Tough fight for EK in Canada
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK flies to Tel Aviv? Use your f**kin head buddy
The point I was trying to make was that Air Canada are getting in a flap and yet which of their destinations REALLY would be that much more attractive going through Dubai. I don't believe that Emirates could offer the "$100" dollar fares or whatever low figure you care to come up with that will seriously make people consider the extra flying time involved. Unsustainable in any business model as has been mentioned here.
I have to ask what the real market must be like when you switch an A380 from a market like New York to a market like Toronto? Leaving a market of over 8.3 million versus 2.5 million people? OK. How does that work?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: YYZ/BAH
Age: 41
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why will KLM, BA and Air Canada have to reduce capacity when they can beat Emirates on any time factor with connections. Or is their product not up to scratch?
Why would Turkish have just started up to Toronto if they were worried about Emirates (when Emirates were here before Turkish)?
Why would Turkish have just started up to Toronto if they were worried about Emirates (when Emirates were here before Turkish)?
Turkish too gets a lot of connecting traffic to Iran and Middle East on their flights at a low yield hence any further fare war particularly against an airline that can offer higher capacity + an ability to offer good connections via DXB to all destinations east of IST, there is definitely concern written on TK's eyes!
With regards to AC, you should first check how many pax per flight on YYZ-LHR they feed on to EK via LHR. When EK was off line at YYZ, AC used to feed approx 120 pax per day from Eastern Canada on to EK flights via LHR alone! This was especially true between 2003-06. From Western Canada too, YVR-LHR and YYC-LHR are filled with many pax connecting with EK (approx 25-30 per day).
The only way PIA will suspend its service is if they lose certification on their aircraft again. Too large a pakistani population in the GTA for them to fail. Same goes for Jet Airways. There are plenty of passengers to serve both airlines.
Because EK will charge $100 dollars (or some ridiculously low price) for a fare like YYZ-HKG-YYZ, while AC would never even be able to come close... due to completely different operating cost bases. People will fly an extra 10 hours if it will save them %50 on the ticket purchase price.
EK doesnt go after traffic to MNL/HKG/CHINA from YYZ but they do get traffic to BKK/SIN/CGK/KUL/JNB/CPT/DUR/SEZ/MRU.
You have left out one important ingredient as to why many of those airlines you mention have downsized their operations into certain markets: Airline Alliances and code shares.
I don't have to tell you that alliances feed on themselves and become restrictive for their own members to cut duplication.
BA to Oz is a classic example.
I don't have to tell you that alliances feed on themselves and become restrictive for their own members to cut duplication.
BA to Oz is a classic example.
I don't think BA is the victim, even if what you say is true. They code share with QF, amongst others, and are a member of Oneworld. The same as AC and Star Alliance and KLM with Skyteam etc.
My point is that each and every airline that becomes a member of an alliance will suffer from a reduced network and frequency, to service the alliance's requirements and the individual airline will tow the line, as that is "what is best for the cooperative".
The enemy may not only be from the east, but within as well.
halas
ps:BA and QF have more to fear, very soon, on the kangaroo route when Jet* get their 787's and start lobbing into Europe where they choose to without any restrictions from an alliance to worry about.
As long as the Canadian government keeps reigns on who is allowed in, then AC may be the Canadian tax payers best investment.
My point is that each and every airline that becomes a member of an alliance will suffer from a reduced network and frequency, to service the alliance's requirements and the individual airline will tow the line, as that is "what is best for the cooperative".
The enemy may not only be from the east, but within as well.
halas
ps:BA and QF have more to fear, very soon, on the kangaroo route when Jet* get their 787's and start lobbing into Europe where they choose to without any restrictions from an alliance to worry about.
As long as the Canadian government keeps reigns on who is allowed in, then AC may be the Canadian tax payers best investment.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the UAE govt (AKA Emirates and Ittihad) continue to lobby for further rights into Canada, the local telecom provider (AKA the UAE govt) continues to protect its monopoly in the country (other than a fellow government entity..not much free market competition there). In particular, the regulatory authority ensures a total ban on FOIP providers such as Skype to protect its lucrative international toll income. It uses its monopolistic profits to invest in other telecom markets around the world.
