proposal. It might have no choice in the end, but it's not going to be supportive.
 
fly2yyz
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:45 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:39 am

Does anyone know if the Korean government might have any say in this if objections are raised by KE? At the moment does KE not have limits on the amount of flights it has into Canada and the amount of seats offered?
 
DYK
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:29 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:25 am

Quoting Drgmobile (Thread starter):
Citing strong passenger demand, Singapore Airlines, which has operated flights to Vancouver for nearly two decades, has long sought to increase its thrice-weekly schedule to a daily service. Canadian authorities have repeatedly declined the request.

This is very frustrating for YVR?. SQ has expressed there desire to go daily but unfortunately no Bi-Lat in place.
SQ request additional flights this time each year via the CTA, my understanding of the situation is Air Canada will not agree to additional flights for SQ as long as they make a stop en route. Big problem i think is the bulk of the passengers are to SEL which makes YVR viable, any additional service cuts into Air Canada's traffic into Korea. BTW SQ does extremely well in business ex YVR usually filling each flight. I guess until Air Canada has the desire to go into SQ, they will be stuck at 3 flights.
Also, The YVR CEO indicates SQ will potentially move ops into Seattle if they can not get additional flights in YVR?

Just to vent, i understand Air Canada's position. What I dont understand is the Canadian Governments lack of granting additional traffic rights just impedes trade and tourism to the Western Canada. Passenger find alternate outlets via Seattle, L.A or other U.S. ports. Can not understand why they dont relax the stiffness and let the market decide who flies a particular route. This is a example of why airport like SEA/LAX/SFO should thank the Canada for adding bums to seats on flights ex their respective ports.

Quoting Fly2YYZ (Reply 5):
Does anyone know if the Korean government might have any say in this if objections are raised by KE? At the moment does KE not have limits on the amount of flights it has into Canada and the amount of seats offered?

I think the Koreans are very open minded to situations like this. they are also wanting additional flights for Korean into YVR as well Asian would like the same. Korea has expressed there desire to this along with access to Calgary.
AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
 
fly2yyz
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:45 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:14 am

Quoting DYK (Reply 6):
I think the Koreans are very open minded to situations like this. they are also wanting additional flights for Korean into YVR as well Asian would like the same. Korea has expressed there desire to this along with access to Calgary.

Yes, so they would not be opposed to SQ moving to daily ops rather than just 3? This would be taking away premium traffic for KE wouldnt it?
 
accargo
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:19 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:25 am

Quoting DYK (Reply 6):
What I dont understand is the Canadian Governments lack of granting additional traffic rights just impedes trade and tourism to the Western Canada. Passenger find alternate outlets via Seattle, L.A or other U.S. ports. Can not understand why they dont relax the stiffness and let the market decide who flies a particular route.

What is the Singapore gov't going to offer Canada in order for the Canadian gov't to grant SQ's request? The whole idea of bi-lateral treaties is to ensure both sides receive equal value for their countries.
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7071
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:26 am

Quoting Fly2YYZ (Reply 7):
This would be taking away premium traffic for KE wouldnt it?

I guess. I hope SQ can go daily or AC begins SIN service.

MCOflyer
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
Nimish
Posts: 2891
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:46 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Servi

Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:50 am

Quoting Sebring (Reply 4):
but it directly impacts AC's Vancouver- Seoul service, so while the two carriers are Star Alliance partners, I don't believe AC would bless SQ's proposal. It might have no choice in the end, but it's not going to be supportive.

Why don't AC and SQ code share on this route? That might be a good face saving formula...

Quoting Accargo (Reply 8):
What is the Singapore gov't going to offer Canada in order for the Canadian gov't to grant SQ's request? The whole idea of bi-lateral treaties is to ensure both sides receive equal value for their countries.

Aren't Canadian citizens a part of Canada? If yes, won't Canada gain through the increased choices and better quality it's citizens get? sarcastic 
Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
 
DYK
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:29 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:55 am

[quote=Accargo,reply=8]What is the Singapore gov't going to offer Canada in order for the Canadian gov't to grant SQ's request?

Thats the problem really. Singapore is willing to go to the table to re-negotiate and i am speculating there has been no movement on re-nogatiation as Air Canada is not interested in serving Singapore via some point any time soon.
Should Canada not re-neogitate because our national flag carrier is not interested in a reciprocal traffic right? Why must we put the interest of our national carrier ahead of market demands. I really wish the Feds would put the interest of trade and tourism first, maybe force Air Canada to join the table in order to resolve this issue or perhaps let the provicial, airport authirties have some participation in the negotiatings.... just a thought. If Singapore was to drop YVR as a result it would be a loss and as blow to the economy of the immediate area. Canada is a very big country and there are regional interests that have to be considered not the interest of Air Canada or Toronto for that matter.
AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
 
accargo
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:19 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Servi

Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:27 pm

Quoting DYK (Reply 11):
hats the problem really. Singapore is willing to go to the table to re-negotiate and i am speculating there has been no movement on re-nogatiation as Air Canada is not interested in serving Singapore via some point any time soon.
Should Canada not re-neogitate because our national flag carrier is not interested in a reciprocal traffic right? Why must we put the interest of our national carrier ahead of market demands. I really wish the Feds would put the interest of trade and tourism first, maybe force Air Canada to join the table in order to resolve this issue or perhaps let the provicial, airport authirties have some participation in the negotiatings.... just a thought. If Singapore was to drop YVR as a result it would be a loss and as blow to the economy of the immediate area. Canada is a very big country and there are regional interests that have to be considered not the interest of Air Canada or Toronto for that matter.

