Canada says the UAE is acting like a pompous thug says Colin Kenny
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: in bed
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Harry, apology accepted.
And now back to Wizofoz.
Because they are the rule and you are the exception.
No, and I don't bombard you with them either. You have sent me eight PMs in the last five years. I replied to each one, and to one twice. I have not sent you an unsolicited PM, they have all come from you.
I'm not so interested in who people are, so much as what they are. For example it's unlikely that an F/O with previous jet command time who joined EK with you and is still in the right seat with no immediate prospect of upgrade would post what you post. Again they are more the rule at EK, you are the exception.
And now back to Wizofoz.
And why exactley shouldn't Sheikmyarse, Nolimitholdem, LHR rain and the rest be held to the same standard, WTF?
Do you bombard them with PMs,
...try and find out who they are and reveal it,
Because they are the rule and you are the exception.
No, and I don't bombard you with them either. You have sent me eight PMs in the last five years. I replied to each one, and to one twice. I have not sent you an unsolicited PM, they have all come from you.
I'm not so interested in who people are, so much as what they are.
For example it's unlikely that an F/O with previous jet command time who joined EK with you and is still in the right seat with no immediate prospect of upgrade would post what you post.
I can also assure you that neither Sheikmyares nor Nolimitholdem meet the description you make above. Sheik doesn't even work for EK. Yet any crap they post gets a bye because hysterical nonsense IS the norm on this forum, and any attempt at rationality and balance is met by the type of self-confessed co-ertion you have engaged in.
Again they are more the rule at EK, you are the exception.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing,
Same handful of guys hijack every threat and start slinging mud at each other.
Seriously guys, if you can't have a mature discussion without getting into an argument about who said what...then how about starting your own thread in a little corner of pprune that nobody else cares about or visits...and just have your petty little squabbles there?
Same handful of guys hijack every threat and start slinging mud at each other.
Seriously guys, if you can't have a mature discussion without getting into an argument about who said what...then how about starting your own thread in a little corner of pprune that nobody else cares about or visits...and just have your petty little squabbles there?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Anywhere there are cats to chase.
Age: 25
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Canada wanted daily Emirates flights... In return, airline wanted 50% profits
By Mick O'Reilly, Deputy Managing Editor, Gulf News
Published: 00:00 January 15, 2011
Ottawa: Air Canada wanted Emirates to fly daily into Toronto, a document obtained by Gulf News shows.
According to the proposal dated October 17, 2006, the Canadian airline even proposed the landing times for Emirates flights in Toronto so as to maximise the number of Air Canada passengers using the service.
In return for the arrangement, Air Canada wanted 50 per cent of all of Emirates's profits on the route.
Emirates rejected the proposal. 
Air Canada and Emirates did not comment.
Since the 2006 deal was rejected, both Emirates and Etihad have been limited to three flights a week to Toronto, and the UAE carriers have been refused more landing slots and have been stalled in their efforts to fly to other Canadian destinations of Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver.
Air Canada, however, while believing the proposed arrangement would be profitable in 2006, has since consistently claimed that thousands of jobs would be lost if more UAE flights are granted. "Clearly, this document shows the duplicity of Air Canada and the Canadian government in this whole affair," Dan McTeague, the opposition Liberal party's critic on foreign and consular affairs, told Gulf News. "The government is acting in the interests of Air Canada."
McTeague said that if Air Canada wanted more flights, then its current view on jobs doesn't told (sic) water. An Emirates study says that daily flights to Toronto would create nearly 2,000 new jobs and would contribute $26 million (Dh94 million) annually in tax revenue for federal and provincial governments.
Published: 00:00 January 15, 2011
Ottawa: Air Canada wanted Emirates to fly daily into Toronto, a document obtained by Gulf News shows.
According to the proposal dated October 17, 2006, the Canadian airline even proposed the landing times for Emirates flights in Toronto so as to maximise the number of Air Canada passengers using the service.
In return for the arrangement, Air Canada wanted 50 per cent of all of Emirates's profits on the route.
Emirates rejected the proposal. Air Canada and Emirates did not comment.Since the 2006 deal was rejected, both Emirates and Etihad have been limited to three flights a week to Toronto, and the UAE carriers have been refused more landing slots and have been stalled in their efforts to fly to other Canadian destinations of Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver.
Air Canada, however, while believing the proposed arrangement would be profitable in 2006, has since consistently claimed that thousands of jobs would be lost if more UAE flights are granted. "Clearly, this document shows the duplicity of Air Canada and the Canadian government in this whole affair," Dan McTeague, the opposition Liberal party's critic on foreign and consular affairs, told Gulf News. "The government is acting in the interests of Air Canada."
