Emirates from June 2018 is adjusting operational schedule for Dubai – Toronto route, effective 01JUN18. This 3 weekly Airbus A380 service will be moving departure time from Dubai to overnight, instead of morning, while Toronto departure moves from evening hours to afternoon hours.

EK241 DXB0330 – 0930YYZ 388 135
EK242 YYZ1430 – 1130+1DXB 388 135

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... june-2018/
source: airlineroute


I would've thought that a 1100 departure from YYZ with 0800 arrival into Dubai would work wonderfully for the 8-11 AM departure bank to Australia/Africa/SubContinent, IAD and the 204 from JFK use that schedule as well

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand. Or is it only this service?

jubguy3 wrote:

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand. Or is it only this service?

Bilaterals only allow EK to operate 3x weekly into Canada. Otherwise EK would be at least daily, and probably 2x daily.

jubguy3 wrote:

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand. Or is it only this service?

Its the only frequencies available under the current bilateral. Obviously Emirates want more.

jubguy3 wrote:

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand.

There is. If it were up to EK they would serve YYZ daily, as well as YUL and YVR. The Canadian government won't allow it, to protect AC.

alan3 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand.

There is. If it were up to EK they would serve YYZ daily, as well as YUL and YVR. The Canadian government won't allow it, to protect AC.

Please, let's not open that can of worms all over again.

alan3 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand.

There is. If it were up to EK they would serve YYZ daily, as well as YUL and YVR. The Canadian government won't allow it, BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH CANADIANS WANT TO GO TO DUBAI as required by Canadian Bi-laterals without open skies..

Fixed it for you.

Yes, all those Canadians really prefer LHR, AMS, FRA, CDG, MUC, MAD, HEL, etc etc etc, on their way to India, Asia Africa etc . . . God forbid they make their own choice wheater they want to use DXB for that. Thankfully we have Canadian government limiting those choices for us

iadadd wrote:

Emirates from June 2018 is adjusting operational schedule for Dubai – Toronto route, effective 01JUN18. This 3 weekly Airbus A380 service will be moving departure time from Dubai to overnight, instead of morning, while Toronto departure moves from evening hours to afternoon hours.

EK241 DXB0330 – 0930YYZ 388 135
EK242 YYZ1430 – 1130+1DXB 388 135

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... june-2018/
source: airlineroute


I would've thought that a 1100 departure from YYZ with 0800 arrival into Dubai would work wonderfully for the 8-11 AM departure bank to Australia/Africa/SubContinent, IAD and the 204 from JFK use that schedule as well

My speculation is that the bank it arrived into is full and since YYZ has so little service allowed under the bilateral they are probably fairly full with locals making connectivity less important. So I would speculate they moved the flight to a worse bank to make room for something else to go into the old slot.

YYZatcboy wrote:

alan3 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand.

There is. If it were up to EK they would serve YYZ daily, as well as YUL and YVR. The Canadian government won't allow it, BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH CANADIANS WANT TO GO TO DUBAI as required by Canadian Bi-laterals without open skies..

Fixed it for you.

Which is the same as protecting AC. There are few routes around the world that can survive purely on OD, so it is a harsh criteria the Canadian government uses. It is only in place to protect AC by controlling the connection flows and skewing them towards AC and its JV partners. It is such a stupid rule and makes it only harder and more expensive for people to reach their destination. The government should be working in the interest of the people and allow the ME3/TK better access to the Canadian market. Dont see how that is harmful to the average citizen. It is only AC and the TATL JV that would lose out.

YYZatcboy wrote:

alan3 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand.

There is. If it were up to EK they would serve YYZ daily, as well as YUL and YVR. The Canadian government won't allow it, BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH CANADIANS WANT TO GO TO DUBAI as required by Canadian Bi-laterals without open skies..

Fixed it for you.

I know this is an old can of worms, but we all know EK could EASILY fill a daily or even double-daily A380 from YYZ to DXB. Not only is Toronto the 4th largest metropolis in North America but home to an enormous multicultural population from South Asia/SE Asia/Middle East & Africa. But of course Thou Shalt Never Challenge AC's Dominance at Pearson.

As far as I remember, YUL-DOH on QR is covered by the same bilateral

Aircellist wrote:

As far as I remember, YUL-DOH on QR is covered by the same bilateral

No. Qatar is not part of the UAE. EY is covered by the same bilateral.

The UAE-Canada bilateral is 6x per week. EK was too stubborn to only take the 6. EY then came in , when it was relatively new airline, and commenced 3x weekly AUH-YYZ flights, EK soon followed by swallowing the last 3 available slots.

