UAE - Crybabies

[Smallc]

And not even you said they were going to get them. Let's deal with the reality of the situation.

What reality are you talking about? Canada was willing to let them have more spots, but with smaller aircraft (they currently fly A380s to Toronto), but that wasn't good enough, so they had a hissy fit and showed that they're a bunch of rich, backwards, tribal dictators...and you support them. Given the current state of my party, and your undying support for them, I'm not surprised.

Until you start dealing in facts, I'm done with this discussion.

[nicky10013]

I'm going to have to take a step back here and see if I can understand you...nope...WTF are you talking about? It wasn't 8, it was actually 16, and it didn't start there, and so it's not what the UAE wanted. So yes, I mock your motives, because quite frankly, you're wrong.

So you never said this?

Reports I've seen had the UAE wanting 50 spots to Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, and possibly Montreal. They brought it down to 8, which was still too many.

So is it 8, or is it dozens? There is no current market, as the planes aren't even full. I'm sure there's a potential market...at the expense of Air Canada, the Star Alliance, and every other international carrier that operates out of Canada. Why do you think that Canada isn't alone in its complaints against the UAE?

You still refuse to answer why Air Canada wanted the flights. Clearly there are airlines that think this is profitable.

As for the planes not even being full, let's see a citation on that. You're making a LOT of unsubstantiated claims, here.

Edited January 23, 2011 by nicky10013

[Smallc]

So you never said this?

Yes, see above. At least 42 flights in total to Canada each week is what they wanted. Canada was willing to give some, and the UAE wanted more. It's in your own link. DOZENS, not 8.

You still refuse to answer why Air Canada wanted the flights. Clearly there are airlines that think this is profitable.

As for the planes not even being full, let's see a citation on that. You're making a LOT of unsubstantiated claims, here.

I don't know or care why Air Canada wanted the flights. What I do know is that both Air Canada and Transport Canada say that there is not a current shortage of seats to the UAE....it's just that the UAE wants their carriers to have a monopoly on those seats, and seats to the middle east and west Asia.

Now, as I said, done.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Smallc

[nicky10013]

What reality are you talking about? Canada was willing to let them have more spots, but with smaller aircraft (they currently fly A380s to Toronto), but that wasn't good enough, so they had a hissy fit and showed that they're a bunch of rich, backwards, tribal dictators...and you support them. Given the current state of my party, and your undying support for them, I'm not surprised.

Until you start dealing in facts, I'm done with this discussion.

I am dealing in facts. You're denying them. You completely deny that even Air Canada wanted the flights. You deny that 3 governments want the flights. You deny that business communities want the flights. You wont even address the fact that the flights would've also saved us 300 million and a lot of business considering how big a trading partner the UAE is.

You've made claim after claim that there is no demand. Yet, if that was the case why are both airlines trying to increase the market substantially? Even as a subsidised carrier, do you honestly think Emirates would try and step up their flights by this amount if the capacity wasn't there? Especially if their flights are half empty? If I wasn't the one dealing in facts here, you would've been able to answer this. You didn't. You chose to keep going with the standard line that there's no demand despite the lack of proof, and that it was going to kill jobs and Star Alliance, again with absolutely no proof.

No, I'm the person dealing with facts here. Everything here I've said I've backed up with information from the press. The UAE may have had a hissy fit (though considering this deal was negotiated in bad faith over 5 years, despite how undesireable it was, it certainly was understandable) the fact that you've blatantly refused to continue in this debate for no other reason than you can't back up any of your claims shows that the UAE isn't the only one having a hissy fit over this issue.

If it wasn't for your last comment, I would've left it at there. However, considering about how you're linking me and my party to what you call tribal dictators implies that we love them more than we do our country. This is really sad. You were once and may yet be again one of the sanest people on here. However, the fact that you stooped that low to get in a shot at me, questioning my patriotism, my stance on human rights and any other smear that is associated with these people shows how low and shallow you really are.

