Emirates vs. Air Canada
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Last edited by Married a Canadian; 5th Nov 2010 at 00:16.
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: AMS
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
“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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oblaaspop
I'm surprised you think $250 million is a "shed load" of cash in government terms. That's nothing to them and certainly not worth creating transportation policy over. You have to think BIG.
The truth is the government knows that a healthy airline industry in this country is worth a lot more to Canadians than cheap tickets to India via Dubai on an A-380. In fact it's critical to the nation's economy.
Your perspective is that of a short-sighted consumer.
I'm surprised you think $250 million is a "shed load" of cash in government terms. That's nothing to them and certainly not worth creating transportation policy over. You have to think BIG.
The truth is the government knows that a healthy airline industry in this country is worth a lot more to Canadians than cheap tickets to India via Dubai on an A-380. In fact it's critical to the nation's economy.
Your perspective is that of a short-sighted consumer.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your perspective is that of a short-sighted consumer
It is OK to rant about us "short sighted" individuals but you are not offering any constuctive solutions of your own.
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
Grizzled...I completely agree. But that does not seem to bother the consumer that much when it comes to other goods and services through world markets.
What makes aviation any different. The consumer wants cheap goods in this field aswell (look at the success of Ryanair and Southwest).
As I said before patriotism and politics make this an emotional debate....so let's hear some business ideas.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: AMS
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Married a Canuck,
Its not up to Canada or anyone on this forum to suggest any deals. Remember Canada was not the solicitor. Ideas would be nice though. Its up to the UAE to do that.. but then they have done such a good job at that havent they?
Its not up to Canada or anyone on this forum to suggest any deals. Remember Canada was not the solicitor. Ideas would be nice though. Its up to the UAE to do that.. but then they have done such a good job at that havent they?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine fire left....then answer my question of what Emirates or the UAE has to do to make a deal mutually beneficial. Leave politics and country conditions out of the equation..and talk business deals.
It is OK to rant about us "short sighted" individuals but you are not offering any constuctive solutions of your own.
It is OK to rant about us "short sighted" individuals but you are not offering any constuctive solutions of your own.
We owe them nothing. And after their repulsive behavior I submit they have a long way to go before they deserve any consideration from Canadians at all.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon gang. Blackmail is blackmail.
You're reading far too much into this.
If EK doesn't get what it wants, it tells its government to take action. A very simple process which Air Canada should also be doing with our Government in response. This is exactly what EK did to get their gov't to 'arm twist' Canada into giving EK what it wants. I'd suggest that TOO is protectionism on the part of the UAE government. (I missed something. When did the CDN gov't bail Air Canada out of bankruptcy protection? Some references for me to read would be appreciated. AND, I'm willing to bet it pales in comparison to what EK receives from the DXB gov't.)
Pack up the Canadian Military and get out of Camp Mirage. (already done as of yesterday)
Tell EKs to F.O.. Immediately cancel EKs landing rights and give them a taste of our 'politics'. There's a sh*tload of reliable carriers serving DXB from Canada through Europe so what's this about giving Canadians a 'choice'? EK have 11 A380s that need work so why not deploy a couple of them to YYC or YVR?
Because it is not in our interests!
Ban all A6 registered aircraft, including their UAE Air Force, overflight/transit flights in Canadian airspace and be done with it.
THAT's the kind of response they will understand.
We'll never match their dollar for dollar battle. Canada couldn't afford it.
Canada. **** or get off the pot!!!
...oops. Isn't our gov't busy with potash? Oh well, EKs will have to wait for a "Canadian" response.
Willie
You're reading far too much into this.
If EK doesn't get what it wants, it tells its government to take action. A very simple process which Air Canada should also be doing with our Government in response. This is exactly what EK did to get their gov't to 'arm twist' Canada into giving EK what it wants. I'd suggest that TOO is protectionism on the part of the UAE government. (I missed something. When did the CDN gov't bail Air Canada out of bankruptcy protection? Some references for me to read would be appreciated. AND, I'm willing to bet it pales in comparison to what EK receives from the DXB gov't.)