See attached article about Skype trying to gain access to the local markets...good luck to them!
Skype opens channels to the region’s regulators - The National Newspaper
It would seem UAE companies are happy to bleat about "open skies" and open competition in markets that they can compete in, but have a different opinion when it comes to protecting their own markets.
I guess there is no equivalent for the english word "hypocrisy" in Arabic?
See attached article about Skype trying to gain access to the local markets...good luck to them!
Skype opens channels to the region’s regulators - The National Newspaper
It would seem UAE companies are happy to bleat about "open skies" and open competition in markets that they can compete in, but have a different opinion when it comes to protecting their own markets.
I guess there is no equivalent for the english word "hypocrisy" in Arabic?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Behramjee...some interesting points....
I still disagree though on some of the airlines you mentioned...particularly Turkish. They were due to start up to YYZ in 2008 and yet didn't start till last year. Emirates had been flying into here before that. If they (Turkish) did not think they could compete on the route then they would not have started up...connecting traffic or not. They had enough time to look at EK load numbers.
Secondly regarding
I still don't get how that affects Air Canada's traffic eastbound to their points in Europe. I agree more with Halas when they say
Competition is just that. Has there EVER been a level playing field in the history of aviation? How is chapter 11 for US airlines fair to all their competitors. Why did BA get into trouble for a dirty tricks campaign?
So Emirates gets subsidies from the Middle East.......tis the newest in a long line of stories...and not one airline could claim to be holier than thou in comparison.
I still disagree though on some of the airlines you mentioned...particularly Turkish. They were due to start up to YYZ in 2008 and yet didn't start till last year. Emirates had been flying into here before that. If they (Turkish) did not think they could compete on the route then they would not have started up...connecting traffic or not. They had enough time to look at EK load numbers.
Secondly regarding
EK doesnt go after traffic to MNL/HKG/CHINA from YYZ but they do get traffic to BKK/SIN/CGK/KUL/JNB/CPT/DUR/SEZ/MRU.
My point is that each and every airline that becomes a member of an alliance will suffer from a reduced network and frequency, to service the alliance's requirements and the individual airline will tow the line, as that is "what is best for the cooperative".
So Emirates gets subsidies from the Middle East.......tis the newest in a long line of stories...and not one airline could claim to be holier than thou in comparison.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Airplane
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie Everlearn
I have to ask what the real market must be like when you switch an A380 from a market like New York to a market like Toronto? Leaving a market of over 8.3 million versus 2.5 million people? OK. How does that work?
I have to ask what the real market must be like when you switch an A380 from a market like New York to a market like Toronto? Leaving a market of over 8.3 million versus 2.5 million people? OK. How does that work?
7
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airbus757
I suppose the re-deployment (or equipment swap) of assets makes sense. But, wouldn't this have an adverse effect on the B777 fleet? More flights, more crew, more relief crew for JFK and at a time when, judging by other posts on the forum, EKs are having a time of it recruiting crew?
I know I haven't spoken with anyone over here yet who are interested in joining EK right now. (even though that may not be a scientific way of measuring who is interested as I'm sure there are some) The swap still comes across as a "band aid" solution. Short term gain for long term pain.
Something's got to give. There can't be that many city pairs in this world suitable to A380 operations judging by the number of International carriers who've bought them.
As I've said, cancellations to any degree or extent, might well spell disaster for Airbus.
Willie
I suppose the re-deployment (or equipment swap) of assets makes sense. But, wouldn't this have an adverse effect on the B777 fleet? More flights, more crew, more relief crew for JFK and at a time when, judging by other posts on the forum, EKs are having a time of it recruiting crew?
I know I haven't spoken with anyone over here yet who are interested in joining EK right now. (even though that may not be a scientific way of measuring who is interested as I'm sure there are some) The swap still comes across as a "band aid" solution. Short term gain for long term pain.
