UAE - Crybabies

[Moonbox]

yes I can understand from your perspective my level of intellect must be intimidating but no I'm not a genius ...but when compared to your idols shady, lukin and saipan I can appreciate how you would make such an error in judgment ...

My idols? If you say so. Regardless, I do consider all three of them infinetly more intelligent than yourself and a heck of a lot more witty than you THINK you are.

if AC disappears you actually believe canada will left without air service?...what idiocy, another international or west jet will step in and hire the same canadians that worked for AC...are you so naive to believe that all those people working at canadian offices and service counters of Delta, AA, KLM and Air France, Lufthansa, British Airways, United, and all the technical crews servicing the planes aren't canadian? merely because their planes don't have "canada" plastered on the side of their plane?

wyly you're missing a LOT of points here. First off, nobody is talking about Air Canada disappearing because of the UAE airlines. All the UAE wants is to be given unfair competitive advantages. They want landing slots that cannot be justified by Canada-UAE traffic, and they are unwilling to offer similar rights to Canadian carriers. It WOULD cost us jobs because the majority of the infrastructure in place to support UAE planes flying people to Dubai and then from Dubai to Europe etc would be working in Dubai, instead of Canada. Sure, you might have a smattering of service people here and there in Canada, but nowhere near what a domestic airline would have.

oh ya where the stocks are traded and where the head office is located must mean it's canadian ya tell that to the The Bay/Zellers or Potashcorp...I bet you still believe in santa and the easter bunny too...

Well what makes a company Canadian. You tell me please.

[nicky10013]

Why would you laugh? I'm being quite serious.

Because how is a question that has yet to be answered. American Woman is quite right. AC is in no trouble from a few extra flights to Dubai.

[Moonbox]

Because how is a question that has yet to be answered. American Woman is quite right. AC is in no trouble from a few extra flights to Dubai.

You're right, but what reason do we have for granting it to them? What benefit does it provide us? Why would we put a domestic airline at a disadvantage to a foreign one? It makes no sense.

[Guest American Woman]

I think it's more complicated than that. Perhaps the Emirates airline can undercut Air Canada because it is a government-owned enterprise. Given the difficult financial challenges that most private airlines face, government-owned airlines like Emirates have certain advantages that might make it difficult for Air Canada to compete.

I can't argue that.

Different but related, consider China's advantages over the USA with respect to much of the manufacturing industry. Can companies who run most of their operations in the USA compete with the low wages and low standards of China? Consider the costs of operations in the USA, such as higher real estate costs, higher energy costs, higher labour costs, higher standards and expectations, and everything else. It's just another similar example of the various playing fields we're all operation on when examining the international business scene.

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?

Lastly, considering that Air Canada does much more for Canada's well-bring than Emirates, why shouldn't Canada do some things to the advantage of Canadian companies? Should Canada look out for its own best interests, or abstain for the sake of "fairness"? See what I mean?

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.

AW

I don't know how anyone could consider companies who have to finance their operations from capital markets competing unrestricted against companies which have unlimited access to goverment funds, either free enterprise or a free market.

If a government can use coersion to advance the interests of a company it owns, surely another government can act in the interests of one of its companies that pays its own way. To hear an American claim otherwise is realy quite odd.

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.

[nicky10013]

wyly you're missing a LOT of points here. First off, nobody is talking about Air Canada disappearing because of the UAE airlines. All the UAE wants is to be given unfair competitive advantages. They want landing slots that cannot be justified by Canada-UAE traffic, and they are unwilling to offer similar rights to Canadian carriers. It WOULD cost us jobs because the majority of the infrastructure in place to support UAE planes flying people to Dubai and then from Dubai to Europe etc would be working in Dubai, instead of Canada. Sure, you might have a smattering of service people here and there in Canada, but nowhere near what a domestic airline would have.

This isn't a serious answer. There has to be infrastructure here (which creates jobs) to handle airplanes. I don't know if you've ever flown out of pearson but every major airline (including Emirates) has cargo terminals and places to prepare things for flights such as food. Not to mention the people they have to hire for baggage and the infrastructure they have to build to service the A380. That stuff can't be imported. Yes, the infrastructure is less due to them not being a domestic airline, but we already have one. Like I've said many times before, they DON'T FLY TO THE UAE! So how much service is going to drain

Second, Air Canada has no problems already filling their flights to Europe and that's ALREADY with competition from European national airlines who THEMSELVES have competitve advantages due to their governments nosing in. Yet, like I said, Air Canada is doing fine.

