Canada says the UAE is acting like a pompous thug says Colin Kenny

[troff]

Drop the gloves with UAE

Canada doesn't need to stand for the abuse coming from this tiny Mideast bully

BY COLIN KENNY, CITIZEN SPECIAL JANUARY 8, 2011

(Colin Kenny is former chair of the (Canadian) Senate Committee on (Canadian) National Security and Defence.)

The United Arab Emirates is acting like a pompous thug that thinks Canada need it. We don't, Colin Kenny writes.

The United Arab Emirates has gone into a princely snit over our refusal to grant it more landing rights in Canada for its airline, and has decided it can bully us into changing our minds. I suggest that we push back, firmly, because the UAE has not realized that Canada has options, too.

(Colin has no idea what he is dealing with)

Why does the UAE so desperately want more landing rights? Because it has bought a lot of big fat aircraft as part of its decade-long, oil-fuelled spending spree, and needs to fill seats by moving North Americans through Dubai to the Middle East and Asia.

When the Canadian government refused, the UAE proceeded to: a) kick Canada out of our staging base for Afghanistan that was located on UAE soil; b) refuse our minister of national defence and our chief of the defence staff permission to fly through its airspace after they were in the air; and c) introduced the need for expensive visas for any Canadian wishing to visit their country.

Here's what I think we should consider in response: a) void the landing rights UAE airlines already have; b) forbid them to fly in Canadian air space; c) slow down the processing of visas for anyone from the UAE who wants to visit Canada; and d) tell them to convince us that nobody connected to any of the Emirates' royal families is supporting antiwestern terrorist activities.

Why would I want to drop the gloves in dealing with the UAE? Because I think they're essentially a bunch of pompous thugs behaving like Canadians need them. We don't, and somebody should show them they can't treat us like the second-class citizens they hire to do virtually all the work in their seven fiefdoms.

(Thanks for making the lives of 27,000 Canadians living in the UAE that much more complicated)

I am well aware that some critics argue that the Canadian government has been heavy handed in dealing with the UAE, as though we weren't properly versed in the delicate ways one must handle trumped up royals.

I say we should deal with them the same way we did when they got haughty about the Canadian Forces flight-training program for the UAE Air Force. That program was going fine until some member of a royal family flunked his flight test, and still wanted to be given qualifications to fly an aircraft. Our military wisely cancelled the training program when the UAE told us that members and friends of a royal family should not be allowed to fail.

Wait, you say. Weren't the seven families who so ruthlessly rule the UAE being jolly good chaps when they offered us a military base on their soil? Well it wasn't quite soil -- it was unoccupied sand. And let's keep in mind that our troops were using that stretch of sand to try to defuse terrorism in the region, with only the tiniest military contribution of about 200 "special forces" from the UAE.

Rich oil countries like the UAE should be doing a lot more to combat terrorism than they are. It isn't just democracies like Canada and the United States that need to fear al-Qaeda and the like. These outfits are also sworn enemies of the ruling classes in places like Saudi Arabia, and yes, the United Arab Emirates. The fact that the UAE was so quick to expel Canada from Camp Mirage for as small a matter as a disagreement over landing rights in Canada suggests a haughty and short-sighted indifference to whether the world succeeds in abating terrorism.

Maybe they're not indifferent. Maybe they like to play both sides of the street when it comes to terrorism. I have spoken to several intelligence sources who are adamant that leadership within the United Arab Emirates -- while posing as friends to NATO -- have been pouring money into terrorist movements throughout the Middle East. So we should reward that kind of duplicity with additional landing rights?

Canada is a civilized country trying to do two things on the international front: promote its own interests, (read: save Air Canada at all costs) and create a fairer, more civilized world. There is nothing fair or civilized about the UAE, nor are things improving. Foreign workers, mostly from Asia, outnumber privileged citizens by a ratio of about four to one, and are notoriously badly treated. This really is a country run by royal thugs, without democracy, free press, free assembly, or any semblance of human rights.

Even if we were just thinking selfishly about promoting the financial interests of Canadians, what does the UAE have to offer? We don't need their oil, and the economy of their show state of Dubai is a bubble just waiting to burst for the second time.

The UAE argues that denying its airlines more landing rights in Canada amounts to unfair protectionism of our own airlines, most notably, Air Canada. But why not protect against unfair competition? The UAE has two state-subsidized airlines that have bought themselves a bevy of huge aircraft that are eating a hole in the national treasury. They staff the airlines with underpriced help that can be fired at whim, and offer discounts on their visas if you fly on those airlines. Why kill off some Canadian jobs to the benefit of the high-spending UAE treasury.

Finally, it should be noted that five years ago the U.S. Congress decided that it wouldn't allow the UAE to manage American ports through a state-owned company called Dubai Ports World. Well, you know what? Dubai Ports World owns the company that runs container and break bulk terminals at the Port of Vancouver.

Note to the princes: "You want to keep that Vancouver contract and your current landing rights? Well then write us a letter within 30 days pledging that nobody connected to the royal families running your totalitarian governments is funding antiwestern terrorists, and we'll check that out with our intelligence people. And meanwhile, start showing us some respect."


© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Read more drivel at: Drop the gloves with UAE (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Drop+gloves+with/4078901/story.html#ixzz1ASiAlCFQ)

[kotakota]

Hey , I am all for EK doing well , but this whole distasteful saga does nobody any good . Is this behaviour because Canada is so important to UAE , or , that UAE are not used to being told NO by anybody ?
I understand that the Canucks in UAE must be a tad uneasy , but there is no way that they can be thrown out .
How would EK and EY cope with Canadian airspace becoming ' difficult ' to access , or so expensive ( like $998 is expensive ) that nonstop flights to virtually all of the North American continent from UAE become unsustainable commercially ? And as we all know , Canada does not need Gulf oil - it has more than it can shake a stick at. But then , Canada is part of the Free World , and most likely cannot even contemplate childish retaliation that credits nobody.
This whole spat should be stopped immediately and all and sundry start behaving like adults .

[Wxgeek]

Emirates is playing a losing game, they just don't know it yet.

Canada signs airline agreement with Egypt

Canada signs airline agreement with Egypt (http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/12/22/con-egypt-air-deal.html)

Plus:

Qatar Airways via Star Alliance hubs in Europe

Qatar Airways - Codeshare destinations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_Airways#Codeshare_agreements)

Plus there is always this if UAE keeps playing this foolish game:

Emirates North American Routes before Canadian airspace is closed. This would suck eh? (https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B1z470ZO9UsKM2UzZTRmMTktYWRkOC00OGM3LTk0ZWYtZDEwNjYyO TU5NmE2&export=download&authkey=CNLq6swC&hl=en) (Google Earth Required)

[nolimitholdem]

That program was going fine until some member of a royal family flunked his flight test, and still wanted to be given qualifications to fly an aircraft. Our military wisely cancelled the training program when the UAE told us that members and friends of a royal family should not be allowed to fail.

Hahah CLASSIC!

One of those family members didn't by any chance go on to become CPB at Emirates did he?! Sounds about the right speed.


Maybe they're not indifferent. Maybe they like to play both sides of the street when it comes to terrorism. I have spoken to several intelligence sources who are adamant that leadership within the United Arab Emirates -- while posing as friends to NATO -- have been pouring money into terrorist movements throughout the Middle East.Maybe they like to play both sides of the street when it comes to terrorism. I have spoken to several intelligence sources who are adamant that leadership within the United Arab Emirates -- while posing as friends to NATO -- have been pouring money into terrorist movements throughout the Middle East.

Do ya THINK?!?! Does this guy have so little understanding of the ways things are done in this culture to have not an inkling that saying friendly things while plunging a knife in one's back is considered the best way to do business?!

Hey troff, let me guess. Ex-AC, perhaps former CDN and hard-done by in the merger so now you just want to see those AY-rabs stick it to to Big Red? Protecting AC interests? That's what this is all about? I don't think so. I think it started out as refusing to trade EK profits for a few McJobs in Canada with Servisair loading airplanes. But the UAE chose to make it more with the military base pettiness. So be it. As one of the "27,000" I wanted to stand and applaud at the article. But then I hate bullies.

[Wxgeek]

I don't think the lads in UAE who dreamed up this fiasco of a diplomatic strategy realize how happy Harper and the Conservatives are to have an external enemy like the emirates to heap a pile of crap on and make themselves look good to Canadians. Turning emirates into the enemy has no downside, and may win them some votes in the next election. That's how politics is done everywhere in the world including Canada.

Harper to UAE: “Give me a break” (http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/01/08/16812476.html)

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper hopes Canada never does to any of its allies what the United Arab Emirates is doing to Canada. In an exclusive interview Friday with QMI Agency,

Harper said he couldn’t believe that the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) would try to use Canada’s offer to help the global fight against terrorism in order to gain a commercial advantage for the state-owned Emirates airline.

In 2001, the UAE allowed the Canadian Forces to set up Camp Mirage near Dubai. It became an important logistical and supply base between Canada and Afghanistan.

But when Emirates airlines was unable to get landing rights fast enough for flights at Calgary and Vancouver airports, the UAE government late last year told Canada’s soldiers and air force personnel to pack up and get out.

“That’s just not how you treat allies, and I think tells us you better pick your friends pretty carefully in the future,” Harper told QMI Agency during a visit Friday to Welland, Ont. “I could never see [Canada] treating an ally like that. Could you imagine after 9/11 if the Americans had come to the Canadian government and said, ‘We need help on something to do with security’ [and we said] ‘Well, only if you do something on Buy America.’ I mean, give me a break.”

Canada has allowed foreign airlines access to Canada’s market when those airlines are ready to play by the same rules as Air Canada, WestJet and other Canadian airlines. Emirates airline, though, is heavily subsidized by UAE’s oil wealth through the state-owned Investment Corporation of Dubai.

“When we, as a country, offer to be part of a international mission to help protect global security then somebody comes along and uses that to try and leverage demands on our domestic airline industry, I don’t think that’s a situation we as a country want to be in,” Harper said. “What this teaches us in future and when we’re looking at other options is: Don’t get in a place where somebody’s going to try and use it to leverage some unrelated issue.”

Harper’s comments are the latest in a war of words between the two countries and come as Canadian diplomats are active in the region to secure an alternative location to Camp Mirage.

QMI Agency has learned that some Canadian government officials worry that the UAE is trying to put pressure on its neighbours, including Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman, to block any attempts by Canada to set up a base in their countries.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay heads to the Middle East next week for meetings in Palestine and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon will visit Qatar and Algeria at the end of the week.

[Schibulsky]

(Colin has no idea what he is dealing with)
I think the episode with the wannabe royal pilot gives a good indication, don't you think? :p

[Pitch Up Authority]

"Collin has no idea who he is playing with"

That is one more reason to be carefull. The more the EK expands in the world, the more they will learn that the rules of the game are different than they are used too. Money talks but there are limits.

If you want to control the traffic flow from the West to the East via a hub situated in a dictatorship you will have to accept that people will look for alternatives. Read cooperation based on mutual respect. EK is getting nervous, they have overstretched themselves and it starts to show. The world does not turn around their ass.

If the UAE uses their position in various international bodies to defend the intrest of some family business then they will have to accept that there are limits to what other States will accept as being reasonable.

If EK has bought too many A 380 then it's to be expected that the competition will prevent them from using them. The EK expansion in Europe was a piece of cake. Europe is a lion without teeth. The politicians just want to sell Airbus. But now the European airlines start to feel what that means. As long as EK took some passengers to the ME they did not worry too much but it is getting a different dimension.

