Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Middle East
Reload this Page >

UAE offers to extend Forces' stay in exchange for more Canadian flights

Middle East Many expats still flying in Knoteetingham. Regional issues can be discussed here.

UAE offers to extend Forces' stay in exchange for more Canadian flights

Old 26th Feb 2010, 00:52
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15
UAE offers to extend Forces' stay in exchange for more Canadian flights

How about this, you let us stay and you keep you're slots!



The United Arab Emirates has requested that Ottawa grant Emirates Airline greater access to Canada in exchange for extending permission for the Canadian Forces to stay at a Persian Gulf base that serves as a crucial jump-off point to Afghanistan.
The base was established after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but an agreement between Canada and the UAE is set to be renegotiated by mid-2010, threatening the future of the desert base that offers logistics support to troops in Afghanistan.
Emirates, owned by the Dubai government, currently flies three times a week between Toronto and Dubai – one of seven emirates in the UAE. The carrier wants to ramp up its Toronto-Dubai service to twice daily.
In a letter to Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the UAE linked the airline's route-expansion proposal with negotiations over the fate of the Canadian Forces' forward logistics base in the Persian Gulf, an Ottawa-based airline industry lobbyist said in an interview.
Emirates is also seeking to introduce service to Vancouver and Calgary, but the UAE's request doesn't insist that those cities be immediately included in any new aviation pact, the lobbyist said.
A Canadian airline official added that Canada's Department of National Defence favours making moves to keep the UAE onside and preserving the base, but Foreign Affairs and Transport Canada are concerned about caving in because of the precedent it would set for other countries to make demands for new flights.
A spokesman for Andrew Parker, Emirates senior vice-president of international affairs, said last night that the disagreement over access to Canada's airspace is to be resolved between governments.
Last June, Emirates introduced the double-decker Airbus A380 to its Toronto-Dubai route, but complained that Ottawa unfairly restricted access to Canada, effectively shielding Montreal-based Air Canada and its partners from facing increased competition on international routes.
Catherine Loubier, a spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, said in a statement last night that “any discussion between Canada and the UAE on the administration of our air transportation agreement is conducted between the parties to the agreement, and in keeping with the normal exercise of Canada's diplomatic relations.”
Another UAE-based carrier, Etihad Airways, flies three times a week between Toronto and Abu Dhabi. “Canada and the UAE have excellent relations which include direct air services, and which provide for six flights by UAE-based airlines to Canada per week,” Ms. Loubier said.
Industry analysts, however, say the UAE has grown increasingly frustrated after Ottawa's repeated rejection of expansion applications from Emirates.
Earlier this week, Emirates released a study that it commissioned, saying there would be $480-million in annual economic benefits for Canada if Ottawa allowed the foreign carrier to expand in Toronto and introduce service to Vancouver and Calgary.
“The increased passenger traffic to Canada generated by Emirates flights will stimulate Canada's domestic carriers because a good portion of the new passengers coming to Toronto, Vancouver or Calgary will take connecting domestic flights once they arrive in Canada,” said the report prepared by InterVistas Consulting Inc. for Emirates.
gbax is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2010, 07:47
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Eternal Beach
Posts: 1,082
Air Canada cries fowl if they allow EK more than a few flights a week to Toronto.

Qantas cries fowl as EK have 10 daily flights to Australia with more to come.

Emirates cries fowl if they don't get what they want.

halas
halas is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2010, 13:02
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 3rd Rock From the Sun
Posts: 9
Very Typical UAE/Emirates style. Just like a bunch of spoiled bloody babies. Also very typical of the culture - use of a bully tactic to get what they want. I really hope the Canadian Government does not cave into them like the Brits and Aussies have, offering them way much more than they deserve. I also hope the Canadian press gets a sniff of what Emirates is really like and help to keep these idiots in check...
oceanpotion is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2010, 13:15
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hotels
Posts: 189
OP,

Just like a bunch of spoiled bloody babies. Also very typical of the culture - use of a bully tactic to get what they want.

Are you talking about Air Canada?

Let's have a crap carrier and try to protect it rather than offer open skies and allow the travelling public the service they deserve. The sooner the world goes open the quicker the public gets the best deal and we get rid of the protected legacies that have been dragging the industry down.
ekwhistleblower is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2010, 15:31
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,528
Gosh now where would they have learned this sort of protectionism from?

Surely not the N. American governments that are happy to have 5th freedom flights through LHR or other stopping off points to Europe yet denied any form of negotiation on European airlines and others being able to sell domestic legs on multi sector routes in their own vast countries!!

