Isn’t it 6 weekly with the remaining 3 taken up by EY?

EK413

neomax wrote:

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.

I guess on the days when it gets really hot it would need all the runway possible. Would be a shame if it didnt come up close to the fence. Of course nothing like the jets in Sydney, Australia but still we could all be asked to stay across the road, which actually does happen on some days.

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.

So this is exactly what American, Delta and United want (to protect them from EK's U.S. expansion, example: DXB-ATH-EWR and DXB-MXP-JFK)...? Heh...

FA9295 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.

So this is exactly what American, Delta and United want (to protect them from EK's U.S. expansion, example: DXB-ATH-EWR and DXB-MXP-JFK)...? Heh...

No. Those are 5th freedoms. AC opposes everything, including nonstop. Unless foreign carriers pay it rent (like the deal it was willing to cut with EK).

ElPistolero wrote:

FA9295 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, to protect AC.

So this is exactly what American, Delta and United want (to protect them from EK's U.S. expansion, example: DXB-ATH-EWR and DXB-MXP-JFK)...? Heh...

No. Those are 5th freedoms. AC opposes everything, including nonstop. Unless foreign carriers pay it rent (like the deal it was willing to cut with EK).

Stop reminding me about how much I hate Air Canada

ElPistolero wrote:

FA9295 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, to protect AC.

So this is exactly what American, Delta and United want (to protect them from EK's U.S. expansion, example: DXB-ATH-EWR and DXB-MXP-JFK)...? Heh...

No. Those are 5th freedoms. AC opposes everything, including nonstop. Unless foreign carriers pay it rent (like the deal it was willing to cut with EK).

I know. I was just using those 5th freedom routes as examples...

You are absolutely right. It was the GTAA who notified EK that they would not longer have a gate that could accommodate the A380 during their regular schedule. EK had no other choice than to change its schedule.

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.

oceanbeat wrote:

You are absolutely right. It was the GTAA who notified EK that they would not longer have a gate that could accommodate the A380 during their regular schedule. EK had no other choice than to change its schedule.

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.

Who in specific needs the class F gate? Or is it just a volume deal?

CrewBunk wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Stop reminding me about how much I hate Air Canada

I'm gonna guess that is why the paid political lobbyists on here keep making this about Air Canada. It has to be easier to make the opponent of your client a known hated entity than something so vague as the government or its policies.

I think its funny that so many people writing pages on here think it matters. Like anyone that makes these decisions reads an aviation website. This effort should be directed at them.

I have to figure that Emirates has pretty good lawyers, no? So ... is there local business between Canada and the United Emirates? If so, then why not increased traffic allowed? If not, then try to change the laws so that any traffic, not just local traffic is included. But writing pages and citing examples on this website seems kinda fruitless.

But, back to the schedule change. A close friend of mine who works for the GTAA intimated it had to do with gating at YYZ terminal one which is packed. They have been trying to move Emirates to terminal three. Maybe this is a concession to move their flight to a less busy time but allow them to stay at terminal one.

Are you implying that I am a paid lobbyist?

oceanbeat wrote:

You are absolutely right. It was the GTAA who notified EK that they would not longer have a gate that could accommodate the A380 during their regular schedule. EK had no other choice than to change its schedule.

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.

Its a combination of both YYZ T1 being full and DXB being packed in its previous times.

CrewBunk wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Stop reminding me about how much I hate Air Canada

I'm gonna guess that is why the paid political lobbyists on here keep making this about Air Canada. It has to be easier to make the opponent of your client a known hated entity than something so vague as the government or its policies.

I think its funny that so many people writing pages on here think it matters. Like anyone that makes these decisions reads an aviation website. This effort should be directed at them.

I have to figure that Emirates has pretty good lawyers, no? So ... is there local business between Canada and the United Emirates? If so, then why not increased traffic allowed? If not, then try to change the laws so that any traffic, not just local traffic is included. But writing pages and citing examples on this website seems kinda fruitless.

As is often the case with air travel in Canada it is and isn't about AC simultaneously. Going back to basics, here is what the Emerson report says:
....

"Canada’s approach has outlived its usefulness and now renders our air services less competitive, less trade-friendly, and more costly than those of our global competitors.

Maintaining the status quo presents the risk of continued decline in market share and a weakened economy, due to the higher costs of air travel that flow from a lack of competition."
...

However, the "approach" it is criticizing is one that allows AC to dictate the rules (as is also noted in the Emerson report quoted below).
...

"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.
This contrasts with the international air policies of most of Canada’s peers, where, consumer interests have been given a more prominent role in determining the shape of aviation pol­icy, and of the national interest. Canadian consumers and the local economy are the ones bearing the cost of the current approach."
...

Aside from EK, there are other cases. TK has been lobbying hard for more slots and access to Vancouver. It's been flying to Canada for a decade. There's no real reason to deny it, other than the one above: considerations about "Air Canada's well-being".

The current "approach" enables but does not force AC to interfere. AC chooses to do so, at direct cost to Canadian consumers. Would it really come as a surprise if consumers viewed this as a manifestation of AC's contempt towards them? Granted these are just airline-related observations on an airline-related forum. No one expects change.The situation is what it is, but there is an onus on everyone to reflect it as accurately as possible.

I agree with concerns about a lack of competition in the Canadian market, but the problem seems to me to be much more serious on the domestic side. Domestic fares in Canada are quite high by international standards and most of the market is carved into a duopoly. International fares from Canada, by contrast, are generally quite reasonable. I can fly from Toronto to European destinations or from Vancouver to Asian destinations much more cheaply than I usually can from most American cities, for example. Air Canada also does a remarkably good job of serving international destinations directly from secondary cities, which is good for both business and tourism. Compare AC's overseas routes from Calgary to BA's from Glasgow, AF's from Lyon, or LH's from Berlin. There are plenty of places in the world where there are restricted bilaterals, slot restrictions, and other barriers to open skies. It does seem slightly odd to me that there's such a long-term fixation on flights between Canada and one small Gulf emirate.