The funniest thing about this is even Air Canada admitted that there should be increased capacity between Toronto and Dubai. Take a look.

The penalties come courtesy of Stephen Harper. He wouldn’t allow Emirates and Etihad Airways to increase flights to Canada, ostensibly to protect Air Canada.

But I have a 2006 document in which The penalties come courtesy of Stephen Harper. He wouldn’t allow Emirates and Etihad Airways to increase flights to Canada, ostensibly to protect Air Canada.

But I have a 2006 document in which Air Canada proposed a partnership with Emirates. It called for a coordinated schedule between Canada and Dubai, starting with a daily Dubai-Toronto flight and expanding to other cities. It asked Emirates to operate its own aircraft on the routes. It even suggested flight times to maximize connections with Air Canada.

But Air Canada demanded 50 per cent of the profits, having made minimal investment and taken little or no risk.

Emirates declined. It continued patiently negotiating with Ottawa to upgrade its thrice-weekly Toronto flights to daily, and also fly to Calgary and Vancouver. Etihad also wanted daily flights to Toronto.

They were backed by the governments of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, as well as business and consumer groups.

But Air Canada balked, saying passenger loads do not justify more flights and that letting Arab airlines “swamp” Canada would mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

In fact, additional airline traffic always creates more jobs. An Emirates study shows its new flights would add 1,900 jobs and $26 million in taxes.

Emirates declined. It continued patiently negotiating with Ottawa to upgrade its thrice-weekly Toronto flights to daily, and also fly to Calgary and Vancouver. Etihad also wanted daily flights to Toronto.

They were backed by the governments of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, as well as business and consumer groups.

But Air Canada balked, saying passenger loads do not justify more flights and that letting Arab airlines “swamp” Canada would mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

In fact, additional airline traffic always creates more jobs. An Emirates study shows its new flights would add 1,900 jobs and $26 million in taxes.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/920925--siddiqui-air-canada-s-hypocrisy-on-uae-exposed

[Moonbox]

Yes, the infrastructure is less due to them not being a domestic airline, but we already have one. Like I've said many times before, they DON'T FLY TO THE UAE! So how much service is going to drain

It's not UAE/Canadian traffic anyone is worried about. It's granting favourable landing rights to a carrier trying to turn Dubai into a regional hub and drain traffic to Europe and Asia. There's also nothing in it for the Canadian government.

Air Canada is doing fine.

Air Canada hasn't been doing fine since I've been alive.

The funniest thing about this is even Air Canada admitted that there should be increased capacity between Toronto and Dubai. Take a look.

Perhaps, but why offer it if there's no benefit to us?

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/920925--siddiqui-air-canada-s-hypocrisy-on-uae-exposed

It's funny enough that you're quoting a Toronto Star article, but what's even funnier is the sources it quotes:

"But I have a 2006 document in which Air Canada proposed a partnership with Emirates. It called for a coordinated schedule between Canada and Dubai, starting with a daily Dubai-Toronto flight and expanding to other cities. It asked Emirates to operate its own aircraft on the routes. It even suggested flight times to maximize connections with Air Canada"

So this guy has a 'document' that proposes a partnership which the UAE declined and which we really don't see the terms to...

and

"In fact, additional airline traffic always creates more jobs. An Emirates study shows its new flights would add 1,900 jobs and $26 million in taxes."

we're relying on an EMIRATES study...I'd love to see how scientific it was

As usual we're assuming that Harper would sink a deal that would create 1900 jobs, generate tax revenues of $26 million, cost us nothing AND ruin an international relationship, purely out of spite and because he's an egotistical jerk.

That's generally the position you guys take so I'm not sure how to reason with it.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Moonbox

[Smallc]

You're right, but what reason do we have for granting it to them? What benefit does it provide us? Why would we put a domestic airline at a disadvantage to a foreign one? It makes no sense.

But he's not right. The UAE has a plan to make Emirates THE world airline. More flights, in the long term, really does threaten Air Canada and many others.

