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

[Saipan]

There are no monopolies in the Canadian airline industry.

But are in many other fields. Take Canadian wheat board, that dictates prices whether farmes like it or not.

Teachers, lawyers, even police.

[Argus]

Argus, your post begs my question.

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

Bomardier would not exist without federal largess. Neither would most of the Quebec aeronautical industry. Oddly, I've never heard you complain about this.

[Wilber]

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.

Deleted

Edited November 20, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

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.

I'll redo this because the other was too long.

You mean like the Emirates Airlines? Wait a minute, its not called Air Canada and it is government owned so it must be OK.

What drivel.

It kills me that some of you have no problem with other country's governments applying diplomatic and economic pressure to advance the interests of it's companies, some government owned at the expense of Canadian privately owned companies but how dare that nasty Canadian government act to do something about it. Canadian companies must strictly abide by free enterprise standards while foreign companies with no such restrictions are free to use whatever means at their disposal to compete with them. What a double standard, how stupid.

The world is full of Airlines that use their country's names, both government and private. How about US Air and American Ailines for a start.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Wilber

[msj]

Well said, Wilber.

I too have gone at the sheer stupidity of those who think it's okay for the Emirates to apply political pressure to get landing rights in Canada for their government owned airline.

Go through the regular channels for that or go "f" yourself is the right response.

[capricorn]

Bomardier would not exist without federal largess. Neither would most of the Quebec aeronautical industry.

Charest opposes a potential $375M federal investment in the Lower Churchill hydro development project, calling it a market intervention.

« L'annonce de ce matin n'est pas faite avec un appui du gouvernement fédéral pour financer les lignes de transport. Ils peuvent très bien le demander, mais ils savent en même temps que le gouvernement du Québec s'y oppose parce que ce serait une intervention dans le marché », affirme le premier ministre Jean Charest.

http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/atlantique/2010/11/18/002-entente-baschurchill-confirmee.shtml

Hypocritical much?

[Wilber]

But are in many other fields. Take Canadian wheat board, that dictates prices whether farmers like it or not.

Teachers, lawyers, even police.

Lots of private schools around here. My daughter in law taught at one for several years and may again. Lawyers come with different abilities and price tags. You probably get as good as you are willing to pay for. Lots of different police forces in the country, with varying contracts and work rules. All are government run entities but I doubt you or I would want to live in a country that had only private police forces.

Marketing boards were formed to try and provide some stability for farmers who are at the whim of weather and markets and avoid boom bust cycles. If you can form a co-op to buy stuff, why not to sell it as well? They do have to compete with other markets and countries for international trade however. Their use will always be up for debate and they are not always a good thing but they do serve a purpose.

[blueblood]

I'll redo this because the other was too long.

You mean like the Emirates Airlines? Wait a minute, its not called Air Canada and it is government owned so it must be OK.

What drivel.

It kills me that some of you have no problem with other country's governments applying diplomatic and economic pressure to advance the interests of it's companies, some government owned at the expense of Canadian privately owned companies but how dare that nasty Canadian government act to do something about it. Canadian companies must strictly abide by free enterprise standards while foreign companies with no such restrictions are free to use whatever means at their disposal to compete with them. What a double standard, how stupid.

The world is full of Airlines that use their country's names, both government and private. How about US Air and American Ailines for a start.

If the Canadian Gov't is going to take action against the UAE gov't (by not allowing its planes here) why should the UAE gov't have to bend over? They have every right to do what they want within their country. I don't know why people are so quick to come to Air Canada's aid, they have a hard enough time competing with WestJet as it is. There was a chance of even making some money out of this by charging for landing rights, and it was squandered. Not only that, relations with an emerging market have been severely strained, possibly costing us even more money. Not only that, Canadians lose out on a far more pleasant flight experience criss crossing the country.

Think about it this way. Imagine a company in the UAE trying to start up a smartphone system and trying to compete with the blackberry. Or that Canadian companies own about half of the Australian Grain Handling Trade. Maybe Canada cannot have 2 major airlines...

