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

[bush_cheney2004]

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

It would be an unfortunate option, telegraphing a lack of commitment and ability to negotiate such things successfully.

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

Perhaps they should start.

Maybe.....airlines rise and fall all over the world...I don't know why Air Canada would be an exception to the rules of the market. I don't miss Pan Am.

[Wilber]

It would be an unfortunate option, telegraphing a lack of commitment and ability to negotiate such things successfully.

That cuts both ways.

Maybe.....airlines rise and fall all over the world...I don't know why Air Canada would be an exception to the rules of the market. I don't miss Pan Am.

You may not miss Pan Am because you still have United, Delta, American, US Air and Continental as international carriers. If they all dissapeared and your only options were foreign flag carriers who determined what kind of service you got, you might feel a little differently.

[bush_cheney2004]

That cuts both ways.

Canada wanted a base...UAE wanted some gates....so what's the problem? Make a deal.

You may not miss Pan Am because you still have United, Delta, American, US Air and Continental as international carriers. If they all dissapeared and your only options were foreign flag carriers who determined what kind of service you got, you might feel a little differently.

Not really.....Korean Air and JAL are wonderful, as is Quantas. It just seems logical to me that some international travel would be on a "foreign" carrier. It's not a patriotic event.

[Wilber]

Canada wanted a base...UAE wanted some gates....so what's the problem? Make a deal.

Seems Canada doesn't want the base that bad. We will only need the base for another three years. Hopefully we will need an airline longer than that.

Not really.....Korean Air and JAL are wonderful, as is Quantas. It just seems logical to me that some international travel would be on a "foreign" carrier. It's not a patriotic event.

JAL is almost toast but they still have ANA. Korean, you must be kidding. I know too many expats who have flown for them to put my family on one of their airplanes. They have a habit of getting lost and shot down. Quantas is very good if you only want to go to Oceana and make all your Asian connections out of Sydney.

No it is not a patriotic event but do you really want to give control of your air transportation system to foreign countries? Emirates or any other foreign carriers first priority will always be to where their citzens want to travel, not where Canadians want to travel. If and when they find they can make more putting their equipment on another route it will be adios Canuckleheads and why not.

Personaly, I don't believe my government's number one responsibility is only to allow me to pay the least amount for everything regardless of the consequences.

[bush_cheney2004]

Seems Canada doesn't want the base that bad. We will only need the base for another three years. Hopefully we will need an airline longer than that.

OK...but Canada needs to get better at this if it wants forward basing and overflight rights as a world do-gooder.

JAL is almost toast but they still have ANA. Korean, you must be kidding. I know too many expats who have flown for them to put my family on one of their airplanes. They have a habit of getting lost and shot down. Quantas is very good if you only want to go to Oceana and make all your Asian connections out of Sydney.

Nevertheless, my family's experience on all of these carriers has been excellent, and would expect no less from an Air Canada, but it has seen better days. Air Canada is a Star Alliance member but is not as well integrated to other partners.

No it is not a patriotic event but do you really want to give control of your air transportation system to foreign countries? Emirates or any other foreign carriers first priority will always be to where their citzens want to travel, not where Canadians want to travel. If and when they find they can make more putting their equipment on another route it will be adios Canuckleheads and why not.

Again, I don't see this angle...carriers will service markets and routes with the most demand. Canadians already have to make many connections through the United States anyway.

Personaly, I don't believe my government's number one responsibility is only to allow me to pay the least amount for everything regardless of the consequences.

OK...but do you think it's your government's responsibility to create airlines, as was the case with TCA/Air Canada ?

[Wilber]

Nevertheless, my family's experience on all of these carriers has been excellent, and would expect no less from an Air Canada, but it has seen better days. Air Canada is a Star Alliance member but is not as well integrated to other partners.

Their inflight service is very good but I stand by my other comments. While North American airlines don't feature to well in world rankings, perhaps in part because of the cut throat North American market, Air Canada was selected by Skytrax as the top North American airline in 2010.

Again, I don't see this angle...carriers will service markets and routes with the most demand. Canadians already have to make many connections through the United States anyway.

That's my point, as soon as a foreign carrier sees more demand somewhere else, they will be gone. They have no commitment to your country other than the dollars they can get out of it. Americans have to make connections in Canada, Europe, Asia and South America. What's your point?

OK...but do you think it's your government's responsibility to create airlines, as was the case with TCA/Air Canada ?

When it was created yes because there was no air service that spanned the country and no private company that had the resources was showing any interest in creating one. There hasn't been a government owned airline since 1989. I do however think it is my governments responsibility to look after the interests of Canadian companies before it looks after those of foreign companies. That is their governments job, not mine.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

....Air Canada was selected by Skytrax as the top North American airline in 2010.

As you stated, the bar is set very low.

That's my point, as soon as a foreign carrier sees more demand somewhere else, they will be gone. They have no commitment to your country other than the dollars they can get out of it. Americans have to make connections in Canada, Europe, Asia and South America. What's your point?

My point is that passengers will always be subject to such dependencies, even for domestic connections and destinations. Nothing special about Canadian or American travel in this regard.

When it was created yes because there was no air service that spanned the country and no private company that had the resources was showing any interest in creating one. There hasn't been a government owned airline since 1989.

But this mindset just perpetuates government entanglement....what happens when Ottawa really wants something more important than a UAE base? As we've seen in other industries, Canadian consumers end up paying more with less choice.

I do however think it is my governments responsibility to look after the interests of Canadian companies before it looks after those of foreign companies. That is their governments job, not mine.

I think they did just that!

[Wilber]

As you stated, the bar is set very low.

