Emirates vs. Air Canada
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dubai
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
This thread has drifted all over the place into talks about UAE labour practices, Emirates cost base, Blackberries etc.... We seem to have lost sight of the apparent "reason" given by the Canadian Gov't that further access was denied. That being that the UAE to Canada travel market does not justify additional services.
I know there are a lot of behind the scenes negotiations when it comes to agreeing on traffic rights, but surely this is a bit bizarre? Is every passenger on an AC flight to Frankfurt either a Canadian going to Germany or a German who's final destination was in Canada? Is there not excess capacity on this route in order to feed United, Lufthansa and the rest of the Star Alliance?
When traffic rights were agreed between the UAE and the USA, UK or Australia (just to name a few), did their respective governments look into the traffic in the same way? Being that Emirates business model is to be a global hub capturing East-West traffic, I suspect not or they would not have the frequencies they do. Interesting to note that when EK started flights to New York this was the only Arabian Gulf to USA route. Since then, even as services have been expanded by EK, Etihad and Qatar from this region Delta and United have also started non-stops to Dubai. Exactly how are these airlines hurting the American carriers? Gulf carriers have created an opportunity for them that they may not have otherwise seen and they have decided to add flights (i.e. Jobs) to compete rather than waste time lobbying their government to restrict access. The same can be said for the UK. Even as EK, and EY add capacity there, so to do BA and VS add capacity to the Gulf. None of these governments seem to have been concerned with how many passengers were bound for the UAE during the negotiations and their economies (and airlines) are reaping the benefits. In todays world, it is difficult to put a price on access to good competitive global transportation links.
Can someone please tell me what flight(s) Air Canada will have to cancel in response to Emirates extra services? I assume there will be plenty of cancellations as some have said it would be the end for AC. If we use the same rationale that an airline should only fly "point to point" passengers, then how can one argue that AC will suffer on their European flights? Any passenger with half a brain or an Atlas would not fly YYZ-DXB and then double back to Europe. Did you say those "European" passengers are really in transit to Asia? Then obviously Air Canada has excess capacity on it's transatlantic flights and perhaps the governments involved might like to hold them to the same standard they have applied to EK. You cannot have it both ways. The only argument (given EK's passenger demographic from YYZ) is that EK would have a negative impact on Air Canada's YYZ to Middle East or Asia routes of which there are....wait for it........NONE!!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, you have no argument (okay, there is one, but I don't think EK will ever have a presence in Tel Aviv).
Emirates is definitely the target due to it's strong brand presence. I see EgyptAir will start flights to Toronto soon and Turkish have recently ramped up their YYZ services. Both these airlines have similar route structure and geographical position as EK. Turkish have even adopted the Emirates business model of creating a global hub. Is the government studying the traffic between these countries as well? I suspect not, as AC probably didn't employ their lobbyists as (a) neither carrier has the same perception from the traveling public as EK and (b) they are both Star Alliance members.
There are many people out there who believe Air Canada is rubbish and would only fly them if there was no other choice. This belief seems to have filtered it's way to the top of the organization and the government as both seem to believe the only way they can survive is to keep out the competition. If they don't wake up and change the product they offer and the way it is delivered they will be threatened by an increasing number of airlines. Even low cost West Jet and small start up Porter are attracting lawsuits from them. How does this affect the public's perception of them? Do they not have a PR department?
Business 101: It's better to have a slice of an enormous pie then all of a tiny one. Take note AC.
This thread has drifted all over the place into talks about UAE labour practices, Emirates cost base, Blackberries etc.... We seem to have lost sight of the apparent "reason" given by the Canadian Gov't that further access was denied. That being that the UAE to Canada travel market does not justify additional services.
I know there are a lot of behind the scenes negotiations when it comes to agreeing on traffic rights, but surely this is a bit bizarre? Is every passenger on an AC flight to Frankfurt either a Canadian going to Germany or a German who's final destination was in Canada? Is there not excess capacity on this route in order to feed United, Lufthansa and the rest of the Star Alliance?
