Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10): I am shocked EK doesn't serve EWR 2X/day by now with 77Ws or at least 77Ls to grab the premium traffic.

They didn't serve EWR until just very recently, so they view EWR (as most airlines do) as not very important to their NYC area presence.

Also, the premium traffic uses JFK overwhelmingly over EWR, so there really isn't much demand for more premium service from EWR.

Quoting BA0197 (Reply 20): Because they know the limits of how far they can go. The fact is they are trading with an unfair advantage that is damaging to the marketplace (i.e. eliminating airlines as an extreme). If they only flew domestically then it would not be an issue, but foreign regulatory authorities are in play here. If they see that they are a damaging company, action will be taken. Bravo to the Italian authorities for protecting competition for the long term.

Perhaps the A380 is a part of that advantage.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 13): Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 9): A state-backed airline that can bleed money on the route and cause everyone else on the route to lose money so you can fly TA cheaper than flying to California? It's OK, I am no fan of Alitalia either. (Emirates, on the other hand, are a highly profitable airline who don't do anything for matters of state pride, they are in business to make money.)

OP was referring to EK as the "state-backed airline that can bleed money on the route and cause everyone else on the route to lose money", not AZ. Which is indeed what EK can afford to do. That, and also bully the EU using the no more Airbus order threat if the EU gives them too much trouble.
There is no way that DL-AF-AZ-KL can get this level of government backup that EK may get if they need. EK certainly is profitable and no doubt the UAE are happy about it and supporting it, but in no way would they let EK go if that was to change.
If you assume that EK does nothing to state pride, try one second to imagine what would happen to Dubai's economy if EK was to fold. For the UAE, they are too big to fail.
Italy would survive without AZ, the UAE would not survive without EK.
And Italy's reluctance to help a foreign competitor to make profit and steal market shares to its own joint venture airline is legit.

Quoting stlgph (Reply 37): You're nuts. $600 to Milan is AWESOME.

No, it is unsustainable and unhealthy for the airline industry. Do you want to go back to the days of airlines filing for ch. 11 one after the other? I do not.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 47): These aren't negotiated in a vacuum. The USA isn't going to p*ss of UAE, as they need them on-side other areas.

The US still has a Democrat in the White House. Who is pro-union and will protect US jobs. Don't under estimate that.

The US might want to be friendly with the UAE up to the point, but when they start hurting US airlines with them dumping capacity in the US market. Then watch how fast the US pulls open skies with the UAE and sends them packing.

Quoting RJA321 (Reply 41): I am not even disappointed that my own country's national carrier is suffering, whether (in)directly related or not, because I'd much rather it go under in favor of an airline where I get my hard-earned money's worth.

Your national airline got the standard of aviation in the middle east, it has a product at par to any other that you glamour, you can not blame it because its financial resources are limited

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 52): No, it is unsustainable and unhealthy for the airline industry. Do you want to go back to the days of airlines filing for ch. 11 one after the other? I do not.

If you can't fight the fight, then don't do it.
Everyone on here flippin cheers when the airlines get into domestic routes and dump planes and flights and seats on a route "oh, they're just protecting their turf! Go them!"
You can't have it both ways.
An airline has oil money backing it - great. Guess what - that's the way they went into business. Don't like it? Ante up on yourself.
At the end of the day - money talks. I like my $600 roundtrips to Milan. More, please.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 11): Just like I don't support those who want Canada to open all their skies for ME3 and have AC file for bankruptcy so they can save $100 on their annual trip back to LHE and CMB

If AC is that dependent on traffic to LHE and CMB, we're in big trouble.

But if they are not, then surely the market warrants more competition.

EK alone is now flying 4 A380s per day to JFK alone. Yet, people are worried about EK going daily at YYZ?

Just curious... What's your thoughts on the LHE and CMB subsidising TATL passengers? That's the exact effect of all these rules against the ME3 and the nice little club of immunity of the TATL JVs. Do you think it's fair that the new immigrant from CMB or LHE who is going to twice as far (and likely makes a lower income) has to help contribute to higher TATL yields by accepting limits on competition that gives preference to routing via Europe?

