Emirates vs. Air Canada
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez. You make it sound like forcing the closure of Camp Mirage, denying government ministers permission to fly through their airspace, and working hard to deny Canada a seat on the UN security council is a reasonable and predictable response to limiting Emirates Airlines access to Canada. After all, Ottawa places limits on every foreign airline operating into Canada consistent with international convention, but I don't see any other countries reacting in such an offensive manner do you?
Even our idealogical Prime Minister couldn't predict Dubai would be even loonier than he is.
But at least our government knows that ensuring a healthy airline industry in Canada is more important and valuable to Canadians than supporting EK's plans for world domination, even if it means Canadians might have to book on Air Canada or some other worthy Canadian airline if they can't get a seat on the shiny new 380.
Even our idealogical Prime Minister couldn't predict Dubai would be even loonier than he is.
But at least our government knows that ensuring a healthy airline industry in Canada is more important and valuable to Canadians than supporting EK's plans for world domination, even if it means Canadians might have to book on Air Canada or some other worthy Canadian airline if they can't get a seat on the shiny new 380.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The government appears to be waking up to predatory practices of foreign companies, they also recently nixed a major takeover of Potash Corp by BHP Billiton. BHP has 30 days to provide evidence they will provide a NET BENEFIT to Canadians or their deal will be killed by the federal government. This is the same argument EK has failed to make. EK wants to poach Canadian traffic with no NET BENEFIT to Canada. No, a few baggage handling and passenger agent jobs don't count.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Transmitted by CNW Group on : November 6, 2010 10:00
AIR CANADA COMMENTS ON GOVERNMENT OF CANADA'S HANDLING OF RECENT CANADA-UAE BILATERAL AIR NEGOTIATIONS
MONTREAL, Nov. 6 /CNW Telbec/ - Air Canada issued the following statement today in response to criticisms of the Government of Canada's handling of recent Canada-UAE bilateral air negotiations:
"The recent discussions between Canada and the UAE related to bilateral air access rights were conducted on a principled basis entirely consistent with Canada's Blue Sky Policy which has provided a framework for bilateral air negotiations since 2006," said Duncan Dee, Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer. "Over the years, Canada has reached Open Skies-type air agreements covering 35 countries. The process through which these agreements have been reached is based on a balanced exchange of economic benefits resulting from increased market access. The inclusion of considerations unrelated to aviation only serves to distort those important discussions, creating the potential for significant negative consequences on our industry and the economy as a whole. The current agreement strikes the appropriate balance between encouraging competition while at the same time providing opportunities for Canadian airlines to grow and compete successfully in a more liberalized global environment.
"There would be no net benefit to Canada in granting additional capacity between Canada and the UAE at this time as the current bilateral air agreement is sufficient to meet travel demand between the two countries. The Government's actions are in the interests of Canadian commerce, Canadian jobs and encouraging growth in the Canadian economy. We commend the Government for its principled stand on this issue and for its support of a Canadian international air policy that provides for a healthy and viable Canadian air transportation industry creating more than 80,000 jobs in Canada. Air Canada further calls on all parties in the House of Commons to support the Government's approach which ensures the long term economic viability of our industry and safeguards the considerable economic benefits Canada gains from competitive international aviation," concluded Mr. Dee.
Air Canada has welcomed Open Skies agreements where they make sense. The airline was a driving force for a modernized treaty with the U.S. in 1995 and the further liberalization of that treaty in 2007. Today, Air Canada flies over 100 routes to 59 destinations, making Air Canada the largest player in the U.S. transborder market.
Air Canada also supported the recent conclusion of a comprehensive agreement liberalizing air services with the European Union representing 27 countries. Like the U.S., the E.U. is a large, important market with opportunities for aviation and other trade to the benefit of Canadians.
Air Canada provides jobs for 26,000 Canadians and the airline's direct contribution to the national economy exceeds $12 billion.
Air Canada is Canada's largest domestic and international full-service airline providing scheduled and charter air transportation for passengers and cargo from 60 communities large and small across Canada to more than 170 destinations on five continents. Canada's flag carrier is the 15th largest commercial airline in the world and serves 31 million customers annually. Air Canada is a founding member of Star Alliance, the world's most comprehensive air transportation network serving 1,160 airports in 181 countries.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Transmitted by CNW Group on : November 6, 2010 10:00
AIR CANADA COMMENTS ON GOVERNMENT OF CANADA'S HANDLING OF RECENT CANADA-UAE BILATERAL AIR NEGOTIATIONS
MONTREAL, Nov. 6 /CNW Telbec/ - Air Canada issued the following statement today in response to criticisms of the Government of Canada's handling of recent Canada-UAE bilateral air negotiations:
"The recent discussions between Canada and the UAE related to bilateral air access rights were conducted on a principled basis entirely consistent with Canada's Blue Sky Policy which has provided a framework for bilateral air negotiations since 2006," said Duncan Dee, Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer. "Over the years, Canada has reached Open Skies-type air agreements covering 35 countries. The process through which these agreements have been reached is based on a balanced exchange of economic benefits resulting from increased market access. The inclusion of considerations unrelated to aviation only serves to distort those important discussions, creating the potential for significant negative consequences on our industry and the economy as a whole. The current agreement strikes the appropriate balance between encouraging competition while at the same time providing opportunities for Canadian airlines to grow and compete successfully in a more liberalized global environment.