Pack up the Canadian Military and get out of Camp Mirage. (already done as of yesterday)
Tell EKs to F.O.. Immediately cancel EKs landing rights and give them a taste of our 'politics'. There's a sh*tload of reliable carriers serving DXB from Canada through Europe so what's this about giving Canadians a 'choice'? EK have 11 A380s that need work so why not deploy a couple of them to YYC or YVR?
Because it is not in our interests!
Ban all A6 registered aircraft, including their UAE Air Force, overflight/transit flights in Canadian airspace and be done with it.
THAT's the kind of response they will understand.
We'll never match their dollar for dollar battle. Canada couldn't afford it.
Canada. **** or get off the pot!!!
...oops. Isn't our gov't busy with potash? Oh well, EKs will have to wait for a "Canadian" response.
Willie
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 5th Nov 2010 at 14:51.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
contacted
While your comments may sound reasoned and calm, (certainly interesting) I should like to point out that EK already serves Toronto and are requesting additional frequencies which has been determined, by those in Canada who determine those sorts of things, as NOT AT THIS TIME. EK have been so notified.
On top of that, they requested additional services (landing rights) for Calgary and Vancouver. These additional cities aren't exactly the "hubs" you suggest Toronto is. If EK were allowed additional service to YYZ plus new services to YYC and YVR, how then does that constitute a 'reasonable' fairness in reciprocity?
Let's examine the number of Canadian carriers that presently serve AUH and DXB from Canada.
Actually, let's not. Let's just say that EY and EK are well ahead in that count.
It's also worth mentioning that the STAR alliance carrier, Air Canada, feeds its Asian traffic primarily through Vancouver, much moreso than Munich or Frankfurt on Lufty.
While our neighbours south of the Canadian border, the United States of America, might seem more willing to accept EKs desire to establish North American hubs, I'd predict the reality might be less welcoming than you might think, IMHO.
Our troops are out of Afghanistan in less than a years time. Camp Mirage just happens to be the only Ace EKs and the UAE gov't have to play and the fact that our troops have already left makes this whole 'pissing contest' a non-starter.
As Canada is a much more mature country with global responsibilites beyond those of the UAE, let's just say Canada is unlikely to retaliate and simply choose to let the actions of the UAE speak for itself. Remember, the dirham isn't tied to the Loonie. It's always been 3.68 to the U.S.
In economic terms, the Alberta Oil Sands has oil reserves well beyond that of Dubai. When the Dubai government spends the Emirate into a debt beyond oil revenues, we'll see how who makes out.
I'm sure you've read my stance on it, but I'm not in charge up here.
You've got an interesting theory though.
Willie
While your comments may sound reasoned and calm, (certainly interesting) I should like to point out that EK already serves Toronto and are requesting additional frequencies which has been determined, by those in Canada who determine those sorts of things, as NOT AT THIS TIME. EK have been so notified.
On top of that, they requested additional services (landing rights) for Calgary and Vancouver. These additional cities aren't exactly the "hubs" you suggest Toronto is. If EK were allowed additional service to YYZ plus new services to YYC and YVR, how then does that constitute a 'reasonable' fairness in reciprocity?
Let's examine the number of Canadian carriers that presently serve AUH and DXB from Canada.
Actually, let's not. Let's just say that EY and EK are well ahead in that count.
It's also worth mentioning that the STAR alliance carrier, Air Canada, feeds its Asian traffic primarily through Vancouver, much moreso than Munich or Frankfurt on Lufty.
While our neighbours south of the Canadian border, the United States of America, might seem more willing to accept EKs desire to establish North American hubs, I'd predict the reality might be less welcoming than you might think, IMHO.
Our troops are out of Afghanistan in less than a years time. Camp Mirage just happens to be the only Ace EKs and the UAE gov't have to play and the fact that our troops have already left makes this whole 'pissing contest' a non-starter.
As Canada is a much more mature country with global responsibilites beyond those of the UAE, let's just say Canada is unlikely to retaliate and simply choose to let the actions of the UAE speak for itself. Remember, the dirham isn't tied to the Loonie. It's always been 3.68 to the U.S.
