Tough fight for EK in Canada
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Married a Canadian said:
"So Air Canada would want to develop YYZ (I alluded to this on another thread) to rival other global gateways. That would mean then offering competing services..as it is THEIR 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."
Uh Married a Cad, neither does Emirates. Whats the dif if an Indian connects through hethrow, Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Taipei, Hong Kong, Beijing, or Kuala Lumpur OR DUBAI? All are serving the Indian market from Canada. Not just you. The 480 million you have alluded to increasing in the Canadian market is false and would only serve to transfer revenue miles from all the other carriers at the table. Not just Air Canada.
You came knocking wanting to sell something, we still have to see something good in return on the table. Don't come knocking on our door, asking for more routes, showing smoke and mirror nothing in return, and then threaten us because we don't want to buy. If you were a really intelligent negotiator you would have offered to half the rent on the military base an not kick Canada out. That might have gotten what you wanted and also garnered global acolades as well. The way you have handled things to this point has not garnered alot of public or government support for your cause. In fact, it looks like you have damaged it if anything.
Go and look at Air China's website and see what they are selling. Ahh.... India connections from YVR. How about Cathay? Ahh... India connections through Hong Kong. China Airlines... etc ... getting the point?
If you can't anti up... you no get. The "india market" argument holds no water.
Not our fault if you can't offer something good. But don't go crying in your soup and throw silly threats across the ocean from your slave labor camp that you cant live up to.
"So Air Canada would want to develop YYZ (I alluded to this on another thread) to rival other global gateways. That would mean then offering competing services..as it is THEIR 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."
Uh Married a Cad, neither does Emirates. Whats the dif if an Indian connects through hethrow, Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Taipei, Hong Kong, Beijing, or Kuala Lumpur OR DUBAI? All are serving the Indian market from Canada. Not just you. The 480 million you have alluded to increasing in the Canadian market is false and would only serve to transfer revenue miles from all the other carriers at the table. Not just Air Canada.
You came knocking wanting to sell something, we still have to see something good in return on the table. Don't come knocking on our door, asking for more routes, showing smoke and mirror nothing in return, and then threaten us because we don't want to buy. If you were a really intelligent negotiator you would have offered to half the rent on the military base an not kick Canada out. That might have gotten what you wanted and also garnered global acolades as well. The way you have handled things to this point has not garnered alot of public or government support for your cause. In fact, it looks like you have damaged it if anything.
Go and look at Air China's website and see what they are selling. Ahh.... India connections from YVR. How about Cathay? Ahh... India connections through Hong Kong. China Airlines... etc ... getting the point?
If you can't anti up... you no get. The "india market" argument holds no water.
Not our fault if you can't offer something good. But don't go crying in your soup and throw silly threats across the ocean from your slave labor camp that you cant live up to.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nolimitholdem
Ermmmm not sure what I can say apart from I work in an aviation related industry (that has a strong safety ethos), have friends who work in the middle east, and am interested in the market in general.
So if my credentials aren't up to scratch perhaps you can tell me why Emirates is allowed to fly into Canada and the US and Europe. Or do those real organisations you mentioned not care.
BTW there are quite afew budget carriers whose crew might have something to say about the "swiss cheese lineup" when it comes to their hours and rosters. Again I see afew of them flying in the above airspace
I will agree with that quote if you mean that "you don't come up to our standard, you don't fly into our airports".
Both Emirates and Etihad seem to satisfy the above criteria from the previous mentioned bodies. Or are the FAA and Transport Canada taking backhanders to certify these airlines? Probably not.
Lets be honest...how many Canadian/UK/US etc consumers seem to worry about that with their "Made in China/Indonesia/Phillipines/Korea etc etc
goods. What makes the Airline industry any different? Price normally trumps any welfare/humane concerns. The business world would be a different place if it didn't.
My motivation? Not really motivation. Just pointing out that the airline industry is full of rank hypocrisy on all sides. I don't care if it is the Middle East, the far East or the Eastern seaboard. The industry should be about flying people where they want to go..be it from A to B to C either at a price they like or with a service they like. Why should the politics of a place enter into that decision?
It dosen't seem to when people fill their cars up every day with that other product that comes from the region.