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 17): Why does SQ not receive the same derision , it is state backed as well.

Because SQ follows the "rules" of the club by joining an alliance. What people truly resent are independent carriers.

Not just SQ. But look at airlines in China. Look at AI. And then look at airlines that maybe private but have a rather favourable government like CX.

Quoting Clipper101 (Reply 54): Your national airline got the standard of aviation in the middle east, it has a product at par to any other that you glamour, you can not blame it because its financial resources are limited

The comments of RJA321 are astonishing. I would be sad to see RJ disappear. I would rather give my money to RJ which is a local airline and give jobs to locals then to EK, QR or EY. The ME3s have done a great job, we all agree. However, there must be limit on the amount of traffic they capture from each market because they they are not an even playing field with most of their competitors. I am amazed the South African government has given them a free ride. These guys do not pay corporate taxes, their crews do not have unions (or protection) and they operate from airports that do not have curfews or limitations. I am for fair competition and I do not feel that if I give my money to the ME3s, I am helping the job market and the aviation industry in Europe (same as the LCCs that are dragging working conditions to the bottom). Before we know it, one day we will all be replaced with cheap and un-unionized labor in other countries (and it is already happening).

EK sure seems to have benefited going in bed with B6 at JFK. Its unfortunate that B6 does not have another major U.S. city hub at airports such as ORD, LAX, IAH which would enable EK to fast track operating double daily flights with onward feed provided by B6.

I wonder if EK can court Virgin America to provide feed from SFO and LAX as the main U.S. legacy carriers dont seem to be willing to work with EK.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 59): I wonder if EK can court Virgin America to provide feed from SFO and LAX as the main U.S. legacy carriers dont seem to be willing to work with EK.

Maybe, but 95% of the destinations VX flies out of SFO EK passengers can get to by connecting to B6 out of JFK. Its a little redundant. Also, don't forget that EK now flies to B6's Boston hub where passengers connect to B6 to other cities as well, IE DTW, PIT, etc

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 48): "I would compare the policies of United Arab Emirates, which has done a terrific job recognising the value of transportation, of travel. They’re quite supportive. And by support, I don’t mean subsidies. I mean understanding the value and the jobs this industry drives."

  I've been saying this for YEARS. While the EU, Subcontinent, SE Asia, etc, are busy trying to kill their airlines while simultaneously using them as jobs programs and money pinatas, more efficient carriers are obviously going to eat their lunch. Of course investing a zillion dollars in your home base that requires a bailout doesn't hurt either   

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 58): I would rather give my money to RJ which is a local airline and give jobs to locals then to EK, QR or EY.

Except that, the ME3 only ever impact a handful of routes. Despite all the hoopla. So you really aren't protecting that many jobs. You're just making it more expensive for other industry to do business.

We're having the same discussion about protecting our telecom sector, here in Canada. Government is slowly wising up to the fact that the telecom sectors profits come at the expense of every other business sector. This is why they will be opening up the telecom sector to foreign competition under the EU free trade agreement.

Likewise, insisting on protecting national carriers, simply makes it more expensive for every other business to do business in South Asia, Southeast Asia, etc. The American government understands all this. That's why they aren't going to bother with protectionist lobbying over preserving profits on a handful of routes.

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 58): These guys do not pay corporate taxes, their crews do not have unions (or protection) and they operate from airports that do not have curfews or limitations.

So penalize businesses because their governments don't impose regulatory or taxation burdens? Are you to suggest similar restrictions on SQ and CX which also have lower corporate tax rates and efficient regulations in their home bases?

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 58): I am for fair competition

"Fair competition" is a laughable concept when the proponents of it basically suggest that the country they accuse of being unfair should basically adopt the inefficient and expensive regulatory and corporate taxation regime of the EU.