Maybe people don't like the way Canada has acted because maybe we don't want our reputation ruined abroad? Maybe because we want Canada to negotiate in good faith? Maybe because we want to see military deployments run smoothly and efficiently. Maybe we want to see trade with a country increase. In case you aren't aware, in recent years the UAE has been a giant boon for Canadian investment and the UAE has become our 12th largest trading partner which provides far more jobs and much more economic benefit than the effect of a few landing rights for airplanes at a Toronto airport. Instead, we threw that which helps away for the sake of political expediency. Now, we have 1000 dollar visa fees for business people who want to do buisness there but realistically can't anymore. We have to pay $300,000,000 to move a base...we sacrificed so much...for what? For lousy landing rights that no one has even come close to proving that would harm our economy? That in no way makes us in any way the same as those tribal dictators comment you so casually used. It just means that we see far more problems in not making a deal rather than making one. that makes us no more or less of a Canadian than anyone else.

So, really, when it comes down to it: be the little bitch you are. Go fuck yourself.

Edited January 23, 2011 by nicky10013

[Guest American Woman]

I can't begin to understand the mindset that not siding with Harper/not protecting Air Canada is being anti-Canadian/wholeheartedly supporting the UAE. There are definitely two sides to this issue, and they all involve Canadians/politics; Harper isn't synonymous with "the government," so not agreeing with Harper isn't even in the category of not siding with the government. But since when are we obligated to side with our governments, especially when protecting a business, or risk being seen as less than supportive of our country? Some of the 'arguments' against giving UAE more landing rights are just plain off-the-wall.

From what I'm reading, Harper's comments lately sound like that of a 'cowboy' and are doing nothing to help the situation. There are many Canadians who are being adversely affected by this decision and the growing animosity, and would like to see more landing rights for UAE; or at least see the situation dealt with in a more appropriate manner. To my understanding, Canada allows only three UAE flights a week, which virtually does give AC the advantage over the consumer. As I said, I don't fault Canada for looking out for Canada, but if I were a Canadian consumer or businesswoman, I likely would see things differently. Harper et al are protecting AC with this decision, and it doesn't sound as if they took in the consumer's needs at all.

[Smallc]

So, really, when it comes down to it: be the little bitch you are. Go fuck yourself.

You go ahead and bow down to dictators. I know what I'll do. The reality is, everything I said was also backed up with facts from the press, and can be found throughout this discussion..... including your links. Dozens of flights to 3 of Canada's 4 largest cities, not 8, but that's what we were willing to give them (in smaler aircraft, of course). You go ahead and pretend that the Government of Canada was negotiating without good faith (the UAE is just as guilty as they wouldn't budge anymore than we would), you go ahead and pretend that dozens of landing spots wouldn't hurt Air Canada, the Canadian air transportation sector, or the Canadian economy, and you go ahead and pretend that this is some kind of cowboy diplomacy. Those of us who live in reality can see what really happened and don't take our cues from Bob Rae can see what really happened.

Now, you co go do likewise.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Smallc

[Scotty]

I can't begin to understand the mindset that not siding with Harper/not protecting Air Canada is being anti-Canadian/wholeheartedly supporting the UAE

The UAE's actions were unreasonable, and an attack on Canada. Siding with them over Canada is certainly anti-Canadian. It appears to me that those who do so simply hate the Conservative government so much that if there was a dispute between Canada and Hitler, or Satan, they'd STILL side with the other guys. The level of hate for Harper among some is probably worthy of some sort of psychiatric term.

There are definitely two sides to this issue, and they all involve Canadians/politics; Harper isn't synonymous with "the government,

"

Yes, he is, to a certain segment of the population. You should read the vitriol, hysteria, hatred and abuse in the comments section of the online Globe and Mail some day, whenever a story even remotely touches on the federal government in some way. It's obsessive and bizarre.

. But since when are we obligated to side with our governments, especially when protecting a business, or risk being seen as less than supportive of our country?

When our country is unreasonably attacked by a corrupt dictatorship then most Canadians would reflexively feel obligated to take their country's side. Others, obsessed with hatred and fear of Harper, seem to jump instantly onto the side of whomever is in dispute with them.

Some of the 'arguments' against giving UAE more landing rights are just plain off-the-wall.

I'm sorry but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. There are simply no reasons why we SHOULD give them all those extra landing rights. Landing rights are something negotiated, country to country on a quid pro quo basis. Your airline and my airline both get one flight apiece between your country and mine. There, that's an agreement.

