Emirates vs. Air Canada
Guest
Posts: n/a
UAE embassy to charge Canadians steep visa fees
Add $1000 to the price of your ticket on Emirates...
What a sad little diplomatic effort this has become.
Way to go UAE!
What a sad little diplomatic effort this has become.
Way to go UAE!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deny them overflight privileges, lose SFO, LAX, and NYC or fly the extra 3-4 hrs to go around, and see how profitable it is. Acting like the schoolyard bully only works till some one fights back.
Good Evening from "Middle Earth"
Crossed the Tasman yesterday from SYD to AKL than CHC where I am enjoying Speights Beer and Kiwi hospitality but I digress.
While waiting for the the flight to CHC in the space of a hour and a half our "friends" from the sandbox had two B-777's inbound to AKL and a A-380.
On arrival in CHC there was a B-777 from Emirates as well. In both cases it is daily service so I have been told.
New Zealand is just a little over 4 million in population and Christchurch is around 380,000 in population.
With such uplift capability what will happen to the local carriers in New Zealand read Air New Zealand. It seems the locust's are cleaning out the wheat in this part of the world so the question that begs to be asked do we want this in Canada?
Crossed the Tasman yesterday from SYD to AKL than CHC where I am enjoying Speights Beer and Kiwi hospitality but I digress.
While waiting for the the flight to CHC in the space of a hour and a half our "friends" from the sandbox had two B-777's inbound to AKL and a A-380.
On arrival in CHC there was a B-777 from Emirates as well. In both cases it is daily service so I have been told.
New Zealand is just a little over 4 million in population and Christchurch is around 380,000 in population.
With such uplift capability what will happen to the local carriers in New Zealand read Air New Zealand. It seems the locust's are cleaning out the wheat in this part of the world so the question that begs to be asked do we want this in Canada?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sounds like Cannon is telling UAE to pound sand in the kindest and most diplomatic way....
=======================
Decisions are based on what's best for Canada
Our government values an ongoing positive relationship with the UAE
By Lawrence Cannon, Canadian Foreign Minister, Special to Gulf News
Published: 00:00 January 7, 2011
In a January 3 editorial in the Gulf News, entitled ‘Harper's hometown paper attacks UAE visa policy', Deputy Managing Editor Mick O'Reilly writes about an article in a Canadian newspaper regarding the UAE.
Mr O'Reilly's article is unfortunately misleading readers by alleging that there has been no communication between the governments of the UAE and Canada on the air negotiations and base issue because UAE Ambassador to Canada Mohammad Al Gafli has not had a meeting with me.
What the article fails to acknowledge is that in the last year and a half, I have met on five occasions with my counterpart, His Highness Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to discuss these issues which are of great importance to both our countries. There have also been numerous meetings between Canadian and UAE officials.
In 2009, the UAE decided to pursue visa reciprocity with many countries, including Canada, that did not offer visa-free access to UAE citizens. Canada does not dispute the right of sovereign states to determine their own entry requirements for visitors. Canada has required visas of UAE nationals since we established diplomatic relations in 1974.
Air transport agreements
Our government makes decisions based on what is best for Canada and our economy, and what the UAE was offering was not in the best interest of Canadians. The landing rights provided under the current Canada-UAE air transport agreements meet the market demand of travellers whose origin or final destination is either Canada or the UAE. Canada looks forward to continued cooperation with states in the Gulf region to ensure that Canadians have the best options for travel.
While recognising that recent developments have disappointed both governments, Canada values an ongoing positive relationship with the UAE and believes it is in the interests of both countries to do so.
=======================
Decisions are based on what's best for Canada
Our government values an ongoing positive relationship with the UAE
By Lawrence Cannon, Canadian Foreign Minister, Special to Gulf News
Published: 00:00 January 7, 2011
In a January 3 editorial in the Gulf News, entitled ‘Harper's hometown paper attacks UAE visa policy', Deputy Managing Editor Mick O'Reilly writes about an article in a Canadian newspaper regarding the UAE.
Mr O'Reilly's article is unfortunately misleading readers by alleging that there has been no communication between the governments of the UAE and Canada on the air negotiations and base issue because UAE Ambassador to Canada Mohammad Al Gafli has not had a meeting with me.
What the article fails to acknowledge is that in the last year and a half, I have met on five occasions with my counterpart, His Highness Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to discuss these issues which are of great importance to both our countries. There have also been numerous meetings between Canadian and UAE officials.
In 2009, the UAE decided to pursue visa reciprocity with many countries, including Canada, that did not offer visa-free access to UAE citizens. Canada does not dispute the right of sovereign states to determine their own entry requirements for visitors. Canada has required visas of UAE nationals since we established diplomatic relations in 1974.
Air transport agreements
Our government makes decisions based on what is best for Canada and our economy, and what the UAE was offering was not in the best interest of Canadians. The landing rights provided under the current Canada-UAE air transport agreements meet the market demand of travellers whose origin or final destination is either Canada or the UAE. Canada looks forward to continued cooperation with states in the Gulf region to ensure that Canadians have the best options for travel.
While recognising that recent developments have disappointed both governments, Canada values an ongoing positive relationship with the UAE and believes it is in the interests of both countries to do so.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Anywhere there are cats to chase.
Age: 25
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canada: The UAE is acting like a pompous thug says Colin Kenny
Drop the gloves with UAE
Canada doesn't need to stand for the abuse coming from this tiny Mideast bully
BY COLIN KENNY, CITIZEN SPECIAL JANUARY 8, 2011
(Colin Kenny is former chair of the (Canadian) Senate Committee on (Canadian) National Security and Defence.)
The United Arab Emirates is acting like a pompous thug that thinks Canada need it. We don't, Colin Kenny writes.
The United Arab Emirates has gone into a princely snit over our refusal to grant it more landing rights in Canada for its airline, and has decided it can bully us into changing our minds. I suggest that we push back, firmly, because the UAE has not realized that Canada has options, too.
(Colin has no idea what he is dealing with)
Why does the UAE so desperately want more landing rights? Because it has bought a lot of big fat aircraft as part of its decade-long, oil-fuelled spending spree, and needs to fill seats by moving North Americans through Dubai to the Middle East and Asia.
When the Canadian government refused, the UAE proceeded to: a) kick Canada out of our staging base for Afghanistan that was located on UAE soil; b) refuse our minister of national defence and our chief of the defence staff permission to fly through its airspace after they were in the air; and c) introduced the need for expensive visas for any Canadian wishing to visit their country.