Easy to push around small countries like the UAE with talk of "fair competition". Let's see how well this goes down with free trade negotiations with the USA, when there's the threat of Airbus moving more production to the Southern USA. Good luck telling the USA, that trade with them is "unfair".

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 58): I do not feel that if I give my money to the ME3s, I am helping the job market and the aviation industry in Europe (same as the LCCs that are dragging working conditions to the bottom).

You are of course free to spend your money the way you want. But I do feel that people who preach such sentiments are rather unaware of the way economics works.

Personally, I have zero interest in subsidizing any carrier's profits. Particularly when they resort to flag waving nationalistic appeals while stuffing me in a 17" wide seat with 31" pitch, with 50 pax per Y toilet, for 12 hours (see Air Canada high-density 77H). Loyalty is a two-way street. Our North American carriers and the Eurolegacies, decided to stop caring about passengers a long time ago. Time to return the favour.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 9): A state-backed airline that can bleed money on the route and cause everyone else on the route to lose money so you can fly TA cheaper than flying to California?

By the same token, why should it cost 3x or 4x more to fly TATL than it does to fly to Calif?
I just priced out tickets to go spend xmas with my family in Portugal. UA wants $1800 to fly BOS-EWR-LIS. That's not even a non-stop flight, in a 757! Guess what, I'm we're not going and I'm begging EK to start LIS-BOS. It's because of predatory fares like these from the incumbent carriers that EK and Co. are hugely successful. The incumbent legacy carriers have no moral leg to stand on, especially when they have all been bailed out by the government (yes some of us tax payers have not forgotten the 9/11 bailouts, all $15 billion of it).

Quoting AABB777 (Reply 8):

Yes, EK does have great connectivity on BLR-DXB-JFK but to board a flight at 10.30 am with a brief layover in DXB is sheer luxury for those of us who don't like the torture of boarding in the wee hours.

EK has become the de facto international airline of India, and the Indian public is voting with it's feet in droves obviously. While I like AI onboard, the AI SATS ground staff at DEL inspires little confidence.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 59): EK sure seems to have benefited going in bed with B6 at JFK. Its unfortunate that B6 does not have another major U.S. city hub at airports such as ORD, LAX, IAH which would enable EK to fast track operating double daily flights with onward feed provided by B6.

I was wondering the same ... clearly, EK is getting a lot of 'feed' to feed these 4x behemoths DAILY. jetBlue seems to be a winner out of this growth as well ... and with T5i opening soon, looks like their bond with international airline partners are to grow further. Congrats to both EK and B6 !!!

... that takes us to BOS ... the only other 'hub' that jetBlue can offer to provide connections for EK. Looks like EK is already providing LAX connections via B6 at BOS, in addition to nearby cities in the eastern US. While gates won't be ready for the Manatees for a while, maybe a second frequency of 77W ? (in cooperation with B6, of course)  

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 9): A state-backed airline that can bleed money on the route and cause everyone else on the route to lose money so you can fly TA cheaper than flying to California?

Quoting airbazar (Reply 63): By the same token, why should it cost 3x or 4x more to fly TATL than it does to fly to Calif?

This. Why is $600 TATL considered a loss-making fare? Especially when we're talking cheaper fuel (international carriers pay lower fuel taxes), and huge widebodies with substantially lower fuel burn per passenger than the narrowbodies flying to LAX, and lots of cargo business to boost yields without considering passenger yields.

TCON fares could be lower if there were more 787s flying this route than A321s (something to consider since there are two sets of AA flights where the two flights in each set are an hour apart).

Quoting behramjee (Reply 59): EK sure seems to have benefited going in bed with B6 at JFK.

I wouldn't say that EK is the only beneificiary in that relationship....

Quoting airbazar (Reply 63): The incumbent legacy carriers have no moral leg to stand on, especially when they have all been bailed out by the government (yes some of us tax payers have not forgotten the 9/11 bailouts, all $15 billion of it).