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 followed that story closely back then. And above corresponds to my recollection of the events.

I can see the logics for an O&D-centric approach for bilateral agreements. That's the most relevant factor in assessing the mutual economic benefits for both countries.

When O&D traffic is minimal and connecting traffic is the real driver; then that's a different ball game.

DXB is a well located hub, but most importantly extremely low cost to operate in (cheap jet fuel, cheap labor and maybe state subsidies?). YYZ on the other end, is the opposite. (For the better or the worst, Canada decided to make its airports cash cows, and tax fuel big time). So should we let our heavily taxed national carriers lose market share under those circumstances? Not so sure.

Even for Toronto consumers, when Air Canada loses market share (following an open sky with EY/EK), many current AC international flights would just cease to be profitable (due to the loss of some connecting passengers) and disappear altogether. Toronto consumers would actually end up worst off.

FWIW, I was at DND during Camp Mirage BS. Childish behavior from a supposedly ally came to my mind then.

CrewBunk wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Are you implying that I am a paid lobbyist?

I notice that Westjet isn't mentioned even though a big part of Canada's air industry. I'm guessing once they get their 787s in the air, these routes like India and the Middle East will be in their sights, against Emirates. Everyone loves Westjet so this definately can't be against Westjet. It's all about managing public image

Emirates already code shares with Westjet. If you try to book a trip to the Indian subcontinent you have 5-6 different combunations to get to your final destination. They also route you via Gatwick on Westjet and onwards on EK to your final destination via Dubai. And sometimes you have them putting you on Fly Dubai to and from Dubai to the Indian Subcontinent so you land up travelling on three different carries. Seriously who would want to get off an Emirates jet and get on board a Westjet aircraft at Gatwick. The difference would be night and day.

YYZLGA wrote:

I agree with concerns about a lack of competition in the Canadian market, but the problem seems to me to be much more serious on the domestic side. Domestic fares in Canada are quite high by international standards and most of the market is carved into a duopoly. International fares from Canada, by contrast, are generally quite reasonable. I can fly from Toronto to European destinations or from Vancouver to Asian destinations much more cheaply than I usually can from most American cities, for example. Air Canada also does a remarkably good job of serving international destinations directly from secondary cities, which is good for both business and tourism. Compare AC's overseas routes from Calgary to BA's from Glasgow, AF's from Lyon, or LH's from Berlin. There are plenty of places in the world where there are restricted bilaterals, slot restrictions, and other barriers to open skies. It does seem slightly odd to me that there's such a long-term fixation on flights between Canada and one small Gulf emirate.

I agree.

I dont think Canada's stance against the U.A.E or Turkey is unjustified. That being said, I think both of those countries could use some extra slots. Canada just updated it's bilateral air agreement with a bunch of countries, including Israel, Morocco, Qatar, Thailand and South Africa. It's been 11 years since the U.A.E bilateral was updated, and 9 years since the Turkey bilateral was signed. The O&D from Canada to both those countries has surely grown since then. I say give the U.A.E 14x weekly slots, expandable to 21x slots after a few years, and more or less the same for Turkey. That, in itself, won't hurt Air Canada too much, will enable EK, TK and EY to expand service, all the while keeping them in check. Emerson will be happy, i'm sure.

As for the domestic market and the high fares, that is an entirely different beast. We are a vast country and a sparsely populated one. We can never achieve the level of domestic fares we see in the States or Europe.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

I dont think Canada's stance against the U.A.E or Turkey is unjustified. That being said, I think both of those countries could use some extra slots. Canada just updated it's bilateral air agreement with a bunch of countries, including Israel, Morocco, Qatar, Thailand and South Africa. It's been 11 years since the U.A.E bilateral was updated, and 9 years since the Turkey bilateral was signed. The O&D from Canada to both those countries has surely grown since then. I say give the U.A.E 14x weekly slots, expandable to 21x slots after a few years, and more or less the same for Turkey. That, in itself, won't hurt Air Canada too much, will enable EK, TK and EY to expand service, all the while keeping them in check. Emerson will be happy, i'm sure.

I agree. That seems very fair. I think the optics might be tricky politically given the issues with Turkey these days, but it certainly makes sense for the UAE. Canada might as well try and get something in return in exchange for that concession.

As for the domestic market and the high fares, that is an entirely different beast. We are a vast country and a sparsely populated one. We can never achieve the level of domestic fares we see in the States or Europe.

I agree that matching Europe and the States would be very difficult. I do think there are still loads of opportunities for lower costs, however. Just compare the typical Ryanair terminal with YYZ and YVR's terminals, which have the AIFs and landing fees to match.

It's also striking how much fares can drop whenever some competition is added to a route.

ExMilitaryEng 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 followed that story closely back then. And above corresponds to my recollection of the events.

I can see the logics for an O&D-centric approach for bilateral agreements. That's the most relevant factor in assessing the mutual economic benefits for both countries.

When O&D traffic is minimal and connecting traffic is the real driver; then that's a different ball game.

DXB is a well located hub, but most importantly extremely low cost to operate in (cheap jet fuel, cheap labor and maybe state subsidies?). YYZ on the other end, is the opposite. (For the better or the worst, Canada decided to make its airports cash cows, and tax fuel big time). So should we let our heavily taxed national carriers lose market share under those circumstances? Not so sure.

Even for Toronto consumers, when Air Canada loses market share (following an open sky with EY/EK), many current AC international flights would just cease to be profitable (due to the loss of some connecting passengers) and disappear altogether. Toronto consumers would actually end up worst off.

