|
Emirates vs. Air Canada
The other perspective of Air Canada's plight....
Angry words fly as Emirates eyes Canada - The National Newspaper |
Here are my reservations:
How many high paying jobs will Emirates bring to Canada? My guess is none. All the decent Pilot jobs will still be offshore in Dubai and Canadians will get the low paying positions loading planes and selling tickets. These are jobs but not high paying jobs that are necessarily attractive to the government who is looking to protect their tax base. If the a particular route is overserved, it becomes a game of which airline has the deepest pockets. In a Emirates vs AC battle, AC does not have the deepest pockets. I can see AC cutting frequency if Emirates picks up Canadian destinations. If that happens the high paying Canadian based Pilot positions will disappear and so will the Canadian income taxes for those positions. You can try to characterize this as a Emirates vs AC fight if you wish but it really is a case of a Canadian government protecting their income tax base. Last point: Issuing threats on a Canadian base in UAE really leaves a bad taste in Canadians mouths. Whoever though it was a good idea should be fired. Reports: UAE threatens to boot Canadian military base over airline flight dispute Canadians are putting their lives on the line to stabilize that part of the world. For the emirates to attempt to advance their commercial interests by using UAE bases as a stick will backfire IMVHO. Canadians consumers and the government do not like it. |
The transport agency does not seem to be ruling in the interests of ordinary Canadians. |
Also being discussed in the Middle East forum here
http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/40...ek-canada.html As I said on that thread...there has never been any such thing as "fair" competition in the history of aviation. What is so different about this scenario for Air Canada. Or have they never benefitted over the years from any underhand dealings or special treatment? BTW I am not anti Air Canada....I just think they are being a bit hypocritical. |
Unless one has worked in the Arab world one shouldnt even enter this thread, this is not racist, just unless you have you just cant grasp how different the culture is, the attempts at blackmail over the Canadian base wont be seen that way in that part of the world, just normall ethics, again not racist, just the way it is.
|
Indeed, certain "pressures" have been used in an attempt to buy Emirates some leverage. A recent story in Canadian media gives a slightly different perspective.
UAE talks jeopardize Canada's Mideast base From the article: But it seems Emirates' efforts have gained the support of the UAE governments as well, who are now leveraging Canada's base in the Middle East as a pawn in the dispute. Ottawa has known about the ultimatum since December, when staff from International Trade, Foreign Affairs, the Department of Defence and Transport Canada were made aware of the situation.... It is not the first time the UAE has used Camp Mirage as a pawn in its talks with Ottawa. And like previous failed efforts during the Chretien administration, the Harper government is expected to react as coolly, the government source said.
"This government does not respond well to having a gun pointed at its head." |
Ques 1:
Which Emirates destinations in North America have great circle routes which pass thru Canadian airspace on their way to DXB? Ans: IAH SFO LAX JFK YYZ Ques 2: What happened to Aeroflot during a 2003 Canada-Russian airspace dispute? Ans: Nov 2003... The dispute began last month when Russian authorities refused permission for Air Canada to fly over Russian airspace on a new nonstop route from Toronto to New Delhi. The Russian government claimed the flights do not meet the terms of an aviation treaty signed in 2000, but Air Canada believes it was refused permission to prevent the airline from competing with Russian carriers. In response, the Canadian government banned all flights passing over Canada by Russian carrier Aeroflot, including flights from Russia to the U.S., and it cut Aeroflot's Moscow-Toronto flights from four a week to two. In another tit-for-tat move, Russia canceled Air Canada's overflight rights for its Vancouver-Beijing route. "We believe under the [bilateral] agreement we have every right to use [the route over Russia], but Russia disagrees with our interpretation," Chen said... In the end Russia backed down because they could not afford the cost to divert around Canadian airspace. Ques 3: Who is in the drivers seat here, Canada or Dubai? I hope cooler heads prevail...if the base gets closed Emirates entire north american operation is going to become a money losing operation. What do you think? |
and it cut Aeroflot's Moscow-Toronto flights from four a week to two |
Do you understand that the "UAE base" threat is laughable?
No UAE base = no emirates overflights over Canada All emirates has done is make the Canadian government angry. Whoever lobbied for this at emirates should be fired for incompetence. |
Tough call, both are hypocritical and are only looking to serve their own best interests. AC has a history of bullying and below the belt business practices. EK is a cold hearted money machine with a far superior product. Interesting to see how things transpire....
