Emirates vs. Air Canada
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UAE
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates vs. Air Canada
The other perspective of Air Canada's plight....
Angry words fly as Emirates eyes Canada - The National Newspaper
Angry words fly as Emirates eyes Canada - The National Newspaper
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here are my reservations:
How many high paying jobs will Emirates bring to Canada? My guess is none. All the decent Pilot jobs will still be offshore in Dubai and Canadians will get the low paying positions loading planes and selling tickets. These are jobs but not high paying jobs that are necessarily attractive to the government who is looking to protect their tax base.
If the a particular route is overserved, it becomes a game of which airline has the deepest pockets. In a Emirates vs AC battle, AC does not have the deepest pockets. I can see AC cutting frequency if Emirates picks up Canadian destinations.
If that happens the high paying Canadian based Pilot positions will disappear and so will the Canadian income taxes for those positions.
You can try to characterize this as a Emirates vs AC fight if you wish but it really is a case of a Canadian government protecting their income tax base.
Last point: Issuing threats on a Canadian base in UAE really leaves a bad taste in Canadians mouths. Whoever though it was a good idea should be fired.
Reports: UAE threatens to boot Canadian military base over airline flight dispute
Canadians are putting their lives on the line to stabilize that part of the world. For the emirates to attempt to advance their commercial interests by using UAE bases as a stick will backfire IMVHO. Canadians consumers and the government do not like it.
How many high paying jobs will Emirates bring to Canada? My guess is none. All the decent Pilot jobs will still be offshore in Dubai and Canadians will get the low paying positions loading planes and selling tickets. These are jobs but not high paying jobs that are necessarily attractive to the government who is looking to protect their tax base.
If the a particular route is overserved, it becomes a game of which airline has the deepest pockets. In a Emirates vs AC battle, AC does not have the deepest pockets. I can see AC cutting frequency if Emirates picks up Canadian destinations.
If that happens the high paying Canadian based Pilot positions will disappear and so will the Canadian income taxes for those positions.
You can try to characterize this as a Emirates vs AC fight if you wish but it really is a case of a Canadian government protecting their income tax base.
Last point: Issuing threats on a Canadian base in UAE really leaves a bad taste in Canadians mouths. Whoever though it was a good idea should be fired.
Reports: UAE threatens to boot Canadian military base over airline flight dispute
Canadians are putting their lives on the line to stabilize that part of the world. For the emirates to attempt to advance their commercial interests by using UAE bases as a stick will backfire IMVHO. Canadians consumers and the government do not like it.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also being discussed in the Middle East forum here
http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/40...ek-canada.html
As I said on that thread...there has never been any such thing as "fair" competition in the history of aviation. What is so different about this scenario for Air Canada. Or have they never benefitted over the years from any underhand dealings or special treatment?
BTW I am not anti Air Canada....I just think they are being a bit hypocritical.
http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/40...ek-canada.html
As I said on that thread...there has never been any such thing as "fair" competition in the history of aviation. What is so different about this scenario for Air Canada. Or have they never benefitted over the years from any underhand dealings or special treatment?
BTW I am not anti Air Canada....I just think they are being a bit hypocritical.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless one has worked in the Arab world one shouldnt even enter this thread, this is not racist, just unless you have you just cant grasp how different the culture is, the attempts at blackmail over the Canadian base wont be seen that way in that part of the world, just normall ethics, again not racist, just the way it is.
Indeed, certain "pressures" have been used in an attempt to buy Emirates some leverage. A recent story in Canadian media gives a slightly different perspective.
UAE talks jeopardize Canada's Mideast base
From the article:
UAE talks jeopardize Canada's Mideast base
From the article:
But it seems Emirates' efforts have gained the support of the UAE governments as well, who are now leveraging Canada's base in the Middle East as a pawn in the dispute. Ottawa has known about the ultimatum since December, when staff from International Trade, Foreign Affairs, the Department of Defence and Transport Canada were made aware of the situation....
It is not the first time the UAE has used Camp Mirage as a pawn in its talks with Ottawa. And like previous failed efforts during the Chretien administration, the Harper government is expected to react as coolly, the government source said.
"This government does not respond well to having a gun pointed at its head."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ques 1:
Which Emirates destinations in North America have great circle routes which pass thru Canadian airspace on their way to DXB?