FWIW, I was at DND during Camp Mirage BS. Childish behavior from a supposedly ally came to my mind then.

Not sure I follow the logic:

- If this is about principle and O&D is the baseline, so be it. Apply it universally. Restrict Icelandic, Dutch and German carriers according to O&D. In this case, the EU Open Skies argument holds no water; principles dictate international agreements, not the other way round. Be like other many other nations and sign bilateral agreements with individual EU states. Principles are great, but the O&D argument is a fig leaf. It's all arbitrary.

- Low cost/low tax, high cost/high tax are irrelevant in a global market. AC sources goods from low cost/low regulation markets. Is it buying Chinese-made blankets and computers? Is it outsourcing back-office work? Is your electronic device made in Canada? The same principle applies with air travel. I'm not opposed to your approach, as long as it's applied universally. If it's ok for AC to buy goods and services from lower cost jurisdictions, why should it be afforded any more protections than any other Canadian company/industry?

- The notion that Toronto consumers will lose doesn't make sense to me. If Toronto passengers choose fly other carriers, they are de facto being catered too/"winning". If some routes collapse on the back of that, it's because there isn't a sufficient demand to sustain them. This is common enough in Canada; how many airports does AC fly into in the North? In a nutshell: the market will decide. If people want those routes to survive, they always have the option of either not flying the competition or paying more. That they might choose not to, is a conscious choice. No route is sacrosanct.

Ultimately, this is about letting the consumer choose. As they do in just about every other industry. Either one trusts them. Or one doesn't. I personally trust consumers.

I don't know what is so great about DXB unless you like sitting on a plane on the ground for 90 minutes after doors closed to wheels up; or circling the terminal twice before your gate finally opens up and you can park after landing. If you're going to India, LHR for FRA, seems an easier connection point.

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?

There was a quite a fascinating rumor-thread a few years back that brought up the idea of EK serving Buffalo as that would allow it to possibly hit the Hamilton area and far western suburbs of Toronto

Adam

CrewBunk wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Are you implying that I am a paid lobbyist?

No Quite the opposite. You are a good example of the focus

It's a high school debating technique. If you didn't think you would win an argument against A then slowly shift the focus so that you are arguing against B hoping your results would be better

So instead of lobbying against protecting Canadian jobs, or protecting Canada's air industry, lobby against protecting Air Canada. And like yourself, most Canadians hate Air Canada, so the results may be better

I notice that Westjet isn't mentioned even though a big part of Canada's air industry. I'm guessing once they get their 787s in the air, these routes like India and the Middle East will be in their sights, against Emirates. Everyone loves Westjet so this definately can't be against Westjet. It's all about managing public image

Then it's a good thing most (?) of us have more than a high school education. I openly advocate against protecting any jobs. When one gets away from the simplistic emotion that lies at the core of the "protecting Canadian jobs" approach, one realizes how damaging it would be if anyone reciprocated that approach on a country that relies heavily on exports. Like ours.

I imagine Trump's policy of upending free trade to protect US jobs plays well with you, but it would have grave consequences for Canada. It's us free marketers/free traders who're left to explain the economic benefits of softwood lumber exports to the US. Or, for that matter, make sure that the US doesn't adopt AC's attitude and demand that 50% of the Canada-US air travel market share go to US carriers (that'll blow a hole right through AC's sixth freedom strategy). Or fight to make sure that AC can keep sourcing cheap goods from less regulated markets instead of being forced to buy Canadian. Or fight against taxes and airport rent. Or make sure AC's ability to buy Boeings isn't held hostage by trade disputes.

Nothing we say makes anyone hate AC. Thats down to each customer's experience with AC. Rouge airbuses, cleanliness standards, on time performance, poor IRROPs customer service, insulting compensation, TATL banana bread etc are the more likely culprits. AC controls those aspects.

In any case, this issue was never about the threat foreign airlines pose. It's about the threat Canadian consumers pose when they're given free rein to exercise their choice. Heaven forbid they should choose to fly another airline if AC isn't getting something in return. Perhaps the public's antipathy towards AC isn't one-way. Perhaps it's mutual.

Granted, I'm more than willing to look the other way if AC actually starts practicing what it preaches. Buy Canadian all the time, every time. Pity it doesn't. Remember Aveos?

ElPistolero wrote:

- If this is about principle and O&D is the baseline, so be it. Apply it universally. Restrict Icelandic, Dutch and German carriers according to O&D. In this case, the EU Open Skies argument holds no water; principles dictate international agreements, not the other way round. Be like other many other nations and sign bilateral agreements with individual EU states. Principles are great, but the O&D argument is a fig leaf. It's all arbitrary.

Canada signed an open skies agreement with the EU. Obviously there's lots of O&D between Canada and Europe, first of all. The O&D between Canada and individual European countries is irrelevant. Also, O&D between Canada and both the Netherlands and Germany is huge. I'm not sure where those examples came from. More importantly, Canada and the EU signed that deal because they determined it would be beneficial to both jurisdictions. For one thing, the tourism industries benefit in both countries. Secondly, there are plenty of Europeans who might connect through Canada to the US, just as there are plenty of Canadians who connect through Europe.

That situation simply isn't present between Canada and the UAE. Those A380s aren't filled with Emiratis coming to admire Niagara Falls, and the market for them connecting in Canada to onward destinations is equally tiny. Clearly, the only reason to add permitted frequencies is to shift Canadians bound for South Asia and other destinations from Canadian carriers to Emirates.

- Low cost/low tax, high cost/high tax are irrelevant in a global market. AC sources goods from low cost/low regulation markets. Is it buying Chinese-made blankets and computers? Is it outsourcing back-office work? Is your electronic device made in Canada? The same principle applies with air travel. I'm not opposed to your approach, as long as it's applied universally. If it's ok for AC to buy goods and services from lower cost jurisdictions, why should it be afforded any more protections than any other Canadian company/industry?

