I was reading today a very recent article which quotes Air Canada CEO Calin Rovinescu as working to provide regulatory and security clearances with the help
of Lufthansa at Beirut International Airport to provide non stop services from Montreal to Beirut, long awaited.

Not sure if anyone else has more information on this? I remember the route being announced (and subsequently withdrawn) in 2003 and believe this service will
be extremely profitable.

http://atwonline.com/airports-routes/ai ... irut-route

The problem in my view was Hezbollah's complete control of the area around the airport and its ability to bypass airport security if it so wished. Hezbollah's power has increased since then. If it was the US that pressured Canada in cancelling the service in 2003, the pressure is likely to be greater now. But who know maybe Canada will insist this time. I personally doubt it.

Hisham.

Hope it works this time. If BEY is safe enough for double daily LH, Daily BA, double daily AF.. and crew layover of those airlines, don't see why it is not safe for AC.

LH, BA and AF are not in countries bordering the US which is confronting Iran.

Hisham.

AC can always make a security stop somewhere in EU west bound! PAX, plane, and cargo checked... Direct eastbound! Then they asses the situation..

hisham wrote:

LH, BA and AF are not in countries bordering the US which is confronting Iran.

Hisham.

Could you please elaborate? You lost me... Would AM also run an added risk then?

ME720 wrote:

AC can always make a security stop somewhere in EU west bound! PAX, plane, and cargo checked... Direct eastbound! Then they asses the situation..

I'm not familiar with the situation, but if the problem really is Hizbollah and their ability to bypass security at the airport, then even the BEY-BRU leg (or whatever they would choose as a stop) would be worrisome. But then again, BA, AF, LH, TK and others are not from countries that haven't been targeted by terrorists either.

Hizbollah is only a risk for Israel. Not other countries.. Tens of daily flights from BEY to EU ..(ME, and EU carriers) not a single event since the end of the Lebanese civil war in 1990. US - BEY ban is purely political. Besides, Lebanon is NOT governed by Hizbollah alone. Many factions in Lebanese parliament and government are US allies.

The word was that the US pressured Canada to cancel the service in 2003. Whether they would also pressure Mexico, I don't know. I'm not an intelligence officer to know all the threats. Hezbollah (and Iran) has a much bigger problems with the US than Europe. That's especially true now that Trump is putting a lot of pressure on Iran.

Hisham.

The only thing stopping this is the US. It was the same the last time. There were crews in BEY to operate the return inaugural and the US stepped in with some type of govt to govt wrangling and the route was cancelled the day before it was to start.

AC wants this as it would be a license to print money. But I would not hold my breath.

The problem is not who governs Lebanon. The issue is that Hezbollah's military arm can bypass security at the airport without the government even knowing. It is not true that Hezbollah only targets Israel. It is accused of an attack in Argentina in 1994 and a terrorist plot in Egypt in 2009.

Hisham.

I don't understand how the US can dictate to Canada, its own sovereign nation, what routes it can and cannot serve.

What would the US use to back up it's resistance to the route this time? Softwood lumber duties, support of a Boeing lawsuit against Bombardier, increased border hassles?

sixtyseven wrote:

The only thing stopping this is the US. It was the same the last time. There were crews in BEY to operate the return inaugural and the US stepped in with some type of govt to govt wrangling and the route was cancelled the day before it was to start.

AC wants this as it would be a license to print money. But I would not hold my breath.

I'm amazed at this printing money stuff.... Well, what I really wonder is why this would be such a coveted route. Are there huge business ties between the Lebanon and Québec, or Canada? I can't imagine tourism being huge. And if there is a VFR market, surely it must be low-yield and accurately catered for by the multiple European connections available?

On a more general note, I'm fascinated by how the Canadian market seems to be fragmented so that flights from francophone countries (almost?) always prefer Montreal as compared to Toronto. Again, is this based on VFR traffic only?

a320fan wrote:

I don't understand how the US can dictate to Canada, its own sovereign nation, what routes it can and cannot serve.

Are you serious? It's called politics. Politics is outweighing economics in this case, and it's doing so very easily. Remember this isn't the government of Canada trying to start this. It's an airline. The government is weighing the pros and cons of letting this happen and the pros aint outweighing the cons.

MalevTU134 wrote:

I'm amazed at this printing money stuff.... Well, what I really wonder is why this would be such a coveted route. Are there huge business ties between the Lebanon and Québec, or Canada? I can't imagine tourism being huge. And if there is a VFR market, surely it must be low-yield and accurately catered for by the multiple European connections available?