Ans:
IAH
SFO
LAX
JFK
YYZ
Ques 2:
What happened to Aeroflot during a 2003 Canada-Russian airspace dispute?
Ans:
Nov 2003...
The dispute began last month when Russian authorities refused permission for Air Canada to fly over Russian airspace on a new nonstop route from Toronto to New Delhi. The Russian government claimed the flights do not meet the terms of an aviation treaty signed in 2000, but Air Canada believes it was refused permission to prevent the airline from competing with Russian carriers.
In response, the Canadian government banned all flights passing over Canada by Russian carrier Aeroflot, including flights from Russia to the U.S., and it cut Aeroflot's Moscow-Toronto flights from four a week to two. In another tit-for-tat move, Russia canceled Air Canada's overflight rights for its Vancouver-Beijing route. "We believe under the [bilateral] agreement we have every right to use [the route over Russia], but Russia disagrees with our interpretation," Chen said...
In the end Russia backed down because they could not afford the cost to divert around Canadian airspace.
Ques 3:
Who is in the drivers seat here, Canada or Dubai? I hope cooler heads prevail...if the base gets closed Emirates entire north american operation is going to become a money losing operation.
What do you think?
Which Emirates destinations in North America have great circle routes which pass thru Canadian airspace on their way to DXB?
Ans:
IAH
SFO
LAX
JFK
YYZ
Ques 2:
What happened to Aeroflot during a 2003 Canada-Russian airspace dispute?
Ans:
Nov 2003...
The dispute began last month when Russian authorities refused permission for Air Canada to fly over Russian airspace on a new nonstop route from Toronto to New Delhi. The Russian government claimed the flights do not meet the terms of an aviation treaty signed in 2000, but Air Canada believes it was refused permission to prevent the airline from competing with Russian carriers.
In response, the Canadian government banned all flights passing over Canada by Russian carrier Aeroflot, including flights from Russia to the U.S., and it cut Aeroflot's Moscow-Toronto flights from four a week to two. In another tit-for-tat move, Russia canceled Air Canada's overflight rights for its Vancouver-Beijing route. "We believe under the [bilateral] agreement we have every right to use [the route over Russia], but Russia disagrees with our interpretation," Chen said...
In the end Russia backed down because they could not afford the cost to divert around Canadian airspace.
Ques 3:
Who is in the drivers seat here, Canada or Dubai? I hope cooler heads prevail...if the base gets closed Emirates entire north american operation is going to become a money losing operation.
What do you think?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and it cut Aeroflot's Moscow-Toronto flights from four a week to two
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sandy beach
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tough call, both are hypocritical and are only looking to serve their own best interests. AC has a history of bullying and below the belt business practices. EK is a cold hearted money machine with a far superior product. Interesting to see how things transpire....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tough call, both are hypocritical and are only looking to serve their own best interests.
I fail to see the hypocrisy in defending Canadian jobs and questioning the economic benefits that emirates says these additional routes will bring to Canada. I think the high paying pilot jobs will be exported to Dubai and the ramp attendant and ticket agent jobs will stay in Canada. If a pilot job moves offshore the Canadian government will collect less income tax and a Canadian community will lose the economic benefit of having a high income earner residing there. That will be the effect of a foreign airline dumping capacity into a Canadian city. emirates adds capacity, someone else drops capacity/frequency. In this case AC is the target but emirates has done this in other parts of the world.
As to the UAE base threat, it isn't a threat at all. It's an attempt to tie emirates commercial interests to Canada's military support in Afghanistan. I resent the connection as I am sure most Canadians do. It seems to me emirates is the hypocrite in this case. emirates cannot claim to want to serve Canadians and threaten their troop deployment at the same time. My guess is the UAE base is safe as long as emirates has a desire to overfly Canadian airspace, but the damage of the emirates/base threat is done.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: outer space
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WxGeek your forcast sucks
WXgeek
You've made numerous posts on this subject that either demonstrate you are mis-informed about what you are talking about or that you are intentionally spreading dis-information about this topic.
Yes everybody is entitled to their own opinion but, the truth is not something you can shuffle away in your simple argument that in this matter everything boils down to a question of self interest. Your reservations about the affects that a truly open skies policy with the UAE would represent are baseless as are your assertions that the UAE has ever made threats against Canada with regards to its military base in the UAE.
While I'm at this point may I say that the UAE does not have a military base in Canada, and I wonder aloud how Canadians would respond to this country having such a base in Canada?
