UAE hopefull on more landings to Canada

[bmc]

Too much jibberish to offer an intelligent response to this. So, ya, we all hate Arabs.

It's reductio ad absurdum, but if you can't come up with a suitable response to a salient argument then just ignore it and carry on as you always have. I guess trying to convince you that your position is flawed is like trying to prove that the moon landing happened to a conspiracy theorist: they'll always find a reason to ignore logic and keep believing what they already do.

I worked and lived in the Gulf for three years for one of the carriers, responsible for all interline, code shares, joint ventures with other airlines. Prior to that, I was with one of Canada's airlines, responsible for pricing agreements with other airlines for traffic between Canada-S.E.Asia, Canada Europe, Canada South America. My response to the UAE request is based on understanding market sizes, market flows and how traffic moves.

So I guess my position is flawed. I just hate Arabs.

But..since I'm basically a decent guy, I'll take my my comments and take a stab at hour long post. Give me some time.

[bmc]

Diadem....Here's your post. I'll address each line at a time

Q: Why aren't you up in arms about airlines like Cathay? Hong Kong isn't exactly huge, and although it's now more accessible for people from mainland China, there aren't that many people who are flying to Hong Kong as their destination. Most of Cathay's passengers are continuing on to other destinations in Asia and Oceania. Cathay also operates a flight from JFK to Vancouver; even though you can't buy a ticket on that route unless you're continuing to Hong Kong, that means that hundreds of passengers who might otherwise have flown on a Canadian carrier are sending their money to China. Philippine Airlines has the same rights between Vancouver and Toronto.

A: Cathay is an interesting example to raise. On the surface, it seems like a good parallel to either of the Gulf carriers. The last time I was involved in the Canada Hong Kong market, that market was very strong on it's own. On top of that, the air service agreements offered beyond traffic rights, enabling Canadian carriers to sell local traffic. Canadian Airlines had fifth freedom traffic rights to Bangkok and sold HKG-BKK local flights. Canadian may have had Manila as fifths as well. I can't remember. But, the important piece in this example is the the O&D (origin and destination) of the local HKG-Canada market is strong enough for two carriers. Both carriers serving the market, AC and CX, have great networks to feed those flights. This is different from Abu Dhabi or Dubai. To offer a truly competitive service that serves good yielding traffic, you have to offer a daily product. Minimum five days a week. The demand to those places from Canada cannot fill long range wide-bodies on a daily basis. Just the local market alone. You might get 80% load factor on a B737. Beyond Toronto to Dubai or Abu Dhabi, the next biggest market from Canada could be Calgary for oil. Beyond that, there is not much demand. I do have access to traffic numbers on those routes, just not right now as I'm on vacation. I can't see any Canadian carrier leaping at this market. Now, I'm sure carriers serving the Indian sub continent to Dubai or Abu Dhabi may give you traffic. But, Gulf to India, surprisingly, is very high yielding traffic and the air service agreements between India and Gulf States is restricted to capacity (as in xx,xxx seats per week). So, the demand on that local market is high and yield is high. When you factor in Canada to India, the market fares are not really great. Prorate that over the miles flown and then pay the interline proviso on the Gulf to India sector and it doesn't get interesting. At all. Shit yield.


Q: Even British Airlines and Lufthansa, which serve larger markets and have more tourists entering their home countries, provide connections to a huge number of people.

A: Good point and I fully agree with you. BA offers 4-6 wide bodies a day between the UK and DXB alone. Huge local market for them. LON to just about anywhere in the world is a big market. At one time, interline traffic from Canada using Heathrow exceeded Amsterdam and Frankfurt combined. Again, long ago when I wore another hat.

Q: Ethiopian is trying to position itself as a connector to the rest of Africa, and there certainly aren't enough Canadians going to Addis Ababa to justify that route.

A: That's an interesting one. They could make it work and seem to be, with shiny new 787's. To me, from my experience, a lot of this reluctance to allow the Gulf carriers more access is the reliance on the Indian market on a year round basis. The Indian market, from Canada, is a just go market. Some gets married, the family flies to India. Someone dies, the family flies home to India. The increasing business ties, etc. And it's usually not just one person travelling, it's a family of four kind of thing. In the low season, Canadian carriers look for all opportunities to put bums in seats. The Indian market is a year round market that helps in the winter.

Q: If you're really interested in protecting AC, why aren't you lobbying to have them given the exclusive rights to international flying entering Canada?

A: In the absence of that, which would be just great although not realistic, you do everything possible to get the best deal for your country. Negotiated agreements, ultimately, have both sides getting a balance of benefits. I fail to see anything of benefit to Canadian carriers with reference to this agreement. This agreement is not about Between Canada and the UAE. The traffic is not that big. What this is really about is all the behind markets that Gulf carriers want to siphon from Canada. The Gulf carriers are not as interested in the Calgary Dubai market as they are in Calgary to many other points, which is fine. So, if we give them this, what can they give us in return?

Q:Hell, why not give them a monopoly on all flights within Canada too?

A: They had that for decades. At one time, prior to Freedom to Move, Canada's air transportation policy that was introduced around 1986, no Canadian carrier could compete on more than 30% or Air Canada's routes.

Q: If you think we should only grant rights to EK and EY if Canadian airlines reciprocate on the routes, then perhaps AC should stop flying to Sydney, since no Australian airlines operate that route.

A: Qantas is the designated Australian carrier. I wasn't aware that they no longer serve Canada. They may have chosen to deploy their equipment on routes that earn them more money. A more accurate comparison to point out the disparity is if Canada wanted more points to Australia and every airplane stopped in the states enroute to Austrai and AC had traffic rights to carry the traffic. Then, AC would lower the fares to eventually force Qantas out of the market. That is effectively was is being played out here.


Q: Maybe we should revoke the rights of Aeroflot, Austrian Airlines, Caribbean Airlines, EgyptAir, Ethiopian, Icelandair, Jet Airways, KLM, Korean Air, LOT, PIA, Philippine Airlines, SATA, Saudia, Transaero, Turkish - and that's just for YYZ. Obviously there isn't enough demand for AC to operate on these routes, and yet they're still being operated by foreign airlines.

A: As a member of the Star Alliance, AC is participating in all of those markets today, except possibly Iceland. They probably have their code on a number of flights to many of the destinations served by those carriers.

Q: Most of the airlines which operate into YYZ provide service to expat populations to some degree or another (there aren't enough Canadians going to Russia to justify having two airlines operate on that route, but obviously people still take those flights) and there are huge Canadian expat populations in the UAE.

A: There are lots of expat Canadians in the Gulf. How often to they fly home each year. Once? Maybe twice? Definitely summer and possibly Christmas? There is business there. No doubt. I'm not going to argue that at all. But as you probably know, there are morning and evening departures to Europe offering convenient connections to Canada. Yes, a nonstop service would be great. But for AC and EK and EY to offer daily to Toronto? I can't see the business case. Better to fly the airplanes elsewhere. And if they did, the Gulf carriers would be filling there planes with traffic AC would have difficult accessing to support those flights, while eroding their European flights that carry some of that traffic today.