In economic terms, the Alberta Oil Sands has oil reserves well beyond that of Dubai. When the Dubai government spends the Emirate into a debt beyond oil revenues, we'll see how who makes out.
I'm sure you've read my stance on it, but I'm not in charge up here.
You've got an interesting theory though.
Willie
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 6th Nov 2010 at 02:22.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Last edited by Cpt. Underpants; 6th Nov 2010 at 08:37.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez, what's wrong with you guys?
Someone dares to challenge your single minded narrow views on a Forum where that person is fighting an uphill battle and you start getting up yourselves because NO-ONE is able to refute my statement!
The only reason I can see that you are behaving this way is because I've trapped you in a corner with your own non-arguments. What's the saying? Fight or flight....... It seems Fatbus has done the latter!
Desert, I have re-read Nolimits post and I'm sorry, but I STILL can't see where he 'dismantled' my post. I urge you to take the time and point this out to me...If you can
Also Desert and Capt Thong, if you had actually bothered to read my posts, you would realise that I am British, you know that little country across the pond with a population and GDP twice that of Canada and whose Head of State you may recognise. You must have heard of it, it has 97 weekly EK flights to Dubai with not one whinge or moan from BA or Virgin (both of whom just posted profits despite EK!).
There is one common theme though, despite all the rude diatribe you folks have posted, not one of you have come up with a valid argument as to why the Canadian consumer should not be allowed greater choice, which was my original point.
Now if you can't do that with any modicum of intellect, then I suggest you do as Fatbus has done and give up like a 5 year old girl and put me on your ignore list.
Someone dares to challenge your single minded narrow views on a Forum where that person is fighting an uphill battle and you start getting up yourselves because NO-ONE is able to refute my statement!
The only reason I can see that you are behaving this way is because I've trapped you in a corner with your own non-arguments. What's the saying? Fight or flight....... It seems Fatbus has done the latter!
Desert, I have re-read Nolimits post and I'm sorry, but I STILL can't see where he 'dismantled' my post. I urge you to take the time and point this out to me...If you can
Also Desert and Capt Thong, if you had actually bothered to read my posts, you would realise that I am British, you know that little country across the pond with a population and GDP twice that of Canada and whose Head of State you may recognise. You must have heard of it, it has 97 weekly EK flights to Dubai with not one whinge or moan from BA or Virgin (both of whom just posted profits despite EK!).
There is one common theme though, despite all the rude diatribe you folks have posted, not one of you have come up with a valid argument as to why the Canadian consumer should not be allowed greater choice, which was my original point.
Now if you can't do that with any modicum of intellect, then I suggest you do as Fatbus has done and give up like a 5 year old girl and put me on your ignore list.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: AMS
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn’t disagree more Contacted. By the way did you READ that paper?
For free markets to work in entirety, the markets, or essentially the business shared between the agreeing parties have to be equally yolked. If they are not, they you adopt as much of the free market system as you can and retain some controls. A lot of countries have “free trade” agreements but maintain duties and importation taxes based on other market factor differences that transcend the countries doing business. If there are such differences, then a Country will employ such controls (for its own self preservation and economy) and release them GRADUALLY as economies become linear.
I quote from your posted paper:
“Airlines profit from increased efficiency derived from economies of scale, eonomies of scope and density economies.”
“Air transport liberalization is a process of gradual abolition of limits on designation,
capacity, frequency and tariff setting in civil aviation.”
Canada is already liberal with regards to the market. There are already lots of players at the table. Canada is NOT protecting the market it entirety, it is sharing a lot of it already. This is purely a case of Canada not bending to the wishes of Emirates to have more capacity themselves. This was Canada’s decision to make who serves this market, whether its Emirates or others, but the decision has been made that Emirates will have daily flights to Toronto.
No one is against free market economics, especially Canada. It’s a good paper, but it does not make your point. There are multi factors to consider whenever considering a free market system between 2 countries. A total unregulated free market between Canada and UAE is not productive for Canada or the other players at the table. That is the bottom line.