"There would be no net benefit to Canada in granting additional capacity between Canada and the UAE at this time as the current bilateral air agreement is sufficient to meet travel demand between the two countries. The Government's actions are in the interests of Canadian commerce, Canadian jobs and encouraging growth in the Canadian economy. We commend the Government for its principled stand on this issue and for its support of a Canadian international air policy that provides for a healthy and viable Canadian air transportation industry creating more than 80,000 jobs in Canada. Air Canada further calls on all parties in the House of Commons to support the Government's approach which ensures the long term economic viability of our industry and safeguards the considerable economic benefits Canada gains from competitive international aviation," concluded Mr. Dee.
Air Canada has welcomed Open Skies agreements where they make sense. The airline was a driving force for a modernized treaty with the U.S. in 1995 and the further liberalization of that treaty in 2007. Today, Air Canada flies over 100 routes to 59 destinations, making Air Canada the largest player in the U.S. transborder market.
Air Canada also supported the recent conclusion of a comprehensive agreement liberalizing air services with the European Union representing 27 countries. Like the U.S., the E.U. is a large, important market with opportunities for aviation and other trade to the benefit of Canadians.
Air Canada provides jobs for 26,000 Canadians and the airline's direct contribution to the national economy exceeds $12 billion.
Air Canada is Canada's largest domestic and international full-service airline providing scheduled and charter air transportation for passengers and cargo from 60 communities large and small across Canada to more than 170 destinations on five continents. Canada's flag carrier is the 15th largest commercial airline in the world and serves 31 million customers annually. Air Canada is a founding member of Star Alliance, the world's most comprehensive air transportation network serving 1,160 airports in 181 countries.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks 67D, finally someone sees a differing perspective!
For the record, I think the closure of Camp Mirage by the UAE is unacceptable despite the fact that the UAE has been trying for 11 years to get more slots but to no avail. I'm sure the decision wasn't taken lightly, but it was childish none the less. However, Canada wants to ply its goods and services to the Gulf, but it appears to want to give nothing (or very little) in return. Hardly seems fair now does it?
engfireleft, you mention that Canada has a healthy Airline industry? That HAS to be the funniest thing I have EVER read on this Forum! Are you completely insane?
Hey desert, I'm glad I make you chuckle, but instead of laughing, why don't you post something of value for a change? Just a thought!
For the record, I think the closure of Camp Mirage by the UAE is unacceptable despite the fact that the UAE has been trying for 11 years to get more slots but to no avail. I'm sure the decision wasn't taken lightly, but it was childish none the less. However, Canada wants to ply its goods and services to the Gulf, but it appears to want to give nothing (or very little) in return. Hardly seems fair now does it?
engfireleft, you mention that Canada has a healthy Airline industry? That HAS to be the funniest thing I have EVER read on this Forum! Are you completely insane?
Hey desert, I'm glad I make you chuckle, but instead of laughing, why don't you post something of value for a change? Just a thought!
Last edited by Oblaaspop; 6th Nov 2010 at 16:30.
Contacted...
Yup, that’s me alright. “Diatribes and Rants”.
Did you actually read my post or did your emotions just explode from your head, out through your fingers, and onto the keyboard. (An uncontained failure perhaps?
)
I’m certainly known for expressing my opinions here and elsewhere, but I’m definitely not known for being prone to “diatribe” “rant” or “half-truths”. (Heck, I don’t often even use adjectives. And I rarely use exclamation points!
)
As always, I invite you to discuss/debate/question what I wrote – either on this forum or via PMs. You can start by pointing out my “half-truths”.
We all draw our lines in the sand (sorry…) in a different place. There is no such thing as the “right” or “wrong” position to take on an issue, if the personal decision we come to is informed and made in good faith. In that light I stick by my comments.
Re your comment about me having a “bad experience” in Dubai, yes I certainly have had those. And I’ve had many good ones too. Lots of evenings at the Irish Village, discussing exactly these kinds of issues with people from every corner of the planet. I don’t get there as much as when I lived in Dubai, but I still spend a few days there every month or two, so perhaps you and I can meet one evening and attempt to solve the problems of the world over a pint or two…
Cheers,
grizz
Yup, that’s me alright. “Diatribes and Rants”.
Did you actually read my post or did your emotions just explode from your head, out through your fingers, and onto the keyboard. (An uncontained failure perhaps?
) I’m certainly known for expressing my opinions here and elsewhere, but I’m definitely not known for being prone to “diatribe” “rant” or “half-truths”. (Heck, I don’t often even use adjectives. And I rarely use exclamation points!
)As always, I invite you to discuss/debate/question what I wrote – either on this forum or via PMs. You can start by pointing out my “half-truths”.
We all draw our lines in the sand (sorry…) in a different place. There is no such thing as the “right” or “wrong” position to take on an issue, if the personal decision we come to is informed and made in good faith. In that light I stick by my comments.