When traffic rights were agreed between the UAE and the USA, UK or Australia (just to name a few), did their respective governments look into the traffic in the same way? Being that Emirates business model is to be a global hub capturing East-West traffic, I suspect not or they would not have the frequencies they do. Interesting to note that when EK started flights to New York this was the only Arabian Gulf to USA route. Since then, even as services have been expanded by EK, Etihad and Qatar from this region Delta and United have also started non-stops to Dubai. Exactly how are these airlines hurting the American carriers? Gulf carriers have created an opportunity for them that they may not have otherwise seen and they have decided to add flights (i.e. Jobs) to compete rather than waste time lobbying their government to restrict access. The same can be said for the UK. Even as EK, and EY add capacity there, so to do BA and VS add capacity to the Gulf. None of these governments seem to have been concerned with how many passengers were bound for the UAE during the negotiations and their economies (and airlines) are reaping the benefits. In todays world, it is difficult to put a price on access to good competitive global transportation links.
Can someone please tell me what flight(s) Air Canada will have to cancel in response to Emirates extra services? I assume there will be plenty of cancellations as some have said it would be the end for AC. If we use the same rationale that an airline should only fly "point to point" passengers, then how can one argue that AC will suffer on their European flights? Any passenger with half a brain or an Atlas would not fly YYZ-DXB and then double back to Europe. Did you say those "European" passengers are really in transit to Asia? Then obviously Air Canada has excess capacity on it's transatlantic flights and perhaps the governments involved might like to hold them to the same standard they have applied to EK. You cannot have it both ways. The only argument (given EK's passenger demographic from YYZ) is that EK would have a negative impact on Air Canada's YYZ to Middle East or Asia routes of which there are....wait for it........NONE!!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, you have no argument (okay, there is one, but I don't think EK will ever have a presence in Tel Aviv).
Emirates is definitely the target due to it's strong brand presence. I see EgyptAir will start flights to Toronto soon and Turkish have recently ramped up their YYZ services. Both these airlines have similar route structure and geographical position as EK. Turkish have even adopted the Emirates business model of creating a global hub. Is the government studying the traffic between these countries as well? I suspect not, as AC probably didn't employ their lobbyists as (a) neither carrier has the same perception from the traveling public as EK and (b) they are both Star Alliance members.
There are many people out there who believe Air Canada is rubbish and would only fly them if there was no other choice. This belief seems to have filtered it's way to the top of the organization and the government as both seem to believe the only way they can survive is to keep out the competition. If they don't wake up and change the product they offer and the way it is delivered they will be threatened by an increasing number of airlines. Even low cost West Jet and small start up Porter are attracting lawsuits from them. How does this affect the public's perception of them? Do they not have a PR department?
Business 101: It's better to have a slice of an enormous pie then all of a tiny one. Take note AC.
Last edited by Townie; 8th Aug 2010 at 07:27.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, all the EK suporters out there, lets say Canada lets every outfit in and they manage to put AC/WJ/Porter/Jazz et all out of buisines, then we have a national disaster of some kind, are these Middle East outfits going to provide our emergency airlift under the Civil Reserve leglislation? No bloody way! They dont even do that for their brothers in arms when needed, let alone come to the aide of us non believers. If you really belive what you are saying I trust you keep all your funds in your local banks and not outside of the Sandbox? Yeh, right!{Tell Aviv doesnt count? my my, you really do toe the party line}
Still no answer
Clunck, who used their market clout to run Wardair off. It wasn't EK.
Townie has it right on the last paragraph. AC like a lot of legacy carriers is more interested in using every tactic in the book to get rid of competitors rather than trying to offer a better product/price service. It is just the culture of the company and it goes back to being a regulated industry that owned its customers. Basically they were a regulated utility and have never being able to operate as a successful for profit business.
EK is not a threat to Porter. AC predatory pricing certainly is.
20driver
Townie has it right on the last paragraph. AC like a lot of legacy carriers is more interested in using every tactic in the book to get rid of competitors rather than trying to offer a better product/price service. It is just the culture of the company and it goes back to being a regulated industry that owned its customers. Basically they were a regulated utility and have never being able to operate as a successful for profit business.
EK is not a threat to Porter. AC predatory pricing certainly is.