You seem fixated on this belief that the Federal gov't is being told what to do by AC. The Liberals had years to come to some agreement with Singapore and I hardly think that Milton was telling Collenette what to do. (okay he may have been telling him what he could do, but it was anatomically impossible even for a Liberal  Big grin )

Perhaps it is possible that the folks that negotiate these treaties feel that Singapore, it's citizens and it's companies would benefit far greater than Canada, it's citizen's, and it's companies.

How many people would actually benefit from a daily SQ flight? What is SQ offering that is not available by others?

Their argument about AC's withdrawal is bogus. How many pax from Western Canada were traveling to YYZ to fly to DEL? I imagine the total amount could easily be accommodated by that 10% gap in the current loads factors and being 100% full. If SQ were going non-stop YVR-DEL it might have a case, but it isn't. There are other airlines operating from YVR with connections to DEL that can serve the market. Just because you like SQ more than the other options isn't really a good argument for allowing Singapore to have a bi-lateral that doesn't offer Canadians an equal opportunity.

I'm not sure why you bought up YYZ at all.
 
DYK
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:29 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:01 pm

Quoting Accargo (Reply 12):
You seem fixated on this belief that the Federal gov't is being told what to do by AC. The Liberals had years to come to some agreement with Singapore and I hardly think that Milton was telling Collenette what to do. (okay he may have been telling him what he could do, but it was anatomically impossible even for a Liberal )

Perhaps it is possible that the folks that negotiate these treaties feel that Singapore, it's citizens and it's companies would benefit far greater than Canada, it's citizen's, and it's companies.

How many people would actually benefit from a daily SQ flight? What is SQ offering that is not available by others?

Their argument about AC's withdrawal is bogus. How many pax from Western Canada were traveling to YYZ to fly to DEL? I imagine the total amount could easily be accommodated by that 10% gap in the current loads factors and being 100% full. If SQ were going non-stop YVR-DEL it might have a case, but it isn't. There are other airlines operating from YVR with connections to DEL that can serve the market. Just because you like SQ more than the other options isn't really a good argument for allowing Singapore to have a bi-lateral that doesn't offer Canadians an equal opportunity.

I'm not sure why you bought up YYZ at all.

I do believe Collenette considered Air Canada situation and Milton's plight during the post 9/11 years and was certianly acting in Air Canada's best interest. The liberals really had no incentive at to open up talks with any country for the same reason. It was not until the last days of the Martin Government did Canada begin to open talks with China and India as they saw the benefit.

I think your second paragraph is agreeable, I am sure there was some traffic from YVR to India via YYZ but this is a political situation and that is how companies make a case for themselves,. happens every day. That aside, my point is vancouver may have more to loose but not allowing SQ more flights and let the market decide. I do believe Canada should get something in return from Singapore but neccesarily in the interest of Air Canada.

I mentioned Toronto only for the reason it is Air Canada's main hub.

one other point just for agrument sake., and this is not an agrument on whether the route would have been viable. Air France will service Seattle commencing this June. The Airport auhtority of YVR has been trying to lure Air France for years but Air frances hands are tied as the current bi-lateral agreement did not allow for the service. the local airport authority had lobbied the federal government for years to re-negotiate talks with France but AC would not come to the table. The result is:

1. Air France will surely draw passenger from the vancouver area
2. Air France will promote Seattle as a tourist destination in France in thier own best interest
3. there will be new markets for manufactureres in Washington State and France and trade will increase

So who is the winner in this, we know Seattle is (I wish them the very best), but the looser will be the local VAncouver economy, perhaps some empty seats ex YYZ-CDG on AC, local manufactures and producers, hotels, restaurants.
4. there will be a creation of jobs directly related the the new flight for the local economy. It is a case of opportunity cost, protecting the insterest of our national carrier versus the local economy and interest.
AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
 
fly2yyz
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:45 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:04 pm

Quoting DYK (Reply 13):
The Airport auhtority of YVR has been trying to lure Air France for years but Air frances hands are tied as the current bi-lateral agreement did not allow for the service

Really?! So I guess Z4 s YVR-YYC-CDG is a special flight? Or is a "charter" route?
 
DYK
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:29 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:33 pm

Quoting Fly2YYZ (Reply 14):
Really?! So I guess Z4 s YVR-YYC-CDG is a special flight? Or is a "charter" route?

No offense, i was making a point about AF and SEA and opportunity cost not Z4.
AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
 
Kohflot
Posts: 941
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 1999 5:31 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:17 pm

Quoting DYK (Reply 6):
Also, The YVR CEO indicates SQ will potentially move ops into Seattle if they can not get additional flights in YVR?

Except SQ would likely have to find another connection city. I'm not sure there's enough traffic from SEA to Korea for KE, OZ, *and* SQ.. not to mention the connectors through NRT on NW and UA.
Ask why..
 
cyclonic
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:18 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:00 pm

This is the one occasion where i'd happily give SQ more flights. Having flown this route, it is pretty much always full (to my annoyance as I like my room!) and with Vancouver hosting the Winter Olympics in a few years, this is a vital step in increasing its exposure to the rest of the world and boosting it tourism.