Conceptually, I agree when your sentiment, however, tax payers in fact did not end up with a $15 billion hole, in fact the net gain to tax payers in guarantees extended to airlines was about $300 million. http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008...nt-bailouts-work-ask-the-airlines/

Although I hate talking about subsidising and government bails, because it is an endless talk and a topic for those who are creative in the dark side of the things. But as for EK, be sure that if it ever happened and EK filed for chapter 11, Dubai Government cannot bail Emirates, the airline grow to a level where it can bail the government and it actually did in the last economic downturn where EK chairman led the largest bank in the city and chaired the financial committee. No doubt EK is the gold mine for its owners but it grew to level where it cannot be sold or bailed but it is not to big to fall and I hope it never falls.

Quoting ytz (Reply 62):

Wise words ytz

How are EY and QR supposed to compete with EK at JFK when EK now offers so, so, so much capacity. EY and QR can only price match for so long before they begin tanking their own respective yields. Somehow EY and QR need to both find a way to focus their efforts on customers who are not as price sensitive. For example, QR needs to focus on alliance customers in the greater New York region who will choose QR over EK/EY because of QR's affiliation with AA. It seems the only strategy I see from these three is to sell on low fares. That's a recipe for disaster for an airline that's not an LCC/ULCC.

Quoting AABB777 (Reply 71): For example, QR needs to focus on alliance customers in the greater New York region who will choose QR over EK/EY because of QR's affiliation with AA.

QR really needs to work hard to convince AA to drop its relationship with EY and move all codeshares to QR.

Quoting AABB777 (Reply 71): It seems the only strategy I see from these three is to sell on low fares. That's a recipe for disaster for an airline that's not an LCC/ULCC.

EK does fine. It's the other two that people need to worry about (though apparently EY is close to profitability?). And that's their own fault. Vanity project not paying off? Surprise. Surprise.

They better hope that TK doesn't get more ambitious either.

Quoting ytz (Reply 56): Do you think it's fair that the new immigrant from CMB or LHE who is going to twice as far (and likely makes a lower income) has to help contribute to higher TATL yields by accepting limits on competition that gives preference to routing via Europe?

The same TATL yields that help AC cross subsidize air services to smaller towns. So it is fair for a Canadian in a smaller town to lose air service because AC is bleeding because a foreign airline is dumping capacity and flushing yields into the toilet?

Quoting ytz (Reply 62): We're having the same discussion about protecting our telecom sector, here in Canada. Government is slowly wising up to the fact that the telecom sectors profits come at the expense of every other business sector. This is why they will be opening up the telecom sector to foreign competition under the EU free trade agreement.

Sorry that anology does not fly. If private players like Wind et al. had been incubated, they would have invested in the country creating jobs in the country, paying corporate taxes to the Crown while repatriating fair profits to foreign owners after fulfulling their social obligations.

Conversely all that EK, EY and QR want are unlimited rights so that they can enter a market, keep trashing yields until either they are they only ones left or it's too unprofitable for them and pull out. The end game in any case is always detrimental to consumers.

Quoting golfradio (Reply 73): The same TATL yields that help AC cross subsidize air services to smaller towns.

Show me one shred of evidence for this. Just have a look at the cost of flights to remote parts of this country and then tell me that AC is using their TATL profits to subsidise those runs.

AC doesn't subsidise a thing.

Quoting golfradio (Reply 73): So it is fair for a Canadian in a smaller town to lose air service because AC is bleeding because a foreign airline is dumping capacity and flushing yields into the toilet?

If AC service to Yellowknife is dependent on profits made from skimming the TATL portions of lower yielding immigrant families traveling to LHE, DEL and CMB, we'll really have to rethink our aviation policy.

Quoting ytz (Reply 75):

My understanding is that there is a very close, symbiotic relationship between Transport Canada and Air Canada, which ensures that AC is very well taken care of. Incidentally, I have learned from some good discussions on this topic, more consumer-focused than those here, on a well-known competing aviation site focused on frequent flyers.

