Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
YYZORD
Topic Author
Posts: 596
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:26 pm

How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 2:25 am

I recently noticed that EY is now flying AUH-YYZ 6x weekly but EK still flies 5x weekly with DXB-YYZ. I was wondering when the frequency of EY increased in Canada and why can't EK fly 6x weekly to YYZ too? Both are airlines based in the UAE and I'd assume they would follow the same air bilateral agreement between UAE and Canada?
 
777luver
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 3:13 am

I believe EY was awarded 6 slots and EK took the rest after crying over not being able to flood Canada with A380s into every major city
 
asuflyer
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:48 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 3:21 am

The UAE and Canada have a limited bilateral which continues to be very protectionist as the Canadian government is very supportive of AC’s wishes. In 2018 Canada increased frequencies for UAE based airlines. Still aviation access to the Canadian market for Emirati airlines is limited and it greatly has and still affects the diplomatic relationship between Canada and the UAE.
 
9252fly
Posts: 1222
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 3:37 am

With AC planned 3x weekly, that's 14 frequencies per week between Canada and the UAE, I think that's enough for now. QR on the other hand has a positive working relationship with AC, so I can see them gaining additional frequencies.
 
ramprat320
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:17 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 4:09 am

For Canada bilaterals are based primarily on O/D are they not? In the case of the Emirates and the like there is very little O/D traffic. It’s almost all connections. Hence there are not more frequencies allotted. Is it protectionist to limit EK and the like from greater access to Canada? Absolutely. As far as I’m concerned that’s a good thing.
 
andrew1996
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:41 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 4:23 am

I wonder why EY or EK doesnt just servce YVR instead of YYZ to gain something closer to a "monopoly" than compete for transit traffic out of YYZ. I think that's partly why QR chose YUL instead of YYZ. Granted QR probably would serve YVR, YYZ and YUL if they were allowed to, but who knows after COVID-19 with all of QR's help in transporting Canadians home and QR's new partnership with AC we may see QR having more flights than EY/EK combined in the future for the Canadian market.
 
777luver
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 5:19 am

asuflyer wrote:
The UAE and Canada have a limited bilateral which continues to be very protectionist as the Canadian government is very supportive of AC’s wishes. In 2018 Canada increased frequencies for UAE based airlines. Still aviation access to the Canadian market for Emirati airlines is limited and it greatly has and still affects the diplomatic relationship between Canada and the UAE.


Other countries have the similar limits. Do you think it's fair that EK comes in and flies to every major city in Canada with A380s as they wanted to at one point? Meanwhile Canadian carriers I believe are restricted in DXB, could be wrong on that. Incredibly uneven unfair playing field. Protectionism? absolutely otherwise there wouldn't be any Canadian airlines. I highly doubt it's just ACs wishes.
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 862
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 5:31 am

777luver wrote:
asuflyer wrote:
The UAE and Canada have a limited bilateral which continues to be very protectionist as the Canadian government is very supportive of AC’s wishes. In 2018 Canada increased frequencies for UAE based airlines. Still aviation access to the Canadian market for Emirati airlines is limited and it greatly has and still affects the diplomatic relationship between Canada and the UAE.


Other countries have the similar limits. Do you think it's fair that EK comes in and flies to every major city in Canada with A380s as they wanted to at one point? Meanwhile Canadian carriers I believe are restricted in DXB, could be wrong on that. Incredibly uneven unfair playing field. Protectionism? absolutely otherwise there wouldn't be any Canadian airlines. I highly doubt it's just ACs wishes.


AC can also flying 77W from DXB to every major city in Canada so your claim is not valid at all
 
jmmadrid
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 4:00 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 6:31 am

777luver wrote:
asuflyer wrote:
The UAE and Canada have a limited bilateral which continues to be very protectionist as the Canadian government is very supportive of AC’s wishes. In 2018 Canada increased frequencies for UAE based airlines. Still aviation access to the Canadian market for Emirati airlines is limited and it greatly has and still affects the diplomatic relationship between Canada and the UAE.


Other countries have the similar limits. Do you think it's fair that EK comes in and flies to every major city in Canada with A380s as they wanted to at one point? Meanwhile Canadian carriers I believe are restricted in DXB, could be wrong on that. Incredibly uneven unfair playing field. Protectionism? absolutely otherwise there wouldn't be any Canadian airlines. I highly doubt it's just ACs wishes.


You're just thinking about canadian airlines, but what about canadian passengers? Don't you think that people from Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, etc, would like to be better connected to the world?
 
raylee67
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 6:57 am

YYZORD wrote:
I recently noticed that EY is now flying AUH-YYZ 6x weekly but EK still flies 5x weekly with DXB-YYZ. I was wondering when the frequency of EY increased in Canada and why can't EK fly 6x weekly to YYZ too? Both are airlines based in the UAE and I'd assume they would follow the same air bilateral agreement between UAE and Canada?

The most logical guess would be the bilateral allows 11 flights per week for all UAE carriers to YYZ. It's then up to UAE authorities to allot the quota to any UAE carriers that are interested. So it seems that UAE authority has awarded 6 out of 11 to EY and 5 out of 11 to EK. Bilateral agreements typically do not specify which airline from each country get how many flights, but limiting the total number of flights or even total number of seats for each country. It could limit the number of airlines from each country too.
 
casperCA
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:38 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 7:40 am

jmmadrid wrote:
777luver wrote:
asuflyer wrote:
The UAE and Canada have a limited bilateral which continues to be very protectionist as the Canadian government is very supportive of AC’s wishes. In 2018 Canada increased frequencies for UAE based airlines. Still aviation access to the Canadian market for Emirati airlines is limited and it greatly has and still affects the diplomatic relationship between Canada and the UAE.


Other countries have the similar limits. Do you think it's fair that EK comes in and flies to every major city in Canada with A380s as they wanted to at one point? Meanwhile Canadian carriers I believe are restricted in DXB, could be wrong on that. Incredibly uneven unfair playing field. Protectionism? absolutely otherwise there wouldn't be any Canadian airlines. I highly doubt it's just ACs wishes.


You're just thinking about canadian airlines, but what about canadian passengers? Don't you think that people from Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, etc, would like to be better connected to the world?


The Canadian consumer also benefits from having a diverse set of airlines providing onward connections to the middle east and India. For example Vancouver is served by Turkish Airlines and Air India directly in that market. Indirectly Air France, KLM and Lufthansa. Calgary by KLM. Montreal by a fairly large and diverse set of airlines through European, African and Middle East hubs.

That said if Emirates was overly concerned about not having daily service to Toronto, they could always try to work out a deal with their codeshare partner WestJet to fill in some of the gaps using WS 787 between Toronto and Dubai. WestJet has a few 787 that are not doing much these days.
 
Galwayman
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:20 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 8:56 am

ramprat320 wrote:
For Canada bilaterals are based primarily on O/D are they not? In the case of the Emirates and the like there is very little O/D traffic. It’s almost all connections. Hence there are not more frequencies allotted. Is it protectionist to limit EK and the like from greater access to Canada? Absolutely. As far as I’m concerned that’s a good thing.



It's a good thing for AC, its a very bad thing for the Canadian consumer,tourism,industry, hospitality .... but sure yeah lets put some flight attendants job ahead of thousands of other Canadian jobs and prospects
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10199
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 11:15 am

777luver wrote:
asuflyer wrote:
The UAE and Canada have a limited bilateral which continues to be very protectionist as the Canadian government is very supportive of AC’s wishes. In 2018 Canada increased frequencies for UAE based airlines. Still aviation access to the Canadian market for Emirati airlines is limited and it greatly has and still affects the diplomatic relationship between Canada and the UAE.


Other countries have the similar limits.


Transport Canada notes Blue Skies agreements in 22 countries, plus 'expanded bilaterals' that keep some restrictions in place.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-servi ... ada-canada

The U.S. has Blue Skies agreements with 125.

Open Skies agreements are a form of air transport agreement that the U.S. government negotiates with foreign government partners to provide rights for airlines to offer international passenger and cargo services. They are pro-consumer, pro-competition, and pro-growth. As such, Open Skies Agreements promote increased travel and trade, spur the creation of high-quality jobs, and facilitate broad economic growth.

https://www.state.gov/open-skies-partne ... -aviation/
 
Airontario
Posts: 733
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:04 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 1:06 pm

Galwayman wrote:
but sure yeah lets put some flight attendants job ahead of thousands of other Canadian jobs and prospects


I'm curious what jobs Canadians are losing because they can't fly to DXB twice a day on EK.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 2:58 pm

Well, we’re almost halfway into 2021, so time for the biannual ME3 in Canada thread I guess :P.

YYZORD wrote:
I recently noticed that EY is now flying AUH-YYZ 6x weekly but EK still flies 5x weekly with DXB-YYZ. I was wondering when the frequency of EY increased in Canada and why can't EK fly 6x weekly to YYZ too? Both are airlines based in the UAE and I'd assume they would follow the same air bilateral agreement between UAE and Canada?


Two possibilities:

1. Emergency dispensation for COVID (like QR to YYZ)
2. The latest bilat releases additional slots every year or every couple of years.

777luver wrote:
I believe EY was awarded 6 slots and EK took the rest after crying over not being able to flood Canada with A380s into every major city


This was discredited years ago when the folk making that claim actually read the text of the bilat:

- the bilat predated the creation of EY (signed June 2001; EY launched in November 2003).
- It permitted 6 slots, but limited any single carrier to a maximum of 3 slots, with both countries approval required (i.e. Canada can veto)

The exact text (Annex Section 2):

“The operation of a frequency beyond three flights per week by any one designated airline shall be subject to the approval of the aeronautical authorities of both Contracting Parties.”

https://treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte. ... 6963864090

It’s not clear why this misinformation is still popping up.

9252fly wrote:
With AC planned 3x weekly, that's 14 frequencies per week between Canada and the UAE, I think that's enough for now. QR on the other hand has a positive working relationship with AC, so I can see them gaining additional frequencies.


“Positive working relationship with AC” = additional frequencies. Sums it up nicely. And demonstrates who really calls the shots in Canada.

Personally, I think only 1 million iPhones should be imported into Canada in any given year, because “I think that’s enough for now”. Samsung can scale up a little more if it develops a positive relationship with Blackberry.

Sound logic. And some hilarious nanny state-ism - “that’s enough for now” lol.

777luver wrote:

Other countries have the similar limits. Do you think it's fair that EK comes in and flies to every major city in Canada with A380s as they wanted to at one point? Meanwhile Canadian carriers I believe are restricted in DXB, could be wrong on that. Incredibly uneven unfair playing field. Protectionism? absolutely otherwise there wouldn't be any Canadian airlines. I highly doubt it's just ACs wishes.


Oh? Which country stops EK or EY from flying a daily flight to single city? Not the UK or US (Open Skies), not Australia, nor NZ, not France, not Germany, not Italy, not Japan - that’s the G7 and anglophone countries covered off. Who else should we look at? Togo perhaps?

And which Canadian carriers are restricted in the UAE? It’s all governed by the same bilateral treaty.

jmmadrid wrote:

You're just thinking about canadian airlines, but what about canadian passengers? Don't you think that people from Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, etc, would like to be better connected to the world?


Wrong question. The correct question is: should they be allowed to fly an airline of their choice?

Some Canadians bristle at the notion of Canadians eschewing Canadian airlines for foreign carriers. Some kind of Trumpist “Canada First” nationalist mindset.

Choice =/= bad if it takes pax away from Canadian carriers. They tend to believe that Canadian pax “belong” to Canadian airlines, and to the extent that other carriers are allowed in Canada, it’s only because if they didn’t allow that, Canadian airlines wouldn’t be able to fly anyway. In short, if a Canadian airline isnt interested in flying to that country, good luck. Think old school mercantilism.

raylee67 wrote:
The most logical guess would be the bilateral allows 11 flights per week for all UAE carriers to YYZ. It's then up to UAE authorities to allot the quota to any UAE carriers that are interested. So it seems that UAE authority has awarded 6 out of 11 to EY and 5 out of 11 to EK. Bilateral agreements typically do not specify which airline from each country get how many flights, but limiting the total number of flights or even total number of seats for each country. It could limit the number of airlines from each country too.


This is probably correct, but the Canada-UAE bilateral does specify that no carrier can get more than a certain number of slots without the permission of the other country - see text of bilateral linked above. Perhaps that’s changed following the most recent negotiations.

casperCA wrote:

The Canadian consumer also benefits from having a diverse set of airlines providing onward connections to the middle east and India. For example Vancouver is served by Turkish Airlines and Air India directly in that market. Indirectly Air France, KLM and Lufthansa. Calgary by KLM. Montreal by a fairly large and diverse set of airlines through European, African and Middle East hubs.