Q: Those people return home to visit family, their families go over there, potential employees go for interviews, Emirati students come here, etc etc.

A: Enough to fill 2-3 wide bodies a day, with AC, EK and EY? Really? I think it's a stretch.

Q: I really don't see the difference between having two Russian airlines operating to YYZ and having two Emirati airlines operating to YYZ.

A: Again, this is not about UAE to Toronto. It's the behind the UAE to Toronto.

Q: Even on routes where AC does operate, such as to Frankfurt, they often have codeshares with the other airlines on those routes, which means that they have an effective monopoly and can set whatever price they like.

A: Take a look at online service between Toronto and Dubai. You'll see AF over Paris, LH over FRA and MUC, KL over AMS, BA over LON. AC does not have a monopoly on YYZ-DXB. As for setting whatever price they want, you are absolutely right, they can. But, of they aren't competitive with everyone else, they won't get any business. So, it's not AC setting the price. It's the market that sets the price. If, at any time, AC is higher, it's because they know they will fill their plane with higher yielding traffic. It may not be destined for Dubai. It could be Moscow traffic, or Zurich traffic or elsewhere. You set your price based on what you believe you will get and you manage your inventories to optimize your end to end revenue and yield. Every airline does it. Even Ryanair.

Q: Why shouldn't I have another option, possibly with a lower price and better service, to get to Africa or Asia?

A: With KL, BA, AF, LH, EK, EY, Austrian, you don't have enough options? As for possibly with a lower price and better service, if I was running a direct service and my competitors were offering a connection over Europe with added hassles and more flying time, I wouldn't leave money on the table and sell it for cheaper. there's a segment of the market that prefers direct nonstop and will pay a slight premium for it. Why give it away? But that's just me.

Q: Just to protect jobs at AC?

A: At the end of the day, it could translate into jobs. The way I look at it, if I'm selling a car worth $10,000, I will try to sell it for $10,000. As I see the Canada-UAE bilateral, people are arguing that I when the first buyer comes along, I should sign his contract for the car for $10,000, when the fine print reads that my house and cottage are included in the deal.


Q: If competition with overseas carriers is bad, maybe competition with domestic carriers is bad too.

A: Competition is good and there's lots of it on the markets we're discussing.


Q: There's a huge double-standard here, and I'll say it again: the only reason anyone seems to be opposed to this is because EK and EY are owned by Arabs.

A: I find that offensive. It's a cheap shot to toss out when you don't understand something and could have politely ask for further explanation. Furthermore, while Emirates is owned by the Maktoum family, it is but Europeans with a couple of Canadian VP's in there. EY is Dr. Sheikh Al Nayan's hobby. He's done very well with it. He has a few Bahraini's in there from Gulf Air. He has some good people, many of them non-Arab. The lads at EK will not like reading this, but EK are famous for cratering market prices, which has lead many an airline CEO question their profitability. But, to consumers, you could very likely see cheap prices, which is great and fine. AC doesn't have a problem with cheap prices. They compete daily with dozens of airlines on all the markets they compete in. But, as I repeat myself again, this is not about Canada-UAE. And as it applies to an air service agreement that should offer a balance of benefits to both countries, there ain't much in this for Canada.

Q: If that's not the case, then start lobbying to have all the airlines listed above cease their service until a Canadian carrier decides to operate those routes as well, and start pushing for Cathay and Philippines to lose their rights to operate eastward from Vancouver.

A: nahhhhh


Sorry for responding like a dickhead. That wasn't called for. I apologize. This is stuff that I enjoy discussing. I have taught some of this stuff to airlines and have consulted in the past. I'm on to different stuff now, but keep my hand in it. Happy to keep discussing.

Comment away.

Also, having lived in the Gulf, I had a fabulous time living there. We had our two daughters with us and never felt safer. It's a greatly misunderstood part of the world. A big part of it is on fire as we speak! but parts of it a really nice. It was a great like experience for all of us.

A lekum Salam, habibi

[TeePeeCreeper]

^

Salam a lekum habibi,

BMC, a wonderfully well written post. I miss flying and living out of AUH and DXB greatly.

All the best,
TPC

[leftoftrack]

http://www.emirates.com/ca/english/dest ... stjet.aspx

With WS going widebody should they be consulted? Is EK not a code share partner with WS

The Canada-UAE bilateral may specify which, if any, carrier as been designated by the Canadian govt to serve the route, assuming there is a limitation on the number of Canadian carriers. WS might be consulted but I highly doubt they would be interested. As mentioned above, there is not enough traffic between Canada and the UAE to justify a B767-300, even once a week. The true market being served by EK and EY is the Indian subcontinent, Asia, Africa. Any Canadian carrier willing to fly to AUH or DXB cant expect either EY or EK to offer them any kind of pricing agreement.

EK's current list of code share partners are:

Air Malta
Air Mauritius
Japan Airlines
Jet Airways
Jetblue Airways
Jetstar Airways
Jetstar Asia
Korean Air
Oman Air
Philippine Airlines
Qantas
South African Airways
TAP Portugal
Thai Airways International
Valuair

You were right not a codeshare

[ahramin]

Complex or bmc, how much fuel (if any) do you tanker on a typical flight to Europe?

[complexintentions]

None. For European flights, beyond operational reasons for the usual (wx, holding at LAM, whatever), none at all. It's too expensive and the payload lost is too valuable.

I've only ever tankered fuel on a couple of shorter ME turnarounds, i.e. places like KWI, BAH and I think maybe a Saudi destination, can't remember. Sometimes for operational reasons, like to save time on a tight turnaround somewhere pax are not allowed onboard during refuelling, and a couple places where it's cheaper to tanker.

Anything longer than a local flight and it's simply not cost-effective. On a ULR flight, the penalty to carry one ton of extra fuel to destination (about 8 minutes of flight time) is half a ton of fuel burn! To Europe it's typically about 2-300kg/ton.

[bmc]

Complex or bmc, how much fuel (if any) do you tanker on a typical flight to Europe?

The biggest aircraft I have flown is a 172. I took a different turn with my career and chose to fly a desk many many years ago.

[Old fella]

Complex or bmc, how much fuel (if any) do you tanker on a typical flight to Europe?

The biggest aircraft I have flown is a 172. I took a different turn with my career and chose to fly a desk many many years ago.

Your"desk" is very knowledgeable on the many items that plenty of us"pilots" do not understand...........

[bmc]

Complex or bmc, how much fuel (if any) do you tanker on a typical flight to Europe?

The biggest aircraft I have flown is a 172. I took a different turn with my career and chose to fly a desk many many years ago.