A lot of expats seem to want to go and work in the region. Why would that be? If it helps my "credentials" a lot of controller friends of mine are over there. It seems from reading various threads on this board aswell that others seem to be tempted by this great Satan called Emirates. Either they don't care about all the problems mentioned or it is not as bad as it seems, or it is bad but you have a job that you might not have back "home"
And that happens only in the Middle East????? Wow!
Yep I was tired and not thinking when I wrote that one. The point I was trying to make at the time was about route competition and what did Air Canada have to fear. They serve points direct into Europe (and Israel
) and Emirates don't, you have to go "via"
Oh well....we'll see what happens.
BTW I had a quick look on Emirates timetables..and they seem to serve Paris/London and Frankfurt on a daily basis (often with multiple flights)
Now why would the regulatory bodies of those countries allow that if they are worried about all the points and criticisms levelled on the threads running on this topic. Or could it be they relish the competition?
I'd really be interested in your credentials or perspective that even gives you a horse in this race, so to speak
So if my credentials aren't up to scratch perhaps you can tell me why Emirates is allowed to fly into Canada and the US and Europe. Or do those real organisations you mentioned not care.
BTW there are quite afew budget carriers whose crew might have something to say about the "swiss cheese lineup" when it comes to their hours and rosters. Again I see afew of them flying in the above airspace
Safety is DIRECTLY related to the regulatory regime under which an airline operates
Both Emirates and Etihad seem to satisfy the above criteria from the previous mentioned bodies. Or are the FAA and Transport Canada taking backhanders to certify these airlines? Probably not.
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.
goods. What makes the Airline industry any different? Price normally trumps any welfare/humane concerns. The business world would be a different place if it didn't.
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
It dosen't seem to when people fill their cars up every day with that other product that comes from the region.
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
judging from the comment about Israel
Yep I was tired and not thinking when I wrote that one. The point I was trying to make at the time was about route competition and what did Air Canada have to fear. They serve points direct into Europe (and Israel) and Emirates don't, you have to go "via"Oh well....we'll see what happens.
BTW I had a quick look on Emirates timetables..and they seem to serve Paris/London and Frankfurt on a daily basis (often with multiple flights)
Now why would the regulatory bodies of those countries allow that if they are worried about all the points and criticisms levelled on the threads running on this topic. Or could it be they relish the competition?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last question to 555 orange.
So how do Air Canada develop?
How do you turn YYZ into a global leading hub?
What should Air Canada and Transport Canada's strategy be. You can't say "no" to every carrier that comes calling as your business model won't survive (tit for tat).
Do you think Air Canada should fly direct to India or Dubai?
So how do Air Canada develop?
How do you turn YYZ into a global leading hub?
What should Air Canada and Transport Canada's strategy be. You can't say "no" to every carrier that comes calling as your business model won't survive (tit for tat).
Do you think Air Canada should fly direct to India or Dubai?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Married A Canadian,
I really can't be bothered to do a line-by-line deconstruction of your post as you did mine, quite frankly I think it's a lazy way of debating. But you've made your point, laissez-faire capitalism it is, and the workers be damned. You are correct, not too many people are concerned about where their cheap goods come from, but some do and perhaps more should. Perhaps your perspective would be different if you were one of the workers, that's why I asked. A question which you coyly avoided answering directly.
You defend hypocrisy as status quo, then attack Canada's defence of their domestic industry as the same. I guess only the one that prevents your cheaper, easier access to Dubai is wrong EH?!
As far as a lot of expats wanting to come work in this region...what a red herring. Emirates is having difficulty attracting pilots (relative to the numbers that once gladly came) because the truth is getting out there of what working for EK is like these days. Morale is in the toilet, and that is well documented elsewhere. So in that regard you're just plain wrong. From the more desperate nations, of course there will always be workers wanting to come. (Not to mention to replace the ones who have been made redundant and/or fled.) But you make it sound as if they're coming because it's so great, when the truth is it may be just slightly less horrific then where they came from (and often isn't). Exploitation is not quite a ringing endorsement.