That said if Emirates was overly concerned about not having daily service to Toronto, they could always try to work out a deal with their codeshare partner WestJet to fill in some of the gaps using WS 787 between Toronto and Dubai. WestJet has a few 787 that are not doing much these days.


The beauty of consumer choice is that consumers pick the winners. No point redirecting them to hubs they would prefer not to go to if they had the choice. If some of these carriers/hubs fall off... so what? It’s for the airlines to find ways to retain pax, not for governments to sustain losing products by forcing pax to consume them (quotas etc)

Anyway, it’s a big assumption that the LHS and KLs won’t be able to compete. They already compete with EK/EY in the US and UK and India. Quite successfully too.

CrewBunk wrote:


While I am sure the average a-netter thinks getting a menu in Economy or a cheap flight to India is more important than Canada having an air industry, I’m always left with the thought .... who is going to fly to Timmins? It sure won’t be Emirates.


Suspect it has more to do with not being jammed in a 30 inch pitch 787 seat on a 12 hr + flight than it has to do with a paper menu, but if it helps, the catering is several notches better (as is the IFE).

But anyway, you’re right that it won’t be EK flying to Timmins. Foreign ownership rules disallow that.

So maybe Flair. Or Treq? Or Porter? Nature abhors a vacuum etc. If there’s demand, supply will follow. Canada’s air industry is not limited to one airline. Just look at the Canadian north. With cabotage unlikely, it’s a moot question - there will always be room for large domestic carriers.

Airontario wrote:

I'm curious what jobs Canadians are losing because they can't fly to DXB twice a day on EK.


I’m curious what jobs Canadians are losing because they can’t buy iPhones instead of Blackberries.

Begs the question - do we consume products because we see value in those products/those products suit our needs? Or do we consume them to keep someone in a job? We’ve seen both systems implemented in economic terms to know the outcomes (hint: one of them blew up spectacularly in the early 90s).
 
Vladex
Posts: 544
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 4:09 pm

777luver wrote:
asuflyer wrote:
The UAE and Canada have a limited bilateral which continues to be very protectionist as the Canadian government is very supportive of AC’s wishes. In 2018 Canada increased frequencies for UAE based airlines. Still aviation access to the Canadian market for Emirati airlines is limited and it greatly has and still affects the diplomatic relationship between Canada and the UAE.


Other countries have the similar limits. Do you think it's fair that EK comes in and flies to every major city in Canada with A380s as they wanted to at one point? Meanwhile Canadian carriers I believe are restricted in DXB, could be wrong on that. Incredibly uneven unfair playing field. Protectionism? absolutely otherwise there wouldn't be any Canadian airlines. I highly doubt it's just ACs wishes.


I was told that A380 was inefficient so what is the problem with competing with it? Look up UAE and look at Canada on the map and tell me which one is a big bully. Do you think Cuba and Mexico and Canada should have reciprocity as well with flights? If they can't compete with a small country on the other side of the planet then it's not a competition but a conflict bordering on war.
 
migair54
Posts: 2497
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:24 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 5:18 pm

Galwayman wrote:
ramprat320 wrote:
For Canada bilaterals are based primarily on O/D are they not? In the case of the Emirates and the like there is very little O/D traffic. It’s almost all connections. Hence there are not more frequencies allotted. Is it protectionist to limit EK and the like from greater access to Canada? Absolutely. As far as I’m concerned that’s a good thing.



It's a good thing for AC, its a very bad thing for the Canadian consumer,tourism,industry, hospitality .... but sure yeah lets put some flight attendants job ahead of thousands of other Canadian jobs and prospects


It is good for AC but not for Westjet, a big partner of Emirates, they could be doing more business with EK with more codeshares via other Canadian cities to US and beyond, specially since you don't need visa to transit like in the US.
https://www.emirates.com/english/travel ... s/westjet/

A very big part of the Canadian population is originally from from the SE Asia and India, Pakistan, they could benefit from better fares and better travel opportunities, same for the VFR visiting them or for the business travelers and cargo.
 
casperCA
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:38 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 6:07 pm

Vladex wrote:
I was told that A380 was inefficient so what is the problem with competing with it? Look up UAE and look at Canada on the map and tell me which one is a big bully. Do you think Cuba and Mexico and Canada should have reciprocity as well with flights? If they can't compete with a small country on the other side of the planet then it's not a competition but a conflict bordering on war.


It is not so much that the UAE is being a bully, as much as the UAE has values and a way of doing things that is inconsistent with Canadian values.

Canada was using a military base in the UAE to stage and support the deployment of Canadian troops into Afghanistan to help keep the region stable. The UAE started to threaten to expel Canada due to the the restrictions on the number of flights. That says a lot about how the UAE operates. Especially considering the UAE and Canada were in the same coalition.

At that point there is no reason to open up that agreement for negotation. There is a reason for Canada to look at finding a different partner in the region.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 6:23 pm

For everyone so insistent on allowing EK/EY full unfettered access to Canada... are you also willing to have the Air Canada Public Participation Act ended and removed? Removing the Official Languages Act from air carriers in Canada (or rewording it to affect all airlines serving Canada - probably unenforceable)? Should I go on?

The field isn't level, the field is covered in laws and legislation that do detrimentally affect operators based in Canada. Unless you are on the same page of removing those impediments and actually allowing a fully free and open market... your hypocrisy is showing.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 6:42 pm

casperCA wrote:
Vladex wrote:
I was told that A380 was inefficient so what is the problem with competing with it? Look up UAE and look at Canada on the map and tell me which one is a big bully. Do you think Cuba and Mexico and Canada should have reciprocity as well with flights? If they can't compete with a small country on the other side of the planet then it's not a competition but a conflict bordering on war.


It is not so much that the UAE is being a bully, as much as the UAE has values and a way of doing things that is inconsistent with Canadian values.

Canada was using a military base in the UAE to stage and support the deployment of Canadian troops into Afghanistan to help keep the region stable. The UAE started to threaten to expel Canada due to the the restrictions on the number of flights. That says a lot about how the UAE operates. Especially considering the UAE and Canada were in the same coalition.

At that point there is no reason to open up that agreement for negotation. There is a reason for Canada to look at finding a different partner in the region.


This has been hashed over a gazillion times, but googling it will reveal that the UAE didn’t expel Canada from anything; it linked the renewal of a free lease to progress in negotiations that had been going on for two years. There was none. The lease expired. Why did they link it? Good question. Why did it take 2 years to get nowhere in the negotiations? Also a good question. Takes two to tango etc.

As I recall, the folk who had to leave the base didn’t think it was because of only one party to those negotiations. Remember MacKay and his baseball hat?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/po ... le4348615/
Last edited by ElPistolero on Tue May 18, 2021 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 6:51 pm

northstardc4m wrote:
For everyone so insistent on allowing EK/EY full unfettered access to Canada... are you also willing to have the Air Canada Public Participation Act ended and removed? Removing the Official Languages Act from air carriers in Canada (or rewording it to affect all airlines serving Canada - probably unenforceable)? Should I go on?

The field isn't level, the field is covered in laws and legislation that do detrimentally affect operators based in Canada. Unless you are on the same page of removing those impediments and actually allowing a fully free and open market... your hypocrisy is showing.


Why not? The thinking and assumptions behind them are probably as outdated as the 3 weekly frequency limit (probably made sense in the 70s when PanAm was doing RTW flights)

As for the rest, the playing field isn’t level for anyone at the best of times. Canadian carriers get more protection from foreign carriers than US carriers ergo the field isn’t level. US carriers have less regulatory burdens, ergo the field isn’t level (what next - kill Canada-US Open Skies?). AI and CA are heavily state subsidized - ergo the field isn’t level

Except none of that matters when Canadian airlines are interested in a market. Which means none of it actually matters at all. Appealing obfuscation etc.

Anyway I thought ACPPA was going to be phased out or amended or something after that C-Series deal?
 
Vladex
Posts: 544
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 7:07 pm

casperCA wrote:
Vladex wrote:
I was told that A380 was inefficient so what is the problem with competing with it? Look up UAE and look at Canada on the map and tell me which one is a big bully. Do you think Cuba and Mexico and Canada should have reciprocity as well with flights? If they can't compete with a small country on the other side of the planet then it's not a competition but a conflict bordering on war.


It is not so much that the UAE is being a bully, as much as the UAE has values and a way of doing things that is inconsistent with Canadian values.

Canada was using a military base in the UAE to stage and support the deployment of Canadian troops into Afghanistan to help keep the region stable. The UAE started to threaten to expel Canada due to the the restrictions on the number of flights. That says a lot about how the UAE operates. Especially considering the UAE and Canada were in the same coalition.

At that point there is no reason to open up that agreement for negotation. There is a reason for Canada to look at finding a different partner in the region.


That says a lot about both of them. The notion that you and Canadian government think that they can plant the troops for whatever reason and then not allow them to compete with them tells me that this is just a parasitic relationship. There is a price to pay to being a military ally , just like there is a price to pay for being an enemy. If they have a problem , don't get entangled with alliances. Anyway, Afgahnistan war as such is over more or less so this shouldn't be an issue anymore.
 
2travel2know2
Posts: 3056
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 7:53 pm

What does UAE-Canada bilateral has to say about seasonal scheduled charter flights (example) EK between DXB and YUL/YYC/YVR ?
Being only seasonal and definitely not daily, those flights might not be the most attractive product out there for EK Canadian traffic but some void, at least seasonal, may be filled.
A sizeable % of Canadian international traffic is from charters, including those passengers travelling on air-only fares.

If increasing the number of frequencies is such a top priority for EK, Why doesn't EK open EK Canada and have its Canadian subsidiary fly those extra frequencies EK wants ?

Could WS well get a pair of its 787 re-configured to EK specs, painted in EK livery and fly them as Canadian airliners on behalf of / codeshare with EK ?
 
Airlinerdude
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:07 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 8:32 pm

I think the updated bilateral must have a clause allowing flexibility between capacity & frequency. I noticed that the additional frequencies added by EK when they went from 3 to 5 times weekly had a capacity restriction added. I'd have to imagine that because EY down-gauged from a 77W pre-pandemic to operating with a 789 now, that they were allowed to add an additional frequency.
 
hoons90
Posts: 3917
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 9:03 pm

I think a fair compromise is to allow EK and EY to have 7x weekly frequencies each to Canada. The bilatetal can be further expanded once Canadian carriers exhaust their frequencies. Having daily service at least provides the option of planning one's trips in daily increments with same-day connections to/from other parts of Canada.

Someone brought up the analogy of Canada restricting Samsung cell phones from entering the Canadian market, but South Korea and Canada have a FTA that covers the information and communication technology sector. Surely such a deal was signed because both parties deemed it to be mutually beneficial. Canada does not feel the same way about an expanded ASA with UAE and is thus free to exercise sovereignty over its air market as it sees fit.
 
Skywatcher
Posts: 982
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:19 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 9:15 pm

Reasons why I'm not a big fan of EY/EK and the UAE in general;
1) EY/EK are cherry pickers. They use their geographical bonus, cheap hydrocarbons (low fuel prices in Dubai), exploitive labour practices (how many of their low level workers will ever get UAE citizenship?), UAE fiscal/tax benefits (low taxes in a country subsidized by oil royalties) and so on to put competing carriers at a disadvantage.
2) The UAE, although liberal by mideast standards, is not religiously free, democratic, LGBT supportive, women's rights supportive etc. Not a country that I wish my government to help.
3) The UAE was directly involved in the killing of thousands of Yemenis until very recently. Again. not something they should be rewarded for.
4) The UAE buys virtually nothing from Canada. Why fill their pockets unilaterally?
5) The UAE is supportive of massive carbon emissions. Not good.

There is very little political gain from "giving something" to airlines and/or a country (the UAE) that the vast majority of Canadians won't ever visit or even particularly admire.
Why should I care if some people get a cheaper ticket to south Asia in return for ignoring all my above arguments?
I guess it's obvious how I feel.
 
hoons90
Posts: 3917
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 10:12 pm

Skywatcher wrote:
There is very little political gain from "giving something" to airlines and/or a country (the UAE) that the vast majority of Canadians won't ever visit or even particularly admire.
Why should I care if some people get a cheaper ticket to south Asia in return for ignoring all my above arguments?
I guess it's obvious how I feel.


To further support your argument, EK/EY are not even that cheap most of the time. Admittedly I like the service on EK so don't mind paying a bit of a premium for it, but I'm not sure I would do that if I were traveling in a group.

