Sen. Colin Kenny: Telling the UAE where to get off

[fish4life]

Cpn Crunch, do you honestly believe Emirates pays the same for fuel that Air Canada does?

[shitdisturber]

And as I have pointed out before, both the BC and Alberta governments are on Emirates' (and Open Skies) side on this. The only opposition appears to be industry propaganda from Air Canada.

Even long time card carrying Tory party members think the current premier is an idiot and should go; as for BC, thanks to the premier's bringing in the hybrid sales tax both he and his party are doomed. So I'd take any support from Alberta and BC with a large grain of salt.

[bmc]

How are they going to find 275,000 new passengers? These are people that currently do not fly to any of the points they, and every European carrier, serve. These are people that are sitting at home in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver waiting for a new airline to come and offer service to Lahore.

How do you grow a market? With price. Emirates focus on the south Asian sub continent. They focus on this market worldwide. Fly them sometime and you'll know what I mean. The Indian market is a "must go" market in that if there is a wedding or a funeral, they travel. This time of travel is referred to as VFR (visiting family and relatives). This market is very price sensitive, generally because it's usually not one person in a family flying, but a family of four. All of this market flies on cheap market fares.

The other markets Emirates could focus on is the Gulf. Again, this is a specialized market catering to expat oil and money workers. And Canadian pilots enjoying sitting by their pools on their compounds. Entry visas are required and the western perception of the Middle East is not flattering and waiting for Emirates to change the narrow perception.

Africa could be a market, but again, very well served out of Canada by AF, LH, KL, BA, RJ, etc. Lots and lots of capacity to fill, connecting over a European gateway, or taking Royal Air Maroc and going in over Casablaca.

What's next? The Levant. Amman, Damascus, Beirut are predominantly ethnic markets as well, served with some nonstops and connections over European hubs.

Asia...yeah, they'll focus on Bangkok/KL/Bali/etc. Will they grow the market with 275,000 new passengers? These are people that currently are not flying there and it isn't because of the price. There are market net fares that undercut nonstop to Europe.

So, for Alberta, arguably Canada's mecca for exotic non-Palm Springs/Hawaii/Las Vegas travel, Calgarian's have been dying to have an opportunity to visit Tehran but have been holding out because Emirates doesn't fly to Calgary.

Emirates, if awarded rights, will grow their market share by 275,000 passengers, by dropping the price to the existing market, which is fine, because they will report multi-billion dollar route profitability. This is not market growth. This is share steal.

In terms of a balanced offering to Canadian carriers, because I honestly don't know who the designated carrier is for Canada or if there are multiple designations in the Air Service Agreement. What does Canada get? Two destinations in Persian Gulf that are not worth a daily B737 in terms of 3rd and 4th freedom traffic. There's nothing in it.

Capncrunch....The only analogy I can think of that reflects my understanding of your argument is if we remove the Canada/USA border and annex and give Canada to the USA because Canada will gain so much in natural resources. Some benefit..yes. Over all good for Canada...no.

Stand up for our country, buddy, and don't let foreign entities bully us. We're better than that.

[North Shore]

He's from Alberta..isn't that its own country anyway?

[bmc]

He's from Alberta..isn't that its own country anyway?

We lived in YYC for nine years. Loved Alberta. Still do. Just haven't been there in 12 years.

[complexintentions]

I did say 'apparently' independent.

Yes, they're so independent the UAE government expelled Canada from the military base on behalf of their "independent" airlines. Give your head a shake. Or did I miss the part where "Air Canada" was pressuring the Canadian government on military policy? If anyone is lobbying, it's Star Alliance. Emirates isn't part of any alliance - they like to keep their profits to themselves. That's fine but they can't be surprised when the "Alliance" strikes back when feeling threatened. And if you aren't threatened by massive amounts of dirt-cheap labour competing with living wages in Canada, then perhaps you should be.

"700 fulltime jobs"?! Where? Swissport, for 8 bucks and hour? Come on. It's just plain old capacity dumping. Happens with milk, cheese, shoes, this time it's just airplane seats. Erect your barriers or get swamped. Simple.

[kevenv]

I recall seeing an analyst on TV awhile ago explain something that seems to have gotten lost in this whole argument. 7 years ago when the Canadian government approached the UAE about using their airport, they dangled the "possibility" of more landing rights in Canada in exchange for their cooperation. The UAE agreed and since then have been trying to get these extra slots. After 7 years of no results, the run around and no more landing rights, they expelled the Military from the base. If this is in fact the case, we are as responsible for this mess as the UAE is.

