Air Canada Announces Toronto-Mumbai 787 Dreamliner Service
Sep 29, 2016, 1:45 pm
#16
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YUL
Programs: Skymiles Silver Medallion
Posts: 955
Sep 29, 2016, 3:49 pm
#17
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
We would even let AC buy cheaper blankets from China. Oh, wait...
Sep 29, 2016, 4:06 pm
#18
Join Date: May 2013
Location: west coast best coast
Programs: TINDER GOLD, STARBUCKS GOLD, COSTCO EXECUTIVE!!
Posts: 3,989
So lets get this straight
Air Canada should be free to shuttle people between USA and Mumbai via a 3rd city - However, ME3 should be banned from transporting people Between Canada and Mumbai via a 3rd city
Even our resident AC SD confirmed that most of the people on their TLV-YYZ flights, continue onwards to the USA.
By your warped logic, there should be a limit on YYZ-TLV flights because there is not enough traffic and AC resorts to flying people from a 3rd country (USA).
Air Canada should be free to shuttle people between USA and Mumbai via a 3rd city - However, ME3 should be banned from transporting people Between Canada and Mumbai via a 3rd city
Even our resident AC SD confirmed that most of the people on their TLV-YYZ flights, continue onwards to the USA.
By your warped logic, there should be a limit on YYZ-TLV flights because there is not enough traffic and AC resorts to flying people from a 3rd country (USA).
There IS a limit on the number of YYZ-TLV flights.
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/israel
It's not as if Air Canada is free to fly as much as they want to the UAE but Emirates is blocked from flying into Canada.
It's tit-for-tat, and Air Canada doesn't want Emirates flying an a380 to every Canadian city, when they have no need to fly to the UAE, because there is realistically no OD market other than connecting traffic.
This is how it works.
Sep 29, 2016, 4:09 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM SK EBG LATAM BL
Posts: 23,312
We all know how it works.
AC is very happy with current outdated bilaterals and fought vigourosly to keep the govt from negotiating new ones. At the cost of billions to taxpayers no less with the base snafu, all to subsidize AC with protectionism.
AC is very happy with current outdated bilaterals and fought vigourosly to keep the govt from negotiating new ones. At the cost of billions to taxpayers no less with the base snafu, all to subsidize AC with protectionism.
Sep 29, 2016, 4:12 pm
#20
Join Date: May 2013
Location: west coast best coast
Programs: TINDER GOLD, STARBUCKS GOLD, COSTCO EXECUTIVE!!
Posts: 3,989
How is keeping the ME3 out costing billions to taxpayers? That they can't get a cheap ticket to Africa to line the Sheik shareholders and instead have to spend the money on a domestic carrier that employs Canadians?
I don't really know if that's the case, since you just used the example of Air Canada being able to fly USA-Canada-XXX as an example of why Emirates should be able to fly Canada-Dubai-XXX. They are extremely different.
One is enabled by open skies treaty with the US, the other is limited by bilateral negotiations.
It's like saying, because with have NAFTA, therefore, we should sign an immediate FTA with all other countries. It's only fair!
Sep 29, 2016, 4:16 pm
#21
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE*2MM. SPG Plat life
Posts: 4,644
It's not a subsidize to AC, but a protection to the Canadian economy. Almost every industry in Canada/World has import restriction on manufacturing and services protection Canadian jobs..
Sep 29, 2016, 5:11 pm
#22
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
How is keeping the Walmart out costing billions to taxpayers? That they can't get cheaper groceries to line the American shareholders and instead have to spend the money on a Loblaws that employs Canadians?
How is keeping Boeing/Airbus out costing billions to AC? That they can't get a cheaper/better plane to line the US/EU shareholders and instead have to spend the money on Bombardier that employs Canadians?
To be clear, your argument lacks merit. Why? If we used your logic across the board, we would be much, much worse off.
As for FTAs, since NAFTA we've been pursuing FTAs just about everywhere from CARICOM to the EU to the Dominican Republic. So...why not?
Sep 29, 2016, 5:12 pm
#23
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
What's the import restriction on Apple phones? Or Nike shoes? I'm genuinely curious.
Sep 29, 2016, 5:55 pm
#27
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: YOW
Programs: AC E75K *G
Posts: 7,108
The people who argue most strongly on the internet for totally free open markets with no borders tend to be those people who naively think they will actually be the "winners" in such a situation.
(Hint: they won't.)
(Hint: they won't.)
Sep 29, 2016, 5:56 pm
#28
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE*2MM. SPG Plat life
Posts: 4,644
Quotas? Quota was usually talked about regarding clothing and the government stop using the quota system years age. Duties were set up to increase the cost imported goods, giving domestic manufactures a price advantage(in theory). IE, same as restricting ME# airlines. Plus, ME3 airline are fully subsidized by their government and I do not want Canadian airlines subsidized.
Sep 29, 2016, 5:57 pm
#29
Join Date: May 2013
Location: west coast best coast
Programs: TINDER GOLD, STARBUCKS GOLD, COSTCO EXECUTIVE!!
Posts: 3,989
How is keeping Samsung out costing billions to taxpayers? That they can't get a better/cheaper phone to line the Korean shareholders and instead have to spend the money on Blackberry that employs Canadians?
How is keeping the Walmart out costing billions to taxpayers? That they can't get cheaper groceries to line the American shareholders and instead have to spend the money on a Loblaws that employs Canadians?
How is keeping Boeing/Airbus out costing billions to AC? That they can't get a cheaper/better plane to line the US/EU shareholders and instead have to spend the money on Bombardier that employs Canadians?
To be clear, your argument lacks merit. Why? If we used your logic across the board, we would be much, much worse off.
As for FTAs, since NAFTA we've been pursuing FTAs just about everywhere from CARICOM to the EU to the Dominican Republic. So...why not?
How is keeping the Walmart out costing billions to taxpayers? That they can't get cheaper groceries to line the American shareholders and instead have to spend the money on a Loblaws that employs Canadians?
How is keeping Boeing/Airbus out costing billions to AC? That they can't get a cheaper/better plane to line the US/EU shareholders and instead have to spend the money on Bombardier that employs Canadians?
To be clear, your argument lacks merit. Why? If we used your logic across the board, we would be much, much worse off.
As for FTAs, since NAFTA we've been pursuing FTAs just about everywhere from CARICOM to the EU to the Dominican Republic. So...why not?
FYI there are duties on a lot of imports, including Samsung phones. And Boeing and Airbus employs many Canadians, as does Walmart CANADA. They are Canadian divisions of US companies with Canadian management.
Agreed.
Sep 29, 2016, 6:21 pm
#30
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Adam Smith (the real one, not the FT version) is very clear about who the 'winners' of free trade are: consumers. That is to say, the vast, vast majority of the population. Not a handful of 'naive' people. I think history has proven that, while not perfect, it's a lot better than the mercantilist stuff being spouted in favour of protectionism.
How well off are we with dairy supply management? (For the record, AC compared air travel to dairy supply management, not me)