Here's what I think we should consider in response: a) void the landing rights UAE airlines already have; b) forbid them to fly in Canadian air space; c) slow down the processing of visas for anyone from the UAE who wants to visit Canada; and d) tell them to convince us that nobody connected to any of the Emirates' royal families is supporting antiwestern terrorist activities.
Why would I want to drop the gloves in dealing with the UAE? Because I think they're essentially a bunch of pompous thugs behaving like Canadians need them. We don't, and somebody should show them they can't treat us like the second-class citizens they hire to do virtually all the work in their seven fiefdoms.
(Thanks for making the lives of 27,000 Canadians living in the UAE that much more complicated)
I am well aware that some critics argue that the Canadian government has been heavy handed in dealing with the UAE, as though we weren't properly versed in the delicate ways one must handle trumped up royals.
I say we should deal with them the same way we did when they got haughty about the Canadian Forces flight-training program for the UAE Air Force. That program was going fine until some member of a royal family flunked his flight test, and still wanted to be given qualifications to fly an aircraft. Our military wisely cancelled the training program when the UAE told us that members and friends of a royal family should not be allowed to fail.
Wait, you say. Weren't the seven families who so ruthlessly rule the UAE being jolly good chaps when they offered us a military base on their soil? Well it wasn't quite soil -- it was unoccupied sand. And let's keep in mind that our troops were using that stretch of sand to try to defuse terrorism in the region, with only the tiniest military contribution of about 200 "special forces" from the UAE.
Rich oil countries like the UAE should be doing a lot more to combat terrorism than they are. It isn't just democracies like Canada and the United States that need to fear al-Qaeda and the like. These outfits are also sworn enemies of the ruling classes in places like Saudi Arabia, and yes, the United Arab Emirates. The fact that the UAE was so quick to expel Canada from Camp Mirage for as small a matter as a disagreement over landing rights in Canada suggests a haughty and short-sighted indifference to whether the world succeeds in abating terrorism.
Maybe they're not indifferent. Maybe they like to play both sides of the street when it comes to terrorism. I have spoken to several intelligence sources who are adamant that leadership within the United Arab Emirates -- while posing as friends to NATO -- have been pouring money into terrorist movements throughout the Middle East. So we should reward that kind of duplicity with additional landing rights?
Canada is a civilized country trying to do two things on the international front: promote its own interests, (read: save Air Canada at all costs) and create a fairer, more civilized world. There is nothing fair or civilized about the UAE, nor are things improving. Foreign workers, mostly from Asia, outnumber privileged citizens by a ratio of about four to one, and are notoriously badly treated. This really is a country run by royal thugs, without democracy, free press, free assembly, or any semblance of human rights. (They don't even broadcast HNIC for crying out loud!)
Even if we were just thinking selfishly about promoting the financial interests of Canadians, what does the UAE have to offer? We don't need their oil, and the economy of their show state of Dubai is a bubble just waiting to burst for the second time. (They do, however, employ a $hitloa& of pilots who would otherwise be unemployed and thus a burden to the tax-paying citizens of the nation... That or working at Reno Depot.)
The UAE argues that denying its airlines more landing rights in Canada amounts to unfair protectionism of our own airlines, most notably, Air Canada. But why not protect against unfair competition? The UAE has two state-subsidized airlines (Not so. The airlines borrowed to start up and have paid off the debt. They are cash cows and NOT subsidized by the govt. The fuel is all from Singapore. UAE fuel has a sulpher content that is too high for jet fuel refinement) that have bought themselves a bevy of huge aircraft that are eating a hole in the national treasury. They staff the airlines with underpriced help that can be fired at whim, and offer discounts on their visas if you fly on those airlines. Why kill off some Canadian jobs to the benefit of the high-spending UAE treasury.
Finally, it should be noted that five years ago the U.S. Congress decided that it wouldn't allow the UAE to manage American ports through a state-owned company called Dubai Ports World. Well, you know what? Dubai Ports World owns the company that runs container and break bulk terminals at the Port of Vancouver.
Note to the princes: "You want to keep that Vancouver contract and your current landing rights? Well then write us a letter within 30 days pledging that nobody connected to the royal families running your totalitarian governments is funding antiwestern terrorists, and we'll check that out with our intelligence people. And meanwhile, start showing us some respect."
("Whew, I'm glad you got THAT off your chest Colin, we'll meet again next week for your next session...)
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Canada doesn't need to stand for the abuse coming from this tiny Mideast bully
BY COLIN KENNY, CITIZEN SPECIAL JANUARY 8, 2011
(Colin Kenny is former chair of the (Canadian) Senate Committee on (Canadian) National Security and Defence.)
The United Arab Emirates is acting like a pompous thug that thinks Canada need it. We don't, Colin Kenny writes.
The United Arab Emirates has gone into a princely snit over our refusal to grant it more landing rights in Canada for its airline, and has decided it can bully us into changing our minds. I suggest that we push back, firmly, because the UAE has not realized that Canada has options, too.
(Colin has no idea what he is dealing with)
Why does the UAE so desperately want more landing rights? Because it has bought a lot of big fat aircraft as part of its decade-long, oil-fuelled spending spree, and needs to fill seats by moving North Americans through Dubai to the Middle East and Asia.
When the Canadian government refused, the UAE proceeded to: a) kick Canada out of our staging base for Afghanistan that was located on UAE soil; b) refuse our minister of national defence and our chief of the defence staff permission to fly through its airspace after they were in the air; and c) introduced the need for expensive visas for any Canadian wishing to visit their country.
Here's what I think we should consider in response: a) void the landing rights UAE airlines already have; b) forbid them to fly in Canadian air space; c) slow down the processing of visas for anyone from the UAE who wants to visit Canada; and d) tell them to convince us that nobody connected to any of the Emirates' royal families is supporting antiwestern terrorist activities.
Why would I want to drop the gloves in dealing with the UAE? Because I think they're essentially a bunch of pompous thugs behaving like Canadians need them. We don't, and somebody should show them they can't treat us like the second-class citizens they hire to do virtually all the work in their seven fiefdoms.
(Thanks for making the lives of 27,000 Canadians living in the UAE that much more complicated)
I am well aware that some critics argue that the Canadian government has been heavy handed in dealing with the UAE, as though we weren't properly versed in the delicate ways one must handle trumped up royals.
I say we should deal with them the same way we did when they got haughty about the Canadian Forces flight-training program for the UAE Air Force. That program was going fine until some member of a royal family flunked his flight test, and still wanted to be given qualifications to fly an aircraft. Our military wisely cancelled the training program when the UAE told us that members and friends of a royal family should not be allowed to fail.