There are already flights between Canada and the UAE which adequately service the demand. What the UAE wants is dozens more flights for its airline which would not really be between Canada and the UAE at all. Those flights would be about the stopovers between here and there and transporting people between them. No reason why a plane flying to the UAE can't stop at Paris and Rome along the way, after all. What the UAE wants to do is fly Canadians from Toronto to Paris, not from Toronto to the UAE. And there is no quid pro quo involved. It's would be an entirely one-sided handover of Canadian business to a foreign entity with no reciprocity involved.

There are many Canadians who are being adversely affected by this decision and the growing animosity, and would like to see more landing rights for UAE;

Almost none. There just isn't a lot of need to fly to the UAE.

[Moonbox]

If it wasn't for your last comment, I would've left it at there. However, considering about how you're linking me and my party to what you call tribal dictators implies that we love them more than we do our country..........However, the fact that you stooped that low to get in a shot at me, questioning my patriotism, my stance on human rights and any other smear that is associated with these people shows how low and shallow you really are.

He's not questioning your patriotism. Grow up. Don't be such a baby. He's questioning how you support the position of a backwards bunch of Arab princes who are trying to extort economic favors from us.

Maybe people don't like the way Canada has acted because maybe we don't want our reputation ruined abroad?

Our reputation is fine abroad. I don't think many people are terribly worried about our relations with the UAE.

Maybe we want to see trade with a country increase. In case you aren't aware, in recent years the UAE has been a giant boon for Canadian investment and the UAE has become our 12th largest trading partner which provides far more jobs and much more economic benefit than the effect of a few landing rights for airplanes at a Toronto airport.

The question is how much trade will we lose from this really and how much would it cost us? Considering we do 80-90% of our trade with our top 10 trading partners, and number 10 is about 1% of our total trade, you're HUGELY exaggerating the effect this is going to have on us. Even if the UAE were to forbid ALL business with Canada (not going to happen) you'd be looking at perhaps $1-3 billion in trade both ways, which is next to nothing.

we sacrificed so much...for what? For lousy landing rights that no one has even come close to proving that would harm our economy?

Oh please. We sacrificed $300,000,000 (peanuts) and relations with a so-called friend who tried to extort economic favours out of us at the end of our Afghan mission, at the most inconvenient time possible, and who are trying to do the same thing to other countries with similar results.

What a precedent that would set.

So, really, when it comes down to it: be the little bitch you are. Go fuck yourself.

and here you show your true colours. If you're going to fuss and wet your pants every time someone disagrees with you (which is going to be often because you're an idiot) then you'll probably be happier not visiting these forums.

Grow up.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Moonbox

[Scotty]

I am dealing in facts. You're denying them. You completely deny that even Air Canada wanted the flights.

I'm a little confused about why you keep insisting on bringing this up. Clearly Air Canada was the primary lobbyist AGAINST extending landing rights. The most appropriate metaphor I can think of is you claiming that it was absurd for a woman to resist being raped when clearly she like the guy and wanted to date him.

a lot of business considering how big a trading partner the UAE is

.

The UAE is a big trading partner? I think not. The UAE isn't a big anything. They sell oil and that's about it. We export about as much to them as we do to Singapore or South Africa, neither of which are a huge priority for us. By contrast we export about 200 times more to the United States. Are you similarly determined we submit to American political and economic demands?

[nicky10013]

You go ahead and bow down to dictators. I know what I'll do.

So he isn't questioning my patriotism? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Smallc]

Actually, I'm saying that you're being a doormat.

[nicky10013]

He's not questioning your patriotism. Grow up. Don't be such a baby. He's questioning how you support the position of a backwards bunch of Arab princes who are trying to extort economic favors from us.

Of course he is. Because this isn't enough

You go ahead and bow down to dictators. I know what I'll do.

Our reputation is fine abroad. I don't think many people are terribly worried about our relations with the UAE.

Right. Which is why for the first time in our history we lost a seat at the UN.

The question is how much trade will we lose from this really and how much would it cost us? Considering we do 80-90% of our trade with our top 10 trading partners, and number 10 is about 1% of our total trade, you're HUGELY exaggerating the effect this is going to have on us. Even if the UAE were to forbid ALL business with Canada (not going to happen) you'd be looking at perhaps $1-3 billion in trade both ways, which is next to nothing.