There are dozens of practical choices for travelling between Canada and South Asia, it's incredible. Doable on most major North American, European, East Asian and Middle Eastern carriers that do long haul to/from Canada and South Asia, in addition to carriers based in South Asia. When I worked KE flights at YYZ, connections to BOM and KTM were not uncommon. Even going to HYD, MAA, BLR etc. you have multiple options. I don't buy the notion that choices are limited.
 
Vladex
Posts: 544
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 10:28 pm

Skywatcher wrote:
Reasons why I'm not a big fan of EY/EK and the UAE in general;
1) EY/EK are cherry pickers. They use their geographical bonus, cheap hydrocarbons (low fuel prices in Dubai), exploitive labour practices (how many of their low level workers will ever get UAE citizenship?), UAE fiscal/tax benefits (low taxes in a country subsidized by oil royalties) and so on to put competing carriers at a disadvantage.
2) The UAE, although liberal by mideast standards, is not religiously free, democratic, LGBT supportive, women's rights supportive etc. Not a country that I wish my government to help.
3) The UAE was directly involved in the killing of thousands of Yemenis until very recently. Again. not something they should be rewarded for.
4) The UAE buys virtually nothing from Canada. Why fill their pockets unilaterally?
5) The UAE is supportive of massive carbon emissions. Not good.

There is very little political gain from "giving something" to airlines and/or a country (the UAE) that the vast majority of Canadians won't ever visit or even particularly admire.
Why should I care if some people get a cheaper ticket to south Asia in return for ignoring all my above arguments?
I guess it's obvious how I feel.


1) Jetfuel is marginally cheaper in Dubai than elsewhere and I am sure anyone can buy it locally.
2) I am sure an individual in Dubai is more free and less enslaved than in Canada, USA and Europe being that they have less government and less of an ideology around it.
3) Yes , their government was involved in it . Now look in the mirror whoever you are.
4) And no reason to even consider it with this. I am sure they would buy maple syrup though if they knew about it.
5) Who isn't ? There is over a hundred EV charging stations in UAE today ,
https://chargemap.com/cities/dubai-AE
https://www.dewa.gov.ae/en/consumer/ev- ... argers-faq
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 10:37 pm

Skywatcher wrote:
Reasons why I'm not a big fan of EY/EK and the UAE in general;
1) EY/EK are cherry pickers. They use their geographical bonus, cheap hydrocarbons (low fuel prices in Dubai), exploitive labour practices (how many of their low level workers will ever get UAE citizenship?), UAE fiscal/tax benefits (low taxes in a country subsidized by oil royalties) and so on to put competing carriers at a disadvantage.
2) The UAE, although liberal by mideast standards, is not religiously free, democratic, LGBT supportive, women's rights supportive etc. Not a country that I wish my government to help.
3) The UAE was directly involved in the killing of thousands of Yemenis until very recently. Again. not something they should be rewarded for.
4) The UAE buys virtually nothing from Canada. Why fill their pockets unilaterally?
5) The UAE is supportive of massive carbon emissions. Not good.

There is very little political gain from "giving something" to airlines and/or a country (the UAE) that the vast majority of Canadians won't ever visit or even particularly admire.
Why should I care if some people get a cheaper ticket to south Asia in return for ignoring all my above arguments?
I guess it's obvious how I feel.


“Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.”
Adam Smith

The nature of the suppliers doesn’t really matter; what matters is how the consumer stands to benefit.

If we argue otherwise, we just end up looking like rank hypocrites. After all, no one takes a similar stance on a certain Asian country that not only violates every tenet(by a significantly bigger margin) but actively incarcerates Canadian citizens. Because, among other things - and this being a.net - Canadian airlines stand to benefit.

Now one could argue that in so doing, many Canadians - at least those who’re employed by airlines and those who travel there - benefit. But these benefits are accrued on an individual basis. If that’s the baseline, then many Canadians of South Asian origin (I suspect there’s more of them than there are Canadian airline employees) benefiting from ME3 service provides the same economic rationale.

Which is to say, moralizing is a hazardous game when it’s applied inconsistently. If that is the criteria for permitting EK/EY frequencies, apply it across the board. If it’s not, it’s irrelevant.

But yes, it is in part politics. And minorities are easy to ignore. It’s just doesn’t sit well with the notion of equality - why shouldn’t a Canadian of South Asian origin benefit from Open Skies the way a Canadian of European can?

The fundamental reality that a lot of folk seem to ignore is demographic change. We’re importing what - 100,000 South Asians every year? Going to have to find a way to reflect that in our approach to travel, non? Can’t keep penalizing them economically because their old countries have airlines that struggle at the best of times - (the whole O&D nonsense) - got to find a way that doesn’t leave Canadian airlines dictating how they should travel (you know, like for Europe). Like the US, UK etc do.

Love em or hate em, the ME3 are outsize players in South Asia. They’re part of the solution.
 
hoons90
Posts: 3917
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 11:06 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
“Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.”
Adam Smith


Not sure how relevant this quote is in this day and age, when virtually no country has a completely free market economy. Practically every country has some level of protectionism, the difference lies in the degree and breadth of it.

I don't foresee Canada moving away from having a mixed-market economy.

ElPistolero wrote:
The nature of the suppliers doesn’t really matter; what matters is how the consumer stands to benefit.


If that were the case, there would be no such thing as tariffs.

ElPistolero wrote:
If we argue otherwise, we just end up looking like rank hypocrites. After all, no one takes a similar stance on a certain Asian country that not only violates every tenet(by a significantly bigger margin) but actively incarcerates Canadian citizens. Because, among other things - and this being a.net - Canadian airlines stand to benefit.


Just because the China-Canada ASA has a bit more latitude doesn't mean that Chinese businesses have unfettered access to the Canadian economy. Or are you only counting air transport? Is there something especially egregious about ASA restrictions versus other forms of trade restrictions?

ElPistolero wrote:
Now one could argue that in so doing, many Canadians - at least those who’re employed by airlines and those who travel there - benefit. But these benefits are accrued on an individual basis. If that’s the baseline, then many Canadians of South Asian origin (I suspect there’s more of them than there are Canadian airline employees) benefiting from ME3 service provides the same economic rationale.


Even in economies perceived to be freer, such as the US, consumers stand to benefit more from having access to cheaper olive oil, washing machines etc. but hefty tariffs continue to exist. ASA restrictions are just another form of trade barriers.

ElPistolero wrote:
Which is to say, moralizing is a hazardous game when it’s applied inconsistently. If that is the criteria for permitting EK/EY frequencies, apply it across the board. If it’s not, it’s irrelevant.


It should be applied based on what sectors Canada has the upper hand in. In the case of UAE, that would be air traffic.

ElPistolero wrote:
But yes, it is in part politics. And minorities are easy to ignore. It’s just doesn’t sit well with the notion of equality - why shouldn’t a Canadian of South Asian origin benefit from Open Skies the way a Canadian of European can?


SJWs would be all over this if this represented discrimination or oppression in any form. Yet this issue only seems to be a big deal for a select few aviation enthusiasts.

ElPistolero wrote:
The fundamental reality that a lot of folk seem to ignore is demographic change. We’re importing what - 100,000 South Asians every year? Going to have to find a way to reflect that in our approach to travel, non? Can’t keep penalizing them economically because their old countries have airlines that struggle at the best of times - (the whole O&D nonsense) - got to find a way that doesn’t leave Canadian airlines dictating how they should travel (you know, like for Europe). Like the US, UK etc do.

Love em or hate em, the ME3 are outsize players in South Asia. They’re part of the solution.


One of dozens of players. Also, as mentioned above, EK and EY aren't even the cheapest option most of the time. Price conscious travellers will probably choose a different option, especially if they travel as a family.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 11:32 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:
For everyone so insistent on allowing EK/EY full unfettered access to Canada... are you also willing to have the Air Canada Public Participation Act ended and removed? Removing the Official Languages Act from air carriers in Canada (or rewording it to affect all airlines serving Canada - probably unenforceable)? Should I go on?

The field isn't level, the field is covered in laws and legislation that do detrimentally affect operators based in Canada. Unless you are on the same page of removing those impediments and actually allowing a fully free and open market... your hypocrisy is showing.


Why not? The thinking and assumptions behind them are probably as outdated as the 3 weekly frequency limit (probably made sense in the 70s when PanAm was doing RTW flights)

As for the rest, the playing field isn’t level for anyone at the best of times. Canadian carriers get more protection from foreign carriers than US carriers ergo the field isn’t level. US carriers have less regulatory burdens, ergo the field isn’t level (what next - kill Canada-US Open Skies?). AI and CA are heavily state subsidized - ergo the field isn’t level

Except none of that matters when Canadian airlines are interested in a market. Which means none of it actually matters at all. Appealing obfuscation etc.

Anyway I thought ACPPA was going to be phased out or amended or something after that C-Series deal?
The ACPPA was changed... Barely...

The HQ location was amended to Quebec from Montreal and the maintenance base locations from Winnipeg, Mississauga and Montreal changed to Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec respectively .. not aware of any other changes.

And I am not saying anything existing should be altered as a result... I'm saying that Canada's airlines have every right be upset about airlines like EK or EY being granted more access when there is no benefit to them, their shareholders or their employees in that order unless the Canadian government provides some form of quid pro quo in return. Forcing Canada's airlines to pay for the privilege of flying Canadians and then allowing foreign competition in without those same taxes from countries that do little for Canada's interests and without being held to the same applicable requirements is something I will always oppose.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Tue May 18, 2021 11:51 pm

northstardc4m wrote:
[The ACPPA was changed... Barely...

The HQ location was amended to Quebec from Montreal and the maintenance base locations from Winnipeg, Mississauga and Montreal changed to Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec respectively .. not aware of any other changes.

And I am not saying anything existing should be altered as a result... I'm saying that Canada's airlines have every right be upset about airlines like EK or EY being granted more access when there is no benefit to them, their shareholders or their employees in that order unless the Canadian government provides some form of quid pro quo in return. Forcing Canada's airlines to pay for the privilege of flying Canadians and then allowing foreign competition in without those same taxes from countries that do little for Canada's interests and without being held to the same applicable requirements is something I will always oppose.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


Airlines are, of course, free to take whatever position they want. And they do. That’s besides the point.

The “privilege” they have is operating in a domestic market that is protected (cabotage, foreign ownership etc). That’s sufficient compensation for the taxes they pay. They don’t ‘own’ Canadians; nor should they.

The rest of your argument implies that we need to start restricting any foreign carrier doesn’t pay taxes in Canada. After all, the only other tangible benefit is the benefit that accrues to consumers. Who, curiously, don’t feature in this at all.

Seems “Canada’s interests” is rather narrowly defined as whatever benefits airlines; shareholders; employees. To each their own. But at some point, going to have to acknowledge consumers count too. They stand to benefit. Like I said, Canada’s demography is changing. Need to start viewing the world through a more global lens.

Or else we need to start restricting a lot of non-Canadian companies - airlines or otherwise. Otherwise it’s all hypocrisy and double standards.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Wed May 19, 2021 1:36 am

hoons90 wrote:
Not sure how relevant this quote is in this day and age, when virtually no country has a completely free market economy. Practically every country has some level of protectionism, the difference lies in the degree and breadth of it.


Two things:

1. That quote is the foundation of economic thought in every G7 country today. And the basis for all the liberalized/free trade agreements being pursued. It’s a bit odd that it’s relevance is being called into question.
2. Protectionism <-> free trade is a spectrum, so this is a bit of astraw man. One can liberalize without becoming fully open. It’s not binary.

hoons90 wrote:
I don't foresee Canada moving away from having a mixed-market economy.


Okay. Aside from the fact that it’s embracing free trade in a way it didn’t 40 years ago (witness the collective meltdown when NAFTA came under threat). The direction of travel - globally - is clear. Odd speed bumps like Trump notwithstanding, the world (writ large) is moving away from protectionism towards more liberalization, particularly on ASAs. Why pretend otherwise?

hoons90 wrote:
If that were the case, there would be no such thing as tariffs.


Indeed, which is why everyone is engaging in trade talks to removing them. Just like they’re sliding towards more liberal aviation policies.

hoons90 wrote:
Just because the China-Canada ASA has a bit more latitude doesn't mean that Chinese businesses have unfettered access to the Canadian economy. Or are you only counting air transport? Is there something especially egregious about ASA restrictions versus other forms of trade restrictions?


Unfettered access? Another strawman, I’m afraid Nobody’s talking about cabotage or setting up Canadian subsidiaries - we’re talking about a handful of daily frequencies. EK (or TK) are hardly asking to replace WS on YYZ-YVR.

hoons90 wrote:
Even in economies perceived to be freer, such as the US, consumers stand to benefit more from having access to cheaper olive oil, washing machines etc. but hefty tariffs continue to exist. ASA restrictions are just another form of trade barriers.