Ironically, because of the Open Skies agreement between Canada and the European Union, AC is subject to all kinds of competition over the North Atlantic. (Note the recent expansion announcements of Air France and KLM in Western Canada, as well as of Icelandair earlier, for example.) Somehow the arguments applied to the Gulf carriers, such as the need for air service to small or remote Canadian communities cited above, and the low level of origin-destination traffic, suddenly go away. In fact, one of your fellow Canadians here who usually brushes aside the needs of the "tiny minority" who would benefit from more Gulf flights, suggested in another thread that Icelandair fly to Winnipeg to serve the Icelandic community there.

I would guess that the Government of Canada has a fair bit of leverage with respect to the GCC countries, because GCC-USA nonstop flights invariably traverse Canadian airspace. Those GCC carriers would not want to jeopardise those overly rights. With respect to Canada service expansion, perhaps all they can do is wait for a new Government to enter office in Ottawa, along with a complete overhaul of Transport Canada.

Quoting ytz (Reply 72): QR really needs to work hard to convince AA to drop its relationship with EY and move all codeshares to QR.

Why? Oneworld membership aside United and Delta are doing nothing to work with Gulf Carriers and, indeed, Delta is leading the charge against them. If I was AA I'd codeshare with all 3 and harvest as much traffic from them as I possibly could. (As they are doing with EY and QR) After all, their first and business classes aren't filled with low yield pax!

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 76): With respect to Canada service expansion, perhaps all they can do is wait for a new Government to enter office in Ottawa, along with a complete overhaul of Transport Canada.

It's not going to happen. Canada is an interesting flipside to the highly liberal aviation policy Australia has in respect to Gulf Carriers. And I would say they reason DL wants them off of MXP-JFK is nothing to do with $600 fares and everything to do with EK's perceived superior product and their ability to draw premium pax away from the incumbent Italian and US Carriers. Those premium pax are the one's DL wants on its own aircraft and is why they want EK off.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 77): It's not going to happen.

I know. I was being facetious.

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 58):

Thank you for the supportive statement.

In my own humble opinion I find airlines can lay under one of the following three categories:

1- Those that work under sound business practices & happen to have deep pockets and/or good access to financial market instruments (ME3, US airlines, major groupings of Europe come to mind).

2- Those that work under sound business practices & sadly do not have access to sufficient financial resources and/or sufficient access to financial market instruments to prove themselves in a highly volatile nature of the airline business (RJ, Air Berlin, Jet Airways come to mind)

3- Those that run under no sound business practices & just burn whatever money pumped into them (a general statement that is said to what are traditionally termed "national carriers" but it is not necessarily so, I would not comment my opinion on who I think is in this category, but some are already long gone).

Quoting golfradio (Reply 73): Sorry that anology does not fly.

   I would agree with your statement just because we both know that dynamics of telecommunication business is different from that of airlines. So, I agree putting telecommunication into the picture within this discussion is a very bad example.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 74): Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 25): Get on the Queen Mary and count the British waiters/bar tenders/help. errr... Its a hotel in Long Beach.

Umm it is actually an ocean liner plying the worlds oceans. Even a smile does not not excuse that statement!

Gemuser

Quoting gemuser (Reply 80): Umm it is actually an ocean liner plying the worlds oceans. Even a smile does not not excuse that statement!

The Queen Mary 2 is currently plying the oceans.

The Queen Mary, with no ordinal, is indeed a hotel in Long beach, CA.

Quoting ytz (Reply 75): If AC service to Yellowknife is dependent on profits made from skimming the TATL portions of lower yielding immigrant families traveling to LHE, DEL and CMB, we'll really have to rethink our aviation policy.

I assumed we were all talking figuratively. You very well know that it's not just the Sub-Continent. It's Africa, Middle East, South and South East Asia and if the price is right even points in Oceania.
I work for the second largest software company and we have a lot of people travelling to HYD and BLR from YYZ. Like every other corporate today, you can only book the cheapest J/Y fare depending on your title. In either class most often it's one of the ME3. But so far the premium guys are still flying AC only because EK and EY are restricted to 3x weekly and premium guys need the flexibility of frequency.
Forget unlimited, even if EK and EY are given daily rights, all of the premium traffic will now *have* to choose EK and EY as they are the cheapest. So you see, it does not matter how good the product is, it's who is cheapest.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 74): AC should also get their cost structure in order. Employee wages are *not* the fraction of expenses they used to be.