Something's got to give. There can't be that many city pairs in this world suitable to A380 operations judging by the number of International carriers who've bought them.
As I've said, cancellations to any degree or extent, might well spell disaster for Airbus.
Willie
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ottawa is right on Emirates
Posted: March 22, 2010, 7:35 PM by NP Editor
Air Canada, Fred Lazar, Emirates Airlines
As the airline industry continues to evolve, a strong Air Canada will make Canadian cities international leaders
By Fred Lazar
Emirates Airlines has intensified its lobby campaign to gain greater access to the Canadian market, and it has support at FP Comment, as seen in Terence Corcoran’s column and an article by Peter Harbison, the executive chairman of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, both appearing March 20. The gist of Harbison’s article can be summarized by its sub-heading: Air Canada’s protectionist response to Emirate’s expansion plans does more harm than good. And he complained that Ottawa steadfastly underwrites anything they think is good for Air Canada.
There is reality, then there is theory, and events of the past couple of years should have made it quite clear that most of the time, theory has nothing to do with reality.
If air transportation services were covered by the GATT, Air Canada would have had the Canadian Government launch a countervailing duty case against Emirates, the national airline of Dubai, and Etihad, the national airline of the UAE. And most likely, it would have won the case since both of these airlines (and the third amigo, Qatar), are subsidized by their respective governments. There isn’t a level playing field in this industry. However, this industry is not yet covered by the GATT.
The governments backing the three amigos (they are all owned by their respective governments) continue to invest heavily in building up their airports. Abu Dhabi is investing an additional €32-€40-billion in its airport; Qatar is investing €8.7-billion in the airport in Doha; and Dubai, assuming it can get the financing, has planned an investment of up to €26-billion in the Dubai World Central Airport. I doubt that their airlines will be picking up much of the tab on these investments.
There are several important lessons here. All of which have been conveniently ignored by the apologists for Emirates et al.
As the airline industry continues to evolve, we will move towards a global network consisting of 8-12 gateway airports, 20 or so regional hub airports, a number of local hub airports and hundreds of stub airports. The gateway airports will dominate the system and the dominant airline at these airports will offer non-stop and one-stop service to most of the world.
A number of studies have shown how these gateway airports will give their cities an enormous advantage in competing for talent and money in the global economy.
In a 2003 report, the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority pointed out: “Air transport links are vital to many businesses, whether for transporting goods or for business travel… Good air transport links have the potential to contribute to national productivity and aviation is of particular importance to the City of London and to tourism, our two largest exporters of invisibles. Air transport links also support foreign direct investment into and out of the U.K., often accompanied by improved technology and innovation… The development of a successful airport may also encourage the formation of clusters of industries.”
A classic study of the economic effects of deregulation in the U.S. found that most of the economic benefits came from the time savings for travellers as a result of the restructuring of the networks by the airlines to offer more frequencies and more non-stop and one-stop flights through their hubs. It will matter to Canadians whether they connect through Toronto or Vancouver, or they have to make an additional stop and change planes and airlines in order to travel through Atlanta, Los Angeles, London, Dubai or elsewhere.
An examination of the leading airports in the world, as measured by total number of passengers or cargo volumes, shows that with a few exceptions, the major airports serve as the hub for an airline. Without a major airline developing an airport as a hub with increasing global connections, an airport will not join the ranks of the gateway airports, and might not even become a regional hub.
In Canada, Toronto and possibly Vancouver, because of their locations, have the potential to become a gateway airport, or at least a regional hub, but only as long as Air Canada survives and grows. Air Canada will not have the opportunity to deploy its Boeing 787s (currently on order) to expand the number of spokes from these two hubs and the reach of its network if the three amigos are able to dump capacity into Canada. Emirates, for example, has about 130 aircraft in its fleet with 150 wide bodies on order. It needs to operate these aircraft somewhere.
Finally, while each of the three amigos has ambitious expansion plans, only one of their hubs will end up as a gateway airport. There will not be three in the Gulf region. Consequently, they will fight it out among themselves to dominate, and the fight might be quite prolonged (except for Emirates since it has the weakest financial backing) and quite bloody.
