Guy Betsy

How about this one...

I see that flights ex-Brazil has no fuel surcharges...

From YVR to GRU via YYZ, a flight adds an additional US$ 255.60 to the fare, of which the YQ is US$ 160.20. But if the flight originates from GRU to YVR via YYZ, the total taxes are only US$ 95.40... with absolutely NO YQ taxes !!

Having said that, at least AC respects the airports/countries that it flies from...

Flights on BA and VS... however still attract a YQ irrespective of which airport they fly from! See my thread at the BA forum:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...l#post14444263

rehoult

Thanks YOWkid, that was one of the best summaries I've read in a while.

rehoult

BA (mostly due to LHR) is a special, special place. I redeemed J for me and my wife this summer on IAH-LHR-CAI/TLV-LHR-YVR. It was $1850 in taxes and fees. Oww.

YOWkid

Except for the most obscure points or points in Africa, there is almost no point in this world that you can't already get to with more than one stop.

For those points in India, you can fly AI. Those points in Pakistan, you can fly PK. For points in Egypt, fly EG. These are all one stop services. I'm sure those three carriers fly, within their home countries, to more points within their home countries than EK to their countries.

As an aside, most Pakistanis and Indians will fly whatever routing if they can save a few dollar. There will be exceptions, but this is pretty much a well known fact.

Ah, but it's not just AC losing out on European routes. AC would also lose out on Asia, Australia, and South Africa, not to mention Middle East, India, etc. Because don't forget, AC codeshares with its partners and they have deals with their *A partners.

And look at it from a different point of view (from consumers point of view, that is), and I'm not going to give a doomday scenario (because I think that could be a bit stretched and it would be as categorical as others who argue, who cares about AC, it's all about me). Right now, AC offers about 9-10 flights a day between Canada and LHR. Many of those pax are connecting to other services offered by *A partners, such as BD, AI, LH, SA, OS, etc. Many of those are also connecting on to non-* carriers, including EK, EY, and the whole lot. Let's say that UAE carriers were allowed to come in without any restriction as to points in Canada, frequency, and aircraft type. Ok, so we know EY would go daily at YYZ. EK would also go daily at YYZ, and probably at YVR, and would probably fly into YYC. Let's just say that YYC will be shared with YVR. So 21 flights a week into Canada to third country points via the UAE.

1) That's overkill because most of that traffic (if not all!) would be connecting and not be destined to the UAE.

Maybe I'm more old school, but it is important to note that these are bilateral air transport agreements. So carriers using them are supposed to use them bilaterally. To keep their services flying, they should be relying solely on bilateral traffic and then using sixth freedom to top up their services. EK and EY on the other hand (and SQ falls into this category as well) rely on sixth freedom traffic and not bilateral traffic to survive, hence the reason why they are so gung ho on pushing for more rights.

2) To convince people to fly them instead of other carriers, they will compete on price. Or they will throw in things into the airfare, like free night in DXB/AUH on the airline's dime, etc. As I said in a previous post, Canadians are very price sensitive. So, many are likely to take them up on their offer.

3) So what does that mean for services of Canadian carriers? Probably for TS will keep on going as it has been -- but prices might be driven down a little bit; but given their services are mainly Europe only, not much would happen unless EK started fifth freedom services between Canada and DXB via LON or CDG. WS's plans to start transatlantic or transpacific services could be derailed or refigured (assuming they have some). AC's services would probably drop. Prices would and revenue therefore would. So instead of the 9-10 daily Canada-LHR flights, it might drop to say 6-7 and the YOWLHR, YHZLHR, and YEGLHR might disappear. Or the frequency of YYZLHR or YULLHR flights might fall. Canada-FRA would likely decrease in frequency. HKG and NRT might suffer. SYD would very likely suffer. Services could be withdrawn from certain lower yield markets. India probably would never start back up (assuming AC has real plans to do so). You get the idea.

Who benefits in the short run? Consumers, yes. Airports, probably. But who benefits in the long run? I'm not sure consumers would (prices likely to increase over time once certain competitors are taken out of the market), airports probably won't (yes, larger planes landing, but fewer planes landing as frequently so loser revenues). Canadian jobs at air carriers likely to be lost. Or big salary cuts.

So does this mean more choice for consumers in the longer run? I'm not so sure.

4) Canada's international partners could get pissed off because someone is stealing traffic away from not only AC, but their carrier(s) as well. For example, it pissed South Korea off to no end when Canada gave Singapore the permission for SQ to operate Canada-Singapore services via ICN thrice weekly. This limited the growth (and potentially economic viability) of not only AC's Canada-Korea services, but also KE and potentially OZ's Korea-Canada services as well. Again, back to the definition of bilateral partners. This could also mean that a partner country's airline is forced to cease services altogether.