On a more general note, I'm fascinated by how the Canadian market seems to be fragmented so that flights from francophone countries (almost?) always prefer Montreal as compared to Toronto. Again, is this based on VFR traffic only?

You're second paragraph. That's a joke right? You are fascinated at the fact that Intl Francophone destinations seem to mostly serve a Francophone city/province. You're easily fascinated I guess.

As to your first statement. It's called connections. Nobody in North America flies there. AC would stream vast connections through Montreal on top of a massive Lebanese population there.

There are about 200k Lebanese-Canadians in Quebec. That's all. Some of them wealthy. But it's not business route per se. Air Canada does get part of their business anyway. YUL-CDG-BEY is very popular. I flew BOS-YYZ-ATH-BEY last year. ATH-BEY was on MEA.
The whole thing was dirt cheap.

Hisham.

YUL-GVA-BEY as well
GVA - BEY codeshared with AC operated by MEA
And YUL-GVA codeshared with MEA operated AC
The same arrangement YUL-LHR-BEY

raffik wrote:

I was reading today a very recent article which quotes Air Canada CEO Calin Rovinescu as working to provide regulatory and security clearances with the help
of Lufthansa at Beirut International Airport to provide non stop services from Montreal to Beirut, long awaited.

Not sure if anyone else has more information on this? I remember the route being announced (and subsequently withdrawn) in 2003 and believe this service will
be extremely profitable.

http://atwonline.com/airports-routes/ai ... irut-route

Wouldn't put too much weight on that article. It has a few errors.

Montreal -Algiers will be operated by Rouge B763s, not AC 787s.

And a potential YUL-BEY will also most likely be operated by Rouge, as the route is leisure oriented.

sixtyseven wrote:

a320fan wrote:

I don't understand how the US can dictate to Canada, its own sovereign nation, what routes it can and cannot serve.

Are you serious? It's called politics. Politics is outweighing economics in this case, and it's doing so very easily. Remember this isn't the government of Canada trying to start this. It's an airline. The government is weighing the pros and cons of letting this happen and the pros aint outweighing the cons.

MalevTU134 wrote:

I'm amazed at this printing money stuff.... Well, what I really wonder is why this would be such a coveted route. Are there huge business ties between the Lebanon and Québec, or Canada? I can't imagine tourism being huge. And if there is a VFR market, surely it must be low-yield and accurately catered for by the multiple European connections available?

On a more general note, I'm fascinated by how the Canadian market seems to be fragmented so that flights from francophone countries (almost?) always prefer Montreal as compared to Toronto. Again, is this based on VFR traffic only?

You're second paragraph. That's a joke right? You are fascinated at the fact that Intl Francophone destinations seem to mostly serve a Francophone city/province. You're easily fascinated I guess.

As to your first statement. It's called connections. Nobody in North America flies there. AC would stream vast connections through Montreal on top of a massive Lebanese population there.

Well, yes, I'm fascinated, because no airline makes money just because the say Bonsoir instead of Good Evening to you when they open the L1 door. And why would Moroccan, Algerian, Belgian, Swiss and now Lebanese companies do more business in Montreal than in Toronto, which is the commercial and business hub of Canada? None of these countries has historical/cultural/colonial ties to Québec or Canada. Or, again, is it purely for the low-yield VFR traffic?

And if it's about connections, then you contradict yourself, as YYZ would offer far better and more connections on AC. And those "vast connections" would come from where? A small country of less than 6 million people, most of whom will never set foot in North America in their entire life, for several reasons?
I'm not trying to argue, just genuinely curious...

Montreal is being grown as a hub. This would strengthen that.

Skywatcher wrote:

What would the US use to back up it's resistance to the route this time? Softwood lumber duties, support of a Boeing lawsuit against Bombardier, increased border hassles?

With the current administration all bets are off. If AC were confident in the security and making some money on the route, the current events in D.C. "may" distract any opposition.

MalevTU134 wrote:

Well, yes, I'm fascinated, because no airline makes money just because the say Bonsoir instead of Good Evening to you when they open the L1 door. And why would Moroccan, Algerian, Belgian, Swiss and now Lebanese companies do more business in Montreal than in Toronto, which is the commercial and business hub of Canada? None of these countries has historical/cultural/colonial ties to Québec or Canada. Or, again, is it purely for the low-yield VFR traffic?