20driver
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 Driver, TCA/AC never made a profit? sorry but that utter rot! Having said that the costs of operation way back when in having to do such things as print ones own Apch plates and route maps made it very expensive to run an airline, it wast just a matter of updateing a data base every 28 days or picking up the phone to Jepp to get this stuff . The reason Max went under is that he got out of being straight charter {And they were the very best in the world at the charter game} with its 100% loads and predictable costs to entering the uncertain world of sked flying with all its unknowns, if you recall two of his top staff quit when he made this decision. I often wonder that if Wardair had stayed in the charter sector would we have even have seen the likes of Transat, Jetsgo and all the others who tried it and failed, with the tip top reputation Wardair had I dont think any of these outfits would have stood a chance against them, the clasic "what if".
You should know better
Where did I say AC never made a profit?
TCA as a government department, it was part of the transport ministry for years, or AC as a crown corporation, were entities that as such do not even have profit or a loss, they reported surpluses or deficits.
AC as a private company, weren't they just in bankruptcy or was that some utter rot in the paper.
As for Wardair, Max made a big mistake. He did not understand or appreciate the power of the central reservation system and how AC was prepared to use it to underprice Wardair and sell below cost at every turn.
A friend was a well connected travel agent and told me they knew Wardair was gone not from the news but by seeing new higher fares being dumped into the system within minutes of Wardair closing down. Same thing happened with Laker. Not sure about Max but Laker did eventually win serious money proving collusion to bankrupt him.
None of this has anything to do with AC is objecting to EK. That is simply to keep a competitor out of their biggest single market.
Bottom line is very few legacy carriers have survived in the non regulated world. Most of the the airlines that have turned a new profit in the last few decades, and it is a small list, have being companies that started outside the old legacy bilateral cartels. As air transport becomes more and more a global commodity it will be SQ, Jet, EK, Cathy etc driving the industry.
20driver
PS Still haven't told us why you are supporting the UAE with your dollars.
TCA as a government department, it was part of the transport ministry for years, or AC as a crown corporation, were entities that as such do not even have profit or a loss, they reported surpluses or deficits.
AC as a private company, weren't they just in bankruptcy or was that some utter rot in the paper.
As for Wardair, Max made a big mistake. He did not understand or appreciate the power of the central reservation system and how AC was prepared to use it to underprice Wardair and sell below cost at every turn.
A friend was a well connected travel agent and told me they knew Wardair was gone not from the news but by seeing new higher fares being dumped into the system within minutes of Wardair closing down. Same thing happened with Laker. Not sure about Max but Laker did eventually win serious money proving collusion to bankrupt him.
None of this has anything to do with AC is objecting to EK. That is simply to keep a competitor out of their biggest single market.
Bottom line is very few legacy carriers have survived in the non regulated world. Most of the the airlines that have turned a new profit in the last few decades, and it is a small list, have being companies that started outside the old legacy bilateral cartels. As air transport becomes more and more a global commodity it will be SQ, Jet, EK, Cathy etc driving the industry.
20driver
PS Still haven't told us why you are supporting the UAE with your dollars.
Last edited by 20driver; 9th Aug 2010 at 18:54.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: beachfront
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is well known EK comes on a route and does it for peanuts then when the other carriers give up ...ek raises their prices....been like that for years..........ask anyone in a commercial capacity in a real airline..........bottom line.......... who really cares....aviation is a joke......next subject ....
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, all the EK suporters out there, lets say Canada lets every outfit in and they manage to put AC/WJ/Porter/Jazz et all out of buisines
Explain how an international (foreign) carrier can put a domestic carrier out of business....on domestic routes.
Unless I have missed something the foreign carriers can't fly point to point in Canada yet..and then onwards to their hubs?
AC/WJ/Porter and Jazz all compete domestically so if any of them go out of business it will be one of the others doing it.
I appreciate your comments so would be interested to hear how you think this could happen?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Married a Canuck, Simple, EK could be granted cabotage, But it was a hypothetical question I proposed as many simply dont know the function of the airlines in time of national emergency, it works very much like the Fleet Auxilary which the Brits scrambled for the Falklands punch up. By the way the clearences Eastbound out of CYKZ have improved greatly, thanks!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contacted...
Your point is moot. Who is saying NO to EK? There are already daily flights to UAE.
Are you advocating that a gov't should open its doors in every market and allow unfetter uncontrolled access? How would this benefit Canada? This is a rediculous argument. What planet are you from?