If the fight were limited to these three, there would be little concern for Air Canada and other airlines. Unfortunately, the battle will spill over into the global marketplace and will greatly damage the airlines lacking the deep pockets (built on oil and gas revenues) of two of the amigos. The Competition Bureau in Canada will not recognize or will not respond to the predatory actions, and so Air Canada, and with it the prospects for Toronto and Vancouver, will be severely impacted with its survival in jeopardy.
Should we be concerned that Air Canada’s Calin Rovinescu might have his company’s self interest at heart in attacking Emirates? No, we should be concerned instead about the Canadian Government caving in to the demands of the three amigos, and the significant negative impacts that this would have for Toronto, Vancouver and all Canadian travelers and companies.
Financial Post
Fred Lazar is Associate Professor of Economics at the Schulich School of Business at York University
Read more: Ottawa is right on Emirates - Full Comment
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
Posted: March 22, 2010, 7:35 PM by NP Editor
Air Canada, Fred Lazar, Emirates Airlines
As the airline industry continues to evolve, a strong Air Canada will make Canadian cities international leaders
By Fred Lazar
Emirates Airlines has intensified its lobby campaign to gain greater access to the Canadian market, and it has support at FP Comment, as seen in Terence Corcoran’s column and an article by Peter Harbison, the executive chairman of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, both appearing March 20. The gist of Harbison’s article can be summarized by its sub-heading: Air Canada’s protectionist response to Emirate’s expansion plans does more harm than good. And he complained that Ottawa steadfastly underwrites anything they think is good for Air Canada.
There is reality, then there is theory, and events of the past couple of years should have made it quite clear that most of the time, theory has nothing to do with reality.
If air transportation services were covered by the GATT, Air Canada would have had the Canadian Government launch a countervailing duty case against Emirates, the national airline of Dubai, and Etihad, the national airline of the UAE. And most likely, it would have won the case since both of these airlines (and the third amigo, Qatar), are subsidized by their respective governments. There isn’t a level playing field in this industry. However, this industry is not yet covered by the GATT.
The governments backing the three amigos (they are all owned by their respective governments) continue to invest heavily in building up their airports. Abu Dhabi is investing an additional €32-€40-billion in its airport; Qatar is investing €8.7-billion in the airport in Doha; and Dubai, assuming it can get the financing, has planned an investment of up to €26-billion in the Dubai World Central Airport. I doubt that their airlines will be picking up much of the tab on these investments.
There are several important lessons here. All of which have been conveniently ignored by the apologists for Emirates et al.
As the airline industry continues to evolve, we will move towards a global network consisting of 8-12 gateway airports, 20 or so regional hub airports, a number of local hub airports and hundreds of stub airports. The gateway airports will dominate the system and the dominant airline at these airports will offer non-stop and one-stop service to most of the world.
A number of studies have shown how these gateway airports will give their cities an enormous advantage in competing for talent and money in the global economy.
In a 2003 report, the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority pointed out: “Air transport links are vital to many businesses, whether for transporting goods or for business travel… Good air transport links have the potential to contribute to national productivity and aviation is of particular importance to the City of London and to tourism, our two largest exporters of invisibles. Air transport links also support foreign direct investment into and out of the U.K., often accompanied by improved technology and innovation… The development of a successful airport may also encourage the formation of clusters of industries.”
A classic study of the economic effects of deregulation in the U.S. found that most of the economic benefits came from the time savings for travellers as a result of the restructuring of the networks by the airlines to offer more frequencies and more non-stop and one-stop flights through their hubs. It will matter to Canadians whether they connect through Toronto or Vancouver, or they have to make an additional stop and change planes and airlines in order to travel through Atlanta, Los Angeles, London, Dubai or elsewhere.
An examination of the leading airports in the world, as measured by total number of passengers or cargo volumes, shows that with a few exceptions, the major airports serve as the hub for an airline. Without a major airline developing an airport as a hub with increasing global connections, an airport will not join the ranks of the gateway airports, and might not even become a regional hub.