[Wilber]

If the Canadian Gov't is going to take action against the UAE gov't (by not allowing its planes here) why should the UAE gov't have to bend over? They have every right to do what they want within their country. I don't know why people are so quick to come to Air Canada's aid, they have a hard enough time competing with WestJet as it is. There was a chance of even making some money out of this by charging for landing rights, and it was squandered. Not only that, relations with an emerging market have been severely strained, possibly costing us even more money. Not only that, Canadians lose out on a far more pleasant flight experience criss crossing the country.

Think about it this way. Imagine a company in the UAE trying to start up a smartphone system and trying to compete with the blackberry. Or that Canadian companies own about half of the Australian Grain Handling Trade. Maybe Canada cannot have 2 major airlines...

The Emirates has as many slots in Canada as Canadian carriers have in the Emirates. That's the way the system works. Emirates wants to increase the number they have in Canada, Canada says no. That's the way they system works. We cannot arbitrarily increase the number of our flights into a country without that country's approval. That's the way the system works.

Canada has only one major international airline. Westjet can't go anywhere a B737 can't get to. It is their business plan to be another Southwest, not another United or American.

[blueblood]

The Emirates has as many slots in Canada as Canadian carriers have in the Emirates. That's the way the system works. Emirates wants to increase the number they have in Canada, Canada says no. That's the way they system works. We cannot arbitrarily increase the number of our flights into a country without that country's approval. That's the way the system works.

Canada has only one major international airline. Westjet can't go anywhere a B737 can't get to. It is their business plan to be another Southwest, not another United or American.

And Canada found out the hard way of how that system worked. We told the Emirates to pound sand, they told us to go fly a kite. Now we have no army base and they have less revenue.

I could care less if Canada has only one major international airline. If Fly Emirates can do a better job of being a Global carrier, then they can have at it. Air Canada only has themselves and their shotty management to blame for their mess.

[GostHacked]

Let them have access and charge them a lot of money. I mean a lot of money.

[Smallc]

I don't know why people are so quick to come to Air Canada's aid, they have a hard enough time competing with WestJet as it is.

I'd check on that if I were you. Air Canada has better prices and more choice than Westjet 99% of the time. Where the prices are more they're within a few dollars. Westjet is simply an airline of inconvenience, and I never fly on it...it's also no better in terms of service. Maybe Air Canada used to be bad, I don't know, but they have no problem competing now, and their load factors are proof of that.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Smallc

[blueblood]

I'd check on that if I were you. Air Canada has better prices and more choice than Westjet 99% of the time. Where the prices are more they're within a few dollars. Westjet is simply an airline of inconvenience, and I never fly on it...it's also no better in terms of service. Maybe Air Canada used to be bad, I don't know, but they have no problem competing now, and their load factors are proof of that.

This is precisely why I and some other people want the Fly Emirates airline flying in Canada. Air Canada would have to improve or go belly up as you have pointed out in the case vs. WestJet.

[Wilber]

And Canada found out the hard way of how that system worked. We told the Emirates to pound sand, they told us to go fly a kite. Now we have no army base and they have less revenue.

I could care less if Canada has only one major international airline. If Fly Emirates can do a better job of being a Global carrier, then they can have at it. Air Canada only has themselves and their shotty management to blame for their mess.

We would then be the only country in the world with a government that doesn`t support its international carrier. Fare enough if that`s what people want but you will be having the governments and corporations of other nations dictating what service you get. What you are saying is that any country is justified in using whatever means it deems necessary (short of war) to force it's way into another country to do business. Except Canada of course.

Air Canada management has certainly been questionable at times but right now it is probably better than it has been for some time. Emirates has the resources of one of the wealthiest countries in the oil patch. There is a question as to whether they even pay for their fuel in Dubai. You can bet your ass everyone else pays market price.

You bitch and complain about service but you are getting what you pay for. Corrected for inflation and less taxes air fares are much lower than they were in the 1970`s. In 1972 a B747 cost just over 20 million. A new one will cost more than 10 times as much. A380`s average around 325 million a pop. In 1973 we were crying the blues because the Arab oil embargo was driving the cost of jet fuel from 13 cents to 18 cents an imperial gallon. Now the cost would be closer to 80 cents a liter. The list goes on.

