Tough fight for EK in Canada [Archive]

Babybus Driver

10th Mar 2010, 17:40

From the Globe & Mail ....

Vancouver — Globe and Mail Update Published on Tuesday, Mar. 09, 2010 8:15PM EST Last updated on Wednesday, Mar. 10, 2010 8:41AM EST

After hearing about the United Arab Emirates' threat against a Canadian military base in the Persian Gulf, Calin Rovinescu decided he had finally had enough.

The chief executive officer of Air Canada unleashed a blistering verbal assault on Emirates Airline in Vancouver on Tuesday, lambasting his rival's recent assertion that more flights to Canada from Dubai will spark $480-million of annual economic activity and 2,800 new jobs. In a speech, he called the numbers “the stuff of fairy tales” and “subterfuge.”

Mr. Rovinescu said he was “troubled” that the UAE is trying to link more access for the Emirates Airline into Canadian airports to the extension of the lease on the Canadian military's Camp Mirage logistics base in the UAE. Established after 9/11, the base is a crucial staging area for the war in Afghanistan, but its lease expires this summer.

“That type of government intervention, I found unacceptable,” Mr. Rovinescu told reporters after his pointed speech to local business leaders in a luncheon speech at a downtown Vancouver hotel.

Emirates Airline is stated-owned by Dubai, one of the seven emirates that comprise the UAE. It is aggressively expanding internationally, trying to make Dubai a global airline hub, and wants to provide twice-daily service to Toronto, up from its current three flights a week, as well as service to Vancouver and Calgary from Dubai.

Mr. Rovinescu argued that while more competition looks good for customers, the long-term result would be “devastating” for the Canadian airline industry. He warned of fewer jobs, fewer cities served by direct connections to international destinations, and less economic activity.

“While its argument may be seductive, what Emirates' strategy will do is constrain the growth of Canadian airports by turning them from hubs into stubs at the end of a spoke that leads only to Emirates' hub in Dubai,” he said in his speech to the city's board of trade at a Vancouver hotel.

“Sure, you will be still be able to get to anywhere from Vancouver. But you will have to get there through Dubai,” Mr. Rovinescu said.

Two top Canadian politicians have given credibility to Emirates' efforts. The estimated economic gain, based on a report commissioned by the airline and prepared by consultancy InterVistas Consulting Inc., was publicly praised in the company's Feb. 23 news release by Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, who said his province needs a direct connection to UAE “to stay competitive in the global economy.” B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell said “we need to capitalize on services like those offered by Emirates Airline to realize our full economic potential.”

Mr. Rovinescu, a corporate lawyer who became CEO of Air Canada 11 months ago, said his airline is expanding in Vancouver. Total capacity (known in the industry as “available seat miles”) is set to rise 3.3 per cent this July, bolstered by a 26 per cent increase to Pacific Rim countries. Daily service to Beijing and Shanghai begins in June, up from three weekly flights to Beijing and four to Shanghai.

Mr. Rovinescu said a Dubai-Vancouver Emirates flight could marginalize Vancouver as an international hub and threaten recently established international Air Canada routes like Calgary-Tokyo.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Campbell said on Tuesday that the B.C. premier's earlier comments stand.

An official response from Emirates Airline could not be obtained Tuesday because of time zone differences.

Vancouver – the closest North American city to China – wants to serve as a hub for Asia-United States air traffic and this summer the Vancouver Airport Authority starts a one-year trial in which Chinese travellers won't need a Canadian visa just to go through YVR en route to the U.S.

Larry Berg, CEO of Vancouver Airport Authority, was hesitant to endorse Mr. Rovinescu's entire view of Emirates Airline's potential impact, though he did say it is a “valid point” that Emirates wants to draw travellers to and through Dubai.

On potential “devastating” consequences for the Canadian airline industry, Mr. Berg said “Emirates would be just one more airline” and that there are “shorter ways to get to Asia” than through Dubai.

He said the most important thing for the Vancouver airport are border process issues with the U.S. and significant traffic growth is “within our grasp” if projects such as the China-U.S. traveller test are successful.

With files from reporter Brent Jang in Toronto

trimotor

10th Mar 2010, 20:16

behramjee

10th Mar 2010, 20:42

See if Emirates and Etihad Airways get the right to fly double daily to Toronto + daily to Calgary + daily to Vancouver, the following repercussions will take place at these 3 Canadian airports which are as follows:

a) At Toronto, it will force many airlines such as KLM, British Airways to reduce capacity as well as force Air Canada to suspend one of their 4 daily TOR-LON flights. In addition, one can also bet on airlines such as PIA, Jet Airways, Austrian Airlines and Turkish Airlines to suspend their own respective flights to the city. Lastly, it will also prevent newer services being launched to the airport from interested carriers such as Egypt Air, Kingfisher Airlines, South African Airways in the long term.

b) At Calgary, it will guarantee both KLM and BA suspending their own flights. BA especially has not being doing too well out of YYC as is evident with them using a B 763ER on this route rather than a B 772ER.

c) At Vancouver, the biggest loser will be KLM however I dont see any airline suspending flights to YVR if EK enter that market segment!

d) Look at what Emirates has done to the German, Australian, London and South Africa market. They have literally raped it with excess capacity which has forced out many airlines out of those countries particularly in Australia. Compare British Airways in 1999 in the Aussie market versus now...BA at that time flew daily to PER/BNE/MEL/SYD (double daily) a total of 5 daily flights where as now they only fly to SYD!

e) In addition, it has played a key part in forcing many airlines to suspend flights in other key markets as well such as BA to CCU/DAC, LH to KHI/LHE, KLM/LX to KHI, KLM to HYD, AF to MAA, LH to MNL, BA to CMB, OS to Australia, AZ to HKG, PIA to IAH/NBO + reduce capacity to JFK, MAN!

f) Now some may argue that the same pillage has taken place at Karachi and Mumbai where EK is known as the un official national carrier of these 2 cities. The difference here is that these 2 cities desperately needed EK at a time when their own respective national carriers didnt know how to best handle the market demand situation hence EK came in and saved the day. Though if you ask me for KHI a max of triple daily and for BOM a max of 4 daily flights should have been allowed maximum.

