The noose tightens?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The noose tightens?
Seems the "anti middle east carrier" syndrome is spreading. Canada, Korea, France, Germany, ...............
It will be interesting to see how Emirates (and the others) deals with this over the next few years. I see continued political opposition from established markets thereby forcing EK into undeveloped markets.
Not a show stopper but it does put additional cost pressures upon the company to open up new markets over increasing frequency to established markets. Obviously that means the A-380 will eventually take over all the large established routes (assuming they are "slot" restricted and not "seat" restricted) and move the B-777/A330/340 increasing into the secondary routes.
It will be interesting to see how Emirates (and the others) deals with this over the next few years. I see continued political opposition from established markets thereby forcing EK into undeveloped markets.
Not a show stopper but it does put additional cost pressures upon the company to open up new markets over increasing frequency to established markets. Obviously that means the A-380 will eventually take over all the large established routes (assuming they are "slot" restricted and not "seat" restricted) and move the B-777/A330/340 increasing into the secondary routes.
AEA's Schulte-Strathaus says rise of Gulf carriers threatens global aviation order
By Perry Flint | January 24, 2011
Emirates Airline, Qatar Airways and Etihad represent a new kind of competitive threat that is incompatible with the existing world aviation order and that probably needs to be dealt with through ICAO, Assn. of European Airlines Secretary General Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus said last week in Washington.Schulte-Strathaus told the International Aviation Club that the trio of Persian Gulf-based carriers "are owned by their respective governments and operated as an instrument of national strategy—if 'national' is the right word within this regional rivalry—and they are integrated vertically across commerce, tourism and foreign policy." For their state owners, Schulte-Strathaus said, "The airlines are just a part—a tool—of this vertically integrated economic chain," and they are "being driven by a policy which is not compatible with that of the US and Europe, or I suspect, Australia, China, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Korea and so on."
He stated that the three "have more widebody seats on order than the entire US industry has in its current fleet … 425 brand new long-haul aircraft in the next five years." And they will fly "everywhere," he said, before asking: "Does it make sense for airlines and travelers worldwide if three carriers—two of which have never made a profit—collectively commit $100 billion to transforming the aviation map of the world?"
After stating that limiting market access is the wrong approach, he proposed that ICAO could become a WTO of the air, negotiating "a mechanism to deal with capacity dumping in the field of aviation." Schulte-Strathaus acknowledged "it has been quite a while since anyone in the airline industry mentioned capacity dumping as an issue ... But, the specter of an airline as part of a government vertically integrated design operating to all corners of the world forces us to reconsider the issue."
In a wide-ranging speech, he also expressed skepticism that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme will actually benefit the environment and provided examples of how it may distort competition among airlines, arguing instead for an "open" global solution. He also criticized the "regulatory monster called the Denied Boarding Compensation Regulation." Noting that airlines were held financially responsible for accommodating passengers owing to the volcanic-ash related airspace closures last April, he said that if "airlines are to be held accountable for unpredictable events like volcanic ash—which they should not be—then airports should be held accountable for predictable events like snow and ice."
By Perry Flint | January 24, 2011
Emirates Airline, Qatar Airways and Etihad represent a new kind of competitive threat that is incompatible with the existing world aviation order and that probably needs to be dealt with through ICAO, Assn. of European Airlines Secretary General Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus said last week in Washington.Schulte-Strathaus told the International Aviation Club that the trio of Persian Gulf-based carriers "are owned by their respective governments and operated as an instrument of national strategy—if 'national' is the right word within this regional rivalry—and they are integrated vertically across commerce, tourism and foreign policy." For their state owners, Schulte-Strathaus said, "The airlines are just a part—a tool—of this vertically integrated economic chain," and they are "being driven by a policy which is not compatible with that of the US and Europe, or I suspect, Australia, China, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Korea and so on."
He stated that the three "have more widebody seats on order than the entire US industry has in its current fleet … 425 brand new long-haul aircraft in the next five years." And they will fly "everywhere," he said, before asking: "Does it make sense for airlines and travelers worldwide if three carriers—two of which have never made a profit—collectively commit $100 billion to transforming the aviation map of the world?"
After stating that limiting market access is the wrong approach, he proposed that ICAO could become a WTO of the air, negotiating "a mechanism to deal with capacity dumping in the field of aviation." Schulte-Strathaus acknowledged "it has been quite a while since anyone in the airline industry mentioned capacity dumping as an issue ... But, the specter of an airline as part of a government vertically integrated design operating to all corners of the world forces us to reconsider the issue."