|
Tough call, both are hypocritical and are only looking to serve their own best interests. I fail to see the hypocrisy in defending Canadian jobs and questioning the economic benefits that emirates says these additional routes will bring to Canada. I think the high paying pilot jobs will be exported to Dubai and the ramp attendant and ticket agent jobs will stay in Canada. If a pilot job moves offshore the Canadian government will collect less income tax and a Canadian community will lose the economic benefit of having a high income earner residing there. That will be the effect of a foreign airline dumping capacity into a Canadian city. emirates adds capacity, someone else drops capacity/frequency. In this case AC is the target but emirates has done this in other parts of the world. As to the UAE base threat, it isn't a threat at all. It's an attempt to tie emirates commercial interests to Canada's military support in Afghanistan. I resent the connection as I am sure most Canadians do. It seems to me emirates is the hypocrite in this case. emirates cannot claim to want to serve Canadians and threaten their troop deployment at the same time. My guess is the UAE base is safe as long as emirates has a desire to overfly Canadian airspace, but the damage of the emirates/base threat is done. |
WxGeek your forcast sucks
WXgeek
You've made numerous posts on this subject that either demonstrate you are mis-informed about what you are talking about or that you are intentionally spreading dis-information about this topic. Yes everybody is entitled to their own opinion but, the truth is not something you can shuffle away in your simple argument that in this matter everything boils down to a question of self interest. Your reservations about the affects that a truly open skies policy with the UAE would represent are baseless as are your assertions that the UAE has ever made threats against Canada with regards to its military base in the UAE. While I'm at this point may I say that the UAE does not have a military base in Canada, and I wonder aloud how Canadians would respond to this country having such a base in Canada? Getting back to your repeated assertion that the UAE has somehow threatened, or seeks to blackmail Canada with closing it's base in the UAE, you are absolutely wrong and just a quick google search for those who want to know what is really going on will reveal. You have chosen to confide in statements made, principally in the National Post newspaper, by a foreign affairs spokesman (and quoted in J.O.'s post) who says in an either an incredible show of stupidity or misunderstanding, that quote "the Canadain government does not respond well to having a gun pointed at its head" This laughable statement, is not an uncommon example from the Harper government with regards to foreign affairs. Surely this is an opinion that most Canadians do not share, because it is based on a lie. At no time has the UAE "threatened" Canada with regards to it's base in the UAE. What was put forth by the government of the UAE if you care to research what you spend much time writing about, was simply this. If Canada was interested in renewing it's lease on its base within the UAE (which expires soon) that better access to Canadian markets by UAE airlines would have to be considered. End of story. That is a threat Wxgeek?? You talk of defending Canadian jobs? Well there are literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of Canadian employed by the two major airlines in the UAE. Emirates and Etihad. Both whom I might add, fly to Toronto, the only destination allowed by the current Canadian government. All these Canadians I guarantee you do not reside in the UAE because they love living in the middle east. They were forced to look for jobs there by the lack of them in Canada. So much for your tax base argument. What is even more ironic to your argument is that now these Canadians and their families, constantly travel back to Canada to escape the region's unbearable summers and spend their hard earned money in Canada, making jobs for Canadians in Canada, and paying GST, and taxes on their rented homes which I can assure you they desperately long to return too. Protect high paying pilot jobs in Canada? you must be joking, entry level pilot positions with Canada's two major airlines pay less than a senior flight attendant or ramp worker, or gate agent at Air Canada. Your dumping argument is a joke, or one maliciously skewed to protect only Canada's competitive advantage. Why is your vitriol not pointed at KLM, who serve many Canadian destinations, and in return Air Canada (only) serves AMS? or the UK's airlines a small nation who's airlines also serve numerous Canadian cities for our access to only one important destination LHR? Your capacity argument is a joke, load factors for both Emirates and Etihad are extremely high. Adding more flights would not change this, or would mean that these two airlines don't have any commercial sense something I seriously doubt. Get your information correct, The UAE has open skies agreements in place with many countries that are much more economically important with regards to trade to the UAE than Canada. For example Germany, who had a open skies agreement for years and yet has a very, very successful airline industry borne out of their fearless competitive attitude. Not one like Canada's where a single near monopoly airline dictates to the Canadian people what is good for us in terms of our access to air travel. Canadian consumers like fair prices, a competitive market, and access to the world. Funny and quite contrary to what you say the only parties that have uttered threats and seek to anger Canadians, are it's government and it's largest and most would say, most uncompetitive airline. six |
Six7driver took the time to make some good points...
And Wxgeek do you think AC thought of canadian jobs each time they tried to bury Canadian Airlines? or any other competitor? There would be some higher paying manager jobs associated with and EK expansion, not just lower paying front line jobs. AC and it's employees are simply worried about a competitor to which it would be challenging to compete. Perhaps it would be better for eveyone if AC was forced to up it's game and provide a better product and more competitive pricing. |
67d... I don't understand your comparison about if UAE had a military base in Canada? As if you are saying UAE would march in and establish one for no particular reason? Hmm... aren't you missing the point that Canada's base is not self serving? The comparison does not make sense. And your right... renewing military base (which serves the world, not particularily Canada)... you can bring that to the negot table, but then Canada has every right to bring your overflight permits. In fact leave the military base out of it...and lets just increase your overflight fees just so you can keep your 3 flights a week. How about that?
balances and measures. Lets not fall too far on one side of the tree. Everyone has a right to protect their self interests. If Emirates wants more flights into Canada, they have to anti up something. Cant get something for nothing. Canada is at a competitive disadvantage like most all developed western countries, becaues of the taxes it has, as well as the higher civil costs being a very strong democratic country. This all costs ALOT of money. So there is a reason western countries have to apply a little bit of market protection. Because they cannot compete with the "cold dark money machines" of the middle east. The renewing military base chip? Forget it man. Low level jobs due to additional flights? Forget it. Canadians got lots of those already. Offer something significant. How about Emirates open up a crew base in Toronto? Bring all those N American crews you mentioned there and benefit Canada with the taxes and then you can have your 2 more flights a week. Sound good? :) |
six7driver:
Try this one on for size. I know we've had a mutually beneficial arrangement for years, but I'm changing the rules. If you want to continue working here, you're going to have to agree to give us work more hours for less money. Otherwise, you're out of here. Does that not sound like a threat to you? :rolleyes: |
J.O. no actually it sounds like my current job, but that's another story.
