Emirates vs. Air Canada

[Willie Everlearn]

contacted

While your comments may sound reasoned and calm, (certainly interesting) I should like to point out that EK already serves Toronto and are requesting additional frequencies which has been determined, by those in Canada who determine those sorts of things, as NOT AT THIS TIME. EK have been so notified.
On top of that, they requested additional services (landing rights) for Calgary and Vancouver. These additional cities aren't exactly the "hubs" you suggest Toronto is. If EK were allowed additional service to YYZ plus new services to YYC and YVR, how then does that constitute a 'reasonable' fairness in reciprocity?
Let's examine the number of Canadian carriers that presently serve AUH and DXB from Canada.
Actually, let's not. Let's just say that EY and EK are well ahead in that count.

It's also worth mentioning that the STAR alliance carrier, Air Canada, feeds its Asian traffic primarily through Vancouver, much moreso than Munich or Frankfurt on Lufty.

While our neighbours south of the Canadian border, the United States of America, might seem more willing to accept EKs desire to establish North American hubs, I'd predict the reality might be less welcoming than you might think, IMHO.

Our troops are out of Afghanistan in less than a years time. Camp Mirage just happens to be the only Ace EKs and the UAE gov't have to play and the fact that our troops have already left makes this whole 'pissing contest' a non-starter.

As Canada is a much more mature country with global responsibilites beyond those of the UAE, let's just say Canada is unlikely to retaliate and simply choose to let the actions of the UAE speak for itself. Remember, the dirham isn't tied to the Loonie. It's always been 3.68 to the U.S.
In economic terms, the Alberta Oil Sands has oil reserves well beyond that of Dubai. When the Dubai government spends the Emirate into a debt beyond oil revenues, we'll see how who makes out.

I'm sure you've read my stance on it, but I'm not in charge up here.

You've got an interesting theory though.

Willie :ok:

[Cpt. Underpants]

Oblasspop. I don’t believe for a moment your so shallow in your thinking to support this statement. Id be curious to know which country you are from and what you stand for

I think "opblaaspop" is "blow up doll" (inflatable (sex) toy) in Afrikaner or Dutch. He may be a Japie/Saffer/Slope/When we/Now we...or a Cloggie.

[Oblaaspop]

Jeez, what's wrong with you guys?

Someone dares to challenge your single minded narrow views on a Forum where that person is fighting an uphill battle and you start getting up yourselves because NO-ONE is able to refute my statement!

The only reason I can see that you are behaving this way is because I've trapped you in a corner with your own non-arguments. What's the saying? Fight or flight....... It seems Fatbus has done the latter!

Desert, I have re-read Nolimits post and I'm sorry, but I STILL can't see where he 'dismantled' my post. I urge you to take the time and point this out to me...If you can:E

Also Desert and Capt Thong, if you had actually bothered to read my posts, you would realise that I am British, you know that little country across the pond with a population and GDP twice that of Canada and whose Head of State you may recognise. You must have heard of it, it has 97 weekly EK flights to Dubai with not one whinge or moan from BA or Virgin (both of whom just posted profits despite EK!).

There is one common theme though, despite all the rude diatribe you folks have posted, not one of you have come up with a valid argument as to why the Canadian consumer should not be allowed greater choice, which was my original point.

Now if you can't do that with any modicum of intellect, then I suggest you do as Fatbus has done and give up like a 5 year old girl and put me on your ignore list.

[Desertbannanas]

I couldn’t disagree more Contacted. By the way did you READ that paper?

For free markets to work in entirety, the markets, or essentially the business shared between the agreeing parties have to be equally yolked. If they are not, they you adopt as much of the free market system as you can and retain some controls. A lot of countries have “free trade” agreements but maintain duties and importation taxes based on other market factor differences that transcend the countries doing business. If there are such differences, then a Country will employ such controls (for its own self preservation and economy) and release them GRADUALLY as economies become linear.

I quote from your posted paper:

“Airlines profit from increased efficiency derived from economies of scale, eonomies of scope and density economies.”

“Air transport liberalization is a process of gradual abolition of limits on designation,
capacity, frequency and tariff setting in civil aviation.”

Canada is already liberal with regards to the market. There are already lots of players at the table. Canada is NOT protecting the market it entirety, it is sharing a lot of it already. This is purely a case of Canada not bending to the wishes of Emirates to have more capacity themselves. This was Canada’s decision to make who serves this market, whether its Emirates or others, but the decision has been made that Emirates will have daily flights to Toronto.

No one is against free market economics, especially Canada. It’s a good paper, but it does not make your point. There are multi factors to consider whenever considering a free market system between 2 countries. A total unregulated free market between Canada and UAE is not productive for Canada or the other players at the table. That is the bottom line.

[Cpt. Underpants]

Blow up doll

if you had bothered to read my posts

To quote a well known movie line:

"frankly my dear, i couldn't give a damn."

Drivel, mate. Drivel. I have better things to do than to argue in circles with a jingoistic, avaricious, asinine wannabe. Really, I do.

Canada is exercising it's right to say no. No means no. EK is behaving in a manner no better than a hopped up teenager with an overdose of testosterone, a raging hard-on (90 X A380) and a need to do something with it.

No means no.

"Well, if you won't let me get into your panties you can't have a ride home!"

That's basically what the UAE and EK are saying. Fine by me. I'm no fan of AC, (again paraphrasing) but I'll respect it's right to defend itself.

[Oblaaspop]

That's it buddy, run away crying like a baby.

How immature was your post??

Grow up you silly little man, I requested replies showing a modicum of intellect, it appears you missed that part of my post also!

BTW, I suggest you look up the meaning of the word Jingoistic...... It means Fanatically Patriotic, ie Flag waving, which I believe ably demonstrates your attitude not mine!

[Willie Everlearn]

Oblasspop

Upon reflection, I get the impression you're the one behaving like an immature 5 year old girl.
With such comments like, "run away crying like a baby","How immature was your post??", "Grow up you silly little man", "BTW, I suggest you look up the meaning of the word Jingoistic", I have to wonder?

Your presentation is simple enough to understand even with the odd $5.00 word. So, forgive us "5 year old girls " but EK can (to use some common, really cheap words) F.O.
Patriotic enough?

I'd debate the GNP contrast between Canada and the former great britain but perhaps not right now. As for the lady on our currency, she appears much less frequently than you'd imagine. We've removed her from much of our currency. And as for my patriotism, the commonwealth is joke, Canada should remove itself as we get nothing from it and while we're at it, we really don't need a governor general either. The patronage position is a complete waste of tax payer money and is usually filled by a television personality with undue focus on their ethnicity and sex. Come to think of it, when 'she' is gone, we'd do well to ditch the monarchy altogether. In fact, I'd say that's a distinct possibility.

If the UAE are that passionate about their 'interests' I think it's only fair to say, patriotism and nationalism aside, Canada should consider ITS 'interests' in all of this as well, which it appears to have done. Perhaps your economics will understand that?
Now, I too could dig out my dictionary and come up with the odd $5.00 retaliatory word of my own to elaborate (would the use of expand have made me sound more intellectual?) but why waste the time?

I'll give you my read of Canadian economics. If you don't mind?
I earn my living in what is Canadian aviation, or what's left of it. We have no companies in this country with an order book the size of EK. We also have no companies in this country recruiting pilots in numbers (700) like EK. We have a large country with a tiny population and more pilots than we know what to do with. I, for one, have seen the aviation industry in this country go through de-regulation and the result it’s given us. I for one, recognize failure when I see it and the numbers of failed Canadian airlines is remarkable when compared to anything in the UAE. I, for one would also hope my 'elected' government has the testicles to 'protect' what little is left. I might argue in favour of re-regulation at this point, but that's a debate for another day.

As for consumer choice, I'd agree with you, the Canadian consumer can always benefit from more choice, but looking at the air services available in Canada presently, we've a pretty good range at present and probably aren't ready for more until we have the population of, let's say, the british isles.

When EK plays on that often referred to "level playing field" then I'd say Canada's good for now and our 'protectionist' attitude toward our transportation system seems sound. Economically speaking.

That's part of the reason, I should think, that our government keeps an eye on transportation in this country and has deemed EK provides enough service to the Great White North. For now. Wouldn't you?

Contacted

If I may, excellent post.

Sometimes those sound economic decisions are poorly timed. This is one of those times. Canada is in a delicate economic recovery at the moment and sensitivities run high.

What does one do when that Mercedes in the showroom is half price and one doesn't have the cash to buy it? What does one do when the market crashes and one doesn't have the funds to buy low? What does one do when the air services provided are excessive and someone requests additional air services? These may be sound economic opportunities but the reality is timing.

Willie :eek:

[Oblaaspop]

Yet again, someone who simply cannot read, or follow a thread! See Capt Underpants thread above mine where you will see 3 such words (including Jingoistic) to which I was responding!

Why slam my post, but not his? Yet another example of a blinkered attitude, refusing to see that there may just be another point of view?

Usually your posts are well written and balanced Willie, sadly you've let yourself down on this occasion!

[Desertbannanas]

Oblasspop...

You really give me a chukle.

[six7driver]

Oblasspop, don't worry there are many, many sane Canadians that don't share the views of uneducated sycophants like Willie and the like. The funny thing is that these ignorant chest beating Canadians (because ignorance means not to know) lash out against the straw man created by Air Canada and it's Star Alliance daddy, Lufthansa. Their ignorance is understandable even if not justified.

Ottawa will spend $300-million to close Camp Mirage - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ottawa-will-spend-300-million-to-close-camp-mirage/article1786194/)

What is neither understandable or justified is that in the end most of the Canadian public are now being cheated out more than a modest amount of economic benefit by the unreasonable obstinance of what is perhaps the worst prime minister in Canadian history. His ego has driven a major foreign policy decision which has been, as the rest of his foreign policy a complete disaster for Canada, and Canadians. Guess what now Willie, because you pay taxes, you and so many other Canadians will be on the hook for at least 300 million dollars to start, don't take my word for it, read what the governments own accountants have said.



I've said it time and time again, and now it's been proven true by reports like this one, a decision was taken that destroyed 11 years of strong bilateral relations, cost millions of dollars lost in revenues and economic benefits for ordinary Canadians who don't work for Air Canada, and now a 300 million dollar bill for the Canadian public to pick up. All this in the interests of Air Canada's corporate executives, and their Lufthansa Star Alliance overlords, and the overblown ego of an incompetent PM.

I as many Canadians, feel outraged by what is another in a long line of economic and foreign policy debacles of Harper and company.:mad:

hopefully in the future Canadians can make this regrettable moment right.

[engfireleft]

Jeez. You make it sound like forcing the closure of Camp Mirage, denying government ministers permission to fly through their airspace, and working hard to deny Canada a seat on the UN security council is a reasonable and predictable response to limiting Emirates Airlines access to Canada. After all, Ottawa places limits on every foreign airline operating into Canada consistent with international convention, but I don't see any other countries reacting in such an offensive manner do you?

Even our idealogical Prime Minister couldn't predict Dubai would be even loonier than he is.

But at least our government knows that ensuring a healthy airline industry in Canada is more important and valuable to Canadians than supporting EK's plans for world domination, even if it means Canadians might have to book on Air Canada or some other worthy Canadian airline if they can't get a seat on the shiny new 380.

[Wxgeek]

The government appears to be waking up to predatory practices of foreign companies, they also recently nixed a major takeover of Potash Corp by BHP Billiton. BHP has 30 days to provide evidence they will provide a NET BENEFIT to Canadians or their deal will be killed by the federal government. This is the same argument EK has failed to make. EK wants to poach Canadian traffic with no NET BENEFIT to Canada. No, a few baggage handling and passenger agent jobs don't count.

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

Transmitted by CNW Group on : November 6, 2010 10:00

AIR CANADA COMMENTS ON GOVERNMENT OF CANADA'S HANDLING OF RECENT CANADA-UAE BILATERAL AIR NEGOTIATIONS

MONTREAL, Nov. 6 /CNW Telbec/ - Air Canada issued the following statement today in response to criticisms of the Government of Canada's handling of recent Canada-UAE bilateral air negotiations:

"The recent discussions between Canada and the UAE related to bilateral air access rights were conducted on a principled basis entirely consistent with Canada's Blue Sky Policy which has provided a framework for bilateral air negotiations since 2006," said Duncan Dee, Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer. "Over the years, Canada has reached Open Skies-type air agreements covering 35 countries. The process through which these agreements have been reached is based on a balanced exchange of economic benefits resulting from increased market access. The inclusion of considerations unrelated to aviation only serves to distort those important discussions, creating the potential for significant negative consequences on our industry and the economy as a whole. The current agreement strikes the appropriate balance between encouraging competition while at the same time providing opportunities for Canadian airlines to grow and compete successfully in a more liberalized global environment.

"There would be no net benefit to Canada in granting additional capacity between Canada and the UAE at this time as the current bilateral air agreement is sufficient to meet travel demand between the two countries. The Government's actions are in the interests of Canadian commerce, Canadian jobs and encouraging growth in the Canadian economy. We commend the Government for its principled stand on this issue and for its support of a Canadian international air policy that provides for a healthy and viable Canadian air transportation industry creating more than 80,000 jobs in Canada. Air Canada further calls on all parties in the House of Commons to support the Government's approach which ensures the long term economic viability of our industry and safeguards the considerable economic benefits Canada gains from competitive international aviation," concluded Mr. Dee.

Air Canada has welcomed Open Skies agreements where they make sense. The airline was a driving force for a modernized treaty with the U.S. in 1995 and the further liberalization of that treaty in 2007. Today, Air Canada flies over 100 routes to 59 destinations, making Air Canada the largest player in the U.S. transborder market.

Air Canada also supported the recent conclusion of a comprehensive agreement liberalizing air services with the European Union representing 27 countries. Like the U.S., the E.U. is a large, important market with opportunities for aviation and other trade to the benefit of Canadians.

Air Canada provides jobs for 26,000 Canadians and the airline's direct contribution to the national economy exceeds $12 billion.

Air Canada is Canada's largest domestic and international full-service airline providing scheduled and charter air transportation for passengers and cargo from 60 communities large and small across Canada to more than 170 destinations on five continents. Canada's flag carrier is the 15th largest commercial airline in the world and serves 31 million customers annually. Air Canada is a founding member of Star Alliance, the world's most comprehensive air transportation network serving 1,160 airports in 181 countries.

[Oblaaspop]

Thanks 67D, finally someone sees a differing perspective!

For the record, I think the closure of Camp Mirage by the UAE is unacceptable despite the fact that the UAE has been trying for 11 years to get more slots but to no avail. I'm sure the decision wasn't taken lightly, but it was childish none the less. However, Canada wants to ply its goods and services to the Gulf, but it appears to want to give nothing (or very little) in return. Hardly seems fair now does it?

engfireleft, you mention that Canada has a healthy Airline industry? That HAS to be the funniest thing I have EVER read on this Forum! Are you completely insane?:hmm:

Hey desert, I'm glad I make you chuckle, but instead of laughing, why don't you post something of value for a change? Just a thought!

[grizzled]

Contacted...

Yup, that’s me alright. “Diatribes and Rants”.

Did you actually read my post or did your emotions just explode from your head, out through your fingers, and onto the keyboard. (An uncontained failure perhaps? ;))

I’m certainly known for expressing my opinions here and elsewhere, but I’m definitely not known for being prone to “diatribe” “rant” or “half-truths”. (Heck, I don’t often even use adjectives. And I rarely use exclamation points! :))

As always, I invite you to discuss/debate/question what I wrote – either on this forum or via PMs. You can start by pointing out my “half-truths”.

We all draw our lines in the sand (sorry…) in a different place. There is no such thing as the “right” or “wrong” position to take on an issue, if the personal decision we come to is informed and made in good faith. In that light I stick by my comments.

Re your comment about me having a “bad experience” in Dubai, yes I certainly have had those. And I’ve had many good ones too. Lots of evenings at the Irish Village, discussing exactly these kinds of issues with people from every corner of the planet. I don’t get there as much as when I lived in Dubai, but I still spend a few days there every month or two, so perhaps you and I can meet one evening and attempt to solve the problems of the world over a pint or two…

Cheers,
grizz

[engfireleft]

engfireleft, you mention that Canada has a healthy Airline industry? That HAS to be the funniest thing I have EVER read on this Forum! Are you completely insane?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

Er...no. I did not say that. This is what I've said a couple of times now.


The truth is the government knows that a healthy airline industry in this country is worth a lot more to Canadians than cheap tickets to India via Dubai on an A-380. In fact it's critical to the nation's economy.

The government is taking steps in the interests of a healthy airline industry. That is not the same as saying the airline industry is healthy. Because it's not healthy, I wholeheartedly applaud the governments actions in support of that industry. I further applaud the government for not capitulating to disgraceful attempts at blackmail and extortion on the part of Dubai.

I believe you chastised me in an earlier post about reading comprehension.:=

[Oblaaspop]

Thank you, you now finally admit that the Government is openly protecting Air Canada.

This my friend is called protectionism!

Not only does this NOT conform to a free market economy concept, in many parts of the developed world (eg the WHOLE of Europe), this is deemed illegal. Perhaps the EU should suspend AC's overfly rights in view of unfair competition where a flag carrier is being propped up by its government where it would otherwise fail!!

Think about it. You guys cry foul of 'unfair playing fields' in the ME (no hard evidence of which you can ACTUALLY present) while all the time AC seems to be openly getting away with it! BA and many others would be well within their rights to cry foul at AC, but no they are too busy getting on with the business of running an Airline. Perhaps if AC did the same instead of running to daddy the whole time, we wouldn't be having this discussion??

[engfireleft]

Finally admitting it? I said that a long time ago.

More accurately though they are protecting the Canadian airline industry as a whole, which as I've also stated several times is normal in this world. How closely does the British government guard slots into Heathrow? The Dutch government into Schipol? The US government into Kennedy?

Get over it, this is normal even though it doesn't quite fit Emirates plans for world domination.

[Oblaaspop]

Actually, the British Government is trying is hardest to destroy the aviation industry in the UK. LHR is running 30% over capacity (and has done for over 20 years), no money or planning permission granted for new capacity at ANY UK airport, not to mention the increase in passenger tax (upto 40% extra in some cases) last week. And no, they don't 'guard' slots into LHR..... They ran out years ago! Besides, EK already has 8 per day into London, surely the British did their due diligence before allowing those? Like I said, BA and Virgin don't complain, why the hell should AC?

Be sensible mate, if EK were granted a few extra slots into Canada each week, would that really be the end of AC?? And if the answer to that is yes, then frankly they should move aside to allow a younger, fitter, better run Airline to step in........ Say, Canadian or C3 or Royal for instance...... Oh wait AC destroyed those already. No-one would ultimately lose jobs, as the public would still need to fly, and fly they will.......Just maybe not with AC, get over it!

Economics 101, a free market with competition ensures survival of the fittest and will ultimately stimulate demand and grow an industry. Why does Canada see it differently to the rest of the world??

[Willie Everlearn]

oblasspop

You seem to think no one can refute your comment that “the Canadian government is denying the Canadian consumer choice”. If you’re looking for a profound dissertation on Canadian Economics you’re probably in for disappointment as this is a Pilot Rumour forum and if you have read many of the previous posts you'd have gotten it by now.

Our governments stance may be protectionist in light of an uneven playing field and you of all people should realize the dictatorial nature of things in the UAE. It's simply NOT a democracy. Canada however, is.

Our government doesn’t deny us choice, in this instance, they may be avoiding or preventing additional choices, but they aren’t deny us choice simply because EK doesn’t get a couple of new Canadian destinations or increased frequencies to Toronto. Tangled up in their official position on this is, hopefully, not just the protection of Canadian carriers but also the protection of the Canadian Transportation industry. Should Canadians be opposed to that simply because they’re being denied additional choice between EK and no additional choice for AC for their international transportation needs?
I think not.

We've lost over a dozen airlines since deregulation in 1986 under Mazankowski. I've been with three of them since then. With my IQ level at, what was it, three? I’m clever enough to understand the economic benefit Canada would realize were EKs given what they wished. That WOULD be good for Canada.

I’d say grizzled’s post #241 is a fairly sound snapshot of how most Canadians think and have little doubt many Canadians would agree with his comments.

I too have enjoyed life and labour in the UAE and Canadian or not, I could easily swap my position and attitude on this whole issue. EK and the UAE have an excellent globalization strategy well beyond the Khaleej. There is nothing wrong with that, other than the fact, other countries may not share that globalization strategy. Canada being one of those countries.

I wouldn’t dispute any $200 million bailout of Air Canada by our government right now, but I’d sure like to see your evidence. As it happens, my nephew was one of the CAs dealing with AC during their bankruptcy protection and he didn't seem to be aware of any 'handout'.

I'd like to provide you with some quotes from a recent Aviation Week? (October 11/10)

“From Europe’s standpoint, selling A380s and A350XWBs is more important than protecting Lufthansa, BA and Air France”.
Do we conclude EK and Airbus are in league to break these European airlines?
IMHO, this is also about what Airbus stands to lose if EK has to cancel dozens of A380 orders because countries around the world don’t share their globalization view. If EK doesn't find the destinations it seeks and the frequencies it wants, it could all come crashing down. Perhaps not if you listen to the EK spin doctors.