[CpnCrunch]

I did say 'apparently' independent.

Yes, they're so independent the UAE government expelled Canada from the military base on behalf of their "independent" airlines.

No, it was the study I was referring to here, not the airline.

[CpnCrunch]

Cpn Crunch, do you honestly believe Emirates pays the same for fuel that Air Canada does?

Yes, they do pay market rates for their fuel:

http://www.emirates.com/english/about/p ... llegations

Again, more misinformation.

Oh, and if you read the CBC story here there is an interesting comment:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/ ... ai011.html

"Air Canada has objected to increased service to Canadian destinations"

So it is really just Air Canada trying to scupper us from having a free market rather than any legitimate concerns!

[bmc]

Cpn Crunch, do you honestly believe Emirates pays the same for fuel that Air Canada does?

Yes, they do pay market rates for their fuel:

http://www.emirates.com/english/about/p ... llegations

Again, more misinformation.

Oh, and if you read the CBC story here there is an interesting comment:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/ ... ai011.html

"Air Canada has objected to increased service to Canadian destinations"

So it is really just Air Canada trying to scupper us from having a free market rather than any legitimate concerns!

This has nothing to do with a free market. Air Canada openly competes to all of the markets served by Emirates. They may not offer online service to these points, but they sell competitive fares, just like evry other airline. The markets served by Emirates are price sensitive markets. Cheaper prices disctate the sale. Not the choice of carrier.

Of course it's going to be Air Canada that is reacting to this. What other carrier in Canada offers scheduled international service?

If you could get beyond your deep hatred for Air Canada and look at the facts on the table, you might see what is really going on here. The bottom line here is that you have no idea what you're talking about and your mind is so firmly closed to learning anything about what is really at play here.

[CpnCrunch]

This has nothing to do with a free market. Air Canada openly competes to all of the markets served by Emirates. They may not offer online service to these points, but they sell competitive fares, just like evry other airline. The markets served by Emirates are price sensitive markets. Cheaper prices disctate the sale. Not the choice of carrier.

Of course it's going to be Air Canada that is reacting to this. What other carrier in Canada offers scheduled international service?

If you could get beyond your deep hatred for Air Canada and look at the facts on the table, you might see what is really going on here. The bottom line here is that you have no idea what you're talking about and your mind is so firmly closed to learning anything about what is really at play here.

How on earth can you say they 'openly compete' and then in the same breath applaud them for seeking to deny landing rights to another airline? I agree with you this has everything to do with 'standing up for your country' and not much to do with reality.

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

Here is a question for those sponsoring the Air Canada isolationist movement.

If “Emirates” was not the airline in question here, and it was lets say British Airways, Lufthansa, Icelandair, so on so forth, would you continue to have issues thus disallowing landing rights for other carriers? Does it matter which airline it is? Or are you people ultimately saying no other airline operating into this country has a right to operate /compete with Air Canada due to the risk of putting them under? There are ways to control predatorial pricing etc. however, to have an iron curtain protecting something which would fall had it not been supported, ultimately deserves to fall.

[bmc]

Here is a question for those sponsoring the Air Canada isolationist movement.

If “Emirates” was not the airline in question here, and it was lets say British Airways, Lufthansa, Icelandair, so on so forth, would you continue to have issues thus disallowing landing rights for other carriers? Does it matter which airline it is? Or are you people ultimately saying no other airline operating into this country has a right to operate /compete with Air Canada even if it means putting them under?

That would be dependant on the air service agreement. It's been some time since I was involved in this stuff from Canada, but at one time, the Canada/UK air Service agreement allowed for two designated Canadian carriers and two designated UK carriers. The ASA could have in it such stuff as three designated points in Canada to three designated points in the UK. (Remember, this is an example and not what is in this ASA.) The agreed points could be London, Manchester, Edinburgh for the UK and Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver. Beyond points from London could include Brussels, Amsterdam, Paris. On the Canadian side, Seattle, Chicago, Detroit.

When you look at an ASA like that, there is clearly benefit to Canadian carriers. While AC is the only sched airline on the UK route, Air Transat could apply for the scheduled second carrier designation. Or Westjet. Or First Air.

Such an agreement is balanced. There is a strong community of interest between Canada and the UK, Canada Europe, UK and Canada, UK and USA. Everybody can win. If your flights are timed right, your connections to and from your transatlantic services are timed right, your pricing is competitive, you should do ok.

