Air Canada Proposes Unrestricted Open Skies With U.S. to Foster Competitive Environme
Dec 8, 2001, 6:00 pm
#46
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 164
AC*SE, I concur. I have yet to see our Minister of Transport develop any constructive air transport policy. Open Skies is the way to go. Think of the revenue potential of all those American passengers stopping over in YYZ!
Tom
Tom
Dec 8, 2001, 9:59 pm
#47
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: DTW
Programs: BW Diamond, Choice Plat, National Exec Elite
Posts: 3,120
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by AC*SE:
Um, you'd better have a Molson. Labatt is owned by Interbrew.
</font>
Um, you'd better have a Molson. Labatt is owned by Interbrew.
</font>
LOL... darn it, i try and make a point, and it backfires on me. You're right. Pass me an Ex, would ya?
[This message has been edited by duxfan (edited 12-08-2001).]
Dec 9, 2001, 6:21 am
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 20,550
I read an article in the G&M that the PM is going to shuffle some of the cabinet. Speculation was that Collenette was on his way to the backbenches to make room for new talent.The sooner the better for the flying public. In fact, speculation was that he would be rewarded with the High Commission in London. A classic example of the Roman axiom: "Promoveatur ut amoveatur"
Dec 9, 2001, 10:51 pm
#50
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Programs: BA GGL, FPC Plat, HH Diamond, IHG Amb
Posts: 3,372
Airbus320,
Collenette out of Cabinet? (There's Dante, tossing a snowball).
Collenette is an unwavering Chretien loyalist. He is the regional Minister for Toronto (i.e. porkbarrel czar for the GTA).
He may be ousted from Transport (from my keyboard to God's ear), but he will not leave Cabinet.
Hedy Fry, Lucienne Robillard, et. al. will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Collenette out of Cabinet? (There's Dante, tossing a snowball).
Collenette is an unwavering Chretien loyalist. He is the regional Minister for Toronto (i.e. porkbarrel czar for the GTA).
He may be ousted from Transport (from my keyboard to God's ear), but he will not leave Cabinet.
Hedy Fry, Lucienne Robillard, et. al. will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Dec 10, 2001, 12:39 pm
#51
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 20,550
Yesterday, I sent an e-mail to Robert MIlton expressing my appreciation for his initiative
in expanding Open Skies. I felt that Mr Collenette was not fair and expressed my support for this initiative as a framework for future discussion.
Guess what...24 later I received an e-mail from him.
From: Robert Milton@AC_EAST on 12/10/2001 02:18 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Letter of support
Dear Mr. (name deleted):
Thank you for your support and taking the time to share your views with me.
Judging by your hotmail address ("travelling Bob") you are most likely someone
who can speak about air transportation policy with some first hand experience.
You may want to drop a line to Minister Collenette to let him know what you
think.
All the best for the holiday season.
Robert
Robert A. Milton
President and Chief Executive Officer
[This message has been edited by airbus320 (edited 12-10-2001).]
in expanding Open Skies. I felt that Mr Collenette was not fair and expressed my support for this initiative as a framework for future discussion.
Guess what...24 later I received an e-mail from him.
From: Robert Milton@AC_EAST on 12/10/2001 02:18 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Letter of support
Dear Mr. (name deleted):
Thank you for your support and taking the time to share your views with me.
Judging by your hotmail address ("travelling Bob") you are most likely someone
who can speak about air transportation policy with some first hand experience.
You may want to drop a line to Minister Collenette to let him know what you
think.
All the best for the holiday season.
Robert
Robert A. Milton
President and Chief Executive Officer
[This message has been edited by airbus320 (edited 12-10-2001).]
Dec 10, 2001, 12:53 pm
#52
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 870
Talk about Collenette as a minister without a vision. I believe Milton is a CEO without a vision as well. Just look at all the crap we have been subjected to, as well as the myriad of business ventures AC is proposing. He doesn't stick with one long enough to reap the rewards (no pun intended) and then floats another half-cooked idea.
Dec 11, 2001, 6:39 pm
#54
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Kingston, Ont, the limestone city
Posts: 975
Custom is not an issue for transfer. Many immigrants came to Canada without a US Visa. They connect flights in American cities with the tag "TWOV" (transit without visa) and are kept in a separate waiting area so they cannot leave the airport.
Similar waiting lounge can be set up for Canadian transfers so passing custom is not needed until entry.
In fact, most Canadian airports do not have US custom except the major ones. If you fly from London Ontario, you will clear US custom on arrival.
Now this brings up another question... why do we let another country set up custom / jurisdiction on our territory anyway? Do we have any reciprocal custom territories in the US airports?
Now they just announced american marshalls can use firearms in Canada?
"Ottawa considering allowing armed U.S. customs agents in Canada "
Similar waiting lounge can be set up for Canadian transfers so passing custom is not needed until entry.
In fact, most Canadian airports do not have US custom except the major ones. If you fly from London Ontario, you will clear US custom on arrival.
Now this brings up another question... why do we let another country set up custom / jurisdiction on our territory anyway? Do we have any reciprocal custom territories in the US airports?
Now they just announced american marshalls can use firearms in Canada?
"Ottawa considering allowing armed U.S. customs agents in Canada "
Dec 12, 2001, 12:41 pm
#56
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Programs: BA GGL, FPC Plat, HH Diamond, IHG Amb
Posts: 3,372
Moremiles:
Customs is an issue. Only a small handful of flights to the US are not pre-cleared--those are the flights from smaller centres (e.g. YHZ, YSJ, YYJ and YQB) and the flights from third country carriers who don't pay for pre-clearance, (e.g. CX YVR-JFK).