I'm pretty sure this is one of EK's biggest regrets in history

iadadd wrote:

The UAE-Canada bilateral is 6x per week. EK was too stubborn to only take the 6. EY then came in , when it was relatively new airline, and commenced 3x weekly AUH-YYZ flights, EK soon followed by swallowing the last 3 available slots.

I'm pretty sure this is one of EK's biggest regrets in history

The bilateral limits any one airline to 3 weekly.
That's why AC is also 3 weekly on YYZ DXB

jubguy3 wrote:

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand. Or is it only this service?

Well - that is Canada. They’ve been longing for slots for years now, and to no avail. Especially given that Canadian government likes non-stop services.

Excuse my ignorance, but is the Liberal Party's aviation policy more "liberal" than the Conservative's that drew the current bilateral?

yycdel wrote:

iadadd wrote:

The UAE-Canada bilateral is 6x per week. EK was too stubborn to only take the 6. EY then came in , when it was relatively new airline, and commenced 3x weekly AUH-YYZ flights, EK soon followed by swallowing the last 3 available slots.

I'm pretty sure this is one of EK's biggest regrets in history

The bilateral limits any one airline to 3 weekly.
That's why AC is also 3 weekly on YYZ DXB

That is true ... however ... if no other airline wants the other 3 frequencies, one airline can take all 6.

iadadd is correct. EK requested daily and was granted 3 with the offer of applying for the other 3 if no other UAE carrier wanted them and both countres agreed. They became very vocal, up to and including taking out full page newspaper ads declaring they need daily flights to work. They walked away.

Then an airline no one had ever heard of ... EY ... applied for 3 and was granted. Then EY applied for the extra 3 frequencies and it appears that EK realized they had better grab them, and did.

chrisa330 wrote:

Aircellist wrote:

As far as I remember, YUL-DOH on QR is covered by the same bilateral

No. Qatar is not part of the UAE. EY is covered by the same bilateral.

Thanks for the correction

alan3 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand.

There is. If it were up to EK they would serve YYZ daily, as well as YUL and YVR. The Canadian government won't allow it, to protect AC.

Which is frustrating. Qatar and TK serve YUL but with similar limitations, meaning easy access to the Middle East/Asia is annoying from YUL.

If EK/EY/TK/QR were to freely operate Middle East-Canada routes would it chase AC out of the market? Is this the fear on the Canadian side?

Making the Canadian consumer suffer for the interests of one company is wrong, regardless of govt subsidies (alleged in EKs case). In fact protecting AC is a subsidy

Alliance code share partners of AC are subsidized

I wonder has anyone done the analysis of how many city pairs would open up with one stop from YYZ, YVR, etc in in ME if open sky was introduced in Canada.

36m Canadians deserve better choices.

To be fair to Ottawa, it's not as though EK is necessarly getting singled out. The O&D-centric approach is just the way Canada approaches bilateral agreements. It's not like they can just be expected to turn into Thailand and try to pursue open skies with everyone.

The bilateral agreements would make more sense if AC was actually operating any of those routes. They do YYZ-DXB in Dreamliner, but they don't serve Doha or IST (anymore). Frustrating to see a government protect an airline because they might or might not want to operate a route in the future.

6 slots a week to the UAE is rather ridiculous. Bilateral traffic has gone up since flying between the countries started.

They could probably justify 14x in total between EK and EY. Let them and AC go daily to the UAE.

Heck, I'd prefer if they used seat counts instead if slots offer week. At least airlines could go daily with smaller equipment.

setting bilateral conversation aside, what prompted EK to change their schedule out of YYZ? EY has the exactly same departure and arrival timings

ShinyAndChrome wrote:

To be fair to Ottawa, it's not as though EK is necessarly getting singled out. The O&D-centric approach is just the way Canada approaches bilateral agreements. It's not like they can just be expected to turn into Thailand and try to pursue open skies with everyone.

They should. We need more competition in this country and the current system of creating bilaterals is outdated and bad for the consumer.

SRQKEF wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand. Or is it only this service?

Bilaterals only allow EK to operate 3x weekly into Canada. Otherwise EK would be at least daily, and probably 2x daily.

EK has stated that it would be 2-3x daily to YYZ, and daily to YVR and YYC if they could have their way.

PerfectGriffin wrote:

SRQKEF wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand. Or is it only this service?

Bilaterals only allow EK to operate 3x weekly into Canada. Otherwise EK would be at least daily, and probably 2x daily.

EK has stated that it would be 2-3x daily to YYZ, and daily to YVR and YYC if they could have their way.