Roll your eyes all you want, what I said in my post is true, the only threat this kind of statement could constitute would be one against the protectionist trade stance of a government, whose policy is distorted by a small minority (in this case the management and big unions of a large airline). This unfounded fear, given the many examples of successful open skies agreements that have been signed by the UAE and other countries, only benefits a small number of Canadians who don't want fair competition. Do the research, this article will help. EMIRATES AIRLINE | Canada in line for $480 million windfall from new Emirates flights. 555 Orange, you missed the entire point of my argument I'm not arguing for the benefit of Emirates or Etihad or the UAE, I'm arguing for the benefit of my country Canada. $480 million in benefits for Canada is not significant enough for you? Show me the contrary and I'll see the point in your opinion. Odd, that I don't find any studies showing that an agreement of this kind with the UAE would be detrimental to Canada's interests, you would have thought that if this was the case it would have been made by many more groups than just Air Canada. The basing comparison does not make sense to you? it's simple so I'll repeat if for your benefit. It's a hypothetical situation, you follow? what would the public perception be in Canada about a country that is granted a lease on a military airport in Canada (take any country) and yet for no logical reasons stifles your ambitions to trade with it by limiting commercial access to its commercial airports, while Canada has given it unlimited access to its commercial airports. Would Canada's government not feel obliged to bring this to the attention of the other country, in light of its failure to seek fair trading practices with it? Your response 555 is not measured or balanced, the UAE has anted enough for a commercial agreement. $480 million + in benefits for the Canadian economy, unfettered access to its airways and airports for any Canadian airline and, a safe place for Canada's military to conduct its important mission in the region, what more do you want? What has Canada offered so far? You said it - Toronto access to Etihad and Emirates and use of its airspace - so who has to ante up? (this is not a battle between Emirates airlines and Canada's government) the only one who wants the public to have that perception is the loud uncompetitive voices at Air Canada. We, the majority of Canadians are positive people. I view Canada's tax policies, and strong democratic values not as a competitive disadvantage and I would argue the opposite, we have nothing to fear from cold dark money machines anywhere, we can compete and win with the best in the world. I don't want anything for Emirates or Etihad, I want what's best for my country, Canada, :ok: |
Everyone has a right to protect their self interests. Canada is at a competitive disadvantage What are we saying here? That Air Canada shouldn't have to compete on any route it serves? It is up against a big bad money machine of the middle east?. How about those nasty chapter 11 US carriers that still get to fly even though they are/were bankrupt? Or those European carriers that are in the same alliance as you but gosh they fly on the same routes! The airline industry is and always has been about competition. |
I'll admit, I am anti-AC. I'm ex-Jazz, current EK, so connect the dots. But nonetheless, I discuss this issue with guys from around the globe so it doesn't really matter. Look at Aus. Is Quantas dead/gone? Did Quantas decide to compete with Emirates on any Aus/Dubai sectors? Listen, if AC /is so scared, let them put a 777 on the YYZ/DXB sector and fight it out. Say what you want about lower costs for ground crew (true, obviously and what do you want to do, defend $20/hr for guys who load bags?), but regardless of that, the inflight product of AC just can't compare to EK. AC defenders know that. I know that, I'm Canadian. AC would lose on that route and the routes that connect to Dubai. Hence the issue. Does anyone not get it?
|
six7driver:
The "article" you suggest we use as research so that we'll agree with you is not an article at all. It is a news release that originated from Emirates itself, not from an independent source that has validated the benefits that are being claimed. Find an article that validates it and I will consider it. Until then I will take it for what it is, just another form of advertising. :hmm: |
The proof is in the pudding
Read the press release carefully friend. Quite clearly it states
InterVISTAS, whose clients number airports, airlines and governments around the world, including Transport Canada, concluded the study in early 2010. The research examined the impact of Emirates increasing its current three-weekly Dubai to Toronto flights to daily and double-daily services, and adding a daily service to Vancouver and Calgary. The study showed that expanding Emirates' services would produce the following benefits for Canada: - 274,927 new passengers travelling through Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver airports annually - 2,859 new full-time jobs created across Canada - $115.4 million in new economic activity at airports in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver annually - $82.6 million in new tourism spending annually - An additional $246 million in new spin-off economic activity across Canada annually - $38.1 million in new tax revenue annually and... The increased air services would also create additional revenue for Canadian airports as no Canadian carrier currently offers these air services," said Dr. Michael Tretheway of InterVISTAS Consulting, the authors of the study. and... About InterVistas The InterVISTAS Consulting Group is a leading management consulting company with extensive expertise in the transportation and tourism industries. InterVISTAS has offices in Canada, the United States, Europe and the Caribbean, and have completed projects with clients in 60 countries worldwide. Fact Sheet ---------- Economic Benefit of Increased Emirates Airlines Flights to Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daily service to Toronto - 61,027 new passengers on the route annually - 709 new full-time jobs - $30.3M in new direct economic activity at Pearson International Airport - $18.5M in new direct tourism spending - An additional $60.9M in new spin-off economic activity annually - $10.3M in new direct tax revenues Double-daily service to Toronto - 154,818 new passengers on the route annually - 1550 new full-time jobs - $57.6M in new direct economic activity at Pearson International Airport - $46.8M in new direct tourism spending - An additional $120.4M in new spin-off economic activity annually - $21.6M in new direct tax revenues Daily service to Calgary - 69,141 new passengers on the route annually - 620 new full-time jobs - $26.0M in new direct economic activity at Calgary International Airport - $20.4M in new direct tourism spending - An additional $62.7M in new spin-off economic activity annually - $8.2M in new direct tax revenues Daily service to Vancouver - 50,968 new passengers on the route - 689 new full-time jobs - $31.8M in new direct economic activity at Vancouver International Airport - $15.4M in new direct tourism spending - An additional $62.9M in new spin-off economic activity annually - $8.3M in new direct tax revenues (Source: InterVISTAS, Economic Impact Study for Emirates Airline: Additional Flights between Dubai and Canada, February 2010) Either it's the most elaborate advertising scheme I've ever seen, or it's an independent economic impact study...which it is dude...yes commissioned by Emirates (Air Canada could commission their own independent study too if they wanted, but don't for obvious reasons). are you still not convinced it is not advertising but an independent economic study J.O.? now I get to roll my eyes :rolleyes: cheers, six |
Out of interest, why don't Air Canada have a direct flight to Dubai?