Obviously Air Canada/Westjet serve the domestic market, and anyone that wants to go to UAE must fly Air Canada/Westjet to YYZ. Of course they are going to want to protect that market. The probably need to pay for that big shiny terminal at YYZ. I believe that was the point when they built it..to be a HUB to the world from Canada.
Quite humorous though to hear people from the UAE talk about protectionism though.
This is not protectionism. This is just the process. This is what happens everywhere. If an airline wants increased frequency, it applies to the local gov't for it, and if the gov't deems it mutually beneficial then a deal will follow. So sorry Canada's plans don't fall in line with the likes of UAE.
I believe this is happening to EK/EY all over the place. Maybe they should come to the table with the other airlines and talk about joining Star/Oneworld. Im sure then they will then get alot more access to markets. But they won't will they, because they have it too good and they don't want to share. There will always be a measure of protecting ones turf. So who really is protecting their interests?
Your point is moot. Who is saying NO to EK? There are already daily flights to UAE.
Are you advocating that a gov't should open its doors in every market and allow unfetter uncontrolled access? How would this benefit Canada? This is a rediculous argument. What planet are you from?
Obviously Air Canada/Westjet serve the domestic market, and anyone that wants to go to UAE must fly Air Canada/Westjet to YYZ. Of course they are going to want to protect that market. The probably need to pay for that big shiny terminal at YYZ. I believe that was the point when they built it..to be a HUB to the world from Canada.
Quite humorous though to hear people from the UAE talk about protectionism though.
This is not protectionism. This is just the process. This is what happens everywhere. If an airline wants increased frequency, it applies to the local gov't for it, and if the gov't deems it mutually beneficial then a deal will follow. So sorry Canada's plans don't fall in line with the likes of UAE.
I believe this is happening to EK/EY all over the place. Maybe they should come to the table with the other airlines and talk about joining Star/Oneworld. Im sure then they will then get alot more access to markets. But they won't will they, because they have it too good and they don't want to share. There will always be a measure of protecting ones turf. So who really is protecting their interests?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dubai
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wadefac,
Care to provide us with any examples of EK running the competition off the routes? Since they "are widely known for it" you should have several at hand.
In my view there is plenty of competition on the major city pairs (LHR, FRA, MUC, CDG, ZRH, DEL, BOM, SIN, JED, BKK, KHI....). Most of the routes they have "all to themselves" are the secondary cities and routes they pioneered themselves. Fares on EK might be a bit cheaper then the European legacy carriers (particularly in J class) but usually they charge more than the competitors from the Asian and African market.
Think you might have meant to say AC is the under cutter and anticompetitive entity (Wardair, C3000, Canadian, WestJet (remember Zip)....).
Clunk,
That was a stretch to suggest that EK could be granted cabotage. I wouldn't put it past them to try, but I don't ever see it coming to pass. As far as emergency airlift, that would only be a concern in your worst case scenario that there is no more homegrown airlines left (or they have shrunk to a size that is insufficient for the task at hand). I find it hard to believe that a few extra flights by an Ultra Long Haul carrier could be the catalyst that sets that off. If ULR flights are so popular and in such demand then AC should operate them. Thanks to Emirates pushing Boeing to stretch the range of the 777s, they have the right aircraft for the job.
I am not suggesting that EK should be given unrestricted access to the Canadian market. The fact that one must seek approval implies that a denial is a very real possibility, I just question the reasoning behind it. Australia has a smaller population than Canada and also has a sole national carrier in Qantas yet they saw it fit to grant multiple frequencies to multiple cities. The UK has roughly twice the population, but has granted in the order of 20 times the frequencies. The same for France, Germany, Singapore, Italy etc... None of these countries seemed to be concerned about the "to UAE traffic". Also interesting that at the same time that EK is being denied permission EgyptAir will be allowed access and given their route network and geographical position they could easily "poach" the same passengers that EK is accused of taking.
Care to provide us with any examples of EK running the competition off the routes? Since they "are widely known for it" you should have several at hand.
In my view there is plenty of competition on the major city pairs (LHR, FRA, MUC, CDG, ZRH, DEL, BOM, SIN, JED, BKK, KHI....). Most of the routes they have "all to themselves" are the secondary cities and routes they pioneered themselves. Fares on EK might be a bit cheaper then the European legacy carriers (particularly in J class) but usually they charge more than the competitors from the Asian and African market.