Dreaming, no way there’s enough traffic for that!

Whiteguy wrote:

PerfectGriffin wrote:

SRQKEF wrote:

Bilaterals only allow EK to operate 3x weekly into Canada. Otherwise EK would be at least daily, and probably 2x daily.

EK has stated that it would be 2-3x daily to YYZ, and daily to YVR and YYC if they could have their way.

Dreaming, no way there’s enough traffic for that!

Probably there is (connecting), some of it likely at the expense of other airlines like KLM or chinese airlines. EK can make much smaller cities work, so YVR/YYC/YUL wouldn't be impossible

EChid wrote:

alan3 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Is DXB-YYZ really only 3x/week? I would have figured there would be a larger demand.

There is. If it were up to EK they would serve YYZ daily, as well as YUL and YVR. The Canadian government won't allow it, to protect AC.

Which is frustrating. Qatar and TK serve YUL but with similar limitations, meaning easy access to the Middle East/Asia is annoying from YUL.

YUL does have a decent choice of flights to the region on: AH, AT, TU, RJ in addition to the TK and QR that you mention. But most of those are not major hubs, and likely serve point to point traffic. It's the big ME3 that are being restricted, one can only surmise its their hub traffic that is a threat.

Whiteguy wrote:

PerfectGriffin wrote:

SRQKEF wrote:

Bilaterals only allow EK to operate 3x weekly into Canada. Otherwise EK would be at least daily, and probably 2x daily.

EK has stated that it would be 2-3x daily to YYZ, and daily to YVR and YYC if they could have their way.

Dreaming, no way there’s enough traffic for that!

There likely would be demand to sustain double daily YYZ as well as YVR and YUL (not too sure about YYC). They already serve far smaller markets around the world than those large Canadian cities. The ME3 airports offer connections not served directly from Europe, such as to smaller cities in India/Pakistan, Asia and Africa that if you connect through Europe would likely involve 3 flights instead of 2. But all this poses a huge threat to AC.

enilria wrote:

iadadd wrote:

Emirates from June 2018 is adjusting operational schedule for Dubai – Toronto route, effective 01JUN18. This 3 weekly Airbus A380 service will be moving departure time from Dubai to overnight, instead of morning, while Toronto departure moves from evening hours to afternoon hours.

EK241 DXB0330 – 0930YYZ 388 135
EK242 YYZ1430 – 1130+1DXB 388 135

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... june-2018/
source: airlineroute


I would've thought that a 1100 departure from YYZ with 0800 arrival into Dubai would work wonderfully for the 8-11 AM departure bank to Australia/Africa/SubContinent, IAD and the 204 from JFK use that schedule as well

My speculation is that the bank it arrived into is full and since YYZ has so little service allowed under the bilateral they are probably fairly full with locals making connectivity less important. So I would speculate they moved the flight to a worse bank to make room for something else to go into the old slot.

I agree. If it is O&D, move the flight. Slots at DXB are precious.

longhauler wrote:

That is true ... however ... if no other airline wants the other 3 frequencies, one airline can take all 6.

iadadd is correct. EK requested daily and was granted 3 with the offer of applying for the other 3 if no other UAE carrier wanted them and both countres agreed. They became very vocal, up to and including taking out full page newspaper ads declaring they need daily flights to work. They walked away.

Then an airline no one had ever heard of ... EY ... applied for 3 and was granted. Then EY applied for the extra 3 frequencies and it appears that EK realized they had better grab them, and did.

[/quote][/quote]

Oh, this again. Alright, lets go back to basics:

-The bilateral gives each country's aviation authority a veto on slots 4, 5 and 6. Only 3 are guaranteed.

-This isn't a fluke. Canada has a longstanding tradition of handing out 2-3 weekly (TK, QR, ET, SV). The veto on slots 4, 5 and 6 were deliberately placed there by Canada.

- The Canadian system gives AC an effective veto over any new slot allocations. It's all there in the Government's own 2016 review.

- The bilateral was signed years (literally)before EY was founded.

And so on. There is nothing in the bilateral or otherwise to suggest that slots 4, 5 and 6 were ever available to EK. I can understand why your employer might want to spin it that way; much easier for AC to paint this as a strategic EK blunder than admit that this is the anti-consumer outcome of its own philosophy of entitlement. The one that demands that the Government ensure that AC gets a share of pax travelling to/from Canada regardless of whether they actually want to fly AC and it's partners on that route. (To be clear, this is perfectly consistent with other Canadian industry behaviour. Like dairy farming, as your CEO has so helpfully pointed out.)

