Hi All!

Just wondering if anyone has heard anything about SQ starting YYZ - does anyone know about the bilateral - has it been amended since the last YVR route?

And anyone heard of QR to YYZ - is the bilateral 3 x a week to one destination or numerous but to a max 3 x a week?

Thanks!

Quoting A6EGA (Thread starter): Just wondering if anyone has heard anything about SQ starting YYZ - does anyone know about the bilateral - has it been amended since the last YVR route?

There currently is "open skies" between Singapore and Canada, with no restrictions. If SQ wished to fly to YYZ they could .... daily. That they don't, nor YVR, is an indication that the traffic is not there. SQ have been asking for Fifth Freedom rights from other countries to Canada, which have been denied. Mainly because the countries they named already have at least daily flights to Canada.

Quoting A6EGA (Thread starter): And anyone heard of QR to YYZ - is the bilateral 3 x a week to one destination or numerous but to a max 3 x a week?

The bilateral with Qatar allows 6 weekly flights, 3 passenger and 3 cargo. QR named YUL (a wise move in my opinion) as their passenger destination. They could have picked any Canadian city, to a maximum of 3 a week. If Qatar can show that there is sufficient O&D demand for increased rights to Canada, it will be reviewed and likely allowed.

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 2): It's a shame that SQ discontinued YVR-ICN-SIN. If AC really does go ahead with their proposed transpacific LCC and if YVR-ICN gets transferred over, there wouldn't be any nonstop premium Star Alliance service between Canada and Korea.

I think KE have a nightly 747 nonstop ICN-YYZ?

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 3): I think KE have a nightly 747 nonstop ICN-YYZ?

According to KE's timetable, KE073/KE074 operates ICN-YYZ-ICN 5 weekly, excluding Monday and Thursday. Currently being operated by a 772.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1): There currently is "open skies" between Singapore and Canada, with no restrictions. If SQ wished to fly to YYZ they could .... daily. That they don't, nor YVR, is an indication that the traffic is not there. SQ have been asking for Fifth Freedom rights from other countries to Canada, which have been denied. Mainly because the countries they named already have at least daily flights to Canada.

"Open skies" from who's perspective? Canada's. True open skies agreements Singapore has inked with other countries do not involve restrictions on 5th freedoms, and are sometimes even more liberal than that. If there is no change in the status quo with regards to air rights, I hope SQ keeps itself out of Canada. If will not help SQ's profit margins, and a population supporting protectionist measures do not deserve more choices.

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 2):

And if they discontinue, who will benefit on either side?
In the mid 90s, IIRC, SQ did YYZ-AMS-VIE-SIN ? whatever for, I don't know.
SQ had 343's doing the YVR-ICN-SIN, no?

If choice of aircraft were to change, YVR-ICN-SIN (if SFO can do it, what's wrong with YVR? YVR is even closer) could see a 333 with the stop in ICN. If YYZ, they could do a YYZ-FRA or MUC-SIN on all SQ metal. Possible? Just my two cents.

How about SIN-ARN-YYZ? There are no flights between YYZ and ARN. Feeds at both ends being Star hubs. And SIA and SAS has a joint venture pending approval from authorities.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1): There currently is "open skies" between Singapore and Canada, with no restrictions.

I'm pretty sure I've read - on this forum - that Singapore unilaterally suspended/terminated the bilateral with Canada. Might be wrong.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1): SQ have been asking for Fifth Freedom rights from other countries to Canada, which have been denied.

How do fifth freedom rights fit into Open Skies agreements? Aren't they part and parcelf of any true Open Skies agreement?

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 2): If AC really does go ahead with their proposed transpacific LCC and if YVR-ICN gets transferred over, there wouldn't be any nonstop premium Star Alliance service between Canada and Korea.

THe LCC is aimed at serving less than premium destinations. I suspect ICN, NRT, PVD etc generate enough premium traffic to keep justify mainline service. Furthermore, if AC goes LCC, there's no reason to believe Korean Air wont up its game and try to cash in on the premium traffic.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 5): If will not help SQ's profit margins, and a population supporting protectionist measures do not deserve more choices.

The Canadian population does not support protectionist measures. Most of the people in the Canadian aviation industry (some of whom are active on this board) do. Its an important distinction. It is to the detriment of consumers and the Canadian economy - on a per Capita basis, Canadians fly a little over half as much as Americans. This is not an encouraging indicator given that Canada is the second largest land mass in the world, encompassing four time zones, and with cities spread right across the country (east-west). The point is that air travel isn't a major issue for most Canadians, since most of them don't use it much.

To top it off, the line between the government and AC (which utterly dislikes competing with superior carriers) is very blurred. The last COO lived in Ottawa, a city that isn't even a minor hub for AC. He was there presumably first to fight EK, and later to fight against the employees he was protecting from EK. This isn't getting much better - AC's new VP for government affairs and corporate strategy is the current Prime Minister's former Deputy Chief of Staff.

As such, one would be foolish to anticipate that Canadian consumers' views will be considered in light of these developments. AC will continue to block competition to whatever extent it can. It has to. Its not a very well-run airline. It has a product that is better than most of its immediate competitors (the very mediocre US and EU airlines), but I think its given up any hope of competing with the SQs and QRs of the world.

As a consumer, I would love to see more competition. However, I m not stupid enough to believe it will actually happen.

Quoting A6EGA (Thread starter): And anyone heard of QR to YYZ - is the bilateral 3 x a week to one destination or numerous but to a max 3 x a week?

It's max 3 pax flights at the moment as Longhuler has pointed out.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1): The bilateral with Qatar allows 6 weekly flights, 3 passenger and 3 cargo. QR named YUL (a wise move in my opinion) as their passenger destination. They could have picked any Canadian city, to a maximum of 3 a week. If Qatar can show that there is sufficient O&D demand for increased rights to Canada, it will be reviewed and likely allowed.

QR have made a brilliant move though. They just inked an interline agreement with Porter that will allow them to serve (and prove demand for) the Toronto market with connections in YUL and IAD. Presumably they will use this to position for more frequencies. Smart.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 5): "Open skies" from who's perspective? Canada's.

Jesus Christ, do you ever get tired of this rant? Any Singaporean carrier can operate any number of flights to any airport in Canada. That *is* open skies. Period. If you're assuming/expecting a similar agreement as Singapore has with the USA you're dreaming. Even the EU/USA open skies arrangement is not as liberal as what Singapore enjoys.

Quoting ARN" class="quote" target="_blank">ARN (Reply 7): There are no flights between YYZ and ARN.

For good reason, just not enough traffic.

YOWza

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 5): "Open skies" from who's perspective? Canada's.

BI-lateral. TWO sides, TWO countries. Two countries agreed to open skies. And both countries had unlimited access.

Singapore decided that it was not enough and wanted to involve more countries. That would be more than "open skies". Singapore wanted to fly people from Korea to Canada, Japan to Canada, Austria to Canada .. sure who wouldn't? But those markets are already well served. Including the 4 times weekly they were already flying from Korea to Canada.

It is interesting to note that because I am old enough, I remember when Air Canada had Fifth Freedom rights from the UK and India to Singapore. That route was very successful, and when Air Canada wanted to increase capacity on the route it was denied. That was the start of the "bad blood" between Canada and Singapore. Especially when later Singapore wanted to increase capacity from Korea to Canada using its then current Fifth Freedom rights, and was of course denied.