EK is fighting an ecconomical war. The only problem is that there are too many mercenaries in their army and they are expensive to keep if it gets too hot. Mercenaries are not loyal at all.

[Wizofoz]

The one thing you need to be careful of is so seamlessly equating "UAE" with "EK"

Etihad have the same number of flights to Toronto, and would no dobt have an A380 on it if they had one. the UAE Government is in Abu Dhabi, not Dubai, and I get it is much more keen to see Etihad prosper than support the continued growth of Emirates.

Much as TC and MF have been vocal about dis-agreeing with Canadas policies, I think they are probably cringing at the actions and rhetoric of the UAE government- THEY know something about diplomacy, even if the UAE does not.

[Wizofoz]

Any particular reason for the personal attack JW? Can't express an opinion without resorting to that?

You are dead right about the No.2 being the Dubai Ruler- one who has had his power substantially clipped by the economic situation and his needing to have the begging bowl out to Abu Dhabi.

I never said this didn't involve EK or Dubai, I said this was the action of the UAE government, not EK management, who no doubt realize how counter productive the whole saga is.

So, in the spirit of friendship you bring to the discussion, get your head out of your @r5E and learn to read!!

[Jet II]

Drop the gloves with UAE


Highly unlikely - follow the money...:E

Dh4.34b: UAE's imports from Canada in 2009

Dh717m: Canada's imports from UAE in 2009

[pool]

Emirates airline, though, is heavily subsidized by UAE’s oil wealth through the state-owned Investment Corporation of Dubai.


Just this little exerpt out of the "Harper to the UAE" article, or interview, whatever, shows the level of competence Canada displays to the world, not.
I'm not going into the debate, but please:

Dubai has no more oil wealth, it's the envious neighbor.

The "Investment Corporation of Dubai" is not "state owned" (until now at least ...) but owned by the Emirate of Dubai.

Truly pathetic

[Oblaaspop]

Indeed Pool, but why let the facts get in the way of a really good load of crap spouted by a 2 bit 'politician'?

[Oblaaspop]

It now appears that the 1st world 'adult' mentality originally displayed by Canada has fallen by the wayside, and the Canadian Government has lowered itself to childlike behaviour and comments. Hardly the sort of thing you would expect a 'mature' government to do!

Can you imagine David Cameron or Margaret Thatcher spouting the vitriolic (and inaccurate) crap Harper and his cronies just have towards another country?? I think not! Winning cheap votes from the uneducated is one thing, but throwing tantrums on a world stage is quite another.

Now don't get me wrong, clearly the UAE has also acted in a foolish way, but had the Harper government done some research on cultural behaviour and peculiarities of the Arab World, then he would have been fully aware of the Arab's need to 'save face'. Agree with that mentality or not, it is a cultural fact that should have been observed.

What I want to know is, the UAE allowed Canada to use its country as a staging post for its military. This was not Canada's 'right' to be based here, it was an agreement between the two countries. Clearly Canada was the main beneficiary of this deal as the UAE stood to gain very little from it (aside from a few dollars in rent I guess)......... So, why shouldn't the UAE ask for a favour in return at some point? Why shouldn't they request a few more landing slots in Canada? What if anything was Canada EVER going to do to repay the 'kindness' offered by the UAE?? I personally think the UAE asked for very little in return, and was palmed off every time.

At some point then the UAE eventually thought "well f@ck you Canada", if this is just gonna be a one way relationship then you can get the hell off our sand!

Now when you look at it from that perspective, you can hardly blame the UAE for acting up like it has surely?

[harry the cod]

Mmm....much like the US banned 'french fries' and insisted they be called freedom fries as the frogs didn't want to join their war games.

I guess every Country has its childish moment.

Harry

[alwayzinit]

What did the UAE get from allowing a staging base for Canadian troops?

Obs me old mate, you must be kidding.

The moderate Middle Eastern Governments, UAE included, get Western troops stopping a bunch of crazies who would like nothing better than to impose their extreme version of Islam and Sharia across the region.

Or so Wikileaks would have us believe:E

[Oblaaspop]

This is very true Mr init my old mukka.

It is also true that 'the west' was probably far less interested in the stability of the Middle East than it was in protecting its own interests such as global oil prices and national/homeland security.

So as I said before, in this specific example, Canada benefited more from the arrangement than the UAE....simple!

[Trader]

Obla----why should they be sensitive to the concept of saving face?? The UAE was certainly not sensitive to the way in which the rest of the world talks/negotiates!

Lets be clear. The Cdn troops are in Afgan. as part of a US/UN coalition. If things were not winding down there and if the US/UN needed them still there would have been pressure applied to leave the Cdn troops where they were.

[Willie Everlearn]

Obs

Judging by your remarks in post #14 you're clearly trying to wind a number of us folks up and nothing more. Good game.

If not, surely you can come up with something a lot more intelligent to say about this immature hissy fit the UAE are on about with Canada.

"the UAE stood to gain very little from it (aside from a few dollars in rent I guess)......... " :eek:
Are you kidding? Try running that notion through your brain one more time to see if that statement makes sense.

How does Canada have more to gain from basing its Military in the UAE?

I have to say, you're right about the culture and face saving though.
The UAE really have painted themselves into a corner on this issue and it's highly unlikely those immature wallies in Ottawa will respond with any more "childlike behaviour and comments".

Personally, I'd like to see our childish parliamentarians respond with random and arbitrary removal of overflight clearances and landing authorizations. Kind of a reciprocal "face saving" gesture from the Cdn Gov't the Khaleejis would be used to. (However unlikely that childish gesture would be.)

Willie :ugh:

[troff]

Personally, I'd like to see our childish parliamentarians respond with random and arbitrary removal of overflight clearances and landing authorizations.

No can do. As much as the Canadians who are paying attention to this school yard fight would like to, ICAO rules prevent this very behavior from occurring.

[Cpt. Underpants]

However, if Ottawa perceives the UAE as being involved in terrorism sponsorship (it clearly does) an ADC system could easily be arranged, with random "loss" of clearances and denial of overflight?

"Eh?"

[punkalouver]

No can do. As much as the Canadians who are paying attention to this school yard fight would like to, ICAO rules prevent this very behavior from occurring.

Oh, I don't know about that. See from several years ago.

By Lyuba Pronina (Oct 21, 2003. Page 7, Moscow Times)

Staff Writer A scandal is brewing that might thwart Aeroflot flights to North America and has already gotten the attention of President Vladimir Putin.

As of Monday, Canada was planning to deny Aeroflot the right to use its airspace for flights to the United States in a tit-for-tat move after Russia refused to let Air Canada use Russian airspace for flights to India.

But Aeroflot has won a three-day reprieve for further negotiations that it hopes will lead to a compromise, Aeroflot deputy general director Lev Koshlyakov said by telephone Monday.

If no deal is reached by Thursday, Aeroflot will have to fly longer routes and burn up more fuel on flights to destinations such as Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco. Its daily flights to New York would not be affected.

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien discussed the feud at a meeting with Putin at APEC in Bangkok on Monday. After the talks, Putin asked Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov to step up efforts to reach a compromise, said Sergei Prikhodko, deputy head of the presidential administration, Interfax reported.

The spat started last month when Air Canada asked the State Civil Aviation Service for permission to fly over Russia for daily nonstop flights between Toronto and New Dehli.

Air Canada spokesman John Reber said Monday that the airline had wanted to fly over Greenland, Scandinavia, central Russia and Central Asia into India in a route that would have saved it an extra hour of flight time. Air Canada is now overflying Western Europe and western Asia.

Reber refused to comment on the negotiations between the governments.

Canadian Embassy spokesman Mark Opgenorth said Canada believes Air Canada's application for the route falls into a 2000 bilateral aviation agreement, but Russia was insisting that it did not. He said Canadian officials warned Russia that they might retaliate if Air Canada was not allowed to make the overflights.

Koshlyakov said the route was not part of the bilateral agreement and requires separate approval.

The State Civil Aviation Service refused to comment. But a source familiar with the negotiations said the agreement allows Canada to use Russian airspace for flights between North America and the Asia-Pacific region. Russia does not consider India part of that region.

The source said giving Air Canada rights for the overflight would hurt Aeroflot, which has flights between India and Canada via Moscow.

He conceded, however, that Canada has the upper hand in the negotiations with its threat to ban Aeroflot overflights.Canadian aviation officials were unavailable for comment.

Aeroflot stands to lose more by a re-routing of its North American flights than the entry of a rival airline on the Canada-India route, Moscow-based aviation analyst Paul Duffy said.

"It will be a problem for Aeroflot if it's not sorted out, if it wants to do any of the American flights in a 24-hour rotation," Duffy said, pointing out that if Aeroflot is forced to use longer routes, its planes could be tied up and face delays flying to other destinations.

[PacWest]

:hmm: Can you imagine David Cameron or Margaret Thatcher spouting the vitriolic (and inaccurate) crap Harper and his cronies just have towards another country?? I think not! Winning cheap votes from the uneducated is one thing, but throwing tantrums on a world stage is quite another.

Actually, yes.

Cameron recently apologized for 'spouting vitriolic and inaccurate crap' re Nicolas Sarkosy as well as apologizing profusely to an islamic country's grand poobah.

Maggie Thatcher at least attempted to shield her iron fist with a velvet glove when raining insults upon the heads of state who dared to disagree with her 'commands'.

The Prime Minister of Canada is well versed in the two faces of the religion/culture of the desert tribes since Canada has been dealing with this two faced, back stabbing, arrogant tribal culture (not just desert) for a century at least. And, Mr. Stephen Harper is a true patriot in what is best for Canada is best for Canada. So screw your desert princes. Captain.

[Oblaaspop]

Ahhhh, didumms you poor little things.

It's most amusing how you all stand up to protect your country at all costs (despite the fact that they may well be acting badly) in the name of patriotism!

Pacwest, Cameron was actually apologising for comments made 'off the cuff' at a meeting. Now, I actually know what was said, do you?? I very much doubt that!!

Outlaw, I shall ignore your rudeness, and just point out the fact that Canada NEEDED a place to stay in the region for its troops. Indeed it could have used Qatar or Oman or Bahrain etc, but it didn't, it asked the UAE and they said yes. Now the UAE didn't HAVE to do this, it AGREED to do it. Why the hell shouldn't co-operation go both ways? Just a simple question, don't get all upset and emotional, just answer the damned question! Imagine a 'mate' coming over from out of town and asks for a place to stay for a while, 9 years later he eventually buggers off. A couple of weeks later you call him up to ask if you can borrow his car for a while and (despite your hospitality) he basically tells you to bugger off because there's nothing in it for him! I'm sure you'd be thinking "hey you selfish git, after all I've done for you, you can't do something in return". I realise that is a very simple analogy and example, but to be honest, for most of you, it has become evident that you need things to be explained in simple terms:E

As if to prove the point that your politicians are no better than the lying tribesmen around this neck of the woods, the ORIGINAL reason given by Canada for refusing more flights to UAE airlines was clear "We believe that the UAE has enough flights to cater for current demand", at the time when charged with accusations of protectionism, your politicians vehemently denied this was the case. Well well well, what do we have here..... Harper now CLEARLY states that the reason was purely to protect the home Airline industry. Now, how the hell can YOU protect YOUR bunch of lying halfwits??

We all knew what the real reason was for the denial of extra services, its just a shame your government treated people as thickos! Is this not a case of the tail (read Air Canada) wagging the dog??

Now, don't think for one minute that I would dream of defending a lot of what goes on around here, but by the same token, I'm certainly not gonna blow wind up the @rse of Canada at all costs (like you guys seem to) when they too have been just as petty!