OK, so someone please educate me. I will take it that you are right and labour is only a marginal line item on the opex. By popular assertion of all ME3 cheerleaders, fuel prices are not subsidized - though from what I have seen from 2011 to 2013, JetA/Kerosene was about ~10c cheaper per liter in UAE at 3 DHS/liter and surprisingly it never fluctuated.

So labour and fuel costs being equal, what's the secret sauce? I personally know first time iternational flyers who have been upgraded to J. So it's not as if their front end is always full with full fare paying suits and their back is full of bargain hunters. From free visas, to chauffer driven limos to free hotel suites and yet being cheapest on most routes, something definitely does not add up.

[Edited 2014-11-09 10:58:40]

[Edited 2014-11-09 11:02:19]

Quoting evomutant (Reply 81): The Queen Mary 2 is currently plying the oceans. The Queen Mary, with no ordinal, is indeed a hotel in Long beach, CA.

My bad! I was thinking of the newer Queen Elizabeth, which has no number!

Gemuser

Quoting ytz (Reply 75): Show me one shred of evidence for this. Just have a look at the cost of flights to remote parts of this country and then tell me that AC is using their TATL profits to subsidise those runs.

Every network carrier is a sum of its parts, and some are profitable while others are not--that's why AC and EK are network carriers, rather than solely Transatlantic or Subcontinent carriers. I think there's little question that EK loses money Transatlantic but clearly more than makes up for it regionally. AC isn't much different, likely making money Transatlantic and losing some of it domestically.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 85): AC isn't much different, likely making money Transatlantic and losing some of it domestically.

Why do you say that? AC has far more competition on transatlantic than domestic. There must be at least 25 scheduled carriers operating transatlantic routes from Canada, plus all the U.S. carriers from nearby border points. On domestic routes they only have one major competitor

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 87): Why do you say that? AC has far more competition on transatlantic than domestic

I'm just guessing, but I'd bet AC does fine Transatlantic for many reasons, most of which are the JV and the fact that it's the only Canadian network carrier with a true business product and network. That said they're planning to grow domestically 4-5% next year, as they did this year, so on balance perhaps it makes money as well. Point is not *everything* at a network carrier makes money.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 63): By the same token, why should it cost 3x or 4x more to fly TATL than it does to fly to Calif?

The inverse is also worth asking.... but that's more of a market function than anything that has to do with the individual carrier.

Quoting golfradio (Reply 83): You very well know that it's not just the Sub-Continent. It's Africa, Middle East, South and South East Asia and if the price is right even points in Oceania.

As noted above, all this combined comprises far, far less a portion of AC revenues (as part of the Star TATL JV) than does Canada-Europe traffic, where an open skies agreement is in force. As such the argument that the GCC carriers would impair Canadian remote air service is quite an audacious one.

Quoting golfradio (Reply 83): Forget unlimited, even if EK and EY are given daily rights, all of the premium traffic will now *have* to choose EK and EY as they are the cheapest.

As a blanket statement this is simply not true. Certainly when they first enter a market they may well be the cheapest, but this state of affairs may not last long. For the India traffic you are referring to, in fact, it is the European carriers (including the Star TATL JV), but excluding BA, that seem to have resorted to greater discounting in the J cabin, ex-USA. The same story would very likely apply to YYZ.

Also bear in mind that EK has relationships with other carriers that already serve Canada (like Alaska Air) or could do so in the future (like jetBlue). These can indirectly provide access to daily service as well, albeit with less convenience for the traveller.

Quoting golfradio (Reply 83): Forget unlimited, even if EK and EY are given daily rights, all of the premium traffic will now *have* to choose EK and EY as they are the cheapest. So you see, it does not matter how good the product is, it's who is cheapest.