In a wide-ranging speech, he also expressed skepticism that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme will actually benefit the environment and provided examples of how it may distort competition among airlines, arguing instead for an "open" global solution. He also criticized the "regulatory monster called the Denied Boarding Compensation Regulation." Noting that airlines were held financially responsible for accommodating passengers owing to the volcanic-ash related airspace closures last April, he said that if "airlines are to be held accountable for unpredictable events like volcanic ash—which they should not be—then airports should be held accountable for predictable events like snow and ice."
German airline enters fray, bolsters Ottawa’s stand against UAE
Jane Taber
Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:04PM EST
A dispute not unlike the one between Canada and the United Arab Emirates over additional landing rights is being played out now in Europe with Lufthansa wanting to keep a Persian Gulf airline in check.
This latest spat between the German airline and the Dubai-based Emirates has not gone unnoticed here in Canada, prompting a senior Air Canada official to note the Conservative government has some company.
Air Canada chief operating officer Duncan Dee said the German airline’s bid serves “as further confirmation that Canada was not only correct in what it did but also that it is not alone in wanting to ensure fair access to air rights.”
According to multiple news reports Lufthansa has been successful in having Emirates denied landing positions at Berlin’s new airport, which is to open in June of next year. Lufthansa argues that the Dubai fleet’s access to German airports has led to “unequal” air traffic between Germany and the UAE. (Emirates flies to four airports in Germany compared to one destination in Dubai for Lufthansa.)
The imbroglio in Canada, meanwhile, just won’t go away. Last week, Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae visited the UAE to meet with officials and take his own read of the dispute. He thinks a deal can be worked out, with any new landing slots be phased in over time.
His visit raised eyebrows in the Prime Minister’s Office, where Harper officials were worried that the opposition MP was involving himself – and not in a good way – in Canadian foreign policy.
The relationship between the Canadian and UAE governments is poor right now. In retaliation for refusing the landing rights, the Gulf state has banned the Canadian military from using Camp Mirage, a staging base for Afghanistan that will cost Ottawa about $300-million to relocate. In addition, the UAE has slapped expensive visas on Canadians visiting the country.
But the Harper government has said that “tens of thousands of jobs” of Canadian workers would be at stake if it allowed additional landing rights to Emirates and another UAE airline, Etihad Airways.
In a blog post, Mr. Rae charged the Conservatives were protectionist and playing favourites with Air Canada. “It is surely an ironic twist that the old Reform Party and Stephen Harper have become advocates of closed skies and pure and simple protectionism,” Mr. Rae wrote. “Canadian public policy on Air Canada and open skies needs to be clarified.”
Mr. Dee, meanwhile, took exception to the Rae blog comments, saying that the Liberal MP should be “speaking up for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend directly or indirectly on a strong and vibrant Air Canada and Canadian airline industry.”
Elsewhere, Emirates has been denied additional landing rights in Paris by the French government. And South Korea has also refused the airline new slots.
Jane Taber
Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:04PM EST
A dispute not unlike the one between Canada and the United Arab Emirates over additional landing rights is being played out now in Europe with Lufthansa wanting to keep a Persian Gulf airline in check.
This latest spat between the German airline and the Dubai-based Emirates has not gone unnoticed here in Canada, prompting a senior Air Canada official to note the Conservative government has some company.
Air Canada chief operating officer Duncan Dee said the German airline’s bid serves “as further confirmation that Canada was not only correct in what it did but also that it is not alone in wanting to ensure fair access to air rights.”
According to multiple news reports Lufthansa has been successful in having Emirates denied landing positions at Berlin’s new airport, which is to open in June of next year. Lufthansa argues that the Dubai fleet’s access to German airports has led to “unequal” air traffic between Germany and the UAE. (Emirates flies to four airports in Germany compared to one destination in Dubai for Lufthansa.)
The imbroglio in Canada, meanwhile, just won’t go away. Last week, Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae visited the UAE to meet with officials and take his own read of the dispute. He thinks a deal can be worked out, with any new landing slots be phased in over time.
His visit raised eyebrows in the Prime Minister’s Office, where Harper officials were worried that the opposition MP was involving himself – and not in a good way – in Canadian foreign policy.
The relationship between the Canadian and UAE governments is poor right now. In retaliation for refusing the landing rights, the Gulf state has banned the Canadian military from using Camp Mirage, a staging base for Afghanistan that will cost Ottawa about $300-million to relocate. In addition, the UAE has slapped expensive visas on Canadians visiting the country.
