Seattle, gateway to Whistler
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Delta Quadrant
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seattle, gateway to Whistler
There is finally mounting pushback against Canada's Air policy
This is testimony in front of the Canadian Senate,
Highlights:
Rob Howard, Member, Provincial Lead of the Air Access file, Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
As I have said, air access is critically important to my province and our nation, and it is urgent that we take steps to allow expansion of air services, passenger and cargo, especially through the Pacific Gateway. In these times of need for job creation and job protection, expanded air services offer a low-cost, low-risk, high-reward way to grow and diversify our economy, allowing us to reach our full potential, so I will present some short-term or immediate recommendations and some long-term recommended actions.
As we think about this, I ask us to keep a couple of principles in mind. The first is to view this issue through more of an economic lens. Right now, I think air access issues get tied up in Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Transportation and CBSA. Many different departments have an interest in the file. I understand that, but sometimes you lose sight of the big picture, and the big picture is economic development, growth, diversification and jobs. The economic lens is the first guiding principle I would encourage all of us to keep in mind.
Second, the process needs to be a little more open, in our view. Right now, negotiations happen behind closed doors. These are negotiations on the air service agreements. The agreements do not see the day of light, as contrasted to the U.S., where you can Google them and they are online.
As stakeholders, we do not always have a clear idea what is being negotiated and why. The term “national interest” is used a lot, and I think everyone understands that. What is national interest? Is it 5 per cent commercial and 95 per cent community, or is it 50/50? Does it change from time to time? We just do not know, and it does make it difficult for stakeholders to plan and to attack the file with a greater sense of purpose.
As we look to increase our dialogue on this file, the Blue Skies Policy was introduced in 2006. It is up for its five-year renewal, and we are asserting — asking as loudly and as clearly as we can — that stakeholders and our government have a real, genuine opportunity for input.
On the short-term list as well, you will see under “Bilateral ASAs” that we are talking about removing capacity restrictions with Taiwan. I do not think I gave this to you, but I will leave copies. We just collected a series of letters from business and organization leaders from the Taiwanese community in the province to underscore that there is pent-up demand on both the passenger and the cargo side with Taiwan.
I wanted to give you a few examples of what life is like on the airport street out in British Columbia and some examples of where we have not had success and we should be able to have success.
Singapore Airlines flew into YVR for about 20 years. They came three days a week. For them, it just did not make sense. It was kind of like operating a hotel three days a week and there were not enough options for their business travellers. They wanted to come daily. They pursued this with their federal government for a few years. They got turned down, and eventually tired of asking, they left. They pulled their service. Now I guess that traffic comes either through San Francisco or Los Angeles, but it is big loss to the community.
I know Emirates evokes some emotion, but Emirates is just another example. It wanted to come. It was just a direct, non-stop drop-off. There were no beyonds or infiltration into our system. They were told no. They went to Seattle to set up. Part of their marketing program calls themselves the “gateway to Whistler.” That almost brings tears to my eyes because that should not be allowed to happen. That is hurtful, and it would cost YVR between 20,000 and 30,000 seats per year.
I have already talked about Taiwan. There is pent up demand for cargo, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, even in my office. My office staff fly back and forth. I guess it was last May; they had to book in September to get a single ticket.
I want to speak about Air France briefly. Air France wanted to come for years. They could not. They set up in Seattle as well. Now they can come because we have signed with EU, but they have capital, people, networks and dollars invested in Seattle, and I do not know if they will come back. There are other stories.
I want to make it clear, too, that we are not talking about cabotage; we are simply talking about beyond rights and more access.
Full article
Transport, Evidence, March 28, 2012
This is testimony in front of the Canadian Senate,
Highlights:
Rob Howard, Member, Provincial Lead of the Air Access file, Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
As I have said, air access is critically important to my province and our nation, and it is urgent that we take steps to allow expansion of air services, passenger and cargo, especially through the Pacific Gateway. In these times of need for job creation and job protection, expanded air services offer a low-cost, low-risk, high-reward way to grow and diversify our economy, allowing us to reach our full potential, so I will present some short-term or immediate recommendations and some long-term recommended actions.
As we think about this, I ask us to keep a couple of principles in mind. The first is to view this issue through more of an economic lens. Right now, I think air access issues get tied up in Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Transportation and CBSA. Many different departments have an interest in the file. I understand that, but sometimes you lose sight of the big picture, and the big picture is economic development, growth, diversification and jobs. The economic lens is the first guiding principle I would encourage all of us to keep in mind.