Re your comment about me having a “bad experience” in Dubai, yes I certainly have had those. And I’ve had many good ones too. Lots of evenings at the Irish Village, discussing exactly these kinds of issues with people from every corner of the planet. I don’t get there as much as when I lived in Dubai, but I still spend a few days there every month or two, so perhaps you and I can meet one evening and attempt to solve the problems of the world over a pint or two…
Cheers,
grizz
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
engfireleft, you mention that Canada has a healthy Airline industry? That HAS to be the funniest thing I have EVER read on this Forum! Are you completely insane?
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.
I believe you chastised me in an earlier post about reading comprehension.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, you now finally admit that the Government is openly protecting Air Canada.
This my friend is called protectionism!
Not only does this NOT conform to a free market economy concept, in many parts of the developed world (eg the WHOLE of Europe), this is deemed illegal. Perhaps the EU should suspend AC's overfly rights in view of unfair competition where a flag carrier is being propped up by its government where it would otherwise fail!!
Think about it. You guys cry foul of 'unfair playing fields' in the ME (no hard evidence of which you can ACTUALLY present) while all the time AC seems to be openly getting away with it! BA and many others would be well within their rights to cry foul at AC, but no they are too busy getting on with the business of running an Airline. Perhaps if AC did the same instead of running to daddy the whole time, we wouldn't be having this discussion??
This my friend is called protectionism!
Not only does this NOT conform to a free market economy concept, in many parts of the developed world (eg the WHOLE of Europe), this is deemed illegal. Perhaps the EU should suspend AC's overfly rights in view of unfair competition where a flag carrier is being propped up by its government where it would otherwise fail!!
Think about it. You guys cry foul of 'unfair playing fields' in the ME (no hard evidence of which you can ACTUALLY present) while all the time AC seems to be openly getting away with it! BA and many others would be well within their rights to cry foul at AC, but no they are too busy getting on with the business of running an Airline. Perhaps if AC did the same instead of running to daddy the whole time, we wouldn't be having this discussion??
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally admitting it? I said that a long time ago.
More accurately though they are protecting the Canadian airline industry as a whole, which as I've also stated several times is normal in this world. How closely does the British government guard slots into Heathrow? The Dutch government into Schipol? The US government into Kennedy?
Get over it, this is normal even though it doesn't quite fit Emirates plans for world domination.
More accurately though they are protecting the Canadian airline industry as a whole, which as I've also stated several times is normal in this world. How closely does the British government guard slots into Heathrow? The Dutch government into Schipol? The US government into Kennedy?
Get over it, this is normal even though it doesn't quite fit Emirates plans for world domination.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, the British Government is trying is hardest to destroy the aviation industry in the UK. LHR is running 30% over capacity (and has done for over 20 years), no money or planning permission granted for new capacity at ANY UK airport, not to mention the increase in passenger tax (upto 40% extra in some cases) last week. And no, they don't 'guard' slots into LHR..... They ran out years ago! Besides, EK already has 8 per day into London, surely the British did their due diligence before allowing those? Like I said, BA and Virgin don't complain, why the hell should AC?
Be sensible mate, if EK were granted a few extra slots into Canada each week, would that really be the end of AC?? And if the answer to that is yes, then frankly they should move aside to allow a younger, fitter, better run Airline to step in........ Say, Canadian or C3 or Royal for instance...... Oh wait AC destroyed those already. No-one would ultimately lose jobs, as the public would still need to fly, and fly they will.......Just maybe not with AC, get over it!
Economics 101, a free market with competition ensures survival of the fittest and will ultimately stimulate demand and grow an industry. Why does Canada see it differently to the rest of the world??
Be sensible mate, if EK were granted a few extra slots into Canada each week, would that really be the end of AC?? And if the answer to that is yes, then frankly they should move aside to allow a younger, fitter, better run Airline to step in........ Say, Canadian or C3 or Royal for instance...... Oh wait AC destroyed those already. No-one would ultimately lose jobs, as the public would still need to fly, and fly they will.......Just maybe not with AC, get over it!
Economics 101, a free market with competition ensures survival of the fittest and will ultimately stimulate demand and grow an industry. Why does Canada see it differently to the rest of the world??
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oblasspop
You seem to think no one can refute your comment that “the Canadian government is denying the Canadian consumer choice”. If you’re looking for a profound dissertation on Canadian Economics you’re probably in for disappointment as this is a Pilot Rumour forum and if you have read many of the previous posts you'd have gotten it by now.
Our governments stance may be protectionist in light of an uneven playing field and you of all people should realize the dictatorial nature of things in the UAE. It's simply NOT a democracy. Canada however, is.
Our government doesn’t deny us choice, in this instance, they may be avoiding or preventing additional choices, but they aren’t deny us choice simply because EK doesn’t get a couple of new Canadian destinations or increased frequencies to Toronto. Tangled up in their official position on this is, hopefully, not just the protection of Canadian carriers but also the protection of the Canadian Transportation industry. Should Canadians be opposed to that simply because they’re being denied additional choice between EK and no additional choice for AC for their international transportation needs?
I think not.