For free markets to work in entirety, the markets, or essentially the business shared between the agreeing parties have to be equally yolked. If they are not, they you adopt as much of the free market system as you can and retain some controls. A lot of countries have “free trade” agreements but maintain duties and importation taxes based on other market factor differences that transcend the countries doing business. If there are such differences, then a Country will employ such controls (for its own self preservation and economy) and release them GRADUALLY as economies become linear.
I quote from your posted paper:
“Airlines profit from increased efficiency derived from economies of scale, eonomies of scope and density economies.”
“Air transport liberalization is a process of gradual abolition of limits on designation,
capacity, frequency and tariff setting in civil aviation.”
Canada is already liberal with regards to the market. There are already lots of players at the table. Canada is NOT protecting the market it entirety, it is sharing a lot of it already. This is purely a case of Canada not bending to the wishes of Emirates to have more capacity themselves. This was Canada’s decision to make who serves this market, whether its Emirates or others, but the decision has been made that Emirates will have daily flights to Toronto.
No one is against free market economics, especially Canada. It’s a good paper, but it does not make your point. There are multi factors to consider whenever considering a free market system between 2 countries. A total unregulated free market between Canada and UAE is not productive for Canada or the other players at the table. That is the bottom line.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blow up doll
To quote a well known movie line:
"frankly my dear, i couldn't give a damn."
Drivel, mate. Drivel. I have better things to do than to argue in circles with a jingoistic, avaricious, asinine wannabe. Really, I do.
Canada is exercising it's right to say no. No means no. EK is behaving in a manner no better than a hopped up teenager with an overdose of testosterone, a raging hard-on (90 X A380) and a need to do something with it.
No means no.
"Well, if you won't let me get into your panties you can't have a ride home!"
That's basically what the UAE and EK are saying. Fine by me. I'm no fan of AC, (again paraphrasing) but I'll respect it's right to defend itself.
if you had bothered to read my posts
"frankly my dear, i couldn't give a damn."
Drivel, mate. Drivel. I have better things to do than to argue in circles with a jingoistic, avaricious, asinine wannabe. Really, I do.
Canada is exercising it's right to say no. No means no. EK is behaving in a manner no better than a hopped up teenager with an overdose of testosterone, a raging hard-on (90 X A380) and a need to do something with it.
No means no.
"Well, if you won't let me get into your panties you can't have a ride home!"
That's basically what the UAE and EK are saying. Fine by me. I'm no fan of AC, (again paraphrasing) but I'll respect it's right to defend itself.
Last edited by Cpt. Underpants; 6th Nov 2010 at 21:46.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's it buddy, run away crying like a baby.
How immature was your post??
Grow up you silly little man, I requested replies showing a modicum of intellect, it appears you missed that part of my post also!
BTW, I suggest you look up the meaning of the word Jingoistic...... It means Fanatically Patriotic, ie Flag waving, which I believe ably demonstrates your attitude not mine!
How immature was your post??
Grow up you silly little man, I requested replies showing a modicum of intellect, it appears you missed that part of my post also!
BTW, I suggest you look up the meaning of the word Jingoistic...... It means Fanatically Patriotic, ie Flag waving, which I believe ably demonstrates your attitude not mine!
Last edited by Oblaaspop; 6th Nov 2010 at 10:02.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oblasspop
Upon reflection, I get the impression you're the one behaving like an immature 5 year old girl.
With such comments like, "run away crying like a baby","How immature was your post??", "Grow up you silly little man", "BTW, I suggest you look up the meaning of the word Jingoistic", I have to wonder?
Your presentation is simple enough to understand even with the odd $5.00 word. So, forgive us "5 year old girls " but EK can (to use some common, really cheap words) F.O.
Patriotic enough?
I'd debate the GNP contrast between Canada and the former great britain but perhaps not right now. As for the lady on our currency, she appears much less frequently than you'd imagine. We've removed her from much of our currency. And as for my patriotism, the commonwealth is joke, Canada should remove itself as we get nothing from it and while we're at it, we really don't need a governor general either. The patronage position is a complete waste of tax payer money and is usually filled by a television personality with undue focus on their ethnicity and sex. Come to think of it, when 'she' is gone, we'd do well to ditch the monarchy altogether. In fact, I'd say that's a distinct possibility.