Your"desk" is very knowledgeable on the many items that plenty of us"pilots" do not understand...........

Thanks for that. I never know if my verbal diarrhea falls on flat ears. I continue to learn from so many people here, I'm more than happy to share in the stuff I know. The work I did at airlines is quite specialized and not know or understood by many in management positions. I don't have all the answers but I have a perspective that I'm open to sharing if people want to read it.

[UKPilot]

A genuine question here.

Is there really a huge difference between EK or EY having unlimited rights and feeding thousands of passengers a day between India and Canada versus Air Canada flying to FRA a few times a day and then LH completing the journey for the same thousands of passengers? Isn't that effectively the same thing or am I over simplifying it?

[Diadem]

bmc,
I hope you didn't take from my comment that I thought you had said anything derogatory about EK and EY being Middle Eastern; rather, it was a general observation from people posting here and elsewhere about the "sandbox", "ragheads", and other such insults when discussing Arab airlines. I lived in the UAE for a couple of years and I'm rather fond of it. Even though I've never flown for, or on, either of the airlines under discussion, I get quite upset when I read people saying to keep those "jawas" out of Canada.
That said, you somehow managed to respond to every point in my post without actually addressing the key points. For example, with regards to Cathay you only covered the subject of O&D passenger volumes, and yet totally ignored the fact that there's an Asian airline operating flights between Canada and the US to the detriment of local carriers. You point out that Canadian used to have the rights to operate on HKG-BKK, but they no longer do, and yet you aren't advocating that CX's rights be revoked now that there's no Canadian airline which wants to operate the reciprocal route. If you think we should only have bilateral agreements with countries when both have airlines that intend to take advantage of it, then why aren't you all for revoking CX's rights? If you think CX should be allowed to maintain those rights even without a Canadian airline utilizing the agreement, then why are you opposed to signing an agreement with the UAE which would give a Canadian airline the same rights should they ever desire them? If you're so supportive of the market determining whether a route is profitable, then make the option available and let the airlines decide whether it's worth their effort. You also totally ignored my remark about Russian airlines by saying "Again, this is not about UAE to Toronto. It's the behind the UAE to Toronto." That's merely semantics, and it isn't relevant to my point at all, which was that Russia has two airlines using our bilateral with no Canadian airlines operating the same routes. If you don't think we should have a bilateral with the UAE without a Canadian airline operating the route, then do you think we should have two Russian airlines flying to Canada without any Canadian operators using the same route? Obviously there isn't enough demand for AC to fly to Moscow, but nor is there enough demand for AC to fly to the UAE. I really don't see the difference.
You totally dismissed my remark on Ethiopian by basically ignoring the African market altogether and focusing solely on India. But that's not the point. It doesn't matter where EK and EY are connecting passengers, it's the fact that their primary market is connections with which you seem to take issue. Yet, that's exactly what Ethiopian is doing. EK is a pretty major player in connecting to Africa, and yet you've for some reason decided that the only part of the market that matters it India. AC and its Star Alliance partners are losing out on connecting passengers who are travelling to India and Africa because EK is carrying them instead, and that's bad, but when Ethiopian does it that's fine. Do you not see the huge cognitive dissonance there? The same thing goes for Icelandair, which you've also totally ignored. Why is it okay for Ethiopian and Icelandair to take passengers from Canada, transfer them through a hub to which few Canadians want to travel, and move them onward to their destinations, but it's not okay for EK and EY to do it? Besides, since no Canadian companies operate to India, who cares what foreign airline passengers use to get there? Either they're giving their money to Germans, Brits, or Emiratis, and I think it should be up to the people who are buying the tickets to make that decision. If AC won't fly those routes, they shouldn't get upset when other airlines do.
Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to compare a country with a tiny geographical area to one that's huge. Of course any connections through Dubai and Abu Dhabi are going to be to other countries: the UAE is too small to have internal flights. Why does AC get to provide connections just because it happens to be based in a country with a vast expanse? On a global scale, I don't see much of a difference between EK connecting Toronto and Mumbai, and AC connecting London and Regina; the fact that one of those airlines happens to have a base in a country large enough to warrant domestic flights shouldn't preclude the other from also operating international connections. When it comes to airlines, borders are becoming increasingly meaningless. I could get to Regina from London by connecting through the US, without any benefit to Canadian operators, and that should be my choice. If the cities being connected are the same distance apart, it shouldn't matter whether the flight is domestic or international; a flight is a flight. Look at WestJet operating to Ireland for instance; there aren't any Irish operators who want to fly to St John's, and there aren't enough people flying between St John's and Ireland to make the flight worthwhile. It's totally dependent on connections to the rest of Canada, but no one is getting upset because WestJet is moving passengers through YYT without them staying. Is it because they happen to operate within a geographically large country that makes it worthwhile to have domestic connections, or is it because under any circumstances other than flying to the UAE no one cares where passengers connect? On top of that, no one is calling for the revocation of the bilateral between Canada and Ireland because there aren't any Irish companies taking advantage of it. If your argument doesn't apply in all circumstances, then perhaps you're relying on special pleading and setting a double standard.
Quite frankly, I don't really understand your response about the YVR-SYD route. I don't know what stopovers in the US have to do with anything. The fact of the matter is that Canada and Australia have a bilateral agreement, but only one of those countries has an airline operating on that route. If you were Australian would you want to revoke the agreement because there's no benefit to Australian aviation? Or would you keep it open in the event that an Australian airline might ever want to operate that route?
"As a member of the Star Alliance, AC is participating in all of those markets today, except possibly Iceland. They probably have their code on a number of flights to many of the destinations served by those carriers." So Air Canada and its partners have a monopoly on a huge number of routes out of YYZ, and can effectively dictate whatever price they think the market will bear. Yet later you say "Competition is good and there's lots of it on the markets we're discussing." I don't see a lot of competition on those routes, I see an effective monopoly, to the detriment of the consumer. It's not really an open market if the only companies operating those routes are setting prices together. With only one player in the market, they could charge, say, $1200 for a ticket when the cost of operating the flight is $700; they might lose a few passengers, but most people will suck it up because they want or need to travel on that flight. With two airlines operating the route, the cost might come down to $800; both airlines make a profit, and the consumers keep $400 which they can spend on movies in Canadian theatres or meals at Canadian restaurants made with Canadian ingredients. If you think AC would put that $400 profit towards hiring more employees or raising wages, you're dreaming. That profit goes to the shareholders, many of whom aren't Canadian; those who are, invest it in companies both Canadian and foreign, or just outright move it overseas. Canada doesn't benefit from higher prices, so I don't see why we should be protecting AC. Whether we give that money to AC or to EK, it's leaving the country, and I'd rather save that $400 to use on other things which can actually benefit the Canadian economy.
"It's the market that sets the price." And yet, you want to restrict the market to a certain number of players, many of whom are in alliances where they collude on setting prices. That's not an open market. The only way the market sets the price is if consumers are actually able to choose freely. It's like saying "Ford, GM, Toyota and Honda can sell cars in Canada, but Kia can't because their cars are too cheap and it won't benefit the other manufacturers. But we fully support an open market and the market setting prices." That's not how it works, and I don't see why you and everyone else who opposes EK and EY entering the Canadian market get to decide who plays. Let the consumers decide. If AC can't compete, then maybe AC shouldn't be operating on the global market. The airline industry more than any other operates internationally, and has been more affected by globalization than almost any other; I think it's very narrow-minded to be thinking with an us-vs-them mentality when these airlines cover much of the globe and link people in dozens of countries. Why are Canadian airlines better than Emirati airlines and more deserving of being propped up by regulations? As a Canadian pilot, I want Canadian airlines to be successful and hire lots of pilots at good wages, but that's a very narrow view of the industry. Airlines operate to dozens of different countries, and at this point borders really mean nothing: airlines all operate in the same global market, and people can buy tickets on whichever one they like. Look at all of the Canadians who are driving to the US to fly. If Canadians have that option, why should they not be given the option of flying on Middle Eastern airlines if they so desire? Or should we make it illegal for Canadians to fly on non-Canadian airlines? If you want an open market where prices are set by supply and demand, you can't then turn around and permit only certain companies from operating in that market. "With KL, BA, AF, LH, EK, EY, Austrian, you don't have enough options?" That's up to me, as the consumer, to decide. The number of Canadians driving to Seattle to fly with EK is pretty indicative that there is demand there. If the only way that Canadian airlines can remain profitable is through protectionism, sooner or later they won't be able to compete in the global market anymore.
Fundamentally, what it comes down to for me is the double standard that some airlines like Icelandair, Ethiopian and Singapore can operate primarily as connectors and no one takes umbrage with it, but as soon as EK and EY want to do it everyone gets up in arms. Perhaps it's not because of racism, perhaps it's that people are threatened by airlines that buy widebodies by the hundreds and are continuously expanding. Even if that's the case though, I don't see why we should punish success. The airline industry is a global market, and airlines should rise or fall on their own merits, not on jingoistic patriotism. Even if EK and EY are secretly being funded by their governments, I don't see much of a difference in the Canadian government enacting a protectionist policy to support Canadian airlines. If the only thing keeping a company afloat is government support, it will eventually fail, especially when operating to other countries where it doesn't have that government backing. If EK and EY provide better service at lower prices, consumers should be given the choice to fly with them, and if AC can't compete then perhaps they've exposed a weakness in AC.

