UAE offers to extend Forces' stay in exchange for more Canadian flights

[gbax]

How about this, you let us stay and you keep you're slots!



The United Arab Emirateshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/uae-offers-to-extend-forces-stay-in-exchange-for-more-canadian-flights/article1480429/#) has requested that Ottawa grant Emirates Airline greater access to Canada in exchange for extending permission for the Canadian Forces to stay at a Persian Gulf base that serves as a crucial jump-off point to Afghanistan.
The base was established after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but an agreement between Canada and the UAE is set to be renegotiated by mid-2010, threatening the future of the desert base that offers logistics support to troops in Afghanistan.
Emirates, owned by the Dubai government, currently flies three times a week between Toronto and Dubai – one of seven emirates in the UAE. The carrier wants to ramp up its Toronto-Dubai service to twice daily.
In a letter to Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the UAE linked the airline's route-expansion proposal with negotiations over the fate of the Canadian Forces' forward logistics base in the Persian Gulfhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/uae-offers-to-extend-forces-stay-in-exchange-for-more-canadian-flights/article1480429/#), an Ottawa-based airline industry lobbyist said in an interview.
Emirates is also seeking to introduce service to Vancouver and Calgary, but the UAE's request doesn't insist that those cities be immediately included in any new aviation pact, the lobbyist said.
A Canadian airline official added that Canada's Department of National Defence favours making moves to keep the UAE onside and preserving the base, but Foreign Affairs and Transport Canada are concerned about caving in because of the precedent it would set for other countries to make demands for new flights.
A spokesman for Andrew Parker, Emirates senior vice-president of international affairs, said last night that the disagreement over access to Canada's airspace is to be resolved between governments.
Last June, Emirates introduced the double-decker Airbus A380 to its Toronto-Dubai route, but complained that Ottawa unfairly restricted access to Canada, effectively shielding Montreal-based Air Canada and its partners from facing increased competition on international routes.
Catherine Loubier, a spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, said in a statement last night that “any discussion between Canada and the UAE on the administration of our air transportation agreement is conducted between the parties to the agreement, and in keeping with the normal exercise of Canada's diplomatic relations.”
Another UAE-based carrier, Etihad Airways, flies three times a week between Toronto and Abu Dhabi. “Canada and the UAE have excellent relations which include direct air services, and which provide for six flights by UAE-based airlines to Canada per week,” Ms. Loubier said.
Industry analysts, however, say the UAE has grown increasingly frustrated after Ottawa's repeated rejection of expansion applications from Emirates.
Earlier this week, Emirates released a study that it commissioned, saying there would be $480-million in annual economic benefits for Canada if Ottawa allowed the foreign carrier to expand in Toronto and introduce service to Vancouver and Calgary.
“The increased passenger traffic to Canada generated by Emirates flights will stimulate Canada's domestic carriers because a good portion of the new passengers coming to Toronto, Vancouver or Calgary will take connecting domestic flights once they arrive in Canada,” said the report prepared by InterVistas Consulting Inc. for Emirates.

[halas]

Air Canada cries fowl if they allow EK more than a few flights a week to Toronto.

Qantas cries fowl as EK have 10 daily flights to Australia with more to come.

Emirates cries fowl if they don't get what they want.

halas

[oceanpotion]

Very Typical UAE/Emirates style. Just like a bunch of spoiled bloody babies. Also very typical of the culture - use of a bully tactic to get what they want. I really hope the Canadian Government does not cave into them like the Brits and Aussies have, offering them way much more than they deserve. I also hope the Canadian press gets a sniff of what Emirates is really like and help to keep these idiots in check...

[ekwhistleblower]

OP,

Just like a bunch of spoiled bloody babies. Also very typical of the culture - use of a bully tactic to get what they want.


Are you talking about Air Canada?

Let's have a crap carrier and try to protect it rather than offer open skies and allow the travelling public the service they deserve. The sooner the world goes open the quicker the public gets the best deal and we get rid of the protected legacies that have been dragging the industry down.

[surely not]

Gosh now where would they have learned this sort of protectionism from?

Surely not the N. American governments that are happy to have 5th freedom flights through LHR or other stopping off points to Europe yet denied any form of negotiation on European airlines and others being able to sell domestic legs on multi sector routes in their own vast countries!!

Now someone else uses similar tactics they are crying foul..............well sorry but no tears for them, just a reminder that as you sow, so shall ye reap.

[oceanpotion]

EKWB, I generally agree with you mate. Am not an AC fan at all but am definately NOT a UAE/EK fan. Open the skies to anyone else but this lot. Fully realize many opinions exist on this subject but I cannot vote for a bunch of bullies, human rights violators, twisted and conniving a$$holes such as EK.... Just my opinion... Am sorry but the way EK has behaved over the past few months, I cannot help feeling the way I do about them. Am an average human with a normal reaction. Am sure you understand..
;)

[ekwhistleblower]

OP,

There is nothing to agree upon really. All that the article is on about is politics. All governments and businesses do whatever they can to protect and promote their various positions.