Some ASA's reflect small markets. Canada-Greece for example has, I believe, provisions for one carrier per side. The Greek market was predominantly Toronto and Montreal after WW2, but 2nd and 3rd generation Greeks don't go back to the old country like their parenst and grandparents, so demand is low.

So, there are all kinds of ASA's out there, with anniversary dates for examining the status of the market, carriage and what modifications should be made.

Overall, a good ASA, has a balanced offering of benefit to the countries and to the carriers designated.

The UAE Canada ASA, from what I can see at a distance (and from having worked for a Gulf carrier in pricing and intl relations) looks fair and clean. Again, I have no knowledge of this, ok? What I would suspect exists in the ASA, would be one or two designated carriers on each side. One or two points in each country. There may be frequency restrictions. There may be capacity restrictions.

Before going to ASA negotiations, External Affairs gets involved and they meet with either the designated carriers, or if it's a new ASA, they'll meet with the airlines to get input. In this particular ASA, it's important to recognize the impact of Dubai. Dubai is all about flow through traffic. While Dubai to Europe has some solid markets, all Gulf carriers focus on flow. Europe to Asia, Europe to Africa, etc. Adding Canada to Dubai, while arguably good for Canadians in terms of offering direct service, provides a good opportunity to feed over Dubai. That's fine and good for Emirates. But what is there for a Canadian airlines should it wish to fly to Dubai? First of all, there isn't enough traffic between any point in Canada to Dubai to justify deploying a long range widebody. Emirates will not provide flow onto your planes at their expense. So, no Canadian carrier will fly to Dubai because it doesn't make sense.

Now, if there was a market to be served from Canada to the Gulf, we'd see service. There isn't. Outside of Dubai, there's not enough traffic to support Qatar, Gulf Air and Kuwait services to many points in Europe, yet they fly them. Why? because its'all flow 6th freedom traffic. (By the way, KLM, Singapore are famous flow airlines...all those flights to Amserdam are full of connecting traffic).

Amsterdam is a good example where KLM can fill their planes, but no Canadian carrier can. Simply because your flying into their fortress hub. What limited Canada-Netherlands traffic can be flown over London, Paris, Frankfurt.

My whole issue here is to not single out AC. It's misleading and not correct. The accidently happen to be the only Canadian scheduled airlines offering transatlantic services. (yeah I know Transat has schedule services but it's different).

In my view....and I could be wrong becuase I am far removed from this...the issue at heart is an unbalanced agreement coupled with very agressive market practices that will not grow a market, but damage an existing one, not only for AC, but BA, KL and LH for traffic our of Canada. This will purely be a market share grab that, yes consumers will benefit, but will not stimulate the market to the levels they suggest.

I gotta run. Happy to take it up later. But, she's gonna cut my nuts off if I'm late.

later.

[sarg]

And as I have pointed out before, both the BC and Alberta governments are on Emirates' (and Open Skies) side on this. The only opposition appears to be industry propaganda from Air Canada.

No, the opposition to open skies is not only from Air Canada, they're just the most vocal because they're the most immediately effected. Until the playing field is level open skies should not happen, you don't give away the farm then ask to be compensated. Canada will never have fares at the level of Europe due to the difference in demographics, even the USA cann't manage that at 10 times the population of Canada.

The Governments of BC and AB have no stake in "Open Skies" so it's easy for them to support. If it works they get some more revenue, if it fails and costs jobs they say the federal government should have known better.

http://www.canada.com/Landing+rights+di ... story.html

That same month, a study by the B.C. office of InterVISTAS Consulting, commissioned by Emirates Airline, projected that extra Emirates Airline flights to Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver would deliver $480 million in economic benefits and more than 2,800 jobs to Canada.

Your independent study paid for by the Emirates, makes the outcome in question. Kind of like all the studies paid for by the cigarette companies that said smoking wasn't bad for your health. The thing with these studies is you own the results, so there could be 10 other studies paid for by the Emirates that say the deal could cost Canada 2,800 jobs and $100 million that they just didn't release.

[sarg]

Cpn Crunch, do you honestly believe Emirates pays the same for fuel that Air Canada does?

Yes, they do pay market rates for their fuel:

http://www.emirates.com/english/about/p ... llegations

Again, more misinformation.