You are getting the cheapest fares for business and personal flights due to your employment.

Try getting friends or relatives with no system relationship to you, to obtain fares for the same flights. Wait until you retire, and then see what happens within a year or two. You won't be getting cheaper with EK then.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 90): Also bear in mind that EK has relationships with other carriers that already serve Canada (like Alaska Air) or could do so in the future (like jetBlue). These can indirectly provide access to daily service as well, albeit with less convenience for the traveller.

So what you are suggesting is Canadians should be grateful to ME3 for the $50/each way they pay to Alaska Air, just like we should be grateful for the $50/each way B6 getting.

ME3 impact on local carriers is same worldwide. If ME3 dump traffic on profitable routes, how can local carriers survive on remaining non-profitable routes.

Quoting planesmart (Reply 91): Wait until you retire, and then see what happens within a year or two. You won't be getting cheaper with EK then.

Forget retire. A lot of these folks who make the argument that poor immigrant families should spend more would never spend more themselves on their personal travel. It's easy to preach when you're traveling on somebody else's money. And it's equally easy to call for restrictions (effectively trade barriers) when it's not your money at stake. Who cares if the neighbours spend more?

It'll take time. But eventually the demographics in several vote rich urban areas will drive access. Quite a few immigrants are unhappy with the artificial restrictions on their travel. They just need someone to better explain to them the racist nature of such policies, which specifically targets their travel more than any other group.

And stats bear this out. There's just over a million Canadians of Dutch descent. Apparently that means KLM gets access to Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal. There are 1.6 million South Asian Canadians. Half of them live in the GTA. And that doesn't warrant more than 6 slots a week to the Gulf Carriers conveying them to the subcontinent?

Quite happy to see an airport like JFK get more traffic. This example helps when I write letter to politicians pointing out exactly how unfair such policies are to the South Asian community in the GTA. If JFK can handle four slots from just EK alone, surely EK, EY, QR and TK can all be allowed daily slots at YYZ.

[Edited 2014-11-10 06:48:27]

Quoting planesmart (Reply 91):

Huh, no I don't get those rates for personal travel. Also I don't get to fly J when on business. I buy my tickets off online travel sites just like every one else.

Quoting ytz (Reply 93): Forget retire. A lot of these folks who make the argument that poor immigrant families should spend more would never spend more themselves on their personal travel.

Oh please spare me the drama. And don't judge people you don't know. I am a first generation immigrant of Indian descent myself and live in the GTA. And if I recall correctly, from your own admission you are not. How often you or your family travels to India? I travel almost evey year.

I pay for my own personal travel. I have never heard of any corporate pay for employee's personal travel.
I choose to fly 9W or AC even when I have to pay a premium. I can afford it but don't expect every one else to be able to do it.

And that said, I have more first generation immigrant friends from India and not one of them has complained about affordability. Just walk into any hundreds of consolidators sprinkled all over the GTA and you can buy a round trip ticket to India for an average $1000 with EK/EY as long as you book at least 2-3 months in advance and barring the Christmas/New Year high season.

Quoting ytz (Reply 93): And stats bear this out. There's just over a million Canadians of Dutch descent. Apparently that means KLM gets access to Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal. There are 1.6 million South Asian Canadians. Half of them live in the GTA. And that doesn't warrant more than 6 slots a week to the Gulf Carriers conveying them to the subcontinent?

Why should they? When did the GCC carries become the flag carriers for any of the sub-continent countries? AI and 9W have all the access they need. Same for PK and UL.

Quoting golfradio (Reply 94): Oh please spare me the drama. And don't judge people you don't know.

Spare us the drama. Who are you to advocate policies that adversely impact other families?

Quoting golfradio (Reply 94): I am a first generation immigrant of Indian descent myself and live in the GTA.

As am I.

Quoting golfradio (Reply 94): And if I recall correctly, from your own admission you are not.

Posted back to Toronto. And now I am...