In Canada, Toronto and possibly Vancouver, because of their locations, have the potential to become a gateway airport, or at least a regional hub, but only as long as Air Canada survives and grows. Air Canada will not have the opportunity to deploy its Boeing 787s (currently on order) to expand the number of spokes from these two hubs and the reach of its network if the three amigos are able to dump capacity into Canada. Emirates, for example, has about 130 aircraft in its fleet with 150 wide bodies on order. It needs to operate these aircraft somewhere.
Finally, while each of the three amigos has ambitious expansion plans, only one of their hubs will end up as a gateway airport. There will not be three in the Gulf region. Consequently, they will fight it out among themselves to dominate, and the fight might be quite prolonged (except for Emirates since it has the weakest financial backing) and quite bloody.
If the fight were limited to these three, there would be little concern for Air Canada and other airlines. Unfortunately, the battle will spill over into the global marketplace and will greatly damage the airlines lacking the deep pockets (built on oil and gas revenues) of two of the amigos. The Competition Bureau in Canada will not recognize or will not respond to the predatory actions, and so Air Canada, and with it the prospects for Toronto and Vancouver, will be severely impacted with its survival in jeopardy.
Should we be concerned that Air Canada’s Calin Rovinescu might have his company’s self interest at heart in attacking Emirates? No, we should be concerned instead about the Canadian Government caving in to the demands of the three amigos, and the significant negative impacts that this would have for Toronto, Vancouver and all Canadian travelers and companies.
Financial Post
Fred Lazar is Associate Professor of Economics at the Schulich School of Business at York University
Read more: Ottawa is right on Emirates - Full Comment
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
And most likely, it would have won the case since both of these airlines (and the third amigo, Qatar), are subsidized by their respective governments.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The governments backing the three amigos (they are all owned by their respective governments) continue to invest heavily in building up their airports. Abu Dhabi is investing an additional €32-€40-billion in its airport; Qatar is investing €8.7-billion in the airport in Doha; and Dubai, assuming it can get the financing, has planned an investment of up to €26-billion in the Dubai World Central Airport. I doubt that their airlines will be picking up much of the tab on these investments
Journalists at their best once again.
None of them would start digging into working conditions and contract adherence, where the real dirty advantage of the ME airlines is. They would be whistled back by the government and the local airline managers instantly, as this is their wettest dream and they are thriving to copy that asap, see efforts of LH and BA.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dubai
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what about customers, who like me, just want to fly non-stop from Dubai to Vancouver or vv. I don't see Air Canada being interested in operating this flight. Protectionism kills market. I would like to see both AC and EK flying from Canada to Dubai.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but it won't be a good thing for safety either
Safety has nothing to do with increased competition. It is not in ANY airlines best business interests to have a poor safety record or operate unsafe equipment (not if you want to fly into North America or Europe anyway)
Without a major airline developing an airport as a hub with increasing global connections, an airport will not join the ranks of the gateway airports, and might not even become a regional hub
However out of YYZ they don't offer a direct flight to Dubai in competition. They don't offer any direct flights to India in competition.
They don't offer any direct flights to Pakistan in competition.
In order to develop and offer world wide connections Air Canada/YYZ has to step up to the plate.
We can talk about Emirates/Etihad/Qatar all day long and their unfair advantages/ low wages/ crap conditions etc etc.
You know what? Global business.....unfair is part of the daily vocabulary.
If you have the patriotic backing (of many on this debate) then put on a service to these destinations, develop YYZ into an airport that will siphon off traffic from elsewhere...and lo and behold you will be flying full of happy Canadians on their national carrier.
Where is that option at the moment?
Or are we waiting till Air Canada has it's business model in order?
Time to resort to some underhand practices again guys!
Last edited by Married a Canadian; 27th Mar 2010 at 13:55.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry man but you really don't have a clue.