The market is obviously there...the demand is there (Emirates are not flying empty at the moment...neither are Etihad). Do they not have the airframes? Are they constrained by the Star Alliance? |
Dubai is not the destination, it's just a connecting hub to EK's other destinations. This is part of what AC is pissed about. Mind you, it says a lot of AC's service standards when a passenger would be happier flying to Europe - via Dubai - opposed to AC's direct flight (just an example).
|
Well this has certainly been an interesting thread.
Being a past AC pilot and now at EK I just have to jump in here. (I am soon to be out of EK though, hopefully by year end.) I will first say that I AM NOT defending AC. I'll be the first to admit that their service is questionable at best. I also agree that their pilots/mechanics contracts are pathetic and their ground staff, gate agents, cabin grannies are WAY over compensated for the aforementioned lousy service. Mister 767 Driver,.. "If Canada was interested in renewing it's lease on its base within the UAE (which expires soon) that better access to Canadian markets by UAE airlines would have to be considered. End of story. That is a threat Wxgeek??" If you can't see that as an absolute DIRECT threat, then what is? You also seem to state that Canada actually has a "base" in the UAE. Well, not quite, they rent space at Minhad, not far from Dubai. This is a UAE base. And as correctly stated by others, this is hardly a "self serving" operation on the part of Canadians or their government. The end result of Canadian troops being in the UAE has a direct benefit for the whole Middle East region. The threat itself though is rediculous, but very typical for this part of the world. The lease WILL be signed if and when Canada wants it. If it is refused by the UAE gov't, then Canada's operation in Afghanistan will be jeopardized. What do you think the other countries involved in the Afghan mission will say to UAE government when they receive word that the lease has been cancelled....? (Think USA here!! The UAE is attempting to hit well above it's weight in this case. They will be told exactly where they stand.) "While I'm at this point may I say that the UAE does not have a military base in Canada, and I wonder aloud how Canadians would respond to this country having such a base in Canada" Sorry to repeat the above, but, Canada does not have a base in the UAE. It is a lease to use part of the existing base. "You talk of defending Canadian jobs? Well there are literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of Canadian employed by the two major airlines in the UAE. Emirates and Etihad. Both whom I might add, fly to Toronto, the only destination allowed by the current Canadian government. All these Canadians I guarantee you do not reside in the UAE because they love living in the middle east. They were forced to look for jobs there by the lack of them in Canada. So much for your tax base argument. What is even more ironic to your argument is that now these Canadians and their families, constantly travel back to Canada to escape the region's unbearable summers and spend their hard earned money in Canada, making jobs for Canadians in Canada, and paying GST, and taxes on their rented homes which I can assure you they desperately long to return too" I'll agree in part to this. Yes, there are hundred's of Canadian's working for these airlines, not thousand's. Some actually enjoy living here (not me). And yes, most moved here for the money, as did I. "Not one like Canada's where a single near monopoly airline dictates to the Canadian people what is good for us in terms of our access to air travel" Yes, AC promote's that line. "Dictate's" is a bit strong. It's a hypothetical situation, you follow? what would the public perception be in Canada about a country that is granted a lease on a military airport in Canada (take any country) and yet for no logical reasons stifles your ambitions to trade with it by limiting commercial access to its commercial airports, while Canada has given it unlimited access to its commercial airports. Would Canada's government not feel obliged to bring this to the attention of the other country, in light of its failure to seek fair trading practices with it. ..No, they'd have no right whatsoever, not if the situation was the same as it is. However, you say.. "and yet for no logical reasons" ..I'll bring this little gem up later!! Do the research, this article will help. EMIRATES AIRLINE | Canada in line for $480 million windfall from new Emirates flights. This article, which you use on a couple of occasions is as you correctly state, sanctioned (paid for) by EK. Having worked for this company for years now, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Emirates Airline had at least some part to play in the results of this "independent" report. I do not believe for a second that this was not the case. Emirates, and Dubai, are the best marketing organizations I have ever seen, bar none. Like I said, I've worked here for years. And yes I also realize that "Non-commercial" entities have used them as well, I.E. Transport Canada. I would also doubt that this was the only organization they approached. They just picked the one that served their interest's best. The article also mentions about extra tourism dollars and cargo capacity. Well, yes the extra cargo capacity will no doubt improve. The 380 is pretty much useless when it comes to carrying cargo, just talk to the ground staff in YYZ. The 777, the aircraft that was on DXB-YYZ previous, is far more capable. But...extra tourism? Not likely. EK carries INDIANS!! All around the world. From the "old country" to their new home. Without India, EK would be virtually empty. Walk through the cabin on ANY flight...same thing. Doesn't matter if it's IAH, YYZ, NYC, LHR, BOM..whatever. DXB is a tranxfer point, and yes many Indians prefer travelling EK to their own carriers. All EK would be doing is taking them back and forth. Tourism dollars? Not much. Either it's the most elaborate advertising scheme I've ever seen, or it's an independent economic impact study...which it is dude...yes commission by Emirates (Air Canada could commission their own independent study too if they wanted, but don't for obvious reasons). are you still not convinced it is not advertising but an independent economic study J.O.? Emirates is all about advertising, they are the best. However, your point about AC..yup they probably should hire somebody who makes the argument for