If the UAE are that passionate about their 'interests' I think it's only fair to say, patriotism and nationalism aside, Canada should consider ITS 'interests' in all of this as well, which it appears to have done. Perhaps your economics will understand that?
Now, I too could dig out my dictionary and come up with the odd $5.00 retaliatory word of my own to elaborate (would the use of expand have made me sound more intellectual?) but why waste the time?
I'll give you my read of Canadian economics. If you don't mind?
I earn my living in what is Canadian aviation, or what's left of it. We have no companies in this country with an order book the size of EK. We also have no companies in this country recruiting pilots in numbers (700) like EK. We have a large country with a tiny population and more pilots than we know what to do with. I, for one, have seen the aviation industry in this country go through de-regulation and the result it’s given us. I for one, recognize failure when I see it and the numbers of failed Canadian airlines is remarkable when compared to anything in the UAE. I, for one would also hope my 'elected' government has the testicles to 'protect' what little is left. I might argue in favour of re-regulation at this point, but that's a debate for another day.
As for consumer choice, I'd agree with you, the Canadian consumer can always benefit from more choice, but looking at the air services available in Canada presently, we've a pretty good range at present and probably aren't ready for more until we have the population of, let's say, the british isles.
When EK plays on that often referred to "level playing field" then I'd say Canada's good for now and our 'protectionist' attitude toward our transportation system seems sound. Economically speaking.
That's part of the reason, I should think, that our government keeps an eye on transportation in this country and has deemed EK provides enough service to the Great White North. For now. Wouldn't you?
Contacted
If I may, excellent post.
Sometimes those sound economic decisions are poorly timed. This is one of those times. Canada is in a delicate economic recovery at the moment and sensitivities run high.
What does one do when that Mercedes in the showroom is half price and one doesn't have the cash to buy it? What does one do when the market crashes and one doesn't have the funds to buy low? What does one do when the air services provided are excessive and someone requests additional air services? These may be sound economic opportunities but the reality is timing.
Willie
Upon reflection, I get the impression you're the one behaving like an immature 5 year old girl.
With such comments like, "run away crying like a baby","How immature was your post??", "Grow up you silly little man", "BTW, I suggest you look up the meaning of the word Jingoistic", I have to wonder?
Your presentation is simple enough to understand even with the odd $5.00 word. So, forgive us "5 year old girls " but EK can (to use some common, really cheap words) F.O.
Patriotic enough?
I'd debate the GNP contrast between Canada and the former great britain but perhaps not right now. As for the lady on our currency, she appears much less frequently than you'd imagine. We've removed her from much of our currency. And as for my patriotism, the commonwealth is joke, Canada should remove itself as we get nothing from it and while we're at it, we really don't need a governor general either. The patronage position is a complete waste of tax payer money and is usually filled by a television personality with undue focus on their ethnicity and sex. Come to think of it, when 'she' is gone, we'd do well to ditch the monarchy altogether. In fact, I'd say that's a distinct possibility.
If the UAE are that passionate about their 'interests' I think it's only fair to say, patriotism and nationalism aside, Canada should consider ITS 'interests' in all of this as well, which it appears to have done. Perhaps your economics will understand that?
Now, I too could dig out my dictionary and come up with the odd $5.00 retaliatory word of my own to elaborate (would the use of expand have made me sound more intellectual?) but why waste the time?
I'll give you my read of Canadian economics. If you don't mind?
I earn my living in what is Canadian aviation, or what's left of it. We have no companies in this country with an order book the size of EK. We also have no companies in this country recruiting pilots in numbers (700) like EK. We have a large country with a tiny population and more pilots than we know what to do with. I, for one, have seen the aviation industry in this country go through de-regulation and the result it’s given us. I for one, recognize failure when I see it and the numbers of failed Canadian airlines is remarkable when compared to anything in the UAE. I, for one would also hope my 'elected' government has the testicles to 'protect' what little is left. I might argue in favour of re-regulation at this point, but that's a debate for another day.