It's 3 billion and 3 billion is still a LOT of money and provides quite a few jobs. It's nice you can just laugh that off.

Oh please. We sacrificed $300,000,000 (peanuts) and relations with a so-called friend who tried to extort economic favours out of us at the end of our Afghan mission, at the most inconvenient time possible, and who are trying to do the same thing to other countries with similar results.

What a precedent that would set.

They didn't extort anything out of us. It's called diplomacy. To get something, we have to give something. That's the way it has worked since statecraft began. To expect anything different is absolutely ridiculous.

and here you show your true colours. If you're going to fuss and wet your pants every time someone disagrees with you (which is going to be often because you're an idiot) then you'll probably be happier not visiting these forums.

Grow up.

No, that's not it at all. I don't have a problem at all with people disagreeing with me. What I have a problem with are fucking morons who just because I don't agree with THEM like to throw around things like me getting into bed with dictators. It's a slap in the face. It's disgusting and I won't stand for it.

[Guest American Woman]

The UAE is a big trading partner? I think not.

You may think not, but you'd be wrong:

....some members of Canada's government expressed serious concerns about the potential damage of the refusal on relations between Canada and the UAE. It is Canada's largest trading partner in the Middle East with trade worth $1.5bn a year. link

[Smallc]

So nicky, it seems you're among only 18% of Canadians and 24% of Liberals who think that Harper has done a bad job. Most people like the job he's doing, and think that the government has generally done the right thing.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Smallc

[Esq]

So nicky, it seems you're among only 18% of Canadians and 24% of Liberals who think that Harper has done a bad job. Most people like the job he's doing, and think that the government has generally done the right thing.

We should start posting up

anyone else who thinks he has done a bad job add to the number

2.

who has #3?

Lets see if this polling is representative.

[nicky10013]

Actually, I'm saying that you're being a doormat.

Which in the context of the argument is the exact same thing. It's quite funny, considering that you've still yet to prove anything you said. However, considering that, not at all unsurprising since those who can't prove what they say often retort to personal attacks to try and cover up how impotent their arguments really are.

The only thing you've managed to prove is that the UAE wanted quite a bit of landing rights. Through negotiations they lowered their demands - with the Canadian government coming back with even less capacity that they currently are entitled to (that diddy was even from your link, not mine). And it's the UAE that has been the bully in this situation?

The rest of what you posted - with absolutely no proof to back it up sums up as this: You cite a Transport Canada decision (the same Transport Canada whose head is the federal minister of transport and therefore sits in Harper's Cabinet) which echoes not just the cabinet position but the Air Canada position - that despite Air Canada's own push for more landing rights for flights to Dubai - they're not needed anymore! How convenient for Air Canada! Especially considering they only took this position after they couldn't get their deal.

That and you have a wacko claim that Emirates flights aren't even full - hilarious enough because that claim came from Air Canada as well by your own admission - the one party in this situation that has been most opposed to expansion since Emirates refused to deal with them back in 2006!

Considering every single source you have on this is so incredibly biased, maybe you should take a step back and take stock of the actual situation.

There is absolutely nothing to support this line of argument. There is nothing to support your argument. Other of course than what you've come back to 3 times now. This isn't about Transport Canada, this isn't about Air Canada. All this is about is the UAE and a show of force. They wanted something in return for a service they've offered for free for 10 years. How awful. God forbid we actual deal in diplomacy - we'll all become doormats for those Arab dictators and terrorists. This has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with feeling.

Now, I don't care what Bob Rae does or says. I don't particularly like him but at least in this case he's right. Even Macleans suggested maybe Harper should hire him as Foreign Affairs minister because he seemed to be the only person in the entire parliament who has been anywhere close to right on the issue. ( http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/18/why-harper-should-hire-bob-rae/ ). So, in that sense, even though I don't really like him, a broken clock is still right twice a day. I haven't read a Liberal press release, I didn't even know what Rae really stood for until I read that article and I haven't seen any Liberal on TV supporting or not supporting that decision because even you can admit Liberals aren't on TV very often and I've got other things to do than to watch a press conference to decide which way the wind blows. I read a couple of newspapers on my computer before I go to work, I try to get the facts and then I make up my mind.