SQ only having three flights a week on this route when there is significant demand for more flights is simply mind boggling IMHO. I'd even goes as far as saying they could fill the YVR-SIN route twice daily!
Keith Richards: The man that Death forgot...
 
accargo
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:19 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Servi

Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:17 pm

Quoting DYK (Reply 13):
I do believe Collenette considered Air Canada situation and Milton's plight during the post 9/11 years and was certianly acting in Air Canada's best interest. The liberals really had no incentive at to open up talks with any country for the same reason. It was not until the last days of the Martin Government did Canada begin to open talks with China and India as they saw the benefit.

I think your second paragraph is agreeable, I am sure there was some traffic from YVR to India via YYZ but this is a political situation and that is how companies make a case for themselves,. happens every day. That aside, my point is vancouver may have more to loose but not allowing SQ more flights and let the market decide. I do believe Canada should get something in return from Singapore but neccesarily in the interest of Air Canada.

I mentioned Toronto only for the reason it is Air Canada's main hub.

one other point just for agrument sake., and this is not an agrument on whether the route would have been viable. Air France will service Seattle commencing this June. The Airport auhtority of YVR has been trying to lure Air France for years but Air frances hands are tied as the current bi-lateral agreement did not allow for the service. the local airport authority had lobbied the federal government for years to re-negotiate talks with France but AC would not come to the table. The result is:

1. Air France will surely draw passenger from the vancouver area
2. Air France will promote Seattle as a tourist destination in France in thier own best interest
3. there will be new markets for manufactureres in Washington State and France and trade will increase

So who is the winner in this, we know Seattle is (I wish them the very best), but the looser will be the local VAncouver economy, perhaps some empty seats ex YYZ-CDG on AC, local manufactures and producers, hotels, restaurants.
4. there will be a creation of jobs directly related the the new flight for the local economy. It is a case of opportunity cost, protecting the insterest of our national carrier versus the local economy and interest.

Collennette did nothing for AC. Whatever he did was in Canada's best interests and AC was able to benefit in a small way. SQ was lobbying long before 9/11, so what's your excuse for why the Libs did nothing then?

YVR may have less to gain, not necessarily more to lose. SQ's talk about going to SEA is likely to another pressure tactic it's using. You know, that political stuff you mentioned? Why has it not done this already. It's been pushing for daily flights xYVR since the late 80's.

What does YYZ and it being AC's main hub have to do with SQ and YVR, other than the fact that you seem to believe that AC is in charge of the bilateral treaty negotiations? Your posts all seem to have this theme that YVR is not getting what it deserves and it is the fault of YYZ and AC.

Now on to AF. Once again it's AC's fault. Never mind the fact that France has one of the most restrictive policies when it comes to bilateral treaties. How about France allow carriers (not just AC, I'm sure Transat would love access) to fly to more destinations than just CDG (and I believe one other city is in the current bi-lateral).

NEWS FLASH : THE FEDERAL GOV'T DOES NOT NEED AC AT THE TABLE TO NEGOTIATE BILATERAL TREATIES.

They will consult with all airlines for feedback and take all arguments into consideration. Civil servants from both sides then sit down and try and come to agreement.

Those civil servants have to consider not only the passengers in an area that may benefit from a change in a bilateral but also other airlines, their employee's, their suppliers and all other businesses that may be affected. The change you want for YVR could affect Canadians all across the country in some way or other and they need to take all that into consideration. Elect Harper and perhaps he'll put someone from YVR in charge of Transport and then you can pressure them to give you what you want. There is also the possibility that Canada negotiates other bi-laterals with other countries that allow for increased frequencies to DEL by other airlines xYVR. I doubt that this woud be acceptable to you though. You want your preferred carrier to get what it wants and it doesn't matter to you if it harms others. There are other options besides SQ and AC to get from YVR to DEL. Why are you not campaigning for them to get more frequencies?
 
drgmobile
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:06 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:46 am

I guess until Air Canada has the desire to go into SQ, they will be stuck at 3 flights.
Also, The YVR CEO indicates SQ will potentially move ops into Seattle if they can not get additional flights in YVR?


Well the point of the new international air policy was that it was supposed to change this. Rather than our government agreeing to meet with a country based on whether any of Canada's air carriers are interested, the government also is supposed to consider the interests of passengers, shippers and airports.

Just to vent, i understand Air Canada's position. What I dont understand is the Canadian Governments lack of granting additional traffic rights just impedes trade and tourism to the Western Canada. Passenger find alternate outlets via Seattle, L.A or other U.S. ports. Can not understand why they dont relax the stiffness and let the market decide who flies a particular route. This is a example of why airport like SEA/LAX/SFO should thank the Canada for adding bums to seats on flights ex their respective ports.

Absolutely. That is why this Singapore example is a test of whether the government really is serious about Blue Sky.

NEWS FLASH : THE FEDERAL GOV'T DOES NOT NEED AC AT THE TABLE TO NEGOTIATE BILATERAL TREATIES.

They will consult with all airlines for feedback and take all arguments into consideration. Civil servants from both sides then sit down and try and come to agreement.


Well agreed, but NEWSFLASH: The federal government has always had, and continues to have AC AT THE TABLE. In the U.S. airports are represented, but in Canada only the air carriers are there.