.... so what? Unless you’re arguing that those trade barriers are a good thing, not sure what your point is.

hoons90 wrote:
It should be applied based on what sectors Canada has the upper hand in. In the case of UAE, that would be air traffic.


Not possible or plausible. Morals are absolute. An action is good or bad regardless of who is doing it. Applying it inconsistently just demonstrates weakness relative to those one can’t call out - which is an odd thing to voluntarily highlight. Nobody’s going to take one seriously if one criticizes only one actor for certain behaviour, but not the other for more egregious behaviour. In such cases, it’s best to stop pretending one cares (if one did, one would be willing to incur all the negative consequences).

I don’t have any qualms with implementing a moral clause for ASAs. As long as it’s applied equally.

hoons90 wrote:
SJWs would be all over this if this represented discrimination or oppression in any form. Yet this issue only seems to be a big deal for a select few aviation enthusiasts.


Think you might have missed the bit where SJWs are tackling bigger equality and discrimination issues right now, given the issues currently at play.

Question is: would it be wrong to suggest that the same historical/regressive thinking that’s influenced the immediate issues of equality we face today, also taints some folk’s perspective of issues such as this one, that “only affect” this or that group? After all, if one is prone (or accustomed, or unconsciously biased or however you want to characterize it) towards discriminating against other groups, the application tends to be uniform, not just on an issue or two.

The crux of the EK issue (and ET and SV and MS and TK) is that, by their nature and location, they are better positioned to serve specific communities, but that doesn’t seem to count for anything because Canadian airlines aren’t interested in flying to those countries, or most of the points beyond.

However, we need to recognize that demographics are changing (however mildly or slowly), and new Canadians needs need to be taken into account too, regardless of what Canadian airlines make of their preferred destinations.

Like I said, love em or hate em, EK/EY/QR are massive players in South Asia (just go to any South Asian international airport). In terms of connectivity and airports served, they’re miles ahead of others. The “dozens” of carriers you cite don’t hold a candle to them - QR serves what 3-4 times the number of airports as LH?

If the goal of air travel is to afford smooth and convenient passage (that’s the rationale for the JVs, isn’t it?), then when it comes to South Asia, which accounts for about 25% of our immigrant intake every year, the ME3 are inevitably a big part of any solution.
 
hoons90
Posts: 3917
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Wed May 19, 2021 4:00 am

ElPistolero wrote:
Two things:

1. That quote is the foundation of economic thought in every G7 country today. And the basis for all the liberalized/free trade agreements being pursued. It’s a bit odd that it’s relevance is being called into question.
2. Protectionism <-> free trade is a spectrum, so this is a bit of astraw man. One can liberalize without becoming fully open. It’s not binary.


1. A key point of a FTA is mutual benefit. There's no reason why Canada (or any other country for that matter) should enter a lopsided trade agreement that does not benefit it.

The irrelevance of the quote has to do with the absolutist nature of Smith's quote. If you're not advocating for a complete removal of government involvement in the economy, why bring up a quote that advocates for it?

2. The quote from Adam Smith seems quite binary to me. Assuming that it's not the point you're trying to make, and you agree that some government involvement is necessary, where do you draw the line? IMO it should be where both parties are satisfied. Sometimes that doesn't happen and results in a trade dispute. This isn't something that's unique to Canada, it happens all over the world. Doesn't necessarily make either side the bad guy, sometimes both parties can't see eye to eye. Such is life.

ElPistolero wrote:
Okay. Aside from the fact that it’s embracing free trade in a way it didn’t 40 years ago (witness the collective meltdown when NAFTA came under threat). The direction of travel - globally - is clear. Odd speed bumps like Trump notwithstanding, the world (writ large) is moving away from protectionism towards more liberalization, particularly on ASAs. Why pretend otherwise?


Canada, like most other country in the world, is trying to play its cards right. It's most certainly not accepting whatever trade deal that comes its way, nor should that be expected.

ElPistolero wrote:

Indeed, which is why everyone is engaging in trade talks to removing them. Just like they’re sliding towards more liberal aviation policies.


Based on mutual benefit.
Also, not "everyone" is engaging in trade talks to removing trade barriers. Not every government adopts neoliberal policies.

ElPistolero wrote:
Unfettered access? Another strawman, I’m afraid Nobody’s talking about cabotage or setting up Canadian subsidiaries - we’re talking about a handful of daily frequencies. EK (or TK) are hardly asking to replace WS on YYZ-YVR.


Who quoted Adam Smith again?

The amount of frequencies to be allocated should be determined by what both sides can ultimately agree to. In this case, Canada holds most of the good cards so for the most part, it will be on their terms. The UAE has no inherent entitlement to access the Canadian air market and will have to make do with what they have. Sucks for some consumers, but this is nothing new. Consumers around the world have always faced restrictions in terms of what products they can access, based on the framework of trade agreements and restrictions. This will always continue to be the case as long as countries continue to retain their mixed-market economies. In a world of finite resources, the government can't be all things to all people.

ElPistolero wrote:
Not possible or plausible. Morals are absolute. An action is good or bad regardless of who is doing it. Applying it inconsistently just demonstrates weakness relative to those one can’t call out - which is an odd thing to voluntarily highlight. Nobody’s going to take one seriously if one criticizes only one actor for certain behaviour, but not the other for more egregious behaviour. In such cases, it’s best to stop pretending one cares (if one did, one would be willing to incur all the negative consequences).

I don’t have any qualms with implementing a moral clause for ASAs. As long as it’s applied equally.


I never intended to conflate human rights issues with trade disputes (someone else brought it up), but any country involved in a trade dispute has the right to play its cards in a way that advantages it.

ElPistolero wrote:
Think you might have missed the bit where SJWs are tackling bigger equality and discrimination issues right now, given the issues currently at play.

Question is: would it be wrong to suggest that the same historical/regressive thinking that’s influenced the immediate issues of equality we face today, also taints some folk’s perspective of issues such as this one, that “only affect” this or that group? After all, if one is prone (or accustomed, or unconsciously biased or however you want to characterize it) towards discriminating against other groups, the application tends to be uniform, not just on an issue or two.


The government has no fiduciary duty to its citizens/residents to provide them access to the services of foreign companies. It is not an issue of equality.
Are EK, EY and QR the only option to travel from Canada to India? If they are removed from the picture, is it impossible to travel between those two countries? Is it even difficult? I guess if you're really picky and don't want to consider AC, AI, AA, UA, DL, BA, AF, KL, LH, LO, LX, OS, PS, AZ, JL, NH, KE, CI, CX, MU, CA, CZ et al.

No need to look further than this "petition" to see how many people feel passionately about this issue.
https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau ... topic_page
:roll: :roll: :roll:

ElPistolero wrote:
The crux of the EK issue (and ET and SV and MS and TK) is that, by their nature and location, they are better positioned to serve specific communities, but that doesn’t seem to count for anything because Canadian airlines aren’t interested in flying to those countries, or most of the points beyond.

However, we need to recognize that demographics are changing (however mildly or slowly), and new Canadians needs need to be taken into account too, regardless of what Canadian airlines make of their preferred destinations.


New Canadians' needs can be satisfied without EK, EY or QR in the picture.
As a Canadian, I don't have access to the cheapest cell phone plans that residents of other countries enjoy, but I accept it because I know that I live in a country with a mixed-market, regulated economy and accept that the fulfillment of my desires as a consumer will always be limited by things that are above me, like trade agreements.

Canada makes it no secret that it is a mixed-market, regulated economy and welcome people from other countries with open arms insofar as they are willing to accept Canada for what it is, a mixed-market, regulated economy. Once these people become citizens, they are free to support politicians that support neoliberal policies, but democracy will probably continue to prevail on the side that favours a mixed-market approach.

ElPistolero wrote:
Like I said, love em or hate em, EK/EY/QR are massive players in South Asia (just go to any South Asian international airport). In terms of connectivity and airports served, they’re miles ahead of others. The “dozens” of carriers you cite don’t hold a candle to them - QR serves what 3-4 times the number of airports as LH?

If the goal of air travel is to afford smooth and convenient passage (that’s the rationale for the JVs, isn’t it?), then when it comes to South Asia, which accounts for about 25% of our immigrant intake every year, the ME3 are inevitably a big part of any solution.


Is Air India not a thing?
 
casperCA
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:38 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Wed May 19, 2021 8:07 am

[quote="Vladex"]
The point I was making Canada and the UAE are not well aligned in values and how they approach things. Not passing judgment on either. A quote form one of the ministers on the Canadian side at the time was that this disagreement but Canada and UAE relations back 10 years. In that type of environment you should not expect free trade agreements or liberal air agreements to come naturally.

It is not UAE specific, Canada and Saudi Arabia have poor relations as well. Again for a variety of value related reasons.

Canada does not have to have strong and open relationship with every country in the world. It can chose and it has.

As for the government protecting Air Canada. If that were the case they would be much more direct about it. Canada has generally allowed domestic and foreign airlines to compete without favoritism.

In comparison take the US where they have enacted laws that require federal government funded air travel have to be booked on a US based airlines code.
 
LH658
Posts: 1289
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:35 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Wed May 19, 2021 11:59 am

Air India and PIA both serve YYZ and offer plenty of one stop options to smaller cities in both countries. Though I prefer a Euro, Asian, or Middle Eastern Carrier over PIA or Air India due to quality and reliability.
 
Vladex
Posts: 544
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Wed May 19, 2021 4:09 pm

casperCA wrote:
Vladex wrote:
The point I was making Canada and the UAE are not well aligned in values and how they approach things. Not passing judgment on either. A quote form one of the ministers on the Canadian side at the time was that this disagreement but Canada and UAE relations back 10 years. In that type of environment you should not expect free trade agreements or liberal air agreements to come naturally.

It is not UAE specific, Canada and Saudi Arabia have poor relations as well. Again for a variety of value related reasons.

Canada does not have to have strong and open relationship with every country in the world. It can chose and it has.

As for the government protecting Air Canada. If that were the case they would be much more direct about it. Canada has generally allowed domestic and foreign airlines to compete without favoritism.

In comparison take the US where they have enacted laws that require federal government funded air travel have to be booked on a US based airlines code.


There is a variety of ways that Government of Canada and Air Canada collude to prevent the competition which is understandable to certain extent and the name itself implies but I think they overdo it.
 
phxa340
Posts: 1148
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:07 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Wed May 19, 2021 4:19 pm

Canada is sovereign country and can do what they want, full stop. Obviously the UAE doesn’t benefit them much and Canada has shown this in diplomatic decisions. So tired of this mantra that the bigger country is always the bully - when it is in fact usually the smaller ones. EK distorts the market , great for the consumer in the short term, horrible for the consumer long term.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Wed May 19, 2021 5:20 pm

Vladex wrote:
casperCA wrote:
Vladex wrote:
The point I was making Canada and the UAE are not well aligned in values and how they approach things. Not passing judgment on either. A quote form one of the ministers on the Canadian side at the time was that this disagreement but Canada and UAE relations back 10 years. In that type of environment you should not expect free trade agreements or liberal air agreements to come naturally.

It is not UAE specific, Canada and Saudi Arabia have poor relations as well. Again for a variety of value related reasons.

Canada does not have to have strong and open relationship with every country in the world. It can chose and it has.

As for the government protecting Air Canada. If that were the case they would be much more direct about it. Canada has generally allowed domestic and foreign airlines to compete without favoritism.

In comparison take the US where they have enacted laws that require federal government funded air travel have to be booked on a US based airlines code.


There is a variety of ways that Government of Canada and Air Canada collude to prevent the competition which is understandable to certain extent and the name itself implies but I think they overdo it.
They don't collude...

You make it sound like some big scam or back room deal...

The Canadian government is elected to look after Canadian interests... So yes it is protecting Air Canada to some extent... But also WestJet and others. Those are Canadian businesses. They have no mandate or requirements to help any other countries companies do business here unless there is a superior benefit to Canada. Lower airfares to some destinations is NOT overall better for Canada. It's not collusion when the govt in Ottawa is doing what they are elected to do. You want to change it get elected and get a couple hundred others who agree with you elected, that's how it works in this country.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Wed May 19, 2021 6:10 pm

hoons90 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
Two things:

1. That quote is the foundation of economic thought in every G7 country today. And the basis for all the liberalized/free trade agreements being pursued. It’s a bit odd that it’s relevance is being called into question.
2. Protectionism <-> free trade is a spectrum, so this is a bit of astraw man. One can liberalize without becoming fully open. It’s not binary.


1. A key point of a FTA is mutual benefit. There's no reason why Canada (or any other country for that matter) should enter a lopsided trade agreement that does not benefit it.