Wait, you say. Weren't the seven families who so ruthlessly rule the UAE being jolly good chaps when they offered us a military base on their soil? Well it wasn't quite soil -- it was unoccupied sand. And let's keep in mind that our troops were using that stretch of sand to try to defuse terrorism in the region, with only the tiniest military contribution of about 200 "special forces" from the UAE.
Rich oil countries like the UAE should be doing a lot more to combat terrorism than they are. It isn't just democracies like Canada and the United States that need to fear al-Qaeda and the like. These outfits are also sworn enemies of the ruling classes in places like Saudi Arabia, and yes, the United Arab Emirates. The fact that the UAE was so quick to expel Canada from Camp Mirage for as small a matter as a disagreement over landing rights in Canada suggests a haughty and short-sighted indifference to whether the world succeeds in abating terrorism.
Maybe they're not indifferent. Maybe they like to play both sides of the street when it comes to terrorism. I have spoken to several intelligence sources who are adamant that leadership within the United Arab Emirates -- while posing as friends to NATO -- have been pouring money into terrorist movements throughout the Middle East. So we should reward that kind of duplicity with additional landing rights?
Canada is a civilized country trying to do two things on the international front: promote its own interests, (read: save Air Canada at all costs) and create a fairer, more civilized world. There is nothing fair or civilized about the UAE, nor are things improving. Foreign workers, mostly from Asia, outnumber privileged citizens by a ratio of about four to one, and are notoriously badly treated. This really is a country run by royal thugs, without democracy, free press, free assembly, or any semblance of human rights. (They don't even broadcast HNIC for crying out loud!)
Even if we were just thinking selfishly about promoting the financial interests of Canadians, what does the UAE have to offer? We don't need their oil, and the economy of their show state of Dubai is a bubble just waiting to burst for the second time. (They do, however, employ a $hitloa& of pilots who would otherwise be unemployed and thus a burden to the tax-paying citizens of the nation... That or working at Reno Depot.)
The UAE argues that denying its airlines more landing rights in Canada amounts to unfair protectionism of our own airlines, most notably, Air Canada. But why not protect against unfair competition? The UAE has two state-subsidized airlines (Not so. The airlines borrowed to start up and have paid off the debt. They are cash cows and NOT subsidized by the govt. The fuel is all from Singapore. UAE fuel has a sulpher content that is too high for jet fuel refinement) that have bought themselves a bevy of huge aircraft that are eating a hole in the national treasury. They staff the airlines with underpriced help that can be fired at whim, and offer discounts on their visas if you fly on those airlines. Why kill off some Canadian jobs to the benefit of the high-spending UAE treasury.
Finally, it should be noted that five years ago the U.S. Congress decided that it wouldn't allow the UAE to manage American ports through a state-owned company called Dubai Ports World. Well, you know what? Dubai Ports World owns the company that runs container and break bulk terminals at the Port of Vancouver.
Note to the princes: "You want to keep that Vancouver contract and your current landing rights? Well then write us a letter within 30 days pledging that nobody connected to the royal families running your totalitarian governments is funding antiwestern terrorists, and we'll check that out with our intelligence people. And meanwhile, start showing us some respect."
("Whew, I'm glad you got THAT off your chest Colin, we'll meet again next week for your next session...)
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Last edited by troff; 8th Jan 2011 at 19:55. Reason: spelling, eh?
I understand the discomfort this issue is making for you and the other Canucks who are working there, but you are over there of your own free will and the government has to consider others beyond our expats when they deal with this issue.
Agree with him or not, Colin Kenny is speaking for many Canadians on this issue (and not just Air Canada employees). Personally, I am not one of them. I would not encourage such a harsh response. I think our government has shown great restraint and I would encourage them to continue to do so. Bullies don't tend to react well to bullying in return. It may take longer, but they tend to react better to a quiet and firm resolve stating that their victims won't back down.
Agree with him or not, Colin Kenny is speaking for many Canadians on this issue (and not just Air Canada employees). Personally, I am not one of them. I would not encourage such a harsh response. I think our government has shown great restraint and I would encourage them to continue to do so. Bullies don't tend to react well to bullying in return. It may take longer, but they tend to react better to a quiet and firm resolve stating that their victims won't back down.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(They do, however, employ a $hitloa& of pilots who would otherwise be unemployed and thus a burden to the tax-paying citizens of the nation... That or working at Reno Depot.)
Well troff, I'm impressed that you are concerned for our tax-paying citizens. Maybe you could tell us how much tax YOU pay to Canada to alleviate our burden. Why do I get the impression your opposition to Canada's position has more to do with personal gain (yours) as opposed to principle.
Well troff, I'm impressed that you are concerned for our tax-paying citizens. Maybe you could tell us how much tax YOU pay to Canada to alleviate our burden. Why do I get the impression your opposition to Canada's position has more to do with personal gain (yours) as opposed to principle.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to see how the 27,000 (non-tax paying) Canadians in the UAE are being inconvenienced by the governments refusal to give the bully more landing rights in Canada. Currently there is enough capcity to move ALL of them to and from Canada every 9 weeks.
There simply isn't the demand for point to point traffic between Canada and Dubai to warrant more flights.
Personally I would love to see Canada close the airspace for a week and see what happens. Its a long way to most of North America if you can't come over Canada......
There simply isn't the demand for point to point traffic between Canada and Dubai to warrant more flights.
Personally I would love to see Canada close the airspace for a week and see what happens. Its a long way to most of North America if you can't come over Canada......
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: YYZ
Age: 38
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi everyone,
I like to follow these topics, but hardly post. Like everyone, I've got an opinion on this hot-button topic too.
In brief: I think EK and EY should be permitted the extra landing rights, but that the CDN govt should also negotiate something binding that is guaranteed to contribute to the Cdn economy, not just the EK marketing spin of jobs created. (e.g.: invest in aviation infrastructure in Canada; EK built a ATC Tower in Auckland). Considering that in exchange for the YYZ landing rights, Canadian carriers had excellent reciprocal rights into AUH and DXB, it seemed like a good deal...as long as Air Canada was willing to up its game and play hard with the new international big boys. Emirates flys widebodies like taxicabs into Australia, but QANTAS didn't cry much, they took it in stride, stayed competitive, and remain profitable.
.
Now, although both governments have been silly in this episode, I think it's worth keeping all the political issues in context as well.
The landing rights is a perfect cover story for the much bigger political mess in the background.