But the Harper government has said that “tens of thousands of jobs” of Canadian workers would be at stake if it allowed additional landing rights to Emirates and another UAE airline, Etihad Airways.
In a blog post, Mr. Rae charged the Conservatives were protectionist and playing favourites with Air Canada. “It is surely an ironic twist that the old Reform Party and Stephen Harper have become advocates of closed skies and pure and simple protectionism,” Mr. Rae wrote. “Canadian public policy on Air Canada and open skies needs to be clarified.”
Mr. Dee, meanwhile, took exception to the Rae blog comments, saying that the Liberal MP should be “speaking up for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend directly or indirectly on a strong and vibrant Air Canada and Canadian airline industry.”
Elsewhere, Emirates has been denied additional landing rights in Paris by the French government. And South Korea has also refused the airline new slots.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting insights from a Canadian Journalist:
Emirates' airline hopes on wing and prayer
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — An opinion piece written by Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi about Canada's quarrel with the UAE over landing rights that appeared in the January 20 edition of the Globe and Mail is seriously misleading in several respects.
The article states that "hundreds of injured Canadian troops were given free medical care in the UAE before being airlifted home." This figure has deeply puzzled Canadian military and medical people in Kandahar and in Canada. The correct figure is not "hundreds." It is zero.
All of Canada's war injured from Kandahar have been treated at NATO hospitals and clinics in Afghanistan. Those requiring greater medical care have been transported in special flying hospitals by the U.S. Air Force to an American medical hospital in Germany where Canada has a small detachment of medical personnel. From there, when they were well enough to travel, these patients returned home.
But it is true that over the past eight years some of the soldiers that had been based at Canada's former logistical base in the UAE (Camp Mirage) were treated in that country when they became ill or were injured while loading and unloading aircraft or while maintaining transport aircraft.
Citing the BBC as a source, the sultan states that the UAE has also been the only Arab country conducting "full-scale operations" in Afghanistan. I'm not quite know what is meant by that term. Not one soldier from the UAE has been killed in Afghanistan, according to statistics kept by iCasualties.org. The only Arab soldier to die was a Jordanian. The same website states that 154 Canadians have died in Afghanistan.
The UAE does have a few fancy Apache attack helicopters based in Afghanistan. A standing joke among NATO air force crews is that they are rolled out of their hangars every morning to be polished and then they are rolled back in again. The general consensus is that these choppers almost never actually fly anywhere.
Whatever the UAE's military commitment to Afghanistan has cost, it is surely only a fraction of what Canada has spent here. By the end of this year Ottawa will have spent as much as $18 billion on the war on terror in Afghanistan, according to the parliamentary budget office.
Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways, which are the UAE's two national carriers, have said that their requests for more access to Canadian airspace have been seriously overstated by the Canadian side. What they say they had sought were daily flights to Toronto and as many as six flights a week to Calgary and Vancouver.
So, it is somewhat confusing when the sultan's article cites a study by Emirates Airlines and the British Columbia Transportation Ministry that highlighted the benefits of the proposed increase in flights between both nations based on "275,000 annual passengers." To fly that many passengers would require at least two fully-loaded Emirates Airlines Boeing 777 jumbo jets a day between Dubai and Vancouver, not several flights a week.
This reference begs the question: What number of landing slots has the UAE actually been seeking from Canada?
As for the supposed economic benefits for both countries, the writer claims that they would run into the many hundreds of millions of dollars every year if additional landing rights were granted. Chamber of commerce types touting potential business benefits are often prone to gross exaggeration. From what I have seen on the flights that I have taken on Emirates Airlines between Dubai and Toronto, about 95 cent of the passengers were not Emiratis or Canadians or business types, but Indians and Pakistanis — mostly of modest means — intent of visiting kin, with a few Jordanian and Lebanese families also part of this mix.
The sultan cites U.S.-UAE trade figures which indicate that business between the two countries has tripled to $12.7 billion since Emirates Airlines began flying to New York in 2004. This data may be accurate, but my guess is that most of that increase has been the result of the U.S.-led war on terror. Much of the logistical support for the wars in Iraq and, especially, Afghanistan flows through the UAE. For example, virtually all of the food eaten by U.S. (and Canadian) troops in Afghanistan is bought around the Middle East and elsewhere and then gathered in Dubai and flown from there to here.
Trade statistics with the UAE are often misleading because so much of it involves "crossdecking" goods that were made elsewhere and are going elsewhere. The UAE imports finished goods and food, and exports virtually nothing made there, because almost nothing is made there. And many of those doing this work, or who have jobs in the construction and service industries, are cheap labour: South Asians, Filipinos, Africans and Egyptians who are never granted rights to permanently live there, let alone citizenship.