McTeague said that if Air Canada wanted more flights, then its current view on jobs doesn't told (sic) water. An Emirates study says that daily flights to Toronto would create nearly 2,000 new jobs and would contribute $26 million (Dh94 million) annually in tax revenue for federal and provincial governments.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: AMS
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good info troff. At least we know it's possible, or at least negotiating was possible until AUH cocked it up. So we have to share a bit with the locals, makes sense to me. Why did we not counter that with 30%... point is it's a start. It's their market after all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Anywhere there are cats to chase.
Age: 25
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harper’s temper tantrums costly for Canada
Published On Sun Jan 16 2011EmailPrint
By Haroon Siddiqui
(Haroon Siddiqui is the Toronto Star's editorial page editor emeritus. His column appears on Thursday and Sunday. [email protected] )
When you question Stephen Harper’s foreign policy, he attacks your patriotism. When he makes a mistake, he won’t acknowledge it. When he’s losing a debate, he recasts it as cultural warfare between good and evil, and lashes out at critics with little or no regard for facts.
All these traits are on full display in his nasty row with the United Arab Emirates.
When Bob Rae, Liberal foreign affairs critic, said that Ottawa has been “reckless” in poisoning this relationship, the Harperites called him a bad Canadian, and “a door mat” for Arab royals.
Harper accused the U.A.E. of trying to take commercial advantage of Canada’s war on terror in Afghanistan by cancelling a lease on an air base that Canada had used for nine years to ship troops and equipment into and out of Afghanistan.
The U.A.E.’s decision followed Ottawa’s rejection of additional landing rights for Emirates and Etihad airlines, and reciprocal visa-free entry here for Emirati citizens.
Dan McTeague, Liberal critic for consular affairs, thinks that Harper is being an ungrateful wretch. The MP for Pickering-Scarborough East, told me Friday:
“Unlike the prime minister’s charge that the U.A.E. has been soft on terrorism, they provided us Camp Mirage free.
“They treated about 100 wounded Canadian soldiers in Dubai, free of charge, and sent many home on Emirate Airways, first class. Their treatment of our soldiers has been better than Harper shortchanging our walking wounded from Afghanistan.
“And let’s not forget that U.A.E. helped free two Canadian hostages from Iraq in 2005 — James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden.
“The facts are there for Canadians to see.”
The U.A.E. is so incensed that it might recall its ambassador from Ottawa, I am told.
The damage may extend to the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain).
Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, visiting Doha Thursday, was bluntly told of Qatar’s displeasure at Canada’s treatment of their neighbour, according to a source. Following that meeting, Cannon abruptly cancelled a scheduled news conference.
At stake is our $1.5 billion a year trade with U.A.E. — 95 per cent of it in our favour — that holds high promise when we are desperate to find non-American markets.
The U.A.E. is spending tens of billions on infrastructure projects that Canadian companies are well-suited to bid on. That’s why 200 of them have opened offices there, including Bombardier, which wants to sell its mid-range aircraft and bid on a $20 billion high-speed rail project.
The U.A.E. has invested $4.4 billion in Canada, and may increase it manyfold, given its $1 trillion sovereign fund.
U.A.E.’s purchase of dozens of wide-body Boeing planes is also good for Canada, since a third of the parts are manufactured by 41 Canadian companies, 15 of them in Ontario.
Having botched the relationship, Harper and ministers have presented themselves as defenders of Air Canada and, thus, Canada.
But Air Canada is no longer a state carrier. It’s just another big Canadian company (that often annoys its customers). It gets Ottawa’s help through protected routes and severe restrictions on foreign carriers.
If allowing the two U.A.E. airlines would cost Canada “tens of thousands of jobs,” as Ottawa says, it needs to show how and where — and how the job losses would stack up against the new jobs created with the proposed expanded services.
If Emirates and Etihad are subsidized, Ottawa must prove how and where. It’s not good enough to cite the U.A.E.’s airport infrastructure program or its lower taxation. All jurisdictions compete with such incentives. Indeed, the Harper government boasts of lowering corporate taxes to lure business.
Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary airports are keen to host the U.A.E. airlines.
Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia have agreements with U.A.E. to expand trade. An Alberta delegation is in U.A.E. this week.
U.A.E. has emerged as the financial and transportation hub for a vast region, from the Middle East to Africa to China and India. It is leading a shift in transportation from the West to the East, in sync with the economic centre of gravity moving east.
Canada’s response cannot be crass protectionism and holding Canadian consumers hostage, but rather a confident foray into the bigger world, as suggested by Ottawa’s own Competition Policy Review Panel.