Same with your comparison to low-co's and safety. I don't have a good answer as to why the "Western" authorities allow Emirates to continue with some of their FTL practices. Again, I cannot prove a negative: "Emirates continues to operate so it must be safe/legal". But saying that a British lowcost is just as unsafe as Emirates therefore, no problem, isn't the greatest argument. As others have noted, I guess we'll just have to wait for a smoking hole to prove a point. Seems a bit of a shame though.
Here's my take on the situation. Once upon a time, perhaps before you Married a Canadian, you, like many of your compatriots, were lured to the sunny paradise of Dubai from the rainy hell of England, with it's annoying things like democracy, unions and a legal system. Those slick ads...the sexy buildings...why, they own the Gunners, fer Gawd's sake! Talk about LEGITIMATE! The shiny new B777 whisked you there, in the seat-sale Y class. The service seemed a dream: free booze (oh such respite from those cheap bastards Ryan and Easy) and young, attractive cabin crew (a reprieve from those silly experienced ones they have at BA).
When you landed, you were shuttled on a nice little bus by a little brown man, directly to your package-deal hotel. Already you knew the place was something special. Everywhere you look, other sunburned, middle-aged Brits revelling in their self-importance, with their flash cars, Filipino maids, and don't forget: no income tax! Sunny and warm, on your Big Bus Tour you marvelled at the sights. Malls! A ski hill! A tall building! A....hmm..well that's about it. But STILL! The place was magnificent! (Big Bus doesn't go through the camps in Al Quoz, after all.) Why, whatever are these people ON about! The Middle East is positively PROGRESSIVE!
Back in jolly old England, after a torrid internet dating affair, you met Mrs. Married a Canadian and moved over to Canucksville. With the memories of your dream vacation still fresh, you decided to recreate the vacation with your main squeeze. But one phonecall to a travel agent revealed a shocking truth: you could only fly direct to the UAE six days a week!!
Quelle Horreur!
And thus you entered PPRune to complain.
Am I close? Since you didn't really explain to me why you care if Emirates gets more access.
Travel between Point A and Point B is well covered. It may not be as cheap or as convenient as you like it, but too bad. You try and make it sound as if it's impossible to get from Canada to Dubai. Buy your damn ticket to London and go already. (Or Frankfurt. Or Paris. I hear Emirates flies there daily.) Or don't.
The simple fact is, Canada decides who flies to Canada, and the UAE decides who flies to the UAE.
I really can't be bothered to do a line-by-line deconstruction of your post as you did mine, quite frankly I think it's a lazy way of debating. But you've made your point, laissez-faire capitalism it is, and the workers be damned. You are correct, not too many people are concerned about where their cheap goods come from, but some do and perhaps more should. Perhaps your perspective would be different if you were one of the workers, that's why I asked. A question which you coyly avoided answering directly.
You defend hypocrisy as status quo, then attack Canada's defence of their domestic industry as the same. I guess only the one that prevents your cheaper, easier access to Dubai is wrong EH?!
As far as a lot of expats wanting to come work in this region...what a red herring. Emirates is having difficulty attracting pilots (relative to the numbers that once gladly came) because the truth is getting out there of what working for EK is like these days. Morale is in the toilet, and that is well documented elsewhere. So in that regard you're just plain wrong. From the more desperate nations, of course there will always be workers wanting to come. (Not to mention to replace the ones who have been made redundant and/or fled.) But you make it sound as if they're coming because it's so great, when the truth is it may be just slightly less horrific then where they came from (and often isn't). Exploitation is not quite a ringing endorsement.
Same with your comparison to low-co's and safety. I don't have a good answer as to why the "Western" authorities allow Emirates to continue with some of their FTL practices. Again, I cannot prove a negative: "Emirates continues to operate so it must be safe/legal". But saying that a British lowcost is just as unsafe as Emirates therefore, no problem, isn't the greatest argument. As others have noted, I guess we'll just have to wait for a smoking hole to prove a point. Seems a bit of a shame though.
Here's my take on the situation. Once upon a time, perhaps before you Married a Canadian, you, like many of your compatriots, were lured to the sunny paradise of Dubai from the rainy hell of England, with it's annoying things like democracy, unions and a legal system. Those slick ads...the sexy buildings...why, they own the Gunners, fer Gawd's sake! Talk about LEGITIMATE! The shiny new B777 whisked you there, in the seat-sale Y class. The service seemed a dream: free booze (oh such respite from those cheap bastards Ryan and Easy) and young, attractive cabin crew (a reprieve from those silly experienced ones they have at BA).