Think you might have meant to say AC is the under cutter and anticompetitive entity (Wardair, C3000, Canadian, WestJet (remember Zip)....).
Clunk,
That was a stretch to suggest that EK could be granted cabotage. I wouldn't put it past them to try, but I don't ever see it coming to pass. As far as emergency airlift, that would only be a concern in your worst case scenario that there is no more homegrown airlines left (or they have shrunk to a size that is insufficient for the task at hand). I find it hard to believe that a few extra flights by an Ultra Long Haul carrier could be the catalyst that sets that off. If ULR flights are so popular and in such demand then AC should operate them. Thanks to Emirates pushing Boeing to stretch the range of the 777s, they have the right aircraft for the job.
I am not suggesting that EK should be given unrestricted access to the Canadian market. The fact that one must seek approval implies that a denial is a very real possibility, I just question the reasoning behind it. Australia has a smaller population than Canada and also has a sole national carrier in Qantas yet they saw it fit to grant multiple frequencies to multiple cities. The UK has roughly twice the population, but has granted in the order of 20 times the frequencies. The same for France, Germany, Singapore, Italy etc... None of these countries seemed to be concerned about the "to UAE traffic". Also interesting that at the same time that EK is being denied permission EgyptAir will be allowed access and given their route network and geographical position they could easily "poach" the same passengers that EK is accused of taking.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The probably need to pay for that big shiny terminal at YYZ. I believe that was the point when they built it..to be a HUB to the world from Canada.
A full A380 every day would sure help with paying off the terminal.
The GTAA gets ticked off enough at the govt and it's inflexibility in helping lower the costs. I wonder if they like the govt/Air Canada saying no to a potential money spinner at their airport.
Does anyone know what the landing charges are for an A380 at YYZ. For a B747 wasn't it something like $13000. Correct me if I am wrong.
Five million in change for 365 days a year....and that is before all the passengers spend money in your shops and in your parking garages.
For those who don't believe that....look at how Ryanair operate in Europe...and look at all the airports (in the back of beyond mind) that upgraded to accomodate them. The benefits to those areas and to the airports themselves are why Ryanair get cheap landing rates into most places they fly. What else are you going to do once airside except spend money!
Emirates and Etihad alone would be worthwhile daily to the GTAA for that very reason.
If you disagree with that statement then you have never spent money in an airport before...and for that alone you have my respect!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been a very interesting discussion and one that has taken almost my enitre rainy Independence Day Sunday here in India to read. I'm the business class SLF based in Montreal and flying to DEL about once every 2 months, meaning I'm the guy some of you have been tangentially referring to. Air Canada is okay overall, meets my needs, but boy is the company afraid of competition and boy could things be done better for my money. I would be delighted to see some more international competition make AC bring up their game.
Why am I looking to switch airlines to come to India? Standard of service and routes. Have you taken one of those 'lovely jaunty stopover codeshare routes' with the six hour stopover in Europe and then had to wait two extra hours for the baggage handlers in Delhi? Have you ever flown business class with Jet Airlines, Swiss or even Lufthansa? Have you dreamed of a non-stop long-haul flight? Do you realise a very cheap return Z-class ticket YUL to DEL is $5000 if bought well in advance? Do you really think that my expectations are low when an airline is charging that much?
There are better options and better airlines out there and AC if it was truly opened to competition from foreign carriers, major changes would have to take place. Senior management at AC knows it and are hunkering down to protect their routes and bonuses (trust me, they don't care about your jobs that much). The comment about owning a very small market vs having a slice of a much bigger market pie was ne'er truer in this case: by keeping ticket prices higher than they would be, restricting routings and entrance of competitors, and keeping quality of service lower than it could be, AC and regulators cost me and hundreds of like businesses thousands of dollars per flight in higher prices and lost time. OTOH were AC to provide a higher quality product and especially a direct YUL - YYZ - DEL flight, I would be happy to lobby my company to pay the same or even more. A decent comparison could be my routing to NRT, which is a roughly similar distance I think and a roughly similar price on Air Canada's site, but with a 12 hour flight I arrive having slept, gotten tons of work done, etc etc.
