1. Whenever Heathrow's expansion is approved or Boris gets his island. Till then, they can pick whichever airport in the UK they want to that isn't slot-constrained.

2. Not sure why you keep insisting I want a cheap ride to India, because whenever I do an India trip, its always in VS Y+ (if I stop off in LHR for a breather on both sides of the trip) or TK Y+ (if its a Canada - India direct run). Not exactly the cheapest option on those routes, and I have status on both.

But you are right about me not being concerned about them taking all kinds of traffic away from TATL routes. Why should I be? Which routes will be affected? Only the ones being used by transit traffic that is going to destinations close to DXB? Its not going to affect Europe travel. Its not going to affect Latin American travel. Its not going to affect US travel. Its only going to have a marginal affect, if at all, on East Asian travel. What's left? Northeastern, eastern and southern Africa + ME+ South, Southwest and Southeast Asia?

Which of Canada's EU destinations serve as transit hubs for those regions? FRA, CDG, LHR, ZRH, MUC, BRU, AMS - and maybe VIE and FCO? Missing any?

- CDG and LHR are massive O&D markets in their own right, so you won't see airlines leaving those routes. BA is already cutting capacity by replacing its entire fleet of 747s 1-for-1 with 787s, but they aren't leaving. AF leaving?
- FRA, MUC, BRU, ZRH, VIE - LH/AC and their metal neutral agreement have a stranglehold on that route on a year round basis. The rest of the operators are of the charter/seasonal variety.
- FCO- I don't know how much they rely on transit traffic. MXP is the better connected airport. A quick glance suggests that the only airport served by AZ east of DXB is NRT and KIX. Other airports that EK could siphon traffic off from are AUH, BEY, and IKE. If that's the traffic AZ relies on to keep their FCO-YYZ route up and running, they better get their house in order. Personally, I don't think they do, given the large Italian population in Canada.
- AMS - probably the weakest link because of its own heavy reliance on transit traffic, but I don't see any reason to protect KL on that route. If pax choose EK over KL, that's just the nature of the transit-pax heavy game they're playing. Not that there's all that much competition on Canada-AMS routes on a year round basis either.

Go ahead. Fix it if you wish. Will FRA and MUC take a hit if EK/EY/QR/TK get more access? If the consumers get to pick the winners and losers, then AC and LH will only have themselves to blame. Its fascinating how resistant some folk are to the idea of the consumer deciding which routes live and which routes don't. Personally, I have a hard time stomaching the implicit assumption that AC or Transport Canada know whats best for me.