Iver

10th Mar 2010, 22:53

EK have a better product than Air Canada. That's the real issue.

sony

10th Mar 2010, 23:31

I agree EK has a better product than AC. BUT, I do NOT think EK being granted a significant increase in landing rights into Canada is a good thing for Canadian jobs and Canadian aviation. Sure, a few Canadian pilots/cabin crew/ground staff will be recruited into EK for expansion. But the reduction in capacity at AC will cause greater total job losses than jobs created. EK offers a decent product because they do NOT play on an even/equal playing field. Just look at how they are threatening the Canadian government. Resorting to threats lacks serious class. If anyone actually believes that EK does not receive extra, significant, "unofficial" subsidies from the UAE government, they are not looking with truly open eyes. Not to mention the slave wages they pay to many of their "South East Asian decent" Dubai based staff. You cannot compare EK to AC. It is like comparing Apples to Oranges. The 2 airlines operate under completely different operating cost bases due to human/employee rights, and "unofficial" subsidies.

Married a Canadian

10th Mar 2010, 23:45

This one really makes me laugh.

Air Canada are worried about Dubai as a hub airport stealing their passengers and traffic???
A Toronto-Dubai flight with Emirates is around 12-13 hours. Then add on whatever "connecting" flight that they are supposedly trying to pilfer you on and you are looking at a full day of flying.
Air Canada fly direct from Toronto to Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing. 13 hours....Why would you want to do two flights with Emirates the other way...for a long time period? Are Air Canada really that c***??
Same for their Israel flight. Would you go Toronto-Dubai-Tel Aviv or maybe just Toronto-Tel Aviv.

What other flights could they be worried about.

Vancouver-Sydney....direct perhaps. Or will people choose...Vancouver-Toronto-Dubai-Sydney....

a) At Toronto, it will force many airlines such as KLM, British Airways to reduce capacity as well as force Air Canada to suspend one of their 4 daily TOR-LON flights. In addition, one can also bet on airlines such as PIA, Jet Airways, Austrian Airlines and Turkish Airlines to suspend their own respective flights to the city. Lastly, it will also prevent newer services being launched to the airport from interested carriers such as Egypt Air, Kingfisher Airlines, South African Airways in the long term.

Why will KLM, BA and Air Canada have to reduce capacity when they can beat Emirates on any time factor with connections. Or is their product not up to scratch?
Why would Turkish have just started up to Toronto if they were worried about Emirates (when Emirates were here before Turkish)?

Why would Austrian suspend their service and leave no direct flight? People are going to fly Vienna via Dubai??

The only reason Air Canada would have to suspend one of the Heathrow flights is that you are competing against 3 BA flights in the summer, plus Transat to Gatwick and the regionals (and LL on the odd occasion)and Thomas Cook to all the regionals. In the summer there can be over 12 flights a day to the UK. What do Emirates have to do with that?

The only way PIA will suspend its service is if they lose certification on their aircraft again. Too large a pakistani population in the GTA for them to fail. Same goes for Jet Airways. There are plenty of passengers to serve both airlines.

Air Canada...concentrate on your own product...and stop being such a hypocrite!

Married a Canadian

10th Mar 2010, 23:47

EK offers a decent product because they do NOT play on an even/equal playing field

And there are only two major carriers in Canada because?????

sony

10th Mar 2010, 23:51

Why will KLM, BA and Air Canada have to reduce capacity when they can beat Emirates on any time factor with connections. Or is their product not up to scratch?

Because EK will charge $100 dollars (or some ridiculously low price) for a fare like YYZ-HKG-YYZ, while AC would never even be able to come close... due to completely different operating cost bases. People will fly an extra 10 hours if it will save them %50 on the ticket purchase price.

disclaimer: I do not work for AC, and I have no ties to AC. In fact I have more friends at EK than AC.

sony

10th Mar 2010, 23:54

And there are only two major carriers in Canada because?????

You are married to a Canadian, you should know. Simple answer.... small population.

nolimitholdem

11th Mar 2010, 01:23

Simply put, the market between Canada and the UAE has not developed to the point where more capacity is warranted. Period. Full stop," Mr. Rovinescu said

Hmmm...that must be why you can never get a seat on the Toronto flights...

That lack of seats is NOT due to Dubai-bound passengers, it's due to pax travelling beyond Dubai to Indian, Pakistan and the like. This is an important distinction! It explains why granting more access to Canada to EK would benefit EK far more than granting Air Canada more access to the UAE would benefit Air Canada. The market for Dubai-bound pax with Dubai as a final destination is miniscule.

Basically EK would like to siphon off as many pax as they can to feed the DXB hub and their growth. Naturally! But they can't complain about unfair practices while they're benefitting from their own cozy arrangement with their government (which apparently includes getting it to blackmail foreign governments), and while they're exploiting the crap out of their own workforce.

No love lost for Rovinescu or AC, but this time...good on him for fighting back.

Willie Everlearn

11th Mar 2010, 01:32

I don't know, but personally, and I understand this is simply a personal opinion, I don't think Emirates has added up (financially) since the day it started. As for competition with Air Canada or Air Anyone, over the long run, I doubt it.

For years their passenger traffic and RPKs were never mentioned in data sources like Air Transport World (because EKs kept the stats secret) and like any "new" airline on the Canadian scene, while they caused a certain degree of disruption when they cannonballed into our market, the waters will calm, inshallah.

With what you read, hear and see on a daily basis about Dubai and its financial troubles, one can only suspect the 'house of cards' is about to fall and with it, the crown jewel. So, it could all be a moot discussion down the road. Passenger loads mean SFA when it comes to profit and loss. Why? Because it depends on what was charged for an airfare.

I have to ask what the real market must be like when you switch an A380 from a market like New York to a market like Toronto? Leaving a market of over 8.3 million versus 2.5 million people? OK. How does that work?

It also makes me wonder how an airline that pays for its employees' accomodation, telephone, utilities, school fees, health care, etc., etc., on and on, balance their books and find profit year after year? Puts interest free money up for car loans, etc., can charge low airfares and make sufficient 'profit' year after year to cover all these expenses related to running this airline and still claim they're profitable. Sorry, in my simple mind where I ignore many of the trailing zeros, they just don't add up. If the financial stream isn't from fare paying passengers, then where would it be from? wink, wink

When you look at specific economic realities for Air Canada versus Emirates, I'm sure you know as well as I, which one plays the real game in real competition with real airlines.

