Sure. If by "certain parameters" you mean "what's best for AC". As noted in the Government's 2016 review of the Canadian Transportation Act.

"Since 2006, Canada’s balanced approach to determining the national interest seems to have emphasized Air Canada’s well-being as the starting point; from there, any relaxation of policy to allow foreign airlines added access has apparently been measured against its potentially negative impact on Air Canada’s existing, and potential, routes."

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ctareview2014/CTAR_Vol2_EN.pdf

Funny how they refer only to AC, eh?

Perhaps, but if that's the case, why not withdraw unilaterally immediately instead of dragging negotiations on, and ignoring the UAE ambassador for two years? Try doing that with an India or a China and see how it works out. (Hint: not well for AC).

There's folk out there who claim it cost Canada a UN Security Council seat. In fact, there's a real possibility that the expansion of landing rights is linked to the upcoming bid for a UNSC seat.

In any event, I think the most childish incident during that episode was watching the AC COO criticizing the elected leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition for doing what opposition leaders are supposed to do.

Also, what do you think the Australian government made of all the criticism and lies AC spread about it and it's aviation policy?

Plenty of ideas on display these days. Especially with the current US administration. Generally a bad idea to let perceived attitudes and disrespect determine the outcome. Let's leave that ego-lead brand of diplomacy to the North Koreas of this world.

If that's what this is about, time to slam the door on India and China and other countries with state-subsidized carriers. Or is it a pick and choose depending on what suits AC.

Well, yes, the benefits of one-stop connectivity to regions that Canadians of European origin had/have no interest in visiting are inevitably easy to dismiss. But the reality is that between 2010 and 2018, the number of Canadian citizens and permanent residents from the Indian Subcontinent alone has increased by roughly 600,000. And it will increase by another 70,000 this year alone: Heaven forbid making travel more convenient travel options to them. And no, let's not pretend PK, which is regularly blacklisted by the EU on safety grounds, is a viable option for everyone. God knows how long it will survive.

Depends on which "Canadian" traveller you're referring to. If the loss of one YYZ-FRA flight means hundreds Canadian travellers travelling to India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka now get there one-stop instead of two-stop, is that a bad thing? After all, any fairness principle would dictate that forcing one Canadian, on a longer journey, stop twice to benefit another Canadian get a non-stop to the EU, compares unfavourably to scenarios in which both would have to stop once. Why not let the flying public decide?

Demographics are changing.

I guess you'll stand alongside US protectionists when they use your own position to tank the Canadian economy. Can't have it both ways.

Economic patriotism is the last refuge of bad economics.

Well "National interest" includes the well being of our international carriers, isn't it?

An AC COO is definitely not a gouvernment official. He definitely can say anything, and if incompetent (or arrogant...), he just gets fired. I'm curious, did he get fired?

I'm not aware of that one. Interesting, I'll check it out. FWIW, EK themselves also have been pretty vocal criticizing aviation policies of certain gouvernments...

Indeed

Among state subsidized carriers, EK presented the most damage potential. FWIW, Canada was not the only country to restrict EK expensions.

About China and India, we've done pretty good with them in terms of win-win route agreements. No fixing req'd if it's not broken.

We now have nonstop flights to the subcontinent - not sure if that would have been the case had we given EK unlimited A380s access.

AC has now achieved a critical mass, with a very efficient / competitive network. The 787s also made many long thin routes profitable - particularly well suited for AC's international network. (The CSeries will also achieve similar efficiencies on the medium haul)

Indeed. And I definitely agree with the notion of free market economy.

But air routes negociations between countries have never been about free market economy. It always has been about "bilateral" win-win scenarios. And it gets even more complicated when one country is "perceived" to subsidize its carriers big time (UAE...)

About the loss of one "YYZ-FRA"; again, having allowed EK daily A380s, current non-stop flights to the subcontinent would not be as they are now - whatever the carriers.

Someone with more intimate knowledge of routes profitability would provide you many more examples of non-stop routes at risk.

$132 million

This tiny number in the world of high finance = 2% of AC nominal mkt cap.

and why is 2% even relevant to this discussion- hint, look at Thread on Transport Modernization ACT?

Well, AC can have 49% foreign ownership now, so the national interest is protected presumably by requiring $132 million of AC capital held in Canada. And of course 49% of profits can also leave the country too.

by comparison, 14 acre future residential site next to where I live in Burnaby, BC just traded hands for $140 mil.

And guess what, Canada dies not at present limit foreign land ownership in something far more important than a vehicle with wings to go get drunk on a beach somewhere - at least not yet.

only question left is when does the 2% limit disappear too, I don’t know, but I’ve been in this business long enough to know when the thought of even getting to 25% was radical.