'The Wal Mart of airlines', I like that, that's very funny. Out of interest, how many people does Wal Mart employ? How many tens of thousands of families rely on Wal Mart salaries? Before you spout crap about the 'little guy' retailer being pushed out, Wal Mart was one of the only Fortune 500 companies to carry on recruiting and expanding in the recession.... I think many people would be glad of Wal Mart don't you? Now if you are implying that EK are undercutting other airlines massively in terms of price, I suggest you get yourself educated my friend. Just check out comparable ticket prices on comparable routes, and you will find scant evidence to back you up. People actually pay more to fly on EK........Hmmm, I wander why?:hmm:

[single chime]

Obla, if your mate sleeping in your basement does all the dirty jobs of the household while you are enjoying the good life, I think you'd be even.

[alwayzinit]

Obs, as my Granny used to say "Pride comes before a fall."

Canadia, where the Canadians come from:E, has the right to deny whomever it should wish to from its airspace, by whatever means make it "legal" under ICAO.

The knock on from the loss any over flight rights would have a disasterous effect on EK's present and future expansion into North America, and there would be absolutely nothing that the UAE or EK could do about it.

Your argument that Canada NEEDED to transit troops in the UAE opens up a whole can of worms, not least the difference between the meaning of NEED and WANT.

The West, for whatever reason, feels it has no other choice but to police this region( I suggest because the locals refuse to do the job themselves).

Which is irrelavent in the scheme of things because EK CANNOT afford for any loss of overflight rights or major disruption to its services to the West Coast.

Ergo EK NEEDs Canadian airspace more than Canada needs friendly relations with the UAE.

Therefore I summise that an agreement will be reached where both sides will be able to claim that they won in public, however, in private a very different story will have occured.

The West's patience with the particular traits of the Middle East and Islam has worn thin so maybe this stance by Canada is the first step towards "NO" being a more common place response to the frankly spoilt adolescent approach to international relations that the Oil boys have got away with in the past.

As previously mentioned Canada doesn't need any Middle Eastern oil it has plenty of it's own.

Finally The UAE and the rest of the Gulf state NEED the Western Military to counter the more local treat of their Muslim brothers in Iranistan!

So its a mess where only one party NEEDs the other.............Simple.

IMHO

[mynameisjon]

Oblaaspop, tell me again why Canada needs to have a military base in the middle east?

Your analogy of a mate crashing at your place is absolutely mistaken.

A better analogy would be you asking a mate to come over to get rid of rodents. The job takes a while so your mate asks if he can stay over to get the job done.

Half way you ask if you can use his car as a taxi, and he says no. You then kick him out, claiming that he should be more grateful to you since you let him stay over.

[BH06L3]

Oblaaspop

There is no denying that Canada (some politicians) acted Poorly on our behalf and possibly emotionally on the events. And Canada has made a major mistake in the way it has handled this situation within the media.

But of course the media always have there facts straight and are never opinionated, right? :ugh:

Actions speak stronger than words.

The facts are on the table and it is pretty easy to see who is the more bullish and petty of the 2 countries.

Wow, can't wait to see what happens next. :yuk:

[Oblaaspop]

Ok, so let me get this straight. What you guys are saying is that way back when, it was actually the UAE that asked, begged and pleaded with Canadia (thanks Always:ok:) to come over and set up camp here?? Just curious.

North America (and that includes Canada) NEEDS a base (several in fact) in this region for logistic purposes. Afghanistan is less than 2 hours from here and Iran less than 20 mins as opposed to 12-14hrs from NA. So in essence, despite what you all say, they did NEED the UAE to play ball. Now that the UAE asked for something in return (regardless if it was commercial or not -- as the Canadian military commander said it has saved millions of tax payer $ having the UAE base over the years!!!), they have a door slammed in their face for what it now seems is 'commercial' reasons.... Yes yes yes, the UAE has acted like a spoiled brat by throwing its toys out the pram, but now it seem Canada is acting no better! Argue you way out of that one folks!

Incidentally, the USA, UK, Australian and Kiwi military forces all have a presence here in the UAE (still). Why is it only Canada that seems to have an issue? Maybe because the other countries don't have a protectionist regime perhaps?

[6000PIC]

Oblaaspop , Canada didn`t NEED to do anything in the Middle East , much the same as it didn`t NEED to hit the beaches of Normandy. Thankfully the world has nation states with wisdom and a sense of history. You have neither. You are merely another opportunist , collaborator and .......protectionist ? Damn right !

[alwayzinit]

Obs, mate I sympathise. However, please excuse me for being a pedant.

There are probably no more than a dozen of people who really KNOW how and why the West ended up in Afganistan/Iraq. Was it simply the West going cowboy or was it after some pleading and begging from various Gulf States.

I don't KNOW, it's generally assumed that the West went Cowboy but inlight of Wikileaks reporting what the Saudi Royal family and other Gulf States have asked the West to do......................

I strongly believe that matters of global security matters should in NO WAY be used as any form of commercial leverage.

The West has always had a force of some kind in this region for reasons various, some selfish, some definately not. Lets be honest the big palaces have armed guards at the gate to protect the owners from who? The Expats or other palace owners?

As said before the Arabs do NEED the West to be here in the Gulf, the West NEED the Saudis but could probably get by without the Gulf States, its just that it would be one hell of a mess to clean up oh, and they DON"T want the Chinese to replace them!

What a mess.

However sooner or later the spoilt brat gets slapped by someone who has had enough of teddies being thrown.

[Willie Everlearn]

Oby, is there some specific reason why the UAE military aren't physically present in Afghanistan? Most of us 'dumb Canadians' aren't really knowledgeable about this but perhaps you could enlighten us. After all, most of the 9/11 participants operated out of the UAE and that might be one of those 'face saving' issues for them to resolve in any way they can. Yeah?

Maybe, providing staging facilities could be considered their 'contribution' to the effort and thereby negate any 'special' requests of nations physically participating. I'm sure a request from the UAE military to use one of our Military bases in Canada would fall more into line with a tit-for-tat request than additional landing rights.

Now you'd have US believe the UAE are merely asking Canada for a favour in return? I'd say they're putting their airlines interests ahead of the greater concern.

Personally, I think you're just trying to wind us up.

Willie :ok:

[737-700pilot]

Obla....


Can you please clarify your point. Cause I think you missed your own point.

You say....The UAE let the Canadians come here for 9 years and now Canada should return the favour and allow more flights.

Did you ever think the 7 flights a week that the UAE was granted in the first place (to YYZ), was maybe a "THANK YOU" from Canada. Thanks for letting us have troops in your country (UAE). In return we're giving you 7 flights a week to share between EK and EY.

So maybe Canada has done it's part already.

These greedy bastards just want more. You give them a hand and they grab the arm...........Damn right Canada should say "NO". Maybe the UAE will learn to grow up and behave like civilized governments around the world.:ugh:

I am all for expansion and competition, don't get me wrong. But to use security and the threat of terrorism as a leverage for more flights.........thats disgusting.:eek:

[Oblaaspop]

737, I can't really be bothered to explain why your post is inaccurate mate. Just know that it is!!

Perhaps someone else could have a go. Start by explaining that there are only 6 flights a week and go from there!

Thanks

[darsco]

what do you think of this one?
Emirates to buy manufacturer Airbus. Boeing may also be target. It could be true ... | Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation - CAPA (http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2010/12/24/emirates-to-buy-manufacturer-airbus-boeing-may-also-be-target-it-could-be-true/page1)

Good rumor eh !

also regards to the over flight rights over Canada ... do you think Nav Canada or whoever they are called now will not accept the Millions of dollars from over flight flights from the UAE airlines in their 380's and 777's going to the states!
Also there is probably a good chance they will open Seattle with Jazz/Horizon to fly to supply the Canadian public or even free executive bus service from Vancouver out of there.... ( what is it 2 and a half hours or something)… crap deal for the Canadian airports and Canadian people that want a job up in Vancouver, also a few million $ less for the Harper Gov. to spend! Oh ...and Air Canada! (Lufthansa)
I don’t believe opening everything up at once is a good solution but with a few extra flights over time will be good for Canadian consumers and business community

[737-700pilot]

Obla...blah....blah...blah


Actually, get your facts straight. The UAE has seven flights a week to Toronto. EY has the rights to 4 flights and EK 3 flights. However EY only uses 3 out 4 of their slots at this time on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The forth slot is on Sunday, which they have the right to exercise when they want at a future date.

Now if you didn't understand my posting then obviously you don't understand alot. And this is a waste of everybodies time trying to explain to you why the UAE should not use global security as a leverage for landing rights.

And your just a DUMB A#@:ugh:

Everybody don't bother with this dude. He's just winding you all up.

[Oblaaspop]

Was there any need to be quite so rude? I think not!

This is what normally happens on this forum, guys run up against a brick wall in an argument/discussion and due to the fact they don't have the IQ, savvy, or communication skills to present a good argument, they resort to personal insults! You poor uneducated things you:E

I will have to research whether you are indeed correct in your statement (and trust me I will), and if I am wrong then I unreservedly apologise (sadly something you guys find it impossible to do when you are wrong!). But the fact remains that there are currently only 6 rotations to and from the UAE and YYZ.

Now if you care to cast your mind back, you may recall that the 'discussion' is about the rudeness/thickness/untruthfulness of Canadian politics. Now, if the only thing you can have me on is a technicality, then clearly round 1 goes to me:}

I suggest you try and post logical arguments in future as you guys are just making yourselves look very dumb! But then I guess you're used to that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ok gentlemen (I of course use that term VERY loosely), just check out this link Canada-United Arab Emirates aviation dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-United_Arab_Emirates_aviation_dispute)

Just in case you want to dispute the accuracy of Wikipedia, there are several references from Canadian news articles mentioning the same thing. It took me all of three minutes to prove you wrong. Not bad for a mornings work!!

In case anyone can't be bothered to look at the link, I'll whisper it, because I don't want to embarrass the uneducated above....

THE UAE IS ONLY GRANTED 6 FLIGHTS A WEEK INTO THE WHOLE OF CANADA

Shhhhhhhh, keep it quiet chaps, I realise you don't want people to know just how stupid you really are:E

Now, I am of course open to an apology from you, but I clearly wont be holding my breath!:hmm:

Incidentally 737, NO I don't think the 6 flights a week granted to the UAE by Canada was a 'Generous Thank you', simply because it was granted over 10 years ago! Just gets better and better for your arguments doesn't it?:ugh:

[Trader]

Below is the brief explanation of Canada's Bilateral Air Agreement policy.

"Over the past 50 years, the evolution of air transportation has contributed significantly to economic growth in Canada and around the world. Technological advances in aircraft and at airports as well as the streamlining of administrative rules and regulations between countries have increased the flow of goods, people and ideas around the globe.

Canada’s principal goals when negotiating air agreements are to:

*

Provide a framework that encourages competition and the development of new and expanded international air services to benefit travellers, shippers, and the tourism and business sectors.
*

Provide opportunities for Canadian airlines to grow and compete successfully in a more liberalized global environment.
*

Enable airports to market themselves in a manner that is unhindered by bilateral constraints to the greatest extent possible.
*

Support and facilitate Canada’s international trade objectives.
*

Support a safe, secure, efficient, economically healthy and viable Canadian air transportation industry.

In 2006, Canada introduced a new international air policy titled Blue Sky to modernize its approach to international air transportation."

----------------------------------------------------------

You will note that is does NOT say that the idea is to throw open the markets and let capitalism have a free for all!!!!! It's intention is to grow airline traffic in a way that is MUTUALLY beneficial to Canada and the other party and in a manner that also allows Canada's carriers to grow and benefit.