This is getting a bit far fetched. The cost of landing fees and fuel are of a rather different order of magnitude for airlines than blankets and computers. Secondly, quite simply, Canadian airlines are protected because they can be. Canada has signed many international trade agreements that guarantee (mostly) free trade of goods between most countries. Canada has never signed any agreement guaranteeing universal free access to the Canadian airline market.

Nobody's talking about banning Emirates either. They're already flying 3 A380s a week to Toronto. That's quite a bit of permitted capacity.

- The notion that Toronto consumers will lose doesn't make sense to me. If Toronto passengers choose fly other carriers, they are de facto being catered too/"winning". If some routes collapse on the back of that, it's because there isn't a sufficient demand to sustain them. This is common enough in Canada; how many airports does AC fly into in the North? In a nutshell: the market will decide. If people want those routes to survive, they always have the option of either not flying the competition or paying more. That they might choose not to, is a conscious choice. No route is sacrosanct.

As you just said yourself, to make direct routes survive in this new environment, consumers will have to pay more. Is this such a pro-consumer policy after all? Put simply, there are countless YYZ and YUL routes today that are supported by a mixture of O&D traffic and connecting traffic from the States and elsewhere. If carriers like Emirates are able to cream off a bunch of the O&D passengers, many of those routes will no longer be supportable. Therefore all those connecting passengers disappear too. That means fewer direct flights and less airport revenue, which ends up raising costs for Toronto consumers.

Of course you're right that competition is a good thing and lower fares for consumers is a goal to be aspired to, but there are very real costs to Emirates' preferred approach that must be taken into consideration.

hz747300 wrote:

I don't know what is so great about DXB unless you like sitting on a plane on the ground for 90 minutes after doors closed to wheels up; or circling the terminal twice before your gate finally opens up and you can park after landing. If you're going to India, LHR for FRA, seems an easier connection point.

Depending on where you're going in India, DOH is better than DXB, LHR and FRA. If you're flying on the right day.

I'm surprised that the bilateral hasn't been amended. According to the CTA website, the 6 flight restriction between Canada/UAE has been in place since 2003. Are we supposed to believe that O&D traffic hasn't increased in the last 14 years? While I don't know the increase in the Canadian population in the UAE, the population of the UAE has tripled in size since 2003.

Airlinerdude wrote:

I'm surprised that the bilateral hasn't been amended. According to the CTA website, the 6 flight restriction between Canada/UAE has been in place since 2003. Are we supposed to believe that O&D traffic hasn't increased in the last 14 years? While I don't know the increase in the Canadian population in the UAE, the population of the UAE has tripled in size since 2003.

Clearly the bilateral should be expanded. I think part of the problem may be that the UAE overplayed their hand by closing the Canadian military base and banning government overflight. Changing it now would seem like Canada was giving in to that behaviour, and could provoke more of it from them and others.

YYZLGA wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

- If this is about principle and O&D is the baseline, so be it. Apply it universally. Restrict Icelandic, Dutch and German carriers according to O&D. In this case, the EU Open Skies argument holds no water; principles dictate international agreements, not the other way round. Be like other many other nations and sign bilateral agreements with individual EU states. Principles are great, but the O&D argument is a fig leaf. It's all arbitrary.

Canada signed an open skies agreement with the EU. Obviously there's lots of O&D between Canada and Europe, first of all. More importantly, Canada and the EU signed that deal because they determined it would be beneficial to both jurisdictions. For one thing, the tourism industries benefit in both countries. Secondly, there are plenty of Europeans who might connect through Canada to the US, just as there are plenty of Canadians who connect through Europe.

That situation simply isn't present between Canada and the UAE. Those A380s aren't filled with Emiratis coming to admire Niagara Falls, and the market for them connecting in Canada to onward destinations is equally tiny. Clearly, the only reason to add permitted frequencies is to shift Canadians bound for South Asia and other destinations from Canadian carriers to Emirates.

- Low cost/low tax, high cost/high tax are irrelevant in a global market. AC sources goods from low cost/low regulation markets. Is it buying Chinese-made blankets and computers? Is it outsourcing back-office work? Is your electronic device made in Canada? The same principle applies with air travel. I'm not opposed to your approach, as long as it's applied universally. If it's ok for AC to buy goods and services from lower cost jurisdictions, why should it be afforded any more protections than any other Canadian company/industry?

This is getting a bit far fetched. The cost of landing fees and fuel are of a rather different order of magnitude for airlines than blankets and computers. Secondly, quite simply, Canadian airlines are protected because they can be. Canada has signed many international trade agreements that guarantee (mostly) free trade of goods between most countries. Canada has never signed any agreement guaranteeing universal free access to the Canadian airline market.

- The notion that Toronto consumers will lose doesn't make sense to me. If Toronto passengers choose fly other carriers, they are de facto being catered too/"winning". If some routes collapse on the back of that, it's because there isn't a sufficient demand to sustain them. This is common enough in Canada; how many airports does AC fly into in the North? In a nutshell: the market will decide. If people want those routes to survive, they always have the option of either not flying the competition or paying more. That they might choose not to, is a conscious choice. No route is sacrosanct.

As you just said yourself, to make direct routes survive in this new environment, consumers will have to pay more. Is this such a pro-consumer policy after all? Put simply, there are countless YYZ and YUL routes today that are supported by a mixture of O&D traffic and connecting traffic from the States and elsewhere. If carriers like Emirates are able to cream off a bunch of the O&D passengers, many of those routes will no longer be supportable. Therefore all those connecting passengers disappear too. That means fewer direct flights and less airport revenue, which ends up raising costs for Toronto consumers.