Apparently Singapore wants full unlimited Fifth Freedom rights when it benefits them, but no one else. Karma.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 8):

I agree with all you state, however you missed out one important point.

The Air Canada Public Participation Act.

This severely hobbles Air Canada from competing both domestically and internationally. It has always been my opinion that if Canadians want true unlimited competition, then they need to remove the restrictions placed on Air Canada. Then, it would take years to "re-jig" the airline from a Government body aimed at spreading wealth throughout the country, to a lean well run competitor.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 8): The last COO lived in Ottawa, a city that isn't even a minor hub for AC. He was there presumably first to fight EK, and later to fight against the employees he was protecting from EK.

He lives in YOW for family reasons. The commute to AC HQ at YUL probably took him about 45 minutes.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 8): I'm pretty sure I've read - on this forum - that Singapore unilaterally suspended/terminated the bilateral with Canada. Might be wrong.

The bilateral agreement is still in force. SQ simply decided not to use it because Canada refused to liberalise it further.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 8): How do fifth freedom rights fit into Open Skies agreements? Aren't they part and parcelf of any true Open Skies agreement?

Precisely. Canada's version of "Open Skies", which they call "Blue Sky" actually still involves full 5th and 6th freedom rights. That Singapore is not granted this right does not make it open or in whatever shade of colour.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 8): The Canadian population does not support protectionist measures.

I am of course presuming that the Canadian population votes their government in, and it is their government who caves in to pressure from corporations and public pressure to enforce such measures.

Quoting yowza (Reply 9): Jesus Christ, do you ever get tired of this rant? Any Singaporean carrier can operate any number of flights to any airport in Canada. That *is* open skies. Period. If you're assuming/expecting a similar agreement as Singapore has with the USA you're dreaming. Even the EU/USA open skies arrangement is not as liberal as what Singapore enjoys.

I will never get tired of it as long as protectionism abound, which they will anyway. As I mentioned above, an air service agreement without 5th and 6th freedoms is *not* open skies, even by the definition of the Canadian authorities. I dare not even compare this with the OSA standard set by the US, which also includes 8th freedom, or the one Singapore signed with the UK, which is even more liberal than the US OSA, allowing 9th freedom and the right to actually base an airline in each other's territory, subject to corporate ownership rules of course.

Canada is not prepared to even offer Singapore a Blue Skies agreement by its own definition of Open Skies, and that is fact. Period.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 10): BI-lateral. TWO sides, TWO countries. Two countries agreed to open skies. And both countries had unlimited access.

Accept that there is no open skies in this case. If Canada thinks it is open skies, then that is unilateral. Actually they did not, but some a.netters here think they did.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 10): Singapore decided that it was not enough and wanted to involve more countries. That would be more than "open skies". Singapore wanted to fly people from Korea to Canada, Japan to Canada, Austria to Canada .. sure who wouldn't? But those markets are already well served. Including the 4 times weekly they were already flying from Korea to Canada.

Complete nonsense. These rights are 5th freedom rights, and are considered part of open skies even by Canada's own definitions. SQ only has rights for up to 3 flights a week...which is ridiculous in today's competitive climate against the competition SQ is flying against. This "the route is well-served" claim is as nonsensical as it can get. How is anyone to determine how well-served a route is? If this is really an issue, why is Japan, Korea, Hong Kong or Taiwan not revoking the air rights they offer to Singapore to fly across the Pacific in competition with their own carriers?

Read the following for some arguments in support of more rights for airlines like SQ:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Co...anguage=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&comm_id=19

Quoting longhauler (Reply 10): It is interesting to note that because I am old enough, I remember when Air Canada had Fifth Freedom rights from the UK and India to Singapore. That route was very successful, and when Air Canada wanted to increase capacity on the route it was denied. That was the start of the "bad blood" between Canada and Singapore. Especially when later Singapore wanted to increase capacity from Korea to Canada using its then current Fifth Freedom rights, and was of course denied.

And I suppose you conveniently refused to discuss how Air Canada lobbied to get SQ off Toronto because they were doing too well there too? Or that Air Canada wanted to get SQ completely out of Canada because they decided not to fly to Singapore? While there are reports which directly showed these stances, I have yet come across an actual admission from SQ or the Singapore government that they deliberately kept Air Canada out. Some sources, please?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 10): Apparently Singapore wants full unlimited Fifth Freedom rights when it benefits them, but no one else. Karma.

Air Canada could benefit...if they know how to compete with Singapore Airlines that is. Duh.

[Edited 2012-08-10 09:16:40]

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 13): Complete nonsense.

Are you suggesting the history that longhauler detailed is untrue?

I didn't know it. But if true, then I fully support the Government of Canada's stance. I have no issues with opening up fifth freedom as long as the Govt of Singapore is open to the same. If what longhauler says it true, that would not seem to be the case.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 11):

It goes without saying that ACPPA is utterly obsolete. It should be tossed out. For as long as it exists, politicians will treat AC as answerable to the Govt. it shouldnt be. It should be answerable to shareholders and the like. By the same token, however, the Government should stop doing AC's bidding. I can't think of very many airlines in the west that have benefitted as much from the government.

To be honest, I am far from impressed by Canada's aviation policies. And so I ask supporters of this Blue Skies regime some simple questions:

1. Which other developed countries base their policies on 'prove O&D'? It's an honest question- I don't have a clue.
2. Which developed countries are more liberal in their approach?
3. How do the two sets compare in terms if pax movent per capita, airfares, seat availability etc?

I really think there might be some revelations in there that would make at least one side rethink its approach. Either I ve lost the plot or Transport Canada has. Either which way, the answers will likely tell us the way forward.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 12):

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Toronto is a 1hr commute. I m sure one can list any number of personal reasons, but the proximity to a government that has been far too involved in the airlines affairs makes his choice too convenient to ignore. He's been actively lobbying ministers...

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 13): SQ simply decided not to use it because Canada refused to liberalise it further.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 13): Accept that there is no open skies in this case. If Canada thinks it is open skies, then that is unilateral. Actually they did not, but some a.netters here think they did.

This is Canadian law, I am going to guess that no one in Ottawa cares that Singapore doesn't like it.

Looking at the reaction of the current government to the UAE requests, I am also going to guess that the Harris Government does not like being told how to run the country by some external country.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 13): And I suppose you conveniently refused to discuss how Air Canada lobbied to get SQ off Toronto because they were doing too well there too? Or that Air Canada wanted to get SQ completely out of Canada because they decided not to fly to Singapore? While there are reports which directly showed these stances, I have yet come across an actual admission from SQ or the Singapore government that they deliberately kept Air Canada out. Some sources, please?

I was there. One of the advantages of being over 50.

Air Canada started into Singapore with the then current bilateral, of four flights a week YYZ/YVR-LHR-BOM-SIN. Equipment used was the L1011-500. Much to the annoyance of the Singaporean government, the flight was very successful. A request was made to upgauge to a daily L1011-500, this was denied. Then a request was made to upgauge to a B747-200 using the existing schedule, this too was denied. AC had to settle on using a combi B747-200C and capping the passenger capacity with the L1011-500 capacity. This was marginally better due to the freight uplift which was not restricted under the current bi-lateral.

During the same time, SQ was flying SIN-SEL-YVR four times a week using the same bilateral.

Understand that Fifth Freedom rights were allowed to both countries. (it is granted to the country, not the airline). However, AC was using two countries, the UK and India, as both were allowed with bi-laterals with those countries. SQ though, was only using one, Korea. So, the Singaporean government unilaterally decided that Fifth Freedoms could only allow one country per flight, so AC was told pickup rights from either the UK or India had to be dropped!!!