Sultan Al Qassemi also states that "the UAE has employed the same proactive approach with Canada that it has with other nations with regards to trade and tourism promotion when Etihad and Emirates launched direct flights to Toronto back in 2005 and 2007 respectively. Six years later, no Canadian airline has taken advantage of this growing market."
This is correct. Left unsaid is that the UAE has much greater access to the aviation markets in New Zealand and Australia for several years and not one carrier from those countries flies to the UAE, either. There is also a gross imbalance in flights from the UAE to Europe, with the two UAE carriers flying far more flights than European carriers do. Ditto for the U.S., where the difference is about a dozen flights a day by UAE carriers compared to two or three by American carriers.
The reasons for this are clear. Western carriers cannot compete against UAE carriers because they have generally had easier access to more generous credit arrangements to purchase aircraft, and employ cabin crew and ground crew including mechanics from Third World countries who are paid a fraction of what western airline workers get.
The other crucial factor that explains why so few western carriers can compete against carriers from the UAE in Dubai or Abu Dhabi is that the western carriers do not have direct access through Dubai to passengers from other Arab countries, or from the sub-continent, who make up the great majority of passengers for Emirates and Etihad. This is especially true for traffic bound for Canada and the U.S.
Canada is not the only country that has serious reservations about the UAE's aviation plans. Air carriers from Britain, France, the Netherlands and Germany have been up in arms for some time over demands by the UAE for even more traffic rights. The Koreans, too, are furious over the UAE's demands for more landing slots.
Germany has already had enough. It has just said no to Emirates Airlines' request for landing rights in Berlin and Stuttgart, sending the CEO of Emirates into a tizzy.
If readers were to check European web sites, such as Luchtzak Aviation, that follow the business closely, they would find experts there lauding Canada's stance and demanding that their countries follow Canada's lead.
As for the 27,000 Canadian expatriates that the article states are living in the UAE, at a guess about 1,000 of them work for Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways as pilots. A relatively small number of those Canadians work in the oil industry, banking and telecoms. Most of the rest of the Canadian passport holders are of Indian and Pakistani descent who conduct most if not all of their business with the subcontinent, not with Canada.
Nevertheless, the sultan makes some good points. It is absolutely true that the UAE's ambassador to Canada has tried to see Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon for several years but has been unable to do so. Such behaviour by Cannon is totally unacceptable and has been deeply frustrating to Canadian diplomats working on many international files. They say the minister often seems barely interested in his portfolio and only wants to meet envoys who represent a small group of Canada's traditional allies.
Al Qassemi is also right about the UAE being a huge regional business hub and banking centre. But with so much business being conducted electronically today, and with neighbouring countries such as Bahrain and Qatar keen to provide similar services — to say nothing of economic powerhouses such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai — it is hardly an absolute necessity for Canadian businesses to establish themselves in the UAE.
The UAE's colossal global ambitions for its two airlines are understandable. It is blessed to lie between Asia and Europe and North America. Because of this it can provide one-stop service for travelers from Auckland, Brisbane, Peshawar or Hyderabad on their way to Newcastle, Toronto or San Francisco. But the great majority of the millions of passengers carried by the UAE's two carriers do not have any links to that country — which only has a little more than one million citizens — beyond the airplane tickets they have purchased. At the same time, airlines in the countries they are traveling to and from do not get any of their money.
The sheikdom's particular anger with Canada is also understandable. Emirates and Etihad have more than 200 wide-body jets on order and must find places to land them or they will be out tens of billions of dollars. That explains why it has been trying so loudly to get Canada to reverse its position.
If Ottawa maintains its principled stance, even more western countries may follow its lead, as Germany just has. That would be a nightmare for the tiny Gulf state's declared ambition to rule the skies.
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — An opinion piece written by Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi about Canada's quarrel with the UAE over landing rights that appeared in the January 20 edition of the Globe and Mail is seriously misleading in several respects.
The article states that "hundreds of injured Canadian troops were given free medical care in the UAE before being airlifted home." This figure has deeply puzzled Canadian military and medical people in Kandahar and in Canada. The correct figure is not "hundreds." It is zero.
All of Canada's war injured from Kandahar have been treated at NATO hospitals and clinics in Afghanistan. Those requiring greater medical care have been transported in special flying hospitals by the U.S. Air Force to an American medical hospital in Germany where Canada has a small detachment of medical personnel. From there, when they were well enough to travel, these patients returned home.