Of course you're right that competition is a good thing and lower fares for consumers is a goal to be aspired to, but there are very real costs to Emirates' preferred approach that must be taken into consideration.

Bit tired, so pardon mistakes. .

- Either O&D is the criteria. Or it isn't. I don't particularly care if LH is 99% sixth freedom, but if that's the case, let's stop pretending that O&D means anything. It's just a convenient excuse. FWIW, Icelandair isn't covered by the EU Open Skies.

- I don't follow your argument on trade. Many Canadian companies operate in a high tax, high regulated environment. What makes AC special? That existing rules/policies protect it doesn't mean much. My point is simple: if AC can benefit from finding international vendors that suit its needs, why should Canadians be denied the same level of choice when it comes to air travel? One rule for AC and its employees; another rule for the rest of us?

On benefits to the consumer:

1) There is nothing anti-consumer about making consumers pay for the service they want. Quite the opposite. Demanding that some consumers should be forced to pay higher airfares to subsidize other consumers is a lot more anti-consumer.

2) We heard that scaremongering about creaming off passengers in the AC CEO's take on YOW-FRA. How's that route doing these days? Point being: markets evolve. If pax choosing not to fly AC puts routes on the line, then I'm afraid the onus is on AC to find a way to keep them. Perhaps by improving its product (plenty of room there). Theres a fundamental inequality and unfairness about trying to protect one passenger's choice by restricting another passenger's choice. Put another way, why should Canadians of South Asian origin have their choice restricted/pay more so that a Canadian of European origin can travel to Europe conveniently and cheaply. Not a good look, is it?

3) The other people on those YUL and YYZ flights - the ones who want to fly AC or go somewhere - aren't going to disappear. A route might go; the passengers won't. Passenger numbers aren't going to decline. They will still need to be served. It may be inconvenient for the O&D pax on that route (presumably a minority) but that's offset by the fact that others are benefitting from increased choice. All told, it will have zero bearing on tax or other revenue. The number of people leaving Canada isn't going to dive. They will still fly to get to where they need to.

4) Lower fares don't mean lower airport revenue. They stimulate more demand, which generates more revenue. I don't follow your logic here.

5) Its not just about EK. It's about letting people fly whichever airline they want to on whichever day they want.

hz747300 wrote:

I don't know what is so great about DXB unless you like sitting on a plane on the ground for 90 minutes after doors closed to wheels up; or circling the terminal twice before your gate finally opens up and you can park after landing. If you're going to India, LHR for FRA, seems an easier connection point.

Maybe if you are flying to DEL or BOM, a European connection is just as handy. But to get to any other Indian city you would have to connect onto a 3rd flight through DEL or BOM anyway, and many flights from Europe arrive in India very late at night which isn't great for connections. Through the Gulf, you can connect directly to a larger number of secondary cities in the region.

ElPistolero wrote:

- Either O&D is the criteria. Or it isn't. I don't particularly care if LH is 99% sixth freedom, but if that's the case, let's stop pretending that O&D means anything. It's just a convenient excuse. FWIW, Icelandair isn't covered by the EU Open Skies.

Nobody has said O&D is the sole criterion. It's one element of many taken into account when designing these bilaterals.

- I don't follow your argument on trade. Many Canadian companies operate in a high tax, high regulated environment. What makes AC special? That existing rules/policies protect it doesn't mean much. My point is simple: if AC can benefit from finding international vendors that suit its needs, why should Canadians be denied the same level of choice when it comes to air travel? One rule for AC and its employees; another rule for the rest of us?

Canada is a relatively small economy. It's not a coincidence that the vast majority of its most successful companies, like the banks, are in protected industries. Having the big five banks become branches of British and American banks would clearly be devastating to the Canadian economy, even if it meant slightly lower account fees for Canadian consumers. Obviously competition is a good thing, and Canada is already one of the most open economies in the world, but in the real world Canada making its economy completely open when clearly most other countries do not do the same would not be in its best interest.

[2) We heard that scaremongering about creaming off passengers in the AC CEO's take on YOW-FRA. How's that route doing these days? Point being: markets evolve. If pax choosing not to fly AC puts routes on the line, then I'm afraid the onus is on AC to find a way to keep them. Perhaps by improving its product (plenty of room there). Theres a fundamental inequality and unfairness about trying to protect one passenger's choice by restricting another passenger's choice. Put another way, why should Canadians of South Asian origin have their choice restricted/pay more so that a Canadian of European origin can travel to Europe conveniently and cheaply. Not a good look, is it?

As you well know, the product is at most a minor consideration in passengers' choice of carrier. It's all about price. And Air Canada's pretty much never going to get to Emirates' costs without Canada adopting the tax, labour, and regulatory policies of the UAE. And I don't think that's the right course of action for Canada.

That last point sounds impressive rhetorically, but not sure how that works. If anything, it's likely to be South Asian travellers losing their non-stop flights.

3) The other people on those YUL and YYZ flights - the ones who want to fly AC or go somewhere - aren't going to disappear. A route might go; the passengers won't.
Passenger numbers aren't going to decline. They will still need to be served. It may be inconvenient for the O&D pax on that route (presumably a minority) but that's offset by the fact that others are benefitting from increased choice. All told, it will have zero bearing on tax or other revenue. The number of people leaving Canada isn't going to dive. They will still fly to get to where they need to.

Of course the number of passengers at YYZ or YUL changes. If there's no more direct flight, the number of connecting passengers goes to pretty much zero. That's a huge drop.

4) Lower fares don't mean lower airport revenue. They stimulate more demand, which generates more revenue. I don't follow your logic here.

If you lose the direct flights, you lose all the connecting passengers. If you lose all the connecting passengers, you lose a lot of airport revenue.

