UAE - Crybabies

[wyly]

They don't owe you anything either.

and what have I asked for?...why the fuck should I be forced to support an internationally owned company with my money...

[Scotty]

Emirates isn't interested in flights within Canada or even flights from Canada to Dubai, just as they aren't really interested in flights within Australia or from Australia to Dubai. They are after the Australia to Europe traffic. They want to expand Dubai as a hub, not look after Canadians.

But they can turn a profit more easily if they can, while flying from Vancouver to Dubai, drop people off and pick them up at Toronto, and then Paris along the way. That, of course, means they are actually also selling tickets between Vancouver and Toronto, and between Toronto and Paris, and that would be the majority of their business since very few Canadians have any interest in travelling to Dubai.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Scotty

[Scotty]

and what have I asked for?...why the fuck should I be forced to support an internationally owned company with my money...

For the same reason I can't buy satellite or cellular services from an American provider, or buy cheap milk from New York.

[Moonlight Graham]

I just read this article a few minutes ago and I can only shake my head at these morons. Because Canada wouldn't allow their carrier additional routes for their airlines, the UAE kicked Canada out of its base in the UAE, imposed visa restrictions on Canadians, and is now forcing them to pay $1000 to get a visa to go there?

People are trying to make this out to be a diplomatic boondoggle on the government's part, but the way I see it is that we're not going to get bullied into something by a bunch of crybaby idiots who are going to fuss whenever we won't let them have their way.

I can't wait until we don't need oil anymore. Then these idiots can sit on their sand and eat it.

I wouldn't call them crybabies. I'd call this politics. Pretty basic international relations. You scratch my back, i'll scratch yours. If not, wham.

[Wilber]

BS...I'm being forced to fly with an company that gives sub par service, that's forcing me to subsidize them with my business...emirates regardless of who owns it must turn a profit otherwise like any other business or it'll go under...I don't care who gets my money as long as I get to where I want to go fast, comfortable and cheap...

Not hard to be profitable and competitive when your government is buying you your aircraft and your competitors have to borrow 300M a pop to buy them, but that's the free market right. You aren't being forced to fly with anyone. There is competition on every international route out of Canada, even Dubai. If you want to fly Emirates to Dubai, fill your boots. You seem quite happy with the idea of one company providing airline service as long as it is not Air Canada. Tell me what happens when the company with the bottomless pockets and no ties to your country runs all it's competition off? What kind of service do you think you will get then and how many deals do you think they will be offering?

[Moonbox]

oooh I see, so canada can do shit to other countries for financial reasons but it's not okay for other countries to do so? even though those countries have done nothing to deserve the punishment?...

You're not too bright are you?

People from Mexico and the Czech Republic were ABUSING Canada's refugee system. To protect taxpayers, Canada imposed the visa restrictions.

In the UAE's case, there's really no worry of Canadians abusing their social welfare system, or really anything of the sort, so their retaliation was pure spite.

The fact that you can't see the difference between the two is telling of your general ability to grasp simple arguments.

[William Ashley]

You're not too bright are you?

People from Mexico and the Czech Republic were ABUSING Canada's refugee system. To protect taxpayers, Canada imposed the visa restrictions.

It wasn't the visa - it was the way it is/was administered. It is nothing like Mexico's FMT process. Mexicans are great with how easy they faciliate travel. And its not like they don't have borders too, with countries such as Belize, and Guatama, as well as a very close proximalty to many others.

So wouldn't not allowing UAE to fly due to competition be a WTO violation?

anti-competitive practices to obstruct trade

---

The agreement recognizes that certain investment measures restrict and distort trade. It provides that no contracting party shall apply any TRIM inconsistent with Articles III (national treatment) and XI (prohibition of quantitative restrictions) of the GATT. To this end, an illustrative list of TRIMs agreed to be inconsistent with these articles is appended to the agreement. The list includes measures which require particular levels of local procurement by an enterprise (“local content requirements”) or which restrict the volume or value of imports such an enterprise can purchase or use to an amount related to the level of products it exports (“trade balancing requirements”).

So why doesn't Canada just heavily invest in the airline then allow it in?