[Joe Blow Schmo]

A genuine question here.

Is there really a huge difference between EK or EY having unlimited rights and feeding thousands of passengers a day between India and Canada versus Air Canada flying to FRA a few times a day and then LH completing the journey for the same thousands of passengers? Isn't that effectively the same thing or am I over simplifying it?

The difference is that in your FRA example, Air Canada is flying the route. It provides benefits to a Canadian company and provides jobs for Canadians. That is the kind of bilateral agreement the Canadian government should be negotiating.

The UAE has already got something for nothing. They get 6 flights a week to Canada but no Canadian airline operates any flights to the UAE because there's no demand to the UAE as a destination. We certainly shouldn't give them more freebies. There is nothing in this for Canada.

Let's not forget the temper tantrum they threw last time we turned them down for more slots. They tacked an expensive visa requirement on Canadians entering the UAE and kicked the Canadian military out of their UAE base.

DIADEM:

I can't be bothered to read your whole post but you mentioned Ethiopian. Canada is pretty good at giving access to other airlines. We want lots of connections after all. So even if it is unlikely that a Canadian airline will take the reciprocal route, we will still negotiate limit access for the sake of travel options. The UAE already has it's limited access. If they want more there needs to be something in it for us. There isn't.

[Panama Jack]

It may be possible that Canada will consider increasing bilateral access, assuming they are able to determine that origin-destination demand between the UAE and Canada has increased to a level meriting such increase. Most likely, the elimination of the consular visa requirements by the UAE for Canadian citizens would probably have encouraged demand by Canadians to travel to the UAE, and the resulting increase of business between the UAE and Canada would have increased demand for travel from the UAE to Canada.

However, to fully understand Canada's rationale in this matter, and why an open skies agreement with the UAE doesn't happen, it is useful to read and understand the 2006 Blue Sky Policy:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/ace-blue ... nu-749.htm

[Johnny#5]

