PDA

View Full Version : YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143

trofirhen
Mar 6, 2010, 12:51 AM
Province pushes for greater air access for Middle East airline
Emirates Airline presents study showing economic impact and new employment figures generated by flights to Vancouver
Andrew Petrozzi

British Columbia has turned up the heat on Transport Canada and the federal government’s Open Skies policy after a provincial cabinet minister stood with an airline executive to highlight the economic impact improved air access would have for the province.

B.C. Transportation Minister Shirley Bond and Emirates Airline’s senior vice-president of international affairs Andrew Parker revealed a new research report by InterVISTAS Consulting that says Emirates flights to Vancouver would bring approximately $118 million of economic benefits and create almost 700 jobs.

The projected increase would come from tourism spending, taxes and economic activity resulting from the proposed daily Dubai-Vancouver service. The report anticipates 50,968 new passengers on the route annually, as well as 312 new direct full-time jobs for a total of 689 new full-time jobs in Canada, including spin-off impacts. It anticipates $31.8 million in new direct economic activity at Vancouver International Airport, for a total of $76.6 million in total new economic activity including spin-off impacts.

It also projects $15.4 million in new direct tourism spending annually from non-resident visitors that would help generate a total of $33.5 million in new economic activity and add $8.3 million in new direct tax revenue.

“Emirates Airline is seeking federal government approval to progressively increase connections between Canada, the Middle East and Asia,” said Parker. “By growing leisure and business traffic, we can help to strengthen Canada’s tourism, trade and investment sectors – as well as increase traffic for domestic airlines.”

Bond was unavailable for comment by press time.

B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell, who was unable to attend the press conference, said in a statement: “This study identifies a great economic opportunity and highlights the need for more progress on Open Skies agreements to remove barriers to international tourism and commerce.”

Improving air access to B.C. through improved Open Skies agreements was highlighted in the recent provincial throne speech.

The InterVISTAS study also highlighted the creation of an additional 7,000 tonnes of cargo export capacity for Canadian goods between Vancouver, Dubai and other destinations. Currently, demand for cargo space for Canadian goods on Emirates flights exceeds capacity, with space routinely sold out months in advance, according to the airline.

“Emirates has been asking for additional landing rights in Canada for a decade, a request that is supported by the B.C. government,” said Parker. “This study shows that delays in approving the request are costing the B.C. economy hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in new economic activity every year.”

InterVISTAS Consulting’s Michael Tretheway said: “Increased Emirates Airline services to Canada would provide a significant economic stimulus to tourism and trade in Canada. The increased air services would also create additional revenue for Canadian airports as no Canadian carrier currently offers these air services.”

The study also examined the economic impact of increasing service in Toronto and adding a Calgary-Dubai flight. The combined impact nationally, including B.C., would be $480 million in new economic activity and about 2,860 new jobs.

According to Transport Canada spokeswoman Maryse Durette, Transport Canada has just received the study and has not had time to review it.

“Officials continuously monitor the Canada-United Arab Emirates (UAE) market to ensure it is not underserved, as this would not be in the commercial interest of either country,” she said. “The Government of Canada greatly values the near-daily flights to Canada from the two airlines of the United Arab Emirates.”

She said that many Canadian or foreign carriers also offer one-stop service between Canada and the UAE, and that there is currently no shortage of seats to meet the demand.

“The rights under the current Canada- UAE air transport agreement meet the market demands of travellers whose origin or final destination is either Canada or the UAE,” she added. According to Durette, the agreement currently allows each carrier of the UAE – the other being Etihad Airways – to fly up to three times a week to Canada. Both carriers have decided to use all of their frequency allotment to serve Toronto only although they are permitted to fly to any other Canadian city.

But for Parker, the survey confirms that Emirates can act as a facilitator for economic growth in B.C. and Canada.

“Not only would the services create new jobs, increased tax revenue and tourism spending, but throughout our extensive global network, we would provide British Columbia with enhanced links between businesses and greater access to international capital and trade markets.” •

apetrozzi@biv.com

natelox
Mar 11, 2010, 3:20 AM
Air Canada CEO says letting Dubai's Emirates Airlines increase Canadian service would be 'devastating'

By JOANNE LEE-YOUNG, VANCOUVER SUN March 9, 2010

The CEO of Air Canada launched a blistering attack on recent efforts by Emirates Airlines to expand its services to Canada, saying the impact of allowing the Dubai-based airline to increase its service to Toronto and start flying to Calgary and Vancouver and would be "devastating."

Speaking publicly for the first time on the topic, Calin Rovinescu said that such an entry by Emirates would eventually diminish direct flights to Canada and "have the effect of severely damaging our hubs in Canada and our network in Europe and elsewhere."

"What Emirates wants to do is flood the Canadian market with capacity. Its strategy is to scoop up travelers going elsewhere in the world and funnel them through Dubai, further strengthening Dubai as a global flow hub," he said.

The Campbell government and YVR have been in favour of Emirates' lobbying effort, saying it's in line with their desire for Ottawa to allow freer skies that would lead to greater travel and trade. Greater access by foreign airlines is a cornerstone of B.C.'s Asia-Pacific gateway strategy.

Two weeks ago, Emirates unveiled a study that predicted economic benefits to Canada if it is allowed to expand, including $480 million of new business and almost 3,000 jobs. Rovinescu, however, described these projections as "the stuff of fairy tales" and "subterfuge." Further, he slammed attempts by Emirates to tie its campaign to "military bases necessary for our country's operation in Afghanistan."

"While its argument may be seductive, what Emirates' strategy will do is constrain the growth of Canadian airports by turning them from hubs into stubs at the end of a spoke that leads only to Emirates' hub in Dubai," said Rovinescu. "Sure, you will still be able to get to anywhere from Vancouver. But you will have to get there through Dubai."

Rovinescu told a Vancouver Board of Trade luncheon that as Vancouver tries to build itself as an Asian hub, the arrival of Emirates could significantly hurt these plans. With the awarding of approved destination status to Canada from China and the growth of the intra-Asian airline market, Air Canada "will look to capture a greater share of the Asia to North America market," he said. It plans to increase total capacity to Vancouver by 3.3 per cent in July, including a 26 per cent increase to countries in the Pacific Rim. For example, in June, it will start daily flights from Vancouver to Beijing and Shanghai, up from three weekly to Beijing and four to Shanghai.

jlee-young@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/Canada+says+letting+Dubai+Emirates+Airlines+increase+Canadian+service+would+devastating/2663916/story.html]Link.

MistyMountainHop
Mar 11, 2010, 4:05 AM
Air Canada seems worried that they won't be able to get away with horrible service if they're competing against another airline.

SpongeG
Mar 11, 2010, 4:38 AM
air canada just laid off another 1000 people

I met someone who works for them as an airlines steward whatever and he says the west is always screwed if u want the best routes or schedule and chances for advancemnet u have to live or base yourself in toronto or montreal but he likes it here and puts up with it

Yume-sama
Mar 11, 2010, 5:13 AM
air canada just laid off another 1000

Which makes them giving financial advice on the part of Emirates to the Canadian government even more logical. I mean, they must know...

Rusty Gull
Mar 11, 2010, 6:16 AM
The war of words between Emirates and AC is getting pretty intense. I am hoping it stays like this - this story needs to be told beyond the business pages, as it effects everybody. Even if you have no intention to fly to Dubai, what about if you want to go to Mumbai or New Delhi? Right now, you are mostly stuck with AC's shitty routes - and chances are you have to connect in somewhere like Frankfurt.

GO EMIRATES GO!

MalcolmTucker
Mar 11, 2010, 1:00 PM
Wouldn't you rather there be a direct flight from Vancouver to India? Right now there are negotiations for a new bilateral air services agreement going on which will hopefully open the routes up.

If Emirates gets in first there will be no chance of getting that direct connection.

Plus, the UAE government linked Camp Mirage with the bilateral, which is really crass. No one gets away with bs like that, especially when the point is made through the media. The Canadian Forces will move to Bahrain or Qatar, and the UAE can go suck on it.

trofirhen
Mar 11, 2010, 2:51 PM
Wouldn't you rather there be a direct flight from Vancouver to India? Right now there are negotiations for a new bilateral air services agreement going on which will hopefully open the routes up.

If Emirates gets in first there will be no chance of getting that direct connection.

Plus, the UAE government linked Camp Mirage with the bilateral, which is really crass. No one gets away with bs like that, especially when the point is made through the media. The Canadian Forces will move to Bahrain or Qatar, and the UAE can go suck on it.