But that's all besides the point. When is AC starting its 4th weekly frequency to the UAE? Or are those slots being held for other interested Canadian carriers. TS and WS perhaps? Or Canada Jetlines?

Well tried, I guess. Unfortunately it's undermined by your employer's history history of influencing the Government's bilateral policy to the detriment of consumers. Remember the unilateral cancellation of the Singapore bilateral in the early 90s?

I don't care if EK etc get more frequencies. I just really don't like deliberate disinformation (and let's be honest: nothing I've posted above is new; it's on virtually every recent EK thread). The bilateral is out there. The Emerson report is out there. The date the bilateral was signed is out there. The date EY is founded is out there. Emerson's 2016 criticism of Canada's restrictive bilateral approach is out there.

In any event, I think that more EK frequencies aren't going to make Canadians half as happy as AC investing some of its record profits in cleaning its aircraft. Transferred from an LH 330 to an AC 777 recently. Night and day in terms of cleanliness.

ElPistolero wrote:

There is nothing in the bilateral or otherwise to suggest that slots 4, 5 and 6 were ever available to EK. I can understand why your employer might want to spin it that way; much easier for AC to paint this as a strategic EK blunder than admit that this is the anti-consumer outcome of its own philosophy of entitlement.
I don't care if EK etc get more frequencies. I just really don't like deliberate disinformation (and let's be honest: nothing I've posted above is new; it's on virtually every recent EK thread).

I am only going to say this one more time, then as always .... I am just going to let you go on and on and on and on ... ad nauseum.

One of the advantages of being of a certain age, is that instead of frantically banging away at my iPad looking for "a source", quite of few of us were actually there and watching the procedings of Emirates Airline and its attempts at bullying Canada into changing a "years old" bilateral agreement because they really really really wanted it. Every other country to date had given them what they wanted, how dare Canada not!

You may want to pretend that this has something to do with "my employer" but it does not. It was a very embarrassing spectacle to watch and we airline enthusiasts sat back and watched.

If you really need "a source", perhaps for "your employer", one good place to start is this very website. Look at the message strings starting about 10 years ago. It is an interesting chronology as it unwound ... getting worse and worse by the day. As I said, it was very entertaining.

Perhaps a better source would be to purchase a subscription to Globe and Mail online. The unpaid archives do not go further than around 5 years. With your paid subscription, you will see the news releases further back as well as some of the editorials. Sadly missing though are the full pages ads bought by Emirates calling us Canadians "unworldly" and "not fully understanding how business works".

But in the Globe and Mail online, one can read of the 3 days a week, then 6 day a week offer. Lost though, when Etihad picked up 3 frequencies and asking for 6. You asked a valid question once before though. And that was if they were offered 6 days a week, why didn't they take it?

Perhaps, as you were a teenager when this was occurring you didn't see that common sense had nothing to do with it. It was all about pride, ego and no one was going to tell Emirates how often they can fly, let alone Canada's government. They wanted daily and would accept nothing less. That is why their "retaliations" against Canada were kind of silly. Most Canadians just sat back and wondered about this odd mentality as it unfolded.

But ... as the airline world actually did exist before the internet, things like "emotion", "spirit", "ego" may be lost when searching for "a source", and certainly would not appear when looking at age old government documents.

Sadly, most of the "old timers" (I am 58) on here have left this website. It is not hard to understand why. I often wonder why I come back to this website when confronted with the folks that think that if they can't find it on their iPad ... it could not possibly have happened. But, for you own entertainment ... look back 10 years on this website, Emirates Airline put on quite a show.

As always, your diatribes usually end my involvement in a message string. So good luck with that. The rest of though, that were "actually there" know better.

Non of the above helps the consumer. Give them the choices that so many other countries offer their travellers

longhauler wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

There is nothing in the bilateral or otherwise to suggest that slots 4, 5 and 6 were ever available to EK. I can understand why your employer might want to spin it that way; much easier for AC to paint this as a strategic EK blunder than admit that this is the anti-consumer outcome of its own philosophy of entitlement.
I don't care if EK etc get more frequencies. I just really don't like deliberate disinformation (and let's be honest: nothing I've posted above is new; it's on virtually every recent EK thread).

I am only going to say this one more time, then as always .... I am just going to let you go on and on and on and on ... ad nauseum.

One of the advantages of being of a certain age, is that instead of frantically banging away at my iPad looking for "a source", quite of few of us were actually there and watching the procedings of Emirates Airline and its attempts at bullying Canada into changing a "years old" bilateral agreement because they really really really wanted it. Every other country to date had given them what they wanted, how dare Canada not!

