Tim Clark said on Emirates radio in board that they want to do double daily a380 to Toronto.

OT: I think I have found literally the only other person other than me who listens to that channel ^ :D

+1, guilty as charged

:D

+2

+3 ;)

Flanagan, in one of his last interviews at the beginning of the year stated EK could justify double daily to YYZ and YVR, and daily to YYC and YUL if they had the traffic rights. That would seriously put a dent in AC's transatlantic traffic and Star Alliance tie up with LH, who are the ones who would really suffer.

It would put them out of business so it's a form of govt subsidy.

I wouldn't go as far as to say it would put AC out of business, but it would bring welcome competition to the consumer, and force AC to be more competitive.

If BUF airport had a long enough runway you bet EK would start BUF-DXB purely to get people from the Golden Horseshoe.

It seemed to me that one of the primary concerns surrounding the competition of Emirates entering the Canadian market was the worry that yields would fall, and that certain routes wouldn't be feasible to operate. It was also mentioned that Air Canada wouldn't have have been able to economically serve the key markets that Emirates would be connecting traffic to/from, ie. the Indian subcontinent.

However now, the Dreamliner has entered Air Canada's fleet, the airline is profitable, routes are now being started to Delhi and Dubai, and Air Canada's low cost carrier Rouge is making many once uneconomical routes, economical for Air Canada.

It seems to be pretty evident that it would be almost a no-brainer for Canada to increase the number of frequencies allowed to Emirates/Etihad, to bring in some more competition on a market that's unfairly polarized towards Air Canada.

I think it would be great that Emirates even go daily to YYZ rather than 3 times a week. Increased competition is always good for AC

Air Canada cannot/could not compete with EK/EY. Any increase in flights for those two would seriously put a dent in traffic on their TATL routes which are used to funnel people onto LH into Places like India, etc. This is why management got their buddies to give them a subsidy a couple years back in form of protectionism.
This is not about what benefits the customer (heck, even Canadian taxpayers lost billions when AC received the subsidy - we got kicked out of a base in the UAE) - its about protecting Air Canada, a private company with friends at the top.

Indirectly, or directly, AC has evidently decided they're willing to compete with EK/EY by starting their own flights to DEL and DXB. Furthermore, if that rhetoric is to be used, it wouldn't make sense for AC to undertake the risk of opening new routes, if they know they wouldn't be able to withstand current, and/or possible future competition.

There is speculation, they are only starting DXB to "prove" that there is no demand on the route in the next round of lobbying the govt to continue with the subsidy (and blocking EK/EY)

Just thinking. Maybe AC is starting this route to fail. Then they can say to the government that the traffic is not great enough for more flights. Then AC cancels flight and government doesn't let more EK/EY flights into Canada. Possibility?

In an airline dictated by investor returns, I would personally be surprised to see this be the case. I appreciate the opinion, it is a possibility.

Connections have told me that AC's first month at YYZ-DXB have advance bookings ranging anywhere from 50-90%, whilst DXB-YYZ seems to be more stagnant around the 50% range. Evidently, we only have the metric of load factors to prove, and no yield information, but for a first month's operations advance bookings, it's nothing to complain about. I can testify that EK has run lower load factors to destinations in their first month of operations that have since been upguaged. Nevertheless, it is still telling that there is a demand for AC's DXB flights with the information I have been provided.