I'd like to mention that the Ottawa Citizen piece comes off as very immature. The author writes like he is half drunk and giving one gigantic middle finger to the entire UAE without any consideration for context, background that goes back more than a month, or foresight for future relations. Cut all access to UAE airlines over Canadian airspace? Is he insane? Disprove connections to terrorism? This is a tagged-on-argument of convenience. If you start opening a can of worms like that, Canada's policies on a number of issues can be debated. In fact almost every government is shady in some way, be it developed, developing, or 3rd world. E.g.: why is PIA being allowed to fly to YYZ? I don't think it's much of a secret that Pakistan is a mess and is playing with both sides of the war in Afghanistan.
As far as AC is concerned...
Should I support Air Canada because I am Canadian? Having flown Etihad last year, in economy, I must say that Air Canada is seriously lagging behind in service, food, IFE, passenger comfort, and the entire flight experience in general. When I do fly AC, their magazine usually touts their award of best North American Airline for how many ever years-in-a-row. Well, when you are comparing yourself to AA, Delta etc, it's like comparing apples to half-eaten rotten apples. What did the government have to say about AC trying to screw Porter when AC realized that Porter had a profitable business model out of YTZ? Nothing. AC was allowed to walk into YTZ after abandoning it years earlier. Any competition to AC is bad apparently.
Canadians as a whole have been brainwashed to be content with high taxes and low competition. In everyday life, this means high prices for cars, gasoline, food, homes, everything...all in the name of some kind of nationalism. If troff is an expat and not paying any taxes to the Cdn government, good for him. He's probably been taxed to death enough and can finally put away some money in the bank. The amount of tax money (your money, my money, Air Canada's money) WASTED in this country is mind boggling. There's a story about it in the CBC news every few weeks, and that's just the news that makes it out.
Canadians are desperate for increased competition. The consumer here is screwed around everyday. When it's cheaper to fly internationally than domestically, something is wrong.
If the CDN Govt can somehow negotiate guaranteed economic benefit in exchange for the landing rights, then its a win-win-WIN for the Emirates, Cdn govt, and importantly the Canadian flyer. That's what I'm for.
Sadly the entire issue is now getting ridiculous. See the latest letter by Tim Clark to Harper.
That was a mouthful! Yes I sort of vented all my thoughts at once. Thanks for anyone who actually read the whole thing.
Cheers.
I like to follow these topics, but hardly post. Like everyone, I've got an opinion on this hot-button topic too.
In brief: I think EK and EY should be permitted the extra landing rights, but that the CDN govt should also negotiate something binding that is guaranteed to contribute to the Cdn economy, not just the EK marketing spin of jobs created. (e.g.: invest in aviation infrastructure in Canada; EK built a ATC Tower in Auckland). Considering that in exchange for the YYZ landing rights, Canadian carriers had excellent reciprocal rights into AUH and DXB, it seemed like a good deal...as long as Air Canada was willing to up its game and play hard with the new international big boys. Emirates flys widebodies like taxicabs into Australia, but QANTAS didn't cry much, they took it in stride, stayed competitive, and remain profitable.
.
Now, although both governments have been silly in this episode, I think it's worth keeping all the political issues in context as well.
The landing rights is a perfect cover story for the much bigger political mess in the background.
In case you didn't know, here's a quick bit of background:
-Mossad assassinated a Hamas official in Dubai with a team of hitmen (early 2010)
-At least one FAKE Canadian passport was used by an assassin
-Canada arrested a suspect in Canada, linked to the killing (initially not in the news) and the UAE confirmed that a 'western' nation arrested a suspect
----
Context required here: Canada's PM Stephen Harper LOVES Israel. Both countries have right wing nutjobs in power at the moment. Their relationship is extremely cozy. Admitting that Canada arrested an Israeli (Mossad agent) in the assassination using a FAKE Canadian passport would be very embarrassing. The suspect is apparently released and the issue isn't brought up for some time. Simply put, that's unacceptable.
----
-UAE is pissed off.
-Harper tells a Jewish Conference in Ottawa, something to the effect that "as long as he's PM of Canada, Israel has a friend and ally, no matter what the consequences"
-everyone shakes their head and goes WTF? For such a politically charged region of the world, giving unequivocal support for one side is idiotic, and that too from a country known for neutrality and diplomacy. Not so much now...
The consequences begin:
-Canada is kicked off Camp Mirage. Actual cost is $300M/year, but Canada leased it for free. Landing rights to Defence minister's jet is denied.
-Canada is kicked off the UN Security Council (by influence from UAE towards voting members). Extra embarrassing: Canada sent RCMP officers with bottles of Maple Syrup to distribute to diplomats to thank them and celebrate Canada's expected victory. All RCMP and maple syrup returns home.
-Visas i.e. $$$ required for Canadians and many other countries visiting the UAE. Making people pay out of their pockets will get their attention.
And here we are now. This is not simply an issue of landing rights, there are major political differences in the background that the media fails to keep in context when bringing up the landing rights. It's naive to think that Canada was kicked off a military base for not allowing more of its planes to land.-Mossad assassinated a Hamas official in Dubai with a team of hitmen (early 2010)
-At least one FAKE Canadian passport was used by an assassin
-Canada arrested a suspect in Canada, linked to the killing (initially not in the news) and the UAE confirmed that a 'western' nation arrested a suspect
----
Context required here: Canada's PM Stephen Harper LOVES Israel. Both countries have right wing nutjobs in power at the moment. Their relationship is extremely cozy. Admitting that Canada arrested an Israeli (Mossad agent) in the assassination using a FAKE Canadian passport would be very embarrassing. The suspect is apparently released and the issue isn't brought up for some time. Simply put, that's unacceptable.
----
-UAE is pissed off.
-Harper tells a Jewish Conference in Ottawa, something to the effect that "as long as he's PM of Canada, Israel has a friend and ally, no matter what the consequences"
-everyone shakes their head and goes WTF? For such a politically charged region of the world, giving unequivocal support for one side is idiotic, and that too from a country known for neutrality and diplomacy. Not so much now...
The consequences begin:
-Canada is kicked off Camp Mirage. Actual cost is $300M/year, but Canada leased it for free. Landing rights to Defence minister's jet is denied.
-Canada is kicked off the UN Security Council (by influence from UAE towards voting members). Extra embarrassing: Canada sent RCMP officers with bottles of Maple Syrup to distribute to diplomats to thank them and celebrate Canada's expected victory. All RCMP and maple syrup returns home.
-Visas i.e. $$$ required for Canadians and many other countries visiting the UAE. Making people pay out of their pockets will get their attention.