Unfortunately, from what we read, it sounds like they're now having trouble recruiting pilots to man their fleets and judging by the posts we read elsewhere, it makes you wonder. That's a sure sign of trouble coupled with their 'difficult to imagine' financial state. I expect managers will be sacked then replaced as the blame for certain short comings wreaks havoc within this airline. Pilot managers will be blamed for not crewing aeroplanes at an acceptable pace. Line pilots will bail out or pull a runner or be fired for calling in sick and causing the company to park aeroplanes, but in the end, I suspect it could lead to delivery cancellations.

58 A380s for delivery and if sufficient number are cancelled, there will be financial penalties not to mention the peril is could place Airbus in. Political will in Europe, not withstanding.

Not sure if I'd agree that Emirates is that serious a threat? At least not for the long term. They're more likely just interested in having destinations for their wicked large fleet.

I guess time will tell.

Willie :ok:

sec 3

11th Mar 2010, 02:42

Married a canadian: EK flies to Tel Aviv? Use your f**kin head buddy:confused:

Oz_TB10

11th Mar 2010, 02:51

Emirates has a better product? Not from my recent trip! Couldnt be bothered to get off their lazy asses to serve water!:{

But the ticket was dirt cheap!:E

sandbunny

11th Mar 2010, 02:55

The point we are making is not about the 'product' it's about the viability!

wrenchbender

11th Mar 2010, 03:07

"Hmmm...that must be why you can never get a seat on the Toronto flights..."

Two days ago, a 380 went "mechanical" in YYZ (big-time fuel leak). EK ferried in a 777 to rescue the pax. It was not full when it left.

Togalk

11th Mar 2010, 03:53

Sec 3 you beat me to it!!!!!

halas

11th Mar 2010, 04:05

behamjee

Your argument is persuasive, however a little disingenuous as well.
You have left out one important ingredient as to why many of those airlines you mention have downsized their operations into certain markets: Airline Alliances and code shares.

I don't have to tell you that alliances feed on themselves and become restrictive for their own members to cut duplication.

BA to Oz is a classic example.

It's not just AC pitching in this game, it's also the Star Alliance and over their shoulder all the other alliances, as EK is an outsider (in more ways than one).

Don't know much about the UAE government threat, but if it's true then it just goes to show how they treat everyone as has been brought to light in the not too distant past.

halas

flaphandlemover

11th Mar 2010, 09:58

2wrenchbender..

B777 wasn't full because a lot of people where already rebooked....

fatbus

11th Mar 2010, 10:26

A quiuk look on trips and you can see how the 380 most days is over booked.

Jason2000

11th Mar 2010, 11:28

...and EK fares are not that low either, well certainly between DXB and Europe.

BA/VS/KL are usually less (certainly in Y).

sony

11th Mar 2010, 18:05

On Asian flights EK is usually, by far, the lowest price compared to other legacy carriers. By far....

Married a Canadian

11th Mar 2010, 23:33

EK flies to Tel Aviv? Use your f**kin head buddy

You're right, you're right....not really thinking there was I...oops. Bit late to pretend I was joking:ouch:

The point I was trying to make was that Air Canada are getting in a flap and yet which of their destinations REALLY would be that much more attractive going through Dubai. I don't believe that Emirates could offer the "$100" dollar fares or whatever low figure you care to come up with that will seriously make people consider the extra flying time involved. Unsustainable in any business model as has been mentioned here.

I have to ask what the real market must be like when you switch an A380 from a market like New York to a market like Toronto? Leaving a market of over 8.3 million versus 2.5 million people? OK. How does that work?

Projected growth of the GTA perhaps. The paper yesterday had an article about the influx of South Asians in the next few years and that the population will grow to the number quoted for New York. Maybe Emirates are looking that far ahead aswell.

behramjee

12th Mar 2010, 03:27

Why will KLM, BA and Air Canada have to reduce capacity when they can beat Emirates on any time factor with connections. Or is their product not up to scratch?
Why would Turkish have just started up to Toronto if they were worried about Emirates (when Emirates were here before Turkish)?

Because KLM from YYZ relies heavily on transit traffic to Middle East, India and Eastern/Southern Africa which EK will take a lot of from them if they are allowed double daily services. FYI, before EK was online at YYZ, KLM had the # 1 market share on the YYZ-DXB-YYZ sector and today it is # 2.

Turkish too gets a lot of connecting traffic to Iran and Middle East on their flights at a low yield hence any further fare war particularly against an airline that can offer higher capacity + an ability to offer good connections via DXB to all destinations east of IST, there is definitely concern written on TK's eyes!

With regards to AC, you should first check how many pax per flight on YYZ-LHR they feed on to EK via LHR. When EK was off line at YYZ, AC used to feed approx 120 pax per day from Eastern Canada on to EK flights via LHR alone! This was especially true between 2003-06. From Western Canada too, YVR-LHR and YYC-LHR are filled with many pax connecting with EK (approx 25-30 per day).

The only way PIA will suspend its service is if they lose certification on their aircraft again. Too large a pakistani population in the GTA for them to fail. Same goes for Jet Airways. There are plenty of passengers to serve both airlines.

With regards to PIA, the problem is that they dont know how to market their product and offer once a week service to LHE and ISB respectively from YYZ which is the main market. If EK + EY go daily to YYZ, they will kill PIA here due to superior product reputation and better frequency. The exact same thing EK has done to PIA at JFK, MAN, IAH, CDG, MXP, NBO etc.

Because EK will charge $100 dollars (or some ridiculously low price) for a fare like YYZ-HKG-YYZ, while AC would never even be able to come close... due to completely different operating cost bases. People will fly an extra 10 hours if it will save them %50 on the ticket purchase price.

I'll give you an interesting example. Current F and J class fares to SIN from LHR on EK are US$ 3000-3500 cheaper on EK via DXB versus flying nonstop on SQ or BA!

EK doesnt go after traffic to MNL/HKG/CHINA from YYZ but they do get traffic to BKK/SIN/CGK/KUL/JNB/CPT/DUR/SEZ/MRU.

You have left out one important ingredient as to why many of those airlines you mention have downsized their operations into certain markets: Airline Alliances and code shares.

I don't have to tell you that alliances feed on themselves and become restrictive for their own members to cut duplication.

BA to Oz is a classic example.