bmc,
I hope you didn't take from my comment that I thought you had said anything derogatory about EK and EY being Middle Eastern; rather, it was a general observation from people posting here and elsewhere about the "sandbox", "ragheads", and other such insults when discussing Arab airlines. I lived in the UAE for a couple of years and I'm rather fond of it. Even though I've never flown for, or on, either of the airlines under discussion, I get quite upset when I read people saying to keep those "jawas" out of Canada.
That said, you somehow managed to respond to every point in my post without actually addressing the key points. For example, with regards to Cathay you only covered the subject of O&D passenger volumes, and yet totally ignored the fact that there's an Asian airline operating flights between Canada and the US to the detriment of local carriers. You point out that Canadian used to have the rights to operate on HKG-BKK, but they no longer do, and yet you aren't advocating that CX's rights be revoked now that there's no Canadian airline which wants to operate the reciprocal route. If you think we should only have bilateral agreements with countries when both have airlines that intend to take advantage of it, then why aren't you all for revoking CX's rights? If you think CX should be allowed to maintain those rights even without a Canadian airline utilizing the agreement, then why are you opposed to signing an agreement with the UAE which would give a Canadian airline the same rights should they ever desire them? If you're so supportive of the market determining whether a route is profitable, then make the option available and let the airlines decide whether it's worth their effort. You also totally ignored my remark about Russian airlines by saying "Again, this is not about UAE to Toronto. It's the behind the UAE to Toronto." That's merely semantics, and it isn't relevant to my point at all, which was that Russia has two airlines using our bilateral with no Canadian airlines operating the same routes. If you don't think we should have a bilateral with the UAE without a Canadian airline operating the route, then do you think we should have two Russian airlines flying to Canada without any Canadian operators using the same route? Obviously there isn't enough demand for AC to fly to Moscow, but nor is there enough demand for AC to fly to the UAE. I really don't see the difference.
You totally dismissed my remark on Ethiopian by basically ignoring the African market altogether and focusing solely on India. But that's not the point. It doesn't matter where EK and EY are connecting passengers, it's the fact that their primary market is connections with which you seem to take issue. Yet, that's exactly what Ethiopian is doing. EK is a pretty major player in connecting to Africa, and yet you've for some reason decided that the only part of the market that matters it India. AC and its Star Alliance partners are losing out on connecting passengers who are travelling to India and Africa because EK is carrying them instead, and that's bad, but when Ethiopian does it that's fine. Do you not see the huge cognitive dissonance there? The same thing goes for Icelandair, which you've also totally ignored. Why is it okay for Ethiopian and Icelandair to take passengers from Canada, transfer them through a hub to which few Canadians want to travel, and move them onward to their destinations, but it's not okay for EK and EY to do it? Besides, since no Canadian companies operate to India, who cares what foreign airline passengers use to get there? Either they're giving their money to Germans, Brits, or Emiratis, and I think it should be up to the people who are buying the tickets to make that decision. If AC won't fly those routes, they shouldn't get upset when other airlines do.
Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to compare a country with a tiny geographical area to one that's huge. Of course any connections through Dubai and Abu Dhabi are going to be to other countries: the UAE is too small to have internal flights. Why does AC get to provide connections just because it happens to be based in a country with a vast expanse? On a global scale, I don't see much of a difference between EK connecting Toronto and Mumbai, and AC connecting London and Regina; the fact that one of those airlines happens to have a base in a country large enough to warrant domestic flights shouldn't preclude the other from also operating international connections. When it comes to airlines, borders are becoming increasingly meaningless. I could get to Regina from London by connecting through the US, without any benefit to Canadian operators, and that should be my choice. If the cities being connected are the same distance apart, it shouldn't matter whether the flight is domestic or international; a flight is a flight. Look at WestJet operating to Ireland for instance; there aren't any Irish operators who want to fly to St John's, and there aren't enough people flying between St John's and Ireland to make the flight worthwhile. It's totally dependent on connections to the rest of Canada, but no one is getting upset because WestJet is moving passengers through YYT without them staying. Is it because they happen to operate within a geographically large country that makes it worthwhile to have domestic connections, or is it because under any circumstances other than flying to the UAE no one cares where passengers connect? On top of that, no one is calling for the revocation of the bilateral between Canada and Ireland because there aren't any Irish companies taking advantage of it. If your argument doesn't apply in all circumstances, then perhaps you're relying on special pleading and setting a double standard.
Quite frankly, I don't really understand your response about the YVR-SYD route. I don't know what stopovers in the US have to do with anything. The fact of the matter is that Canada and Australia have a bilateral agreement, but only one of those countries has an airline operating on that route. If you were Australian would you want to revoke the agreement because there's no benefit to Australian aviation? Or would you keep it open in the event that an Australian airline might ever want to operate that route?
"As a member of the Star Alliance, AC is participating in all of those markets today, except possibly Iceland. They probably have their code on a number of flights to many of the destinations served by those carriers." So Air Canada and its partners have a monopoly on a huge number of routes out of YYZ, and can effectively dictate whatever price they think the market will bear. Yet later you say "Competition is good and there's lots of it on the markets we're discussing." I don't see a lot of competition on those routes, I see an effective monopoly, to the detriment of the consumer. It's not really an open market if the only companies operating those routes are setting prices together. With only one player in the market, they could charge, say, $1200 for a ticket when the cost of operating the flight is $700; they might lose a few passengers, but most people will suck it up because they want or need to travel on that flight. With two airlines operating the route, the cost might come down to $800; both airlines make a profit, and the consumers keep $400 which they can spend on movies in Canadian theatres or meals at Canadian restaurants made with Canadian ingredients. If you think AC would put that $400 profit towards hiring more employees or raising wages, you're dreaming. That profit goes to the shareholders, many of whom aren't Canadian; those who are, invest it in companies both Canadian and foreign, or just outright move it overseas. Canada doesn't benefit from higher prices, so I don't see why we should be protecting AC. Whether we give that money to AC or to EK, it's leaving the country, and I'd rather save that $400 to use on other things which can actually benefit the Canadian economy.
"It's the market that sets the price." And yet, you want to restrict the market to a certain number of players, many of whom are in alliances where they collude on setting prices. That's not an open market. The only way the market sets the price is if consumers are actually able to choose freely. It's like saying "Ford, GM, Toyota and Honda can sell cars in Canada, but Kia can't because their cars are too cheap and it won't benefit the other manufacturers. But we fully support an open market and the market setting prices." That's not how it works, and I don't see why you and everyone else who opposes EK and EY entering the Canadian market get to decide who plays. Let the consumers decide. If AC can't compete, then maybe AC shouldn't be operating on the global market. The airline industry more than any other operates internationally, and has been more affected by globalization than almost any other; I think it's very narrow-minded to be thinking with an us-vs-them mentality when these airlines cover much of the globe and link people in dozens of countries. Why are Canadian airlines better than Emirati airlines and more deserving of being propped up by regulations? As a Canadian pilot, I want Canadian airlines to be successful and hire lots of pilots at good wages, but that's a very narrow view of the industry. Airlines operate to dozens of different countries, and at this point borders really mean nothing: airlines all operate in the same global market, and people can buy tickets on whichever one they like. Look at all of the Canadians who are driving to the US to fly. If Canadians have that option, why should they not be given the option of flying on Middle Eastern airlines if they so desire? Or should we make it illegal for Canadians to fly on non-Canadian airlines? If you want an open market where prices are set by supply and demand, you can't then turn around and permit only certain companies from operating in that market. "With KL, BA, AF, LH, EK, EY, Austrian, you don't have enough options?" That's up to me, as the consumer, to decide. The number of Canadians driving to Seattle to fly with EK is pretty indicative that there is demand there. If the only way that Canadian airlines can remain profitable is through protectionism, sooner or later they won't be able to compete in the global market anymore.
Fundamentally, what it comes down to for me is the double standard that some airlines like Icelandair, Ethiopian and Singapore can operate primarily as connectors and no one takes umbrage with it, but as soon as EK and EY want to do it everyone gets up in arms. Perhaps it's not because of racism, perhaps it's that people are threatened by airlines that buy widebodies by the hundreds and are continuously expanding. Even if that's the case though, I don't see why we should punish success. The airline industry is a global market, and airlines should rise or fall on their own merits, not on jingoistic patriotism. Even if EK and EY are secretly being funded by their governments, I don't see much of a difference in the Canadian government enacting a protectionist policy to support Canadian airlines. If the only thing keeping a company afloat is government support, it will eventually fail, especially when operating to other countries where it doesn't have that government backing. If EK and EY provide better service at lower prices, consumers should be given the choice to fly with them, and if AC can't compete then perhaps they've exposed a weakness in AC.

C'mon man... Really? No line spacing? Not one?!?

[Panama Jack]

Yeah, Johnny#5, I agree that his lack of typesetting makes his arguement painful on the eyes (I couldn't bother to read it) but was it really necessary to quote his whole long post, critique it on presentation, and not contribute anything of substance to the thread?

Are you a pedantic high-school English teacher?

[Gino Under]

Emirates can publish whatever financial figures it likes regarding its finances. They still don't add up.