Second, the process needs to be a little more open, in our view. Right now, negotiations happen behind closed doors. These are negotiations on the air service agreements. The agreements do not see the day of light, as contrasted to the U.S., where you can Google them and they are online.
As stakeholders, we do not always have a clear idea what is being negotiated and why. The term “national interest” is used a lot, and I think everyone understands that. What is national interest? Is it 5 per cent commercial and 95 per cent community, or is it 50/50? Does it change from time to time? We just do not know, and it does make it difficult for stakeholders to plan and to attack the file with a greater sense of purpose.
As we look to increase our dialogue on this file, the Blue Skies Policy was introduced in 2006. It is up for its five-year renewal, and we are asserting — asking as loudly and as clearly as we can — that stakeholders and our government have a real, genuine opportunity for input.
On the short-term list as well, you will see under “Bilateral ASAs” that we are talking about removing capacity restrictions with Taiwan. I do not think I gave this to you, but I will leave copies. We just collected a series of letters from business and organization leaders from the Taiwanese community in the province to underscore that there is pent-up demand on both the passenger and the cargo side with Taiwan.
I wanted to give you a few examples of what life is like on the airport street out in British Columbia and some examples of where we have not had success and we should be able to have success.
Singapore Airlines flew into YVR for about 20 years. They came three days a week. For them, it just did not make sense. It was kind of like operating a hotel three days a week and there were not enough options for their business travellers. They wanted to come daily. They pursued this with their federal government for a few years. They got turned down, and eventually tired of asking, they left. They pulled their service. Now I guess that traffic comes either through San Francisco or Los Angeles, but it is big loss to the community.
I know Emirates evokes some emotion, but Emirates is just another example. It wanted to come. It was just a direct, non-stop drop-off. There were no beyonds or infiltration into our system. They were told no. They went to Seattle to set up. Part of their marketing program calls themselves the “gateway to Whistler.” That almost brings tears to my eyes because that should not be allowed to happen. That is hurtful, and it would cost YVR between 20,000 and 30,000 seats per year.
I have already talked about Taiwan. There is pent up demand for cargo, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, even in my office. My office staff fly back and forth. I guess it was last May; they had to book in September to get a single ticket.
I want to speak about Air France briefly. Air France wanted to come for years. They could not. They set up in Seattle as well. Now they can come because we have signed with EU, but they have capital, people, networks and dollars invested in Seattle, and I do not know if they will come back. There are other stories.
I want to make it clear, too, that we are not talking about cabotage; we are simply talking about beyond rights and more access.
Full article
Transport, Evidence, March 28, 2012
Last edited by Far Rider; 25th Apr 2012 at 13:07. Reason: hyperlink not working
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but don't agree. And don't agree that it's protectionism either. If you have plane loads of emirati's... By all means come as much as you want. 10 flights a day. Otherwise it's the same old story... You guys want to eat other peoples lunches to benefit yourself.
Singapore: not enough pax for every other day-so how would daily make sense?
Taiwan: China Airlines and EVA(code share with AC) fly heavies Daily.
Lots of other major carriers sharing the pie.... LOTS. Canada just doesn't like what the UAE is trying to do. Period.
The market is open to sharing... But just looking for the right Partner. That's just the point...the UAE doesn't want partners. The want it ALL.
Singapore: not enough pax for every other day-so how would daily make sense?
Taiwan: China Airlines and EVA(code share with AC) fly heavies Daily.
Lots of other major carriers sharing the pie.... LOTS. Canada just doesn't like what the UAE is trying to do. Period.
The market is open to sharing... But just looking for the right Partner. That's just the point...the UAE doesn't want partners. The want it ALL.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: out there somewhere...
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freedom rights
I'm not sure which version of the freedoms (5th 7th 9th) are involved here...is it possible to post it here...specifically Cathay Pacific rights from HKG to YVR and on to JFK...are they able to take on pax from JFK to YVR and YVR to JFK, what about freight? Or do they just use YVR as a tech stop? It may have some impact on the denial of increased right to EK, and EY...thanks...LC
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Tundra
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 555orange
Sorry but don't agree. And don't agree that it's protectionism either. If you have plane loads of emirati's... By all means come as much as you want. 10 flights a day. Otherwise it's the same old story... You guys want to eat other peoples lunches to benefit yourself.
Singapore: not enough pax for every other day-so how would daily make sense?
Taiwan: China Airlines and EVA(code share with AC) fly heavies Daily.
Lots of other major carriers sharing the pie.... LOTS. Canada just doesn't like what the UAE is trying to do. Period.