This now made the flight uneconomic, so Singapore "won" and AC pulled out, the flight continued as YVR/YYZ-LHR-BOM. SQ continued with SIN-SEL-YVR, as per the adjusted existing bilateral.

Fast forward to the instance you cite. Singapore requested rights from somewhere in Europe, I think it was VIE to YYZ. Not "conveniently" forgotten, as I did mention Austria above. Of course Canada denied those rights. After the previous dealings with the LHR-BOM-SIN route, why on earth would Canada grant further rights to Singapore?? However, no, AC never lobbied to get SQ out of YYZ, right up until SQ sulked and pulled out of Canada completely, SQ could have flown as many flights they liked to any city in Canada, YYZ included, from their own country! Rights that the UAE could only dream of!

That "bad blood" exists today. Singapore continued to request further rights, and those rights were denied. I am guessing that if the Singaporean government had allowed Canada further rights on the LHR-BOM-SIN route from the beginning, this would never have been an issue.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 13):

The Canadian people, rightly or wrongly, have bigger issues to deal with than aviation. It is a major concern for people who fly, but the again people don't fly a lot around here.

Canada is indeed a democracy and we do get the government we deserve. Which is a little different from democracies that have presidents-for-life who retire at extremely advanced ages.

If EK can operate an A380 daily to YYZ I am sure SQ can make something work.  


In wishing and hoping terms, I would love to see a non-stop YYZ-SIN maybe with all business like the one on the EWR-SIN route...but that is wishful thinking. SQ would probably be more profitable on YYZ-YVR-SIN.   

But on that note, why not have more traffic from the states connect in YYZ to SIN than Canadians having to go through the US to a SQ flight. (and save from going through US customs   )
 

Oh, boo hoo for poor SQ.

It wants the world to bend to its desires but has next to nothing to offer in return.

I remember the 1984 air services dispute from personal participation, and it began with SQ getting its government to disallow Air Canada prorates. Everything spiralled out of control from there, and I'm afraid I can't take a Singapore newspaper as the unbiased gospel.

Canada is not a city state. It's the second largest land mass on earth with a well-dispersed population and serving that is infinitely more complex than flying out of a single airport. You'll pardon us for having multiple interests in how we structure our aviation policy. If it doesn't suit SQ, well, tough bananas.

So let's just let bygones be bygones. SQ has a lot of world it can approach with reciprocal benefits. It offers the Aussies a critical intermediate path to Europe. It can offer the Indians good access to eastern Asia. It simply has little to offer Canadian carriers for the right to unfettered access to Canada, and via fifth freedoms, beyond Canada to the US, Europe or South America.

But thank you for asking.

Quoting sebring (Reply 21): It simply has little to offer Canadian carriers for the right to unfettered access to Canada

Which begs another question: What comes first - Canada's itnerests or Canadian carriers interests?

Suffice it to say, I don't think that what is in Canadian carrier's interests is necessarily in Canada (and its people's) interests. We saw that with the UAE which, self-righteous moralizing aside - we (Canadian taxpayers, not Canadian aviation industry) came out worse for wear. The UAE started with 6 slots and ended with 6 slots. We ended up one base lighter and not a couple of hundred million dollars poorer. But we showed them and the whole world took notice. Apparently. Or not. Who knows.

That aside, IMHO, is the big problem with Canadian aviation today. In fact, if you think about it, most of the countries that have 'liberal' aviation policies pay short shrift to the idea of their own carriers' interests (US, Aus).

Those countries also boast higher aviation use per capita, lower airfares, higher frequencies, higher connectivity.

Ultimately, one must ask what the point of Canada's aviation policy is? Is it to facilitate more air travel or is it to stifle it? And how does it compare to other countries like Australia, which face similar geographical challenges?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 16): Much to the annoyance of the Singaporean government, the flight was very successful.

This is a baffling claim. Why would Singapore be unhappy with any other airline being successful? At the end of the day, that airline is bringing more pax and cargo to Singapore, so no matter how you play, there is still a net-benefit for Singapore. After all, the airline was, as in the case of UAE, a key part of building the local economy and setting Singapore up as a financial and aviation hub. Even if SQ wasn't doing well on one or two routes (LHR, BOM), AC's success would directly contribute to the latter goal of turning the city-state into a global hub of sorts.

Suffice it to say, the only country I know that would get unhappy in such a situation is Canada, as we've seen with EK, ET etc and the ongoing willingness to restrict capacity (or 'prove O&D' or somesuch nonsensical approach) that actually limits the number of people and cargo coming to/ leaving Canada. Its done ostensibly on the grounds that these airlines will dissuade other carriers from starting direct routes, but one need only look at the ET case (2 weekly) to wonder how its supposed to work. ET has to make a go of Canada from a starting point of twice weekly, which makes it remarkably uncompetitive not only to the airlines its allegedly being protected from (EK, EY, TK), but other airlines that are fulfilling the EK, EY, QR role, like the European carriers, albeit with Canadian approval. Its a policy at odds with itself, which explains the odd allegations about countries being unhappy about another airline's success. I mean, why? In overall terms, Singapore still wins.

I somehow doubt they would be unhappy. The Canadian Government on the other hand, has shown a propensity for seeing negative outcomes in what the rest of the world deems positive.

That, incidentally, is why I posed the questions that I did. Namely, who else has Canadian style aviation policies? How is it working out for them relative to the rest of the world? And are there some lessons that our brilliant bureaucrats can learn? Or have they just picked a bad idea, found a way to justify it to themselves, and gone into hibernation in a Plato-esque cave, oblivious to changes around them?

Aviation is a global issue. Surely there are lessons to be learned form other nation's experiences. If AC can learn from QF and JQ, why can't Canada learn from Australia?

This exact thread gets repeated every few months or so and the same people make the same points over and over because there isn't any new information. I am shocked someone hasn't put in EK yet and thrash that around again.

If Singapore was a decent sized market AC would be itching to get in there. Also other carriers would be making a huge push to market the City as a destination using their hubs. As far as I have seen, Cathay occasionally markets connecting flights from YYZ through Hong Kong to secondary markets in Southeast Asia. Singapore was on the list of the last one I saw. But again one of a few secondary cities. The Canadian public doesn't care a whit, despite claims above, about this issue because so few people travel the route and many easy connections through US or other centres for the few that travel the route.

I think QR (if seat demand is there) will get extra frequency with little problem similar to TK. Whether that is additional frequency to YUL (most likely) and possibly YYZ (less likely). TK has easily increased its frequency easily and steadily and I think will go daily soon. The demand for seats has to be there.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 22): TK has easily increased its frequency easily and steadily and I think will go daily soon.

Two additional frequencies in two years, to take it to 5 weekly. That's hardly 'easily'. They're itching for daily. That they haven't been able to get it in 2 years.... does not bode well for anyone, let alone QR.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 22): The demand for seats has to be there.

The demand for O&D seats you mean.

The demand for seats is always there. Increasing supply can stimulate demand by putting downward pressure on prices, so I m not sure if that criteria makes sense in any case.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 21): This is a baffling claim. Why would Singapore be unhappy with any other airline being successful? At the end of the day, that airline is bringing more pax and cargo to Singapore, so no matter how you play, there is still a net-benefit for Singapore.