The linkages between BAe, Airbus, Boeing and various markets around the world often have all sorts of little additions and nuances to make certain they make the big deal. All that the UAE wants is the right to move those bezillion Indians that have bought Canadian immigration status back home. If they wish to link it to another deal it would just match what the the nations that claim moral authority do to the rest of the world

As to the Human Rights blah, I can't disagree but some pretty scary things go on closer to home than the UAE. Just take Dubya, Cheney and the Iraq reconstruction contracts as your starting point. It wasn't one Sheikh out with his cattle prod it was a president abusing his power with the puppet meister Cheney pulling the strings and destroying an entire country ......allegedly!

[GoreTex]

I would love to fly to YVR and YYC but I side with the canadians, they shouldnt let fatigue EK crews fly into their airspace, not until EK respects certain limitations.

[troff]

Globe and Mail Update
Published on Wednesday, Jun. 03, 2009 4:14PM EDT
Last updated on Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010 11:09PM EST
Air Canada (AC.B-T1.510.010.67%) pilots should be looking internally at reasons for their employer's financial instability, Emirates Airline president Tim Clark said Wednesday.

“It's totally ludicrous to lay some of the blame at the door of Emirates. It's complete and utter nonsense,” Mr. Clark in an interview, responding to warnings from the Air Canada Pilots Association that if Ottawa allows Emirates to expand in Canada, it could force cash-strapped Air Canada into bankruptcy protection.

Mr. Clark made the comments after delivering a speech in Ottawa to the Economic Club of Canada. He is in Canada this week as Emirates introduces the double-decker Airbus A380 to its Toronto-Dubai route.

Mr. Clark added that the Dubai-based carrier is competing fairly against Air Canada and its Star Alliance partners, notably Deutsche Lufthansa AG, which offers flights to India.

Lufthansa and Air Canada have a co-operation agreement that allows them to sell seats on each other's planes, including service to key European hubs such as Frankfurt – competition for the Dubai hub on international traffic.

Emirates, owned by the Dubai government, also said in a newsletter that it's often the subject of distorted arguments over being a government-backed company. “Emirates receives no subsidies from our government and is run as a fully commercial airline,” it said.

Mr. Clark urged Ottawa to approve Emirates' request for daily Toronto-Dubai flights, compared with the current three departures a week. Emirates also wants to introduce service to Calgary and Vancouver.

Air Canada spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said any open skies agreement has to be mutually beneficial, and there is relatively little originating traffic from Dubai, while a large portion of Canadians use Dubai in the United Arab Emirates as a stopover before connecting to destinations in other countries.

“Air Canada has always said it supports liberalization and open skies agreements with the provision that they create a level playing field and make sense for Canada,” he said. “There is no reciprocal benefit to Canadian carriers or Canada. There has to be advantages for both countries.”

[pool]

There has to be advantages for both countries

That's it, exactly.
But it does not necesseraly have to be in civil aviation.
If the Canucks want their wannabe topguns play around in the sand, so be it. That's an advantage.

You can find protectionism distorting performance everywhere.
Emiratisation for a starter.

[Trader]

If they don't want the Cdns then let 'em go. One less force (small as it may be) to help protect their asses should the Iranians decide to do more then just bluster.

This is not protectionism! An open skies policy is developed so that both parties benefit. The idea of free trade follows the same principle. Canada has signed agreements with countries where both find an advantage.

What does open skies with the UAE bring to Canada??? Despite their attempt at quote various' studies' EK flying into Canada bring almost no benefit to Canada. How many employees at a new base--a handful!! Even many of the engineers are brought in from outside, given a Cdn visa and work cheap.

SO they pay for a slot, some airport fees and fuel all of which amount to little.

They don't bring in 'new' passengers. Anyone coming to Canada arrives either direct or via a stop (ie. EK). If it is one stop they can come in on a multitude of airlines, some of whom codeshare with Cdn airlines (not just AC by the way). So whether they come via Lufthanse/AC, United etc or EK is irrelevant. EK is NOT a lowcost airline and their airfares are similar to all the competition so they do not 'stimulate' new traffic al la Ryan Air, Easy jet etc.

So EK wants a series of destinations in Canada yet can provide only one (DXB and AUH are one city for all purposes because they are so close). What benefit would Canada find from an agreement then? Precious little.

EK and similar airlines rely on feed. The move pax through their hub and onward.

[Wizofoz]

EK flying into Canada bring almost no benefit to Canada.

Trader,

Canadians obviously want the product. Both the EK A380s and Etihad flights are perpetually full out of Toronto.

Do you not consider allowing your Citizens the opertunity to use a service they wish to avail themselves of an advantage?

[Fart Master]

Transport Canada and ALPA are two of the most screwed up organisations I have come across in aviation, totally self serving with no regard for the economics of the situation.