them..just like EK did. Married a Canadian,.. BTW I am not anti Air Canada....I just think they are being a bit hypocritical You would be hard pressed to find a more hypocritical part of the world than here, in the Middle East. Air Canada is not even close... How about those nasty chapter 11 US carriers that still get to fly even though they are/were bankrupt It's kind of moot, but they are/were under "bankruptcy protection". Air Canada operated for well over a year doing the same. Mister 767 Driver.. (this is not a battle between Emirates airlines and Canada's government) the only one who wants the public to have that perception is the loud uncompetitive voices at Air Canada. We, the majority of Canadians are positive people. I view Canada's tax policies, and strong democratic values not as a competitive disadvantage and I would argue the opposite, we have nothing to fear from cold dark money machines anywhere, we can compete and win with the best in the world. I don't want anything for Emirates or Etihad, I want what's best for my country, Canada ..and from your quote above... ..and yet for no logical reasons.. I would be the first to acknowledge and agree that AC would not stand a chance against EK on a strictly commercial level. And I beleive this should be a battle between the Canadian gov't and the UAE government. All you require is to get Foreign Affairs' opinion on the UAE itself. From worker's rights, to human rights, the right of free speech (believe me just opening your mouth here gets you in jail. The UAE government shut down one of the local newspapers for six weeks in 2007 because they didn't like what was printed) and the right of association (ok, I'm not particularly a union fan, but this place really needs some!!) EK changes T+C's on a regular basis. So do other companies here. Many workers (you'll notice the term I've just used...'worker's) still have to hand in their passport's, with no recourse. This place is very different from the PERCEPTION. But..the advert campaign for Dubai adn EK is without question AMAZING. It fooled me. Again, I am not supporting AC in this case, but I certainly will not promote the commercial aspirations of the very company I presently work for. I also admit that other western countries should probably be doing more as well. But, if you say that you want the best for your country Canada, I would say you haven't included a few things that are very important in this argument. Jinglie'd |
Well said....
Your so full of it 76. You are obviously not serving "your people" but your own self interests. Proof of the pudding is your comment on supporting UAE to close the Canadian base so you can get what you want. So don't muddy the water by confusing people which side of the fence your on. I support our Canadian troops and the efforts of the world in Afganistan etc. Don't you? Shame on you for bringing this up.Dont sellout of your own people for your own benefit. I don't know much about either company, but I do say that if Emirates and who ever else wants to fly more, I support it, but it has to come to the table with more than just a self study that shows 480 million in small stuff. 480 mill is a pittance when this stuff is concerned. Besides, that is 480 mil that will be robbed from other sources. Not created anew. I vote to protect a measure of what is in place. I say AirC should fly to Dubai every other day, not Emirates. Actually, isn't Emirates in a bit of trouble now? Isnt there another carrier over there that is taking over? I heard that it has more money and even better all round. Having worked in Korea snd Hong Kong I have come to appreciate greatly the civil right and liberties that Canada stands for. its not perfect, but its a far sight better than other places I have been. It takes effort and money and some measure of protection. So sorry about that. I say lets do it, but not with a crap estimate by Emirates. If you want it, it will cost you some. The base in Canada is a great idea I thought! Don't you support that as a Canadian? But then we know why thats not an option right...because then Emirates would be liable in the courts of Canada for any labour indiscresion etc etc. Also, it would have to pay income tax to Canada, and also some consistency in labor practices. It wouldn't want that. So you want your cake and eat it too ... sorry! Just not going to happen mate. How about a code share? |
Another article on this topic:
Canada, Australia, Emirates & Etihad: Case study of protectionism vs liberalism. Who’s got it right? | Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation Some interesting points raised. |
jinglied...good post thankyou.
How about those nasty chapter 11 US carriers that still get to fly even though they are/were bankrupt It's kind of moot, but they are/were under "bankruptcy protection". Air Canada operated for well over a year doing the same. So Air Canada have the "advantage" of being able to **** up their business model and yet still compete against other airlines on their routes, or try to put them out of business (as has happened in canadian aviation). Middle East oil money against Govt intervention/Chapter 11 protection. Neither are fair to carriers that don't have either. Jabewar Interesting article. The only error I could see is I don't think Air Canada have ANY direct flights to India out of YYZ. Do they codeshare with Air India? Air India goes via EGLL at the moment. So again I make the point....Why don't Air Canada compete on a route that has NUMEROUS bodies waiting to be flown? 555orange I don't know much about either company, but I do say that if Emirates and who ever else wants to fly more, I support it, but it has to come to the table with more than just a self study that shows 480 million in small stuff. 480 mill is a pittance when this stuff is concerned. Besides, that is 480 mil that will be robbed from other sources. Not created anew. I vote to protect a measure of what is in place. I say AirC should fly to Dubai every other day, not Emirates. The article Jabewar posted makes some good points on why they perhaps don't. To be honest with you I don't think it would matter whatever Emirates brought to the table (or any other airline) for that matter. The aviation industry has been/is so heavily regulated over the years in ways that don't serve the consumer one bit that you will never know what is real benefit or what is just posturing. I say lets do it, but not with a crap estimate by Emirates. If you want it, it will cost you some. |
555 orange...easy cowboy...