The one question that should resolve the dilema "would the rate be considered dumping practice? Were the flights are at loss to Emirates"

Article VI of the GATT provides for the right of contracting parties to apply anti-dumping measures, i.e. measures against imports of a product at an export price below its “normal value” (usually the price of the product in the domestic market of the exporting country) if such dumped imports cause injury to a domestic industry in the territory of the importing contracting party. More detailed rules governing the application of such measures are currently provided in an Anti-dumping Agreement concluded at the end of the Tokyo Round. Negotiations in the Uruguay Round have resulted in a revision of this Agreement which addresses many areas in which the current Agreement lacks precision and detail.

...

the criteria to be taken into account in a determination that dumped imports cause injury to a domestic industry, the procedures to be followed in initiating and conducting anti-dumping investigations, and the implementation and duration of anti-dumping measures. In addition, the new agreement clarifies the role of dispute settlement panels in disputes relating to anti-dumping actions taken by domestic authorities.

If it is dumping then there is no fault to bar the trade, if it isn't Canada probably doesn't have any good reasons to stop it and protectionism would not be sufficient under the WTO basis imo.

BTW personally I like low airfares... I can understand the risk to Canadian Jobs 'control' and investments in air Cananda or other Canadian international airlines. I can see that.

Surely there must be some middle ground. Like flight consortiums like bringing Emirites into a partnership with air Canada or something. (Like Air Canemir or Emircan... perhaps setting a certain number of flights both airlines fly under the joint consortium airline with split profits on revenue from the flights.

Perhaps partial ownership in Emirates for a merger with air Canada? ( Big grin)

It seems air Canada has more planes than Emirates - I think about 400+ to 140 + another 140 in process or something...

ps I put forth Willines as an alternative carrier name to the two offered above. Or maybe just n-air

Edited December 30, 2010 by William Ashley

[wyly]

You're not too bright are you?

People from Mexico and the Czech Republic were ABUSING Canada's refugee system. To protect taxpayers, Canada imposed the visa restrictions.

In the UAE's case, there's really no worry of Canadians abusing their social welfare system, or really anything of the sort, so their retaliation was pure spite.

The fact that you can't see the difference between the two is telling of your general ability to grasp simple arguments.

you're the one that's fucking dumber than a bag of hammers...it's exactly the same thing ya twat, one government attempting to influence another's internal politics with visa restrictions... geez what an idiot...

[Smallc]

you're the one that's fucking dumber than a bag of hammers...it's exactly the same thing ya twat, one government attempting to influence another's internal politics with visa restrictions... geez what an idiot...

It isn't at all the same. One is doing it because they're having a tantrum, and the other did it because they realized that they're own system was broken, and an interim measure was needed.

[waldo]

It isn't at all the same. One is doing it because they're having a tantrum, and the other did it because they realized that they're own system was broken, and an interim measure was needed.

9 years of 'free rent' and ongoing negotiations resulted in another shining example of Harper Conservative incompetence.

And so it was last month that Dubai named its inevitable price, and we balked. Now we hear that it will be $300 million in closing costs, though it would have cost a lot of money to pack up sooner or later. No, the real costs are more hidden: the longer flights, the new base in Cyprus (where the hosts will be asking for payment up front, no doubt), the unbelievable hassle of setting up a new logistics base four months before you’re about to start leaving the theatre of war.

And there’s really no other word for it but incompetence. Maybe the Dubai government was asking for too much in the way of extra landing slots (with more planes on order than all other world airlines combined, the two domestic carriers in Dubai are looking at a serious capacity glut). And preventing MacKay from landing was a pretty serious escalation.

But it is important to keep in mind that what they were doing was haggling. And Canada, acting like a naïve tourist shopping for pashminas in the souq, declared that it was shocked – shocked! – at the outrageous sum, spun on its heels, and walked away. The Dubai government probably thought we were bluffing — after all, down in the sook, walking away is just another negotiating tactic.

But no, off we go, leaving yet another collection of pissed-off allies in our wake. The closing of Camp Mirage is just another act in the ongoing gongshow that is Stephen Harper’s handling of the Afghan mission.

Well now, seems today, the media is reporting there's trouble within the Tories and Harper has kick out McKay and two others over finding a way to find a solution. Who is Harper going to blame for this one? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/uae-rift-exposes-division-in-harper-caucus/article1754387/

whaaa! Results = Fearless Leader Harper pushing Rusty Baird's bully-boy routine! Kinda, sorta like the UN seat rejection thingee - hey? Is there a pattern here?

The UAE has been seeking additional lucrative landing rights for two state-backed air carriers at Canadian airports, and Mr. MacKay was one of several ministers, including Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan, who had favoured doing more to help the Arab ally, a senior Conservative MP said.