But it is true that over the past eight years some of the soldiers that had been based at Canada's former logistical base in the UAE (Camp Mirage) were treated in that country when they became ill or were injured while loading and unloading aircraft or while maintaining transport aircraft.
Citing the BBC as a source, the sultan states that the UAE has also been the only Arab country conducting "full-scale operations" in Afghanistan. I'm not quite know what is meant by that term. Not one soldier from the UAE has been killed in Afghanistan, according to statistics kept by iCasualties.org. The only Arab soldier to die was a Jordanian. The same website states that 154 Canadians have died in Afghanistan.
The UAE does have a few fancy Apache attack helicopters based in Afghanistan. A standing joke among NATO air force crews is that they are rolled out of their hangars every morning to be polished and then they are rolled back in again. The general consensus is that these choppers almost never actually fly anywhere.
Whatever the UAE's military commitment to Afghanistan has cost, it is surely only a fraction of what Canada has spent here. By the end of this year Ottawa will have spent as much as $18 billion on the war on terror in Afghanistan, according to the parliamentary budget office.
Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways, which are the UAE's two national carriers, have said that their requests for more access to Canadian airspace have been seriously overstated by the Canadian side. What they say they had sought were daily flights to Toronto and as many as six flights a week to Calgary and Vancouver.
So, it is somewhat confusing when the sultan's article cites a study by Emirates Airlines and the British Columbia Transportation Ministry that highlighted the benefits of the proposed increase in flights between both nations based on "275,000 annual passengers." To fly that many passengers would require at least two fully-loaded Emirates Airlines Boeing 777 jumbo jets a day between Dubai and Vancouver, not several flights a week.
This reference begs the question: What number of landing slots has the UAE actually been seeking from Canada?
As for the supposed economic benefits for both countries, the writer claims that they would run into the many hundreds of millions of dollars every year if additional landing rights were granted. Chamber of commerce types touting potential business benefits are often prone to gross exaggeration. From what I have seen on the flights that I have taken on Emirates Airlines between Dubai and Toronto, about 95 cent of the passengers were not Emiratis or Canadians or business types, but Indians and Pakistanis — mostly of modest means — intent of visiting kin, with a few Jordanian and Lebanese families also part of this mix.
The sultan cites U.S.-UAE trade figures which indicate that business between the two countries has tripled to $12.7 billion since Emirates Airlines began flying to New York in 2004. This data may be accurate, but my guess is that most of that increase has been the result of the U.S.-led war on terror. Much of the logistical support for the wars in Iraq and, especially, Afghanistan flows through the UAE. For example, virtually all of the food eaten by U.S. (and Canadian) troops in Afghanistan is bought around the Middle East and elsewhere and then gathered in Dubai and flown from there to here.
Trade statistics with the UAE are often misleading because so much of it involves "crossdecking" goods that were made elsewhere and are going elsewhere. The UAE imports finished goods and food, and exports virtually nothing made there, because almost nothing is made there. And many of those doing this work, or who have jobs in the construction and service industries, are cheap labour: South Asians, Filipinos, Africans and Egyptians who are never granted rights to permanently live there, let alone citizenship.
Sultan Al Qassemi also states that "the UAE has employed the same proactive approach with Canada that it has with other nations with regards to trade and tourism promotion when Etihad and Emirates launched direct flights to Toronto back in 2005 and 2007 respectively. Six years later, no Canadian airline has taken advantage of this growing market."
This is correct. Left unsaid is that the UAE has much greater access to the aviation markets in New Zealand and Australia for several years and not one carrier from those countries flies to the UAE, either. There is also a gross imbalance in flights from the UAE to Europe, with the two UAE carriers flying far more flights than European carriers do. Ditto for the U.S., where the difference is about a dozen flights a day by UAE carriers compared to two or three by American carriers.
The reasons for this are clear. Western carriers cannot compete against UAE carriers because they have generally had easier access to more generous credit arrangements to purchase aircraft, and employ cabin crew and ground crew including mechanics from Third World countries who are paid a fraction of what western airline workers get.
The other crucial factor that explains why so few western carriers can compete against carriers from the UAE in Dubai or Abu Dhabi is that the western carriers do not have direct access through Dubai to passengers from other Arab countries, or from the sub-continent, who make up the great majority of passengers for Emirates and Etihad. This is especially true for traffic bound for Canada and the U.S.
Canada is not the only country that has serious reservations about the UAE's aviation plans. Air carriers from Britain, France, the Netherlands and Germany have been up in arms for some time over demands by the UAE for even more traffic rights. The Koreans, too, are furious over the UAE's demands for more landing slots.