As I understand it, the airlines in question are JET AIRWAYS, KINGFISHER AIRLINES, and AIR INDIA. The negotiations have been dragging on for three years or more. So where are the routes? Not a mention of them.
*
Also, If EMIRATES came to Vancouver, does that mean they'll siphon off all traffic to India? That would make for a rather awkward routing, zig-zagging back into into India. I would have thought they'd be more of a hub for the Middle East and Africa, The Persian Gulf, and of course Dubai itself.
...........................
But no ....... let's keep Vancouver a "spoke" city with a branch plant economy. It's so much "quainter" that way. I'd hate to see it get big and sophisticated, able to wield corporate power. Wouldn't that be AWFUL? What would Toronto do? .... :jester:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I must agree with you totally that their little arm-twisting effort suggesting closing down the Canadian base is pathetic and sucks, big time.

trofirhen
Mar 11, 2010, 3:04 PM
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: from The Vancouver Sun

Rovinescu told a Vancouver Board of Trade luncheon that as Vancouver tries to build itself as an Asian hub, the arrival of Emirates could significantly hurt these plans. With the awarding of approved destination status to Canada from China and the growth of the intra-Asian airline market, Air Canada "will look to capture a greater share of the Asia to North America market," he said. It plans to increase total capacity to Vancouver by 3.3 per cent in July, including a 26 per cent increase to countries in the Pacific Rim. For example, in June, it will start daily flights from Vancouver to Beijing and Shanghai, up from three weekly to Beijing and four to Shanghai.
_________________________________________

This part of Rovinescu's argument is ludicrous, and an example of "straw man" combined with trying to foster anxiety. There's no way EMIRATES is going to fly from Vancouver to Dubai, then take passengers on to places like Beijing and Shanghai, a third of the way back around the hemisphere. It's ridiculous. At this point Rovinescu is grabbing at straws.

whatnext
Mar 11, 2010, 4:08 PM
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: from The Vancouver Sun

Rovinescu told a Vancouver Board of Trade luncheon that as Vancouver tries to build itself as an Asian hub, the arrival of Emirates could significantly hurt these plans. With the awarding of approved destination status to Canada from China and the growth of the intra-Asian airline market, Air Canada "will look to capture a greater share of the Asia to North America market," he said. It plans to increase total capacity to Vancouver by 3.3 per cent in July, including a 26 per cent increase to countries in the Pacific Rim. For example, in June, it will start daily flights from Vancouver to Beijing and Shanghai, up from three weekly to Beijing and four to Shanghai.
_________________________________________

This part of Rovinescu's argument is ludicrous, and an example of "straw man" combined with trying to foster anxiety. There's no way EMIRATES is going to fly from Vancouver to Dubai, then take passengers on to places like Beijing and Shanghai, a third of the way back around the hemisphere. It's ridiculous. At this point Rovinescu is grabbing at straws.

What?! You honestly believe there are that many people who want to travel from Vancouver to Dubai and vice versa? Of course Emirates just wants to turn Vancouver into a spoke to fuel their Dubai hub. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

twoNeurons
Mar 11, 2010, 4:33 PM
I'm mixed on this one. I prefer direct flights, however, if I'm going to transfer, I'd rather choose my transfer point. Most of the locations where we would benefit from Emirates would be transfer locations that we will never have direct flights for.

Ottawa is taking a firm stance on this because they don't want Dubai to become "the hub" for all flights, but I don't think adding a couple of slots for Emirates would do that.

If you want to travel to Europe, you invariably will have to go through London, Amsterdam or Frankfurt.

Look at Emirates network in Asia:
http://www.airlineroutemaps.com/West_Asia/img/Emirates_asia_africa.gif

Sure, we may lose a direct flight or two, but look at those connections. We will NEVER get direct flights to half those places.

Like it or not, they are fantastically placed to be a hub for that region. Air Canada would lose flights to other hubs, like London and Frankfurt. Air Canada ISN'T turning YVR into an Asian hub.

There's room for both here, and adding a few slots will both increase competetiveness and increase choice without flooding the market. To say otherwise is just propping up AC.

trofirhen
Mar 11, 2010, 4:44 PM
IF the Feds do what they do best; protect their own Eastern interests, and drag their feet, Emirates may well say "truck you" and fly to Seattle.

If they do, Seattle will have a great advantage over Vancouver for connections to that and other parts of the world.

Is that what Ottawa wants? Or is it just that they don't care?

vana8
Mar 11, 2010, 5:31 PM
Many of us Canadians from Vancouver based in the Persian Gulf are following this story with great interest. Until there is a direct flight to YVR from a Middle Eastern country, I guess I have to put up with transiting through a European country and waiting for up to 15 hours with my 2 kids before catching the connection.

Yume-sama
Mar 11, 2010, 5:32 PM
Many of us Canadians from Vancouver based in the Persian Gulf are following this story with great interest. Until there is a direct flight to YVR from a Middle Eastern country, I guess I have to put up with transiting through a European country and waiting for up to 15 hours with my 2 kids before catching the connection.

But don't you feel better that Air Canada's employees can keep their job?

Well, other than the 1000 they just fired. And the thousands of others they've let go...

whatnext
Mar 11, 2010, 7:17 PM
Many of us Canadians from Vancouver based in the Persian Gulf are following this story with great interest. Until there is a direct flight to YVR from a Middle Eastern country, I guess I have to put up with transiting through a European country and waiting for up to 15 hours with my 2 kids before catching the connection.

Unless you live in Dubai, you're still going to have to wait there to catch your flight to any middle eastern destination. What's the difference whether you wait in Frankfurt or Dubai?

As to those bemoaning the fact AC doesn't serve countries like India: there is absolutely nothing stopping Air India or Jet from serving YVR. Sad that people like to turn this into a chance to bash Air Canada, rather than standing up what's best for Canada.

vana8
Mar 11, 2010, 7:35 PM
Unless you live in Dubai, you're still going to have to wait there to catch your flight to any middle eastern destination. What's the difference whether you wait in Frankfurt or Dubai?


The difference is probably a 2-hour wait in Dubai as opposed to the 21-hour wait this December in Amsterdam or the 12-hour wait in LHR in February (for the Olympics!) with frustrated kids. If a direct flight from the Middle East to YVR on Air Canada existed, I'd definitely take that.

Prometheus
Mar 11, 2010, 7:43 PM
Sad that people like to turn this into a chance to bash Air Canada, rather than standing up what's best for Canada.

Please tell us what is best for Canada and why it is best.

Star Scraper
Mar 11, 2010, 8:23 PM
IF the Feds do what they do best; protect their own Eastern interests, and drag their feet, Emirates may well say "truck you" and fly to Seattle.

If they do, Seattle will have a great advantage over Vancouver for connections to that and other parts of the world.

Is that what Ottawa wants? Or is it just that they don't care?

lol If there was any demand for a non-stop flight from Seattle too Dubai, one of the american carriers would already be providing it...

trofirhen
Mar 11, 2010, 8:54 PM
lol If there was any demand for a non-stop flight from Seattle too Dubai, one of the american carriers would already be providing it...

I mentioned that because it was listed on the Wikipedia site for Seattle Airport as one of their future possible carriers..

twoNeurons
Mar 11, 2010, 9:40 PM
Unless you live in Dubai, you're still going to have to wait there to catch your flight to any middle eastern destination. What's the difference whether you wait in Frankfurt or Dubai?

Exactly! In BOTH cases, you're not flying direct. In both cases, you have to transfer in a foreign country. In addition, Emirates Air has a huge network. More choice means not having to transfer TWICE, especially given the size of Emirates network.

Again, I re-iterate, we all want to fly direct, but the reality is there is no difference between LHR, FRA and Dubai, when you have to transfer anyhow. Dubai just gives us another choice and the possibility of better connections to our destination.


As to those bemoaning the fact AC doesn't serve countries like India: there is absolutely nothing stopping Air India or Jet from serving YVR. Sad that people like to turn this into a chance to bash Air Canada, rather than standing up what's best for Canada.

What's best for [Air] Canada isn't always what's best for Canadians.

If there isn't enough demand, travellers from a few cities pool in a hub and go to their destination. Dubai is as good, if not better, than any other extra-country hub.

I'm sorry if you, or a family or friend get laid off, I really am... but I'm sure that some leeway can be given here. A compromise can be made.

Johnny Aussie
Mar 11, 2010, 10:28 PM
Quoting Rovinescu:

"It plans to increase total capacity to Vancouver by 3.3 per cent in July, including a 26 per cent increase to countries in the Pacific Rim. For example, in June, it will start daily flights from Vancouver to Beijing and Shanghai, up from three weekly to Beijing and four to Shanghai."

Ummmmm... doesn't he mean actually re-instating some of the stripped capacity from YVR to Asia? "Start" daily flights..!? If anybody in the room listening to this speech realised this is a bunch of crap. Air Canada is not "starting" daily flights... they are just re-instating the daily flights. In fact going back to 2005, Air Canada had 57 weekly flights from YVR to Asia... this summer they will have only 35! I hope somebody questioned his "facts!"

whatnext
Mar 11, 2010, 11:36 PM
...What's best for [Air] Canada isn't always what's best for Canadians.