5) Its not just about EK. It's about letting people fly whichever airline they want to on whichever day they want.

Is it though? There aren't too many other airlines complaining about their respective countries' bilaterals with Canada. If anything, I hear AC complaining about China's obstructionism by denying them slots. And before you say that serves them right, it's rather different from the situation between Canada and the UAE, where each country's carriers can provide the same level of service. Look at how many Chinese carriers fly into YVR compared with the number of flights AC is able to offer to China.

Regardless, as I said above, you're clearly right that the bilateral should be expanded, though I don't think full open skies makes sense for Canada. I suspect it might have been done long ago if the UAE hadn't been so over-the-top in their pressure campaign.

The bank analogy is completely flawed because there is no lack of service as a result of that regulation.

There are dozens of one stop destinations being denied to the consumer because of the Bi-lats

If Canadians had to drive 30km to the nearest ATM to protect one Canadian bank - then it would change. Why is a third stop any different.

YYZLGA wrote:

Clearly the bilateral should be expanded. I think part of the problem may be that the UAE overplayed their hand by closing the Canadian military base and banning government overflight. Changing it now would seem like Canada was giving in to that behaviour, and could provoke more of it from them and others.

This was an unusual case for the UAE because the degree of restriction is so unprecedented. A number of countries restrict access to UAE carriers including Germany and China, but the level of service is much greater in those cases despite the restrictions. Of course Canada has a strong hand since the UAE carriers need to traverse Canadian airspace en route to the USA.

One thing to consider is that ordinary people going to assorted countries, particularly with "bad" passports, will find transits via the Gulf countries to be far easier than transferring via Western Europe, where those individuals need visas simply for airside transits--not to mention that for smaller and more obscure destinations there are no options from Western Europe. In case of IRROPS being stuck in Western Europe it's absolutely a nightmare for those "bad" passport holders.

CrewBunk wrote:

I wondered if Canada is even allowed to close airspace to a country by international law. Then I remembered Canada did close Canadian airspace to Russia after the destruction of Korean 007

Yes they are allowed. Canada has withdrawn from the International Air Services Transit Agreement, which covers the 1st and 2nd freedoms of the air, meaning those freedoms are no longer automatic guarantees in Canada.

https://www.icao.int/secretariat/legal/ ... sit_EN.pdf

By a second note dated 10 November 1987, the Government
of Canada gave a new notice of withdrawal from the Agreement, which took effect on 10 November 1988.

Some other countries that haven't accepted or revoked their acceptance of the agreement include:

Saudi Arabia
Russia
Brazil
Sudan
Indonesia
Libya

CrewBunk wrote:

What was unprecedented was the reaction of the UAE. As others in this thread note it became a public relations fiasco. Every time Canada said no they became more vocal and more public. I always thought it kinda strange to publicly mock the government you are trying to convince.
When the minster of defense had his aircraft denied passage through UAE airspace, I thought it a strange gamble as Canada denying access to UAE aircraft would have a greater affect on them as you say.
I wondered if Canada is even allowed to close airspace to a country by international law. Then I remembered Canada did close Canadian airspace to Russia after the destruction of Korean 007

While not working/involved in anyways with the UAE situation, I was at DND at the time. The least I can say is that UAE completely destroyed its negotiating position, and most importantly, its credibility.

I'm not surprised that EK+EY is still currently at 6 times per week.

YYZLGA wrote:

Nobody has said O&D is the sole criterion. It's one element of many taken into account when designing these bilaterals.

Then let's take it one step further and acknowledge it's not a criterion at all. Just a convenient excuse. What's sufficient O&D anyway? 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%? Its all meaningless.

Canada is a relatively small economy. It's not a coincidence that the vast majority of its most successful companies, like the banks, are in protected industries. Having the big five banks become branches of British and American banks would clearly be devastating to the Canadian economy, even if it meant slightly lower account fees for Canadian consumers. Obviously competition is a good thing, and Canada is already one of the most open economies in the world, but in the real world Canada making its economy completely open when clearly most other countries do not do the same would not be in its best interest.

Not sure that works. Every Canadian has access to the same services from those banks. Nobody is denied one type of banking service to make sure that someone else has access to it.

As you well know, the product is at most a minor consideration in passengers' choice of carrier. It's all about price. And Air Canada's pretty much never going to get to Emirates' costs without Canada adopting the tax, labour, and regulatory policies of the UAE. And I don't think that's the right course of action for Canada.

Two issues:

- Tax, labor and regulatory policies are rarely uniform across countries. In some cases they will confer an advantage to one or the other. What's wrong with Canadians taking advantage of others' policies? For that matter, whats wrong with Americans taking advantage of Canada's lumber policies?

- Canada has predatory pricing and enforcement mechanisms in place, so let's put that aside. AC's high densified/Rouged more or less it's entire Y offering allegedly to be more competitive with the price sensitive segment you're referring to). If it can't compete on price with a real full service carrier even now...well, perhaps we should set up a tax or charitable fund to keep those critically important nonstop flights going and subsidizing sixth freedom passengers on heavily discounted fares. At least the burden of this type of forced subsidization won't be concentrated on certain people on the basis of their destination.

That last point sounds impressive rhetorically, but not sure how that works. If anything, it's likely to be South Asian travellers losing their non-stop flights.

They won't lose anything they're not choosing to lose. A non-stop flight does not have some kind of inherent value. It's only worth what consumers think it's worth. If they prefer one-stop flights on UHL, that is their prerogative. If they prefer non-stop, that is their choice. If anyone wants a nonstop, they should pay what it's worth to them. If that's not enough for an airline, so be it.

Of course the number of passengers at YYZ or YUL changes. If there's no more direct flight, the number of connecting passengers goes to pretty much zero. That's a huge drop.