What we have instead from Harper is petulance and demagoguery that will cost Canada dearly.
By Haroon Siddiqui
(Haroon Siddiqui is the Toronto Star's editorial page editor emeritus. His column appears on Thursday and Sunday. [email protected] )
When you question Stephen Harper’s foreign policy, he attacks your patriotism. When he makes a mistake, he won’t acknowledge it. When he’s losing a debate, he recasts it as cultural warfare between good and evil, and lashes out at critics with little or no regard for facts.
All these traits are on full display in his nasty row with the United Arab Emirates.
When Bob Rae, Liberal foreign affairs critic, said that Ottawa has been “reckless” in poisoning this relationship, the Harperites called him a bad Canadian, and “a door mat” for Arab royals.
Harper accused the U.A.E. of trying to take commercial advantage of Canada’s war on terror in Afghanistan by cancelling a lease on an air base that Canada had used for nine years to ship troops and equipment into and out of Afghanistan.
The U.A.E.’s decision followed Ottawa’s rejection of additional landing rights for Emirates and Etihad airlines, and reciprocal visa-free entry here for Emirati citizens.
Dan McTeague, Liberal critic for consular affairs, thinks that Harper is being an ungrateful wretch. The MP for Pickering-Scarborough East, told me Friday:
“Unlike the prime minister’s charge that the U.A.E. has been soft on terrorism, they provided us Camp Mirage free.
“They treated about 100 wounded Canadian soldiers in Dubai, free of charge, and sent many home on Emirate Airways, first class. Their treatment of our soldiers has been better than Harper shortchanging our walking wounded from Afghanistan.
“And let’s not forget that U.A.E. helped free two Canadian hostages from Iraq in 2005 — James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden.
“The facts are there for Canadians to see.”
The U.A.E. is so incensed that it might recall its ambassador from Ottawa, I am told.
The damage may extend to the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain).
Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, visiting Doha Thursday, was bluntly told of Qatar’s displeasure at Canada’s treatment of their neighbour, according to a source. Following that meeting, Cannon abruptly cancelled a scheduled news conference.
At stake is our $1.5 billion a year trade with U.A.E. — 95 per cent of it in our favour — that holds high promise when we are desperate to find non-American markets.
The U.A.E. is spending tens of billions on infrastructure projects that Canadian companies are well-suited to bid on. That’s why 200 of them have opened offices there, including Bombardier, which wants to sell its mid-range aircraft and bid on a $20 billion high-speed rail project.
The U.A.E. has invested $4.4 billion in Canada, and may increase it manyfold, given its $1 trillion sovereign fund.
U.A.E.’s purchase of dozens of wide-body Boeing planes is also good for Canada, since a third of the parts are manufactured by 41 Canadian companies, 15 of them in Ontario.
Having botched the relationship, Harper and ministers have presented themselves as defenders of Air Canada and, thus, Canada.
But Air Canada is no longer a state carrier. It’s just another big Canadian company (that often annoys its customers). It gets Ottawa’s help through protected routes and severe restrictions on foreign carriers.
If allowing the two U.A.E. airlines would cost Canada “tens of thousands of jobs,” as Ottawa says, it needs to show how and where — and how the job losses would stack up against the new jobs created with the proposed expanded services.
If Emirates and Etihad are subsidized, Ottawa must prove how and where. It’s not good enough to cite the U.A.E.’s airport infrastructure program or its lower taxation. All jurisdictions compete with such incentives. Indeed, the Harper government boasts of lowering corporate taxes to lure business.
Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary airports are keen to host the U.A.E. airlines.
Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia have agreements with U.A.E. to expand trade. An Alberta delegation is in U.A.E. this week.
U.A.E. has emerged as the financial and transportation hub for a vast region, from the Middle East to Africa to China and India. It is leading a shift in transportation from the West to the East, in sync with the economic centre of gravity moving east.
Canada’s response cannot be crass protectionism and holding Canadian consumers hostage, but rather a confident foray into the bigger world, as suggested by Ottawa’s own Competition Policy Review Panel.
What we have instead from Harper is petulance and demagoguery that will cost Canada dearly.
Last edited by troff; 16th Jan 2011 at 14:59. Reason: choice
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desert, I think you may be missing the point of Troff's article. It is saying that how come in 2006 Air Canada was keen to get EK on board if it meant making a quick cheap buck, but now miraculously they are crying foul and saying that it would cost them 10's of thousands of jobs?
None of it adds up! What's changed in the last 5 years (apart form demand for seats increasing) to make Air Canada do a complete reversal?