And if it's about connections, then you contradict yourself, as YYZ would offer far better and more connections on AC. And those "vast connections" would come from where? A small country of less than 6 million people, most of whom will never set foot in North America in their entire life, for several reasons?
I'm not trying to argue, just genuinely curious...

I'll attempt this...

I dont have any insight into connecting traffic numbers or yields, but YUL is a big city in "La francophonie" which is sortof a language/culture-based commonwealth linking France and other places that French language or culture is prominent, in many cases a vestige of past colonialism.

There are more business and cultural ties between these other francophone countries and business centers and Montreal than with Toronto as a result. Basically, the same reason AF flies most of their Canada seats to YUL, is related to why we have these once a day flights to other French speaking markets that have no Toronto service. Routing it all to YYZ hub woud indeed ignore the prevailing O&D city in canada for this traffic is YUL for the reasons stated.

YUL is also no YYZ in volume of flights or depth of destinations but plenty adequate to serve what onwards traffic there is, with nonstop to all the major Canadian cities and nonstop either with AC/* partner UA or interlined with DL or AA to NYC, WAS, LAX, MIA/FLL, ORD, DTW, DFW, ATL, PHL, MSP...

the airport is set up for and carries onwards connections in spite of Toronto 300 miles away.

As to Switzerland, AC flies the YYZ route and LX or previously SR flies the YUL route, since like the 70's or 80's at least.

a320fan wrote:

I don't understand how the US can dictate to Canada, its own sovereign nation, what routes it can and cannot serve.

The same way Middle Eastern countries dictate to one another what they can and can't do for fear of retaliation.

Hats off to Canada. They don't indulge in the hateful anti Muslim rhetoric, but where it counts they act to prevent such an attack vector from opening up.

I find it silly that AC was never able to fly to BEY in 2003. First of all, airlines like British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, Vueling, Turkish Airlines, etc all fly to to the city. As well, despite the fact that the flight to BEY was cancelled in 2003 due to security fears, other airlines from other countries still flew to BEY despite if it even existed.

Hopefully a YUL-BEY route will be a reality one day, without fears of security.

hisham wrote:

There are about 200k Lebanese-Canadians in Quebec. That's all. Some of them wealthy. But it's not business route per se. Air Canada does get part of their business anyway. YUL-CDG-BEY is very popular. I flew BOS-YYZ-ATH-BEY last year. ATH-BEY was on MEA.
The whole thing was dirt cheap.

Hisham.

My last trip to BEY was LAX-CDG-BEY and returning BEY-CDG-SLC on AF/ME/DL. $845 r/t. The 388 from LAX actually had about a dozen others aside from myself connecting to the ME flight.

I payed $650 for BOS-YYZ-ATH-BEY-CDG-YUL-BOS on AC

Hisham.

You couldn't pay me 650 for that routing. Congrats

The situation in Lebanon has not changed between 2003 and now. If it was a security concern from US then for it to pressure Canada (and AC) to cancel the route, it certainly has the same reason to do so today. Whether that reason is valid from anyone's point of view is not relevant.

However, this much I can say, this time around, Canada and Canadians are in a much less giving mood to give in to demands like this from US. Since US has already put NAFTA and Paris on the table, there is not many more threats it can use to pressure Canada to yield anything else. It's purely "the art of the deal". For Canada, the worst case scenario is already a possibility in terms of its relation with US, regardless of whether AC flies to BEY or not. So there is nothing to lose.

As a Canadian I can say for sure that many people I communicate with are sick of the increasing number of trade attacks by the Americans that are happening. Push back will be more and more likely as this issue moves forward for sure. People generally don't like feeling like they're being bullied. Any repeat of the 2003 route withdrawal request by the U.S. will get wound up into the current deteriorating situation and very likely be rejected. What's to lose anymore?

We are assuming that the US bullied Canada in doing something unreasonable. It could very well be that the US convinced the Canadian government by sharing intelligence and that Canada is no longer willing to allow this route.

Hisham.

hisham wrote:

We are assuming that the US bullied Canada in doing something unreasonable. It could very well be that the US convinced the Canadian government by sharing intelligence and that Canada is no longer willing to allow this route.

Hisham.

It seems like you dont want this service to happen all your posts give that vibe.

[code][/code]

hisham wrote:

We are assuming that the US bullied Canada in doing something unreasonable. It could very well be that the US convinced the Canadian government by sharing intelligence and that Canada is no longer willing to allow this route.

Hisham.