The irrelevance of the quote has to do with the absolutist nature of Smith's quote. If you're not advocating for a complete removal of government involvement in the economy, why bring up a quote that advocates for it?

2. The quote from Adam Smith seems quite binary to me. Assuming that it's not the point you're trying to make, and you agree that some government involvement is necessary, where do you draw the line? IMO it should be where both parties are satisfied. Sometimes that doesn't happen and results in a trade dispute. This isn't something that's unique to Canada, it happens all over the world. Doesn't necessarily make either side the bad guy, sometimes both parties can't see eye to eye. Such is life.

ElPistolero wrote:
Okay. Aside from the fact that it’s embracing free trade in a way it didn’t 40 years ago (witness the collective meltdown when NAFTA came under threat). The direction of travel - globally - is clear. Odd speed bumps like Trump notwithstanding, the world (writ large) is moving away from protectionism towards more liberalization, particularly on ASAs. Why pretend otherwise?


Canada, like most other country in the world, is trying to play its cards right. It's most certainly not accepting whatever trade deal that comes its way, nor should that be expected.

ElPistolero wrote:

Indeed, which is why everyone is engaging in trade talks to removing them. Just like they’re sliding towards more liberal aviation policies.


Based on mutual benefit.
Also, not "everyone" is engaging in trade talks to removing trade barriers. Not every government adopts neoliberal policies.

ElPistolero wrote:
Unfettered access? Another strawman, I’m afraid Nobody’s talking about cabotage or setting up Canadian subsidiaries - we’re talking about a handful of daily frequencies. EK (or TK) are hardly asking to replace WS on YYZ-YVR.


Who quoted Adam Smith again?

The amount of frequencies to be allocated should be determined by what both sides can ultimately agree to. In this case, Canada holds most of the good cards so for the most part, it will be on their terms. The UAE has no inherent entitlement to access the Canadian air market and will have to make do with what they have. Sucks for some consumers, but this is nothing new. Consumers around the world have always faced restrictions in terms of what products they can access, based on the framework of trade agreements and restrictions. This will always continue to be the case as long as countries continue to retain their mixed-market economies. In a world of finite resources, the government can't be all things to all people.

ElPistolero wrote:
Not possible or plausible. Morals are absolute. An action is good or bad regardless of who is doing it. Applying it inconsistently just demonstrates weakness relative to those one can’t call out - which is an odd thing to voluntarily highlight. Nobody’s going to take one seriously if one criticizes only one actor for certain behaviour, but not the other for more egregious behaviour. In such cases, it’s best to stop pretending one cares (if one did, one would be willing to incur all the negative consequences).

I don’t have any qualms with implementing a moral clause for ASAs. As long as it’s applied equally.


I never intended to conflate human rights issues with trade disputes (someone else brought it up), but any country involved in a trade dispute has the right to play its cards in a way that advantages it.

ElPistolero wrote:
Think you might have missed the bit where SJWs are tackling bigger equality and discrimination issues right now, given the issues currently at play.

Question is: would it be wrong to suggest that the same historical/regressive thinking that’s influenced the immediate issues of equality we face today, also taints some folk’s perspective of issues such as this one, that “only affect” this or that group? After all, if one is prone (or accustomed, or unconsciously biased or however you want to characterize it) towards discriminating against other groups, the application tends to be uniform, not just on an issue or two.


The government has no fiduciary duty to its citizens/residents to provide them access to the services of foreign companies. It is not an issue of equality.
Are EK, EY and QR the only option to travel from Canada to India? If they are removed from the picture, is it impossible to travel between those two countries? Is it even difficult? I guess if you're really picky and don't want to consider AC, AI, AA, UA, DL, BA, AF, KL, LH, LO, LX, OS, PS, AZ, JL, NH, KE, CI, CX, MU, CA, CZ et al.

No need to look further than this "petition" to see how many people feel passionately about this issue.
https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau ... topic_page
:roll: :roll: :roll:

ElPistolero wrote:
The crux of the EK issue (and ET and SV and MS and TK) is that, by their nature and location, they are better positioned to serve specific communities, but that doesn’t seem to count for anything because Canadian airlines aren’t interested in flying to those countries, or most of the points beyond.

However, we need to recognize that demographics are changing (however mildly or slowly), and new Canadians needs need to be taken into account too, regardless of what Canadian airlines make of their preferred destinations.


New Canadians' needs can be satisfied without EK, EY or QR in the picture.
As a Canadian, I don't have access to the cheapest cell phone plans that residents of other countries enjoy, but I accept it because I know that I live in a country with a mixed-market, regulated economy and accept that the fulfillment of my desires as a consumer will always be limited by things that are above me, like trade agreements.

Canada makes it no secret that it is a mixed-market, regulated economy and welcome people from other countries with open arms insofar as they are willing to accept Canada for what it is, a mixed-market, regulated economy. Once these people become citizens, they are free to support politicians that support neoliberal policies, but democracy will probably continue to prevail on the side that favours a mixed-market approach.

ElPistolero wrote:
Like I said, love em or hate em, EK/EY/QR are massive players in South Asia (just go to any South Asian international airport). In terms of connectivity and airports served, they’re miles ahead of others. The “dozens” of carriers you cite don’t hold a candle to them - QR serves what 3-4 times the number of airports as LH?

If the goal of air travel is to afford smooth and convenient passage (that’s the rationale for the JVs, isn’t it?), then when it comes to South Asia, which accounts for about 25% of our immigrant intake every year, the ME3 are inevitably a big part of any solution.


Is Air India not a thing?



To not stray too far off topic:

- The point of the Smith quote is clear: putting consumer interests first results in the most optimal economic outcomes. It doesn’t dwell on government intervention, nor does it call for an unfettered open market (it clearly acknowledges that intervention on behalf of consumers may be necessary). In the EK/EY (any airline with less than daily frequency) case, it’s not clear that consumer interests are factored in at all. Even the review of the Canadian Transportation Act identifies it as something that needs to be addressed.

- Smith advocated against mercantilism, which views everything as balance-of-trade, ignores consumer benefits, and fixates on suppliers. That appears to be what you’re advocating as well. Where Smith (and many of us) would argue that “mutual benefits” include consumer benefits, the mercantilist prism is limited (e.g. whose airline is making more money?!) effectively conflating “benefits for Canada” with “benefits for Canadian airlines. The corollary being that if EK is better placed to serve some Canadians on certain routes than a Canadian carrier is, that’s default bad for Canada. Which is very faulty logic. FWIW, trade deficits aren’t a bad thing either - they get balanced out by surpluses elsewhere.

- Until we acknowledge that “mutual benefits” in the ME3 case include consumer benefits, we might as well accept that mercantilism and free trade (or free-er trade, if you so prefer) are too diametrically opposed to bother discussing aviation liberalization.

- As an aside, the fact that the world has moved towards more liberalization on trade and aviation over these past 3-4 decades is self-evident. Aside from North Korea and a handful of African states, I can’t think of any country that isn’t pursuing more liberal trade terms on a regular basis. Certainly not in the G-20. Can you? Similarly, the aviation market has evolved dramatically over the past three decades - driven by liberalization.

- The “cards” argument is frankly meaningless. Canada isn’t using these “cards” to achieve anything or affect change. There’s certainly no moral imperative associated with it. To the extent that it features here at all, it’s due to the (ironically, morally questionable) opportunism deployed here to justify using personal bias as grounds for broader decision-making that “only affects” some groups.

- The “this is how it is; too bad” approach assumes that aviation frameworks are permanent; what worked yesterday, works today and must work tomorrow. Its a useless approach for an evolving society. The framework today is not beyond reproach or change. If it doesn’t factor in the interests of all communities equally, it is, prima facie, an issue of equality.

- For clarity, we’re not talking about breaking Canadian laws or lowering Canadian standards; we’re talking about letting supply match demand in the same way it’s allowed to for other groups - by factoring consumers (from specific groups) interests instead of prioritizing airlines when it “only affects” this group or that. In that context, we might also want to think about inquiring whether this oft-mentioned “systemic discrimination” which everyone seems to want to tackle, has shaped these “frameworks”, and how we can address that. The debate surrounding the whole thing (on which I have no view) merely reinforces the notion that no one is obligated to accepts things as they are, just because they always have been. I fail to see why aviation frameworks should not be assessed through a similar lens.

- Naming random airlines simply reveals a lack of knowledge about the region. India =/= South Asia. Since 1980, 1.6 million South Asians have immigrated to Canada; ~600,000 are not from India. There are 8 countries in South Asia. The majority of the airlines you’ve listed don’t even fly to 3 cities in South Asia, let alone 3 countries. By comparison, the ME3 fly to 7 of the 8 countries (Bhutan being the only exception). More than any South Asian carrier.

- What about AI? It’s a poorly-run, unreliable and relatively unpopular airline (4th in market share in India). The governments been trying to sell it for 3 years but, despite some lucrative slots, no takers. Ditto PK, which is routinely banned by the EU on safety grounds. Not sure if they were banned in Canada during those periods, but I doubt many of the “O&D”crowd here would put their loved ones on PK (which takes us into the world of lnot “good enough” for me, but “good enough” for “those” people”). Why do you think the ME3 are huge in South Asia?
 
hoons90
Posts: 3917
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Wed May 19, 2021 8:51 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
The point of the Smith quote is clear: putting consumer interests first results in the most optimal economic outcomes. It doesn’t dwell on government intervention, nor does it call for an unfettered open market (it clearly acknowledges that intervention on behalf of consumers may be necessary).


Actually, Smith (at least in the Wealth of Nations) advocates for the government to only guard its borders, enforce the law, educate and build/maintain public infrastructure. Smith calls for the removal of all government intervention in the economy.

Tariffs and import quotas are imposed by most governments in various industries. Do you really think this is being done "on behalf of consumers"?

ElPistolero wrote:
In the EK/EY (any airline with less than daily frequency) case, it’s not clear that consumer interests are factored in at all. Even the review of the Canadian Transportation Act identifies it as something that needs to be addressed.


Most protectionist measures do not put consumer interests at the forefront. In a mixed-market economy, the role of the government is to balance the interests of the consumer and also that of the industry. In a mixed-market economy, consumers can’t always win.

ElPistolero wrote:
- Smith advocated against mercantilism, which views everything as balance-of-trade, ignores consumer benefits, and fixates on suppliers. That appears to be what you’re advocating as well.


Advocating for quid-pro-quo is not advocating for mercantilism. I’m not advocating for Canada to take more than what it gives.

Canadian carriers get 10x weekly frequencies to the UAE, and the UAE gets 10x weekly frequencies to Canada.

ElPistolero wrote:
Where Smith (and many of us) would argue that "mutual benefits" include consumer benefits, the mercantilist prism is limited (e.g. whose airline is making more money?!) effectively conflating "benefits for Canada" with "benefits for Canadian airlines. The corollary being that if EK is better placed to serve some Canadians on certain routes than a Canadian carrier is, that’s default bad for Canada.


Canada’s standard here is quid-pro-quo. Hypothetically, if EK only served 3 cities in South Asia, I doubt Canada would be more open to expanding traffic rights. Until Canadian carriers exhaust their frequencies to the UAE, there’s simply no incentive to expand traffic rights. Waste not, want not.

ElPistolero wrote:
FWIW, trade deficits aren’t a bad thing either - they get balanced out by surpluses elsewhere.


Depends on how diverse the other country’s economy is.

ElPistolero wrote:
- Until we acknowledge that "mutual benefits" in the ME3 case include consumer benefits, we might as well accept that mercantilism and free trade (or free-er trade, if you so prefer) are too diametrically opposed to bother discussing aviation liberalization.


Again, quid-pro-quo =/= mercantilism

ElPistolero wrote:
- As an aside, the fact that the world has moved towards more liberalization on trade and aviation over these past 3-4 decades is self-evident. Aside from North Korea and a handful of African states, I can’t think of any country that isn’t pursuing more liberal trade terms on a regular basis. Certainly not in the G-20. Can you?


Nothing wrong with liberalization if it’s to the mutual benefit of the industries of both countries.

ElPistolero wrote:
Similarly, the aviation market has evolved dramatically over the past three decades - driven by liberalization.


Liberalization done for mutual benefit and gain can definitely be a boon and drive traffic growth, but if it’s done in a way that is lopsided in favour of a particular side, it causes the other side to miss out on said benefits, and becomes a pyrrhic victory when it comes at the expense of its industry.

ElPistolero wrote:
- The "cards" argument is frankly meaningless. Canada isn’t using these "cards" to achieve anything or affect change. There’s certainly no moral imperative associated with it. To the extent that it features here at all, it’s due to the (ironically, morally questionable) opportunism deployed here to justify using personal bias as grounds for broader decision-making that "only affects" some groups.


