1900Driver wrote:ElPistolero wrote:Thats nice, but not gonna happen. The article says they still aren’t allowed daily to one point in Canada. What are they at in YYZ - are they still stuck in Transport Canada’s 1970s “three weekly” policy, or have they progressed to a 1980s “four weekly”. Maybe by 2030, they’ll make it to YYZ daily plus 3 weekly YUL. When did they start anyway - 2013?
The real decision maker here is AC. If it objects, Transport Canada will do what it’s told. I’d like to see ET fly here more, but that’s not how Canada works. AC and WS have been adding capacity (sometimes at +10% YoY) for half a decade now, which tells a story about growing demand, but whatever it is, it’s lost on Transport Canada, who still don’t think there’s enough demand to give daily frequency to several carriers, not just ET.
The last time ET spoke about its desire for daily frequencies (it had to start at 2 or 3 weekly because apparently that makes sense in 2013), way back when it started, a couple of hacks from a certain Canadian airline insisted on this site that that was a case of (something to the effect of): “ET would say that, wouldn’t they, but they don’t really mean it”. I suspect they’re telling TC that right now.
Please spare us with your innuendos and smoke screens. Canada has open sky agreements with many countries and has a “2030” perspective as you say. It is incumbent upon ET through their government (ET 100% gov owned), to negotiate for more access in the bilateral agreement. If I were the Canadian Gov, I would want to determine if there is any benefit to granting a subsidized airline more access to your markets.
Innuendo? Perhaps I’m not being clear: regulatory capture. Not just on bilateral agreements either. Ask your pilot friends how they feel about rest rules. I remember a few of them being quite unhappy with the revised set. Double-edged sword, that.
But I digress. The problem with regulatory capture is that Transport Canada’s method for determining benefits is based not on benefits to consumers, but on benefits to suppliers aka AC and now maybe WS. The “benefits” of granting access to subsidized airlines is self-evident: Canadians (the ones who don’t work for AC) are not worse off because CA, AI, NZ etc operate to Canada and are majority of fully owned by governments. Consumers are better off for it.
It’s worth pointing out that AI and CA and other Chinese carriers literally distort markets (wasn’t there a thread here about it recently?). If Transport Canada was objective about implementing its alleged criteria, AI and CA would be severely restricted. But they’re not, because AC is okay with it. The problem for ET is that AC isn’t interested in Ethiopia. Ergo, no matter what case Ethiopia makes, AC will veto it, and TC will follow suit. Tough for ET, but that’s the reality of AC policy these days.
As an aside, this “2030s” Canadian policy is so out of date that the Governments own review described it like this three (3) years ago:
“However, while Canada’s restrictive international air access regime has generally benefited Canadian carriers, they have failed to prevent fast-growing international carriers from indirectly accessing several Canadian markets through nearby U.S. airports (such as Seattle-Tacoma International Airport).29 By this work-around, U.S. airports are benefiting from restrictive Canadian air access policies by attracting Canadian origin or destined air travellers, to the detriment of Canadian airports.
The world is moving towards an open market for air services. Canada’s approach has outlived its usefulness and now renders our air services less competitive, less trade-friendly, and more costly than those of our global competitors.”
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ctareview2014/CTAR_Vol1_EN.pdfIt comes with this radical policy recommendation - or what AC/TC probably consider 23rd century policy:
“The Review recommends that, as a starting point for negotiations, the Government of Canada commit to making more open international air services agreements, beginning with the following measures:
a. a minimum allowance of seven flights per week (7/7 daily service) for each of the air carriers designated by all new and existing air services agreements with any safe and secure partner;
b. all subsequent increases in air access in increments of at least seven flights per week, per designated air carrier;”
That was three years ago. ET and several other carriers to Canada still don’t fly daily. Make of that what you will.