Now someone else uses similar tactics they are crying foul..............well sorry but no tears for them, just a reminder that as you sow, so shall ye reap.
surely not is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2010, 15:41
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 3rd Rock From the Sun
Posts: 9
EKWB, I generally agree with you mate. Am not an AC fan at all but am definately NOT a UAE/EK fan. Open the skies to anyone else but this lot. Fully realize many opinions exist on this subject but I cannot vote for a bunch of bullies, human rights violators, twisted and conniving a$$holes such as EK.... Just my opinion... Am sorry but the way EK has behaved over the past few months, I cannot help feeling the way I do about them. Am an average human with a normal reaction. Am sure you understand..
oceanpotion is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2010, 18:05
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hotels
Posts: 189
OP,

There is nothing to agree upon really. All that the article is on about is politics. All governments and businesses do whatever they can to protect and promote their various positions.

The linkages between BAe, Airbus, Boeing and various markets around the world often have all sorts of little additions and nuances to make certain they make the big deal. All that the UAE wants is the right to move those bezillion Indians that have bought Canadian immigration status back home. If they wish to link it to another deal it would just match what the the nations that claim moral authority do to the rest of the world

As to the Human Rights blah, I can't disagree but some pretty scary things go on closer to home than the UAE. Just take Dubya, Cheney and the Iraq reconstruction contracts as your starting point. It wasn't one Sheikh out with his cattle prod it was a president abusing his power with the puppet meister Cheney pulling the strings and destroying an entire country ......allegedly!
ekwhistleblower is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2010, 18:35
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: not in Dubai anymore
Age: 91
Posts: 714
I would love to fly to YVR and YYC but I side with the canadians, they shouldnt let fatigue EK crews fly into their airspace, not until EK respects certain limitations.
GoreTex is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2010, 19:46
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Anywhere there are cats to chase.
Age: 21
Posts: 302
FYI

Globe and Mail Update
Published on Wednesday, Jun. 03, 2009 4:14PM EDT
Last updated on Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010 11:09PM EST
Air Canada (AC.B-T1.510.010.67%) pilots should be looking internally at reasons for their employer's financial instability, Emirates Airline president Tim Clark said Wednesday.

“It's totally ludicrous to lay some of the blame at the door of Emirates. It's complete and utter nonsense,” Mr. Clark in an interview, responding to warnings from the Air Canada Pilots Association that if Ottawa allows Emirates to expand in Canada, it could force cash-strapped Air Canada into bankruptcy protection.

Mr. Clark made the comments after delivering a speech in Ottawa to the Economic Club of Canada. He is in Canada this week as Emirates introduces the double-decker Airbus A380 to its Toronto-Dubai route.

Mr. Clark added that the Dubai-based carrier is competing fairly against Air Canada and its Star Alliance partners, notably Deutsche Lufthansa AG, which offers flights to India.

Lufthansa and Air Canada have a co-operation agreement that allows them to sell seats on each other's planes, including service to key European hubs such as Frankfurt – competition for the Dubai hub on international traffic.

Emirates, owned by the Dubai government, also said in a newsletter that it's often the subject of distorted arguments over being a government-backed company. “Emirates receives no subsidies from our government and is run as a fully commercial airline,” it said.

Mr. Clark urged Ottawa to approve Emirates' request for daily Toronto-Dubai flights, compared with the current three departures a week. Emirates also wants to introduce service to Calgary and Vancouver.

Air Canada spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said any open skies agreement has to be mutually beneficial, and there is relatively little originating traffic from Dubai, while a large portion of Canadians use Dubai in the United Arab Emirates as a stopover before connecting to destinations in other countries.

“Air Canada has always said it supports liberalization and open skies agreements with the provision that they create a level playing field and make sense for Canada,” he said. “There is no reciprocal benefit to Canadian carriers or Canada. There has to be advantages for both countries.”
troff is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 05:59
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
There has to be advantages for both countries
That's it, exactly.
But it does not necesseraly have to be in civil aviation.
If the Canucks want their wannabe topguns play around in the sand, so be it. That's an advantage.

You can find protectionism distorting performance everywhere.
Emiratisation for a starter.
pool is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 07:49
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 656
If they don't want the Cdns then let 'em go. One less force (small as it may be) to help protect their asses should the Iranians decide to do more then just bluster.