Yes that is true that the QF/BA alliance via SIN has helped big time but you cannot ignore the fact that the aggressive fares + capacity dumping that EK played around with during the early part of this decade to MEL/BNE/PER played also a big part in BA downsizing its Aussie services especially to MEL.

halas

12th Mar 2010, 07:24

I don't think BA is the victim, even if what you say is true. They code share with QF, amongst others, and are a member of Oneworld. The same as AC and Star Alliance and KLM with Skyteam etc.

My point is that each and every airline that becomes a member of an alliance will suffer from a reduced network and frequency, to service the alliance's requirements and the individual airline will tow the line, as that is "what is best for the cooperative".

The enemy may not only be from the east, but within as well.

halas

ps:BA and QF have more to fear, very soon, on the kangaroo route when Jet* get their 787's and start lobbing into Europe where they choose to without any restrictions from an alliance to worry about.
As long as the Canadian government keeps reigns on who is allowed in, then AC may be the Canadian tax payers best investment.

Kamelchaser

12th Mar 2010, 08:05

Whilst the UAE govt (AKA Emirates and Ittihad) continue to lobby for further rights into Canada, the local telecom provider (AKA the UAE govt) continues to protect its monopoly in the country (other than a fellow government entity..not much free market competition there). In particular, the regulatory authority ensures a total ban on FOIP providers such as Skype to protect its lucrative international toll income. It uses its monopolistic profits to invest in other telecom markets around the world.

See attached article about Skype trying to gain access to the local markets...good luck to them!

Skype opens channels to the region’s regulators - The National Newspaper (http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100312/BUSINESS/703119917&SearchID=73384346065172)

It would seem UAE companies are happy to bleat about "open skies" and open competition in markets that they can compete in, but have a different opinion when it comes to protecting their own markets.

I guess there is no equivalent for the english word "hypocrisy" in Arabic?

Married a Canadian

13th Mar 2010, 16:57

Behramjee...some interesting points....

I still disagree though on some of the airlines you mentioned...particularly Turkish. They were due to start up to YYZ in 2008 and yet didn't start till last year. Emirates had been flying into here before that. If they (Turkish) did not think they could compete on the route then they would not have started up...connecting traffic or not. They had enough time to look at EK load numbers.

Secondly regarding

EK doesnt go after traffic to MNL/HKG/CHINA from YYZ but they do get traffic to BKK/SIN/CGK/KUL/JNB/CPT/DUR/SEZ/MRU.

I still don't get how that affects Air Canada's traffic eastbound to their points in Europe. I agree more with Halas when they say
My point is that each and every airline that becomes a member of an alliance will suffer from a reduced network and frequency, to service the alliance's requirements and the individual airline will tow the line, as that is "what is best for the cooperative".

Competition is just that. Has there EVER been a level playing field in the history of aviation? How is chapter 11 for US airlines fair to all their competitors. Why did BA get into trouble for a dirty tricks campaign?
So Emirates gets subsidies from the Middle East.......tis the newest in a long line of stories...and not one airline could claim to be holier than thou in comparison.

airbus757

14th Mar 2010, 12:07

Willie Everlearn

I have to ask what the real market must be like when you switch an A380 from a market like New York to a market like Toronto? Leaving a market of over 8.3 million versus 2.5 million people? OK. How does that work?

Looks like a solid argument... but 3 380's a week is 1500 seats to serve 2.5 million and 14 777's is 5600 seats to serve 8.3 million.

7

Willie Everlearn

15th Mar 2010, 00:25

airbus757

I suppose the re-deployment (or equipment swap) of assets makes sense. But, wouldn't this have an adverse effect on the B777 fleet? More flights, more crew, more relief crew for JFK and at a time when, judging by other posts on the forum, EKs are having a time of it recruiting crew?
I know I haven't spoken with anyone over here yet who are interested in joining EK right now. (even though that may not be a scientific way of measuring who is interested as I'm sure there are some) The swap still comes across as a "band aid" solution. Short term gain for long term pain.

Something's got to give. There can't be that many city pairs in this world suitable to A380 operations judging by the number of International carriers who've bought them.
As I've said, cancellations to any degree or extent, might well spell disaster for Airbus.

Willie :ok:

Pitch Up Authority

15th Mar 2010, 01:57

Etisalat is more than just a tel company, they are used to tape phone calls.

Trader

24th Mar 2010, 06:30

Ottawa is right on Emirates
Posted: March 22, 2010, 7:35 PM by NP Editor
Air Canada, Fred Lazar, Emirates Airlines

As the airline industry continues to evolve, a strong Air Canada will make Canadian cities international leaders

By Fred Lazar

Emirates Airlines has intensified its lobby campaign to gain greater access to the Canadian market, and it has support at FP Comment, as seen in Terence Corcoran’s column and an article by Peter Harbison, the executive chairman of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, both appearing March 20. The gist of Harbison’s article can be summarized by its sub-heading: Air Canada’s protectionist response to Emirate’s expansion plans does more harm than good. And he complained that Ottawa steadfastly underwrites anything they think is good for Air Canada.

There is reality, then there is theory, and events of the past couple of years should have made it quite clear that most of the time, theory has nothing to do with reality.

If air transportation services were covered by the GATT, Air Canada would have had the Canadian Government launch a countervailing duty case against Emirates, the national airline of Dubai, and Etihad, the national airline of the UAE. And most likely, it would have won the case since both of these airlines (and the third amigo, Qatar), are subsidized by their respective governments. There isn’t a level playing field in this industry. However, this industry is not yet covered by the GATT.

The governments backing the three amigos (they are all owned by their respective governments) continue to invest heavily in building up their airports. Abu Dhabi is investing an additional €32-€40-billion in its airport; Qatar is investing €8.7-billion in the airport in Doha; and Dubai, assuming it can get the financing, has planned an investment of up to €26-billion in the Dubai World Central Airport. I doubt that their airlines will be picking up much of the tab on these investments.

There are several important lessons here. All of which have been conveniently ignored by the apologists for Emirates et al.

As the airline industry continues to evolve, we will move towards a global network consisting of 8-12 gateway airports, 20 or so regional hub airports, a number of local hub airports and hundreds of stub airports. The gateway airports will dominate the system and the dominant airline at these airports will offer non-stop and one-stop service to most of the world.

A number of studies have shown how these gateway airports will give their cities an enormous advantage in competing for talent and money in the global economy.