Questionable logic:

- If the connecting passengers are high yielding enough, the flights will stay.

- If they aren't, they're paying unsustainably low fares and are being subsidized by O&D passengers. Why shouldn't these O&D pax have the same opportunity to benefit from cheaper connecting flights if they want to? What makes a US pax on a heavily discounted more worthy of choice/value for money benefits than someone living in YUL or YYZ?

If you lose the direct flights, you lose all the connecting passengers. If you lose all the connecting passengers, you lose a lot of airport revenue.

People will still travel to get to where they need to get to. If you get more competition, you will get lower prices. Lower prices stimulate more demand, especially locally. One additional YYZ passenger - regardless of whether he/she is boarding a nonstop flight - more than offsets the airport revenue loss from losing 6 connecting passengers.

Is it though? There aren't too many other airlines complaining about their respective countries' bilaterals with Canada. If anything, I hear AC complaining about China's obstructionism by denying them slots. And before you say that serves them right, it's rather different from the situation between Canada and the UAE, where each country's carriers can provide the same level of service. Look at how many Chinese carriers fly into YVR compared with the number of flights AC is able to offer to China.

Regardless, as I said above, you're clearly right that the bilateral should be expanded, though I don't think full open skies makes sense for Canada. I suspect it might have been done long ago if the UAE hadn't been so over-the-top in their pressure campaign.

Enough for Emerson to make some pointed remarks about it. TK is the most vocal one right now, but dig through the archives and you'll find similar stuff from ET. And that's just in the public domain. I'm not sure what the China bit is about. I support Open Skies with them too, if that's not clear.

CrewBunk wrote:

upwardfacing wrote:

This was an unusual case for the UAE because the degree of restriction is so unprecedented. A number of countries restrict access to UAE carriers including Germany and China, but the level of service is much greater in those cases despite the restrictions. Of course Canada has a strong hand since the UAE carriers need to traverse Canadian airspace en route to the USA.

The UAE was offered the standard bilateral agreement given to all newcomers. It is very restricted with 3/6 flights a week. It appears to be the start, then more frequencies are added as demand increases

What was unprecedented was the reaction of the UAE. As others in this thread note it became a public relations fiasco. Every time Canada said no they became more vocal and more public. I always thought it kinda strange to publicly mock the government you are trying to convice

When the minster of defense had his aircraft denied passage through UAE airspace, I thought it a strange gamble as Canada denying access to UAE aircraft would have a greater affect on them as you say

I wondered if Canada is even allowed to close airspace to a country by international law. Then I remembered Canada did close Canadian airspace to Russia after the destruction of Korean 007

Neither side covered themselves in glory, but it was entertaining. The Emirates hat incident was oddly amusing. The Minister of Defence (who's flight was banned) wasn't shy about what he thought was in the best interests of the country and military. Presumably the generals who advised him shared his view.

Pity it became all about egos. One could argue that the UAE might have received more slots by now if it weren't for that incident. To which the counterpoint is QR, which is still stuck on 3/weekly.

CrewBunk wrote:

This very message thread is probably what Emirates does not want to happen. Everyone remembering the public relations train wreck of ten years ago

Knowing how large corporations handle public image, their image consultants probably told them to can it and shut up. It's been ten years now, they must have listened

The main topic of this thread was the change of Emirates' departure times out of Toronto. I see a lot of people jumping in and moving the topic to how hard the UAE thinks they have been treated by Canada. Not realizing that doing that and bringing up the old sentiment is in Emirates' worst interest

I don't think anyone cares about how EK feels about this thread. I only jumped in because there were some questionable statements that warranted challenging.

That said, I doubt the world sees it as an EK train wreck. Some in Canada do, but even here sentiment was very divided. EK had Premiers and the Liberals on its side at the time. That provoked one of the more bizarre episodes, specifically an AC COO attacking elected officials for doing their job and challenging the government. Remember this:

"I would caution the government from taking advice from a party [the Liberals]that oversaw about a dozen Canadian airline bankruptcies during its tenure in office from 1993 to 2006"

Maybe this thread will remind the Liberals about where they stood on this issue. And what AC thought of them.

ElPistolero wrote:

One could argue that the UAE might have received more slots by now if it weren't for that incident. To which the counterpoint is QR, which is still stuck on 3/weekly.

Since AC get's what it wants when it comes to bilateral's, and has recently been expanding more and more into India and also DXB, I highly doubt there would have been any change at all to the existing bilateral.

ElPistolero wrote:

Then let's take it one step further and acknowledge it's not a criterion at all. Just a convenient excuse. What's sufficient O&D anyway? 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%? Its all meaningless.

But it is a criterion. It's just not the sole criterion. I don't understand why you feel it has to be either/or. If the UAE were China or Japan, obviously we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not sure that works. Every Canadian has access to the same services from those banks. Nobody is denied one type of banking service to make sure that someone else has access to it.

Anyone complaining about how poorly served Canadian air passengers are should check out the international service offered from comparable American cities. For YUL, see CLE. For YVR, see PDX. For YYC, see TUL.

- Tax, labor and regulatory policies are rarely uniform across countries. In some cases they will confer an advantage to one or the other. What's wrong with Canadians taking advantage of others' policies? For that matter, whats wrong with Americans taking advantage of Canada's lumber policies?

I don't want Canada to adopt the UAE's tax and labour policies. The problem is that if no adjustment is made, then all business will clearly flow to the places with no tax and no regulation. Believe it or not, Canadian consumers have to have an income to buy all these EK flights you say they want to buy.