Another element that isn't being discussed here is the bureaucracy. We have a new minister and political staff, but the thousands of folks at Transport Canada with experience in this stuff, the folks who actually are responsible for making policy happen -- they are all the same as unde the Liberals. Cultural change does not happen over night, especially when there is a minority government in place and the new political bosses could be out next month.

Their argument about AC's withdrawal is bogus. How many pax from Western Canada were traveling to YYZ to fly to DEL? I imagine the total amount could easily be accommodated by that 10% gap in the current loads factors and being 100% full. If SQ were going non-stop YVR-DEL it might have a case, but it isn't. There are other airlines operating from YVR with connections to DEL that can serve the market. Just because you like SQ more than the other options isn't really a good argument for allowing Singapore to have a bi-lateral that doesn't offer Canadians an equal opportunity.

SIA is just a single example of a much bigger problem. It isn't just SIA that is kept out. Emirates can't get the frequencies it wants to even offer daily service to Canada, let alone multiple flights. Because of the same UAE bilateral, Etihad is limited. There is no Qatar bilateral. No Bahrain bilateral. Restrictions on bilaterals with several European nations limiting fifths. The macro result of all this is limited competition. As a result, Canadian travellers have fewer choices and pay higher fares or travel through the U.S. (or both).

This benefits one Canadian carrier, but as another poster pointed out, Canadian policy should benefit Canada as a whole. That means not only Air Canada and its employees, but also consumers, airports and their employees, the Canadian employees of foreign carriers, the hotels and their employees that would enjoy increased demand with lower air costs, etc....

Doogie
 
yow
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:47 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:59 am

Quoting Fly2YYZ (Reply 14):
Quoting DYK (Reply 13):
The Airport auhtority of YVR has been trying to lure Air France for years but Air frances hands are tied as the current bi-lateral agreement did not allow for the service

Really?! So I guess Z4 s YVR-YYC-CDG is a special flight? Or is a "charter" route?

Z4's service is sked. The Canada-France bilateral only permits AF to serve YYZ and YUL. YVR, YOW, YQB, etc. who would all love to have AF, can't due to the archaic rules. So even though AF is a French company, Canadians still suffer from nonsensical rules.

Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 19):
Well the point of the new international air policy was that it was supposed to change this. Rather than our government agreeing to meet with a country based on whether any of Canada's air carriers are interested, the government also is supposed to consider the interests of passengers, shippers and airports.

Exactly. When will free market economics finally be able to reign over international aviation in Canada? Almost every other industry doesn't have to deal with these rediculous restrictions. The Tories have recognized this are are slowly starting to make some progress. A Canada-EU Open Skies deal would be fantastic, with fifth freedoms it would be even better. If the Liberals get back in later on this year, any progress will surely die.

With SQ and AC being Star partners, AC still stands to gain by allowing SQ to tailor capacity to demand. Think of the thousands of additional pax SQ would hand off to AC with a daily SIN-YVR flight.
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:09 am

Quoting DYK (Reply 13):
I do believe Collenette considered Air Canada situation and Milton's plight during the post 9/11 years and was certianly acting in Air Canada's best interest.

The Canadian government did the minimum to ensure that it wouldn't be blamed for AC's demise. It removed onerous merger obligations from AC because it would have been blamed for AC's demise in the wake of Sept 11. When AC went into CCAA in 2003, the federal government did nothing whatsoever - it wasn't in a position to be blamed for the SARS epidemic - and left it to private investors to rescue AC.

Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 19):

This benefits one Canadian carrier, but as another poster pointed out, Canadian policy should benefit Canada as a whole. That means not only Air Canada and its employees, but also consumers, airports and their employees, the Canadian employees of foreign carriers, the hotels and their employees that would enjoy increased demand with lower air costs, etc....

Canada should benefit as a whole, but clearly you are not interested in all of Canada, only Vancouver. Singapore and Emirates have no de facto obligation to serve all of Canada, including smaller cities and communities that won't ever get service from Emirates or Singapore. No, Air Canada is expected to do that, and while it is not a legal obligation, it is a practical reality if the airline wants any policy considerations favorable to its interests. So if you live in Prince George, Grande Prairie, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Ottawa, Moncton or St. John's your interests are a lot different than those of Vancouver.

The singlemost important factor that will drive tourism growth in this country is the addition of direct (same plane) or nonstop services to other countries. SQ and EK are not proposing nonstop services except to the city states of Singapore and Dubai. They would actually undermine the development of nonstop services by either Canadian or other foreign carriers. I have no problem whatsoever with Air France launching nonstop service between Vancouver and Paris as the likely tourism benefit is huge, far greater than the benefit that would be delivered by a hub connection on EK or SQ, especially since the latter is mainly poaching Korean traffic which two airlines (AC and LE) are capable of handling.

Here's a simple solution for SQ. If it wants a daily flight, launch nonstop YVR-SIN service. It already flies EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN, so it has no excuse really. It has behind the hub support, so if it really wants to serve the BC-India market, a nonstop with coordinated connections to India would be more attractive without the stop in Korea. That stop and the more roundabout routing currently makes SQ's routing less desirable than even BA vis LHR or LH via FRA, both of whom offer coordinated connections to India via their hubs.

For there to be a real benefit to Canada, the priority has to be nonstops, because if poachers like SQ undercut new nonstops, Canada loses, not wins. This week, we seem likely to get AKL-YVR service from NZ, and AC is contemplating YVR-SYD nonstops for next winter. This is the kind of expansion Canada needs because it makes it attractive not only to fly to YVR, but also to make coordinated connections on AC or WS to points in the interior.