[nicky10013]

But he's not right. The UAE has a plan to make Emirates THE world airline. More flights, in the long term, really does threaten Air Canada and many others.

And a few more flights in and out of Toronto is going to tip the balance?

[nicky10013]

It's not UAE/Canadian traffic anyone is worried about. It's granting favourable landing rights to a carrier trying to turn Dubai into a regional hub and drain traffic to Europe and Asia. There's also nothing in it for the Canadian government.

Dubai is already a regional hub.

As for the Canadian government - taxes. Not to mention the whole Camp Mirage, thing.

Air Canada hasn't been doing fine since I've been alive.

Exactly. They've been bailed out by the government. So really, isn't the fact that Air Canada are shouting from the rooftops about the boogeymen from the UAE and their unfair competitive advantage hypocritical?

Perhaps, but why offer it if there's no benefit to us?

There is a benefit to us. Toronto gets more seats to Dubai and the Canadian Military gets to stay in Camp Mirage and not have to pay 300 million to pick up and move in the middle of a war.

It's funny enough that you're quoting a Toronto Star article, but what's even funnier is the sources it quotes:

"But I have a 2006 document in which Air Canada proposed a partnership with Emirates. It called for a coordinated schedule between Canada and Dubai, starting with a daily Dubai-Toronto flight and expanding to other cities. It asked Emirates to operate its own aircraft on the routes. It even suggested flight times to maximize connections with Air Canada"

So this guy has a 'document' that proposes a partnership which the UAE declined and which we really don't see the terms to...

and

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20110113/uae-reportedly-wants-apology-from-canada-110113/

Yeah, so it wasn't just in the Star.

"In fact, additional airline traffic always creates more jobs. An Emirates study shows its new flights would add 1,900 jobs and $26 million in taxes."

we're relying on an EMIRATES study...I'd love to see how scientific it was

As usual we're assuming that Harper would sink a deal that would create 1900 jobs, generate tax revenues of $26 million, cost us nothing AND ruin an international relationship, purely out of spite and because he's an egotistical jerk.

No, it's not his ego, he's doing it for politics. It's to play on people's emotions. God forbid those people from the UAE blackmail our boys! This was nothing more than a political stunt and it's clearly worked with some folks.

[qupote]That's generally the position you guys take so I'm not sure how to reason with it.

Ha....funny.

[Smallc]

And a few more flights in and out of Toronto is going to tip the balance?

That's not all the wanted initially, but a few more flights a week is a great many seats.

[nicky10013]

That's not all the wanted initially, but a few more flights a week is a great many seats.

Yeah...and?

[Smallc]

Yeah...and?

And so those seats aren't going to Air Canada and members of the Star Alliance, affecting Canadian jobs (and further than that). Of course, the few flights are only the start. These unnecessary seats are syphoning away from private corporations that provide a benefit to Canada and Canadian society. The reality is, there is no justification for extra seats to the UAE, not for Air Canada, and not for Emirates. No one is getting more seats there, because they aren't needed. As has already been said, the UAE has to play by our rules in our airspace, not the other way around, and for you to argue otherwise is completely ridiculous. Add to that the fact that you're arguing for a foreign government corporation at the expense of a Canadian private one (who was bailed out by the government when, exactly?) that provides employment and revenue to Canada, and it becomes even more ridiculous.

[nicky10013]

And so those seats aren't going to Air Canada and members of the Star Alliance, affecting Canadian jobs (and further than that). Of course, the few flights are only the start. These unnecessary seats are syphoning away from private corporations that provide a benefit to Canada and Canadian society. The reality is, there is no justification for extra seats to the UAE, not for Air Canada, and not for Emirates. No one is getting more seats there, because they aren't needed. As has already been said, the UAE has to play by our rules in our airspace, not the other way around, and for you to argue otherwise is completely ridiculous. Add to that the fact that you're arguing for a foreign government corporation at the expense of a Canadian private one (who was bailed out by the government when, exactly?) that provides employment and revenue to Canada, and it becomes even more ridiculous.

Firstly, this isn't a slippery slope. This was a few landing rights in exchange for an extension on the use of Camp Mirage presumably for the duration of the mission which I believe is 2014. Additional landing spots were to be issued by TC. To claim anything otherwise is to lie.