Getting back to your repeated assertion that the UAE has somehow threatened, or seeks to blackmail Canada with closing it's base in the UAE, you are absolutely wrong and just a quick google search for those who want to know what is really going on will reveal. You have chosen to confide in statements made, principally in the National Post newspaper, by a foreign affairs spokesman (and quoted in J.O.'s post) who says in an either an incredible show of stupidity or misunderstanding, that quote "the Canadain government does not respond well to having a gun pointed at its head"
This laughable statement, is not an uncommon example from the Harper government with regards to foreign affairs. Surely this is an opinion that most Canadians do not share, because it is based on a lie. At no time has the UAE "threatened" Canada with regards to it's base in the UAE. What was put forth by the government of the UAE if you care to research what you spend much time writing about, was simply this.
If Canada was interested in renewing it's lease on its base within the UAE (which expires soon) that better access to Canadian markets by UAE airlines would have to be considered. End of story.
That is a threat Wxgeek??
You talk of defending Canadian jobs? Well there are literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of Canadian employed by the two major airlines in the UAE. Emirates and Etihad. Both whom I might add, fly to Toronto, the only destination allowed by the current Canadian government. All these Canadians I guarantee you do not reside in the UAE because they love living in the middle east. They were forced to look for jobs there by the lack of them in Canada. So much for your tax base argument. What is even more ironic to your argument is that now these Canadians and their families, constantly travel back to Canada to escape the region's unbearable summers and spend their hard earned money in Canada, making jobs for Canadians in Canada, and paying GST, and taxes on their rented homes which I can assure you they desperately long to return too.
Protect high paying pilot jobs in Canada? you must be joking, entry level pilot positions with Canada's two major airlines pay less than a senior flight attendant or ramp worker, or gate agent at Air Canada.
Your dumping argument is a joke, or one maliciously skewed to protect only Canada's competitive advantage. Why is your vitriol not pointed at KLM, who serve many Canadian destinations, and in return Air Canada (only) serves AMS? or the UK's airlines a small nation who's airlines also serve numerous Canadian cities for our access to only one important destination LHR?
Your capacity argument is a joke, load factors for both Emirates and Etihad are extremely high. Adding more flights would not change this, or would mean that these two airlines don't have any commercial sense something I seriously doubt.
Get your information correct, The UAE has open skies agreements in place with many countries that are much more economically important with regards to trade to the UAE than Canada. For example Germany, who had a open skies agreement for years and yet has a very, very successful airline industry borne out of their fearless competitive attitude. Not one like Canada's where a single near monopoly airline dictates to the Canadian people what is good for us in terms of our access to air travel.
Canadian consumers like fair prices, a competitive market, and access to the world. Funny and quite contrary to what you say the only parties that have uttered threats and seek to anger Canadians, are it's government and it's largest and most would say, most uncompetitive airline.
six
You've made numerous posts on this subject that either demonstrate you are mis-informed about what you are talking about or that you are intentionally spreading dis-information about this topic.
Yes everybody is entitled to their own opinion but, the truth is not something you can shuffle away in your simple argument that in this matter everything boils down to a question of self interest. Your reservations about the affects that a truly open skies policy with the UAE would represent are baseless as are your assertions that the UAE has ever made threats against Canada with regards to its military base in the UAE.
While I'm at this point may I say that the UAE does not have a military base in Canada, and I wonder aloud how Canadians would respond to this country having such a base in Canada?
Getting back to your repeated assertion that the UAE has somehow threatened, or seeks to blackmail Canada with closing it's base in the UAE, you are absolutely wrong and just a quick google search for those who want to know what is really going on will reveal. You have chosen to confide in statements made, principally in the National Post newspaper, by a foreign affairs spokesman (and quoted in J.O.'s post) who says in an either an incredible show of stupidity or misunderstanding, that quote "the Canadain government does not respond well to having a gun pointed at its head"
This laughable statement, is not an uncommon example from the Harper government with regards to foreign affairs. Surely this is an opinion that most Canadians do not share, because it is based on a lie. At no time has the UAE "threatened" Canada with regards to it's base in the UAE. What was put forth by the government of the UAE if you care to research what you spend much time writing about, was simply this.
If Canada was interested in renewing it's lease on its base within the UAE (which expires soon) that better access to Canadian markets by UAE airlines would have to be considered. End of story.