The commerce groups in Canada have been pleading for a long time to allow EK to fly into their areas as they see it as a clear economic benefit.

[nolimitholdem]

Full flights do NOT indicate that "Canadians obviously want the product". There is predominantly ONE demographic filling the DXB-YYZ flights, namely pax from the Indian subcontinent. This is not representative of the entire nation, no matter how it is spun!

Nothing would make virtually every Canadian (living in Canada, not the ones with maple leaf passports who use them solely for convenience) happier than to see the Canadian government pull their troops from Afghanistan. I dearly hope they don't cave to a corrupt foreign dictatorship and allow themselves to be bullied.

As far as a "clear economic benefit", where are the actual facts to support this? Oh wait, they're all supplied by Emirates.

If anyone actually believes that Emirates has any altruistic motives whatsoever, please contact someone who actually works for them. They are interested in increasing their own profitability and influence, period. The fact that they would resort to extortion is absolutely no surprise to anyone who has lived or worked in the region. What is slightly more surprising is how quickly the ignorant will actually argue for more access to Canada. How much do you have to hate Air Canada to think that allowing Emirates to have their way - ESPECIALLY in light of the sleazy tactics - is a good thing?

But hey maybe when they're flying daily to YYZ, and you can enjoy the so-called Emirates "service" (provided by exhausted, low-paid, harassed employees with no protections, in a a/c piloted by exhausted crews since the UAE allows all sorts of flight time duty abuses), you can comfort yourself that at least those whiny AC employees got theirs!

[Wizofoz]

Nolimit,

The Pax on those sectors are either Canadian Citizens of sub-continental ancestry visiting family, or family of those same Citizens visiting their Canadian relatives.

In either case, they are Canadians who want the service (with the exeption of the guys being visited by the Mother in Law).

Of course EK isn't being ultruistic. It wants nothing more or less than to profit from supplying a service for which there is a demand.

Why should they not be allowed to?

As to the "Exhausted Crew" crack, we are working hard and flying to limits of our FTLs.

FTLs which are MUCH more restrictive than those which apply in Canada or the US.

[nolimitholdem]

ROTFL

As to the "Exhausted Crew" crack, we are working hard and flying to limits of our FTLs.

FTLs which are MUCH more restrictive than those which apply in Canada or the US.

Do you really have a shred of credibility to lean on after THAT comment? I've worked under the North American FTL's you mention, have you? I can tell you, at EK there isn't a single flight time "limitation" that can't be weaselled around with a variation, annex, exemption or simply a conveniently company-favouring interpretation. Try contesting said interpretation and let me know how that works out for you.

But nope, no one's tired, nope nope, nah...lol

Going back to the original point. No is disputing who the YYZ pax are, in fact I believe I pointed it out myself. But you missed the mark...the fact that one particular demographic can't get the flights as often or as cheaply as they'd like, is NOT representative of the desires of Canadians at large.

Besides which you've missed the principle ENTIRELY, which has to do with the extortion tactics that EK has resorted to - since they can't achieve their aims in the usual manner they do, which it to completely disregard legal agreements they've signed. DEWA caps, on a larger scale! lol But of course since in Oz Emirates is already eating your homeland airlines' lunch, I guess I can understand why you wouldn't object to them doing it elsewhere.

Hey if I thought Canada could benefit even a fraction as much, from more EK access to Canada, as EK would...I'd be all for it. But I don't buy Emirates bull**** propaganda. Been here too long for that.

[Wizofoz]

But nope, no one's tired, nope nope, nah...lol


Classic straw man argument- say I said something I didn't and then argue against THAT.

Yes people are tired at EK and it needs addressing- Just as the FTLs in North America need addressing after things like the Colegen crash. Are you saying fatigue is NOT an issue in operations such as the US regionals? The idea that Canada should restrict EKs access to Canada because of crew fatigue (and that WAS one of your arguments) is ludicrous when a four man crew in North America can operate legally for 24hrs straight.

As to the "Demographic" , what exactly are you trying to say? Because only the Canadians who want EK services want EK services, their wishes should be ignored? Or is it that brown people aren't "really" Canadian?

As to the Australian market, it might be worth noting that all the Australian airlines are profitable in spite of a much smaller and more liberal market. Why exactly IS Air Canada such a basket case when it operates in such a protectionist environment (Hint- almost ALL airlines lose money when they work in a protectionist environment!!)

[troff]

What does open skies with the UAE bring to Canada???
Indians!!! Lots and lots of Indians!

[Trader]

Wiz- that is actually my point. That the simple arguement that the they have a 'right' to choose from any carrier they want is unwarrented. The costs in job losses elsewhere, lost income elsewhere, lost economic activity elsewhere in the economy overshadows what little gain the country receives.

Consumer choice is one tiny variable in the equation. Since EK is priced similarly to the competition it negates the cost savings arguement as well. If a pax is going to make a one stop they can take dozens of other options.