Most of the European airline sector seems to be caught in a defensive mode. Airlines are trying to persuade their governments not to grant Emirates more traffic rights even as they (airlines themselves) lobby for more liberal air services agreement across the North Atlantic from which they hope to benefit. And to quote Willie Walsh, “Europe is funding our competitors with cheap access to financing. I think it’s wrong that Europe has funded the expansion of Emirates, because that is exactly what the agencies are doing.”
Carriers such a Qantas, Lufthansa, Air France and British Airways say Emirates benefits to a large extent from government support. “We have no level playing field; competition is severely distorted, “ Lufthansa Deputy CEO Christoph Franz says.
“Emirates is a cash machine, which drives its European competitiors-which are not-nuts.”
Unlike many of its competitors, Emirates enjoys almost unlimited political support from the local government. Dubai’s ruling al-Makhtoum family wants to continue to turn the emirate into a major financial and trade centre. Having been identified as an important tool for economic development, the airline in general , gets the infrastructure it needs. Emirates has a unit cost advantage of 30% compared to a European legacy airline, not quite as much as the 40-50% reached by European LCCs. But, given that many of the LCC advantages cannot be brought to bear nearly as well on long-haul as on short-haul routes, the achievement is all the more substantial. Because there is no income tax in Dubai, Emirates pays approximately 48% less for labour than Air France, British Airways, or Lufthansa do in their regulatory regimes.

contacted’s post #258 is spot on in terms of EK and its global strategy. Unfortunately, Emirates vision of what it wants globally, isn’t shared by the Canadian government.

You talk about a level playing field and free competition and consumer choice. I wholeheartedly agree with this approach but unfortunately, it isn't feesible at present in light of what's going on with EK. They've created the uneven playing field and some nations are simply clever enough to figure that out.

I'm truly sorry if my posts have disappointed but, the reality in Canada is not the reality of the UAE.

my apology for being so long winded,
Willie :ok:

[Cpt. Underpants]

http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/432964-i-love-dubai-because-2.html#post6044279

Great post Panama Jack!

YouTube - Dudley Do-Right "The Disloyal Canadians" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFyAJhueDJA)

[Oblaaspop]

No apology needed Willie, your post was balanced!

Here is a news cutting about the loan from June last year Air Canada unions lobby Ottawa for full loan | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2011480120090720).

I don't blame the Canadian Government from wanting to protect its (failing) Airline industry, but is this right and fair on a Global scene?

You talk about uneven playing fields, and it seems that Canada is creating exactly that! Apart from the obvious savings in blue collar labour costs (baggage handlers et al), exactly how does EK unbalance its playing field when compared to lets say Malaysian or Garuda? No anecdotal evidence about free fuel etc please, only FACTS.

Despite your balanced post, I'm STILL unclear as to whether you truly believe the entire Canadian Airline industry will fall to its knees if EK were granted a few extra services a week into Canada.

If you do believe that this is the case, then I'm sorry to have to break it to you but denying a foreign carrier Landing Rights aint gonna help buddy! The Canadian Airline industry has been screwed for years (what was it, 3 bust Airlines you worked for?), and trying to pin the blame elsewhere just doesn't wash I'm afraid.
:ok:

[Cpt. Underpants]

Poppy

Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:05pm EDT

I agree that they're screwed. Even if your reference is aboot a year and a half old.

The fact that they are screwed is reason enough for Ottawa to protect them the wicked witch and the hordes of flying monkeys...

GO OTTAWA!

[Oblaaspop]

Capt Underpants, I'm a little concerned as to whether or not you can actually read? I do hope to god you are not a real Captain, and if so I hope to god that your type's QRH has pictures in it to help you along!

Willie asked for a reference about the LOAN Ottawa has given to AC which was about 18 months ago....... Got a problem with that?

Mate you are just making yourself look stupid when you just read 20% of a post!

Now, Underpants...... In the UK we use them for covering either a C*ck or a Tw@t, which are you? (Don't get upset, its a joke! :ok:)

[Cpt. Underpants]

None taken. I'm working tomorrow, so I'll give this a rest. So, I guess I'll see you the day after tomorrow - what's that - next Tuesday?

[Oblaaspop]

Cool, I'll be ready....:ok:

[Married a Canadian]

How closely does the British government guard slots into Heathrow

Enginefireleft

Careful on that argument. I think that British airways being the main operator at that airport has a MAJOR influence on slots (they own around 42%)
The BMIs and the Virgins in the past have moaned big time about BA and their card shuffling use of slots at LHR.

British Airways Flying Empty 747s To Keep Those Precious Heathrow Slots Open! Barbados Free Press (http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/british-airways-flying-empty-747s-to-keep-those-precious-heathrow-slots-open/)

Even BMI are not averse to it themselves

Planes ‘fly empty’ to keep slots at Heathrow -Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article4340518.ece)

The British government would have very little say on this issue given the political blowout it would cause.

I was told earlier in this debate that the GTAA would not do anything to p*** off their major customer (Air Canada) by stating a preference for increased A380s flights (even though in my opinion that would make business sense for them with increased passenger throughput)....so other govts and Airport operators are likely to do the same...in this case the British govt will do nothing to protect slots...they leave that up to the airlines.

Willie

Your posts are always well reasoned but I have to disagree with one statement you make

You talk about a level playing field and free competition and consumer choice. I wholeheartedly agree with this approach but unfortunately, it isn't feesible at present in light of what's going on with EK. They've created the uneven playing field and some nations are simply clever enough to figure that out

The uneven playing field you speak of WAS initially created by the legacy carriers. I still maintain my argument from before. BA, Air Canada, KLM etc got to where they were through an uneven playing field. When you are almost a monopoly carrier you automatically have a greater cost advantage than startup competition. The industry is littered with "failed" airlines because they could not compete or were swallowed up...or fell foul of "sharp" business practices from the big boys (undercutting fares for example?)

The playing field was always uneven...just different rules now with the Middle east getting involved.

[Willie Everlearn]

oblasspop

Whether or not the Canadian government hands Air Canada a wad of money WITH or WITHOUT the expectation of repayment, I completely agree, it can be called nothing other than a bale out.

If the Canadian government hands anyone in this country a wad of money with or without the expectation of repayment, I certainly hope, as a tax payer, it has specific Canadian content requirements with specific strings attached.

I don’t know how many times we Canadians have paid for airline bale outs (honestly) over the last 30 years and I for one wish it would stop?
We went through this with Canadian Airlines.
For the sake of 26,000 airline employees the airline was not allowed to crash and burn when it should have, but the Canadian Fisheries, on the other hand, with a helluva lot more than 26,000 employees was shut down, despite foreign fishermen fishing our waters, placing everyone earning a living from it, out of work and on the dole. That’s the kind of decisions our government makes. Protect one to sacrifice another.

This time, however, I'd say the Canadian government has gotten it right and I accept the fact you disagree AND , I’m convinced your support for Emirates is blatant, obvious and unwavering.
Fine.
For me, our debate is over so I’ll bow out graciously and move on to other things. Starting with the kitchen appliances. I’ve got to turn the clocks back an hour which means I could have slept longer.
Damn!!

I’ll say it one last time, Camp Mirage is now a non-issue.

The additional manoeuvring to get our troops and supplies to a fro will cost the Canadian taxpayer millions and I for one hate paying the taxes I have to pay. I would like to see the Canadian government do something in response. The political posturing and rhetoric has said nothing about the UAE’s commitment to eradicating terrorism and doing their part, as little as it might be, which they’re not interested in, anyway.

If I were in charge, I’d suspend both EY and EKs landing rights to study the overall financial impact this is truly having on Canada. I’d NOT allow them to use or transit our airspace, effective immediately. I’d NOT allow their Military to use our airspace to transit to the U.S. either.
While pockets are deep in the UAE, it would at least cost the UAE and their airlines inconvenience and million$ in return.

Sounds completely reasonable to me.

This idea however, isn’t something the Canadian government is likely to do.

“I just found out there’s no such thing as the real world.
Just a lie that you rise above.”
-John Mayer

Married a Canadian

What you're saying about the long ago created playing field is absolutely true, but my reference was directly aimed at Emirates and the playing field they're creating whilst expecting everyone else to play on it. This airline has more new long haul aircraft than the rest of the world's airlines combined. To me, that's a whole new playing field and an entirely new 'threat'. Good for Emirates. Bad for everyone else. That's why protectionist attitudes will linger.
This has never been the case in the airline industry in the past. No ONE carrier has ever had that kind of clout. Making EKs a powerhouse to be reckoned with. And reckon with them we should.

Should Canada simply play by EKs rules?

No.:=

Willie

[Desertbannanas]

Well said Willie.
On Contacted's quoted paper:

I couldn’t disagree more Contacted. By the way did you READ that paper?

For free markets to work in entirety, the markets, or essentially the business shared between the agreeing parties have to be equally yolked. If they are not, then you adopt as much of the free market system as you can and retain some controls. A lot of countries have “free trade” agreements but maintain duties and importation taxes based on other market factor differences that transcend the countries doing business. If there are such differences, then a Country will employ such controls (for its own self preservation and economy) and release them GRADUALLY as economies become linear.

I quote from your posted paper:

“Airlines profit from increased efficiency derived from economies of scale, eonomies of scope and density economies.”

“Air transport liberalization is a process of gradual abolition of limits on designation, capacity, frequency and tariff setting in civil aviation.”

As Willie so eloquently pointed out, aviation is not linear between the 2 countries in question, nor is any other industry, nor is human rights, nor is labor protection, nor is pension issues, or any societal issues, nor is govt.This is a multi-teir argument that is much larger a picture to look at than purely EK/AC or landing slots.

Canada is already liberal with regards to the market. There are already lots of players at the table. Canada is NOT protecting the market it entirety, it is sharing a lot of it already. This is purely a case of Canada not bending to the wishes of Emirates to have more capacity themselves. This was Canada’s decision to make who serves this market, whether its Emirates or others, but the decision has been made that Emirates will have daily flights to Toronto. And its the same process at LHR, or wherever.

No one is against free market economics, especially Canada. It’s a good paper, but it does not make your point. There are multi factors to consider whenever considering a free market system between 2 countries. A total unregulated free market between Canada and UAE is not productive for Canada or the other players at the table. That is the bottom line.

This crap about the Canadian gov't loaning money to Air Canada? Is that what you guys bring to the table? You have to be kidding me. So what!! Should we have a close look at how EK/EY is aided by its gov't and then compare that to how AC is aided by its govt? LOL. Give me a break guys. Your gonna lose that one.

By the way, there are others on the planet that have an even better cost footprint than EK/EY. They are the Chinese carriers. And they are similar to EK/EY too in that they are semi-state supported. Its just that their employees work way more than you or I and get paid way less. And their operations are greatly subsidized...just like EK/EY. Perhaps the UAE should offer these guys to set up shop in Dubai and create more "consumer choice" for everyone. If the Chinese wanted this, what would the UAE do? Protect its market? What would be the forum rant then?

Oblasspop, stop behaving like a teenage girl! You don't bring anything productive to this debate except childish insults. With your immaturity, I would be suprised if you are a pilot at all.

[engfireleft]

Be sensible mate, if EK were granted a few extra slots into Canada each week, would that really be the end of AC?? And if the answer to that is yes, then frankly they should move aside to allow a younger, fitter, better run Airline to step in........ Say, Canadian or C3 or Royal for instance...... Oh wait AC destroyed those already. No-one would ultimately lose jobs, as the public would still need to fly, and fly they will.......Just maybe not with AC, get over it!

In the first place you need to get some facts straight. Air Canada did not destroy Royal, C3 bought it. Air Canada did not destroy Canadian, Air Canada bought it. And Air Canada did not destroy C3...C3 destroyed themselves. You have no idea what you're talking about in that regard.

Second, the Canadian government is not in any way obliged to let a foreign carrier bury Air Canada. Quite the opposite.

There are national interests involved here, and frankly your opinion about what the government should and should not do wrt to Emirates usurping Air Canada wouldn't enjoy a lot of airtime in the House of Commons for a very good reason.

[Desertbannanas]

Married a Canadian:


Your argument from “before” is still moot.


Thank you for helping to make my point though. There are NO even playing fields here. Therefore, as there ALWAYS are with multilateral trade between countries, there exists some regulation involved with trade or any “free trade” between countries when there are economic differences. Many factors are considered in this regard. Even free trade is never totally free. You have to consider, currency differences, operational cost differences, etc. China dumps its cheap stuff on the open market and keeps its currency artificially low... so the rest of the world applies duty and taxes. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend? Even your own UAE market is protected in every corner of business, from your phone carriers censorship of Skype, to who is permitted building contracts instead of Aldar or whomever.


Regarding legacy carriers: Of course they were protected to a degree! Are you so shallow in your thinking that countries would not protect and further their own interests just as the UAE does? This is because each country is/are competing with each other. They all want to further themselves in the global industrial business world do they not? But at the same time we all need each other to a degree to do it. And it is each countries right to establish that degree.


Airlines, or at least NON STATE SUPPORTED airlines (unlike EK/EY) are incredibly expensive to maintain. Most countries cannot afford to have more than one if they have generous civil rights attached to the price tag. There are no monopoly's in any of your examples as many international carriers serve the markets to and from Canada and in all the countries you quoted.


Is there a monopoly in the UAE?

[nolimitholdem]

I realize this quote is from a few days back, but some of us have to pull our weight and get our 90+ hours of flying in...I do have to respond to this Oblaaspop comment though:

Please answer my basic question: Why should ANY government dictate how its citizens should spend their money?

What a nonsensical question. Of course any government by definition controls a great deal of how its citizens money is spent. In Canada, at least there is some modicum of control over the process, when the average "Joe Public" is regularly given a chance to remove the government if it spends their money in ways they disagree with.

How did you vote in the last UAE election? :} Did you write outraged letters to Sheik Mo when they raised the price of petrol and implemented Salik, dictating to YOU how you should spend your money? Are you equally upset that the Etisalat long distance rates are so high? Can you not see the irony of railing against government control when you live in a totalitarian regime, largely populated by monopolist corporations? Or are you just choosing to ignore it because for you, personally, it has resulted in a massive net financial advantage?

Your position makes no logical sense. So now you're a consumer advocate for choice for the poor suffering Canadian airline passenger, struggling to get to Dubai? Wow. Thanks, but I think that's a bit of a champion in need of a cause, not the other way around.

LOL...incidentally, I always try to travel back home to Canada through Europe on a western carrier on the second leg, but usually EK puts me on one of their flights as it is cheaper for them. So if Canada shuts EK out of their airspace, it would actually benefit me as I would obtain my preference, contrary to your frustrated wish to make my ALT "hell". Sorry.

[Desertbannanas]

Contacted said:

"I don't believe anyone (not me, not you, not the government) should decide the supply side. Capacity constraints and passenger/cargo demand should be the deciding factor."

This is why you are on the other and wrong side of the argrument Contacted!

There is a reason we have governments. Every country competes for the global Aviation business. Thats right COMPETES. Every country has a right to what degree it accepts free trade, due to the unilateral differences between countries. Different countries and thereby different economies will not always be able to compete equally or fairly than the other. This is why we have borders, and duties and taxes.
This is why your quoted paper said "gradually". As markets become LINEAR, then barriers can be dropped.

Your idea of free market nirvana does not exist, nor is it practical in the real world.

Perhaps we should drop the borders so the people can cross them without restrictions?? For what reason do we have "restrictions" at borders? ...... ???? Right! Now your getting it...for the same reasons.

Im sorry your working so hard, maybe thats part of the problem from where your working. You need better labor protections! But didnt' you know that before you signed up? This is part of the imbalance. Part of why Emirates has a cost advantage.

You know the Chinese work even harder than you. In your market nirvana, they would eventually replace even you guys if they were allowed the access you want to Canada, into the UAE. Food for thought.

[grizzled]

Contacted...

Thanks for that.

And thanks for your latest post -- it's excllent, and exactly the sort of reasoned comment that can be hard to find on these online fora.

cheers,
grizz

[Desertbannanas]

Patting yourself on the back Griz?

Poppycock! Contact is out to lunch on reality and apparently so are you if your not the same person.

Thank goodness the great country of Canada can see right through you and the big UAE profit machine.

Do us all a favor and get yourself educated how the real world works. Go take an evening class on foreign policy and international trade.

Good work Ottawa!

[Oblaaspop]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think Desert is coming across as a thick uneducated tw@t?

Despite all the diatribe he has written, not one post acknowledges that there may be another angle to the story. At least Griz, Willie and others admit this despite holding true to their beliefs. This, I respect. :ok:

Someone who can't even answer a simple question or back up his own cr@p with evidence is certainly not someone I could ever dream of respecting.

Little man, crawl back under your rock! Have you even been to the UAE? Or anywhere else outside North America for that matter? I doubt you even hold a passport with your insular little attitude...... OPEN YOUR EYES FOOL, its a big world out there (which unlike you I have actually been to:})

[clunckdriver]

Obaaspop, In one of your posts you state you are a Brit, so what gives you the right to comment on the internal affairs of of Canada? You might recall that not too long ago we booted your ambasador out for just this! In the mean time I have spent a fair bit of time in the Sand Pit, and unlike most can make myself understood in at least one dialect so I feel I have a fair grasp of the situation, a grasp not founded on needing a job in the region which seems to be the motivation of most promoting Emirates. So, try to understand that your opinions carry no weight in Canada, if you want to you could try to fix the UK, or rather whats left of a once great nation, you could start by investing your cash there, rather than the tax havens used by most in the Arab world.{ Some free advice, if you do retire here dont buy a car with Lucas electrics!}

[Willie Everlearn]

Just a couple of points of clarification for those who seem to think Transport Canada plays a big role in all of this,

1) Landing Rights and frequency of service is NOT decided or implemented by Transport Canada.

2) NavCanada, a private company, is the 'contracted' Air Traffic Control services provider in Canada, NOT Transport Canada.

Willie :ok:

[fatbus]

Worth mentioning as well is that EK has no interest in moving Canadians between YYZ and DXB all they want is Sub Continent traffic and taking that traffic away from LH( star alliance ). There realy is not that much Canadian traffic all year. EK makes it money on 85% of all pax carried transit DXB, so on average 50-75 per 380 and not all those are Canadians

[Oblaaspop]

Clunk, you make a fair point. Yes I am a Brit, but sadly I stopped feeling the need to wave the Union Jack (not even allowed to call it that any more!) a very long time ago. The UK is screwed, pure and simple which is why I chose to escape.

Unless I'm forced, I have absolutely no intention of ever going back unless Jeremy Clarkson becomes Prime Minister!;)

I would hate to see Canada go down the same route as the 'Nanny State' that is the UK........ Most (not all) Expat Brits are of the same opinion. Now, my interest wrt Canada is that I would genuinely like to retire over there and the thought of being forced to use AC and not be able to take advantage of my retirement travel concessions:E

Seriously though, I hold no great loyalty to EK (apart from the fact they pay my wages), but I'm fed up of non-truths being spouted about 'uneven playing fields', 'government subsidies' etc etc when all the while the very Airline that is saying these things is the very Airline that is taking advantage of the very things they slate.......... How 'kin hypocritical is that? Why can't they just be honest and say that AC is a poorly run business on the brink and need all the protection the government can give? I could accept that because of the honesty, what I have trouble accepting are out and out lies!

I may well lose my patience with some of the posters on this forum and hit hard on occasions with a swift blow of my keyboard (a function of getting old and grouchy I suppose!), but one thing I don't think I can be accused of is not using fact to back up my arguments (I'm sure someone will correct me on that one with some obscure minor point that has no relevance to the main point), unlike others on here.

I hope this sheds some light on my focus? If not, then I'm sorry, but everyone is entitled to an opinion regardless of from where they come from. What gets me though is there are many on here that slag the UAE and its policies etc having never even been there (or even bothered to do sensible research) and just jump on a bandwagon.... The amount of N Americans that ask me whether I wear a flack jacket to protect me from all the AK47 fire when I go to the shops, just isn't funny! It appears some Canadians have the same silly view of the place, which saddens me, I had you guys down as being a bit more intelligent than your neighbours to the south. It appears that in some cases I was clearly wrong!

[Willie Everlearn]

It would be very easy to support either side of this argument.

Should EK or EY not take advantage of their advantages?
Absolutely! What airline wouldn’t?

:eek: Sir King took liberties with Sir Richard. Which didn’t work out so well.
:ouch: BA and AA aligned themselves to deal with additional services and slots that were of mutual benefit. Leading to additional anger and frustration within the EU airline community.
:D O’Leary shakes the establishment tree almost daily. (what can I say?)
:} Yikes, we’ve even got Star Alliance, One World, SkyTeam, and the like, ganging up on their competition. (can it be?)

Beating the system is what it’s all about. It’s nothing personal, its business.
Globalization is a reality. A business reality.
What remains to be seen with regard to globalization though, is whether or not it works? IMHO the airline business is having a hard time with it. Time will tell and in my estimation as long as their remains 'national interests', it won’t completely work or succeed. Look at the EU. I suppose it works but is it a success?

:ok:I don’t blame EK for trying. But, why shouldn’t Canada respond in kind?
Politically, I mean. With what's right for our globalization vision. (and it isn't the same as EKs I can assure you)

It should be obvious that I’ve taken sides in this dispute and firmly believe my government has done the sensible thing which unfortunately for EK, just happens NOT to be in their interests nor does it suit their world airline domination vision.


