Originally Posted by
Ken hAAmer
And from my own experience, I recall hearing all of these and/or similar arguments in North America in the run-up to the US-Canada Open Skies agreement. I recall hearing all of these and/or similar arguments circa 2005 in Australia just before the "three amigos" started flying into Australia.
And now I'm hearing that Emirates will steal all the Canada-India traffic. Well so what? Air Canada is now just giving most of that traffic to other airlines, notably Jet Airways, in return for a skim off the top.
Here's a theory... why not negotiate with UAE and allow Air Canada ulimited rights to fly into and out UAE to other countries. That way they can compete directly with EK, purchasing cheap fuel in the Mid-east, and flying YYZ-DXB-DEL/BOM.
I keep hearing that competition is good for the consumer (just so long as that competition does not compete with the established players.) My experience has been that competition has almost always been good for the consumers, and anything that impedes or lessens that competition (whether it be taking over another airline, or Rogers buying Fido, or Home Depot running Beaver Lumber out of town) always -- always -- hurts the consumer, usually in big and dramatic ways.
In Australia's circumstances, there is a very large difference. There has never been enough capacity to handle the travel demands of Australians who fly all over the world to escape their little continent and visitors who see the same continents vast array of tourist attractions. So the additional lift brought by "the Three Amigos" only marginally affected QF's overseas loads but brought more tourists to the country. That did reflect a net benefit to Australia.
However, Canada is not Australia. While we travel more than Americans, we don't travel more than Australians (beyond our North/South trips to the US), and when we do, the majority are actually family visitors returning to the "mother country"...whether it was to the UK, Germany or elsewhere in Europe, or more recently to various parts of Asia and the Caribbean. Canada is no where near the tourist attraction to the world's travellers that Australia is. When Europeans or Asians or even Middle Easterners visit NAmerica, it is to the USA not Canada! We have next to nothing in the way of attractions to draw real Australian-style tourism, and the oped writer on Saturday vastly overstated that potential benefit in his argument favouring EK.
Montreal, Quebec City, Vancouver and even Toronto pale in comparison with Sydney or Brisbane/Gold Coast/Cairns or Melbourne or even Perth and Alice Springs. Why would anyone come to any of our major cities when they could go to NYC, LA, New Orleans, Chicago or San Francisco? We have no beaches and no tropical weather. While some may like winter weather, we've maxed out the capacity at our ski resorts in the west, and the ones in the east are piddly when compared to those in the Alps so of little appeal to European ski enthusiasts.
Canada is not Australia, so those arguments hold no water.
As for the Professor's article today, he was not paid off by AC to write it. Academics lust after having their articles appear on op ed pages because it counts towards their "publishing" record and raises the profile of their institutions. I find that, KH, a slander and allegation that is beneath you.