If there isn't enough demand, travellers from a few cities pool in a hub and go to their destination. Dubai is as good, if not better, than any other extra-country hub.

I'm sorry if you, or a family or friend get laid off, I really am... but I'm sure that some leeway can be given here. A compromise can be made.

Again, you can't seem to resist casting this as an "Air Canada is the bad guy" issue, and inferring that only Air Canada employees have an interest in retaining a strong Canadian aviation industry. Did you see Air Canada lodge objections to the recently completed Open Skies agreement with the EU? No, because they're all competing on a level playing field.

What's best for Canadians does not involved having our air system subject to disruption by a despotic Middle Eastern regime. If Emirates was such an obviously "good thing" for Canada, would the despot which controls it need to resort to threats to close Canada's forward military base in the area?

Prometheus
Mar 11, 2010, 11:49 PM
Relying on the state to immunize a company from competition is not a sign of strength, but an admission of weakness.

Rusty Gull
Mar 12, 2010, 1:35 AM
Unless you live in Dubai, you're still going to have to wait there to catch your flight to any middle eastern destination. What's the difference whether you wait in Frankfurt or Dubai?

As to those bemoaning the fact AC doesn't serve countries like India: there is absolutely nothing stopping Air India or Jet from serving YVR. Sad that people like to turn this into a chance to bash Air Canada, rather than standing up what's best for Canada.

There's a huge difference. Flights to Mumbai leave Dubai every hour. But there's only one or two flights out of Frankfurt to Mumbai daily - hence the 8 hour waits at the airport.

As for your "What's best for Canada" line, that is so old. We all know that what is said to be "best for Canada" often is what is in fact best for Toronto, Pearson Airport and Air Canada. And that is all. The rest of us get screwed everytime.

Exactly how is greedy protectionism -- and that is exactly what this is -- good for anybody in supposed first-world democracy???

Rusty Gull
Mar 12, 2010, 1:37 AM
Relying on the state to immunize a company from competition is not a sign of strength, but an admission of weakness.

Well put. Why can't we allow the free market decide this naturally, instead of intervening with questionable protectionist policies?

SpongeG
Mar 12, 2010, 1:39 AM
also a lot of muslims like to travel and be served Halal food on the airline

my friend is muslim and has to opt for the Vegetarian meals which at best are crap and when he described what they are they are nothing more than cheese wraps sometimes or pasta with veggies

so there is a difference to some people what airline and where they wait

Rusty Gull
Mar 12, 2010, 1:41 AM
Again, you can't seem to resist casting this as an "Air Canada is the bad guy" issue, and inferring that only Air Canada employees have an interest in retaining a strong Canadian aviation industry. Did you see Air Canada lodge objections to the recently completed Open Skies agreement with the EU? No, because they're all competing on a level playing field.

What's best for Canadians does not involved having our air system subject to disruption by a despotic Middle Eastern regime. If Emirates was such an obviously "good thing" for Canada, would the despot which controls it need to resort to threats to close Canada's forward military base in the area?

You are introducing a red herring that Air Canada is trying to tell to anyone who will listen. It's no different than when Harper made some noise about reducing the supply of oil to the US when the Americans were screwing us on the softwood lumber file. It's called diplomacy.

I would like to know what your stake in this matter is (federal transport bureaucrat? devoted Aeroplan member? AC employee? Pearson Airport flack?) since you seem to defend the virtually indefensible (ie, reducing consumer choice).

whatnext
Mar 12, 2010, 5:17 AM
You are introducing a red herring that Air Canada is trying to tell to anyone who will listen. It's no different than when Harper made some noise about reducing the supply of oil to the US when the Americans were screwing us on the softwood lumber file. It's called diplomacy.

Harper never head his head out of Bush's ass long enough to threaten anything of the sort.

I would like to know what your stake in this matter is (federal transport bureaucrat? devoted Aeroplan member? AC employee? Pearson Airport flack?) since you seem to defend the virtually indefensible (ie, reducing consumer choice).

Sorry, none of the above. Try proud Canadian. Canada will never add up as a zero sum game. Too much land, too few people. If we want to be masters in our own house, not everything can be reduced to a Walmart level.

dubsH
Mar 12, 2010, 5:53 AM
not everything can be reduced to a Walmart level.

Based on most of my experiences with Air Canada, I'd say it's near Walmart level service. Of course, you'll vehemently disagree, but that's my opinion.

Yume-sama
Mar 12, 2010, 6:49 AM
:P I actually have an Air Canada success story for today, to keep me happy.

I called in and very nicely explained that today the flight I booked to Boston was selling much cheaper than what I paid. And I got the difference refunded~!

I take the be overly nice to phone people approach. It throws them off-guard...

Surprisingly the same thing did not work with JAL. They made me cancel and pay a cancellation fee, to save 50% :(

Probably because they are used to polite people. Curse you, Japan! Seriously. The first time I went to Japan I was mesmerized by the fact they still bow while conversing on the phone.

deasine
Mar 12, 2010, 7:10 AM
Well JAL is quite cash strapped at the moment... =P

Yume-sama
Mar 12, 2010, 7:21 AM
I'm sure you'll all end up subsidizing my cheaper flight at some point!

Star Scraper
Mar 12, 2010, 1:38 PM
I mentioned that because it was listed on the Wikipedia site for Seattle Airport as one of their future possible carriers..

United already offers a non-stop route from DC too Dubai. They'd move in and snatch up the Seattle route way before Emirates.

trofirhen
Mar 12, 2010, 3:22 PM
United already offers a non-stop route from DC too Dubai. They'd move in and snatch up the Seattle route way before Emirates.

Is there an agreement / freedom of market accord between the UAE and the US which would allow this? (I guess there must be, but I'd like to know, out of curiosity) Thanks.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 12, 2010, 3:47 PM
In Annex I of this document you can see that there is open skies, with full fifth freedom rights for both parties http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/125743.pdf, which would be reasonable. Unfortunately that is not what UAE wants from Canada.

trofirhen
Mar 12, 2010, 4:28 PM
In Annex I of this document you can see that there is open skies, with full fifth freedom rights for both parties http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/125743.pdf, which would be reasonable. Unfortunately that is not what UAE wants from Canada.

Interesting! If the UAE wants, and has this with the USA, why do they NOT want it with Canada?

mezzanine
Mar 12, 2010, 4:50 PM
Air Canada ISN'T turning YVR into an Asian hub.

True that. I am unsure what YVR would lose further that we haven't lost already from AC.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 12, 2010, 4:53 PM
^ Well, to make a treaty like that useful for Canada, we need a new bilateral with India. So why would UAE offer it if we wouldn't accept it. So they play hard ball, and try to wedge themselves.

Originally Emirates was boycotting Canada, saying they wanted 7 slots to provide daily service to Canada. There were only 6 slots, but no service. The government said to get more slots they had to show enough O & D demand to get more slots since the governments policy is to increase the number of direct flights to destinations Canadians want to go to. So then Eithad started 3 times weekly service and Emirates to keep up, and to stop Eithad from taking all the slots started 3 more. There is still no evidence that O& D demand exceeds the current ~5400 seats each way cap that exists. If there was, Air Canada would use the available 6 Canadian slots to provide more service.

Rusty Gull
Mar 12, 2010, 5:08 PM
The bottom line is this: Whatever is good for Air Canada is bad for YVR.

AC has so thoroughly discredited itself over the years -- from its shoddy domestic service, to the dilution of the Aeroplan program, to its shabby treatment of YVR, to its insistence of routing traffic through Pearson -- that I do not trust one word that comes out of their corporate headquarters in Montreal.

Air Canada has screwed passengers. They have screwed shareholders. They have screwed loyalty club members. And now they are screwing the British Columbia public by trying to ban Emirates' planes from landing at YVR.

quobobo
Mar 12, 2010, 10:59 PM
Sorry, none of the above. Try proud Canadian. Canada will never add up as a zero sum game. Too much land, too few people. If we want to be masters in our own house, not everything can be reduced to a Walmart level.

Don't make the rest of us pay for your xenophobia (or "patriotism" if you prefer, same thing).

If you're right and Emirates is going to provide bad service to Vancouver, then Air Canada will have no problem competing. If Emirates provides better service than Air Canada (not hard), then flights at YVR improve.

also, do you know what a zero sum game is?

whatnext
Mar 13, 2010, 1:06 AM
Don't make the rest of us pay for your xenophobia (or "patriotism" if you prefer, same thing).