As for whether the government is "serious" about Blue Sky, you would be well advised to go read the policy on the Transport Canada website. For it is not the blanket open skies or open access you think it is. It does tilt more towards liberalization, but has specific caveats that appear to apply most definitely to a carrier like SQ.
 
Boeing747_600
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 1999 4:01 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:19 am

Quoting Drgmobile (Thread starter):
Singapore Airlines operates to ten cities in India

I know that SQ operates to DEL, BOM, MAA, CCU, BLR, HYD and AMD

What are the other 3?

ATQ, TRV and COK ?
 
drgmobile
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:06 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:50 am

Canada should benefit as a whole, but clearly you are not interested in all of Canada, only Vancouver. Singapore and Emirates have no de facto obligation to serve all of Canada, including smaller cities and communities that won't ever get service from Emirates or Singapore.

Not sure where you got the idea I am biased toward Vancouver. I am biased in favor of air carriers interested in bringing new service, increased tourism links and competition to Canada. Period. (And this includes Canadian carriers, by the way).

No, Air Canada is expected to do that, and while it is not a legal obligation, it is a practical reality if the airline wants any policy considerations favorable to its interests. So if you live in Prince George, Grande Prairie, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Ottawa, Moncton or St. John's your interests are a lot different than those of Vancouver.

No, a carrier like SIA or Emirates is not going to serve Grande Prairie anymore than it is going to serve Hobart, Australia or Plymouth, England. And yet those carriers have lots of access into Australia and the UK and the sky has not fallen on Qantas or BA -- in fact they are rather successful airlines. Meanwhile Air Canada is under no obligation to serve any of these communities either (it has pulled out of many smaller communities) and to the extent it does so is because it makes business sense under the carrier's network system.

The singlemost important factor that will drive tourism growth in this country is the addition of direct (same plane) or nonstop services to other countries. SQ and EK are not proposing nonstop services except to the city states of Singapore and Dubai.

This assertion is based on what? It is arguable that a connecting service to a hub can provide just as much benefit to consumers and the Canadian tourism sector than would a single nonstop service to a spoke - maybe even more. Nonstop service to Dubai, for example, puts travellers between India and Canada in range of quick, one-connection, one-airline service to half a dozen cities in the Indian sub-continent.

They would actually undermine the development of nonstop services by either Canadian or other foreign carriers. I have no problem whatsoever with Air France launching nonstop service between Vancouver and Paris as the likely tourism benefit is huge, far greater than the benefit that would be delivered by a hub connection on EK or SQ, especially since the latter is mainly poaching Korean traffic which two airlines (AC and LE) are capable of handling.

Well first of all, the same thinking that has kept out SIA is keeping out these "other foreign carriers" you refer to that could launch nonstop service. But the bigger point is that this is the mistake that governments have been making for years: Too many folks trying to "manage" market and think we all need protection from ourselves and the Big Bad Wolf.

Here's a simple solution for SQ. If it wants a daily flight, launch nonstop YVR-SIN service. It already flies EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN, so it has no excuse really. It has behind the hub support, so if it really wants to serve the BC-India market, a nonstop with coordinated connections to India would be more attractive without the stop in Korea.

Has this been ruled out? I've never heard of it being ruled out, but it misses the point anyway. Emirates wants to operate nonstop service, and it hasn't been able to get the time of day from Ottawa either.

For there to be a real benefit to Canada, the priority has to be nonstops, because if poachers like SQ undercut new nonstops, Canada loses, not wins.

The managed approach doesn't work One-stops today could lead to nonstops to more than one destination in Canada three years from now if the business is successful. It is time for departmental managers and arm chair cheerleaders to stop trying to "play airline."

Doogie
 
TPEcanuck
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:24 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:55 am

Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 19):
SIA is just a single example of a much bigger problem. It isn't just SIA that is kept out. Emirates can't get the frequencies it wants to even offer daily service to Canada, let alone multiple flights. Because of the same UAE bilateral, Etihad is limited. There is no Qatar bilateral. No Bahrain bilateral. Restrictions on bilaterals with several European nations limiting fifths. The macro result of all this is limited competition. As a result, Canadian travellers have fewer choices and pay higher fares or travel through the U.S. (or both).

I think in essence, Drgmobile's point is spot on. As a frequent traveller on TPE-YVR, it amazes me the difference in price to connect via LAX (a much longer flight) on AC/SQ than it is to take AC's codeshare on BR. In addition, if anyone here has taken CI's daily YVR-TPE you will know that this flight is essentially the first leg of YVR-DEL as roughly 75%+ of the passengers are travelling to India.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 21):
The singlemost important factor that will drive tourism growth in this country is the addition of direct (same plane) or nonstop services to other countries.