We've lost over a dozen airlines since deregulation in 1986 under Mazankowski. I've been with three of them since then. With my IQ level at, what was it, three? I’m clever enough to understand the economic benefit Canada would realize were EKs given what they wished. That WOULD be good for Canada.
I’d say grizzled’s post #241 is a fairly sound snapshot of how most Canadians think and have little doubt many Canadians would agree with his comments.
I too have enjoyed life and labour in the UAE and Canadian or not, I could easily swap my position and attitude on this whole issue. EK and the UAE have an excellent globalization strategy well beyond the Khaleej. There is nothing wrong with that, other than the fact, other countries may not share that globalization strategy. Canada being one of those countries.
I wouldn’t dispute any $200 million bailout of Air Canada by our government right now, but I’d sure like to see your evidence. As it happens, my nephew was one of the CAs dealing with AC during their bankruptcy protection and he didn't seem to be aware of any 'handout'.
I'd like to provide you with some quotes from a recent Aviation Week? (October 11/10)
“From Europe’s standpoint, selling A380s and A350XWBs is more important than protecting Lufthansa, BA and Air France”.
Do we conclude EK and Airbus are in league to break these European airlines?
IMHO, this is also about what Airbus stands to lose if EK has to cancel dozens of A380 orders because countries around the world don’t share their globalization view. If EK doesn't find the destinations it seeks and the frequencies it wants, it could all come crashing down. Perhaps not if you listen to the EK spin doctors.
Most of the European airline sector seems to be caught in a defensive mode. Airlines are trying to persuade their governments not to grant Emirates more traffic rights even as they (airlines themselves) lobby for more liberal air services agreement across the North Atlantic from which they hope to benefit. And to quote Willie Walsh, “Europe is funding our competitors with cheap access to financing. I think it’s wrong that Europe has funded the expansion of Emirates, because that is exactly what the agencies are doing.”
Carriers such a Qantas, Lufthansa, Air France and British Airways say Emirates benefits to a large extent from government support. “We have no level playing field; competition is severely distorted, “ Lufthansa Deputy CEO Christoph Franz says.
“Emirates is a cash machine, which drives its European competitiors-which are not-nuts.”
Unlike many of its competitors, Emirates enjoys almost unlimited political support from the local government. Dubai’s ruling al-Makhtoum family wants to continue to turn the emirate into a major financial and trade centre. Having been identified as an important tool for economic development, the airline in general , gets the infrastructure it needs. Emirates has a unit cost advantage of 30% compared to a European legacy airline, not quite as much as the 40-50% reached by European LCCs. But, given that many of the LCC advantages cannot be brought to bear nearly as well on long-haul as on short-haul routes, the achievement is all the more substantial. Because there is no income tax in Dubai, Emirates pays approximately 48% less for labour than Air France, British Airways, or Lufthansa do in their regulatory regimes.
contacted’s post #258 is spot on in terms of EK and its global strategy. Unfortunately, Emirates vision of what it wants globally, isn’t shared by the Canadian government.
You talk about a level playing field and free competition and consumer choice. I wholeheartedly agree with this approach but unfortunately, it isn't feesible at present in light of what's going on with EK. They've created the uneven playing field and some nations are simply clever enough to figure that out.
I'm truly sorry if my posts have disappointed but, the reality in Canada is not the reality of the UAE.
my apology for being so long winded,
Willie
You seem to think no one can refute your comment that “the Canadian government is denying the Canadian consumer choice”. If you’re looking for a profound dissertation on Canadian Economics you’re probably in for disappointment as this is a Pilot Rumour forum and if you have read many of the previous posts you'd have gotten it by now.
Our governments stance may be protectionist in light of an uneven playing field and you of all people should realize the dictatorial nature of things in the UAE. It's simply NOT a democracy. Canada however, is.
Our government doesn’t deny us choice, in this instance, they may be avoiding or preventing additional choices, but they aren’t deny us choice simply because EK doesn’t get a couple of new Canadian destinations or increased frequencies to Toronto. Tangled up in their official position on this is, hopefully, not just the protection of Canadian carriers but also the protection of the Canadian Transportation industry. Should Canadians be opposed to that simply because they’re being denied additional choice between EK and no additional choice for AC for their international transportation needs?
I think not.
We've lost over a dozen airlines since deregulation in 1986 under Mazankowski. I've been with three of them since then. With my IQ level at, what was it, three? I’m clever enough to understand the economic benefit Canada would realize were EKs given what they wished. That WOULD be good for Canada.
I’d say grizzled’s post #241 is a fairly sound snapshot of how most Canadians think and have little doubt many Canadians would agree with his comments.
I too have enjoyed life and labour in the UAE and Canadian or not, I could easily swap my position and attitude on this whole issue. EK and the UAE have an excellent globalization strategy well beyond the Khaleej. There is nothing wrong with that, other than the fact, other countries may not share that globalization strategy. Canada being one of those countries.
I wouldn’t dispute any $200 million bailout of Air Canada by our government right now, but I’d sure like to see your evidence. As it happens, my nephew was one of the CAs dealing with AC during their bankruptcy protection and he didn't seem to be aware of any 'handout'.