You say I'm full of what? truth, wisdom, something else? Of course it is typical for someone who has nothing to base his opinion on to resort to name calling and hysterics instead of arguing the merits or failing of an argument. Very typical of Pprune and that's why I don't post very often on these forums which are full of baseless opinions that pass for arguments, and disgruntled employees. Do what you want with the facts I've presented to you. At least Jinglied, wxgeek presented interesting points to validate their arguments, which I don't agree with, but at least they had arguments to make not personal attacks, that make people like me wonder why I ever want to post another opinion on this forum for hacks again. |
six7driver,
It's hard to roll your eyes when they're hiding behind a blindfold. Sorry but I am far from convinced. What's that old saying? "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics". As someone else already said, numbers can be manipulated in a myriad of ways to achieve a desired result. A "researcher" looking to support the Air Canada side of this dispute could easily take the numbers from the quoted study and manipulate them to favour their side. I find the study numbers dubious for two important reasons. There is nothing in them to suggest that the passengers numbers they are claiming are new passengers. To suggest otherwise is to claim that somehow Emirates has a magic bullet that will encourage 274,000 Canadians to travel when they otherwise wouldn't have, had it not been for their saviour from the UAE. And since these are not new passengers, they have to come from somewhere else, thus taking revenues and jobs from a competitor. So to claim new jobs and revenues as a spinoff is disingenuous. They aren't new, they're just replacements. My bet is that these replacement jobs would pay less than the jobs that are already out there, thus taking money out of the hands of our citizens and our economy. Not much of a benefit, IMHO. As an aside, the number of O & D passengers between Canada and the Emirates wouldn't fill one aircraft a month, never mind on a daily basis. So all Emirates is really looking to do is to take passengers to other places in the world when those passengers can already get there through multiple gateways with the current services that are in place through both Canadian and foreign carriers. I may be wrong, but it sure sounds to me like you're more interested in taking something (anything) away from Air Canada and its employees than anything else. And for the record, I am not an Air Canada employee, nor have I ever been. I'm just an industry employee who is interested in looking at the entire picture, including the cultural differences that would let someone believe that what is coming out of the UAE is anything other than a threat made by a bully who is used to getting their own way. |
interesting
There are alot of interesting points of view, statistics, and opinions here on this thread.
Yes I am Canadian, and yes I work at Emirates. Just to be clear I don't back either AC or EK they both have good and bad points. But, the fact is Air Canada cannot compete with EK. They don't have the spare aircraft or crew. So, to say Air Canada should be flying to Dubai to compete is silly to start. The second issue is that AC cannot compete with the service. I have been in the back on many AC flights and it seemed like an inconvenience when I asked one of the dinosaurs for a glass of water after not seeing anyone in the cabin in 2 hours.....hmmm. Thirdly, the Indian population IS EK's biggest business. Why would someone from Chennai, India want to buy a ticket on AC to connect through LHR then to BOM or DEL and then to Chennai, when they could do it all with a one stop 3 hour connection. Big time and $ saving along with a better service. I have many friends at AC and I wish them nothing but the best, but at the end of the day they are not going to lose their jobs if EK starts more service to Canada. AC might lose a few international passengers, but they will most certainly pick up domestically as most of these people coming to Canada aren't stopping in YYZ, so someone has to transport them. Just my thoughts. Cheers, Joke |
No name calling at all 76. Ok ok I said your full of it.... Meaning in a rough sense that I disagree with you. But no offence intended! Just take a breath... 1234....
Did you even read my post at all? I support out troops in Afghanistan. You have supported UAE's comment to close the base there. Which I didn't like much at all and I disagree with it. Sorry about that. And I support Emirates flying more, but I would personally like to see more brought to the table, not a crappy in house 480 million estimate. I say again, a local basing in Toronto or a code share. However I would prefer to see AC do the flying over Emirates. I am well aware of Emirates better product, but I do support our fellow Canadian workers over emirates. Don't you? My problem with Emirates is not with what it does have, but with what it doesnt, or rather doesn't stand for. That would be ethical sense of business and a clear consistent and fair business practice. I am talking about labor here. It is well documented the unilateral changes for the worse Emirates have made to its pilot group. In fact I am suprised you are defending them so strongly over our Air Canada brothers. However I do agree with the above post that sadly, I don't believe AC is in any position to take advantage of any market at the moment, but who knows. Arent they receiving 777s now? 76, you say you are on the "Canadian" side, but you are arguing against the Military base and against Air Canada. Excuse me... obvious confusion???? Anyway, Either way the market will be served. I don't think anyone needs to worry about that. I just hope AC gets to do it. You can sleep tonight... Besides... no one commented on Emirates situation. Hows the finances over there? The cutbacks affecting the Airline at all? Isn't one of the other gulf Airlines taking over? I heard that one of them bought a bunch of Emirates... rumor is going to take over? |
.. Check this article. Written by MEC of ACPA, so obviously a bit biased. But in my opinion, well written and I certainly agree to his points..
FP Letters: Private Air Canada competes fairly - FP Comment Specifically : "The more pertinent question is what would happen if Air Canada could use the Canadian government’s borrowing power to finance its fleet, owned and operated Canada’s airports, paid no corporate or personal taxes and brought in offshore unskilled labour to reduce its costs. That would create a more level playing field with Emirates, which can borrow at government rates, is part of the same corporate entity that operates its airport and nearly all airport services in Dubai and is based in a country where four-fifths of its population consists of imported, expatriate workers with no human rights or workplace standards." Very pertinent question indeed. Emirates used backing of it's own government in some of it's leasing arrangements several years back with it's large orders of aircraft. This gained them about a 1% lower rate on leasing than they otherwise would have received. And for orders worth several bilions, that's a lot of cash preservation! Jinglie'd |
Jinglied, what's wrong with your argument is that we don't live in a fairy tale land where playing fields are equal or will ever be equal. A "what if" argument like this seeks to change history (revisionism) , which is impossible to do. We live in a real world who's history cannot be undone.