I don't agree with this actually. First, I don't think the ease of flying to a country is the singlemost important factor in determining where tourists visit. But more fundamentally, Singapore has built it's tourist base largely around encouraging transit passengers to stop over in Singapore for a few days. I think flights that drive new traffic to YVR for whatever reason, indirect or non-stop, increase revenues for at least some parts of the tourism market/airports. (Yes, obviously people who stop and stay are more valuable than people who just transit.) What I do find galling however is that due to Canadian government policy that restricts access to Canadian airports, I am frequently forced to pay a 30% premium on TPE-YVR compared to TPE-LAX. This is not serving Canadians, nor does it serve the tourist market. As you know, tourists pick flights based a lot on price. So if I'm a Taiwanese tourist, where am I going to go? Go check out Whistler and the Rockies or Sunset Blvd and the Hollywood sign? Well, if the costs difference in the flights alone pay for 3 or 4 nights in a hotel at my destination, I'll be checking out the Hollywood sign. I think this anecdote ought to illustrate how by restricting access to Canadian airports, the government is increasing the price of tickets based on limiting the supply, driving up profits for certain airlines at the expense of Canadian travellers and businesses that would benefit from increased number of visitors.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 21):
For there to be a real benefit to Canada, the priority has to be nonstops, because if poachers like SQ undercut new nonstops, Canada loses, not wins.

Sebring, I REALLY don't mean this sarcastically, as I have read a number of your posts and REALLY appreciate your knowledge and insight. But, I just don't think it's fair to call competition poachers. Your argument that AC is, de facto, obliged to serve smaller Canadian markets and thus is owed some favours on international routes doesn't make sense to me. If AC cannot serve these markets profitably, it should stop. Either a new carrier will step in, or people in those communities would become willing to pay a market price for the benefits of regular air service to their communities. Afterall, living in a small community comes with its share of benefits and costs, and if an individual feels the cost outweigh the benefits, they are of course free to move to a larger community with more comprehensive services that better meet their individual needs.

Bring on the competition! It will help all of us in the long-run by lowering costs, increasing the number of passengers, and creating a more robust market of travellers who frequently ply these routes and thus benefitting the airlines that best meet the needs of their customers!

Cheers!
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:23 pm

Quoting TPEcanuck (Reply 24):

Sebring, I REALLY don't mean this sarcastically, as I have read a number of your posts and REALLY appreciate your knowledge and insight. But, I just don't think it's fair to call competition poachers. Your argument that AC is, de facto, obliged to serve smaller Canadian markets and thus is owed some favours on international routes doesn't make sense to me. If AC cannot serve these markets profitably, it should stop. Either a new carrier will step in, or people in those communities would become willing to pay a market price for the benefits of regular air service to their communities. Afterall, living in a small community comes with its share of benefits and costs, and if an individual feels the cost outweigh the benefits, they are of course free to move to a larger community with more comprehensive services that better meet their individual needs

In the real world, the politicians for whom AC depends on in such matters as international rights do not want the blame laid on their doorstep for fares rising to very high levels or for the cessation of service. Nor does it serve AC's interest to destimulate the market to the point where people travel less. Since Canada is a resource based country where industries like forestry and mining generate much of our trade surplus, it's rather irrational to say people who don't want to pay sky-high air fares should move to big cities. Other countries subsidize rural and remote air services. Canada does the opposite. We subsidize nothing, while soaking air travellers, and make sure our largest airport is a cash cow from which unjustified revenues are extracted. That brings me to another point. TAXES. The federal government chooses to impose a cost burden on our airlines that is disproportionate to what the airlines of other countries pay for airport access in their country. Canada taxes domestic aviation fuel. Canada raises more revenue from airports than do US airports. Air Canada has said quite plainly that it welcomes more airline competition provided Canadian carriers are put on a level playing field with respect to the taxes paid. Those who champion greater competition should support this - you can go to the GTAA website and sign the petition. The trouble is that the federal government, for all of its rhetoric, looks on aviation as a source of revenue rather than an instrument of economic development, and refuses to create this level playing field.

As for the question of poaching, I'm sorry. The world is governed by bilateral air relationships. I'm not going to listen to bullcrap from SQ about helping serve the Canada-India market via a stop in SEL and a connection in SIN. That's patent nonsense. The Canada-Korea market is being well-served by AC and KE, and future growth should be given to Canadian and Korean carriers like Asiana or SkyService, not to Singapore. The route rights that allow SIN to serve Canada via Korea date back to when there wasn't an aircraft that could fly nonstop SIN-YVR, let alone SIN-YYZ. SQ now has such aircraft, and should be willing to develop a nonstop service and fill the plane with behind-the-hub traffic (Southeast Asia, West Asia, etc.) rather than siphon off traffic from the proper rights holders. More SQ service via SEL is a zero sum gain, and for SQ to argue otherwise is ridiculous. We had a perfect example today of a proper investment with NZ announcing a new AKL-YVR nonstop service. That will promote business and leisure traffic between the two countries. That will be a net gain for consumers and for the economy of both countries. Let SQ have double daily service from SIN with an A380 if it wants, but only if it is nonstop.

SQ is once again showing huge arrogance. They took on a Conservative government in 1992 and got their head handed to them, and judging from the news release yesterday, they have learned nothing and are just as arrogant. I have it on very good authority that they have already managed to anger Lawrence Cannon and that their "demand" has very correctly been moved to the bottom of a very tall pile of files requiring bilateral discussions.


What I do find galling however is that due to Canadian government policy that restricts access to Canadian airports, I am frequently forced to pay a 30% premium on TPE-YVR compared to TPE-LAX.