I'd like to provide you with some quotes from a recent Aviation Week? (October 11/10)
“From Europe’s standpoint, selling A380s and A350XWBs is more important than protecting Lufthansa, BA and Air France”.
Do we conclude EK and Airbus are in league to break these European airlines?
IMHO, this is also about what Airbus stands to lose if EK has to cancel dozens of A380 orders because countries around the world don’t share their globalization view. If EK doesn't find the destinations it seeks and the frequencies it wants, it could all come crashing down. Perhaps not if you listen to the EK spin doctors.
Most of the European airline sector seems to be caught in a defensive mode. Airlines are trying to persuade their governments not to grant Emirates more traffic rights even as they (airlines themselves) lobby for more liberal air services agreement across the North Atlantic from which they hope to benefit. And to quote Willie Walsh, “Europe is funding our competitors with cheap access to financing. I think it’s wrong that Europe has funded the expansion of Emirates, because that is exactly what the agencies are doing.”
Carriers such a Qantas, Lufthansa, Air France and British Airways say Emirates benefits to a large extent from government support. “We have no level playing field; competition is severely distorted, “ Lufthansa Deputy CEO Christoph Franz says.
“Emirates is a cash machine, which drives its European competitiors-which are not-nuts.”
Unlike many of its competitors, Emirates enjoys almost unlimited political support from the local government. Dubai’s ruling al-Makhtoum family wants to continue to turn the emirate into a major financial and trade centre. Having been identified as an important tool for economic development, the airline in general , gets the infrastructure it needs. Emirates has a unit cost advantage of 30% compared to a European legacy airline, not quite as much as the 40-50% reached by European LCCs. But, given that many of the LCC advantages cannot be brought to bear nearly as well on long-haul as on short-haul routes, the achievement is all the more substantial. Because there is no income tax in Dubai, Emirates pays approximately 48% less for labour than Air France, British Airways, or Lufthansa do in their regulatory regimes.
contacted’s post #258 is spot on in terms of EK and its global strategy. Unfortunately, Emirates vision of what it wants globally, isn’t shared by the Canadian government.
You talk about a level playing field and free competition and consumer choice. I wholeheartedly agree with this approach but unfortunately, it isn't feesible at present in light of what's going on with EK. They've created the uneven playing field and some nations are simply clever enough to figure that out.
I'm truly sorry if my posts have disappointed but, the reality in Canada is not the reality of the UAE.
my apology for being so long winded,
Willie
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No apology needed Willie, your post was balanced!
Here is a news cutting about the loan from June last year Air Canada unions lobby Ottawa for full loan | Reuters.
I don't blame the Canadian Government from wanting to protect its (failing) Airline industry, but is this right and fair on a Global scene?
You talk about uneven playing fields, and it seems that Canada is creating exactly that! Apart from the obvious savings in blue collar labour costs (baggage handlers et al), exactly how does EK unbalance its playing field when compared to lets say Malaysian or Garuda? No anecdotal evidence about free fuel etc please, only FACTS.
Despite your balanced post, I'm STILL unclear as to whether you truly believe the entire Canadian Airline industry will fall to its knees if EK were granted a few extra services a week into Canada.
If you do believe that this is the case, then I'm sorry to have to break it to you but denying a foreign carrier Landing Rights aint gonna help buddy! The Canadian Airline industry has been screwed for years (what was it, 3 bust Airlines you worked for?), and trying to pin the blame elsewhere just doesn't wash I'm afraid.
Here is a news cutting about the loan from June last year Air Canada unions lobby Ottawa for full loan | Reuters.
I don't blame the Canadian Government from wanting to protect its (failing) Airline industry, but is this right and fair on a Global scene?
You talk about uneven playing fields, and it seems that Canada is creating exactly that! Apart from the obvious savings in blue collar labour costs (baggage handlers et al), exactly how does EK unbalance its playing field when compared to lets say Malaysian or Garuda? No anecdotal evidence about free fuel etc please, only FACTS.
Despite your balanced post, I'm STILL unclear as to whether you truly believe the entire Canadian Airline industry will fall to its knees if EK were granted a few extra services a week into Canada.
If you do believe that this is the case, then I'm sorry to have to break it to you but denying a foreign carrier Landing Rights aint gonna help buddy! The Canadian Airline industry has been screwed for years (what was it, 3 bust Airlines you worked for?), and trying to pin the blame elsewhere just doesn't wash I'm afraid.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poppy
I agree that they're screwed. Even if your reference is aboot a year and a half old.
The fact that they are screwed is reason enough for Ottawa to protect them the wicked witch and the hordes of flying monkeys...
GO OTTAWA!
Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:05pm EDT
The fact that they are screwed is reason enough for Ottawa to protect them the wicked witch and the hordes of flying monkeys...
GO OTTAWA!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Underpants, I'm a little concerned as to whether or not you can actually read? I do hope to god you are not a real Captain, and if so I hope to god that your type's QRH has pictures in it to help you along!
Willie asked for a reference about the LOAN Ottawa has given to AC which was about 18 months ago....... Got a problem with that?
Mate you are just making yourself look stupid when you just read 20% of a post!