That is a threat Wxgeek??
You talk of defending Canadian jobs? Well there are literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of Canadian employed by the two major airlines in the UAE. Emirates and Etihad. Both whom I might add, fly to Toronto, the only destination allowed by the current Canadian government. All these Canadians I guarantee you do not reside in the UAE because they love living in the middle east. They were forced to look for jobs there by the lack of them in Canada. So much for your tax base argument. What is even more ironic to your argument is that now these Canadians and their families, constantly travel back to Canada to escape the region's unbearable summers and spend their hard earned money in Canada, making jobs for Canadians in Canada, and paying GST, and taxes on their rented homes which I can assure you they desperately long to return too.
Protect high paying pilot jobs in Canada? you must be joking, entry level pilot positions with Canada's two major airlines pay less than a senior flight attendant or ramp worker, or gate agent at Air Canada.
Your dumping argument is a joke, or one maliciously skewed to protect only Canada's competitive advantage. Why is your vitriol not pointed at KLM, who serve many Canadian destinations, and in return Air Canada (only) serves AMS? or the UK's airlines a small nation who's airlines also serve numerous Canadian cities for our access to only one important destination LHR?
Your capacity argument is a joke, load factors for both Emirates and Etihad are extremely high. Adding more flights would not change this, or would mean that these two airlines don't have any commercial sense something I seriously doubt.
Get your information correct, The UAE has open skies agreements in place with many countries that are much more economically important with regards to trade to the UAE than Canada. For example Germany, who had a open skies agreement for years and yet has a very, very successful airline industry borne out of their fearless competitive attitude. Not one like Canada's where a single near monopoly airline dictates to the Canadian people what is good for us in terms of our access to air travel.
Canadian consumers like fair prices, a competitive market, and access to the world. Funny and quite contrary to what you say the only parties that have uttered threats and seek to anger Canadians, are it's government and it's largest and most would say, most uncompetitive airline.
six
Last edited by six7driver; 19th Mar 2010 at 13:01.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sandy beach
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Six7driver took the time to make some good points...
And Wxgeek do you think AC thought of canadian jobs each time they tried to bury Canadian Airlines? or any other competitor? There would be some higher paying manager jobs associated with and EK expansion, not just lower paying front line jobs. AC and it's employees are simply worried about a competitor to which it would be challenging to compete. Perhaps it would be better for eveyone if AC was forced to up it's game and provide a better product and more competitive pricing.
And Wxgeek do you think AC thought of canadian jobs each time they tried to bury Canadian Airlines? or any other competitor? There would be some higher paying manager jobs associated with and EK expansion, not just lower paying front line jobs. AC and it's employees are simply worried about a competitor to which it would be challenging to compete. Perhaps it would be better for eveyone if AC was forced to up it's game and provide a better product and more competitive pricing.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
67d... I don't understand your comparison about if UAE had a military base in Canada? As if you are saying UAE would march in and establish one for no particular reason? Hmm... aren't you missing the point that Canada's base is not self serving? The comparison does not make sense. And your right... renewing military base (which serves the world, not particularily Canada)... you can bring that to the negot table, but then Canada has every right to bring your overflight permits. In fact leave the military base out of it...and lets just increase your overflight fees just so you can keep your 3 flights a week. How about that?
balances and measures. Lets not fall too far on one side of the tree. Everyone has a right to protect their self interests.
If Emirates wants more flights into Canada, they have to anti up something. Cant get something for nothing. Canada is at a competitive disadvantage like most all developed western countries, becaues of the taxes it has, as well as the higher civil costs being a very strong democratic country. This all costs ALOT of money. So there is a reason western countries have to apply a little bit of market protection. Because they cannot compete with the "cold dark money machines" of the middle east. The renewing military base chip? Forget it man. Low level jobs due to additional flights? Forget it. Canadians got lots of those already.
Offer something significant. How about Emirates open up a crew base in Toronto? Bring all those N American crews you mentioned there and benefit Canada with the taxes and then you can have your 2 more flights a week.
Sound good?
balances and measures. Lets not fall too far on one side of the tree. Everyone has a right to protect their self interests.