If you're right and Emirates is going to provide bad service to Vancouver, then Air Canada will have no problem competing. If Emirates provides better service than Air Canada (not hard), then flights at YVR improve.

also, do you know what a zero sum game is?

Despite numerous posts pointing out the flaws in Emirates case, you obviously have failed to understand the issues involved. If you wish to wallow in a "Central Canada is screwing us" mentality go right ahead.

quobobo
Mar 13, 2010, 1:47 AM
Despite numerous posts pointing out the flaws in Emirates case, you obviously have failed to understand the issues involved.

Clearly. I’ve read through the recent pages of this thread and I'm still not entirely sure what you're arguing.

Before we go any further, could you nail down exactly why you’re against giving Emirates some slots? I’m guessing it will be one or both of these, but who knows:

1) Air Canada can’t compete with them, and in the long run we need a domestic airline so badly that it’s worth the cost to consumers.

2) The slots will be underutilized by Emirates, so we should avoid this for reasons of efficiency.

Yume-sama
Mar 13, 2010, 1:52 AM
I'd bet it has more to do with Emirates' perceived business practices :yes:

MalcolmTucker
Mar 13, 2010, 2:03 AM
1) Air Canada can’t compete with them, and in the long run we need a domestic airline so badly that it’s worth the cost to consumers.



This is true, but not for the reasons you would think. Emirates operating on the route and hubbing through Dubai presents an incredibly advantage unless the is a Air Canada codesharring airline from India flying into Dubai. Of course there won't be - why would an Indian airline feed into someone else's hub. I think Canadian's are also quick to forget that nothing is stopping any Canadian from starting another carrier that wouldn't be in the Star Alliance. We don't need to allow free access to everyone to have competition.

The western world - our airlines have formed alliances to share revenue, manage capacity and such. That Canada is only involved in one alliance right now is the fault of a lack on ambition at WestJet more than anything else. These alliances encourage hub and spoke travel on a continental scale, using very full international hub flights to support low yield domestic spoke flights.

Emirates wants to destroy that system. They want to remove every high yield passenger they can that are even only marginally better off to route them through their hub. Emirates will provide so much capacity to its hub, that Canada ends up being worse off. Sure, all our focus cities might be able to support a direct flight to dubai every day, or even two. But is that better than hubbing domestically than traveling directly to India, Syria, or Lebanon? I would say not. Hubbing domestically increases capacity and competition on routes where we would otherwise pay higher fares and enjoy less frequency. Vancouver having a Dubai flight could not only reduce available seats on flights to Europe, but domestic flights aswell. At least within the Star Alliance, the code sharing agreements basically make Canada's share of a flight even if hubbed through CDG, LHR or FRA equal to the operating airlines share. For a pure trade perspective it is better to keep profits at home than gve them all away to a foreign owner.

Add to that the strategic geopolitical implications of handing over a significant amount of high yield traffic to a state that is an absolute monarchy, reducing Canada's ability to act independently. What if Canada wanted to ship supplies to a certain democracy in the middle east during a future conflict? I am sure we couldn't count on Emirates to ship them.

trofirhen
Mar 13, 2010, 2:38 AM
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:

OK. I'll go along with you - for a moment - and say it is better to fly directly to India, Syria, and Lebanon, wherever in that part of the world, rather than hubbing through Dubai.

Now for the question: WHERE are those airlines that are going to takes us from YVR to India, Syria, wherever? There's nothing available. Are they due to start service imminently?

It does not appear so, and there has been talk of various Indian airlines coming to Vancouver for ages. The result; nothing.

So why are you so uptight about EMIRATES landing here? What's the damage, and to whom?

jlousa
Mar 13, 2010, 2:52 AM
The flights aren't here because the demand isn't here. As much as I'd like more direct flights to where I want to go, I also don't expect any airline to fly me there on a half empty plane. We always hear airlines talking about expanding, but at the end of the day they don't because they can't make money.

I'll never forget a Warren Buffet quote from a couple of years back (probably still true today), he stated that he would never invest in the airline industry because his analysts ran the numbers and if you took the total income of the whole industry since the Wright brothers took flight until today, it would be in the red.

trofirhen
Mar 13, 2010, 4:39 AM
The flights aren't here because the demand isn't here. As much as I'd like more direct flights to where I want to go, I also don't expect any airline to fly me there on a half empty plane. We always hear airlines talking about expanding, but at the end of the day they don't because they can't make money.

I'll never forget a Warren Buffet quote from a couple of years back (probably still true today), he stated that he would never invest in the airline industry because his analysts ran the numbers and if you took the total income of the whole industry since the Wright brothers took flight until today, it would be in the red.

Excelent point!! (putting it understatedly) .... although I did think that there would be demand from Vancouver to the Indian subcontinent anyway, as they do make up a large portion of our community.

cornholio
Mar 13, 2010, 4:47 AM
I look at the airline industry and see that is incredibly inefficient and by being inefficient it ends up costing consumers more. The reason it is inefficient is because of the incredible protectionism the industry sees by most nations, Canada being one of those nations.

Put it this way, most people don't need direct flights, they need cheap flights as they are usually on vacation and not business and the flight in most cases comprises over 50% of the costs yet takes up probably around 5% of the time or less(if going for one week). How do you get cheap flights, by being efficient and you can be efficient by routing most passengers through hubs, one of which can be Dubai. By doing this you become efficient, a airline would then have 99%-100% of their seats full at all times and have complete flexibility. Consumers would then have lower prices, and in the end probably the same travel times as the time lost to going through a hub and transferring(which would be quick) would be offset with greater flexibility in choosing the departure time with many more flights leaving each day. In the end consumers would be better if the industry was allowed to compete as this is exactly what would happen, direct flights would remain for only some destinations based on demand.

To sum it up.

Look at FedEx's business model to understand.
How goods are shipped is how people need to be shipped, that means routing to and from hubs. It can cost a fraction of what it costs right now to fly to 90% of the destinations if protectionism was droped.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 13, 2010, 4:55 AM
^ Being unilaterally anti protectonist is just stupid however, and letting emirates have more slots when the o&d isn't there is certainly just throwing away the store.

You have to look at it as a government aswell, not just in a 5 year term, but a 50 year term. Do you want all of Vancouver's subcontinent bound traffic to route through Dubai then? The government looks at opening traffic to Dubai as a significant opportunity cost, when there is not a way a Canadian airline can compete for the traffic that would use the connection (due to protectionism on the part of others).

trofirhen
Mar 13, 2010, 5:02 AM
WHY can't Vancouver be a HUB instead of a spoke?? I guess the answer is evident; we're just not big enough yet. We do, however, have a strategic location: not only a bridge between East and West, but between North and South as well. Now if we can just develop the demand ......
That will take another 25 years I guess, (if there's any petroleum left to fuel the planes) :shrug:

cornholio
Mar 13, 2010, 5:08 AM
^ Being unilaterally anti protectonist is just stupid however, and letting emirates have more slots when the o&d isn't there is certainly just throwing away the store.

You have to look at it as a government aswell, not just in a 5 year term, but a 50 year term. Do you want all of Vancouver's subcontinent bound traffic to route through Dubai then? The government looks at opening traffic to Dubai as a significant opportunity cost, when there is not a way a Canadian airline can compete for the traffic that would use the connection (due to protectionism on the part of others).

I as a citizen and a consumer want what is best for me, I don't give two craps about Canada or any other country, I try to not be blinded by nationalism, like Einstein said, its a disease. Obviously I dont want a monopoly but that is not what we are talking about and that is something easily preventable.

To answer your question, yes, I would like to have my traffic routed through a major hub to increase efficiency, lower my price, and reduce our carbon foot print(this ones for all the environmentalist).

cornholio
Mar 13, 2010, 5:10 AM
WHY can't Vancouver be a HUB instead of a spoke?? I guess the answer is evident; we're just not big enough yet. We do, however, have a strategic location: not only a bridge between East and West, but between North and South as well. Now if we can just develop the demand ......
That will take another 25 years I guess, (if there's any petroleum left to fuel the planes) :shrug:

There will always be petroleum left to fuel the planes, infact it could be much much cheaper in 25 years then it is today(depending on technological advances). All thanks to peak oil, which by the way has notihng to do with us "running out of oil".

trofirhen
Mar 13, 2010, 5:26 AM
The current Minister of Transport is the Honourable John Baird, MP, an Ontario lad. (from where else did you expect)??

Regarding the title of this post, for those of you unfamiliar with French, it means "the roar of the crowd."

Putting 2 and 2 together .....

Hourglass
Mar 13, 2010, 5:58 AM
Clearly. I’ve read through the recent pages of this thread and I'm still not entirely sure what you're arguing.

