yulred

Anything can appear complicated if one permits sufficient obfuscation.

At the end of the day, 'mutual benefits', 'local markets' and other irrelevant nonsense counts for nought. The only thing that matters is the consumer's decision on who to spend his/her money on. Airlines seek protection when they fear that, given a choice, consumers will choose a different airline.

As for the bus example, if there is a market, it will be served. One need look no further than remote northern Canada, which has been forsaken by private AC for not being profitable enough, but still possesses an air travel network. Or are you suggesting that we should nationalize AC and force them to serve the North?

Transpacificflyer

Whoa. I see a few examples provided for the subsidies and funny financing practices of the ME airlines. Well, what if I told you, that we have done the same in Canada?

1. Qatar and its airport is mentioned: Remember the white elephant Mirabel Airport? It was an infrastructure project initiated and built during the reign of Trudeau I.In 1975 it cost $500 million. That's about $2.5 billion in 2015 dollars. How is this so different than the Qatari deal?

Many of Canada's regional airports have been given money over the years to pay for development. Sometimes its big money and sometimes its small. Last July, Saskatoon and Regina airports were given money from the Western Economic Diversification Canada fund to support the expanded development of flight service to Saskatoon and Regina from U.S. airports.
Hello? do you see that? How is it different from what the Gulf governments do?

2. Emirates was allowed to engage in creative accounting with government funds. We have just had a discussion government support of AC in 2009.
How is the Emirates in principle different from the Government of Canada taking EDC funds and General Account funds and "lending" them to AC?

3. Etihad is accused of shifting assets within its group and holding it out as an arms length transaction. Ok. How then was the $300 million loan from ACE and Aeroplan to AC any different, ethically? They were all related companies.

If some foreign government wants to subsidize my air travel, good for them. I'll consider taking the money. However, there are plenty of valid reasons to avoid Gulf and ME carriers. AC hasn't got the balls to be honest about them either. I won't fly on the Gulf region carriers or transit the region. AC is relying on the bogus subsidy argument and the airline has it wrong.

Transpacificflyer

Northern Canada benefits from local support programs. You seem to be unaware that the provinces and territories own and operate a large number of airports. Northwest Territories - 27 Yukon - 29, Nunavut - 3. The federal government provides funds under the National Airports Policy Airport Capital Assistance Program (ACAP) which helps airports with safety-related capital projects. First Nation and Inuit owned or JV air carriers are indirectly subsidised through the Ministry responsible for First Nations and Inu. In other cases, the treatment of taxes and exemptions provides indirect support. For example, Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation in the Yukon owns the Vuntut Development Corp., which in turn co-owns Air North airline. The funding for the Development Corp. was derived in large part from money provided by the federal government.

eigenvector

Air Canada isn't a public (state controlled) company nor is it a public service. Instead, it has all the benefits of being government controlled - legally protected from competition, shored up financially in tough times with public money - yet none of the obligations to deal fairly and equally with Canadians. And its investors get to keep all the profits.

Air Canada does not serve any market in Canada which it deems unprofitable nor is there any regulation of its pricing. Protecting AC from competition is simply corporate welfare with no public benefit.

Arcanum

Having flown EK, QR, and EY in F on their A380s in the last couple of months, I can assure you I would be one of the first to flock if given the chance. The level of comfort and service is far beyond anything AC or its European partners can provide.

After showering on a plane, debates about the size of footwells on 787s seem rather pointless.

Hello again

They don't oppose via rail or greyhound.

Is it ok that UA sells YYZ/ORD/DXB for the same fare? and who says it is below cost? You? And on what basis do you say that?

Your logic is correct but won't satisfy the AC haters club. They also do not realize that any loss of international traffic will put more pressure on domestic flights which the government will indirectly protect.

There is no such thing as a true free market as the keystone pipeline issue has exploited.

It maybe somewhat biased but is factual. A level playing field is inherent in any bilateral dealings. No government will give away local jobs for something that is heavily subsidized in another Country.

Canada has generally done well with free trade as we have things to sell other Countries we are involved with. What does opening up the skies between the ME and Canada do for our economy and jobs? Those are the questions government will look into, not the well being of AC. That is what the AC haters seem to always forget in their misguided logic.

How many employees does AC have who support families and our economy. 28,000 at last count. I would say the profits are well earned on that basis.

That's my humour for the day

yulred

I wasn't. And it's very interesting. I understand that the U.S. Has similar programs too.

And an Open Skies policy to go with it. Suffice it to say, I don't think government intervention in the form of protectionism contributes to this, which I think was the point the poster I responded to was trying to make.

After all, from his example, there is nothing wrong with the folk of Forest Lane forming and funding a Forest Lane bus service to take them downtown. It would be considered 'subsidized', but it doesn't need protectionism to start or stay afloat.

Hello again

How is it protected from competition?
ON TATL alone it has AF,KLM,BA,AT,WJA,Thomas Cook, Icelandic and others including the american carriers.

On TAPC they have just as many including all the Chinese airlines, Korean, Japanese and Philippine airlines plus the American carriers.

I cannot believe you are stretching the truth the way you do. Mirabel was built in the 70's and since then every major airport in Canada is self funding and charges through the nose for airlines to use their premises and runways.
The rest of your diatribe is jut plain bogus for many reasons.

yulred

I'm fine with it. Isn't competition great?

The only odd thing about it is that AC seems to require a Rouge product with similar fares to make money on far shorter flights to Europe. Makes one wonder if the infamous low-yield pax travelling to BCN is actually low-yield, considering he's paying roughly the same fare for half the distance. What gives?