Now, Underpants...... In the UK we use them for covering either a C*ck or a Tw@t, which are you? (Don't get upset, its a joke!)
Willie asked for a reference about the LOAN Ottawa has given to AC which was about 18 months ago....... Got a problem with that?
Mate you are just making yourself look stupid when you just read 20% of a post!
Now, Underpants...... In the UK we use them for covering either a C*ck or a Tw@t, which are you? (Don't get upset, its a joke!
)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How closely does the British government guard slots into Heathrow
Careful on that argument. I think that British airways being the main operator at that airport has a MAJOR influence on slots (they own around 42%)
The BMIs and the Virgins in the past have moaned big time about BA and their card shuffling use of slots at LHR.
British Airways Flying Empty 747s To Keep Those Precious Heathrow Slots Open! Barbados Free Press
Even BMI are not averse to it themselves
Planes ‘fly empty’ to keep slots at Heathrow -Times Online
The British government would have very little say on this issue given the political blowout it would cause.
I was told earlier in this debate that the GTAA would not do anything to p*** off their major customer (Air Canada) by stating a preference for increased A380s flights (even though in my opinion that would make business sense for them with increased passenger throughput)....so other govts and Airport operators are likely to do the same...in this case the British govt will do nothing to protect slots...they leave that up to the airlines.
Willie
Your posts are always well reasoned but I have to disagree with one statement you make
You talk about a level playing field and free competition and consumer choice. I wholeheartedly agree with this approach but unfortunately, it isn't feesible at present in light of what's going on with EK. They've created the uneven playing field and some nations are simply clever enough to figure that out
The playing field was always uneven...just different rules now with the Middle east getting involved.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oblasspop
Whether or not the Canadian government hands Air Canada a wad of money WITH or WITHOUT the expectation of repayment, I completely agree, it can be called nothing other than a bale out.
If the Canadian government hands anyone in this country a wad of money with or without the expectation of repayment, I certainly hope, as a tax payer, it has specific Canadian content requirements with specific strings attached.
I don’t know how many times we Canadians have paid for airline bale outs (honestly) over the last 30 years and I for one wish it would stop?
We went through this with Canadian Airlines.
For the sake of 26,000 airline employees the airline was not allowed to crash and burn when it should have, but the Canadian Fisheries, on the other hand, with a helluva lot more than 26,000 employees was shut down, despite foreign fishermen fishing our waters, placing everyone earning a living from it, out of work and on the dole. That’s the kind of decisions our government makes. Protect one to sacrifice another.
This time, however, I'd say the Canadian government has gotten it right and I accept the fact you disagree AND , I’m convinced your support for Emirates is blatant, obvious and unwavering.
Fine.
For me, our debate is over so I’ll bow out graciously and move on to other things. Starting with the kitchen appliances. I’ve got to turn the clocks back an hour which means I could have slept longer.
Damn!!
I’ll say it one last time, Camp Mirage is now a non-issue.
The additional manoeuvring to get our troops and supplies to a fro will cost the Canadian taxpayer millions and I for one hate paying the taxes I have to pay. I would like to see the Canadian government do something in response. The political posturing and rhetoric has said nothing about the UAE’s commitment to eradicating terrorism and doing their part, as little as it might be, which they’re not interested in, anyway.
If I were in charge, I’d suspend both EY and EKs landing rights to study the overall financial impact this is truly having on Canada. I’d NOT allow them to use or transit our airspace, effective immediately. I’d NOT allow their Military to use our airspace to transit to the U.S. either.
While pockets are deep in the UAE, it would at least cost the UAE and their airlines inconvenience and million$ in return.
Sounds completely reasonable to me.
This idea however, isn’t something the Canadian government is likely to do.
“I just found out there’s no such thing as the real world.
Just a lie that you rise above.”
-John Mayer
Married a Canadian
What you're saying about the long ago created playing field is absolutely true, but my reference was directly aimed at Emirates and the playing field they're creating whilst expecting everyone else to play on it. This airline has more new long haul aircraft than the rest of the world's airlines combined. To me, that's a whole new playing field and an entirely new 'threat'. Good for Emirates. Bad for everyone else. That's why protectionist attitudes will linger.
This has never been the case in the airline industry in the past. No ONE carrier has ever had that kind of clout. Making EKs a powerhouse to be reckoned with. And reckon with them we should.
Should Canada simply play by EKs rules?
No.
Willie
Whether or not the Canadian government hands Air Canada a wad of money WITH or WITHOUT the expectation of repayment, I completely agree, it can be called nothing other than a bale out.
If the Canadian government hands anyone in this country a wad of money with or without the expectation of repayment, I certainly hope, as a tax payer, it has specific Canadian content requirements with specific strings attached.
I don’t know how many times we Canadians have paid for airline bale outs (honestly) over the last 30 years and I for one wish it would stop?
We went through this with Canadian Airlines.
For the sake of 26,000 airline employees the airline was not allowed to crash and burn when it should have, but the Canadian Fisheries, on the other hand, with a helluva lot more than 26,000 employees was shut down, despite foreign fishermen fishing our waters, placing everyone earning a living from it, out of work and on the dole. That’s the kind of decisions our government makes. Protect one to sacrifice another.