Oh, and if you read the CBC story here there is an interesting comment:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/ ... ai011.html

"Air Canada has objected to increased service to Canadian destinations"

So it is really just Air Canada trying to scupper us from having a free market rather than any legitimate concerns!

Taken from the PR site of a privately held company, now there is a place to get accurate information. Although I'm sure that they buy at contract rates at many airports until they open there books this will be an ongoing question.

At least be honest and give the complete quote.

Air Canada has objected to increased service to Canadian destinations. It says that in certain areas, such as Dubai, there is very little originating traffic that comes to Canada.

Again it would be nice to access this information. I doubt that the originating traffic for either airline justifies current service let alone expanded service.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/ ... z1Bh6vMlAj

[kevind]

http://www.calgarysun.com/comment/colum ... 18366.html


Keep UAE flying low
Canada’s right to deny Emirates more airport landing slots

By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency

Last Updated: January 25, 2011 12:00am

StoryCommentsEmail Story Print Size A A A Report Typo Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator during the Second World War, is called a fascist but an equally accurate label is “corporatist.”

Private corporations were allowed to operate, but Mussolini had control over them. It was a partnership between the government and everyone else, and Mussolini was the senior partner.

For a while, Mussolini’s corporatist dictatorship dazzled the world with its achievements. When North America languished in the Depression, Italy built the world’s fastest cruise ship and fastest sea plane and massive public works projects. Admirers said he “made the trains run on time.”

So, pretty much like today’s United Arab Emirates.

The UAE is a dictatorship. But it allows companies to operate, often with a member of the royal family involved.

Unlike Mussolini, the UAE has two huge sources of wealth. It’s an OPEC nation with enormous oil reserves. And though it only has a million citizens, four million temporary foreign labourers do all the work, with low pay and few civil rights.

It’s easy to forget the brutal reality of the UAE when looking at gleaming skyscrapers in its famous cities, Dubai and Abu Dhabi. It’s easy to see how people were dazzled by fascists in the 1930s.

The world’s largest skyscraper is in Dubai. It’s called the Burj Khalifa. Burj means tower. Khalifa is the name of the UAE’s president-for-life. When you know that, it makes it a little creepy. And if you know it was built by slave-wage migrants from the third world, it becomes even less glamourous.

Being gay in the UAE is a crime punishable with prison terms and forced hormone “treatments.” Being a woman means your husband has the legal right to beat you. Having an Israeli passport means you’re not allowed in at all.

So we’ve got ourselves a Jew-free zone where gays are in jail, minorities work as slaves, wife-beating is lawful and camel racing is the national sport. So it won’t surprise you to learn the UAE had diplomatic ties to the Taliban on 9/11.

Khalifa named the world’s biggest phallic symbol after himself. But that’s not all. How did a country with just a million citizens build one of the world’s largest airlines, called Emirates?

Free airport

That’s easy. Their CEO is another sheikh, Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, whose nephew just happens to be the absolute monarch of Dubai. Emirates Airlines doesn’t pay any taxes. Its state-of-the-art airport was built for free (thanks, nephew!) And labour unions are illegal. No wonder they make a profit. Mussolini would be proud.

Emirates isn’t just a company. It’s a foreign policy tool of a family of dictators, who use it as a battering ram against competitors.

Think of Emirates as a foreign air force fighting an economic and political battle. It’s a fair description, since its first planes were a gift from UAE’s air force.

Canada denied Emirates extra landing slots. The Liberals sided with the sheikhs. But they’re wrong.

Democracies around the world are joining Canada. Last week, Germany refused Emirates landing rights at its new Berlin airport. France and South Korea did the same. It’s one thing to have a private competitor, like British Airways, bash Air Canada around.

May the best company win all the passengers.

But what country would allow a corporatist dictatorship to deliberately destroy its airline industry?

— Levant will be a talk show host on the Sun News Network

[kevind]

http://www.calgarysun.com/comment/colum ... 18366.html


Keep UAE flying low
Canada’s right to deny Emirates more airport landing slots

By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency

Last Updated: January 25, 2011 12:00am

StoryCommentsEmail Story Print Size A A A Report Typo Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator during the Second World War, is called a fascist but an equally accurate label is “corporatist.”

Private corporations were allowed to operate, but Mussolini had control over them. It was a partnership between the government and everyone else, and Mussolini was the senior partner.

For a while, Mussolini’s corporatist dictatorship dazzled the world with its achievements. When North America languished in the Depression, Italy built the world’s fastest cruise ship and fastest sea plane and massive public works projects. Admirers said he “made the trains run on time.”