Before we go any further, could you nail down exactly why you’re against giving Emirates some slots? I’m guessing it will be one or both of these, but who knows:

1) Air Canada can’t compete with them, and in the long run we need a domestic airline so badly that it’s worth the cost to consumers.

2) The slots will be underutilized by Emirates, so we should avoid this for reasons of efficiency.

Air Canada's argument here is specious at best and dishonest at worst. The Vancouver Sun article stated they would grow capacity at YVR this summer and growing flights to Asia blah blah blah. Discounting the effects of the global recession, if you look back further 6-8 years, you'll see that the number of Air Canada Asian routes from Vancouver has actually remained stagnant or even decreased.

Taipei - Axed
Osaka - Axed
Nagoya - Axed
Hong Kong - Reduced from 10x weekly to 7x weekly
Seoul - Reduced during summer season from 14x weekly to 7x weekly. Beijing - Originally 7x weekly

So by this measure, either Vancouver was either (1) vastly overserved, (2) the Asian population has shrunk in the past 8 years or (3) Air Canada's inefficient cost structure prevents them from adequately serving these routes. So what actually happens now is that carriers like Cathay Pacific, a number of US airlines as well as British Airways and Lufthansa benefit since they transport passengers from Vancouver to Asia and Europe via their own hubs. Oh wait, isn't that the fear with Emirates???

To try to stoke fears that YVR will be only a spoke in Emirates' Dubai hub is just plain stupid. I don't agree with Dubai's measures to try to gain access to the Canadian market, but this is pure protectionism on Air Canada's part. Surely no-one would be naive enough to believe that daily or twice-daily flights to Dubai are going to destroy Air Canada's hub in Vancouver...?

trofirhen
Mar 13, 2010, 1:44 PM
Air Canada's argument here is specious at best and dishonest at worst. The Vancouver Sun article stated they would grow capacity at YVR this summer and growing flights to Asia blah blah blah. Discounting the effects of the global recession, if you look back further 6-8 years, you'll see that the number of Air Canada Asian routes from Vancouver has actually remained stagnant or even decreased.
..................
To try to stoke fears that YVR will be only a spoke in Emirates' Dubai hub is just plain stupid. I don't agree with Dubai's measures to try to gain access to the Canadian market, but this is pure protectionism on Air Canada's part. Surely no-one would be naive enough to believe that daily or twice-daily flights to Dubai are going to destroy Air Canada's hub in Vancouver...?

Aha! Some people on this forum do, apparently, as well as Air Canada itself! :no:

Rusty Gull
Mar 13, 2010, 5:46 PM
Does Air Canada have any idea how much ill will there is towards them in Vancouver? They have given the gears to YVR repeatedly during the past decade. They have slashed jobs out here. They have reduced service, and killed routes.

If you look at their behaviour, their mission seems clear -- hobble YVR as much as possible -- and using government-sanctioned protectionism to do it -- to funnel traffic through money-losing Pearson.

Air Canada is behaving like a monopoly. Wait: It IS a monopoly. No wonder they are afraid of a world-class airline like Emirates setting up here.

Yume-sama
Mar 13, 2010, 5:51 PM
A little off topic, but, why (or when) did Singapore leave YVR?

nova9
Mar 13, 2010, 6:08 PM
They announced cancellations around July/August of last year. I remember because I was headed to Singapore and then they announced the cancelllations and it made my flight prohibitively expensive and annoying.

whatnext
Mar 13, 2010, 6:17 PM
Does Air Canada have any idea how much ill will there is towards them in Vancouver? They have given the gears to YVR repeatedly during the past decade. They have slashed jobs out here. They have reduced service, and killed routes.

If you look at their behaviour, their mission seems clear -- hobble YVR as much as possible -- and using government-sanctioned protectionism to do it -- to funnel traffic through money-losing Pearson.

Air Canada is behaving like a monopoly. Wait: It IS a monopoly. No wonder they are afraid of a world-class airline like Emirates setting up here.

Really? I wasn't aware British Airways had stopped flying from London to YVR? When did that happen? Similarly when did JAL stop flying to Tokyo? Cathay Pacific to Hong Kong? Has Westjet stopped flying to Toronto as well?

Best look up the definition of a monopoly.

As those blaming Air Canada for ceasing service to Nagoya and Osaka, you are aware that JAL or ANA is free to step in (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/releases-nat-2009-09-h057e-2427.htm) at anytime to offer service aren't you?

Yume-sama
Mar 13, 2010, 6:21 PM
JAL or ANA is free to step in (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/releases-nat-2009-09-h057e-2427.htm) at anytime to offer service aren't you?

One is bankrupt and one doesn't fly to Canada because of their codesharing agreements with Air Canada. :frog:

I'd assume the main reason why Air Canada doesn't fly to KIX anymore is because of the high landing fees. #2 in the World... behind Narita :P

Plus KIX can't act as a hub for the Star Alliance like NRT.

whatnext
Mar 13, 2010, 6:39 PM
One is bankrupt and one doesn't fly to Canada because of their codesharing agreements with Air Canada. :frog:

I'd assume the main reason why Air Canada doesn't fly to KIX anymore is because of the high landing fees. #2 in the World... behind Narita :P

Plus KIX can't act as a hub for the Star Alliance like NRT.

A bankrupt carrier would jump at the chance if the route was profitable. Air Canada can't stop ANA from flying here, ANA chooses not to.

Likewise, if Emirates siphons off India traffic, you could probably say goodbye Cathay's second daily flight to Vancouver. There's been tons of Indians connecting when I've flown it.

Yume-sama
Mar 13, 2010, 6:41 PM
Maybe, maybe not. It starts off in New York City, JFK, then connects at YVR. In fact a lot of our International flights start off somewhere else, whether it be Mexico City (JAL) or Toronto (many AC flights).

That's a large market.... :P

Osaka International Airport is having quite the financial problems that have pushed costs to airlines through the roof....

Many flights are simply going to Chubu now. But, hubbing is important, and neither KIX or Chubu are hubs.

I'd venture to say a good 20% of people on any given flight to NRT are not staying in Japan, and NRT is an excellent hub for Air Canada's alliance within Asia.

Yume-sama
Mar 14, 2010, 4:07 AM
:P Life is so unfair. I am looking at booking a trip to Tokyo. This blows my mind.

YVR - Narita = $1200 round trip
SEA - YVR - Narita = $800

Both Air Canada. Ya think I could just not show up for the first leg in Seattle?

How come everything is cheaper from the USA, even though it connects in Canada :sly:

Is it because there is more than one airline in the USA?!

Rusty Gull
Mar 14, 2010, 5:17 AM
Likewise, if Emirates siphons off India traffic, you could probably say goodbye Cathay's second daily flight to Vancouver. There's been tons of Indians connecting when I've flown it.

Talk about hyperbole! The percentage of India-bound traffic on Cathay is miniscule! Although connecting through Hong Kong or Tokyo is an option, it's equally efficient to fly direct to Europe and connect to India from there.

Rusty Gull
Mar 14, 2010, 5:20 AM
:P Life is so unfair. I am looking at booking a trip to Tokyo. This blows my mind.

YVR - Narita = $1200 round trip
SEA - YVR - Narita = $800


Another classic case of Air Canada doing "the right thing" for Canadians! :yuck:

MalcolmTucker
Mar 14, 2010, 5:54 AM
:P Life is so unfair. I am looking at booking a trip to Tokyo. This blows my mind.

YVR - Narita = $1200 round trip
SEA - YVR - Narita = $800

Both Air Canada. Ya think I could just not show up for the first leg in Seattle?

How come everything is cheaper from the USA, even though it connects in Canada :sly:

Is it because there is more than one airline in the USA?!

If the Seattle leg is under performing, it makes sense to get a body on the flight even at the expense of not selling the second ticket, due to the crazy economics of airlines and how financial results are reported for them. The load factor matters more than individually profitable flight segments - it is virtually impossible to figure out what the economic cost of one seat on a flight is. Since flight prices increase as the load factor increases, the airline likely uses a weight of load factor vs available seat miles (or available seat segments) to figure an 'escalator' on the base fare, which increases as more seats are sold.

Also, part of Air Canada wanting to turn YVR into a hub for people from the USA might involve tweaking their flight price calculations to offer lower prices on those connections.

Hourglass
Mar 14, 2010, 6:19 AM
A little off topic, but, why (or when) did Singapore leave YVR?

Singapore left because they were pushing for greater access to Vancouver than 3x weekly via Seoul. The new bilateral air agreement between Canada and Singapore provided more access -- but only in the form of non-stops between Canada and Singapore.