If Emirates wants more flights into Canada, they have to anti up something. Cant get something for nothing. Canada is at a competitive disadvantage like most all developed western countries, becaues of the taxes it has, as well as the higher civil costs being a very strong democratic country. This all costs ALOT of money. So there is a reason western countries have to apply a little bit of market protection. Because they cannot compete with the "cold dark money machines" of the middle east. The renewing military base chip? Forget it man. Low level jobs due to additional flights? Forget it. Canadians got lots of those already.
Offer something significant. How about Emirates open up a crew base in Toronto? Bring all those N American crews you mentioned there and benefit Canada with the taxes and then you can have your 2 more flights a week.
Sound good?
six7driver:
Try this one on for size.
I know we've had a mutually beneficial arrangement for years, but I'm changing the rules. If you want to continue working here, you're going to have to agree to give us work more hours for less money. Otherwise, you're out of here. Does that not sound like a threat to you?
Try this one on for size.
I know we've had a mutually beneficial arrangement for years, but I'm changing the rules. If you want to continue working here, you're going to have to agree to give us work more hours for less money. Otherwise, you're out of here. Does that not sound like a threat to you?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: outer space
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J.O. no actually it sounds like my current job, but that's another story.
Roll your eyes all you want, what I said in my post is true, the only threat this kind of statement could constitute would be one against the protectionist trade stance of a government, whose policy is distorted by a small minority (in this case the management and big unions of a large airline).
This unfounded fear, given the many examples of successful open skies agreements that have been signed by the UAE and other countries, only benefits a small number of Canadians who don't want fair competition.
Do the research, this article will help.
EMIRATES AIRLINE | Canada in line for $480 million windfall from new Emirates flights.
555 Orange, you missed the entire point of my argument I'm not arguing for the benefit of Emirates or Etihad or the UAE, I'm arguing for the benefit of my country Canada.
$480 million in benefits for Canada is not significant enough for you?
Show me the contrary and I'll see the point in your opinion. Odd, that I don't find any studies showing that an agreement of this kind with the UAE would be detrimental to Canada's interests, you would have thought that if this was the case it would have been made by many more groups than just Air Canada.
The basing comparison does not make sense to you? it's simple so I'll repeat if for your benefit.
It's a hypothetical situation, you follow? what would the public perception be in Canada about a country that is granted a lease on a military airport in Canada (take any country) and yet for no logical reasons stifles your ambitions to trade with it by limiting commercial access to its commercial airports, while Canada has given it unlimited access to its commercial airports. Would Canada's government not feel obliged to bring this to the attention of the other country, in light of its failure to seek fair trading practices with it?
Your response 555 is not measured or balanced, the UAE has anted enough for a commercial agreement. $480 million + in benefits for the Canadian economy, unfettered access to its airways and airports for any Canadian airline and, a safe place for Canada's military to conduct its important mission in the region, what more do you want?
What has Canada offered so far? You said it - Toronto access to Etihad and Emirates and use of its airspace - so who has to ante up?
(this is not a battle between Emirates airlines and Canada's government) the only one who wants the public to have that perception is the loud uncompetitive voices at Air Canada.
We, the majority of Canadians are positive people. I view Canada's tax policies, and strong democratic values not as a competitive disadvantage and I would argue the opposite, we have nothing to fear from cold dark money machines anywhere, we can compete and win with the best in the world. I don't want anything for Emirates or Etihad, I want what's best for my country, Canada,
Roll your eyes all you want, what I said in my post is true, the only threat this kind of statement could constitute would be one against the protectionist trade stance of a government, whose policy is distorted by a small minority (in this case the management and big unions of a large airline).
This unfounded fear, given the many examples of successful open skies agreements that have been signed by the UAE and other countries, only benefits a small number of Canadians who don't want fair competition.
Do the research, this article will help.
EMIRATES AIRLINE | Canada in line for $480 million windfall from new Emirates flights.
555 Orange, you missed the entire point of my argument I'm not arguing for the benefit of Emirates or Etihad or the UAE, I'm arguing for the benefit of my country Canada.
$480 million in benefits for Canada is not significant enough for you?
Show me the contrary and I'll see the point in your opinion. Odd, that I don't find any studies showing that an agreement of this kind with the UAE would be detrimental to Canada's interests, you would have thought that if this was the case it would have been made by many more groups than just Air Canada.
The basing comparison does not make sense to you? it's simple so I'll repeat if for your benefit.