Safety is DIRECTLY related to the regulatory regime under which an airline operates. Emirates is currently operating under it's own set of rules via the GCAA, which facilitates all kinds of clever tricks with Flight Time Limitations. The rosters currently being flown, the flight time factoring, the patterns...would simply not be allowed under "real" organizations such as the FAA, CAA, Transport Canada...but hey, it's just a competitive advantage! Believe me, this "advantage" WILL turn against them when one tired crewmember too many makes that last hole in the swiss cheese line up. It's called risk management, and in as much as it's impossible to prove a negative, the truth will only emerge when the inevitable smoking hole is in the headlines.
I'd really be interested in your credentials or perspective that even gives you a horse in this race, so to speak. It seems your biggest complaint is lack of direct flights between Canada and Dubai. Big deal. The human rights violations, the appalling treatment of workers, the complete absence of workers ability to seek recourse under unjust labour practices, and on and on...these all trump your concerns by just a small bit.
I'm genuinely curious as to what your motivation is, as you obviously have zero appreciation of either Middle Easter airlines or life in the Middle East, judging from the comment about Israel. You wouldn't be braying so loudly for an increase in the likes of Emirates if you actually worked for them or lived here. Unless you one of the privileged few of course, who manage to cream off the profits from the backs of their employees.
Safety is DIRECTLY related to the regulatory regime under which an airline operates. Emirates is currently operating under it's own set of rules via the GCAA, which facilitates all kinds of clever tricks with Flight Time Limitations. The rosters currently being flown, the flight time factoring, the patterns...would simply not be allowed under "real" organizations such as the FAA, CAA, Transport Canada...but hey, it's just a competitive advantage! Believe me, this "advantage" WILL turn against them when one tired crewmember too many makes that last hole in the swiss cheese line up. It's called risk management, and in as much as it's impossible to prove a negative, the truth will only emerge when the inevitable smoking hole is in the headlines.
I'd really be interested in your credentials or perspective that even gives you a horse in this race, so to speak. It seems your biggest complaint is lack of direct flights between Canada and Dubai. Big deal. The human rights violations, the appalling treatment of workers, the complete absence of workers ability to seek recourse under unjust labour practices, and on and on...these all trump your concerns by just a small bit.
I'm genuinely curious as to what your motivation is, as you obviously have zero appreciation of either Middle Easter airlines or life in the Middle East, judging from the comment about Israel. You wouldn't be braying so loudly for an increase in the likes of Emirates if you actually worked for them or lived here. Unless you one of the privileged few of course, who manage to cream off the profits from the backs of their employees.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nolimit,
Mate, have a look at the UK CAA website and download a copy of the CAP 371 (FTL's). I'm sorry to say that you will find that they are IDENTICAL to what is in the FOM......
In fact the preface of the UAE GCAA CAR's states that the FTL's are in fact predicated on the UK CAP 371.
Not saying I agree with the way we are being worked at the moment, but the point needs to be made.
Mate, have a look at the UK CAA website and download a copy of the CAP 371 (FTL's). I'm sorry to say that you will find that they are IDENTICAL to what is in the FOM......
In fact the preface of the UAE GCAA CAR's states that the FTL's are in fact predicated on the UK CAP 371.
Not saying I agree with the way we are being worked at the moment, but the point needs to be made.
The rosters currently being flown, the flight time factoring, the patterns...would simply not be allowed under "real" organizations such as the FAA, CAA, Transport Canada
You had a swipe at me a while ago because I'd never operated under US FTLs.
Well, I HAVE operated under JAR FTLS as administaered by the British CAA and I can assure you that everything you list with the exception of factoring is both legal and common practice in the UK under the CAA.
I used to do 100+ hour months, 80% multi sector BOC doing Charter in the UK, often under variations identical to the ones being used by EK.
I also used to fly under an almost identical FTL scheme in Australia, with the exception that we could do 1000hrs a year.
Tell me, what ARE the annual and monthly Flight time limitations under FAR 121 or its Canadian equivelent, and what are the maximum TODs 2,3, and 4 pilot?
I may disagree with you over the ramifications of EK gaining more rights to Canada, but that is simply a difference of opinion. I also share a lot of your concerns of a lot of what is happening at EK.
But what you say above is simply factually in error.