Originally Posted by yulred

I assume the 50 flights number comes from 7 X YYZ + 7X YYC + 7 X YVR for each airline. Which works out to 42, not 50. But I get your point.

My question therefore is: were the overall interests of Canada, in maintaining a vital link to our operations in Afghanistan, given proper weight vis-à-vis the economic interests of a single Canadian air carrier? Was the minister of national defence consulted? Since the issue involved at least three portfolios, no doubt plus Treasury, was the decision made by cabinet?

It certainly should have been considering the impact on taxpayers.

Ramsey Withers,

Ottawa[/I]

..........................For instance, if you book YYZ-GRU return, the fuel surcharge = 190.

Book GRU - YYZ and the fuel surcharge goes down to a staggering 0

Admittedly, the base fare for GRU - YYZ is higher for the dates I selected, but given that J is unavailable on the route (or sold out more likely), it could just mean that the cheap tickets are gone.

Then try YYZ-LHR

YYZ-LHR return - the fuel surcharge is 250 (Base fare 250+250)= 500

LHR-YYZ return - the fuel surcharge is 180 (Base fare 309+231)= 510

The overall difference between the two tickets is 60 dollars - with the LHR-YYZ being the cheaper one.

Hmmmm. So go on, tell us that AC isnt price gouging Canadians.

You really want to know why I want EK in the market. To cut the above nonsense out.

And that goes out to all you other AC apologists. I may have only been here two months, but I know when I m being cheated. AC has got too used to taking Canadians for granted. A little competition won't hurt the consumer. And then theres the as yet uncalculated actual costs of shutting down Camp Mirage.