This is quite simple really. The Cdn gov't has decided that the benefits to full open skies with the UAE is not MUTUALLY beneficial in that it provided great advantages for the UAE and less advantages for Canada.

THIS IS THE CRUX OF WHAT CANADA REQUIRES FOR FREE TRADE (AIR) BETWEEN TWO COUNTRIES.

This is what should be debated here. Do the benefits of having EK and EY flying unrestricted into Canada outweigh the losses!!!???!!! The Cdn gov't believes that the benefits do NOT outweigh the losses and so they have not agreed to increase flights.

It should also be noted that in ANY free trade agreement the idea is for both parties to benefit. Can a Cdn company export freely to the UAE with no duties? Can a Cdn company open a subsidiary in the UAE, without local ownership and no restrictions as to where they can locate and trade? NO, of course they cannot because there is no such agreement (free trade) in place and because the UAE follow a highly protectionist policy of ensuring it benefits.

How odd that this is the case but when it comes to air traffic that they pontificate about being allowed 'free market' access!!!

In the end it boils down to a cost-benefit analysis and that is DIFFICULT to prove for either side. The UAE's claim that open skies would provide thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits is exagerated. It would provide a few dozen ground jobs at various airports. Would it INCREASE tourism to Canada?? Maybe --maybe not.

I would argue that those tourists are coming one way or another (EK/EY would simply be another alternative). But someone else might argue that it would increase tourism. SO can I prove it? Nope. Can the other side prove it? Nope.

Does the increased choice for the Cdn consumer offset the loss that might occur in jobs or other choices? Can any of us prove it one way or another or find a non biased economic analysis that does so?

However, it seems some are arguing here that Canada should allow open skies simply because the belief is that free trade is always good!! And THAT argument is wrong!!!!

Free trade when, as written above, both (or multiple) parties benefit. On a simple basis, full free trade results in one country producing a product or service that they have a competitive advantage in while the other country produces a different product/service where they have an advantage. In the end both countries benefit through reduced cost of items/services and and increase in production (profit) in the area they have a skill set in.

The CDN gov't is arguing that they don't see that it is mutually beneficial!!!! The stated goal in the Bilateral Air Agreement Legislation in Canada is written above. New routes and choices are good but must not come at the expense of the industry in Canada unless, overall, it benefits the country.

Open skies is not comparable to free trade either!!!! Free trade opens borders to all (or most) products or services. By its very definition it allows countries to do what they are good at and trade openly for that which they cannot produce competitively. All sides benefit. But it does so because an ENTIRE economy with all its associated production and service are involved. It does not, in most cases, work when limited to narrow areas of the economy.

The Canada-US free trade agreement works because it is so open. It would not work it Canada said it should only apply to softwood lumber, minerals etc. It would be one sided.

So, when it comes to a bilateral (open skies) air agreement - basically one product - why are we suprised that it may not work for one country?? The concept of free trade may not work in such a limited case. By its very nature it most likely will not work. Perhaps the Aussies have decided that, for them, it works. The European are in the middle somewhere (the Germans are not allowing further traffic either) and Canada see no advantage.

Like I said before--throwing the door open and yelling let capitalism thrive unhindered is a a false argument.

In the end, ANY argument to allow or disallow more flights between the UAE and Canada should focus on proving that BOTH countries benefit and, since we know that the UAE would benefit immensly, it comes down to proving that any losses to Canada are offset by the gains they would receive.

Can anyone prove that conclusively?

PS. CTA | United Arab Emirates (http://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/doc.php?did=185&lang=eng)
This is the Cdn gov't website that briefly details the bilateral agreement. States 6 flights per week. However, there was comment made by Canada that 7 days was available and, when I find the reference, will post it. The verbiage in the site above also lends itself to that point. I would guess that no one has taken the extra slot to keep things fair between Ek and EY.

[Oblaaspop]

Trader, thanks for posting the definitive Transport Canada bi-lateral agreement.

There may well be 'verbiage', 'comment' or 'intent' of 7 days being given (which I doubt), but it CLEARLY says that only 6 days of services are officially granted, and more crucially, each Airline (EK & EY) shall have a maximum of 3 each... it was this point that formed the main basis of 737's rudely put argument towards me and subsequent ill informed back up by Outlaw...... unless of course they are now gonna come back with more unsubstantiated cr@p about Air Arabia staring a once weekly service from Sharjah to YYZ in an A320???

Go on guys I dare you:cool:

[BH06L3]

Oblaaspop you said:

This is what normally happens on this forum, guys run up against a brick wall in an argument/discussion and due to the fact they don't have the IQ, savvy, or communication skills to present a good argument, they resort to personal insults! You poor uneducated things youhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Shhhhhhhh, keep it quiet chaps, I realise you don't want people to know just how stupid you really arehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

I thought you were above the insults. And all in the same post :D

Time to get the popcorn out :ok:

[Oblaaspop]

BH, yeah I particularly like irony!! Get it?

One thing I will not do is accept misplaced insults. I simply will not roll over and take it up the wrong 'un, especially from the un-informed, like the Canadian government expect the fare paying public to do!

Apologies for fighting my corner.;)

Contacted, good post, and good links providing un-biased evidence to counter the many Canadian 'patriots' on this forum.

Unfortunately many of them cannot see the wood for the trees and despite those reports being produced by respected organisations within Canada (not EK or EY), you will still be up against the unsubstantiated cr@p they spout. Sooner or later, they will realise that the ONLY thing the Canadian Government is interested in is protecting Air Canada. They are not interested in allowing the Canadian consumer choice and are clearly being lobbied by unions, A/C management and more than likely Lufthansa:eek:....of course, when I say lobbied, I of course mean 'brown enveloped'!!!

They may say (understandably), why should the Government not protect A/C. Fair point, but to argue that A/C will fold and crumble because of a few extra services a week serving the 2nd largest country in the world has to be utter tripe. If they believe this to be the case, then surely a company that is clearly being run in a crapulous fashion and on a knife edge doesn't deserve ANY form of protection!!

[nolimitholdem]

Uh, what exactly IS your "corner"? In different words, why do you care? I mean surely you can understand why Canadians have some interest - especially now, thanks to the UAE actions, well played! - but I'm struggling to understand

a. what your interest is in this; and
b. why anyone should care what a non-Canadian, non-Emirati thinks.

Not saying you aren't entitled to your opinion, of course you are, but can't quite make out why you have it so strongly.

As far as not rolling over and taking it...uhhh...hmmm.

I have a lovely young female friend, cabin crew, who drives an expensive car, lives in a lovely villa, and rationalizes that it's totally worth taking it up the "wrong 'un" to have the things she couldn't have in her home country...draw your own parallels...

[BH06L3]

Here is a great post from YYZ Spotter on the Emirates vs. Air Canada Thread. Very convincing argument.

Hi everyone,

I like to follow these topics, but hardly post. Like everyone, I've got an opinion on this hot-button topic too.

In brief: I think EK and EY should be permitted the extra landing rights, but that the CDN govt should also negotiate something binding that is guaranteed to contribute to the Cdn economy, not just the EK marketing spin of jobs created. (e.g.: invest in aviation infrastructure in Canada; EK built a ATC Tower in Auckland). Considering that in exchange for the YYZ landing rights, Canadian carriers had excellent reciprocal rights into AUH and DXB, it seemed like a good deal...as long as Air Canada was willing to up its game and play hard with the new international big boys. Emirates flys widebodies like taxicabs into Australia, but QANTAS didn't cry much, they took it in stride, stayed competitive, and remain profitable.

.

Now, although both governments have been silly in this episode, I think it's worth keeping all the political issues in context as well.



The landing rights is a perfect cover story for the much bigger political mess in the background.In case you didn't know, here's a quick bit of background:-Mossad assassinated a Hamas official in Dubai with a team of hitmen (early 2010)-At least one FAKE Canadian passport was used by an assassin-Canada arrested a suspect in Canada, linked to the killing (initially not in the news) and the UAE confirmed that a 'western' nation arrested a suspect----Context required here: Canada's PM Stephen Harper LOVES Israel. Both countries have right wing nutjobs in power at the moment. Their relationship is extremely cozy. Admitting that Canada arrested an Israeli (Mossad agent) in the assassination using a FAKE Canadian passport would be very embarrassing. The suspect is apparently released and the issue isn't brought up for some time. Simply put, that's unacceptable.-----UAE is pissed off.-Harper tells a Jewish Conference in Ottawa, something to the effect that "as long as he's PM of Canada, Israel has a friend and ally, no matter what the consequences"-everyone shakes their head and goes WTF? For such a politically charged region of the world, giving unequivocal support for one side is idiotic, and that too from a country known for neutrality and diplomacy. Not so much now...

The consequences begin:-Canada is kicked off Camp Mirage. Actual cost is $300M/year, but Canada leased it for free. Landing rights to Defence minister's jet is denied.-Canada is kicked off the UN Security Council (by influence from UAE towards voting members). Extra embarrassing: Canada sent RCMP officers with bottles of Maple Syrup to distribute to diplomats to thank them and celebrate Canada's expected victory. All RCMP and maple syrup returns home. -Visas i.e. $$$ required for Canadians and many other countries visiting the UAE. Making people pay out of their pockets will get their attention.And here we are now. This is not simply an issue of landing rights, there are major political differences in the background that the media fails to keep in context when bringing up the landing rights. It's naive to think that Canada was kicked off a military base for not allowing more of its planes to land.

I'd like to mention that the Ottawa Citizen piece comes off as very immature. The author writes like he is half drunk and giving one gigantic middle finger to the entire UAE without any consideration for context, background that goes back more than a month, or foresight for future relations. Cut all access to UAE airlines over Canadian airspace? Is he insane? Disprove connections to terrorism? This is a tagged-on-argument of convenience. If you start opening a can of worms like that, Canada's policies on a number of issues can be debated. In fact almost every government is shady in some way, be it developed, developing, or 3rd world. E.g.: why is PIA being allowed to fly to YYZ? I don't think it's much of a secret that Pakistan is a mess and is playing with both sides of the war in Afghanistan.

As far as AC is concerned...
Should I support Air Canada because I am Canadian? Having flown Etihad last year, in economy, I must say that Air Canada is seriously lagging behind in service, food, IFE, passenger comfort, and the entire flight experience in general. When I do fly AC, their magazine usually touts their award of best North American Airline for how many ever years-in-a-row. Well, when you are comparing yourself to AA, Delta etc, it's like comparing apples to half-eaten rotten apples. What did the government have to say about AC trying to screw Porter when AC realized that Porter had a profitable business model out of YTZ? Nothing. AC was allowed to walk into YTZ after abandoning it years earlier. Any competition to AC is bad apparently.

Canadians as a whole have been brainwashed to be content with high taxes and low competition. In everyday life, this means high prices for cars, gasoline, food, homes, everything...all in the name of some kind of nationalism. If troff is an expat and not paying any taxes to the Cdn government, good for him. He's probably been taxed to death enough and can finally put away some money in the bank. The amount of tax money (your money, my money, Air Canada's money) WASTED in this country is mind boggling. There's a story about it in the CBC news every few weeks, and that's just the news that makes it out.

Canadians are desperate for increased competition. The consumer here is screwed around everyday. When it's cheaper to fly internationally than domestically, something is wrong.

If the CDN Govt can somehow negotiate guaranteed economic benefit in exchange for the landing rights, then its a win-win-WIN for the Emirates, Cdn govt, and importantly the Canadian flyer. That's what I'm for.