I think that the UK, Australia et al allowing lots of EK flights says a lot in the face of the Air Canada 'argument'.
Finally, I wouldn't fly EK because of the human rights / regimes issues (just as I won't fly Chinese state airlines), but that has nothing to do with the competition argument I'm putting forward here. If EK's cost is lower because of slavery or unfair wage issues, that's important but it's a fair trade, not a free trade issue.
All to say if you're going to start throwing figures around to do with economic impact of adding a foreign carrier, please use all the figures, not just the number of flying-industry jobs or figures of convenience.
Why am I looking to switch airlines to come to India? Standard of service and routes. Have you taken one of those 'lovely jaunty stopover codeshare routes' with the six hour stopover in Europe and then had to wait two extra hours for the baggage handlers in Delhi? Have you ever flown business class with Jet Airlines, Swiss or even Lufthansa? Have you dreamed of a non-stop long-haul flight? Do you realise a very cheap return Z-class ticket YUL to DEL is $5000 if bought well in advance? Do you really think that my expectations are low when an airline is charging that much?
There are better options and better airlines out there and AC if it was truly opened to competition from foreign carriers, major changes would have to take place. Senior management at AC knows it and are hunkering down to protect their routes and bonuses (trust me, they don't care about your jobs that much). The comment about owning a very small market vs having a slice of a much bigger market pie was ne'er truer in this case: by keeping ticket prices higher than they would be, restricting routings and entrance of competitors, and keeping quality of service lower than it could be, AC and regulators cost me and hundreds of like businesses thousands of dollars per flight in higher prices and lost time. OTOH were AC to provide a higher quality product and especially a direct YUL - YYZ - DEL flight, I would be happy to lobby my company to pay the same or even more. A decent comparison could be my routing to NRT, which is a roughly similar distance I think and a roughly similar price on Air Canada's site, but with a 12 hour flight I arrive having slept, gotten tons of work done, etc etc.
I think that the UK, Australia et al allowing lots of EK flights says a lot in the face of the Air Canada 'argument'.
Finally, I wouldn't fly EK because of the human rights / regimes issues (just as I won't fly Chinese state airlines), but that has nothing to do with the competition argument I'm putting forward here. If EK's cost is lower because of slavery or unfair wage issues, that's important but it's a fair trade, not a free trade issue.
All to say if you're going to start throwing figures around to do with economic impact of adding a foreign carrier, please use all the figures, not just the number of flying-industry jobs or figures of convenience.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One 380 a day X 365 would be a drop in the bucket to the GTAA compared to what AC spends at that airport. Think of it from a business perspective. Would you take on one very small customer and piss off your main income? I don't think so.
You cannot compare the airports that upgraded to accomodate Ryanair to the YYZ. Toronto is already the largest, most expensive airport in Canada. Emirates bringing one more flight a day is not going to lead to any changes at T-1.
You cannot compare the airports that upgraded to accomodate Ryanair to the YYZ. Toronto is already the largest, most expensive airport in Canada. Emirates bringing one more flight a day is not going to lead to any changes at T-1.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are both from Planet Earth
, we just have different viewpoints, when it comes to free market competition. So be it.
, we just have different viewpoints, when it comes to free market competition. So be it.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that's the point...one more flight to YYZ. Look around the offices of most of the MP's in Ottawa and count the Emirates models on the desks (airplane models). The lobby was hard and strong...and not for another gate in YYZ.
Emirates wants to have their lunch and eat everyone else' too. State run airport, cheapest fuel on the planet, bottomless pockets to buy hundreds of widebodies...and then dump seats on the market like the steel dumping of years ago. That's what this is...dumping. And when the planes don't fill up, watch the prices go further south.
So someone here then said as long as there is strong competition, the prices wouldn't drop...or stay low. How do you compete with that? And where are all these airplanes going to be flying to/from?
I say the Canadian government was right to put a stop additional access to YYC, YVR YUL,YHZ..and who knows where else. If it is deemed protectionist...well so be it. There are thousands of taxpayers in this country that work in the airline industry. Canada, ( although it shouldn't have deregulated in the first place) needs to at least be responsible in the bi-lateral department.