Quoting golfradio (Reply 94): How often you or your family travels to India? I travel almost evey year.

Every 2 years. What's your point? Does the validity of an argument (particularly when discussing the discrimnatory nature of policy) reside on my personal travel habits?

Quoting golfradio (Reply 94): Why should they? When did the GCC carries become the flag carriers for any of the sub-continent countries? AI and 9W have all the access they need. Same for PK and UL.

Most people aren't ignorant enough to entirely pass on the reality that AI and UL aren't flying here and that the GCC carriers are the de facto carriers to South Asia. I sincerely wish that there were more direct flights between the sub-continent and North America. But for a myriad of reasons, this is not going to happen. So might as well let in the ME3+TK. If the dominant carrier at YYZ, is going to enter into a price fixing regime (TATL JV) that compels traffic to transfer to their partner east of Europe, I expect government policy to at least make a passing attempt at protecting the consumer through allowance of some more competition. This is particularly acute when the entire set of TATL carriers comprising the vast, vast majority of TATL traffic is in a TATL JV of some kind, effectively subjecting Canadian travelers to triopoly.

I'd never advocate some kind of open skies policies. But it's a bit ridiculous that JFK can support 4x daily from EK alone and we consider moving beyond 6x weekly for EK/EY to be excessive. Even accounting for population and economic differences, this is rather restrictive. Add up ME3+TK frequencies from JFK and correct for population, and tell me that YYZ couldn't support more competition. And at least the yanks have several major carriers. We've got only one major carrier that flies internationally.

Quoting ytz (Reply 95): Who are you to advocate policies that adversely impact other families?

Exactly who am I to advocate? Which post of mine gave you that ridiculous idea? Just like you claim Canada is blocking access to cheap tickets to lower income immigrants, I am claiming that tickets are cheap enough.

Quoting ytz (Reply 95): Every 2 years. What's your point? Does the validity of an argument (particularly when discussing the discrimnatory nature of policy) reside on my personal travel habits?

I made that point because you are talking about affordability when the reality is any one can walk into the aforementioned neighborhood consolidator and buy a ticket for EK/EY for an average of $1000.

Now if you think that's too expensive and EK/EY need to get daily rights to make that even cheaper then I have nothing more to say.

Quoting ytz (Reply 95): effectively subjecting Canadian travelers to triopoly.

Sure let's open up everything and make sure we replace it with a different tripoly.

...a.net formatting problems...

[Edited 2014-11-10 09:24:06]

Quoting ytz (Reply 97): You can get tickets to Europe for $600 at any consolidator. So is $1000 to South Asia that out of whack?

YYZ-DEL is at least twice as long as YYZ-LHR just by great circle, much longer if you factor in the ME3 stop. If Europe is $600 at consolidator, a comparable price at South Asia should be at least in the $1200-1300 range.

Quoting golfradio (Reply 96): Sure let's open up everything

There's quite a bit of difference between giving the four airlines daily slots and opening up everything.....

Quoting golfradio (Reply 96): I am claiming that tickets are cheap enough.

So we should now debate policy on the old line of "I know a guy...."? Show me statistical evidence that average fare to the subcontinent on EK/EY is an average of $1000.

Yet, beyond that.... Curious why consolidators are a relevant source. Aren't their prices cheaper for any sector? Their job after all is put bums in seats at cheaper prices. You can get tickets to Europe for $600 at any consolidator. So is $1000 to South Asia that out of whack? (ps. Just looking in May for BOM...the only one offering a ~$1000 fare is BA).

And finally, the argument that a price is too low is seriously anti-capitalist and anti-democratic. If the economic logic of this argument is so sound, why not apply this argument to other sectors of the economy? It's a good thing, at least the Americans believe in free market principles....

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 98): DEL is at least twice as long as LHR just by great circle, much longer if you factor in the ME3 stop. If Europe is $600 at consolidator, a comparable price at South Asia should be at least in the $1200-1300 range.

That was two minutes on the net. And a fare on BA.com to LHR from Top