If I recall correctly, the SIN-SEL-YVR route was not doing all that well at first. When Canada asked for increased access to SIN, there was nothing that Singapore wanted in return. I do remember that an increase to daily on the SIN-SEL-YVR route for SQ was offered, but declined.

In my opinion, had SQ been doing better on SIN-SEL-YVR, then likely the Singaporeans would have been more open to allowing AC daily access to the LHR-BOM-SIN route, and not coming up with the "only one fifth freedom country per flight" rule.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 22): As far as I have seen, Cathay occasionally markets connecting flights from YYZ through Hong Kong to secondary markets in Southeast Asia.

I have always used CX as an example that always "played by the rules" and abided by Canada's aviation policy. CX developed the market over decades and currently are reaping the rewards of that hard work.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 24): I do remember that an increase to daily on the SIN-SEL-YVR route for SQ was offered, but declined.

That is very interesting to know. Thank you.

One can only hope that this kind of petty reciprocity has been put aside in favor of economics. I don't think anyone benefitted from that type of 1980s (?) politicking.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 24): the Singaporeans would have been more open to allowing AC daily access to the LHR-BOM-SIN route, and not coming up with the "only one fifth freedom country per flight" rule.

Was SQ allowed two fifth freedom countries per flight?

[Edited 2012-08-10 17:23:58]

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 23): Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 22):TK has easily increased its frequency easily and steadily and I think will go daily soon. Two additional frequencies in two years, to take it to 5 weekly. That's hardly 'easily'. They're itching for daily. That they haven't been able to get it in 2 years.... does not bode well for anyone, let alone QR.

I don't think the measure of anything should be what a company wants. I am sure lots of companies want to ignore labour laws, environmental standards, and what company wants to pay any taxes. Rather it should be what is in the best interest of the public. I have no doubt that if the case is there for TK they will get additional frequencies. It might be two more years, it might be less. All will depend on the volume and demand.

SQ knows full well how many bums they can put in the seats from YYZ or YVR to SIN. If the demand was there I think you would see some petty issues solved very quickly.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 26): Rather it should be what is in the best interest of the public.

I'll bite. How does the public benefit from giving ET two flights a week when LH can shunt it off to the side with its multiple daily frequencies? How does the public benefit from five weekly flights but suffer from the consequences of providing daily flights?

Putting forward vacuous soundbites like "best interest of the public" is great and all, but it lacks any sort of substance.

So I will ask very simply - what is in the best interest of the public?

1) Low fares or high fares?
2) More flights or less flights?
3) Better connectivity or less connectivity?

I suppose the simplest question is: Is it a good thing or a bad thing that the average Canadian only flies half as much as athe average American? And I m not asking that question from an environmental standpoint; I m asking it from an economic standpoint. Is it good for the Canadian public that we pay some of the highest airfares in the developed world? Is it good for the Canadian public that airlines offering direct connections to distant parts of the world, like ADD, are restricted to barely sustainable and thoroughly uncompetitive frequencies? Is it good for the working Canadian public that on five days a week they can benefit from lower fares, while on the other two, they have to either cough up more money or take extra leave to get low fares?

Feel free to answer.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 26): I have no doubt that if the case is there for TK they will get additional frequencies. It might be two more years, it might be less. All will depend on the volume and demand.

All will depend on the volume and demand? Really? There is plenty of demand for air travel. Proof? Europe. India. Look at the way air travel has taken off with LCCs and ULCCs. The more affordable it becomes, the bigger the market gets.

In both those cases, one could easily have argued that Europe/India were well-served enough and therefore a ban on new carriers (LCCs) would be perfectly justified. But, thankfully, that kind of illogical reasoning has disappeared (well, in most cases- some people seem to be hanging on to them). LCCs came and stimulated even more demand in well-served markets. A greater percentage of the population flies now than it did earlier. How is that possible if existing demand was already "well-served" before LCCs came around? Did people suddenly just discover a joy for flying? Or did the lower prices create demand where none was thought to exist earlier? I contend that it was the latter.

In other words, the demand was always there. It was simply priced out by the airlines that were doing such a great job of "serving" the market "well". If LCCs hadn't entered the fray, that demand would never have been realized. And people like you would argue that Europe/India were/are well-served by legacies and there was/is no additional demand. But, as LCCs have shown, there was demand. It was just priced out of the market. And when low prices came, demand grew. In fact, air travel has become a significant economic enabler in many parts of the world. Canada seems to be a relative laggard.

Therefore this notion that there is not enough demand for ET, TK etc is nonsense. TK fills up its seats. And if it can send more seats, those seats will fill up too. Because people can afford them. Competition puts downward pressure on prices. Downward pressure on prices stimulates demand by making options available to people who might otherwise have been priced out. Its anything but rocket science.

I think you're missing one very simple reality these days: Canadians pay more to fly than do most countries in the developed world (including oh-so-large and oh-so-sparse Australia). That itself is a function of supply and demand. When a market is underserved - ie when demand outstrips supply - prices are high. A fact that doesn't seem to have occured despite the use of terms like 'demand' and volume.

An increase in competition is always good for the public. It is in the public interest (which is why most of our economy is based on competition). More frequency/access = greater ability to compete = more competition = lower prices = more accessibility for consumer. Is that, or is that not, in the public interest?

When will TK get it? Demand is irrelevant in Canada; the only things that are relavent is the amount AC opposes the further expansion of any given airline, and how busy Transport Canada's sole Chief negotiator is. If he's busy negotiating with other countries everyday for the next two years, TK won't be getting more access even if it proves demand several times over.

[Edited 2012-08-10 19:25:50]

[Edited 2012-08-10 19:26:26]

I agree this post gets posted over and over, but now that TG has an A380 maybe it will send an extra plane or 2 to Canada!

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27): Is it good for the Canadian public that we pay some of the highest airfares in the developed world?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27): Canadians pay more to fly than do most countries in the developed world (including oh-so-large and oh-so-sparse Australia).

Evidence? And while we're on comparability, Canadians pay more to stay warm in winter than Mexicans or Fijians.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27): Demand is irrelevant in Canada; the only things that are relavent is the amount AC opposes the further expansion of any given airline

You're way over-estimating AC's influence.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27): how busy Transport Canada's sole Chief negotiator is

We've had this discussion before. Yes, Canada has a sole Chief Air Negotiator (in DFAIT, not TC), just like it has a sole Prime Minister and IBM has a sole CEO. It doesn't mean they do everything themselves.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 29): Evidence?

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/resea...ch-news/news/display.aspx?id=18704
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2012/06/flying-fees
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edito...s-sky-high-air-fares-back-to-earth

They're all from the last 2-3 months.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 29): And while we're on comparability, Canadians pay more to stay warm in winter than Mexicans or Fijians

And Mexicans and Fijians pay more to stay cool in Summer. I appear to be missing the point. If they have state-subsidized electricity, perhaps we should ban their airlines for having an unfair advantage/being state-subsidized?

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 29): You're way over-estimating AC's influence.

I'm not. I think its pretty clear from the discussion above that AC has a say in new agreements (at least insofar as whether it will benefit from it or not), which can dictate how the agreement will go. It definitely has more influence on the agreement than what is "in the public interest". In fact, there seems to be an inclination here to identify the public interest as whatever is in the airline's interest.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 29): Yes, Canada has a sole Chief Air Negotiator (in DFAIT, not TC), just like it has a sole Prime Minister and IBM has a sole CEO. It doesn't mean they do everything themselves.