Germany has already had enough. It has just said no to Emirates Airlines' request for landing rights in Berlin and Stuttgart, sending the CEO of Emirates into a tizzy.
If readers were to check European web sites, such as Luchtzak Aviation, that follow the business closely, they would find experts there lauding Canada's stance and demanding that their countries follow Canada's lead.
As for the 27,000 Canadian expatriates that the article states are living in the UAE, at a guess about 1,000 of them work for Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways as pilots. A relatively small number of those Canadians work in the oil industry, banking and telecoms. Most of the rest of the Canadian passport holders are of Indian and Pakistani descent who conduct most if not all of their business with the subcontinent, not with Canada.
Nevertheless, the sultan makes some good points. It is absolutely true that the UAE's ambassador to Canada has tried to see Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon for several years but has been unable to do so. Such behaviour by Cannon is totally unacceptable and has been deeply frustrating to Canadian diplomats working on many international files. They say the minister often seems barely interested in his portfolio and only wants to meet envoys who represent a small group of Canada's traditional allies.
Al Qassemi is also right about the UAE being a huge regional business hub and banking centre. But with so much business being conducted electronically today, and with neighbouring countries such as Bahrain and Qatar keen to provide similar services — to say nothing of economic powerhouses such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai — it is hardly an absolute necessity for Canadian businesses to establish themselves in the UAE.
The UAE's colossal global ambitions for its two airlines are understandable. It is blessed to lie between Asia and Europe and North America. Because of this it can provide one-stop service for travelers from Auckland, Brisbane, Peshawar or Hyderabad on their way to Newcastle, Toronto or San Francisco. But the great majority of the millions of passengers carried by the UAE's two carriers do not have any links to that country — which only has a little more than one million citizens — beyond the airplane tickets they have purchased. At the same time, airlines in the countries they are traveling to and from do not get any of their money.
The sheikdom's particular anger with Canada is also understandable. Emirates and Etihad have more than 200 wide-body jets on order and must find places to land them or they will be out tens of billions of dollars. That explains why it has been trying so loudly to get Canada to reverse its position.
If Ottawa maintains its principled stance, even more western countries may follow its lead, as Germany just has. That would be a nightmare for the tiny Gulf state's declared ambition to rule the skies.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: "como todo buen piloto... mujeriego y borracho"
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting articles, Dune; thanks for posting them. I believe that being denied additional traffic rights may have been a contingency not considered in the airlines' growth and general business strategy.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting indeed. It is understandable to a certain extent. It is just a bit ironic, if we go back some years, when PanAm, TWA, BA, Lufthansa and Air France flooded the whole world with their superior capacity. Everything was in nice harmony for the West back then. It is not only the airline industry, but the whole global trade that experiences a shift of power to the south. The defense mechanism through restrictive politics is therefore an understandable reaction. Are the new kids on the block 'unfair', to use the most repeated word in this struggle? Through today's lens maybe yes, if we consider a wider time frame though, it might appear not entirely. It will be for the historians to judge in another couple of decades.
Interesting times ahead. I am pretty sure that this cold economical war will escalate before IATA, ICAO, WTO and other bodies will be able to contain it. Very soon I see some important cancellations of orders of new aircraft. That might soothe the airline lobbyists, but for the broader economy it could also spark controversy. The manufacturing industry and with it many unions (workers and voters) will see their interests harmed and curtailed. They will want to keep their orders and jobs and the regional politicians will counterweigh heavily the national ones.
What will then prevail? The interest of a industry that in many parts of the world has itself been widely protected and subsidized by their governments, all though crying foul today if others do it. Or the broader, globalized industry who basically does not care who uses their end product. Time will tell. The only thing that is for sure, is that enacting of protectionism is maybe the worst first step to balance power. This has been proven over and over AND is by the way still the Achilles heel of the mentioned countries in their own backyard, politically and economically. Maybe the West should start there and not with the almost only truly globalized industry of those countries.
If I was in charge at EK, which is the main target until Qatar has more ammunition, I would cancel a respectable order of A350ies. This model is still far away from delivery, but has already sucked up a huge amount of taxpayers subsidies. This would send a strong signal to negotiate and not just trying to eliminate a competitor with measures that were previously ousted by the same protagonists.
And then wait and see what develops.
Interesting times ahead. I am pretty sure that this cold economical war will escalate before IATA, ICAO, WTO and other bodies will be able to contain it. Very soon I see some important cancellations of orders of new aircraft. That might soothe the airline lobbyists, but for the broader economy it could also spark controversy. The manufacturing industry and with it many unions (workers and voters) will see their interests harmed and curtailed. They will want to keep their orders and jobs and the regional politicians will counterweigh heavily the national ones.