Furthermore, the rest of the post is nonsense. Even Air Canada wanted to expand to daily flights to Dubai USING EMIRATES AIRCRAFT. There's CLEARLY A MARKET for it! Even if there wasn't, would that be such a huge deal? If the extra landing spots weren't winners, Emirates would pull back and stop the bleeding.

As for Air Canada's bailout - here you go.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/air-canada-gets-bailout-from-ottawa/

[Smallc]

Firstly, this isn't a slippery slope. This was a few landing rights in exchange for an extension on the use of Camp Mirage presumably for the duration of the mission which I believe is 2014. Additional landing spots were to be issued by TC. To claim anything otherwise is to lie.

Furthermore, the rest of the post is nonsense. Even Air Canada wanted to expand to daily flights to Dubai USING EMIRATES AIRCRAFT. There's CLEARLY A MARKET for it! Even if there wasn't, would that be such a huge deal? If the extra landing spots weren't winners, Emirates would pull back and stop the bleeding.p

There were no additional spots, and there is no market. Transport Canada says so and the industry does as well.

As for Air Canada's bailout - here you go.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/air-canada-gets-bailout-from-ottawa/

That isn't a bailout, but it is a spun headline.

[nicky10013]

There were no additional spots, and there is no market. Transport Canada says so and the industry does as well.

The industry includes Air Canada. They wanted extra flights with Emirates (the same no goodniks who are trying to take over the world - convenienetly only AFTER Air Canada was denied their deal) no risk and half the profit without actually operating anything.

Do you honestly think Emirates would want the flights if they couldn't make money off of them? Let me ask you this. Do you live in Toronto? Do you know the extent of the community that is here that regularly flies back to the UAE? I know 10 alone who I went to university with. One just got back. So, for you to automatically declare that "there is no market" based on a TC decision (because agencies are never wrong - ever) with absolutely no other data as to the demand within the marketplace despite what the airlines themselves have actually stated they want (because there is unmet demand) is a little rich.

That isn't a bailout, but it is a spun headline.

Oh, so 200 million in direct funds from Ottawa doesn't qualify as a bailout? What is a bailout by your standards, then?

Edited January 23, 2011 by nicky10013

[Argus]

Firstly, this isn't a slippery slope. This was a few landing rights

A few dozen, wasn't it? Far in excess of the actual traffic between Canada and Dubai. They were really there to grab the business transporting people between Canada and Europe, not Dubai.

And I am mystified by why anyone would be arguing in favor of such a deal as it clearly contains much benefit to Dubai and absolutely no benefit to Canada. Quite to the contrary. It drains business away from Canadian airlines.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Argus

[Smallc]

A few dozen, wasn't it? Far in excess of the actual traffic between Canada and Dubai. They were really there to grab the business transporting people between Canada and Europe, not Dubai.

And I am mystified by why anyone would be arguing in favor of such a deal as it clearly contains much benefit to Dubai and absolutely no benefit to Canada. Quite to the contrary. It drains business away from Canadian airlines.

It's not mystifying when you consider that the people arguing in favour of it hate the Conservatives no matter what. The fact that they wanted 50 flights to Canada when there definitely wasn't that kind of market sort of makes their intentions clear, doesn't it?

[jbg]

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

I dont wanna visit that dirt-farm anyways, nor do I want to pay for a military base there. Our alliances in the middle east are more trouble than theyre worth anyhow.... fuck em.

We're an oil producer/exporter. Let the Americans and Russians and Chinese squabble over middle eastern oil.

My admiration for the Arabs is far too great to take such a cavalier attitude.

[nicky10013]

It's not mystifying when you consider that the people arguing in favour of it hate the Conservatives no matter what. The fact that they wanted 50 flights to Canada when there definitely wasn't that kind of market sort of makes their intentions clear, doesn't it?

I believe it was a dozen. Since you trumped that number so egregiously, I believe that says a lot more about you and intentions than anyone who was for a deal vis a vis their political stance. Furthermore, what kind of rube actually believes that if the government had actually bothered to negotiate in good faith that they could've brought that dozen down?

You've still yet to prove any of your claims whatsoever.

Edited January 23, 2011 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

A few dozen, wasn't it? Far in excess of the actual traffic between Canada and Dubai. They were really there to grab the business transporting people between Canada and Europe, not Dubai.