We have. However, no matter how many teams are working on it (if there are, in fact, several teams), it stands to reason that the last person signing off on it is the Chief. Or can the entire process bypass him?

Suffice it to say, if he's busy, he's busy. Even if he is a rubber stamp, nothing will get done till he shows up. Therefore I stand by my statement - his availability is far more relevant to when a new frequency is added than an airline demonstrating O&D. Somehow I doubt he drops everything to give more frequency to one airline the moment they prove whatever metric they're supposed to.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 30): They're all from the last 2-3 months.

They're mostly about taxes and fees.

Do you have any comparative studies of Canadian and Australian fares to back up:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27): Canadians pay more to fly than do most countries in the developed world (including oh-so-large and oh-so-sparse Australia)

In my experience (anecdotal, but not insubstantial), international fares to/from Oz are similar to comparable fares to from Canada, and Oz domestic fares are higher.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 30): I think its pretty clear from the discussion above that AC has a say in new agreements

Of course they do. So do other airlines, airport, municipal and provincial authorities, relevant business and trade associations, freight forwarders, etc. It's called stakeholder consultation, and the Office of the Chief Air Negotiator is very open about it.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 31): They're mostly about taxes and fees.

There's a reason I put that Economist article there. Most studies attribute fare differences to taxes and fees. The Economist article cites a study that says only 15-33% of the fare difference between the US and Canada can be attributed to taxes and fees. The remaining 67-75% .... I wonder where that goes. Airfares, perhaps? You know, to the airline?

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 31): Do you have any comparative studies of Canadian and Australian fares to back up:

No, I don't. Its a logical extension of the simple mantra - more competitive = lower prices. Not exactly a leap of faith there. Is Australia more competitive than Canada.... ?

http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...liberalism-whos-got-it-right-22846

All those EK/EY seats - do they put downward pressure on prices? And if not, why was AC so worried about them, the world wonders.

IATA's site is down, so I can't source Tony Tyler's exact words, but here is a summary:

"IATA CEO and director general Tony Tyler compared Canada with Australia, which has a much more open philosophy. He noted that, in "Australia, a country that ... closely resembles Canada in terms of geography, demographics, resources and other vital statistics ... aviation directly contributes 2.2% of GDP for Canada, and 2.6% for Australia. If we include catalytic benefits through tourism, GDP contribution rises to 2.8% for Canada - but to 6.1% for Australia.

"Furthermore, although Canada has a population that is approximately 50% larger than Australia and a landmass that is 20% greater, Australia has more air travel: 78 million passengers travel to, from and within Australia, compared to 71 million for Canada. Australia's airlines carried 58 million passengers, compared to 52 million for airlines based in Canada."

All of that points to policy failure. At the very least, we know air travel is more accessible to Australians, which is another indicator of pricing. Of course there is the US effect. The latest on that topic pointed out that Canada lost the equivalent of one airport's worth of passengers (Ottawa was the comparison). Ottawa has what ~5 million pax? Even when you factor those 5 million pax, Canada goes to 76 million, to Australia's 78 million. That is in spite of a population difference of what - 12 million? Something's not right.

So you're right - I haven't done (and won't have the time to do) a full rigorous analysis of prices, but on the basis of circumstantial evidence, I m pretty damn sure I m right. Perhaps you will prove me wrong.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 31): Of course they do. So do other airlines, airport, municipal and provincial authorities, relevant business and trade associations, freight forwarders, etc. It's called stakeholder consultation, and the Office of the Chief Air Negotiator is very open about it.

Which, of course, explains why witnesses (and even a Senator) pointed the finger firmly at AC for causing chaos on the UAE file. That suggests that it had a lot more clout on that file than is "in the public's interest" (the Senator said as much). Trying to pass it all off as absolutely normal - kind of like the appointment of a sitting PM's Deputy Chief of Staff as the airline's VP for Governance at a time when the Government has been interfering on the airline's behalf on labor issues... its disingenuous. I m sure the new VP is very competent. I'm also sure that there are plenty of folk with experience in the aviation industry who are more competent, but who aren't being considered because they don't have the same type of network within the government.

The conincedences just never seem to stop with AC and the government, do they? You can explain one away and another pops up.

[Edited 2012-08-11 07:59:15]

Discussed to death, starting here

Canada And Singapore Sign A Bilateral ASA (by Singapore_Air Nov 7 2007 in Civil Aviation)

The Singapore-Canada ASA signed in 2007 allows for unlimited non-stop flights between the two countries by Air Canada and SIA. Of course this is completely untenable for either carrier, which is why both countries very easily gave it to each other.

The intermediate point was not released in the press conference, but I have reliable sources which tell me it is Taipei. Taipei yields are too low for SQ to make SIN-TPE-YVR/YYZ work.

In recent years, SQ has been successful in making weird fifth freedom routes underserved by home market carriers such as DME-IAH and BCN-GRU work. Efforts to get into existing well served markets like SYD-LAX or ICN-YVR haven't been successful, so I guess they changed their strategy.

Personally, I could go either way on this. I understand and appreciate what competition would do for the aviation sector. But on the other hand, just look at recent history with foreign takeovers. Canadians lose jobs, foreigners get the profits, and when markets considerations hang in the balance, Canada is usually secondary to most markets. This requires that government policy is necessary to ensure that Canadian interests are protected in the long run.

It's not just aviation. Why only debate this? Are we willing to let the oil sands get completely bought out? Or what about the pipeline companies? Or railroads? Or telecoms? Or banks? On the last one, they've been clamouring to merge for years as a precursor to launching overseas. The government imposed quid pro quo was no mergers, but some protection from foreign competition. Now imagine if the foreigners were allowed to buy our banks. Imagine the ride we would have gone for with the recent financial crisis.

Does that mean that the government should protect AC? Probably not. I find it remarkable that a Reform party (let's call it what it is) government, supposedly hostile to Eastern Canadian interests (like AC), supposedly has a cozy relationship with them. I think politics being what it is, it's quite likely that AC has a quid pro quo like the banks. They are protected from foreign competition, but they have to keep up with the ACPPA. Head office in Montreal. Jobs in YUL. Bilingual service as much as possible. Etc. In this case, governments may conclude that the public interest (really driven by their political interest.....but then again aren't voters really the public?) includes more than just unrestricted competition.

All of the above aside, and whatever studies say, I think what most bothers people (myself included) is not long-haul trans-oceanic fares. It's domestic fares. And what's most bothersome is taxes and fees. A simple YYZ-YUL or YYC-YVR or YTZ-BOS fare is comprised of 30-40% in taxes. Add to this, high parking charges at airports, higher concession prices (say for food,etc.), poor access to airports like Pearson (=high taxi fares). And really this annoys pax more than anything else. Before we start talking about letting in the foreigners, we need to start talking about governments (federal and municipal) and airport authorities not treating aviation like a cash cow. What would the $1 billion in aviation revenues (rents, fuel taxes, fees, etc.) that the GoC rakes in, do to fares, if returned to the aviation sector?

Foreign competition can come....once we stop hobbling our own aviation sector.