Sadly the entire issue is now getting ridiculous. See the latest letter (http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidZAWYA20110111032221/Emirates%20Cief%20Challenges%20Canadian%20PM%20Over%20Subsid y%20Issue) by Tim Clark to Harper.

That was a mouthful! Yes I sort of vented all my thoughts at once. Thanks for anyone who actually read the whole thing.

Cheers.

[Oblaaspop]

Fair comment nolimit......Until I got involved, this was a one sided back slapping hoo ha of Canadian patriotism which clearly wasn't capable of seeing 2 sides to the argument. Just thought I'd redress the balance a little.

More importantly, I don't suppose you have her number do you? I mean a girl that takes it up the bonus tunnel for the price of a meal..... Splendid;)

[Schibulsky]

a one sided back slapping hoo ha of Canadian patriotism which clearly wasn't capable of seeing 2 sides to the argument. Just thought I'd redress the balance a little.
F all you did, you didn't address any of his argument like: trying to explain to you why the UAE should not use global security as a leverage for landing rights. Instead you started a childish discussion if its 6 or 7 flights into Canada in HUGE screaming letters...
And you were also too thick to draw your own parallel to that girl.:ugh:
It was about rolling over for the "expensive cars, villas and the lifestyle"!:E
Both you and the girl could have a simple meal in the home country...

[Oblaaspop]

Interesting Skyiblikdhscjhydfkn (or whatever your crap handle is!), What EXACTLY have you brought to the table?? C@ck all!!

You don't even work here any more, and when you did, you were a mediocre dispatcher, plus the fact, you aren't even Canadian!!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it! Why do still hang around these forums? Like Sheiky, clearly your new life hasn't worked out and you feel compelled to drone around justifying your decision! What a sad sad man you are:E

Indeed, I did see what Nolimit was trying to imply wrt the girl, but as I mentioned before irony tends to confuse the thick (which clearly it did in your case), so I used humour and wit to throw it back..... Look and learn.:ugh:

Regarding the big bold lettering in the post from earlier, I sustained unwarranted abuse regarding something I said earlier that was indeed correct, so the culprits needed to be shown the errors of their ways. It appears that the ONLY thing you have picked up from my posts is the fact that the UAE has 6 flights a week to Canada. Do me a favour, take the time to go back over my posts again and read them properly, you will find that only about 1% of what I said relates to that, and I have addressed many times why the global security bullcr@p vs commercial argument is a non starter.

BTW did you actually bother to read the excellent links provided by Contacted above? You know the ones, they are independent, highly regarded sources all backing up what I and a few others have been saying for ages!

Remove the blinkers unwise one!

Incidentally, why did a dispatcher EVER feel the need to skulk around on a Professional PILOT forum in any case? Felt inadequate perhaps? I noticed from one of your earlier posts that you were giving pilots advice on when to apply certain MEL items.... I do hope to god they ignored your sage advice!

[Schibulsky]

Hey Obi...take a chill pill and keep rolling over dude! :p
You are really showing some class by picking on my handle (believe me, my real name is even crappier!) and calling me mediocre etc.:D

BTW...I am semi-retired now as in not having to work anymore...running my own company (relax, it's not aviation related) to keep me busy as in being the boss...living a great lifestyle as in living in a villa with a nice climate and going golfing, surfing etc...traveling the world in style as in not being the poor tired driver in the front...and yes, it's a sad life and I am feeling very inadequate so I am having some fun in following and posting on this forum to justify my stupid decision!! :E

What was it again you wanted to tell me???... probably just frustration with your own sorry life as a dependent driver...:{

[Oblaaspop]

Wow, from flight dispatcher to semi-retired CEO of a massive multi-national in just a few short years...... You are correct I now feel inadequate, and insanely jealous. How's the recession treated you buddy? Personally I hardly noticed it, but enough of my tales of woe:}

Outlaw, un-bloody-believable! You have the audacity, the bare faced cheek and effrontery to take me to task????

YOU are the one my friend who rudely slung mud in my direction on a point which you were 100% incorrect on, and you are not even man enough to admit it and apologise...... Grow some balls, toughen up cowboy!:=

You are quite correct about one thing though, EVERYBODY is entitled to their own opinion, until such a time that it appears to go against the general flow ie my opinion. You all are only interested in the popular jingoistic patriotism which encompassed all that was wrong with the Bush administration. I thought you guys were less 'Redneck' and more white collar than some of your ill informed neighbours down south? It appears I was wrong!

Its clear that anyone who dares to counter your opinions is either 'management', 'thick', 'stupid', 'selfish', 'shortsighted' and generally evil. These blinkered opinions manifest themselves despite attempts by the individual to present logical reason based arguments...... These arguments appear to get ignored and downtrodden with attempts to discourage and scare the poster away. This approach appears to work well in places like Iran, but sadly for you guys I have a modicum of intelligence and I carry my balls around in a wheelbarrow (its a figure of speech before anyone accuses me of pretending to have big knackers).

As I have said many times and indeed what all the evidence now points towards, is the fact that this whole sorry issue has absolutely nothing to do with Camp Mirage/Global security vs commercial, but has EVERYTHING to do with the Governments approach to protecting Air Canada and Lufthansa at all costs. The sooner you guys can admit to that, stop flag waving, and agree that the approach may be floored, the better, then maybe we can all work together to find a solution to the situation....... ALL the reports from reputable sources (as posted by Contacted above) confirm that the ONLY losers from this sorry saga are the travelling public AND believe it or not Air Canada!!!!

Stop shooting from the hip in Red neck Newfie yeeeehaaaaa fashion, and actually start thinking properly about it! that's all I ask.:ugh:

[porch monkey]

Take your medication mate, life's so much better then.

[Oblaaspop]

Thanks for ably proving my point mate, I of course forgot to mention the other one about people disagreeing with the general blinkered consensus are almost certainly on drugs or medication...... Cheers:ok:

Now was there anything useful you wanted to bring to the table or was it just the cr@p above?

[harry the cod]

BH06L3

Sorry to bother you, I don't suppose you have any of that popcorn left by any chance?

Harry

[BlueSkye]

Interesting Skyiblikdhscjhydfkn (or whatever your crap handle is!)

Oblaaspop: Afrikaans for "blow up doll".

[Oblaaspop]

Correct, good isn't it?:}

[Canoehead]

Man, this is getting better than Jerry Springer!

[Schibulsky]

Looks like you love a pi$$ing contest boet!

Wow, from flight dispatcher sounds like kind of a dirty word from you to semi-retired CEO only director of a massive multi-national o.k. but we are trading just between 2 continents and some countries (your homeland included) in just a few short years not even one year!...... You are correct I now feel inadequate why, because you are just an airline captain?, and insanely jealous enough reason for that. How's the recession treated you buddy? very well, i.e. the mining industry in Africa is booming!! Personally I hardly noticed it better check your salary and T/Cs against last year's!!, but enough of my tales of woe indeed enough :p

You really shouldn't mock people who had the guts, the initiative and the means to quit an aviation business that is generally going down the drain...a business where people with limited qualifications are trapped...:E

Moderators please forgive me but that's just too much fun!! :p

[IXNAT]

Back on topic......sadly the Canadian gubment may have the final say, no matter where it stands or who's right or wrong etc. Could they in fact halt Ek's and EY's overflight freedom/authorisation/approval? Imagine what that would do to their expansion plans. Secondly, how many flights are there by Qantas, BA, Air France and the rest? Seems they probably have more than six. How's that protecting AC jobs?

[Oblaaspop]

Ahhh, I see its a virtual trading company...... Its not called F2 Investments by any chance is it? :E


Incidentally, I am genuinely pleased it has worked out for you, but I'm still intrigued as to why you spend a proportion of your amazing life floating around a forum which by rights shouldn't interest you one jot. Is it an attempt to gloat or try to make people more miserable? In any case I stand by my original assessment, you are pretty damned sad my friend!:hmm:

[Willie Everlearn]

Oby

With each of your posts, my opinion indicator moves closer and closer to the "complete Idiot" end of the scale, further and further away from the "complete Genius" end. (not that I should expect you to comply) but...
could you at least attempt to reverse the trend for me??? Say, somewhere toward the middle?

Give us a reasonable comment. That should do the trick.

btw, you ARE NOT Canadian, correct?

Willie :ok:

P.S. FWIW, I don't disagree with everything you have to say. But you do make this a fun read at times.

[ThreeStones]

Pop

Your immaturity is an embarrassment to our community.

Although it would have been nice for us to get more flights to Canada and western Canada, most of the people here agree that the UAE handled this badly and it was us that cocked this up. Patience is a virtue and that combined with some classy diplomacy is all that would have been needed. The timing was wrong. Things are picking up, another 12 months and the results would be different, but I would be surprised if now anything will fall toward UAE. Instead now Qatar and Turkish are picking up slots now. And your submission that the UAE was doing Canada a favor by allowing it to stage its military here is equally embarrassing. We are all living on the same planet and we must all do our part to fight those that work to harm us. The old argument of competition and protecting Air Canada also does not fly. As we all know Canada is the epitome of social fairness. As we already know, there was a meeting with the UAE to meet halfway on new landing slots, but it was not enough.

So lets put this to bed now and try to rebuild the bridges and maybe in a year or so we can get a couple landing slots to Vancouver and Calgary. Maybe the UAE can buy some trains from Bombarier or whatever, but there are things that can be done if we want it enough.

Also, this talk of codeshare with a LCC is nonsense. That is not our target market.

[harry the cod]

Seeing both sides of the coin, there wasn't much point in jumping in. To be honest, I was having far too much fun watching it all go downhill. However, nolimitholden has once again demonstrated what ignorant posts are all about.

If you do actually work for EK, just like Oblaaspop, why the hell do you think he has a vested interest in Emirates operating more services to Canada? With all these aircraft coming, we need to send them somewhere and Canada has huge potential which Air Canada is simply not using.

It's called job security, and I get more of it when my own airline's aircraft are flying, not sitting on the ground collecting dust. Probably the very same job security that keeps all the moaners here years after they said they'd leave.

Anyway, for what it's worth, do I think the UAE is being childish over this? Yes I do. Do I think the Canadian governement lied about the real reason for EK not being given more flights. Yes I do. That's it.

Seconds out........round 5

Harry

[737-700pilot]

Protecting Air Canada......Hmmmmmm.

Who flies into YYZ....Alitalia, B.A., KLM, Air India, Lufthansa, PIA, United, American, Delta, Turkish Airlines, Carribean star, Air France, Korean Airlines, Cathay, Aeroflot, Ukrainian Airlines, Fedex, UPS, Martinair, Thomas cook, Tap, Lan Chili, SATA.......

Who was flying into YYZ.....

Olympic airways and Mexicana (when they were still around).......


Who's coming......

Sri-Lankan, Eygpt Air, Qatar airways, Kuwait Airways.

So I think if Canada allows so many to come to just YYZ, and they don't seem to be getting into a diplomatic row over landing rights. Does it make you wonder why a simple agreement could not be made with the UAE.

Maybe Canada is trying to protect Air Canada, and Westjet. Do we really want EK and EY to over take the industry like they have in Australia, and in Europe hurting so many airline jobs in those countries.

I hope not.

[GoreTex]

oba,
please stop it, you are a clown, back to the topic.

[Schibulsky]

Ahhh, I see its a virtual trading company
Fokol you see...real trading as in shipping real containers etc...I leave the virtual investment companies for you guys in the sandpit... :E
Now back to the golf course...:cool:

[Married a Canadian]

Sorry to correct you 737 pilot but

No longer flying to Toronto also includes Aeroflot, TAP and Martinair

And Sri Lankan and Kuwait airlines are not even on the radar yet (from an ATC chap).