:8 Now if they would only suspend the landing rights and over flights of UAE aircraft for the next 10 months or so, I’d say we would have conveyed our annoyance with a ‘Mouse that Roared’.

oblasspop

I appreciate your 'confession'. Despite all this debate and politico, you'd enjoy Canada in retirement. There's always access through JFK so don't give it up.

I for one have always found the Brits very good at giving Canadians 'sound advice' with regards to the mistakes they've made along the way which has lead to the errosion of a once Great Britain, which it may now only be a great nation. (Not that Canada is any gem either)
Britain is part of our heritage and our lineage. For Canada would do well to avoid repeating the mistakes of our forefathers. Unfortunately, not many over here are paying attention.

Willie :rolleyes:

[Desertbannanas]

LOL... yet another entertaining rant by the "blow up doll" Oblasspop. Or is that "BLOW UP- doll"? When are you going to grow up little girl? Jeesh... I thought the Brits were tough... not like you... whining little girl who doesn't get her way.

Please please please say something intelligent for once! But thank you for revealing the truth as to why you are advocating more flight for UAE to Canada... for your own selfish retirment purposes:

"Now, my interest wrt Canada is that I would genuinely like to retire over there and the thought of being forced to use AC and not be able to take advantage of my retirement travel concessionshttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif"


By the way... I have worked in the UAE, my friend, as well as Asia. And I have taking Foreign policy in school, so I do know a bit more than you about the intricacies of foreign policy and trade. I just happen to strongly support my Home country and I am disgusted by the nonsense that goes on in the UAE. We are not interested in you retiring in our country so you can avoid paying taxes in your own. You are just another one of those shallow people who put your own well-being first on issues instead of the greater good. I believe in the fair and equal representation of business, and EK/EY does not come to the table fairly. If you were intelligent enough to see the multi levels of this issue, and you were educated, you would see it my way as does the system and thankfully, the people in power, who probably took the some the same classes I did.

And what are you talking about N Americans thinking its a warzone in the UAE??? Who do you hang out with? Foolish girl... I worked there for 5 years and everyone knew of UAE's rise..and that it was generally safe. (Traffic driving excluded).

Aww..but don't get upset Oblasspop. Your still not getting what you want, becuase thankfully the people in power are more intelligent than you. YOu must have gotten the short end of the British gene pool. :eek:

[Desertbannanas]

By they way... I don't believe anyone is saying Air Canada is a fantastically run business Oblasspop. It is not. But then there are limits to what it can do in comparison to EK/EY.It cannot be competitive to EK/EY so it needs some degree of protection. But that is my point, these are teh protections that any country sets out when these trade imbalances exist. Otherwise, EK will take over too much of AC's revenue. AC has its problems that is for sure... however they are problems from some peoples perspective...and are a savior to other people. These things that cause the imbalance between the countries and by default companies, are the reasons that make Canada the great country it is... therby make it a great place to retire. But Air Canada is trying to do its best within the framework that is required by the gov't. You say you want to retire to Canada Oblasspop? Why? Because if Canada allowed the free access you advocate, that great country you want to spend your golden year in would not exist.

Look at the US. There are lots of unilateral flight agreements with many different countries. Same as Canada. Canada is not embracing "protectionist" measures...but rather controllling and oversight measures to ensure its own success in the industry as well. Its that simple.

One example of a trade imbalance is cheap labor forces. In China its obvious...but its there in EK too. Where do you think all those armies of indian office workers come from? Do you think they get a decent but modest salary like AC office people and a pension? Same with Lufthansa, Air France... ect. Its because all these countries have limits of what companies can get away with. Set out by... you got it.... the government. You and I are lucky that we are in a specialized industry where we demand a high(er) salary still in the UAE and elsewhere.

I am sorry to hear you sell out your own home country. You seem quite petty from my perspective.The UK is a great country with great industry and great civil liberties and rights. I would support it and companies like BA before the likes of EK.

Also, I am proud of Canada's history with GreatBritian. Some don't like the Queen on our currency, but I like it. Its a reminder from whence we came, and its fun to have the royals visit. The monarchy is useless in the political circle...everyone knows that, so its just a nice thing to have to bring the countries together as a common history. They are just fun to have around from a cultural perspective.

[grizzled]

Desertbannanas...

Huh??

Did you even read the first post I made on this issue last week? Or posts I've made on the Middle East forum over the past few years? Obviously not.

Please calm down and try to hear this: I was saying to "Contacted" that his last post was well written, without emotion, and stated his views clearly. Whether I agree with it or not is a different matter entirely.

Take a few deep breaths (and /or a beer or two), calm down, and think through the difference between "disagreement and debate" versus "shooting from the lip".

If you had read even a couple of my posts (espcecially the one that "Contacted" first disagreed with me on) you'll realise why in this case you should be a tad embarrassed. I don't mind getting slammed, but for God's sake read what I wrote first -- otherwise everyone in ppruneland will quickly brand you as being simply a silly bugger.

In summary, if you read what I've written in the past (and my first post on this matter on this thread) you'll see that you and I are on the same side with regard to Canada's actions. But, becuase of your childish way of posting before reading, I would be worried if we were on a debating team together.

Cheers,
grizz

[a330pilotcanada]

Comments from Mr Duncan Dee Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer Air Canada:


“The recent discussions between Canada and the UAE related to bilateral air access rights were conducted on a principled basis entirely consistent with Canada’s Blue Sky Policy which has provided a framework for bilateral air negotiations since 2006,” said Duncan Dee, Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer in the press release issued. “Over the years, Canada has reached Open Skies-type air agreements covering 35 countries. The process through which these agreements have been reached is based on a balanced exchange of economic benefits resulting from increased market access. The inclusion of considerations unrelated to aviation only serves to distort those important discussions, creating the potential for significant negative consequences on our industry and the economy as a whole. The current agreement strikes the appropriate balance between encouraging competition while at the same time providing opportunities for Canadian airlines to grow and compete successfully in a more liberalized global environment.


“There would be no net benefit to Canada in granting additional capacity between Canada and the UAE at this time as the current bilateral air agreement is sufficient to meet travel demand between the two countries. The Government’s actions are in the interests of Canadian commerce, Canadian jobs and encouraging growth in the Canadian economy. We commend the Government for its principled stand on this issue and for its support of a Canadian international air policy that provides for a healthy and viable Canadian air transportation industry creating more than 80,000 jobs in Canada. Air Canada further calls on all parties in the House of Commons to support the Government's approach which ensures the long term economic viability of our industry and safeguards the considerable economic benefits Canada gains from competitive international aviation,” concluded Mr. Dee.

[Desertbannanas]

Hey Grizz... I just re read some of your posts and I stand corrected. My apologies. I have recently jumped into this debate.

However, if you read some of my posts you will see that my point disagrees with your stance that this is protectionism. It is not. You must read the above post. In every unilateral trade agreement where countries have varying economies of scale, there must be some barriers. As things become equal and fair, then barriers can be brougnt down. As Contacteds quotedl paper mentions, and 330's quote supports.

[J.O.]

One more for the ignore list. :rolleyes:

[Wxgeek]

U.A.E. slaps visas on Canadians (http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/08/canada-uae-visas.html)

Who is the moron who is running with this strategy in UAE? Anyways thanks, it's one more reason to avoid your country.

[Willie Everlearn]

...well,
if THEY require a visa to enter Canada, then I'm okay with Canadians requiring a visa to enter the UAE. :{
(That's the way it used to be) which sounds reasonable to me.

EK and EY are still not going to get additional service to Canada, so....
a non-starter. :D


Willie :ok:
(aren't these icons cute?)

[Oblaaspop]

Willie, do me a favour please, would you kindly explain to the thicko Desertbananas that there are generally 2 sides to every argument as he doen't seem to get it! He/it only seems capable of reading 1 or 2 select lines from a post before his rectum explodes from its mouth!

That thing clearly can't compute logical reason, so I thought that as you seem to be able to post in a balanced way, perhaps you could point that out to him?

Many thanks

Obs:ok:

(BTW Desert, Bananas only has 2 N's not 3..........IQ of plankton!) :hmm:

[Desertbannanas]

LOL... Oblasspop, Your such a baby. Can't you even post one logical argument and behave like a mature grown up? Of course there are always different ways to look at anything! It just depends on what you to use to define your argument. So sorry if I, and my Country's gov't are rubbing your shallow thinking in your face. I restate: Its not just about choice for the masses.

Here's some required reading to help educate you:

“The Race to the Bottom”. Alan Tonelson. Fellow at the Economic Strategy Institute and US business and Industrial Council.

“Rather than pursue more free trade, the US has to ensure trade policy is mutually beneficial to also ensure the engine of growth at home. Not just abroad”. This requires strategic policy.

-also-

“The Myth of Free Trade”. Dr. Ravi Batra. Professor of Economics, SMU.

-also-

“The predator State”. Professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson_School_of_Public_Affairs) and at the Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_at_Austin). He is also a Senior Scholar with the Levy Economics Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_Economics_Institute) of Bard College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bard_College).

LOL... immature Wankxx!

[Oblaaspop]

Oh Desert, you are getting awfully confused aren't you my little moron?:E

Me thinks you are getting a tad confused between Free Trade and a Free Market Economy, they are two VERY different things (I too studied Economics, but unlike you, it was in London not the University of Calcutta:E).

If you can point out 1 post (just 1) where I mention (or anyone else for that matter) Free 'Trade' then I will bow out gracefully.. Until such a point, may I ask that you just give up and quit while you are behind, because you really are making yourself look stupid.

I would ask that you kindly re-read my posts and then apologise for not being able to spot the logical arguments I have posted and the fact that I at least can acknowledge that there is an argument for Canada to do what it's doing.

All I would also ask that you stop embarrassing yourself, because instead of getting angry with you, I am actually starting to feel sorry for you (like I'd feel sorry for a Grandparent with a mental disability!):sad:

[Cpt. Underpants]

I too studied Economics, but unlike you, it was in London not the University of Calcutta

That's a poorly researched comparison, you little man (you seem to place a lot of emphasis on size in many of your posts) - are you "challenged" in some way, perhaps?

A former founder/head of the Department Of Economics at The University Of Calcutta was the first Indian to head an Oxbridge college. Before you open your clearly uneducated gab (economics - really? Porky pies, I think) Amartya Sen is also a Nobel Laureate.

Take a look at this Amartya Sen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen) before slagging off other cultures.

You're bigoted, arrogant, argumentative, authoritarian and (I think) quite thick. You must be delightful to fly with.

[Desertbannanas]

Yet another unintelligent post by this weirdo... Oblasspop.

I think your best skill oblasspop is slewing warped nonsense and insult. Quite entertaining! Educated?? LOL. Clearly your full of it.

Free trade and free Market Economy are almost the same you moron.. "Free Trade" is the catch phrase to identify the concept of THE Free Market. Or Free-er market. Depending from where your standing. Omg... its like arguing with a 4 year old. Its almost not worth it... :eek:

The good news is...you've been stuffed anyway.

Good work Harper.

[Oblaaspop]

Ooooh, touched a nerve did I Capt? I was trying to make a point, get over it! I'm incredibly pleased you managed to prove my entire position by ONLY being able to pick up on a minor little point (which was joke btw) which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the debate! Thanks, that just goes to prove that NEITHER of you are able to refute anything other than things that aren't the 'point'!

Frankly I couldn't give a flying FCUK about your boring references. All I know is that unlike you, I work with and live along side over 100 different nationalities and don't need a lesson on international relations from an insular numpty like you!

The other day I questioned whether you were either a C*ck OR a Tw@t. I now realise that you are both!

Handbags at dawn both of you!

I'm soooooooo pleased I manage to wind you guys up so easily. Why don't you cheer up you bunch of miserable bores?

Bannnnnnnnnnnannnnnnners (how are your spelling lessons going by the way)..... Free trade and Free Market are NOT the same thing, get yourself educated! Check the second line of this link, then apologise you un-educated thicko Free trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade)

[TERRIER two]

And your handle doesn't imply a vested interest?

[Desertbannanas]

LOL... Oblasspop.. you beat me on immaturity thats for sure. Come on... you dont fly airplanes do you?

But hey let me EXPAND that one reference you were so bold to present to us:

"Free trade is a system of trade policy (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Trade_policy) that allows traders to act and or transact without interference from government."

(Yes you numbnuts..that because they establish the rules beforehand)


"According to the law of comparative advantage (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) the policy permits trading partners mutual gains from trade (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Gains_from_trade) of goods and services."

(MUTUAL...numbnuts)

"These artificial prices are the result of protectionist (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Protectionist) trade policies, whereby governments intervene in the market through price adjustments and supply restrictions. Such government interventions can increase as well as decrease the cost of goods and services to both consumers and producers."

(if you actually took the classes you say you did..you would remember the prof asking you why countries have some protectionist trade policies. Thats right! Back to economies of scale!)


Most states conduct trade policies that are to a lesser or greater degree protectionist.[1] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-0)

(You read that again!)

[Married a Canadian]

Willie

Reasoned posts as always. However another stick to beat the western carriers up that I found today on the BBC

BBC News - Airlines fined over cargo cartel (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11719507)

How do you explain this to middle east carriers? Cargo or not.

[Willie Everlearn]

Married

I think the "cargo" police have been onto this for some time now. Flight is also reporting it, AND BA caught yet again??? Blimey!!

It may be that the fines are worth the profits earned over the period in between being fined and being fined again for the same offence. Good game. :eek:

I'm not an economics major so I must defer to our other, more knowledgeable collegues who profess to know the workings of the Department Of Economics at The University Of Calcutta and Oxbridge college. (they're so luck) Maybe they know someone who might have an answer for us? ;)

I'm a pilot. I learned long ago, not to get into any dispute over numbers. That's why I use a financial advisor.
As for markets, free trade and emerging markets, bah, humbug! I'd like to show you the money those a**holes have lost for me over the last 5 years. But I don't have it to show you, I digress...

Somehow, this doesn't surprise me (as I'm sure it didn't, you). Especially the players. What fate awaits these alliances when individual governments see it as a national embarassment and finally put a foot down?
(Italy excluded, of course)

I think it only proves once again that you can't play by the rules and survive. (A few Canadians are going to be upset if that's true, eh?) We can go back to your earlier remarks about that notorius playing field. It has never been level and it never will be. This is yet another example. Those who've survived the airline business since fuel prices first shot up in the early 70s have done so through creative management and I see EKs taking a similar approach to world dominance. I read about them almost daily. Enviable ambitions and good luck to them. But I'm also clever enough to understand some countries out there have governments taking a proactive approach, on that 'uneven' playing field, to what's afoot. Canada may be no genius when it comes to getting screwed, I agree. But I sure think it's starting to understand why their rectum hurts and they're finally starting to look for answers in a totally new direction. :mad:

To the point, if I may? Recent deviations in this thread have nothing to do with refusing EK new services to Canada and allowing them increased frequencies out of YYZ, IMHO.
Neither do I think the Canadian government is likely to respond to the childish behavior of the UAE. :D

How do I explain this to middle east carriers?
Inshallah.

Willie :ok:

[falconeasydriver]

Let me state my position first..so as not be confused, or played as another straw man.
I am an EK pilot, I have every desire for EK to operate to Canada, but in saying that, I hope its done on the basis of a fair and reasonable position:ok:

Now with that out of the way, lets call a spade a spade, both Air Canada, and now the Canadian government are doing their populace an immense disservice by "unreasonably" restricting competition in the air transport market place.
Its as obvious to anyone other than a one eyed fool that immense pressure has been put on policy and decision makers such that Air Canada can continue in its gouging of the Canadian market.
Lets be frank about this, from Air Canada's perspective, its the smart play, its EXACTLY what every other pseudo legacy/national carrier in the western world has done for the last 40 years for goodness sake.
The trouble with this approach is that all it really does is merely postpone the inevitable, that being a correction based around having to restructure a business so that it can become competitive again e.g. Alitalia, Air NZ, Varig (oops) United-Connie etc etc.
All the patriotic jingoistic claptrap that exists on this thread matters not, the essential arithmetic is there for ALL to see.
From the UAE's perspective...they have certainly behaved like a petulant child..but again where is the surprise in that? You should see some of the dumb-ass things the local emerati do on the roads over here..again its horses for courses.
The endgame to all this will be an eventual compromise, Air Canada will eventually either go pop, get another chunk of government capital, or become a market leader once more.
Emirates will eventually find a way to have greater access..by either swallowing Etihad..or using commercial common sense and maybe a more constructive approach.
In any case, a change of government in Canada, along with more revelations regarding price fixing could well be the nail in Air Canada's creaking coffin, I'm not convinced however that the Harper govt has actually thought a lot of this through to its conclusion..and could have by its own bloodymindedness shot itself in the foot....do they speak French in Ottawa as well?

[Desertbannanas]

Loved your post Falcon. In my opinion very balanced and rings true to my ears. I would just like to add one thing .. that the status quo limits to EK at this time are not just for Air Canada, but just also for the Star Alliance I believe, mostly Lufthansa most likely?

Your handle should be EK's callsign... that would be cool. A bit long tho... maybe "Falcon".

[Oblaaspop]

You know what Desert, I'm done arguing with you! You are fighting a losing battle and refuse to admit you are wrong when clearly you are. You stated that a Free Market is the same as Free Trade whereas the Wiki link I thoughtfully posted for you couldn't be any clearer in contradicting you. It states in plain English (which may be a problem for you perhaps?) with reference to Free Trade: "Not to be confused with Free market." Now you can post all the extra links and diatribe you wish, however I cannot see (nor can anyone else I believe) how you can possibly deny the un-denyable?

Perhaps the very best trait of a professional Airline Pilot is the ability to admit when one is wrong. If you can point out ANY part of my position that is FACTUALLY wrong, then I will openly admit it. You it appears are incapable of doing such a thing which leads me to believe that you are not a pilot and certainly NOT professional....... Please prove me wrong by admitting you were wrong, go on, it wont hurt..... It may even save your life one day!

Indeed Falcon's was a good, balanced post and he must be patted on the back. The thing I really don't get though is that his post is no different to the position I have been posting for many weeks. In fact, its almost identical in content. So why I must ask do you accept his view and not mine? Simple question....

Willie got my point as did others, because they are able to accept the balanced argument concept but for some reason, the likes of Cpt Underknickers and Deserticantevenspellmyhandlecorrectly don't. Why is that?

[Cpt. Underpants]

Poppy...

Ive been on this forum for a few years, but noticed a recent change in the disclaimer on the bottom of the page...

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions

Unfamiliar with the word sciolist, I looked it up. (yes, I saw the definition on the page too)

Sciolist - definition of Sciolist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sciolist)

Noun 1. sciolist - an amateur who engages in an activity without serious intentions and who pretends to have knowledge

If the shoe fits, Poppy. Golly*, it`s you (and my other favourite misanthrope 411A), to a T.

By the way, here`s some information on your other `condition`:

penile hypoplasia - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=2CI&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=penile+hypoplasia&um=1&biw=1680&bih=857&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw)

2 Jive Guys from Airplane Video by Packrat? - Myspace Video (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=592625361)

Just kidding!

[Oblaaspop]

Yep, you got me Cpt... I must confess. I am a very small man with the worlds smallest willy, to compensate for this, I drive a very big car with a massive engine and fly a 370t Aircraft from the left hand seat, which when you consider just how thick I am, its amazing that EK are foolish enough pay me a $15k+ per month package to fly their shiny jets...... Shhhhhhh, don't tell them or I may end up having to push meal carts in the cabin like you!:(

Finished being a child, or do you wish to carry on a conversation about c*ck size? Give it up you weirdo or people may start to think you are male cabin crew of the limp hand variety as opposed to a professional Airline Pilot!

Just kidding:E

[engfireleft]

Not that I needed more of it, but this is further confirmation that I made the right decision to avoid Emirates.

[Desertbannanas]

Pop, I liked Falcons mature post. I think alot of it rings true, and after listening to you, I applaud his maturity. However I still stand that I believe whats best for Air Canada and Canada is to allow competition into the market, from several sources... but to be managed. IE: in your eyes: Protected. The reasons of which I have already stated and will not do for you again.

I am Left in my view, and I have a sense of social responsibility to my country. I believe Canada needs to intelligently look at how much access Emirates and any airline has to Canada and "manage" it if necessary. This again in your view is protectionist. However I continually point out, if we really were protectionist and not fair to the market, then we would not have allowed much of the access all of the other airlines share already. There is already lots of choice for the consumer and competition for Air Canada. So, to me that protectionist argument does not fly.

You, on the other hand are very "Right" in your views, but also extrememly immature. You do not approach the topic in a logical or balanced way.

Indeed EngineFireLeft, I have worked in the ME and working there does come at a price. And in my opinion, the few extra dollars at the end of the day is not worth it. Besides, if your at AC, and you count the pension, its worth alot more anyway. It just has been a shorter course to the LHS in a widebody at EK, and for those who put that above all else, its usefull. But for me, Its a balance of Work/Lifestyle/Social.. and nothing is better than working in ones own Country if you have something decent.

[GMC1500]

I can't believe this debate is still going on?
F#$K air canada.
F&#K transport.
F*#K the Harper gov't and all the opposition, cuz they'd all agree anyways if they were in power.
I'll just fly home via Houston, or maybe Chicago one day.
What a bunch of Fu(#!n losers!! Need the nanny state to protect them. Cradle to grave my babies, cradle to grave.