The Prime Minister ultimately cut these ministers out of negotiations, the official said, favouring the forceful arguments against big concessions advanced earlier this year by former transport minister John Baird.

The loss of the base has left some cabinet members frustrated and angry at how Mr. Harper handled it.

“[it’s] all gone because of a fit of pique and a hard [core] position that is truculent and unreasonable against Canada’s short- and long-term interests,” the MP said.

must of come as a shock to them bullies are always stunned when someone calls them out...Harper and Baird are so used to the bully routine here they didn't expect it when someone told them Fuck U! and there was nothing they could do about it...I would've loved to been on that plane when MacKay was refused permission to land ...

Excuse me? The great crime of the UAE is to dare expect something (fairly paltry) in return for their (fairly important) service to us.

oh my! A $300-million hit... that could have been solved/saved by simply granting UAE 6 additional flights... Harper fiscal conservatism extraordinaire!

Ottawa will spend $300-million to close Camp Mirage

It is costing the Harper government an estimated $300-million to close Camp Mirage, the secret airbase in the United Arab Emirates that Canada used as a logistics hub for its troops in Afghanistan, a senior Conservative official confirmed Thursday.

The Canadian government had been using the base for free for nine years. But leaving is complicated – there are huge logistical issues, according to the source, including moving equipment and now having to factor in fuel costs for the longer routes between Afghanistan and the alternative bases in Germany and Cyprus.

“The UAE were not charging us to use the port and airfield,” the government source said. “So now we pay plus setup costs in new area. Big challenge and big bucks.”

Officials peg the total bill at $300-million, the source said. “For six more flights, we could have solved this,” the source added, referring to the Canadian landing rights sought by the UAE.

Liberal Foreign Affairs critic Bob Rae called the cost scandalous. “Canadians are on the hook for $300-million to bail this government out of its own amateur inability to resolve a difference of opinion they had years to fix,” he said.

[Wilber]

It seems air Canada has more planes than Emirates - I think about 400+ to 140 + another 140 in process or something...

Not even close. Air Canada's fleet totals 202 aircraft of all types. Jazz is a completely separate company, not owned by AC and is traded independently on the stock market. When it comes to long range aircraft, Air Canada has 18 B777's, 8 A330's and 30 B767's. It has 32 B787's ordered but they are intended as B767 replacements.

In comparison, as of September, Emirates was operating 47 A340's, 84 B777's with orders for 49 more and 15 A380's with orders for 75 more for a total of 270 wide body long range aircraft.

In 2007 their aircraft orders from Boeing and Airbus totaled 34 billion. In 2010 they added another 20 billion worth. I don't really think they are all that interested in partnerships.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Wilber

[Scotty]

9 years of 'free rent' and ongoing negotiations resulted in another shining example of Harper Conservative incompetence.

oh my! A $300-million hit... that could have been solved/saved by simply granting UAE 6 additional flights... Harper fiscal conservatism extraordinaire!

Well, to begin with, the person who wrote the article has no inside information. He assumes, somewhat arrogantly, that his 4 trips through Dubai somehow clue him in to the haggling mentality of the middle east far better than the Canadian diplomats who spend years dealing with these people. Did he even talk to any of those diplomats to try and get an off the record indication of what talks took place? There's no evidence he did in the article.

As to the closing costs, those were inevitable, whether we left this year or next or three years from now. So bringig them up is pointless. They're a cost of doing business.

If the UAE thought that the new landig rights were a quid pro quo for letting us put the camp there - which they probably did, in part - the Canadians obviously felt the price was too high, or that the principle was wrong. We'r there helping these people. If they want to charge a reasonable rent for space, that's acceptable. Demanding something else is not.

And frankly, their conduct since then is, if anything, an indication of a sulky, spoiled, arrogant, and spiteful mindset which must have been extremely difficult to negotiate with.

[Scotty]

I wouldn't call them crybabies. I'd call this politics. Pretty basic international relations. You scratch my back, i'll scratch yours. If not, wham.

You don't think this is a pretty crude version of that?

[waldo]

Well, to begin with, the person who wrote the article has no inside information. He assumes, somewhat arrogantly, that his 4 trips through Dubai somehow clue him in to the haggling mentality of the middle east far better than the Canadian diplomats who spend years dealing with these people. Did he even talk to any of those diplomats to try and get an off the record indication of what talks took place? There's no evidence he did in the article.

