Qatar and Canada sign new air agreement

[rascott3888]

Canada appears to have found another friend in the Gulf: the National Post and Montreal Gazette are both reporting that:

"Canada and Qatar have quietly signed an aviation agreement that will allow Qatar Airways to fly three passenger flights and three cargo flights a week to and from the Gulf sheikdom.

Talks were successfully concluded on Oct. 25 after only three days of negotiation, according to Qatari news media....

Qatar does not require that Canadian citizens have a visa before travelling there. In a sign of warming relations, Canada is to open an embassy in Qatar early next year."

Canada and Qatar airline deal set to take off (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Canada+Qatar+airline+deal+take/3813233/story.html)



In the war of words between Canada and the UAE is this a score for Canada or an own goal by the UAE side?

[helen-damnation]

Looks like the next move by the UAE will be to kick the Canucks out of the UAE

There aren't enought crew as it is, let alone getting rid of more :ugh:

[lowstandard]

I guess this little lesson on how to act like an adult has ended in tears for the UAE! Well played, I would love to hear how that is going over!

[169west]

QR got 3 pax and 3 cargo flights a week! Not bad for a silent beginning!

[metro301]

Wait for it, I wager that the next announcement will be that Canada has permission to stage supplies into Afghanistan from Qatar. That would truly be the icing on the cake.

[wrenchbender]

That would be logical. During the 1991 Gulf War, Canadian Air Force CF-18's were based in Qatar...

[Jetaim]

The magical word is natural gas...habibi. Hurray for the Canadians... ****uk UAE !!

[yoyonow]

I, like many on this forum, have no axe to grind on either side of this argument but just look on in dismay at the jingoistic rhetoric displayed on both sides.

It would appear that the politics of the problem have been poorly handled on both sides, with the UAE appearing to be the most petulant. However, any moral high ground that Canada as the ‘sophisticated Western democracy’ thought it held now seems to have been blown out of the water.

Were they not concerned about allowing access to a State supported business, or is that not a problem now?

[fliion]

yoyo,

nail on the head...excellent point

f

[jaarrgh]

Any clues as to the pax route destinations?

[M-rat]

The True North
Strong
and
Free!

:ok:

[Trader]

Canada's argument has nothing to do with state sponsored etc. It has to do with the simple fact that the legislation in place for bilateral air agreements states that there must equal benefit to both parties.

They see little benefit from allowing UAE access to many cities while the UAE is essentially a one city destination.

[non0]

Any clues as to the pax route destinations?

Montreal, Toronto and Happy Valley-Goose Bay ... happy?

[CAYNINE]

Trader you think tens of thousands of Canadians are going for a holiday in Qatar????

Just tit for tat crap, the whole thing smacks of juvenile attitudes on both sides.

[Trader]

Caynine---Qatar got the same thing UAE currently has---6 flights a week to YYZ. So nothing odd there at all!!!!!!!!!!!!

[White Knight]

They see little benefit from allowing UAE access to many cities while the UAE is essentially a one city destination.

And Qatar has SO much to offer destination wise:confused::confused: In fact, I'd wager that Abu Dhabi and Dubai is two cities, whereas Doha is one little sh1thole:p

[Iver]

Will that be enough to "bribe" QR into considering the Bombardier C-Series (built in Canada) aircraft for a big order? I know QR was considering the C-Series at one point. Good job for pushing the routes access in order to consider the aircraft purchase - trade is a two-way street.

Someone else on another board said it best: the Canadians are protectionist hosers who are afraid to compete with EK, QR, EY and others who offer a much better in-flight product to the Middle East. Sad but true. Capacity dumping is an easy, protectionist excuse (or crutch).

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Look at the traffic thru Doha, 90% transit.

It is a major player in the ME hub, with qood service on board, nice terminal, (busy at midnight.!!!!).

Glf

[Trader]

Yup, except you don't understand what I wrote. Qatar got 6 flights a week, same as the UAE, which is a basic allotment under the legislation. In other words, there wasn't much to negotiate as it is almost a given. So I hardly think it was a 'bribe' for the C series.

[Luke SkyToddler]

it is, in fact, one really big sh1thole :E

[behramjee]

Qatar got 6 flights a week, same as the UAE, which is a basic allotment under the legislation. In other words, there wasn't much to negotiate as it is almost a given. So I hardly think it was a 'bribe' for the C series.

QR got 3 weekly pax and 3 weekly cargo where as UAE got 6 weekly pax flights only so a big difference between the two allocations given by Canada !

[Trader]

behramjee, they got that same as the UAE--6 flights. During the UAE negotiations they were told they had 6 flts a week and could use them however they like--pax, cargo, 380, 777.