Where has that money come from? In part from more efficient aircraft and higher utilization but the more highly utilized your equipment the harder it is to recover from a hiccup due to weather or mechanical problems. In part from cutting services and amenities that used to be part of flying as well as many of the people who used to provide them. In part from the wages and benefits of the remaining employees. Hence you have things like poorly paid pilots doing long commutes into 12 hour duty days often flying in crappy weather because they can't afford to move to or live near where they are based. Colgan 3407.

You think it is just Air Canada management.

Sullenberger, a 58-year-old who joined a US Airways predecessor in 1980, told the House aviation subcommittee that his pay has been cut 40 percent in recent years and his pension has been terminated and replaced with a promise "worth pennies on the dollar" from the federally created Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. These cuts followed a wave of airline bankruptcies after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks compounded by the current recession, he said.

"The bankruptcies were used by some as a fishing expedition to get what they could not get in normal times," Sullenberger said of the airlines. He said the problems began with the deregulation of the industry in the 1970s.

The reduced compensation has placed "pilots and their families in an untenable financial situation," Sullenberger said. "I do not know a single professional airline pilot who wants his or her children to follow in their footsteps."The subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee heard from the crew of Flight 1549, the air traffic controller who handled the flight and aviation experts to examine what safety lessons could be learned from the accident.

Sullenberger's copilot Jeffrey B. Skiles said unless federal laws are revised to improve labor-management relations "experienced crews in the cockpit will be a thing of the past." And Sullenberger added that without experienced pilots "we will see negative consequences to the flying public."

Sullenberger himself has started a consulting business to help make ends meet. Skiles added, "For the last six years, I have worked seven days a week between my two jobs just to maintain a middle class standard of living."

Captain Chesley Sullenberger and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles before Congress Feb 2009.

You would be hard pressed to find an airline pilot in North America who didn't feel like saying, "right on Sully, you tell those A holes" when they saw that.

Emirates doesn't operate in a deregulated environment, they have the full force of their government behind them.

[Wilber]

One might also familiarize themselves with the Air Canada Act which among other things requires them to maintain certain facilities in Montreal and Winnipeg regardless of their requirements, as well as a commitment to bilingualism that includes requiring all documents and manuals to be published in both official languages regardless of who they are intended for. Restrictions not imposed on any of its competitors, foreign or domestic.

[blueblood]

We would then be the only country in the world with a government that doesn`t support its international carrier. Fare enough if that`s what people want but you will be having the governments and corporations of other nations dictating what service you get. What you are saying is that any country is justified in using whatever means it deems necessary (short of war) to force it's way into another country to do business. Except Canada of course.

Emirates doesn't operate in a deregulated environment, they have the full force of their government behind them.

Canadians dictate what blackberry service the UAE gets and most of the grain handling in Australia, and a significant amount of mines and oil rigs in various countries. That's how it goes. If the gov'ts and corporations of other nations get me better service, then I'm all for it. I have no problem with Canada using strongarm tactics, just that they may backfire. RIM has used hardline tactics when negotiating with foreign gov'ts in regards to their blackberry and messaging system. Who are we to say that the UAE can't shut down their own base?

In this case Canada tried strongarm tactics and lost their air base. It's simple tit for tat.

[Smallc]

In this case Canada tried strongarm tactics and lost their air base. It's simple tit for tat.

Canada was not the one using strong arm tactics. That was the UAE.

[Wilber]

Canadians dictate what blackberry service the UAE gets and most of the grain handling in Australia, and a significant amount of mines and oil rigs in various countries. That's how it goes. If the gov'ts and corporations of other nations get me better service, then I'm all for it. I have no problem with Canada using strongarm tactics, just that they may backfire. RIM has used hardline tactics when negotiating with foreign gov'ts in regards to their blackberry and messaging system. Who are we to say that the UAE can't shut down their own base?

In this case Canada tried strongarm tactics and lost their air base. It's simple tit for tat.

Did the Canadian government use strongarm tactics against the UAE on behalf of RIM? Is RIM a government owned company? Enlighten me. Regarding the UAE, the Canadian government has only used strong arm tactics when it concerned Canadian interests on Canadian soil. You have a problem with that concept or should our government just roll over when any foreign government makes demands for its companies on our soil? If Canada really wanted to get nasty all they would have to do is deny the use of Canadian airspace to Emirates aircraft. Try getting from Dubai to anywhere west of New York now buddy. Tit for tat ya know.

