UAE hopefull on more landings to Canada

[timel]

Dubai: UAE officials are hopeful on securing additional landing rights for Emirates and Etihad Airways following an in an improvement in diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates and Canada.
“We’re hoping we will achieve something soon,” said Saif Mohammad Al Suwaidi, Director General of the General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) on Monday.
Tense diplomatic relations centred on Canada’s refusal to allow additional landing rights for the UAE carriers eased last year when the two countries foreign ministers met in Abu Dhabi.
Emirates and Etihad each fly direct to Toronto in Canada three-times weekly but are edging for more rights.

Al Suwaidi, speaking to reporters, rebutted comments from Air Canada’s chief executive who last month said he would push back on any move by the UAE carriers to gain greater access to Canada.
Air Service Agreement’s are “between countries and not between CEOs,” Al Suwaidi said.
Calin Rovinescu, the Air Canada CEO and also Chairman of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), said in June that he believed the UAE carriers had “adequate” access to Canada.
Whilst relations between the two countries appear to have normalised with Shaikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan recently meeting with his counterpart John Baird in Canada, little has been said publicly about the hotly disputed landing rights that Emirates and Etihad are seeking.

http://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/u ... -1.1362444

[bmc]

They have adequate access. I'm with AC on this. Air service agreements should be balanced. There is nothing in this for Canadian carriers.

[rxl]

I agree. The sand pile has absolutely nothing to offer in return.

[leftoftrack]

Could they not bring in travellers from India and Africa for WS to distribute? LH opens this market for Air Canada why should WS not also have access? I'm not saying the need open skies but possibly daily access wouldn't be the worst thing in the world

[Takeoff OK]

They don't need more slots. They can't even fill the flights they already operate. More slots is not about more passengers, it's about Dubai becoming the world's hub, regardless of profit. It's an ego thing. They have been denied increased access at hubs around the world because everyone understands what they are actually up to. UAE is a major threat to every pilot whose long-term goals don't include the sandbox.

[bmc]

Could they not bring in travellers from India and Africa for WS to distribute? LH opens this market for Air Canada why should WS not also have access? I'm not saying the need open skies but possibly daily access wouldn't be the worst thing in the world

Lots of interline flow from BA, KL, AF daily and in some cases 2-3 times a day from Europe. AF usually has three flights a day to Montreal and possibly Toronto. The market from Africa to Canada isn't big. India is and it's year round. Lots of great access today.

[complexintentions]

They don't need more slots. They can't even fill the flights they already operate. More slots is not about more passengers, it's about Dubai becoming the world's hub, regardless of profit. It's an ego thing. They have been denied increased access at hubs around the world because everyone understands what they are actually up to. UAE is a major threat to every pilot whose long-term goals don't include the sandbox.

*sigh*

Playing devil's advocate gets tiring.

Wrong: Actually, the flights to Toronto are packed and oversold, every single flight (3x weekly). They could go double-daily with the A380 and fill it. They're basically Air India flights. They could do the same if they could get YVR. SEA flights are overwhelmingly filled with Canindians from Vancouver.

Wrong: It is not "regardless of profit", profit is the only thing they care about. Trust me on that one. Or don't, and read the annual reports.
http://www.theemiratesgroup.com/english ... eport.aspx

Wrong: They have been denied access to very few places like Canada and selectively blocked from more slots in several places they already have slots, like LHR and CDG. The vast majority of destinations have, or are, increasing frequency. Even the Germans, who have a powerful lobby from Lufthansa, allow daily flights to DUS, MUC, HAM, FRA.

Right: Certainly ego is involved (as in all "national carriers", hell all airlines). But that doesn't change the fact that 70% of the world's population lives within a geographical area easily served by Dubai.

Right: ME airlines are changing the balance of international aviation. It's called globalization. Love it or hate it, it is what it is. Want to live and work in Canada, you'll have to accept the employment environment that exists there, because it's now competing with the employment conditions worldwide. It's happening in all industries, has been for decades. And will continue as Western populations decline and grow elsewhere. Disliking something doesn't change the facts of demographics.

Coupla graphics to illustrate - Dubai is the yellow dot.





Incidentally I fully support the protectionism in Canada and agree that giving the UAE more landing rights would be giving away something for nothing. But wrong statements are still wrong statements.

[GRK]

What he said! I was going to chime in with a number of salient facts regarding loads in and out of Canada by these two ME carriers, as the numbers are easy to find, but thanks to Complex, it's pretty clear it doesn't need to be done. All you have to do is to try and find a seat on any of these flights within a week of departure and you start running out of places to sit. I know quite a few who head for The Great White North a few times a year from over his way and they can't find decent seats or prices on either of the carriers. So your statement is completely wrong I'm sorry to say.