So EK currently flies lots of subcontinent passengers into Canada. Those passengers will arrive one way or another. Ek has a deep presence in India and so the choice of Indians is EK because, if they come from a smaller centre, they might have had to make 2 stops (instead of 1) to reach Canada before EK came along.

Now the arguement comes full circle--again, I don't think Canada's aviation and economic policy should be dependant on making sure one country has excellent access to Canada (ie. only has 1 stop vs 2 stops)--and it has nothing to do with skin colour. It makes NO economic sense to kill another part of the economy to allow EK into the market.

Canada is not protectionist. It has open skies agreements with the US, Europe etc. No country signs open skies or other free trade agreements unless both parties benefit. So, again, Canada receives a slight increase in choice while losing significantly on the income that flows directly into Canada via Canadian airlines and their partners. The choice the government is making is clear.

As for Australia, they may make different choices. Being more isolated as a country they may have decided that the increased choices that EK offers is valuable and, I would guess, that if that is the arguement for them it has less to do with just passengers then it does with insuring economic activity via cargo and the ability of business to link to the outside world. But Canada and Australia are not teh same and have different needs.

[surely not]

If the Indian market is so large to and from Canada, why doesn't Air Canada muscle in on it more effectively either on its own or with code share partners, thereby negating Emirates advantage instead of whining on about how unfair it all is?

Maybe they know they cannot compete cos they are a basket case.

The economic advantage to Canada would be the spending power the additional passengers will bring to the regions served. They will either be boosting the local economy spending money whilst staying with friends and rellies, or spending money if it is Canadians going to India to visit family as to turn up empty handed without plenty of gifts isn't acceptable.

As for this strange belief that only a Low Cost operator would stimulate additional demand, it simply isn't the case. With competition there is normally a healthy adjusting of the normal fares to try to ensure that passengers don't migrate to the new entrant to the market. This benefits existing customers who might fly more frequently if the offer was good enough, and attracts others who were unable to justify the expense before. Load Factor v Yield has to be managed aggresively but it should result in more money not less.

Of course if you are unused to this sort of commercial pressure because you have been unfairly protected by a stubborn government and unions then it is probably not within your capabilities to adapt.

[Trader]

Except that EK does not bring NEW passengers to Canada. All those people and their relatives will fly regardless. The only difference is that instead of Mumbai-DXB-YYZ they will fly Mumbai-FRA-YYZ etc. If the come from one of the smaller centres they may have an extra stop above what EK would offer them.

Air Canada does not need protecting--EK wants to eat away at the income that other airlines currently have to the detriment of the Canadian economy.

The claim that they bring money into the economy - at least at the levels they claim - is plain false. It is just a redistribution of the money.

[Wizofoz]

Well, thanks for making a coherent and reasoned argument Trader, and I do take a lot of what you say onboard.

I think you over-state it when you assume that the availability of better, more direct services that EK can provide would not stimulate more traffic, with ecconomic gains all round. It assumes it is a zero-sum game, which virtualy no market is in reality.

[nolimitholdem]

wiz,

What exactly WERE you trying to say with your reference to FTL's then? I'm glad we agree that crews are tired. Can we also agree that the trends of the past year or so are only exacerbating the problem, not mitigating it?

I also agree that no economic action operates as a zero-sum game. So how can it be argued that there would be no impact to Canada's own operators if Emirates expands, and then say that there is no such thing as a zero-sum game! Which is it? It is precisely for that reason I do not wish to see Emirates gain at the expense of a country with things like labour laws, human rights protections, a robust legal system, etc. Because Emirates unmistakably benefits from these "advantages", operating as they do in a unelected dictatorship.

As far as the subcontinent pax, my only point is that they represent a large majority of the traffic, but a small minority of Canadians. It is hardly the crisis of choice it's being made out to be for the vast majority of Canadians. Most Canadians don't know about or care about Dubai, other than they are starting to discover what a financial and environmental disaster it is.

The bottom line is, it is not the mandate of the Canadian government to protect the commercial interests of Emirates Airline.

Besides, the debate about protectionism or economic gain or loss hardly interests me. It's the extortionist tactics EK is using, basically trying to blackmail their way into getting what they want. We see it all the time in our own dealings as employees, the bullying. It's ingrained in the culture, so it would be nice to see someone stand up to them.

[Wizofoz]

Nolimit,

It was you who brought up fatigue, saying it was a reason Canada shouldn't increase EKs rights. My point was, if that was the case, they should ALSO not allow US regionals, or flights from many parts of Europe, as they have far worse FTLs than EK. I agree it's a non issue- but it's one you brought up!!

There was only ever going to be a small percentage of the Canadian population traveling on Emirates or any airline. Why should the fact that are largely of one ethnic grouping decrease the percieved advantage of giving them access to a better service? Would it be fair to curtail services to, say, Germany, because most of the Canadians utilising the service are of German origin? It is a service that benefits Canadians, so that is a plus for Canada.