Theres plenty of airlines that want to fly more to Canada but can't because of protectionist measures. Even if you take out the ME3, TK and ET come to mind. If it's already a competitive market, what's a few more airlines flying daily to one or two cities.

We've heard this before. Everyone already has 'enough' choice, right? The good (or bad) news is that this status quo impulse appears to have been upended by a new sentiment along the lines of 'we can always do better'. Let's see if it sticks.

1. A level playing field is not inherent in any bilateral dealings. There's no such thing as a level playing field. Canadian companies already give away jobs to countries with artificially low compensation packages (any country with weak labor laws and no minimum wages really).

2. Canada imported $86 million worth of goods from the UAE in 2014. It exported $1.77 billion to the UAE. You do the math.

3. 28,000 employees will not lose their jobs on the back of a more liberal aviation policy. There's an entire domestic market. With YEG-LHR gone and YOW-FRA a 5 weekly seasonal (Rovinescu's own example) the impact on international routes is going to be limited. The Rouge routes won't be affected at all - only LHR, FRA and MUC might.

In any case, the jobs argument is irrelevant. AC made it irrelevant when it shipped Aveos jobs out. Airlines don't exist to give their employees something to do. They exist to get people to where they want to go to.

24left

I think I'm going to quote you. ^

rankourabu

You dont understand - to some here, AC is the best airline in the world. The 787 is state of the art and as good as it gets. Period. In reality, AC is crap (along with their JV partners LH,UA) - and would lose thousands of pax, including premium pax to the ME3. Like someone has already said - you cant really expect any different from AC but to fight, lie, steal and cheat to keep the ME3 out.


wow, looks like this issue has Oakville riled up again!

YYZ-IAD-DXB on UA are the exact same published fares as YYZ-DXB on AC.
Both collude on pricing TATL - along with LH.

Transpacificflyer

I have not stretched the truth. You state that EVERY major airport in Canada is self funding. It looks like you are relying on the Canadian Council of Airports talking points. Sorry, but it is you who is demonstrating a lack of honesty. I provided examples of how the air industry benefits from public policy, and you have not rebutted that.

True or False, the provinces and territories own and operate a large number of airports across Canada. The operations are paid for out of the provincial or territory revenues, some of which are derived from Federal transfer payments.

True or False, much of the air service in Canada's North including all territories and provinces have First Nations and Inuit ownership. The First Nations and Inuit have prudently used; the funds transferred by federal and provincial governments from land claim settlements, from annual First Nation directed disbursements and from other agreements to fund the air services.

True of False the Federal and provincial governments have provided money to regional airports to fund expansion and market development. (Hint, I gave the example of the Regina and Saskatoon airport funding in July.)

All of the funding and other support are necessary for national security and community development. However the fact remains that the funding is there.

In respect to the major airports, a case can be made that the rent paid by the major airports to the landowner, Canada is below market value. As well, it has been argued that the ability of the airports to use “payments in lieu of tax” to municipal and provincial governments across Canada allows the airport authorities to reduce their tax burden, providing an indirect subsidy.

You claim that the airlines pay through the nose to use airports. Yes, the fees seem high at some airports. However, the major airports are set up as non-profit entities which means that the money is invested back into the airports, benefiting the airlines. It doesn't get sucked out and then handed back in politically based funding decisions as is the case with many foreign airports. Again, I point out that many rural airports are supported by the provinces and territories. The landing fees are kept low intentionally because of the importance of the airports.

You dismiss my examples as a "diatribe". Ok then. How about providing some examples to substantiate your claims? That should be interesting, because you will be hard pressed to do so. Waving your hand about and saying no, is not a valid argument.

jlisi984

So much hypocrisy in this one thread.
The same people who complain about AC service say either open the gates or keep them closed.
I think we all realize that in reasonable terms AC cannot compete with EK, keeping within virtues associated with Canada (unions, equality, workers' rights, etc. etc.). But that doesn't mean AC is great and we should let it sit on its' laurels.
Guess why AC hasn't followed UA/DL and possibly AA in making a revenue-based programme? Because most of us would earn way more miles under such a programme. We overpay for our flights within Canada. The international ones have only dropped in price recently with the aggressive entry of AFKL into Western Canada and BA. AC won't initiate any good sale, it'll simply copy AFKL.
All this to say - I have mixed feelings about EK having more rights into Canada, as my primary travel patterns are to Europe (not DXB or Asia). I'm already annoyed when YYC-FRA schedules are adjusted to better connect to Far East flights... and I completely don't understand it either. From our knowledge on the board, that's the lowest fare group: VFR travellers to India/Sri Lanka and leisure travellers to surrounding areas. Yet AC seems to prioritize that traffic over European business traffic. Makes no sense to me, but must make sense to some bean-counter. Wonder if (s)he's sitting at a desk in Montreal or in India.

nihonto

AC has continually told us that what's bad for us is good for them. Smaller seats. Worse service. Fewer upgrades. Rouge.

So, it stands to reason that what's bad for them is good for us. So if they are complaining about this already to the government, it'll work out great for us as flyers. More capacity AC. You've been bragging about your ability to load up the slave ships. You've run your little collusion scam over the atlantic long enough. You're making money hand over fist and giving it to the execs. Our money.

Time for a little bit of free market medicine I think.

why fly

well not for some SE posting here, or flyers stuck in cities only served by AC, those customers seem to want to subsidize AC at any cost to the taxpayer. Rather than think that AC can compete they want AC to be a company constantly on the dole sucking money from the govt.
Perhaps the Liberals will look at this issue, however the same bad bureaucrats, are still in Transport Canada that have no idea what they are doing. Reality its time to do major shakeups in Ottawa bureaucracy, but i very much doubt that's going to happen.