As for SQ. Not much sympathies. City-states all see aviation as strategic. But large developed economies do not....or rather, not to the same degree. It's one thing to say that there should be unlimited flights between two countries. But when we start talking about fifth freedoms, it amounts to profit skimming. And at that point, I'd like the discussion to include things like wages, taxes, environmental laws, etc. If we're going to allow SQ to skim from our own heavily taxed aviation sector on routes which don't come anywhere near Singapore, let them start paying what our guys pay (wages, taxes, compliance costs, etc.). Just because aviation is critical to Singapore, why is Canada obligated to bend? Would Singapore bend on say their drug laws, since Canadians don't consider drug offences worthy of capital punishment? EK, TK, QR, EY....different issues....at least they are flying through their hubs.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 22):

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 22):

I was jut asking if anyone knew if they had plans to fly based on their bilaterals, and it turned into a why is AC protected

Quoting a6ega (Reply 35): Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 22):Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 22): I was jut asking if anyone knew if they had plans to fly based on their bilaterals, and it turned into a why is AC protected

Yes you asked a simple question. Others then used it to rehash what they have said many times before and around and around it goes. The positions are entrenched.

I hope you get your answer from someone. My assumption is that there simply isn't enough traffic on that route or AC would take be flying there.

How can Air Canada and Singapore Airlines be part of the Star Alliance and have such poisionous political relations. LHR-BOM-SIN happened a generation ago, get over it. To expect SIA to fly to Toronto nonstop is ridiculous, its also silly to expect SIA not to stop in Europe on the way to Toronto.

Ottawa seems to be in the business of limiting anything over the Atlantic east of Turkey. 3 times a week for Emirates is being a playground bully. What hurt would it bring to Air Canada if EK flew to Canada 3 times daily ? From nothing to a quantity so small its not worth measuring. These type of policies do not work because AC has gone bankrupt in the past.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 37): How can Air Canada and Singapore Airlines be part of the Star Alliance and have such poisionous political relations. LHR-BOM-SIN happened a generation ago, get over it. To expect SIA to fly to Toronto nonstop is ridiculous, its also silly to expect SIA not to stop in Europe on the way to Toronto. Ottawa seems to be in the business of limiting anything over the Atlantic east of Turkey. 3 times a week for Emirates is being a playground bully. What hurt would it bring to Air Canada if EK flew to Canada 3 times daily ? From nothing to a quantity so small its not worth measuring. These type of policies do not work because AC has gone bankrupt in the past.

Well, Air Canada was one of the three founders of the alliance, and operates as part of UA/AC/LH transatlantic joint venture, so maybe you had better ask the question of SQ. I don't think anyone in Canada cares that SQ can't fly via a third country and siphon off business from markets in which it has or makes no inherent investment for tourism or business development. There is no obligation in international aviation to accommodate needs such as SQ's. It is up to SQ to offer off-setting benefits, and if it can't, tough bananas. Countries negotiate offsets all the time, either within a bilateral or by providing compensating benefits in other trade areas.

Canada's policy is consistent. If you are big enough, or important enough, to offer compensatory benefits, you can have very liberal access to the Canadian market. Ergo, open skies with the US, open skies with the EU, and revised an increasingly liberal bilaterals with countries like Japan, Korea, Brazil and China. Even Turkey will get liberal access before too long.

One of the reasons Canadian policy is tailored like this is to promote more non-stop services between those countries. There is no Singapore-Canada or Dubai-Canada O&D market to speak of. SQ and EK make a living off poaching "beyond" markets, but Canada wants to reserve access to those markets for non-stop services because it is better for business development in particular. Of course, this issue might not exist if Boeing had delivered the 787 on time, but Air Canada doesn't get 787s now until 2014.

There is also the desire to maintain long-hauls from secondary markets in Canada - like Ottawa, Edmonton, St. John's, Halifax, Montreal, Calgary. Some of the South Asian traffic that EK poaches helps support those routes. If you know anything Canadian demographics, you know Canada is huge, and those cities don't desire to have to transit Toronto or Vancouver to get to Europe or Asia. It's a really big thing for a city like Ottawa to have nonstops to LHR and FRA. Same for Edmonton, or Calgary to have near daily service now to Tokyo.

If you take a narrow price-sensitive, Toronto-centric view of competition, you readily advocate for EK, EY, QR to have unlimited access, but the impact on the rest of the air systems - those other cities' internationally, for example - or the potential revenue loss taking South Asian traffic off Air Canada and its impact on the regional services Air Canada offers is a consideration for the Canadian government, and not just the current government.

Yes, aviation is important for Singapore or Dubai. Good for you. Best of luck. But don't assume our policy goals aren't legitimate or are solely motivated by a need to sustain Air Canada. Behind the revenue issue is a need to sustain diversified domestic and international routes and to maximize nonstop services to our major or prospective key trading partners. The Toronto or Vancouver originating passenger still has a plethora of choice to get anywhere in the world at a good fare. More airlines are being added all the time. Ethiopian now flies to Toronto. Others are eying possible startups.

Quoting sebring (Reply 38): I don't think anyone in Canada cares that SQ can't fly via a third country and siphon off business from markets in which it has or makes no inherent investment for tourism or business development.

I do. More competition = better. Its that simple.

Quoting sebring (Reply 38): Countries negotiate offsets all the time, either within a bilateral or by providing compensating benefits in other trade areas.

And yet the Canadian Government - and Air Canada - threw a hissy fit when the UAE linked a free military base lease to more access for EK. Odd how its okay to do that to others, but not okay when someone does it to you. Very odd trade policy.

Quoting sebring (Reply 38): Canada's policy is consistent.

Which is not necessarily a good thing. The world is changing. Canada isn't. There is something to be said for dynamism.

Quoting sebring (Reply 38): If you are big enough, or important enough, to offer compensatory benefits, you can have very liberal access to the Canadian market.

This is where economics and ideology clash. Basic economics says the more access, the better. The 1970s protectionist attitude - the one that demands pro quid quo for every concession, focuses on avoiding change at all cost. Both have second and third-order effects. The former approach argues that at the end of the day, the first-, second- and third- order effects will be beneficial as a whole. The latter pays no attention to second- or third-order effects, choosing instead to make them up (a la "tens of thousands of jobs losses"), and sticks dogmatically to a policy that maybe, just maybe, is being discarded by other nations because its outlived its purpose. Ultimately, the first approach puts the power in the hands of consumers; the latter, in the hands of policy-makers. One need only ask the Soviets which system works better in the long run.

Quoting sebring (Reply 38): Even Turkey will get liberal access before too long.

When? If the seventh largest tourist destination in the world, with a sizeable diaspora in Canada and a NATO partner cannot get daily flights in 2 years, then the system ...well, its not exactly working, is it?

Quoting sebring (Reply 38): One of the reasons Canadian policy is tailored like this is to promote more non-stop services between those countries.

Actions speak louder than words. The ET guy all but said he wanted to send more flights to YYZ but was denied by bilaterals. So he now has to keep that direct route - which our "policy is tailored to promote", afloat despite the fact that his competition have multiple frequences for multiple cities in Canada (KL, LH). If our policy is tailored to "promote non-stop services between those countries", why are we doing our damndest to make sure they don't succeed?

It might be smarter for you to admit that we're just a very euro-centric country who can't give a rats' ass about anything that doesn't suit European carriers. While this is fine. Don't try to pass it off as some altruistic attempt to make Canada better connected. If that was the case, give airlines access that allows them to compete with the incumbents.

Quoting sebring (Reply 38): SQ and EK make a living off poaching "beyond" markets, but Canada wants to reserve access to those markets for non-stop services because it is better for business development in particular.

Air Canada does not, in fact, try to poach beyond markets in Europe and the US.