Err- you may not quite understand the concept of "Zero-sum". In this context it means that the business Emirates attracts does not necessarily come from depleting Canadian operators of their current market as it will stimulate more customers. I'm not naieve enough to think it would have no imopact on Air Canada, but the suggestion was that ALL the trafic emirates would get would be at the expense of other operators (i.e a fixed amount of market- therefore zero sum)

As to "Extortionist tactics" well, firstly it's not EK but rather the UAE government that is putting the pressure on Canada. Trade agreements are very often linked to defense deals and no end of other political machinations.

But then, you're not interested in the economics- you'd just like to see it stuck to EK- Thus missing a chance to increase growth and profits, putting upward pressure on our pay and conditions and speeding promotion for the FOs.

That doesn't realy help, does it?

[halas]

Interesting....

A spot check for flights from YYZ to BOM today on Amadeus.net shows, in price order, the following:

1. Etihad
2. British Airways
3. Lufthansa
4. Delta
5. Jet Airways
6. Air Canada
7. Air France
8. KLM

It's no surprise that Emirates gets no mention, as it is not flying from Toronto today.

There is quite a bit of competition on that one route and if you are on a budget, AC won't get a look in.

One the biggest hurdles is the Star Alliance. They would be fighting tooth and nail to keep EK out. I suspect that between them, the unions and AC, The middle east airlines don't stand a chance.

halas

[Trader]

Wiz--I agree and see that we're on the same page. It is not a zero-sum proposition but the arguement then stems around whether the increase in pax and the revenue they bring is higher than losses elsewhere. I certainly don't believe the EK numbers :)

[mensaboy]

Wiz,
You mentioned that US regionals and flights from many parts of Europe have far worse FTL's than EK. That is utter BS.

Then you go on to state something about curtailing service to Germany, while trying to equate that to the sub-continent. Either of these might be a service that benefits a proportion of one ethnic group, but does it benefit Canada overall? Sometimes a benefit to a minority group is actually a detriment to a country.

Then you state that ''it's not EK but rather the UAE government that is putting pressure on Canada''. You obviously don't understand how the UAE, Emirates and the vast list of government controlled entities work in this country. That simple sentence on your part should adequately explain your predisposition regarding this topic.

THEN, you make the suggestion that NoLimit is only concerned about his up-grade possibilities and amazingly you have tried to connect his viewpoints to that assumption. That is a mind-boggling assumption on your part and indicates that perhaps YOU have the hidden agenda.

I have rarely talked to a Canuck who spoke highly of Air Canada and probably for good reason. By all accounts AC is not a great airline and they probably deserve to have EK infringe upon their domain, but there is no denying that this is extortion on the part of Emirates Airlines (aka, the UAE government).

Doesn't the UAE have a vested interest in what is going on in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran? If the UAE has a heartache with Canadian involvement in those arenas of conflict, then kick out the Canucks from their airbase. But instead they are using it as a bargaining tool because they realize the Canadian government is under some pressure from its allies.

Canada is a heartbeat away from being raped and pillaged by Emirates airline, similar to the outcome of Australia. Damn, I want to fly to Vancouver and Calgary as much an anyone, but for the sake of Canada, I hope they tell the UAE to go #*&%^# themselves.

ps. If I had predicted which country would have allowed such abuses, I would have chosen Canada and not Australia. It still amazes me to this day how EK has been allowed to take advantage of OZ to such an extent.

[Wizofoz]

Mensa

You mentioned that US regionals and flights from many parts of Europe have far worse FTL's than EK. That is utter BS.

No, it isn't. A two-man crew can be scheduled for a 16hr, multi-sector duty day after an 8hr rest period under FAA part 121. Look it up. Cap 271 is one of the most restrictive FTLs in Europe.

Either of these might be a service that benefits a proportion of one ethnic group, but does it benefit Canada overall? Sometimes a benefit to a minority group is actually a detriment to a country.


Quite right. It is of course a matter of weighing total benefit. Allowing a portion of your population access to a service they want is a benefit. If that causes and ecconomic hardship to others, that is a detriment. It is a matter of weghing the pro with the cons.

THEN, you make the suggestion that NoLimit is only concerned about his up-grade possibilities and amazingly you have tried to connect his viewpoints to that assumption. That is a mind-boggling assumption on your part and indicates that perhaps YOU have the hidden agenda.


Umm...I would expect someone claiming MENSA intelligence to have better reading comprehension. I have no idea if Nolimit is a Captain or an FO, and made no suggestion regarding HIS upgrade. I said that growth and profit by the company speeds EVERY F/Os upgrade. Amazingly you have been able to read a sentence and completely invert its clear meaning. Perhaps some remedial english should be on YOUR agenda, hidden or otherwise!!