You may want to pretend that this has something to do with "my employer" but it does not. It was a very embarrassing spectacle to watch and we airline enthusiasts sat back and watched.

If you really need "a source", perhaps for "your employer", one good place to start is this very website. Look at the message strings starting about 10 years ago. It is an interesting chronology as it unwound ... getting worse and worse by the day. As I said, it was very entertaining.

Perhaps a better source would be to purchase a subscription to Globe and Mail online. The unpaid archives do not go further than around 5 years. With your paid subscription, you will see the news releases further back as well as some of the editorials. Sadly missing though are the full pages ads bought by Emirates calling us Canadians "unworldly" and "not fully understanding how business works".

But in the Globe and Mail online, one can read of the 3 days a week, then 6 day a week offer. Lost though, when Etihad picked up 3 frequencies and asking for 6. You asked a valid question once before though. And that was if they were offered 6 days a week, why didn't they take it?

Perhaps, as you were a teenager when this was occurring you didn't see that common sense had nothing to do with it. It was all about pride, ego and no one was going to tell Emirates how often they can fly, let alone Canada's government. They wanted daily and would accept nothing less. That is why their "retaliations" against Canada were kind of silly. Most Canadians just sat back and wondered about this odd mentality as it unfolded.

But ... as the airline world actually did exist before the internet, things like "emotion", "spirit", "ego" may be lost when searching for "a source", and certainly would not appear when looking at age old government documents.

Sadly, most of the "old timers" (I am 58) on here have left this website. It is not hard to understand why. I often wonder why I come back to this website when confronted with the folks that think that if they can't find it on their iPad ... it could not possibly have happened. But, for you own entertainment ... look back 10 years on this website, Emirates Airline put on quite a show.

As always, your diatribes usually end my involvement in a message string. So good luck with that. The rest of though, that were "actually there" know better.

I've been following the story from when it started. EK never had access to more than 3x weekly. In 2006, EK asked for more frequencies, AC allowed for daily and even access to more destinations in Canada, but only if EK would give them 50% of the revenue from the flights - of course EK rejected.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/air-canad ... 6-1.595677

If I were EK I would have done the same. And I agree with EK's stance on the matter.

It's hard to support your employer AC when they are so uncompetitive and make so many decisions against the consumer.

I still firmly believe that it is beyond stupid for the Canadian gov to not expand the UAE bilateral, it's their responsibility to offer competition and choice for the Canadian consumer, not shield monopolistic companies like AC from stifling competition for the traveling Canadian public who want to affordably get from Canada to their destination. They were elected to do their job for the Canadian people, not for wealthy companies worth billions whose very interests depend on making life worse for the traveler. Hopefully somebody mentions this at a town hall soon.

iadadd wrote:

The UAE-Canada bilateral is 6x per week. EK was too stubborn to only take the 6. EY then came in , when it was relatively new airline, and commenced 3x weekly AUH-YYZ flights, EK soon followed by swallowing the last 3 available slots.

I'm pretty sure this is one of EK's biggest regrets in history

It probably is. I remember the adverts telling Canada to learn maths and that 6 times a week is not the same as 7 times a week!

It was when the Emiratis kicked Canada out of Camp Mirage, refused to allow the Minister of Defense's airplane to pass through its airspace and increased visa fees to $1000 for any Canadian visiting the UAE if they didn't arrive on their airline! It was like viewing a train wreck.

Whiteguy wrote:

PerfectGriffin wrote:

SRQKEF wrote:

Bilaterals only allow EK to operate 3x weekly into Canada. Otherwise EK would be at least daily, and probably 2x daily.

EK has stated that it would be 2-3x daily to YYZ, and daily to YVR and YYC if they could have their way.

Dreaming, no way there’s enough traffic for that!

2-3 daily from YYZ, yes keep dreaming lol.. I think they are facing enough competition from EY, SV, MS, ET & TK. Remember all these carriers started way after EK started YYZ and some have had their initial frequencies changed from 3 to 4 or more. TK has the most. 6!!. The first four all depart between 1130 and 1430. Maybe EK finally realised that moving their departure times to the afternoon made sense. After all EY switched to these times too recently. These new times allow for better early afternoon arivals and late evening departures out of the Indian Subcontinent than in the wee hours of the morning. Been there done that.

On a side note I noticed a couple of times EK when it departs from Rwy 23 they no longer use taxiway Q most of the time, which all heavies use when departing on these super long hauls. Perhaps lighter loads on board not requiring that extra runway? Again I am just speculating. Would be nice to know the reason why? Was nice when it used to come close to the fence. Hey at least it will be a delight to see the whale depart now in the sunny summer afternoon . Will still be quite the show-stopper. Even now.