And, of course, giving ET a two weekly frequency allows it to compete with EK, the airline the policy is ostensibly protecting it from. Not to mention LH KL EY QR

Like I said, acitons speak louder than words. This well-thought out policy is based on hare-brained analyses, not much economics, and has a remarkable propensity for being at odds with itself.

Quoting sebring (Reply 38): Of course, this issue might not exist if Boeing had delivered the 787 on time, but Air Canada doesn't get 787s now until 2014.

It will exist for as long as AC can't get its house in order. AC's mantra throughout has been very simple. Unlike BA and QF, who have both vowed to compete with EK, AC is straightforward: "We can't compete". And that won't change unless AC becomes sustainably profitable (at which point, who knows how the labor is going to react). We might as well wait for the 797.

Quoting sebring (Reply 38): There is also the desire to maintain long-hauls from secondary markets in Canada - like Ottawa, Edmonton, St. John's, Halifax, Montreal, Calgary.

Quoting sebring (Reply 38): Some of the South Asian traffic that EK poaches helps support those routes. If you know anything Canadian demographics, you know Canada is huge, and those cities don't desire to have to transit Toronto or Vancouver to get to Europe or Asia

Re-read and reconsider what you have written. While it is factually correct and I agree with all of it, it also reveals a rather blatant policy bias (no, I am not accusing you personally) against South Asians. This is, of course, a charged statement to make, so allow me to explain.

EK "poaches" South Asia traffic. Ok. How does it do that? Better prices? Invariably, they are offering something that the South Asian traffic is benefitting from, yes? There is, we can agree, some rational reason behind their decision to fly another airline over AC and whoever.

The Canadian policy response is to stifle EK's ability to do this by restricting access. Who is being adversely affected here? The South Asian population (well, anybody south and east of Israel really, since people of Iranian origin are also affected) . They are required to put greater amounts of money into inferior products to "support" some of "Air Canada's direct routes" which they're not neccessarily benefitting from (or else they would have chosen those direct routes themselves, rendering this line of argument redundant). All for the greater good, presumably.

Which is fine. There is nothing wrong with doing what is in the greater good, as long as there is no systematic bais against one group in favor for the other. Here's my problem: South Asians are being denied better prices - and I need to stress that there are economic consequences for them at the individual level - simply because of their racial/national/ethnic origins.Some might call that structural racism.

That, in a nutshell, is the flaw in this argument. Why should South Asians be put at an economic disadvantage (by virtue of having to pay even marginally more) just so that AC can fly to more points in Europe - to the obvious benefit of another group of Canadians? Why is it incumbent on South Asians in YOW to pay more to use AC to connect in the EU so that the 24 passengers who want to fly YOW-FRA direct get a direct flight?

Besides, we can change it quite easily. Lets just slap a new tax on aviation and hand it all over to AC. That way everyone gets hit equally and we'll get these diversified routes that AC is relying on South Asians to keep afloat without putting the economic burden solely on South Asians (including Iran - we have quite a substantial diaspora here).

Quoting sebring (Reply 38): Behind the revenue issue is a need to sustain diversified domestic and international routes and to maximize nonstop services to our major or prospective key trading partners.

Its amusing watching that argument change over time. First the revenue was required to allow AC to fly obscure routes within Canada (which are so overpriced that ...well there's a reason that per capita flying in Canada is half of that of the US). Now that WS is coming into the regional fray, not to mention the fact that AC is notably absent from most of the real remote routes (the North), this argument is looking exceedingly flawed. Now its about maintaining diversified international routes, which, of course, explains the treatment of ET and TK (2 years on, still not daily). On the other hand, we have excellent connectivity to countries that are thoroughly inconsequential to Canada (Austria, anyone?). FWIW, nonstop services with major or prospective key trading partners will exist for as long as they are major or prospective key trading partners. SQ, EK, ET etc aren't going to change that.

Quoting sebring (Reply 38): Ethiopian now flies to Toronto.

Two weekly. Like a throwback to the 1960s. I half suspect that the negotiators at TC/DFAIT shrugged off any Ethopian concerns about aircraft utilization by advising them to use their 707s..errr...777s on around-the-world routings to better utilize the aircraft.

Quoting sebring (Reply 38):

Quoting sebring (Reply 38):

If ek is such a threat, can someone pls answer this: before ac flew from yeg to lhr and yow to fra etc, and ek steals all the traffic, why does fra to dxb still have only one cnx? One daily flight for the last 20 yrs. All the px that you say sub coninent ones, kho, lhe, trv, cok, ccu, ccj, dac, mru, cmb etc they all flew ac to europe and then a star partner to dxb and then ek, but why has that lh flt never incased? Surely the population has increased with the number of immigrants...

Quoting longhauler (Reply 11): It has always been my opinion that if Canadians want true unlimited competition, then they need to remove the restrictions placed on Air Canada.

I think most of these arguments come back the fact that the Canadian government wants AC to conform to politicians' whims, yet AC wants to run a profitable business. The two divergent motivations will never be squared, and as long as AC is a political animal, it will 'wag the dog' on things like bilateral agreements as long as the 'dog' requires it to jump through so many hoops.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 21): Why would Singapore be unhappy with any other airline being successful? At the end of the day, that airline is bringing more pax and cargo to Singapore, so no matter how you play, there is still a net-benefit for Singapore.

If governments believed this there'd be no Air India, Africa would be 100% open skies to everywhere, free trade would be the norm, and on and on.

Quoting a6ega (Reply 40): If ek is such a threat, can someone pls answer this: before ac flew from yeg to lhr and yow to fra etc, and ek steals all the traffic, why does fra to dxb still have only one cnx? One daily flight for the last 20 yrs. All the px that you say sub coninent ones, kho, lhe, trv, cok, ccu, ccj, dac, mru, cmb etc they all flew ac to europe and then a star partner to dxb and then ek, but why has that lh flt never incased? Surely the population has increased with the number of immigrants...

There are lots of options to get to India in particular. I have no idea what the FRA-Dubai route has to do with this at all. People don't all fly "Star" to India. They fly Jet, they fly KLM, they fly Air India... they fly PK non-stop to Pakistan. But the Canadian policy favors links that bring in carriers like Jet, AI and PK. Canada doesn't even have a bilateral with Pakistan but gives special authorization to PK to serve Toronto. The fact is, EK poaches off Star and non-Star flights, and the government isn't uniquely interested in AC's part of the pie but in sustaining the economic case for a wide range of year-round services. Also, LH, KL, AF all have more flights to India than they did 20 years ago. The key is that all of these carriers offer Canada the possibility of reciprocal benefits, whether it is the EU, or the direct markets involved.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 41): If governments believed this there'd be no Air India, Africa would be 100% open skies to everywhere, free trade would be the norm, and on and on.

Free trade is becoming the norm.

And India is moving forward in spite of the government.   Lets not forget that India was one of the most autarchic economies outside the Soviet Union as recently as the late 1980s. Its moving. Sort of. India has private airlines now...

To be fair, who should Canada be watching? The Bureaucracy Raj in India? The tinpot dictators/early democracies in Africa?

Or Australia, UK, US?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 41): I think most of these arguments come back the fact that the Canadian government wants AC to conform to politicians' whims, yet AC wants to run a profitable business

Yes. And no. The only requirement put on AC is the ACPPA. AC can, and does, drop routes that are not profitable. Everytime a route from YOW is dropped (was it Regina or Saskatoon, recently), you can hear the howls of dismay from Parliament all the way out at the Casino in Gatineau.