I have rarely talked to a Canuck who spoke highly of Air Canada and probably for good reason. By all accounts AC is not a great airline and they probably deserve to have EK infringe upon their domain, but there is no denying that this is extortion on the part of Emirates Airlines (aka, the UAE government).


Yes, probably. But no more so than China making threats against the US unless they drop Tire tarriffs. International trade is very often robust to the point of nastyness. I hope your next job is in some Utopia where that isn't the case.

Canada is a heartbeat away from being raped and pillaged by Emirates airline, similar to the outcome of Australia.

Australia? You mean the place with a stable, growing ecconomy that never went into recestion, a rising standard of living and proffitable airline and tourist sectors? Yes, Canad better be carful not to fall into THAT trap!

It still amazes me to this day how EK has been allowed to take advantage of OZ to such an extent.

Perth citizens can get on an EK aircraft and, with one stop, be virtually anywhere in Europe, the sub-continebt or Africa. They just HATE being taken advantage of like that...

[Wizofoz]

Wiz--I agree and see that we're on the same page. It is not a zero-sum proposition but the arguement then stems around whether the increase in pax and the revenue they bring is higher than losses elsewhere. I certainly don't believe the EK numbers

Gosh, Trade, you mean someone might jimmy the numbers to their advantage? Heaven forbid!!

Of course both sides are going to puh their own barrow, but as a principle, free trade usually produces more positive results than protectionism.

[nolimitholdem]

wiz,

my goodness how you do twist words. I didn't mention fatigue specifically as a reason to exclude EK flights from Canada, I only included the "exhausted crew and and pilots" as a description of any given EK flight these days. I do stand by that description.

And you do seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth. My whole point about a MINORITY benefitting from increase access it that generally, democratic principle has majority interests taking higher priority than that of a small minority. It is being painted as a major issue to Canadians - it is not, to most!

Do I want to "stick it" to EK? Hardly. But I do disagree with your statement that increased profits will put upward pressure on conditions. We made a paltry few hundred million profit last year, how much was your cheque again? As far as the upgrades, it doesn't apply to me personally but those goalposts are moved on a whim as well, so hardly motivation to cheer EK on to greater profits for that either. Quite frankly after seeing the employees bullied endlessly, I'm not sure why you would defend their same tactics in the international arena. Different set of values I suppose, whatever.

Oh and trying to link Australia's economic success with EK's expansion there is laughable. Try a resource-based economy and a voracious neighbour China next door for starters.

Anyway I give up. You seem determined to be a relentless cheerleader for EK no matter what the issue, so not much point in discussing further.

[Wizofoz]

Nolimit,

Sorry you feel that way.

I agreed with you that fatique is an issue at EK, and a non issue in this particular argument. I saimply pointed out that you mentioned tired crews as a part of your position, and wanted to point out that is by no means restricted to Emirates.

I also agree that governments should do the best by their Citizens. A minority of Canadians work for AC. Depriving the entire population of access to desired services in order to protect one company does not achieve that. Certainly the overall benefits of a more liberal Aviation policy should be weighed against the ecconomic impact. Most places with liberalised markets have shown a net benefit to the majority as a result.

You like to employ logical fallacies in your arguments. The good old false analogy- because I agree with EK gaining access to the Canadian market I must be a relentless sycophant for EK.

A lot of what EK has done in the last two years has been reprehensible, immoral, and ultimatley counter-productive. That doesn't mean that the companies continues success will not be ultimatley more beneficial to it's employees than its failure.

I did not say Australias success was because of EK (Another strawman there). But it DOES have a lot to do with liberalised markets. EKs access to Australia is an example of that, and the companies investment in Australia has been substantial as a result.

Now square these two statements:-

Besides, the debate about protectionism or economic gain or loss hardly interests me. It's the extortionist tactics EK is using, basically trying to blackmail their way into getting what they want. We see it all the time in our own dealings as employees, the bullying. It's ingrained in the culture, so it would be nice to see someone stand up to them.

and

Do I want to "stick it" to EK? Hardly.

They seeem contradictory to me....

[CanadaRocks]

I give Stephen Harper credit on this issue. Finally someone had some balls to stand up and back Canadian aviation. Screw fairness sometimes. He is looking after Canadian's(Air Canada) for a change. Good on you Stephen Harper!

[CanadaRocks]

...but it would be nice to have a direct flight to Calgary to get me home quicker.

[Togalk]

Anything that will hasten the demise of Air Canada is good in my books. They have been protected by the Canadian government since their inception. Its about time they went away.

[ferris]

I think Canada would do well to look at what has happened in Australia (as mentioned earlier in the thread). Canada is an "end of the line" market, as is Oz. Although there is some 'destination' traffic (pure tourists), the vast majority of international pax are citizens heading out for tourism and returning, or VFRs.