Apparently the UAE came to an agreement with RIM last month that addresses their issues. Neither will divulge the details.

[blueblood]

Did the Canadian government use strongarm tactics against the UAE on behalf of RIM? Is RIM a government owned company? Enlighten me. Regarding the UAE, the Canadian government has only used strong arm tactics when it concerned Canadian interests on Canadian soil. You have a problem with that concept or should our government just roll over when any foreign government makes demands for its companies on our soil? If Canada really wanted to get nasty all they would have to do is deny the use of Canadian airspace to Emirates aircraft. Try getting from Dubai to anywhere west of New York now buddy. Tit for tat ya know.

The Canadian gov't however did use strongarm tactics against BHP Billiton, and if we want to get into the nitty gritty we have the softwood dispute, BSE, and CWB exports to the US. Then there is the strongarm tactics against foreign dairy producers, poultry producers, and egg producers. Should Canadians have to put up with higher costs because Canadian companies just aren't good enough in some industries (aviation, entertainment)?

As for Canadians denying use of airspace, the UAE would retaliate somehow, and we get into a protectionist nightmare which results in everyone being poorer, but because Air Canada has to be propped up, because its a sacred cow. That' proposterous and you know it. The UAE doesn't have to give us access to their bases like we don't have to give them unlimited access to our airports.

[Wilber]

The Canadian gov't however did use strongarm tactics against BHP Billiton, and if we want to get into the nitty gritty we have the softwood dispute, BSE, and CWB exports to the US. Then there is the strongarm tactics against foreign dairy producers, poultry producers, and egg producers. Should Canadians have to put up with higher costs because Canadian companies just aren't good enough in some industries (aviation, entertainment)?

As for Canadians denying use of airspace, the UAE would retaliate somehow, and we get into a protectionist nightmare which results in everyone being poorer, but because Air Canada has to be propped up, because its a sacred cow. That' proposterous and you know it. The UAE doesn't have to give us access to their bases like we don't have to give them unlimited access to our airports.

When it comes to softwood and BSE the Canadian government was responding to the actions of other governments as it is now. Canada didn't initiate either dispute. When it comes to the UAE not letting them use a base that is entirely within their rights but isn't the UAE doing so an act of protectionism for their company, a company it owns? Perhaps Canada should use the loss of this base as a reason to say our ability to stay in Afghanistan is no longer feasible and let the UAE explain it to our allies.

What strongarm tactics against foreign dairy and poultry producers? Our government isn't demanding access to their markets or threatening sanctions if it isn't given.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Perhaps Canada should use the loss of this base as a reason to say our ability to stay in Afghanistan is no longer feasible and let the UAE explain it to our allies.

Clearly it is not the UAE's responsibility to enable Canada to fulfill its NATO/UN obligations.

What strongarm tactics against foreign dairy and poultry producers? Our government isn't demanding access to their markets or threatening sanctions if it isn't given.

See WTO rulings involving Brazil, New Zealand, and United States.

[KeyStone]

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!!!

Better than Kenney

[Wilber]

Clearly it is not the UAE's responsibility to enable Canada to fulfill its NATO/UN obligations.

Never said it was.

See WTO rulings involving Brazil, New Zealand, and United States.

u

The US is one of the biggest subsidizers of agricultural produce in the world. Every time a WTO ruling goes against the US, Congress just changes the law and the process has to start all over. Canada knows that from experience. But taking your point, why doesn't the UAE take this dispute to the WTO?

[bush_cheney2004]

Never said it was.

Then why broach the point at all?

The US is one of the biggest subsidizers of agricultural produce in the world. Every time a WTO ruling goes against the US, Congress just changes the law and the process has to start all over. Canada knows that from experience. But taking your point, why doesn't the UAE take this dispute to the WTO?

Correct....Canada does not play this game very well. The UAE has never been involved in a WTO dispute as complaintent, respondent, or third party.

Edited November 22, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Then why broach the point at all?

Because it is one option. Not saying we should do it.

Correct....Canada does not play this game very well. The UAE has never been involved in a WTO dispute as complaintent, respondent, or third party.

Our laws don't allow us to play the game the way you do.

Perhaps they should start.