You on the otherhand have been in lockstep with Harper on this since the day the story broke. Considering how non-policy oriented this is. Considering how utterly ridiculous the stuff you've posted has been, even if I am 100% behind the Liberal line, isn't it utterly hypocritical for you to call me a doormat of anyone (the Liberal Party or the UAE) when you're the exact same thing just of a different stripe?

Edited January 23, 2011 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

So nicky, it seems you're among only 18% of Canadians and 24% of Liberals who think that Harper has done a bad job. Most people like the job he's doing, and think that the government has generally done the right thing.

So what you're telling me is that I should go with the majority? And I'm the doormat? This is such a joke.

[Smallc]

Considering every single source you have on this is so incredibly biased, maybe you should take a step back and take stock of the actual situation.

The Globe and Mail? The National Post? The Toronto Star? Transport Canada? All biased?

[Smallc]

So what you're telling me is that I should go with the majority? And I'm the doormat? This is such a joke.

No, what I'm saying is that you're wrong, and most Canadians agree with that.

[Smallc]

You on the otherhand have been in lockstep with Harper on this since the day the story broke. Considering how non-policy oriented this is. Considering how utterly ridiculous the stuff you've posted has been, even if I am 100% behind the Liberal line, isn't it utterly hypocritical for you to call me a doormat of anyone (the Liberal Party or the UAE) when you're the exact same thing just of a different stripe?

And yet in other threads you see me defending the Liberal position....funny thing, I've never seen you defend the Harper Conservatives, and any centrist Canadian would pretty much have to agree with them on at least on issue.

[nicky10013]

No, what I'm saying is that you're wrong, and most Canadians agree with that.

And yet, we've still yet to see any reliable proof that I am wrong. Maybe we should start with that rather than seeing where the majority of Canadians are. This isnt something where a majority in some poll brings legitimacy to your position on policy. Because a democratic society has never been wrong before.

Edited January 23, 2011 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

And yet in other threads you see me defending the Liberal position....funny thing, I've never seen you defend the Harper Conservatives, and any centrist Canadian would pretty much have to agree with them on at least on issue.

I agree with them on EU free trade.

[nicky10013]

The Globe and Mail? The National Post? The Toronto Star? Transport Canada? All biased?

Well considering that it was Air Canada that was the source for the fact that Emirates flights are half empty, yeah - that's biased. That Transport Canada, which is controlled by the government, was opposed to more flights, that made the decision to say that there was no market (in line with the cabinet and surprise surprise - Air Canada) despite the previous opinion of Air Canada and the current opinion of Emirates and Eithad - yeah I think that's fair to call it biased - especially considering that ruling TC said that airlines and geopolitics shouldn't mix (wow - sure sounds like there is no demand). Not to mention that the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and even Macleans all back me up...perhaps you need to rethink your position.

Edited January 23, 2011 by nicky10013

[Guest American Woman]

The UAE's actions were unreasonable, and an attack on Canada. Siding with them over Canada is certainly anti-Canadian. It appears to me that those who do so simply hate the Conservative government so much that if there was a dispute between Canada and Hitler, or Satan, they'd STILL side with the other guys. The level of hate for Harper among some is probably worthy of some sort of psychiatric term.

You're comparing a dispute over landing rights to Hitler and Stalin? I frankly don't find the UAE's actions "unreasonable," and viewing it as "an attack on Canada" is way over the top. Furthermore, as I pointed out, many Canadians would benefit from for UAE flights, so it makes sense that they would "side with the other guy." It's business. Pure and simple. Has nothing to do with loyalty to Canada.

Yes, he is, to a certain segment of the population. You should read the vitriol, hysteria, hatred and abuse in the comments section of the online Globe and Mail some day, whenever a story even remotely touches on the federal government in some way. It's obsessive and bizarre.

And there are conservatives who react the same way to Liberal governments. There's always going to be a certain segment of the population from all political parties that react that way. That doesn't make the party of the PM "the government" of Canada, and that's the point I was making. At any rate, the government and Canada are two different things.

When our country is unreasonably attacked by a corrupt dictatorship then most Canadians would reflexively feel obligated to take their country's side.

And if Canada ever is attacked by a corrupt dictatorship, I'm sure most Canadians will reflexively feel obligated to take their country's side. Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Others, obsessed with hatred and fear of Harper, seem to jump instantly onto the side of whomever is in dispute with them.