When you landed, you were shuttled on a nice little bus by a little brown man, directly to your package-deal hotel. Already you knew the place was something special. Everywhere you look, other sunburned, middle-aged Brits revelling in their self-importance, with their flash cars, Filipino maids, and don't forget: no income tax! Sunny and warm, on your Big Bus Tour you marvelled at the sights. Malls! A ski hill! A tall building! A....hmm..well that's about it. But STILL! The place was magnificent! (Big Bus doesn't go through the camps in Al Quoz, after all.) Why, whatever are these people ON about! The Middle East is positively PROGRESSIVE!
Back in jolly old England, after a torrid internet dating affair, you met Mrs. Married a Canadian and moved over to Canucksville. With the memories of your dream vacation still fresh, you decided to recreate the vacation with your main squeeze. But one phonecall to a travel agent revealed a shocking truth: you could only fly direct to the UAE six days a week!!
Quelle Horreur!
And thus you entered PPRune to complain.Am I close? Since you didn't really explain to me why you care if Emirates gets more access.
Travel between Point A and Point B is well covered. It may not be as cheap or as convenient as you like it, but too bad. You try and make it sound as if it's impossible to get from Canada to Dubai. Buy your damn ticket to London and go already. (Or Frankfurt. Or Paris. I hear Emirates flies there daily.) Or don't.
The simple fact is, Canada decides who flies to Canada, and the UAE decides who flies to the UAE.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Married--again, it comes down to more than just 'I have a right to fly from x to y'. That is not competition. Why is it every US, European and most Asian carriers have unrestricted access to Cdn skies? Protectionism?? I think not.
The model for open skies is an agreement that benefits both sides equally. In the case of UAE-Canada the benefits are lopsided, so no agreement. It really is simple.
All this talk of competition is a way to bypass the real arguement. The net benefit to Canada is negligable especially when you take into account the losses on other flights and codeshare/partner connections. The article spelled that out nicely.
Unbridled capitalism and laissez faire is hardly an arguement. The financial industry is the perfect example--let them all grow at any cost because big is better and complete open and unregulated markets are the most efficient. HA--what a scam. Yet the Cdn's did not allow their banks to merge (as they wanted using the same arguements) and did not tolerate the cry that complete freedom from regulation was needed. Those banks survived the crash extremely well and all are profitable.
Lets talk about subsidies---is it fair that EK is subsidized? They claim they are are not--but prove it!!! We already know that they are government controlled and NOT arms length from the regulator.
To answer the question about Paris and Frankfurt----airbus! They need to keep EK somewhat happy or airbus sales slide. But don't be so positive EK still can't get into Berlin and a few others because governments will not allow it.
The model for open skies is an agreement that benefits both sides equally. In the case of UAE-Canada the benefits are lopsided, so no agreement. It really is simple.
All this talk of competition is a way to bypass the real arguement. The net benefit to Canada is negligable especially when you take into account the losses on other flights and codeshare/partner connections. The article spelled that out nicely.
Unbridled capitalism and laissez faire is hardly an arguement. The financial industry is the perfect example--let them all grow at any cost because big is better and complete open and unregulated markets are the most efficient. HA--what a scam. Yet the Cdn's did not allow their banks to merge (as they wanted using the same arguements) and did not tolerate the cry that complete freedom from regulation was needed. Those banks survived the crash extremely well and all are profitable.
Lets talk about subsidies---is it fair that EK is subsidized? They claim they are are not--but prove it!!! We already know that they are government controlled and NOT arms length from the regulator.
To answer the question about Paris and Frankfurt----airbus! They need to keep EK somewhat happy or airbus sales slide. But don't be so positive EK still can't get into Berlin and a few others because governments will not allow it.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nolimit
Been working the last couple of days...just checked your reply. I have also done a bit of reading on the middle east forum..and I can't deny that Emirates does seem to have afew morale issues at present..and has afew disgruntled crew members.