[bmc]

^^ Everything he said.

Couple of things were noting. The more seats on a plane, the more opportunity to spread costs. The higher the utilization, the greater opportunity to spread fixed costs. I repeatedly say it here and I'll say it agin. It's not hard to fill an airplane. The challenge is to fill it with good yield. The endless argument is yield vs end to end revenue. EK has a fortress hub in DXB. Every spoke feeds the network. They are global, arguably more so than any other airline and will keep growing. The question of profitability always comes up in discussions about EK. At one time, I always looked at EK as really just a part of Dubai Inc. It being one piece of an integrated puzzle. Their hub and spoke fills airplanes, often to destinations that could only be served with widebodies if there was enough flow to further destinations. Now that there is, there are not many long haul airlines that like EK. They are succeeding in serving under served destinations with a good product and redirecting this traffic away from other airlines. Are they doing a better job of serving those markets? Absolutely. And, they have a whole lot more airplanes coming on line in the years to come.

If Canadian pilots want to fly new modern equipment with a stable airline that is growing, and pays well, look to the Persian Gulf. They do, however, fly your ass off.

[Takeoff OK]

Well then, I guess I stand corrected.

[teacher]

What's the corporate tax rate in the UAE? What does the Dubai airport charge for fuel? Does the transport minister still hold a management position at one of their major airlines?

[GRK]

C'mon Teach…that kinda nonsense is getting really old…do a little work and look around on this site and you'll find your answers. No sense stirring up old shyte to try to make a poor point.

[complexintentions]

The whole subsidized fuel thing has been beaten to death and is a tiresome misconception. Oil is not jet fuel. The UAE imports most of their jet fuel from Singapore, actually - there isn't the refining capacity in-country. (Gee, that sounds like Canada - huge amounts of oil yet you import gasoline from the US!!) Sure, they probably get some discount for sheer volume but the idea that they get some sweetheart deal, that they pump it out of the ground directly into planes is sheer fantasy - they pay market rates. And that's only in Dubai, obviously when they're in LHR, they pay full market rates, when they're in YYZ, they pay full market rates, etc etc etc for all 140 destinations. But petty jealousy always makes for a skewed opinion. Their chief advantage is labour - low wages and high productivity - not fuel. Please see my earlier remarks on globalization.

teacher does highlight a good point though. Perhaps if Canada viewed airlines and airports as generators of economic growth, and not cash cows to be milked to death, the industry and country would benefit as a whole. Who knows, I'd probably still be in Canada, employed.

I have no love lost for the way things are done in the ME. That should be clear from any number of posts I've made on the subject, in fact I mildly resent being placed in the position of having to correct factual inaccuracies. Makes me sound like an apologist, which is laughably incorrect.

BUT...I do agree with the approach taken by the Gulf countries that their airlines are important economic drivers, not industries to be raped and pillaged to the point that several million Canadians a year would rather go to the US to catch their flights.

[Diadem]

I assume that the same people who are so vociferously opposed to Middle Eastern carriers are also lobbying against Singapore Airlines. After all, Singapore has a relatively small population without much in the way of O&D or tourism when compared to other countries that operate airlines of similar sizes. Almost all of SQ's passengers are en route to other countries, primarily elsewhere in Asia. So, unless there's another reason to oppose the Arab carriers like, oh, I don't know, let's say racism and denigration of the so-called "sandbox", then you should probably start fighting against any airline that primarily serves transferring passengers.

[bmc]

Add KL, Icelandair, Norwegian as big six freedoms airlines. It's a proven model that can work. The downside, where this can be inefficient, is where you have direct no stops between Asia and Europe, that Gulf carriers try to route through the gulf. You can lure passengers off non stops by lowering the airfare. Gulf carriers now fly the passenger for reduced yield, spread over two flights, two crews, etc.

[Soar]

While I agree about protecting Canada's interests, it's also rather interesting that when an international airline wants to come to Canada, AC can beat their drum, wail and moan and eventually get their way (sooner rather than later - even though they are a private company)... **Yet** when a domestic carrier starts up, low and behold our beloved AC swoops in with cut throat competition through pricing/frequencies with the help of their large pool of "resources" and metaphorically beats the $hit out of them, only to return to their "previous" ways when such company closes doors.

Doesn't seem very fair to me. I'm speaking strictly of AC.