In a 2003 report, the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority pointed out: “Air transport links are vital to many businesses, whether for transporting goods or for business travel… Good air transport links have the potential to contribute to national productivity and aviation is of particular importance to the City of London and to tourism, our two largest exporters of invisibles. Air transport links also support foreign direct investment into and out of the U.K., often accompanied by improved technology and innovation… The development of a successful airport may also encourage the formation of clusters of industries.”

A classic study of the economic effects of deregulation in the U.S. found that most of the economic benefits came from the time savings for travellers as a result of the restructuring of the networks by the airlines to offer more frequencies and more non-stop and one-stop flights through their hubs. It will matter to Canadians whether they connect through Toronto or Vancouver, or they have to make an additional stop and change planes and airlines in order to travel through Atlanta, Los Angeles, London, Dubai or elsewhere.

An examination of the leading airports in the world, as measured by total number of passengers or cargo volumes, shows that with a few exceptions, the major airports serve as the hub for an airline. Without a major airline developing an airport as a hub with increasing global connections, an airport will not join the ranks of the gateway airports, and might not even become a regional hub.

In Canada, Toronto and possibly Vancouver, because of their locations, have the potential to become a gateway airport, or at least a regional hub, but only as long as Air Canada survives and grows. Air Canada will not have the opportunity to deploy its Boeing 787s (currently on order) to expand the number of spokes from these two hubs and the reach of its network if the three amigos are able to dump capacity into Canada. Emirates, for example, has about 130 aircraft in its fleet with 150 wide bodies on order. It needs to operate these aircraft somewhere.

Finally, while each of the three amigos has ambitious expansion plans, only one of their hubs will end up as a gateway airport. There will not be three in the Gulf region. Consequently, they will fight it out among themselves to dominate, and the fight might be quite prolonged (except for Emirates since it has the weakest financial backing) and quite bloody.

If the fight were limited to these three, there would be little concern for Air Canada and other airlines. Unfortunately, the battle will spill over into the global marketplace and will greatly damage the airlines lacking the deep pockets (built on oil and gas revenues) of two of the amigos. The Competition Bureau in Canada will not recognize or will not respond to the predatory actions, and so Air Canada, and with it the prospects for Toronto and Vancouver, will be severely impacted with its survival in jeopardy.

Should we be concerned that Air Canada’s Calin Rovinescu might have his company’s self interest at heart in attacking Emirates? No, we should be concerned instead about the Canadian Government caving in to the demands of the three amigos, and the significant negative impacts that this would have for Toronto, Vancouver and all Canadian travelers and companies.

Financial Post
Fred Lazar is Associate Professor of Economics at the Schulich School of Business at York University

Read more: Ottawa is right on Emirates - Full Comment (http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/ottawa-is-right-on-emirates.aspx#ixzz0j4aPiZ4M)
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Wizofoz

24th Mar 2010, 12:03

And most likely, it would have won the case since both of these airlines (and the third amigo, Qatar), are subsidized by their respective governments.

True regarding Etihad and Qatar, but not true regarding Emirates. Emirates has returned dividends to the Dubai Government most years of its existence, not the other way around.

GMDS

24th Mar 2010, 12:27

The governments backing the three amigos (they are all owned by their respective governments) continue to invest heavily in building up their airports. Abu Dhabi is investing an additional €32-€40-billion in its airport; Qatar is investing €8.7-billion in the airport in Doha; and Dubai, assuming it can get the financing, has planned an investment of up to €26-billion in the Dubai World Central Airport. I doubt that their airlines will be picking up much of the tab on these investments

... and I doubt that Air Canada has picked up any tab of any Canadian airport as well. Or do you think they still pay off the debt of the Mirabel catastrophy?

Journalists at their best once again.

None of them would start digging into working conditions and contract adherence, where the real dirty advantage of the ME airlines is. They would be whistled back by the government and the local airline managers instantly, as this is their wettest dream and they are thriving to copy that asap, see efforts of LH and BA.

airvlad

25th Mar 2010, 12:51

And what about customers, who like me, just want to fly non-stop from Dubai to Vancouver or vv. I don't see Air Canada being interested in operating this flight. Protectionism kills market. I would like to see both AC and EK flying from Canada to Dubai.

sec 3

25th Mar 2010, 17:43

Who in their right mind would fly AC when they can fly with Emirates? Not too many I think:E

Married a Canadian

27th Mar 2010, 13:44

but it won't be a good thing for safety either

Tenuous at best!! C'mon!

Safety has nothing to do with increased competition. It is not in ANY airlines best business interests to have a poor safety record or operate unsafe equipment (not if you want to fly into North America or Europe anyway)

Without a major airline developing an airport as a hub with increasing global connections, an airport will not join the ranks of the gateway airports, and might not even become a regional hub

So Air Canada would want to develop YYZ (I alluded to this on another thread) to rival other global gateways. That would mean then offering competing services..as it is THEIR hub.
However out of YYZ they don't offer a direct flight to Dubai in competition. They don't offer any direct flights to India in competition.
They don't offer any direct flights to Pakistan in competition.

In order to develop and offer world wide connections Air Canada/YYZ has to step up to the plate.
We can talk about Emirates/Etihad/Qatar all day long and their unfair advantages/ low wages/ crap conditions etc etc.
You know what? Global business.....unfair is part of the daily vocabulary.

If you have the patriotic backing (of many on this debate) then put on a service to these destinations, develop YYZ into an airport that will siphon off traffic from elsewhere...and lo and behold you will be flying full of happy Canadians on their national carrier.

Where is that option at the moment?

Or are we waiting till Air Canada has it's business model in order?

Time to resort to some underhand practices again guys!

nolimitholdem

27th Mar 2010, 14:12

Sorry man but you really don't have a clue.

Safety is DIRECTLY related to the regulatory regime under which an airline operates. Emirates is currently operating under it's own set of rules via the GCAA, which facilitates all kinds of clever tricks with Flight Time Limitations. The rosters currently being flown, the flight time factoring, the patterns...would simply not be allowed under "real" organizations such as the FAA, CAA, Transport Canada...but hey, it's just a competitive advantage! Believe me, this "advantage" WILL turn against them when one tired crewmember too many makes that last hole in the swiss cheese line up. It's called risk management, and in as much as it's impossible to prove a negative, the truth will only emerge when the inevitable smoking hole is in the headlines.

