Canada's Interests, or Air Canada's Interests?

[August1991]

This caught my eye:

As well as seeking more flights, Emirates Airlines wanted to establish a North American hub in Toronto for its mammoth Airbus A380 aircraft, a source familiar with the negotiations said.

The request to flood Canada's long-haul aviation market, as Emirates and Etihad have already done in Australia, New Zealand and Britain, was bitterly opposed by Air Canada.

The Gazette

Frankly, I'm with MacKay on this. Quite apart from the military/cost advantage of having a base in the UAE, this decision to refuse Emirates more landing rights in Toronto hurts Canadian air travellers.

Initially, I thought that it was merely a debate about extra access, landing rights. Now it appears that Emirates planned a concentrated effort to use Toronto as a hub in the North American market. (The newspaper report uses the pejorative verb "to flood".)

-----

Who does the federal government defend? Many Canadian consumers, or a handful of Air Canada employees and shareholders?

In this world of cell phones and the Internet, this simplistic form of protectionism is unsustainable in the long run. The sooner Canadians (and Canadian companies) face the real world, the better.

But if our governments must choose protectionist policies, surely there are more deserving people than rich Air Canada employees and shareholders.

Edited November 19, 2010 by August1991

[dre]

This caught my eye:The Gazette

Frankly, I'm with MacKay on this. Quite apart from the military/cost advantage of having a base in the UAE, this decision to refuse Emirates more landing rights in Toronto hurts Canadian air travellers.

Initially, I thought that it was merely a debate about extra access, landing rights. Now it appears that Emirates planned a concentrated effort to use Toronto as a hub in the North American market. (The newspaper report uses the pejorative verb "to flood".)

-----

Who does the federal government defend? Many Canadian consumers, or a handful of Air Canada employees and shareholders?

In this world of cell phones and the Internet, this simplistic form of protectionism is unsustainable in the long run. The sooner Canadians (and Canadian companies) face the real world, the better.

But if our governments must choose protectionist policies, surely there are more deserving people than rich Air Canada employees and shareholders.

Who said air Canada employees are rich?

[Topaz]

On the news, it said it was Baird that said no to it because he was the minister of Transportation at the time. That's why Mckay and Baird are on the outs. Baird probably wants McKay gone so when Harper leaves he can take over the leadership of the party. Can you imagine Baird as the leader of the Tories? OR worse PM!!!

[ToadBrother]

Who said air Canada employees are rich?

Or Air Canada for that matter.

[ToadBrother]

On the news, it said it was Baird that said no to it because he was the minister of Transportation at the time. That's why Mckay and Baird are on the outs. Baird probably wants McKay gone so when Harper leaves he can take over the leadership of the party. Can you imagine Baird as the leader of the Tories? OR worse PM!!!

A louder, more obnoxious Stephen Harper.

[August1991]

Who said air Canada employees are rich?

They are richer, and have a better pension, than many of their passengers.

They are certainly richer than Canadian taxpayers who travel by bus, or never fly in airplanes.

If I were a politician, and I had to choose between an Air Canada employee and a lost soul sleeping on the street, I would not hesitate for two seconds in choosing who should receive taxpayer benefits, or some protected status. In my scheme of existence, homeless people deserve more help than anyone connected with Air Canada.

If news reports of this Cabinet debate are accurate, John Baird was wrong, and Stephen Harper was wrong to side with Baird.

And that opinion is aside from the obvious military advantage of having an air base in the UAE.

----

The argument that the UAE should be thankful to Canada for all that our soldiers have done to protect their region against terrorism is spurious, and fundamentally wrong.

First, we are involved in Afghanistan because of NATO, and because it is the right thing to do.

Second, Emirates Airlines were going to offer a benefit to Canadian air travellers. Why would a Canadian government choose to hurt Canadians? (Maybe Air Canada managers bought the politicians a better lunch and let's be honest, Air Canada is named Air Canada. If I wanted money from English Canadians, I'd call myself "Something Canada" too. Au Québec, je mettrais un accent ou un trait d'union quelque part dans mon nom.)

In short, I am not a nationalist.

Edited November 19, 2010 by August1991

[Wilber]

What is in Canada's interests? Do you think it reasonable that a government should bully other governments to advance the interests of it's own government owned company? Should Canada deny its NATO allies access to Canadian bases for training unless they agree to buy X number of trains and aircraft from Bombardier, or give up unlimited slots at major British, German and US airports to Canadian carriers?

Emirates Airlines is a subsidiary of Emirates Group, a subsidiary of Dubai Government Investment Co, Investment Corp of Dubai. In other words, government owned and has access to resources from one of the richest governments in the Gulf. Resources that no publicly owned western airline anywhere can match, let alone Air Canada. In 2010 their aircraft orders from Boeing and Airbus amounted to 25B in aircraft alone, which makes our 9B F35 purchase for aircraft alone look somewhat puny. They are desperate for places to fly them and will do whatever it takes to get slots.