Well that assumption is largely being made due to the fact that the big airlines from other big US allies such as the UK France and Germany are still continuing to serve BEY. The obvious difference being their location across an ocean from America rather than across the w̶o̶r̶l̶d̶e̶s̶t̶ worlds longest unprotected border.

I don't disagree that there could be reasons the public is not made aware of, but looking at the bigger picture there are inconsistencies that are problematic to explain if you follow the logic a little farther.

CanadaFair wrote:

hisham wrote:

We are assuming that the US bullied Canada in doing something unreasonable. It could very well be that the US convinced the Canadian government by sharing intelligence and that Canada is no longer willing to allow this route.

Hisham.

It seems like you dont want this service to happen all your posts give that vibe.

If you're going to read my mind, I'll read yours. The fact that you didn't comment on the vibe from anybody else suggest that you want the route to happen.

All I'm saying is that this route is not that important if there are genuine security concerns. It doesn't inconvenience people all that much and Air Canada is transporting people going to BEY anyway (with AF/MEA sharing the profits I would concede).

Hisham.

For sure AC would see YUL-BEY as an opportunity to be launched. They would control the North American feed better and cut out the Europe-BEY portion of the business. Win-win.
I would think AF/KL, TK and RJ would be the biggest losers while ME would probably hop on BEY-YUL as well.
Bring it on. Competition is good! It always surprises me how the U.S. is so anti-competitive by wrapping it up in their flag.

Skywatcher wrote:

For sure AC would see YUL-BEY as an opportunity to be launched. They would control the North American feed better and cut out the Europe-BEY portion of the business. Win-win.
I would think AF/KL, TK and RJ would be the biggest losers while ME would probably hop on BEY-YUL as well.
Bring it on. Competition is good! It always surprises me how the U.S. is so anti-competitive by wrapping it up in their flag.

I dunno. ME seems to be content (sort of) by feeding AF with 3 daily A330's to CDG, in addition to AF's 2 777-300's (or is it back to one now?) On the AC front, it makes me wonder if a YUL-BEY routing would be covered in the JV AC has with UA and the LH group. I'd try it out just to say I did it, unless it's on the 787. But to be honest, I dont mind the back tracking myself from SLC to LAX, then either to CDG or SVO then on into BEY.

You inflated BEY-CDG by a bit. It's 2 daily ME A332 and one daily AF 77W (an AF A330/A340 is added in the summer).

One issue with ME competing on very long haul such as BEY-YUL is their modest business class and lack of first class.

Hisham.

Hisham.

hisham wrote:

You inflated BEY-CDG by a bit. It's 2 daily ME A332 and one daily AF 77W (an AF A330/A340 is added in the summer).

One issue with ME competing on very long haul such as BEY-YUL is their modest business class and lack of first class.

Hisham.

Hisham.

Forgive me. I honestly don't think lack of a 3-cabin aircraft is much of a downturn for ME. I don't think we'll ever see them serve places like YUL, JFK, or GIG again, but, for what they do serve, they have a fairly decent product that I truly enjoy. I don't think we'll see them ever get back into the real long haul services like they used to do, but they do a great job being the "regional" mainline carrier they are. They know they will never be one of the big 3, nor should they be.

I agree about 3 class but a better J would be needed if they want to compete on a 10-12 hour flight.

Well, countless European airlines have provided safe and efficient service to Beirut for decades now. I hope AC stick to their guns and at least are able to try the route.
For those saying there is not enough market to provide a proftable non stop service, I disagree. Many Lebanese are having to transfer to connect to North America - Turkish, Birtish Airways, Air France etc. Even the likes of Royal Jordanian and Emirates to a lesser extent for people who are willing to back track.

I find it odd that it would be "safer" to have services between the Americas and the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar which have some truly questionable alliances with terrorist organisations than Lebanon.

I find it amazing that some people cannot see the difference between the situation in Lebanon as opposed to other middle eastern countries. The governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt are in charge of their jurisdictions. Their politics may be problematic but they do not subordinate themselves to nongovernmental armed groups. The Lebanese government subordinates itself to Hezbollah when it comes to security. Hezbollah occupied the whole of Beirut in 2007 and the army/police watched without lifting a finger. Hezbollah has cameras monitoring aircraft and airport activity illegally.

I appreciate that you want Beirut to prosper and get more connected but don't delude yourself that Beirut can have flights to the US (and Canada) like Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia...