IMHO, profit is not a factor in this debate, nor is it their (EK) raison d'être and I'm not convinced this airline (with its overhead) can turn the constant profits it claims to generate. For years it refused to publish financial data. Legitimate airlines the world over demanded the data be handed over to IATA until finally EK relented. What? Did they suddenly find a conscience or a way to present their bookkeeping to prying eyes so their chairman wouldn't have to suffer embarrassment?
Would I be shocked to learn EK, or any airline for that matter, cooked its books?
Would you?

The Emirate of Dubai is the poor cousin to The Emirate of Abu Dhabi. I'd be surprised if EK didn't get a concession on jet fuel and I'd be surprised if EY paid full pop for jet A uplift from ADNOC out of OMAD. The difference in the price of Jet A for EK at EGLL as opposed to OMDB is irrelevant. Whose pocket the money goes into is the difference.

Shk. Khalifa has already bailed DXB out of financial distress because the Emirate of Dubai seems hell bent on spending every penny it can lay its hands on until there is nothing left. A lot of it passing through the fingers of EK. How many A380s? How much would that cost? What about that mountain of B777s (and they bought how many more)? Doesn't aircraft purchases show up somewhere on a balance sheet? But, this is a profitable airline.

Yeah. Right.

Every bilateral with Canada is one-on-one through our government, as it should be. Whether it chooses to protect our airlines or not will always meet with criticism regardless of your position in this discussion. The simple reality for EK, EY, and QR is that each is tenaciously locked in a game of egos and power. These "players" have access to mountains of U.S. Dollars and financing. Their fleet sizes, aircraft choices and global route structures give us a very good idea of a what their game is all about. For these nations its all about power, wealth and ego. To me, it's nothing more than a modern day version of The Emperor's New Clothes. Don't let the chairman see the real picture.

Canada, at this point in time, has no valid reason to give either of EK, EY, or QR, any increase in services for the simple reason these carriers are engaged in a game of world airline dominance. What airlines they destroy is of no consequence. Unless it happens to be the airline you're working for.

Globalization has little to do with this.

masalama,

Gino Under

[complexintentions]

You've put me in the somewhat distasteful position of actually having to defend EK (or at least some correct facts) slightly. Thanks a lot.

Legitimate airlines the world over demanded the data be handed over to IATA until finally EK relented. What? Did they suddenly find a conscience or a way to present their bookkeeping to prying eyes so their chairman wouldn't have to suffer embarrassment?

What utter, unsubstantiated nonsense. Perhaps you could expand on your personal definition of a "legitimate" airline? Is it only the heavily state-subisidized legacy carriers of Western nations? Everything about your post smacks of whining jealousy. Not a shed of evidence of "cooking the books" or things like concessionary pricing on jet fuel. THAT particular myth is so tired it should be taken out back and shot. For the last time, oil is not refined jet fuel, and the UAE does not have the refining capacity to produce nearly enough for the consumption of DXB. They pay market rates from Shell, much of it imported from Singapore. Have you actually read any of the annual reports, or are you just repeating things you've heard or wish were true?

Financial reporting going back 15 years is available right here:
http://www.theemiratesgroup.com/english ... eport.aspx

I'm sure you've had your crack team of forensic auditors go over KPMG's work to make sure it's all legit.

Aircraft acquisition. The accounting is all in the reports. Of course you can acquire new aircraft and make a profit. Emirates has made heavy use of the US Export-Import Bank loan program to finance massive purchases of Boeing aircraft. You may not like it, but it's hardly a bad business move, nor illegal or illegitimate in any way. They've also cut similar deals with EADS to acquire the A380 in crazy numbers. When you see the load factors and yield on routes served by these aircraft, you might understand how it's possible. They are masters of leveraging one manufacturer against another to place these massive orders. Hand-wringing won't change it.

Emirates can publish whatever financial figures it likes regarding its finances. They still don't add up.

This doesn't even make sense. They choose to not disclose their figures, and competitors protest. They do publish them, so you decide to just disbelieve them. What would you suggest, then? EY and QR make no bones that they are not money-making ventures. Where is this lack of transparency you claim?

You are correct that Dubai has far less money overall than Abu Dhabi, due to the lack of oil revenue. It's also why Emirates has regularly paid out massive dividends from profits to the Dubai government - it (EK) is one of the few genuine commercial money-makers Dubai has (along with tourism and I believe, leggy hookers from Uzbekistan). Incidentally, the ICAO for Abu Dhabi International is OMAA. OMAD is the tiny executive airport, where the volume of jet fuel sold is inconsequential to that of OMAA. I get the sense you sourced your comments from quick Google searches as opposed to personal local knowledge, simply to support your biases.

Emirates makes boat-loads of money largely on their cost structure. One of their main competitive advantages IS their low overhead! Their employee costs are a far, far lower percentage of total costs than just about any other carrier in the world - in fact the percentage has actually dropped over the last couple of years. Things are run by a vast, inexhaustible supply of cheap labour that frankly, no Western nation with their attendant social costs, can compete with. The employee productivity they wring from everyone - including their pilots - is far beyond anything you'll see at a unionized legacy carrier. So yes, this IS globalization at it's purest. It's not rocket science or a conspiracy.

Look, I don't like it any more than you do. It's depressing to think that an entity based in a dictatorship with no labour protections and the democratic processes that Canadians take for granted, is thriving. I'm certainly not defending their labour practices and their treatment of employees - they're horrendous in comparison. I do agree - I have said so often - that Canada should not grant any more concessions to the UAE for flight privileges, as it benefits the Gulf carriers almost totally to the detriment of Canadian carriers. Unfortunately it's probably only delaying the inevitable.

But making unfounded and simply incorrect statements isn't going to help. It may be comforting to choose to believe that all the Gulf carriers are simply based on ego and "cooked books" than genuine commercially-viable interests, but that assumption is dangerously wrong.

[Gino Under]

Complex

Thanks for the rebuttal.
We're going to have to disagree on many of our opinions.

Unfortunately, you've made a number of assumptions about me which aren't accurate. But, I'm not offended by any of the sarcastic content in your post because it's fair enough to say it's fair enough to assume just about anything about either one of us.

That being said, you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe. Let's go from there.

Firstly, as you correctly point out, OMAD is Bateen and OMAA is the international. My mistake. (A second thought longer and I would have remembered that)

I lived, worked and flew out of the Emirates for a number of years back when Emirates still flew B727s. For those years, including their startup years, the airline declared 'profits' but you would have been hard pressed to find anything on their actual financial status BUT, they declared profits annually and continue to this very day.
Okay. So, I'm the only one on this planet who doubts their claims of profitability and you're right, I am not a chartered accountant or an airline executive. You?

Legitimate airlines?
OK, let me replace that offensive word with the word normal. A normal airline.