Don't want to be too picky but you did get the schedules wrong earlier in the thread and I can confirm at present that Emirates flies 3 times a week and Etihad 3 times a week.

It makes you wonder how "correct" some posters are in this thread when some statements even if they contain some truths have blatantly wrong "facts" in them. Arguing for the canadian aviation industry when you are getting things wrong regarding it is not the best angle to come from.

BTW I don't get what listing the carriers that fly into YYZ proves anyway. In some cases it just shows where Air Canada dosen't either serve or compete...and for the flagship carrier from its flagship hub...that is pretty p*** poor. If you pop into LHR terminal 5 (and 3) you will find British airways has flights to almost all the destinations that the other carriers at the airport serve. Air Canada dosen't yet fly to India which defies belief given the population in the GTA...AND that the argument over EK and EY involves that market (scooping!)

[Schibulsky]

We should stop bitching about how many flights there are to any particular airport/region.
The main issue:
On one hand we have airlines that are competing as a private company in a global market...on the other hand state sponsored/owned airlines who dont give a fcuk about consumers choices, it's all about profit.
Who are the UAE customers anyway? They really don't have a substantial local market, they leech from global transport demand due to their geo-strategical location between the big markets.
They are the sharks in the tank, so if other airlines are asking for some protection from their government its just fair...after all its the tax paying employees that are at stake.
The leaders in the Gulf exploited their oil reserves in the past by playing the rest of the world...don't let them get away with the next scheme...
Btw. I am a fan of (fair) global trade, i am doing it right now...and the countries I import to slap a 20% import duty on my products...fair? I dont really know, but it's their countries and their choice...and it's their own people who they have to look after!!
Living in a 3rd world country shows me everyday how the multinational corporations flood the markets with bottled water, milk powder, junk food and all the "blessings of civilization"...and destroying local markets!!
Anyway it's understandable that pilots working in the UAE support their masters: dont bite the hands...;)
just my two rupia ...now I really have to hurry to make my tee time...:cool:

[sec 3]

Air Can used to fly to delhi, but it wasnt profitable. I mean, who's gonna travel on Air Can when you can get great service on jet airways? Who the hell is kenny colin anyways? Some newfie from Dildo? Kissin' the puffins arse too many times fries your brain!

[Married a Canadian]

Living in a 3rd world country shows me everyday how the multinational corporations flood the markets with bottled water, milk powder, junk food and all the "blessings of civilization"...and destroying local markets!!

And how many of those multinationals are from the Middle east? Or are they from more "western" countries?

[pool]

It is interesting that a commercial agreement was reached with Qatar ISO the UAE so one has to ask "What is in that agreement" and why could the UAE not have done the same. However, there are bigger forces at play here that we will no doubt never know anything about.

To get out of the mudwrestling of a few thin layered chicks around here, let’s focus back on track.
My answer to above question is that the pitiful “mine is bigger” contest between the two archaic tribes is starting to bite back. The tit for tat with Canada clearly hurts EK more than EY, who would be struggling to increase its service rapidly due to poor management. EK could and would put even more distance between the two companies if allowed, therefore the AUH influenced government decided to play dumbball and by that stall expansion to Canada. Simply imagine if the UAE airlines cooperated how they could make an impact into the NA and Europe! But having their old foe being forced to kiss their dirty feet, due to the crisis, was too much of a pleasure for some, and now they want them bent over for good. Better to have EK suffer than EY profitable. Look for example at the housing market. AUH is some X0000 units short and people shuttle from cheaper DXB which will shortly be some X0000 units oversupplied. Instead of cooperating and leveling, which would be good for the entire nation’s economy, AUH is planning to build X0000 units as fast as possible to recover the fugitives. Remember the knee jerk restriction for EY pilots not to get allowance if living outside AUH?

Canada realized this tribal tragicomedy quite easily and plays along to protect its own tragicomedy named AC. Divide and conquer at its lowest from all three sides. I don’t blame Canada, as the display of the UAE is simply pitiful. But allow me to put Canada’s argumentation and behavior at almost the same low. I would hope for a more professional appearance from the UAE. I think it was mentioned before, TC and MF would have been more diplomatic and pragmatic if they were in charge. They know about Al Baker just waiting in the nicely subsidized shadow to profit from the UAE mudslinging. But having the southern clowns mingling the matter, the pathetic cold war through the greedy and primitive press will continue for some time.

[Trader]

Pool you may be on to something. I know that the UAE rejected Canada's offer for 3 times weekly to YVR and YYC and outrightly said no to letting them pick up pax in Canada and continue into other destinations (6th freedom).

Seems it might have been a good idea to accept the compromise and work for more flights going forward.

Why would the UAE refuse a negotiation? Or is it that they take the rather typical tack from this part of the word and expect to get what they want with no conditions?

[fliion]

I admire democracies & patriotism...so let the Canadian consumer decide where they want to spend their dime. Its completely in the spirit of freedom of choice for them to pick their beloved Air Canada over the competition -oh wait, maybe the Canadian consumer wont pick Air Canada because of its tired product & service.

And why is the product outdated and lethargic? Simple' because they will never innovate if they know they are protected - because they dont have to attract customers with their product, the government will deliver the customers through policy...and for that the demise of a once competitive and admired airline will continue.

And that my friends is sad

f.

[ThreeStones]

Pop

Your immaturity is an embarrassment to our community.

Although it would have been nice for us to get more flights to Canada and western Canada, most of the people here agree that the UAE handled this badly and it was us that cocked this up. Patience is a virtue and that combined with some classy diplomacy is all that would have been needed. The timing was wrong. Things are picking up, another 12 months and the results would be different, but I would be surprised if now anything will fall toward UAE. Instead now Qatar and Turkish are picking up slots now. And your submission that the UAE was doing Canada a favor by allowing it to stage its military here is equally embarrassing. We are all living on the same planet and we must all do our part to fight those that work to harm us. Protecting Air Canada only? Totally ridiculous. As we all know Canada is the epitome of social fairness. As we already know, there was a meeting with the UAE to meet halfway on new landing slots, but it was not enough. Its not just about Air Canada.

So lets put this to bed now and try to rebuild the bridges and maybe in a year or so we can get a couple landing slots to Vancouver and Calgary. Maybe the UAE can buy some trains from Bombarier or whatever, but there are things that can be done if we want it enough.

This debate would be much better with your absence since you contribute nothing but idiotic immature manure.

[Oblaaspop]

Fair comments guys, I apologise to those that think I have been immature and spreading manure??

The fact is, that my opinion (which apparently I am entitled to so long as its the same as everyone else!) went against the flow, and for that I was confronted with much rudeness and vitriol! Not being a shy retiring type as I'm sure you are now aware I tend to fight fire with fire.... sometimes this can come across much stronger than most (English is my first language after all) for which I am sorry. There it is folks, I have been man enough to apologise, its a shame Outlaw, 737 and others aren't quite as honourable!

What I will not apologise for though is my stance. My position has not changed because NO-ONE, not one of you has come up with an ounce of sensible argument and just continue on with this inane flag waving exercise.

3 Stones, when EXACTLY did Canada invite the UAE to discuss extra landing rights? You seem to be very knowledgable on the subject, so please provide a link with evidence. I doubt very much that this ever happened and you well know it. The original agreement was formulated a decade ago granting 6 slots a week. Are you trying to tell us that demand wouldn't have increased during that time? In fact the UAE had been trying very hard since end 2006 to negotiate with Canada on the subject but was stone walled at every opportunity, so you are trying to convince us that all of a sudden Canada said, 'oh alright then, lets meet half way' and the UAE suddenly decided to run away from the table? Get real my friend!

May I suggest you all take the time to read the links posted by Contacted earlier in this thread, they sum up my stance on the issue and I didn't even write them! Imagine that, reputable sources and institutions IN CANADA agreeing with infidel Oblaaspop:eek:

Now instead of jumping down my throat because I happen to disagree with you and use a sharp tongue in the process, why don't you have a go at flaming those intellectual reports...... Who knows, if you do a good job (and that doesn't include patriotic flag waving), you may even change my mind:ok:

Incidentally, at risk of repeating myself for the 900th time, I DO think the UAE has acted poorly over this, just as I believe Canada has responded poorly...... That was for those of you that cant be bothered to trawl back through the posts, but if you do, you will see that it was written way before the vitriol started.

Now can we have a sensible debate?:ok:

[Dropp the Pilot]

"This message is hidden because Oblaaspop is on your ignore list."

Ahhhh...that's better

[watertheflowers]

What he gives he takes away.

Oblaaspop, you posted this on another thread last week:
...(and no I'm not 'management', just a regular line shag!)
Is this really true? You will confirm that you do no office work or any duties other than your line flying? Maybe in the tech office or CRM or...recruitment?

[Oblaaspop]

You are right, I am all of those things!! I'm also TC's love child and am considering having an affair with AS.

It doesn't seem to matter what I say or do, I'm in the wrong.......

Now can we move on??

[Schibulsky]

And how many of those multinationals are from the Middle east? Or are they from more "western" countries?
It was not implicated that they are from the Middle East (Although a big chunk of their shares are in the hands of Arabs) It was an example how an unregulated free market destroys local markets in countries not able to compete or defend themselves for different reasons. The UAE state sponsored airlines, not hampered by any consumer or employee protection laws or anti trust regulations, are using their IMHO unfair advantage to conquer the global market and cry foul when they got slapped on their greedy hands by sovereign gouvernments who have the right to protect their economy against it!
This goes of course also for the big players like Nestle and all the other giants eliminating fair trade worldwide...with the help of their gouvernments.
i.E. US subsidized corn or EU subsidized sugar is offered in Africa below local market prices and is ruining the farmers...
Again, I am not against globalization in general (can't do anything about it anyway) but the present situation is screwing too many people worldwide!

[harry the cod]

Watertheflowers

Standards Captains, TRE's, TRI's LTC's, CRMI's, SFI's, Recruitment........

Non of the above is management. Never has been. They are either training positions or recruitment. Please don't be that ignorant.

Harry

[Wizofoz]

Are but Harry, it's all about context you see (I don't know what that means but WTF said it).

If you are a DEC or do anything other than fly the line (and whine about it) you somehow have a vested interest, you opinion is unworthy, and you are fair game to insult, "Outing" etc, while even the most illogical, inveterate whinger such as Sheiky is to be left alone and respected.

Water-the-flowers is the self-appointed conscience of all things EK on this forum- and I don't mean that figuratively, I asked him directly if that's what he was and he said yes- and as such decides who is and isn't allowed to comment.

I don't necessarlly agree with Obs ideas or style of posting here, but even if he does work in recruitement (and he must do-WTF said so and he is ALL knowing) how does that invalidate anything he says? It's not like he gets paid per application!!

[watertheflowers]

Dear Harry

If I had been using my own words instead of a quote within a quote I would have used the favoured company term of 'Appointment Holder' in the place of 'management'. Oblasspop, Wizofoz, and you too Harry, are Appointment Holders. Is an Appointment Holder 'just a line shag'? I don't think so.

With just a bit of mild coercion I have persuaded Wizofoz to add his recent career highlights to his PPRuNe user name which goes a way towards qualifying the mostly positive messages that he sends out to the community. Maybe Oblasspop, and you as well Harry, should do the same? I could do it for you if you like. I wrote Wizofozs for him. PM me.

There's nothing wrong with positive posts, there are much worse places to be than EK, it depends where you are coming from and that applies to both posters and readers.