It's a hypothetical situation, you follow? what would the public perception be in Canada about a country that is granted a lease on a military airport in Canada (take any country) and yet for no logical reasons stifles your ambitions to trade with it by limiting commercial access to its commercial airports, while Canada has given it unlimited access to its commercial airports. Would Canada's government not feel obliged to bring this to the attention of the other country, in light of its failure to seek fair trading practices with it?
Your response 555 is not measured or balanced, the UAE has anted enough for a commercial agreement. $480 million + in benefits for the Canadian economy, unfettered access to its airways and airports for any Canadian airline and, a safe place for Canada's military to conduct its important mission in the region, what more do you want?
What has Canada offered so far? You said it - Toronto access to Etihad and Emirates and use of its airspace - so who has to ante up?
(this is not a battle between Emirates airlines and Canada's government) the only one who wants the public to have that perception is the loud uncompetitive voices at Air Canada.
We, the majority of Canadians are positive people. I view Canada's tax policies, and strong democratic values not as a competitive disadvantage and I would argue the opposite, we have nothing to fear from cold dark money machines anywhere, we can compete and win with the best in the world. I don't want anything for Emirates or Etihad, I want what's best for my country, Canada,
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone has a right to protect their self interests.
Canada is at a competitive disadvantage
What are we saying here? That Air Canada shouldn't have to compete on any route it serves?
It is up against a big bad money machine of the middle east?. How about those nasty chapter 11 US carriers that still get to fly even though they are/were bankrupt? Or those European carriers that are in the same alliance as you but gosh they fly on the same routes!
The airline industry is and always has been about competition.
Last edited by Married a Canadian; 20th Mar 2010 at 17:07.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Between the sheets
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll admit, I am anti-AC. I'm ex-Jazz, current EK, so connect the dots. But nonetheless, I discuss this issue with guys from around the globe so it doesn't really matter. Look at Aus. Is Quantas dead/gone? Did Quantas decide to compete with Emirates on any Aus/Dubai sectors? Listen, if AC /is so scared, let them put a 777 on the YYZ/DXB sector and fight it out. Say what you want about lower costs for ground crew (true, obviously and what do you want to do, defend $20/hr for guys who load bags?), but regardless of that, the inflight product of AC just can't compare to EK. AC defenders know that. I know that, I'm Canadian. AC would lose on that route and the routes that connect to Dubai. Hence the issue. Does anyone not get it?
six7driver:
The "article" you suggest we use as research so that we'll agree with you is not an article at all. It is a news release that originated from Emirates itself, not from an independent source that has validated the benefits that are being claimed. Find an article that validates it and I will consider it. Until then I will take it for what it is, just another form of advertising.
The "article" you suggest we use as research so that we'll agree with you is not an article at all. It is a news release that originated from Emirates itself, not from an independent source that has validated the benefits that are being claimed. Find an article that validates it and I will consider it. Until then I will take it for what it is, just another form of advertising.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: outer space
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proof is in the pudding
Read the press release carefully friend. Quite clearly it states
InterVISTAS, whose clients number airports, airlines and governments around the world, including Transport Canada, concluded the study in early 2010. The research examined the impact of Emirates increasing its current three-weekly Dubai to Toronto flights to daily and double-daily services, and adding a daily service to Vancouver and Calgary.
The study showed that expanding Emirates' services would produce the following benefits for Canada:
- 274,927 new passengers travelling through Toronto, Calgary and
Vancouver airports annually
- 2,859 new full-time jobs created across Canada
- $115.4 million in new economic activity at airports in Toronto,
Calgary and Vancouver annually
- $82.6 million in new tourism spending annually
- An additional $246 million in new spin-off economic activity across
Canada annually
- $38.1 million in new tax revenue annually
and...
The increased air services would also create additional revenue for Canadian airports as no Canadian carrier currently offers these air services," said Dr. Michael Tretheway of InterVISTAS Consulting, the authors of the study.
and...
About InterVistas
The InterVISTAS Consulting Group is a leading management consulting company with extensive expertise in the transportation and tourism industries. InterVISTAS has offices in Canada, the United States, Europe and the Caribbean, and have completed projects with clients in 60 countries worldwide.