Rumor (well, a bit more meaty than rumor since it was being heavily discussed on the SQ Talk board) had it that Singapore was hoping to keep the 3x weekly via Seoul and add 7x weekly via Hong Kong (note that this is no different than how they serve North American destinations. Singapore flies to LA via Narita and SF via HK. But I guess Canada is more special than the US, even though YVR considers these West Coast airports as direct competitors...) ;)

Anyway, that didn't happen, so those constraints combined with the economic crash made the decision easy, although Singapore was claiming 80+ percent passenger loads prior to the recession.

twoNeurons
Mar 14, 2010, 9:08 AM
KIX has been reducing landing fees to attract airlines.

And who cares if we lose Cathay's second flight? Wouldn't you rather have more destinations and more choices of which hub to fly through?

As for prices being higher connecting through YVR from SEA with AC, A close friend who works for them told me that AC charges more on that route ( they used to do the same for the Osaka route ) for two reasons:

It's a direct flight.
There's more competition in Seattle.

I guess it's more difficult for them to control the competition in a foreign airport like they can in Canada.

Yume, I don't know if they're still offering it, but Delta has direct flights ( to KIX ) starting in June. There were $600 USD flights SEA - KIX DIRECT.

I booked two flights in July.

US airlines have really had the trim the fat in the last few years. Air Canada, being protected by the government, hasn't really had to do anything. It's one reason that we should really be promoting a second airline. That way, if one is badly managed, it's not a big deal just to let it sink or swim with no major concerns.

Yes, I know we used to have Canadian Airlines. Whether they were a good airline or not isn't the issue. We need two.

trofirhen
Mar 14, 2010, 1:47 PM
US airlines have really had the trim the fat in the last few years. Air Canada, being protected by the government, hasn't really had to do anything. It's one reason that we should really be promoting a second airline. That way, if one is badly managed, it's not a big deal just to let it sink or swim with no major concerns.

Yes, I know we used to have Canadian Airlines. Whether they were a good airline or not isn't the issue. We need two.

You won't see that unless WestJet expands ever more aggresively, starts overseas services, and, of course, starts using larger planes than the ones it has. But hey, it MIGHT happen. They're expanding aggressively now

MalcolmTucker
Mar 14, 2010, 2:01 PM
If Transat gets into more trouble I could see WestJet buying them, and integrating the two 'vacations' businesses.

trofirhen
Mar 14, 2010, 2:12 PM
If Transat gets into more trouble I could see WestJet buying them, and integrating the two 'vacations' businesses.

That would be great !! :tup:

whatnext
Mar 14, 2010, 6:06 PM
Talk about hyperbole! The percentage of India-bound traffic on Cathay is miniscule! Although connecting through Hong Kong or Tokyo is an option, it's equally efficient to fly direct to Europe and connect to India from there.

Oh sorry, I didn't realize you were a traffic analyst for Cathay Pacific. :rolleyes: I assume you have actually been on the flight. At least once?

The government of Canada's stance has been clear and consistent, both with Emirates and Singapore. The carrier has to prove a certain level of O & D traffic.

big T
Mar 14, 2010, 6:11 PM
:P Life is so unfair. I am looking at booking a trip to Tokyo. This blows my mind.

YVR - Narita = $1200 round trip
SEA - YVR - Narita = $800

Both Air Canada. Ya think I could just not show up for the first leg in Seattle?

How come everything is cheaper from the USA, even though it connects in Canada :sly:

Is it because there is more than one airline in the USA?!
This makes total sense to me -- direct flights are almost always more expesive, because you pay for the convenience. You should really be comparing SEA-YVR-NRT on AC to SEA-NRT direct on Japanese and US airlines. AC is simply trying to capture part of that market by offering an attractive price.

whatnext
Mar 14, 2010, 6:20 PM
It actually boggles my mind that anyone would want to vacation in Dubai in the first place:

A British couple caught kissing in public in Dubai face up to a month in jail in the Gulf Arab emirate for indecency after an Emirati mother complained her child had seen their kiss.

The pair, a British man living in Dubai and a female friend, were arrested in November on accusations of kissing and touching each other intimately in public and consuming alcohol, their lawyer said. They were ordered jailed for a month.

The case is the third time in less than two years in which foreigners have made headlines by falling foul of decency laws in Dubai, a flashy Muslim emirate popular with sun-seeking tourists and expatriates...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/british-couple-face-jail-time-in-dubai-over-kiss/article1500103/

Yume-sama
Mar 14, 2010, 6:29 PM
In most cases, and most places, if you respect local law and tradition, you are fine.

Whether or not you actually agree with local law. But you should know this before you go *anywhere*, particularly the Middle East.

And under no circumstances point out the hypocrisy of it :P

SpongeG
Mar 14, 2010, 9:17 PM
:P Life is so unfair. I am looking at booking a trip to Tokyo. This blows my mind.

YVR - Narita = $1200 round trip
SEA - YVR - Narita = $800

Both Air Canada. Ya think I could just not show up for the first leg in Seattle?

How come everything is cheaper from the USA, even though it connects in Canada :sly:

Is it because there is more than one airline in the USA?!

the $400 is for the flight from YVR to SEA ;)

I've looked up flights to London and its cheaper to fly out of Seattle but the flights I checked on the way back stop in YVR! before going to seattle :koko:

and the flights average $300 - $400 cheaper than vancouver

twoNeurons
Mar 16, 2010, 2:51 AM
Air Canada CEO says Montreal should become international transport hub
16 March 2010 05:27

MONTREAL - Emirate Airlines' desire to expand service to Canada, high government taxes and fees all threaten Montreal's ability to become a major international hub, says the chief executive of Air Canada.

Calin Rovinescu told the city's business leaders Monday that while Trudeau Airport will never overtake Toronto's Pearson, it has the potential for more traffic.

Last year, a total of 12.8 million passengers flew through the Montreal airport, including six million with Air Canada. Since 2004, Air Canada's (TSX:AC.B) traffic through the city has grown by 25 per cent, while its capacity has increased by more than 18 per cent.

While Trudeau Airport's growth largely hinges on the state of the economy, channelling connecting traffic will be the key driver of the airport's importance as a hub, Rovinescu said.

That could be threatened if Dubai-based Emirate Airlines is able to "dump its excess capacity" into Canada and siphon passengers who make connections here.

"The growth of airports such as Montreal that rely on connecting traffic would be stunted," Rovinescu told the Canadian Club of Montreal.

"Rather than hubs, they would shrink to stubs at the end of a spoke leading only to Dubai."

The speech marked the second time in a week that Rovinescu has taken on the Middle Eastern airline for its expansion efforts in Canada.

Another impediment to Montreal's competitiveness as a hub is direct and indirect taxes, he added.

Air Canada pays about $1,000 more on average to land an Airbus A320 in Montreal, about twice what it costs the airline's U.S. peers to fly into major American airports.

The result is higher ticket prices and a disadvantage for Canadian carriers.

"The imbalance is significant and over time this will be one of the main drivers determining which cities we will help develop as meaningful hubs and where we invest our scarce resources," Rovinescu said.

One-third of Air Canada passengers who fly through the airport begin their flights elsewhere. Air Canada's membership in the Star Alliance should help improve that number. For example, the recent addition of Brussels Airlines to the alliance will increase traffic to Africa.

Rovinescu said improving Montreal's standing as a hub requires better transit connections to the downtown.

Its current service puts Canada's second-largest city a long way behind other gateways, including Vancouver with its new Skytrain service.

He said all three levels of government need to commit to improving the transit connection in order for Montreal's airport to achieve its full potential.

"If a case can be made for funding the (Formula 1 auto racing) Grand Prix and the consequential several days of economic benefits, an even stronger case can be made for funding rapid transit access and real infrastructure development for the airport," he said.

Rovinescu said Air Canada is in a marathon to improve its corporate culture, cut costs and restore profitability.

Air Canada and its 26,000 employees have made progress, but more remains to be done to allow the former Crown corporation to complete its transformation, he added.

On the Toronto Stock Exchange, Air Canada shares fell four cents, or 2.33 per cent to $1.68 in afternoon trading.


source (http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/business/article/478164--air-canada-ceo-says-montreal-should-become-international-transport-hub)

Where have we heard this before? Montreal has a lot of Arabs. I wonder what the opinion of the Arab community in Montreal would be if Emirates wanted into Montreal.

twoNeurons
Mar 16, 2010, 2:58 AM
Airlines square off over Vancouver service
Derek Moscato
15 March 2010 12:00

These should be the best of times for the aviation business in Vancouver. On the day after the conclusion of the Winter Olympics, our international airport successfully oversaw its highest volume of passengers ever. The Paralympics have helped to sustain some of that momentum into March.

Presumably, all of the air traffic that has flowed in and out of the city over the past month should have translated into a surge of new opportunities for Vancouver International Airport — bolstered capacity and perhaps even new routes and carriers.