This time, however, I'd say the Canadian government has gotten it right and I accept the fact you disagree AND , I’m convinced your support for Emirates is blatant, obvious and unwavering.
Fine.
For me, our debate is over so I’ll bow out graciously and move on to other things. Starting with the kitchen appliances. I’ve got to turn the clocks back an hour which means I could have slept longer.
Damn!!
I’ll say it one last time, Camp Mirage is now a non-issue.
The additional manoeuvring to get our troops and supplies to a fro will cost the Canadian taxpayer millions and I for one hate paying the taxes I have to pay. I would like to see the Canadian government do something in response. The political posturing and rhetoric has said nothing about the UAE’s commitment to eradicating terrorism and doing their part, as little as it might be, which they’re not interested in, anyway.
If I were in charge, I’d suspend both EY and EKs landing rights to study the overall financial impact this is truly having on Canada. I’d NOT allow them to use or transit our airspace, effective immediately. I’d NOT allow their Military to use our airspace to transit to the U.S. either.
While pockets are deep in the UAE, it would at least cost the UAE and their airlines inconvenience and million$ in return.
Sounds completely reasonable to me.
This idea however, isn’t something the Canadian government is likely to do.
“I just found out there’s no such thing as the real world.
Just a lie that you rise above.”
-John Mayer
Married a Canadian
What you're saying about the long ago created playing field is absolutely true, but my reference was directly aimed at Emirates and the playing field they're creating whilst expecting everyone else to play on it. This airline has more new long haul aircraft than the rest of the world's airlines combined. To me, that's a whole new playing field and an entirely new 'threat'. Good for Emirates. Bad for everyone else. That's why protectionist attitudes will linger.
This has never been the case in the airline industry in the past. No ONE carrier has ever had that kind of clout. Making EKs a powerhouse to be reckoned with. And reckon with them we should.
Should Canada simply play by EKs rules?
No.
Willie
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: AMS
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Willie.
On Contacted's quoted paper:
I couldn’t disagree more Contacted. By the way did you READ that paper?
For free markets to work in entirety, the markets, or essentially the business shared between the agreeing parties have to be equally yolked. If they are not, then you adopt as much of the free market system as you can and retain some controls. A lot of countries have “free trade” agreements but maintain duties and importation taxes based on other market factor differences that transcend the countries doing business. If there are such differences, then a Country will employ such controls (for its own self preservation and economy) and release them GRADUALLY as economies become linear.
I quote from your posted paper:
“Airlines profit from increased efficiency derived from economies of scale, eonomies of scope and density economies.”
“Air transport liberalization is a process of gradual abolition of limits on designation, capacity, frequency and tariff setting in civil aviation.”
As Willie so eloquently pointed out, aviation is not linear between the 2 countries in question, nor is any other industry, nor is human rights, nor is labor protection, nor is pension issues, or any societal issues, nor is govt.This is a multi-teir argument that is much larger a picture to look at than purely EK/AC or landing slots.
Canada is already liberal with regards to the market. There are already lots of players at the table. Canada is NOT protecting the market it entirety, it is sharing a lot of it already. This is purely a case of Canada not bending to the wishes of Emirates to have more capacity themselves. This was Canada’s decision to make who serves this market, whether its Emirates or others, but the decision has been made that Emirates will have daily flights to Toronto. And its the same process at LHR, or wherever.
No one is against free market economics, especially Canada. It’s a good paper, but it does not make your point. There are multi factors to consider whenever considering a free market system between 2 countries. A total unregulated free market between Canada and UAE is not productive for Canada or the other players at the table. That is the bottom line.
This crap about the Canadian gov't loaning money to Air Canada? Is that what you guys bring to the table? You have to be kidding me. So what!! Should we have a close look at how EK/EY is aided by its gov't and then compare that to how AC is aided by its govt? LOL. Give me a break guys. Your gonna lose that one.
By the way, there are others on the planet that have an even better cost footprint than EK/EY. They are the Chinese carriers. And they are similar to EK/EY too in that they are semi-state supported. Its just that their employees work way more than you or I and get paid way less. And their operations are greatly subsidized...just like EK/EY. Perhaps the UAE should offer these guys to set up shop in Dubai and create more "consumer choice" for everyone. If the Chinese wanted this, what would the UAE do? Protect its market? What would be the forum rant then?
Oblasspop, stop behaving like a teenage girl! You don't bring anything productive to this debate except childish insults. With your immaturity, I would be suprised if you are a pilot at all.
On Contacted's quoted paper:
I couldn’t disagree more Contacted. By the way did you READ that paper?
For free markets to work in entirety, the markets, or essentially the business shared between the agreeing parties have to be equally yolked. If they are not, then you adopt as much of the free market system as you can and retain some controls. A lot of countries have “free trade” agreements but maintain duties and importation taxes based on other market factor differences that transcend the countries doing business. If there are such differences, then a Country will employ such controls (for its own self preservation and economy) and release them GRADUALLY as economies become linear.
I quote from your posted paper:
“Airlines profit from increased efficiency derived from economies of scale, eonomies of scope and density economies.”