However, that is the extent of political action. AC isn't required to fly any routes (unlike, say Indian airlines, private and public). ACPPA is an albatross around AC's neck, but I am hopeful yet that it will be on its way out sooner rather than later. Its impact on the profit margin is less than it would be if AC had to serve all political whims, like maintain routes.

Quoting sebring (Reply 42): There are lots of options to get to India in particular.

If there are, then why is there such concern about throwing a couple more carriers into the mix? Its counterintuitive to say a route is already competitive but then argue that one more actor will inflict damage on Canada's aviation policy of diversification.

Quoting sebring (Reply 42): They fly Jet, they fly KLM, they fly Air India... they fly PK non-stop to Pakistan. But the Canadian policy favors links that bring in carriers like Jet, AI and PK.

Ethiopian?

Quoting sebring (Reply 42): Canada doesn't even have a bilateral with Pakistan but gives special authorization to PK to serve Toronto.

What a generous government- giving special dispensation to a country that is not served by any European carrier (the type that offer reciprocal benefits to Canada and are therefore favored).

Does PK get a daily frequency? I m pretty sure they don't.

Quoting sebring (Reply 42): the government isn't uniquely interested in AC's part of the pie but in sustaining the economic case for a wide range of year-round services.

I really don't know how to rationalise that with the bizzare "partnership" offer that AC put forth to EK. Just to be clear, are you stating that the Government would have opposed more landing rights to EK even if EK had accepted the 'partnership' offer that AC made - namely that AC would invest diddly squat but would drop its opposition if EK handed over half its profits? EK, rather understandably, declined because AC wanted a free ride.

However, what you are stating suggests that the Canadian government would have blocked it even if EK had agreed. Is this correct?

As an aside, even if EK had agreed to ACs proposal , and the government had allowed more slots, the only airline benefitting would be AC, which wouldn't necessarily achieve the ends of "wide range of year-round services", since, well, the other airlines you claim the policy is aiming to protect wouldn't exactly be protected, which would mean that any protection of these diversifed routes would be done solely by AC (inevitably securing AC's piece of some pie).

Its an interesting argument. How does it stand up in the cold hard light of facts?

Quoting sebring (Reply 42): Also, LH, KL, AF all have more flights to India than they did 20 years ago. The key is that all of these carriers offer Canada the possibility of reciprocal benefits, whether it is the EU, or the direct markets involved.

What reciprocal benefits do we get?

What kind of reciprocal benefits did Australia demand from the UAE?

The main issue I have with explanations like this is that they can be retroactively altered to show that the 'benefit' isn't enough. Hence the question about Australia. What reciprocal benefits are they getting? Were we offered the same benefits? If so, what is enough? Short of obtaining half the profits on a route without investing diddly squat?

It sounds like one of those terms that the "smarter" folk at the politburo hide behind to explain away policy decisions that aren't doing much good.

[Edited 2012-08-12 10:10:58]

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 43): To be fair, who should Canada be watching?

They're watching out for their own vested interests clearly. It'd be nice if everyone freed up their economies but that's just not the reality.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 43): The only requirement put on AC is the ACPPA. AC can, and does, drop routes that are not profitable.

I think there's more to it, like the HQ in YUL, the bilingual regulations, the labor morass, etc.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 45): They're watching out for their own vested interests clearly. It'd be nice if everyone freed up their economies but that's just not the reality.

I meant watching from a policy perspective. Its not uncommon for countries to learn lessons from other 'like-minded' nations. Or so I've heard in Ottawa.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 45): I think there's more to it, like the HQ in YUL, the bilingual regulations, the labor morass, etc.

That all falls under ACPPA. I m not sure how much of the labor bit falls under. I think the rationale behind those is that AC got a full airline, planes, hangars, trained crews and all, at the taxpayers expense when it was initially privatized, so it had some obligations to fulfill due to this 'advantage'. Granted, it didn't foresee how the future of aviation would unfold, so some of these obligations have become so detrimental to the running of the airline that it now seems as though the only way to keep those obligations to the taxpayer going is by going back to the taxpayer to fund them. IE- like certain other policies in this great country of ourse, it belongs in the dungheap of history.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39): And yet the Canadian Government - and Air Canada - threw a hissy fit when the UAE linked a free military base lease to more access for EK. Odd how its okay to do that to others, but not okay when someone does it to you. Very odd trade policy.

This is brought up again and again. Take it from someone inside the CF who worked at NDHQ, there's a lot more here than meets the eye. UAE forces were under direct protection of the Canadian battle group in Afghanistan. And there were numerous instances when our forces got into a TIC, just to keep the UAE's forces safe (they were caveated to avoid engagement as much as possible...muslim fraternity and all). Canada also sided with the US in being ummm shall we say "more tolerant" of the UAE's laxity when it comes to heroin smuggling and money laundering in the region, which directly impacts our national security objectives in Afghanistan. The unspoken quid pro quo was that we get to use the base in return. There too the UAE benefitted immensely. Canadian naval vessels were now being serviced at Dubai Dry Docks for some repairs. Replenishment contracts were undertaken through some UAE based contractors. Fuel service contracts were issued to UAE based companies. There were also accomodations made to get UAEAF crews training in Moose Jaw. Etc.

The idea that UAE gained nothing from giving us "free" use of the base, and that Canada reneged on its commitments is preposterous. That's why there was such a strong reaction in Ottawa to the UAE linking EK access to what was a budding strategic relationship. The UAE rolled the dice on EK's behalf. And they've lost a lot more than a potential few slots at EK's fate and eliminated any sympathy the rest of the government bureaucracy and the Cabinet had for the UAE's viewpoints. Virtually every other airline will now get slots at EK or EY. Watch for a substantially tighter stance in our diplomacy going forward on countries of convenience for drug smuggling and money laundering. Our governments (Liberal or Conservative) don't take kindly to having our troops shot at and then having those protected stab us in the back.

To relate all that to this thread. To Singapore's credit, they don't link issues. Singaporean military aircrew train at NFTC in Moose Jaw. And Singapore is one of the candidate locations for a permanent forward operating base in Asia. Military relations are terrific with Singapore. And they've never seen the need to link SQ's access to military and political relations with Canada.

[Edited 2012-08-13 08:02:23]

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 13): I dare not even compare this with the OSA standard set by the US, which also includes 8th freedom

What US Open Skies agreements include 8th freedom cabotage rights? I'm not aware of any. The otherwise very liberal US-EU Open Skies agreement certainly doesn't permit cabotage for either side, and since the US government is strongly opposed to cabotage within the US, why would any other country grant such rights unilaterally to US carriers within their countries?

[Edited 2012-08-13 14:52:36]

[Edited 2012-08-13 15:38:22]

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 46): Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 45): I think there's more to it, like the HQ in YUL, the bilingual regulations, the labor morass, etc. That all falls under ACPPA. I m not sure how much of the labor bit falls under. I think the rationale behind those is that AC got a full airline, planes, hangars, trained crews and all, at the taxpayers expense when it was initially privatized, so it had some obligations to fulfill due to this 'advantage'. Granted, it didn't foresee how the future of aviation would unfold, so some of these obligations have become so detrimental to the running of the airline that it now seems as though the only way to keep those obligations to the taxpayer going is by going back to the taxpayer to fund them. IE- like certain other policies in this great country of ourse, it belongs in the dungheap of history.

Except the government kept most of the proceeds when AC was privatized, and the govnerment got dividends year after year from Air Canada when it was a Crown Corp.