The quote you use makes a "...what would happen..." argument and conveniently removes all historical context. To put it into context you have to address how the condition the the quote refers to arrived at its state. It did so because our (and by that I mean the west) dependency on this region's oil. This has stopped our governments, from defending such important principles as democracy and human rights in these countries, preferring instead to support these countries based on our strategic interests for their oil. Another case in point and far more obvious example is China, a country that enjoys favored trading status with Canada???, yet contains all the elements that your quote points to. Yet we allow Chinese carriers the right to operate into our airports? why isn't Rovinescu complaining about the much more dire threat China's air carriers represent in terms of dumping and capacity? I'll tell you why, because Air Canada thinks it will profit handsomely from their China arrangement. Their is no political will in our government to ever put pressure on UAE to stop the practices your article mentions, on the contrary our government enjoys good diplomatic and economic relations with the UAE, the only voice that seeks to deny freer trade with the UAE is that of Air Canada. Don't be led astray by arguments of those who wish to protect the uncompetitive status quo of Air Canada. Air Canada, not the Canadian government, is the entity that does not wish any more competition from the UAE, for it's sole interest, why should their voice be more important then that of the Canadian consumer? You can say all you want of the abuses that go on in the UAE, I believe you and completely agree, but it is wrong that this is now conveniently used as an argument by Air Canada to stop Canadian consumers from enjoying the much better service that you admit Emirates and Etihad have. Especially when Canada trades on an enormous scale with a country like China, whose air carriers are blatantly government run and enjoy subsidies that are much greater then that enjoyed by Emirates. |
J.O. - I find the study numbers dubious for two important reasons. There is nothing in them to suggest that the passengers’ numbers they are claiming are new passengers. To suggest otherwise is to claim that somehow Emirates has a magic bullet that will encourage 274,000 Canadians to travel when they otherwise wouldn't have, had it not been for their saviour from the UAE. And since these are not new passengers, they have to come from somewhere else, thus taking revenues and jobs from a competitor. So to claim new jobs and revenues as a spinoff is disingenuous. They aren't new, they're just replacements. My bet is that these replacement jobs would pay less than the jobs that are already out there, thus taking money out of the hands of our citizens and our economy. Not much of a benefit, IMHO. As an aside, the number of O & D passengers between Canada and the Emirates wouldn't fill one aircraft a month, never mind on a daily basis. So all Emirates is really looking to do is to take passengers to other places in the world when those passengers can already get there through multiple gateways with the current services that are in place through both Canadian and foreign carriers. Jinglied – from the NP "The more pertinent question is what would happen if Air Canada could use the Canadian government’s borrowing power to finance its fleet, owned and operated Canada’s airports, paid no corporate or personal taxes and brought in offshore unskilled labour to reduce its costs. That would create a more level playing field with Emirates, which can borrow at government rates, is part of the same corporate entity that operates its airport and nearly all airport services in Dubai and is based in a country where four-fifths of its population consists of imported, expatriate workers with no human rights or workplace standards." six7driver - This has stopped our governments, from defending such important principles as democracy and human rights in these countries, preferring instead to support these countries based on our strategic interests for their oil. As I see it there isn’t much that emirates offers that is of benefit to Canada. Lower paying replacement jobs, no real traffic growth out of Canada - just poaching from other carriers. I wish AC served the Indian Canadian market segment with their own metal to India but they are doing it with Star Alliance partners instead. Wish it were different but it isn’t. Perhaps this would happen faster if Canadian carriers enjoyed the same financial and low tax rate advantages of emirates. Talk to your Canadian MP about high AIF/landing fees/airport rents/security charges (which recently increased)/high corporate tax rates/high income taxes. China vs UAE, why is emirates treated so unfairly and China is not argument: China offers significant O&D traffic potential to Canada. Emirates and its Dubai Hub do not. NOT EVEN CLOSE. |
It is entirely pertainent to be reminded that the UAE , along with Saudi Arabia , were the two remaining governments that formally recognized the Taleban in Afghanistan , that is , until it became a battleground for the West. Since then , they have been conveniently playing both sides in this conflict. I say again... both sides. That is the REAL story here. Emirates vs. Air Canada ? ... nice spin......The Mossad , CIA , CSIS , MI6 , they know this involves much , much more than A380`s and old Air Canada cabin crew.
|
wxgeek it's not my intention to embarrass you but your ignorance of fact really explains why your opinion should be scrutinized for its lack of merit.