As to the closing costs, those were inevitable, whether we left this year or next or three years from now. So bringig them up is pointless. They're a cost of doing business.

If the UAE thought that the new landig rights were a quid pro quo for letting us put the camp there - which they probably did, in part - the Canadians obviously felt the price was too high, or that the principle was wrong. We'r there helping these people. If they want to charge a reasonable rent for space, that's acceptable. Demanding something else is not.

don't hesitate to bring your "inside information" forward... as for the inevitability of closing costs, why the need to establish another forward base (in Cyprus)? Inevitability... to simply open up... elsewhere??? Imagine UAE's arrogance and having the nerve... the audacity... to actually expect to be compensated - to presume to actually negotiate!

And frankly, their conduct since then is, if anything, an indication of a sulky, spoiled, arrogant, and spiteful mindset which must have been extremely difficult to negotiate with.

see Rusty Baird's, "Harper Conservative Negotiation for Dummies"

[Moonbox]

you're the one that's fucking dumber than a bag of hammers...it's exactly the same thing ya twat, one government attempting to influence another's internal politics with visa restrictions... geez what an idiot...

Think about what you're saying wyly, and let's base our conclusions on who is dumber based on that okay?

It's the same thing you say? One country trying to influence the internal politics of another?

How is Canada trying to influence the politics of the Czech Republic? Could you explain that to us? No, you can't, because we're in NO WAY trying to.

We're trying to save ourselves money and headaches because people from outside of Canada (many of whomm are from the Czech Republic or Mexico) are abusing our refugee system and costing us tons of money.

It's not a right for people to be able to visit Canada, nor is it a right for Canadians to visit the UAE. What's hilarious about what's happened in the UAE, however, is that they imposed the VISA restrictions not to protect themselves, but rather to 'get back' at us for not letting them have whatever they want.

They're throwing a tantrum, much like you did in your above post. I'm not surprised you can relate to their position. Fussing and wetting your pants when you don't get your way is apparently the way you still deal with your problems.

[Moonbox]

Imagine UAE's arrogance and having the nerve... the audacity... to actually expect to be compensated - to presume to actually negotiate!

You're having the same problem as wyly here. Why should the UAE expect ridiculous compensation for something that benefits them anyways? We're staging attacks against the Taliban and Al Quaeda, a mutual enemy, and for most people that would be enough.

Not when you're dealing with pompous Princes and Sheikhs, it seems. We really don't need friends like them.

[Argus]

don't hesitate to bring your "inside information" forward...

I don't claim to have any, but then I'm not the one writing a critical article in Macleans which suggests the government didn't understand the local mindset.

Imagine UAE's arrogance and having the nerve... the audacity... to actually expect to be compensated - to presume to actually negotiate!

It's been nine years. I expect if they wanted compensation they ought to have been somewhat more straightforward about it long ago.

see Rusty Baird's, "Harper Conservative Negotiation for Dummies"

Sometimes, during negotiations, one or both sides won't budge. That's just the way of the world. Both have their bottom lines and neither will fall below them. It's nice when two sides can reach an equitable agreement, but that simply isn't always possible.

[waldo]

Imagine UAE's arrogance and having the nerve... the audacity... to actually expect to be compensated - to presume to actually negotiate!

You're having the same problem as wyly here. Why should the UAE expect ridiculous compensation for something that benefits them anyways? We're staging attacks against the Taliban and Al Quaeda, a mutual enemy, and for most people that would be enough.

Not when you're dealing with pompous Princes and Sheikhs, it seems. We really don't need friends like them.

you've quoted me... why not just stick with that - hey? What appears to be ridiculous compensation in your (and Rusty's) view... is (rather was), apparently, a matter of ongoing negotiation... at least until Rusty got directly involved. I suggest you play your Taliban/AQ card elsewhere, or you might ask how the camp shutdown has impacted other "allies"... apparently, Harper Conservatives didn't factor that lil ditty - hey? As for actually, as you say, 'needing' UAE... well... for $300 million shutdown costs and ??? startup costs in Cyprus, I guess not - hey?

[waldo]

Sometimes, during negotiations, one or both sides won't budge. That's just the way of the world. Both have their bottom lines and neither will fall below them. It's nice when two sides can reach an equitable agreement, but that simply isn't always possible.

a very astute point - indeed. One could look at the reactions from both sides and simply chalk it up to not being able to reach an equitable agreement... and then there's Rusty! Equally, in the spirit of simple negotiations breaking down, one shouldn't expect a MLW thread to spring forward with a "Crybabies" title attachment.