In the end--the same!

[qatari001]

I heard rumours that the new pax destination to Canada (not confirmed but heard Toronto) will be via Geneva, as they want to use their traffic rights...
If its the case, I assume it ll be on 330 just like we use to operate to Newark.
This will be a good news for the 330 pilots...
Anybody can confirm that pls?

Happy Landings...:ok:

[troff]

I sent a note to [email protected] but I don't expect a response.
Troff :E

[troff]

OTTAWA— From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Posted on Friday, November 19, 2010 10:45PM EST

The Harper government has added fuel to the heated diplomatic feud with the United Arab Emirates, accusing it of subsidizing its airline and arguing that allowing it to fly more often to Canada would have cost “tens of thousands of jobs” here.

The government’s charge that the UAE government subsidizes the Emirates airline will only fan the dispute, as both have for years vociferously denied charges of subsidy levelled by airlines in Europe, Australia, and Canada, which are fighting the Mideast airline’s aggressive drive for market share.

The diplomatic feud was sparked by Canada’s rejection of the UAE’s demand for its two airlines, Emirates and Etihad, to fly daily routes from Dubai into three Canadian cities. In response, the UAE booted the Canadian Forces out of a Dubai base it had been using to stage operations in Afghanistan, and slapped visa restrictions on Canadian visitors.

The spat has split the Harper cabinet, as Defence Minister Peter MacKay lobbied hard for the government to allow the UAE expanded landing rights – and asserted that the refusal deeply damaged relations.

But yesterday, the Conservative government turned up the tone.

In Lisbon for a NATO summit, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said the negotiations for the landing rights broke down because Canadians would have lost jobs.

“I made it perfectly clear that we’re not prepared to put Canadian workers out of their jobs by allowing a subsidized foreign airline to literally flood the Canadian market,” he said.

And in the House of Commons, Government House Leader John Baird suggested Canada’s airline industry would have been decimated: “It would have cost Canada literally tens of thousands of jobs and was not in Canadians’ best interest,” he said. “That is why we said no.”

Mr. Baird’s assertion amounts to an argument that the increased flights – daily from Dubai to Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver instead of three times a week to Toronto – would devastate Canada’s airline industry. The Canadian competitor on overseas routes, Air Canada, employs 26,000, and the industry as a whole, 65,000.

But the Canadian government’s assertion that the UAE subsidizes airlines that use job-killing predatory practices to dump cheap flights on foreign markets will be a red flag to the UAE, which has been fighting this argument for years.

Competitors have claimed that Emirates gets low-cost subsidized fuel and financing from Dubai ruler Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and favourable rates from its home-base airport in Dubai, but Emirates denies that. And it has become a hot political issue because European airlines and Air Canada are trying to preserve traffic into their European hub in Frankfurt, while Emirates – and the UAE government – are trying to establish Dubai as a major air-travel and tourism centre.

“The reality is some competitors, realizing that Emirates was emerging as a major competitive entrant, simply devised a plan, sans facts or evidence, to throw enough mud to ensure some of it stuck,” Emirates President Tim Clark said in a speech last year, adding that the claims are “usually fired from a grassy knoll in the Frankfurt area.”

Diplomats at the UAE’s embassy in Ottawa could not be reached for comment.

Emirates entered a fierce lobbying battle with Air Canada over the expanded landing rights, meeting with dozens of cabinet ministers and senior officials before their request was rejected in October.

Emirates insists its request would take up only about 2 per cent of Canada’s international passenger traffic, and wouldn’t devastate the industry here, but opponents said it would force Air Canada to sink resources into international competition, and perhaps cut less profitable routes to regional airports in Canada.

The Conservatives’ insistence that their decision to reject the UAE airlines would protect jobs appeared to place them in an unusual position – winning warm words from trade unions, but criticism from conservative free-market advocates.

Mark Milke, a policy analyst with the free-market Fraser Institute, said the issue of whether the UAE’s airlines are subsidized should affect the Canadian government’s decisions. But with all the claims and denials, the fact that Emirates is government-owned means the public has to take their word for it, or not.

If it isn’t subsidized, more foreign competition would be good for the industry and consumers by lowering prices and creating competition for better service, he said. But either way, he added, the Conservative government’s claims it would cost tens of thousands of jobs are exaggerated.

“That assumes that somehow you’re going to see the disappearance of WestJet and Air Canada. It’s fanciful,” he said. He likened the decision to the rejection of a foreign takeover of Saskatchewan’s Potash Corp. “It’s the kind of protectionist rhetoric that unfortunately the Tory government has become famous for.”