I'd like to mention that the Ottawa Citizen piece comes off as very immature. The author writes like he is half drunk and giving one gigantic middle finger to the entire UAE without any consideration for context, background that goes back more than a month, or foresight for future relations. Cut all access to UAE airlines over Canadian airspace? Is he insane? Disprove connections to terrorism? This is a tagged-on-argument of convenience. If you start opening a can of worms like that, Canada's policies on a number of issues can be debated. In fact almost every government is shady in some way, be it developed, developing, or 3rd world. E.g.: why is PIA being allowed to fly to YYZ? I don't think it's much of a secret that Pakistan is a mess and is playing with both sides of the war in Afghanistan.
As far as AC is concerned...
Should I support Air Canada because I am Canadian? Having flown Etihad last year, in economy, I must say that Air Canada is seriously lagging behind in service, food, IFE, passenger comfort, and the entire flight experience in general. When I do fly AC, their magazine usually touts their award of best North American Airline for how many ever years-in-a-row. Well, when you are comparing yourself to AA, Delta etc, it's like comparing apples to half-eaten rotten apples. What did the government have to say about AC trying to screw Porter when AC realized that Porter had a profitable business model out of YTZ? Nothing. AC was allowed to walk into YTZ after abandoning it years earlier. Any competition to AC is bad apparently.
Canadians as a whole have been brainwashed to be content with high taxes and low competition. In everyday life, this means high prices for cars, gasoline, food, homes, everything...all in the name of some kind of nationalism. If troff is an expat and not paying any taxes to the Cdn government, good for him. He's probably been taxed to death enough and can finally put away some money in the bank. The amount of tax money (your money, my money, Air Canada's money) WASTED in this country is mind boggling. There's a story about it in the CBC news every few weeks, and that's just the news that makes it out.
Canadians are desperate for increased competition. The consumer here is screwed around everyday. When it's cheaper to fly internationally than domestically, something is wrong.
If the CDN Govt can somehow negotiate guaranteed economic benefit in exchange for the landing rights, then its a win-win-WIN for the Emirates, Cdn govt, and importantly the Canadian flyer. That's what I'm for.
Sadly the entire issue is now getting ridiculous. See the latest letter by Tim Clark to Harper.
That was a mouthful! Yes I sort of vented all my thoughts at once. Thanks for anyone who actually read the whole thing.
Cheers.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few things I would like to point out....
How many airlines that used to fly into Australia either no longer fly there or have drastically reduced their flights since Emirates started flying "widebody's like taxicabs" into and out of Aus? It would appear that the consumer now have few choices than they used to have....
Porter is not making money out of YTZ. They have yet to turn a profit and have a load factor barely over %50.
There are several reasons it is cheaper to fly internationally. One is simply a matter of scale. You can put far more people in a 777 than in an EMB yet you still need ground support for both. (ramp support, gate support, catering etc etc.) Even taking into account the higher costs of operating the 777, the overall cost per pax, per mile will be less on a long overseas flight.
Second and in my mind the largest problem is the matter you already touched on, TAXES. Have you looked at the the landing fees in Canada? YYZ is the most expensive airport in the world to operate from. Have you looked at the NAVCANADA fees to operate in Canadian Airspace? Almost every airport in Canada has added its own AIF. In some cases it is as high as an extra $30 for every pax. Add in the already high government taxes and you have situations where the taxes and fees are more than the actual price of the ticket!
As for Air Canada's inflight service I will say you are not comparing apples to apples. Air Canada is heavily restricted by their union contracts and the labour laws in Canada. They can't fire their FA if they don't like the way they look, act, dress. They certainly can't fire them for being to old, to fat, unattractive or even for being to snarly to pax. Yes they may get a letter on their file, but in a union environment you would damn near have to kill someone to be fired. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is a fact of working with an airline based in a country that actually has labour laws...
The IFE at Air Canada has a slightly smaller screen and no interactive games but I would hardly call it "seriously behind" its competion. It still has hours of movies, TV shows, and music all of which can be started, stopped, rewound to your hearts content.
As for you PIA comments.. They are not pushing for more slots in Canada and they certainly aren't resorting to the kind of political BS that is currently going on.
This is not about shutting Emirates out of Canada. This is about ensuring that there is enough capacity between Canada and Dubai to satisfy the point to point traffic. In the governments opinion there is. The fact that Emirates wants more access so they can get extra pax to Asia and beyond is not the Canadian governments problem...
How many airlines that used to fly into Australia either no longer fly there or have drastically reduced their flights since Emirates started flying "widebody's like taxicabs" into and out of Aus? It would appear that the consumer now have few choices than they used to have....
Porter is not making money out of YTZ. They have yet to turn a profit and have a load factor barely over %50.
There are several reasons it is cheaper to fly internationally. One is simply a matter of scale. You can put far more people in a 777 than in an EMB yet you still need ground support for both. (ramp support, gate support, catering etc etc.) Even taking into account the higher costs of operating the 777, the overall cost per pax, per mile will be less on a long overseas flight.
Second and in my mind the largest problem is the matter you already touched on, TAXES. Have you looked at the the landing fees in Canada? YYZ is the most expensive airport in the world to operate from. Have you looked at the NAVCANADA fees to operate in Canadian Airspace? Almost every airport in Canada has added its own AIF. In some cases it is as high as an extra $30 for every pax. Add in the already high government taxes and you have situations where the taxes and fees are more than the actual price of the ticket!
As for Air Canada's inflight service I will say you are not comparing apples to apples. Air Canada is heavily restricted by their union contracts and the labour laws in Canada. They can't fire their FA if they don't like the way they look, act, dress. They certainly can't fire them for being to old, to fat, unattractive or even for being to snarly to pax. Yes they may get a letter on their file, but in a union environment you would damn near have to kill someone to be fired. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is a fact of working with an airline based in a country that actually has labour laws...
The IFE at Air Canada has a slightly smaller screen and no interactive games but I would hardly call it "seriously behind" its competion. It still has hours of movies, TV shows, and music all of which can be started, stopped, rewound to your hearts content.
As for you PIA comments.. They are not pushing for more slots in Canada and they certainly aren't resorting to the kind of political BS that is currently going on.
This is not about shutting Emirates out of Canada. This is about ensuring that there is enough capacity between Canada and Dubai to satisfy the point to point traffic. In the governments opinion there is. The fact that Emirates wants more access so they can get extra pax to Asia and beyond is not the Canadian governments problem...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sandbox
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello everyone,
Below is an editorial from the Star.com.
But first a few thoughts.