[Guest American Woman]

I just read this article a few minutes ago and I can only shake my head at these morons. Because Canada wouldn't allow their carrier additional routes for their airlines, the UAE kicked Canada out of its base in the UAE, imposed visa restrictions on Canadians, and is now forcing them to pay $1000 to get a visa to go there?

People are trying to make this out to be a diplomatic boondoggle on the government's part, but the way I see it is that we're not going to get bullied into something by a bunch of crybaby idiots who are going to fuss whenever we won't let them have their way.

So don't do what they ask. That's your prerogative. But then don't cry when they do something in response that you don't like. And fyi, you only have to pay $1000 if you want a six month visa.

But that's life. As an American, if I want to go to Brazil, I have to pay for a visa and be finger-printed and photographed as 'payback' for our requirements for their entry into the US. I say that's fine and dandy, and should I decide to go to Brazil, I'll pay for the visa and be fingerprinted and photographed without whining about it. But the reality is, I'll just be giving them a pass. And that's fine too, because that's my prerogative.

It's called the game of politics, and the UAE has just as much a right to play it the way they want to play it as Canada does. So quit your whining-- as you call others crybabies.

[GostHacked]

Does this not solve problems? We don't allow UAE extra space at the airport, we get our troops kicked out of the UAE and a heavy fee levied against Canadains to visit UAE.

Solution - Avoid the UAE. There are other places on earth to visit.

[PIK]

oh yeah sure, and you'll be one of the first in line to complain if the time comes when the USA insists on strip searches on all flights to there from canada...

Got pulled out of the line in washington and got my junk touched, so if I want to go back I will have to put up with it or do not go back, we all have a choice. Edited December 30, 2010 by PIK

[Moonbox]

you've quoted me... why not just stick with that - hey? What appears to be ridiculous compensation in your (and Rusty's) view... is (rather was), apparently, a matter of ongoing negotiation... at least until Rusty got directly involved. I suggest you play your Taliban/AQ card elsewhere, or you might ask how the camp shutdown has impacted other "allies"... apparently, Harper Conservatives didn't factor that lil ditty - hey? As for actually, as you say, 'needing' UAE... well... for $300 million shutdown costs and ??? startup costs in Cyprus, I guess not - hey?

Waldo that was worse than reading one of Oleg's posts. Do some editing or learn how to write better man. That's just frustrating/hard to read.

As for what's under negotiation, the UAE didn't really 'provide' anything to Canada other than sand in the desert. Indeed if anything, they probably profited greatly from having us there. Having the base there benefited them. It cost them NOTHING.

Now, 9 years later, nearing the end of our deployment (the most inconvenient of times) the UAE has decided to shake us down. It wasn't a negotiation. It was an attempt to embarrass us and rip us off into getting what they wanted. Those clowns showed their true colors, and like I said before, we don't need them.

[The_Squid]

Having the base there benefited them. It cost them NOTHING.

So do you think Canada should open up some tundra for the Russians to build bases? Wouldn't cost us anything (apparently) and the benefits would be great!

[Moonbox]

So don't do what they ask. That's your prerogative. But then don't cry when they do something in response that you don't like. And fyi, you only have to pay $1000 if you want a six month visa.

I couldn't care less what the UAE does. My OP was to mock them and show my contempt for them. That's all they deserve. They're like the kid on the playground, taking his ball home because he didn't get his own way. It's funny. That's all.

But that's life. As an American, if I want to go to Brazil, I have to pay for a visa and be finger-printed and photographed as 'payback' for our requirements for their entry into the US.

Like I said before, countries impose VISA restrictions wherever and whenever they want. It's their perogative like you said. In the UAE's case, however, it's pretty clear they're doing it because we're not giving them landing rights for their airline. They're punishing us in any way they can. Their perogative, but childish.

It's called the game of politics, and the UAE has just as much a right to play it the way they want to play it as Canada does. So quit your whining-- as you call others crybabies.

Some of you are really having trouble with what we're saying here aren't you? We're not crying about it. Most of us don't give a shit. It's a joke. It's hilarious. They can do whatever they want.

I'm quite happy with the way Canada handled things, and I'm just as happy to have nothing to do with the UAE.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Moonbox