It isn’t meaningless, because Canada has the upper hand in ASA negotiations with the UAE. The Canadian side has yet to exhaust their allocated frequencies, so what leverage does the UAE have with Canada?

In a quid-pro-quo exchange, Canada has an advantage since it is satisfied with the status quo. There are no personal biases involved. It wouldn’t matter if EK/EY were any less "well positioned" to serve South Asia, since the principle here is quid-pro-quo.

ElPistolero wrote:
- The "this is how it is; too bad" approach assumes that aviation frameworks are permanent; what worked yesterday, works today and must work tomorrow. Its a useless approach for an evolving society. The framework today is not beyond reproach or change. If it doesn’t factor in the interests of all communities equally, it is, prima facie, an issue of equality.


I don’t think that Canada is shutting off all possibility of expanding traffic rights. There’s simply no incentive yet since the Canadian side has yet to exhaust traffic rights. Nothing wrong with being resourceful with what you already have.

ElPistolero wrote:
- For clarity, we’re not talking about breaking Canadian laws or lowering Canadian standards; we’re talking about letting supply match demand in the same way it’s allowed to for other groups - by factoring consumers (from specific groups) interests instead of prioritizing airlines when it "only affects" this group or that.


Once again, consumers cannot always win in a mixed-market economy. There’s a pent up demand in Canada for low-priced, high quality unlimited cell phone plans, cheaper car insurance etc. Do you think these demands are being met in Canada? No. It’s part and parcel of living in a mixed-market economy.

ElPistolero wrote:
In that context, we might also want to think about inquiring whether this oft-mentioned "systemic discrimination" which everyone seems to want to tackle, has shaped these "frameworks", and how we can address that. The debate surrounding the whole thing (on which I have no view) merely reinforces the notion that no one is obligated to accepts things as they are, just because they always have been. I fail to see why aviation frameworks should not be assessed through a similar lens.


To be skeptical and wary of neoliberalism is not to condone this "systemic discrimination" you’re talking about. Restricting access to the products and services of a foreign company is not discrimination or oppression. I’m not South Asian, and I’m also bound by the same 10x weekly limitations as someone who lives near YYZ. It wouldn’t matter if EK hypothetically served 2 cities in India and 10 in South Korea or Japan since Canada’s policy is based on the principle of quid-pro-quo, and not on some far-fetched notion that it intends to restrict immigrants from visiting their homeland.

ElPistolero wrote:
- Naming random airlines simply reveals a lack of knowledge about the region. India =/= South Asia. Since 1980, 1.6 million South Asians have immigrated to Canada; ~600,000 are not from India. There are 8 countries in South Asia. The majority of the airlines you’ve listed don’t even fly to 3 cities in South Asia, let alone 3 countries. By comparison, the ME3 fly to 7 of the 8 countries (Bhutan being the only exception). More than any South Asian carrier.


Irrelevant since the amount of destinations served in South Asia has little to do with the fact that EK/EY/QR can’t get the frequencies it wants. It simply has to do with reciprocity.

ElPistolero wrote:
- What about AI? It’s a poorly-run, unreliable and relatively unpopular airline (4th in market share in India). The governments been trying to sell it for 3 years but, despite some lucrative slots, no takers. Ditto PK, which is routinely banned by the EU on safety grounds. Not sure if they were banned in Canada during those periods, but I doubt many of the "O&D"crowd here would put their loved ones on PK (which takes us into the world of lnot "good enough" for me, but "good enough" for "those" people"). Why do you think the ME3 are huge in South Asia?


While unfortunate, it does not put any additional onus on the Canadian government to grant the ME3 more access to Canada.
 
777luver
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Wed May 19, 2021 9:02 pm

Vladex wrote:
casperCA wrote:
Vladex wrote:
The point I was making Canada and the UAE are not well aligned in values and how they approach things. Not passing judgment on either. A quote form one of the ministers on the Canadian side at the time was that this disagreement but Canada and UAE relations back 10 years. In that type of environment you should not expect free trade agreements or liberal air agreements to come naturally.

It is not UAE specific, Canada and Saudi Arabia have poor relations as well. Again for a variety of value related reasons.

Canada does not have to have strong and open relationship with every country in the world. It can chose and it has.

As for the government protecting Air Canada. If that were the case they would be much more direct about it. Canada has generally allowed domestic and foreign airlines to compete without favoritism.

In comparison take the US where they have enacted laws that require federal government funded air travel have to be booked on a US based airlines code.


There is a variety of ways that Government of Canada and Air Canada collude to prevent the competition which is understandable to certain extent and the name itself implies but I think they overdo it.


Care to elaborate on the "collusion" bit of your post? Its unfounded
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Wed May 19, 2021 11:47 pm

hoons90 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
The point of the Smith quote is clear: putting consumer interests first results in the most optimal economic outcomes. It doesn’t dwell on government intervention, nor does it call for an unfettered open market (it clearly acknowledges that intervention on behalf of consumers may be necessary).


Actually, Smith (at least in the Wealth of Nations) advocates for the government to only guard its borders, enforce the law, educate and build/maintain public infrastructure. Smith calls for the removal of all government intervention in the economy.

Tariffs and import quotas are imposed by most governments in various industries. Do you really think this is being done "on behalf of consumers"?

ElPistolero wrote:
In the EK/EY (any airline with less than daily frequency) case, it’s not clear that consumer interests are factored in at all. Even the review of the Canadian Transportation Act identifies it as something that needs to be addressed.


Most protectionist measures do not put consumer interests at the forefront. In a mixed-market economy, the role of the government is to balance the interests of the consumer and also that of the industry. In a mixed-market economy, consumers can’t always win.

ElPistolero wrote:
- Smith advocated against mercantilism, which views everything as balance-of-trade, ignores consumer benefits, and fixates on suppliers. That appears to be what you’re advocating as well.


Advocating for quid-pro-quo is not advocating for mercantilism. I’m not advocating for Canada to take more than what it gives.

Canadian carriers get 10x weekly frequencies to the UAE, and the UAE gets 10x weekly frequencies to Canada.

ElPistolero wrote:
Where Smith (and many of us) would argue that "mutual benefits" include consumer benefits, the mercantilist prism is limited (e.g. whose airline is making more money?!) effectively conflating "benefits for Canada" with "benefits for Canadian airlines. The corollary being that if EK is better placed to serve some Canadians on certain routes than a Canadian carrier is, that’s default bad for Canada.


Canada’s standard here is quid-pro-quo. Hypothetically, if EK only served 3 cities in South Asia, I doubt Canada would be more open to expanding traffic rights. Until Canadian carriers exhaust their frequencies to the UAE, there’s simply no incentive to expand traffic rights. Waste not, want not.

ElPistolero wrote:
FWIW, trade deficits aren’t a bad thing either - they get balanced out by surpluses elsewhere.


Depends on how diverse the other country’s economy is.

ElPistolero wrote:
- Until we acknowledge that "mutual benefits" in the ME3 case include consumer benefits, we might as well accept that mercantilism and free trade (or free-er trade, if you so prefer) are too diametrically opposed to bother discussing aviation liberalization.


Again, quid-pro-quo =/= mercantilism

ElPistolero wrote:
- As an aside, the fact that the world has moved towards more liberalization on trade and aviation over these past 3-4 decades is self-evident. Aside from North Korea and a handful of African states, I can’t think of any country that isn’t pursuing more liberal trade terms on a regular basis. Certainly not in the G-20. Can you?


Nothing wrong with liberalization if it’s to the mutual benefit of the industries of both countries.

ElPistolero wrote:
Similarly, the aviation market has evolved dramatically over the past three decades - driven by liberalization.


Liberalization done for mutual benefit and gain can definitely be a boon and drive traffic growth, but if it’s done in a way that is lopsided in favour of a particular side, it causes the other side to miss out on said benefits, and becomes a pyrrhic victory when it comes at the expense of its industry.

ElPistolero wrote:
- The "cards" argument is frankly meaningless. Canada isn’t using these "cards" to achieve anything or affect change. There’s certainly no moral imperative associated with it. To the extent that it features here at all, it’s due to the (ironically, morally questionable) opportunism deployed here to justify using personal bias as grounds for broader decision-making that "only affects" some groups.


It isn’t meaningless, because Canada has the upper hand in ASA negotiations with the UAE. The Canadian side has yet to exhaust their allocated frequencies, so what leverage does the UAE have with Canada?

In a quid-pro-quo exchange, Canada has an advantage since it is satisfied with the status quo. There are no personal biases involved. It wouldn’t matter if EK/EY were any less "well positioned" to serve South Asia, since the principle here is quid-pro-quo.

ElPistolero wrote:
- The "this is how it is; too bad" approach assumes that aviation frameworks are permanent; what worked yesterday, works today and must work tomorrow. Its a useless approach for an evolving society. The framework today is not beyond reproach or change. If it doesn’t factor in the interests of all communities equally, it is, prima facie, an issue of equality.


I don’t think that Canada is shutting off all possibility of expanding traffic rights. There’s simply no incentive yet since the Canadian side has yet to exhaust traffic rights. Nothing wrong with being resourceful with what you already have.

ElPistolero wrote:
- For clarity, we’re not talking about breaking Canadian laws or lowering Canadian standards; we’re talking about letting supply match demand in the same way it’s allowed to for other groups - by factoring consumers (from specific groups) interests instead of prioritizing airlines when it "only affects" this group or that.


Once again, consumers cannot always win in a mixed-market economy. There’s a pent up demand in Canada for low-priced, high quality unlimited cell phone plans, cheaper car insurance etc. Do you think these demands are being met in Canada? No. It’s part and parcel of living in a mixed-market economy.

ElPistolero wrote:
In that context, we might also want to think about inquiring whether this oft-mentioned "systemic discrimination" which everyone seems to want to tackle, has shaped these "frameworks", and how we can address that. The debate surrounding the whole thing (on which I have no view) merely reinforces the notion that no one is obligated to accepts things as they are, just because they always have been. I fail to see why aviation frameworks should not be assessed through a similar lens.


To be skeptical and wary of neoliberalism is not to condone this "systemic discrimination" you’re talking about. Restricting access to the products and services of a foreign company is not discrimination or oppression. I’m not South Asian, and I’m also bound by the same 10x weekly limitations as someone who lives near YYZ. It wouldn’t matter if EK hypothetically served 2 cities in India and 10 in South Korea or Japan since Canada’s policy is based on the principle of quid-pro-quo, and not on some far-fetched notion that it intends to restrict immigrants from visiting their homeland.

ElPistolero wrote:
- Naming random airlines simply reveals a lack of knowledge about the region. India =/= South Asia. Since 1980, 1.6 million South Asians have immigrated to Canada; ~600,000 are not from India. There are 8 countries in South Asia. The majority of the airlines you’ve listed don’t even fly to 3 cities in South Asia, let alone 3 countries. By comparison, the ME3 fly to 7 of the 8 countries (Bhutan being the only exception). More than any South Asian carrier.


Irrelevant since the amount of destinations served in South Asia has little to do with the fact that EK/EY/QR can’t get the frequencies it wants. It simply has to do with reciprocity.

ElPistolero wrote:
- What about AI? It’s a poorly-run, unreliable and relatively unpopular airline (4th in market share in India). The governments been trying to sell it for 3 years but, despite some lucrative slots, no takers. Ditto PK, which is routinely banned by the EU on safety grounds. Not sure if they were banned in Canada during those periods, but I doubt many of the "O&D"crowd here would put their loved ones on PK (which takes us into the world of lnot "good enough" for me, but "good enough" for "those" people"). Why do you think the ME3 are huge in South Asia?


While unfortunate, it does not put any additional onus on the Canadian government to grant the ME3 more access to Canada.


I’ll save the mods the trouble of having to see if we’re straying off topic, and reduce it to the salient points:

- Taking consumer interests out of the quid-pro-quo equation on this issue = mercantilism. If consumers don’t count, it boils down to little more than whose airline can make more money - and frequencies are dictated from there. If EK/EY can make more money from daily frequencies than a Canadian carrier can, that’s apparently a bad thing. That’s the bottom line, isn’t it? With apologies, that’s mercantilism.

- The cellphone analogy doesn’t work. The approach to cellphones doesn’t actively discount benefits for / interests of specific communities - it factors them equally. That doesn’t hold true in the EK/EY case, where the benefits for/interests of some groups evidently matter less than others (to the point of bei by “irrelevant”. Which lends itself (rather easily) to a question of equality.

- Canadians of South Asian origin stand to benefit from more EK/EY access. I don’t think that’s in dispute anymore. With their coverage of South Asia, it’s fairly obvious. The disagreement seems to be about whether their interests matter as much as other groups - or even at all (which is an odd thing to dispute in the 21st century, but here we are). Lends itself a little too easily to a question of equality, doesn’t it?