This is not protectionism! An open skies policy is developed so that both parties benefit. The idea of free trade follows the same principle. Canada has signed agreements with countries where both find an advantage.

What does open skies with the UAE bring to Canada??? Despite their attempt at quote various' studies' EK flying into Canada bring almost no benefit to Canada. How many employees at a new base--a handful!! Even many of the engineers are brought in from outside, given a Cdn visa and work cheap.

SO they pay for a slot, some airport fees and fuel all of which amount to little.

They don't bring in 'new' passengers. Anyone coming to Canada arrives either direct or via a stop (ie. EK). If it is one stop they can come in on a multitude of airlines, some of whom codeshare with Cdn airlines (not just AC by the way). So whether they come via Lufthanse/AC, United etc or EK is irrelevant. EK is NOT a lowcost airline and their airfares are similar to all the competition so they do not 'stimulate' new traffic al la Ryan Air, Easy jet etc.

So EK wants a series of destinations in Canada yet can provide only one (DXB and AUH are one city for all purposes because they are so close). What benefit would Canada find from an agreement then? Precious little.

EK and similar airlines rely on feed. The move pax through their hub and onward.
Trader is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 08:21
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,357
EK flying into Canada bring almost no benefit to Canada.
Trader,

Canadians obviously want the product. Both the EK A380s and Etihad flights are perpetually full out of Toronto.

Do you not consider allowing your Citizens the opertunity to use a service they wish to avail themselves of an advantage?
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 08:56
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 563
Transport Canada and ALPA are two of the most screwed up organisations I have come across in aviation, totally self serving with no regard for the economics of the situation.

The commerce groups in Canada have been pleading for a long time to allow EK to fly into their areas as they see it as a clear economic benefit.
Fart Master is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 09:17
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 858
Full flights do NOT indicate that "Canadians obviously want the product". There is predominantly ONE demographic filling the DXB-YYZ flights, namely pax from the Indian subcontinent. This is not representative of the entire nation, no matter how it is spun!

Nothing would make virtually every Canadian (living in Canada, not the ones with maple leaf passports who use them solely for convenience) happier than to see the Canadian government pull their troops from Afghanistan. I dearly hope they don't cave to a corrupt foreign dictatorship and allow themselves to be bullied.

As far as a "clear economic benefit", where are the actual facts to support this? Oh wait, they're all supplied by Emirates.

If anyone actually believes that Emirates has any altruistic motives whatsoever, please contact someone who actually works for them. They are interested in increasing their own profitability and influence, period. The fact that they would resort to extortion is absolutely no surprise to anyone who has lived or worked in the region. What is slightly more surprising is how quickly the ignorant will actually argue for more access to Canada. How much do you have to hate Air Canada to think that allowing Emirates to have their way - ESPECIALLY in light of the sleazy tactics - is a good thing?

But hey maybe when they're flying daily to YYZ, and you can enjoy the so-called Emirates "service" (provided by exhausted, low-paid, harassed employees with no protections, in a a/c piloted by exhausted crews since the UAE allows all sorts of flight time duty abuses), you can comfort yourself that at least those whiny AC employees got theirs!
nolimitholdem is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 09:48
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,357
Nolimit,

The Pax on those sectors are either Canadian Citizens of sub-continental ancestry visiting family, or family of those same Citizens visiting their Canadian relatives.

In either case, they are Canadians who want the service (with the exeption of the guys being visited by the Mother in Law).

Of course EK isn't being ultruistic. It wants nothing more or less than to profit from supplying a service for which there is a demand.

Why should they not be allowed to?

As to the "Exhausted Crew" crack, we are working hard and flying to limits of our FTLs.

FTLs which are MUCH more restrictive than those which apply in Canada or the US.
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 10:05
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 858
ROTFL

As to the "Exhausted Crew" crack, we are working hard and flying to limits of our FTLs.

FTLs which are MUCH more restrictive than those which apply in Canada or the US.
Do you really have a shred of credibility to lean on after THAT comment? I've worked under the North American FTL's you mention, have you? I can tell you, at EK there isn't a single flight time "limitation" that can't be weaselled around with a variation, annex, exemption or simply a conveniently company-favouring interpretation. Try contesting said interpretation and let me know how that works out for you.

But nope, no one's tired, nope nope, nah...lol

Going back to the original point. No is disputing who the YYZ pax are, in fact I believe I pointed it out myself. But you missed the mark...the fact that one particular demographic can't get the flights as often or as cheaply as they'd like, is NOT representative of the desires of Canadians at large.