Fact Sheet
----------
Economic Benefit of Increased Emirates Airlines Flights to Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily service to Toronto
- 61,027 new passengers on the route annually
- 709 new full-time jobs
- $30.3M in new direct economic activity at Pearson International
Airport
- $18.5M in new direct tourism spending
- An additional $60.9M in new spin-off economic activity annually
- $10.3M in new direct tax revenues
Double-daily service to Toronto
- 154,818 new passengers on the route annually
- 1550 new full-time jobs
- $57.6M in new direct economic activity at Pearson International
Airport
- $46.8M in new direct tourism spending
- An additional $120.4M in new spin-off economic activity annually
- $21.6M in new direct tax revenues
Daily service to Calgary
- 69,141 new passengers on the route annually
- 620 new full-time jobs
- $26.0M in new direct economic activity at Calgary International
Airport
- $20.4M in new direct tourism spending
- An additional $62.7M in new spin-off economic activity annually
- $8.2M in new direct tax revenues
Daily service to Vancouver
- 50,968 new passengers on the route
- 689 new full-time jobs
- $31.8M in new direct economic activity at Vancouver International
Airport
- $15.4M in new direct tourism spending
- An additional $62.9M in new spin-off economic activity annually
- $8.3M in new direct tax revenues
(Source: InterVISTAS, Economic Impact Study for Emirates Airline:
Additional Flights between Dubai and Canada, February 2010)
Either it's the most elaborate advertising scheme I've ever seen, or it's an independent economic impact study...which it is dude...yes commissioned by Emirates (Air Canada could commission their own independent study too if they wanted, but don't for obvious reasons).
are you still not convinced it is not advertising but an independent economic study J.O.?
now I get to roll my eyes
cheers,
six
InterVISTAS, whose clients number airports, airlines and governments around the world, including Transport Canada, concluded the study in early 2010. The research examined the impact of Emirates increasing its current three-weekly Dubai to Toronto flights to daily and double-daily services, and adding a daily service to Vancouver and Calgary.
The study showed that expanding Emirates' services would produce the following benefits for Canada:
- 274,927 new passengers travelling through Toronto, Calgary and
Vancouver airports annually
- 2,859 new full-time jobs created across Canada
- $115.4 million in new economic activity at airports in Toronto,
Calgary and Vancouver annually
- $82.6 million in new tourism spending annually
- An additional $246 million in new spin-off economic activity across
Canada annually
- $38.1 million in new tax revenue annually
and...
The increased air services would also create additional revenue for Canadian airports as no Canadian carrier currently offers these air services," said Dr. Michael Tretheway of InterVISTAS Consulting, the authors of the study.
and...
About InterVistas
The InterVISTAS Consulting Group is a leading management consulting company with extensive expertise in the transportation and tourism industries. InterVISTAS has offices in Canada, the United States, Europe and the Caribbean, and have completed projects with clients in 60 countries worldwide.
Fact Sheet
----------
Economic Benefit of Increased Emirates Airlines Flights to Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily service to Toronto
- 61,027 new passengers on the route annually
- 709 new full-time jobs
- $30.3M in new direct economic activity at Pearson International
Airport
- $18.5M in new direct tourism spending
- An additional $60.9M in new spin-off economic activity annually
- $10.3M in new direct tax revenues
Double-daily service to Toronto
- 154,818 new passengers on the route annually
- 1550 new full-time jobs
- $57.6M in new direct economic activity at Pearson International
Airport
- $46.8M in new direct tourism spending
- An additional $120.4M in new spin-off economic activity annually
- $21.6M in new direct tax revenues
Daily service to Calgary
- 69,141 new passengers on the route annually
- 620 new full-time jobs
- $26.0M in new direct economic activity at Calgary International
Airport
- $20.4M in new direct tourism spending
- An additional $62.7M in new spin-off economic activity annually
- $8.2M in new direct tax revenues
Daily service to Vancouver
- 50,968 new passengers on the route
- 689 new full-time jobs
- $31.8M in new direct economic activity at Vancouver International
Airport
- $15.4M in new direct tourism spending
- An additional $62.9M in new spin-off economic activity annually
- $8.3M in new direct tax revenues
(Source: InterVISTAS, Economic Impact Study for Emirates Airline:
Additional Flights between Dubai and Canada, February 2010)
Either it's the most elaborate advertising scheme I've ever seen, or it's an independent economic impact study...which it is dude...yes commissioned by Emirates (Air Canada could commission their own independent study too if they wanted, but don't for obvious reasons).
are you still not convinced it is not advertising but an independent economic study J.O.?
now I get to roll my eyes
cheers,
six
Last edited by six7driver; 21st Mar 2010 at 07:03.