Contrary to what many Canadians seem to think, Air Canada has been a public company since 1989 with no government ownership. It's employees while certainly not the worst compensated in the industry have seen no pay increases in the last decade, many haven't made up for cuts they took almost ten years ago due to CCAA. Like many other companies its pension plans are underfunded due to the market meltdown in 2008 and the company was given a two year moratorium on contributions and limits on contributions after that, also due to CCAA.

Think what you want but you should know how level this playing field is.

[August1991]

Do you think it reasonable that a government should bully other governments to advance the interests of it's own government owned company?

If Emirates, Walmart, McDonalds, Bombardier or the Ste-Justine Hospital wants to offer a cheaper/better service to Canadians, then why would any Canadian government prevent them?

Should Canada deny its NATO allies access to Canadian bases for training unless they agree to buy X number of trains and aircraft from Bombardier, or give up unlimited slots at major British, German and US airports to Canadian carriers?

Wilber, is this a trick question?

Let me hijack my own OP.

In my mind, our soldiers are in Afghanistan because it is the right thing to do. IMV, they are not there to modernize Afghanistan - that would take several generations, or even centuries. Our soldiers are there to ensure that Afghanistan will never again provide a place for terrorists to threaten Western countries. With that mission accomplished, our soldiers should come home and Afghans can return to their medieval, 13th century habits for all I care.

Emirates Airlines is a subsidiary of Emirates Group, a subsidiary of Dubai Government Investment Co, Investment Corp of Dubai. In other words, government owned and has access to resources from one of the richest governments in the Gulf. Resources that no publicly owned western airline anywhere can match, let alone Air Canada. In 2010 their aircraft orders from Boeing and Airbus amounted to 25B in aircraft alone, which makes our 9B F35 purchase for aircraft alone look somewhat puny. They are desperate for places to fly them and will do whatever it takes to get slots.

Who cares?

Bill Gates is worth billions. Should I refuse to use Windows because of that?

The French government owns EDF. Should I not turn on a light when I stay in a hotel room in Paris?

Who cares whether Emirates Airlines is rich, or government owned? Many Canadians shop at Walmart everyday. Wilber, if you were Canada's federal PM, if you were Stephen Harper, would you forbid Walmart from dealing with Canadians because Walmart is American, and Sam Walton is rich?

Wilber, are you saying that I, a Canadian, should not fly on Air France because it is partly owned by a government - and French taxpayers may subsidize my flight?

Edited November 19, 2010 by August1991

[Wilber]

Wilber, is this a trick question?

No, among others, the Brits train at Suffield in Alberta and the Germans at Shilo in Manitoba. Should we use that as leverage to advance the interests of our companies?

Who cares whether Emirates Airlines is rich, or government owned? Many Canadians shop at Walmart everyday. Wilber, if you were Canada's federal PM, if you were Stephen Harper, would you forbid Walmart from dealing with Canadians because Walmart is American, and Sam Walton is rich?

I think if Walmart was owned by the US government and had the resources of the US government both economic and diplomatic to compete with Canadian privately owned companies, a lot of Canadians would have a problem with it. But what the hell, maybe they will give you a job.

I guess you should have no problem with the government taking over Air Canada then to help level the playing field. I doubt our government could match Emirates plans for 120 A380's though let alone all the B777's they have on order. We can't even seem to agree on 65 F-35's

[Wilber]

Wilber, are you saying that I, a Canadian, should not fly on Air France because it is partly owned by a government - and French taxpayers may subsidize my flight?

You are free to fly on whatever airline you wish but but you should condemn the fact that Air France is subsidized. For someone who says they believe in free enterprise, you have no problem with using other people's tax money. Your belief in free enterprise ends as soon as you can get someone else to pay your way.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Wilber

[August1991]

I guess you should have no problem with the government taking over Air Canada then to help level the playing field.

Who is Air Canada?

As I say, in English Canada, I would use the title "Canada Something" if I wanted government protection/money. (In Quebec, the strategy to obtain government money is different.)

Wilber, do you understand that Air Canada is not Canada? That is, the employees/shareholders/managers at Air Canada are using nationalist strings to cadge money from English-Canadian taxpayers?

John Baird is apparently a fool, and he seems to have fallen in to the trap.

[dre]

They are richer, and have a better pension, than many of their passengers.

They are certainly richer than Canadian taxpayers who travel by bus, or never fly in airplanes.

If I were a politician, and I had to choose between an Air Canada employee and a lost soul sleeping on the street, I would not hesitate for two seconds in choosing who should receive taxpayer benefits, or some protected status. In my scheme of existence, homeless people deserve more help than anyone connected with Air Canada.