What would happen to either of the most brilliant airline minds in our Solar System, Flannigan or Clarke, if they were to have reported embarrassing losses to their chairman?
My guess, because of my familiarity with 'that region', is they both would have been sacked even if they reported a negative profit. Who in their right mind as the CEO of EK would jeopardize the cushy life and lifestyle living in DXB running the most profitable airline in the universe? Everything that applies to the running of a normal airline has absolutely very little to do with the dynamics within an EK, EY, QR, or GF. We'll be at this a long time if you think you can sell me on the notion EK and Air Canada are on a level playing field.

IF I were to compare the financials of any European or North American airline with an EK, and I can assure you I don't have a crack team at KPMG to help me, I'm sure I'd see a few things missing on the European or North American balance sheet because these airlines simply don't fork out the Dirhams EK does on a number of items. Numerous items and issues that don't exist for the normal airline don't appear at EK, and vice versa. Yet, most airlines in the world have profit AND loss from year to year.
Perhaps you can find a year they went into the red?

My insight into the business mind of that region was learned at the sook. Not very sophisticated, I'll agree. But, simply stated, the bulk of EKs uplift is discounted, in some way, at some level. If it isn't, somebody's asleep at the switch. That's the way it's done in that part of the world. That's the way most airlines purchase fuel. In bulk to reduce the price. And I suspect it would be negotiated at the local level. Right, wrong, or otherwise, whatever number works in their financial statements, works. If you think that region is all about visibility and legitimacy, I suggest you read BCCI, The Bank that Didn't Add Up.

This debate aside, I'm sure we agree on far more than we disagree, but in my opinion based purely on my own analysis, speculation, personal experience and regional knowledge along with little financial fact, I believe QR, EY, and EK are NOT normal airlines operating under normal conditions and those that are, simply can't compete which is why they all run for cover when any gulf airline shows up looking for market access.

These airlines are all about nothing more than world market dominance, driven by egos and oil money and if I ever had to fly exclusively on any one of them it would be absolutely fantastic because very few airlines out there can even come close to what these airlines offer the passenger.

These airlines don't need more access to Canada but it wouldn't hurt Air Canada to serve Chennai or Karachi through Dubai or Abu Dhabi from YVR, YYZ or YUL. But I'd have to wonder what role Star Alliance might play in that not happening anytime soon.

It's all good fun this airline business. Especially guessing who will eventually survive and to see how long it will take for one of these Gulf carriers to dominate it.


Cheers,
Gino Under

[complexintentions]

Gino,

Well, I am glad you take no offense, because none was intended. I do think we actually agree more than not, but perhaps cannot come to terms with some of the ways we define things.

I would not describe a bulk discount for fuel as a subsidy. A subsidy - to my mind - is something that is distributed unequally to favour one party over another. A discount for something purchased in large quantities is not the same thing - I'm pretty sure Shell, BP, etc would offer the same discounted fuel prices to any carrier buying in the same quantities. My point was that the UAE, counterintuitively, does not have the luxury of subsidizing jet fuel due to the fact that oil is not jet fuel, and as such, most of it is imported and subject to world pricing. The bulk of the country's oil is in Abu Dhabi, not Dubai, anyway. One of the main reasons to develop Emirates was to diversify away from the oil-based economy as they recognized a long time ago that Dubai's oil was very limited.

Another thing I take issue with is lumping all Gulf carriers together. It's akin to saying all ME countries are the same, when they are widely, wildly different. I have colleagues at each of the main airlines, and each offers a fine service product, so no bashing there. But EY loses money and is the Abu Dhabi government's jealous response to the success of EK. QR loses money and is the ego product of the royals in Doha. GF loses money and is a shadow of its former self. Saudi - well, who knows what the hell goes on there but I doubt making legitimate profit is their top priority. I would not put EK in the same category at all. The Emirates Group is a massive conglomerate now, and encompasses many profitable divisions beyond the airline (maintenance, cargo, IT, airport management, and so on).

I did not say the "region" is a model of transparency. Far from it. But when a 20 year old company with over 75,000 employees publishes complete financials, audited by a major recognized auditing firm, it's a bit of a stretch to say they are being totally secretive. Perhaps in the early years there was more subsidization, who would know. But that era long passed, where one sheik would slip another a few million dirham to buy an old '27. (Actually the first a/c were wetleased). If only due to the sheer size of the operation. Yes, there is still a high concentration of wealth in the hands of a few - one division feeds another. How is that different from any major Western corporation?

As far as "world market dominance", I would suggest that this is hardly news, or any different from any multi-national corporation. I'm pretty sure the egos at Coca-Cola or Samsung are just as big. Of course carriers operating under what you describe as "normal" conditions are scared, and of course they can't compete. Any more than a Canadian IT worker can compete with an Indian one, or a Canadian shoe manufacturer can compete with a Chinese one, or an Ontario assembly-line worker can compete with one from Tennessee. How the hell does Air Canada, paying a baggage handler in YYZ 60K a year or whatever, compete with Emirates, paying a baggage handler a few hundred dollars a month in DXB? But when you read any online article about EK access to Canada, the comments after it are always glowing praise for EK's product and slams on AC. From Canadians. People are stupid. Ok maybe that's harsh. Uninformed.

And that's the true issue here - the problem is far larger than Arab/British Gulf culture, this is a global phenomena. With all due respect, the biggest way we disagree is on our respective concepts of "normal". Global competition IS the new normal, it has been for decades. It's only been with the relaxing of bilateral agreements coupled with the extended range of aircraft that have made a hub like DXB so viable. Throw in cheap labour, no pesky things like unions to slow you down and it makes perfect logical sense. I happen to think it sucks. But our own feelings about whether it's good or bad are irrelevant, unfortunately.

The real question should be, how can someone position oneself best to adapt to the new "normal"?

[CSk3RampBOY]

Bmc,

You make reference to KLM, LH, BA drawing from our markets connecting pax. First off, the bilaterals negotiated btwn Canada-Europe are open skies. Meaning klm can do 100x daily to yyz so long as the slots are available. They can even go as far as starting up a domestic base in yyz, which would be rather redundant when you have codeshare with ws.

Canada is under no obligation to grant EY&EK additional landing rights when the bilaterals negotiated with the UAE for point to point traffic are 3x weekly ek, 3x weekly ey & 3 weekly ac. Even China negotiated with Canada 66x weekly freq, but their carriers have something called a non aggression pact. Meaning they can't compete on most international routes. For ex: Hainan is the only chinese carrier to fly YYZ-Pek. No chinese competitor.

The final point I would like to make is that many see star alliance carriers into Canada as a threat on our jobs. * alliance has a committe called A++ which balances ASMs between carrier to carrier. For ex: LH flies yvr-fra, AC flies yyc-fra yow-fra etc...

[Gino Under]

complex
(Sorry this is a bit long winded but it's something to do on a layover)

I'm guessing you're in DXB....