I'd really be interested in your credentials or perspective that even gives you a horse in this race, so to speak. It seems your biggest complaint is lack of direct flights between Canada and Dubai. Big deal. The human rights violations, the appalling treatment of workers, the complete absence of workers ability to seek recourse under unjust labour practices, and on and on...these all trump your concerns by just a small bit.

I'm genuinely curious as to what your motivation is, as you obviously have zero appreciation of either Middle Easter airlines or life in the Middle East, judging from the comment about Israel. You wouldn't be braying so loudly for an increase in the likes of Emirates if you actually worked for them or lived here. Unless you one of the privileged few of course, who manage to cream off the profits from the backs of their employees.

Oblaaspop

27th Mar 2010, 14:26

Nolimit,

Mate, have a look at the UK CAA website and download a copy of the CAP 371 (FTL's). I'm sorry to say that you will find that they are IDENTICAL to what is in the FOM......

In fact the preface of the UAE GCAA CAR's states that the FTL's are in fact predicated on the UK CAP 371.

Not saying I agree with the way we are being worked at the moment, but the point needs to be made.

Wizofoz

27th Mar 2010, 14:28

The rosters currently being flown, the flight time factoring, the patterns...would simply not be allowed under "real" organizations such as the FAA, CAA, Transport Canada

NLH,

You had a swipe at me a while ago because I'd never operated under US FTLs.

Well, I HAVE operated under JAR FTLS as administaered by the British CAA and I can assure you that everything you list with the exception of factoring is both legal and common practice in the UK under the CAA.

I used to do 100+ hour months, 80% multi sector BOC doing Charter in the UK, often under variations identical to the ones being used by EK.

I also used to fly under an almost identical FTL scheme in Australia, with the exception that we could do 1000hrs a year.

Tell me, what ARE the annual and monthly Flight time limitations under FAR 121 or its Canadian equivelent, and what are the maximum TODs 2,3, and 4 pilot?

I may disagree with you over the ramifications of EK gaining more rights to Canada, but that is simply a difference of opinion. I also share a lot of your concerns of a lot of what is happening at EK.

But what you say above is simply factually in error.

fatbus

27th Mar 2010, 15:29

Poker Dude, next time get your facts correct, TC has already approved GCAA to operate in Canada, FAA into the US etc etc

555orange

27th Mar 2010, 19:33

Married a Canadian said:
"So Air Canada would want to develop YYZ (I alluded to this on another thread) to rival other global gateways. That would mean then offering competing services..as it is THEIR hub.
However out of YYZ they don't offer a direct flight to Dubai in competition. They don't offer any direct flights to India in competition.
They don't offer any direct flights to Pakistan in competition."

Uh Married a Cad, neither does Emirates. Whats the dif if an Indian connects through hethrow, Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Taipei, Hong Kong, Beijing, or Kuala Lumpur OR DUBAI? All are serving the Indian market from Canada. Not just you. The 480 million you have alluded to increasing in the Canadian market is false and would only serve to transfer revenue miles from all the other carriers at the table. Not just Air Canada.

You came knocking wanting to sell something, we still have to see something good in return on the table. Don't come knocking on our door, asking for more routes, showing smoke and mirror nothing in return, and then threaten us because we don't want to buy. If you were a really intelligent negotiator you would have offered to half the rent on the military base an not kick Canada out. That might have gotten what you wanted and also garnered global acolades as well. The way you have handled things to this point has not garnered alot of public or government support for your cause. In fact, it looks like you have damaged it if anything.

Go and look at Air China's website and see what they are selling. Ahh.... India connections from YVR. How about Cathay? Ahh... India connections through Hong Kong. China Airlines... etc ... getting the point?

If you can't anti up... you no get. The "india market" argument holds no water.

Not our fault if you can't offer something good. But don't go crying in your soup and throw silly threats across the ocean from your slave labor camp that you cant live up to.

Married a Canadian

29th Mar 2010, 00:41

Nolimitholdem

I'd really be interested in your credentials or perspective that even gives you a horse in this race, so to speak

Ermmmm not sure what I can say apart from I work in an aviation related industry (that has a strong safety ethos), have friends who work in the middle east, and am interested in the market in general.

So if my credentials aren't up to scratch perhaps you can tell me why Emirates is allowed to fly into Canada and the US and Europe. Or do those real organisations you mentioned not care.
BTW there are quite afew budget carriers whose crew might have something to say about the "swiss cheese lineup" when it comes to their hours and rosters. Again I see afew of them flying in the above airspace

Safety is DIRECTLY related to the regulatory regime under which an airline operates

I will agree with that quote if you mean that "you don't come up to our standard, you don't fly into our airports".
Both Emirates and Etihad seem to satisfy the above criteria from the previous mentioned bodies. Or are the FAA and Transport Canada taking backhanders to certify these airlines? Probably not.

The human rights violations, the appalling treatment of workers, the complete absence of workers ability to seek recourse under unjust labour practices, and on and on...these all trump your concerns by just a small bit.

Lets be honest...how many Canadian/UK/US etc consumers seem to worry about that with their "Made in China/Indonesia/Phillipines/Korea etc etc
goods. What makes the Airline industry any different? Price normally trumps any welfare/humane concerns. The business world would be a different place if it didn't.

I'm genuinely curious as to what your motivation is, as you obviously have zero appreciation of either Middle Easter airlines or life in the Middle East

My motivation? Not really motivation. Just pointing out that the airline industry is full of rank hypocrisy on all sides. I don't care if it is the Middle East, the far East or the Eastern seaboard. The industry should be about flying people where they want to go..be it from A to B to C either at a price they like or with a service they like. Why should the politics of a place enter into that decision?
It dosen't seem to when people fill their cars up every day with that other product that comes from the region.

You wouldn't be braying so loudly for an increase in the likes of Emirates if you actually worked for them or lived here

A lot of expats seem to want to go and work in the region. Why would that be? If it helps my "credentials" a lot of controller friends of mine are over there. It seems from reading various threads on this board aswell that others seem to be tempted by this great Satan called Emirates. Either they don't care about all the problems mentioned or it is not as bad as it seems, or it is bad but you have a job that you might not have back "home"

Unless you one of the privileged few of course, who manage to cream off the profits from the backs of their employees

And that happens only in the Middle East????? Wow!

judging from the comment about Israel

:\ Yep I was tired and not thinking when I wrote that one. The point I was trying to make at the time was about route competition and what did Air Canada have to fear. They serve points direct into Europe (and Israel:)) and Emirates don't, you have to go "via"

Oh well....we'll see what happens.