If news reports of this Cabinet debate are accurate, John Baird was wrong, and Stephen Harper was wrong to side with Baird.

And that opinion is aside from the obvious military advantage of having an air base in the UAE.

----

The argument that the UAE should be thankful to Canada for all that our soldiers have done to protect their region against terrorism is spurious, and fundamentally wrong.

First, we are involved in Afghanistan because of NATO, and because it is the right thing to do.

Second, Emirates Airlines were going to offer a benefit to Canadian air travellers. Why would a Canadian government choose to hurt Canadians? (Maybe Air Canada managers bought the politicians a better lunch and let's be honest, Air Canada is named Air Canada. If I wanted money from English Canadians, I'd call myself "Something Canada" too. Au Québec, je mettrais un accent ou un trait d'union quelque part dans mon nom.)

In short, I am not a nationalist.

They are richer, and have a better pension, than many of their passengers.

Maybe. Aviation employees are notoriously underpaid though. I bet youd be really suprised. Pilots at Air Canada start at about 40 thousand per year... I saw a documentary on this a while back and I was shocked.

[August1991]

Maybe. Aviation employees are notoriously underpaid though. I bet youd be really suprised. Pilots at Air Canada start at about 40 thousand per year... I saw a documentary on this a while back and I was shocked.

When I left a Montreal restaurant a few hours ago, a polite guy asked me for change. [ironic]I'm sure that he claimed less than 40,000 on his 2009 federal tax form.[/ironic]

I didn't give him any money. But I'll be damned if John Baird chose to give my tax money to Air Canada employees/shareholders/managers - rather than that decent guy at the restaurant door.

[Argus]

When I left a Montreal restaurant a few hours ago, a polite guy asked me for change. [ironic]I'm sure that he claimed less than 40,000 on his 2009 federal tax form.[/ironic]

I didn't give him any money. But I'll be damned if John Baird chose to give my tax money to Air Canada employees/shareholders/managers - rather than that decent guy at the restaurant door.

How do you feel about him giving your tax money to Bombardier? A company which would have gone under several times were it not for federal largesse? How do you feel about the fact the aircraft industry in Quebec is basically there as a result of federal largesse? Are you willing to see the aviation industry in Quebec be destroyed because foreign subsidized aircraft companies can make planes cheaper? Would you simply shrug and tell the employees they were making too much anyway, and to go get jobs with Burger King - or whatever French name it's forced to call itself in La Belle Province?

[Michael Hardner]

These companies walk the same corridors as the politicians and have been convincing people since the dawn of Canada that what is good for them is good for Canada.

Giant corporation have had more in a stake in the formation of this country than in the states, in my view. I'll admit that I'm not a historical scholar, but just two companies - The Hudson's Bay Company, and Canadian Pacific Railway - basically defined this country.

Further to that, communications and transportation have always been a challenge to us - so public/private partnerships and the coziness that comes with that are an attribute of Canada.

Protectionism was a hallmark of business way back when, and it still comes up when protectionism suits them. To me, the key is to throw light onto these things, and to have us decide whether we want specific relationships with our providers or not.

The government does listen, but it seems they only do it when the torches and pitchforks come out and the citizens are about to storm the castle. This seems to be happening now with mobile phone charges.

Why it doesn't happen with such things as: food, energy, media, air transportation, and healthcare... I'm not sure. Nobody is stirring up the rabble, I guess.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Saipan]

A louder, more obnoxious Stephen Harper.

Aah, that would be the Jean "hillside strangler" Chretien.

[blueblood]

Oh come now August, its a bit rich to be starting a thread on this, while at the same time thumbing your nose at the gov't of NFLD for choosing to by-pass Quebec in what is a better deal for them. Canadians should have the right to choose what air line they ride in. Judging by the experience on a UAE plane, it would be wise to let them have the landing rights so that WestJet and Air Canada have to compete to give us a similar flight experience instead of being hauled in the air like animals in a trailer.

People, companies, and gov'ts have every right to shop around and look for something that is in their best interest, whether its picking the best plane, or the best route for a hydro line that offers the best returns.

[Wilber]

Who is Air Canada?

As I say, in English Canada, I would use the title "Canada Something" if I wanted government protection/money. (In Quebec, the strategy to obtain government money is different.)

Wilber, do you understand that Air Canada is not Canada? That is, the employees/shareholders/managers at Air Canada are using nationalist strings to cadge money from English-Canadian taxpayers?

John Baird is apparently a fool, and he seems to have fallen in to the trap.

Indeed, who is Air Canada?