In oz, there are two distinct groups who won/lost. There is no doubt that the appearance of ME carriers has given ozzies much more choice, more direct flight options (or at least less stops), and put pricing pressure on fares. There can be no doubt that there ARE MORE PEOPLE FLYING because of their appearance. Even though QF has remained profitable, it is a shadow of it's former self. It certainly has not GROWN- ie the pie has gotten bigger, but QF's share is smaller. But the prospects for a young person to get a flying a job? The T&Cs of pilots across the industry? Allowing open slather has ramifications for those IN THE INDUSTRY, and how that affects the COUNTRY as a whole, is IMHO, yet to be seen (fully). It really is globalisation in action.

It would certainly have been interesting to see what would've happened if QF had've aggressively tried to retain market share against the likes of EK with it's superior network, cost base (due to many things already mentioned; it would be a very interesting analysis if the people at AC put forward their own study which quantified the competitive advantaged gained when a foreign carrier does not have the same minimum wages/FTLs/unionised workforce {with all the inherent advantages/disadvantages/costs that brings}) etc. etc.

Very interesting indeed.

[Left Coaster]

So if you get your wish and AC fails? What or who would you propose to replace them with? Lower the bar even further why don't we? Let's put thousands out of work, in Canada and elsewhere, then screw over those who would actually want to work for the company, and allow a complete destruction of what's left of the industry by those who would try to fill the void...not defending AC by the way, but curious to know how much knowledge you might have of how various governments negotiate (key word) for the rights to their airspace? So back to my initial question...does Canada let their flag carrier lose out because some other airline wants more access? I think you know the answer.

[halas]

Sorry Ferris, Qantas has not grown because of it's own frankenstein, Jetstar.

The job market in Oz is stuffed because of LCC's.

halas

[lowstandard]

Why would Canada give away the upper hand? EK has been itching for these routes for awhile and all they have to back it with is a self sponsored financial coloring book.

UAE is not going to renew a lease on an airbase? Good, f(*k yourself and they can use Doha and then give Qatar the routes....See how it works?!

UAE has SFA to offer Canada, I think they need the money more than Canada needs the base.

Heres a Canadian counter offer:

Rename that little swamp the "Canadian Gulf" and maybe I'll entertain talking to you, now F^&k off...the hockey game is on.

[lowstandard]

http://www.chainsmokingalcoholic.com/images/trailer-park-boys.jpg

[Left Coaster]

I think I used to fly with these guys!:eek:

[ferris]

Sorry Ferris, Qantas has not grown because of it's own frankenstein, Jetstar. Err, no, I don't think Jetstar is competing with EK. It may have sucked up the cash QF could've used to defend it's market share, but let's face it, Jetstar is really just a method of reducing T&Cs. They couldn't get over the union hurdles in QF, so they just went around them. QF has made no attempt whatsoever to defend the market share the ME carriers have taken/grown.
So, the Canadians could;
- follow QF- cede market share to international aspirants such as EK, hunker down and .....I'm not really sure what the plan is after that (because hoping a low-yield, LCC will provide a long term alternative on international routes is planning to fail). Is this just where globalisation takes us- labour sourced from the cheapest place, every part of the 'business' outsourced etc etc.? This can only lead to increased leveling of the playing field ie. living standards in the developed nations fall and eventually meet the rising standards in developing nations...
- continue to hope that the authorities will not bow to market forces/political pressure/the inevitable and continue to protect AC
- open them up to competition, hoping that AC has the management capable of going head to head (using product differentiation/quality/pricing whatever) with the likes of EK.

The job market in Oz is stuffed because of LCC's. Would you be saying that if Dixon et al had taken a different tack ie. dumped heaps of capacity on any competition (their usual modus operandi)? I could quite easily see a QF twice or three times as big as it currently is, doing almost all the flying that has gone to the likes of EK, SIA, Etihad, QR etc etc. It would have to look differently if treated as an ongoing business needing investment in product, marketing etc instead of, as it was, a cash cow for a very few golden years. What would the pilot job market look like then?

Low standard- you are not doing your self any favours. If you cannot compete with their product, the answer isnt to hurl insults at them. Or, if you think they are deserving of such ridicule- open the routes up and go to the market with that message. How much faith do you have in Canadians to "do the right thing"?? Better still- show how, exactly, they exploit an unfair competitive advantage. Claiming EK has nothing to offer Canada is disingenuous. You need to demonstrate that what they have to offer comes at a cost.

[jinglied]

This blackmail threat from the UAE Dictator's (supported by their ass-licking EK subordinates) will go NOWHERE... And I am not in support of AC in this matter, that airline is a "basket case", I agree. The Foreign Affairs Department of Canada has a very dim view of UAE for very valid reason's..worker's rights, human rights etc...This is what is stopping EK from getting more slots into Canada, not the spin EK is putting (and some here believe) that it is all about protecting AC.

Canada's combat role in Afghanistan is due to end 2011. By the time this threat is actioned (it won't be) Canada may be preparing it's exodus anyway. They may continue in a non-combative role beyond that, but a decision is yet to come on that.