None of it adds up! What's changed in the last 5 years (apart form demand for seats increasing) to make Air Canada do a complete reversal?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm gonna venture a guess that maybe they know more about their own market than a British expat living in the Gulf? Just a hunch?
"What's changed in the last five years".
Really? You see no difference in the EK of today and the EK of 2006?
lol
It amuses me how suddenly, all the quotes are from political adversaries of the Conservative party actually making the decisions. I tend to think politicos with an agenda should have their statements taken for what they are, simple opportunism. Although interestingly enough, one of the most "vitriolic" (a word tossed about willy-nilly by the harrumphing editors of the Gulf Snooze) editorials on the situation came from a Liberal senator...hmm.
A better reflection of what most Canadians actually think might come from the comments following Canadian online news stories on the issue. Within hours of any story they light up with thousands of remarks, almost universally condemning the actions of the UAE and supporting Harper's actions. Of course anyone can cherry-pick the few comments with their tiresomely predicable ranting about the poor service on AC (even though it wins awards domestically these days) and how it's a Crown corporation (which it hasn't been since 1988) or how it's always being "bailed out" (which isn't true, it has been granted loans which it repaid in full at market interest rates), etc etc *yawn*
The quoted article talks about how Harper will "cost Canada dearly" yet fails to quantify that statement whatsoever. Talk about no regard for the "facts". or rather, completely devoid of any. Just yet another political hatchet job.
"What's changed in the last five years".
Really? You see no difference in the EK of today and the EK of 2006?
lol
It amuses me how suddenly, all the quotes are from political adversaries of the Conservative party actually making the decisions. I tend to think politicos with an agenda should have their statements taken for what they are, simple opportunism. Although interestingly enough, one of the most "vitriolic" (a word tossed about willy-nilly by the harrumphing editors of the Gulf Snooze) editorials on the situation came from a Liberal senator...hmm.
A better reflection of what most Canadians actually think might come from the comments following Canadian online news stories on the issue. Within hours of any story they light up with thousands of remarks, almost universally condemning the actions of the UAE and supporting Harper's actions. Of course anyone can cherry-pick the few comments with their tiresomely predicable ranting about the poor service on AC (even though it wins awards domestically these days) and how it's a Crown corporation (which it hasn't been since 1988) or how it's always being "bailed out" (which isn't true, it has been granted loans which it repaid in full at market interest rates), etc etc *yawn*
The quoted article talks about how Harper will "cost Canada dearly" yet fails to quantify that statement whatsoever. Talk about no regard for the "facts". or rather, completely devoid of any. Just yet another political hatchet job.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What has changed in the last 5 years? Nothing really. 5 years ago AC wanted to code share and wanted some of the profit, which is completely understandable, since a code share with EK would have siphoned off traffic from its other code share agreements and the profit they generated.
EK does NOT code share because they want the bulk of the profit and they want the control!!! Even at this moment if EK wanted into the Cdn market they could strike a deal with Westjet, who have been developing codeshare deals with a few international airlines. Westjet, I think, would like nothing better then to set up a deal and capture some of AC's business. Yet there is nothing!! Perhaps because nobody will accept EK's terms!
There is more to this than meets the eye I think. I suspect (and this is nothing more than a guess) that the UAE (and EK/EY) negotiated with an all or nothing stance believing that they could strong arm Canada into an agreement. When that didn't work they moved to other tactics (games) with the airbase etc.
EK does NOT code share because they want the bulk of the profit and they want the control!!! Even at this moment if EK wanted into the Cdn market they could strike a deal with Westjet, who have been developing codeshare deals with a few international airlines. Westjet, I think, would like nothing better then to set up a deal and capture some of AC's business. Yet there is nothing!! Perhaps because nobody will accept EK's terms!
There is more to this than meets the eye I think. I suspect (and this is nothing more than a guess) that the UAE (and EK/EY) negotiated with an all or nothing stance believing that they could strong arm Canada into an agreement. When that didn't work they moved to other tactics (games) with the airbase etc.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Canadians should act like the tough hockey players they think they are... Perhaps invest more in AC's product since it clearly can't compete with EK's current product. Limiting market access because you can't compete is pretty pathetic... Why limit a carrier to only 3 flights per week? Yeah, that's lame in this supposed "global" economy that the Canadian's supposedly advocate. Hey Hosers, actions speak louder than words!!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: AMS
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I got that Obla. But it's not JUST about that. One could rather look at it as Emirates "all or nothing attitude". I don't blame the owners of the market we serve for wanting to make some money, or ensure the security of their future in the face of the unbeatable Emirates machine. Certainly AC And their gov't are spinning it the way they want, but that is their right. Personally, I believe that both ways carries a degree of truth. But the fact remains that it's obvious that if we want it bad enough, it's possible. We just have to share the profit around a bit.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: AMS
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose it's because they are a publicly traded company with a board of directors and shareholders, and as such the no 1 priority is $.