I can appreciate where you're coming from but I'd say we still differ on some points though. In a couple of cases it looks like it may have more to do with my choice of words or incomplete thoughts. Chosen more for brevity than anything else. But in essence, I agree with some of your points. Just, not all.

I didn't say EK "cooked their books". I did say I wouldn't be surprised IF they did. How I would find proof would likely be difficult, regardless of my reasons for making such a statement, I don't think it matters in any opinionated discussion. Why would I (or anyone else for that matter) imply they might employ 'useful' or 'advantageous' bookkeeping methods?

Here's why.
I don't buy it because I'm cynical, doubtful and familiar with the extent of nepotism, egos, and face saving that goes on over there. It doesn't matter to me which Gulf carrier we're talking about. They can show us whatever profit statement they like but I for one, would still doubt it's legitimacy or, at the very least, it's accuracy.

It's going to be interesting now that Tim Clarke has announced he's leaving. Who will ascend to the throne of power and continue to lead this financially powerful airline? How long will its string of profitable years remain unbroken? I bet it will be for many years to come and it won't matter who leads the airline because of rampant nepotism, ego, and face saving.

Did I mention power? (tongue in cheek)
Isn't it interesting to watch Al Baker manipulate the aircraft manufacturers like a grand puppeteer? Must be nice to have access to that kind of dosh. Boeing and Airbus eating out of your hand. To influence aircraft design. Capacity requirements.
He's not alone. Sheikh Ahmed has their ears as well.

My experiences from actually living over there is admittedly out of date. I've watched Emirates expand and expand and expand over the years. I've seen the dismantling of Gulf Air (once my favourite airline). The creation of QR (now my favourite airline) with its single leased A310. The birth of Etihad. Even the evolution of Oman Air in its variety of colours, shapes and sizes. Who knows what the Q8 crowd are doing?
The economy in the Gulf seems unreal to not only me but to many I've worked with over there who've expressed the same opinion. Totally unreal. What do I mean?
In 1989 the dirham was 3.68 to the USD. What is it today? Exactly the same? The same can be said of all GCC states. So, there aren't the market fluctuations that affect industry and commerce in the UAE as it does everywhere else. Yet, EK (and I would imagine EY) crew have their salaries tied to their home country currencies where more realistic markets exist in an ever changing reality. Salary protection at Qantas? Lufthansa? Air Canada? United? Who pays for that? (rhetorical question)

Too many independent auditors out there, like KPMG, Ernst&Young, Price Waterhouse and Deloitte, have all misjudged the financial statements of companies in the past. What about today or tomorrow? They can only audit the numbers provided and the company accountants know what numbers the auditors are going to see.
We've both survived the financial collapse of Wall Street and probably the crash of 1978 as well. Where were those auditors then?
I don't know about you but this has made me a skeptic. So, EK can make whatever claim they like and I'm betting the word profit will be found in that claim, regardless.
HA!

I'm reading about a new gargantuan airport in Dubai that MUST accommodate 100 A380s at Emirates insistence. Is an airport like that really necessary on top of what's already there? 100 A380s!!!
Here's the thing. If EK demands it, the Gov't of Dubai will build it. Instant solution for docking EKs 100 A380s to a bridge at a terminal to board passengers. Were Air Canada to demand the same of our government, how would that workout for AC? Sound fair?
Now, what about paying passengers? Well, as you know, the average Baluchi in the UAE can't afford a ticket to Baluchistan but his employer can. What if this worker is a driver with EK? Who pays for his ticket? (another rhetorical question)
What about the Canadian pilot and his family on their annual sabbatical? (Yes, another rhetorical question)
What airline is going to pay for the employees annual travel ticket out of its own pocket to itself and claim a profit?
Isn't that having your cake and eating it too? Not many of the worlds airlines enjoy that perk.

If I were to break down what I thought were normal airline operating costs, I wouldn't say employee repatriation tickets, employee housing, employee school fees, employee transportation allowances, employee health care, employee fees for government administrative fees, etc., etc., etc., are normal in most airline operating costs. The price of a repatriation ticket, I thought, would be included as an operating cost and for an airline like Emirates, I imagine any impact on posting a profit or loss would see these costs shifted from its balance sheet to perhaps another financial statement like DNATA, Marhaba Services or some other division to escape the real financial cost of the operation. I don't have to tell you, Air Canada, British Airways or any American carrier for that matter, I doubt these carriers have these expenditures in their financial statements. They probably also don't sponsor F1 cars (actually Air Asia did at one point) and races, professional sports teams, tennis tournaments and any of their associated prizes. Just to give you an idea of my train of thought as soon as I read their claims of a profit year after year.

Sorry, but I'm just not convinced the price of a ticket between any point-to-point on EKs network has sufficient yield, full load or not, to make a profit in such a competitive airline environment.

They are strictly about market dominance at any cost and judging by what they're doing, I simply can't imagine they are legitimately profitable.

In the end, does it really matter? Not really. Opinion is simply opinion.


Cheers

Gino Under

[Old fella]

I can’t comment on the topic at hand because I have no experience or knowledge in that neck of the woods. However, and having said that, the knowledgeable ole “work horses” bmc/gino/complex are able to show us their experiences with their posts, even if seen through different lenses, and more important, do so with respect to their fellow work horses views. Even though I try understand all their lucid posts, it isn’t easy with my uneducated knowledge but an enjoyable read nevertheless.

Kudos fellas!!!

[A330]

Very interesting reading fellas! I think we're all learning from this discussion.

But Gino - reading your thoughts and assertions on ME airlines, how on earth is your favorite airline QR ??!! The most secretive, privately run, dictator lead airline labour camp of them all! Ironic?

[Gino Under]

A330

You are so right about QR it isn't even funny.
I measure simply based on cabin service. (Pretty shallow, huh) Holy cow it's excellent!!!
The mistreated slave labour approach is really paying off for them.
But guess what? ALL Gulf carriers are functionally the same.
They're all secretive dictatorships run by megalomaniacs. (That too is nothing more than a personal opinion)


Cheers
Gino Under

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Remember this issue about Emirates and Etihad wanting more slots in the USA and Canada and airlines and union being up in arms against it, because they claimed the slots they were asking for were not proportional to their markets and that they were after through traffic that would just stop over in the UAE and continue onward ? It seems that the governments of Canada and the USA agreed to some extent. and refused the additional slots.
I thought at the time that these arguments were a bit far fetched since that is also what airlines like Air France, Lufthansa and British Airways do, in the sense that a large portion of passengers boarding flights from these airlines in North American are not in fact going to France, Germany or the UK but are in fact going further.

Now that Icelandair and WOW airlines are increasing frequency to Canada and the US, what are the airlines and the unions going to say about it ? Iceland has a population of 300,000 people.

Were those arguments leveled against Etihad and Emirates needing slots not proportional to the UAE's population not valid for Iceland ?