I have been sitting on the sidelines watching this unfold. There are a couple of things that should be pointed out.
bcflyer, one of your statements points to the hypocrisy of AC. They are using point to point flying as the reason to block this. Yet their real reason for blocking this is NOT point to point. This fight is to allow through flying to Dubai, through one of their alliance partners hubs. If anyone does not think that Lufthansa is in this fight up to their necks, they are naive. This is being fought because the alliance knows they can not compete with better service on a shorter journey. (the stop in europe is eliminated)
Also, your implication that a unionized staff is a justifiable reason for substandard service is not acceptable. Are you saying that AC can not compete with a non union airline and therefore the non union airline should be barred from competing? I have ridden AC on both domestic and international routes and will never do so again.
I also remember when AC proposed the tie up with Emirates. Emirates rightly refused. Why should EK give 50% of the profits to AC when EK is doing most of the work.
UAE citizens have NEVER had the right to enter Canada on a "visa on arrival program", they have always had to pre apply. The process takes 3-4 weeks. Canadians have had the right to come to the UAE and get visa on arrival for years. After several requests from the UAE government, all ignored by Canada, the UAE government started requiring the same from Canadians as Canada requires of Emiratis; they must now pre apply for a visa.
____________________________________________________________ _______
Siddiqui: Air Canada’s hypocrisy on UAE exposed
Published On Wed Jan 12 2011EmailPrint
Share6Rss Article
By Haroon Siddiqui
Editorial Page
There once was a healthy relationship, steadily going strong. But it turned sour. Now there’s constant sniping. The bad blood has already cost Canadian taxpayers at least $300 million. An annual trade of $1.5 billion is also at risk. So are the fortunes of the 200 Canadian companies with offices in the United Arab Emirates, Canada’s largest trading partner in the Middle East and North Africa.
The penalties come courtesy of Stephen Harper. He wouldn’t allow Emirates and Etihad Airways to increase flights to Canada, ostensibly to protect Air Canada.
But I have a 2006 document in which Air Canada proposed a partnership with Emirates. It called for a coordinated schedule between Canada and Dubai, starting with a daily Dubai-Toronto flight and expanding to other cities. It asked Emirates to operate its own aircraft on the routes. It even suggested flight times to maximize connections with Air Canada.
But Air Canada demanded 50 per cent of the profits, having made minimal investment and taken little or no risk.
Emirates declined. It continued patiently negotiating with Ottawa to upgrade its thrice-weekly Toronto flights to daily, and also fly to Calgary and Vancouver. Etihad also wanted daily flights to Toronto.
They were backed by the governments of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, as well as business and consumer groups.
But Air Canada balked, saying passenger loads do not justify more flights and that letting Arab airlines “swamp” Canada would mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.
In fact, additional airline traffic always creates more jobs. An Emirates study shows its new flights would add 1,900 jobs and $26 million in taxes.
Besides, if Air Canada thought there was commercial potential for additional flights in 2006, why does it now argue otherwise, even though traffic has gone up exponentially since?
It accuses Emirates and Etihad of being “subsidized.” They deny it. The world’s largest accounting firm agrees. And with Ottawa protecting Air Canada routes and shielding it from foreign competition, Air Canada is hardly in a position to point fingers at others.
Air Canada does not fly to Dubai or Abu Dhabi, or points beyond in Africa or Asia where the two UAE airlines are taking Canadian passengers, especially India.
Air Canada wants to force them onto its own feeder routes to Europe and deliver them to Star Alliance partners, principally Lufthansa, for onward journeys.
Harper dragged negotiations on for four years, ending them abruptly. His ministers spurned face-to-face meetings with UAE ministers and diplomats. He rejected a long-standing UAE request to extend reciprocity to Emirati citizens to enter Canada visa-free.
Fed up, the UAE imposed a visa on Canadians. Worse, it booted Canada out of Camp Mirage, which we had been using free of charge since 2001 to fly troops and equipment into and out of Afghanistan. It’s the loss of that transit point that will cost Canadians $300 million and more in alternate facilities.
Peeved, Harper accused the UAE of sabotaging the war on terror, linking crass commercial interest to that holy mission, and being unworthy of Canada’s friendship.
The UAE is being given “the full Harper” — pushed around and insulted, says Bob Rae, the Liberal foreign affairs critic.
Rae visited UAE last week, at his own expense, to see if he could help. In his blog Monday, he said: “It is surely an ironic twist that the old Reform party and Stephen Harper have become advocates of closed skies and pure and simple protectionism . . . Air Canada is now being treated as a company to be defended at all costs.”
Indeed, it is being protected at the cost of the far greater national trade and geopolitical interests.
The Harperites lost no time in accusing Rae of being a bad Canadian, sucking up to Arab “royals.”
Taking a cue from the Conservatives, Air Canada’s Duncan Dee took cheap shots at Rae as well.
It’s outrageous that the chief operating officer of a company that relies on Ottawa and must work with all parliamentary parties is entering partisan politics.
All this is instructive at a time when many Canadians are bemoaning the loss of political civility south of the border.
Haroon Siddiqui is the Star's editorial page editor emeritus. His column appears on Thursday and Sunday. [email protected]
Below is an editorial from the Star.com.
But first a few thoughts.
I have been sitting on the sidelines watching this unfold. There are a couple of things that should be pointed out.
bcflyer, one of your statements points to the hypocrisy of AC. They are using point to point flying as the reason to block this. Yet their real reason for blocking this is NOT point to point. This fight is to allow through flying to Dubai, through one of their alliance partners hubs. If anyone does not think that Lufthansa is in this fight up to their necks, they are naive. This is being fought because the alliance knows they can not compete with better service on a shorter journey. (the stop in europe is eliminated)
Also, your implication that a unionized staff is a justifiable reason for substandard service is not acceptable. Are you saying that AC can not compete with a non union airline and therefore the non union airline should be barred from competing? I have ridden AC on both domestic and international routes and will never do so again.
I also remember when AC proposed the tie up with Emirates. Emirates rightly refused. Why should EK give 50% of the profits to AC when EK is doing most of the work.
UAE citizens have NEVER had the right to enter Canada on a "visa on arrival program", they have always had to pre apply. The process takes 3-4 weeks. Canadians have had the right to come to the UAE and get visa on arrival for years. After several requests from the UAE government, all ignored by Canada, the UAE government started requiring the same from Canadians as Canada requires of Emiratis; they must now pre apply for a visa.
____________________________________________________________ _______
Siddiqui: Air Canada’s hypocrisy on UAE exposed
Published On Wed Jan 12 2011EmailPrint
Share6Rss Article
By Haroon Siddiqui
Editorial Page
There once was a healthy relationship, steadily going strong. But it turned sour. Now there’s constant sniping. The bad blood has already cost Canadian taxpayers at least $300 million. An annual trade of $1.5 billion is also at risk. So are the fortunes of the 200 Canadian companies with offices in the United Arab Emirates, Canada’s largest trading partner in the Middle East and North Africa.