So let me get this straight. You think that Emirates wants this so they can steal Air Canada European air traffic? So, you're saying that people are going to want to fly all that way only to hop off a plane and come back to Europe on another incredibly long flight?

And I am mystified by why anyone would be arguing in favor of such a deal as it clearly contains much benefit to Dubai and absolutely no benefit to Canada. Quite to the contrary. It drains business away from Canadian airlines.

So more flights to the middle east, higher tax revenues from the additional flights, minus the $1000 per person visa as well, minus the $300,000,000 for Camp Mirage. I guess those things as well as the lack of those things are horrible for Canada and Canadians - yet, I've yet to see any reason based on facts why.

This is all to mention that in the articles I posted, the governments of Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia were for a deal for more flights as well as business and consumer groups.

Now, funny enough, I've posted this all before and never recieved an answer regarding this by anyone. If this deal was so lauded by business groups, three provincial governments and even Air Canada before they were shut out from a deal that would essentially see them make money for free, WHAT IS NOW SO BAD ABOUT THIS?

I find it hilarious that anything in favour of a deal has been scoffed off as Harper hating. However, that hasn't changed these facts and the silence regarding these facts is telling.

If this deal is REALLY so bad, pony up with the facts and lets dispense the name calling.

Edited January 23, 2011 by nicky10013

[Smallc]

I believe it was a dozen. I believe that says a lot more about you and intentions than anyone who was for a deal. Furthermore, what kind of rube actually believes that if the government had actually bothered to negotiate in good faith that they could've brought that dozen down?

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.

You've still yet to prove any of your claims whatsoever.

No I'm not. Transport Canada has stated that there was no reason for the spots. It's you that has something to prove. The reality is, the use of the base was not a deal that had anything to do with airline landing rights. This is all a UAE domination game, and people like you have played right into their hands.

[Smallc]

An existing decade-old deal gives Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways three flights each week to Toronto. A source close to the negotiations said the Emirates government was seeking daily flights for each airline to Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver. Canada came back with a counter-offer, said the source, that actually reduced the current carrying capacity of the U.A.E. airlines.

Baird, when asked to explain the estimate of job losses after question period, said major unions, Air Canada and airport authorities all opposed giving the Emirates expanded landing rights.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/894065--feds-say-landing-rights-deal-with-u-a-e-would-cost-thousands-of-jobs

Only a few spots, eh? Daily flights to 3 airports...x2....that's 42 flights, and I'm sure that Montreal was of interest to them as well.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Smallc

[nicky10013]

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 you KNEW it was only 8 yet you chose to use the 50 number anyway. Yet you mock my motives?

No I'm not. Transport Canada has stated that there was no reason for the spots. It's you that has something to prove. The reality is, the use of the base was not a deal that had anything to do with airline landing rights. This is all a UAE domination game, and people like you have played right into their hands.

So? Why do you deny the fact that even Air Canada wanted daily flights to Dubai as early as 2006? Considering 3 provincial governments and even Air Canada at the time wanted it, is it so wrong to assume that perhaps Transport Canada was wrong in their decision especially considering it's controlled by the cabinet and it's clear what they want? Is it even wrong to imply that their own decision was political considering the fact that according to the Globe and Mail:

The UAE and state-owned carriers have been seeking dozens of new landing slots in Canada in return for letting the Canadian Forces stay at Camp Mirage. But Air Canada and Transport Canada opposed the idea of linking air negotiations to geopolitical issues.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/uae-banishes-canada-from-base-blocks-mackay-from-its-airspace/article1752151/

[nicky10013]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/894065--feds-say-landing-rights-deal-with-u-a-e-would-cost-thousands-of-jobs

Only a few spots, eh? Daily flights to 3 airports...x2....that's 42 flights, and I'm sure that Montreal was of interest to them as well.

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

[Smallc]

So you KNEW it was only 8 yet you chose to use the 50 number anyway. Yet you mock my motives?

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? Why do you deny the fact that even Air Canada wanted daily flights to Dubai as early as 2006? Considering 3 provincial governments and even Air Canada at the time wanted it, is it so wrong to assume that perhaps Transport Canada was wrong in their decision especially considering it's controlled by the cabinet and it's clear what they want? Is it even wrong to imply that their own decision was political considering the fact that according to the Globe and Mail:

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?