BTW I had a quick look on Emirates timetables..and they seem to serve Paris/London and Frankfurt on a daily basis (often with multiple flights)
Now why would the regulatory bodies of those countries allow that if they are worried about all the points and criticisms levelled on the threads running on this topic. Or could it be they relish the competition?

Married a Canadian

29th Mar 2010, 00:53

Last question to 555 orange.

So how do Air Canada develop?
How do you turn YYZ into a global leading hub?

What should Air Canada and Transport Canada's strategy be. You can't say "no" to every carrier that comes calling as your business model won't survive (tit for tat).

Do you think Air Canada should fly direct to India or Dubai?

nolimitholdem

29th Mar 2010, 05:22

Married A Canadian,

I really can't be bothered to do a line-by-line deconstruction of your post as you did mine, quite frankly I think it's a lazy way of debating. But you've made your point, laissez-faire capitalism it is, and the workers be damned. You are correct, not too many people are concerned about where their cheap goods come from, but some do and perhaps more should. Perhaps your perspective would be different if you were one of the workers, that's why I asked. A question which you coyly avoided answering directly.

You defend hypocrisy as status quo, then attack Canada's defence of their domestic industry as the same. I guess only the one that prevents your cheaper, easier access to Dubai is wrong EH?!

As far as a lot of expats wanting to come work in this region...what a red herring. Emirates is having difficulty attracting pilots (relative to the numbers that once gladly came) because the truth is getting out there of what working for EK is like these days. Morale is in the toilet, and that is well documented elsewhere. So in that regard you're just plain wrong. From the more desperate nations, of course there will always be workers wanting to come. (Not to mention to replace the ones who have been made redundant and/or fled.) But you make it sound as if they're coming because it's so great, when the truth is it may be just slightly less horrific then where they came from (and often isn't). Exploitation is not quite a ringing endorsement.

Same with your comparison to low-co's and safety. I don't have a good answer as to why the "Western" authorities allow Emirates to continue with some of their FTL practices. Again, I cannot prove a negative: "Emirates continues to operate so it must be safe/legal". But saying that a British lowcost is just as unsafe as Emirates therefore, no problem, isn't the greatest argument. As others have noted, I guess we'll just have to wait for a smoking hole to prove a point. Seems a bit of a shame though.

Here's my take on the situation. Once upon a time, perhaps before you Married a Canadian, you, like many of your compatriots, were lured to the sunny paradise of Dubai from the rainy hell of England, with it's annoying things like democracy, unions and a legal system. Those slick ads...the sexy buildings...why, they own the Gunners, fer Gawd's sake! Talk about LEGITIMATE! The shiny new B777 whisked you there, in the seat-sale Y class. The service seemed a dream: free booze (oh such respite from those cheap bastards Ryan and Easy) and young, attractive cabin crew (a reprieve from those silly experienced ones they have at BA).

When you landed, you were shuttled on a nice little bus by a little brown man, directly to your package-deal hotel. Already you knew the place was something special. Everywhere you look, other sunburned, middle-aged Brits revelling in their self-importance, with their flash cars, Filipino maids, and don't forget: no income tax! Sunny and warm, on your Big Bus Tour you marvelled at the sights. Malls! A ski hill! A tall building! A....hmm..well that's about it. But STILL! The place was magnificent! (Big Bus doesn't go through the camps in Al Quoz, after all.) Why, whatever are these people ON about! The Middle East is positively PROGRESSIVE!

Back in jolly old England, after a torrid internet dating affair, you met Mrs. Married a Canadian and moved over to Canucksville. With the memories of your dream vacation still fresh, you decided to recreate the vacation with your main squeeze. But one phonecall to a travel agent revealed a shocking truth: you could only fly direct to the UAE six days a week!!

Quelle Horreur! :} And thus you entered PPRune to complain.

Am I close? Since you didn't really explain to me why you care if Emirates gets more access.

Travel between Point A and Point B is well covered. It may not be as cheap or as convenient as you like it, but too bad. You try and make it sound as if it's impossible to get from Canada to Dubai. Buy your damn ticket to London and go already. (Or Frankfurt. Or Paris. I hear Emirates flies there daily.) Or don't.

The simple fact is, Canada decides who flies to Canada, and the UAE decides who flies to the UAE.

Trader

29th Mar 2010, 07:47

Married--again, it comes down to more than just 'I have a right to fly from x to y'. That is not competition. Why is it every US, European and most Asian carriers have unrestricted access to Cdn skies? Protectionism?? I think not.

The model for open skies is an agreement that benefits both sides equally. In the case of UAE-Canada the benefits are lopsided, so no agreement. It really is simple.

All this talk of competition is a way to bypass the real arguement. The net benefit to Canada is negligable especially when you take into account the losses on other flights and codeshare/partner connections. The article spelled that out nicely.

Unbridled capitalism and laissez faire is hardly an arguement. The financial industry is the perfect example--let them all grow at any cost because big is better and complete open and unregulated markets are the most efficient. HA--what a scam. Yet the Cdn's did not allow their banks to merge (as they wanted using the same arguements) and did not tolerate the cry that complete freedom from regulation was needed. Those banks survived the crash extremely well and all are profitable.

Lets talk about subsidies---is it fair that EK is subsidized? They claim they are are not--but prove it!!! We already know that they are government controlled and NOT arms length from the regulator.

To answer the question about Paris and Frankfurt----airbus! They need to keep EK somewhat happy or airbus sales slide. But don't be so positive EK still can't get into Berlin and a few others because governments will not allow it.

Married a Canadian

2nd Apr 2010, 23:51

Nolimit

Been working the last couple of days...just checked your reply. I have also done a bit of reading on the middle east forum..and I can't deny that Emirates does seem to have afew morale issues at present..and has afew disgruntled crew members.

What does that mean for the future? I don't know to be honest...and lets be fair neither do you. You have already admitted that you can't answer why they are allowed to fly into the airspace of the bodies mentioned. There is either some hefty palm greasing going on or the powers that be simply do not see it as an issue.
Whether you, I or the crew like that or not it won't change until that "smoking gun" appears.....but then that is the same for the whole aviation industry. Changes are always reactive.
I don't like that statement but a trawl through the list of accidents and incidents through the years normally shows the changes made after. It is not seen as unsafe now...and unless a wide groundswell of opinion is heard that won't change. I personally don't believe it is in any airlines best interest to have a culture of unsafe practices as the best way to kill a business model is to have an accident. We will see in the future.