As for consumer choice, I'd agree with you, the Canadian consumer can always benefit from more choice, but looking at the air services available in Canada presently, we've a pretty good range at present and probably aren't ready for more until we have the population of, let's say, the british isles.
When EK plays on that often referred to "level playing field" then I'd say Canada's good for now and our 'protectionist' attitude toward our transportation system seems sound. Economically speaking.
That's part of the reason, I should think, that our government keeps an eye on transportation in this country and has deemed EK provides enough service to the Great White North. For now. Wouldn't you?
Contacted
If I may, excellent post.
Sometimes those sound economic decisions are poorly timed. This is one of those times. Canada is in a delicate economic recovery at the moment and sensitivities run high.
What does one do when that Mercedes in the showroom is half price and one doesn't have the cash to buy it? What does one do when the market crashes and one doesn't have the funds to buy low? What does one do when the air services provided are excessive and someone requests additional air services? These may be sound economic opportunities but the reality is timing.
Willie
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 6th Nov 2010 at 13:39.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet again, someone who simply cannot read, or follow a thread! See Capt Underpants thread above mine where you will see 3 such words (including Jingoistic) to which I was responding!
Why slam my post, but not his? Yet another example of a blinkered attitude, refusing to see that there may just be another point of view?
Usually your posts are well written and balanced Willie, sadly you've let yourself down on this occasion!
Why slam my post, but not his? Yet another example of a blinkered attitude, refusing to see that there may just be another point of view?
Usually your posts are well written and balanced Willie, sadly you've let yourself down on this occasion!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: outer space
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oblasspop, don't worry there are many, many sane Canadians that don't share the views of uneducated sycophants like Willie and the like. The funny thing is that these ignorant chest beating Canadians (because ignorance means not to know) lash out against the straw man created by Air Canada and it's Star Alliance daddy, Lufthansa. Their ignorance is understandable even if not justified.
Ottawa will spend $300-million to close Camp Mirage - The Globe and Mail
What is neither understandable or justified is that in the end most of the Canadian public are now being cheated out more than a modest amount of economic benefit by the unreasonable obstinance of what is perhaps the worst prime minister in Canadian history. His ego has driven a major foreign policy decision which has been, as the rest of his foreign policy a complete disaster for Canada, and Canadians. Guess what now Willie, because you pay taxes, you and so many other Canadians will be on the hook for at least 300 million dollars to start, don't take my word for it, read what the governments own accountants have said.
I've said it time and time again, and now it's been proven true by reports like this one, a decision was taken that destroyed 11 years of strong bilateral relations, cost millions of dollars lost in revenues and economic benefits for ordinary Canadians who don't work for Air Canada, and now a 300 million dollar bill for the Canadian public to pick up. All this in the interests of Air Canada's corporate executives, and their Lufthansa Star Alliance overlords, and the overblown ego of an incompetent PM.
I as many Canadians, feel outraged by what is another in a long line of economic and foreign policy debacles of Harper and company.
hopefully in the future Canadians can make this regrettable moment right.
Ottawa will spend $300-million to close Camp Mirage - The Globe and Mail
What is neither understandable or justified is that in the end most of the Canadian public are now being cheated out more than a modest amount of economic benefit by the unreasonable obstinance of what is perhaps the worst prime minister in Canadian history. His ego has driven a major foreign policy decision which has been, as the rest of his foreign policy a complete disaster for Canada, and Canadians. Guess what now Willie, because you pay taxes, you and so many other Canadians will be on the hook for at least 300 million dollars to start, don't take my word for it, read what the governments own accountants have said.
I've said it time and time again, and now it's been proven true by reports like this one, a decision was taken that destroyed 11 years of strong bilateral relations, cost millions of dollars lost in revenues and economic benefits for ordinary Canadians who don't work for Air Canada, and now a 300 million dollar bill for the Canadian public to pick up. All this in the interests of Air Canada's corporate executives, and their Lufthansa Star Alliance overlords, and the overblown ego of an incompetent PM.
I as many Canadians, feel outraged by what is another in a long line of economic and foreign policy debacles of Harper and company.
hopefully in the future Canadians can make this regrettable moment right.