The market is open to sharing... But just looking for the right Partner. That's just the point...the UAE doesn't want partners. The want it ALL.
Singapore: not enough pax for every other day-so how would daily make sense?
Taiwan: China Airlines and EVA(code share with AC) fly heavies Daily.
Lots of other major carriers sharing the pie.... LOTS. Canada just doesn't like what the UAE is trying to do. Period.
The market is open to sharing... But just looking for the right Partner. That's just the point...the UAE doesn't want partners. The want it ALL.
The market isn't open to sharing: AC and LH sure aren't interested. The sharing of the pie is only by a limited few, not really LOTS. Dubai has 120+ airlines flying through DXB so I wouldn't say they are keeping it ALL.
When you say Canada doesn't like what the UAE is trying to do (whatever sinister plot that is); you really mean the Harper government at the behest of AC. This is not necessarily true for Canadians.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Skiing. I believe your statement to be an oversimplification.
Canada has always been known to be fair and politically correct. Perhaps there is a small amount of pride in the national carrier to give it a fighting chance against others with different advantages, however it was never insofar as to be monopolous. No one can say the UAE has been denied access as they have heavy flights daily to the Canadian hub already. They were only denied MORE.
And if I am wrong - and you are right then why was Qatar given landing rights after Emirates denied?
Canada has always been known to be fair and politically correct. Perhaps there is a small amount of pride in the national carrier to give it a fighting chance against others with different advantages, however it was never insofar as to be monopolous. No one can say the UAE has been denied access as they have heavy flights daily to the Canadian hub already. They were only denied MORE.
And if I am wrong - and you are right then why was Qatar given landing rights after Emirates denied?
Last edited by 555orange; 22nd May 2012 at 17:37.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Tundra
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
555,
Just to be correct, Emirates does not have daily flights to YYZ. They only have 3 per week. Yes they would like daily to YYZ and also YVR and YYC.
Looking at the route structure AC has access to with LH and the Star Alliance they have daily access to Dubai India and Africa. EK would be offering an alternative to passengers for those same destinations. Why is the government denying alternative choice for pax and goods to/from these regions? Who benefits most from this policy? I would suggest the only real beneficiaries are AC and LH.
With all the Tim Hortons popping up in Dubai, there must be enough Canadian content to support more traffic! ;-)
Regarding Qatar, it is a different country altogether; separate airline and bilateral.
Just to be correct, Emirates does not have daily flights to YYZ. They only have 3 per week. Yes they would like daily to YYZ and also YVR and YYC.
Looking at the route structure AC has access to with LH and the Star Alliance they have daily access to Dubai India and Africa. EK would be offering an alternative to passengers for those same destinations. Why is the government denying alternative choice for pax and goods to/from these regions? Who benefits most from this policy? I would suggest the only real beneficiaries are AC and LH.
With all the Tim Hortons popping up in Dubai, there must be enough Canadian content to support more traffic! ;-)
Regarding Qatar, it is a different country altogether; separate airline and bilateral.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your talking semantics skiing, and that's not a good basis for your argument in my opinion. EK-EY are seen as one in the same to the market. You are an hours drive apart, and essentially serve the same market. Because you divided the 6 flights per week between you is totally up to the govt of the UAE. Qatar is largely seen as serving the same market as well, being an hour flight away, so i believe my point stands.
I cannot confirm this, but I personally believe Qatar was given rights over the UAE because firstly Qatar didn't have a piece of the pie yet, and second, Canada didn't like the way the UAE was trying to hold Canada hostage with the military base issue.
It seems to me the flights were and are there to be had, and we're given to others.
Qatar has the same intentions as the UAE when it comes to expanding their airline... And being geographically so close, and having such a similar footprint in terms of overall dynamics... The question still stands... Why give the flights to Qatar over EK-EY?
I cannot confirm this, but I personally believe Qatar was given rights over the UAE because firstly Qatar didn't have a piece of the pie yet, and second, Canada didn't like the way the UAE was trying to hold Canada hostage with the military base issue.
It seems to me the flights were and are there to be had, and we're given to others.
Qatar has the same intentions as the UAE when it comes to expanding their airline... And being geographically so close, and having such a similar footprint in terms of overall dynamics... The question still stands... Why give the flights to Qatar over EK-EY?
I appreciate the views of aviation professionals and even those who represent the interests of airports, they are of course important finacial enterprises but what really turns out wicks up when Seattle boasts that is the gateway for Whistler (where I live) is that it actually isn't.
And that is the point.