So your point is they are xxxxxxx and put money before the employees. Is this not the way of all publicly traded companies? Is this not also the way of Emitares?
I believe they probably had some kind of meeting at that time to study the impact on the labor group and probably deemed that it was going to be minimal. Maybe that viewpoint has now changed.
So your point is they are xxxxxxx and put money before the employees. Is this not the way of all publicly traded companies? Is this not also the way of Emitares?
I believe they probably had some kind of meeting at that time to study the impact on the labor group and probably deemed that it was going to be minimal. Maybe that viewpoint has now changed.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Where the family is
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Limiting market access because you can't compete is pretty pathetic... Why limit a carrier to only 3 flights per week? Yeah, that's lame in this supposed "global" economy that the Canadian's supposedly advocate. Hey Hosers, actions speak louder than words!!!!!
Canada, be strong. In return for "open skies", make sure that you get something back that you can at least use. If you give in then I would suggest a life long supply of Vaseline..............
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Where the family is
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would hazard a guess that about 80% of Singapore Airlines passengers traveling to Canada would originate from places other than Singapore. I would further hazard a guess that 80% of Air Canada's passengers traveling to anywhere, would originate in Canada. As Canada is not geographically in the middle of anywhere and does not have a huge traveling population, I'm thinking that even though the consumer might benefit, it might just be a ruse to expand an airlines network that relies on through traffic.
Will this benefit the aviation industry in Canada - Hell no!
Will it benefit Air Singapore - Hell yes.
Will the consumer benefit - Absolutely....Until the competition has been eliminated that is. Then the consumer will be saying. "How did I end up with this in my butt?" Air Singapore will remark. "If you sit sideways, you'll find it quite comfortable."
You can substitute EK,Air France, Cathay and any other hub operator for Singapore, and the story remains the same.
Will this benefit the aviation industry in Canada - Hell no!
Will it benefit Air Singapore - Hell yes.
Will the consumer benefit - Absolutely....Until the competition has been eliminated that is. Then the consumer will be saying. "How did I end up with this in my butt?" Air Singapore will remark. "If you sit sideways, you'll find it quite comfortable."
You can substitute EK,Air France, Cathay and any other hub operator for Singapore, and the story remains the same.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can substitute EK,Air France, Cathay and any other hub operator for Singapore, and the story remains the same
Why is it wrong that
80% of Singapore Airlines passengers traveling to Canada would originate from places other than Singapore
As Canada is not geographically in the middle of anywhere
However the range is available to serve India DIRECT out of YYZ (Air India fly direct) yet AC chooses not to...and this can not be down to lack of demand...the population in the GTA does not support this argument nor Air India or Jet Airways doing the same.
AC should fly direct and scoop up some of the passengers that they are worried about EK and SQ and others poaching.
Geography doesn't hold any limitations in Canada's case with modern airframes.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: AMS
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Married a Canuck.
Sure there's nothing wrong with a share of through traffic, but as a sovereign nation, each would not want too much of their own traffic flowing through other carriers. It just robs you of your own potential.
I think a main diff here is that AC does it through an alliance seemingly sharing the poker pot, where our own Emirates seems to not want to go this route. This I believe is what nations are sitting up and taking notice now.
Sure Singapore flies to Seattle now, but rest assured, there is reciprocation. Cabotage is still illegal in the USA, and for the very reasons being discussed.
Sure there's nothing wrong with a share of through traffic, but as a sovereign nation, each would not want too much of their own traffic flowing through other carriers. It just robs you of your own potential.
I think a main diff here is that AC does it through an alliance seemingly sharing the poker pot, where our own Emirates seems to not want to go this route. This I believe is what nations are sitting up and taking notice now.
Sure Singapore flies to Seattle now, but rest assured, there is reciprocation. Cabotage is still illegal in the USA, and for the very reasons being discussed.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Where the family is
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are implying that point to point traffic is the only fair way of judging appropriate market share which does not lend to any sort of credible business plan.
Why is it wrong that
Quote:
80% of Singapore Airlines passengers traveling to Canada would originate from places other than Singapore
..or EK..or any other airline that operates this way.
Quote:
80% of Singapore Airlines passengers traveling to Canada would originate from places other than Singapore
..or EK..or any other airline that operates this way.
Canada is ideally placed to serve China
I'm not Canadian, and have no vested interest in what happens. I do however believe that the story of being the fair thing to do is just a sales pitch.