Context - the set of circumstances that surround a situation.

wtf

[Wizofoz]

And why exactley shouldn't Sheikmyarse, Nolimitholdem, LHR rain and the rest be held to the same standard, WTF? Do you bombard them with PMs, try and find out who they are and reveal it, or haunt every post they make, until they reveal their exact circumstances?

Why exactley is context a one-way street?

[harry the cod]

watertheflowers


Is an appointment holder just a 'line shag'? No he isn't, I agree. But neither is he management.

It was 'implied' in your post that because someone does training or recruitment, they are not regular line shags and thus, by conclusion, part of the management structure.

If that was not the intent of your post, then I apologise for reading it as such.

Harry

[watertheflowers]

Thank you Harry, apology accepted.
And now back to Wizofoz.

And why exactley shouldn't Sheikmyarse, Nolimitholdem, LHR rain and the rest be held to the same standard, WTF?

Because they are the rule and you are the exception.

Do you bombard them with PMs,

No, and I don't bombard you with them either. You have sent me eight PMs in the last five years. I replied to each one, and to one twice. I have not sent you an unsolicited PM, they have all come from you.

...try and find out who they are and reveal it,

I'm not so interested in who people are, so much as what they are. For example it's unlikely that an F/O with previous jet command time who joined EK with you and is still in the right seat with no immediate prospect of upgrade would post what you post. Again they are more the rule at EK, you are the exception.

[Wizofoz]

Because they are the rule and you are the exception.



As determined by Who? Oh, that's Right, you:- as you arrogantly assume the mantle of sage of PPRUNE.

No, and I don't bombard you with them either. You have sent me eight PMs in the last five years. I replied to each one, and to one twice. I have not sent you an unsolicited PM, they have all come from you.



True, I apologies. What you DID do was hound any post I made with personal attacks not related to the topics under discussion, and called for me to be banned, until castigated by the moderators- the guys ACTUALLY in charge of the forum. I think ''inane" was the term EGGW used to describe your action.

I'm not so interested in who people are, so much as what they are.

Which, of course, does not extend to you stating what YOU'RE position is, as you assume you are so virtuous your actions don't require judgment, you're motives don't require assessment, just those that have a certain point of view.

For example it's unlikely that an F/O with previous jet command time who joined EK with you and is still in the right seat with no immediate prospect of upgrade would post what you post.

Quote one post I've made that does not either simply contain an honest opinion, or corrects a factual error made by another. You know I've addressed the problems and limitations at EK, and that aspects of the upgrade policy is certainly part of that. Someone with a different set of circumstances might post differently? of course that's true. Why are different opinions made from different points of view so offensive to you?

I can also assure you that neither Sheikmyares nor Nolimitholdem meet the description you make above. Sheik doesn't even work for EK. Yet any crap they post gets a bye because hysterical nonsense IS the norm on this forum, and any attempt at rationality and balance is met by the type of self-confessed co-ertion you have engaged in.

Again they are more the rule at EK, you are the exception.

I find, as a Captain, the opinions of the crew I fly with tend to be a reflection of my opinions, rather than honest ones of their own, as the Captain sets the tone- Perhaps your perception of the mood at EK is a reflection of your own, breathtakingly here displayed arrogance.

[watertheflowers]

I'm done. Good night.

[Kamelchaser]

Amazing,

Same handful of guys hijack every threat and start slinging mud at each other.

Seriously guys, if you can't have a mature discussion without getting into an argument about who said what...then how about starting your own thread in a little corner of pprune that nobody else cares about or visits...and just have your petty little squabbles there?

[troff]

By Mick O'Reilly, Deputy Managing Editor, Gulf News
Published: 00:00 January 15, 2011
Ottawa: Air Canada wanted Emirates to fly daily into Toronto, a document obtained by Gulf News shows.
According to the proposal dated October 17, 2006, the Canadian airline even proposed the landing times for Emirates flights in Toronto so as to maximise the number of Air Canada passengers using the service.
In return for the arrangement, Air Canada wanted 50 per cent of all of Emirates's profits on the route. :rolleyes: Emirates rejected the proposal. :D Air Canada and Emirates did not comment.
Since the 2006 deal was rejected, both Emirates and Etihad have been limited to three flights a week to Toronto, and the UAE carriers have been refused more landing slots and have been stalled in their efforts to fly to other Canadian destinations of Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver.
Air Canada, however, while believing the proposed arrangement would be profitable in 2006, has since consistently claimed that thousands of jobs would be lost if more UAE flights are granted. "Clearly, this document shows the duplicity of Air Canada and the Canadian government in this whole affair," Dan McTeague, the opposition Liberal party's critic on foreign and consular affairs, told Gulf News. "The government is acting in the interests of Air Canada."
McTeague said that if Air Canada wanted more flights, then its current view on jobs doesn't told (sic) water. An Emirates study says that daily flights to Toronto would create nearly 2,000 new jobs and would contribute $26 million (Dh94 million) annually in tax revenue for federal and provincial governments.

[fliion]

Kamelchaser,

Love it,,,

f.

[Desertbannanas]

Good info troff. At least we know it's possible, or at least negotiating was possible until AUH cocked it up. So we have to share a bit with the locals, makes sense to me. Why did we not counter that with 30%... point is it's a start. It's their market after all.

[troff]

Published On Sun Jan 16 2011EmailPrint

By Haroon Siddiqui

(Haroon Siddiqui is the Toronto Star's editorial page editor emeritus. His column appears on Thursday and Sunday. [email protected] )

When you question Stephen Harper’s foreign policy, he attacks your patriotism. When he makes a mistake, he won’t acknowledge it. When he’s losing a debate, he recasts it as cultural warfare between good and evil, and lashes out at critics with little or no regard for facts.

All these traits are on full display in his nasty row with the United Arab Emirates.

When Bob Rae, Liberal foreign affairs critic, said that Ottawa has been “reckless” in poisoning this relationship, the Harperites called him a bad Canadian, and “a door mat” for Arab royals.

Harper accused the U.A.E. of trying to take commercial advantage of Canada’s war on terror in Afghanistan by cancelling a lease on an air base that Canada had used for nine years to ship troops and equipment into and out of Afghanistan.

The U.A.E.’s decision followed Ottawa’s rejection of additional landing rights for Emirates and Etihad airlines, and reciprocal visa-free entry here for Emirati citizens.

Dan McTeague, Liberal critic for consular affairs, thinks that Harper is being an ungrateful wretch. The MP for Pickering-Scarborough East, told me Friday:

“Unlike the prime minister’s charge that the U.A.E. has been soft on terrorism, they provided us Camp Mirage free.

“They treated about 100 wounded Canadian soldiers in Dubai, free of charge, and sent many home on Emirate Airways, first class. Their treatment of our soldiers has been better than Harper shortchanging our walking wounded from Afghanistan.

“And let’s not forget that U.A.E. helped free two Canadian hostages from Iraq in 2005 — James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden.

“The facts are there for Canadians to see.”

The U.A.E. is so incensed that it might recall its ambassador from Ottawa, I am told.

The damage may extend to the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain).

Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, visiting Doha Thursday, was bluntly told of Qatar’s displeasure at Canada’s treatment of their neighbour, according to a source. Following that meeting, Cannon abruptly cancelled a scheduled news conference.

At stake is our $1.5 billion a year trade with U.A.E. — 95 per cent of it in our favour — that holds high promise when we are desperate to find non-American markets.

The U.A.E. is spending tens of billions on infrastructure projects that Canadian companies are well-suited to bid on. That’s why 200 of them have opened offices there, including Bombardier, which wants to sell its mid-range aircraft and bid on a $20 billion high-speed rail project.

The U.A.E. has invested $4.4 billion in Canada, and may increase it manyfold, given its $1 trillion sovereign fund.

U.A.E.’s purchase of dozens of wide-body Boeing planes is also good for Canada, since a third of the parts are manufactured by 41 Canadian companies, 15 of them in Ontario.

Having botched the relationship, Harper and ministers have presented themselves as defenders of Air Canada and, thus, Canada.

But Air Canada is no longer a state carrier. It’s just another big Canadian company (that often annoys its customers). It gets Ottawa’s help through protected routes and severe restrictions on foreign carriers.

If allowing the two U.A.E. airlines would cost Canada “tens of thousands of jobs,” as Ottawa says, it needs to show how and where — and how the job losses would stack up against the new jobs created with the proposed expanded services.

If Emirates and Etihad are subsidized, Ottawa must prove how and where. It’s not good enough to cite the U.A.E.’s airport infrastructure program or its lower taxation. All jurisdictions compete with such incentives. Indeed, the Harper government boasts of lowering corporate taxes to lure business.

Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary airports are keen to host the U.A.E. airlines.

Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia have agreements with U.A.E. to expand trade. An Alberta delegation is in U.A.E. this week.

U.A.E. has emerged as the financial and transportation hub for a vast region, from the Middle East to Africa to China and India. It is leading a shift in transportation from the West to the East, in sync with the economic centre of gravity moving east.

Canada’s response cannot be crass protectionism and holding Canadian consumers hostage, but rather a confident foray into the bigger world, as suggested by Ottawa’s own Competition Policy Review Panel.

What we have instead from Harper is petulance and demagoguery that will cost Canada dearly.

[Oblaaspop]

Desert, I think you may be missing the point of Troff's article. It is saying that how come in 2006 Air Canada was keen to get EK on board if it meant making a quick cheap buck, but now miraculously they are crying foul and saying that it would cost them 10's of thousands of jobs?

None of it adds up! What's changed in the last 5 years (apart form demand for seats increasing) to make Air Canada do a complete reversal?

[nolimitholdem]

I'm gonna venture a guess that maybe they know more about their own market than a British expat living in the Gulf? Just a hunch?

"What's changed in the last five years".

Really? You see no difference in the EK of today and the EK of 2006?

lol

It amuses me how suddenly, all the quotes are from political adversaries of the Conservative party actually making the decisions. I tend to think politicos with an agenda should have their statements taken for what they are, simple opportunism. Although interestingly enough, one of the most "vitriolic" (a word tossed about willy-nilly by the harrumphing editors of the Gulf Snooze) editorials on the situation came from a Liberal senator...hmm.

A better reflection of what most Canadians actually think might come from the comments following Canadian online news stories on the issue. Within hours of any story they light up with thousands of remarks, almost universally condemning the actions of the UAE and supporting Harper's actions. Of course anyone can cherry-pick the few comments with their tiresomely predicable ranting about the poor service on AC (even though it wins awards domestically these days) and how it's a Crown corporation (which it hasn't been since 1988) or how it's always being "bailed out" (which isn't true, it has been granted loans which it repaid in full at market interest rates), etc etc *yawn*

The quoted article talks about how Harper will "cost Canada dearly" yet fails to quantify that statement whatsoever. Talk about no regard for the "facts". or rather, completely devoid of any. Just yet another political hatchet job.

[Trader]

What has changed in the last 5 years? Nothing really. 5 years ago AC wanted to code share and wanted some of the profit, which is completely understandable, since a code share with EK would have siphoned off traffic from its other code share agreements and the profit they generated.

EK does NOT code share because they want the bulk of the profit and they want the control!!! Even at this moment if EK wanted into the Cdn market they could strike a deal with Westjet, who have been developing codeshare deals with a few international airlines. Westjet, I think, would like nothing better then to set up a deal and capture some of AC's business. Yet there is nothing!! Perhaps because nobody will accept EK's terms!

There is more to this than meets the eye I think. I suspect (and this is nothing more than a guess) that the UAE (and EK/EY) negotiated with an all or nothing stance believing that they could strong arm Canada into an agreement. When that didn't work they moved to other tactics (games) with the airbase etc.