There is nothing stopping more than one Canadian or Taiwanese carrier from serving TPE-YVR and if the route was as lucrative as you think there would be more than one carrier. The fact is, neither Canadi>n with a 744 - even a full 744 - or AC made money on Taipei. Nor would SQ help by flying via SEL since passengers to/from TPE are not going to backhaul via SIN to go to/from Vancouver. Many factors go into why LAX-origin flights are priced differently. One is higher load factors. Another is a refusal by a flag carrier to cede market share to a competitor. But sometimes lower fares are possible when the market is so large it draws more premium (First, Business Class) travel, and costs are also lowered by amortizing ground handling, sales, marketing expense over more flights. Taipei carriers will also get a much richer cargo haul out of LAX than from YVR because of the concentration of the high tech industry in California. There is a flow back and forth of components and finished computers and devices - considerable computer assembly is done in Taiwan using some US-made components. AC's fares on BR are a reflection not of AC's pricing so much as what it has to pay BR for seats and for the premium BR believes it deserves for a nonstop service. What is not needed is more SQ service via SEL, but a nonstop YVR-DEL service which I assume is coming with the number of Indian carriers gaining nonstop fleet with the necessary range. That will have a beneficial impact on CI's TPE fares, one would assume.

[Edited 2007-02-23 06:33:28]

[Edited 2007-02-23 06:38:11]
 
kiwiandrew

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:39 pm

Quoting Sebring (Reply 25):
The fact is, neither Canadi>n with a 744 - even a full 744 - or AC made money on Taipei. Nor would SQ help by flying via SEL since passengers to/from TPE are not going to backhaul via SIN to go to/from Vancouver. Many factors go into why LAX-origin flights are priced differently. One is higher load factors.

I may be reading you wrong but you seem to be saying that CP sometimes had full a/c and couldn't make money even on a 100% load , then you have said that the LAX flights have higher load factors .

If the LAX-origin flights have load factors higher than 100% are they getting people to stand all the way to TPE ?  Big grin
 
jamincan
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:28 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:54 pm

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 26):
I may be reading you wrong but you seem to be saying that CP sometimes had full a/c and couldn't make money even on a 100% load , then you have said that the LAX flights have higher load factors .

If the LAX-origin flights have load factors higher than 100% are they getting people to stand all the way to TPE ?  

That's cute, but I don't think Sebring suggested CP had a 100% load factor. Every carrier fills a flight on occasion.
 
Nimish
Posts: 2891
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:46 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:42 pm

Quoting Sebring (Reply 25):
I'm not going to listen to bullcrap from SQ about helping serve the Canada-India market via a stop in SEL and a connection in SIN. That's patent nonsense

If you're not going to listen, then please (edited to maintain decorum).

Unfortunately for you SQ is doing a splendid job serving the US-India market - witness their numerous flights to SFO/LAX filling up with at least 20-40% Indians on their way to India via their excellent hub at SIN. There's no reason they would not do that from YVR - and that's what they're asking for.

And BTW, to the pax on India-US/Canada on SQ - it does not matter whether SQ stops in ICN or TPE or goes non-stop, most pax are looking for good service at reasonable prices.

You might have your own objections to SQ getting access to daily SIN-Canada services, but I would recommend a reading of the book "The world is flat" in the interim.

I would also advise you to look at the state of aviation in India (till recently a highly protected environment, supposedly to protect our National Carriers - aka IA & AI) to see what a mess governments and bureaucrats can make when they decide they know what's best for the country, it's people and the world. I'm quite amazed to see that Canada and it's bureaucrats are quite similar!!
Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:16 am

Quoting Nimish (Reply 28):
Unfortunately for you SQ is doing a splendid job serving the US-India market - witness their numerous flights to SFO/LAX filling up with at least 20-40% Indians on their way to India via their excellent hub at SIN. There's no reason they would not do that from YVR - and that's what they're asking for.

Should be noted that YVR-India via SIN, especially DEL which is the major origin/destination for the Indian ethnic market from/to Canada, is between 1700 and 2200 nautical miles further than via all other Pacific gateways since SIN is so much further south. YVR-DEL via SIN is also about 1500 nautical miles further than via Europe. BA/KL/LH carry a high percentage of YVR-India traffic via LHR/AMS/FRA.

Example:

YVR-SIN-DEL 9165 nm
YVR-HKG-DEL 7581 nm
YVR-TPE-DEL 7554 nm
YVR-NRT-DEL 7258 nm
YVR-ICN-DEL 6956 nm

YVR-LHR-DEL 7746 nm
YVR-FRA-DEL 7678 nm
YVR-AMS-DEL 7617 nm

YVR-DEL nonstop (if/when such service commences) is 6026 nm. SQ via SIN is more than 50% further.

Ironically, the shortest current route YVR-DEL is via Seoul, intermediate stop on SQ's current service to SIN, and the routing via SIN is by far the longest, both via Pacific and Atlantic. Interestingly, nonstop YVR-SIN (used in mileage comparisons above) is only 7 nm shorter than YVR-ICN-SIN as ICN is almost on the great circle route.
 
drgmobile
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:06 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:35 am

In the real world, the politicians for whom AC depends on in such matters as international rights do not want the blame laid on their doorstep for fares rising to very high levels or for the cessation of service. Nor does it serve AC's interest to destimulate the market to the point where people travel less.

I truly believe that a more open international market would benefit the domestic sector as well, and yes, even smaller communities. Atlantic Canada, for example, is starting to enjoy some real success in bringing in overseas tourists. Is JAL going to start serving Atlantic Canada? No, but if it weren't for the 1995 reforms we wouldn't see things like Northwest connecting Japan passengers to Charlottetown via Detroit. For some communities the impact is direct, for others less so.