So, pretty much like today’s United Arab Emirates.

The UAE is a dictatorship. But it allows companies to operate, often with a member of the royal family involved.

Unlike Mussolini, the UAE has two huge sources of wealth. It’s an OPEC nation with enormous oil reserves. And though it only has a million citizens, four million temporary foreign labourers do all the work, with low pay and few civil rights.

It’s easy to forget the brutal reality of the UAE when looking at gleaming skyscrapers in its famous cities, Dubai and Abu Dhabi. It’s easy to see how people were dazzled by fascists in the 1930s.

The world’s largest skyscraper is in Dubai. It’s called the Burj Khalifa. Burj means tower. Khalifa is the name of the UAE’s president-for-life. When you know that, it makes it a little creepy. And if you know it was built by slave-wage migrants from the third world, it becomes even less glamourous.

Being gay in the UAE is a crime punishable with prison terms and forced hormone “treatments.” Being a woman means your husband has the legal right to beat you. Having an Israeli passport means you’re not allowed in at all.

So we’ve got ourselves a Jew-free zone where gays are in jail, minorities work as slaves, wife-beating is lawful and camel racing is the national sport. So it won’t surprise you to learn the UAE had diplomatic ties to the Taliban on 9/11.

Khalifa named the world’s biggest phallic symbol after himself. But that’s not all. How did a country with just a million citizens build one of the world’s largest airlines, called Emirates?

Free airport

That’s easy. Their CEO is another sheikh, Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, whose nephew just happens to be the absolute monarch of Dubai. Emirates Airlines doesn’t pay any taxes. Its state-of-the-art airport was built for free (thanks, nephew!) And labour unions are illegal. No wonder they make a profit. Mussolini would be proud.

Emirates isn’t just a company. It’s a foreign policy tool of a family of dictators, who use it as a battering ram against competitors.

Think of Emirates as a foreign air force fighting an economic and political battle. It’s a fair description, since its first planes were a gift from UAE’s air force.

Canada denied Emirates extra landing slots. The Liberals sided with the sheikhs. But they’re wrong.

Democracies around the world are joining Canada. Last week, Germany refused Emirates landing rights at its new Berlin airport. France and South Korea did the same. It’s one thing to have a private competitor, like British Airways, bash Air Canada around.

May the best company win all the passengers.

But what country would allow a corporatist dictatorship to deliberately destroy its airline industry?

— Levant will be a talk show host on the Sun News Network

[helicopterray]

Bringing up the UAE dictatorship is a red herring.
We have agreements with China, and much of the other mid-east dictatorships.
(And the expats working there may disagree about the comment on low pay being offered.)

The point we should be arguing is the equality of the agreement, and the mutual benefits of trade.
What the UAE offers does not benefit Canada.

[KAG]

CPNcrunch, I like being a pilot. I like what I make. I like whom I work for.
Canada is a VERY small market compared to the USA, forget Europe. It sounds like you'd be ok with just opening up our skies and letting anyone in anyone in the name of “competition” so consumers get the best deal, meanwhile that Wal-Mart mentality is destroying the middle class, and our jobs with it.
I’m not OK working the same job for less money, while inflation keeps on increasing. Passengers already get a great deal on Airfare (it’s cheaper now to fly compared to the 80/90’s and EVERYTHING else has gone up since), it can’t go lower and still be profitable given our size as a country – some business models just don’t apply here, we too damn small.
Be very careful what we wish for.

I’m still shocked this is still in debate, as I would have figured we would have given in by now, I’m glad I’m wrong.

[bmc]

For the record, the UAE (and Oman, Bahrain, Qatar) are not Jew free countries. Too bad Levant had to throw that in, as a Jew himself. I'm not clear how that relates to this discussion at hand.

That article has nothing to do with the issue. Just another opportunity to let everyone know that Levant hates.

Move along folks.

[CpnCrunch]

KAG: full disclosure - I'm a Westjet owner, so I do very well in the current status quo. However I think overall it would be a benefit to Canada to have a full open market. I don't see how some more flights to the middle east is going to suddenly destroy our airlines.

Going to the logical conclusion (which you seem to be alluding to), of foreign-owned airlines operating domestic flights within Canada: I think that would be a benefit to us as well. In that case there isn't really any question of being able to cut costs by getting free fuel or cheap labour - they would be purchasing fuel, supplies, labour, etc. within Canada just like other airlines. In the end the most efficient airlines would win, and that is a benefit to everyone.