- There seems to be a robust discussion going on these days about how “traditional” frameworks have been affected by systemic discrimination (or is it racism? Can’t keep up.) Evidently a timely one since the travel realities Canadians of South Asian origin are “irrelevant” (which fits neatly with mercantilist ideology). Does make one hope that folk making decisions know about the Canada-South Asia market know more than some here.

- The notion of “this is how it was, is, and always will be” is not only self-defeating, but self-evidently daft. FWIW, it more of a state-directed economy notion than a mixed market one.
 
hoons90
Posts: 3917
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Thu May 20, 2021 1:52 am

ElPistolero wrote:
- Taking consumer interests out of the quid-pro-quo equation on this issue = mercantilism.

Putting consumer interests above all is a neoliberal approach, which as I mentioned previously, is not Canada’s modus operandi. Consumers don’t directly participate in trade agreements between countries, nor are their interests the top priority in a mixed-market economy. By definition, a protectionist policy puts the interests of a country’s industry at the forefront and not consumer interests. The concept of a protectionist policy is irreconcilable with the concept of serving consumer interests.

It would be mercantilism if Canada is demanding that its airlines be allowed to fly to the UAE 28x weekly while only allowing Emirati airlines to have 10x weekly frequencies. Allowing Canada’s own airlines to fly to the UAE 10x weekly in return for Emirati airlines being allowed to fly 10x weekly to Canada isn’t mercantilism. It’s fair trade.

ElPistolero wrote:
If consumers don’t count, it boils down to little more than whose airline can make more money - and frequencies are dictated from there. If EK/EY can make more money from daily frequencies than a Canadian carrier can, that’s apparently a bad thing. That’s the bottom line, isn’t it? With apologies, that’s mercantilism.


It boils down to the different level of desirability and utility of the benefits rendered by the trade deal. Why should Canadian airlines push for more traffic rights that they don’t need? Consumers are beneficiaries of trade agreements, but they are most certainly not policy actors. They are not directly affiliated with or privy to the negotiation process. As such, governments will not consult with them. They will consult with the actual policy actors (such as airlines) during the negotiation process. This is not something that is unique to Canada.

ElPistolero wrote:
- The cellphone analogy doesn’t work. The approach to cellphones doesn’t actively discount benefits for / interests of specific communities - it factors them equally.


Not true. Higher bills disproportionately affect working class communities.

ElPistolero wrote:
That doesn’t hold true in the EK/EY case, where the benefits for/interests of some groups evidently matter less than others (to the point of bei by “irrelevant”. Which lends itself (rather easily) to a question of equality.


Any form of protectionist policy will affect the interests of certain groups. Tariffs on napa cabbage would disproportionately affect the Korean community. Tariffs on olive oil would affect immigrants from Mediterranean countries more than those from East Asia. But the primary purpose of a trade barrier is not to “stick it” to those communities. It’s to calibrate the balance between consumer interests and the protection of the country’s economy, as one does if it is a mixed-market economy nation.

ElPistolero wrote:
- Canadians of South Asian origin stand to benefit from more EK/EY access. I don’t think that’s in dispute anymore. With their coverage of South Asia, it’s fairly obvious. The disagreement seems to be about whether their interests matter as much as other groups - or even at all (which is an odd thing to dispute in the 21st century, but here we are). Lends itself a little too easily to a question of equality, doesn’t it?


It really doesn’t lend itself to a question of equality. Legally, a Canadian of South Asian origin has the same rights as any other Canadian. The reason why Canada is not willing to expand traffic rights with the UAE is because the policy *actors* (*not* the beneficiaries) on the Canadian side of the equation have little interest in doing so. It’s not because Canada is set out to make life more difficult for immigrants to travel to their homeland.

Travelling to Seoul on a yearly basis, I don’t even have a third of the options that someone flying to Delhi or Mumbai has. Travelling from Toronto to Busan? Jeju? KE, KE or KE. Has this affected quality of life for me in any meaningful way (regardless of the reason why I have these limited options?) Hardly. I suspect it’s the same for most people in the South Asian diaspora if this issue has never really made it big outside of airliners.net.

Anecdotal evidence, so take it for what it’s worth, but many of my South Asian colleagues seldom fly EK or EY anyways due to price. Many of my South Asian friends need to fly to ATQ anyways, which I don’t believe either EK or EY has flown to even prior to the pandemic (correct me if I am wrong).



ElPistolero wrote:
- There seems to be a robust discussion going on these days about how “traditional” frameworks have been affected by systemic discrimination (or is it racism? Can’t keep up.) Evidently a timely one since the travel realities Canadians of South Asian origin are “irrelevant” (which fits neatly with mercantilist ideology). Does make one hope that folk making decisions know about the Canada-South Asia market know more than some here.


It makes no difference if EK/EY serve 1 or 100 destinations in India if the policy *actors* (again, not beneficiaries) have no desire to apply for additional frequencies to the UAE. For the sake of argument *only*, if EK/EY didn’t even serve South Asia at all, it’s not like the Canadian government will all of a sudden grant extra frequencies to EK/EY.

ElPistolero wrote:
- The notion of “this is how it was, is, and always will be” is not only self-defeating, but self-evidently daft. FWIW, it more of a state-directed economy notion than a mixed market one.


“This is how it was, is, and always will be” is in regards to Canada retaining a mixed-market economy and balancing the interests of consumers versus industry actors. Some decisions that Canada makes in the future could tip the balance in favour of consumers and some decisions won’t.
 
Fly2BKI
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:02 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Thu May 20, 2021 4:05 am

EK flies 777s whilst EY flies 787s, meaning each carrier has the same number of seats
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Thu May 20, 2021 4:53 am

hoons90 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
- Taking consumer interests out of the quid-pro-quo equation on this issue = mercantilism.

Putting consumer interests above all is a neoliberal approach, which as I mentioned previously, is not Canada’s modus operandi. Consumers don’t directly participate in trade agreements between countries, nor are their interests the top priority in a mixed-market economy. By definition, a protectionist policy puts the interests of a country’s industry at the forefront and not consumer interests. The concept of a protectionist policy is irreconcilable with the concept of serving consumer interests.

It would be mercantilism if Canada is demanding that its airlines be allowed to fly to the UAE 28x weekly while only allowing Emirati airlines to have 10x weekly frequencies. Allowing Canada’s own airlines to fly to the UAE 10x weekly in return for Emirati airlines being allowed to fly 10x weekly to Canada isn’t mercantilism. It’s fair trade.

ElPistolero wrote:
If consumers don’t count, it boils down to little more than whose airline can make more money - and frequencies are dictated from there. If EK/EY can make more money from daily frequencies than a Canadian carrier can, that’s apparently a bad thing. That’s the bottom line, isn’t it? With apologies, that’s mercantilism.


It boils down to the different level of desirability and utility of the benefits rendered by the trade deal. Why should Canadian airlines push for more traffic rights that they don’t need? Consumers are beneficiaries of trade agreements, but they are most certainly not policy actors. They are not directly affiliated with or privy to the negotiation process. As such, governments will not consult with them. They will consult with the actual policy actors (such as airlines) during the negotiation process. This is not something that is unique to Canada.

ElPistolero wrote:
- The cellphone analogy doesn’t work. The approach to cellphones doesn’t actively discount benefits for / interests of specific communities - it factors them equally.


Not true. Higher bills disproportionately affect working class communities.

ElPistolero wrote:
That doesn’t hold true in the EK/EY case, where the benefits for/interests of some groups evidently matter less than others (to the point of bei by “irrelevant”. Which lends itself (rather easily) to a question of equality.


Any form of protectionist policy will affect the interests of certain groups. Tariffs on napa cabbage would disproportionately affect the Korean community. Tariffs on olive oil would affect immigrants from Mediterranean countries more than those from East Asia. But the primary purpose of a trade barrier is not to “stick it” to those communities. It’s to calibrate the balance between consumer interests and the protection of the country’s economy, as one does if it is a mixed-market economy nation.

ElPistolero wrote:
- Canadians of South Asian origin stand to benefit from more EK/EY access. I don’t think that’s in dispute anymore. With their coverage of South Asia, it’s fairly obvious. The disagreement seems to be about whether their interests matter as much as other groups - or even at all (which is an odd thing to dispute in the 21st century, but here we are). Lends itself a little too easily to a question of equality, doesn’t it?


It really doesn’t lend itself to a question of equality. Legally, a Canadian of South Asian origin has the same rights as any other Canadian. The reason why Canada is not willing to expand traffic rights with the UAE is because the policy *actors* (*not* the beneficiaries) on the Canadian side of the equation have little interest in doing so. It’s not because Canada is set out to make life more difficult for immigrants to travel to their homeland.

Travelling to Seoul on a yearly basis, I don’t even have a third of the options that someone flying to Delhi or Mumbai has. Travelling from Toronto to Busan? Jeju? KE, KE or KE. Has this affected quality of life for me in any meaningful way (regardless of the reason why I have these limited options?) Hardly. I suspect it’s the same for most people in the South Asian diaspora if this issue has never really made it big outside of airliners.net.

Anecdotal evidence, so take it for what it’s worth, but many of my South Asian colleagues seldom fly EK or EY anyways due to price. Many of my South Asian friends need to fly to ATQ anyways, which I don’t believe either EK or EY has flown to even prior to the pandemic (correct me if I am wrong).



ElPistolero wrote:
- There seems to be a robust discussion going on these days about how “traditional” frameworks have been affected by systemic discrimination (or is it racism? Can’t keep up.) Evidently a timely one since the travel realities Canadians of South Asian origin are “irrelevant” (which fits neatly with mercantilist ideology). Does make one hope that folk making decisions know about the Canada-South Asia market know more than some here.


It makes no difference if EK/EY serve 1 or 100 destinations in India if the policy *actors* (again, not beneficiaries) have no desire to apply for additional frequencies to the UAE. For the sake of argument *only*, if EK/EY didn’t even serve South Asia at all, it’s not like the Canadian government will all of a sudden grant extra frequencies to EK/EY.

ElPistolero wrote:
- The notion of “this is how it was, is, and always will be” is not only self-defeating, but self-evidently daft. FWIW, it more of a state-directed economy notion than a mixed market one.


“This is how it was, is, and always will be” is in regards to Canada retaining a mixed-market economy and balancing the interests of consumers versus industry actors. Some decisions that Canada makes in the future could tip the balance in favour of consumers and some decisions won’t.


- Don’t want to get dragged into rabbit holes, but when you take consumer interests out of the pro quid quo calculus, it simply becomes about who stands to make more money - and frequencies are dictated from there. Insofar as EK/EY (and TK and ET and SV and MS etc) are concerned it’s all... well, “a rose by any other name”, etc.

- Similarly, this notion of “policy actors” (nice euphemism for special interest groups by the way) having disproportionate influence in decision-making (what with consumers being more or less irrelevant) is a great many things, but it’s not mixed-market. Mixed market systems also factor in social outcomes - in the EK/EY case, the positive social outcomes are unclear, nor is it obvious that they outweigh the negative ones.

- On equality, I’m afraid your argument merely reinforces the equality angle. It’s inevitable when a “framework” (if such a thing exists) is treated as permanent. This framework may have struck the right balance or been appropriately calibrated to the demographic makeup of 50 years ago, but if it cannot - or must not - evolve to avoid disadvantaging new groups in an evolving demographic, then it will inevitably lead to different outcomes based, in this case, on country of origin.

After all, 400,000+ South Asians have arrived in Canada since 2015 alone. Due to the dysfunctional nature of the carriers of their countries of origin, EK/EY/QR offer the best and most convenient connectivity. If we refuse to factor that in because of how we looked at the world when this “framework” (whatever it is) was developed ... the outcomes will vary based on country of origin. Which, I understand, is something we’re rather interested in addressing (regardless of whether it’s intentional or not).

At the end of the day, we have demand for South Asia travel growing on weekly basis (immigration). We have suppliers like EK/EY/QR who provide excellent coverage of the region and are willing to actually provide products to Canadians who have their origins their. And yet here we are, arguing about whether prioritizing special intere ... err ... “policy actors” in a manner that deliberately or inadvertently discounts the interests of some consumers based on the lie country of origin is a good or bad thing. The mind boggles. What next? The uncontestable virtues of regulatory capture?
 
hoons90
Posts: 3917
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Thu May 20, 2021 5:53 am

ElPistolero wrote:
- Don’t want to get dragged into rabbit holes, but when you take consumer interests out of the pro quid quo calculus, it simply becomes about who stands to make more money - and frequencies are dictated from there. Insofar as EK/EY (and TK and ET and SV and MS etc) are concerned it’s all... well, “a rose by any other name”, etc.