The penalties come courtesy of Stephen Harper. He wouldn’t allow Emirates and Etihad Airways to increase flights to Canada, ostensibly to protect Air Canada.
But I have a 2006 document in which Air Canada proposed a partnership with Emirates. It called for a coordinated schedule between Canada and Dubai, starting with a daily Dubai-Toronto flight and expanding to other cities. It asked Emirates to operate its own aircraft on the routes. It even suggested flight times to maximize connections with Air Canada.
But Air Canada demanded 50 per cent of the profits, having made minimal investment and taken little or no risk.
Emirates declined. It continued patiently negotiating with Ottawa to upgrade its thrice-weekly Toronto flights to daily, and also fly to Calgary and Vancouver. Etihad also wanted daily flights to Toronto.
They were backed by the governments of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, as well as business and consumer groups.
But Air Canada balked, saying passenger loads do not justify more flights and that letting Arab airlines “swamp” Canada would mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.
In fact, additional airline traffic always creates more jobs. An Emirates study shows its new flights would add 1,900 jobs and $26 million in taxes.
Besides, if Air Canada thought there was commercial potential for additional flights in 2006, why does it now argue otherwise, even though traffic has gone up exponentially since?
It accuses Emirates and Etihad of being “subsidized.” They deny it. The world’s largest accounting firm agrees. And with Ottawa protecting Air Canada routes and shielding it from foreign competition, Air Canada is hardly in a position to point fingers at others.
Air Canada does not fly to Dubai or Abu Dhabi, or points beyond in Africa or Asia where the two UAE airlines are taking Canadian passengers, especially India.
Air Canada wants to force them onto its own feeder routes to Europe and deliver them to Star Alliance partners, principally Lufthansa, for onward journeys.
Harper dragged negotiations on for four years, ending them abruptly. His ministers spurned face-to-face meetings with UAE ministers and diplomats. He rejected a long-standing UAE request to extend reciprocity to Emirati citizens to enter Canada visa-free.
Fed up, the UAE imposed a visa on Canadians. Worse, it booted Canada out of Camp Mirage, which we had been using free of charge since 2001 to fly troops and equipment into and out of Afghanistan. It’s the loss of that transit point that will cost Canadians $300 million and more in alternate facilities.
Peeved, Harper accused the UAE of sabotaging the war on terror, linking crass commercial interest to that holy mission, and being unworthy of Canada’s friendship.
The UAE is being given “the full Harper” — pushed around and insulted, says Bob Rae, the Liberal foreign affairs critic.
Rae visited UAE last week, at his own expense, to see if he could help. In his blog Monday, he said: “It is surely an ironic twist that the old Reform party and Stephen Harper have become advocates of closed skies and pure and simple protectionism . . . Air Canada is now being treated as a company to be defended at all costs.”
Indeed, it is being protected at the cost of the far greater national trade and geopolitical interests.
The Harperites lost no time in accusing Rae of being a bad Canadian, sucking up to Arab “royals.”
Taking a cue from the Conservatives, Air Canada’s Duncan Dee took cheap shots at Rae as well.
It’s outrageous that the chief operating officer of a company that relies on Ottawa and must work with all parliamentary parties is entering partisan politics.
All this is instructive at a time when many Canadians are bemoaning the loss of political civility south of the border.
Haroon Siddiqui is the Star's editorial page editor emeritus. His column appears on Thursday and Sunday. [email protected]
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow you guys really think that Air Canada is controlling the government in this country? Everyone seems to think that because Air Canada doesn't want them to have extra landing rights then the government just says "OK" and denies it? Give your heads a shake. If that was the case then BA, Air France, Cathay, China Airlines ect etc wouldn't have any flights to this country at all.
After all the people on this forum seem to think that Air Canada just has to whine a bit and the government does their bidding. Why allow any competition at all? There are alot of airlines that fly into Canada, fly to destinations that Air Canada doesn't serve, who aren't in the Star Alliance.
My comments about the union enviroment was simply to show that it is much easier to have a young, energized workforce when you can get rid of them when they get old or disgruntled. That is not an excuse, it's a fact. Its also a fact that the average traveller will remember a pretty 24yr old flight attendant over a 60 yr old flight attendant regardless of the service they get. AC's inflight service has improved by leaps and bounds the last 5-10 years and is miles better than a few complainers would want you to believe.
The article you reprinted is written by someone who obviously has alterior motives (have a look at the name of the author) or no idea idea of what is really happening in aviation in Canada. To just blindly accept that Emirates having up to 10 or 15 more flights a week to Canada will somehow create 1900 extra jobs and 26 million in taxes is a perfect example of how naive some people can be. Show me to proof. Break that down for us so we can see exactly where those 1900 jobs and all that money will come from. Numbers can be twisted to show whatever you want.
After all the people on this forum seem to think that Air Canada just has to whine a bit and the government does their bidding. Why allow any competition at all? There are alot of airlines that fly into Canada, fly to destinations that Air Canada doesn't serve, who aren't in the Star Alliance.
My comments about the union enviroment was simply to show that it is much easier to have a young, energized workforce when you can get rid of them when they get old or disgruntled. That is not an excuse, it's a fact. Its also a fact that the average traveller will remember a pretty 24yr old flight attendant over a 60 yr old flight attendant regardless of the service they get. AC's inflight service has improved by leaps and bounds the last 5-10 years and is miles better than a few complainers would want you to believe.
The article you reprinted is written by someone who obviously has alterior motives (have a look at the name of the author) or no idea idea of what is really happening in aviation in Canada. To just blindly accept that Emirates having up to 10 or 15 more flights a week to Canada will somehow create 1900 extra jobs and 26 million in taxes is a perfect example of how naive some people can be. Show me to proof. Break that down for us so we can see exactly where those 1900 jobs and all that money will come from. Numbers can be twisted to show whatever you want.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bcflyer, as requested, check out this link to a post by Contacted on another forum: http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/43...ml#post6174818.