Possibly but who sets the bar? Not so much JAL in recent years but when you fly these Asian and Middle Eastern airlines and have all these young cute cookie cutter flight attendants fawning over you, do you ever wonder how that happens? These countries aren't subject to the same charters and constitutions as we are. You want what? We decide the criteria of who we hire, fire and when you will retire. We don't care if it is sexist, racist or anything elseist. Over 35? Bye and don't even think about getting married or having a kid. You are how tall and weigh how much? Grounded until you ditch 5 pounds and if it isn't gone in a month you're fired. They have control over their employees that would make our courts and human rights tribunals explode and legions of lawyers very rich. I'm not making this stuff up. I have many friends and acquaintances who have or are flying for the likes of Korean, JAL, Singapore, Cathay, Emirates, Saudia etc. Spent four and a half years working for a couple of them myself.

My point is that passengers will always be subject to such dependencies, even for domestic connections and destinations. Nothing special about Canadian or American travel in this regard.

So?

But this mindset just perpetuates government entanglement....what happens when Ottawa really wants something more important than a UAE base? As we've seen in other industries, Canadian consumers end up paying more with less choice.

No it doesn't. Do you honestly believe that Air Canada or any other North American carrier can just walk into Seoul, Tokyo or Canberra and demand more slots at Inchon, Narita, Kansai or Sydney and just get them? In a pigs eye. The first thing those governments do is ask, what's in it for our guys and if they don't see anything they tell you to take a hike. All except Canada of course which is just supposed to bend over because August and blueblood think they might save fifty bucks on a ticket.

I think they did just that!

Yes they did.

[bush_cheney2004]

Possibly but who sets the bar? Not so much JAL in recent years but when you fly these Asian and Middle Eastern airlines and have all these young cute cookie cutter flight attendants fawning over you, do you ever wonder how that happens?

Nope...not any more that I wondered when flying 707's over forty years ago.

These countries aren't subject to the same charters and constitutions as we are. You want what? We decide the criteria of who we hire, fire and when you will retire. We don't care if it is sexist, racist or anything elseist. Over 35? Bye and don't even think about getting married or having a kid. You are how tall and weigh how much? Grounded until you ditch 5 pounds and if it isn't gone in a month you're fired.

Conditions of employment are known at the start, as were union grievance procedures. Flying these days is just a glorified bus ride, unless you want to pay a premium.

They have control over their employees that would make our courts and human rights tribunals explode and legions of lawyers very rich. I'm not making this stuff up. I have many friends and acquaintances who have or are flying for the likes of Korean, JAL, Singapore, Cathay, Emirates, Saudia etc. Spent four and a half years working for a couple of them myself.

Pay is way down....bitching is way up.

So?

So who cares whether the connections are all Air Canada or not?

No it doesn't. Do you honestly believe that Air Canada or any other North American carrier can just walk into Seoul, Tokyo or Canberra and demand more slots at Inchon, Narita, Kansai or Sydney and just get them? In a pigs eye. The first thing those governments do is ask, what's in it for our guys and if they don't see anything they tell you to take a hike. All except Canada of course which is just supposed to bend over because August and blueblood think they might save fifty bucks on a ticket.

To preserve what? Some long ago national prestige in the airline business, artificially created by the government to begin with?

Edited November 22, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

I still say let them have the space at the airports they need. Just make them pay for it all. That's called doing business.

[Wilber]

Nope...not any more that I wondered when flying 707's over forty years ago.

Didn't think so. Things have changed.

Conditions of employment are known at the start, as were union grievance procedures. Flying these days is just a glorified bus ride, unless you want to pay a premium.

No unions, charters, constitutions, rights or labour codes for those folks. Only western companies get saddled with that stuff.

Pay is way down....bitching is way up.

That's the way it works

So who cares whether the connections are all Air Canada or not?

They aren't nor can they be.

To preserve what? Some long ago national prestige in the airline business, artificially created by the government to begin with?

Interesting. Your country takes exactly the same approach when it comes to foreign access to your airports and the US has exactly the same laws as Canada when it comes to foreign ownership of US carriers.

Perhaps one more or less is not such an issue for you because you have so many. Yes, having a flag carrier is a prestige issufor many if not most countries. The airlines you seem to love, JAL, Korean, Quantas and the Emirates were all created as government airlines. Korean and the Emirates still are.

[Wilber]

A few other Asian airlines which are either directly government owned or which government has a controlling interest. Singapore, Thai, Asiana, China Airlines.

[bush_cheney2004]

Interesting. Your country takes exactly the same approach when it comes to foreign access to your airports and the US has exactly the same laws as Canada when it comes to foreign ownership of US carriers.

Not exactly...and my government will bargain away gates and overflight rights when it wants something in return. Current Open Skies initiatives propose to update these antiquated protections. The US also has a military transport interest in controlling airline ownership.

Perhaps one more or less is not such an issue for you because you have so many. Yes, having a flag carrier is a prestige issufor many if not most countries. The airlines you seem to love, JAL, Korean, Quantas and the Emirates were all created as government airlines. Korean and the Emirates still are.

It doesn't matter to me....I know that maintenance and major overhauls can just as easily be done out of country by the lowest bidder, and often are. I don't balk at flying Airbus equipment instead of Boeing.

[Wilber]

Not exactly...and my government will bargain away gates and overflight rights when it wants something in return. Current Open Skies initiatives propose to update these antiquated protections. The US also has a military transport interest in controlling airline ownership.

So what do you think is going on here? You have your reasons, we have ours. Deal with it.

[bush_cheney2004]

So what do you think is going on here? You have your reasons, we have ours. Deal with it.

Agreed...there is no bad guy here. The UAE wanted something in return and struck out. Canada will adapt to the change.