Sitting in Europe and contemplating a ski holiday, offered access to Whistler through Seattle I would plump for Colorado via Denver or somewhere else I don't have to sit on a coach for seven hours after a ten hour flight.
Sure, I resent Seattle being easier than YVR. And just how much easier? Well, I am in Vietnam at the moment. We flew from Seattle. We drove for six hours, stayed a night in hotel, twice, once each way, and still came out a good couple of hundred ahead on the travel cost.
I'd rather drive less, I'd rather spend my night in Vancouver, I prefer YVR as an airport but I saved a bundle and got two "free" nights in Seattle. It should be easy. Book your flight from your nearest major airport, but thousands, many, many thousands of people like us are flying from Bellingam or Seattle and even more are taking their holidays elsewhere and saving a bundle because of the cost etc and limited access through YVR.
Cutting our own throats, really.
And that is the point.
Sitting in Europe and contemplating a ski holiday, offered access to Whistler through Seattle I would plump for Colorado via Denver or somewhere else I don't have to sit on a coach for seven hours after a ten hour flight.
Sure, I resent Seattle being easier than YVR. And just how much easier? Well, I am in Vietnam at the moment. We flew from Seattle. We drove for six hours, stayed a night in hotel, twice, once each way, and still came out a good couple of hundred ahead on the travel cost.
I'd rather drive less, I'd rather spend my night in Vancouver, I prefer YVR as an airport but I saved a bundle and got two "free" nights in Seattle. It should be easy. Book your flight from your nearest major airport, but thousands, many, many thousands of people like us are flying from Bellingam or Seattle and even more are taking their holidays elsewhere and saving a bundle because of the cost etc and limited access through YVR.
Cutting our own throats, really.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Tundra
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
555,
Well I guess I missed the point of your post to which I initially replied:
To me that indicated the position taken by many, that EK/EY and/or Qatar should only be allowed point to point traffic. Was that an incorrect understanding of your statement?
My point is that AC/LH and many other major carriers operate hubs and funnel pax from multiple points through these hubs to many downline destinations. In fact AC is proud to state how much business they are getting from US pax flying though YYZ to international destinations. My question to you is, why should it be considered an unreasonable business practice for some select carriers to do the same?
Well I guess I missed the point of your post to which I initially replied:
If you have plane loads of emirati's... By all means come as much as you want. 10 flights a day.
My point is that AC/LH and many other major carriers operate hubs and funnel pax from multiple points through these hubs to many downline destinations. In fact AC is proud to state how much business they are getting from US pax flying though YYZ to international destinations. My question to you is, why should it be considered an unreasonable business practice for some select carriers to do the same?
Last edited by Rather Be Skiing; 23rd May 2012 at 10:30.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one was in Europe contemplating a ski holiday in North America via ANY Middle Eastern carrier, it would not be a "seven hour coach ride after a ten hour flight". The flights would first need to go through Dubai/Abu Dhabi/Qatar (about 7-8 hours), and then (using EK as example) transfer to a 14-15 hour flight to Seattle. Clear US Customs. Then the 2 hour ride to the border. Clear Canadian Customs. Then the 2 hour ride to Whistler. All assuming good traffic and weather, of course. Hope that's worth saving "a couple hundred". What's a lift ticket at Whistler these days, anyway? Costs aside, I'm not really sure how Seattle via the ME is "easier" than YVR, coming from Europe?
No one considers it an "unreasonable" business practice to funnel pax through their hub to another destination. It's a more fundamental question of how does a developed western nation with all of the costs associated, compete with a developing nation unhindered by similar costs? The answer is, they can't...any more than Nike can make shoes cheaper in Oregon than they can in China. So they (AC, or other legacy carriers) do what they can to protect themselves with regulation. Eventually it will collapse, no doubt, and the consumers will get their cheaper seats, and the workers will get their lower wages. And a few people (like the very highest management in EK) will get extraordinarily wealthy, and everyone else will make a pittance.
It's the Walmartization of the airline industry. No one cares, until it kills THEIR livelihood.
If you're going to compare apples to apples, at least all of the legacy carriers I can think of flying internationally also have a strong domestic presence in their home country. Emirates is a parasite, existing SOLELY to siphon traffic from everyone else's markets.
Bingo. And this was from one of our "allies" in the region.
No one considers it an "unreasonable" business practice to funnel pax through their hub to another destination. It's a more fundamental question of how does a developed western nation with all of the costs associated, compete with a developing nation unhindered by similar costs? The answer is, they can't...any more than Nike can make shoes cheaper in Oregon than they can in China. So they (AC, or other legacy carriers) do what they can to protect themselves with regulation. Eventually it will collapse, no doubt, and the consumers will get their cheaper seats, and the workers will get their lower wages. And a few people (like the very highest management in EK) will get extraordinarily wealthy, and everyone else will make a pittance.