Please pay particular attention to the link from the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce (I presume by your handle that you may well give them at least a modicum of credibility despite the fact that they blow your theories out the water?).British Columbia Chamber of Commerce - Advocacy & Policy
when you are ready, please feel free to come back and admit that you were short sighted in your opinion
Please pay particular attention to the link from the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce (I presume by your handle that you may well give them at least a modicum of credibility despite the fact that they blow your theories out the water?).British Columbia Chamber of Commerce - Advocacy & Policy
when you are ready, please feel free to come back and admit that you were short sighted in your opinion
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: YYZ
Age: 38
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bcflyer:
You're right, sorry, I should have checked my figures. My point, however, remains. Even flying their planes only half full, operating out of an airport abandoned by AC, was Porter's business that threatening to warrant Air Canada fighting to operate out of YTZ again and trying to kill Porter? That's bully tactics. Emirates flying to Australia may have halted some service from other int'l carriers flying there, but here Air Canada is cannibalizing its own domestic competition. At the end of the day, money talks and businesses are ruthless.
Exactly! That's a problem. Is YYZ still trying to recover the airport redevelopment cost from 05/06? Landing here is unattractive to all airlines, yet they keep coming for all the traffic. There are options that can make YYZ a massive, attractive, money making hub. The market here is so lucrative.
Ok I was exaggerating a bit. I'd love to fast forward, too bad the little arrow pointer is never calibrated, zing! In my last 5 or 6 flights on Air Canada, the in-flight map did not work, more an annoyance. Selling headphones to make a few bucks looks cheap for a flag carrier airline. On long haul flights, the food/service is no match to EY. Based on that experience, I would fly EY again, even if AUH itself needs to improve. It's the market deciding for itself.
Context please. I responded with the PIA example to the Ottawa Citizen piece, which said that the UAE should disprove connections to terrorism, implying that should be a factor in giving Canadian airspace rights to EK and EY. If that's the case, PIA would have a hard time defending itself, and by that author's logic, PIA should be banned from using our airspace.
Regarding the labour, yes the labour laws are vastly different. The UAE's (and developing world in general) labour laws are what they are: unfair and with little respect for people. But people from E.Europe and S.Asia go to the M.East in droves, they have their reasons but that's a whole other topic.
Neither AC nor EK/EY are making it a secret that the battle is about connecting traffic. Obviously there is enough capacity right now for point-to-point between Canada and UAE. But why not let the consumer decide? Isn't it interesting that despite AC or its Star Alliance partners offerings through Europe, Emirates still flies with almost full A380s while charging much higher ticket prices? As a passenger to India, I would prefer one long flight to AUH or DXB and then a quick hop to any number of destinations with excellent frequency. You must admit that the UAE is geographically the perfect hub for India traffic.
That Toronto Star opinion piece is as 'balanced' as the Citizen's, but raises good points, especially the earlier proposed AC-EK alliance. Again I don't buy Emirates' claims of instant job creation, but I think they should do some investment in Canadian aviation infrastructure in exchange for such a lucrative market.
100% agree. Remember it goes both ways. AC and the gov't think daily flights from the UAE will affect "literally tens of thousands of jobs in Canada." Really? Break down that vague figure for me please.
As much as I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to the Canadian Gov't, the Conservatives in power have disappointed non-stop on domestic and international issues. Here's the latest: Harper questions the UAE as an ally, UAE wants apology. This is not diplomacy. How does Harper have the gall to question the UAE as an ally after the complete failure of his government to act with any decency following the Dubai assassination?
As before, I maintain that the UAE and Canada can negotiate something mutually beneficial, and Canadians flying there and onwards would quickly realize the benefits. But as things stand, and by the way they're going, this mess is only going to degrade relations further.
Oh by the way, a follow up to my first post: Canadians are also screwed daily by the telecom duopoly that exists here.
Porter is not making money out of YTZ. They have yet to turn a profit and have a load factor barely over %50.
YYZ is the most expensive airport in the world to operate from. Have you looked at the NAVCANADA fees to operate in Canadian Airspace?
The IFE at Air Canada has a slightly smaller screen and no interactive games but I would hardly call it "seriously behind" its competion. It still has hours of movies, TV shows, and music all of which can be started, stopped, rewound to your hearts content.
As for you PIA comments.. They are not pushing for more slots in Canada and they certainly aren't resorting to the kind of political BS that is currently going on.
Regarding the labour, yes the labour laws are vastly different. The UAE's (and developing world in general) labour laws are what they are: unfair and with little respect for people. But people from E.Europe and S.Asia go to the M.East in droves, they have their reasons but that's a whole other topic.
Neither AC nor EK/EY are making it a secret that the battle is about connecting traffic. Obviously there is enough capacity right now for point-to-point between Canada and UAE. But why not let the consumer decide? Isn't it interesting that despite AC or its Star Alliance partners offerings through Europe, Emirates still flies with almost full A380s while charging much higher ticket prices? As a passenger to India, I would prefer one long flight to AUH or DXB and then a quick hop to any number of destinations with excellent frequency. You must admit that the UAE is geographically the perfect hub for India traffic.
That Toronto Star opinion piece is as 'balanced' as the Citizen's, but raises good points, especially the earlier proposed AC-EK alliance. Again I don't buy Emirates' claims of instant job creation, but I think they should do some investment in Canadian aviation infrastructure in exchange for such a lucrative market.
Numbers can be twisted to show whatever you want.
As much as I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to the Canadian Gov't, the Conservatives in power have disappointed non-stop on domestic and international issues. Here's the latest: Harper questions the UAE as an ally, UAE wants apology. This is not diplomacy. How does Harper have the gall to question the UAE as an ally after the complete failure of his government to act with any decency following the Dubai assassination?
As before, I maintain that the UAE and Canada can negotiate something mutually beneficial, and Canadians flying there and onwards would quickly realize the benefits. But as things stand, and by the way they're going, this mess is only going to degrade relations further.
Oh by the way, a follow up to my first post: Canadians are also screwed daily by the telecom duopoly that exists here.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To just blindly accept that Emirates having up to 10 or 15 more flights a week to Canada will somehow create 1900 extra jobs and 26 million in taxes is a perfect example of how naive some people can be
Porter is not making money out of YTZ. They have yet to turn a profit and have a load factor barely over %50.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I admire democracies & patriotism...so let the Canadian consumer decide where they want to spend their dime. Its completely in the spirit of freedom of choice for them to pick their beloved Air Canada over the competition -oh wait, maybe the Canadian consumer wont pick Air Canada because of its tired product & service.
And why is the product outdated and lethargic? Simple' because they will never innovate if they know they are protected - because they dont have to attract customers with their product, the government will deliver the customers through policy...and for that the demise of a once competitive and admired airline will continue.
And that my friends is sad
f.
And why is the product outdated and lethargic? Simple' because they will never innovate if they know they are protected - because they dont have to attract customers with their product, the government will deliver the customers through policy...and for that the demise of a once competitive and admired airline will continue.
And that my friends is sad
f.