What does that mean for the future? I don't know to be honest...and lets be fair neither do you. You have already admitted that you can't answer why they are allowed to fly into the airspace of the bodies mentioned. There is either some hefty palm greasing going on or the powers that be simply do not see it as an issue.
Whether you, I or the crew like that or not it won't change until that "smoking gun" appears.....but then that is the same for the whole aviation industry. Changes are always reactive.
I don't like that statement but a trawl through the list of accidents and incidents through the years normally shows the changes made after. It is not seen as unsafe now...and unless a wide groundswell of opinion is heard that won't change. I personally don't believe it is in any airlines best interest to have a culture of unsafe practices as the best way to kill a business model is to have an accident. We will see in the future.
BTW I am not saying anyone is "unsafe"...as I am not in the regulatory bodies that decide that.
For your info when Emirates fly into Toronto from a control perspective they do things by the book and don't cause me or my colleagues any trouble whatsover. Believe me there are a few cowboy pilots out there. Non so far seem to fly for EK.
I am one of the "workers" as you put it. In Western society I think I am known as the middle class and every time I look at my payslip I see a big chunk of tax being taken off it. I also look at the powers that be (in a democratic society) doing a lot of things on the tax payers dime that do make you wonder what country we live in.
I have never been to Dubai, actually am from Scotland but am one of the Brits who just say "the UK" and moved to Canada to be with Mrs Canadian (that part you were correct). I take interest in the politics of the country that I call home, and pay interest to goings on afar in places that some of my friends and colleagues work (Middle East..air traffic controllers).
You ask again...why do I care?
Yes you can fly 6 times weekly (Emirates and Etihad). Yes you can go via all the place mentioned. That side of things was never my prime concern (although when I fly that way it might be
)
As I have said before I find the airline industry as a whole wholly hypocritical. I am not defending that statement...just pointing out that Air Canada is on shaky ground when it comes to talk of protecting "Canadian interest".
Their history involves a lot of collateral damage and p$$$$ed off ex employees of the companies they swallowed. They are at it again trying to knock Porter airlines out of the Toronto city centre airport
Air Canada takes helm in fight for island airport access - The Globe and Mail
An airline that is being successful and creating Canadian jobs and boosting the local economy...and the national carrier (which attempted these routes in the past with no luck) wants to challenge this. To what end? To strengthen their near monopoly?
"It wasn't fair before", "Porter are getting special treatment" .
This is the ame type of stuff that is being said towards Emirates...and yet this is directed at a Canadian carrier.
So what are we looking at, open up the island to Air Canada again, they will use their competitive advantage to undercut the competition, knock them out of business, put a lot of canadian employees out of work and leave afew more feeling somewhat put out (and lo they may go to the middle east to seek work). And this is good for Canadian interest how?
Do you think the staff at Porter airlines thinks that Air Canada is operating with the interests of their jobs and livlihood in mind?
To me the situation is no different with Emirates...but is is easier to breathe fire towards "foreign" competition because there is a lot more seeming "baggage" that comes with EK.
Trader
I agree...yet I have pointed out before that US airlines are allowed to operate under chapter 11 protection, and Air Canada has had to be restructured from bankruptcy in the past. All the while whilst being allowed to compete on international routes. If you are advocation transparency and equality..then why do airlines that seem to **** up financially still seem to come out smelling of roses...and also call the shots.
THe great thing about PPRUNE is it is all opinion...that is all. The ones who are in the real positions of power are not normally posting on internet webboards.
The fact that this thread and the one on the canada forum has provoked discussion (and raised interesting points...I have learned from all of them) is that it covers all aspects of business/politics/national interest and of course just basic aviation interest.
I will sign off from the topic now as we will never agree on all points but I will keep an eye on the situation and keep my ears to the grapevine.
If it makes you feel better I could give Emirates a last minute runway change and then vector them 30 miles downwind? Although afew Air Canada pilots would say they get that daily in YYZ anyway
Been working the last couple of days...just checked your reply. I have also done a bit of reading on the middle east forum..and I can't deny that Emirates does seem to have afew morale issues at present..and has afew disgruntled crew members.