“Air transport liberalization is a process of gradual abolition of limits on designation, capacity, frequency and tariff setting in civil aviation.”
As Willie so eloquently pointed out, aviation is not linear between the 2 countries in question, nor is any other industry, nor is human rights, nor is labor protection, nor is pension issues, or any societal issues, nor is govt.This is a multi-teir argument that is much larger a picture to look at than purely EK/AC or landing slots.
Canada is already liberal with regards to the market. There are already lots of players at the table. Canada is NOT protecting the market it entirety, it is sharing a lot of it already. This is purely a case of Canada not bending to the wishes of Emirates to have more capacity themselves. This was Canada’s decision to make who serves this market, whether its Emirates or others, but the decision has been made that Emirates will have daily flights to Toronto. And its the same process at LHR, or wherever.
No one is against free market economics, especially Canada. It’s a good paper, but it does not make your point. There are multi factors to consider whenever considering a free market system between 2 countries. A total unregulated free market between Canada and UAE is not productive for Canada or the other players at the table. That is the bottom line.
This crap about the Canadian gov't loaning money to Air Canada? Is that what you guys bring to the table? You have to be kidding me. So what!! Should we have a close look at how EK/EY is aided by its gov't and then compare that to how AC is aided by its govt? LOL. Give me a break guys. Your gonna lose that one.
By the way, there are others on the planet that have an even better cost footprint than EK/EY. They are the Chinese carriers. And they are similar to EK/EY too in that they are semi-state supported. Its just that their employees work way more than you or I and get paid way less. And their operations are greatly subsidized...just like EK/EY. Perhaps the UAE should offer these guys to set up shop in Dubai and create more "consumer choice" for everyone. If the Chinese wanted this, what would the UAE do? Protect its market? What would be the forum rant then?
Oblasspop, stop behaving like a teenage girl! You don't bring anything productive to this debate except childish insults. With your immaturity, I would be suprised if you are a pilot at all.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be sensible mate, if EK were granted a few extra slots into Canada each week, would that really be the end of AC?? And if the answer to that is yes, then frankly they should move aside to allow a younger, fitter, better run Airline to step in........ Say, Canadian or C3 or Royal for instance...... Oh wait AC destroyed those already. No-one would ultimately lose jobs, as the public would still need to fly, and fly they will.......Just maybe not with AC, get over it!
Second, the Canadian government is not in any way obliged to let a foreign carrier bury Air Canada. Quite the opposite.
There are national interests involved here, and frankly your opinion about what the government should and should not do wrt to Emirates usurping Air Canada wouldn't enjoy a lot of airtime in the House of Commons for a very good reason.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: AMS
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Married a Canadian:
Your argument from “before” is still moot.
Thank you for helping to make my point though. There are NO even playing fields here. Therefore, as there ALWAYS are with multilateral trade between countries, there exists some regulation involved with trade or any “free trade” between countries when there are economic differences. Many factors are considered in this regard. Even free trade is never totally free. You have to consider, currency differences, operational cost differences, etc. China dumps its cheap stuff on the open market and keeps its currency artificially low... so the rest of the world applies duty and taxes. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend? Even your own UAE market is protected in every corner of business, from your phone carriers censorship of Skype, to who is permitted building contracts instead of Aldar or whomever.
Regarding legacy carriers: Of course they were protected to a degree! Are you so shallow in your thinking that countries would not protect and further their own interests just as the UAE does? This is because each country is/are competing with each other. They all want to further themselves in the global industrial business world do they not? But at the same time we all need each other to a degree to do it. And it is each countries right to establish that degree.
Airlines, or at least NON STATE SUPPORTED airlines (unlike EK/EY) are incredibly expensive to maintain. Most countries cannot afford to have more than one if they have generous civil rights attached to the price tag. There are no monopoly's in any of your examples as many international carriers serve the markets to and from Canada and in all the countries you quoted.
Is there a monopoly in the UAE?
Your argument from “before” is still moot.
Thank you for helping to make my point though. There are NO even playing fields here. Therefore, as there ALWAYS are with multilateral trade between countries, there exists some regulation involved with trade or any “free trade” between countries when there are economic differences. Many factors are considered in this regard. Even free trade is never totally free. You have to consider, currency differences, operational cost differences, etc. China dumps its cheap stuff on the open market and keeps its currency artificially low... so the rest of the world applies duty and taxes. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend? Even your own UAE market is protected in every corner of business, from your phone carriers censorship of Skype, to who is permitted building contracts instead of Aldar or whomever.
Regarding legacy carriers: Of course they were protected to a degree! Are you so shallow in your thinking that countries would not protect and further their own interests just as the UAE does? This is because each country is/are competing with each other. They all want to further themselves in the global industrial business world do they not? But at the same time we all need each other to a degree to do it. And it is each countries right to establish that degree.
Airlines, or at least NON STATE SUPPORTED airlines (unlike EK/EY) are incredibly expensive to maintain. Most countries cannot afford to have more than one if they have generous civil rights attached to the price tag. There are no monopoly's in any of your examples as many international carriers serve the markets to and from Canada and in all the countries you quoted.
Is there a monopoly in the UAE?