It's the Walmartization of the airline industry. No one cares, until it kills THEIR livelihood.
If you're going to compare apples to apples, at least all of the legacy carriers I can think of flying internationally also have a strong domestic presence in their home country. Emirates is a parasite, existing SOLELY to siphon traffic from everyone else's markets.
I cannot confirm this, but I personally believe Qatar was given rights over the UAE because firstly Qatar didn't have a piece of the pie yet, and second, Canada didn't like the way the UAE was trying to hold Canada hostage with the military base issue.
Last edited by nolimitholdem; 23rd May 2012 at 15:51.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Between the sheets
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of Seattle being easier, I believe what the writer was referring to was that for him, as a Canadian living in/near YVR, it is significantly less expensive to fly out of Seattle, likely due to the costs imposed upon canadian travellers by the government and air canada's high cost structure. Plus the lack of competition on international routes.
I've heard some people from my hometown of winnipeg drive down to grand forks, north dakota because they can save a significant amount of money vs flying out of ywg on ac or wj.
Same for southern ontarians using buffalo as a gateway airport vs pearson.
I've heard some people from my hometown of winnipeg drive down to grand forks, north dakota because they can save a significant amount of money vs flying out of ywg on ac or wj.
Same for southern ontarians using buffalo as a gateway airport vs pearson.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Tundra
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're going to compare apples to apples, at least all of the legacy carriers I can think of flying internationally also have a strong domestic presence in their home country. Emirates is a parasite, existing SOLELY to siphon traffic from everyone else's markets.
Maybe you could propose a domestic route structure for the UAE airlines. Have you even looked at a map?
Emirates does have an extensive network in the region; routes of 40 min to 3 hours.
I guess, by your reckoning airlines like Singapore and Cathay fall into the same parasitic category?
Maybe you could propose a domestic route structure for the UAE airlines. Have you even looked at a map?
Emirates does have an extensive network in the region; routes of 40 min to 3 hours.
I guess, by your reckoning airlines like Singapore and Cathay fall into the same parasitic category?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not consider Singapore or Cathay "legacy" carriers and yes, I would put them in the same category as Emirates. And I'm quite aware of the geography and culture and employers of the UAE, having lived in Dubai for over seven years. That was my point, they were created to take traffic from other markets because they have none of their own.
But back to the debate about unfettered access to Canada's airports by foreign carriers. As long as we have something they want, they should be paying for it. Not giving it away for free. Simply because it would make someone's ski vacation easier or whatever.
But back to the debate about unfettered access to Canada's airports by foreign carriers. As long as we have something they want, they should be paying for it. Not giving it away for free. Simply because it would make someone's ski vacation easier or whatever.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Tundra
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So now the only airlines that should be allowed to exist are legacy carriers with a large enough geographical size to have a sizable domestic market?
I don't think we are discussing "unfettered" access; just increased access.
Who would they have to pay for this access? Air Canada I presume.
In the mean time those individuals and businesses not part of AC, that could benefit from more travel options are s.o.l.
Making someones 'ski vacation or whatever' easier should be a consideration. Tourism is a vital part of the Canadian economy and it is already underdeveloped so easier travel would be a benefit.
I think Rob Howard's presentation to the Senate Committee addressed it quite clearly.
I don't think we are discussing "unfettered" access; just increased access.
Who would they have to pay for this access? Air Canada I presume.
In the mean time those individuals and businesses not part of AC, that could benefit from more travel options are s.o.l.
Making someones 'ski vacation or whatever' easier should be a consideration. Tourism is a vital part of the Canadian economy and it is already underdeveloped so easier travel would be a benefit.
I think Rob Howard's presentation to the Senate Committee addressed it quite clearly.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
Regarding Cathay, not only do they share the pie through One-World, but they serve the largest population in the world. china. Or did you miss the succession?
BA has a huge domestic market of travelers, and also shares with other airlines through Skyteam I believe.
Singapore: same thing, but to a lesser degree. And did you miss your own posting that they scaled back their flights?
Regarding Cathay, not only do they share the pie through One-World, but they serve the largest population in the world. china. Or did you miss the succession?
BA has a huge domestic market of travelers, and also shares with other airlines through Skyteam I believe.
Singapore: same thing, but to a lesser degree. And did you miss your own posting that they scaled back their flights?