But that hasn’t always been the case. The last few years have actually been marked by a loss of flights for YVR. Take Singapore Airlines, which pulled flights out of Vancouver last year. Or Cathay Pacific, which trimmed its service to Hong Kong. Before that, Vancouver lost its direct air link to Osaka.

This is not good news — whether you work for the airport, are a frequent flyer, or work in industries such as tourism or trade. A vibrant international air hub is one of the key backbones of our economy.

At least one top-tier airline, Emirates Airlines, is trying to make inroads here, but it’s getting the expected but troubling brush-off from our federal government.

According to a study commissioned by the Dubai-based carrier, Canada stands to gain $480 million in annual economic benefits by approving its plan to introduce service to Vancouver and Calgary, and bolster its flights to Toronto. The plan would also create 2,800 new jobs across the country, according to the study.

The provincial government agrees. In a statement, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell said, “As a province and a country, we need to capitalize on services like those offered by Emirates Airline to realize our full economic potential.”

The problem is, an agitated Air Canada does not agree. Last week in Vancouver, its CEO went so far as to call Emirates’ proposal “the stuff of fairytales.”

Emirates has since fired back — stating that consumers are the ultimate losers in this standoff, and that Air Canada enjoys an unfair advantage here.

It’s time for Transport Canada to rise above this squabbling and do the right thing. Protectionism puts Canada in a negative light globally and will hurt B.C.’s economy. More airline competition is better for consumers, period.

Emirates Airlines should be allowed to start service in Vancouver immediately.

Free the skies, Ottawa.

– Derek Moscato is a writer with a focus on urban issues, transportation, architecture and economics; dmoscato@yahoo.com.



source (http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/comment/article/477736--airlines-square-off-over-vancouver-service)

big T
Mar 16, 2010, 5:45 AM
source (http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/business/article/478164--air-canada-ceo-says-montreal-should-become-international-transport-hub)

Where have we heard this before? Montreal has a lot of Arabs. I wonder what the opinion of the Arab community in Montreal would be if Emirates wanted into Montreal.
Montreal has tons of North Africans and Lebanese, but not so many "Arabs" as in people from the Arabic peninsula. Connecting in Dubai from eastern/central Canada would make little sense for that crowd when they can connect in Paris / take a drect flight (at least on Royal Air Maroc).

As for the article, I agree that Montreal has quite a bit of untapped potential, but it is mostly domestic in my opinion. If you look at stats you'll see that the share of intl / transborder traffic is noticeably higher in YUL than in either YYZ or YVR.

Rusty Gull
Mar 16, 2010, 6:17 AM
Best. Article. Ever. (http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2010/03/16/canada-australia-emirates--etihad-case-study-of-protectionism-vs-liberalism-whos-got-it-right/page1)

(courtesy the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation: "Canada, Australia, Emirates & Etihad: Case study of protectionism vs liberalism. Who’s got it right?")

twoNeurons
Mar 16, 2010, 6:47 AM
whatnext: I'm really curious to hear your take on that article.

I want to hear both sides.

Hot Rod
Mar 16, 2010, 11:30 AM
I really don't see what the fuss is over. What is Air Canada afraid of?

They aren't adequately serving Vancouver now, yet someone wants to come in and provide some options. What's the fear?

What would stop the Indian airlines from expanding into YVR with Emerates here? What would stop Air Canada from making YVR their Asian hub with Emerates here?

I don't get it?????

Air Canada could already be making YVR their Asian hub, but we all know they are making Toronto. Indian Airlines could already be flying into YVR but we all know they aren't because of the protectionalism and preference that IF said airlines DO fly into Canada - they do so to Toronto and NOT Vancouver. The government of Canada mandated SQ fly non-stop in order to increase flights, but SQ has no airplane (well, now they do) that could go non-stop YVR-SIN [and not to mention, the other West Coast SQ gateways connect in Asia]. ....

So what does any reasonable person conclude from this behaviour. To me, this is a Growth strategy for Toronto at the expense of Vancouver. Plain and Simple.

Look at the 57 weekly asian nonstops YVR HAD before being "the Asian Gateway" vs. the 35 from Air Canada now. I ask, how many nonstops have Toronto GAINED during the same time. ......

And now, Montreal wants to get in the mix???

Protectionism of Toronto, plain and simple. That's the way I see it.

If Air Canada really wants to set up YVR as "THE Asian Hub", then why dont they do so? What are they waiting on?

They don't want to do it, they want Toronto to be the "IT" hub for everything; with only high dollar directs going out of YVR. AND they don't want anybody else messing with their turf and Im sure they influenced Lufthansa to come bulldog for them.

I don't see this as much as Dubai taking over as much as I see it as Air Canada and the East not wanting Vancouver to 'take over' Toronto.

trofirhen
Mar 16, 2010, 11:55 AM
...........

Protectionism of Toronto, plain and simple. That's the way I see it.

If Air Canada really wants to set up YVR as "THE Asian Hub", then why dont they do so? What are they waiting on?

They don't want to do it, they want Toronto to be the "IT" hub for everything; with only high dollar directs going out of YVR. AND they don't want anybody else messing with their turf and Im sure they influenced Lufthansa to come bulldog for them.

I don't see this as much as Dubai taking over as much as I see it as Air Canada and the East not wanting Vancouver to 'take over' Toronto.

That's largely the essence of it.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 16, 2010, 11:59 AM
^ Due to the current bilateral, Indian Airlines could only fly twice a week to Vancouver if current service to Toronto is maintained. This is being fixed, as there is a reasonable amount of origin and destination traffic.

One reason Singapore Airlines left is the new Canadian bilateral with South Korea , which created a bit of economic pressure on yields on the route. Singapore Airlines could have maintained the existing service, but choose not to.

Yeah, Canada's strategy of discouraging travel to international hubs in favour of direct flights breaks a few eggs along the way. Complete open skies with other advanced economies has the additional effect of discouraging hubs in Canada. Calgary will even soon have a direct to asia flight.

If Emirates comes in, YVR will likely never have direct flights to multiple destinations on the subcontinent. With the growth in demand Vancouver will likely be able to support daily flights to multiple cities across India over time. Is having flight to Dubai worth a bunch of loses elsewhere? Because Air Traffic is pretty much a zero sum game.

Hot Rod
Mar 16, 2010, 12:00 PM
Oh, somebody earlier asked - Seattle does not differentiate Transborder like Canada/Vancouver does.

So, all NON-US bound passengers are counted as International, regardless of the US airport it is from. Therefore, Seattle's International numbers include passengers to/from Canada even though they don't go through customs in Seattle (they do so in YVR).

One more thing, Im happy Air China is expanding in YVR; Im in China now and like the low fares from YVR (say 800 nonstop YVR vs 1700 from SEA).

Hot Rod
Mar 16, 2010, 12:08 PM
^ Due to the current bilateral, Indian Airlines could only fly twice a week to Vancouver if current service to Toronto is maintained. This is being fixed, as there is a reasonable amount of origin and destination traffic.

One reason Singapore Airlines left is the new Canadian bilateral with South Korea , which created a bit of economic pressure on yields on the route. Singapore Airlines could have maintained the existing service, but choose not to.

Yeah, Canada's strategy of discouraging travel to international hubs in favour of direct flights breaks a few eggs along the way. Complete open skies with other advanced economies has the additional effect of discouraging hubs in Canada. Calgary will even soon have a direct to asia flight.

If Emirates comes in, YVR will likely never have direct flights to multiple destinations on the subcontinent. With the growth in demand Vancouver will likely be able to support daily flights to multiple cities across India over time. Is having flight to Dubai worth a bunch of loses elsewhere? Because Air Traffic is pretty much a zero sum game.

why is this? or is this what Air Canada thinks/says?

what difference does Emerates coming into YVR now prevent YVR from having expanded subcontinent service later?

Were only talking about one daily flight, surely Vancouver has a much more significant Indian population and business community that WHEN Indian airlines start service, people would migrate to them and Emerates would be in check....... BINGO

Emerates could 'start' the service and PROVE that Vancouver has the O/D for subcontinent directs. Emerates would get some 'visibility and profit' in the start - but I hardly see them TAKING OVER and being Vancouver's only choice for that region. Right now, sure - since nobody else is doing it (including no AC). So why not let them in, pent up demand is there.

Also, if AC is really serious about YVR being its Asian Hub, why don't they start flights in Toronto or Montreal or Calgary - hub them through YVR then non-stop to more Asian destinations? They would have the numbers, surely.

But oh wait - that's what their doing in Toronto. Having flights originate mostly in Vancouver then going to Europe and even Asia ironically. Got-cha.

LeftCoaster
Mar 16, 2010, 1:19 PM
But oh wait - that's what their doing in Toronto. Having flights originate mostly in Vancouver then going to Europe and even Asia ironically. Got-cha.