If you are worried about pilots getting paid peanuts, well that is certainly a possibility. Westjet does a good job of paying it's pilots well, and in the end it is a benefit to their company because they have (for the most part) happy employees. A lot of businesses don't seem to realise that treating your employees well is also good for your bottom line - you will have less turnover, and your employees will perform better. Westjet is an excellent example of how you can run an efficient business, pay your employees well AND make a very nice profit. All of this is due to market competition - without competition there is no incentive to be efficient at all, and we would be a socialist country where you have to line up to buy a loaf of bread.

[KAG]

If we had open skies, it is possible that larger companies (South West to name one) could waltz in, and wipe us out, or at best put a serious hurting on us. There is only so much pie to go around, and the more players, the less pie for everyone. I see your point about the "spin offs" for others, then again were buying the same stuff in what I assume is the same amounts.
Example; us flying to YZF. It's not a big thing for us to go and place more capacity on that run, but it hurts the northern carriers as were eating their lunch. They need that overly profitable run to help support the rest of their system. I'm not starting an off topic argument, just making an example. It could happen to us, and I would like to avoid that. I feel the general public gets a good deal already, and the money made off our purchasing fuel, services ETC is keeping our money in our (Canadians) hands.
I’m not for protectionism, but I’m also not willing to potentially hand over my career either.
Maybe I don't understand the economics that well and I'm off base, but I don't think I am that far off.

[bmc]

Slightly off topic, but worth pointing out, is that the industry has cut the unit cost of carrying a passenger by one half of what it was 40 years ago. Costs are the lowest they've ever been. What we, as an industry, did, was pass those savings on to customers. Tremendous opportunity to improve our margins. But, in our quest for market share, we succeeded in growing the market, but fail to make it profitable.

CpnCrunch....here's a question for you. If the Canadian government funded and started an airline to compete with Westjet and guaranteed its success no matter what, would you support that? They lowered airfares on all of your major markets, bringing benefits to consumers. Knowing what you know of the cost of running an airline, you know they could not sustain such prices. But, their future is guaranteed by the government. Would you support it? Remember, the Canadian consumer would benefit.

Kag...good post.

[CpnCrunch]

CpnCrunch....here's a question for you. If the Canadian government funded and started an airline to compete with Westjet and guaranteed its success no matter what, would you support that? They lowered airfares on all of your major markets, bringing benefits to consumers. Knowing what you know of the cost of running an airline, you know they could not sustain such prices. But, their future is guaranteed by the government. Would you support it? Remember, the Canadian consumer would benefit.

Kag...good post.

Well first of all, the funding for that airline would come from Canadian tax-payers, so we would be paying for it. Secondly, governments aren't generally the best people to be running efficient businesses.

There was an interesting comment in Macleans last week: they said something along the lines of 'if the UAE government wants to subsidize cheap flights for Canadian consumers, let them!'. Now as I said before I don't believe the UAE government is subsidizing their airline, but even if they are then it is the flying public who would benefit from those subsidies, i.e. we would have a net benefit.

I understand the argument that someone with deep pockets could offer artificially low fares to get rid of the competition. I don't believe that would happen, and even if it did I am sure the Canadian government would offer help to the Canadian companies (as they always do - Bombardier, GMC, AC, etc.)

[ScudRunner]

Emirates is a separate and private company and competes fairly in an open market................

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... s-war.html

Selling weapons to the United Arab Emirates must not be as easy as it looks. Sure, the Emiratis have plenty of cash and happen to occupy the non-Iranian half of the Strait of Hormuz, but they still like to drive a hard bargain.

The global arms industry has waited for years for the UAE to sign a contract to buy 60 Dassault Rafales, which has already lost more potential customers than BP gas station owners in Louisiana.

Until recently, France was reportedly resisting demands by the UAE to take back about 60 Mirage 2000-9s in exchange for a Rafale sale. But now French newspaper La Tribune has reported the UAE has insisted on a second condition.

In return for buying the Rafale, France must give the UAE's two airlines -- Abu Dhabi's Etihad and Dubai's Emirates -- more landing slots at major French airports, especially Charles de Gaulle near Paris. According to La Tribune, this forces the French government to choose between "two of its industrial jewels": Rafale manufacturer Dassault and Air France.

Dam I bet AC wishes our government would help out like that.