An old video of it departing close to the fence.
https://youtu.be/pRELhLZMsEc

Flightsimboy wrote:

Whiteguy wrote:

PerfectGriffin wrote:

EK has stated that it would be 2-3x daily to YYZ, and daily to YVR and YYC if they could have their way.

Dreaming, no way there’s enough traffic for that!

2-3 daily from YYZ, yes keep dreaming lol.. I think they are facing enough competition from EY, SV, MS, ET & TK. Remember all these carriers started way after EK started YYZ and some have had their initial frequencies changed from 3 to 4 or more. TK has the most. 6!!. The first four all depart between 1130 and 1430. Maybe EK finally realised that moving their departure times to the afternoon made sense. After all EY switched to these times too recently. These new times allow for better early afternoon arivals and late evening departures out of the Indian Subcontinent than in the wee hours of the morning. Been there done that.

On a side note I noticed a couple of times EK when it departs from Rwy 23 they no longer use taxiway Q most of the time, which all heavies use when departing on these super long hauls. Perhaps lighter loads on board not requiring that extra runway? Again I am just speculating. Would be nice to know the reason why? Was nice when it used to come close to the fence. Hey at least it will be a delight to see the whale depart now in the sunny summer afternoon . Will still be quite the show-stopper. Even now.

An old video of it departing close to the fence.
https://youtu.be/pRELhLZMsEc

EK generally goes out full to the brim, it's rare to have empty seats. The A380 just doesn't need the runway length addition, it's over-winged, and has relatively good runway performance.

longhauler wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

There is nothing in the bilateral or otherwise to suggest that slots 4, 5 and 6 were ever available to EK. I can understand why your employer might want to spin it that way; much easier for AC to paint this as a strategic EK blunder than admit that this is the anti-consumer outcome of its own philosophy of entitlement.
I don't care if EK etc get more frequencies. I just really don't like deliberate disinformation (and let's be honest: nothing I've posted above is new; it's on virtually every recent EK thread).

I am only going to say this one more time, then as always .... I am just going to let you go on and on and on and on ... ad nauseum.

One of the advantages of being of a certain age, is that instead of frantically banging away at my iPad looking for "a source", quite of few of us were actually there and watching the procedings of Emirates Airline and its attempts at bullying Canada into changing a "years old" bilateral agreement because they really really really wanted it. Every other country to date had given them what they wanted, how dare Canada not!

You may want to pretend that this has something to do with "my employer" but it does not. It was a very embarrassing spectacle to watch and we airline enthusiasts sat back and watched.

If you really need "a source", perhaps for "your employer", one good place to start is this very website. Look at the message strings starting about 10 years ago. It is an interesting chronology as it unwound ... getting worse and worse by the day. As I said, it was very entertaining.

Perhaps a better source would be to purchase a subscription to Globe and Mail online. The unpaid archives do not go further than around 5 years. With your paid subscription, you will see the news releases further back as well as some of the editorials. Sadly missing though are the full pages ads bought by Emirates calling us Canadians "unworldly" and "not fully understanding how business works".

But in the Globe and Mail online, one can read of the 3 days a week, then 6 day a week offer. Lost though, when Etihad picked up 3 frequencies and asking for 6. You asked a valid question once before though. And that was if they were offered 6 days a week, why didn't they take it?

Perhaps, as you were a teenager when this was occurring you didn't see that common sense had nothing to do with it. It was all about pride, ego and no one was going to tell Emirates how often they can fly, let alone Canada's government. They wanted daily and would accept nothing less. That is why their "retaliations" against Canada were kind of silly. Most Canadians just sat back and wondered about this odd mentality as it unfolded.

But ... as the airline world actually did exist before the internet, things like "emotion", "spirit", "ego" may be lost when searching for "a source", and certainly would not appear when looking at age old government documents.

Sadly, most of the "old timers" (I am 58) on here have left this website. It is not hard to understand why. I often wonder why I come back to this website when confronted with the folks that think that if they can't find it on their iPad ... it could not possibly have happened. But, for you own entertainment ... look back 10 years on this website, Emirates Airline put on quite a show.

As always, your diatribes usually end my involvement in a message string. So good luck with that. The rest of though, that were "actually there" know better.

I think you are confusing bullying "Air-Canada" with bullying "All Canadians".