[Cpt. Underpants]

Poppy

Give it up

I will, but only if you stop slagging off people, cultures, nations and other airlines in your posts. It's immature and counterproductive. Please give it a rest and behave like the professional you claim to be.

Do we have a deal?

[engfireleft]

I can't believe this debate is still going on?
F#$K air canada.
F&#K transport.
F*#K the Harper gov't and all the opposition, cuz they'd all agree anyways if they were in power.
I'll just fly home via Houston, or maybe Chicago one day.
What a bunch of Fu(#!n losers!! Need the nanny state to protect them. Cradle to grave my babies, cradle to grave.

Medic...we got a bleeder over here.:)

[Wxgeek]

Emirates and Etihad outmaneuvered again (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+Qatar+airline+deal+take/3812753/story.html)

Does the UAE negotiator work for Qatar Airways? At what point will emirates figure out they are negotiating from a position of weakness not strength?

My favorite paragraph:

Canada could retaliate against the UAE by cancelling the six flights a week that Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways currently fly to Toronto or by banning UAE aircraft from Canadian airspace as the UAE did when they refused access last month to a flight carrying Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Canada's top soldier, Gen. Walt Natynczyk. Such a move could cost the UAE's two national carriers hundreds of millions of dollars a year in additional fuel costs because it would add several hours' flying time and an additional stop to about a dozen passenger flights every day to the western United States and an hour per day of additional flying time to about half a dozen flights to the U.S. East Coast.


And then this:

U.A.E. Minister Says Canada Bans Officials From Flights on U.A.E. Carriers (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-10/u-a-e-minister-says-canada-bans-officials-from-flights-on-u-a-e-carriers.html)

United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan said Canada has banned its government officials from flying on U.A.E. air carriers, calling the action an “escalation” of a dispute between the countries over landing rights for commercial flights. “I don’t think it’s a smart decision,” Sheikh Abdullah said at a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council foreign ministers in Abu Dhabi. “This is an escalation.”

[hahahahahahahaha, actually it's a response to an UAE escalation...]

U.A.E. carriers including Emirates have been seeking dozens of new landing slots in Canada, contending that the six weekly flights currently allowed aren’t enough to meet demand. Transport Canada, the government agency that oversees the airline industry, and Air Canada opposed granting more slots on concerns that U.A.E. carriers may eat into Air Canada’s traffic to cities such as Frankfurt.
On Nov. 9, the U.A.E. embassy in Ottawa said the nation will begin requiring Canadian visitors to apply for visas, starting Jan. 2.

[Desertbannanas]

GMC says it all in his post:

"F#$K air canada.
F&#K transport.
F*#K the Harper gov't and all the opposition, cuz they'd all agree anyways if they were in power.
I'll just fly home via Houston, or maybe Chicago one day.
What a bunch of Fu(#!n losers!! Need the nanny state to protect them. Cradle to grave my babies, cradle to grave."

Just like most of the other petulant immature posters here like Oblasspop, its all about personal selfish reasons, not about your true opinion, or whats best for Canada, or the people.

Well I say...

Fxxx you GMC.

But hey, you will have lots of choice from this "protectionist" gov't:

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

And we will see more flight choice for the Indian community in Canada as well.

The real issue here is INDIA. Not the UAE. The TIGER of Asia is up and coming, and being that it has a democratic process as opposed to others, we should have unilateral trade patnerships with it rather than the others. Politically-like minded countries should support each other.The UAE as a destination is secondary, as its relatively small (comparatively speaking), and daily to YYZ is enough right now. Get on a JFK/YYZ from DXB/AUH and you will see it. That market at this time has to connect through somehwere... FRA/LHR/DXB/AUH/DOH etc..or even HKG/TPE the other direction. The Canadian traveller from the UAE is not complaining here. Because 99.9% of them buy full fare tix. What we have here are the Airline workers who are whining because they cant get their ID90 biz class seat every month or cant fly directly to their home city.

[clunckdriver]

This is not about Emirates and Air Canada, Its about two cultures so far apart that there can be little, if any meaningfull comunication between the two. On one side there is Canada, a democracy founded on civil rights and the dignity of the individual, the other side, a feudal tribal society which doesnt understand that one does not obtain ones way using the methods which work internally, not PC for sure, but Ive done my time in this neck of the woods. As for those folks whos self interest distorts their views, I trust you will of course be staying in the Sand box when you retire, no? I didnt think so.

[grizzled]

clunckdriver...

:D

[a330pilotcanada]

From the Edmonton Journal:

(Kind of funny how this one went so smoothly our "friends" in the U.A.E. could learn from the Qatar Government how to negotiate in good faith)

Qatar, Canada reach aviation agreement


By Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News November 12, 2010

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

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

The quick agreement with Qatar was in sharp contrast to a dispute between Ottawa and the United Arab Emirates over flights to and from Canada.

It caused the UAE to kick the Canadian military out of Camp Mirage, a key logistical base in Dubai that had been used for nine years to support the war in Afghanistan.

Before talks broke down last month, Canada and the UAE had haggled for five years over greater access to Canadian airports for Emirate Airlines and Etihad Airways -- an expansion that was strongly opposed by Air Canada and Transport Canada. Air carriers in Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands also have strongly objected to the rapid expansion of flights to Europe by Gulf carriers.

Canada had not publicized the new air agreement with Qatar, perhaps fearing potential further fallout from its escalating dispute with the UAE.

Newspapers in the UAE have not published any details of the air agreement between Canada and Qatar although media there usually cover the aviation industry very closely.

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Qatar+Canada+reach+aviation+agreement/3816907/story.html#ixzz15CP7GkZs (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Qatar+Canada+reach+aviation+agreement/3816907/story.html#ixzz15CP7GkZs)

[three eighty]

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

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


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

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

But yesterday, the Conservative government turned up the tone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Desertbannanas]

Yep...read that article.

I am pro free trade. But I want to quantify that it does not mean total unilateral free trade with any country on the planet. There are qualifying requirments for free trade. Basically each country has to have a similar socio-economic footprint. Otherwise barriers have to be erected.

Free trade between Can-US-Wester Europe is a no brainer. Free trade with China? Korea? Indonesia? India? UAE? Hmm... Maybe, but due dilligence is required. Alot of thse countries have a much cheaper footprint than the western countries because of their overall maturity and social policy.

I agree, MAYBE the assertion of "tens of thousands of jobs" to be lost is an exaggeration. But does it matter? Even if it would be only 5000 jobs, the point is the same. The UAE airlines are goverment owned. That is enough. It does not matter what assertions are made.

[non0]

Even if it would be only 5000 jobs, the point is the same. The UAE airlines are goverment owned. That is enough. It does not matter what assertions are made.

Even only 1 job! You do not want to be that one!

[sec 3]

In your face all you air canada pinheads, the truth hurts!

[Desertbannanas]

Lol.. Sec 3... be nice! :)


I will admit Canada and other countries needs to work on being more competitive. But its tough when your trying to measure where the competitive level will be with places like China or UAE.

Contacted... good point, but this is a terrible aticle. I see the argument ... however this article and the author is deficient in many ways. Australia and Canada comparison as a vacation destination? You can tell right here that the author is not intelligent enough to see that there is a difference. One is in a deep freeze half the year when the other is not. Need I say more? I may not be right..and I certianly do not insist that I am as others do. However, this article does not ring intelligently. When I went to school, we learned that outtright competition based on uneven playing fields (economies, labor footprints, private vs public, etc), does not always work as an ideal, or is as simple as one might expect. As I have said many time.. free trade between similar socio-economic footprints is a no brainer. But then that's not the case here is it? When dealing with countries with unbalance trade platforms to your own, more analysis has to been done. Otherwise, you will just extinguish your own industry, just as been happening to N. America for the last 3 decades. You might say that is the price to pay to being competitive. But there would be a loss factor in the mean time that maybe the gov'ts are not willing to support. It would hurt our GDP in the end, and that is the bottom line. That is not to say that there is not a place for Emirates serving Canada.

Yes Emirates has a better platform and cheaper footprint and better service than Air Canada. But why? Does it mean that competitively Canada should allow EK whatever routes it wants without question? Every dollar EK makes goes to one man. The man that in fact, owns a whole country. Personally I am not comfortable with that. I am not saying EK should not fly to Calgary or whatever. In fact I believe, it was offered previously, but the frequency was not good enough.

This article is good, but its entirely pro free market. And that is not balanced. There are plenty of articles and books and economists that go the other-way too. Read "The Predatory State".

I am happy to see that the gov't is taking an analytical approach to this. The limitation at this time might be a way to open market share for others. Specifically those that would be better positioned that the UAE airlines. How about Air India? They are the market actually that UAE is serving. Or how about Turkish? They are a new Star Alliance member and have started a big growth push too. And they are perfectly located for flow-through. Even better than UAE possibly. Also being Star member, the traffic would be a codes share with AC.

I believe EK is not the only players at the poker table influencing this situation.

[Willie Everlearn]

Remember a time when there were the odd home hardware shops and building supply outfits sprinkled around town?
Competition was a good thing and the consumer had a choice. One might even have said that the playing field was somewhat level.
In Canada, the government advertised 'let's all free enterprise'. Afterall, it was the ma and pa businesses that were the real employers in this country.
Then along came Home Depot.

Emirates wants to be the HOME DEPOT of the airline industry. If we don't hold in check who gets what in terms of air service agreements in Canada, we're fuct.

Emirates has sufficient services to Canada. Until that changes, they can piss off.

Willie :ok:

[MackTheKnife]

I recently flew on both Emirates and AC and in comparison AC can't hold a candle to the level of service Emirates provided. The cookie cutter figures, smiling faces and refreshing attitudes of the Flight Attendants alone was worth the journey. The Emirates economy meal was equivalent to or better than a J-class product on AC. The in flight entertainment on Emirates offered over 1200 choices. No thats not a misprint....1200 choices ! Not once did they have to reset the system interrupting every ones movie.

Not withstanding all the previously stated political / financial / labor law reasons for restricting Emirates access, I can fully understand why AC doesn't want to compete against them. They would go bankrupt in a heartbeat unless the Canadian government leveled the playing field which we all know isn't going to happen in this lifetime.

[six7driver]

will you or those like you ever learn?

Most likely not, and the debate is mute for now.

It's clear that the reasons Emirates were kept out of Canada had much more to do with political naivety of an incompetent PM, then some altruistic stand for the jobs of ordinary Canadians, and against the aspirations of a threatening multinational company.

No flights for Emirates, period. Will it mean hard times for Emirates? hardly I think. Without Canada they posted a mid year profit that many North American carriers would only dream of. Is this financial success due to Government subsidies?, unfair market practices?, exploitation of their workforce?, yes all three you argue with some validity. However, the world is not so black and white, and these traits could easily describe Air Canada.

The gray and reasoned truth is that Air Canada and many other North American carriers are just as guilty of displaying the same traits bestowed on ones from the UAE. They are supported by governments who are just as willing to subside them, and cynically wash their hands as they wage cut throat competition. In fact the airline executives at AC, can't even learn anything new from the exploitative practices of UAE airline executives, their behaivor only kept in check by unions, who they dream about annihilating. If you want a really recent example of how Air Canada does business one could just point to the price fixing fine AC just got from the EU to the tune of 11 million dollars+.

Unions are illegal in the UAE, yet this of course never stopped our governments from having a military base in this country for the last 10 years????, or doing billions of dollars of trade with it????.

But that's all gone now, and those with the moral intellect of a 10 year old can tell others to piss off, or go home as we sit on a fitting moral high chair, overlooking our other great business relationship with far more acceptable countries like Qatar, who was granted just now flying rights into Canada????

Baird and Harper are buffoons who stand in front of this decision just like Bush did in front of that great banner, "mission accomplished"....Diplomatic relations with an important regional ally were flushed down the toilet...but it was worth it!! Now Emirates or Etihad won't eat Air Canada's lunch!, even if for that noble accomplishment Canadians are on the hook for over 300 million dollars!

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Meanwhile in the desert.... The UAE's British airline executives mull new US destinations near the Canadian border....

....and in the US the local and federal governments eagerly court EK and EY in the hopes that their border cities will be the next UAE airline destinations. But they must wait in line with many, many others.

...and in Canada this.

An ominous flight pattern: Canadians opting for U.S. airports - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/an-ominous-flight-pattern-canadians-opting-for-us-airports/article1815784/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=Referrer%3A+Social+Network+%2F+Media&utm_content=1815784&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links)

:eek:

[nolimitholdem]

Exactly WHAT do you feel is the purpose of a government if NOT to protect it's citizens from "the aspirations of a threatening multinational company"? (your words). Whether a military or economic attack, I sure as hell expect the politicians to stand up and do something!

HAHAHA yeah, let's hope our own companies go bankrupt so that ones in the Middle East can prosper! That would be great! Think of how much better that would be! But at least there would 1200 channels of onboard entertainment that NEVER needs to be reset! (um, sure. Be sure to tell that to our pursers if you want to get kicked in the balls.) Of course, all the movies are censored versions, and half of those are Bollywood crap, but hey 1200 sounds like a big number!

Believe me, the food, ICE, and especially the brainless FA's get really old, really quick. Another one sucked in by the shiny, superficial fakeness of Emirates Inc.

Let's face it, you're just bitter because you can't get 48hr layovers in YVR. Boo hoo.

"Important regional ally"? wtf? Yeah, they really stood tall for us. Until they wanted something they couldn't have, that is. No thanks. With allies like that...:yuk:

[pcm]

You don't believe the diatripe you just wrote do you 67 driver? I can't wait for Canada to kick Emirates out of its airports and airspace. From my vantage point I say Emirates are the babies and the Canadian government the opposite. It certainly didn't take the governement long to ink a deal with Qatar without fan fare. Hopefully its not to late to change all the 380 orders to 320's and start up a domestic program with all the pax in your region.

[six7driver]

pcm, wow well thought out post.:rolleyes:

you have decimated my argument with your 5 year old debating skills.

"from your vantage point" that would be the view from your stroller I suppose.

The problem with people like you is that you believe Toronto is the geographic center of the universe. How sad for you that one day you'll discover otherwise.

continue to be the king of your little universe with your baseless opinions, little man.

nolimitholdem...

if the government wanted to "protect us" from companies like Emirates..why did they sign a deal with Qatar the next day?? how can you explain that??, why aren't you up in arms starting a thread about how we shouldn't let Qatar Airlines fly to Canada?? based on this companies labor relations record they make the exploitative practices of UAE airlines look like child's play.

Your comment about me wanting a layover in YVR is just creepy...what difference does it make where I come from or where I would want to stay in Canada?? or are you seeking to expose identities here? how about you tell us all where you come from, and what your name is?

You seek to confuse those who want information by taking others words completely out of context, you add in your belligerent rants against all things Emirates or UAE, yet just like me you work in the UAE for Emirates????, don't you think you should change your handle from nothinholdem to selfloather.

Your views don't stand for those of all expat Canadian pilots, especially ones with a brain.

enjoy your governments new relationship with the ultra democratic, ultra modern state of Qatar, do us all a favor and go work there!

by the way more children in Canada play soccer then hockey :eek:

[six7driver]

oh! and look at the next thread in the Canada section, the EVIL Emirates wants to give CANADIANS jobs!!!! what a BAD BAD bunch of people, oh but don't apply your friends will need a visa to visit you!!!!, not like in Canada, where nobody needs a visa to come visit except......ehhhm...:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

A
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Armenia
Azerbaijan

B
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi

C
Cambodia
Republic of Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China, People’s
Republic of
Colombia
Comoros
Congo, Democratic
Republic of the
Congo, Republic of the
Costa Rica
Cuba
Czech Republic

D
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic

E
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia

F
Fiji

G
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Ghana
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana

H
Haiti
Honduras

I
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel (only Israeli citizens holding valid Israeli “Travel Document in lieu of National Passport”)
Ivory Coast

J
Jamaica
Jordan

K
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea, North
Kosovo
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan

L
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania (holders of non-biometric passports only)

M
Macao S.A.R.
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives Islands
Mali
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia, Fed. States
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar (Burma)

N
Nauru
Nepal
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria

O
Oman

P
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian Authority
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland (holders of non-biometric passports only)

Q
Qatar

R
Romania
Russia
Rwanda

S
Sao Tomé e Principe
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Surinam
Syria

T
Taiwan (except holders of the ordinary passport issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Taiwan that includes their personal identification number)
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu

U
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Uzbekistan

V
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam

Y
Yemen

Z
Zambia
Zimbabwe

[555orange]

Yawn... another crybaby from the Emirates... this is old news now. Nobodies going to hold your hand 6-7.... go back to the emirates forum the debate is over there now.

Willie, I remember. I think its great to support local business as much as possible. Its nice to have the Ikea's around too...but I like to try and support the little guy in the neighborhood as much as possible too. Makes for a better community. I think we should all promote as much as possible to buy local...and buy from a western state where countries stand for balanced social and economic standards. China is cheaper but not always better. Emirates is only better because of its lower cost footprint. If it supported the higher cost across the board that western companies have to (not just AC) it would be in the same boat.

[engfireleft]

67driver

Are you sure you're not the diplomatic adviser to the UAE government on Canadian affairs? It's positively creepy how similarly you both address this issue.

[six7driver]

555 orange ,

Your words prove the last refuge of incompetence is denial.

Why does Qatar get flying rights to Canada then? explain? why be "fair" to this little gulf state that offers much less to Canada then the UAE ever did? why not give a country the does billions of dollars in trade with you, and that provides jobs for 10 of thousands of Canadians, and helps you out militarily better treatment, then a state that has done nothing for Canada in the region, and represents no commercial benefit whatsoever?

You have no answer for this I'm sure.

Instead you and so many like you spout off on these forums without a single word of evidence to support your baseless opinions. Then you revert to your intellectual age and start name calling when you find that there are people out there with a brain and access to a computer.

but as you said the debate is finished or "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

Good luck with your new Qatari friends!

engfireleft....

sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not a hired spokesman for the UAE. If that's what you want others to think so you can make your baseless opinions more credible then so be it.

[PacWest]

You've been out in the sun too long pal! :rolleyes:

[555orange]

LOL.. the answers to your questions are obvious 6-7. Like I said, no one is going to hold your hand like your mommy did... this issue has been beaten to death already. Go and do some reading. Better yet, go read up on the IATA conference for Air Liberalization.

I think its more likely you have proven your own maturity level.... :rolleyes:

[six7driver]

555...if the answers are so obvious why don't you answer the question then?

No? then you keep writing your drivel... you think if you throw enough sh#t some will surely stick...why should I read something you know nothing of, like the rest of the cr#p you post on this forum...

don't worry you can have the last word with another cr#p post where defend your views by talking about holding mommy's hand? as I'm sure you have alot of experience in that.

great rebutal Pac West..did you sit on that one all day!:rolleyes:

[fatbus]

children put the dummies back in

[Cpt. Underpants]

A c%@p airline, with cr@p service, offering cr@p meals, on cr@p planes, staffed by cr@P staff with cr@P attitudes

Agree, agree, agree, agree, agree and agree.

But this discussion isn't about whether or not AC sucks. It does. Big time.

The discussion is about whether EK has the RIGHT to suck it dry. It doesn't. Get used to the idea.

[Yobbo]

BANANAS

Good post. The sad thing is Air Canada represents Canada overseas.

[engfireleft]

Air Canada was, is and always will nothing more than an employment agency for Canadian citizens. Its employees are a direct reflection of this policy. Air Canada's staff are, for the most part, lazy, intolerant, scruffy, rude and aware of the fact that their employer cannot fire them.
Any company which was or is state owned runs into the same problem that Air Canada is facing. The airline needs to let go some of the overburdening staff and enforce work rules that will allow the carrier to become competitive or else they will continue on like a business from a Dickens novel.
I care less whether or not Air Canada continues to stay as it is, whether or not it allows Emirates, Qatar or Biman Bangladesh into its airports. Air Canada is a lousy airline and they would have been out of business many, many years ago were it not for the million and millions of dollars the Canadian government has pumped into supporting it. I assume that the reason the Canadian government continues to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into Air Canada is because it has to be less than it would cost to have 50% of its overpaid, rude, scruffy staff on welfare.

First of all you grossly misunderstand what Air Canada means to the Canadian government and the Canadian people. While 40,000 direct employees is a lot, it pales in comparison to the subsidiary jobs the airline industry in Canada provides most of which rely on Air Canada as the resident national carrier. Having many of those jobs relocated somewhere else along with the revenue stream the airline industry in Canada provides does not serve the Canadian people at all. Claiming cheap airline tickets to Dubai on a spiffy new A380 as the only benefit to Canadians is ignoring reality.

Air Canada also serves geo-political Canadian interests both within Canada and without that go far beyond the purely economic. Although Air Canada is no longer a crown corporation, it is still very much an implement of government policy unlike Westjet or any other Canadian aviation company. This too serves the Canadian people in ways the average Canadian Joe doesn't understand much less anybody from the sandbox.

If anyone thinks the UAE government doesn't value Emirates Airlines for exactly the same reasons they are sadly mistaken. Witness their juvenile and diplomatically unsophisticated actions to protect their prodigal airline over a relatively few landing slots in Canada. Despite its many faults, you can be sure the Canadian government would not, and does not react in such a petty and unbecoming manner when Air Canada is denied increased access somewhere.