Quid pro quo is simply about offering the same amount of tangible benefit to the party that is offering the same amount in kind. This is exactly what is happening in the Canada-UAE ASA. 10 weekly frequencies for 10 weekly frequencies.

Neither party is obligated to sign an agreement that provides them more of a product, service or entitlement than they want or need. A cable TV company can offer me a package that includes 10 channels at the price I'm willing to pay, or 30 channels in exchange for more of my money. Surely my family would benefit from having more channels to watch, but at the end of the day, if I deem that 10 channels are enough for my family and I, then it would be unfair for the company to pressure me to take the 30 channel package, deciding on my behalf that it is better for me. Better, but at what price?

ElPistolero wrote:
- Similarly, this notion of “policy actors” (nice euphemism for special interest groups by the way) having disproportionate influence in decision-making (what with consumers being more or less irrelevant) is a great many things, but it’s not mixed-market. Mixed market systems also factor in social outcomes - in the EK/EY case, the positive social outcomes are unclear, nor is it obvious that they outweigh the negative ones.


No skin off my nose if you want to interpret "policy actors" in your own way, but for reference, by "policy actors", I mean entities that are directly involved and privy to the negotiation process in ASAs. I didn't imagine having to elucidate this to you, but ASAs are not negotiated at the grassroots level. Consumers can have aligned interests with policymakers and industry players (or not) and benefit from expanded ASAs, but they do not supersede said entities.

ElPistolero wrote:
- On equality, I’m afraid your argument merely reinforces the equality angle. It’s inevitable when a “framework” (if such a thing exists) is treated as permanent. This framework may have struck the right balance or been appropriately calibrated to the demographic makeup of 50 years ago, but if it cannot - or must not - evolve to avoid disadvantaging new groups in an evolving demographic, then it will inevitably lead to different outcomes based, in this case, on country of origin.


Yes, such a framework exists in any country that is not a neoliberal free-for-all. The difference lies in the rigidity of the framework as it applies to certain industries that the government deems more worthy of protecting. In the US, it's the energy sector. In Canada, it's the scheduled air transportation sector.
Your argument would hold water if it were unduly difficult for Canadians of South Asian origin to travel to their homeland, but that is not the case. A regulated market does not necessarily mean that there are no, or even few, options.

Also, you can't assume that the framework evolves based on changes to demographic makeup, or that it even plays a significant role. A mixed-market economy government cannot always acquiesce to consumer interests while neglecting its industries and ultimately its economy.

ElPistolero wrote:
After all, 400,000+ South Asians have arrived in Canada since 2015 alone. Due to the dysfunctional nature of the carriers of their countries of origin, EK/EY/QR offer the best and most convenient connectivity. If we refuse to factor that in because of how we looked at the world when this “framework” (whatever it is) was developed ... the outcomes will vary based on country of origin. Which, I understand, is something we’re rather interested in addressing (regardless of whether it’s intentional or not).


Like I said, Canada's approach to ASAs is based on reciprocity for the recipients of traffic rights. Ordinary citizens do not obtain traffic rights, airlines do. If you want to spin what ought to be a trade issue into some kind of human rights transgression, then suit yourself. However, at the end of the day, Canada will continue to apply the same standard across the board when it comes to negotiating traffic rights and ASAs - reciprocity. If the Canadian side doesn't want more than 10x weekly to the UAE, they will not ask for it. At the same time, they will not extend a foreign company generosity at the expense of its own industry.

ElPistolero wrote:
At the end of the day, we have demand for South Asia travel growing on weekly basis (immigration). We have suppliers like EK/EY/QR who provide excellent coverage of the region and are willing to actually provide products to Canadians who have their origins their. And yet here we are, arguing about whether prioritizing special intere ... err ... “policy actors” in a manner that deliberately or inadvertently discounts the interests of some consumers based on the lie country of origin is a good or bad thing. The mind boggles. What next? The uncontestable virtues of regulatory capture?


Protectionism 101 = (often) bad for consumers, (often) good for industry
Neoliberalism 101 = (often) good for consumers, (often) bad for industry
Mixed-market economy = Elements of both
Canada = mixed-market economy with more protectionist tendencies in the scheduled air transportation sector. Consumers will have to compromise, unfortunately. Just as consumers in other markets will have to compromise, perhaps in different ways.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Thu May 20, 2021 6:52 am

hoons90 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
- Don’t want to get dragged into rabbit holes, but when you take consumer interests out of the pro quid quo calculus, it simply becomes about who stands to make more money - and frequencies are dictated from there. Insofar as EK/EY (and TK and ET and SV and MS etc) are concerned it’s all... well, “a rose by any other name”, etc.


Quid pro quo is simply about offering the same amount of tangible benefit to the party that is offering the same amount in kind. This is exactly what is happening in the Canada-UAE ASA. 10 weekly frequencies for 10 weekly frequencies.

Neither party is obligated to sign an agreement that provides them more of a product, service or entitlement than they want or need. A cable TV company can offer me a package that includes 10 channels at the price I'm willing to pay, or 30 channels in exchange for more of my money. Surely my family would benefit from having more channels to watch, but at the end of the day, if I deem that 10 channels are enough for my family and I, then it would be unfair for the company to pressure me to take the 30 channel package, deciding on my behalf that it is better for me. Better, but at what price?

ElPistolero wrote:
- Similarly, this notion of “policy actors” (nice euphemism for special interest groups by the way) having disproportionate influence in decision-making (what with consumers being more or less irrelevant) is a great many things, but it’s not mixed-market. Mixed market systems also factor in social outcomes - in the EK/EY case, the positive social outcomes are unclear, nor is it obvious that they outweigh the negative ones.


No skin off my nose if you want to interpret "policy actors" in your own way, but for reference, by "policy actors", I mean entities that are directly involved and privy to the negotiation process in ASAs. I didn't imagine having to elucidate this to you, but ASAs are not negotiated at the grassroots level. Consumers can have aligned interests with policymakers and industry players (or not) and benefit from expanded ASAs, but they do not supersede said entities.

ElPistolero wrote:
- On equality, I’m afraid your argument merely reinforces the equality angle. It’s inevitable when a “framework” (if such a thing exists) is treated as permanent. This framework may have struck the right balance or been appropriately calibrated to the demographic makeup of 50 years ago, but if it cannot - or must not - evolve to avoid disadvantaging new groups in an evolving demographic, then it will inevitably lead to different outcomes based, in this case, on country of origin.


Yes, such a framework exists in any country that is not a neoliberal free-for-all. The difference lies in the rigidity of the framework as it applies to certain industries that the government deems more worthy of protecting. In the US, it's the energy sector. In Canada, it's the scheduled air transportation sector.
Your argument would hold water if it were unduly difficult for Canadians of South Asian origin to travel to their homeland, but that is not the case. A regulated market does not necessarily mean that there are no, or even few, options.

Also, you can't assume that the framework evolves based on changes to demographic makeup, or that it even plays a significant role. A mixed-market economy government cannot always acquiesce to consumer interests while neglecting its industries and ultimately its economy.

ElPistolero wrote:
After all, 400,000+ South Asians have arrived in Canada since 2015 alone. Due to the dysfunctional nature of the carriers of their countries of origin, EK/EY/QR offer the best and most convenient connectivity. If we refuse to factor that in because of how we looked at the world when this “framework” (whatever it is) was developed ... the outcomes will vary based on country of origin. Which, I understand, is something we’re rather interested in addressing (regardless of whether it’s intentional or not).


Like I said, Canada's approach to ASAs is based on reciprocity for the recipients of traffic rights. Ordinary citizens do not obtain traffic rights, airlines do. If you want to spin what ought to be a trade issue into some kind of human rights transgression, then suit yourself. However, at the end of the day, Canada will continue to apply the same standard across the board when it comes to negotiating traffic rights and ASAs - reciprocity. If the Canadian side doesn't want more than 10x weekly to the UAE, they will not ask for it. At the same time, they will not extend a foreign company generosity at the expense of its own industry.

ElPistolero wrote:
At the end of the day, we have demand for South Asia travel growing on weekly basis (immigration). We have suppliers like EK/EY/QR who provide excellent coverage of the region and are willing to actually provide products to Canadians who have their origins their. And yet here we are, arguing about whether prioritizing special intere ... err ... “policy actors” in a manner that deliberately or inadvertently discounts the interests of some consumers based on the lie country of origin is a good or bad thing. The mind boggles. What next? The uncontestable virtues of regulatory capture?


Protectionism 101 = (often) bad for consumers, (often) good for industry
Neoliberalism 101 = (often) good for consumers, (often) bad for industry
Mixed-market economy = Elements of both
Canada = mixed-market economy with more protectionist tendencies in the scheduled air transportation sector. Consumers will have to compromise, unfortunately. Just as consumers in other markets will have to compromise, perhaps in different ways.


The issue here isn’t that “consumers” - as a whole - have to compromise. It’s that some consumers have to compromise more than others based on a system that (deliberately or inadvertently) provides sub-optimal outcomes to specific consumers, evidently on the basis of country of origin. It seems we are on agreement on this.

What’s less clear is whether this constitutes a mixed market system, or something entirely different. In the EK/EY case, the social outcomes are not clear, consumers are not factored in, and it’s distilled down to what Canadian company A or B considers acceptable or not (if only by virtue of nobody else being part of the process). At which point, mixed market isn’t a particularly apt descriptor, and we enter the world of figuring out what the tipping point for this to qualify as regulatory capture, is as another poster implies).

Either way, your description of this whole system suggests that it’s not fit-for-purpose - it can’t be if it’s getting different social outcomes.

As the Iceland case suggests. They got unlimited access in 2007, a year in which 6300 Canadians - or 17/day visited Iceland. In 2009, that almost doubled to 30 Canadians/day. That somehow makes sense, but giving EK/EY daily flights in 2021, from which relatively more Canadians would benefit doesn’t make sense. Something isn’t adding up, eh?

Source for stats: https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/fi ... eb2010.pdf
 
hoons90
Posts: 3917
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

Re: How is EY flying 6x weekly to YYZ but EK can only fly 5x weekly to YYZ?

Thu May 20, 2021 4:06 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
The issue here isn’t that “consumers” - as a whole - have to compromise. It’s that some consumers have to compromise more than others based on a system that (deliberately or inadvertently) provides sub-optimal outcomes to specific consumers, evidently on the basis of country of origin. It seems we are on agreement on this.


Different types of trade restrictions will obviously affect different segments of the population in varying degrees, based on the heterogeneity of their needs and wants. It would not be viable to limit governments to only regulate markets that equally affect every segment of the population, as there would be few, if any markets to regulate.

ElPistolero wrote:
What’s less clear is whether this constitutes a mixed market system, or something entirely different. In the EK/EY case, the social outcomes are not clear, consumers are not factored in, and it’s distilled down to what Canadian company A or B considers acceptable or not (if only by virtue of nobody else being part of the process). At which point, mixed market isn’t a particularly apt descriptor, and we enter the world of figuring out what the tipping point for this to qualify as regulatory capture, is as another poster implies).


I don't think it's up to debate whether Canada is a mixed-market economy or not. Virtually every country's air transportation market is protectionist in varying degrees. Just because Canada's air transportation market is relatively more regulated than others does not change the fact that it has a mixed-market economy. It is a mixed-market economy simply by virtue of having an economic paradigm that incorporates elements of both free and planned markets.

Regulatory capture is a necessary evil in a mixed-market economy. Any shift away from a complete neoliberal policy is, by definition, regulatory capture as it deprioritizes consumer interest in lieu of industry protection. It happens in every mixed-market economy.

ElPistolero wrote:
Either way, your description of this whole system suggests that it’s not fit-for-purpose - it can’t be if it’s getting different social outcomes.

By your logic, every form of regulation and protectionism is not fit-for-purpose depending on who you ask since most forms of it will result in different social outcomes.
Higher cell phone bills disproportionately affect communities of different socioeconomic status. Tariffs on certain agricultural products result in different social outcomes. Same with certain textiles, raw materials, et cetera et cetera.

ElPistolero wrote:
As the Iceland case suggests. They got unlimited access in 2007, a year in which 6300 Canadians - or 17/day visited Iceland. In 2009, that almost doubled to 30 Canadians/day. That somehow makes sense, but giving EK/EY daily flights in 2021, from which relatively more Canadians would benefit doesn’t make sense. Something isn’t adding up, eh?

Source for stats: https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/fi ... eb2010.pdf

[/quote]

Could have been a precursor to the Canada-EU Open Skies agreement. While Iceland is not an EU member, it is part of the ECAA common aviation market.

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