What does that mean for the future? I don't know to be honest...and lets be fair neither do you. You have already admitted that you can't answer why they are allowed to fly into the airspace of the bodies mentioned. There is either some hefty palm greasing going on or the powers that be simply do not see it as an issue.
Whether you, I or the crew like that or not it won't change until that "smoking gun" appears.....but then that is the same for the whole aviation industry. Changes are always reactive.
I don't like that statement but a trawl through the list of accidents and incidents through the years normally shows the changes made after. It is not seen as unsafe now...and unless a wide groundswell of opinion is heard that won't change. I personally don't believe it is in any airlines best interest to have a culture of unsafe practices as the best way to kill a business model is to have an accident. We will see in the future.
BTW I am not saying anyone is "unsafe"...as I am not in the regulatory bodies that decide that.
For your info when Emirates fly into Toronto from a control perspective they do things by the book and don't cause me or my colleagues any trouble whatsover. Believe me there are a few cowboy pilots out there. Non so far seem to fly for EK.
I am one of the "workers" as you put it. In Western society I think I am known as the middle class and every time I look at my payslip I see a big chunk of tax being taken off it. I also look at the powers that be (in a democratic society) doing a lot of things on the tax payers dime that do make you wonder what country we live in.
I have never been to Dubai, actually am from Scotland but am one of the Brits who just say "the UK" and moved to Canada to be with Mrs Canadian (that part you were correct). I take interest in the politics of the country that I call home, and pay interest to goings on afar in places that some of my friends and colleagues work (Middle East..air traffic controllers).
You ask again...why do I care?
Yes you can fly 6 times weekly (Emirates and Etihad). Yes you can go via all the place mentioned. That side of things was never my prime concern (although when I fly that way it might be
)As I have said before I find the airline industry as a whole wholly hypocritical. I am not defending that statement...just pointing out that Air Canada is on shaky ground when it comes to talk of protecting "Canadian interest".
Their history involves a lot of collateral damage and p$$$$ed off ex employees of the companies they swallowed. They are at it again trying to knock Porter airlines out of the Toronto city centre airport
Air Canada takes helm in fight for island airport access - The Globe and Mail
An airline that is being successful and creating Canadian jobs and boosting the local economy...and the national carrier (which attempted these routes in the past with no luck) wants to challenge this. To what end? To strengthen their near monopoly?
"It wasn't fair before", "Porter are getting special treatment" .
This is the ame type of stuff that is being said towards Emirates...and yet this is directed at a Canadian carrier.
So what are we looking at, open up the island to Air Canada again, they will use their competitive advantage to undercut the competition, knock them out of business, put a lot of canadian employees out of work and leave afew more feeling somewhat put out (and lo they may go to the middle east to seek work). And this is good for Canadian interest how?
Do you think the staff at Porter airlines thinks that Air Canada is operating with the interests of their jobs and livlihood in mind?
To me the situation is no different with Emirates...but is is easier to breathe fire towards "foreign" competition because there is a lot more seeming "baggage" that comes with EK.
Trader
Unbridled capitalism and laissez faire is hardly an arguement. The financial industry is the perfect example--let them all grow at any cost because big is better and complete open and unregulated markets are the most efficient. HA--what a scam. Yet the Cdn's did not allow their banks to merge (as they wanted using the same arguements) and did not tolerate the cry that complete freedom from regulation was needed. Those banks survived the crash extremely well and all are profitable.
THe great thing about PPRUNE is it is all opinion...that is all. The ones who are in the real positions of power are not normally posting on internet webboards.
The fact that this thread and the one on the canada forum has provoked discussion (and raised interesting points...I have learned from all of them) is that it covers all aspects of business/politics/national interest and of course just basic aviation interest.
I will sign off from the topic now as we will never agree on all points but I will keep an eye on the situation and keep my ears to the grapevine.
If it makes you feel better I could give Emirates a last minute runway change and then vector them 30 miles downwind? Although afew Air Canada pilots would say they get that daily in YYZ anyway
Last edited by Married a Canadian; 3rd Apr 2010 at 16:55.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Married (a Canadian),
Your lengthy and tiresome arguments have still not produced a really good reason for any increase in flights to Toronto. Basically Emirates/Etihad have good access already and just wants MORE. It will effectively take capacity away from all competitors at the table not just Air Canada. There will be negligable increase in business to Canada by increasing Emirates access.