[Iver]

The Canadians should act like the tough hockey players they think they are... Perhaps invest more in AC's product since it clearly can't compete with EK's current product. Limiting market access because you can't compete is pretty pathetic... Why limit a carrier to only 3 flights per week? Yeah, that's lame in this supposed "global" economy that the Canadian's supposedly advocate. Hey Hosers, actions speak louder than words!!!!!

[Desertbannanas]

No I got that Obla. But it's not JUST about that. One could rather look at it as Emirates "all or nothing attitude". I don't blame the owners of the market we serve for wanting to make some money, or ensure the security of their future in the face of the unbeatable Emirates machine. Certainly AC And their gov't are spinning it the way they want, but that is their right. Personally, I believe that both ways carries a degree of truth. But the fact remains that it's obvious that if we want it bad enough, it's possible. We just have to share the profit around a bit.

[Oblaaspop]

Fair enough, but what I am asking is not how EK has changed in the last few years, but more why AC weren't worried about losing 000's of jobs then, but are now??

That's the point.

[Desertbannanas]

I suppose it's because they are a publicly traded company with a board of directors and shareholders, and as such the no 1 priority is $.

So your point is they are xxxxxxx and put money before the employees. Is this not the way of all publicly traded companies? Is this not also the way of Emitares?

I believe they probably had some kind of meeting at that time to study the impact on the labor group and probably deemed that it was going to be minimal. Maybe that viewpoint has now changed.

[saywhat]

Limiting market access because you can't compete is pretty pathetic... Why limit a carrier to only 3 flights per week? Yeah, that's lame in this supposed "global" economy that the Canadian's supposedly advocate. Hey Hosers, actions speak louder than words!!!!!

Perhaps all those Canadian companies wanting to set up businesses here in this "free skies" economy can do so without local majority participation......Oh well, perhaps we should rather harp on the "free skies" policy - that at least puts forward out limited belief in the free market. The only reason, and I mean the only reason that the UAE has an open skies policy is because it is one sided. EK, EY et al can benefit greatly from this policy AC and any other operator would benefit very little in return. Free? Fair? I somehow doubt it.

Canada, be strong. In return for "open skies", make sure that you get something back that you can at least use. If you give in then I would suggest a life long supply of Vaseline..............

[saywhat]

I would hazard a guess that about 80% of Singapore Airlines passengers traveling to Canada would originate from places other than Singapore. I would further hazard a guess that 80% of Air Canada's passengers traveling to anywhere, would originate in Canada. As Canada is not geographically in the middle of anywhere and does not have a huge traveling population, I'm thinking that even though the consumer might benefit, it might just be a ruse to expand an airlines network that relies on through traffic.

Will this benefit the aviation industry in Canada - Hell no!
Will it benefit Air Singapore - Hell yes.
Will the consumer benefit - Absolutely....Until the competition has been eliminated that is. Then the consumer will be saying. "How did I end up with this in my butt?" Air Singapore will remark. "If you sit sideways, you'll find it quite comfortable."

You can substitute EK,Air France, Cathay and any other hub operator for Singapore, and the story remains the same.

[Married a Canadian]

You can substitute EK,Air France, Cathay and any other hub operator for Singapore, and the story remains the same

I don't get that statement. You are implying that point to point traffic is the only fair way of judging appropriate market share which does not lend to any sort of credible business plan.

Why is it wrong that 80% of Singapore Airlines passengers traveling to Canada would originate from places other than Singapore..or EK..or any other airline that operates this way.

As Canada is not geographically in the middle of anywhere

I have to agree with contacted...Canada is ideally placed to serve China (and it does pretty well..Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong with AC out of YYZ..talks of increasing, Cathay and Hainan airlines round out the service). Vancouver also picks up enough oriental carriers.

However the range is available to serve India DIRECT out of YYZ (Air India fly direct) yet AC chooses not to...and this can not be down to lack of demand...the population in the GTA does not support this argument nor Air India or Jet Airways doing the same.
AC should fly direct and scoop up some of the passengers that they are worried about EK and SQ and others poaching.

Geography doesn't hold any limitations in Canada's case with modern airframes.

[Desertbannanas]

Hey Married a Canuck.

Sure there's nothing wrong with a share of through traffic, but as a sovereign nation, each would not want too much of their own traffic flowing through other carriers. It just robs you of your own potential.

I think a main diff here is that AC does it through an alliance seemingly sharing the poker pot, where our own Emirates seems to not want to go this route. This I believe is what nations are sitting up and taking notice now.

Sure Singapore flies to Seattle now, but rest assured, there is reciprocation. Cabotage is still illegal in the USA, and for the very reasons being discussed.

[saywhat]

You are implying that point to point traffic is the only fair way of judging appropriate market share which does not lend to any sort of credible business plan.

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I'm saying that it is hard to compete on a fair playing field against airlines like EK, Singapore etc. As a country, you should have the right to subscribe to, or disassociate yourself from policies like "open Skies". You should have the right to restrict the amount of slots you give to operators. If open skies is justified purely because it is free and fair, then surely there should be no immigration policy, as that impedes someone from hiring employees that cost next to nothing, allowing you to sell your goods cheaper. Now that's good for the consumer, so it must be good....

Why is it wrong that
Quote:
80% of Singapore Airlines passengers traveling to Canada would originate from places other than Singapore
..or EK..or any other airline that operates this way.


I never said it was wrong. It is in fact right, and it is a plan that works. What I said, or at least meant is that a country should have a right to dictate how much foreign movement takes place into it's own sovereign airspace. It should not be forced to accept aircraft movement into its cities purely because foreign airlines sees a need for the route and have purchased aircraft that have to land somewhere.

Canada is ideally placed to serve China

Ideally for who? Canadians? Americans will surely fly directly to China from the US than fly via Canada. Chinese will surely fly directly to the States if that's where they want to go..Who wants to go via Canada to go somewhere else that they can get to directly. The only thing Canada is ideally placed for is to charge navigation service fees for overflights.

I'm not Canadian, and have no vested interest in what happens. I do however believe that the story of being the fair thing to do is just a sales pitch.

[my salami]

It's just getting better and better... :ugh:

Canadians stranded at UAE airport after visa confusion, UAE General News - Maktoob News (http://en.news.maktoob.com/20090000550816/Canadians_stranded_at_UAE_airport_after_confusion_over_visa/Article.htm)

[Willie Everlearn]

One thing's for certain.
The accountants at Emirates are f'kin geniusus. It's amazing how they 'cook' the books year after year. :eek:

I for one, am convinced this airline is nothing but financial smoke and mirrors. :ok:

But give them credit, their in-flight service it amazing! :D:D:D

Willie

[MrMachfivepointfive]

I for one, am convinced this airline is nothing but financial smoke and mirrors. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifWhy?

Low cost base, full airplanes. How else do you make a profit?
Salary is on time too.

[Dropp the Pilot]

...ran into a senior Canadian trainer a few months back who said he was considering going home and working for Westjet just for a laugh. Then he did the math and discovered he would net more in the next year and a half at EK than he would in 14 years at Westjet.

That's my kind of cookin', Jethro...

[nolimitholdem]

Wow that's great! So why does anyone stay at Emirates longer than three or four years then, that would be like a 42-56 year career at WestJet!!

Your statement is such bull**** it isn't even worthy of the figures to refute it.

How many ex-WestJet pilots are there at Emirates again?

[PacWest]

What, this 'businessman' figured he could just skip borders (Saudi) and back again into Abu Dhabi without applying (before leaving Canada) for a second visa? Obviously this genius didn't bother to read the UAE instructions on the back of the visa app. form before 'planning' his business trip.


Mosun, 42 said he and his business partner were able to enter the U.A.E. last week with a visa acquired in Canada, but were stopped by customs when they tried to re-enter the country after a side trip to Saudi Arabia.

He said U.A.E. officials told him his visa was only valid for a single entry, even though that rule wasn't written on the document itself. the rule is on the visa application form;
:rolleyes:
Another tempest in a dust storm driven by fools.

[PacWest]

ran into a senior Canadian trainer a few months back who said he was considering going home and working for Westjet just for a laugh. Then he did the math and discovered he would net more in the next year and a half at EK than he would in 14 years at Westjet.

That's my kind of cookin', Jethro...

How many shares of EK publicly traded stock does this senior 'Canadian' trainer own?


`

[SilicaStorm]

Remarkable!

The postings on this thread resembled the actions between the governments of UAE and Canada...

What a read,, I thought it was a "Jerry Springer Show"


:ugh::eek::confused:

[royalterrace]

UAE extends hand to Tories – via Liberals - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/uae-extends-hand-to-tories-via-liberals/article1885714/)

[confusedcanuck]

Hey guys, just wanted to make a few points and try to explain the situation from my point of view:

What people don't seem to see is that the transit passengers flying to EU, Asia are vital for the entire AC network to be successful, epecially the smaller domestic routes which are essential for serving the smaller communities in Canada

Case in point, a flight flying only 8 passengers on a Dash-8 from somewhere more remote such as North Bay ON or Bathhurst NB to YYZ or YUL respectively, would be for any regional company simply unprofitable, the landing fees in YYZ or YUL especially would eat into the majority of the revenues on that flight. But AC can do them because a good number of those passengers will get onto other AC flights, either long domestic routes, or international routes. And such the profits of those longer flights can subsidize the losses of the short flight yet maintain good connectivity for those wishing to travel along the vast expanses of Canada.

If the 30% India/ME/Africa passengers were not on those long haul flights to the EU, or for that matter Asian pax on the long hauls to Asia, then those flights would not be profitable and would not be able to subsidize the short regional flights. I.e. allow Emirates to take those passengers and as a result lose connectivity to remoter Canadian towns and village which many depend on those flights. Anyone who has been around Canada will know that its not a rich country at all and some of those communities teeter on being outright poor if it were not for government help and the increase in economic activity that comes with having an airport etc.

Seriously, for the sake of the country AC has to protect itself. This is not to mention the fact that it is a major national employer, with thousands relying on it. I know I sound like an AC apologist but I don't think people who haven't lived in Canada can understand the dire requirement for good air travel, especially when its the only form of transport that can reach people during winter.

Canada isn't the US, so if you're under the impression that its some economic power house that can have 5 or 6 major airlines and its only the government that is surpressing the countries aviation pottential you are sorely mistaken. Canada has only 35 million spread over a vast space. There's a reason a lot of airlines have failed in this country, and its because the population base to support 3 or 4 major international airlines doesn't exist. Even having said that people don't realize that Air Transat also has a lot of flights to Europe and is by no means a small company. West Jet also competes fearlously with AC for domestic passengers, and Sun Wing has a strong presence in the holiday market to the south.

Look its the Governments job to protect local industry. Stop with your free-trade open skies support. Its the governments job to say no if its going to hurt the little guy in their country. You claim is its going to help the consumer if there are more flights, but thats the consumer in Toronto and other big cities. And by how much?? do you really think that prices can come down anymore. If having more flights will bring costs down further then why is it that flights from the US to similar destinations are not that much cheaper even thought they have more than double the capacity.
Which country of 30 million people with no transit hubs to speak of are served by almost every major international carrier in the world? Is this not enough? Qatar will also have 3 flights a week into Canada soon and if Gulf Air, Saudi, or Kuwait got their act together and asked for flights I'm sure the Canadian government would allow it, they're not in the business of classifying airlines by region but by induvidual bilateral ties.

So enough with you open skies supporters, sure if it does no harm and only good them I'm all for it but at the end of the day the Canadian government has to support its population not the Sheiks of Dubai and their tribe.