Lastly your characterization of Air Canada employees as lazy, intolerant, scruffy, rude and smugly resting in a job they cannot be fired from says more about you than it does them. There is much wrong with Air Canada that I could fill a book about, but the employees I have had the pleasure of working with have for the most part been as professional and pleasant as anywhere else. In many cases more so.

[Willie Everlearn]

For those of you who (regretfully) insist on comparing Air Canada with Emirates I'd like to point one thing out which ALL of you don't seem to appreciate.

This is a completely idiotic and unreasonable comparison.

Air Canada couldn't hold a candle to EK, top to bottom side to side.

It's like compariing Sir John A Macdonald High School's hockey team with the Montreal Canadiens. Yes, they're both hockey teams but NOT nearly in the same league. So, not much of an argument, eh?

Air Canada is NOT losing millions and having been an Air Canada basher since the late 60s, I can tell you there's nothing more fun than bashing Air Canada. Air Canada today, is not IMHO, the Air Canada of old. They have a way to go, but they are headed in the right direction. Comparing EK to AC is no mental challenge and certainly not much of a debating issue.
This entire issue is about additional services for EK to Canada.
They need flying hours for those undelivered A380s with preferably, revenue generation or they (and Airbus) are fuct.

For those of you who like to insult and use childish sarcasm, maybe you could find something else to do. Like develop some intellectual skills in debating? I bet you're lots of fun to listen to on a flight deck over 14 hours.

EK does not need more service to Canada. Nor do they need expanded service to Canada. Our Government has realized that and so informed the UAE and EK. End of discussion.

Qatar is a different airline wishing to introduce services to Canada, which they do not at present have, so it makes perfect sense to grant them 'some' access, which Canada has done. Despite the fact some thing EK should provide that uplift.

The real reason for this debate is that Emirates is on a path to world dominance of the airline industry. While admirable, many states in this world recognize this ambition and a good number have finally started to put the brakes on it.

And that's wrong?

I for one, don't think EK should have whatever it likes, no matter how deep its pockets are.

Good for Canada.

six7driver...
why do you think Canada requires Visas from the countries you've listed?
Rhetorical. Never mind.

Willie :ok:

[555orange]

No Yobo...Banana is way off and not even factual. Just another rant.


It is false to say that Air Canada is stuck with inflexible union labor forces. Over the years thousands have been laid off or furloughed for periods of time to be flexible with the industry, just like all the mature fully grown legacy carrieres. (Emirates is still in its growth phase(although looks like that might slow down now...).

Unions bad? Not perfect..but wow.. you guys sure complain over there. Im sure if you could have one you would.

Handouts? When was the last time Air Canada was given free money it didn't have to pay back? Are you talking Loans? So...Emirates doesnt have loans then?

6-7... yawn. I thought you were originally arguing about the bogus 400 million "for Canada"... so now its here with Qatar plus more choice for the consumer and your still complaining? Your busted.

[Craic Ore]

Wow, this is just dragging on and on.

Guys, I can see both sides of the arguement. I'm with EK and would love more access to home. But I think the way the UAE govt handled this is childish and silly. Same goes for the Canadian govt. I do however have one question that seems to have remained unanswered.

Why is it that MANY MANY carriers have access to Canada and there seems to be a massive block put in for EK? I mean, does Turkish for example have many restrictions? Does AC fly to Istanbul or Ankara? And now Turkish is flying in daily to Toronto? Please explain how that can be? And no one is lobbying against them, are they? Hmmmmmm, please tell me it's not because they are Star Alliance, right?

Listen, we all know what a big piece of the puzzle is. It's protection of AC and apparent protection of jobs in Canada. Hey, I'm ALL for jobs in Canada, but it's very obvious AC will never change without being forced to change. What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.

One more thing. Why such a fear over EK? It could be limited to daily YYZ, YYC, YVR. And how much revenue would that impact at AC? 0.5%? 0.3%? If EK is that big of a threat for such a small market share, there's bigger things to worry about than us. Wouldn't you agree? Just trying to be logical here.

CO

[fatbus]

Its got all to do with the Star Alliance ( LH ) and the Sub Continent. Turkey has a pop of @70 mil and the UAE @8 which would probably mean s more Turkish than UAE in Canada.

[auh_to_auh]

craic ore,

The answer to your question is simple. The pinheads in Ottawa and AC don't perceive Turkish Airlines as a credible threat (even though they should).

All the arguments from the govt and AC are flawed. Australia have in the region of 10-15 flights a day from the UAE, 90% transit pax, Yet Qantas has been profitable for all but one of the last 10-15 years (don't have correct figures here so I stand to be corrected). AC needs to up there game like Qantas did when competition emerged from the UAE.

AUH

[a330pilotcanada]

This was posted in the Flight Deck Forums above (four pages and growing), maybe some our friends over in the "sand box" can comment on thier rostering which looks like a real safety issue.

Emirates Fatigue. FAA / CAA / CASA etc, are you reading this?

MODS: Please don't move this.

FATIGUE is a very real and serious problem being faced by Pilots & Cabin Crew at Emirates. Without representation and with fear of punitive action, crews are pawns in the hands of a management structure who see FTLs as targets, not LIMITS.

The CRS bidding system with all it's safeguards is a JOKE. In order to FORCE the system to run with insufficient numbers of crew, alterations have been made and safety boundaries have been rendered inoperative. Callous roster builders are required to aggressively make manual pre-publication roster insertions in order to keep the schedule running.

FTL annexes extending duty periods are not used as intended, but are creatively adapted to multi-sector through-the-night flights in order to avoid layovers and cut costs. These are a daily norm on a number of flights. Day/night and West/East duty combos are blended without thought or consideration of fatigue and augmenting hours are "factored" in order to reduce 28 day and 365 day running totals. The words "flight" and "pairing" are interchanged when convenient to avoid necessary time off after long/ultra-long haul operations.

Weekly, ASR after ASR is filed without any noticeable management action. The paper trail is long, but as long as profits are good and there are 2 butts in the forward-most seats keeping the plane is in the air, no problem exists. Apparently.

BEWARE: There are a bunch of EK zombies flying heavy machinery into an airport near YOU!

Please follow link below or search Middle East forum/fatigue:

EK Cabin Crew reporting for duty even thou unfit to fly (http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/432850-ek-cabin-crew-reporting-duty-even-thou-unfit-fly.html)

[nolimitholdem]

The fatigue issues are absolutely real. Over a year ago, in "response" to the global economic issues we are all sick of by now, the company arbitrarily changed the threshold above which they paid overtime. The previous threshold was 78 hours/month. With a single memo, it became 92 hours/month. (With small variances for shorter months). Immediately, all rosters jumped from around 80 hours of flying/month, to over 90. One of the guys I spoke to recently had flown 113 hours for the month -with another flight to go. The company HATES to pay overtime. Yet they are so short he was called out to operate the flight even at overtime rates.

This, in an operation that has routes that can span 12 timezones - in both directions.

But the A330 guys have it worse. They have to try and accumulate their 92 hours in short turnaround flights. Many of them are flights that depart in the middle of the night, operate to the sub-continent, and then return mid-day. Very, very exhausting. A typical roster might have one flight arriving at 7am in the morning. And then the next flight LEAVES at 8am the following morning!

So the pilot is expected to try and sleep during the day, then, the same day, wake up, and then return to sleep to try and be rested for his 5:45am pickup the following day. It just isn't possible. Have kids and a family? You are SCREWED.

Week after week the ASR (Air Safety Report) summary is released to the employees. Every week, several reports filed. Week after week after week. Pilots micro-sleeping, not alert, missing calls and functions. The GCAA (the regulatory body) says they're helpless without receiving reporting on issues. Where do these reports go after they're filed with the company? No one knows.

At each recurrent groundschool there is a meeting with management brass where they supposedly listen to concerns. Over and over fatigue comes up. They admitted they have a real problem, and we were told last summer that it wouldn't improve for awhile, but the fall should see some improvement. That lie has since been extended into 2011. There is a huge pool of unclaimed leave due to everyone being unable to take their contractual leave.

The doctors at the clinic know all about it and are mightily concerned. One doctor described the pilots from the A330/40 and B777 fleets that she sees, as "zombies". (A380 rosters at the moment are quite pleasant. Wait till they get more a/c and start the BOM etc flights.)

If a pilot reports "fatigued", he is required to report to the clinic for what is called a "fatigue analysis" process. It used to be possible to have the doctor deem that yes, you are exhausted, take some time off, with the amount of time at the doctor's discretion. Generally a week would be given for severe cases. So what has the company done? Changed their policy (communicated to the doctors, not the pilots) so that the doctors are now permitted only to grant a maximum of two days off due to fatigue. If you require more than that, you have to return to the clinic to see the doctor again, at which point I guess they're expected to make up some ailment if you need more time off. This seems clearly designed to at least reduce the REPORTING of how much time off is being given due to fatigue. Hide, camouflage, deflect, deceive. It's the company culture here.

I myself am basically in a semi-permanent state of exhaustion. Not "tired" in the usual sense, just in a half-charged state of constant fatigue. I don't think in terms of "local time" or day or night or whatever. I can't sleep for more than 4-5 hours at a time, regardless of whether it is light or dark in whatever city I happen to be. I live a completely reactive life to fatigue now, taking a nap when I need one, and being eyes-open in the middle of the night. The body doesn't know if it's coming or going anymore, and it never "catches up". I'm never in one timezone long enough for it to do so.

Flights are operated the same way. Try and get just enough rest before a flight or during ("controlled rest on the flight deck") so that hopefully, you can be just alert enough to perform the descent, approach and landing successfully. Survival.

It's just plain greed. The company is massively profitable. They are acutely short of pilots. They realized when they moved the goalposts on monthly flying, that they could make massive amounts of money from it. They acknowledge there is a problem. Yet they don't take their foot off the expansion gas pedal, they just keep pressing harder.

I have absolute certainty that it will end in a smoking hole somewhere. It's simply a numbers game. The colleagues I speak to all say the same, the attitude is simply one of defensiveness: "Im going to try and do everything I can to make sure it isn't on MY watch". But no one seriously thinks that it can go on like this without the inevitable.

Yet is doesn't change. The FAA, CAA, Transport Canada....no one does anything. I guess they will when their accident investigators are in their vehicles heading to the scene. Hopefully that will be after I've sucked the gear into the wells for the last time out of DXB.

[Oblaaspop]

Banana, whilst I agree that his friend was unlikely to have received a roster with 113 hours at issue, unfortunately there is no denying the rest of Nolimits post........ I hate to say it, but it was spot on.:sad:

[Married a Canadian]

Yet is doesn't change. The FAA, CAA, Transport Canada....no one does anything

I am in no position to argue the points in no limits post...it seems to be an issue with EK..and discussed a lot on these forums.

However the comment made above is more telling to me in this debate. WHY aren't those bodies you mention above doing anything IF it is considered to be such an issue. All the pro Canada guys on here praising the govt and the like and critisizing EKs practices with crew fatigue....and yet Transport Canada do have a say on whether or not they can fly into Canadian airspace. I posted a black list recently of aircraft that are not allowed to fly...Emirates is NOT on it. Either the problem is not as bad as feared or Transport Canada and the rest of the governing bodies that let EK fly into their airspace are taking kickbacks and bribes or whatever else to allow aircraft that are flying with known safety hazards.

You can't on one hand go praising Canada for its stance on EK then say that Transport Canada isn't doing anything to stop EK flying with the "evidence" against it.

Could it be that the problem is not considered to be that serious? Overworked crews are not rare in the airline industry. I am not disagreeing with anything that No limit posted but it could be applied to more airlines than EK...it is just more convenient to do so in the context of this debate.

[engfireleft]

Transport Canada would be inviting even more attention to their own disgraceful F&DT regulations if they denied any company access on that basis alone. Fatigue is a word that doesn't have much meaning to them despite the occasional lip service.

Banana, brave words about growing a set and declining flights at EK if you are tired. If you work there and do so regularly I suspect you wouldn't work there much longer, and focusing the blame on individuals deflects it from where it belongs on the systemic problem. Face it, Dubai is what it is today thanks to well documented but conveniently ignored slave labour. EK has no qualms about moving the goal posts back at their discretion to make the system work. They are chronically short of crews now, and have orders in to double their fleet. I agree with nolimit, they are a crater in the making.

[fatbus]

Until they put one in the ground,for everyones sake when that happens lets hope it s not in the region( unable to hide the facts )

[Married a Canadian]

Fatigue is a word that doesn't have much meaning to them despite the occasional lip service.

Which means that using the argument in the context of this debate as a reason for denying EK extra flights is fairly pointless as it could be levelled at numerous domestic flights in the US.
If you believe Transport Canada et al are lapse..then they are lapse against everyone...not just Emirates.

Until they put one in the ground

Not good business practice when running an airline really. If people really want to knock EKs growth..then all you need to do is highlight a safety record to the public.....nothing better than nervous punters flying with other carriers if they think the airframe and aircrew are better.

[J.O.]

While I agree that the fatigue issue should be separate from the slots dispute, just exactly how do you propose that TC would come down on EK for crew fatigue? Unless they could prove that there are violations of the UAE's crew rest regulations that are occurring while they are operating in Canadian airspace, TC is powerless to enforce anything of the kind, just as the UAE CAA would be powerless to enforce similar on foreign crews operating in their airspace.

[nolimitholdem]

Banana,

You sound like quite the tosser. Ranting about BMW's or whatever, sorry you missed the point completely. As you seem to have some knowledge of the EK circus, being able to reference the Marina and such, surely you know that this isn't some isolated case of roster-whoring. Many B777 captains getting issued rosters pushing into 3 figures. It isn't hard to break 100 hours with even one extra flight.

The point is, why is the money-obsessed company calling out guys already in overtime? It isn't because they want to. It's because they're desperate in a situation created by their own greed and mismanagement.

It sounds to me like you're projecting your own bitterness about money onto the situation.

[Willie Everlearn]

This thread may be headed for the rhubarb.:sad:
Air Canada versus Emirates...right? :confused:
Okay, let's not get into accident/incident comparisons.
That might not go so well for our friends in EK.
Rules and Regulations in the UAE are like stop signs in Quebec. Optional.
My read of this thread over these last two days sounds more like EK personnel dumping on EK personnel. Yes? No? :eek:

Canada doesn't need more services from EK and our Gov't delivered that response weeks ago. No matter how good or how bad Air Canada may or may not be and no matter whether or not they are the best airline in North America or not. :mad:

Willie :ok:

[Wxgeek]

Add $1000 to the price of your ticket on Emirates... (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/uae-embassy-to-charge-canadians-steep-visa-fees/article1851142/)

What a sad little diplomatic effort this has become.

Way to go UAE!

[Married a Canadian]

And again on the BBC

BBC News - Canadians face big United Arab Emirates visa fees (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12088449)

[rigpiggy]

deny them overflight privileges, lose SFO, LAX, and NYC or fly the extra 3-4 hrs to go around, and see how profitable it is. Acting like the schoolyard bully only works till some one fights back.

[a330pilotcanada]

Good Evening from "Middle Earth"

Crossed the Tasman yesterday from SYD to AKL than CHC where I am enjoying Speights Beer and Kiwi hospitality but I digress.

While waiting for the the flight to CHC in the space of a hour and a half our "friends" from the sandbox had two B-777's inbound to AKL and a A-380.

On arrival in CHC there was a B-777 from Emirates as well. In both cases it is daily service so I have been told.

New Zealand is just a little over 4 million in population and Christchurch is around 380,000 in population.

With such uplift capability what will happen to the local carriers in New Zealand read Air New Zealand. It seems the locust's are cleaning out the wheat in this part of the world so the question that begs to be asked do we want this in Canada?

[single chime]

...same as foreigners not allowed to own land in the UAE or run a business without a local sponsor. Accept it and move on.

[Wxgeek]

Sounds like Cannon is telling UAE to pound sand in the kindest and most diplomatic way....
=======================

Decisions are based on what's best for Canada

Our government values an ongoing positive relationship with the UAE

By Lawrence Cannon, Canadian Foreign Minister, Special to Gulf News

Published: 00:00 January 7, 2011

http://gulfnews.com/polopoly_fs/gulf-news-logo-1.505033%21image/3510741613.gif_gen/derivatives/article_credit/3510741613.gif (http://gulfnews.com/)

http://gulfnews.com/polopoly_fs/lawrence-cannon-canadian-foreign-minister-1.742253%21image/3202365172.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_475/3202365172.jpg

In a January 3 editorial in the Gulf News, entitled ‘Harper's hometown paper attacks UAE visa policy', Deputy Managing Editor Mick O'Reilly writes about an article in a Canadian newspaper regarding the UAE.
Mr O'Reilly's article is unfortunately misleading readers by alleging that there has been no communication between the governments of the UAE and Canada on the air negotiations and base issue because UAE Ambassador to Canada Mohammad Al Gafli has not had a meeting with me.
What the article fails to acknowledge is that in the last year and a half, I have met on five occasions with my counterpart, His Highness Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to discuss these issues which are of great importance to both our countries. There have also been numerous meetings between Canadian and UAE officials.
In 2009, the UAE decided to pursue visa reciprocity with many countries, including Canada, that did not offer visa-free access to UAE citizens. Canada does not dispute the right of sovereign states to determine their own entry requirements for visitors. Canada has required visas of UAE nationals since we established diplomatic relations in 1974.

Air transport agreements

Our government makes decisions based on what is best for Canada and our economy, and what the UAE was offering was not in the best interest of Canadians. The landing rights provided under the current Canada-UAE air transport agreements meet the market demand of travellers whose origin or final destination is either Canada or the UAE. Canada looks forward to continued cooperation with states in the Gulf region to ensure that Canadians have the best options for travel.
While recognising that recent developments have disappointed both governments, Canada values an ongoing positive relationship with the UAE and believes it is in the interests of both countries to do so.

[tuskegee airman]

:D

Well done Mr Cannon. I disagree with Canada's stance on this issue but this is an appropriate response to a schoolyard bully :ok:.

[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. (They don't even broadcast HNIC for crying out loud!)

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. (They do, however, employ a $hitloa& of pilots who would otherwise be unemployed and thus a burden to the tax-paying citizens of the nation... That or working at Reno Depot.)

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 (Not so. The airlines borrowed to start up and have paid off the debt. They are cash cows and NOT subsidized by the govt. The fuel is all from Singapore. UAE fuel has a sulpher content that is too high for jet fuel refinement) 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."
("Whew, I'm glad you got THAT off your chest Colin, we'll meet again next week for your next session...)


© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[J.O.]

I understand the discomfort this issue is making for you and the other Canucks who are working there, but you are over there of your own free will and the government has to consider others beyond our expats when they deal with this issue.

Agree with him or not, Colin Kenny is speaking for many Canadians on this issue (and not just Air Canada employees). Personally, I am not one of them. I would not encourage such a harsh response. I think our government has shown great restraint and I would encourage them to continue to do so. Bullies don't tend to react well to bullying in return. It may take longer, but they tend to react better to a quiet and firm resolve stating that their victims won't back down.

[errbus]

(They do, however, employ a $hitloa& of pilots who would otherwise be unemployed and thus a burden to the tax-paying citizens of the nation... That or working at Reno Depot.)

Well troff, I'm impressed that you are concerned for our tax-paying citizens. Maybe you could tell us how much tax YOU pay to Canada to alleviate our burden. Why do I get the impression your opposition to Canada's position has more to do with personal gain (yours) as opposed to principle.

[bcflyer]

I fail to see how the 27,000 (non-tax paying) Canadians in the UAE are being inconvenienced by the governments refusal to give the bully more landing rights in Canada. Currently there is enough capcity to move ALL of them to and from Canada every 9 weeks.
There simply isn't the demand for point to point traffic between Canada and Dubai to warrant more flights.
Personally I would love to see Canada close the airspace for a week and see what happens. Its a long way to most of North America if you can't come over Canada......

[YYZ_spotter]

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.

[sec 3]

Great post spotter !:ok:

[bcflyer]

Just a few things I would like to point out....

How many airlines that used to fly into Australia either no longer fly there or have drastically reduced their flights since Emirates started flying "widebody's like taxicabs" into and out of Aus? It would appear that the consumer now have few choices than they used to have....

Porter is not making money out of YTZ. They have yet to turn a profit and have a load factor barely over %50.

There are several reasons it is cheaper to fly internationally. One is simply a matter of scale. You can put far more people in a 777 than in an EMB yet you still need ground support for both. (ramp support, gate support, catering etc etc.) Even taking into account the higher costs of operating the 777, the overall cost per pax, per mile will be less on a long overseas flight.
Second and in my mind the largest problem is the matter you already touched on, TAXES. Have you looked at the the landing fees in Canada? YYZ is the most expensive airport in the world to operate from. Have you looked at the NAVCANADA fees to operate in Canadian Airspace? Almost every airport in Canada has added its own AIF. In some cases it is as high as an extra $30 for every pax. Add in the already high government taxes and you have situations where the taxes and fees are more than the actual price of the ticket!

As for Air Canada's inflight service I will say you are not comparing apples to apples. Air Canada is heavily restricted by their union contracts and the labour laws in Canada. They can't fire their FA if they don't like the way they look, act, dress. They certainly can't fire them for being to old, to fat, unattractive or even for being to snarly to pax. Yes they may get a letter on their file, but in a union environment you would damn near have to kill someone to be fired. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is a fact of working with an airline based in a country that actually has labour laws...

The IFE at Air Canada has a slightly smaller screen and no interactive games but I would hardly call it "seriously behind" its competion. It still has hours of movies, TV shows, and music all of which can be started, stopped, rewound to your hearts content.

As for you PIA comments.. They are not pushing for more slots in Canada and they certainly aren't resorting to the kind of political BS that is currently going on.

This is not about shutting Emirates out of Canada. This is about ensuring that there is enough capacity between Canada and Dubai to satisfy the point to point traffic. In the governments opinion there is. The fact that Emirates wants more access so they can get extra pax to Asia and beyond is not the Canadian governments problem...

[330 Man]

Hello everyone,
Below is an editorial from the Star.com.

But first a few thoughts.


I have been sitting on the sidelines watching this unfold. There are a couple of things that should be pointed out.

bcflyer, one of your statements points to the hypocrisy of AC. They are using point to point flying as the reason to block this. Yet their real reason for blocking this is NOT point to point. This fight is to allow through flying to Dubai, through one of their alliance partners hubs. If anyone does not think that Lufthansa is in this fight up to their necks, they are naive. This is being fought because the alliance knows they can not compete with better service on a shorter journey. (the stop in europe is eliminated)

Also, your implication that a unionized staff is a justifiable reason for substandard service is not acceptable. Are you saying that AC can not compete with a non union airline and therefore the non union airline should be barred from competing? I have ridden AC on both domestic and international routes and will never do so again.

I also remember when AC proposed the tie up with Emirates. Emirates rightly refused. Why should EK give 50% of the profits to AC when EK is doing most of the work.

UAE citizens have NEVER had the right to enter Canada on a "visa on arrival program", they have always had to pre apply. The process takes 3-4 weeks. Canadians have had the right to come to the UAE and get visa on arrival for years. After several requests from the UAE government, all ignored by Canada, the UAE government started requiring the same from Canadians as Canada requires of Emiratis; they must now pre apply for a visa.
____________________________________________________________ _______


Siddiqui: Air Canada’s hypocrisy on UAE exposed
Published On Wed Jan 12 2011EmailPrint
Share6Rss Article
By Haroon Siddiqui
Editorial Page
There once was a healthy relationship, steadily going strong. But it turned sour. Now there’s constant sniping. The bad blood has already cost Canadian taxpayers at least $300 million. An annual trade of $1.5 billion is also at risk. So are the fortunes of the 200 Canadian companies with offices in the United Arab Emirates, Canada’s largest trading partner in the Middle East and North Africa.

The penalties come courtesy of Stephen Harper. He wouldn’t allow Emirates and Etihad Airways to increase flights to Canada, ostensibly to protect Air Canada.

But I have a 2006 document in which Air Canada proposed a partnership with Emirates. It called for a coordinated schedule between Canada and Dubai, starting with a daily Dubai-Toronto flight and expanding to other cities. It asked Emirates to operate its own aircraft on the routes. It even suggested flight times to maximize connections with Air Canada.

But Air Canada demanded 50 per cent of the profits, having made minimal investment and taken little or no risk.

Emirates declined. It continued patiently negotiating with Ottawa to upgrade its thrice-weekly Toronto flights to daily, and also fly to Calgary and Vancouver. Etihad also wanted daily flights to Toronto.

They were backed by the governments of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, as well as business and consumer groups.

But Air Canada balked, saying passenger loads do not justify more flights and that letting Arab airlines “swamp” Canada would mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

In fact, additional airline traffic always creates more jobs. An Emirates study shows its new flights would add 1,900 jobs and $26 million in taxes.

Besides, if Air Canada thought there was commercial potential for additional flights in 2006, why does it now argue otherwise, even though traffic has gone up exponentially since?

It accuses Emirates and Etihad of being “subsidized.” They deny it. The world’s largest accounting firm agrees. And with Ottawa protecting Air Canada routes and shielding it from foreign competition, Air Canada is hardly in a position to point fingers at others.

Air Canada does not fly to Dubai or Abu Dhabi, or points beyond in Africa or Asia where the two UAE airlines are taking Canadian passengers, especially India.

Air Canada wants to force them onto its own feeder routes to Europe and deliver them to Star Alliance partners, principally Lufthansa, for onward journeys.

Harper dragged negotiations on for four years, ending them abruptly. His ministers spurned face-to-face meetings with UAE ministers and diplomats. He rejected a long-standing UAE request to extend reciprocity to Emirati citizens to enter Canada visa-free.

Fed up, the UAE imposed a visa on Canadians. Worse, it booted Canada out of Camp Mirage, which we had been using free of charge since 2001 to fly troops and equipment into and out of Afghanistan. It’s the loss of that transit point that will cost Canadians $300 million and more in alternate facilities.

Peeved, Harper accused the UAE of sabotaging the war on terror, linking crass commercial interest to that holy mission, and being unworthy of Canada’s friendship.

The UAE is being given “the full Harper” — pushed around and insulted, says Bob Rae, the Liberal foreign affairs critic.

Rae visited UAE last week, at his own expense, to see if he could help. In his blog Monday, he said: “It is surely an ironic twist that the old Reform party and Stephen Harper have become advocates of closed skies and pure and simple protectionism . . . Air Canada is now being treated as a company to be defended at all costs.”

Indeed, it is being protected at the cost of the far greater national trade and geopolitical interests.

The Harperites lost no time in accusing Rae of being a bad Canadian, sucking up to Arab “royals.”

Taking a cue from the Conservatives, Air Canada’s Duncan Dee took cheap shots at Rae as well.

It’s outrageous that the chief operating officer of a company that relies on Ottawa and must work with all parliamentary parties is entering partisan politics.

All this is instructive at a time when many Canadians are bemoaning the loss of political civility south of the border.

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

[bcflyer]

Wow you guys really think that Air Canada is controlling the government in this country? Everyone seems to think that because Air Canada doesn't want them to have extra landing rights then the government just says "OK" and denies it? Give your heads a shake. If that was the case then BA, Air France, Cathay, China Airlines ect etc wouldn't have any flights to this country at all.
After all the people on this forum seem to think that Air Canada just has to whine a bit and the government does their bidding. Why allow any competition at all? There are alot of airlines that fly into Canada, fly to destinations that Air Canada doesn't serve, who aren't in the Star Alliance.

My comments about the union enviroment was simply to show that it is much easier to have a young, energized workforce when you can get rid of them when they get old or disgruntled. That is not an excuse, it's a fact. Its also a fact that the average traveller will remember a pretty 24yr old flight attendant over a 60 yr old flight attendant regardless of the service they get. AC's inflight service has improved by leaps and bounds the last 5-10 years and is miles better than a few complainers would want you to believe.

The article you reprinted is written by someone who obviously has alterior motives (have a look at the name of the author) or no idea idea of what is really happening in aviation in Canada. To just blindly accept that Emirates having up to 10 or 15 more flights a week to Canada will somehow create 1900 extra jobs and 26 million in taxes is a perfect example of how naive some people can be. Show me to proof. Break that down for us so we can see exactly where those 1900 jobs and all that money will come from. Numbers can be twisted to show whatever you want.

[Oblaaspop]

Bcflyer, as requested, check out this link to a post by Contacted on another forum: http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/438903-canada-says-uae-acting-like-pompous-thug-says-colin-kenny-3.html#post6174818.

Please pay particular attention to the link from the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce (I presume by your handle that you may well give them at least a modicum of credibility despite the fact that they blow your theories out the water?).British Columbia Chamber of Commerce - Advocacy & Policy (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bcchamber.org%2Fadvocacy%2Fpolicy%2Fpri ority%2Ftransportation%2Fopen_skies.html&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmiddle-east%2F438903-canada-says-uae-acting-like-pompous-thug-says-colin-kenny-3.html%23post6176831)

when you are ready, please feel free to come back and admit that you were short sighted in your opinion:ok:

[YYZ_spotter]

bcflyer:

Porter is not making money out of YTZ. They have yet to turn a profit and have a load factor barely over %50.

You're right, sorry, I should have checked my figures. My point, however, remains. Even flying their planes only half full, operating out of an airport abandoned by AC, was Porter's business that threatening to warrant Air Canada fighting to operate out of YTZ again and trying to kill Porter? That's bully tactics. Emirates flying to Australia may have halted some service from other int'l carriers flying there, but here Air Canada is cannibalizing its own domestic competition. At the end of the day, money talks and businesses are ruthless.

YYZ is the most expensive airport in the world to operate from. Have you looked at the NAVCANADA fees to operate in Canadian Airspace?

Exactly! That's a problem. Is YYZ still trying to recover the airport redevelopment cost from 05/06? Landing here is unattractive to all airlines, yet they keep coming for all the traffic. There are options that can make YYZ a massive, attractive, money making hub. The market here is so lucrative.

The IFE at Air Canada has a slightly smaller screen and no interactive games but I would hardly call it "seriously behind" its competion. It still has hours of movies, TV shows, and music all of which can be started, stopped, rewound to your hearts content.

Ok I was exaggerating a bit. I'd love to fast forward, too bad the little arrow pointer is never calibrated, zing! In my last 5 or 6 flights on Air Canada, the in-flight map did not work, more an annoyance. Selling headphones to make a few bucks looks cheap for a flag carrier airline. On long haul flights, the food/service is no match to EY. Based on that experience, I would fly EY again, even if AUH itself needs to improve. It's the market deciding for itself.


As for you PIA comments.. They are not pushing for more slots in Canada and they certainly aren't resorting to the kind of political BS that is currently going on.

Context please. I responded with the PIA example to the Ottawa Citizen piece, which said that the UAE should disprove connections to terrorism, implying that should be a factor in giving Canadian airspace rights to EK and EY. If that's the case, PIA would have a hard time defending itself, and by that author's logic, PIA should be banned from using our airspace.

Regarding the labour, yes the labour laws are vastly different. The UAE's (and developing world in general) labour laws are what they are: unfair and with little respect for people. But people from E.Europe and S.Asia go to the M.East in droves, they have their reasons but that's a whole other topic.

Neither AC nor EK/EY are making it a secret that the battle is about connecting traffic. Obviously there is enough capacity right now for point-to-point between Canada and UAE. But why not let the consumer decide? Isn't it interesting that despite AC or its Star Alliance partners offerings through Europe, Emirates still flies with almost full A380s while charging much higher ticket prices? As a passenger to India, I would prefer one long flight to AUH or DXB and then a quick hop to any number of destinations with excellent frequency. You must admit that the UAE is geographically the perfect hub for India traffic.

That Toronto Star opinion piece is as 'balanced' as the Citizen's, but raises good points, especially the earlier proposed AC-EK alliance. Again I don't buy Emirates' claims of instant job creation, but I think they should do some investment in Canadian aviation infrastructure in exchange for such a lucrative market.

Numbers can be twisted to show whatever you want.
100% agree. Remember it goes both ways. AC and the gov't think daily flights from the UAE will affect "literally tens of thousands of jobs in Canada." Really? Break down that vague figure for me please.

As much as I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to the Canadian Gov't, the Conservatives in power have disappointed non-stop on domestic and international issues. Here's the latest: Harper questions the UAE as an ally, UAE wants apology. (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/921202--tories-mum-on-uae-demand-for-apology-in-dispute) This is not diplomacy. How does Harper have the gall to question the UAE as an ally after the complete failure of his government to act with any decency following the Dubai assassination?

As before, I maintain that the UAE and Canada can negotiate something mutually beneficial, and Canadians flying there and onwards would quickly realize the benefits. But as things stand, and by the way they're going, this mess is only going to degrade relations further.

Oh by the way, a follow up to my first post: Canadians are also screwed daily by the telecom duopoly that exists here.

[Married a Canadian]

To just blindly accept that Emirates having up to 10 or 15 more flights a week to Canada will somehow create 1900 extra jobs and 26 million in taxes is a perfect example of how naive some people can be

As is the notion that daily service from Emirates and Etihad will somehow lose 10000 jobs or whatever the quoted number was

Porter is not making money out of YTZ. They have yet to turn a profit and have a load factor barely over %50.

So why do Air Canada want to operate out of the island then if the slice of pie is that small? Competition perchance??

[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.

[Fingersmac]

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

Blah, blah, blah... these are tired old Air Canada stereotypes. It's great to see our national past-time of unfounded complaining about Air Canada has extended beyond our borders.

And do you mind explaining how their product is outdated and lethargic? I'd rather be in economy class on an AC B777 with 9 abreast seating then crammed into an EK B777 with 10 abreast seating.

[Married a Canadian]

There are several reasons it is cheaper to fly internationally. One is simply a matter of scale. You can put far more people in a 777 than in an EMB yet you still need ground support for both. (ramp support, gate support, catering etc etc.) Even taking into account the higher costs of operating the 777, the overall cost per pax, per mile will be less on a long overseas flight.
Second and in my mind the largest problem is the matter you already touched on, TAXES. Have you looked at the the landing fees in Canada? YYZ is the most expensive airport in the world to operate from. Have you looked at the NAVCANADA fees to operate in Canadian Airspace? Almost every airport in Canada has added its own AIF. In some cases it is as high as an extra $30 for every pax. Add in the already high government taxes and you have situations where the taxes and fees are more than the actual price of the ticket

BC....I agree with what you say above...but it comes back to a point I have made before. The airlines and airports HATE the high taxes and "rent" charged as is makes them less competitive. It is already known that a lot of people in the GTA bypass Pearson altogether and go to Buffalo, and articles linked to this debate say the same for Montreal and Vancouver.
This same government that everyone is lauding for their stance against EK is also making it difficult for YYZ and its domestic hosts to compete against the Americans et al by charging excessive rent and high taxes.
Toronto is in the top 20 when it comes to aircraft movements (yearly) yet can't even crack the top 30 in number of passengers. With the entire GTA to draw on...and beyond, plus the airport being a hub, those numbers should be way higher.

It is in the GTAAs interest for the govt to lower the rent.....AND increase competition/frequency of various airlines (including emirates IMO).

BTW Sydney (the comparison which is being made in this debate is Australia) ranks 40th in yearly traffic movements...yet is inside the top 30 for passengers and processes nearly 3 million more a year than Pearson. SACL must be loving it!

Regarding the NAV Canada fees...that is one I will look up out of interest (the A380 charge will be no small change I am sure) It is also for this reason that all the hotheads out there advocating "banning" EK from flying through Canadian airspace are operating outwith the boundries of reality. Losing revenue from a paying customer that does not cause us any problems would not be in the business plan.
NAV Canada infact would stand to gain if EK flew daily with increased revenue from increased frequency (if the plan was the A380)

[J.O.]

BTW Sydney (the comparison which is being made in this debate is Australia) ranks 40th in yearly traffic movements...yet is inside the top 30 for passengers and processes nearly 3 million more a year than Pearson. SACL must be loving it!

Sydney moves more passengers because they move more long range widebodies, whereas a large percentage of movements at YYZ are aircraft with less than 120 seats that are on shorter flights to domestic and US destinations. The Aussies also don't have any neighbouring countries that they can easily drive to when they travel. We've got the USA right next door with lots of great places to visit on holiday.

[fliion]

Yet another reason why you dont understand the debate on inflight product.

All the money is made in the premium cabins and on that note the debate between AC & EK is over - there is no debate.

While the old legacy carriers are keeping 9 abreast the innovative are making sure that the extra squeeze is made up for.

Get with the times...oh wait, no need to. The govt will provide the pax, not the product.

The price sensitive will grab the rear. Most of EK's pax are not glutinous overweight North Americans. They will gladly take the superior entertainment (100's of Indian channels) and dining for the tighter width -not to mention the dreaded European stop-over.

f.

[clunckdriver]

First, a bit of background, I have spent far too much time sitting at a large table trying to negotiate with folks from various sand boxes in the ME. Having said that I have to tell you that there are events taking place in the ME which are going to make this whole thread go away. What has started in Iran and Tunisia is going to crash through the Arab world like a flood through Holland, thus removing those who run these countries from their positions and abilities to go on such spending rampages be it Airbus 380s or military hardware. How long will it take? Good question, depends on the response from the military in each of these fiefdoms, who will take over? Lets hope democracy, but it could go as Iran did, one despot being replaced with a radical group of religious Zelots or Taliban like organisation. For those ex pats thinking this wont take place, good luck, but if you think the folks on the street are going to continue to build the tallest building or buy the bigest aircraft just to satisfy a few elite at the top you have a jolt coming your way! Its time to start moving your assets out to a safer place, mind you some of you are ahead of the game when it comes to this.For those who may decry my thread, lets have this same discusion five years from now, OK?

[a330pilotcanada]

Good Evening All:

A good post from "Clunkdriver" who as you can assume has a wealth of experience (military, airline and commercial) in calling a spade a &^%$ shovel.

To add to my previous post basing on my recent holiday in New Zealand and talking to the locals on their aviation life. To restate New Zealand has a population of just over 4 million people.

Emirates has four daily flights to New Zealand three daily to Auckland (AKL) and one to Christchurch (CHC). AKL has three daily of which one is an A-380 (489 seats) and two B-777 (380 seats) and the other to CHC being a B-777 (380 seats). Seat Guru was used as a source for the number of seats.

In one year, again New Zealand being a country of 4 million people that is 594,585 seats that Emirates has to New Zealand.

So with that uplift capability what does this do for Air New Zealand and their small fleet? After flying on them they have a superior product with very helpful staff.

The five years that Clunkdriver alludes to might be too late for this fine airline.

Do we want a foreign "family compact" run airline in our country? I would say yes but with sizeable conditions in place and the first one is an apology to Canada for the 30 day move out for Camp Mirage. How ever that will never happen as based on my limited experience of being in the middle east "face" is more important to them and this would be viewed as a sign of weakness.

[clunckdriver]

I trust all living in the various Sand boxes are watching the goings on in the ME with more than a little interest? {My mother always told me it was rude to say "I told you so!"} so I wont, however judging by the number of heavy metal aircraft heading for various Tax Havens of late I think its time you guys maybe started thinking about doing the same,the Internet is proving to be a very potent force when it comes to political change!

[Skylion]

This is meant to be about aviation and aviation politics not whether folk like regimes or not. The Gulf is a very different thing to the North African states, who in turn differ from the Levant countries (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq) and of course Iran isn't Arab,- it's Persian.
The basic fact of this argument are that Canada is protective of its legacy carrier , Air Canada, whose service levels are way below the Gulf, Asian and many other carriers and the country , other than for overflying , is an insignificant player in the current international airline world. Apart from anything else, the Gulf just happens to be in the right place to connect from almost anywhere in the world one stop to anywhere else,- and it energetically provides this service 24/7. Just look at the Dubai departures board at any time of day or night,- and then look at the same at any Canadian airport. The story is there.

[Left Coaster]

Great advice there "Clunk"...I suppose you have a job waiting for me? One that matches (or beats) my current situation? Given the current state of aviation back in the Great White North, why wouldn't all of us working guys and girls here in the ME simply move home...where we all can rejoin at the bottom of a seniority list at such excellent wages and conditions...oh wait...I have a family to support, never mind, what was I thinking...:rolleyes:

[clunckdriver]

No, nobody is sugesting you move, but there is an old saying about having all ones eggs in one basket. The ME is about to change, for the better? We all hope so, but if you need an example of how quickly things can go of the rails I sugest you do some reading on what took place at MEA when Lebanon imploded. {The stories of the pilots and others keeping things going in spite of abductions and mayhem in the streets is a tribute to all of them} In the mean time try not to resort to personel insults when others may not share your views . As I said in a previous post, lets talk again in five years, OK?

[Johnny767]

From the Ottawa Citizen:


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

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

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.

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, 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."

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

Note to I Sheik my Drawers...hit the road.

How many of these inbreds, paid off someone for a Licence and now fly for UAE Airlines?

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.

[YYZ_spotter]

Well, the SH!T has most definitely hit the fan in the "NA" part of MENA; for the sake of the oppressed people, I hope it spreads and that a just leader fills the vacuum.

Maybe I'm being naive, but does anyone else think that this revolution will actually result in an economic boom in a year or two? Considering most of these countries have been ruled with an iron fist for decades, and their economies and people have suffered as a result, maybe a new open-market will bring some genuine prosperity, and possibly a surge in industry (including aviation) in the region, instead of worst-case scenario of doom and gloom.

As for that Ottawa Citizen column...not again :ugh:...as tough as Mr. Kenny tries to sound, his article is not very convincing.

[Married a Canadian]

BTW Emirates got their daily into Toronto yesterday as their New York flight had to divert due to weather.
All they need is New York to close on a daily basis and voila...sorted.

[Willie Everlearn]

clunckdriver is spot on.

Advance warning/advice heeded now could pay dividends for you expats later on.

Funny things happen in the ME. Like what happened to those who'd amassed tidy little $um$ in the BCCI in the 90s. In a heartbeat, hundreds of thousands of expat $aving$ and inve$tment$ evaporated. Who's will it be next???

One thing's for sure and certain, it will be interesting when the day comes for the returning Canadians to see where they think they are going to find an "acceptable" pilot position in this country.

Strategies anyone?

Willie :ok:

[sec 3]

Many canucks I work with won't be returning to canada to live. Too much tax, too little in return. There are many other countries in the world to live which are just as good if not better. Different strokes....

[Johnny767]

You'll be back here in a 'nano second' flashing your Citizenship when you are in dire need of a Nursing Home.

Like everyone else.

After a career of paying no taxes, you will be happy to - get in line - to milk the system.

For which we (the taxpayers of Canada) should ...Politely...tell you to go eff yourself!

[engfireleft]

You'll be back here in a 'nano second' flashing your Citizenship when you are in dire need of a Nursing Home. Precisely. Or if they happen to need evacuation from somewhere.

When they give up their citizenship then I'll believe they have no use for Canada anymore.

[sec 3]

Hey AC pinheads, did I mention myself? I don't think I did.

[Left Coaster]

Hey Johnny...do you actually know what the hell you're talking about? It costs to come back...ask the question...if a non resident Canadian isn't contributing to his taxman...is he contributing to his CPP? So having said that, what kind of money is your returning (and elderly by your reckoning) Canuck using to live it up in that nursing home you mention? Another note for you to think about...how many of these non resident Canadians actually want to return to retire? The only ones I know who want to come back will be starting a flying job in corporate or in a senior direct entry job, (and the number of those guys is small)...way above the paygrade offered at the bottom of some seniority list...and the old saying about walking a mile in a man's shoes might apply in this case...do you have any off shore experience? (Serious question) and for how long if you do?
Cheers. LC

[Jimmy Hoffa Rocks]

Johnny

I agree with the hard line against emirates you have to be tough with these people.

In my case I left Canada because I was laid off from a established Canadian airline:

I left Canada as I had no work and two small children, because I had to.

Where I live in the south of Europe the medical care is better and it is warmer

I take offense to the nursing home remark as I know others were forced to leave if wanted to remain as pilots. Yes

Not everyone has cushy AC jobs in Canada and I feel some AC guys are spoilt. and do not know pain, others do.

Would we come back to work for Westjet ?

When I come back to Canada I contribute to the economy. I pay tax and a lot too where I live. If I were to come back in retirement I would also be contributing.


Unfortunately doubt I will fly out of Canada again, cant afford to. Sad about it, yes.

[Wxgeek]

"Can he tell me of any country of the world which does not consider its air transport industry, be that an individual airline or a multitude of them, as part of national interests?

Exactly. This is the reason why Emirates should be kept out of Canada

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


Qatar Airways CEO hits back at criticism of Gulf carriers


* Al Baker responds to comments by European airline body
* Says European airlines should "accept competition"

By Regan E. Doherty

DOHA, Feb 10 (Reuters) - Qatar Airways Chief Executive Officer Akbar Al Baker on Thursday hit back at criticism that Gulf airlines were a threat to the global aviation industry, saying European carriers should "accept competition."

Al Baker defended Gulf carriers after comments made last month by the secretary general of the Association of European Airlines, Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, at a meeting of the International Aviation Club in Washington DC.

Schulte-Strathaus suggested Gulf airlines were run as part of a national strategy and a "vertically integrated economic chain" and in contrast to the way in which other carriers around the globe were operated.

"Can he tell me of any country of the world which does not consider its air transport industry, be that an individual airline or a multitude of them, as part of national interests? Has not the position of the U.S. consistently been to preserve the national identity and ownership of the U.S. airlines?" Al Baker said.

"The European airlines were pioneers in a large number of areas. We in the Gulf airlines community have learnt a lot from them. They should accept competition and that the customer is in the driver's seat."

The rapid expansion of Qatar Airways, Dubai's Emirates EMIRA.UL and Etihad of Abu Dhabi has unnerved older airlines and fuelled mutual accusations of protectionism. Many carriers fear Gulf-based superjumbos will drain their own hubs.

Air Canada's (ACa.TO (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=ACa.TO))(ACb.TO (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=ACb.TO)) chief executive last year accused Emirates of wanting to "flood" Canadian skies with airline seats so it can scoop up travellers and divert them through Dubai.

"(Schulte-Strathaus's) comments weren't made off the cuff. They were made out of a deep-seated concern that the seismic shifts in the industry are being driven by forces other than market ones," David Henderson, information manager for the Association of European Airlines, told Reuters.

"European airlines' competitiveness has been severely damaged in the wake of the recession. The more we look, the more we are concerned that (Gulf carriers) are developing a business model apart from the one that we are used to, and we are asking questions about it."

Qatar, the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, is building a new airport with the capacity to accommodate 50 million passengers per year.

Qatar Airways said in December it is planning to launch an initial public offering (IPO) in early 2012 after three consecutive years of profit. (Reporting by Regan E. Doherty; Editing by Jon Loades-Carter)

[jinglied]

Hey there Johnny767!!!

While we're at it...

Let's tell Wayne Gretzky, Neil Young, Shania Twain, Dan Akroyd, Jim Carrie,...
.... to go "eff themselves" too!!!

Jinglie'd

[Yobbo]

JINGLIED

You forgot IGNATIEFF , he spent 20 odd years in the States.

[clunckdriver]

Let us pray that he returns to the US ASAP!

[CaptW5]

Emirates’ Ambitions Worry European Rivals

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/business/13emirates.html?src=me&ref=business

[Left Coaster]

I have a few questions...did anyone see that Qantas has just published a significant profit (net) despite the serious increase in the Australian market recently by Emirates? Additionally, did not Qantas complain bitterly about that "attack" on their sovereign airspace by allowing EK to expand, as a potential huge loss of revenue? Why then, is Air Canada unable to readjust, and reinvent, and reposition themselves to protect the business of carrying passengers in their own market as Emirates looks to expand? Like Qantas seems to have accomplished? I would put it here that they can't and won't, preferring to simply hide behind a lobby...while whining and posturing that they are competitive already and would lose market share if Emirates were to be allowed to expand and operate more flights to Canada. It's a shameful lie...and the Harper government is believing it...In addition, have a look at the numbers reported ($$$) that will be lost as revenue and tax revenue as up to 30% more traffic will cross the US border from Canada to save up to 50% (!!!) on tickets and taxes by flying on US carriers...so what is it then? Is the policy of protecting Air Canada at all costs going to destroy the market for the Canadian consumer? I sure think its possible! Sadly those numbers are indicative of the poor handling by the government...and all that potential revenue to both AC and the taxman will be lost to the US carriers and Uncle Sam...all so Air Canada can stay afloat...maybe a shareholder or two with some guts should ask the question of Rovenescu...Just what are you playing at? The books at Qantas prove it can be done...get on with your job of growing our company and quit hiding behind the government...it's time to stop lying. :=

[J.O.]

I always find it interesting when someone with a clear vested interest in the outcome waves the finger at someone else for having the exact same thing. :rolleyes:

[clunckdriver]

Left Coaster and Banana Air, I wonder in view of recent events in the ME you both might like to ad any amendments to posts 405 and 406 of this thread? And do try to keep away from personel insults, thank you!

[Left Coaster]

Hiya Clunk! I will not resort to any "personel" insults nor will I insult you! The current events in the ME certainly will have some impact on some, no doubt. Nevertheless, can you tell me what it has to do with competition and level playing fields and a reluctance to open up a route or two? Now before you point out the already well covered diplomatic tussle that may (but more than likely not) be well and honestly covered in the media, I would say that the Libyan crisis and fair competition and the reluctance of the Canadian govt to allow more flights are two VERY separate issues. The media howls about dictatorships in certain middle eastern countries, but so far I don't see any valid comparisons between Libya and the same ones mentioned in one or two articles widely published...not even close is it? Ghadaffi gets what he deserves according to international standards. So as far as I am concerned there is no way to link the actions of AC, and Canada to anything now occuring in Africa.

[nolimitholdem]

The fact that you compare EK in Australia with EK trying to get a foothold in Canada only demonstrates that you really don't have a very strong understanding of the industry. Yet you conveniently link situations when it suits you and ignore the ones that don't support your opinion.

Not exactly a strong position to debate from. Have you ever even lived in the Middle East or traveled to Australia? Or you are you just repeating an argument you heard someone else use that sounded clever to you. Just curious.

[Left Coaster]

Wow...nolimitholdem...are you talking to me? If you are, then reread the post about QANTAS actually making a profit DESPITE EK's attack on the Autralian market. Then read (again) about how AC is howling about 2 maybe 4 new markets for BOTH UAE carriers and claiming they will lose market share...then after you have fully understood the post, try your rebuttle again. At the moment, it looks to me that you shot yourself in the foot, and emptied the whole clip before your gun cleared the holster. As for what part of the world I live in and how much I know about the airline industry? I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you! If you aren't talking to me, then have a nice day...I've played 45 holes in the last two days, and need to have a nice cold one, it's warming up here!

[clunckdriver]

Left Coaster and Banana, I gues I didnt make it clear, my last post was in reply to you guys indicating that I dont know a darn thing about the ME, I think my predictions are turning out pretty well spot on, certainly better than some of the "Experts" on the CBC,{Where do they find some of these bozos?} So just for the record here are some more predictions, the push from the various populations in North Africa and the ME will not go away, in the end the Royal Families and elite at the top of the heap in ALL the ME and North Africa will be sent packing, when? it will take time as they have the guns but happen it will, we now have the situation of one Arab country invading another and killing the citizens in a vain attempt to retain controll. When this does take place you can forget all about job security and mega orders for aircraft,{ Airbus has already worked this out by the way} the populations have had enough of mega structures and all the trapings of conspictous consumption. The fly in the ointment is of course OIL, the West just cant tell the despots and dictators to get out without security of energy supplies, even the RS Airforce contract is being questioned in the USA, interesting times for sure, lets hope that sanity will prevail, but I have my doubts on this score. Given the present and future situation do you really think that Canada should roll over and allow our strategic airlift {that would be our airlines by the way} be destroyed by what is going to finish up as a "flash in the pan", flame away all you like, in five years we can talk again.

[nolimitholdem]

hey leftcoaster,

trying to sound cool with "I'd tell you but I'd have to kill ya" isn't really an argument, unless you're eleven years old. The spelling of such words as "Autralian" or "rebuttle" doesn't exactly bolster your case either, I don't generally debate with the functionally illiterate.

But, wearily, my points are thus: comparing the Australian market with the Canadian one is only displaying your ignorance to the world, as is trying to suggest that EK was only looking for the pittance in market share you suggest. Guess again. I don't know if you're just misinformed or willfully spreading nonsense and frankly, I don't care.

It's all moot anyway, for the time being. Emirates-be-gone from Canada, for now. Long may that continue. They're gonna have enough problems recruiting to man their delusions of grandeur anyway, but that's another topic for another thread.

[Left Coaster]

Nolimit for sure...is that all ya got? Oh well, I was looking forward to a somewhat intelligent debate, but all I get is nit picking...yawn...I can get that anywhere. Guess it's off to the golf course instead, and seeing as you have me down as a teenaged idiot who knows nothing about the industry I have spent over 30 years in (so far) I suppose I'll just have to be be happy that you AC boys are all being tarred with the same Ennis brush...now THERE's an idiot...enjoy your wait for your turn at the top...

[clunckdriver]

Left Coaster, "Tarred with the same brush?", This is by no means the case in the press which I get to read, quite the opposite in fact, most I have seen do in fact point out the gulf between this fellow and the vast majority who in retirment seem to be busy with such things as restoring artifacts in one of our national museums, running "Meals on wheels" driving /flying cancer patients for treatment, running Air Cadets/ RC model club/ Gliding Club, and God knows what all. Be it as it may, enjoy your golf, if and when you do retire you may find like many that one gets far to busy to waste time hitting little white balls around a field. As has been said before , "Just cant figure out how I ever had time to work!"

[Left Coaster]

Dear Clunk...
Happily this has nothing to do with most...(the wild swings of Mr Nolimits is seemingly a personal attack...) The few who want the total 65 package now front and centre in the press spoil the hard work of those who retire and make their golden years shine by all the great things they do. I have watched my own father spend huge amounts of time volunteering and helping those less fortunate after he retired (37 years in the business) My utmost respect goes to those who take on extra duties after a long and excellent career in aviation. The petty mumblings of those who seek to climb over others for their own personal gain (or just to try to feel superior) get no respect from me and many others feel the same. My hat is off to you and those who deserve the respect for thier quiet and wonderful work. Happy days..and I had a great time on the course! :}

[clunckdriver]

OK Left Coaster, the truth! How many balls went AWOL and whats you REAL handicap,not to be confused with the one you tell at the bar! {Sorry, thread drift} As for the "Golden Years", Lord Beverbroke got it right when he said "Old age is a curse", after the life he led and his achievments {Minister of everything} he found getting old very difficult to take.

[Left Coaster]

1 (one) and 16 (sixteen)...you can pick the one you like! Cheers...:eek:

[innuendo]

Clunk,
Obviously you are among those unfortunate souls that do not have the addiction for the game and therefore have no understanding of what drives those of us who do.
As such you cannot realise that if golf had another name it would not be another four letter word, but something on the lines of "Hope Springs Eternal".

Nothing has more hope attached to it than a new scorecard on the first tee.
It is what keeps us coming back.

PS. And I don't want to hear anything about repeating the same thing and expecting a different result. ;)

[J.O.]

And I don't want to hear anything about repeating the same thing and expecting a different result.

As you said, hope springs eternal! There's always a chance of a bogie-free round hiding somewhere in the golf bag! :)

[innuendo]

There's always a chance of a bogie-free round hiding somewhere in the golf bag!

The depressing truth is that a bogie free round is achieved by only a very few gifted golfers out of the many who play, but every golfer can dream, even though you will never "Get Golf". The day it becomes predictable you will give it up.

[555orange]

I agree with Nolimit.

First, Canada and Australia are very different markets for a few important reasons. Maybe not important to you....

Second, there are others at the table that are willing to benefit Canada more than UAE are.

Third, it's Canada's assets for sale, not UAEs to take.

Fourth, free market does not mean you can fly where and when you want. I know the name implies that, but if you truly believe that you are a uneducated fool. Second part to that, it does not benefit Canada by having one with the UAE. The reason why are a mile long and have been beaten to death. Do your own homework.

Final point: The routes were always there FOR SALE. If you want it then first, behave professionally (sorry UAE you blew your wad on that note), and second ANTE UP.

[a330pilotcanada]

Good Morning All:

Although this thread has gone cold due to people running out of discussion points.

I have inserted the following from BBC World which might shed light on how "politics" are run in that side of the world.


Qatar's Bin Hammam accused of buying 2022 World Cup
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
Page last updated at 10:55 GMT, Monday, 30 May 2011 11:55 UK

Warner faces the media with the email he purports to have come from Valcke
Suspended Fifa vice-president Jack Warner has made public an e-mail that claims Mohamed Bin Hammam "bought" the 2022 World Cup finals for Qatar.
Fifa general secretary Jerome Valcke admitted he sent the e-mail, which also questioned why Asian football boss Bin Hammam was running for Fifa president.
Valcke wrote: "[Hammam] thought you can buy Fifa as they bought the World Cup."
However, Valcke said "it was a private e-mail" and pointed out that Warner had only published selected parts of it.
"He [Warner] sent me an email asking if I want that [Bin Hammam to run for Fifa president], he said that I should ask Bin Hammam to pull out," Valcke added.
Valcke also denied that he had influenced Fifa's ethics committee which Fifa suspended Warner and Bin Hammam (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13590264.stm) on Sunday over separate allegations of bribery, pending further investigation.
He stated: "The first time I met the chairman of the ethics committee was yesterday [Sunday] at 1700 before we went to the press conference. I had no contact at all with anyone."
Bin Hammam was suspended a matter of hours after withdrawing from the Fifa presidential race on Sunday morning.
His decision leaves 75-year-old incumbent Sepp Blatter, who is seeking a fourth term in charge of the organisation he has run unopposed since 1998, as the only man running for the office. Blatter is due to hold a news conference on Monday at 1700 BST.
Fifa has said its election will go ahead, as scheduled, on Wednesday.
Warner, who is president of the North, Central American and Caribbean confederation (Concacaf), has reacted angrily to the allegations of bribery and the Fifa ethics committee's decision to suspend him.
The Trinidad and Tobago government minister raged: "I look on the suspension as the worst form of justice by any sporting organisation.
Continue reading the main story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/13592684.stm#skip_feature_02)
You don't have to believe me, you don't have to like me, nobody has to eat with me, drink with me or sleep with me but Jesus Christ, take the truth when you see it
Jack Warner
"They came premeditated, they weren't prepared to listen, they were hand-picked to do a task and they did just that.
"The guys were hand-picked by Blatter. A kangaroo court would be a decent thing to say."
Warner, who also turned on Valcke, stated: "I wrote to Valcke telling him, among other things, that the outcome of the [Fifa presidential] elections may cause some fracture in the Arab world which we can ill afford now and that I will like to ask Bin Hammam to withdraw from the race.
"To which Jerome replied to me and I quote: 'For MBH [Mohamad Bin Hammam], I never understood why he was running. If really he thought he had a chance or just being an extreme way to express how much he does not like anymore JSB [Joseph Sepp Blatter].
"Or he thought you can buy Fifa as they [Qatar] bought the WC [World Cup]'."
Warner showed the e-mail to television crews and added: "You don't have to believe me, you don't have to like me, nobody has to eat with me, drink with me or sleep with me but Jesus Christ, take the truth when you see it."
Warner has also accused Blatter of making a gift of computers and an unauthorised $1m (£607,000) to Concacaf officials.
"I indicated that at the Miami Concacaf Congress on 3 May Mr Blatter made a gift of $1m to Concacaf to spend as it deems fit," Warner said in a statement.
"This annoyed [Uefa] president Michel Platini who was present and he approached secretary general Jerome Valcke complaining that Mr Blatter had no permission from the finance committee to make this gift to which Jerome replied that he will find the money for Mr Blatter.
"I also indicated Fifa, through Mr Blatter, organised gifts of laptops and projectors to all members of the Caribbean and no objections have been made today of this to date."
Click to play
Deputy chair of Fifa's ethics committee, Petrus Damaseb: "Mr Bin Hammam is hereby provisionally banned from taking part in any kind of football-related activity"
However, Platini said on Monday that he was having a joke with Blatter.
The Frencham said: "He [Blatter] can give [to] the projects that he wants to give. I joke, I said 'but Sepp this was not accepted by the committee' - but he can give many projects to many national associations and we will confirm in the GOAL project after.
"In many Congresses for many, many years the president can give one or two projects to national associations - he has his own budget and he can give to one confederation and then it has to be approved of course by the executive committee next time."
Blatter has denied any wrong-doing as have Warner and Hammam, who are accused of offering financial incentives to members of the Caribbean Football Union.
In a file of evidence it was claimed bundles of cash of up to $40,000 (£24,200) were handed over to members of the CFU at the meeting in Trinidad on 10 and 11 May.
The payments were allegedly made to secure votes for Bin Hammam in his campaign to challenge Blatter for the presidency.
Bin Hammam effectively claimed Blatter was aware of some of the wrongdoing but the Fifa president did not report it, in itself a breach of Fifa's ethics code, but he was found to have no case to answer.
And last week, Qatar 2022 World Cup officials denied allegations, published in the Sunday Times, that they paid bribes in return for votes. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13499697.stm)
Meanwhile, independent Australian senator Nick Xenophon has demanded that Fifa refunds the Aus$45.6m (£29.6m) they spent on their unsuccessful bid to host the 2022 World Cup.
Xenophon said: "It appears corrupt and highly questionable behaviour goes to the core of Fifa.
"Australia spent almost $46m on a bid we were never in the running for.
"Now we hear that bribes may have been made to fix the result for who will head up Fifa."
According to the Reuters news agency, China's Zhang Jilong will take charge of the Asian Football Confederation in the absence of Hammam.

Click to play
Advertisement
Blatter must be stopped - Warner

[Dropp the Pilot]

Oddly enough there is a newspaper editorial here in Dubai this morning which snidely cocks a snook at Air Canada with a leader that says "here is how 'politics' are run on that side of the world!"

The article is about a match-fixing in Cuban baseball.

Scathing, eh?

[clunckdriver]

Cuba,Canada, well they both start with a "C" dont they? Then they must be the same place!

[Mark_Space]

Why not resurrect this thread, yet again....?

Article in this month's Economist:

Canada and the United Arab Emirates: Penny wise | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2011/07/canada-and-united-arab-emirates)

I don't know who the mysterious author "M.D." is, but his writings as the Canuckistani Correspondent exhibit a distinct anti-Harper bias...

[clunckdriver]

Total crap! What minister Baird said, {he aint exactly known to be very PC!} was" get stuffed," which reflects the sentiments of most Canadians with an IQ above room temp in degrees C! Our memorial to our dead has now been moved back to Canada, after all sorts of obstruction from the locals, are they so God -damn stupid that they dont understand what this does to public opinion in Canada? It seems they are indeed that bloody dumb and stupid, " stuff them all "is the sentiment I hear around my home town.

[GMC1500]

Well, if you read the comments to the article, it seems most Canadians are unhappy with the govt's handling of the situation.

[fatbus]

At least Canada did not give in to the UAE bully!!

[GMC1500]

No, they gave in to the Lufthansa bully.

[PacWest]

Well, if you read the comments to the article, it seems most Canadians are unhappy with the govt's handling of the situation.

Well, if you read just who is making those comments in that British ultra-leftwing rag it would be quite apparent that not one of them were Canadian.