Just MHO. I'm ducking for cover now...

[bmc]

No need to duck. Air service agreements are negotiated between governments. Our very own trusted swivel servants meet with Canadian carriers to get their input: What they want, what they can live with, what they can give up. Once in the meeting, positions are played and negotiations advance.

At one time, when I participated in some of those meetings, the Canadian carriers designated on the route (even though they may not be serving it) participated in the meeting. Since there are no other long haul international scheduled Canadian carriers, AC is the carrier at the meeting.

In the past, some of these negotiations resulted in the designated carriers from both countries working together and code sharing their flights, to the benefit of both airlines. In this particular case, code sharing would add no value, IMO, given that the markets served are price driven and not code driven. By that I mean that consumers make carrier selection based on price and not who the airline is that is serving the market.

It's a fair observation to make regarding AC, but the circumstances of who is Canada's scheduled international carrier is why they have a loud voice in this. Many air service agreements will specify that each country can designate one, perhaps two airlines from each country to serve the market. At one time, and perhaps it still holds, the Canada-UK bilateral specified two carriers from Canada and two from the UK. If that is still in effect, Virgin could apply to serve Canada athe second designated carrier.

[Joe Blow Schmo]

The simple fact is that bilateral air services agreements are negotiated to provide benefits to both countries. The existing 6 weekly flights that EK and EY share are already one-sided. No Canadian carrier flies to the UAE despite us also being entitled to 6 weekly flights. Why? because there is no demand! Virtually nobody travels from Canada to the UAE and vv. The vast majority of EK and EY's passengers are connecting onward through their respective hubs.

What possible motivation could the Canadian government have to give the UAE carriers more access when all it will do is hurt the services that AC provides to India or Asia (since that's where most of EY and EK's passengers are going). The Canadian government's job is to support Canadian industry and protect Canadian jobs, not undermine them.

[leftoftrack]

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

[bmc]

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

[Joe Blow Schmo]

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

The only way WJ would support increased access for UAE carriers would be to win PR points by claiming to be fighting for the Canadian consumer when really they're just trying to screw AC. The only way they'd do that is if they have no plans or ambition to serve the markets that are served by EK and EY out of Canada: The subcontinent, Asia, and Africa. If WJ has even the smallest ambition to serve any of those routes, they will be very opposed to more access for the UAE. So I guess the position they take could be a pretty good gauge on their long term ambitions.

[bmc]

If and when WS starts flying to Europe, they may want to pursue interline feed to help out in low season. So, while supporting a UAE request for more access may hurt AC, it could very well sting them as well. There will be carriers that fly into whatever Europe airports WS may serve, who will be interested in accessing Canadian traffic by helping WS.

[Diadem]

The simple fact is that bilateral air services agreements are negotiated to provide benefits to both countries. The existing 6 weekly flights that EK and EY share are already one-sided. No Canadian carrier flies to the UAE despite us also being entitled to 6 weekly flights. Why? because there is no demand! Virtually nobody travels from Canada to the UAE and vv. The vast majority of EK and EY's passengers are connecting onward through their respective hubs.

What possible motivation could the Canadian government have to give the UAE carriers more access when all it will do is hurt the services that AC provides to India or Asia (since that's where most of EY and EK's passengers are going). The Canadian government's job is to support Canadian industry and protect Canadian jobs, not undermine them.

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. 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. 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. 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? Hell, why not give them a monopoly on all flights within Canada too?
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. 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. 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. Those people return home to visit family, their families go over there, potential employees go for interviews, Emirati students come here, etc etc. I really don't see the difference between having two Russian airlines operating to YYZ and having two Emirati airlines operating to YYZ.
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. Why shouldn't I have another option, possibly with a lower price and better service, to get to Africa or Asia? Just to protect jobs at AC? Again, why not just give them an outright monopoly then? If competition with overseas carriers is bad, maybe competition with domestic carriers is bad too.
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. 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.

[bmc]

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. 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. 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. 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? Hell, why not give them a monopoly on all flights within Canada too?
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. 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. 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. Those people return home to visit family, their families go over there, potential employees go for interviews, Emirati students come here, etc etc. I really don't see the difference between having two Russian airlines operating to YYZ and having two Emirati airlines operating to YYZ.
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. Why shouldn't I have another option, possibly with a lower price and better service, to get to Africa or Asia? Just to protect jobs at AC? Again, why not just give them an outright monopoly then? If competition with overseas carriers is bad, maybe competition with domestic carriers is bad too.
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. 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.

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

[Diadem]

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.