As a Westerner I get no great pleasure out of blowing Air Canada's horn but as a Montrealer you mystify me. Montreal is Air Canada's home base and head office. In 2007 at least it was the city's ninth largest employer and third largest public company employer. The other six are government owned entities. The amount that it contributes to your city through wages, taxes, it's suppliers and contractors is not peanuts. It is by far and away YUL's single biggest revenue generator. How much do you think the Emirates will contribute to your city's economy?

Airlines more than most companies are big cash flow machines. Money flows through them at a huge rate. Most of Air Canada's revenue comes from outside Quebec and a portion of that from foreigners who choose to fly Air Canada as you choose to support France's economy by flying Air France.

You speak of shareholders as though they are some kind of low life's and in any large group of people, some of them are. Most are people who invest to obtain an income or build for retirement through RRSP's or registered pension plans or other financial institutions on behalf of their shareholders or god forbid, actually start and grow a company. All of whom have to sink or swim on their own. It is they who provide the capital that drives our economy, not the government of the Emirates.

Personally I would not voluntarily buy any airline share, they are not an investment and are highly speculative IMO. If you bought AC shares last year you are looking good today. If you bought them ten years ago, you lost your shirt. The airline industry is always just one terrorist act, war, epidemic, volcano or $150 oil away from flirting with disaster.

Your economic vision doesn't seem to extend past how little you can pay for something with no thought for the consequences.

[Wilber]

Wilber, do you understand that Air Canada is not Canada? That is, the employees/shareholders/managers at Air Canada are using nationalist strings to cadge money from English-Canadian taxpayers?

Perhaps they are, but why would you have a problem with that when you have no issues with a foreign government applying sanctions against Canada in order to force its own government owned company into Canada to compete with privately owned Canadian companies?

[bjre]

Monopoly, hurt not only Canadian travelers, but also Canada's economy.

If you don't like another foreign company enter this area, do you have some other domestic competitors?

Many people fly to China by go to Chicago first to avoid the high price of fly direct from Toronto to China by Air Canada.

Edited November 19, 2010 by bjre

[Wilber]

Monopoly, hurt not only Canadian travelers, but also Canada's economy.

If you don't like another foreign company enter this area, do you have some other domestic competitors?

Many people fly to China by go to Chicago first to avoid the high price of fly direct from Toronto to China by Air Canada.

There are no monopolies in the Canadian airline industry. International slots are determined on a one for one basis between countries or whatever they can negotiate. You can't demand another country allow you to fly there. If you are unhappy with the costs in Canada, take a look at the tax structure the Canadian industry has to operate under. In some cases the taxes are as much as the actual airfare.

[Smallc]

Oh come now August, its a bit rich to be starting a thread on this, while at the same time thumbing your nose at the gov't of NFLD for choosing to by-pass Quebec in what is a better deal for them. Canadians should have the right to choose what air line they ride in. Judging by the experience on a UAE plane, it would be wise to let them have the landing rights so that WestJet and Air Canada have to compete to give us a similar flight experience instead of being hauled in the air like animals in a trailer.

So you like government run companies now?

Edited November 20, 2010 by Smallc

[blueblood]

So you like government run companies now?

Ideally, I'd like all that privatized and the market be the market, but since that won't happen anytime soon due to political will, I'll argue on what gives the best bang for the buck. Whether that be having Fly Emirates planes making trips in Canada or choosing the route of a hydro line. The market applies to governments too, and Quebec is going to find that out the hard way.

As far as planes go, with Fly Emirates (a "crown corp" of the UAE) and Air Canada (essentially a crown corp because of all the protection they enjoy), this is an example of market distortion and Canadian Air travelers will have to put up with being hauled around like cows in a cattleliner.

[August1991]

How do you feel about him giving your tax money to Bombardier?

Argus, your post begs my question.

You question a subsidy to Bombardier - while I question the existence of Air Canada.

Oh come now August, its a bit rich to be starting a thread on this, while at the same time thumbing your nose at the gov't of NFLD for choosing to by-pass Quebec in what is a better deal for them.

WTF? Welcome to Canadian federal politics. It's all about regional transfers.

We have the A, B and C teams. Who gets what? (To make this more plain, we have the Maple Leafs, Nordiques and the Flames - and bunches of Fan Boys.)

Who wins? Anyone who can exploit the fan boys' favour.

Edited November 20, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

As a Westerner I get no great pleasure out of blowing Air Canada's horn but as a Montrealer you mystify me. Montreal is Air Canada's home base and head office.

But its name is Air Canada.

If I wanted to steal money from English Canadians, I would call myself "Canada" in some way, associate myself indirectly with Catholics (but having left the Church), declare a Union affiliation. I would also have a clean shirt, and a tie - I'd be urban cool. Warren Kinsella would love me.

Air Canada is a fraud. Its managers, shareholders, employees have exploited its name.

And John Baird was taken in - because Baird thinks, as my Russian friends say, two times much.

Edited November 20, 2010 by August1991