But...should these freaks in the UAE Gov't attempt to disallow Canadian Forces continued use of the airbase here in the UAE as a staging ground to Afghanistan, a VERY POWERFUL third player will become immediatley involved, the good 'ole Excited States of America. Canada's role has been seen as incredibly important (and, except for UK, far bigger than any other EU members of NATO,). Just imagine when Canada sends a "memo" to their NATO allies that they can no longer support the Afghan efforts because of UAE Gov't action. These tribal moron's will be told exactly where they stand...and Canada will not be restricted from using UAE bases.

This is an empty threat. Absolute nonsense.

Jinglie'd

[lowstandard]

I said UAE, not EK. UAE as a "government" not EK as an Airline.

Name ONE thing that the UAE can offer Canada. Oil? Masafi Bottled Water? The 175th floor of the Burj Khalifa? Some waterfront property on "The World"? Some dates (with almonds)? Nothing.

EK as an airline, certainly but to go and use a threat as a negotiation tool? Major miscalculation on the UAE's behalf, dont think for a second the Canadian government will roll on that. In fact it will proabably set things back.

If I know Canadians, one thing they hate more than AC is some spoiled, condescending smart ass trying to place a threat on them. Especially when their citizens are spilling blood over here.

[nolimitholdem]

wiz,

The good old false analogy- because I agree with EK gaining access to the Canadian market I must be a relentless sycophant for EK.

Well, no. Actually that opinion was derived from any random sampling of your posts on different topics re: EK.

A lot of what EK has done in the last two years has been reprehensible, immoral, and ultimatley counter-productive. That doesn't mean that the companies continues success will not be ultimatley more beneficial to it's employees than its failure.

I don't think EK will fail because it only has three flights/week to YYZ. That's the sort of rhetoric their own literature already contains.

Standing up to bullies is hardly the same thing as vindictiveness. If you truly believe that, opening markets to operators that are able to compete so efficiently largely due to their ability to leverage advantages such as a workforce with no contractual, legal or human rights protections, is the way forward then we really will just have to agree to disagree.

I have no love lost for Air Canada or any over-entitled company, legacy carrier, whatever...anywhere. But the alternative - a company with zero scruples, a cynical ability to lie their way past pretty much situation, to manipulate and abuse their employees without compunction, is not something I want having increased access to my country, which once was and once again soon will be my home. How your former home government deals with them is up to them. ferris does an excellent job detailing the shift in OZ of what you called the "thriving" aviation sector.

In the end you have made it clear that you only care about your own continued employment and enrichment, which you link to the success of EK. I'd like to think that there will still be pilot jobs one day that don't require one to hold their breath from the stench of their own company's practices while they try to make a living. This will be harder to achieve if the international markets are dominated by carriers based in the armpits of the planet like the UAE.

[BUS340]

Jinglied is bang on! The last country to threaten us was the Ruskies, when they wouldn't honor their bilateral with us. So we shut off the airspace to them, guess how fast they capitulated. In affect the UAE have showed up to a gunfight with a pocket knife. You can smoosh all the MP's you want, have little models for them, but in the end of the day are PM is an economist by profession and understands whats best for the country, a healthy Air Canada is priority one. The direct job imprint at AC is around 30,000 employee's, double that with related industries. Not to mention airport infrastructure, which is payed for by at least 50% by AC through landing fee's and rental. To put it into context, AC and the jobs it creats has a larger footprint in Canada then the Auto industry, and we as Canadians remember what the federal government did to protect that in the fall of 08. Are federallies are very aware of the Aussie experience and will not go there, smooshing mayors and low level know nothing MP's will get you no where, airports/ports are federal juristiction. As for the Indian sub continent, once the 787 starts coming in late 12 or early 13 the plan is to go back to Delhi, Mumbai, and Bangalor, with the right size aircraft with the ability to do it with comfort and ease.
Emrates has s#it to offer, that's why they have lowered themselves to threats, the next thing you will see is are citizens in the UAE being throw in jail for trumped BS charges this is how they work in that part of the world

[Togalk]

Left coaster.
I have just as much knowledge as you do. You would not be where you are now if the Canadian Government hadn't been protecting Air Canada all these years. It is a S%^t Airline providing a S#$t product at an overpriced rate. Yes, it would be unfortunate for all the jobs lost. But, how many jobs have you and thousands of others lost because of them???????

[airbus757]

The Canadian Government should give EK all the slots it wants, but only on the condition that all staff required to operate the flights be Canadian and be based in Canada paying Canadian taxes. Also huge amounts of money should be spent on a cadet program for pilots and an apprentice program for engineers.:}

7

[dadster]

Looks like Ac has more to fear than EK
WestJet?s plan to crush Air Canada - Business - Macleans.ca (http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/30/westjet%E2%80%99s-plan-to-crush-air-canada/)

Dadster