5) This also matters because some countries link air services to other international matters / bilateral stuff, or will not give you what you want in a negotiation without paying a huge price, or make life difficult for your own carrier when operating on the partner's turf.

6) Also, don't forget that EK and EY are owned by the DXB and AUH governments. While they swear they are not subsidized by the crown, I find it a bit suspicious that (especially in the case of EK): a) they are owned by the crown and there are few other shareholders; b) the head of state for the Dubai Emirate is the top dog at EK; c) the top dog is also the Minister of Transport; d) the country's marketing and EK's marketing is so intertwined (free marketing for EK -- a form of a subsidy that, say, AC doesn't enjoy -- or at least not to the same extent); e) airport also owned and operated by a state company; ... you get the idea.

Now you're likely to force Canadian carriers to be more innovative, to cut costs, to change service, etc., but I would suspect that all that may not be enough.

YOWkid

Was going to add that everyone has their advantage and if one were to use those arguments to explain why a certain country is not liberalizing, then I think that would be disingeniune, hence the reason why I don't use it.

For example, we have the advantage (and detriment) of being geographically large. So we can play countries off on points, and we get more for air navigation fees (yes we also have to offer services to), but we're not at the end end point (like Australia).

But that being said, we have to operate in the winter and deal with those conditions which others don't have to deal with etc. So our operating costs will almost always be higher because our operating environment, weatherwise, is different.

yulred

Good stuff YOWkid. I did not pay attention to the aviation industry till 2006, when my air travel increased exponentially - had to travel to India, China and the UK more often than I wanted, or cared to.

All of this stuff is well thought out and argued - definitely a refreshing break from some of the more aggressive (occassionally abusive) stuff I ve gotten from AC apologists on other boards.

I am probably going to shift back to Aeroplan since my work in India has come to an end and most future travel will be to the UK, with the exception of maybe 1 trip a year to India. Throughout my trips there, I travelled primarily on 9W, which is a terrific airline in J and Y. Sadly, I won't be travelling there too often anymore so staying with 9W is pointless, though I think AC has a codeshare of sorts with 9W on India flights. In all likelihood, I should be able to get to Elite status with AC fairly easily - maybe my opinion of them will change? Truthbetold, I was really hoping AI would stay on the LHR route since it would give me a *A alternative to AC. Not to mention the lower fuel surcharges (and consequently, fares) that they charge on this route. The biggest mistake that AI made was not to sell seats through travelocity and expedia - I really think its costing them a lot of business.

Oh well. I would still like to hear AC justify the fuel surcharges. Its become like one of those annoying 'temporary' taxes that will never go away.

payam81

Dude, do you work for Transport Canada or something?

I don't think SQ falls in to this category at all as they do not really compete in terms of price and that's the reason they scrapped their three-times-weekly SIN-ICN-YVR, which is a shame as the only easy way to get to SIN from Canada is through a lengthy connection @ NRT, FRA or LHR with minimum 26 hours total time.

djjaguar64

No matter what YOWkid has to say we are being duped again and again by AC's high FUEL surcharges and no one gives a hoot in this country.

yulred

In all fairness, price gouging is pretty commonplace in Canada. Maybe Canadians just expect no better? Take a look at the telecoms sector....

djjaguar64

Yes agreed, only after they allowed competition are we beginning to see some changes, and remember the System Access Fee(BS). We are just so compliant and obedient.

YOWkid

Nope, sorry to disappoint you.

jarusoba

What is EG? Japan Asia Airways?

rehoult

I'm going to guess he meant MS (Egypt Air).

seanthepilot

This info 'the Kid' provided is great, but

I don't know how this relates to the practice of unreasonable fuel surcharges.

yulred

It doesn't. There are no easy answers, so you can expect a lot of deaf ears. Sebring said he would get back to us on this but he hasn't bothered. I know, for a fact, that he's been active on flyertalk since, so I am assuming that either even he doesn't know the answer, or he, like others on this board, realises that sharing the information would be a lot more damaging to AC's reputation than simply ignoring the question.

Perhaps they will read this and bother to respond. And when they do, maybe they will also enlighten us on how AC manages to run up losses despite the additional revenue streams (blankets, food, pillows, headsets), lower expenditure (on blankets, catering, pillows, headsets) and bizzare fuel surcharges.

If you are hoping for a coherent answer, I suggest you watch/read Waiting for Godot. Its going to be a long long wait. After all, what would Canada be without its little monopolies and oligopolies. Living in a country where two or three firms provide identical services at identical prices and praise themselves on coping with the 'competition' has a certain charm.