As a Canadian as well as an AirCanada shareholder, I am fine with Air Canada getting bullied by any other airlines (Domestic or Foreign).
After all, Air Canada have perfected the art of bullying numerous airlines (Canadian, Roots Air, JetsGo, Porter(unsucessfully)). EX-CEO of Air Canada, Robert Milton even published AirCanada's bullying manual on his book, Straight from the Top: The Truth About Air Canada

whywhyzee wrote:

EK generally goes out full to the brim, it's rare to have empty seats..

Is this speculation or fact? We all like to think EK goes out heavy and all their A380s worldwide are flying full even on those 5-6 times daily flights. Numbers and facts will be nice. Not EK Fanboy fantasies or what EK would like us to believe.

Flightsimboy wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

EK generally goes out full to the brim, it's rare to have empty seats..

Is this speculation or fact? We all like to think EK goes out heavy and all their A380s worldwide are flying full even on those 5-6 times daily flights. Numbers and facts will be nice. Not EK Fanboy fantasies or what EK would like us to believe.

Fact for their YYZ flights. I’ve seen the load data.

DNATA (handling company of Emirates Group) just got a licence to offer services in YVR, could this be the first move towards a new flight to YVR?? I think Canadian pax deserve to have more choices and see airlines offering more options and competitive fares to attract pax. Maybe also 3 weekly DXB-YVR

Flightsimboy wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

EK generally goes out full to the brim, it's rare to have empty seats..

Is this speculation or fact? We all like to think EK goes out heavy and all their A380s worldwide are flying full even on those 5-6 times daily flights. Numbers and facts will be nice. Not EK Fanboy fantasies or what EK would like us to believe.

According to latest results, system load factor for EK is about 77%, which is incredibly good for an airline which operates a fleet of over 100 Airbus A380 aircraft and chargers a premium compared to competition on majority of it's routes.

Link: https://www.emirates.com/media-centre/e ... or-2017-18

Given the fact that YYZ-DXB is slot constrained, it is very logical to assume that almost all their flights out of Toronto would be 100% full, year around.

Have you been on an EK flight that had less than 90% load? I haven't. I think i took about 10 EK flights over the last 10 years, and all of them were 99% Load Factor if not 100%.


N

yycdel wrote:

iadadd wrote:

The UAE-Canada bilateral is 6x per week. EK was too stubborn to only take the 6. EY then came in , when it was relatively new airline, and commenced 3x weekly AUH-YYZ flights, EK soon followed by swallowing the last 3 available slots.

I'm pretty sure this is one of EK's biggest regrets in history

The bilateral limits any one airline to 3 weekly.
That's why AC is also 3 weekly on YYZ DXB

Can they wetlease an 380 to Flydubai?

c933103 wrote:

yycdel wrote:

iadadd wrote:

The UAE-Canada bilateral is 6x per week. EK was too stubborn to only take the 6. EY then came in , when it was relatively new airline, and commenced 3x weekly AUH-YYZ flights, EK soon followed by swallowing the last 3 available slots.

I'm pretty sure this is one of EK's biggest regrets in history

The bilateral limits any one airline to 3 weekly.
That's why AC is also 3 weekly on YYZ DXB

Can they wetlease an 380 to Flydubai?

haha.

Even if they could, all the 6 frequencies are currently used up.

But they do have Emirates branded bus service on Vancouver-Seattle and also codeshare with Westjet on Canada-USA and Canada-LGW.

As Westjet grows and gets 787s, we might see a stronger partnership between the 2. Currently I believe you can can book Canada-LGW-DXB and onwards on Westjet/Emirates

Emirates also interlines with Air Canada. I recently booked YYC-LHR-DXB on AC/EK 1 ticket

longhauler wrote:

One of the advantages of being of a certain age, is that instead of frantically banging away at my iPad looking for "a source", quite of few of us were actually there and watching the procedings of Emirates Airline and its attempts at bullying Canada into changing a "years old" bilateral agreement because they really really really wanted it. Every other country to date had given them what they wanted, how dare Canada not!

You may want to pretend that this has something to do with "my employer" but it does not. It was a very embarrassing spectacle to watch and we airline enthusiasts sat back and watched.

If you really need "a source", perhaps for "your employer", one good place to start is this very website. Look at the message strings starting about 10 years ago. It is an interesting chronology as it unwound ... getting worse and worse by the day. As I said, it was very entertaining.

Perhaps a better source would be to purchase a subscription to Globe and Mail online. The unpaid archives do not go further than around 5 years. With your paid subscription, you will see the news releases further back as well as some of the editorials. Sadly missing though are the full pages ads bought by Emirates calling us Canadians "unworldly" and "not fully understanding how business works".