Yes that is exactly the issue here but it is not Pearson or Toronto who is to blame, simply Air Canada. AC wants to subsidize their transcontinental flights, be it yvr-yyz yyc-yyz etc... by creating artifical demand by forcing intercontinental passangers to fly across the country first. By using a codeshare agreement with connecting flights out of YYZ AC is able to fill its flights without even selling a ticket. This allows AC to maintain a competitive advantage, and it uses these cash cow routes to fund its operations and less profitable routes, some of which it is forced to operate by the fed.

The ones to blame here are AC and the fed who are consistantly scratching eachothers back to the detriment to the majority of the Canadian population... even people from Toronto.

twoNeurons
Mar 16, 2010, 1:50 PM
One reason Singapore Airlines left is the new Canadian bilateral with South Korea , which created a bit of economic pressure on yields on the route. Singapore Airlines could have maintained the existing service, but choose not to.

So SQ chose to leave Vancouver because another airline came in and offered flights on a segment that they could only do thrice weekly? Essentially, they didn't want to ( or couldn't ) compete with a carrier that had better service? That's what I don't understand. I want to understand their logic. I WANT to side with AC. But seriously, if people will gravitate to carriers with better service, what's the problem? People will fly direct over Emirates Air.

If Air Canada wanted more direct service for Canadians, why did they start dropping direct flights to regions with NO competition? Osaka, for one.


If Emirates comes in, YVR will likely never have direct flights to multiple destinations on the subcontinent. With the growth in demand Vancouver will likely be able to support daily flights to multiple cities across India over time. Is having flight to Dubai worth a bunch of loses elsewhere? Because Air Traffic is pretty much a zero sum game.

Never is a long time. Canada is basically only server by the Star Alliance. This puts people on AC code-shares.

Interestingly, until fall 2010, there will be NO Indian Airlines in the Star Alliance. Is it really about direct flights to India for Canadians? Or is it about maintaining an edge with their Star Alliance partners?

If an airline isn't the the Alliance, that would mean it's not advantageous for them to code-share with Air Canada, right? That would mean they would be better off flying direct, right?

I could, for example, see 3x weekly flights out of Abbotsford, and 4x out of Vancouver to India if a non-Star-Alliance partner were to set up shop here.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 16, 2010, 2:24 PM
^ Under the current bilateral with India there can only be 2 flights a week offered to a second city, with the first city only having 2100 seats per week. As part of a Canada India trade deal there is supposed to be open skies, so wait until then for flights.

And once again, there is almost no demand for direct flights to Dubai - The Canadian government's goal is to establish and nurture direct flights to places where origin and demand warrant it.

Hourglass
Mar 16, 2010, 2:58 PM
And once again, there is almost no demand for direct flights to Dubai - The Canadian government's goal is to establish and nurture direct flights to places where origin and demand warrant it.

Sorry, doesn't wash with me. If that is the case, why has the Canadian government been trumpeting 'blue sky' agreements with such "major" markets as Iceland (population 319,960)? Icelandair does quite a lot of business transiting passengers from Europe to North America via Reykjavik. How come there are no howls of protest from Air Canada here? (rhetorical question only -- we all know the answer)

Air Canada itself is far from innocent. They tried to launch Toronto-Sydney via Los Angeles a couple of years ago (denied by Australia due to concerns over the impact on one of Qantas' most profitable routes -- deja vu anyone?). AC still do Vancouver-Honolulu-Sydney. If the US government took the same stance to Air Canada that Canada did to Emirates and Singapore, such routes would be impossible.

BTW, it interesting to note that because of limited competition on the LA-Sydney route, the prices are high, to say the least.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 16, 2010, 4:20 PM
^ Iceland gets open skies because it is part of EFTA, which signed an all encompassing free trade agreement. Since Canada and the destinations served through Iceland have or soon will have Open Skies there is little concern Iceland will poach market share. Why would Canadians hub through Iceland to reach Europe when they already have direct flights? (Iceland Air would do well to go into under served markets like Winnipeg however)

Vancouver-Honolulu-Sydney, I don't believe Americans can buy tickets on segments of the route (confirmed, AC site does not allow the routing). The LA flight Australia objected to obviously was trying to pull a 5th freedom.

Hourglass
Mar 16, 2010, 5:05 PM
Why would Canadians hub through Iceland to reach Europe when they already have direct flights? (Iceland Air would do well to go into under served markets like Winnipeg however)

Price and/or service (but mainly price). Why else would people endure flights on carriers such as Ryanair?

Vancouver-Honolulu-Sydney, I don't believe Americans can buy tickets on segments of the route (confirmed, AC site does not allow the routing). The LA flight Australia objected to obviously was trying to pull a 5th freedom.

Yes, the attempted LA-Sydney flight was a 5th freedom.

Strange, I was under the impression one could fly HNL-Sydney but I just tried the AC site and it didn't work for me either. I stand corrected

whatnext
Mar 16, 2010, 11:51 PM
whatnext: I'm really curious to hear your take on that article.

I want to hear both sides.

Its trying to compare apples and oranges. Canada isn't Australia. It tries to compare international tourism, then asks the reader to dismiss the visitors to Canada from the USA. :koko:

If you're looking for an article showing how tightly Emirates is woven into the state of Dubai, you can find it here:

...As head of Dubai's Supreme Fiscal Committee, Sheik Ahmed is in charge of distributing the billions of dollars of bailout money that Dubai received from Abu Dhabi. And as chairman of Emirates Group he has been at the center of rumors that Dubai's airline, along with other key assets like the huge container port in Jebel Ali, might be handed over to Abu Dhabi in return for the larger emirate's help....

..."The airline put Dubai on the world map," he says, adding that the airline's 32,000-strong workforce makes it Dubai's biggest employer. "We've put a lot into the Dubai economy. The number of units we rent within the local market, the expenditure of the staff and how much it brings people to Dubai. If it wasn't for Emirates, this market wouldn't have been able to grow as it has. It's one of the core businesses of Dubai."...

...If Emirates decided to IPO I'm sure it will be good, especially if it's placed within the U.A.E. stock markets," says Sheik Ahmed. "It will see a lot of people trading in it. I will look at it as a positive thing. But as we speak today I don't have any direction from the government to do this...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575099713440863220.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

When Emirates is willing to compete on a level playing field, get back to me.

trofirhen
Mar 17, 2010, 3:05 AM
I'd like to know when the Canada - EU Open Skies agreement is coming into full effect. Is it in effect now? If so, nothing has developed out of it thus far, though I admit it is a bit early to tell.

However, if it is not in full effect yet, when will it be? Does anybody know?

Chikinlittle
Mar 17, 2010, 3:47 AM
Air Canada itself is far from innocent. They tried to launch Toronto-Sydney via Los Angeles a couple of years ago (denied by Australia due to concerns over the impact on one of Qantas' most profitable routes -- deja vu anyone?). AC still do Vancouver-Honolulu-Sydney.

Actually, no. AC does YVR-HNL, and YVR-SYD (nonstop) but is currently not operating YVR-HNL-SYD.

quobobo
Mar 17, 2010, 4:44 AM
When Emirates is willing to compete on a level playing field, get back to me.

If the UAE is willing to subsidize flights for Canadians (by backing Emirates), so much the better. I have no problem with UAE taxpayers paying for part of my flight.

From Canada's point of view, the government backing of Emirates is simply comparative advantage - obviously not a reason for protectionism. It doesn't matter why Emirates can fly passengers for less money, only that they can.

Yume-sama
Mar 17, 2010, 4:48 AM
Actually, no. AC does YVR-HNL, and YVR-SYD (nonstop) but is currently not operating YVR-HNL-SYD.

Yeah, their new 777-200LR are capable of flying 17,000km! :D Non-stop to Sydney.

Fricken long (nearly 16 hours), expensive, flight though :P

If the UAE is willing to subsidize flights for Canadians (by backing Emirates), so much the better. I have no problem with UAE taxpayers paying for part of my flight.

From Canada's point of view, the government backing of Emirates is simply comparative advantage - obviously not a reason for protectionism. It doesn't matter why Emirates can fly passengers for less money, only that they can.

Hmmm. They don't pay taxes there.

quobobo
Mar 17, 2010, 5:09 AM
My mistake, replace "taxpayers" with "oil industry" and my point still stands.

trofirhen
Mar 17, 2010, 6:36 AM
Regarding Australia, I think a flight to Brisbane is worth considering, as it is the closest to Vancouver. From there, you could continue on to Melbourne, or change for Perth, Adelaide, or another city.

The nonstop to Sydney should stay, in my opinion, although Melbourne is due to to overtake Sydney in population in 20 years.

Yume-sama
Mar 17, 2010, 7:22 AM
I'm a tiny bit surprised they manage to fill a daily flight to Sydney and back.