What will then prevail? The interest of a industry that in many parts of the world has itself been widely protected and subsidized by their governments, all though crying foul today if others do it. Or the broader, globalized industry who basically does not care who uses their end product. Time will tell. The only thing that is for sure, is that enacting of protectionism is maybe the worst first step to balance power. This has been proven over and over AND is by the way still the Achilles heel of the mentioned countries in their own backyard, politically and economically. Maybe the West should start there and not with the almost only truly globalized industry of those countries.
If I was in charge at EK, which is the main target until Qatar has more ammunition, I would cancel a respectable order of A350ies. This model is still far away from delivery, but has already sucked up a huge amount of taxpayers subsidies. This would send a strong signal to negotiate and not just trying to eliminate a competitor with measures that were previously ousted by the same protagonists.
And then wait and see what develops.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: dunno
Age: 52
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pool, I don't think they can afford to drop any orders of newer ac. If they do, they will fall way behind on the order book which would make them less competitive in the future. Fuel prices are on the rise again so you need a replacement for the 330s.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dune,
Thanks for posting that article. Could you reference the publication and the author? It's brilliant. It fills in a lot of the gaps left by the partial-truths being spouted surrounding the whole issue.
Thanks for posting that article. Could you reference the publication and the author? It's brilliant. It fills in a lot of the gaps left by the partial-truths being spouted surrounding the whole issue.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind, should have Googled it in the first place. It seems the author is well-positioned to speak with some credibility to the issues, especially the claims about the UAE "treating wounded soldiers" and being "on the frontline".
Probably because...he's actually there.
About the author:
Link to the above quoted article:
Emirates Airline Hopes on Wing and a Prayer
Probably because...he's actually there.
About the author:
Matthew Fisher has spent far more time in Afghanistan than any other Canadian journalist. He is embedded with Canadian forces in Kandahar, living and working in tents at NATO’s huge logistical base at Kandahar Airfield. He regularly blogs on Canada’s first war in half a century — both serious and offbeat aspects of the mission and the war — from Kabul and Kandahar, with trips deep into the field in southern Afghanistan to experience firsthand the joys and sorrows of Canada’s young fighting men and women.
Emirates Airline Hopes on Wing and a Prayer
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pool, I don't think they can afford to drop any orders of newer ac. If they do, they will fall way behind on the order book which would make them less competitive in the future.
You can haul to Dubai as many people from the subcontinent as possible, they don't want to stay there, they want to go West. However the West does not want EK to do the major part of transporting, so EK will probably not be ready to buy as many jets. Eventually the subcontinental airlines will step in and not only buy A320neo's, but some long-haul models and will start flying more intensively to the West. The same countries and companies will be unhappy again and extend protectionism.
Finally they will have to either soak up the orders with taxpayers money (not making enough profit to finance them) to serve the passenger demand and the aircraft production lines. Or the offer will diminish as a result of this protectionism/regulation.
This might not even be a bad thing, in view of the problems 'pollution' and 'migration'. But it would certainly not have been the intent of the protectionist fraction.
It's trivial.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Anywhere there are cats to chase.
Age: 25
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air India will never take over the world. Have you flown in their airspace? Dealt with their controllers? Been to their airports? Seen how they run? It's chaos! Madness!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If low costs were the main factor, then Air India would be the biggest and most successful airline in the world
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HKT
Age: 64
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are comparing different scenarios here:
When the likes of PanAm started connecting the world there was an international need for transport as other nations were not developed in aviation.
During the developing of aviation in the last centuries, nations indeed opened their airspace to foreign carriers on a reciprocal base, that means nations opened their local markets to other airlines so both nations/airlines profit from that.
That also lead to airline alliances providing a global network of routes.
Now we have the players in the UAE profiting from their good location between the markets, offering very good one-stop connections between these.
The UAE carriers are not providing a real destination in return, they are just operating a hub, basically leeching from different markets without offering an own substantial market in return.
So why should other nations play along?
Just because Ranjidh from Kerala doesn't like to stop in BOM and in FRA or LHR on his way to Bimmingm?
They are protecting not only their airlines, it's also about the social achievements and the overall situation of their economy...and YES I know it's NOT all honky dory in these nations!
You see what the multi national corporations are doing with local markets worldwide, flooding it with their products and destroying local competitors.