Yes Air Canada is a huge airline with unions and a good balance of work vs company benefit, etc etc...much better than Emirates and therefore a bit more expensive to maintain, and not state supported, so therefore a bit more difficult to manipulate into new markets at some critical times etc. But then that is a totally different issue. You seem to be making this a vs/vs scenario. Its not.
Simply, the response by the Gov't is after a study of the market as a whole, and the response by Rovenescu was in response to controversial slanderous remarks on the Emirates side. The gov't will look at it and decide, and Rovenescu will try to protect his interests... Period.
The Candian gov't will look at it and discuss it with Emirates and Air Canada and look at others at the table and make a decision. If the space is there, and the benefit is there, maybe emirates will get it. But for the reasons I have previously stated, I believe probably not.
But do you really blame the gov't if it wants to protect or encourage the company providing jobs and income tax on its own territory to flourish instead?
Your lengthy and tiresome arguments have still not produced a really good reason for any increase in flights to Toronto. Basically Emirates/Etihad have good access already and just wants MORE. It will effectively take capacity away from all competitors at the table not just Air Canada. There will be negligable increase in business to Canada by increasing Emirates access.
Yes Air Canada is a huge airline with unions and a good balance of work vs company benefit, etc etc...much better than Emirates and therefore a bit more expensive to maintain, and not state supported, so therefore a bit more difficult to manipulate into new markets at some critical times etc. But then that is a totally different issue. You seem to be making this a vs/vs scenario. Its not.
Simply, the response by the Gov't is after a study of the market as a whole, and the response by Rovenescu was in response to controversial slanderous remarks on the Emirates side. The gov't will look at it and decide, and Rovenescu will try to protect his interests... Period.
The Candian gov't will look at it and discuss it with Emirates and Air Canada and look at others at the table and make a decision. If the space is there, and the benefit is there, maybe emirates will get it. But for the reasons I have previously stated, I believe probably not.
But do you really blame the gov't if it wants to protect or encourage the company providing jobs and income tax on its own territory to flourish instead?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
555 orange
See my point regarding Air Canada and Porter airlines. Then tell me why Air Canada needs "more" on the domestic front?
If the argument can be used internationally for Canada to protect it's own interest (which is the one you are using)...then tell me how it applies domestically if Air Canada puts a competitor out of business that provides jobs and income tax in their own territory...as you put it.
It is always a vs/vs scenario. It just so happens to be EK at the moment.
Will they get more flights? I don't know.
Why should they? Because they say the demand is there and no one else is willing to serve that demand (or able) . Do I believe them? maybe...figures are always used to prove either sides arguments. Ek says one thing..Canada says another. You will believe whichever side you are on.....We are in agreement there is a market with the connections through Europe and EK are vying for that market.
Do I blame the Cdn govt? Yes and no....they don't seem to stick up for any of the other "ailing" canadian airlines or offer any protection to them. You will have noticed another Cdn aviation company gone under this week in Skyservice. Not much govt interference there it seems. Not the same clout as Air Canada perchance?
Anyway we will never agree...but as I have said I have learned from the discussion and gleaned some interesting points in general.
We'll see for the future...and whichever way it goes I won't be inconvenienced in the slightest...nor will I care who is doing the flying.
Thankyou for your comments.
MAC
Emirates/Etihad have good access already and just wants MORE
If the argument can be used internationally for Canada to protect it's own interest (which is the one you are using)...then tell me how it applies domestically if Air Canada puts a competitor out of business that provides jobs and income tax in their own territory...as you put it.
It is always a vs/vs scenario. It just so happens to be EK at the moment.
Will they get more flights? I don't know.
Why should they? Because they say the demand is there and no one else is willing to serve that demand (or able) . Do I believe them? maybe...figures are always used to prove either sides arguments. Ek says one thing..Canada says another. You will believe whichever side you are on.....We are in agreement there is a market with the connections through Europe and EK are vying for that market.
Do I blame the Cdn govt? Yes and no....they don't seem to stick up for any of the other "ailing" canadian airlines or offer any protection to them. You will have noticed another Cdn aviation company gone under this week in Skyservice. Not much govt interference there it seems. Not the same clout as Air Canada perchance?