Since Canada is a resource based country where industries like forestry and mining generate much of our trade surplus, it's rather irrational to say people who don't want to pay sky-high air fares should move to big cities. Other countries subsidize rural and remote air services. Canada does the opposite. We subsidize nothing, while soaking air travellers, and make sure our largest airport is a cash cow from which unjustified revenues are extracted. That brings me to another point. TAXES. The federal government chooses to impose a cost burden on our airlines that is disproportionate to what the airlines of other countries pay for airport access in their country.

I couldn't agree more. The biggest benefit to smaller communities would come from lifting some of the tax burden from the shoulders of air passengers.

Canada taxes domestic aviation fuel. Canada raises more revenue from airports than do US airports. Air Canada has said quite plainly that it welcomes more airline competition provided Canadian carriers are put on a level playing field with respect to the taxes paid.

It is worth pointing out that when it comes to air travel to/from Canada, all carriers, domestic and foreign, pay the same taxes. Yes Canada as a country is less competitive because of it, but I'm not sure I agree with the argument that this should be used to justify keeping foreign carriers from serving Canada.

As for the question of poaching, I'm sorry. The world is governed by bilateral air relationships. I'm not going to listen to bullcrap from SQ about helping serve the Canada-India market via a stop in SEL and a connection in SIN. That's patent nonsense. The Canada-Korea market is being well-served by AC and KE, and future growth should be given to Canadian and Korean carriers like Asiana or SkyService, not to Singapore.

The world is governed by bilateral relationships that are increasingly more liberal. Canadian and Korean carriers absolutely should have the opportunity to increase service. The thing is that if they don't always choose to. It doesn't always fit our carriers' priorities or business model. And that is fine. But it shouldn't be used to stop other carriers from coming in, as it so often has. South Korea is a top source of Canadian tourists. I have to believe that the benefits to Canada of additional service outweight the argument that AC needs to be protected.

More SQ service via SEL is a zero sum gain, and for SQ to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

If it makes fares to Canada cheaper and allows for more tourists to visit Canadian communities, I hardly think it is a zero sum game.

What I do find galling however is that due to Canadian government policy that restricts access to Canadian airports, I am frequently forced to pay a 30% premium on TPE-YVR compared to TPE-LAX.

There is nothing stopping more than one Canadian or Taiwanese carrier from serving TPE-YVR and if the route was as lucrative as you think there would be more than one carrier.

Actually, the bilateral is quite restrictive. I believe each carrier is limited to 10 frequenies (a fair amount), I believe limited to Vancouver from Taipei (I could be wrong on that) and no fifths are allowed. The carriers are not making full use of the opportunities available, but the opportunities may not be ideal for what the airlines might like to do because of the bilateral.

The fact is, neither Canadi>n with a 744 - even a full 744 - or AC made money on Taipei. Nor would SQ help by flying via SEL since passengers to/from TPE are not going to backhaul via SIN to go to/from Vancouver.

The failure of a particular airline (or airlines)'s business model to fit a certain market shouldn't preclude making the opportunity available for someone else to take a go, should it? There are plenty of routes that may make sense for one airline and absolutely not for another.
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:48 am

Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 30):
It is worth pointing out that when it comes to air travel to/from Canada, all carriers, domestic and foreign, pay the same taxes. Yes Canada as a country is less competitive because of it, but I'm not sure I agree with the argument that this should be used to justify keeping foreign carriers from serving Canada.

That is simply not true. Fuel for domestic flights is subject to the federal excise tax. Fuel for international operations is not subject to the federal excise tax. If AC, for one, didn't pay this tax domestically, it would have another $100 million a year to support any operation it chooses, including new international services. That's a lot of money. A new international route may cost an airline $10-20 million in startup losses per year for its first few years until it matures. Think of how many international routes AC could support with that. YVR just lowered its landing fees for international operation - regardless of carrier - but not for domestic operations, a form of negative cross subsidy. If you ask AC, they will tell you that they don't make large money domestically, but that if fees or taxes were competitive, they could make a healthy domestic profit that would be reinvested in getting in more new aircraft sooner. So this is a big issue for AC. The money involved is substantial. And if you both dropped the domestic excise tax and got the federal government to put YYZ fees on the same level as other major airports, the annual financial swing would be $200 million or more for AC alone. I know one federal bureaucrat who claims that the reason Blue Skies was crafted as it was - with some notable caveats - is that the Finance Department is unwilling to forgo these cash grabs and therefore TC has adopted a conservative approach to international liberalization requiring some balance in what is negotiated.
 
drgmobile
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:06 am

RE: AC Drops Delhi, SIA Asks For More Canada Service

Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:10 am

That is simply not true. Fuel for domestic flights is subject to the federal excise tax. Fuel for international operations is not subject to the federal excise tax. If AC, for one, didn't pay this tax domestically, it would have another $100 million a year to support any operation it chooses, including new international services. That's a lot of money.

Yes, but AC isn't paying something for its international flights that an international carrier on the same route is not paying. The argument you present is a compelling one, but I still think the issue is a red herring. Afterall, AC competes head to head against U.S. carriers on trans-border routes and more than holds its own. In fact, AC wanted more liberalization there, not less. If the competitive disadvantage is so great, then how come it isn't disasterous in the trans-border market?

Doogie