It was possible with the help of corrupt gouvernments in these countries and it is still a common practice for them to sell out their countries wealth and markets, "protection" of their citizens is not high up on their priority list.
And again, I definitely condemn that!
But why should this happen again in aviation?
And keep in mind, once the UAE carriers are controlling and dominating the airline market...they will control not only the price of a ticket but also the price for a pilot! So think twice what you cheer for...
When the likes of PanAm started connecting the world there was an international need for transport as other nations were not developed in aviation.
During the developing of aviation in the last centuries, nations indeed opened their airspace to foreign carriers on a reciprocal base, that means nations opened their local markets to other airlines so both nations/airlines profit from that.
That also lead to airline alliances providing a global network of routes.
Now we have the players in the UAE profiting from their good location between the markets, offering very good one-stop connections between these.
The UAE carriers are not providing a real destination in return, they are just operating a hub, basically leeching from different markets without offering an own substantial market in return.
So why should other nations play along?
Just because Ranjidh from Kerala doesn't like to stop in BOM and in FRA or LHR on his way to Bimmingm?
They are protecting not only their airlines, it's also about the social achievements and the overall situation of their economy...and YES I know it's NOT all honky dory in these nations!
You see what the multi national corporations are doing with local markets worldwide, flooding it with their products and destroying local competitors.
It was possible with the help of corrupt gouvernments in these countries and it is still a common practice for them to sell out their countries wealth and markets, "protection" of their citizens is not high up on their priority list.
And again, I definitely condemn that!
But why should this happen again in aviation?
And keep in mind, once the UAE carriers are controlling and dominating the airline market...they will control not only the price of a ticket but also the price for a pilot! So think twice what you cheer for...
Last edited by Schibulsky; 26th Jan 2011 at 02:30. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunesville
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting stuff indeed.
When aircraft developed with increased range, places like Gander were overflown and wilted away. As LR/ULR types increase the range capabilities of national airlines, from their own hubs, Dubai will be left to the same fate and it's location will no longer be relevant.
When aircraft developed with increased range, places like Gander were overflown and wilted away. As LR/ULR types increase the range capabilities of national airlines, from their own hubs, Dubai will be left to the same fate and it's location will no longer be relevant.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: KUL
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When aircraft developed with increased range, places like Gander were overflown and wilted away.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schibulsky, GoreTex et all, you guys are making interesting points..but I can't help thinking that your wider view (context) is certainly not on the agenda with respect to Canada, the fatherland, and a few other places besides who are now making noises about the unfairness they face in their competitive fight against EK (lets be honest, the goat and EY are bit players at the moment)
Protectionism in its various forms has done little other than delay innovation and evolution in the marketplace, it is a useful tool to delay, but it will only ever delay the inevitable.
EK's geographic and structural cost advantages aren't going away anytime soon, moreover the airlines' commercial department (inspite of the usual line pilot grumbles) continue to put bums on seats, cargo in holds and make the airline fantastically profitable.
Despite what others think, my view is that the only way to effectively compete against the likes of EK requires a competitor to play to their strengths. For EU carriers that means innovation innovation innovation, Air NZ IMHO (although in a different hemisphere) are a good example of what can be done with a little bit of lateral thinking.
Governments can and will continue to put artifical trade barriers in place to protect what they see as strategic industries etc...but the reality is the market will decide on its course.
Look at the traffic now choosing AMS instead of LHR, or using SEA instead of YVR.
Lastly with respect to Pan Am, Schibulsky, most countries had little choice given the persona of Mr Tripp and his tacit approval from the US state department, it was 10% about industry development, and 90% spreading US influence
Protectionism in its various forms has done little other than delay innovation and evolution in the marketplace, it is a useful tool to delay, but it will only ever delay the inevitable.
EK's geographic and structural cost advantages aren't going away anytime soon, moreover the airlines' commercial department (inspite of the usual line pilot grumbles) continue to put bums on seats, cargo in holds and make the airline fantastically profitable.
Despite what others think, my view is that the only way to effectively compete against the likes of EK requires a competitor to play to their strengths. For EU carriers that means innovation innovation innovation, Air NZ IMHO (although in a different hemisphere) are a good example of what can be done with a little bit of lateral thinking.
Governments can and will continue to put artifical trade barriers in place to protect what they see as strategic industries etc...but the reality is the market will decide on its course.
Look at the traffic now choosing AMS instead of LHR, or using SEA instead of YVR.
Lastly with respect to Pan Am, Schibulsky, most countries had little choice given the persona of Mr Tripp and his tacit approval from the US state department, it was 10% about industry development, and 90% spreading US influence