Anyway we will never agree...but as I have said I have learned from the discussion and gleaned some interesting points in general.
We'll see for the future...and whichever way it goes I won't be inconvenienced in the slightest...nor will I care who is doing the flying.
Thankyou for your comments.
MAC
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the twilight zone
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey orange. AC not state supported? Officially no,but you know as well as I they get bailout money every few years. Do they ever change anything to try and stop the bleeding? NO. UAE product is far superior to that of AC, so canadians stand to benefit from more flights and the WAY better service
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sec 3,
Could you please post some supporting documentation that "Air Canada gets bailout money every few years"?
Because you're really just sounding like an ignorant fool, repeating the same old tired myths. And putting me in a position to defend a company I don't even like just makes me grumpy. But I despise ignorance and lies even more than AC.
Air Canada has completely restructured over the last several years. They do not get "bailout money", they entered CCAA creditor protection and then emerged. No, their product may not be on the level you expect from Emirates with their billions of dirhams to spend on equipment, younger fleet and crew, but it was good enough to be judged the best in North America.
The cracks behind that EK "superior service" are beginning to show. Our pax see it, especially in the premium cabins. All is not quite as facile as you portray it.
Could you please post some supporting documentation that "Air Canada gets bailout money every few years"?
Because you're really just sounding like an ignorant fool, repeating the same old tired myths. And putting me in a position to defend a company I don't even like just makes me grumpy. But I despise ignorance and lies even more than AC.
Air Canada has completely restructured over the last several years. They do not get "bailout money", they entered CCAA creditor protection and then emerged. No, their product may not be on the level you expect from Emirates with their billions of dirhams to spend on equipment, younger fleet and crew, but it was good enough to be judged the best in North America.
The cracks behind that EK "superior service" are beginning to show. Our pax see it, especially in the premium cabins. All is not quite as facile as you portray it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: ex DXB
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you please post some supporting documentation that "Air Canada gets bailout money every few years"?
The loan was provided on commercial terms and at market rates consistent with the risk profile of the transaction. EDC’s support was complemented by the Government of Canada, which lent $100 million through its Canada Account. The other lenders include ACE Aviations Holdings Inc., General Electric Capital Markets and Aeroplan.
EDC Support for the Aerospace Sector - EDC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Canada
Age: 54
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys and girls do you really think Air Canada is going to pay that loan off. I think this one will be a write off.
Did any other airlines in Canada receive the same lifeline from the gov't?
Thanks,
CR
Did any other airlines in Canada receive the same lifeline from the gov't?
Thanks,
CR
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The loan was provided on commercial terms and at market rates consistent with the risk profile of the transaction.
sec 3 tries to make an offhand comment implying that the government throws them money "every few years", casually, no strings attached. I call bull****.
EDC as well as most people not blinded by their hate of AC have no problem realizing that a country's largest airline provides "significant and tangible benefits to Canada".
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Riyadh
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
???way better service...are you nuts?
sec 3
Maybe you better try flying EK's 777 if you think it is way better than AC's777. EK in economy is 10 (yes I know it is scary) across while AC is the industry standard of 9. That's an extra seat EK sells on every row...you do the math. Now do you want an extra roll with your meal sir? or a bit bigger seat. I'll take the bigger seat thank you. Yes I know EK now flies the A380 into YYZ, but if they are allowed to fly more, they will probably switch to a 777. And as far as EK inflight service goes, maybe you should check the latest ratings on skytrax. EK is a parasite airline and treats it's employees like crap. Stay OUT of Canada.
Maybe you better try flying EK's 777 if you think it is way better than AC's777. EK in economy is 10 (yes I know it is scary) across while AC is the industry standard of 9. That's an extra seat EK sells on every row...you do the math. Now do you want an extra roll with your meal sir? or a bit bigger seat. I'll take the bigger seat thank you. Yes I know EK now flies the A380 into YYZ, but if they are allowed to fly more, they will probably switch to a 777. And as far as EK inflight service goes, maybe you should check the latest ratings on skytrax. EK is a parasite airline and treats it's employees like crap. Stay OUT of Canada.