BTW I am not saying anyone is "unsafe"...as I am not in the regulatory bodies that decide that.
For your info when Emirates fly into Toronto from a control perspective they do things by the book and don't cause me or my colleagues any trouble whatsover. Believe me there are a few cowboy pilots out there. Non so far seem to fly for EK.

I am one of the "workers" as you put it. In Western society I think I am known as the middle class and every time I look at my payslip I see a big chunk of tax being taken off it. I also look at the powers that be (in a democratic society) doing a lot of things on the tax payers dime that do make you wonder what country we live in.

I have never been to Dubai, actually am from Scotland but am one of the Brits who just say "the UK" and moved to Canada to be with Mrs Canadian (that part you were correct). I take interest in the politics of the country that I call home, and pay interest to goings on afar in places that some of my friends and colleagues work (Middle East..air traffic controllers).

You ask again...why do I care?

Yes you can fly 6 times weekly (Emirates and Etihad). Yes you can go via all the place mentioned. That side of things was never my prime concern (although when I fly that way it might be;) )

As I have said before I find the airline industry as a whole wholly hypocritical. I am not defending that statement...just pointing out that Air Canada is on shaky ground when it comes to talk of protecting "Canadian interest".
Their history involves a lot of collateral damage and p$$$$ed off ex employees of the companies they swallowed. They are at it again trying to knock Porter airlines out of the Toronto city centre airport

Air Canada takes helm in fight for island airport access - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/air-canada-takes-helm-in-fight-for-island-airport-access/article1517858/)

An airline that is being successful and creating Canadian jobs and boosting the local economy...and the national carrier (which attempted these routes in the past with no luck) wants to challenge this. To what end? To strengthen their near monopoly?
"It wasn't fair before", "Porter are getting special treatment" .
This is the ame type of stuff that is being said towards Emirates...and yet this is directed at a Canadian carrier.
So what are we looking at, open up the island to Air Canada again, they will use their competitive advantage to undercut the competition, knock them out of business, put a lot of canadian employees out of work and leave afew more feeling somewhat put out (and lo they may go to the middle east to seek work). And this is good for Canadian interest how?
Do you think the staff at Porter airlines thinks that Air Canada is operating with the interests of their jobs and livlihood in mind?
To me the situation is no different with Emirates...but is is easier to breathe fire towards "foreign" competition because there is a lot more seeming "baggage" that comes with EK.

Trader

Unbridled capitalism and laissez faire is hardly an arguement. The financial industry is the perfect example--let them all grow at any cost because big is better and complete open and unregulated markets are the most efficient. HA--what a scam. Yet the Cdn's did not allow their banks to merge (as they wanted using the same arguements) and did not tolerate the cry that complete freedom from regulation was needed. Those banks survived the crash extremely well and all are profitable.

I agree...yet I have pointed out before that US airlines are allowed to operate under chapter 11 protection, and Air Canada has had to be restructured from bankruptcy in the past. All the while whilst being allowed to compete on international routes. If you are advocation transparency and equality..then why do airlines that seem to **** up financially still seem to come out smelling of roses...and also call the shots.

THe great thing about PPRUNE is it is all opinion...that is all. The ones who are in the real positions of power are not normally posting on internet webboards.
The fact that this thread and the one on the canada forum has provoked discussion (and raised interesting points...I have learned from all of them) is that it covers all aspects of business/politics/national interest and of course just basic aviation interest.
I will sign off from the topic now as we will never agree on all points but I will keep an eye on the situation and keep my ears to the grapevine.

If it makes you feel better I could give Emirates a last minute runway change and then vector them 30 miles downwind? Although afew Air Canada pilots would say they get that daily in YYZ anyway:)

555orange

3rd Apr 2010, 22:26

Married (a Canadian),

Your lengthy and tiresome arguments have still not produced a really good reason for any increase in flights to Toronto. Basically Emirates/Etihad have good access already and just wants MORE. It will effectively take capacity away from all competitors at the table not just Air Canada. There will be negligable increase in business to Canada by increasing Emirates access.

Yes Air Canada is a huge airline with unions and a good balance of work vs company benefit, etc etc...much better than Emirates and therefore a bit more expensive to maintain, and not state supported, so therefore a bit more difficult to manipulate into new markets at some critical times etc. But then that is a totally different issue. You seem to be making this a vs/vs scenario. Its not.

Simply, the response by the Gov't is after a study of the market as a whole, and the response by Rovenescu was in response to controversial slanderous remarks on the Emirates side. The gov't will look at it and decide, and Rovenescu will try to protect his interests... Period.

The Candian gov't will look at it and discuss it with Emirates and Air Canada and look at others at the table and make a decision. If the space is there, and the benefit is there, maybe emirates will get it. But for the reasons I have previously stated, I believe probably not.

But do you really blame the gov't if it wants to protect or encourage the company providing jobs and income tax on its own territory to flourish instead?

Married a Canadian

3rd Apr 2010, 23:51

555 orange

Emirates/Etihad have good access already and just wants MORE

See my point regarding Air Canada and Porter airlines. Then tell me why Air Canada needs "more" on the domestic front?
If the argument can be used internationally for Canada to protect it's own interest (which is the one you are using)...then tell me how it applies domestically if Air Canada puts a competitor out of business that provides jobs and income tax in their own territory...as you put it.

It is always a vs/vs scenario. It just so happens to be EK at the moment.

Will they get more flights? I don't know.

Why should they? Because they say the demand is there and no one else is willing to serve that demand (or able) . Do I believe them? maybe...figures are always used to prove either sides arguments. Ek says one thing..Canada says another. You will believe whichever side you are on.....We are in agreement there is a market with the connections through Europe and EK are vying for that market.

Do I blame the Cdn govt? Yes and no....they don't seem to stick up for any of the other "ailing" canadian airlines or offer any protection to them. You will have noticed another Cdn aviation company gone under this week in Skyservice. Not much govt interference there it seems. Not the same clout as Air Canada perchance?

Anyway we will never agree...but as I have said I have learned from the discussion and gleaned some interesting points in general.

We'll see for the future...and whichever way it goes I won't be inconvenienced in the slightest...nor will I care who is doing the flying.
Thankyou for your comments.

MAC