While others "side" with the side they agree with, regardless of what Harper or anyone else thinks, as they get accused of being obsessed with hatred and fear of Harper by people who disagree with them.

I'm sorry but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. There are simply no reasons why we SHOULD give them all those extra landing rights. Landing rights are something negotiated, country to country on a quid pro quo basis. Your airline and my airline both get one flight apiece between your country and mine. There, that's an agreement.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's true that there are two sides to this issue; one side benefits one group of Canadians while the other side benefits another group of Canadians.

There are already flights between Canada and the UAE which adequately service the demand. What the UAE wants is dozens more flights for its airline which would not really be between Canada and the UAE at all. Those flights would be about the stopovers between here and there and transporting people between them. No reason why a plane flying to the UAE can't stop at Paris and Rome along the way, after all. What the UAE wants to do is fly Canadians from Toronto to Paris, not from Toronto to the UAE. And there is no quid pro quo involved. It's would be an entirely one-sided handover of Canadian business to a foreign entity with no reciprocity involved.

It's called competition. Generally speaking, I prefer to have a choice. Generally speaking, competition results in better prices and service. And a lot of people would, and do, agree.

Almost none. There just isn't a lot of need to fly to the UAE.

Small comfort to those who do have the need.

Again, there are two sides to the issue, a business issue, and it has nothing to do with "loyalty to Canada" or "an attack on Canada."

[Bob]

I can't argue that.

If China were to have it's factories in the U.S., the U.S. would have some control over the costs, wages paid, etc. In this instance, the UAE would be flying out of Canada, so I'm assuming they'd need to be hiring people living in Canada to work at it's terminal. Also, wouldn't it be subjected to Canadian taxes, airport fees, etc., being that it's operating in Canada? Wouldn't that have some effect over the prices it could charge as well as benefits that Canada would receive?

I think there are many other aspects of the business you're overlooking. Consider that AC certainly bases its operations in Canada - meaning the majority of its business takes place here. That includes but is not limited to: most of its management and administration is in Canada, most of its contracts for service, repairs, and supplies are done in Canada, and its banking is done is Canada. AC's heavy focus on Canada delivers much more of a broad benefit to Canadians than Emirates airlines, without question. On the other hand, we have the Emirates, who will base most of their operations in the UAE, especially considering that it is a government-owned corporation.

Of course you are right that consumer rights on the individual level must certainly be protected and taken into consideration when any policy decisions are made that can affect them. The same is also true for the national interest, and in this case it seems plain-as-day to me that the right decision was made to deny the UAE's attempts to encroach on AC's business in an underhanded manner.

As an aside, and this is meant for Smallc and others arguing with wyly and nicky, why bang your head against a brick? There is something very disturbing the hypocritical about the rhetoric and nonsensical arguments both of them are advancing. When taking into consideration their records of anti-Canadian and anti-corporate sentiment, and their general virulent leftism, their perspectives are unsurprising. I'll stop there, I'm sure many of you understand me.

I believe there has to be a balance between looking out for Canadian companies and looking out for the consumers. If the government only acts on what's best financially for companies, ie: what's to the advantage of Canadian companies, it's not fair to the consumers because what's best for companies isn't necessarily what's to the advantage of consumers. I said initially that I don't have any criticism for the government looking out for Canada, but the strong reactions have left me baffled.

I said from the onset that I didn't have any criticism for Canada's decision. By the same token, I don't see the UAE as "crybabies;" I see them as looking out for their best interests, same as Canada. I just didn't understand the "putting AC out of business" reaction, and while I still think it's an over-reaction, I can understand why it would be seen as unfair competition to AC. Not sure if it would be better or worse for the consumer, however. But again. It is what it is. Canada did what it felt it had to do and the UAE did what it felt it had to do. Both countries are looking out for their best interests, which was my initial response.

I'll tell you this, intra-Canada flying is overpriced and expensive, and I wish we had more domestic competition. I think the primary reason for the high costs of flying in Canada are due to the relatively smaller sizes of our Canadian airlines when compared to, for example, American airlines. Airlines in America are larger and probably have economies of scale working in their favour: a larger consumer base, translating to larger companies who can buy things for slightly cheaper (parts, gas, etc).

Edited January 23, 2011 by Bob