Hisham.

hisham wrote:

I find it amazing that some people cannot see the difference between the situation in Lebanon as opposed to other middle eastern countries. The governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt are in charge of their jurisdictions. Their politics may be problematic but they do not subordinate themselves to nongovernmental armed groups. The Lebanese government subordinates itself to Hezbollah when it comes to security. Hezbollah occupied the whole of Beirut in 2007 and the army/police watched without lifting a finger. Hezbollah has cameras monitoring aircraft and airport activity illegally.

I appreciate that you want Beirut to prosper and get more connected but don't delude yourself that Beirut can have flights to the US (and Canada) like Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia...

Hisham.

Could not agree more with this statement. Anyone who knows even a little about Lebanon and Hezbollah would agree with this.

the direct flight ban is purely political and hypocritical, the same way flights from Iran to USA are banned.. for political, not security reasons... KSA, Qatar, Pakistan, and others in the region have direct links to IS and al Qaeda ... I can confirm that the situation in Beirut is as secure if not more so than most other cities in the region... LH, BA, AF, and 40 other airlines seem to agree!

ME720, you confirmed nothing about the security situation in Beirut. Should we just take your word?

Hisham.

MalevTU134 wrote:

Well, yes, I'm fascinated, because no airline makes money just because the say Bonsoir instead of Good Evening to you when they open the L1 door. And why would Moroccan, Algerian, Belgian, Swiss and now Lebanese companies do more business in Montreal than in Toronto, which is the commercial and business hub of Canada? None of these countries has historical/cultural/colonial ties to Québec or Canada. Or, again, is it purely for the low-yield VFR traffic?

On a business perspective, Montreal is interesting for business from francophone trying to set foot in north america because a large part of our workforce is bilingual, so easy to communicate with the head office lets say in France, and at the same time, communicate with other areas in North America that are english speaking. Also, the other way around, many Quebec companies have a tendency to look at countries like france rather than uk or germany when they want to start their european expansion due to cultural links and language, same goes for investors in small/medium size firms they look at francophone countries for investments often before other language countries because it can make the deal easier to happen, you speak the same language as the seller.

Just like the new waves of flights from maghreb regions to Montreal in the last few years (AC, TunisAir, Air Algerie) is a result of both increase in demand from VFR, tourism from Quebec to those countries, and business relations that are increasing between those countries, they all want a piece of the pie at the expense of mainly AirFrance which is the largest foreign carrier in Montreal.

Close to 7.5 million pax flew in and out of BEY last year... the situation has been stable for the past 27 years at BEY airport! Not a single incident (except for the ET crash, caused by bad weather!) ... many airlines fly in and out... many aircraft parked at the apron overnight including BA.. actions not word, no need Tom take my word for anything... we are not discussing politics, but security. BEY is secure enough for flights.. CCS is NOT more secure than BEY, yet direct links to the US. (At least until a few weeks ago).. the ban is purely political!

Number of pax and European airlines using BEY does not matter. Hezbollah and Iran consider the US as their enemy not Europe. The Iranian president was in Europe last year. Anyway, this discussion is going in circles so I'm will no longer talk about the security issues in this thread.

Hisham.

I am not familiar with the security situation at Bey, nor with rumors regarding political pressure.
However:
1) US airlines ceased service to IST way before any security concerns (AC suspended service due to security concerns earlier this year). BEY is a smaller destination with less business ties in the US.
2) AC flies to Cuba despite US resistance, why would they succumb to pressure regarding BEY?
3) There are quite a few capitals in the region with no security concerns and no direct flights to the US or Canada: OTP, PRG, Sofia, BEG, BUD, Etc

Bottom line: I am not sure the absence of direct flights to NA is not a business decision.

There are direct flights from YYZ to both Prague and Budapest on a seasonal basis.

hisham wrote:

Number of pax and European airlines using BEY does not matter. Hezbollah and Iran consider the US as their enemy not Europe. The Iranian president was in Europe last year. Anyway, this discussion is going in circles so I'm will no longer talk about the security issues in this thread.

Hisham.

I respect your opinion Hisham but we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

An airport which for three decades has seen safe operation in my opinion is doing something right. I fly regularly in and out of Beirut and
the checks each passenger has to go through even before reaching the check in desks is more thorough than that of airports I travel through
across the world. A bomb was placed on an A321 in Egypt travelling to Moscow yet Egyptian airports are deemed safe enough for direct services.
Countless other security breaches across the world yet Beirut is "unsafe". It is clear it is politically motivated