Emirates wants to have their lunch and eat everyone else' too. State run airport, cheapest fuel on the planet, bottomless pockets to buy hundreds of widebodies...and then dump seats on the market like the steel dumping of years ago. That's what this is...dumping. And when the planes don't fill up, watch the prices go further south.
So someone here then said as long as there is strong competition, the prices wouldn't drop...or stay low. How do you compete with that? And where are all these airplanes going to be flying to/from?
I say the Canadian government was right to put a stop additional access to YYC, YVR YUL,YHZ..and who knows where else. If it is deemed protectionist...well so be it. There are thousands of taxpayers in this country that work in the airline industry. Canada, ( although it shouldn't have deregulated in the first place) needs to at least be responsible in the bi-lateral department.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
INDUSTRY NEWS
Losses ground Saudi low-cost carrier Sama. Low-cost Saudi carrier Sama is suspending operations after the private firm failed to obtain financing from investors or government support as losses accumulated, the airline said on Sunday.
Sama said in a statement the stoppage due to begin on Tuesday would be temporary but did not say when it would resume operations.
"We were expecting an aid package from the government in the form of subsidies for fuel..., necessary support to serve (Saudi) cities covered by the compulsory service and also a gradual increase in the prices of domestic flight tickets as well as financing needed to erase accumulated losses.
"We also sought to find strategic investors willing to invest in the company and inject the needed liquidity that would allow Sama to continue operations," Sama said. "None of these solutions proved conclusive," it added.
Sama was one of three private low-cost carriers the Saudi aviation authorities have licensed to compete with national carrier Saudi Arabian Airlines.
The civil aviation authority requires low-cost carriers to cover main domestic airports. But the firms have been complaining that they were not on an equal footing with the state-owned carrier especially in the cost of fuel which the latter obtains at subsidised prices.
Sama has been flying to destinations in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Syria and Sudan, with 164 weekly flights using six Boeing 737-300aircraft, according to its website. Founded in 2005, it started commercial flights in 2007. (Source: Reuters)
Losses ground Saudi low-cost carrier Sama. Low-cost Saudi carrier Sama is suspending operations after the private firm failed to obtain financing from investors or government support as losses accumulated, the airline said on Sunday.
Sama said in a statement the stoppage due to begin on Tuesday would be temporary but did not say when it would resume operations.
"We were expecting an aid package from the government in the form of subsidies for fuel..., necessary support to serve (Saudi) cities covered by the compulsory service and also a gradual increase in the prices of domestic flight tickets as well as financing needed to erase accumulated losses.
"We also sought to find strategic investors willing to invest in the company and inject the needed liquidity that would allow Sama to continue operations," Sama said. "None of these solutions proved conclusive," it added.
Sama was one of three private low-cost carriers the Saudi aviation authorities have licensed to compete with national carrier Saudi Arabian Airlines.
The civil aviation authority requires low-cost carriers to cover main domestic airports. But the firms have been complaining that they were not on an equal footing with the state-owned carrier especially in the cost of fuel which the latter obtains at subsidised prices.
Sama has been flying to destinations in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Syria and Sudan, with 164 weekly flights using six Boeing 737-300aircraft, according to its website. Founded in 2005, it started commercial flights in 2007. (Source: Reuters)
Last edited by 777longhaul; 25th Aug 2010 at 19:21.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exacxtly Bunkhog. Well said. There needs to be a balance, and that balance already exists. More flights are not necessary. The formula should be to have a balanced relationship between countries. All aspects should be considered in a deal...not just what would benefit a ME Carrier. Maybe a few more flights will bring in more people on a ME carrier...but then maybe others would suffer. Despite what the advocates for more flights from the ME say, the advantage for the ME carriers is obvious and because those advantages are derived from a unethical basis, I am fully against any ME carrier ...period. Those that say free trade means total unfettered access to a market with no oversight do not know what the meaning of free trade actually is. If we have a free trade agreement, it doesnt mean I can come over to your house when your not home and watch your TV and eat the food out of your fridge. Damn...the stupidity abouds eh! You will always get i###s who just don't get it. 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: india
Age: 35
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless one has worked in the Arab world one shouldn't even enter this thread, this is not racist, just unless you have you just cant grasp how different the culture is, the attempts at blackmail over the Canadian base wont be seen that way in that part of the world, just normal ethics, again not racist, just the way it is.