ChicagoFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:00 am

UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:17 am

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?
 
dumbell2424
Posts: 884
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:45 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:37 am

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

This definition is Safe for Work.
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2355
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:13 am

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 !!
 
UAEflyer
Posts: 1045
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:29 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:17 am

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
Big Balloon, Bigger than the Sun & Moon, Flying High in the Sky.
 
User avatar
Qatara340
Posts: 1604
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 2:07 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:23 am

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
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3977
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:25 am

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...?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3977
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:31 am

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...?
 
kevin
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 5:03 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:31 am

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.
 
Marco
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2000 3:41 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:46 am

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!
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:42 am

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 avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:57 pm

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
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
CPA62
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:13 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:46 pm

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!!
 
sierra3tango
Posts: 540
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:59 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:08 pm

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 ?
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:08 pm

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.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:33 am

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]
 
Marco
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2000 3:41 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:21 am

@ 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!
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:28 am

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
 
ytz
Posts: 3039
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:16 am

I still can't see more access for EK/EY anytime soon.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15697
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:29 am

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]
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:47 pm

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.
 
Gr8Circle
Posts: 2397
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:44 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:07 pm

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 avatar
longhauler
Posts: 5038
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:13 pm

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.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18400
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:21 pm

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 avatar
3rdGen
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:19 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:14 am

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.
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:25 am

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.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:20 am

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 avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15697
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:26 am

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]
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18400
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:50 am

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 avatar
3rdGen
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:19 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:17 am

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]
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:31 pm

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]
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:59 pm

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]
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:59 pm

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 avatar
3rdGen
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:19 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:40 pm

@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.
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
upwardfacing
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:56 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sun Apr 07, 2013 7:00 am

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.
 
upwardfacing
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:56 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sun Apr 07, 2013 7:29 am

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'.
 
upwardfacing
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:56 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:00 am

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]
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sun Apr 07, 2013 10:21 am

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.
 
theginge
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:53 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:58 pm

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.
 
ytz
Posts: 3039
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sun Apr 07, 2013 7:35 pm

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?
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:44 pm

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.
 
upwardfacing
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:56 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:52 am

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.
 
upwardfacing
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:56 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:08 am

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.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:39 am

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 avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15697
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:41 am

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?
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18400
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:26 am

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
 
upwardfacing
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:56 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:34 am

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.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:09 am

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 avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15697
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:03 pm

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.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3020
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:14 pm

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!!
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

RE: UAE Carriers' Canadian Rights

Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:13 pm

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.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos