Emirates vs. Air Canada [Archive]

six7driver

19th Mar 2010, 01:44

WXgeek

You've made numerous posts on this subject that either demonstrate you are mis-informed about what you are talking about or that you are intentionally spreading dis-information about this topic.

Yes everybody is entitled to their own opinion but, the truth is not something you can shuffle away in your simple argument that in this matter everything boils down to a question of self interest. Your reservations about the affects that a truly open skies policy with the UAE would represent are baseless as are your assertions that the UAE has ever made threats against Canada with regards to its military base in the UAE.

While I'm at this point may I say that the UAE does not have a military base in Canada, and I wonder aloud how Canadians would respond to this country having such a base in Canada?

Getting back to your repeated assertion that the UAE has somehow threatened, or seeks to blackmail Canada with closing it's base in the UAE, you are absolutely wrong and just a quick google search for those who want to know what is really going on will reveal. You have chosen to confide in statements made, principally in the National Post newspaper, by a foreign affairs spokesman (and quoted in J.O.'s post) who says in an either an incredible show of stupidity or misunderstanding, that quote "the Canadain government does not respond well to having a gun pointed at its head"

This laughable statement, is not an uncommon example from the Harper government with regards to foreign affairs. Surely this is an opinion that most Canadians do not share, because it is based on a lie. At no time has the UAE "threatened" Canada with regards to it's base in the UAE. What was put forth by the government of the UAE if you care to research what you spend much time writing about, was simply this.

If Canada was interested in renewing it's lease on its base within the UAE (which expires soon) that better access to Canadian markets by UAE airlines would have to be considered. End of story.

That is a threat Wxgeek??

You talk of defending Canadian jobs? Well there are literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of Canadian employed by the two major airlines in the UAE. Emirates and Etihad. Both whom I might add, fly to Toronto, the only destination allowed by the current Canadian government. All these Canadians I guarantee you do not reside in the UAE because they love living in the middle east. They were forced to look for jobs there by the lack of them in Canada. So much for your tax base argument. What is even more ironic to your argument is that now these Canadians and their families, constantly travel back to Canada to escape the region's unbearable summers and spend their hard earned money in Canada, making jobs for Canadians in Canada, and paying GST, and taxes on their rented homes which I can assure you they desperately long to return too.

Protect high paying pilot jobs in Canada? you must be joking, entry level pilot positions with Canada's two major airlines pay less than a senior flight attendant or ramp worker, or gate agent at Air Canada.

Your dumping argument is a joke, or one maliciously skewed to protect only Canada's competitive advantage. Why is your vitriol not pointed at KLM, who serve many Canadian destinations, and in return Air Canada (only) serves AMS? or the UK's airlines a small nation who's airlines also serve numerous Canadian cities for our access to only one important destination LHR?

Your capacity argument is a joke, load factors for both Emirates and Etihad are extremely high. Adding more flights would not change this, or would mean that these two airlines don't have any commercial sense something I seriously doubt.

Get your information correct, The UAE has open skies agreements in place with many countries that are much more economically important with regards to trade to the UAE than Canada. For example Germany, who had a open skies agreement for years and yet has a very, very successful airline industry borne out of their fearless competitive attitude. Not one like Canada's where a single near monopoly airline dictates to the Canadian people what is good for us in terms of our access to air travel.

Canadian consumers like fair prices, a competitive market, and access to the world. Funny and quite contrary to what you say the only parties that have uttered threats and seek to anger Canadians, are it's government and it's largest and most would say, most uncompetitive airline.

six

Saltaire

19th Mar 2010, 03:07

Six7driver took the time to make some good points...

And Wxgeek do you think AC thought of canadian jobs each time they tried to bury Canadian Airlines? or any other competitor? There would be some higher paying manager jobs associated with and EK expansion, not just lower paying front line jobs. AC and it's employees are simply worried about a competitor to which it would be challenging to compete. Perhaps it would be better for eveyone if AC was forced to up it's game and provide a better product and more competitive pricing.

555orange

19th Mar 2010, 15:38

67d... I don't understand your comparison about if UAE had a military base in Canada? As if you are saying UAE would march in and establish one for no particular reason? Hmm... aren't you missing the point that Canada's base is not self serving? The comparison does not make sense. And your right... renewing military base (which serves the world, not particularily Canada)... you can bring that to the negot table, but then Canada has every right to bring your overflight permits. In fact leave the military base out of it...and lets just increase your overflight fees just so you can keep your 3 flights a week. How about that?

balances and measures. Lets not fall too far on one side of the tree. Everyone has a right to protect their self interests.

If Emirates wants more flights into Canada, they have to anti up something. Cant get something for nothing. Canada is at a competitive disadvantage like most all developed western countries, becaues of the taxes it has, as well as the higher civil costs being a very strong democratic country. This all costs ALOT of money. So there is a reason western countries have to apply a little bit of market protection. Because they cannot compete with the "cold dark money machines" of the middle east. The renewing military base chip? Forget it man. Low level jobs due to additional flights? Forget it. Canadians got lots of those already.

Offer something significant. How about Emirates open up a crew base in Toronto? Bring all those N American crews you mentioned there and benefit Canada with the taxes and then you can have your 2 more flights a week.

Sound good? :)

J.O.

19th Mar 2010, 21:32

six7driver:

Try this one on for size.

I know we've had a mutually beneficial arrangement for years, but I'm changing the rules. If you want to continue working here, you're going to have to agree to give us work more hours for less money. Otherwise, you're out of here. Does that not sound like a threat to you? :rolleyes:

six7driver

20th Mar 2010, 02:29

J.O. no actually it sounds like my current job, but that's another story.

Roll your eyes all you want, what I said in my post is true, the only threat this kind of statement could constitute would be one against the protectionist trade stance of a government, whose policy is distorted by a small minority (in this case the management and big unions of a large airline).

This unfounded fear, given the many examples of successful open skies agreements that have been signed by the UAE and other countries, only benefits a small number of Canadians who don't want fair competition.

Do the research, this article will help.

EMIRATES AIRLINE | Canada in line for $480 million windfall from new Emirates flights (http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2010/23/c3958.html).

555 Orange, you missed the entire point of my argument I'm not arguing for the benefit of Emirates or Etihad or the UAE, I'm arguing for the benefit of my country Canada.

$480 million in benefits for Canada is not significant enough for you?

Show me the contrary and I'll see the point in your opinion. Odd, that I don't find any studies showing that an agreement of this kind with the UAE would be detrimental to Canada's interests, you would have thought that if this was the case it would have been made by many more groups than just Air Canada.

The basing comparison does not make sense to you? it's simple so I'll repeat if for your benefit.

It's a hypothetical situation, you follow? what would the public perception be in Canada about a country that is granted a lease on a military airport in Canada (take any country) and yet for no logical reasons stifles your ambitions to trade with it by limiting commercial access to its commercial airports, while Canada has given it unlimited access to its commercial airports. Would Canada's government not feel obliged to bring this to the attention of the other country, in light of its failure to seek fair trading practices with it?

Your response 555 is not measured or balanced, the UAE has anted enough for a commercial agreement. $480 million + in benefits for the Canadian economy, unfettered access to its airways and airports for any Canadian airline and, a safe place for Canada's military to conduct its important mission in the region, what more do you want?

What has Canada offered so far? You said it - Toronto access to Etihad and Emirates and use of its airspace - so who has to ante up?

(this is not a battle between Emirates airlines and Canada's government) the only one who wants the public to have that perception is the loud uncompetitive voices at Air Canada.

We, the majority of Canadians are positive people. I view Canada's tax policies, and strong democratic values not as a competitive disadvantage and I would argue the opposite, we have nothing to fear from cold dark money machines anywhere, we can compete and win with the best in the world. I don't want anything for Emirates or Etihad, I want what's best for my country, Canada, :ok:

Married a Canadian

20th Mar 2010, 03:07

Everyone has a right to protect their self interests.

Which dosen't serve the customer one bit!

Canada is at a competitive disadvantage

Air Canada wasn't for a long time though as they were/are one of only two major carriers in Canada...and the other one dosen't do long haul.

What are we saying here? That Air Canada shouldn't have to compete on any route it serves?
It is up against a big bad money machine of the middle east?. How about those nasty chapter 11 US carriers that still get to fly even though they are/were bankrupt? Or those European carriers that are in the same alliance as you but gosh they fly on the same routes!

The airline industry is and always has been about competition.

GMC1500

20th Mar 2010, 08:15

I'll admit, I am anti-AC. I'm ex-Jazz, current EK, so connect the dots. But nonetheless, I discuss this issue with guys from around the globe so it doesn't really matter. Look at Aus. Is Quantas dead/gone? Did Quantas decide to compete with Emirates on any Aus/Dubai sectors? Listen, if AC /is so scared, let them put a 777 on the YYZ/DXB sector and fight it out. Say what you want about lower costs for ground crew (true, obviously and what do you want to do, defend $20/hr for guys who load bags?), but regardless of that, the inflight product of AC just can't compare to EK. AC defenders know that. I know that, I'm Canadian. AC would lose on that route and the routes that connect to Dubai. Hence the issue. Does anyone not get it?

J.O.

20th Mar 2010, 19:42

six7driver:

The "article" you suggest we use as research so that we'll agree with you is not an article at all. It is a news release that originated from Emirates itself, not from an independent source that has validated the benefits that are being claimed. Find an article that validates it and I will consider it. Until then I will take it for what it is, just another form of advertising. :hmm:

six7driver

21st Mar 2010, 02:00

Read the press release carefully friend. Quite clearly it states

InterVISTAS, whose clients number airports, airlines and governments around the world, including Transport Canada, concluded the study in early 2010. The research examined the impact of Emirates increasing its current three-weekly Dubai to Toronto flights to daily and double-daily services, and adding a daily service to Vancouver and Calgary.

The study showed that expanding Emirates' services would produce the following benefits for Canada:

- 274,927 new passengers travelling through Toronto, Calgary and
Vancouver airports annually
- 2,859 new full-time jobs created across Canada
- $115.4 million in new economic activity at airports in Toronto,
Calgary and Vancouver annually
- $82.6 million in new tourism spending annually
- An additional $246 million in new spin-off economic activity across
Canada annually
- $38.1 million in new tax revenue annually

and...

The increased air services would also create additional revenue for Canadian airports as no Canadian carrier currently offers these air services," said Dr. Michael Tretheway of InterVISTAS Consulting, the authors of the study.

and...

About InterVistas

The InterVISTAS Consulting Group is a leading management consulting company with extensive expertise in the transportation and tourism industries. InterVISTAS has offices in Canada, the United States, Europe and the Caribbean, and have completed projects with clients in 60 countries worldwide.

Fact Sheet
----------
Economic Benefit of Increased Emirates Airlines Flights to Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Daily service to Toronto
- 61,027 new passengers on the route annually
- 709 new full-time jobs
- $30.3M in new direct economic activity at Pearson International
Airport
- $18.5M in new direct tourism spending
- An additional $60.9M in new spin-off economic activity annually
- $10.3M in new direct tax revenues

Double-daily service to Toronto
- 154,818 new passengers on the route annually
- 1550 new full-time jobs
- $57.6M in new direct economic activity at Pearson International
Airport
- $46.8M in new direct tourism spending
- An additional $120.4M in new spin-off economic activity annually
- $21.6M in new direct tax revenues

Daily service to Calgary
- 69,141 new passengers on the route annually
- 620 new full-time jobs
- $26.0M in new direct economic activity at Calgary International
Airport
- $20.4M in new direct tourism spending
- An additional $62.7M in new spin-off economic activity annually
- $8.2M in new direct tax revenues

Daily service to Vancouver
- 50,968 new passengers on the route
- 689 new full-time jobs
- $31.8M in new direct economic activity at Vancouver International
Airport
- $15.4M in new direct tourism spending
- An additional $62.9M in new spin-off economic activity annually
- $8.3M in new direct tax revenues

(Source: InterVISTAS, Economic Impact Study for Emirates Airline:
Additional Flights between Dubai and Canada, February 2010)

Either it's the most elaborate advertising scheme I've ever seen, or it's an independent economic impact study...which it is dude...yes commissioned by Emirates (Air Canada could commission their own independent study too if they wanted, but don't for obvious reasons).

are you still not convinced it is not advertising but an independent economic study J.O.?

now I get to roll my eyes :rolleyes:

cheers,
six

Married a Canadian

21st Mar 2010, 02:22

Out of interest, why don't Air Canada have a direct flight to Dubai?

The market is obviously there...the demand is there (Emirates are not flying empty at the moment...neither are Etihad).
Do they not have the airframes? Are they constrained by the Star Alliance?

PappyJ

21st Mar 2010, 03:14

Dubai is not the destination, it's just a connecting hub to EK's other destinations. This is part of what AC is pissed about. Mind you, it says a lot of AC's service standards when a passenger would be happier flying to Europe - via Dubai - opposed to AC's direct flight (just an example).

jinglied

21st Mar 2010, 03:54

Well this has certainly been an interesting thread.

Being a past AC pilot and now at EK I just have to jump in here. (I am soon to be out of EK though, hopefully by year end.) I will first say that I AM NOT defending AC. I'll be the first to admit that their service is questionable at best. I also agree that their pilots/mechanics contracts are pathetic and their ground staff, gate agents, cabin grannies are WAY over compensated for the aforementioned lousy service.

Mister 767 Driver,..

"If Canada was interested in renewing it's lease on its base within the UAE (which expires soon) that better access to Canadian markets by UAE airlines would have to be considered. End of story. That is a threat Wxgeek??"

If you can't see that as an absolute DIRECT threat, then what is? You also seem to state that Canada actually has a "base" in the UAE. Well, not quite, they rent space at Minhad, not far from Dubai. This is a UAE base. And as correctly stated by others, this is hardly a "self serving" operation on the part of Canadians or their government. The end result of Canadian troops being in the UAE has a direct benefit for the whole Middle East region. The threat itself though is rediculous, but very typical for this part of the world. The lease WILL be signed if and when Canada wants it. If it is refused by the UAE gov't, then Canada's operation in Afghanistan will be jeopardized. What do you think the other countries involved in the Afghan mission will say to UAE government when they receive word that the lease has been cancelled....? (Think USA here!! The UAE is attempting to hit well above it's weight in this case. They will be told exactly where they stand.)

"While I'm at this point may I say that the UAE does not have a military base in Canada, and I wonder aloud how Canadians would respond to this country having such a base in Canada"

Sorry to repeat the above, but, Canada does not have a base in the UAE. It is a lease to use part of the existing base.

"You talk of defending Canadian jobs? Well there are literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of Canadian employed by the two major airlines in the UAE. Emirates and Etihad. Both whom I might add, fly to Toronto, the only destination allowed by the current Canadian government. All these Canadians I guarantee you do not reside in the UAE because they love living in the middle east. They were forced to look for jobs there by the lack of them in Canada. So much for your tax base argument. What is even more ironic to your argument is that now these Canadians and their families, constantly travel back to Canada to escape the region's unbearable summers and spend their hard earned money in Canada, making jobs for Canadians in Canada, and paying GST, and taxes on their rented homes which I can assure you they desperately long to return too"

I'll agree in part to this. Yes, there are hundred's of Canadian's working for these airlines, not thousand's. Some actually enjoy living here (not me). And yes, most moved here for the money, as did I.

"Not one like Canada's where a single near monopoly airline dictates to the Canadian people what is good for us in terms of our access to air travel"

Yes, AC promote's that line. "Dictate's" is a bit strong.

It's a hypothetical situation, you follow? what would the public perception be in Canada about a country that is granted a lease on a military airport in Canada (take any country) and yet for no logical reasons stifles your ambitions to trade with it by limiting commercial access to its commercial airports, while Canada has given it unlimited access to its commercial airports. Would Canada's government not feel obliged to bring this to the attention of the other country, in light of its failure to seek fair trading practices with it.

..No, they'd have no right whatsoever, not if the situation was the same as it is. However, you say.. "and yet for no logical reasons" ..I'll bring this little gem up later!!

Do the research, this article will help.

EMIRATES AIRLINE | Canada in line for $480 million windfall from new Emirates flights (http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2010/23/c3958.html).

This article, which you use on a couple of occasions is as you correctly state, sanctioned (paid for) by EK. Having worked for this company for years now, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Emirates Airline had at least some part to play in the results of this "independent" report. I do not believe for a second that this was not the case. Emirates, and Dubai, are the best marketing organizations I have ever seen, bar none. Like I said, I've worked here for years. And yes I also realize that "Non-commercial" entities have used them as well, I.E. Transport Canada. I would also doubt that this was the only organization they approached. They just picked the one that served their interest's best.

The article also mentions about extra tourism dollars and cargo capacity. Well, yes the extra cargo capacity will no doubt improve. The 380 is pretty much useless when it comes to carrying cargo, just talk to the ground staff in YYZ. The 777, the aircraft that was on DXB-YYZ previous, is far more capable.

But...extra tourism? Not likely. EK carries INDIANS!! All around the world. From the "old country" to their new home. Without India, EK would be virtually empty. Walk through the cabin on ANY flight...same thing. Doesn't matter if it's IAH, YYZ, NYC, LHR, BOM..whatever. DXB is a tranxfer point, and yes many Indians prefer travelling EK to their own carriers. All EK would be doing is taking them back and forth. Tourism dollars? Not much.

Either it's the most elaborate advertising scheme I've ever seen, or it's an independent economic impact study...which it is dude...yes commission by Emirates (Air Canada could commission their own independent study too if they wanted, but don't for obvious reasons).

are you still not convinced it is not advertising but an independent economic study J.O.?

Emirates is all about advertising, they are the best. However, your point about AC..yup they probably should hire somebody who makes the argument for them..just like EK did.

Married a Canadian,..

BTW I am not anti Air Canada....I just think they are being a bit hypocritical

You would be hard pressed to find a more hypocritical part of the world than here, in the Middle East. Air Canada is not even close...

How about those nasty chapter 11 US carriers that still get to fly even though they are/were bankrupt

It's kind of moot, but they are/were under "bankruptcy protection". Air Canada operated for well over a year doing the same.

Mister 767 Driver..

(this is not a battle between Emirates airlines and Canada's government) the only one who wants the public to have that perception is the loud uncompetitive voices at Air Canada.

We, the majority of Canadians are positive people. I view Canada's tax policies, and strong democratic values not as a competitive disadvantage and I would argue the opposite, we have nothing to fear from cold dark money machines anywhere, we can compete and win with the best in the world. I don't want anything for Emirates or Etihad, I want what's best for my country, Canada

..and from your quote above...

..and yet for no logical reasons..

I would be the first to acknowledge and agree that AC would not stand a chance against EK on a strictly commercial level. And I beleive this should be a battle between the Canadian gov't and the UAE government. All you require is to get Foreign Affairs' opinion on the UAE itself. From worker's rights, to human rights, the right of free speech (believe me just opening your mouth here gets you in jail. The UAE government shut down one of the local newspapers for six weeks in 2007 because they didn't like what was printed) and the right of association (ok, I'm not particularly a union fan, but this place really needs some!!) EK changes T+C's on a regular basis. So do other companies here. Many workers (you'll notice the term I've just used...'worker's) still have to hand in their passport's, with no recourse. This place is very different from the PERCEPTION. But..the advert campaign for Dubai adn EK is without question AMAZING. It fooled me.

Again, I am not supporting AC in this case, but I certainly will not promote the commercial aspirations of the very company I presently work for. I also admit that other western countries should probably be doing more as well.

But, if you say that you want the best for your country Canada, I would say you haven't included a few things that are very important in this argument.

Jinglie'd

555orange

21st Mar 2010, 11:18

Well said....

Your so full of it 76. You are obviously not serving "your people" but your own self interests. Proof of the pudding is your comment on supporting UAE to close the Canadian base so you can get what you want. So don't muddy the water by confusing people which side of the fence your on.

I support our Canadian troops and the efforts of the world in Afganistan etc. Don't you? Shame on you for bringing this up.Dont sellout of your own people for your own benefit.

I don't know much about either company, but I do say that if Emirates and who ever else wants to fly more, I support it, but it has to come to the table with more than just a self study that shows 480 million in small stuff. 480 mill is a pittance when this stuff is concerned. Besides, that is 480 mil that will be robbed from other sources. Not created anew. I vote to protect a measure of what is in place. I say AirC should fly to Dubai every other day, not Emirates.

Actually, isn't Emirates in a bit of trouble now? Isnt there another carrier over there that is taking over? I heard that it has more money and even better all round.

Having worked in Korea snd Hong Kong I have come to appreciate greatly the civil right and liberties that Canada stands for. its not perfect, but its a far sight better than other places I have been. It takes effort and money and some measure of protection. So sorry about that. I say lets do it, but not with a crap estimate by Emirates. If you want it, it will cost you some.

The base in Canada is a great idea I thought! Don't you support that as a Canadian? But then we know why thats not an option right...because then Emirates would be liable in the courts of Canada for any labour indiscresion etc etc. Also, it would have to pay income tax to Canada, and also some consistency in labor practices. It wouldn't want that. So you want your cake and eat it too ... sorry! Just not going to happen mate.

How about a code share?

Jabewar

21st Mar 2010, 13:20

Another article on this topic:

Canada, Australia, Emirates & Etihad: Case study of protectionism vs liberalism. Who’s got it right? | Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation (http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2010/03/16/canada-australia-emirates--etihad-case-study-of-protectionism-vs-liberalism-whos-got-it-right/page1)

Some interesting points raised.

Married a Canadian

21st Mar 2010, 18:14

jinglied...good post thankyou.

How about those nasty chapter 11 US carriers that still get to fly even though they are/were bankrupt

It's kind of moot, but they are/were under "bankruptcy protection". Air Canada operated for well over a year doing the same.

The point I was trying to make was that Air Canada can go on about Middle eastern airlines getting pots of cash thrown at them and operating with lower cost bases and the like....but you hear the same argument being used by carriers that don't have the luxury of "chapter 11 protection" or govts willing to step in because of the "too big to fail" argument. Interesting with the whole shebang at BA at the moment that it looks (and sounds like from sounding out my aviation buddies back home)...that the govt wouldn't dare step in if BA go bust. This is a national flag carrier...but the taxpayers wouldn't stand for it.
So Air Canada have the "advantage" of being able to **** up their business model and yet still compete against other airlines on their routes, or try to put them out of business (as has happened in canadian aviation).

Middle East oil money against Govt intervention/Chapter 11 protection.

Neither are fair to carriers that don't have either.

Jabewar

Interesting article.

The only error I could see is I don't think Air Canada have ANY direct flights to India out of YYZ. Do they codeshare with Air India? Air India goes via EGLL at the moment.
So again I make the point....Why don't Air Canada compete on a route that has NUMEROUS bodies waiting to be flown?

555orange

I don't know much about either company, but I do say that if Emirates and who ever else wants to fly more, I support it, but it has to come to the table with more than just a self study that shows 480 million in small stuff. 480 mill is a pittance when this stuff is concerned. Besides, that is 480 mil that will be robbed from other sources. Not created anew. I vote to protect a measure of what is in place. I say AirC should fly to Dubai every other day, not Emirates.

Ref my above point. They SHOULD fly to Dubai every day...but don't....and to some other locations that they could aswell.
The article Jabewar posted makes some good points on why they perhaps don't.
To be honest with you I don't think it would matter whatever Emirates brought to the table (or any other airline) for that matter. The aviation industry has been/is so heavily regulated over the years in ways that don't serve the consumer one bit that you will never know what is real benefit or what is just posturing.

I say lets do it, but not with a crap estimate by Emirates. If you want it, it will cost you some.

If not a "crap" estimate by Emirates...then a crap estimate by whom? It has to be someone if Air Canada aren't going to step up to the plate.

six7driver

22nd Mar 2010, 05:58

555 orange...easy cowboy...

You say I'm full of what? truth, wisdom, something else? Of course it is typical for someone who has nothing to base his opinion on to resort to name calling and hysterics instead of arguing the merits or failing of an argument. Very typical of Pprune and that's why I don't post very often on these forums which are full of baseless opinions that pass for arguments, and disgruntled employees. Do what you want with the facts I've presented to you.

At least Jinglied, wxgeek presented interesting points to validate their arguments, which I don't agree with, but at least they had arguments to make not personal attacks, that make people like me wonder why I ever want to post another opinion on this forum for hacks again.

J.O.

22nd Mar 2010, 12:46

six7driver,

It's hard to roll your eyes when they're hiding behind a blindfold.

Sorry but I am far from convinced. What's that old saying? "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics".

As someone else already said, numbers can be manipulated in a myriad of ways to achieve a desired result. A "researcher" looking to support the Air Canada side of this dispute could easily take the numbers from the quoted study and manipulate them to favour their side.

I find the study numbers dubious for two important reasons. There is nothing in them to suggest that the passengers numbers they are claiming are new passengers. To suggest otherwise is to claim that somehow Emirates has a magic bullet that will encourage 274,000 Canadians to travel when they otherwise wouldn't have, had it not been for their saviour from the UAE. And since these are not new passengers, they have to come from somewhere else, thus taking revenues and jobs from a competitor. So to claim new jobs and revenues as a spinoff is disingenuous. They aren't new, they're just replacements. My bet is that these replacement jobs would pay less than the jobs that are already out there, thus taking money out of the hands of our citizens and our economy. Not much of a benefit, IMHO. As an aside, the number of O & D passengers between Canada and the Emirates wouldn't fill one aircraft a month, never mind on a daily basis. So all Emirates is really looking to do is to take passengers to other places in the world when those passengers can already get there through multiple gateways with the current services that are in place through both Canadian and foreign carriers.

I may be wrong, but it sure sounds to me like you're more interested in taking something (anything) away from Air Canada and its employees than anything else. And for the record, I am not an Air Canada employee, nor have I ever been. I'm just an industry employee who is interested in looking at the entire picture, including the cultural differences that would let someone believe that what is coming out of the UAE is anything other than a threat made by a bully who is used to getting their own way.

dontevenjoke

22nd Mar 2010, 14:55

There are alot of interesting points of view, statistics, and opinions here on this thread.

Yes I am Canadian, and yes I work at Emirates. Just to be clear I don't back either AC or EK they both have good and bad points.

But, the fact is Air Canada cannot compete with EK. They don't have the spare aircraft or crew. So, to say Air Canada should be flying to Dubai to compete is silly to start.

The second issue is that AC cannot compete with the service. I have been in the back on many AC flights and it seemed like an inconvenience when I asked one of the dinosaurs for a glass of water after not seeing anyone in the cabin in 2 hours.....hmmm.

Thirdly, the Indian population IS EK's biggest business. Why would someone from Chennai, India want to buy a ticket on AC to connect through LHR then to BOM or DEL and then to Chennai, when they could do it all with a one stop 3 hour connection. Big time and $ saving along with a better service.

I have many friends at AC and I wish them nothing but the best, but at the end of the day they are not going to lose their jobs if EK starts more service to Canada. AC might lose a few international passengers, but they will most certainly pick up domestically as most of these people coming to Canada aren't stopping in YYZ, so someone has to transport them.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers,
Joke

555orange

22nd Mar 2010, 19:17

No name calling at all 76. Ok ok I said your full of it.... Meaning in a rough sense that I disagree with you. But no offence intended! Just take a breath... 1234....

Did you even read my post at all?

I support out troops in Afghanistan. You have supported UAE's comment to close the base there. Which I didn't like much at all and I disagree with it. Sorry about that.

And I support Emirates flying more, but I would personally like to see more brought to the table, not a crappy in house 480 million estimate. I say again, a local basing in Toronto or a code share. However I would prefer to see AC do the flying over Emirates. I am well aware of Emirates better product, but I do support our fellow Canadian workers over emirates. Don't you? My problem with Emirates is not with what it does have, but with what it doesnt, or rather doesn't stand for. That would be ethical sense of business and a clear consistent and fair business practice. I am talking about labor here. It is well documented the unilateral changes for the worse Emirates have made to its pilot group. In fact I am suprised you are defending them so strongly over our Air Canada brothers. However I do agree with the above post that sadly, I don't believe AC is in any position to take advantage of any market at the moment, but who knows. Arent they receiving 777s now?

76, you say you are on the "Canadian" side, but you are arguing against the Military base and against Air Canada. Excuse me... obvious confusion????

Anyway, Either way the market will be served. I don't think anyone needs to worry about that. I just hope AC gets to do it. You can sleep tonight...

Besides... no one commented on Emirates situation. Hows the finances over there? The cutbacks affecting the Airline at all? Isn't one of the other gulf Airlines taking over? I heard that one of them bought a bunch of Emirates... rumor is going to take over?

jinglied

24th Mar 2010, 08:56

.. Check this article. Written by MEC of ACPA, so obviously a bit biased. But in my opinion, well written and I certainly agree to his points..

FP Letters: Private Air Canada competes fairly - FP Comment (http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/03/23/fp-letters-private-air-canada-competes-fairly.aspx)

Specifically :

"The more pertinent question is what would happen if Air Canada could use the Canadian government’s borrowing power to finance its fleet, owned and operated Canada’s airports, paid no corporate or personal taxes and brought in offshore unskilled labour to reduce its costs. That would create a more level playing field with Emirates, which can borrow at government rates, is part of the same corporate entity that operates its airport and nearly all airport services in Dubai and is based in a country where four-fifths of its population consists of imported, expatriate workers with no human rights or workplace standards."

Very pertinent question indeed. Emirates used backing of it's own government in some of it's leasing arrangements several years back with it's large orders of aircraft. This gained them about a 1% lower rate on leasing than they otherwise would have received. And for orders worth several bilions, that's a lot of cash preservation!

Jinglie'd

six7driver

24th Mar 2010, 11:07

Jinglied, what's wrong with your argument is that we don't live in a fairy tale land where playing fields are equal or will ever be equal. A "what if" argument like this seeks to change history (revisionism) , which is impossible to do. We live in a real world who's history cannot be undone.

The quote you use makes a "...what would happen..." argument and conveniently removes all historical context. To put it into context you have to address how the condition the the quote refers to arrived at its state. It did so because our (and by that I mean the west) dependency on this region's oil.

This has stopped our governments, from defending such important principles as democracy and human rights in these countries, preferring instead to support these countries based on our strategic interests for their oil.

Another case in point and far more obvious example is China, a country that enjoys favored trading status with Canada???, yet contains all the elements that your quote points to. Yet we allow Chinese carriers the right to operate into our airports? why isn't Rovinescu complaining about the much more dire threat China's air carriers represent in terms of dumping and capacity? I'll tell you why, because Air Canada thinks it will profit handsomely from their China arrangement. Their is no political will in our government to ever put pressure on UAE to stop the practices your article mentions, on the contrary our government enjoys good diplomatic and economic relations with the UAE, the only voice that seeks to deny freer trade with the UAE is that of Air Canada.

Don't be led astray by arguments of those who wish to protect the uncompetitive status quo of Air Canada. Air Canada, not the Canadian government, is the entity that does not wish any more competition from the UAE, for it's sole interest, why should their voice be more important then that of the Canadian consumer?

You can say all you want of the abuses that go on in the UAE, I believe you and completely agree, but it is wrong that this is now conveniently used as an argument by Air Canada to stop Canadian consumers from enjoying the much better service that you admit Emirates and Etihad have. Especially when Canada trades on an enormous scale with a country like China, whose air carriers are blatantly government run and enjoy subsidies that are much greater then that enjoyed by Emirates.

Wxgeek

24th Mar 2010, 15:46

J.O. - I find the study numbers dubious for two important reasons. There is nothing in them to suggest that the passengers’ numbers they are claiming are new passengers. To suggest otherwise is to claim that somehow Emirates has a magic bullet that will encourage 274,000 Canadians to travel when they otherwise wouldn't have, had it not been for their saviour from the UAE. And since these are not new passengers, they have to come from somewhere else, thus taking revenues and jobs from a competitor. So to claim new jobs and revenues as a spinoff is disingenuous. They aren't new, they're just replacements. My bet is that these replacement jobs would pay less than the jobs that are already out there, thus taking money out of the hands of our citizens and our economy. Not much of a benefit, IMHO. As an aside, the number of O & D passengers between Canada and the Emirates wouldn't fill one aircraft a month, never mind on a daily basis. So all Emirates is really looking to do is to take passengers to other places in the world when those passengers can already get there through multiple gateways with the current services that are in place through both Canadian and foreign carriers. Excellent points J.O. That in a nutshell is why Emirates offers nothing new or compelling to Canada. No new traffic. Poaching Canada-India traffic doesn’t serve Canada’s interests. No new Canadian jobs just replacement jobs at lower pay rates. Where is the upside for Canada?

Jinglied – from the NP "The more pertinent question is what would happen if Air Canada could use the Canadian government’s borrowing power to finance its fleet, owned and operated Canada’s airports, paid no corporate or personal taxes and brought in offshore unskilled labour to reduce its costs. That would create a more level playing field with Emirates, which can borrow at government rates, is part of the same corporate entity that operates its airport and nearly all airport services in Dubai and is based in a country where four-fifths of its population consists of imported, expatriate workers with no human rights or workplace standards." six7driver, you may want to portray this as an irrelevant ‘what if’ scenario but it is entirely relevant. When airlines get into a market share battle the airline with access to deeper financial resources will win every time. If Canadian airlines had access to all of emirates advantages mentioned above the airline industry in Canada wouldn’t be constantly teetering on the brink every time the economy hiccupped.

six7driver - This has stopped our governments, from defending such important principles as democracy and human rights in these countries, preferring instead to support these countries based on our strategic interests for their oil. Canada is an oil exporter, you knew that right? Our biggest customer is right next door south of the 49th. Oil may allow Middle East countries to apply pressure on the US on commercial issues such as airline route approval but here in Canada we got lots of oil and nat gas. An irrelevant argument IMO

As I see it there isn’t much that emirates offers that is of benefit to Canada. Lower paying replacement jobs, no real traffic growth out of Canada - just poaching from other carriers. I wish AC served the Indian Canadian market segment with their own metal to India but they are doing it with Star Alliance partners instead. Wish it were different but it isn’t. Perhaps this would happen faster if Canadian carriers enjoyed the same financial and low tax rate advantages of emirates. Talk to your Canadian MP about high AIF/landing fees/airport rents/security charges (which recently increased)/high corporate tax rates/high income taxes.

China vs UAE, why is emirates treated so unfairly and China is not argument: China offers significant O&D traffic potential to Canada. Emirates and its Dubai Hub do not. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

6000PIC

24th Mar 2010, 15:52

It is entirely pertainent to be reminded that the UAE , along with Saudi Arabia , were the two remaining governments that formally recognized the Taleban in Afghanistan , that is , until it became a battleground for the West. Since then , they have been conveniently playing both sides in this conflict. I say again... both sides. That is the REAL story here. Emirates vs. Air Canada ? ... nice spin......The Mossad , CIA , CSIS , MI6 , they know this involves much , much more than A380`s and old Air Canada cabin crew.

six7driver

24th Mar 2010, 18:51

wxgeek it's not my intention to embarrass you but your ignorance of fact really explains why your opinion should be scrutinized for its lack of merit.

You say,

Canada is an oil exporter, you knew that right? Our biggest customer is right next door south of the 49th. Oil may allow Middle East countries to apply pressure on the US on commercial issues such as airline route approval but here in Canada we got lots of oil and nat gas. An irrelevant argument IMO

Yes I know many things. I do know Canada has plenty of oil, we are in fact the world's 5th largest exporter, however we are also the world's 16th largest IMPORTER of oil and an estimated 25% of our OIL IMPORTS comes from the Middle East and, North Africa. look it up. If you wish to add merit to your opinion start with facts.

A good place to start is by looking up the info on our oil export-imports. It comes from none other than the CIA's own world fact book. Here's the US government link.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

while you're at that refer again to the study done by an INDEPENDENT group INTER VISTAS whose customers include the government of Canada! (though from you and others are accused of this time selling out their unbiased reputation in over 60 countries, for the sake of one study commissioned by Emirates.)

If Canadian airlines had access to all of emirates advantages mentioned above the airline industry in Canada wouldn’t be constantly teetering on the brink every time the economy hiccupped.

I'm not talking about Canadian airlines, I'm talking about Air Canada, which you would agree, and is supported by its current financial position, is hardly teetering even after what has been described as the greatest economic crisis in the world's history since the great depression.

Lastly, from you

China vs UAE, why is emirates treated so unfairly and China is not argument: China offers significant O&D traffic potential to Canada. Emirates and its Dubai Hub do not. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Correct! however, I also said this is not the argument so your point is mute.

You are the origin of your own confusion. Yes, you agree just as I put it that China does offer significant Origin & Destination traffic potential...but to AIR CANADA...not CANADA...or since when was Canada's near monopoly and only truly scheduled international air carrier suddenly declared CANADA? for the rest of your extremely weak point refer to the Inter Vistas study again.

What remains again, and what is truly important, is that Transport Canada is being used by a very strong Air Canada lobby who wishes at all cost to deny the will of Canada's traveling public for better access and service. Something all Canadians should wish they never succeed in accomplishing.

Wxgeek

24th Mar 2010, 20:49

however we are also the world's 16th largest IMPORTER of oil and an estimated 25% of our OIL IMPORTS comes from the Middle East and, North Africa. look it up.Relevance? Should Canada wait for an oil embargo threat from UAE next? The UAE base threat didn't work out so good...

If Canadian airlines had access to all of emirates advantages mentioned above the airline industry in Canada wouldn’t be constantly teetering on the brink every time the economy hiccupped.Canadian airlines, as in: airlines based in Canada as opposed to CAIL. I think you are confused, and/or angry.

Yes, you agree just as I put it that China does offer significant Origin & Destination traffic potential...but to AIR CANADA...not CANADA...or since when was Canada's near monopoly and only truly scheduled international air carrier suddenly declared CANADA? for the rest of your extremely weak point refer to the Inter Vistas study again.I say to myself: self?! What are the chances of Canada developing international carriers if well financed government supported foreign airlines continue to drop capacity into Canada? A voice in my head says the chances are not too good. That's my take.

I'd like to see a strong Canadian industry with good paying jobs in Canada at Canadian bases. I would prefer that the entry level pay was way better than it is now. These goals won't be reached if a well financed foreign outfit with good marketing drops their capacity into Canada.

If China wants into our market they have some good incentives to offer. A growing middle class. China approved Canada as a tourist destination last year. Dubai has what exactly to offer? A nice plane ride? A connection onwards?

You can understand why Canadians would view emirates traffic stimulation theory as a shell game that doesn't really do anything to support or grow Caandian local carriers and get the industry moving again. Not all of us in Canada want to move to the sandbox to work and it sounds like at least some of the Canadians working in the middle east would rather work in Canada if circumstances permitted. Having emirates fly here does nothing to reach that goal.

theflyinggreek

25th Mar 2010, 12:58

I have been mostly silent until now.

As an AC pilot and a Canadian Soldier, I would like to say a few things.

Your posts are very well thought out. I enjoyed reading them.. except when you start to pick apart every sentence someone posts. :}

However, there is a larger issue at hand, not just jobs in Canada. We all know what Star alliance does and how they conduct their business. (pulling strings) Need I say any more? What goes on behind closed doors is definitely not what is being reported.

In regards to using the military base as leverage, thats disgusting. Canada is not acting alone in this war. We have options.

Canada is a sovereign country and will act accordingly. Canada will not act in the best interest of the UAE or anyone else.

Married a Canadian

25th Mar 2010, 17:46

wxweek

I say to myself: self?! What are the chances of Canada developing international carriers if well financed government supported foreign airlines continue to drop capacity into Canada? A voice in my head says the chances are not too good. That's my take

Compared to other airlines Air Canada is a "well financed govt supported foreign airline".
If it is not, in your opinion, why was it not just allowed to go bankrupt and allow another company to rise from the ashes a la Swiss or Sabena?

As I said before what is the difference. Govt bailout vs oil money???

Wxgeek

25th Mar 2010, 18:54

AC was privatized in the late 80s (88 or 89?). It hasn't been a government-owned operation for 20 years although some would say it has never lost it's government bureaucratic mentality but that's another story.

Canadian law limits foreign ownership to 25% voting shares although the government is making noises about raising the number to 49%.

AC also entered bankruptcy in 2003 and emerged in 2004. You'll have to ask the investors at the time what value they saw in investing in AC.

If a business like AC goes bankrupt it can restructure/refinance and continue business or dissolve and it's assets sold off. I've no idea if there is a restructuring in the future and if so, what form a restructuring will look like.

For ongoing financing of operations it competes for money on the markets like any other Canadian business. AFAIK AC doesn't have access to government financing or underwriting of operations, nor does Westjet, Air Transat or other Airlines in Canada.

In short AC is none of the things you allege. Not government owned, no favorable financing rates for asset purchase/leasing, no break on airport rents/landing fees/air navigation fees etc in it's home country.

The follow-up question might be what kind of favorable economics does emirates enjoy at its home hub?

My point is that foreign companies (not exclusively airlines) come to Canada and want to move the value-added jobs offshore with no payback to Canadians. emirates is no different. China airline expansion here can be matched up with Canadian airline expansion into China. Then passengers can decide who they want to buy a ticket with. Canadian airlines can expand if the product meets customer needs and Canadian pilots can fill the seats and the country benefits from having these jobs in their Canadian communities. I see the emirates deal as something different. It's a way to siphon off traffic a re-route thru Dubai to India. Where is the upside for Canadian workers? These pilot jobs end up in Dubai. How will this keep pilot jobs in Canada? How will this make the Canadian airline industry stronger? I just don't see it.

555orange

25th Mar 2010, 21:59

76, wxgeek is not embarassing himself at all. Wx seems quite factual and mature in this debate in my opinion. It seems you are the one coming to the table with the less than mature comments about others that are discussing this issue.

The way I see it... We have something Emirates wants. The same thing is also something we want to do, but maybe not at this present time. If Emirates wants it that bad, I say again they can anti up for it, more than just the debatable nos they have quoted. Nos that most probably will be taken from others.

76driver... Western countries do support democricy in the Eastern countries, but we cant dictate policy to them.....this is a world of adults and we try to influence but in the end its up to each individual country to do decide its own thing. Your argument is very weak in my opinion. You, as our valued self professed "Candian supporter" can walk into the Shaieks office and tell him he has to go! You don't think Canadian and other governments do all they can on a politically correct level to promote democracy and freedoms? Hello.... we are talking about the very military base that you yourself were just supporting UAE using as a bargaining chip. Seems you are now contradicting your own self? Trading with china? Moot point really, we benefit mutually. The point is mutually! We share the routes.

If things were reversed, and the western world were the ones with a market advantage through cheap slave labor etc then UAE would protect its interests too. Just as it does on so many levels already.

This is a competetive world, we will use ALL the tools in the box to protect OUR turf. If you want to come to the table with something that is beneficial to both of us, we will listen, we may work with it or we may not. The point is Emirates came selling, we didn't buy.... and I believe we won't. At least not for now. Unless you can come up with something more. We have interests to protect, and future plans to consider. If that means you don't get what you want, too bad.

Sorry 76, but we- Canada...not just Air Canada are not fools and we don't see it your way.

Rather Be Skiing

26th Mar 2010, 11:07

"Sorry 76, but we- Canada...not just Air Canada are not fools and we don't see it your way."

A little bold presuming to speak for all of Canada, don't you think?

The fact there is an ongoing debate about this indicates not all of Canada `sees it your way`.

Let`s not forget as mentioned in a previous post, AC is not fighting this alone: it is the Star Alliance wanting to call the shots as much as anything else. It would be naive to think their interests are purely about what is `good`for Canada.

As far as a `level playing field`is concerned, that is really saying it is level when AC decides it is. Of course, at that point it would almost certainly be tilted the other way.

Married a Canadian

26th Mar 2010, 11:55

WXweek...good posts..

in regards to

In short AC is none of the things you allege. Not government owned, no favorable financing rates for asset purchase/leasing, no break on airport rents/landing fees/air navigation fees etc in it's home country

That statement is true BUT Air Canada has a huge advantage on being the largest carrier in Canada and has used this competitive advantage in the past to dubious effect.
The "too big to fail" argument could be used. Air Canada has gone bankrupt in the past...that is acknowledged. It was resurrected (invested in no doubt because of the monopoly it has in some areas) despite being poorly run, and then allowed to compete again on routes against airlines that had not run into the same "financial issues" Air Canada did.

some would say it has never lost it's government bureaucratic mentality but that's another story.

Exactly. Are they playing by the rules of competition or are they playing their own rules?

The follow-up question might be what kind of favorable economics does emirates enjoy at its home hub

Probably loads. However that question can be asked of any major airline at any of their home airports.

555Orange

You keep talking about competition but this debate seems to be about the lack of it on the Canadian side.
We have interests to protect, and future plans to consider

Do those plans include maybe serving the growing Indian population in the GTA. The market is there...you don't even need statistics to know that...just fly to Europe on any carrier and look at the makeup of the flight (from YYZ).

The whole point of aviation is to fly people to where they want to go. "Plans" have to include that.
When I arrived in YYZ 5 years ago the GTAA's grand plan was for Toronto to become a hub to rival New York and maybe siphon some traffic off JFK/EWR ie competition. How would you do that? By having a network of flights that get people where they want to go.
Now Air Canada are restrained by a lot of the points that have been mentioned in this debate, and yes Emirates are able to operate at a considerable cost advantage. However...your future plans aren't going to go very far if you just think "canadian interests" as you will never be able to operate outside that box.

Just out of interest...you mention the China/Canada routes. The only Chinese carrier to fly into Pearson is Cathay (although EVA air are starting up..technically Taiwan) whilst Air Canada serves Hong Kong, Beijing and Shanghai.
Why don't Air China or China Eastern fly to Toronto? Is there not enough demand.
Same with JAL and ANA to Tokyo. Air Canada fly there but not the reciprocal.
Curious if it is a demand issue or an agreement issue.

555orange

27th Mar 2010, 13:40

Canada is doing its part and its best to be competitive, as well as protect the better work conditions and civil liberties that we have at the same time. It costs a bit extra to be an Airline in a country like that. So, on scale we have to place a measure of protection. Air Canada cannot compete against the likes of Emirates that is state owned and largely has no unilateral labor laws and employs a massive virtual slave labor force, and for the most part doesn't have to have financial responsibility. Sure, its easy to take over the aviation world if your Daddy pays for it. Problem is Air Canada HAS to balance its books and doesn't have Daddy to pay the debts if it doesn't. Don't tell me the Gov't will bail out AC. If it would, then AC would not have been in Bankruptcy protection 2 times already.

Furthermore, there is a-lot more competition out there against Emirates flying to Toronto than just Air Canada. You mentioned a few already. Cathay serves the Indian market from Pearson and Vancouver. Air China doesn't have a direct to Toronto, but Air Canada does. Air China serves the Vancouver segment. Air China greatly serves the Indian market. Just go and look at their website. EVA and China Air and Singapore etc all greatly serve Asia and India. Emirates "virtual" 480 million increase in business to Canada is only an attempt at taking a piece of this market away from others. As your colleague correctly said, there is not enough end service market from Canada to UAE. It is mostly flow through to Asia and India. Therefore, Emirates increasing will only take capacity from others and put it on their books. The market is well served already and I believe should there be any spare capacity that Air Canada probably would want to serve it if at all possible.

Regarding the airlines you mentioned: Cathay is not Chinese. Its primarily British. Ie: Swire Group with a minority Chinese holding, mainly political due to the British rule handover. China Air and EVA are not Chinese, they are Taiwanese, but the differentiation from where we stand is similar. They serve India and SE Asia greatly and would also be competing against Emirates for this traffic.

Emirates and Etihad have a good frequency to Toronto already. They just want "more". I don't believe it should get it unless it can guarantee some mutual benefit. Not smoke an mirrors estimate of robbing other markets followed by veiled threats. That will never win you favor in the offices of the Canadian gov't. In fact it probably did quite the opposite and is actually very foolish in my opinion. 76driver doesn't see that. He professes to be on the Canadian side, but then supported that quite honestly stupid and unconciousable negotiating tactic. Perhaps the strategy should have been the opposite, lower rent on the Canadian base in return for an additional weekly flight? Now that would be mature negotiating and might have won the route along with worldly favor.

Just my 2 cents worth! It was your benefit to lose. You just had to come to the table with the right offer.

sean747

1st Apr 2010, 11:30

Hi,
Does anybody know if there is any Loadmaster Jobs in Canada. Calgary Area....?

I would be greatful for any advise or help.

Many Thanks:ok:

Sabeji

29th Apr 2010, 17:37

Finally someone that knows what their talking about and not only bitches with their eyes closed.
Thanks Six7driver.

Plus Gentlemen, may I had that regarding "Camp Mirage" the base is called in the U.A.E. If you look at any new map of Dubai you can see that the "DubaiLand" attraction park is going to fill up the space that the base is occuping in the near futur.
So really the "threath" thing is just a compositioncoming from Ac supportes/lobbyist as this base is due to close anyway...

And instead of "closing" the Canadian airpace to protect jobs I think they should let more overfligths and collect the money from it. As well as the landing fees, taxes on the tickets sales etc...

And please guys...who are you talking about when you talk of "high paying jobs in aviation" ?? not fooling me for sure...
;-)

Wxgeek

30th Apr 2010, 15:17

Is Emirates really this bad?

http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/407041-middle-east-management-videos.html

Why should Canadians and other ex-pats be forced into working in sub-standard conditions if this is the way it labour-management relations work in your part of the world?

I'd rather foster a strong Canadian industry with good paying Canadian jobs than see these jobs exported into the middle east.

tbaylx

1st May 2010, 03:33

Those videos are actually pretty damn funny cause they are true...it's the way things work over there. You just have to learn to laugh at it really.

three eighty

1st May 2010, 04:41

Why should Canadians and other ex-pats be forced into working in sub-standard conditions

Who's forcing Canadian's or anybody else to work here?

KingAir

1st May 2010, 04:42

Air Canada has gone bankrupt in the past...that is acknowledged

Air Canada was not bankrupt, they were in bankruptcy protection. Big difference between the two.

Do those plans include maybe serving the growing Indian population in the GTA. The market is there...you don't even need statistics to know that...just fly to Europe on any carrier and look at the makeup of the flight (from YYZ).

There are plans to go back to India but the yields are very low. Management prefers to code share on Jet Airways rather than send a money losing airplane there. It's not worth it unless the Indians start paying more for their fare.

No to Emirates!

sec 3

1st May 2010, 15:33

Pax would definately prefer to fly with Jet, the service is excellent, rather than brown baggin' it with AC:}

ArcticBeech

1st May 2010, 16:54

Close the Canadian Base, in return we can boot EK out of YYZ and ban EK from Canadian airspace. Good luck trying to cross the poles without entering Canadian airspace.

nolimitholdem

3rd May 2010, 14:59

My friend,

If you actually read some of the posts in this thread, you'd realize that is about a much larger picture than Air Canada.

"proper competition" is the key phrase. How exactly do you propose a country with laws, taxes, living wages, a legal system, a participatory democracy (I could go on and on) compete with a despotic dictatorship that has no labour protections, no reasonable (ie balanced) justice system, and an endless supply of cheap slave labour?

Don't let your petty dislike of Air Canada blind you to the real issues. If Emirates wants to fly in Canada let them open a base in Toronto and hire pilots to fly out of it. Let them see how they can compete when they are operating under the same rules as Air Canada, in Canada. Why not, if that's where they want to fly? Step up or shut up.

Emirates is just one more example of "flags of convenience", just like the supertankers based in Liberia or the Nike shoes made in China.

As one of the pilots who might be referred to as "forced" to work for Emirates, no, there was no gun held to my head. But after multiple layoffs and no hiring at the time in Canada, there wasn't a lot of choice. But it's far worse for the mass of labourers in Dubai, so the poster who asked "who's forcing Canadians or anyone else to work there" just has no effing clue about the desperation of most subcontinent/asian workers. THEY absolutely are forced by circumstance.

and wxgeek,

I can assure you that the videos are actually only the tip of the iceberg. They are viciously hilarious because they are so spot-on.

fourgolds

3rd May 2010, 15:43

Nolimit , thats about the best statement on the entire saga so far.
I could not agree more. Good post.

I am in EK and would like nothing more than regular flights to Canada. However its not a level playing field for all the reasons you stated.
As mentioned ( even the cleaning staff in Canada have certain rights and a minimum standard of living that the law watches over) , whereas "all" staff at EK have no recourse . Its not about protecting AC , but has to do with a much bigger picture protecting the Canadian way of life. I am with the Canadian Gov on this one and I hope they block EK.

Flights back home are so full on EK , and off course we only get one annual leave ticket. So when you take the rest off your leave you face enormous stress if you will get back. So like passenger " X" I just by a confirmed seat ( economy) , but never on EK . Always on the ' western' competition. I believe in giving my money to organisations that represent a more agreeable/ people orientated/fair/ humane system( even if the tickets might be a few 100dhs more on occassion). The stopover in Europe is a nice break on the way home.
Not to mention how good it feels as a " customer" to exercise my choice of carrier.

Much more transparency and fairplay required.

KingAir

5th May 2010, 02:55

If the Canadian government haven't figured out their protecting Air Canada doesn't work by now, they never will. The government had a hand in the collapse / takeover of Wardair, C3, Canadian, and a handfull of carriers owned by the crook Mike the White. All this to prop up the mighty national carrier. Air Canada still has a inferior product, and with the baby sitting in Ottawa still can't turn a proffit. It's time to let the industry and travelling public decide who they want to fly with. I'm not condoning fifth freedom or whatever they call point to point within a country, but let anybody fly into Canada. You Air Canada wanks think you are god's gift to aviation. Maybe if the gov allowed proper competition, AC would get their house in order, along with the suffocating contracts of the unions. Sickening!

Inferior product huh?! aircanada.com - About Air Canada - Air Canada Awards (http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/facts/awards/index.html)

Give your head a shake.
Guess your appliction was rejected. Sour grapes!! Somebody should smack you upside the head!

The government doesn't offer Air Canada the protectionism that you seem to have in your small head. In fact, the Air Canada act prevents Air Canada from competing fairly in the domestic market.

You might want to get your head out of the sand if you think that EK's increased presence in Canada will not hurt all Canadians and not to mention the transatlantic and american markets. No to Emirates!

Married a Canadian

5th May 2010, 07:56

Kingair

Air Canada was not bankrupt, they were in bankruptcy protection. Big difference between the two.

You will have to explain that one to me. Surely one leads to the other?
The point I have made in the past is that they are still allowed to compete whilst under this protection. Bit of an artificial market really when other carriers do not have this luxury or have run their business so they don't need it.

In fact, the Air Canada act prevents Air Canada from competing fairly in the domestic market.

Fairpoint...and my colleagues did explain this to me (foreigner that I am).

However Air Canada does control a LOT of the domestic market. If I am flying out of Toronto YYZ on a domestic DIRECT flight who are my choices...I have 2( and I include Jazz under the Air Canada banner...I know it is a bit more complicated than that). Not really a lot of competition or choice there.
From my perspective all this act seems to do is make Air Canada fly to places they don't want to. How it affects their competitive edge in a domestic market (and I am talking Canada) is not clear.

BTW those awards are a bit misleading. They are all "North America" not world based....and given the stick that all the American carriers seem to get regarding their service it is not surprising that Air Canada would get top marks for "best flight attendants in North America".
It is not really part of the debate but unfortunately if we bring service into this discussion Emirates would win hands down.

WXgeek
I'd rather foster a strong Canadian industry with good paying Canadian jobs than see these jobs exported into the middle east

Then lets hope Air Canada leaves Porter airlines to continue doing their thing because if they tried to knock Porter out of the market you lose Canadian jobs, planes and base.

Twas interesting to see Emirates swoop when Skyservice went under with the timing of their roadshows. Does anyone know how successful they were?

nolimitholdem

5th May 2010, 21:43

With your analogy, BA, AA, United and every other tom dick or hairy should have to have a base in Toronto to fly there. Give your head a shake.

Ah.....no.

The airlines you mention are all already based in countries similar in Canada in the ways I mentioned. Some might disagree but last I checked Britain and the US are still forms of participatory democracies and thus bear more than a faint resemblance to the way things are in Canada.

If you actually lived in the UAE you would realize it's a whole other ball game and thus, comparing apples to oranges. While I would not be so presumptuous as to ask the Middle East to leave their medieval socio/political systems in the past, I would definitely fight to not have them not drag the world airline industry down to their level.

In other words, comparing BA/AA/UA to EK is pure bs.

GMC1500

7th May 2010, 10:47

Guess your appliction was rejected. Sour grapes!! Somebody should smack you upside the head!

Any chance your dad was an AC pilot?

EK's increased presence in Canada will hurt all Canadians and not to mention the transatlantic and american markets. No to Emirates!

How does providing more access to the world, access that AC will NEVER provide without foreign codeshare partners, hurt Canadians? Bringing more tourists to Canada? Allowing Canadians living abroad better access? Is it hurting Aussies? Brazilians? Americans, etc, etc...

The airlines you mention are all already based in countries similar in Canada in the ways I mentioned. Some might disagree but last I checked Britain and the US are still forms of participatory democracies and thus bear more than a faint resemblance to the way things are in Canada.

Blatantly ethnocentric.

In other words, comparing BA/AA/UA to EK is pure bs

You're exactly right...ask the paying customers.

nolimitholdem

7th May 2010, 16:29

Do you even know what ethnocentric means, you fool?

Two of the countries I mentioned are populated mainly by immigrants. (US and Canada). The other, UK, is fast having their traditional population displaced by migrants. So these are hardly "ethnocentric" countries, rather the opposite with increasingly DIVERSE ethnicities!

All of which has NOTHING to do with my contention that the political systems in the US, Canada, and the UK are somewhat similar, while that of the UAE and its ILK is most certainly most not! Do I have to get the crayons out and draw you a goddamn picture?!

BTW, they did ask the paying customers, and apparently quite a few of them felt positively about AC to allow it win several awards. But once again, irrelevant to the greater picture of comparing one political system to another.

If you're going to try and debate, at least try and bring something to the table. Thanks for playing.

GMC1500

7th May 2010, 17:40

HaHaHa, oh seriously my friend. Do you want me to pull out my Raymond767 cards and show you who you are debating with? I won't bore the viewers with that, but if you want a PM debate, feel free.
You are debating and contradicting yourself on this forum and looking like a fool in the process. Do you think I would introduce the word 'ethnocentric' if I didn't know its meaning? In which university course did you become acquainted with it?
Now, draw me a god damned picture.
Who do you think works for EK? Emiratis? Not too many. Grab a clue. By excluding them based on your, excuse the big word, ethnocentric views, you are excluding Canadians, Americans, Brits, Aussies, Germans, Italians, and on and on and on. Not too many Emiratis. And by the way my learned friend, what is wrong with Emiratis? Are they not good enough to fly into your ivory land?

GMC1500

8th May 2010, 06:05

Ahh, I see, we're debating the validity of various political systems vis a vis their right to access the canadian market?
Ok, so you go ahead and set the rules of the debate then and change them as you see fit.

So by your standards, there are many other countries by virtue of their lack of canadian style politics that should be restricted from expanding. Care to start a list? Axis of evil?

As for being populated by immigrants, Dubai is 85% expats, but you already knew that didn't you because you lived here. Just slipped your mind I guess.

And the awards to AC you speak of are for North American carriers only, as was mentioned before. So BA, EK, etc were not compared by said customers. EK would have to drag AC up to its level, not down as you said.

Nobody is talking about supplanting the govt of canada with the UAE royal family, just adding some frequency.

nolimitholdem

12th May 2010, 13:27

ahh cool. I see by your second post you received my crayoned drawing. You're still a ways off the point, but getting closer. Hey if you say you're a master-(de)bater, then it must be true! Please don't pull out any cards, or do some sort of Raymond thing, whatever that means.

There is no "ethnocentrism" vis a vis (as you say) a certain ethnic group. But political systems? Hell yes. If you truly believe that the "system" as it is in the UAE is superior to that of Canada or other peaceful democracies, then there isn't anything to debate - we'll simply have to agree to disagree on that point. But then, I'd have to hope that you have at least lived under a range of systems so that you'd be able to make a judgement from experience, not theory. I'd hate to think you were arguing solely from petty selfishness wanting a couple more flights to DXB a week.

And trying to de-link the connection between the two systems is a hijacking of the entire debate - it IS the debate! It is the very foundation of what makes Emirates Airline "competitive": no labour protections, no creditable legal system, and an extremely lax, unaccountable regulatory regime. That's just the short list. Tell me how that "contradicts" what I have already stated: that this issue is about far more than Air Canada and the simple whining of people like yourself about "adding some frequency".

I did enjoy your cheap attempt to utilize some variant of the "race" card. The implying of racism is very convenient I know (Emiratis? Ivory towers? WTF?) but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If you were really concerned about racism, and actually had experienced life in the UAE, you'd realize that it was the most racist place on the planet. Watching you try to charge ethnocentrism at someone living in Dubai makes me a bit nostalgic for Canada - it's almost quaint. Perhaps I shall report you to some Human Rights Tribunal.

Please, continue to explain to me how it is here in the UAE. It's actually closer to 90% expats, of which I am one. I'll be sure to pass your thoughts along to my multinational colleagues, they're always up for a laugh. One thing they're not though, is clamouring for more service to Canada. Sorry.

I do not care about Emiratis or any specific ethnic or cultural group. But I do enjoy speaking against an organization whose methodology I have observed firsthand, attempt, through various - at times underhanded, blatantly, obscenely abusive tactics - try to dominate an industry for their own motive which seems to consist entirely of greed.

You are of course free to disagree. Ironically if you did so in the UAE you would risk negative consequences for doing so.

No to Emirates in Canada.

Saltaire

13th May 2010, 06:27

Have to side with GMC on this one. Nolimit, you're on the edge Mav, time to take some more time off.

Maybe move back for a job at Tim Hortons, eh?

jinglied

13th May 2010, 20:53

..and I'll go with "Nolimit"...

He probably is on the edge, but he's obviously lived (and is living) here. This place is nothing like the adverts.

Dubai, and EK, run the most amazingly successful marketing campaign I have ever seen. But a tourist coming through here doesn't see the 20 to a room workers/maids (yes 20 to a room). There are charity groups here that visit them from time to time for support. Those charity groups will not have a single Emerati I can gaurantee you that. Joe the Canadian probably hasn't viewed the video of the Sheiks brother torturing that poor guy a while back. (and by the way...a verdict has been reached on that case...the sheiks brother got off scott-free as he's a member of the Royal Family, and everyone else involved was convicted, even though he was obviously the ring leader)

I'm sure you're asking "what the hell has EK got to do with what's happening in the rest of the city?" EK and Dubai live and breath off each other. EK is an extension of this city. EK fired the Captain and F/O last year of the Melbourne accident and fired the Training Captain and F/O of another flight, Manchester, a short while later.

The Melbourne crew was out of this country within two weeks after the accident. They were threatened with jail time for destroying "Government of UAE Property". Or if they actually "resigned", then the company, and the UAE authorities would let them go. They had NO CHOICE. BLACKMAILED. Why else would they resign? Why else would they also sign a letter in confidence NOT TO DISCUSS THE MATTER? FEAR...that's why.

The Manchester crew... On short final were given clearance to land on the parallel runway, accepted it, then went around on short final. During the G/A the Training Captain realized he was turning the wrong way and advised ATC. No problem, uneventful return and landing. Captain decides to write ASR, and this Fuc.king Company fires both of them based on the ASR!!! On a training flight!!

..AND.. At this very moment there is an F/O who has been grounded for about two months now because he embarressed a very senior TRE who blatantly, willfully broke a hard company SOP. And as such, the F/O wrote an ASR on it!! Obviously a mistake on his part. Can you see a trend here?

These stories are the tip of the iceberg in this place.

Emirates admittedly sells a pretty, sweet smelling product. But, having lived here for six years (and it looks like I might soon be getting out) I have zero respect and will support this place no longer.

I agree... No to Emirates in Canada..

Jinglie'd

Skylion

13th May 2010, 21:47

This thread seems to have gone way off track and become a political rant about comparative social and political systems and those can be debated for ever in total disregard to the history and future needs of the countries concerned. The Gulf has given crews from all over the world tremendous opportunities and opportunities they could not have expected in their home countries, especially those dominated by legacy carriers. If having got there they find they don't like it-and the lifestyle while great for some is not for others,- no problem,- just leave.
As far as aviation is concerned the fact is that Canada, with its geographical position and its old fashioned restrictive bilateral agreements which limit airline frequencies and capacity is an international backwater of little interest to most carriers. A look at an atlas will reveal that the Gulf on the other hand is probably the best located place in the world to base an airline aiming to provide one-stop flights from almost any part of the globe to any other. (Ok, Ok, not from North to South America or American continent- transpacific). The new carriers have taken the opportunities well and provide levels of service up there with the Far Eastern airlines, and way above most of the Europeans and even further ahead of the legacy American operators. Air Canada doesn't even begin to compete in this respect.Let the customers choose.

Saltaire

14th May 2010, 14:12

What you say is mainly true jingled, but what can you do to change it? Makes you and nolimit feel better to vent, we get that. It's not fair and just, the place is heartless, draconian etc. I, for one agree, but your hatred for your own airline is so great, you would rather have it not expand so you and many others from Cad can fly home and enjoy other layover benefits? Kinda like hearing from a Spaniard, saying no to Madrid ! ya right. I for one would love to see EK expand into Canada. Take me home....let the consumer decide and you know the outcome, EK would dominate.

tbaylx

14th May 2010, 16:02

EK would dominate at the expense of candian jobs here in Canada making more of us have to go over there to work in the cesspool...no thanks.

Skylion

14th May 2010, 19:01

Why would EK dominate if Air Canada offers better service??

Saltaire

15th May 2010, 03:29

It would create jobs and maybe AC can lift it's game instead of sitting on it's #ss and taking another union break. It's called competition and free skies. Cesspool, like Toronto?

Married a Canadian

16th May 2010, 00:06

EK would dominate at the expense of candian jobs here in Canada

Is ANYONE going to explain this statement at all on either of the two threads that is running on this topic (MIddle east forum a while back).

Why is one airline going to take away Canadian jobs?

Passengers maybe?...but not jobs.

If you are saying the Emirates flying into Canada on whatever frequency they require is going to put Air Canada under...and THAT is why jobs will be lost...then you are delusional.

I agree with Skylion. Leave the demographics and social aspects out of this debate. They serve no purpose...and don't address the business issue.
EK vs Air Canada or EK vs Canada...whichever way you look at it.

1 How will regular service by EK affect Canadian jobs in an adverse way..ie how will jobs be LOST
2 How " " " " be bad for the Canadian economy
3 How is increased competition bad for Air Canada when the free market is all about competition (and if you want to be all democratic you have to uphold to the free market...who cares if EK dosen't....no one cares about the other countries round the world that have similar problems to the middle east....at least I get that gist from looking at the "Made in ****" tags on my goods bought in this wonderful democracy....and also my motherland)

Answer that in an economic/business sense.

The "Middle east sucks and EK is crooked" line grows fairly tiresome after a while when it dosen't seem to make a tuppence worth of difference in the world of international business.

Wxgeek

16th May 2010, 02:51

1 How will regular service by EK affect Canadian jobs in an adverse way..ie how will jobs be LOSTIf EK poaches transatlantic/transpacific traffic from Canadian carriers. (For ex: YYC/YVR/YYZ-FRA/LHR-India) (another ex:YVR-YSSY) frequencies will decrease if loads lighten up. Less frequency = less good paying Canadian pilot jobs. Those good paying pilot jobs will be replaced by contract ramp jobs from EK. No thanks.

2 How " " " " be bad for the Canadian economyRead answer 1. If 1 set of pilots get laid off that is $300k/year of front end crew wages that disappear. These two pilots probably spend 90%+ of their wages in Canada in taxes and personal spending each year. And this is replaced by a pair of ramp jobs at $40K each? This is good somehow? For who? How does this benefit Canada? I'd rather keep the good paying jobs in Canada thanks very much.

3 How is increased competition bad for Air Canada when the free market is all about competitionIf there is a mutual benefit for the competition and a level field competition is fine. What benefit will Canadian carriers get flying passengers THRU Dubai? Because that is what we are really talking about. Only a small fraction of Canada-Dubai traffic stop in Dubai. A majority connects onwards. We both know that but only one of us is saying it. As it stands now the India traffic connects thru Europe. Not ideal but at least there is an opportunity for expansion should a Canadian carrier decide to fly into India and an Indian carrier into Canada. The same opportunity does not exist for a Canadian carrier flying into Dubai. The destination traffic from Canada to Dubai too light to warrant starting a route. EK gets to poach Canada-Europe-India traffic and Canadian carrier get exactly what benefit? I see none.

The "Why would EK dominate if Air Canada offers better service??" argumentPeople are very price concious, so whoever offers an acceptable product at the best price will probably get the business. EK can undercut a Canadian carrier whenever it wants. AC's profits are hit and miss, EKs are consistently good. EK has access to capital AC can only dream of. Although I don't think EK would not do as well with the same tax load as AC but thats another story. AC is outgunned and I think the Canadian Government knows this. It would be easy for EK to dominate based on their better economic situation. The Canadian government really doesn't want to reduce the tax load on Canadian carriers so it must offer them some protection from poachers like EK. There just isn't enough economic benefit flowing to Canada to allow EK anything more IMO

tbaylx

16th May 2010, 04:05

That about sums it up...the bottom line is EK does not compete with AC on a level playing field. EK can hire most of it's employees for dirt cheap wages, no unions or labor laws to worry about and Dubai charges no landing fees.

Saltaire if you are seriously comparing Toronto to Dubai then you have been spending too much time in the sun. There aren't any canadians that i know over there that wouldn't give their left nut to be based in YYZ over DXB any day. Have you actually lived in either of those two cities past the honeymoon period?

If EK had to abide by the same employment standards that AC does then by all means lets open it up and have them compete. But since that isn't going to happen then no to EK. Air Canada "sitting on it's union ass" is a hell of a lot better alternative than employing people in canada under UAE labor standards. There is a lot of subcontinent traffic flowing through LHR on AC that would soon be on EK if canadian skies were to open up and that would move aviation jobs overseas. End of story.

Canoli Driver

16th May 2010, 12:31

Good debate this one...

Saltair, how is one's defence of ones territory by another due to unfair advantage "on the edge"? I rather think its quite normal and prevalent in this world.

Of course we all advocate "open flying" and "free trade" in the world, but those tenants of unilateral trade are never intended to allow another country unbridaled access to another market. Rather, its intended for each country access to anothers market on a fair and equitable basis. Its simply a negotiated unilateral business deal that benefits both sides. Why would anyone allow a neighbor access to their house if it meant you yourself would eventually be kicked out?

You and everyone knows this. So your argument is really actually quite empty.

Allow me to open your mind a bit. Whats stopping China with its trillions of dollars and huge appetite for business, from coming into North America and buying up blue chip companies? Why would they want too in the first place? Why wouldn't they want to come to the UAE and buy up Emirates Airlines? Hmm... food for though eh?

Think about it... you may figure the world out....

Its not as simple as "let the market decide".

First, some markets need a measure of protection, and second some countries need to be limited in their growth due to their subsidized nature.

These are basics my friend. Time to open your mind to reality.

Wxgeek

16th May 2010, 19:06

The post further up from "jinglied" is for me the most worrying as a pilot.

If pilots are indeed being disciplined for writing ASRs at Emirates it won't take long for their safety culture (if it even exists) to collapse. I can tell you that at the Canadian airline I work for management has committed in writing that there is no jeopardy for disclosing an unsafe procedure and operation via an ASR or any other communication. I haven't seen any evidence that they are lying nor do I think this policy is unique for a major Canadian operator.

This doesn't mean mistakes aren't made, but the information regarding a safety issue certainly isn't suppressed nor are pilots punished for raising safety concerns.

If punishing pilots for raising safety concerns is how Emirates operates it's a major problem for me as another pilot or as a potential Emirates passenger.

GMC1500

20th May 2010, 09:34

High paying Canadian flight deck jobs?? EK would compete only on the long haul wide body market, and only on a few routes. IF it were necessary for AC to shed a few European flts, those resources could be deployed elsewhere in the existing network, or maybe they could exploit some new markets. This sounds like the chicken little argument.

I just don't get the protectionist argument. Look to the other western countries EK flies to: UK, Australia, USA, Germany, France, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, and more. Have their aviation markets, legacy carriers been destroyed? Their entire national economies? I don't think so, and although many of them struggle, you can't put it down to EKs presence. Most of them have struggled long before EKs arrival.

And what's with the term "poaching ACs customers". Does AC own these passengers? I thought it was a free country?

As for Dubai vs YYZ, I for one have lived in both. Nearly went broke living in YYZ, or should I say in the outskirts because almost no pilots can afford to live in Toronto proper. My last job was YYZ based, and of the 200 or so capts I flew with, maybe 2 lived in Toronto, the rest between 1 and 2 hrs drive away, or commuters from across the country. Hey its a free country (well, that's the crux of this debate, isn't it?) if you want to spend that many hours in your car on the 400 series highways and give half your earnings to the govt, fill your boots. I for one would never want to be based in YYZ, so speak for yourself.

Speaking of level playing fields, why is it fair that AC must have a french speaking FA on every flight while WJ doesn't, and they don't have unions to deal with, and lower corporate taxes in AB. No fair, no fair, limit their slots at Pearson!!
EK does have labour laws to deal with everywhere it employs people, including Dubai, and it pays landing fees everywhere, including Dubai. Point is no two airlines are on level playing fields. Instead of deriding one who is doing better than yours, why not try to focus on improving your own situation?

And nolimit, I do live here, wtf do you think? And I'm pretty sure our Canadian expat colleagues would love to see more frequency, sounds like you could use some more time at home for one. So what is the point of your argument then? Canada holds EKs slots hostage until Canada can force a change of govt in UAE? Are you serious??

six7driver

20th May 2010, 13:57

Excellent post GMC1500...lets hear it for reason!...:ok:

Wxgeek

21st May 2010, 13:59

Here is an example of EK pricing that exists today. Lowest fare selected on both flights:

Toronto - Sydney, Australia airfare (June 2010) comparison:
EK airfare $2038.00 taxes $141.32 total $2179.32

total distance flown: 14380 nm via DXB

AC airfare $2108.50 taxes $420.82 total $2529.32

total distance flown: 9841 nm via YVR

Several things could be be happening:
1) EKs operation is more efficient because of lower fuel costs+ lower fuel taxes/lower wage rates/lower total corporate taxes paid. I'm assuming fuel burn/hour per seat are about the same for both airlines.
2) EK is able to offer fares below cost because of their stronger economic position and they are more interested in grabbing market share than making money on this seat.

How can they offer a fare $360 cheaper on a route that is 46% longer?

This is a glaring example of why Canada doesn't need EK poaching in Canada. The tax load is too high for Canada's airlines to compete against a better financed EK. There has to be upside for both parties in any agreement and in EKs case there isn't any upside for Canadian carriers.

GMC1500 admits AC frequencies across the Atlantic may decrease but says AC can find business elsewhere on other routes. How very generous of EK to muscle in and tell Canadian carriers to look elsewhere for profit. How about EK just quit Canada and go elsewhere for their profits?

Pilot job prospects and wages in Canada won't increase if Canada's airlines are made weaker by poachers like EK.

KingAir

21st May 2010, 16:46

Excellent post WxGeek...let's hear it for better reasoning! :ok:

:}

It seems that all of you that want better access for EK are only after it for selfish reasons. If you really want YYZ layovers, why not move back and stay more than a night at a time?

Stay away EK! :=

six7driver

21st May 2010, 18:59

Reason defined by the dictionary fact(s) that logically justifies some premise or conclusion

FACTS:ugh:

You King Air, Wxgeek, and your ilk engage instead in polemic rants, and opinion justified by speculation...and you know what they say about opinions King stooge? they're like a$$holes, everyone's got one.:D

Meet King Air, unselfish moral authority and his side kick and Air Canada employee Wxgeek, they, like Air Canada's CEO and Union leaders, know what's best for Canada!! :yuk::yuk::yuk: :mad:

YES TO EMIRATES!...is what our neighbors to the south are saying...and smiling from ear to ear when all the jobs that could have been going to Canadians will instead be theirs.

:ok:

GMC1500

24th May 2010, 21:42

It seems that all of you that want better access for EK are only after it for selfish reasons. If you really want YYZ layovers, why not move back and stay more than a night at a time?

For myself I think I made it pretty clear, because I was going broke after working ten years as a pilot in Canada!! I'm sure most posters are familiar with the game, move your career forward, move your wages backward. Plus the bottom line is that its an underserved route. I'd be thrilled if AC wanted to start up service YYZ/DXB. Any predictions about when that's going to happen?

2) EK is able to offer fares below cost because of their stronger economic position and they are more interested in grabbing market share than making money on this seat.

If this were true, then how did EK make such nice fat profits last year while AC lost how much? Again? While charging more money to fly a shorter route??
There has to be upside for both parties in any agreement and in EKs case there isn't any upside for Canadian carriers.
Since when has it been up to AC as to who gets to provide service to Canadian citizens or tourists?? I guess that's why you're so comfortable using the term "poaching", implying that all of these passengers belong to AC as a god given right.
Pilot job prospects and wages in Canada won't increase if Canada's airlines are made weaker by poachers like EK.

Ok, let's assume EK keeps their ASMs stable in Canada for the next ten years, then you can come on here and tell us how all of Canadian pilots wages and opportunities are so much better. Unbelievable. Always pointing to the bogeyman from the outside instead of acknowledging the inherent problems in the Canadian market and addressing them.
...what's that I hear? whistling past the graveyard?...

tbaylx

25th May 2010, 01:58

GMC....

There are no labour laws protecting expats in Dubai...go ahead and try taking EK to court over something and let me know how that works out for you. EK also does not pay landing fees in DXB..DXB doesn't charge landing fees.

If EK wants access to canadian markets it needs to be on fair terms to canadian carriers.

EK can make a nice fat profit on the back of its employees that are paid peanuts. FD might make more than canadian pilots and get other benefits you wouldn't see in canada, but go ahead and compare ground staff, ticketing etc.

555orange

25th May 2010, 07:39

blah blah blah...
You came knockin... trying to sell... didnt have anything to offer in return... tried to threaten us instead of woo us (really smart)... we slammed door in your face and now your crying in your soup.

You can measure metrics all you want... we don't care.

Your not getting any more flights. Daily to UAE is enough. Just as I expected. You want more seats? Use the 380.

This is old news.

GMC1500

25th May 2010, 07:45

Do you live in Dubai or Thunder Bay?
There are labour laws in Dubai, there are stories in the paper all the time here about somebody sueing an employer, and several dismissed pilots have sued Emirates. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to list comparative differences, but to come on here and state that there are no labour laws is simply not true. That there are no unions is a much more valid point to make.
Of course Dubai airport charges landing fees, do you think they'd give it away for free??:confused: And yes, Emirates pays them too. They just published part of a document they're preparing to address these common myths in the industry in the company paper. Emirates is one of the most profitable businesses Dubai owns and as we all know, Dubai needs money, so they're going to siphon off as much as they can from the goose that laid the golden egg, including landing fees.
So every airline that comes into Canada pays all their ground staff the same as AC?? You must be joking! Not even WJ does that!! How about Pakistan Int'l Air? Air India?
Give it up guys, your argument is weak and hollow. AC will not perish if EK gets a few more slots a week at YYZ.

Townie

25th May 2010, 10:38

The arguments that the Canada-UAE traffic is adequately served by the current 6 flights per week agreement is rather weak on so many points.

Firstly, if the market has to be proven to exist before frequencies are granted, how will new routes ever be established? Have AC never pioneered a new destination and grown a route themselves? (remember the movie: "Build it and they will come")

Another point that has already been stated is that if EK were to get additional frequencies then AC would see a drop in their transatlantic traffic due to them picking up fewer connections from the Subcontinent and Asia. Doesn't this same point-to-point argument suggest that if AC is picking up many connecting passengers in European ports, that it has too many Canada to Europe flights? How many passengers originate in the UK (for example) and are destined for Canada only? The point-to-point argument would not support UK-USA traffic via Canada. Who can determine using this argument which airline should fly international connecting passengers? If a passenger flew on Air India to the UK and then British Airways to YYZ have BA just "stolen" a passenger/revenue/jobs from Canada? Why haven't the Canadian Government been onto the UK CAA about this?

EK has over 10 flights per day to the UK and continues to expand there. Both BA and Virgin also fly to DXB, so competition is alive and well. As most of Emirates UK traffic is also heading further east, the consumer has the choice to fly LHR-DXB-BOM, or take AI, BA, Jet Airways etc... LHR-BOM direct. The customer wins.

If AC is convinced there is no YYZ-DXB traffic and are afraid of losing the Asian market they should offer passengers the choice of BOM-YYZ, KHI-YYZ or DEL-YYZ direct (they've got the 200LRs that could do it). They are unfortunately stuck with the Star Alliance and so will not offer the flights that passengers want so find it less risky to adopt an uncompetitive stance.

I think the response from the UAE regarding the Canadians using (or not) the UAE military base was despicable. I would not even try to defend this, nor would I try to suggest that any airline that would try to compete with a Canadian airline should somehow live up to a certain standard when it comes to unions/salaries/fares etc. I am sure that AC staff at the Caribbean and South American destinations are not protected and compensated by Canadian standards. I also believe that some routes charge more per ASM than others. It is often a case of supply and demand. To suggest that EK charges for YYZ-SYD should more resemble the AC fare could be referred to as price fixing.

GMC1500

25th May 2010, 11:07

Excellent post Townie, probably the smartest one on this topic yet, except passengers aren't stolen, they're 'poached'.:bored: I guess it sounds more sinister that way. It also presumes passengers either don't or shouldn't have a choice of carrier. Sounds like communism to me.

Rather Be Skiing

28th May 2010, 13:57

Here's some comments from Maurice Flannigan of EK:

Next up in Flanagan’s firing line is Air Canada and the Canadian government, which he believes is stuck in the past.

“They are still there politically in the 1960s. I can’t understand that. The market is there for double daily Toronto and double daily to Vancouver and certainly daily, going to double, to Calgary.

“We are [only] allowed three a week to Toronto and that is all protection to Air Canada [but] what good has that done to Air Canada? Look at the state they are in,” he says.

“I know of no other country that thinks in those terms. It is to protect Air Canada, I can’t see any other reason. Just open the skies and let us in — that is the answer. It will be great benefit to the Canadian economy.”

As part of its lobbying to the Canadian government, Emirates released a study in March concluding that Canada could reap economic benefits of around $466m a year and create 2,800 jobs if it was given the flying slots it is demanding.

However, Air Canada has accused Emirates of wanting to “flood” the Canadian routes in order to divert passengers through Dubai. Calin Rovinescu, CEO of Air Canada, the country’s biggest airline, said that allowing Emirates to increase its capacity would be “severely damaging” to Canadian airports and airlines.

The rest of the article can be found here:

Plane talking - Transportation - ArabianBusiness.com (http://www.arabianbusiness.com/588684-plane-talking?start=1)

Flame Away!!

KingAir

14th Jul 2010, 19:21

"European airlines determining how to counter growing Emirates. With Emirates expanding rapidly and showing no sign of slowing down, European airlines are looking at how to counter a carrier that has become a formidable threat.

Dubai International reported a 13.6% leap in passengers in May to 3.7 million. IATA recently noted that Middle East airlines "continue to post strong growth with connecting traffic through their hubs." It is that traffic in particular that concerns European carriers worried that growing numbers of passengers will choose EK connections through Dubai over flights offered by EU-based airlines.

KLM CEO Peter Hartman said he expects EK will face "more and more reluctance [from governments] to grant traffic rights." According to the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, Hartman told Dow Jones that governments in Europe and other parts of the world are likely to become increasingly unwilling to accommodate the next phase of the carrier's expansion.

CAPA pointed to recent reports that the French government has rejected requests to grant UAE-based airlines more landing slots at Paris Charles de Gaulle. EK, Etihad and Air Arabia were seeking a total of seven new slots, but French authorities reportedly agreed to just one new service.

British Airways CEO Willie Walsh recently stated outright that Emirates' expansion represents a threat to long-haul European carriers. "It’s definitely going to have an impact on the business," he said. (Source: Air Transport World)"

No to EK!

GMC1500

15th Jul 2010, 13:10

No to EK!
What is this, some catchphrase now, like just say no to drugs?

Yes to protectionism!

Where is this thinking coming from? What if every country thought this about the company you fly for?

I honestly don't know how legacy carriers from europe and north america are still in business. The taxes and costs of running such companies with union labour forces must make it extremely difficult to turn a profit. Of course they're afraid of EK and other middle east airlines, and of course they can't compete head to head on cost or product. They should focus on how they're going to survive the new reality rather than trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

tbaylx

15th Jul 2010, 19:22

They could also hire 3/4 of their workforce from the subcontinent and pay them peanuts, least then they could compete with Ek on an even footing.....

clunckdriver

15th Jul 2010, 19:44

And where will all these middle Eastern outfits be when the oil runs out ?{as it will, long before Canada does, we are in fact going to be the "Blue Eyed Arabs}The Ex Pats will depart the fix and the locals will be right back where they were during the time of Lawrence, this is not a racist position, just having spent a fair bit of time involved with this part of the globe one can see it coming, and when it does there wont be any of their aircraft flying around the Globe, at least the sandbox is a great climate to park aircraft in!

CaptW5

16th Jul 2010, 00:14

Link to full article referenced in Post #88 by KingAir:

European airlines determining how to counter growing Emirates | ATW Online (http://atwonline.com/aeropolitics-regulation/news/european-airlines-determining-how-counter-growing-emirates-0712?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtwDailyNews+%28ATW+Daily+News%29)

GMC1500

16th Jul 2010, 20:18

Clunckdriver,
You are one of the most clever guys on here, but I need to make a couple of points about your post.
Where will they be when the oil runs out? What do you mean? Where will ANY airline be when the oil runs out? Jets flying on peanut oil? If its canola oil, Canada's in good shape. Or at least Monsanto is.
If that's not what you mean, then you mean that oil profits are what are feeding the growth of middle east airlines. In the case of Emirates, Dubai has barely any oil, Abu Dhabi has most of it and they have Ethihad. That's why Dubai has built up so many other things regarding property, toursim, and Emirates, precisely because they don't have very much oil in the first place. And in the second place, Emirates is self funding and profitable for almost 25 years. Can AC say the same? And if they can't, is it Emirates' fault?
AC's problems began LOOOOOONG before EK started flying 3 times per week into YYZ, and will continue regardless of how many people EK does or doesn't bring into Canada.

pcm

17th Jul 2010, 00:24

How are other airlines to compete against one that pays less then half the labour costs? EK's wages are horrible even for pilots. If you want to bring down the profession keep it in your own country.

tbaylx

17th Jul 2010, 01:20

Actually the pilot wages at EK are reasonable, certainly better than 90% of the pilot jobs in Canada and they pay for housing and other benefits. Mind you you're working some pretty silly schedules at the moment for it, you have to put up with the whole "you're just lucky to be here management",and a hundered more things that can drive you crazy in the sandbox. Pilot pay at EK isn't the best, but IMHO it's not one of the big issues there. There are a hundred companies in Canada that are doing far more to bring down the pilot profession pay wise than EK. Wish all canadian companies paid EK wages and benefits, then i think you'd find EK able to fill a double daily YYZ 380 full of expat canadians heading home.

Now if you want to talk non management/pilot wages you can be sure that the guy at A/C loading catering or bags is probably making more in a month than his counterpart at EK does in a year.

Married a Canadian

17th Jul 2010, 20:49

How are other airlines to compete against one that pays less then half the labour costs

The same way all the carriers that have to compete against airlines that operate under chapter 11 and are being allowed to restructure whilst bankrupt.
The European carriers (some of them) "love" the fact that North American carriers could compete on routes even though they were under protection from bankruptcy.
Some airlines don't have that luxury. What do you do?

So Air Canada doesn' have the luxury against Emirates to cost compete. How unfair. How many airlines say the same against Air Canada?

Even after all this time does anyone in the YYZ area want to comment on Air Canada against Porter at YTZ. Large carrier with a significant cost advantage trying to muscle in on territory that according to some does not have the passenger volume to support more than one airline.
Good for Canadian jobs and aviation eh? If Porter fold because of Air Canada gaining access to routes then where do all those pilots and ground staff go?

If you are against Emirates then you should be against Air Canada going after the island airport again. No difference in my opinion.

Married a Canadian

17th Jul 2010, 20:53

Oh and as regards to

No to EK!

Didn't the US recently come up with "Buy American". The Canadians LOVED that one.
Tis a slippery slope you are on with a flat out NO.

pcm

18th Jul 2010, 00:45

Good wages? Just over 100,000 for the average captain and 60,000 for the average first officer to fly 777's, 380's and 340's? Those wages are horrible, less then half of Air Canada's and almost on par with Jazz.

Oh ya, I forgot you don't pay tax. And why is that? We (oil consumers) are subsidizing you. I've been writing my MP for some time on how I think its unfair Expats are leaving, not paying tax in Canada then coming back. If you want the infrastructure when you return you should be paying for it now. Either that or force the Expats to hand in their passports and citizenship. How many of you would leave Canada if you had to give up your citizenship? Speaking of a slippery slope.

Next point, the airlines in Canada have to compete against you..and your wages are being subsidized by us. I can't see one reason to let any airline from your region come to this Country unless its on an even playing field. Ek wants more flights, how about starting a domestic program? How full would those planes be? There is nothing reciprical about your mirage.

For the person who made fun of taxes and unions in Canada. Two questions for you. Who did you vote for last election in the UAE? Could you walk into your CP's office and call them a C.S. without getting fired?

Rather Be Skiing

18th Jul 2010, 05:43

If you are going to try and argue a point, at least try and make it informed. :rolleyes:

Good wages? Just over 100,000 for the average captain and 60,000 for the average first officer to fly 777's, 380's and 340's? Those wages are horrible, less then half of Air Canada's and almost on par with Jazz.

F/Os are at $82,000CAD base (take home) + flying pay + housing etc.

Oh ya, I forgot you don't pay tax. And why is that? We (oil consumers) are subsidizing you. I've been writing my MP for some time on how I think its unfair Expats are leaving, not paying tax in Canada then coming back. If you want the infrastructure when you return you should be paying for it now. Either that or force the Expats to hand in their passports and citizenship. How many of you would leave Canada if you had to give up your citizenship? Speaking of a slippery slope.

What can I say? Yeesh!! :rolleyes:

Next point, the airlines in Canada
have to compete against you..and your wages are being subsidized by us. I can't see one reason to let any airline from your region come to this Country unless its on an even playing field. Ek wants more flights, how about starting a domestic program? How full would those planes be? There is nothing reciprical about your mirage.

I take it you mean a domestic service here in the UAE? Have you looked at a map? Seen the size of the country? It would be like having Air Canada or WS run a sched between YVR and YXX!! One could argue the regional flights are 'domestic': 1 - 3 hr flights to neighbouring Saudi, Bahrain, Doha, Kuwait etc.

For the person who made fun of taxes and unions in Canada. Two questions for you. Who did you vote for last election in the UAE? Could you walk into your CP's office and call them a C.S. without getting fired?

You should be fired for that! Unions have often lost sight of which battles to wage. Defending that kind of insubordination just reflects badly on the union and the rest of your colleagues.

sec 3

18th Jul 2010, 05:51

Don't worry when the oil is going to run out clunk, you'll be dead by then:E

lowstandard

18th Jul 2010, 05:52

We all call our CP a CSer (Schwanzblasen) on pprune, saves a drive to HQ.

I cant defend EK on alot of things but we get paid the same if we are above average or average and its substantially more than those numbers.

If you think you subsidize us by being an oil consumer, ride your bike to work. EK subsidizes Dubai. My wage is not subsidized by you unless your a customer (thanks if you are), its subsidized by 442 pax crammed into a 777 300ER going back and forth to MNL 2X a day. Same for LOS, ADD, JNB CPT, BKK, BHX etc. The flights are full and they aint cheap.

Competition between airlines from different countries will always be unbalanced. I am sure AC spends more on de-icing in one day than EK does in a year.

Expats sacrafice by going away from home to work and there has to be a benefit, be it for better pay and tax reasons. I dont know anyone who would be stupid enough to renounce their citizenship. When I return, I will pay my share again and use the infrastructure accordingly. I sure as hell have paid more than my share before I left. I pay cash in Canada now for any services. I dont have kids, so why should I pay taxes for schools in Canada?

Again, not defending alot of things EK/UAE do. Including their BS threats but some of your arguments are wrong.

clunckdriver

18th Jul 2010, 12:23

GMC 1500, sorry, didnt see your post, what I was refering to is the projections that the Middle East is consuming its oil reserves across the region at a rate that the decline in prodution and revenues is sychronized , unlike the new fields in the Falklands, Grand Banks, and all the other fields waiting for the drill rigs . When the decline takes place it will pull the rug from under the prosperity in this region, will the West then export oil to the region? Seems doubtfull given the present political positions around the worldl If you want some interesting reading on the subject there are many books out these days, as a Canadian, "Stupid To The Last Drop", is a great read, all about the Tarr Sands mess. Sec 3, given the average longevity of my gene pool, I might just see the begining of the end of the oil flow in the Middle East, its a race between the oil running out and my pension fund!Regards, Clunck.

Townie

19th Jul 2010, 07:32

pcm,

I'm not sure where to start with this one, but making such a bold statement as to imply EKs pilot wages are bringing down the profession is ill-informed. I'm not here to advertise my salary, but with less than 10 years of seniority with Emirates my take home is quite a bit more than your estimate of "just over $100,000". You would have been closer if you said just under $200,000.

Although I'm not at all versed on the ins and outs of the Air Canada contract, a quick check of www.airlinepilotcentral.com says that had I joined them instead of Emirates, at best I'd be an EMB190 Capt making $99,600 or perhaps a wide body FO pulling in $111,600. I am sure there are some additions to this, and I could include a few extra dollars to mine as well. No matter which way you slice and dice it I'm comfortably above both those amounts and no I don't, by the laws of the land, have to pay tax.

Having specifically mentioned the EK types in your post, perhaps you are making a direct comparison with an AC widebody Captain and are surprised at the results? I am sure that you are aware that Emirates pays us all the same amount regardless of type (they're all more or less the same anyway). Therefore, my salary is a relatively good indication of the average salary that Emirates pays pilots in this profession. The AC 777 Captains salary of $190,700 is NOT the average that Air Canada pays. With more than 70% of the fleet being single aisle, it appears that the vast majority of AC Captains make around $120,000.

This thread seems to continue to swipe at Emirates for it's poor salary structure, but I think we may have lost a bit of perspective. Although we are not the best paid and we have all seen cutbacks over the past few years, if we consider the backbone of professionals in an airline, Emirates costs are competitive:
MANAGERIAL STAFF: Very well looked after from what I see and hear (VPs, SVPs, airport/region/country managers and the like).
PILOTS: We work harder than most, but the salary is okay.
ENGINEERS: From what I've heard, they've had it worse than us in terms of more work for less pay, but I still hear some of them say "there are no better options".
CABIN CREW: Maybe not professionals, but certainly a large and essential group. Given the demographic that we seek to employ, I think most are happy with their packet and with housing, transport etc thrown in it wouldn't qualify as slave labour.
DISPATCHERS: There may be a few skeletons in this closet, but there are a few senior guys (ex LH) who I'm guessing wouldn't stick around for peanuts. Even if I knew their salary I wouldn't know what a dispatcher made in Canada to compare.

My argument is that the cost to Emirates for it's group of airline PROFESSIONALS (although I probably left some groups out) is not an unfair advantage. Do you know that a Captain at LAN Ecuador makes around $3,000 US per month? Imagine what they pay the rest of the staff. Why isn't there a NO TO LAN thread on here? All the third world airlines are the same. The majority of their staff live in the third world (obviously), and therefore make a sub-Canadian standard salary. Air Canada doesn't seem to have a problem going head to head with these carriers. Emirates is the target because it has been so successful. They have worked hard, and spent millions to develop a brand that the consumer wants. EK also benefits geographically as it is located on the doorstep of 2/3 of the world population, most of it without a reliable local airline. Would Air Canada like to come and harvest some of this bounty? Apparently they would rather just limit Joe Public's access to his/her airline of choice (i.e. Emirates). It is draconian. Perhaps all you NO TO EK types would like to go back to the days when Bell Canada was the only game in town?

Yes, Emirates does employ thousands of workers in the organization who by Canadian standards are poorly compensated. With 30 million Filipinos making less than a dollar a day at home, the UAE has welcomed almost as many to it's shores as Canada has. Perhaps you can welcome these 300K into Canada and show them what a real wage is like? Oh yeah, many of the Filipinos in Canada come in as Private Nurses or Nannies and don't make a "real" Canadian wage do they? Much like the Caribbean farm workers in the orchards and vineyards of Southern Ontario. Should we boycott Canadian fruit and wines?

Emirates is not lowering the standards of the profession.
The fact that the guy slinging the bags into the back of the jet makes more than the pilot is lowering the standards of the profession.
The fact that the Purser makes more than the FO is lowering the standards of the profession.
The fact that you are expected to pay for your type endorsement is lowering the standards of the profession.
The fact that guys are killing each other to fly for free is lowering the standards of the profession.
The fact that the flag carrier of the country has a fixed salary for the first two years that is lower than that of a garbage man is lowering the standards of the profession.
These things are not happening here, they are happening in your backyard.

By the way, while on the subject of the garbage man, please continue to write to your MP about us expats. I would gladly pay a certain amount in taxes if it meant that I could start to re-establish my ties to the homeland. Obviously, I wouldn't benefit from the daily visits by the sanitation department, snow plow, ability to visit the local doctor/hospital etc... so don't think I should pay the full whack "for the benefit of the infastructure when (or if) I return" as you say, but given the current rules I think many of us would consider a small payment for the ability to keep a house at home or to have the medical cover for emergencies for instance. Or is that not punitive enough for you?

As for calling your CP a CSer......well if that's not lowering the image of a pilot and therefore the profession then I don't know what is. Grow up.

Oblaaspop

20th Jul 2010, 05:30

Just to add some FACTS to the argument:

As a Line Skipper (been here less than 7 years), I will TAKE HOME circa 40,000dhs or about $12,000 CAD per month. When you backwards correct for Canadian tax at 29%, that comes out at around $200,000 CAD pa. Assume I take the accommodation allowance (or free company Villa) of $70,000 CAD pa (again backwards taxed), you can see that as a junior line shag Captain, I'm earning more than a senior Air Canada A330 Jock......!! Before you cry pension, schooling, and medical AND dental, yes all of that is covered as well! Perhaps that's why we have over 300 Canadian Pilots working here??

EK does NOT get free landing fees at DXB

EK does NOT get free fuel (if we did, wouldn't we tanker out of DXB all the time??). Due to refining limitations in the UAE, Jet A1 is imported from Singapore!

EK does NOT receive state funding. Aside from the fact that Dubai doesn't have any spare cash, EK has been highly profitable in every year but 1 of its 25 year history.... It pays a dividend TO the Government of Dubai ($400m this year alone!).

EK funds its Aircraft using regular banking sources like any other Airline.

These FACTS can be openly viewed on the EK website in the Annual Report (which incidentally is INDEPENDENTLY audited by Price Waterhouse Coopers).

Yes EK doesn't pay any form of Corporation Tax (part of operating in a Tax free environment).

EK probably pays less than market rate for land rent on its buildings and services.

It has overall cheaper labour costs than most competitors. For the cost of 1 baggage handler at YYZ, you will get 10 here!

The entire point being, why the hell should any Government (much less any single Airline) dictate to its population how AND who with they must spend their money? Is that not an example of a Nanny State at its finest? If people want spend their money and travel a certain way, then let them.... its called competition!! There IS demand.

You don't hear the UK government or BA/Virgin/BMI crying into their beer about unfair competition from EK's 14 flights a day to the UK do you?? That's because they have actually taken time to look at the facts!! Something it appears most of you Cry Babies would be well served to do!:E

Left Coaster

20th Jul 2010, 06:13

Thanks Townie and Oblaaspop for finally posting some reasonable arguments...it gets tiring to only hear the protectionist side from the ill informed and flag wavers... :{

Wxgeek

20th Jul 2010, 16:23

Oblaaspop

20th Jul 2010, 16:41

Indeed (as I mentioned before), EK doesn't pay Corporation tax.

However, the Pax would pay departure tax, the airline would pay landing fees, handling charges, parking charges, buy (lots of) fuel, employ engineers, gate/checkin/ticket staff, would have ticket offices in town, complimentary limo's with drivers for J & F class pax, cargo handling/sheds, advertising expenditure in local/national press & TV.......... Did I miss anything? Should I go on, or do you guys FINALLY get the point?

All of the above would generate taxable revenue for the Canadian Government, it would CREATE jobs and stimulate business - local companies would be able to use additional cargo capacity and get their goods to international destinations quicker AND the flying public would FINALLY get the service they so desperately crave...... It has to be win, win SURELY??

The British/American governments can see the advantages, why can't you guys?

Its really not that difficult chaps!!!:suspect:

bcflyer

20th Jul 2010, 17:15

Oblasspop,

All the items you mentioned paying would not even be a drop in the bucket compared to what A/C contributes to the tax base of Canada.

People keep trying to say Emirates would create all kinds of jobs here if allowed in. I beg to differ. How many jobs will there really be for one flight a day? Lets have a look.

Baggage handling will be looked after by the lowest cost available, (servise air etc.) who look after alot of other carriers and have a bunch of young guys making min wage available to work the flight. Net job gains, maybe 2 or 3? (part time low paying jobs)

Customer service agents? Again I ask how many do you need to work one flight a day? How many full time CSA's does Emirates employ in YYZ? I would guess not alot. (10? maybe 15 at the very most.. Part time low paying jobs)

The fuelers will not need to hire anyone else.

Catering? They may need 2 or 3 more people at the most to cover an extra 500 meals each day. (part time low paying jobs)

Maintainence? Contracted out to the lowest bidder. Might need a couple guys if whoever they chose is short staffed. (unlikely though)

Travel agents? I'm sure the current staff can handle one more airline option when booking flights.

Advertisement? Again I'm sure the current staff at the various medias can cue up the premade ads Emirates will provide.

Limo drivers? Have a look at the number of limo's cued up at the major airports in Canada waiting for a fare. Definitely no need to hire anyone else.

Should I go on? Please show us where all these great high paying jobs that will contribute to Canada's tax base are coming from?

PS Somehow I don't think customers are CRAVING a 24 hr layover in Dubai to get from YYZ to India or Asia...

Rather Be Skiing

20th Jul 2010, 18:53

The corporate tax load on AC is considerably higher than that of emirates. emirates doesnt pay corporate taxes in UAE does it?

That is why the Canadian government doesn't want a low cost international carrier flying into Canada. The Canadian government would take a tax hit to have emirates fly here too much.

Also there isn't a realistic way for AC to compete into Dubai because most of the traffic emirates takes into DXB is thru traffic. AC already covers that Indian market thru it's Star Alliance partners (and AC takes a cut of the ongoing ticket out of ticket from Europe to India - and the Canadian Government takes a tax from that ticket)

If emirates launches out of Vancouver to DXB the Canadian govt doesn't get the same level of tax revenue from that flight. It also gets zero tax revenue for the onward connection to India.

There is no incentive for the Canadian government to allow more EK flights into Canada. There is an incentive to reduce the number of flights EK flies into Canada

How much corporate tax has AC paid on its losses? Now if it makes a profit, it can carry those losses forward to avoid taxes in the future.

The Canadian government would get the same from EK that it does from any other international carrier that operates in/out of the country. By your argument we should ban BA, Lufthansa, CX etc too.

All the items you mentioned paying would not even be a drop in the bucket compared to what A/C contributes to the tax base of Canada.

People keep trying to say Emirates would create all kinds of jobs here if allowed in. I beg to differ. How many jobs will there really be for one flight a day? Lets have a look...

...Should I go on? Please show us where all these great high paying jobs that will contribute to Canada's tax base are coming from?

PS Somehow I don't think customers are CRAVING a 24 hr layover in Dubai to get from YYZ to India or Asia...

Oh Please! Of course Ek will not contribute the same to the Canadian tax base as AC. Do any of the single flight a day international carriers?

As far as all the jobs you mentioned, again, is that any different than the jobs created by any of the other foreign carriers that operate in/out of Canada?

Naturally EK is going to try and put as positive a spin on things as it can just like AC will make things out to be catastrophic.

As far as what the customers are craving: if you are indeed correct, then the EK service will be short lived anyway. Shouldn't the consumer be the one to decide what it is they want or are willing to pay for? The one thing EK will not do is flog a dead horse; if it doesn't make them money they'll drop it.

There hasn't been a well thought out reason yet given why EK should be blocked from offering the consumer an alternative choice. It still comes down to whinging and whining by AC.

GMC1500

23rd Jul 2010, 01:00

There hasn't been a well thought out reason yet given why EK should be blocked from offering the consumer an alternative choice. It still comes down to whinging and whining by AC

Precisely, because they know they simply cannot compete! they NEED to be protected. Sad, isn't it? Only the consumers and taxpayers of Canada suffer.

Clunk,
Part of your argument is not really valid, I believe, as the cost of extracting oil from the middle east region vs the grand banks or oil sands of alberta are substantially lower, so the profit margins on the oil in the ME are quite a bit higher. And I think there's still quite a bit in reserves in the ME. But part of this particular argument is EK vis a vis oil revenues, and I think its fairly well known that Dubai does not have very much of that. Point being, EK isn't thriving because of the existence of oil reserves. That's like saying AC is succesful because of the oil sands, or will at some point be.

fourgolds

23rd Jul 2010, 07:44

OK so lets consider that things are not what they seem.

EK , get all kinds of independant studies to say how much money we will bring to Canada. From proposed credible institutions. ( Who I am sure were paid very handsomely for their " study ".

This is not disimilar to the institutions that EK have on their payroll saying " we do not have a fatigue issue in this airline" . Just because you have a University/ Organisation preparing an argument for you . It does not mean its fact by any stretch.Management are seen to be doing the right thing , but have a very different agenda.

You could take it one step farther , understanding their modus operandi. They claim they are not subsidised , dont get cheap fuel etc etc etc.
A simple paper exercise could " hide" this easily if it were in fact the case.
To make it " appear" so.

Until this part of the world allows for some "real " transparency into the way they operate. Then I think the Canadian gov have a strong argument.

Oblaaspop

23rd Jul 2010, 08:30

Fourgolds,

I presume you work for EK? If so, how on earth can you logically argue that we receive cheap fuel?????? On what percentage of flights do you tanker out of Dubai? Less than 1% I'm guessing, heck I even tanked INTO Dubai from TIP and KWI recently. Surely if we received cheap fuel, we would tanker OUT BOUND on 100% of flights.

Get it into your heads chaps, we DO NOT GET CHEAP FUEL!!!

I also presume that you think Price Waterhouse Coopers (the internationally renowned independent Auditors) are telling 'Porkies' when the scour our financial statements and declare that EK pays 'The industry average for landing fees/fuel/parking etc at its DXB Hub'? Surely you are not suggesting that PWC are taking 'Brown Envelopes' to just pretend its a viable report? Do you honestly think that PWC would risk their 170 year solid reputation as being one of the best, most trusted Auditing companies on the planet with an annual turnover of $26 BILLION?? That must have been a big 'kin envelope!!!

Cant you just accept the fact that possibly/maybe/perhaps there might be a percentage chance that EK are right???? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that it is a well run business making genuine profit? Surely it deserves the chance to compete into a market where a dinosaur of an Airline throws its toys out the pram every time its toes are trodden on and insists on government protectionism!

AC is just grabbing at straws and a lot of you Nufies are getting suckered right along with the BS.:ugh:

fourgolds

23rd Jul 2010, 09:24

My point exactly. You can make a compelling argument by appearing to comply. By tankering in to Dubai ( you believe it , why should,nt the auditors). Fact is 50 % of departures are out of DXB ( so its still cheaper ) . So you get PWC or whoever you like to Audit you. ( your papers appear to be in order , PWC have their reputation covered as they audit what appears to be a ligitimate set of transactions). Whereas it is in fact anything but what it " appears " to be.

So I just want to confirm with you then , That you agree with the companies " approved" experts that fatigue is not an issue in EK. Because we have a Fatigue commitee and " independant" studies to confirm that fatigue is not an issue ? . Because if this is the real nature of their character , then why are they not capable of getting the " results " they require to do whatever they need to do.

Seeing the way they conduct bussiness in this part of the world is proof enough for me. Believe me the Canadaian Gov are right to have a healthy suspicion for EK's arguments. I also believe this is only the start of EK,s battles for farther access to many markets. Europe will tighten its reigns , so will many other countries.

The greatest argument is the need for more " transparency"

clunckdriver

23rd Jul 2010, 10:01

GMC 1500, In a part of the globe where mutual aid and cooperation between nations is often dismissed by the rest of the world there is in fact a very smooth runing oil distribution system which provides a stable {till it runs out} delivery system of cheap oil to all nations but one in the Middle East, {You only get three tries to name the one} The very fact that its cheaper to pump oil from dry land wells not only makes it cheaper but ensures that it is being exploited at a faster rate than other sources, therein lies the problem which will ensure the more rapid depleation of the ME fields, I do in fact know a little bit about the oil game by dint of having one of my kin fairly high up in the exploration/distribution part of the industry, it really doesnt matter what infrastructure the nations in the ME build unless they truly build an oil free society, given the local view on life I doubt this will happen. Time frame for this? As one poster said, I may just live long enough to see it, {72 at this time} but happen it will. In the meantime I will help the process today by racing my boat,{ twin 485 H/P V8s!}

Oblaaspop

23rd Jul 2010, 11:44

FG, Firstly I don't recall ever mentioning Fatigue. If you want back up on the fatigue point, I CAN confirm that I am completely knackered! Happy? Forgive me but I thought we were discussing Canadian protectionism, not the internal workings of our fatigue management group?

Secondly, you have just proven that you know bugger all about Auditing! Do you honestly think PWC are gonna accept a load of made up crap written on the back of a fag packet? If that were the case, you could set up your own international Auditing company called 'Bodgit and Scarper', sign off on any old rubbish presented to you and make $billions every year...... Jeez why didn't I think of that before?

Thirdly, and something people like you seem to continually and conveniently gloss over is WHERE THE HELL IS THIS STATE FUNDING (in the form of cheap fuel etc) COMING FROM? Dubai does not have any spare cash, indeed EK is propping up Dubai to a certain extent ie the $400m dividend it paid! Or are you saying that, throughout the year the Government gives money/subsidies to EK and then at the end of the year EK gives it back?? Hmmm, what a logical argument you present........ NOT!!!!!

Once more, I'll say it again for the hard of learning, Jet A1 in this country has come all the way from Singapore, if anything it'll be more expensive than some other places!!

By all means place a VALID argument on the table, but I would ask that you think wisely and sensibly about what you are writing because at the moment it just sounds like an 11th Grade debating society where only 1 side is able to put logical facts on the table.

555orange

23rd Jul 2010, 12:29

GMC, the taxpayer and consumer do not suffer at all.

Your point about "choice" is not valid since the choice is already there on a daily basis.

The taxpayer? ??? MORE than daily flights to the UAE will not make a significant impact to the taxpayer. The only party it will benefit it Emirates.

This is not protectionism. This is just the process. This is what happens everywhere. If an airline wants increased frequency, it applies to the local gov't for it, and if the gov't deems it mutually beneficial then a deal will follow. It is a business deal, so if one party doesn't like it, its not going to happen. There is no point in whinging about it, or jumping up and down insisting its your right that the other party take what you want! So.... at this point its not mutually beneficial.

And don't quote the "study" by emirates of the 400 million or so to the Canadian economy. That is just hogwash. Im sure Ottawa has its own more legitimate measures that suit the interests of Canada, not the UAE. It is Canada's asset to give, and Canada will decide. But increased frequency will happen...its just not the right time right now.

So lets all stop this pointless drivel shall we?

fourgolds

23rd Jul 2010, 21:30

OP. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

GMC1500

29th Jul 2010, 21:05

555Orange,
I didn't quote the 'study'.
As for the suffering of consumers/taxpayers in Canada, just try to get a seat on a direct Dxb flight out of yyz. they're oversold everyday they operate. The demand is there. the consumers/taxpayers want it. Let AC provide the service if they're so sure they can make money on it.

wadefac

30th Jul 2010, 21:23

Bottom line.............slavery works..........if any free trade regulations applied to any ME airline ......they would be flying in circles and have no where to land....

six7driver

1st Aug 2010, 11:18

The UAE telcom authority has just decided to suspend BlackBerry services for it's two providers Etisalat and du starting Oct 11. Effectively as of that date all Canadian RIM products are useless... Nothing in the globe and mail yet, though it is headline news in the UAE... if you want to read go to gulfnews (http://www.gulfnews.com). .

WxGeek 555orange and your ilk... the message is clear.. screw our business, we'll screw yours....:ooh:

.... AIN'T PAYBACK A B#TCH... HA HA HA HA!!!:D:D:D

clunckdriver

1st Aug 2010, 12:49

How does it go? "Cut of ones nose to spite ones face" This will only harden the postion of the rest of the world, one does not gain landing rights anywhere with this kind of stupid, imature behavior, the ME just doesnt understand how the West views such behavior.

tbaylx

1st Aug 2010, 14:36

Yup RIM must be shaking in their boots at the thought of losing all the UAE customers. Why that must be a huge percentage of their business...not sure how they'll survive that.

six7driver

1st Aug 2010, 16:19

again the usual responses,...either condescension or denial, I guess when Canada is the center of your universe and you're happy to live in your little bubble, this action is either petty childishness, or of little importance. Take as you wish but in the end, this will hurt Canadian business, and only the protectionist Air Canada stooges at Transport Canada and their partners in the moronic Harper government are to blame.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

clunckdriver

1st Aug 2010, 16:48

six7driver, In the old days books were burned by such governments, this is just a modern version of the same, such regimes carry the seeds of their own demise, your generation needs to read a bit of recent history, but it would seem you are bound to repeat the blunders of generations past , tell me, why did the Emerates put spy ware on Rims products untill forced to remove same and pay a cash settlement? Let me gues, they didnt want folks reading Goldilocks? No its because they dont want free comunication between those who dont share their view of society. I only hope those working there have the smarts to encode or have prior comunication protocols set up when they write/phone/emai, belive me Big Brother is not a character out of fiction .

lowstandard

1st Aug 2010, 18:17

Clunk is right on. Free SMS between Blackberry users worldwide cuts Du and Etisalat out of alot of $$$$. These coneheads got caught and spanked, which is the highest insult to these people.

If a local feels like they have been embarrased someone pays, its never logical, just reactionary. The amount of unsold Blackberry inventory in the UAE will cost retailers a huge amount of money, including locals who have a share in retail.

This also sends a message to anyone who deals with the UAE. They are as reliable as a 30hr wx forecast.

six7driver, its not about payback for slots or Air Canada. Its about a culture who sense of righteous entitlement was knocked down a peg in full sight, so they react like a 3 year old.

If this has even a whiff of payback, EK or EY will never see another Canadian destination ever.

six7driver

1st Aug 2010, 18:56

come on look at the facts clunk, if the UAE government is the sinister totalitarian government you describe, complete with the old big brother boogeyman, then why does Canada - and yes this includes you, a proud Canadian no doubt - have a military base there?, (of course what's more ironic is that you share it along side those ever ready defenders of freedom and justice for all. the good ol USA.) I think it's you that needs a more careful read of history. If anything this country is a Frankenstein of the west's creation. Your admonishments of its society are just because its approach to dealing with issues of security and dissent, and doing business is too honest for your sheltered moral superiority to stomach. Maybe RIM's problem has nothing to do with Emirates business aspirations in Canada, but had Canada's Harper government not adopted the arrogant protectionist business stance driven by the elitist Air Canada cronies at Transport Canada, it might have had some leverage to talk to the UAE government about why it's about to wipe out the business aspirations of an important Canadian company in this region.

clunckdriver

1st Aug 2010, 21:26

six7 driver,, We also had military bases in Germany right after WW2, this hardley shows a pro Nazi stance on the part of Canada any more than having bases in your neck of the woods puts us in their camp, having said that yours is not the only state trying to put a muzzle on devices which are very hard to monitor, Saudi being another one, now theres a model of democracy for the world to follow!Im sure you are getting brownie points from those who sign your pay cheques for you rather extreame posts, however, having spent a fair bit of time in most of the sandboxes, and having a fair grasp of the local lingo I think my take on the situation is a little more based on fact and local experience than yours, so lets agree to disagree and talk again in ten years {If Im still breathing that is!} and see how things turn out.

wadefac

1st Aug 2010, 23:46

the day emirates airlines produces profitable audited books (stand alone) without danata........then u can have access to Canadian markets...........it will never happen := and lets not forget slavery in the middle east is ripe......... :sad:

tbaylx

2nd Aug 2010, 00:42

67,

So it's the Harper government that is responsible for the UAE blocking Blackberry? And i supose by the same reasoning it's the Harper governments fault that the UAE threatened to not renew Camp Mirage's lease? I would bet that pumps alot more into the local UAE economy than EK would into Canada's.
If we get the boot from there we're pulling out of theatre in 2011 anyway, so no great loss. I hear Qatar has a smallish base leased to our friendly neighbours to the south, might have to bum a corner there for awhile if that is the way it goes.

Get out of the sun it's affecting your reasoning.

Oblaaspop

2nd Aug 2010, 18:15

Wadefac,

EK DOES produce independently audited results (as has been mentioned several times before if you had bothered to notice) by Price Waterhouse Coopers.

They appear on the Emirates corporate website and are broken down into individual business units for you to peruse over at your leisure.

Am I to assume that you are intimating that DNATA is the only part of the Emirates Group to make a profit? Hmmmm, $1bn USD profit for an Airport Handling company...... now that is impressive!!!!:ugh:

FYI EK currently has an AVERAGE load factor of around 90% and if you were to bother going on-line to do some research (instead of jumping on the 'I'll talk out of my arse because it sounds good' bandwagon), you will notice that the average seat prices are AT LEAST that of other major carriers.

THAT is why EK makes a profit....it fills its wide bodies and charges top dollar while doing so. Look and learn instead of being green eyed with envy!:E

clunckdriver

5th Aug 2010, 13:21

Audited books? Come on now, you dont seem to know how it works. Each fiscal year my good lady and I would troop into the office of one of the largest bean counting firms in the world, the conversation would normally start with something along the lines of, "What would you like the bottom line to be this year?" To make a the point to you, if we changed the depreciation rate on our fleet 1/4% on the books it would be the difference between a large proffit or just break even, not my rules by the way, just the way it is,so I dont care who does the audit, it means little or nothing. Those who doubt the preceeding should read some of the audited books for the Wall Street bunch who just wrecked so many lives.{Liars figure, and figures lie, is the credo of creative acountants , }

Willie Everlearn

5th Aug 2010, 14:23

six7driver
...while I miss the UAE...

The UAE Ministry of Information have for years smeared magazines, books, newspapers, etc., with opaque black permanent ink to blatently censor public consumption. Changed, has it? Are you suggesting the UAE are an example of freedom and democracy? FWIW, the UAE is a dictatorship along with, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar....shall I go on?
Come to think of it, so was Iraq.

Etisalat have shutout Blackberry (and for that matter, any foreign company they cannot control) purely and simply for their inability to censor, control or profit. I think you're giving them too much credit as to their motivation for doing so.
Blackberry will soon rectify that situation both there and in neighbouring dictatorships. So, why worry about RIM?

We could argue this point for hours, but IMHO Emirates simply DOES NOT ADD UP financially. A certain family in Dubai is spending the Emirate's future in a single generation. Where will you be when EK caves in on itself? Personally, I could care less if EK flew to every major city in Canada twice a day. It would be short lived anyway. I've been around airlines long enough to know load factors mean SFA to the bottom line. Look up facade in your Funk & Wagnall's. The locals are all about power, money and facade. How are Shk Moh and EK any different in that regard? I'm listening.
How can Flannagan or Clark tell an international audience with a straight face, Emirates is profitable in the 'true' sense of the word? Or, true sense of 'normal' airline economics? A tax break in Dubai cuts it. I'm sure. But when you connect the dots, it doesn't.

The last time I checked, (which isn't recently) the Canadians DO NOT have their own military base in the UAE. As far as I know, no foreign nation does. (I stand to be corrected) Foreign nations may 'share', or have an exclusive corner of a base for their own use...but, no. Canada doesn't have a base in the UAE.
If the ****e hits the fan again, you'll see. Just like the Gulf War, the invitations will go out to foreign forces and bases like al Dhafra will share the concrete with three or four nations (again) and the UAE will be asked to keep TacOps confined to the UAE.

A pissing contest with the UAE is nothing more than give me what I want or get out. Our CAFs should get out of the UAE anyway. Oman is a much better choice.

Willie

Oblaaspop

6th Aug 2010, 08:17

Ok Clunk, so what do you suggest?? I appears that whatever EK tries, its damned if does and damned if it doesn't.

Many are spouting off that they want to see Audited accounts. When EK does that, nobody believes them.... So whats the point??

Far better, would be for the Canadians (Air Canada and the Government), to just turn round and say "Look EK, we can't think of any legitimate reasons why you shouldn't come to Canada more often, so just accept the fact that we are narrow-minded and protectionist". At least then EK can stop wasting its time and resources flogging a dead horse!!

Happy??

clunckdriver

6th Aug 2010, 11:40

Obiaaspop,I doubt you would expect a nation to sign on to such a statement, even if it had a grain of truth in it, what is really needed is the system of regulation which was in place for years for both domestic flying and bi laterall agreements. For A good example of how this worked one only has to read the acounts of CP Airs first try at getting a transcon route in competition with TCA, the regulators wernt fooled one bit by the books and ripped their case apart, these folks proved that the set asides for maint, fleet availability and all the other things that were needed just didnt add up. A few years later CP came back to the table, well prepared and got their routes, this system also worked when it came to cabotage and landing rights around the world. Would such a system work now? Not a chance! The world airlines are now unregulated and run by bean counters, most of whoom simply lack any vision beyond the quartely reports, only Branson seems to understand that one must have a vision of a long term future for the airline and employees. Its all about ones view of the world, is an airline simply another cash machine, rather than a part of our civilised infrastructure to provide safe, sound service to all parts of the world, not just the major cities? To sum up, one does not use bully tactics or phoney claims about spin of benifits to negotiate any international agreement,this applies to both large and small nations,in the mean time for those great suporters of a totally de regulated industry, look around, is it a better place to be now than it was thirty years ago? I think not.

20driver

6th Aug 2010, 17:46

In 1958 my parents purchased tickets on TCA from London to Vancouver, 24 hours for 400 lb Sterling. That is easily over $5000 today. My dad had a PhD in Chemistry and maybe earned 2500 lb/pa

Deregulation has worked for consumers. Flying is faster, more destinations, cheaper and safer. What is not to like?

Pilots may be earning less is relative terms, but they are still doing better than coal gas engineers who have no jobs. (In the 60's being a CE engineer was a licensee to print cash, then natural gas showed up and surprise.) Don't like it train and get into the next industry that is going up. It may come as a surprise to many but the airline business is not here to provide jobs for employees, it is there to create money for shareholders (not that is does a lot if that either).

Canadian consumers have always being screwed by the regulated airlines and the pilots on the right side of the blanket have being quite happy to be part of it. Do a search and you will find pictures of AC pilots picketing parliament to save the public from the terror of Wardair flying 747's.

AC still has a regulated mentality and I don't know whether to laugh or retch when I hear pilots talking about passengers being "our work"

Airline transport is a commodity, like cars, jeans and cell phones. Keeping Emirates out is nothing to do with fairness, it is everything to do with with keeping the competition out and prices high. Basically screw the majority to keep wages up for a small minority.

There are very few people in Canada whose livelihood is not being impacted by the world markets in some respect and we are all getting pinched from the miner to the autoworkers to the farmers. Why do airlines get a right to keep out the competition when no one else can?

20driver

PS - The WSJ had an excellent article about the golden age of aviation some weeks back. Seems it wasn't that great after all.

clunckdriver

6th Aug 2010, 18:21

DA20, I presume you mean Pounds Stirling, not lbs mass? Pity the Brits switched to Metric, was always fun trying to work things out over there.Yes, air fares were expensive back then, I paid $1750 to get to the UK in 1959 , however, the drop in fares generated by the advent of turbine aircraft coming into wide use brought fares way down to the point that we used comercial to rotate pilots to various parts of the world as it was cheaper than we could do using our RCAF aircraft. Having said that and having survived for twenty one years operating our own outfit I can assure you that the present rock bottom fares are a sure path to going belly up in the long run, most are only covering the DOCs. As to AC picketing to keep Max out of the sky, what the hell is the difference between this and Porters stand vis a vis Jazz? It would be nice to text you on this subject, but the bastions of free enterprise in the Sand Box wont let this happen of course, so much for free competition and open doors!

Oblaaspop

6th Aug 2010, 18:30

Clunk, your argument doesn't hold water!

If nations withheld landing slots because there were no bi-lateral benefits, then why has the UK Government granted slots for 100 EK flights per week into the UK? The UK has a population of around 60 million (about twice that of Canada), and the UAE a population of 5 million. Using your reasoning, the UK has nothing to gain and the the UAE everything...... But you well know that this is not the case.

Australia is another example of where the government is refusing to buckle to pressure from its National Carrier Qantas by using protectionism. Its allowing huge access to EK, EY and QR increasing every year, because even the the Aussies recognise the important benefits of free competition. Do you not think that these governments have looked into whether EK is a legitimate business? Or are you saying that the UK Government are stupid? Bare in mind the UK GDP is considerably bigger than that of Canada before you answer that:=

The point that everyone seems to be missing is that there is HUGE demand for extra services from Canada. ALL flights to/from YYZ ARE overbooked, and yet AC is still in existence! AC will not 'go under' if EK are granted greater access as the extra people to fill the extra flights already exist! Why can't people see it??:ugh:

clunckdriver

7th Aug 2010, 10:52

Oblaaspop,the number of flights into Aus has far more to do with the $4.9 billion trade that the Sandbox does with Western Aus alone each year and the 15,000 ex pats living there than any policy regarding Qantas, its all about quid pro, nothing to do with open skies/cabotage/bilaterals. As Canada doesnt need oil or other items from the Sand Box, then there is no need to give a darn thing. Hows your Blackberry working?

Oblaaspop

7th Aug 2010, 16:00

Thanks for your concern Clunk, but I never really could see the point of a Blackberry (crappy Canadian invention if you ask me), so I went for an iPhone instead:E

On your other points, trade between the UAE and Canada in 2008 was $1.6bn and here are some facts and figures from 2006 that you may find of interest:

The UAE is Canada's largest export market in the Middle East and North Africa.

More than 100 Canadian firms are present in the UAE, including in the aerospace, construction and health care sectors.

More than 12,000 Canadians live and work in UAE.

The Canadian Business Council of Dubai and the Northern Emirates and the Canadian Business Council of Abu Dhabi have more than 500 members representing many professions including engineers and project managers.

Canadian exports include aircraft and aircraft simulators, telecommunications equipment, medical instruments, agri-food products, precious stones, metals and minerals.

Canadian imports from UAE include oil, chemicals, iron and steel products, minerals and precious stones, and textiles.

Bare in mind that these figures are a little old now, so they are likely far higher than those shown above (I couldn't be bothered to go further down the Google page). They come from the Canadian Government Foreign Affairs and International Trade website.... Check it out, you might actually learn something, instead of posting crap!!

Now, were there any other of your silly little fires you'd like me to p1ss on??

20driver

7th Aug 2010, 17:32

Clunk, long evasive non reply.

Simply explain to us why this is not just AC seeking protection from competition, something they, and all other legacy national carriers, have done for years.

You seem to have being around a bit. Why did Max (and Freddy) go under? Wouldn't have being anything to do with cartel pricing from our virgin chorus over at AC among others.

If people want to fly Emirates and Emirates wants to take the risk to expand operations in Canada why not let them have that choice? They along with SQ and others have lots of service from NYC and the world has not fallen in.

This is nothing but AC wanting to keep their home base closed to outsiders who might offer a better product at a better price served with a better attitude. (The attitude is I admit a very very low bar when it comes to AC)

20driver

PS - If the UAE is so objectionable that they should be kept out of Canada, what are you doing over there supporting their economy

innuendo

7th Aug 2010, 17:54

Well as long as we are splitting hairs here:
DA20, I presume you mean Pounds Stirling, not lbs mass?

Perhaps those would have been "Pounds Sterling"? :E

clunckdriver

7th Aug 2010, 19:57

Yes its Sterling, not Stirling, which proves my English teacher was right when she described my spelling in English as "Original" , she even wrote it on my school report!Gota love those old time one room school ladies, no PC comments from them!

Townie

7th Aug 2010, 21:34

Gentlemen,

This thread has drifted all over the place into talks about UAE labour practices, Emirates cost base, Blackberries etc.... We seem to have lost sight of the apparent "reason" given by the Canadian Gov't that further access was denied. That being that the UAE to Canada travel market does not justify additional services.

I know there are a lot of behind the scenes negotiations when it comes to agreeing on traffic rights, but surely this is a bit bizarre? Is every passenger on an AC flight to Frankfurt either a Canadian going to Germany or a German who's final destination was in Canada? Is there not excess capacity on this route in order to feed United, Lufthansa and the rest of the Star Alliance?

When traffic rights were agreed between the UAE and the USA, UK or Australia (just to name a few), did their respective governments look into the traffic in the same way? Being that Emirates business model is to be a global hub capturing East-West traffic, I suspect not or they would not have the frequencies they do. Interesting to note that when EK started flights to New York this was the only Arabian Gulf to USA route. Since then, even as services have been expanded by EK, Etihad and Qatar from this region Delta and United have also started non-stops to Dubai. Exactly how are these airlines hurting the American carriers? Gulf carriers have created an opportunity for them that they may not have otherwise seen and they have decided to add flights (i.e. Jobs) to compete rather than waste time lobbying their government to restrict access. The same can be said for the UK. Even as EK, and EY add capacity there, so to do BA and VS add capacity to the Gulf. None of these governments seem to have been concerned with how many passengers were bound for the UAE during the negotiations and their economies (and airlines) are reaping the benefits. In todays world, it is difficult to put a price on access to good competitive global transportation links.

Can someone please tell me what flight(s) Air Canada will have to cancel in response to Emirates extra services? I assume there will be plenty of cancellations as some have said it would be the end for AC. If we use the same rationale that an airline should only fly "point to point" passengers, then how can one argue that AC will suffer on their European flights? Any passenger with half a brain or an Atlas would not fly YYZ-DXB and then double back to Europe. Did you say those "European" passengers are really in transit to Asia? Then obviously Air Canada has excess capacity on it's transatlantic flights and perhaps the governments involved might like to hold them to the same standard they have applied to EK. You cannot have it both ways. The only argument (given EK's passenger demographic from YYZ) is that EK would have a negative impact on Air Canada's YYZ to Middle East or Asia routes of which there are....wait for it........NONE!!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, you have no argument (okay, there is one, but I don't think EK will ever have a presence in Tel Aviv).

Emirates is definitely the target due to it's strong brand presence. I see EgyptAir will start flights to Toronto soon and Turkish have recently ramped up their YYZ services. Both these airlines have similar route structure and geographical position as EK. Turkish have even adopted the Emirates business model of creating a global hub. Is the government studying the traffic between these countries as well? I suspect not, as AC probably didn't employ their lobbyists as (a) neither carrier has the same perception from the traveling public as EK and (b) they are both Star Alliance members.

There are many people out there who believe Air Canada is rubbish and would only fly them if there was no other choice. This belief seems to have filtered it's way to the top of the organization and the government as both seem to believe the only way they can survive is to keep out the competition. If they don't wake up and change the product they offer and the way it is delivered they will be threatened by an increasing number of airlines. Even low cost West Jet and small start up Porter are attracting lawsuits from them. How does this affect the public's perception of them? Do they not have a PR department?

Business 101: It's better to have a slice of an enormous pie then all of a tiny one. Take note AC.

clunckdriver

7th Aug 2010, 22:03

OK, all the EK suporters out there, lets say Canada lets every outfit in and they manage to put AC/WJ/Porter/Jazz et all out of buisines, then we have a national disaster of some kind, are these Middle East outfits going to provide our emergency airlift under the Civil Reserve leglislation? No bloody way! They dont even do that for their brothers in arms when needed, let alone come to the aide of us non believers. If you really belive what you are saying I trust you keep all your funds in your local banks and not outside of the Sandbox? Yeh, right!{Tell Aviv doesnt count? my my, you really do toe the party line}

20driver

7th Aug 2010, 23:20

Clunck, who used their market clout to run Wardair off. It wasn't EK.

Townie has it right on the last paragraph. AC like a lot of legacy carriers is more interested in using every tactic in the book to get rid of competitors rather than trying to offer a better product/price service. It is just the culture of the company and it goes back to being a regulated industry that owned its customers. Basically they were a regulated utility and have never being able to operate as a successful for profit business.

EK is not a threat to Porter. AC predatory pricing certainly is.

20driver

clunckdriver

8th Aug 2010, 00:39

20 Driver, TCA/AC never made a profit? sorry but that utter rot! Having said that the costs of operation way back when in having to do such things as print ones own Apch plates and route maps made it very expensive to run an airline, it wast just a matter of updateing a data base every 28 days or picking up the phone to Jepp to get this stuff . The reason Max went under is that he got out of being straight charter {And they were the very best in the world at the charter game} with its 100% loads and predictable costs to entering the uncertain world of sked flying with all its unknowns, if you recall two of his top staff quit when he made this decision. I often wonder that if Wardair had stayed in the charter sector would we have even have seen the likes of Transat, Jetsgo and all the others who tried it and failed, with the tip top reputation Wardair had I dont think any of these outfits would have stood a chance against them, the clasic "what if".

20driver

8th Aug 2010, 03:00

Where did I say AC never made a profit?

TCA as a government department, it was part of the transport ministry for years, or AC as a crown corporation, were entities that as such do not even have profit or a loss, they reported surpluses or deficits.

AC as a private company, weren't they just in bankruptcy or was that some utter rot in the paper.

As for Wardair, Max made a big mistake. He did not understand or appreciate the power of the central reservation system and how AC was prepared to use it to underprice Wardair and sell below cost at every turn.

A friend was a well connected travel agent and told me they knew Wardair was gone not from the news but by seeing new higher fares being dumped into the system within minutes of Wardair closing down. Same thing happened with Laker. Not sure about Max but Laker did eventually win serious money proving collusion to bankrupt him.

None of this has anything to do with AC is objecting to EK. That is simply to keep a competitor out of their biggest single market.

Bottom line is very few legacy carriers have survived in the non regulated world. Most of the the airlines that have turned a new profit in the last few decades, and it is a small list, have being companies that started outside the old legacy bilateral cartels. As air transport becomes more and more a global commodity it will be SQ, Jet, EK, Cathy etc driving the industry.

20driver

PS Still haven't told us why you are supporting the UAE with your dollars.

wadefac

8th Aug 2010, 23:18

It is well known EK comes on a route and does it for peanuts then when the other carriers give up ...ek raises their prices....been like that for years..........ask anyone in a commercial capacity in a real airline..........bottom line.......... who really cares....aviation is a joke......next subject ....

Married a Canadian

9th Aug 2010, 18:40

OK, all the EK suporters out there, lets say Canada lets every outfit in and they manage to put AC/WJ/Porter/Jazz et all out of buisines

Clunck you are one of the most intelligent posters on the Canada forum so this comment is a little bit strange from you.
Explain how an international (foreign) carrier can put a domestic carrier out of business....on domestic routes.
Unless I have missed something the foreign carriers can't fly point to point in Canada yet..and then onwards to their hubs?

AC/WJ/Porter and Jazz all compete domestically so if any of them go out of business it will be one of the others doing it.

I appreciate your comments so would be interested to hear how you think this could happen?

clunckdriver

9th Aug 2010, 19:07

Married a Canuck, Simple, EK could be granted cabotage, But it was a hypothetical question I proposed as many simply dont know the function of the airlines in time of national emergency, it works very much like the Fleet Auxilary which the Brits scrambled for the Falklands punch up. By the way the clearences Eastbound out of CYKZ have improved greatly, thanks!

555orange

9th Aug 2010, 19:17

Contacted...

Your point is moot. Who is saying NO to EK? There are already daily flights to UAE.

Are you advocating that a gov't should open its doors in every market and allow unfetter uncontrolled access? How would this benefit Canada? This is a rediculous argument. What planet are you from?

Obviously Air Canada/Westjet serve the domestic market, and anyone that wants to go to UAE must fly Air Canada/Westjet to YYZ. Of course they are going to want to protect that market. The probably need to pay for that big shiny terminal at YYZ. I believe that was the point when they built it..to be a HUB to the world from Canada.

Quite humorous though to hear people from the UAE talk about protectionism though.

This is not protectionism. This is just the process. This is what happens everywhere. If an airline wants increased frequency, it applies to the local gov't for it, and if the gov't deems it mutually beneficial then a deal will follow. So sorry Canada's plans don't fall in line with the likes of UAE.
I believe this is happening to EK/EY all over the place. Maybe they should come to the table with the other airlines and talk about joining Star/Oneworld. Im sure then they will then get alot more access to markets. But they won't will they, because they have it too good and they don't want to share. There will always be a measure of protecting ones turf. So who really is protecting their interests? :=

wadefac

10th Aug 2010, 07:36

"FREE Market Competition".........thats a laugh.............although i suppose true...if Canada introduced slavery..........:=

Townie

10th Aug 2010, 15:47

Wadefac,

Care to provide us with any examples of EK running the competition off the routes? Since they "are widely known for it" you should have several at hand.

In my view there is plenty of competition on the major city pairs (LHR, FRA, MUC, CDG, ZRH, DEL, BOM, SIN, JED, BKK, KHI....). Most of the routes they have "all to themselves" are the secondary cities and routes they pioneered themselves. Fares on EK might be a bit cheaper then the European legacy carriers (particularly in J class) but usually they charge more than the competitors from the Asian and African market.

Think you might have meant to say AC is the under cutter and anticompetitive entity (Wardair, C3000, Canadian, WestJet (remember Zip)....).

Clunk,

That was a stretch to suggest that EK could be granted cabotage. I wouldn't put it past them to try, but I don't ever see it coming to pass. As far as emergency airlift, that would only be a concern in your worst case scenario that there is no more homegrown airlines left (or they have shrunk to a size that is insufficient for the task at hand). I find it hard to believe that a few extra flights by an Ultra Long Haul carrier could be the catalyst that sets that off. If ULR flights are so popular and in such demand then AC should operate them. Thanks to Emirates pushing Boeing to stretch the range of the 777s, they have the right aircraft for the job.

I am not suggesting that EK should be given unrestricted access to the Canadian market. The fact that one must seek approval implies that a denial is a very real possibility, I just question the reasoning behind it. Australia has a smaller population than Canada and also has a sole national carrier in Qantas yet they saw it fit to grant multiple frequencies to multiple cities. The UK has roughly twice the population, but has granted in the order of 20 times the frequencies. The same for France, Germany, Singapore, Italy etc... None of these countries seemed to be concerned about the "to UAE traffic". Also interesting that at the same time that EK is being denied permission EgyptAir will be allowed access and given their route network and geographical position they could easily "poach" the same passengers that EK is accused of taking.

Married a Canadian

10th Aug 2010, 18:04

The probably need to pay for that big shiny terminal at YYZ. I believe that was the point when they built it..to be a HUB to the world from Canada.

Interesting point especially as no one has mentioned what the GTAA makes of all of this. Surely it is in their interest that there as many flights as possible through the shiny new terminal....and as many more passengers.
A full A380 every day would sure help with paying off the terminal.

The GTAA gets ticked off enough at the govt and it's inflexibility in helping lower the costs. I wonder if they like the govt/Air Canada saying no to a potential money spinner at their airport.

Does anyone know what the landing charges are for an A380 at YYZ. For a B747 wasn't it something like $13000. Correct me if I am wrong.
Five million in change for 365 days a year....and that is before all the passengers spend money in your shops and in your parking garages.

For those who don't believe that....look at how Ryanair operate in Europe...and look at all the airports (in the back of beyond mind) that upgraded to accomodate them. The benefits to those areas and to the airports themselves are why Ryanair get cheap landing rates into most places they fly. What else are you going to do once airside except spend money!

Emirates and Etihad alone would be worthwhile daily to the GTAA for that very reason.
If you disagree with that statement then you have never spent money in an airport before...and for that alone you have my respect!

acchaladka

15th Aug 2010, 12:01

This has been a very interesting discussion and one that has taken almost my enitre rainy Independence Day Sunday here in India to read. I'm the business class SLF based in Montreal and flying to DEL about once every 2 months, meaning I'm the guy some of you have been tangentially referring to. Air Canada is okay overall, meets my needs, but boy is the company afraid of competition and boy could things be done better for my money. I would be delighted to see some more international competition make AC bring up their game.

Why am I looking to switch airlines to come to India? Standard of service and routes. Have you taken one of those 'lovely jaunty stopover codeshare routes' with the six hour stopover in Europe and then had to wait two extra hours for the baggage handlers in Delhi? Have you ever flown business class with Jet Airlines, Swiss or even Lufthansa? Have you dreamed of a non-stop long-haul flight? Do you realise a very cheap return Z-class ticket YUL to DEL is $5000 if bought well in advance? Do you really think that my expectations are low when an airline is charging that much?

There are better options and better airlines out there and AC if it was truly opened to competition from foreign carriers, major changes would have to take place. Senior management at AC knows it and are hunkering down to protect their routes and bonuses (trust me, they don't care about your jobs that much). The comment about owning a very small market vs having a slice of a much bigger market pie was ne'er truer in this case: by keeping ticket prices higher than they would be, restricting routings and entrance of competitors, and keeping quality of service lower than it could be, AC and regulators cost me and hundreds of like businesses thousands of dollars per flight in higher prices and lost time. OTOH were AC to provide a higher quality product and especially a direct YUL - YYZ - DEL flight, I would be happy to lobby my company to pay the same or even more. A decent comparison could be my routing to NRT, which is a roughly similar distance I think and a roughly similar price on Air Canada's site, but with a 12 hour flight I arrive having slept, gotten tons of work done, etc etc.

I think that the UK, Australia et al allowing lots of EK flights says a lot in the face of the Air Canada 'argument'.

Finally, I wouldn't fly EK because of the human rights / regimes issues (just as I won't fly Chinese state airlines), but that has nothing to do with the competition argument I'm putting forward here. If EK's cost is lower because of slavery or unfair wage issues, that's important but it's a fair trade, not a free trade issue.

All to say if you're going to start throwing figures around to do with economic impact of adding a foreign carrier, please use all the figures, not just the number of flying-industry jobs or figures of convenience.

bcflyer

16th Aug 2010, 17:16

One 380 a day X 365 would be a drop in the bucket to the GTAA compared to what AC spends at that airport. Think of it from a business perspective. Would you take on one very small customer and piss off your main income? I don't think so.

You cannot compare the airports that upgraded to accomodate Ryanair to the YYZ. Toronto is already the largest, most expensive airport in Canada. Emirates bringing one more flight a day is not going to lead to any changes at T-1.

jurassicjockey

18th Aug 2010, 18:38

We are both from Planet Earthhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif, we just have different viewpoints, when it comes to free market competition. So be it.Maybe we should look to the telecom sector for the Dubai example of free market competition (which ironically is where Emirates appears to have taken this battle)

bunkhog

18th Aug 2010, 20:08

I don't think that's the point...one more flight to YYZ. Look around the offices of most of the MP's in Ottawa and count the Emirates models on the desks (airplane models). The lobby was hard and strong...and not for another gate in YYZ.

Emirates wants to have their lunch and eat everyone else' too. State run airport, cheapest fuel on the planet, bottomless pockets to buy hundreds of widebodies...and then dump seats on the market like the steel dumping of years ago. That's what this is...dumping. And when the planes don't fill up, watch the prices go further south.

So someone here then said as long as there is strong competition, the prices wouldn't drop...or stay low. How do you compete with that? And where are all these airplanes going to be flying to/from?

I say the Canadian government was right to put a stop additional access to YYC, YVR YUL,YHZ..and who knows where else. If it is deemed protectionist...well so be it. There are thousands of taxpayers in this country that work in the airline industry. Canada, ( although it shouldn't have deregulated in the first place) needs to at least be responsible in the bi-lateral department.

fatbus

23rd Aug 2010, 10:07

BK , whats your response to Egypt Air doing daily YYZ

777longhaul

24th Aug 2010, 20:54

INDUSTRY NEWS

Losses ground Saudi low-cost carrier Sama. Low-cost Saudi carrier Sama is suspending operations after the private firm failed to obtain financing from investors or government support as losses accumulated, the airline said on Sunday.

Sama said in a statement the stoppage due to begin on Tuesday would be temporary but did not say when it would resume operations.

"We were expecting an aid package from the government in the form of subsidies for fuel..., necessary support to serve (Saudi) cities covered by the compulsory service and also a gradual increase in the prices of domestic flight tickets as well as financing needed to erase accumulated losses.

"We also sought to find strategic investors willing to invest in the company and inject the needed liquidity that would allow Sama to continue operations," Sama said. "None of these solutions proved conclusive," it added.

Sama was one of three private low-cost carriers the Saudi aviation authorities have licensed to compete with national carrier Saudi Arabian Airlines.

The civil aviation authority requires low-cost carriers to cover main domestic airports. But the firms have been complaining that they were not on an equal footing with the state-owned carrier especially in the cost of fuel which the latter obtains at subsidised prices.

Sama has been flying to destinations in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Syria and Sudan, with 164 weekly flights using six Boeing 737-300aircraft, according to its website. Founded in 2005, it started commercial flights in 2007. (Source: Reuters)

555orange

25th Aug 2010, 18:53

Exacxtly Bunkhog. Well said. There needs to be a balance, and that balance already exists. More flights are not necessary. The formula should be to have a balanced relationship between countries. All aspects should be considered in a deal...not just what would benefit a ME Carrier. Maybe a few more flights will bring in more people on a ME carrier...but then maybe others would suffer. Despite what the advocates for more flights from the ME say, the advantage for the ME carriers is obvious and because those advantages are derived from a unethical basis, I am fully against any ME carrier ...period. Those that say free trade means total unfettered access to a market with no oversight do not know what the meaning of free trade actually is. If we have a free trade agreement, it doesnt mean I can come over to your house when your not home and watch your TV and eat the food out of your fridge. Damn...the stupidity abouds eh! You will always get i###s who just don't get it. :ugh:

lucypinder

6th Sep 2010, 09:14

Unless one has worked in the Arab world one shouldn't even enter this thread, this is not racist, just unless you have you just cant grasp how different the culture is, the attempts at blackmail over the Canadian base wont be seen that way in that part of the world, just normal ethics, again not racist, just the way it is.

Wxgeek

7th Oct 2010, 05:46

How's that aggressive lobbying strategy working out for you so far Emirates and Etihad? :ok:
---------------------------------
Canadian forces may pull forces out of base in UAE (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101006/dubai-military-base-canada-101006/)

An insider told CTV News that Canada was essentially being used as a pawn in heavy-handed blackmail. Transport Canada and Air Canada opposed the move. The Conservative government told UAE that it would rather give up the base than give in to unacceptable demands, senior officials told CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife.

wheel lock

7th Oct 2010, 06:01

An interesting report Wxgeek, thanks. Probably doesn't make much difference though as Canada is (supposedly) poised to pull it's troops out of the region in approx 9 months. Time will tell eh?

theflyinggreek

9th Oct 2010, 23:14

Its just out.. we have 27 days to vacate the base in Dubai.. Its a done deal. shame.....

Mechanic787

10th Oct 2010, 13:28

Its just out.. we have 27 days to vacate the base in Dubai..

What is your source? Is there an official announcement that you can point to?

nolimitholdem

10th Oct 2010, 20:22

DUBAI, Oct 10, 2010 (AFP) - Canada’s ties with the United Arab Emirates will be "affected" by the lack of an agreement to expand aviation links between the two countries, the UAE’s ambassador to Canada was quoted as saying Sunday.

"The UAE is disappointed that despite intensive negotiations over the last five years, the UAE and Canada have been unable to arrive at an agreement on expanding the number of flights between the two countries," Mohammed Abdullah al-Ghafli was quoted as saying by the official WAM news agency.

"The fact that this has not come about undoubtedly affects the bilateral relationship," the ambassador said.

The report said that the existing six commercial flights a week fell short of the economic needs and growth potential of both Canada and the Gulf state.

The Canadian embassy in Abu Dhabi could not be reached for comment on Sunday, while UAE foreign ministry officials were also not immediately available.

But according to Canadian media reports, the country may have to withdraw from a "secret" military base near the UAE transport hub of Dubai as a result of the disagreement.

"The Canadian government is now preparing to relocate forces from the United Arab Emirates to somewhere such as Cyprus rather than give in to what it considers unreasonable demands from the host country," The Globe and Mail reported on its website on Friday in reference to the commercial flights issue.

The Vancouver Sun said Saturday that "Canadian soldiers and aircrew have only 27 days to pack up and clear out of Camp Mirage, the not-so-secret airbase in the United Arab Emirates that Ottawa established seven years ago to support military operations in Afghanistan."

The daily’s website said the UAE suspended a memorandum of understanding on the base on Tuesday, after the Canadian government balked at a demand that "Dubai-based Emirates Airlines and Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways... each be granted daily flights between Toronto" and the UAE.

About 27,000 Canadians live in the United Arab Emirates, which is one of Canada’s biggest economic partners in the Middle East with bilateral trade valued at about 1.5 billion dollars per year, WAM cited Ghafli as saying.

© Copyright (c) AFP

Read more: UAE warns Canada ties may be hit by lack of air deal (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/warns+Canada+ties+lack+deal/3651539/story.html#ixzz11zO7uJzC)

Where's that 767 guy who was posting in this very thread about how the UAE wasn't threatening to expel Canada from Minhad?

Oh and wasn't he crowing about how "payback was a bitch" with regards to the Blackberry nonsense?

October 2010 Last updated at 15:12 Share this pageFacebookTwitterShareEmailPrint
United Arab Emirates will not ban Blackberries

Those who use the popular service in UAE will be pleased the ban is lifted
The United Arab Emirates has said it will not go ahead with plans to ban Blackberry services, following talks with maker Research in Motion.

It had threatened to suspend all services from 11 October.

The UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority confirmed that it is satisfied services on the devices are now compliant with its security needs.

It had said Blackberries posed a risk because the network was encrypted and data stored abroad.

Similar bans

Continue reading the main story
Related stories

UAE Blackberry update was spyware
Gulf states unveil Blackberry ban
The UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA) said in a statement: "All Blackberry services in the UAE will continue to operate as normal and no suspension of service will occur on October 11, 2010".

The TRA also acknowledged "the positive engagement and collaboration of Research In Motion (RIM) in reaching this regulatory compliant outcome".

Research in Motion (RIM) has found itself at the centre of a series of rows with countries unhappy with the way data is stored on the device.

India and Saudi Arabia have threatened similar bans.

RIM has always made it clear that it would not change the architecture of its service to placate countries wishing to extend their surveillance powers.

"It is unclear what will have changed in the nature of the RIM service," said Tony Cripps, principal analyst at Ovum.

"As such we can only hypothesise that some kind of workaround has been agreed in terms and conditions between the UAE regulator and local carriers ...to gain access to e-mails sent over the Blackberry service," he said.

RIM said in a statement that it would not discuss the details of the discusisions with the TRA. "RIM confirms that it continues to approach lawful access matters internationally within the framework of core principles that were publicly communicated in August," it said.

In August RIM sought to reassure customers that it would only allow governments to access services "in the strict context of lawful access and national security" and that no greater access than that given by rival firms would be granted.

It also stated that it would make no changes to the security architecture for Blackberry business customers.

At the time it said: "Contrary to any rumours, the security architecture is the same around the world and RIM truly has no ability to provide its customers' encryption keys."

six7driver

11th Oct 2010, 09:12

Nothin good to say, check the middle east forum, as for what I said, it's true, no one was expelled.

Of course you have proof Canada's negotiation team were being bullied or expelled, so please post? the lease was not renewed by the UAE, because the Harper government, again with it's head up its a@@ would not negotiate a reasonable bilateral commercial air agreement. 27000 Canadians in the UAE, yet to Transport (Air) Canada that's not enough to justify more than 1 daily flight for all UAE carriers into 1 Canadian city a day. The UAE had on the table unlimited rights for any number of Canadian airlines to fly any number of times to the UAE 2 major cities on a daily basis. But, alas the wise Harper trade team could not consolidate an agreement...Canada loses and you're happy?

Man you need to go home, to forget the hatred you have for the company you work for, ...that's a weird enough thing...

I guess you can't cause you see that the entry level positions at Air Canada and Transport pay less than 50,000 a year, but I guess you'll have made all your money at EK and won't care what your paid in Canada. Yet I'm sure you'll bitch about those jobs too.

RIM is not a uncompetitive monopoly like Air Canada, that's why Blackberry will keep growing...funny enough the it was RIM that got everything sorted not Canada's current inept government.

nolimitholdem

11th Oct 2010, 09:47

I think it's weirder - and quite sad - that you have a hatred for your home country, it's elected government, and it's major airline to the point that you'd rather declare your loving support for a dictatorship and it's airline. Care about your own interests above all else, much? Bitter ex-AC pilot, much?

No one said the negots team was being bullied or expelled, but it seems to be just about a foregone conclusion that the military is being expelled. And if trying to leverage one unrelated favour against another isn't a definition of bullying I don't know what is. I guess when the Canadians are based elsewhere that will satisfy your need of proof of expulsion? Or will you just blame Harper? God how Canadian, to whine and blame the government.

You make it sound like increased rights for Canada to fly to the UAE in return for increased rights for the UAE to fly to Canada is an equitable agreement!! ROTFLMAO! WHERE are these Canadian carriers clamouring for such rights?! Oh yeah, there AREN'T any! When you're negotiating for something you want, shouldn't you offer something the other country wants?! But I guess if they actually did, they wouldn't have to resort to using a military base as a bargaining chip.

Read this slowly: there isn't a market in Dubai for Canadian carriers like there is in Canada for Emirates. Dubai is a hub, not a destination. The UAE is demanding feed for a hub and offering access to a spoke in return. That's the simplest I can put it.

Yes, I do concede that there could be room for a niche flight by AC or whomever for a YYZ-DXB flight to service the miniscule percentage of pax for whom the UAE is an end destination. In spite of 27,000 sounding like a large number, it is NEGLIGIBLE compared to the millions and millions of transit pax. And those 27,000 do have options, TODAY. Maybe you can't hop a standby flight as often as you'd like. But allowing Emirates to drop its capacity into Canada just because it had the hubris to order a zillion 380's isn't my idea of the solution.

It's clear that you define all issues by how much money you can make overseas versus in Canada. Like I said, bitter much?

six7driver

11th Oct 2010, 10:36

wtf are you saying?? I read your post carefully and you still make as much sense as hockey played on grass, and stop going around on all the threads saying I hate Canada, that's just plain bullsh#T.

go back to your ek hate rants they're more sensible.

pretend it's the other finger I'm holding up:ok:

troff

11th Oct 2010, 11:14

Bunkhog,
Sorry, not so. the fuel here has too much sulpher and cannot be refined to jet consumption quality. The fuel for EK aircraft in DXB comes from or through Singapore.

Mark_Space

11th Oct 2010, 17:50

...fond, or otherwise. Just watching the story unfold on the CBC while waiting for the big bird to cook, I can only feel for the AF pers that are going to have to pull-pole and decamp to another location. Last time I was through, it seemed like a pretty good go...air conditioning in the quarters, excellent grub, bright lights and big city just a short drive away...nobody shooting at you...

On the other hand...Hot, humid...passive-aggressive behavior from the host nation...gate guards sniffing around for anyone over the two-per-day, per-man...

It's been a while, but I recall Cyprus was pretty sweet too, and a Canadian presence on the island is not unprecedented. I do know of a large, unused terminal near the capital...runways need some work though...

Pure speculation, but I wonder what the food is like at Akrotiri?

Left Coaster

11th Oct 2010, 18:21

And what am I thankful for? This thread! It's a great read!:} Oh well, at least the NHL has started, hockey is here (2 rinks!) and baseball playoffs are underway...the rest is pure political bunk and I could care less...nighty night Canada...all this turkey has made me sleepy!:p

nolimitholdem

11th Oct 2010, 20:18

hahahah six7driver, you're such a twit...if you think there's a difference between hating Emirates and hating the UAE you need to get out more....they're joined at the hip.

yeah, you're a regular patriot all right...

Sorry you struggled with my post, I'll use smaller words. You seem to think it's a good idea to give a competitor access to your major market, in return for gaining access to their pitifully small one. I say that's stupid, and explained why.

All of that is aside from the nonsense of using a military base for leverage. But I guess you'll just be a victim and blame that on Harper too lol.

Here's hoping Canada tells these fools to plan their LAX/SFO/IAH flights outside of Canadian airspace. What did diverting a Canforce Challenger around UAE cost, an extra 100 track miles?! LOL

engfireleft

12th Oct 2010, 00:22

Now the question is, will the UAE make life more difficult for the 27,000 Canadians now working for them and living in their country? It's not like they have any rights.

wrenchbender

12th Oct 2010, 05:31

I would not be surprised if Prime Minister Harper now revokes landing rights at YYZ...

Dispute escalates, UAE turns away plane with Canadian officials
By Lynn Curwin.

The United Arab Emirates closed its airspace to a plane carrying Canadian government and military officials on Monday, expressing their unhappiness with the country’s stand on commercial landing rights.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen. Walt Natynczyk were on board the plane, which was heading from Afghanistan to Europe..
Earlier in the day, MacKay confirmed that Canada would therefore be vacating the Camp Mirage military base near Dubai.
"There have been discussions going on between the minister of foreign affairs and his counterpart. These discussions have been going on for some time," CTV News quoted MacKay as saying
"At this point we will abide by the wishes of the Emirates, and... we will be leaving the base."
The UAE wanted more landing rights in Canada for its national carriers, Emirates and Etihad, and threatened to force Canada to leave Camp Mirage if Ottawa did not approve an increase.
The airlines have six flights a week to Toronto, carrying passengers from Dubai and Abu Dhabi, but say that with 27,000 Canadians living in the UAE, there is a need for more service.

Read more: Dispute escalates, UAE turns away plane with Canadian officials (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/298824#ixzz127TtDRyX)

Saltaire

12th Oct 2010, 11:04

West best advised not to get into a trade war over Gulf airlines ArabianMoney (http://www.arabianmoney.net/business-travel/2010/10/12/west-best-advised-not-to-get-into-a-trade-war-over-gulf-airlines/)

ie88

12th Oct 2010, 13:58

The best lesson you could teach the UAE, is to wait for Qatar to announce there purchase of 60-100 C series aircraft, Then revoke EK 4 slots and EY 3 slots, and award all 7 slots to Qatar.:D

jurassicjockey

12th Oct 2010, 15:10

Saltaire

Am I correct in assuming that the linked "news" article is the official mouth piece of the the government.

Steve

Saltaire

12th Oct 2010, 21:21

He's a British journalist living in Dubai. I find him to be pretty balanced and focuses on the facts. He's certainly not a gov't voice and has been in hot water with the locals on occasion.

engfireleft

13th Oct 2010, 01:21

What does the UAE have over the world that makes them bold enough to turn an access issue into a major diplomatic disagreement? They are a small country with an excessively large, and growing much larger, airline that basically depends on poaching passengers away from the local carriers in the countries they fly to. Now for the relatively few slots in Canada they have brought worldwide attention to themselves and their sleazy tactics. They cut off support for Canadian troops fighting in Afghanistan for commercial considerations, and they don't think Canadians will be deeply offended and extremely pissed off at this?

I think they are stupid, and increasingly desperate given the huge numbers of airplanes they had the hubris to order.

Rollingthunder

13th Oct 2010, 03:47

"At this point we will abide by the wishes of the Emirates, and... we will be leaving the base."
The UAE wanted more landing rights in Canada for its national carriers, Emirates and Etihad, and threatened to force Canada to leave Camp Mirage if Ottawa did not approve an increase.
The airlines have six flights a week to Toronto, carrying passengers from Dubai and Abu Dhabi, but say that with 27,000 Canadians living in the UAE, there is a need for more service.

Widely unreported is that Emirates and Etihad wanted 50 more slots per week and Canadian suspicians were that these slots would not be used in a proper manner, but merely to funnel FRA or other European traffic (can't be arsed to look them up) airports into Canada and claim cabbotage rights to fly onwards on smaller aircraft than the A380's to further NA destinations. As they have done elsewhere in the world.

We don't do that in our aviation industry.... i would cut off all their slots...who needs them anyway? 26,000 Canadians in those countries should move their asses out. Bilaterals are just that, mostly equality.

GMC1500

13th Oct 2010, 13:48

Rollingthunder;
Not that I am supporting this move on the part of the UAE gov't expelling the Canadian troops, and not like your point has anything to do with it anyways...
I would like you to clarify a point you are trying to make. You seem to be saying that what Emirates wants to do is to fly pax from Europe to Canada in 380s, then move them from Canada to elsewhere (or in Canada, whatever) using smaller planes, 777s let's say. And you say Emirates has done this in other places in the world. Really? Any examples? Because I've been flying for them for 2 years and I have no idea what you're speaking about.

helen-damnation

13th Oct 2010, 20:07

enginefireleft

poaching passengers away from the local carriers in the countries they fly to
Welcome to the real world! It's called commercial competition (shall we ban AC from LHR/LGW etc?) and unfortunately for some, the middle east airlines have various advantages to start with. However, add in some very clever commercial planners and intelligent leadership combined with giving passengers a better deal than they are getting from the legacy carriers & .... voila, you're dead in the water.

I think they are stupid, and increasingly desperate given the huge numbers of airplanes they had the hubris to order.
Hubris: excessive pride or self-confidence.
$40 Million a week profit is not hubris.
5 new destinations this year is not hubris.
Double figure increase in pax year on year is not hubris.
Etc, etc, etc.

I DON'T support the Camp Mirage thing. Military should be kept separate, especially with Mr Ahminadinnerjaket next door :=

gbax

13th Oct 2010, 23:01

Looks like the rest of the world may follow Canada's lead:

I hope they do.

Air France CEO Calls for EU Curbs on Expansion by Gulf Carriers
By Laurence Frost and Andrea Rothman -
document.write(dateFormat(new Date(1286814122000),"mmm d, yyyy h:MM TT Z"));
Oct Pierre-Henri Gourgeon, chief executive officer for Air France-KLM Group. Photographer: Antoine Antoniol/Bloomberg

Air France-KLM Group is teaming upwith Europe’s biggest airlines to push for European Union actionto slow the encroachment of Emirates and other Gulf carriers,saying the region’s status as an air-travel hub is under threat.

“Europe is at the crossroads of international air travel,and this is a role we need to value and defend,” Air FranceChief Executive Officer Pierre-Henri Gourgeon (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Pierre-Henri%20Gourgeon&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) said in aninterview. “What we’re telling the authorities is that we needa strategy that gives us a chance to resist.”

Gourgeon, British Airways Plc CEO Willie Walsh (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Willie%20Walsh&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) and DeutscheLufthansa AG’s Wolfgang Mayrhuber (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Wolfgang%20Mayrhuber&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) are among executives scheduledto attend a meeting of the Association of European Airlines (http://www.aea.be/) onOct. 15 in London. They will discuss a joint push with Americanrivals for a change to the export-guarantee regime and thetrans-Atlantic trade agreement that enshrines it, said Christian de Barrin (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Christian%20de%20Barrin&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja), a spokesman of the Brussels-based industry group.

For the past two decades, the U.S. and Europe have agreedto withhold export credit guarantees from airlines registered infive countries where Airbus SAS and Boeing Co. airliners arebuilt: Britain, France, Germany, Spain and the U.S. This meansmany European and all American carriers are denied cheapergovernment-backed plane financing available to rivals fromcountries including Gulf states.

‘Home-Country’ Rule

The role of export financing has ballooned since the creditcrunch reduced banks’ willingness to lend. The share of planedeliveries covered by government guarantees more than doubled to34 percent in 2009, Airbus and Boeing figures show.

“Our ability to fund the acquisition of new aircraft ishandicapped by the so-called ‘home-country’ rule,” BA spokesmanPaul Marston (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Paul%20Marston&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) said. “These guarantees are not operating in theway they were intended -- and we therefore urge the EU to amendthe rules to remove the competitive distortions that havedeveloped.”

In a policy paper published on its website (http://presse.lufthansa.com/fileadmin/downloads/de/politikbrief/10_2010/LH-Politikbrief-Oktober-2010-Exportkreditgarantien.pdf) last week,Lufthansa called for an end to “market imbalances” resultingfrom export-credit financing, saying “basic rules of regulatorypolicy are being disregarded.”

Emirates, the biggest Gulf carrier, already pays verylittle in the way of airport charges or fuel tax at its Dubaihub, as well as escaping many of the social charges that weighon European companies, Air France’s Gourgeon said. Thosebenefits could generate 3 billion euros ($4.2 billion) ofoperating income if applied to Air France-KLM, he said.

No Tax?

“When you’re supported in this way you can offer the endproduct at very low prices,” the CEO said in the Oct. 7interview at Air France’s headquarters near Paris Charles deGaulle airport. “They don’t pay tax -- they don’t even have aword for it.”

European carriers may also seek action under EU Regulation868 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0868:EN:HTML), which imposes protective duties on foreign carriers thatuse subsidies or other forms of “non-commercial advantage” toundercut prices, the AEA’s de Barrin said.

“When so many entities and economies around the world arebeing shored up by governments in order to survive, it issurprising to single out Emirates with unsubstantiated claims ofbeing subsidized,” President Tim Clark (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Tim%20Clark&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) said in commentse-mailed to Bloomberg. “We have grown without subsidy throughthe success of our commercially-driven business model -- and seeno reason to apologize for what we have achieved.”

Qatar, Etihad

John Clancy, trade spokesman at the European Commission,the 27-nation EU’s executive arm in Brussels, didn’t immediatelyhave a comment. Neither did Helen Kearns, the commission’sspokeswoman for transportation.

Emirates overtook Lufthansa (https://www.iata.org/ps/publications/Pages/wats-passenger-km.aspx) last year as the biggestcarrier on international flights, thanks to a sixfold increasein traffic since 2000, when it ranked 24th. British Airways, topin 2000, now stands fourth in the International Air TransportAssociation (http://www.iata.org/) ranking, which treats Air France and KLM as separateairlines.

Airbus (http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/orders_and_deliveries) and Boeing (http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=timeperiodselection.cfm&pageid=m15523) together have outstanding orders for 102widebody planes from Qatar Airways, 59 from Etihad Airways and175 from Emirates, which has already taken delivery of 13 of the90 Airbus A380 superjumbos it has ordered in total.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank guaranteed $414 million ofEmirates bonds last year to fund the purchase three Boeing 777jets, an example of the cheaper financing that would be offlimits for Lufthansa or Southwest Airlines Inc.

Level Playing Field

“There’s definitely an argument that there needs to be alevel playing field in financing,” said Howard Wheeldon (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Howard%20Wheeldon&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja), seniorstrategist at BGC Partners. “Any pressure that France, Britainand Germany can bring to bear makes good sense.”

For investment-grade U.S. carriers, cost savings from theagency-guaranteed financing they are denied would amount to 3percent of total loan value annually, according to Air Francedata comparing the spreads on guaranteed debt with those ofcommercially traded plane-financing notes over the past twoyears.

“That’s a lot of money,” Marc Verspyck, the Frenchcarrier’s senior vice president for finance, said in aninterview. In addition to the actual savings, eligibility forguarantees cuts financing risk when ordering planes, he said.

Air France rose 1.4 percent to 12 euros at the 5:30 p.m.close of trading in Paris. Lufthansa slipped 0.4 percent to14.35 euros on the Frankfurt exchange. British Airways gained1.6 percent to 268.4 pence in London.

Manchester Route

European airlines may struggle to maintain efficientconnections as Middle Eastern carriers lure more passengers awaywith new destinations, Gourgeon said. He cited Emirates’sintroduction of an Airbus A380 superjumbo flying between Dubaiand Manchester, northern England, since last month.

“It will progressively become more difficult for BritishAirways to have enough passengers to offer the same frequency offlights to Hong Kong,” the CEO said. Traffic through Paris,Milan and Munich would also suffer, he said.

If left unchecked, the competitive imbalance between theGulf and Europe will eventually lead to a mass shift in stopovertraffic, and other economic activities, to Middle Eastern hubs,Gourgeon said.

“I think it’s very dangerous for Europe,” he said. “Whatthey’re trying to do is buy our jobs.”

To contact the reporters on this story:Laurence Frost (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Laurence%20Frost&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) in Paris at [email protected] ([email protected])Andrea Rothman (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Andrea%20Rothman&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) in Paris at [email protected] ([email protected])

To contact the editors responsible for this story:Kenneth Wong at [email protected] ([email protected]);Benedikt Kammel at [email protected] ([email protected])

a330pilotcanada

14th Oct 2010, 15:47

It would seem our :mad:"friends" at the U.A.E. like hardball......

By The Associated Press, cbc.ca, Updated: October 14, 2010 10:27 AM UAE lobbied against Canada's UN bid

A UAE official says the country lobbied against Canada's bid for a United Nations Security Council seat in the latest blow to relations that have soured after disputes over airline routes.

The official says the United Arab Emirates opposed Canada's UN effort in part because of its trade policies. Canada failed earlier this week to win one of the non-permanent Security Council seats after coming behind Portugal in second ballot voting in New York.

The UAE has pushed back hard against Ottawa for not opening up more routes for its airlines Emirates and Etihad. Canadian troops are being forced to leave Camp Mirage, a military base in Dubai used to supply Canadian forces in Afghanistan.

The UAE official spoke on condition of anonymity Thursday because of standing government rules on behind-the-scenes briefings. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said the lack of support from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff for Canada's bid helped scuttle it, an assertion Ignatieff called "ridiculous."

The Liberals have also criticized the Conservative government's handling of negotiations with the UAE, but NDP defence critic Jack Harris said he supported the government on the issue.

engfireleft

14th Oct 2010, 16:22

A UAE official says the country lobbied against Canada's bid for a United Nations Security Council seat in the latest blow to relations that have soured after disputes over airline routes.

Another measure of their growing desperation in my opinion. They have hundreds of airplanes on order at the same time they are running into the upper limits of their plan to take over the world. The fact they are willing, eager even, to use scorched earth diplomatic tactics like this and Camp Mirage to gain a relatively few slots proves it in my mind.

They've supplanted the art of negotiation for the sledge hammer of extortion.

6000PIC

14th Oct 2010, 16:53

Let`s hope Canada , and the remaining members of ICAO do not forget these diplomatic swipes anytime too soon . The UAE think that because they spend billions of $ on aircraft in the USA (with Boeing) and in Europe (with Airbus) , that they can do whatever they want in the marketplace . Any and all resistance to Emirates`/ Etihad`s plans in the future will thus be met in a similiar fashion. They have shown their cards , and have thus admitted that denial and humiliation are unacceptable and domination of the industry is the goal . No wonder they haven`t joined Star , One World or Skyteam. They don`t need them , nor are they team players.

The fare paying public are too narrow minded and short sighted to see the long term implications here. Remember how a decade`s worth of cheap imports into the USA from China had a helping hand in the outsourcing of manufacturing and the demise of GDP in the West ? The USA and Europe are about to commit the same mistake with aviation. Strike 3 and you are out. Time to say NO to the UAE. Does anyone else see this ????

clunckdriver

14th Oct 2010, 17:30

For those of us who have had the misfortune to have dealings in this part of the world, such bully tactics come as no suprise, the majority of the governments in this part of the globe are unable, by dint of their religon/culture unable to seperate politics/trade/culture and behavior, if you havnt dealt with them and dont at least have a working grasp of their language its very hard to understand how imature their view of the world and other cultures really is , I trust that those ex pats who suport the actions of this bunch putting our troops in at the very least a supply problem, at the worst mortal danger dont expect to return to Canada and take advantage of the very real benifits of living in a country where the rule of law is held supreme, but Im sure they will !. I can only hope that ALL the landing rights in Canada are withdrawn from these folks,we dont need them and most dont want them here if this type of behavior continues., Im not holding my breath that they will change untill the rest of the world pushes back,and it will.

Married a Canadian

14th Oct 2010, 18:13

The fare paying public are too narrow minded and short sighted to see the long term implications here

Yep....and that is the same across all business....for the great unwashed like myself price factors into the equation.

What are the long term implications??? Air Canada are going to go out of business? Air France? KLM? The American carriers were doing so before Emirates showed up. Air Canada had financial problems before Emirates showed up.

Sorry not buying it. I still maintain that interational aviation reeks of hypocrisy and a holier than thou attitude. The legacy carriers are there for that reason (go look up BAs history of dirty tricks against Virgin) and the Canadian aviation landscape has many a sour tale to tell against the largest carrier.

So Emirates and the UAE are corrupt, bullying, immature, liars, unwanted, dishonest, dangerous, backwards...etc etc etc. They are probably looking at the West and laughing at the double standards.

The UAE think that because they spend billions of $ on aircraft in the USA (with Boeing) and in Europe (with Airbus) , that they can do whatever they want in the marketplace

And your point is? If I were spending BILLIONS...I might be inclined to get involved in a bit of political manouvering for my own benefit. You make it sound like it has NEVER happened before...certainly not to any company in the West.

Yawn!! Emirates today....who will it be tomorrow?

6000PIC

14th Oct 2010, 19:03

... Married a Canadian , it`s all about competitive advantage/ disadvantage. As this is a flight crew oriented forum , I am certain that most flight crewmembers with EK and/or EY would agree that it is to THEIR disadvantage that their government run airline is so closely aligned with their regulatory body. Imagine American Airlines and the FAA having the same owner. How about Transport Canada and Air Canada ? Qantas and CASA ? British Airways and the UK CAA ? Now do you get it ? Do you feel safer knowing that the fox is guarding the henhouse ? You shouldn`t ! If there was such a thing as transparency in the UAE , perhaps you would see what you refuse to acknowledge as reality. That`s just a start. The airlines of the UAE possess an unfair , untenable and unrealistic competitive advantage versus most other ICAO / IATA airlines. We haven`t even mentioned the safety implications of this frightening arrangement. The Canadian government should stand firm.

a330pilotcanada

14th Oct 2010, 20:07

To all Canadians living in our great country please use the letter below as a template to compose a letter to The Right Honourable Steven Harper P.C. M.P. to show your support in his actions.

Your address here

October 14, 2010

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington St
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A2

Attention: The Right Honourable Steven Harper Prime Minister P.C. M.P.

Dear Prime Minister Harper:

I am writing you today to register the condescension that I feel towards the United Arab Emirates in their diplomatic blackmail to secure unprecedented landing rights into Canada. This blackmail is extremely odious given the fact that over 150 fine Canadian men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces have given their lives to secure freedom from Muslim extremists in Afghanistan. I should note that the absence of any military from the U.A.E. to support Muslim brothers and sisters would suggest duplicity of the highest order on the government of the U.A.E.

I compliment your government stand in not giving into these repellent demands.

To pay tribute on the sordid demands that the U.A.E. Government foisted on to our military at Camp Mirage may I suggest the following:

· Have the Honourable Chuck Strahl Minister of Transport advise the Government of the U.A.E. that First and Second Freedoms of the air are denied to all U.A.E. aircraft

· Only allow flights that have already been agreed to but with "restrictive" slot times for arrival and departures from current airports in Canada that they serve

· Rescind the use of all Canadian Airports as alternate airports for their operational requirements

·Have the Honourable Lawrence Cannon advise the Government of the U.A.E. that citizens of the U.A.E. can only come to Canada under very restrictive visa requirements

Thanking you in advance, I remain

Your name here

cc
The Honourable Chuck Strahl Minister of Transport P.C. M.P.
The Honourable Lawrence Cannon Minister of Foreign Affairs, P.C. M.P.
The Honourable your M.P. here

Willie Everlearn

14th Oct 2010, 20:22

IMHO this is simply about Emirates trying to find somewhere else to operate an A380 or two and nothing more. They've ordered a sh**load of these buggers and if they ever had to default on payments, park or cancel orders because they hadn't anywhere to operate them would be a complete disaster for EK and a complete embarassment for a certain ruling party member. Not to mention what it would do to Airbus.

That's probably not going to happen. Face saving is the order of the day out there and the UAE will, in its own way, try to show us who's the boss. I suspect EK will move on to other markets with their A380s.
I say, good luck. Good game.

Canada is out of Afghanistan next year. Camp Mirage is now Camp Yesterday and that's fine. Perhaps Shk al Thani will step up and offer Canada an interim solution. I for one, won't be losing any sleep over this. In fact, we can't get our troops out of there soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
Don't look for GCC unity on this issue after what AUH and DXB did to GF and QR.

And another thing, the UN Security Council gig for Canada is no great loss either. The UN mafia rarely acknowledge what counties fund the place as it is. Should Canada really waste more $$$ on that organization?

I wonder, how long would it take EK to realize operating from YYC and YVR even without competition, was a money losing proposition for them and pull out?

I would react to this UAE hissy fit by doing nothing and simply get our troops out of the UAE. The UAE needs to decide what it's role is in fighting terrorism whilst the remainder of the world watches and waits for its decision.

There are no flies on Canada.

Willie :eek:

6000PIC

14th Oct 2010, 20:25

... and the UAE , along with Saudi Arabia were two of the few countries to formally and legally recognize the Taliban as the Government of Afghanistan. How quickly people forget recent history. Allies ? I think not.

altiplano

14th Oct 2010, 20:44

Ignore them. Let them cry themselves to sleep... what have they done for us lately?

I don't usually agree with Harper but good on him for protecting our industry.

+1 with Willie...

I say take the Swiss approach and participate on the humanitarian side (UNICEF etc)... leave the rest to bicker and use the effort to look after our own country's best interests...

Tan

14th Oct 2010, 23:17

I wonder if the slick propaganda Emirates machine has any idea the political damage they’ve self -inflected upon themselves in Canada and elsewhere in the world.

Married a Canadian

14th Oct 2010, 23:58

6000PIC

We haven`t even mentioned the safety implications of this frightening arrangement

I have disagreed with this statement before. For Emirates to fly into other countries airspaces they have to meet the safety criteria of the particular regulating bodies.
In reading the middle east forums and hearing afew of the comments on here it does sound like Emirates push their crews pretty hard and there seem to be some disgruntled employees out there

HOWEVER neither the CAA or the FAA or Transport Canada or any of the other bodies have said that Emirates are unsafe to fly into the Heathrows, Torontos and New Yorks.

1001 Crash - Airlines Black List (http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-liste_noire-lg-2.html)

The above should link to a recent black list in the UK and the US...I do not see Emirates on it.
Now there is either some major palm greasing going in..(which I do not believe...as that would mean said regulatory bodies do not care about safety)...or at the present time Emirates do not operate as dodgy an operation as some people on PPRUNE seem to believe. It may push the limits but has not been considered to be unsafe......fox guarding the chicken coop or not.
You ask if I feel safe with that arrangement?? I feel safe that Transport Canada...and before that the CAA do their jobs and decide who is safe to fly in the airspace I work. If they are making a mistake then lay the finger of blame at them.

The airlines of the UAE possess an unfair , untenable and unrealistic competitive advantage versus most other ICAO / IATA airlines

The problem I have with this statement is as I have repeatedly said before...comparing it to other ICAO/IATA airlines should only be fair when you gauge HOW they became the legacy carriers they are today. If any airline that has THIS big a problem with Emirates can really say they are squeaky clean in the way they have conducted business over the years of aviation then by all means get on the high horse. Be prepared to have your dealings over the years picked over at fine length.
Competitive advantage?? Compared to what? Air Canada vs Porter? BA vs Virgin (at the start)

The problem with this situation is the politics attached, the region involved (by that I mean culture, mentality) and the fact it is a patriotic situation...which will fan the flames of any debate. Canada vs the UAE and all the associated that goes along with it.
It makes for murky waters when it really should be a simple debate of does Canada/Emirates need the extra slots. Emirates have scored an own goal this week by bringing attention to all these extra shennanigans when they could have gained more sympathy by hammering home the "protection" argument that it could be viewed that Air Canada are receiving.
The responses since the situation blew up reinforce that.

I still believe they should be given as many slots as they want and let them succeed or fail based on the market. Let the politics play out away from this argument.

clunckdriver

15th Oct 2010, 00:05

Tan, the answer to your question is NO, they wont get it till we kick them out of our airspace, I repeat, you have have delt with them to be able to understand their mind set, they have not a clue that they are shooting themselves in the foot, for person who has spent their life in a Western democracy and not been exposed to their mind set its almost impossible to grasp this .Such simplistic views as expressed by "Married to a Canadian" are on par with Chamberlins understanding of the Nazies, and we all know where that went! Maggie Thatcher understood this about the Argies and got it right, I hope our PM gets it right!

Tan

15th Oct 2010, 01:06

clunckdriver

I talked to a few expatriate pilots who brought me up to speed on the game the Emirates play. I have no doubt the Emirates propaganda machine has hired ghost writers to defend their actions on all the forums and news media outlets. Unfortunately for them the cat is out of the bag and the Canadian public isn’t buying it...

Married a Canadian

15th Oct 2010, 01:52

Such simplistic views

You do like your history Clunck...I'll give you that much.

My simplistic views are based on what I know about Western business practices in the industry I work in.
It dosen't really matter to me what the UAE business practice is. People more knowledgeable than me are saying it is crooked and there is a particular mindset...Fine...I will concede to that.

No one so far has answered me on Western business practice. My simplistic view of things is that we are rank hypocrites and compel this situation by pretending otherwise...hiding behind the word "democracy". If all was so good in the West there would be no PPRUNE as there would be nothing to moan about, what with the upstanding honest companies we work for:). If Emirates go away will the Canadian section revert to all the happy pilots who are pleased with the way the industry is going?

This debate does seem to have a certain "You don't understand the ramifications" or "You don't understand the Middle East", aimed at all the people like me.
And yet the ramifications by supposedly intelligent posters seem to be the complete collapse of the Canadian aviation market/economy...not to mention the Europeans and Americans aswell....Emirates flying rampant point to point in sovereign airspace serving cities in Canada direct before flying back to Dubai over the disused domestic carriers below them....international travel will all be via Dubai..even if I want to fly to Iceland from Toronto I would have to go via Dubai (it will be cheaper you see with EX).
Extreme? Then could all the intelligent posters once again tell me what is going to happen that is so bad?
Am I missing the amount of carriers that have gone under or entered bankruptcy on the world scene....Do we need to list Pre Emirates/Post Emirates?

You mentioned earlier in this debate Clunk that Emirates COULD be granted cabotage. Please! Even I would not be an advocate for that...any more than I would for British airways.

Easy to stir up the emotions on this topic because of the political and patriotic nature. In doing so though you "complicate" matters.
Let EK shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they seem to be doing...but stop using the "Western vs Middle East" argument. It grows tiresome when no one will comment on Western vs Western in the airline world.

a330pilotcanada

15th Oct 2010, 10:11

Good Morning All:
From the Globe and Mail

Airlines battle ‘one-sided' agreement with Emirates
BRENT JANG — TRANSPORTATION REPORTER
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2010 5:30PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2010 11:24PM EDT

Ottawa’s refusal to grant new Canadian landing rights to the United Arab Emirates and allegations that Persian Gulf carriers thrive on subsidies have irked the head of Dubai’s airport, home to Emirates Airline.

Emirates, owned by the Dubai government, has been seeking to introduce flights to Calgary and Vancouver, as well as lobbying to gradually boost its Toronto service – currently limited to three round-trip flights a week between Dubai International Airport and Toronto’s Pearson International Airport.

Canada to leave Dubai base (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/canada-to-leave-dubai-base/article1752230/?from=1755780)

But after Ottawa recently refused to grant greater access to Dubai-based Emirates and Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways, the UAE served notice that it will evict the Canadian Forces from Camp Mirage, a Persian Gulf base that serves as a crucial jump-off point to Afghanistan.

Paul Griffiths, chief executive officer at Dubai Airports Co., fired back Wednesday at critics in Canada and Europe, where Air France is leading a group of European and U.S. carriers to voice concerns about expansion-minded Emirates receiving low-interest aircraft financing and other subsidies.

“The only thing Dubai is guilty of is providing an environment that actually supports aviation,” Mr. Griffiths said in a statement. “Most governments around the world treat aviation as a pariah, choking its growth with costly, misdirected regulation, instead of adopting policies that recognize its considerable socio-economic benefits and support its sustainable growth. They then compound the problem with parasitic forms of taxation that usually flow straight out of the sector.”

The Air Canada (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/airlines-battle-one-sided-agreement-with-emirates/article1755780/) Pilots Association began publicly attacking Emirates in the spring of 2009. Last March, Montreal-based Air Canada launched a series of stinging critiques against Emirates. “Few Canadians actually travel to Dubai as a destination and fewer still residents of Dubai travel to Canada,” Air Canada CEO Calin Rovinescu said in a recent speech in Montreal. “Simply put, it would be yet another defeat for Canada to adopt an unbalanced trade agreement with the UAE and allow for the dumping of seats into the Canadian market to siphon off profitable flying.”

Emirates’ growth strategy pits it against two Star Alliance partners, Air Canada and Germany’s Deutsche Lufthansa AG, which rely on Frankfurt as a key European hub. Dubai serves as a stopover hub for most Emirates travellers to and from Canada, so the battle is over international connecting traffic between Canada and the Middle East, Africa and the South Asian subcontinent, industry observers say.

Emirates has been pushing for up to 50 new takeoff and landing slots over the long term, but Air Canada and Transport Canada oppose the distribution of so many new flights, saying there have to be “reciprocal” benefits, and not the one-sided advantages for the UAE.

Air Canada argues that Emirates doesn’t really want to fly customers between Canada and Dubai, but instead sees the foreign carrier as aggressively seeking to skim off lucrative international traffic via the UAE.

“We want to have fair market conditions, and it’s the Canadian government’s call to judge and see if there are fair market conditions,” Lufthansa spokesman Martin Riecken said Wednesday. “If there’s a one-sided imbalance in the traffic rights situation, that is certainly not something we would support.”

6000PIC

15th Oct 2010, 12:24

... " the only thing Dubai is guilty of..... " blah blah blah.....what absolute drivel , propaganda and deceit that statement is....more accurately , Dubai is guilty of providing an environment that is against human rights , free speech , tolerance , and transparent business practices. This guy has traded durhams for integrity. Why should both Canada and Germany reward this behavior by allowing further market access ? I am sure there are many governments watching this process intently , certain that they`ll be next. There must come a time when wisdom outmaneuvers greed.

555orange

15th Oct 2010, 16:54

Married a Canadian..

I get your point. Not all business was innocent before the ME showed up. SO?

Does that mean we should bend over and just let you and the ME with is current super cheap labor from the subcontinent, no tax, gov't subsidised businesses, walk into our house and eat our lunch?

What happened in the past is water under the bridge. What matters to Canada and Air France, and BAE, and Lufthansa etc etc etc, is the here and now.

Now the ME carriers interests are a threat to other countries carriers interests. Canada has tried to deal with this fairly by allowing the ME carriers to service the Canadians that want choice in DXB and AUH but as a destination, not a hub onwards to other destinations. Although admittedly, you serve that market already to a certian degree. But Canada wants to protect its share of the market to other destination as well. Daily service from YYZ for you is enough ...for now. Sorry you cant have it ALL.

What the UAE has effectively done now, is attract global attention to itself over this political nonsense with the base and now the security council seat. It reminds me of a spoiled bully who didn't get his way, and I think the rest of the world is going to see it that way too. It hasn't helped your case.

If you want to play at the table then bring your chips. Code share or join an alliance.

Lets put it into a context you might understand better...now that your married to a Canadian... How would you feel if you were at a party and some guy comes in and wants all the beer for himself? What would you do? Does the fact that you had one too many beers once in the past justify the other guy taking all the beers today? Hmmmm.... :ugh:

Willie Everlearn

15th Oct 2010, 21:47

I'd give them a week, maybe two to have a sit down and seriously think about the "spoiled brat" diplomacy they've used toward our Governmental over flights and their lobbying of the UN. (not to mention the Camp Mirage decision which I personally don't think is worth all the fuss, but that's me)

The more I think about the suggestion that we cancel their landing rights and ice the cake with denial of EK and EY overflight in Canadian Airspace, the more I like it.

A child can't simply take something it wants off the shelf in a supermarket simply because he wants it, unless it's paid for. This country (the UAE) doesn't understand the fact that the answer to any question/request is not always YES. Unless it's the other way round. Then they do get it. There are times when you have to say NO. Even to the spoiled brat. (Bear in mind, if you tell a spoiled brat NO, he's going to start bawling. He might even thrash around AND bawl in protest. You have to understand the mentality we're dealing with to better appreciate what me as well as others are saying.

Cancelling their landing rights and overflights, including their Military transits to the U.S. via Labrador, would be the slap on the wrist that's needed PLUS it would get one in for our Military boys and girls. Even though they (the UAE) might not get it.

Canada doesn't import enough Middle Eastern oil to worry about any oil sanction, should they even consider that move as an option.

We go a long way to accept culture and religion in this country and to a great degree give way to it to be more accomodating. Maybe this time, someone needs to give way to the way we do things in this country?

Does our government have the cahones? (don't think so)

Willie :ok:

a330pilotcanada

19th Oct 2010, 16:25

More from the Globe and Mail

The dogfight over Emirates

BRENT JANG — TRANSPORTATION REPORTER

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Oct. 15, 2010 6:07PM EDT

Last updated Friday, Oct. 15, 2010 6:34PM EDT

It’s Dubai versus Frankfurt in the battle of global hubs, and to the victor go the spoils of lucrative international air traffic.

Emirates Airline, which operates three round-trip flights a week between Toronto and Dubai, has been lobbying the Canadian government for much greater access to Canada. Emirates funnels global traffic through its Dubai hub. By contrast, Air Canada (AC.B-T (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-dogfight-over-emirates/article1759667/)3.440.020.58%) and its partner Deutsche Lufthansa AG fly between Toronto and Frankfurt, where Lufthansa collects connecting passengers.

Battle of the hubs (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/battle-of-the-hubs/article1759678/?from=1759667)

After Ottawa declined to grant greater access to Dubai-based Emirates and Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways, the United Arab Emirates decided last week to evict the Canadian Forces from Camp Mirage, a Persian Gulf base that serves as a crucial jump-off point to Afghanistan.

Air Canada (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-dogfight-over-emirates/article1759667/) argues that its connecting points at both Frankfurt and London’s Heathrow Airport would suffer if the UAE carriers grow aggressively in Canada.

As well, with Emirates seeking to add Vancouver-Dubai and Calgary-Dubai routes, Air Canada believes its flights between Western Canada and the Asia-Pacific region would be weakened since Emirates also serves China, Hong Kong (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-dogfight-over-emirates/article1759667/), Japan and South Korea – important connecting points.

Emirates deploys the 489-seat Airbus A380 on the Toronto-Dubai route while Etihad operates the 374-seat Boeing 777 for its Toronto-Abu Dhabi service.

Emirates serves 15 destinations in the Middle East, 17 in Africa and 17 in the South Asian subcontinent, which are crucial destination markets for the airline’s Toronto-Dubai service. This map shows some of the key destinations where Emirates and Lufthansa go head-to-head from their respective hubs, as well as examples of where Emirates flies without direct Lufthansa competition.

POLITICS

The UAE’s eviction notice means the Canadian Forces must vacate Camp Mirage within the next three weeks. Emirates has been pushing Ottawa for more flights ever since it launched Toronto-Dubai service in October, 2007. Emirates argues that at a minimum, it needs daily service from Toronto. In an internal newsletter last year, the Air Canada Pilots Association noted the presence of small model planes on MPs’ desks – souvenirs from Emirates’ lobbying efforts on Parliament Hill. Air Canada and Transport Canada oppose the expansion strategy, saying there isn’t any seat shortage between Canada and the UAE.

THE WIDE GAP

Emirates alone wants up to 25 more round-trips a week over the long term, leaving a wide gap between the UAE and Ottawa. In August and September, the Canadian government offered to increase the frequency to one extra round-trip flight a week each for Emirates and Etihad, but it had to be service to a Canadian city other than Toronto. Ottawa also presented a separate offer to allow Emirates and Etihad to spread out their flights with smaller planes over more days, but the Canadian government would have restricted the capacity available to the existing level of roughly 2,600 seats each way weekly.

EMIRATES AIRLINE

Emirates and Lufthansa compete head-to-head in most instances in the Middle East and Africa, although Emirates has a more extensive network into India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Emirates has been seeking to introduce daily flights to both Vancouver and Calgary, as well as lobbying to gradually boost its Toronto service to twice a day. “In carrying this connecting traffic, Emirates provides enhanced access between Canada and various regions of the world which are underserved or not served at all from Canada,” according to an Emirates’ report presented to Ottawa.

AIR CANADA/LUFTHANSA

Air Canada and its Star Alliance partner, Germany’s Lufthansa, both fly non-stop between Toronto and Frankfurt. Lufthansa and its European subsidiaries boast an extensive network from the Frankfurt hub, as well as from Munich and other European terminals. Connecting travellers make many of Air Canada’s flights viable, and consumers would find they have fewer Air Canada flights to choose from if Emirates were to obtain dozens of new takeoff and landing slots in Canada. Cities such as Calgary, Montreal and Ottawa stand to lose some non-stop Air Canada service if Emirates siphons international traffic.

Willie Everlearn

20th Oct 2010, 00:52

This ought to put a new twist in someone's shorts.

from CTV news,
"A suspect in the high-profile killing of a Hamas commander at a Dubai hotel has been arrested in Canada, the city-state's police chief says.
Lt. Gen. Dahi Khalfan Tamim told several news organizations the arrest is being kept quiet by Canada and Dubai was told not to go public with the information.
Foreign Affairs did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment on the reports.
Canada's consul general in Dubai, Kris Panday, told The Associated Press he had no comment on the matter.
Tamim's allegations come a little more than a week after a diplomatic dust-up between Canada and the United Arab Emigrates resulted in Canada being booted from its secret military base in the region.
Last week, Tamim said that an unnamed Western country had arrested a key suspect in the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. But he did not identify the country.
Al-Mabhouh was killed in January, when he was smothered in his room at the Al Bustan hotel.
Dubai police initially issued warrants for 11 suspects in connection with al-Mabhouh's killing, but later added 16 more suspects to their list. They released video surveillance images of all of the suspects, most of whom travelled on fraudulent British, Irish, Australian, German and French passports.
Investigators said it appeared that a professional hit squad had killed al-Mabhouh.
Days after al-Mabhouh's death, Tamim said it was likely that the Mossad was behind the assassination.
"Our investigators reveal that Mossad is involved in the murder of al-Mabhouh. It is 99 per cent, if not 100 per cent that Mossad is standing behind the murder," Tamim told The National, the state-owned newspaper in Dubai.
Israel did not confirm nor deny its involvement in the assassination.
But Britain, Australia and Ireland later expelled Israeli diplomats after concluding Israel was responsible for the forged passports from their countries.
In June, an alleged Israeli spy named Uri Brodsky was arrested in Warsaw on a European arrest warrant that was issued by a German court.
Two months later, Brodsky was granted bail and is allowed to travel as he pleases while judicial proceedings are moving ahead.
Brodsky is accused of espionage and of helping procure a fake German passport."

Let's see how the diplomacy deals with this 'interesting' development.

Willie :ok:

engfireleft

20th Oct 2010, 02:44

I have no idea if this story is true, but there is one thing I do know. Every country, without exception, has skeletons in their closet. The UAE is a country that probably has more of them than most, and also stands to lose a lot more than Canada does if they become public knowledge.

The Emirates seems to have declared some sort of war on Canada over these landing slots. It simply isn't rational, which is another plank in the argument they are getting desperate.

Edit: Maybe in lieu of increased capacity to Canada the government can ship a bunch of Toronto phone books to the Emirates. I understand you can hit someone really hard with it and it won't leave any marks.

(AP) The UAE's highest judicial body says a man can beat his wife and young children as long as the beating leaves no physical marks.

UAE: Wife-Beating OK, Just Don't Leave Any Marks - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/18/world/main6968844.shtml)

clunckdriver

21st Oct 2010, 10:33

At the risk of repeating myself, none of this will come as any suprise if one has spent time in this part of the globe, same old same old. The question we should be asking in Canada is why would we even give a single landing slot to them or allow this "culture" to come to our country? Since the closure of our base they have nothing to offer our nation that is of any value to Canada.

Oblaaspop

21st Oct 2010, 14:03

Hmmmm, perhaps because those 'normal' Canadians (those who don't work for Air Canada or who don't have hidden agendas) deserve a better choice in carriers/destinations and QUALITY OF SERVICE!!

Think about it, not all Canadians give a toss about the survival of AC.

Also don't under estimate the level of trade between Canada and the UAE, and the fact that over 100,000 Canadians live and work here. The current flights have load factors well over 90% (even on the 500 seat A380) - figures AC could only dream about........ so how can anyone say that demand isn't sufficient for extra services?

Indeed the UAE may be acting up like a spoilt child at present, but AC and Transport Canada are acting just as poorly and are treating the fare paying public like morons........... Non-protectionist my arse! How can AC et al cry foul at Mid East governments supporting local Airlines well, when they themselves are attempting the self same thing?? Pot and Kettle?

Food for thought perhaps?

ajet32

21st Oct 2010, 15:45

Does anybody really want to fly to Europe through Dubai. I for one do not. Direct flights to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Heathrow from Calgary and others from Vancouver and Toronto make travel much easier than if one were to transit DUBAI.
Just my two cents worth. I don't work for Air Canada or any affiliate but I support them in this argument.

clunckdriver

21st Oct 2010, 16:07

Oblaaspop, the number of ex pats working/living in any country can hardly be used as the yardstick as to the number of landing slots to be awarded to any particular nation, if this logic prevailed then Britain and the USA would have all the slots at every airport in Canada. The fact is the UAE just cant function without ex pats, few of whoom would chose to live there if it wernt for the money, now that they have closed the base they have no poker chips to play with, I hope we kick them out of our airspace untill they learn to behave like adults and not spoilt kids in a sandbox.{Pun intended} Im sure that some of the ex pats fear reprisals against them if we do boot them out, they all knew {As I did} before they went there that there is precious little justice in their petty little world, so get used to it, its the norm in the Middle East.

Willie Everlearn

21st Oct 2010, 20:35

It really isn't much of a contest to compare AC cabin service with EK.

In fact, there isn't a single north american carrier that I can think of that could even come close. I also think we're clever enough to figure out why that is. But I have to say, in recent years, travelling to and fro on AC, I've found their cabin crew did a great job. As did the PSAs on check in.
That certainly wasn't the case in the past.

For me, it's about the Scotch and in that category I'd say AC and EK are pretty much equal.

Cancel their landing rights and don't allow anything with an A6 registration into our airspace.

...where's the Glen? :E

Willie :ok:

Flying Phoenix

25th Oct 2010, 19:06

Six7driver,

The whole argument of towards the economic benefits that EK/Emirates would bring to Canada was rendered moot the moment their government decided to negotiate additional access to the Canadian market through blackmail (closure of a military base) and inane decisions (not allowing a high level member of the Canadian Government into their airspace). They must realize that this type of negotiating is stupid, stupid, stupid. If not, then they surely must realize that their will be economic costs by negotiating this way (if they didn't before, they do now). PM Harper has shown considerable restraint in dealing with this issue so EK should consider itself lucky. For many Canadians, we would have applied much harsher penalties to the Emirates government and its' carrier for their appalling behavior.

Now onto the economic benefits that EK would bring. I can't argue the benefits which you posted as I can read the numbers. What I also need to see in order to be convinced is what the net benefits are to Canadians. Are the numbers you posted 'gross benefits' before the costs (which may be considerable) are taken into account? I don't know, but I suspect that since these are early days in this debate we will start to see some additional surveys done in this area. Remember, numbers can be constructed to read however you want them to read. Reality is an entirely different matter.

M-rat

31st Oct 2010, 17:04

Canadian Gov’t says the UAE may have 2600 seats per week each way in/out of Canada

That’s more than 135,000 seats per year.

Canadian Gov’t says there are 27,000 Canadians living in the UAE.

Plenty more seats than Emirates may need. Why that would mean that each and every Canadian could go home to Canada, and return, fractionally more than 2.5 times per year.

We all know Emirates, as an airline, doesn’t even give its pilots their contractually stated leave of 42 days per year. They only give 30, and only a maximum of 21 in a row.

By reducing the leave allocation, and limiting consecutive days, they force their employees to travel an average of at least one other time per year, at their own cost… most use: Emirates Airline. This is an example of how Emirates Airline treats its own professional pilots. One can’t fart in this city without the ‘company’ getting a piece of the action.

Paul Griffiths, chief executive officer at Dubai Airports Co., fired back Wednesday at critics in Canada and Europe, where Air France is leading a group of European and U.S. carriers to voice concerns about expansion-minded Emirates receiving low-interest aircraft financing and other subsidies.“The only thing Dubai is guilty of is providing an environment that actually supports aviation,” Mr. Griffiths said in a statement. “Most governments around the world treat aviation as a pariah, choking its growth with costly, misdirected regulation, instead of adopting policies that recognize its considerable socio-economic benefits and support its sustainable growth. They then compound the problem with parasitic forms of taxation that usually flow straight out of the sector.”

Please read Mr Griffith’s statement carefully and consider the meaning behind his statement.

It doesn’t require a PhD in Reasoning to comprehend that the many “misdirected regulation[s]” are simply viewed as an impediment to Emirates getting what it wants, like a spoiled child not getting the lolly it desires. Or as it is put above: considerable socio-economic benefits

engfireleft

31st Oct 2010, 17:20

“Most governments around the world treat aviation as a pariah, choking its growth with costly, misdirected regulation, instead of adopting policies that recognize its considerable socio-economic benefits and support its sustainable growth. They then compound the problem with parasitic forms of taxation that usually flow straight out of the sector.”

Nice of Mr. Griffiths to admit that Emirates Airlines is not hobbled by those things, thereby giving them an advantage over airlines that are. That leaves individual countries a choice. Either implement a national environment as equally friendly as Emirates enjoys in Dubai, or protect their own airlines from foreign carriers they cannot compete with on a cost basis due to their own national policies.

Either way, Emirates and the Dubai government think they should have carte blanche around the world, and that is simply not going to happen. They might in fact have to rethink all those airplanes they have on order.

DMN

31st Oct 2010, 20:36

It's all about protecting money losing goliath that's Air Canada. Even if AC cut workers salaries in half they would still be losing money. Why don't you hear Qantas or Air New Zeland crying out like AC? EK flies to all major Australian and NZ cities, picking up pax to Dubai and then transferring them wherever they need to go. I think EK even flies between AUS and NZ collecting pax.

The fact is Dubai has a great location between Africa and Asia. Yeah, and that's only about half the worlds population they have access to. AC can only dream about those possibilities. They are able to provide pax from Asia and Africa with worldwide service on a daily basis, often with minimal wait in Dubai. Most of the African and poorer Asian countries will never have airlines big enough (or safe enough) to satisfy the needs for air travel to their citizens. AC can't compete on a global level, not as a private held airline and especially not as a government airline.

Think back to the days of Canadian Airlines and Air Canada. AC can't handle competition, they know they have an inferior product. But in using dirty tactics, bullying, government protection.... AC has an executive mba.
HM, sounds much like Emirates. Seems to me Air Canada has met a dirtier adversary then themself, and they just can't handle it.

Married a Canadian

31st Oct 2010, 22:37

They then compound the problem with parasitic forms of taxation that usually flow straight out of the sector.”

To be fair I think Air Canada would agree with this statement. How many Torontonians cross the border to Buffalo because it is cheaper to fly from there. A flight out of Pearson has XYZ costs and taxes included to the point that people don't even want to fly from their own country.
Air Canada would probably like these "parasitic forms of taxation" lessened in order to compete better against the US carriers.

engfireleft

1st Nov 2010, 00:00

KingAir

1st Nov 2010, 20:13

"It's all about protecting money losing goliath that's Air Canada. Even if AC cut workers salaries in half they would still be losing money. Why don't you hear Qantas or Air New Zeland crying out like AC? EK flies to all major Australian and NZ cities, picking up pax to Dubai and then transferring them wherever they need to go. I think EK even flies between AUS and NZ collecting pax. "

Mixed messages on the Middle East (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/01/349163/mixed-messages-on-the-middle-east.html)

The Gulf carriers want greater access to the Australian and Canadian markets. Are they being blocked or encouraged?

Emirates and other Middle East carriers have asked Australia and Canada for more capacity, but the response from each has been dramatically different.

Australia has allowed Emirates and Etihad to operate 60 weekly non-stops into Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth combined, plus another 31 weekly one-stop flights. By contrast, each carrier enjoys only three weekly flights to Canada - all to Toronto. One market has been generous, the other closely guarded.

National carriers in both countries have criticised what they claim are the aggressive expansion plans of Emirates. The latest volley in this squabble is from Alan Joyce, chief executive of Qantas, who urges Australia to show more restraint in handing out capacity to Middle East carriers. "The capacity that these guys have been hammering on the door [about] for some time is available and they're not utilising [it]," Joyce told national media. Even now, he complains, Emirates is routing some non-stop services through Bangkok because of inadequate demand for the direct Dubai flights.

Hubs become stubs

Calin Rovinescu, Air Canada chief executive, is more vocal, warning Canadian airports that Emirates' designs on Canada would turn their "hubs into stubs". The issue provoked lively debate between Rovinescu and leaders of the Middle East giants at June's IATA annual meeting in Berlin. Also, during the recent Routes Forum in Vancouver, Emirates senior vice-president for cargo Ram Menem joined the debate, calling "restrictive countries, such as Canada, pennywise and pound foolish".

With its current Airbus A380 loads to and from Toronto exceeding 90%, he says Emirates "would cherish the opportunity to operate more passenger flights into Canada". In an obvious attack on Canada, Menem added "some countries tend to protect the national carrier and miss out on greater opportunities".

Transport Canada will not publically enter a debate with any airline, but says the current bilateral grants sufficient rights to serve all origin and destination traffic between Canada and the United Arab Emirates. "UAE carriers transport a large number of passengers to third country markets," it notes. "This limits the number of seats available for people who want to travel between Canada and the UAE." Canada's regulator is in no hurry to grant more capacity to Emirates and Etihad.

A closer look at the Australian and Canadian markets offers clues as to why the two governments have such different attitudes. Emirates does not compete against any Australian carrier between Australia and Asia. It would make no sense for anyone flying between Australia and Asia to use Dubai as a connecting hub. In the first place, connecting is not necessary because of the number of direct Asia-Australia flights. And even if they did connect, Dubai is thousands of kilometres out of the way.

The real competition between Australian and UAE carriers is about Europe. Qantas only flies to London and Frankfurt in Europe, so passengers between Australia and any other European city must connect somewhere. Dubai and Abu Dhabi are just as well suited for this as London or Frankfurt.

The main threat UAE carriers pose for Qantas is in siphoning off Australia-Europe connecting traffic. Qantas carries enough O&D traffic between Australia and London and Frankfurt to allow both routes to survive even if every connecting passenger switched to Emirates or Etihad.

The plan by Qantas unit Jetstar to launch Singapore connections on some thinner routes into Europe and the Middle East does not change these realities. It is still a contest over who will carry the connecting traffic and where it will connect.

Canada's situation is both similar and different. As in the case of Australia-Asia, Emirates and Etihad are unlikely to divert Canada-Europe traffic because Dubai and Abu Dhabi are unnecessary connections too far out of the way.

The difference is that Air Canada operates 30 year-round routes between eight Canadian cities and 13 in Europe - even more in high season. Some, Air Canada says, are too thin to survive solely on O&D traffic. They are supported by traffic that continues beyond Europe - traffic that the Middle Eastern carriers might seek.

Route viability

Air Canada's Rovinescu cites Ottawa-Frankfurt as an example. "When you look at who travels on this flight, only 15% are people going between Ottawa and Frankfurt. The other 85% are connecting in Frankfurt to fly somewhere else. If another carrier siphons off even just the 15% headed for the Middle East, then the route is no longer viable."

So Canadian transport officials fear that if they grant the UAE more capacity than its airlines need for O&D traffic, those carriers would divert connecting traffic from Canada-Europe. That would jeopardise the future of some of those thinner routes. This is a different issue than favouring one hub over another when traffic must connect somewhere. That is the situation in Australia. In Canada, it is a question of preserving routes. New long-range aircraft like Boeing's 787 may change these dynamics, but for now terms like "liberal" or "protectionist" seem inadequate to explain the different national interests at play.

The intensity of these interests is revealed by the recent threat from the UAE to end Canadian use of a military base near Dubai unless Canada grants more rights to Emirates and Etihad. Canadian troops use the base as a staging area for operations in Afghanistan. UAE's move threatens to escalate rather than resolve this dispute.

a330pilotcanada

2nd Nov 2010, 02:19

Good Evening J.O.

It appears to be a somewhat dated article from Airline Business

Airlines
Subscribe (http://www.qssweb.co.uk/rbpsubs/default.aspx?title=abu&entry=new&subtype=a&prom=549) you are in: Home (http://www.flightglobal.com/home/default.aspx) Airlines (http://www.flightglobal.com/sectionhome/sectiondefault.aspx?NavigationID=189&CategoryID=10251&SlotID=4) News Article

DATE: 01/11/10

SOURCE: Airline Business

Mixed messages on the Middle East

By David Knibb ([email protected])

Or just hit the mixed messages on his posting etc

flippersview

3rd Nov 2010, 07:51

"Why don't you hear Qantas or Air New Zeland crying out like AC? EK flies to all major Australian and NZ cities, picking up pax to Dubai and then transferring them wherever they need to go. I think EK even flies between AUS and NZ collecting pax......."

Yes they do.............. Because we in Austalia and NZ have spinless governments in power who turn a blind eye to what the UAE are doing. A significant part of Emirates business is dumping capacity on the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand. Their convienient disregard for air service agreements and obligations is in part due to the comforting knowledge that the Australian and NZ public will backlash against any government that stands in the way of the cheapest ticket.

Canada is to be held in high regard for correctly looking at the long term benifit for Canadians and not bowing to pressure from the UAE.

Good on you. I love Canada.

Oblaaspop

3rd Nov 2010, 11:20

flippersview, you say: "Their convienient disregard for air service agreements and obligations"

Are you aware that about 8 years ago the Australian and NZ governments granted 5th freedom rights to EK because they didn't see it as a threat? Incidentally there are 7 other Airlines that also enjoy 5th freedom rights on the Trans-Tasman!

EK is just doing what its entitled to do.

You also mention that EK is 'dumping' capacity on the trans Tasman route. For starters, EK doesn't have spare capacity to 'dump'. The airline has an AVERAGE seat load factor of 82% (figures ANZ and QF could only dream of achieving). And before you say anything about 'cheap tickets', a quick Google search for ticket prices for next week will reveal an EK round trip ticket from SYD-AKL-SYD is only $8 cheaper than ANZ and over $100 MORE expensive than LAN.

Perhaps folks in NZ or Aus would prefer to fly on a nice new A380 with great service as opposed to a clapped out B737 or A320 with sh1t service.

Get your facts straight BEFORE posting as it may save you from looking foolish later on!

fatbus

3rd Nov 2010, 14:19

Mate you must be a local " EK is just doing what its entitled to do " .since when were they entitled ?

20driver

3rd Nov 2010, 19:14

The long term benefit to the vast majority of Canadians it to have EK offer their product and let buyers decide what they want.

The goal of the very few Canadians who are AC employees and dependents is to keep out competition and screw the public. (As AC has always done)

This had nothing to do with traffic to Europe, it is all about traffic to Asia- the ever expanding center of the world economy. If EK wants to spend their money offering choice to Canadians whats the problem?

J.O.

3rd Nov 2010, 19:23

Sorry KingAir there was no link on the posting at the time. It's there now so it may have been a glitch in my browser. Posting deleted.

Oblaaspop

3rd Nov 2010, 21:19

Fat, EK is entitled to do it because erm......... The respective foreign governments entitled them to do it???? Was your post a trick post or did you just not understand the original point??

Oh and BTW, I'm clearly not local 'mate', I speak 'The Queens English'!:cool:

This entire thread really frustrates me. It's pretty damned obvious that the vast majority of people posting here are only interested in protecting AC!!! They have little or no interest in looking at facts, figures, or other perspectives. But most concerning is they clearly don't give a damn about regular 'Joe Public'.

Have any of you actually stopped for one second, put aside your obvious biases about protecting the useless dinosaur monopoly that is Air Canada (which if you are being completely honest is what this is really about!!), and bothered to ask the man on the street if he would like a choice of airline? No, didn't think so!!

Free market economy? My arse! I was actually considering retiring to the beautiful country of Canada, but the thought of being FORCED to choose which products I MUST buy and which services I MUST use reeks of the UK's nanny state mentality from which I spent most of my life trying to leave!

Say what you like about the 'sandpit', but at least as a consumer I get a choice on how to spend my own money here the way I choose!

Think about it folks, the concept of 'other people' isn't a difficult one!

KingAir

3rd Nov 2010, 21:52

No problem J.O. I apologize again for the sarcasm. Post deleted as well.

J.O.

3rd Nov 2010, 22:06

It's all good mate! :ok:

engfireleft

4th Nov 2010, 01:47

This entire thread really frustrates me. It's pretty damned obvious that the vast majority of people posting here are only interested in protecting AC!!! They have little or no interest in looking at facts, figures, or other perspectives. But most concerning is they clearly don't give a damn about regular 'Joe Public'.

Have any of you actually stopped for one second, put aside your obvious biases about protecting the useless dinosaur monopoly that is Air Canada (which if you are being completely honest is what this is really about!!), and bothered to ask the man on the street if he would like a choice of airline? No, didn't think so!!

Free market economy? My arse! I was actually considering retiring to the beautiful country of Canada, but the thought of being FORCED to choose which products I MUST buy and which services I MUST use reeks of the UK's nanny state mentality from which I spent most of my life trying to leave!

Say what you like about the 'sandpit', but at least as a consumer I get a choice on how to spend my own money here the way I choose!

Well, here in Canada we get a choice too. We can even fly on Emirates if we want since they have landing rights here, so please spare us the misguided lesson on free market.

It is the government's responsibility to protect Canadian interests from damaging foreign influences, especially within our own borders. You are pitifully mistaken if you don't think Dubai would do the same or worse if the situation were reversed. Look how they've reacted to protect Emirates already, and Canada is small potatoes to them.

The difference is Canada's response has been measured and in keeping with international norms whereas Dubai's has been vindictive and grossly out of proportion to the situation.

No. We have nothing to learn from them.

flippersview

4th Nov 2010, 02:46

oblaaspop wrote to me....

"Perhaps folks in NZ or Aus would prefer to fly on a nice new A380 with great service as opposed to a clapped out B737 or A320 with sh1t service.

Get your facts straight BEFORE posting as it may save you from looking foolish later on!"

Thank you for your sage advice.....:rolleyes: Perhaps you have better check YOUR facts on Air Service Agreements and the signitories obligations. Clearly you do not understand what is going on down here and from reading your previous posts I am not going to bother to educate you. I am confident that the Government and ALPA in Canada is, and that is all that matters if you are a Canadian. Good on them.

As far as slagging the carriers in this part of the world, Air NZ in particular is very popular on the Tasman for service. In fact if you read aviation media you will find it was a past recipient of 'Airline of the Year'.

Have you heard of the expression "Not my Mohammad?"........

I am confident you would have if you are involved in the Gulf Aviation scene. It is a phrase I feel sure you would use often in conversation on this subject ;)

Have a great day.

Oblaaspop

4th Nov 2010, 08:03

Erm, flipper, don't get your knickers in a twist!

Clearly you work for one of the Airlines down there (ANZ?) and feel you must protect their interests, I don't blame you, but a quick Google search will reveal that on the 29th May 2003, EK was granted 5th Freedom Rights across the Tasman.

Having read through the entire document, I am having trouble seeing exactly where EK isn't living up to its 'obligations'. If you are convinced otherwise, please spread the word and lobby your local MP, because clearly they aren't doing their job properly if an 'Invited Guest' isn't behaving appropriately.

How many first class suites, lay flat J class beds, and bar lounges exist in an ANZ narrow body? Award winning? Pah!!!

In answer to your question though, indeed I have NOT heard the expression "Not my Mohammad". I have however heard "My Mohammad's Different" or MMD as I have been in the sandpit for the thick end of a decade, though it's usually spouted by a 23 year old cabin crew member who is about to be cheated on by her Lebostani boyfriend! I fail to see what relevance that statement has regarding 5th Freedom Rights...... Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Engfireleft,

Indeed you are correct, a VERY small minority of folk in YYZ are fortunate enough to avail of the thrice weekly service EK offers from Pearson and therefore have a choice. But seeing as the flights are continually over-booked, it is blatantly obvious that more flights are required, we reckon we could fill 3x A380's per day from YYZ alone because the demand exists NOW. Why the hell is the Government dictating terms to the consumer? Please prove to me that that is a 'free market attitude'.

nolimitholdem

4th Nov 2010, 12:13

By your logic of legal entitlement then, Oblaaspop, EK has run the course of their "entitlement" to access to the Canadian market and been denied further. A quick Google search will also reveal the terms of the bilateral agreement that Canada and the UAE are signatories to. Both are complying with it. So what's the problem?

Your ONLY motivation to agitate on this issue seems to be the fact you work for EK and (naturally) want to it to grow, grow, expand, make more money...guess what, not everyone shares your somewhat self-interested perspective. And this from someone who also work for Emirates and actually IS Canadian, not just making peevish comments about retiring there. (Pssst: we don't want you! But if Dubai is your cup of tea, you'd really hate Canada anyway.)

This entire thread really frustrates me. It's pretty damned obvious that the vast majority of people posting here are only interested in protecting AC!!! They have little or no interest in looking at facts, figures, or other perspectives. But most concerning is they clearly don't give a damn about regular 'Joe Public'.

So who's got their knickers in a twist here?

I have no love for Air Canada, the company. But here's a tip for you - all employees in Canada, including those of AC - ARE "Joe Public". So toss your ideas about "we're all posting to defend the great evil AC", and stow the contempt for the opinions and perspectives of people who actually live there, who actually are quite capable of assessing facts about EK and the UAE - even when they're being manipulated by the EK press spin machine. (You can fool some people, but not those of us who live here.)

What I certainly DO have, is a love for Canada, the country and the industries there, including aviation. No one has shown how giving EK more access to Canada will benefit both countries equally, in fact a recent article earlier posted quite lucidly lays out the case for the exact opposite. It's a no-brainer that Emirates would take more away from the party than they're bringing, so they haven't been invited. Not that difficult to comprehend. I for one - the last to defend any politician - am deeply grateful and surprised that the Canadian government seems to have found some backbone, and then taken the high road over the whole Minhad situation. All the UAE did was embarrass themselves and show their true colours. Not to mention give a huge credibility problem to TC's shrill insistence that the national airlines aren't supported/subsidized/linked to the UAE government. I only wish Canada would take it a step further and shut down the UAE's overflight rights. To make a point.

To paraphrase your own comments, why in the hell is a Brit living in the Middle East trying to dictate to Canadians what the correct attitude to markets is? Please prove to me that it's ANY of your business beyond the aforementioned self-interest!

Desertbannanas

4th Nov 2010, 13:04

Well said Nolimit.

Oblasspop:

Dont get frustrated. I understand your point of view. It would benefit you and the UAE to have more access.

But lets not forget, there are 2 sides to every argument. The point is to try to hit the mark somehwere in the middle, and are we not already achieving that with all the flights to CA/NZ/AUS already?

You talk about ME carriers being "entitled". Are not Canada, NZ and Aus entitled to control the foreign capacity as well? It strikes me that the 3 countries are sharing the market to a degree already. We cannoth expect ME to have unfettered access. This is clearly an unreasonable request. You talk as if the countries in question are not allowing any access at at all but that is not true. Also you talk about "joe public". Not always is allowing the external gov'ts/companies decide their choices in their interests. Also there are mult levels to this argument... as its additional access from the ME will increase some revenue and jobs in areas in said countries, but then it will also take away in other ways. I suggest you let other countries make the decisions they are "entitled" to make.

All you guys complain all day about the unfairness in the UAE, but then those same arguments do not carry over into other things. It only applies when it suits you. You complain about cell services, skype, the companies lack of fair treatment... etc etc. This forum is saturated with it as is all areas.

Balance and cooperation are the words of the day. I have said it before... if you want to serve the countries in question then come with a mutually beneficial deal. Maybe an alliance? But then each gov't should have the right to measure it and refuse it.

Personally, I would feel much better about giving my money and market access to a ME carrier if they established much better human rights and labor laws. Encourage the groups to start unions... etc. Until then, we are not on equal footing.

Also, lets not forget, this is not really jsut about Air Canada. Its also about sharing with Lufthansa, BA, Air France/KLM, etc.

LOL..this is like a sexual harrasment case. NO means NO Emirates! And take your hand off my banana!

Oblaaspop

4th Nov 2010, 13:55

Sorry Nolimith, you said a hell of a lot (of cr@p) without actually saying anything at all.....

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

And NO AC employees are NOT Joe Public in THIS context because anyone with an IQ greater than that of plankton (I assume you fall in this category?) would realise that they wouldn't hold an objective view....... Clear enough for ya eh??

Indeed, it wouldn't affect my life in any way shape or form if EK doesn't get extra rights to Canada. In fact I really do hope that they follow your suggestion an ban EK from overflying Canadian airspace! This will satisfy me greatly for the simple fact it will make your journey home for ALT a complete nightmare:} Then you really will have something to whinge and moan about!!

TERRIER two

4th Nov 2010, 17:28

Qatar Airways urges more access to Canadian market | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE69U0B520101031)

tbaylx

4th Nov 2010, 17:40

And NO AC employees are NOT Joe Public in THIS context because anyone with an IQ greater than that of plankton (I assume you fall in this category?) would realise that they wouldn't hold an objective view....... Clear enough for ya eh??

And you work for EK..Hello pot..this is kettle. Nolimit completely dismantled your arguments with logic and you threw your toys out of the pram. Well played.:rolleyes:

grizzled

4th Nov 2010, 19:20

This is a reworked version of a post I wrote last year on a different forum about the UAE.

First, I have never worked for Air Canada. In fact today’s Air Canada simply pi***es me off when I think of what it used to be, and could be. I’m Canadian but have spent the past 8 years living and working in diverse parts of the world – none of which are at all similar to Canada culturally or economically. (Mostly Asia and the Middle East, including a few years living and working in the UAE.)

Regardless of their motivation, for me the reason that our government’s position is correct, and should be applauded, is this: Despite what some of you believe (or want to believe) the UAE is a totalitarian regime with NO regard for human rights. Nationally owned companies (i.e. Emirates Airlines) succeed financially because they operate under rules and behaviours that are (supposedly) abhorrent to Canadians (Kiwis, Brits, Yanks, etc).

People in the “developed” world do their part to change company and government behaviours by speaking out, writing about, and boycotting those that engage in “slave trade” economics. Think of Nike in South East Asia, and the years of pressure put on South Africa. In the UAE it is illegal to even speak (never mind write) critically of the government, its practises, or legislation.

When it comes to the UAE, the playing field is NOT level. And the human rights violations would not be acceptable if most “Western” governments weren’t so afraid to offend these powerful suppliers of oil and gas.

Those who insist that the ideals and prractises of the UAE are somehow beneficial to us -- or viable, or sane, or even “real” – must be shopping, driving, working and living whilst wearing glasses so rose-coloured that even the brown Dubai air looks pink. Perhaps it’s a natural human trait to ignore, or at least compartmentalise into some deep recess of the brain, any signs or signals that might force one to question one’s environment (or one’s self) when the place appears so bright and blissful. But that view of Dubai is one-dimensional; under that happy shiny Disney surface lives a nasty troll of a reality. Dubai is George Orwell’s 1984 alive and unwell in 2010.

The “Life is good” mantra that flows from the pages of the Gulf News, through the malls, and bars and golf clubs -- from Deira, along Jumierah all the way to the Marina – is real alright. In the same sense that movie dialogue is real, and Las Vegas is real, and Disneyland is real. That is to say they exist, but only in their own context.

As one sips a nice cold $10 beer at Barasti on Thursday night, laughing and joking with one’s peers, one doesn’t tend to dwell much on the enigmas that might dampen the warm dry desert evening: If all those apartments in the Marina, The Palm, and even The Lakes, are all sold out, why are most of them empty? (Clue: They are indeed “sold out” as soon as they come onto the market. Sold to “Royals” by Emaar or Nakheel, or whomever. Then to someone else. Then maybe to you. But more likely held. It has to do with money; big money; money made; money transferred. And, perhaps most importantly, Family Money.)

Do you know about the “no swimming” at the beaches in Dubai thing? Interesting what one might learn if one were inclined to talk (quietly) to one of those sewage truck drivers. You know the ones I mean; lined up for up to 12 hours to dump their “load” at the world-class treatment plant. The plant that can only process 25% of what’s generated. So where does the rest go? No! It can’t be true in this world-class City-of-the-Future.

Which brings us to the word “infrastructure”. In Dubai, companies and governments use that word when they really mean “superstructure.” Dubai has “world-class” buildings and highways and malls and bridges and airports. That is not what is missing. What is missing is the infrastructure to support all the concrete “stuff”. Meaning a truly functional bureaucracy. (Anyone who lives there, or has lived there, can describe the farce that passes for services, rules, regulations, forms, queues, etc.) Most importantly, a few years hence, the world will find out what happens to “world class” structures when real infrastructure is absent: i.e. enforcement of construction standards and regulations by inspectors that really do ensure concrete meets the specifications.

The real Dubai – the one seen through the eyes of the waitresses, cashiers, and bartenders from South East Asia and Africa – is a place of racism, little hope, and a few dirhams a month left over to feed family back home.

The real Dubai – as seen through the eyes of all those born there, but not of Emirati parental origin – is a place where one is, and forever will be, Stateless. No rights, no citizenship, no place to call home.

The real Dubai – as seen through the eyes of the servant girls and maids from Who-Knows-Where (because they haven’t been hired, but “purchased”) is a place where one lives in either constant fear or simple resignation.

The real Dubai – as seen through the eyes of the construction worker from Sri Lanka, the cab driver from India, or the hooker from Nigeria – is a place of servitude. A 21st Century receiver and user of slaves. No rights, no respite from 12-hour work days 7 days a week. No advocates. Lies, more lies, and a huge loan to pay a trafficker for a visa, or even outright kidnapping, that got you there. And no hope of ever being able to buy your way out. God have mercy on those who get desperate enough to speak out about working or living conditions (as some poor souls have). One first gets physically punished, then sentenced to three months in prison. A real prison; a somewhat mediaeval prison some would even say. Followed by deportation home; to face the “businessman” one stills owes thousands of dollars to, for the visa to the promised land. Many realise suicide is the only real exit from the nightmare. Last year, one group of 20 labourers from India who found themselves in this position – after trying to speak out about sewage in their living places – committed suicide en-mass, rather than return unemployed and penniless to face the wives, children, and grandparents they were trying to support.

The real Dubai – as seen through the eyes of Emirati “royals” – is a place of joy. The joy that can only come from absolute power. And absolute control. A place of multi-million dollar aircraft, cars, homes and horses. And servants of course – in all the worst senses of that word.

We should not allow companies owned and operated by such a regime to operate and compete as if everything is okay. It is not okay.

Suggested Reading: Ozymandias, P.B. Shelley, 1818.

IMO,
grizz

Oblaaspop

4th Nov 2010, 19:25

tablxztshdhksdj, show me EXACTLY where my argument was 'dismantled' please.

My argument was and always has been that the Canadian Government is denying the consumer choice.

NO-ONE, you included, has come up with a sensible argument to counter that statement.......

I'm reading a lot of tripe from you guys, but not ONE valid argument to challenge my statement.

BTW I'm not even close to throwing my toys out the pram! The statement you quoted was designed to make a point for those people with an IQ greater than 3. In view of the fact you didn't 'get it', puts you firmly in the bracket of IQ equal to or less than 2.:E

engfireleft

4th Nov 2010, 19:52

But seeing as the flights are continually over-booked, it is blatantly obvious that more flights are required, we reckon we could fill 3x A380's per day from YYZ alone because the demand exists NOW. What's that got to do with anything? Just because a demand is there doesn't give EK the right to come in and fill it. And those people who can't get a seat on Emirates presumably still get to where they want to go some other way.

Protecting important national industries is normal and can be accomplished while still adhering to international trade agreements, such as what is happening here. Canada's response has been responsible and mature. Completely unlike Dubai's vindictively juvenile response so far, which you still haven't acknowledged.

Oblaaspop

4th Nov 2010, 20:05

engfireleft, please check out my post a couple of pages back (post 213), 4th paragraph I believe........

I clearly stated that the UAE was acting up like a spoiled child at the moment!

So indeed I did acknowledge a while back that the UAE's behaviour is unacceptable.

Care to withdraw your statement and apologise? Thought not!

That's the trouble with most of you guys, you read, but you don't absorb, then make yourselves look foolish! Makes for good entertainment I suppose, but equally makes for poor reading.:ugh:

You state that the Canadian Government has been responsible (in not allowing further access to Gulf Carriers I presume?). Clearly this is to protect its investment of over $200 million CAD to bail out AC from bankrupt protection a couple of years ago. Did you know that this would be illegal for a Government to do this in Europe? This is why the Italian Government HAD to allow Alitalia to go tits-up!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government is not interested in what the public wants, only in how best to line its own pockets...... I wander how many 'brown envelopes' have passed hands during AC's lobbying of the Government? Uneven playing fields are clearly visible on your side of the pond as well.

J.O.

4th Nov 2010, 20:23

Ask a local councillor how much flak they will take if a food cart operator sets up shop on the sidewalk outside a tax paying restaurant. Most cities have limits on food carts for that reason. Car manufacturers often have limits to how many vehicles they're allowed to export to some countries. Canada's own softwood lumber and beef industries were held back significantly by the US when the low Canadian dollar provided a major cost advantage to Canadian producers.

Trade agreements are full of limits to provide balance and protect BOTH sides when there's a possibility for one party to take advantage over the other (i.e. one is much bigger than the other, or one is more heavily subsidized / less regulated than the other). There may not be a cheque being written, but the cost advantages that Gulf carriers enjoy with both a significantly lower tax advantage and a pool of very cheap unskilled labour (best described by grizzled above) is every bit as good as a cheque from the government in terms of providing cost advantages. And in a democratic country where the government does have to answer to its people, one of the considerations is always going to be how opening up markets to foreign businesses will be perceived by the tax paying / voting public. Only one of the governments in this dispute is faced with that particular reality.

engfireleft

4th Nov 2010, 21:54

Indeed the UAE may be acting up like a spoilt child at present, but AC and Transport Canada are acting just as poorly and are treating the fare paying public like morons...........

You're right...sort of. They are (not may be) acting like a spoiled child at present, or more accurately grownups with an unjustified sense of entitlement who don't know the meaning of diplomacy. No apology from me required though.

The Government is not interested in what the public wants, only in how best to line its own pockets...... I wander how many 'brown envelopes' have passed hands during AC's lobbying of the Government?

On the one hand I will agree that politicians are first and foremost interested in what's good for them personally. Such is the case the world over. However in this instance protecting a vital component of the Canadian transportation infrastructure is good for the Canadian public and therefore good for themselves as well. The two interests are mutual.

Two questions: What $200 million are you talking about? If it's the $250 they got from the government as part of a loan package in 2009, Air Canada is paying 12.75% interest which seems like a pretty good deal for the taxpayers. You know, the same Canadian public you think the government is doing such a disservice to. And what makes you think brown envelopes full of cash changed hands between AC lobbyists and members of the government? Pretty inflammatory accusation there. Did Griffiths put you up to it?

Married a Canadian

5th Nov 2010, 00:03

Balance and cooperation are the words of the day. I have said it before... if you want to serve the countries in question then come with a mutually beneficial deal. Maybe an alliance? But then each gov't should have the right to measure it and refuse it

No one has shown how giving EK more access to Canada will benefit both countries equally

What is mutually beneficial to Canada in this instance?? Seriously. This same line keeps cropping up throughout this whole debate....but will someone take a stab at saying what would work for aviation in Canada and or Air Canada with the access that the UAE wants?

Should Emirates set up a base in Toronto...therefore guaranteeing employment.
An engineering base in Canada?
Dedicated ground staff? A North american office headquartered in Toronto?
Use of the military base in the UAE restored??
Cabotage granted for Air Canada in the UAE??

Sensible suggestions on what would be considered something to break the ice.

The talk of how corrupt the UAE is and how bad Emirates is is getting a little tedious...as frankly Canada deals with just as bad outside the aviation industry. As has been mentioned before just check the "made in" labels on most of your home items and then check the human rights records on the various countries that those labels come from.
Canada found a way to deal with them (or was it that they provided cheap goods that the consumer wanted anyway)

I find it amusing (as an outsider) at all this patriotism and pride at the Canadian govt in their stance towards EK and the UAE...when usually they are the focal point of annoyance of the airlines and the airports. Listen to the GTAA and their complaints about rent paid to Ottawa, Air Canada complaining about all the taxes and surcharges on their fares (and as I mentioned a lot of folk in the GTA seem to find Buffalo a better alternate....how patriotic eh).

Wrong battle IMO. When EK have been barred from flying into Canada, you are still left with the same scene in canadian aviation as before. Carriers going under (Enerjet seem to be the next..the island will be a bloodbath), fares that defy logic (more expensive to fly to Halifax then London UK for example).

There has to be a change surely? For those who have been in the industry a long time.....what should that be? Reading the Canada forum of PPRUNE it dosen't seem all roses at present. The status quo does not seem to be healthy.

To some EK does not represent "good" change...but lets start hearing some arguments of what IS good change.
Protectionism ain't it.

grizzled

5th Nov 2010, 02:27

Married...

First, let me say I agree with you completely that protectionism is not the answer. But neither is tacit acceptance of the UAE's abyssmal treatment of people and its draconian legal system. Which is what we do when we treat them (EK) as if everything is "A-okay".

There are two different, but closely related, issues here. Clearly, promoting international trade is a MUST (vice protectionsim) but that cannot be done absent any attempts to ensure the game is fair. And that means both in economic and humanitarian terms. They're closely tied because many of the poorest countries have the worst conditions for workers. So one can provide a little more empathy (and assistance) to countries such as most in Africa or Asia, who simply don't have the resources (without a lot of international help) to establish the infrastructure, training, and policing necessary to lift the level of existence in a short time.

That is certainly NOT the case for the UAE (nor Saudi Arabia, nor Indonesia, nor certain "oil rich" African countries). In the case of the UAE we have an incredibly rich country whose whole philosophy and structure shows capitalism at its worst -- it revolves entirely around greed. And whatever abuse it can get away with.

So you can go right out and buy your EK ticket to wherever you want -- that's your choice. But don't ever kid yourself that their better price or better service comes at no cost. It comes at a HUGE cost in terms of human rights (as well as human trafficking and international arms shipments). And contributes only to the obscene individual wealth of their "esteemed leaders".

grizz

Oblaaspop

5th Nov 2010, 09:24

Grizzled, you make very good points. Your posts are both well articulated and factual......... Thank you!!

None of what you have written can be denied, however the reasons for denying access to Gulf carriers by the Canadian Government are anything but the things you mention. It just appears as if they are protecting a national carrier and that's the point..... Protectionism!

If the real reasons are ones of human rights and all the other things that you talk about, then why the hell doesn't the Government grow some balls and come out and say it?? It could make the world a better place.

engfireleft, Yes that was exactly the 'loan' I was talking about! It doesn't matter how its described, it was a BAILOUT pure and simple. Why the hell didn't AC go to the open finance market to get a loan? Oh that's right, they were about to fold, so no bank in their right mind would lend the money, which is why the tax-payer footed the bill (even at 12% return, which incidentally is a 'panic' interest rate which no healthy company would ever agree to unless it was their last and final option). So the point remains, if the Government were to let AC fold, they would have lost the Tax payer a shed load of cash........... Re-election? I think not.

Think about it, its not difficult.:ugh:

Desertbannanas

5th Nov 2010, 11:31

Oblasspop said:

“Why should ANY government dictate how its citizens should spend their money?”

LOL. This is an incredibly foolish statement 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.

Why not carry this argument forward? Why do we have governance? Or laws in society? Where do market controls become “protectionism”? Come on man! You cannot say Canada controls its citizens or does not provide sufficient choices/rights/social services for its citizens! We are talking about Canada here!

This issue is much more complicated..and you know it.

Free markets in CANADA are not just about providing every possible choice. Its about the balance and its also about what if available in the market right now. Its not just about what the product IS that is being delivered, its about how it came about as well. It is well known that the ME does not really deliver well yet on issues that are important to countries like Canada. The Canadian gov’t also probably looks at areas of competition. Can the Canadian product with is higher measures of labor laws, rights, and thereby costs, etc compete realistically with other countries products if they are not on the same level?

Lets ask some basic questions to simplify this issue for Oblasspop and others.

1.Are there multiple choices in the market now? YES.
2.Do the public prefer more choices? YES.
3.Do the public want gov’ts to allow other countries unfettered access without some measure of gov’t/industry control to ensure protection of those countries interests? Hmm… you answer that one!
4. Are the Canadian public jumping up and down and marching in the streets because their gov’t is limiting their choices? BIG NO.
5. Are the Canadian people jumping up and down because they want Emirates? A few yes… mostly NO.
6. Does the UAE “dictate how its citizens spend its money” more-so than Canada? Ahh… YESS!
7. Who is more balanced and fair when it comes to almost anything in the world, UAE or Canada? Uhhh…. CANADA! Everyone knows that!

Ok Oblasspop, go take a valium. This entire issue is not the end of the world. You can stop getting so upset and resorting to insults to people. If you still disagree, then we stand at opposite sides of a fence, but that does not mean you need to get angry or upset. We are already doing business. Lets be happy about that.

Lets share the market with the other players at the table. You are at the opposite side of the world from Canada. It is not reasonable to expect you to get every access point you want into that country. Many others would like to serve this market too. Lets share shall we?

And by the way, in my opinion, Nolimit very handily and eloquently and even mindedly DID disassemble your argument. If you cannot see it, no one can "show" it to you. You have to see it for yourself.