But in the Globe and Mail online, one can read of the 3 days a week, then 6 day a week offer. Lost though, when Etihad picked up 3 frequencies and asking for 6. You asked a valid question once before though. And that was if they were offered 6 days a week, why didn't they take it?

Perhaps, as you were a teenager when this was occurring you didn't see that common sense had nothing to do with it. It was all about pride, ego and no one was going to tell Emirates how often they can fly, let alone Canada's government. They wanted daily and would accept nothing less. That is why their "retaliations" against Canada were kind of silly. Most Canadians just sat back and wondered about this odd mentality as it unfolded.

But ... as the airline world actually did exist before the internet, things like "emotion", "spirit", "ego" may be lost when searching for "a source", and certainly would not appear when looking at age old government documents.

Sadly, most of the "old timers" (I am 58) on here have left this website. It is not hard to understand why. I often wonder why I come back to this website when confronted with the folks that think that if they can't find it on their iPad ... it could not possibly have happened. But, for you own entertainment ... look back 10 years on this website, Emirates Airline put on quite a show.

As always, your diatribes usually end my involvement in a message string. So good luck with that. The rest of though, that were "actually there" know better.

DYKWIA can only take one so far.

I'm not daft enough to believe that an airline pilot would be privy to international negotiations held under secrecy. As such, we can only rely on what's on the record. And the record (the bilateral, the Emerson report etc) are quite clear. As is often the case, the simplest explanation is the best one.

I'm not here to defend EK's cringe-worthy behaviour. I'm just not willing to overlook AC's equally cringe-worthy behaviour. Factually incorrect "fact sheets" about EK; an AC COO engaging in partisan hackery/criticizing the opposition for ...err...doing its job; some nonsensical fear mongering about YOW-FRA being important (and then being reduced/discarded regardless).

That aside, I don't buy into the Trumpian notion that anything that AC/Canada does is inherently wise/reasonable/rationale, or that anything UAE/EK does is egoistic/emotional/irrational. That kind of flag waving nonsense is a bit immature.

Nor do I care how old you think I am. I saw it play out quite clearly too. I didn't care for EK's tactics, but the noise didn't alter the simple reality that their entry would have been beneficial for a Canadian market that, as AC's own subsequent capacity growth (well above population growth) has shown, was evidently underserved at the time.

Seems you and your band of flag waving protectionists were as emotionally affected by the impact of the noise on your ego/pride/spirit (ironic, eh?) as EK. To the extent that you felt compelled to fight against what was clearly in the interests of Canadian consumers (that is to say, the vast, vast majority of Canadians). You lot "won", but it strikes me as a rather Pyrrhic victory. Only one side came out worse than before. And it wasn't EK.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to depart every time your dogma is challenged. Just don't expect your "facts" to go unchallenged. As Senator Mercer pointedly told your former COO 7 years ago:

"This is serious business. This has cost the government — it does not matter which government it is — and Canadians millions, if not billions, of dollars and created some serious problems for our military operations while we were winding down our operations in Afghanistan. I urge you to think about that, about what the consequences will be of some of these oppositions."

B747forever wrote:

YYZatcboy wrote:

alan3 wrote:

There is. If it were up to EK they would serve YYZ daily, as well as YUL and YVR. The Canadian government won't allow it, BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH CANADIANS WANT TO GO TO DUBAI as required by Canadian Bi-laterals without open skies..

Fixed it for you.

Which is the same as protecting AC. There are few routes around the world that can survive purely on OD, so it is a harsh criteria the Canadian government uses. It is only in place to protect AC by controlling the connection flows and skewing them towards AC and its JV partners. It is such a stupid rule and makes it only harder and more expensive for people to reach their destination. The government should be working in the interest of the people and allow the ME3/TK better access to the Canadian market. Dont see how that is harmful to the average citizen. It is only AC and the TATL JV that would lose out.

No worry, we now have 787 an aircraft make to fly point to point route! /s

Flightsimboy wrote:

On a side note I noticed a couple of times EK when it departs from Rwy 23 they no longer use taxiway Q most of the time, which all heavies use when departing on these super long hauls. Perhaps lighter loads on board not requiring that extra runway? Again I am just speculating. Would be nice to know the reason why? Was nice when it used to come close to the fence. Hey at least it will be a delight to see the whale depart now in the sunny summer afternoon . Will still be quite the show-stopper. Even now.

The 388, and quads in general have more flexibility with departure performance than twins do. Twins have very strict limits on runway length in case of engine out, but the 388 can afford to do intersection takeoffs without any real penalty because of redundancy. If they can save time, they’ll do it because they can.