As well, this Economist writer in his/her obvious disdain for the 'Conservative' Prime Minister of Canada is either ignorant of the fact or chose to omit the fact that the Federal Government (not Stephen Harper) legislated back-to-work rules to both Air Canada and -- the government owned Canada Post office. Also, perhaps this leftwinger should have checked on the amount of the loan to the Feds
Air Canada now owes before blithely spewing his/her misleading information? Of course that is just too much to expect from the usual attitudes Canadians have been subjected to by their so-called across the pond 'superiors'.

And, at least our Feds are busily re-building our armed forces after Afghanistan unlike the labor-lite
Cameron Coalition which is busily firing thousands of their armed forces, sinking carriers, et al. and this Econo. writer writes a sneering piece on Canada's
Defence Minister and armed forces.

Pffffft.

[Yobbo]

PacWest

Well put! You have it exactly right.

[Rather Be Skiing]

PacWest, it seems naive to think decisions like legislating unions back to work would happen without direct input from Harper.

As I recall, it is not the 'Federal' or 'Canadian' government it is, at his direction, the 'Harper' government.

Your disdain for anyone with a more left of center position is readily apparent. I don't believe 'left wing' = wrong while 'right wing' is necessarily correct.

Why is it "quite apparent" to you that not one of the comments is from a Canadian? There are many Canadians that don't share the 'protect AC/Star Alliance' position of the government. Many consumers and other businesses in Canada see the obvious upside to greater transport links to the rest of the world.

[Mark_Space]

Madelaine Drohan. I mistakenly call she a he...

[Basset hound]

PacWest; please enlighten us as to how much outstanding loans is owed to the Government by Air Canada. I suggest the answer is "zero". When one thinks about landing fees, airport rents, corporate taxes, fuel taxes, personal income taxes.... one soon realizes that Air Canada is a "cash cow" that the Federal Government (Stephen Harper) is not about to stop milking.

[Panama Jack]

All of this discussion is rather interesting, and I guess the UAE can, in the end, claim a "moral victory," seeing as Canada has now withdrawn the majority of its troops from Afghanistan (as of this month) with the remaining few returning home by December 2011.

What do I mean about a UAE "moral victory?" Well, let us not forget the recent history in relations between the UAE and Afghanistan. Although in control of Afghanistan's capital,Kabul, and most of the country for five years, the Taliban's Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. After the attacks of September 11 2001 the Taliban regime was overthrown by Operation Enduring Freedom.

Canada's role in Afghanistan was part of a larger international coalition from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Romania, Denmark, Belgium, Czech Republic, Norway, Bulgaria, and many other members of the European Union as well Turkey, South Korea, Azerbaijan, Singapore and a few other non-NATO members to attempt to restore some form of normality and security to a historically victimized country. In light of the broad international effort and unbeknownst to many, the UAE did send a small contingent of aid to the battered country. However given its wealth, close proximity to the country, token-support post-Taliban and its questionable support of the Taliban during their stay in power it is fair to question where the UAE's core values lay in all of this.

[MackTheKnife]

Dictator of the skies : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/dictator-of-the-skies/1094497028001)

[a330pilotcanada]

Good Afternoon Mack The Knife:

Thank you for posting the video as it speaks volumes and it is too bad Captain Strachan did not have more air time to explain more of the myths........

[Left Coaster]

What a script writer this so called reporter must have...old news and sour grapes...:{

[J.O.]

Obviously you haven't been to Canada or flown on AC in about 20 years. You haters don't want to hear it, but things have changed. Is it perfect - no. But it is not the dinosaur it once was.

[GMC1500]

That interview was hillarious! I thought I was watching foxnews! Holy cow, when did Canada get so right wing? And I agree that they need protection because they'd rathter have it than be forced to improve their product. As capt Strachan points out, they can't afford to improve it.
I've flown on them hundreds of times and continue to 8 times per year, so I'm very familiar with their product. It hasn't improved.
Question, why is westjet not making all this noise about emirates?

But the whole point of the interview is a red herring. Emirates has no interest in flying point to point in Canada, it doesn't in any country it flies to. So how is it going to kill AC by bringing more pax into canada, from where alot of them will connect to domestic flights?

And they should fire their research department. Emirates began in 1985, not the early or mid 90s as capt Strachan thinks. And the pics they show of the terminal is the old one, if they think that's nice, they should see the new one.

[Married a Canadian]

Question, why is westjet not making all this noise about emirates?

I am on the side of Emirates flying in here more...but this question seems fairly obvious to me in that Westjet don't fly "international" ie Europe and Asia...and don't have a very large codeshare network yet either. If they had joined the One world alliance a couple of years ago then you might hear a bit more noise but they make their money on Point to Point Canada, Canada-US and Canada-Sunshine destinations.
None of those are really in Emirates sights....to my knowledge.

[Willie Everlearn]

OMG

Is this topic still a topic? :ugh:

Emirates has all the service it needs or should ever need to this country, full stop. :mad:
Because not getting what they want interferes with their plan to 'dominate the airline world' which might well be in danger if too many countries also tell them to pi**off. Well, exxcuuuuuuse us. :D

Whatever happened to free enterprise?:eek:

Easy that. It doesn't exist in the world of airlines and state protectionism.:=
unless, of course, you're talking about someone very near the top rung of a dictatorial regime who has (had) wodges of money and influence to buy and finance their very own airline. Purchase a huge widebody fleet of "the world's largest passenger aeroplanes" to serve every concieveable market in the world without the slightest expectation of resistance from lesser financially able countries, like Canada.

Well, that someone, as it turns out, would be wrong in that assumption.

Willie Everlearn

[atrflyguy]

WOW I SAY AGAIN WOW They should both just shut their mouths until they learn the facts truth etc. As a Canadian I am disgusted with there lack of truth and knowledge. I wonder just how much money the Canadian Govt has given A/C in bailouts over there history? I bet it is as much or more than the so called State Airline Emirates????!!!! It started flying on Oct 25th 1985 with two leased A/C. Not gifted......

[bcflyer]

WOW

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

WOW I SAY AGAIN WOW They should both just shut their mouths until they learn the facts truth etc. As a Canadian I am disgusted with there lack of truth and knowledge. I wonder just how much money the Canadian Govt has given A/C in bailouts over there history? I bet it is as much or more than the so called State Airline Emirates????!!!!

Perhaps you should take your own advice and do some research of your own. The Canadian Govt has NOT bailed A/C out. Period. In fact they are one of the reasons A/C is in the shape it is. Have a read of the Air Canada Participation Act. Then have a look at the amount of tax A/C pays every year. Air Canada is a cash cow for the Govt.

[fatbus]

Air Canada is a cash cow for the Govt.


I still cant stop laughing. By the way how about all the loans to AC guaranteed by the govt.From what you say they must be all paid back,,,,,NOT

[Lost in Saigon]

The loans were not frm the Govt. They were from third parties.

A loan guarantee is not the same as a loan. My understanding is that the Govt just said Air Canada was a "Good Risk" and would "Guarantee" that any lender would get their money back.

[hercrat]

Air Canada bailout buys time - but Canada Inc sells out to forces of protectionism | Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation - CAPA (http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2009/08/07/air-canada-bailout-buys-time---but-canada-inc-sells-out-to-forces-of-protectionism/page1)

EDC provides 150 million in financing for Air Canada
OTTAWA) – July 29, 2009 – Export Development Canada (EDC) today announced that it has provided $150 million towards a $600 million credit facility for Air Canada involving four other lenders, including the Government of Canada.
“EDC’s new domestic powers have allowed it to provide timely and critical financing to Air Canada, with our involvement supporting significant and tangible benefits to Canada,” said Eric Siegel, President and CEO.
The loan is provided on commercial terms and at market rates consistent with the risk profile of the transaction.
EDC’s support is complemented by that of Government of Canada, which has lent $100 million through its Canada Account. The other lenders include ACE Aviations Holdings Inc., General Electric Capital Markets and Aeroplan.
Canada Account is used when a transaction falls outside the scope of EDC's Corporate Account, usually due to a combination of risks, including the size of the transaction, market risks, country capacity, borrower risks or the financing conditions, but nevertheless is determined by the federal government to be in Canada's national interest.
EDC is Canada’s export credit agency, offering innovative commercial solutions to help Canadian exporters and investors expand their international business. EDC’s knowledge and partnerships are used by more than 8,300 Canadian companies and their global customers in up to 200 markets worldwide each year. EDC is financially self-sustaining, is a recognized leader in financial reporting and economic analysis, and has been recognized as one of Canada’s Top 100 Employers for eight consecutive years.
-30-
Media contact: 
Phil Taylor 
Export Development Canada
Tel: (613) 598-2904 
Blackberry: [email protected]

...............

[fliion]

Boys and girls: Simply put its Geography.

I you are at either end of the world you cant make point to point work...if your are in the middle...you can connect the dots.

Newcastle-Sydney ...No

Calgary - Colombo....No

Only a matter of time...and before the AC crowd get too high on their moral horse, they agreed to let EK penetrate Canada for 50% of the profits a number of years ago and EK said no - at which point it was "well if we cant do business with them" lets attack (not sure why morally they sought a deal with the so called 'dictator in the skies' in the first place - after all its about principle right?.....riiiiiggghhht)

Awful lot of imported cars built by labourers in Asia zoomong around the streets of Canada...the consumer will ultimately prevail...at which point...shall we say "schadenfreude"

This isn't about human rights or competitive fairness - its about a business model that cannot work. Let Capt Luddite scream...it wont stop the paradigm global shift in hub dynamics.

f.

[Willie Everlearn]

Lame. Lame. Lame.
I'll have you know my Korean SUV was built in Georgia!!!
My Japanese 4 door was built right here in Canada.

Try again.

Wait a minute. Isn't that a paradigm shift?
Geez, you might be onto something.:ok:

Willie Everlearn

[fliion]

If the intellectual capacity of your response is: "I dont drive a car made in Asia" so the argument is wrong..

Well, lets just say I feel a lot better now if uber-strategists like you are what EK are up against.

f.

[GMC1500]

That's your argument? That your Korean car was made in Canada, or Georgia (you do mean the USA, and not the former soviet state?):}

I don't keep daily tabs of the southern Ont auto market, but I seem to recall hearing the news hasn't been too good over there lately, what with starting wages at $20+/hr. And didn't I hear something about Magna (Frank/Belinda Stronach) being in some big trouble regarding the decline in auto manufacturing?

I think your next car might be built in Mexico, what do you think?

Oh, and I just read today about how Stephen Harper is defending his position to have more free trade with Columbia, as others are criticizing his position based on the human rights record there. Funny.

[atrflyguy]

bcflyer read hercrats post.... 1+1=2 still. Willie yes your car (s) were made in North America but if you think for one second the profets you gave them by buying it all stayed there then you are sadly naive. If anyone believes that a job will be lost in Canada because EK and others start flying there a bit more then I would say your flat out wrong.

[a330pilotcanada]

Good Morning Atrflyguy:

I will use a previous posting of mine which succinctly illustrates the uplift capability of Emirates using my recent time in New Zealand. I would use the analogy of locusts in a wheat field if they came into CYVR, CYYC, CYEG, CYYZ, CYUL, and maybe CYHZ if they came into Canada. With the high costs of aviation in Canada (e.g. B-747-400 landing fee $9000:00 plus in YYZ, fuel taxes 15% greater than south of the border, Air Canada Participation Act etc all of the cream (if it still exists) is gone.

Try coming out of the cold as it might help your cognitive capabilities…… by the way it is profits not profets

a330pilotcanada (http://www.pprune.org/members/327777-a330pilotcanada)

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 61
Posts: 117
Good Evening All:

A good post from "Clunkdriver" who as you can assume has a wealth of experience (military, airline and commercial) in calling a spade a &^%$ shovel.

To add to my previous post basing on my recent holiday in New Zealand and talking to the locals on their aviation life. To restate New Zealand has a population of just over 4 million people.

Emirates has four daily flights to New Zealand three daily to Auckland (AKL) and one to Christchurch (CHC). AKL has three daily of which one is an A-380 (489 seats) and two B-777 (380 seats) and the other to CHC being a B-777 (380 seats). Seat Guru was used as a source for the number of seats.

In one year, again New Zealand being a country of 4 million people that is 594,585 seats that Emirates has to New Zealand.

So with that uplift capability what does this do for Air New Zealand and their small fleet? After flying on them they have a superior product with very helpful staff.

The five years that Clunkdriver alludes to might be too late for this fine airline.

Do we want a foreign "family compact" run airline in our country? I would say yes but with sizeable conditions in place and the first one is an apology to Canada for the 30 day move out for Camp Mirage. How ever that will never happen as based on my limited experience of being in the middle east "face" is more important to them and this would be viewed as a sign of weakness.

[Oblaaspop]

A330pilot,

Surely you're not foolish enough to believe that the only market for Aircraft seats for a particular country is the transportation of its own citizens? Did you intentionally forget tourism or did you conveniently forget in order to boost your weak argument in the hope that no-one else would notice? We're not that thick mate!:ugh:

Perhaps the below cutting from Wikipedia will open your narrow mindedness?:


Tourism is an important industry in New Zealand, contributing NZ$15 billion (or 9%) of the country's gross domestic product in 2010.[1]

It is also New Zealand's largest export industry, with about 2.4 million international tourists visiting per year (as of September 2009),[2] providing 18% of the country's export earnings in 2010.[1]

Auckland Airport handled over eleven million passengers in 2004.

Many international tourists also spend time in Christchurch, Queenstown, Rotorua, and Wellington.

Overall, tourism supports some 180,000 full-time equivalent jobs (10% of the New Zealand workforce), with half directly related to tourism.[1]

............................................................ .............................................
A330,

You may want to take note of the interesting figure that 11 million people used Auckland Airport in 2004 (that will be considerably more now). By your own calculations, EK only holds around 5% of seating capacity, so are you arguing that an Airline that has 5% of the share of seats in and out of a country will be the downfall of the local airline industry? If so, that says far more about the crap business model of ANZ et al than it ever could about EK stealing trade!!

Will you please concede in the face of the overwhelming evidence above, that having MORE international flights to and from a country is a good thing for trade, tourism and industry? Or will you and your blinkered kind continue to refute the irrefutable?:hmm:

[Willie Everlearn]

fliion
(sorry I had to respond on the fly, so apology in advance, but)

"If the intellectual capacity of your response is: "I dont drive a car made in Asia" so the argument is wrong.."
Actually. That's NOT my argument at all. But, obviously, you read it the way you read it.
I agreed it was a paradigm shift.

"...it wont stop the paradigm global shift in hub dynamics."
You're absolutely right. It won't.

With regard to my automobiles, I asked the question (of myself)
"Wait a minute. Isn't that (in the automobile industry) a paradigm shift?" The automobile industry in North America 'protecting' itself from a more competitive industry by imposing political pressure to have those foreigners manufacture their products here?

Globalization is a reality and not just for the UAE but for Canada as well.
So, why bother to impede some entity from 'globalizing'?
Because IMHO based on what I've seen over the years, NOT all things are open to globalization and not all things are going to be globalized at the rate some would either expect or want regardless of hub dynamics in the airline world. EK can hub wherever they like. If the countries involved allow it. It's unlikely YYZ will be more than a spoke beyond what it is today. It would seem Canada is a country that is limiting EKs service (for now) into and out of this country.

Emirates simply doesn't live in the real world and is trying constantly to impose their fantasy airline on the real world of real world economics and real world passenger loads. Those who DO operate in that real world need protection to some degree or face extinction. I'm not making that up nor am I saying it's the way it should be. But, I'm sure the investors in those real world airlines have some political lobby or financial clout to see things happen a certain way. In fact, some countries protect their 'flag' carriers at arms length. And yes, those arms can stretch a long way and carry a big stick.

That's not new but that too is a reality.

Willie :ok:

[Married a Canadian]

It's unlikely YYZ will be more than a spoke beyond what it is today. It would seem Canada is a country that is limiting EKs service (for now) into and out of this country.

Better not tell the GTAA that given all the infrastructure improvements planned over the next few years...and the boasts of 480000 odd movements in years to come (425000 odd now).
Bit of a gap between what the GTAA wants and what the Canadian govt wants I think (and the airport rent argument is just the starters).

[fliion]

Willie,

If you flew to the places that I flew to, you would know that the 'real world' and 'real world airlines' are in fact a reference to the West.

You need to get out more.

Countries protect and underwrite their natural resources e.g. Oil sands in Canada, The Arctic natural resource areas etc. Its your right.

Dubai only has one natural resource: its location. So they invest in the logistical advantage.

If AC wants to take on the sub-continent with their 787's, good on them, its good for competition. But you cannot continue to deny the customer in Vancouver, Toronto or Calgary the ability to save money and time drastically by using a foreign airline.

If we do a moral audit on any country we do business with in this day and age - well you better stop drinking in a coffee house, because the coffee comes fron Africa and the cups come from China.

By protecting AC they lose there desire to innovate. Look at their product compared to EK. Its a joke. Why? because they dont have to compete on service delivery like EK...and the result is mediocrity.

But I suppose thats the right of a 'real world' airline. Just travel in a Sky suite in 1st or business class on EK and all you will see is 'real world' executives choosing to pay 'real world' money for a superior product.

...and thats what AC the dinosaur is scared of...

f

[Dropp the Pilot]

Other than the distracting conversation between Dr. Goebbels and Julius Streicher that video was one of the best ads for Emirates I have ever seen. As Dr. Goebbels' boss said, "if you are going to tell a lie, make sure it is a big one".

The glittering EK airplanes and other-worldly Dubai terminals make a resounding contrast to Air Canada mildew and jaundice. It must have been pure pity for Air Canada on the part of the video editor in choosing not to show EK cabin crew.

As a bonus question: What field of human endeavour produces "leaders" of the quality we find in Canadian organized labour?

[Willie Everlearn]

fliion

I do get out. AND often.
This entire thread is about money. The rest is window dressing.

When I left the Emirates the dirham was 3.68.
The variations to that exchange rate since I left graphs out as a flatline.
Ever look at the other currencies? Other markets?

Your reference to 'real world' and 'real world airlines' may be 'the west', but maybe you'd best be advised to have a look around.

The Dubai Exchange rarely comes up in most financial conversations and as for travelling in any business class on any Middle Eastern airline, it is absolutely fantastic and there's no way an Air Canada can compete!
Good service, is good service
Excessive service, (for those who can afford it (a.k.a. money)) even better.

The average wage earner in Calgary will never see Business Class on Emirates unless his employer picks up the tab. No advantage to that Canadian consumer.
As for me and my dinosaur ideas, I'm sick of Low Cost, Low Fare airfares. They're bringing out the Greyhound crowd and wrecking the industry. They have been for years,

...that too is reality.

Willie

[fliion]

Eh...companies are consumers also...as long as they consume in the same way as individuals.

I give you the last word...and then leave it to the experts.

safe travels

f

[bcflyer]

The LOAN from the EDC was not a bailout. It was a LOAN at loan shark rates I might add. All the money that had any connection to the Canadian Govnt has been paid back with huge amounts of interest so the Canadian tax payer actually made money off of Air Canada again. Funny how when GM gets 10.5 BILLION dollars nobody seems to say much. Bailout keeps GM Canada alive - Winnipeg Free Press (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/bailout-keeps-gm-canada-alive-46706887.html) Gurantee a loan for 150 million and everyone is off their rockers about it.

As for not being a cash cow? Have a look at how much tax AC pays every year. Think about how much tax AC generates every year in sales. Have a look at how much money AC pays to Nav Canada every year. I can assure you it is a HUGE amount. So much so that the federal Goverment seems to think that any interruption in service from AC would be disruptive to the economic recovery.

[cossack]

bcflyer said:
Have a look at how much money AC pays to Nav Canada every year.
Except in 2003 when AC filed for creditor protection and left $45m unpaid to Nav Canada. This resulted in fee increases of 6.9% to Nav Canada's other users.

Yes they've paid their bills since, I'm just sayin'.:8

[fliion]

Back to the video and 'principles'...AC, and I suspect Capt 'Human Rights'...fly to China everyday...the country who has jailed the current Nobel Peace Laureate under censorship laws....

Step up to the plate AC, take a stance....and lets join hands together and get this slogan and campaign off the ground...

"Stop China flights NOW!!"

...cmon lads & lassies, who's with us eh!!???

; >

[GMC1500]

AC are the biggest hypocrites in the world. Right now they are going to court with the competition bureau over their illegal deal to subterfuge competion on cross border routes vis a vis an alliance with Delta/NW. Actually I suppose that doesn't make them hypocrites. They don't want to have to compete with anyone if they don't have to. Kind of like the good old days when they were a government owned monopoly.
And who are they accusing of unfair competition by painting them with the same brush? AC was gov't owned for the first 60 years of their 80 years in business.

[saudipc-9]

so the Canadian tax payer actually made money off of Air Canada again

Again? When was the first time that the Canadian tax payer made money off of AC? I didn't see any cheque coming through my letter box!

[Flatface]

AC has been in business since 1937, so 74 years total time. AC has been privatized since 1988, total time 23 years.

I don't like this way of doing business either, but it seems common practice to start a lawsuit to gain a competitive edge, until the lawsuit is settled.

It is also common in other industries, ie: pharmaceuticals. There they will claim a patent infringement, locking out their competitor from selling a specific drug competing with theirs, thereby reducing the competition for a time until the lawsuit is settled.

In my opinion, this is more of an American model, that has migrated up here with the influx of American CEOs and executives.