UAE hopefull on more landings to Canada

[Spaceshuttle]

Good point!!

Reminds me of companies using foreign wet leases over Canadian companies capable of performing the same service. It's amazing how skewed peoples views can be when something affects their own company, right?

Now insert "legal and fair quote" so I can place mine in on this subject as well.

[RVR6000]

Just take a look at Australia, unlimited Emirates access has decimated the aviation industry in the country. Qantas, once a global brand had to concide into a partnership agreement with Emirates to prevent it from going under. If you want to protect good paying jobs within Canada then limit the access. Air Canada employees 30,000 Canadians directly and the trickle down jobs are probably in the 100,000s. More access for ME carriers won't have the same economic impact that AC has on Canada.

Complex nailed it, biggest advantage for Emirates is the dirt cheap productive labour. No way to compete with our Western labour codes, human rights, unions etc.

It will be interesting see what market demands will be like with AC offering direct flights to Delhi from Yyz and Yvr, Mumbai (starting next year), DXB which is being up gauged to a 777, and rumours of yul-beruit in works.

[complexintentions]

Bit of an odd thread to resurrect for a rant against Icelandair, but I'd hazard a guess that the reaction is proportional to the threat that they pose to the Canadian industry vs. the threat from the ME mega-carriers.

Makes me sad to read bmc's comments, I miss Brian and his highly intelligent input.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Bit of an odd thread to resurrect for a rant against Icelandair, but I'd hazard a guess that the reaction is proportional to the threat that they pose to the Canadian industry vs. the threat from the ME mega-carriers.

Makes me sad to read bmc's comments, I miss Brian and his highly intelligent input.

I think you missed my point. This is not about Icelandair or WOW.

Although I also considred the likes of Qatar, Etihad and Emirates to pose a considerable threat to intercontinental aviation routes of Canadian aviation, I felt that one of the specific arguments used to try to block them, the one where the capacity they had established on routes between Canada and their respective bases did not reflect the population basin in their bases, was a desingenious, dangerous and precedent setting argument that could also be levelled against any number of foreign airlines flying into Canada. Yet, as far as I know, this specific argument was only used against Emirates and Etihad.

Icelandair and WOW illustrate this point I am making, in that two airlines of this tiny nation of 300,000 have no trouble getting many routes to all major airports in Canada, that in no way reflect their population basin, yet no one says hoot. Yet they are, at a smaller scale and with a different marketing strategy doing the exact same thing as Emirates and Etihad: using their geographical position and eastbound route network to siphon passengers from other airlines, passengers who are not going to Iceland but elsewhere east of Iceland.

Will we wait until they place an order for 40 Boeing 787, 25 777s and 30 A380s to use that urgument against them?

My point is that the capacity/population basin argument should be valid for all, or for no one. It cannot be used solely when deemed convenient by certain interests.

[complexintentions]

*sigh*

Yes, Gilles, I got your point the first time about the double standard, no need to be pedantic about it. Yet in the end most of these battles are fought with a fair dose of pragmatism. To reiterate: pushback against competition is invariably based on the perceived level of threat a competitor poses. It doesn't necessarily correlate to the consistency, or logic, of the argument against it. (Or as you point out, the lack thereof.)

Key phrase from your post: "at a smaller scale".

No doubt there would have been a great deal more resistance from the Canadian unions/regulators if Icelandair/WOW had a fleet of widebodies ready to deploy in Canada. They don't, so there wasn't.

Also, comparing an Icelandic carrier to a ME one isn't a valid comparison in other ways. The main competitive advantages of the ME is labour productivity, an advantage not shared by a Nordic company with similar social costs as Canada.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

*sigh*

Yes, Gilles, I got your point the first time about the double standard, no need to be pedantic about it..

You're the one who stated my post was a rant against Icelandair, when it clearly was not.
And now you claim you knew that from my first post. ....

[complexintentions]

Fine. So it wasn't against Icelandair per se. Apologies, I'll re-phrase: you claim you can't understand why an argument is used against one airline and not another.

I say it seems pretty obvious why.

Not that complicated.

I guess I'm just pretty much numb at this point to the hypocrisy and inconsistency of policy and politics in Canada. The corruption is really just as bad as anywhere in the world, just more subtle than say, in Africa. I'm glad (sincerely) that there are people still able to care.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Fine. So it wasn't against Icelandair per se. Apologies, I'll re-phrase: you claim you can't understand why an argument is used against one airline and not another.

I say it seems pretty obvious why.

Not that complicated.

I guess I'm just pretty much numb at this point to the hypocrisy and inconsistency of policy and politics in Canada. The corruption is really just as bad as anywhere in the world, just more subtle than say, in Africa. I'm glad (sincerely) that there are people still able to care.

So finally we agree on all points.

[complexintentions]

I was just surprised you seemed surprised.