The vast majority of flights leave from the pre-cleared stations. You cannot mix passengers in sterile transit with US bound passengers on a pre-cleared flight--so either the entire flight is sterile, making it useless for US bound passengers, or you require transit passengers to pre-clear.
As for why we allow the Americans to operate pre-flight inspection--we do it for the same reason the the Bermudians, the Irish and the Bahamians do. The Americans want to do it, and the airlines are prepared to pay for it.
Canadian passengers would not have access to most of the smaller airports that AC and the US carriers fly to (not to mention a couple of majors like LGA and DCA) were it not for the fact that these flights are pre-cleared.
While the Americans would certainly allow for reciprocal pre-clearance stations (it is in the Agreement), it is not really attractive to us--there are too many US points of departure, coming to relatively few Canadian airports. The cost of assigning Canadian officers to these points is high, and airlines are not overly keen to provide the real estate.
Looking into my crystal ball, however, I would be prepared to wager that the next pre-flight inspection station may well be a joint Canada-US station, located in a third country. A pilot project could be set up in BDA very quickly to test joint operations and information sharing.
For full implementation the obvious candidate is LHR. You could easily sterilize the far pier of T3--after all, AA and UA pretty much own it. The UK government would be reasonably likely to cooperate on such an arrangement--provided that they can get their house in order on réfoulement.
Customs is an issue. Only a small handful of flights to the US are not pre-cleared--those are the flights from smaller centres (e.g. YHZ, YSJ, YYJ and YQB) and the flights from third country carriers who don't pay for pre-clearance, (e.g. CX YVR-JFK).
The vast majority of flights leave from the pre-cleared stations. You cannot mix passengers in sterile transit with US bound passengers on a pre-cleared flight--so either the entire flight is sterile, making it useless for US bound passengers, or you require transit passengers to pre-clear.
As for why we allow the Americans to operate pre-flight inspection--we do it for the same reason the the Bermudians, the Irish and the Bahamians do. The Americans want to do it, and the airlines are prepared to pay for it.
Canadian passengers would not have access to most of the smaller airports that AC and the US carriers fly to (not to mention a couple of majors like LGA and DCA) were it not for the fact that these flights are pre-cleared.
While the Americans would certainly allow for reciprocal pre-clearance stations (it is in the Agreement), it is not really attractive to us--there are too many US points of departure, coming to relatively few Canadian airports. The cost of assigning Canadian officers to these points is high, and airlines are not overly keen to provide the real estate.
Looking into my crystal ball, however, I would be prepared to wager that the next pre-flight inspection station may well be a joint Canada-US station, located in a third country. A pilot project could be set up in BDA very quickly to test joint operations and information sharing.
For full implementation the obvious candidate is LHR. You could easily sterilize the far pier of T3--after all, AA and UA pretty much own it. The UK government would be reasonably likely to cooperate on such an arrangement--provided that they can get their house in order on réfoulement.
Dec 12, 2001, 2:34 pm
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,823
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by AC*SE:
Customs is an issue. Only a small handful of flights to the US are not pre-cleared--those are the flights from smaller centres (e.g. YHZ, YSJ, YYJ and YQB)
</font>
Customs is an issue. Only a small handful of flights to the US are not pre-cleared--those are the flights from smaller centres (e.g. YHZ, YSJ, YYJ and YQB)
</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
and the flights from third country carriers who don't pay for pre-clearance, (e.g. CX YVR-JFK).
</font>
and the flights from third country carriers who don't pay for pre-clearance, (e.g. CX YVR-JFK).
</font>
The vast majority of flights leave from the pre-cleared stations. You cannot mix passengers in sterile transit with US bound passengers on a pre-cleared flight--so either the entire flight is sterile, making it useless for US bound passengers, or you require transit passengers to pre-clear.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
For full implementation the obvious candidate is LHR. You could easily sterilize the far pier of T3--after all, AA and UA pretty much own it. </font>
For full implementation the obvious candidate is LHR. You could easily sterilize the far pier of T3--after all, AA and UA pretty much own it. </font>
Dec 12, 2001, 9:05 pm
#60
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan SE AND 1MM, HHonors Gold, Marriott Bonvoy Platinum , L'Accor Platinum
Posts: 9,596
Shareholder has stated the passenger travel volume between the 10 most frequently travelled city pairs in Canada.
I would be interested, if some one had such data, for similar information between the 10 most frequently travelled city pairs in USA.
One can then appreciate the desirability (or the lack of it) to US carriers of flying such Canadian routes - if the traffic volume on those 10 routes was much, much more than the 10 Canadian counterparts - would it then make any financial or logistic sense for US air carriers to "take advantage" of a potential opportunity to fly these busiest Canadian routes?
[This message has been edited by FlyerGoldII (edited 12-12-2001).]
I would be interested, if some one had such data, for similar information between the 10 most frequently travelled city pairs in USA.
One can then appreciate the desirability (or the lack of it) to US carriers of flying such Canadian routes - if the traffic volume on those 10 routes was much, much more than the 10 Canadian counterparts - would it then make any financial or logistic sense for US air carriers to "take advantage" of a potential opportunity to fly these busiest Canadian routes?
[This message has been edited by FlyerGoldII (edited 12-12-2001).]