You say, Canada is an oil exporter, you knew that right? Our biggest customer is right next door south of the 49th. Oil may allow Middle East countries to apply pressure on the US on commercial issues such as airline route approval but here in Canada we got lots of oil and nat gas. An irrelevant argument IMO A good place to start is by looking up the info on our oil export-imports. It comes from none other than the CIA's own world fact book. Here's the US government link. https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...orld-factbook/ while you're at that refer again to the study done by an INDEPENDENT group INTER VISTAS whose customers include the government of Canada! (though from you and others are accused of this time selling out their unbiased reputation in over 60 countries, for the sake of one study commissioned by Emirates.) If Canadian airlines had access to all of emirates advantages mentioned above the airline industry in Canada wouldn’t be constantly teetering on the brink every time the economy hiccupped. Lastly, from you China vs UAE, why is emirates treated so unfairly and China is not argument: China offers significant O&D traffic potential to Canada. Emirates and its Dubai Hub do not. NOT EVEN CLOSE. You are the origin of your own confusion. Yes, you agree just as I put it that China does offer significant Origin & Destination traffic potential...but to AIR CANADA...not CANADA...or since when was Canada's near monopoly and only truly scheduled international air carrier suddenly declared CANADA? for the rest of your extremely weak point refer to the Inter Vistas study again. What remains again, and what is truly important, is that Transport Canada is being used by a very strong Air Canada lobby who wishes at all cost to deny the will of Canada's traveling public for better access and service. Something all Canadians should wish they never succeed in accomplishing. |
however we are also the world's 16th largest IMPORTER of oil and an estimated 25% of our OIL IMPORTS comes from the Middle East and, North Africa. look it up. If Canadian airlines had access to all of emirates advantages mentioned above the airline industry in Canada wouldn’t be constantly teetering on the brink every time the economy hiccupped. Yes, you agree just as I put it that China does offer significant Origin & Destination traffic potential...but to AIR CANADA...not CANADA...or since when was Canada's near monopoly and only truly scheduled international air carrier suddenly declared CANADA? for the rest of your extremely weak point refer to the Inter Vistas study again. I'd like to see a strong Canadian industry with good paying jobs in Canada at Canadian bases. I would prefer that the entry level pay was way better than it is now. These goals won't be reached if a well financed foreign outfit with good marketing drops their capacity into Canada. If China wants into our market they have some good incentives to offer. A growing middle class. China approved Canada as a tourist destination last year. Dubai has what exactly to offer? A nice plane ride? A connection onwards? You can understand why Canadians would view emirates traffic stimulation theory as a shell game that doesn't really do anything to support or grow Caandian local carriers and get the industry moving again. Not all of us in Canada want to move to the sandbox to work and it sounds like at least some of the Canadians working in the middle east would rather work in Canada if circumstances permitted. Having emirates fly here does nothing to reach that goal. |
I have been mostly silent until now.
As an AC pilot and a Canadian Soldier, I would like to say a few things. Your posts are very well thought out. I enjoyed reading them.. except when you start to pick apart every sentence someone posts. :} However, there is a larger issue at hand, not just jobs in Canada. We all know what Star alliance does and how they conduct their business. (pulling strings) Need I say any more? What goes on behind closed doors is definitely not what is being reported. In regards to using the military base as leverage, thats disgusting. Canada is not acting alone in this war. We have options. Canada is a sovereign country and will act accordingly. Canada will not act in the best interest of the UAE or anyone else. |
wxweek
I say to myself: self?! What are the chances of Canada developing international carriers if well financed government supported foreign airlines continue to drop capacity into Canada? A voice in my head says the chances are not too good. That's my take If it is not, in your opinion, why was it not just allowed to go bankrupt and allow another company to rise from the ashes a la Swiss or Sabena? As I said before what is the difference. Govt bailout vs oil money??? |
AC was privatized in the late 80s (88 or 89?). It hasn't been a government-owned operation for 20 years although some would say it has never lost it's government bureaucratic mentality but that's another story.
Canadian law limits foreign ownership to 25% voting shares although the government is making noises about raising the number to 49%. AC also entered bankruptcy in 2003 and emerged in 2004. You'll have to ask the investors at the time what value they saw in investing in AC. If a business like AC goes bankrupt it can restructure/refinance and continue business or dissolve and it's assets sold off. I've no idea if there is a restructuring in the future and if so, what form a restructuring will look like. For ongoing financing of operations it competes for money on the markets like any other Canadian business. AFAIK AC doesn't have access to government financing or underwriting of operations, nor does Westjet, Air Transat or other Airlines in Canada. In short AC is none of the things you allege. Not government owned, no favorable financing rates for asset purchase/leasing, no break on airport rents/landing fees/air navigation fees etc in it's home country. The follow-up question might be what kind of favorable economics does emirates enjoy at its home hub? My point is that foreign companies (not exclusively airlines) come to Canada and want to move the value-added jobs offshore with no payback to Canadians. emirates is no different. China airline expansion here can be matched up with Canadian airline expansion into China. Then passengers can decide who they want to buy a ticket with. Canadian airlines can expand if the product meets customer needs and Canadian pilots can fill the seats and the country benefits from having these jobs in their Canadian communities. I see the emirates deal as something different. It's a way to siphon off traffic a re-route thru Dubai to India. Where is the upside for Canadian workers? These pilot jobs end up in Dubai. How will this keep pilot jobs in Canada? How will this make the Canadian airline industry stronger? I just don't see it. |
76, wxgeek is not embarassing himself at all. Wx seems quite factual and mature in this debate in my opinion. It seems you are the one coming to the table with the less than mature comments about others that are discussing this issue.
The way I see it... We have something Emirates wants. The same thing is also something we want to do, but maybe not at this present time. If Emirates wants it that bad, I say again they can anti up for it, more than just the debatable nos they have quoted. Nos that most probably will be taken from others. 76driver... Western countries do support democricy in the Eastern countries, but we cant dictate policy to them.....this is a world of adults and we try to influence but in the end its up to each individual country to do decide its own thing. Your argument is very weak in my opinion. You, as our valued self professed "Candian supporter" can walk into the Shaieks office and tell him he has to go! You don't think Canadian and other governments do all they can on a politically correct level to promote democracy and freedoms? Hello.... we are talking about the very military base that you yourself were just supporting UAE using as a bargaining chip. Seems you are now contradicting your own self? Trading with china? Moot point really, we benefit mutually. The point is mutually! We share the routes. If things were reversed, and the western world were the ones with a market advantage through cheap slave labor etc then UAE would protect its interests too. Just as it does on so many levels already. This is a competetive world, we will use ALL the tools in the box to protect OUR turf. If you want to come to the table with something that is beneficial to both of us, we will listen, we may work with it or we may not. The point is Emirates came selling, we didn't buy.... and I believe we won't. At least not for now. Unless you can come up with something more. We have interests to protect, and future plans to consider. If that means you don't get what you want, too bad. Sorry 76, but we- Canada...not just Air Canada are not fools and we don't see it your way. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:57. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.