Besides which you've missed the principle ENTIRELY, which has to do with the extortion tactics that EK has resorted to - since they can't achieve their aims in the usual manner they do, which it to completely disregard legal agreements they've signed. DEWA caps, on a larger scale! lol But of course since in Oz Emirates is already eating your homeland airlines' lunch, I guess I can understand why you wouldn't object to them doing it elsewhere.

Hey if I thought Canada could benefit even a fraction as much, from more EK access to Canada, as EK would...I'd be all for it. But I don't buy Emirates bullshit propaganda. Been here too long for that.
nolimitholdem is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 10:37
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,357
But nope, no one's tired, nope nope, nah...lol
Classic straw man argument- say I said something I didn't and then argue against THAT.

Yes people are tired at EK and it needs addressing- Just as the FTLs in North America need addressing after things like the Colegen crash. Are you saying fatigue is NOT an issue in operations such as the US regionals? The idea that Canada should restrict EKs access to Canada because of crew fatigue (and that WAS one of your arguments) is ludicrous when a four man crew in North America can operate legally for 24hrs straight.

As to the "Demographic" , what exactly are you trying to say? Because only the Canadians who want EK services want EK services, their wishes should be ignored? Or is it that brown people aren't "really" Canadian?

As to the Australian market, it might be worth noting that all the Australian airlines are profitable in spite of a much smaller and more liberal market. Why exactly IS Air Canada such a basket case when it operates in such a protectionist environment (Hint- almost ALL airlines lose money when they work in a protectionist environment!!)
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 13:48
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Anywhere there are cats to chase.
Age: 21
Posts: 302
What does open skies with the UAE bring to Canada???
Indians!!! Lots and lots of Indians!

Last edited by troff; 27th Feb 2010 at 13:54. Reason: Choice
troff is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 15:24
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 656
Wiz- that is actually my point. That the simple arguement that the they have a 'right' to choose from any carrier they want is unwarrented. The costs in job losses elsewhere, lost income elsewhere, lost economic activity elsewhere in the economy overshadows what little gain the country receives.

Consumer choice is one tiny variable in the equation. Since EK is priced similarly to the competition it negates the cost savings arguement as well. If a pax is going to make a one stop they can take dozens of other options.

So EK currently flies lots of subcontinent passengers into Canada. Those passengers will arrive one way or another. Ek has a deep presence in India and so the choice of Indians is EK because, if they come from a smaller centre, they might have had to make 2 stops (instead of 1) to reach Canada before EK came along.

Now the arguement comes full circle--again, I don't think Canada's aviation and economic policy should be dependant on making sure one country has excellent access to Canada (ie. only has 1 stop vs 2 stops)--and it has nothing to do with skin colour. It makes NO economic sense to kill another part of the economy to allow EK into the market.

Canada is not protectionist. It has open skies agreements with the US, Europe etc. No country signs open skies or other free trade agreements unless both parties benefit. So, again, Canada receives a slight increase in choice while losing significantly on the income that flows directly into Canada via Canadian airlines and their partners. The choice the government is making is clear.

As for Australia, they may make different choices. Being more isolated as a country they may have decided that the increased choices that EK offers is valuable and, I would guess, that if that is the arguement for them it has less to do with just passengers then it does with insuring economic activity via cargo and the ability of business to link to the outside world. But Canada and Australia are not teh same and have different needs.
Trader is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 15:45
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,528
If the Indian market is so large to and from Canada, why doesn't Air Canada muscle in on it more effectively either on its own or with code share partners, thereby negating Emirates advantage instead of whining on about how unfair it all is?

Maybe they know they cannot compete cos they are a basket case.

The economic advantage to Canada would be the spending power the additional passengers will bring to the regions served. They will either be boosting the local economy spending money whilst staying with friends and rellies, or spending money if it is Canadians going to India to visit family as to turn up empty handed without plenty of gifts isn't acceptable.

As for this strange belief that only a Low Cost operator would stimulate additional demand, it simply isn't the case. With competition there is normally a healthy adjusting of the normal fares to try to ensure that passengers don't migrate to the new entrant to the market. This benefits existing customers who might fly more frequently if the offer was good enough, and attracts others who were unable to justify the expense before. Load Factor v Yield has to be managed aggresively but it should result in more money not less.

Of course if you are unused to this sort of commercial pressure because you have been unfairly protected by a stubborn government and unions then it is probably not within your capabilities to adapt.
surely not is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.