- Canada has predatory pricing and enforcement mechanisms in place, so let's put that aside. AC's high densified/Rouged more or less it's entire Y offering allegedly to be more competitive with the price sensitive segment you're referring to). If it can't compete on price with a real full service carrier even now...well, perhaps we should set up a tax or charitable fund to keep those critically important nonstop flights going and subsidizing sixth freedom passengers on heavily discounted fares. At least the burden of this type of forced subsidization won't be concentrated on certain people on the basis of their destination.

I've flown the ME3 in coach and I don't really see what the fuss is about. It's basically the same as AC. Even if AC shrinks pitch to 25 inches, they're never going to be able to fully match the costs of a carrier in a country with virtually no tax and extremely lax labour regulations--leaving all the alleged subsidies aside.

Enough for Emerson to make some pointed remarks about it. TK is the most vocal one right now, but dig through the archives and you'll find similar stuff from ET. And that's just in the public domain. I'm not sure what the China bit is about. I support Open Skies with them too, if that's not clear.

The China bit is about China denying slots to AC at its airports, with an effect that is somewhat similar to what Canada is doing to EK--the difference being that Canada is doing nothing to restrict Chinese carriers in return.

Maybe flydubai should buy 50 CSeries, then we might see Canadian gov move a bit on the bilaterals

AC Volume.

whywhyzee wrote:

oceanbeat wrote:

You are absolutely right. It was the GTAA who notified EK that they would not longer have a gate that could accommodate the A380 during their regular schedule. EK had no other choice than to change its schedule.

enilria wrote:

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.

Who in specific needs the class F gate? Or is it just a volume deal?

worldranger wrote:

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

IF EK were to be given unfettered access to YYZ choice is exactly what would suffer. For example, PK which is a "challenged" flight would cease very quickly. Jet Airways would likely limit their growth as well. Multiple daily flights that exist now to heavily traveled EU routes via connecting airlines like KLM would be reduced. Right now the most cost effective way to get to some spots in Africa is on KLM via Amsterdam. Kenya for example. Cheaper than EK. If KLM cut back to one daily flight you better believe those inexpensive flights would cost a lot more money because all EK has to do is squeeze them out and then raise fares again when they are gone. Without connecting flights BA would drop one of its daily flights for sure. EK is not a social service agency looking to give cheap flights to poor underserved travelers but a money making and tourist generating machine for Dubai.

IF there is such a huge demand on the route, why hasn't Etihad also put an A380 on its service to Abu Dhabi and their network that flies many of the same places EK does?

EK did not start service to YYZ first. Rather than start with the service that had been negotiated by the governments, they said they would boycott the route until they could fly daily (not 3 or 6). Etihad said they would gladly start service 3x a week without all the hystronics on their neighbour. Only when EK thought they could get shut out of the market did they decide to start 3x a week service with the remaining slots after Etihad.

All the other Arab and North African Airlines fly the similar schedule to what EK is now moving to. Ethiopian, Saudi, Egyptian, and somewhat Etihad all fly into and out of YYZ earlier than EK chose. BTW those first 3 "lack of choice airlines" would likely not be able to make their routes work if EK was daily or multi-daily. I gues "choice" is only choice if you are choosing EK. I don't get it. Multiple carriers in my mind are much more competitive than one or two dominant ones.

pnwtraveler wrote:

worldranger wrote:

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

IF there is such a huge demand on the route, why hasn't Etihad also put an A380 on its service to Abu Dhabi and their network that flies many of the same places EK does?

Pretty sure Etihad flies the 2-class high density 77W to YYZ

pnwtraveler wrote:

IF EK were to be given unfettered access to YYZ choice is exactly what would suffer. For example, PK which is a "challenged" flight would cease very quickly. Jet Airways would likely limit their growth as well. Multiple daily flights that exist now to heavily traveled EU routes via connecting airlines like KLM would be reduced. Right now the most cost effective way to get to some spots in Africa is on KLM via Amsterdam. Kenya for example. Cheaper than EK. If KLM cut back to one daily flight you better believe those inexpensive flights would cost a lot more money because all EK has to do is squeeze them out and then raise fares again when they are gone. Without connecting flights BA would drop one of its daily flights for sure. EK is not a social service agency looking to give cheap flights to poor underserved travelers but a money making and tourist generating machine for Dubai.

Even if offered unfettered access they probably would not even fly more than a single daily flight. In fact it's conceivable they would downgauge to a 777.

Emirates in the last year or two has

--tried a second daily 380 to LAX, quickly downgauged to a 777, then cancelled it outright
--dropped second daily 777 to both BOS and SEA and have not reinstated them
--downgauged DFW from a 380 to a 777
--dropped a third daily JFK 380, though they are launching a daily 777 to EWR
--not launched any new US airports other than EWR which overlaps that of JFK

To be fair there are a few increases:

--IAD upgauge to 380 a couple of years ago
--upcoming reinstatement of 380 to IAH (oil industry cycle-related, most likely)
--reinstatement of MCO and FLL services from less-than-daily to daily 777

[I welcome corrections to this list]

The point is that the market for Emirates is limited, despite the wishes, or protests of people, on this site. There are only so many people who need to fly to Karachi or Khartoum or Kabul and that market is very well defined. We are not talking about Iceland or Portugal or Greece here.

Canadian cities simply do not have the premium F and J class market that major US cities have. They do not offer the overall market size that major US cities have, except for YYZ and to a lesser degree YVR. Canada does not have the level of business and government ties to the UAE that the USA does.

As a result, Emirates would likely find that they have better options to send their 380s and 777s, and those who share your view should have very little to fear. One can envision daily YYZ and likely YVR, but that's really it. YUL is marginal. YYC and YEG even more so.

pnwtraveler wrote:

All the other Arab and North African Airlines fly the similar schedule to what EK is now moving to. Ethiopian, Saudi, Egyptian, and somewhat Etihad all fly into and out of YYZ earlier than EK chose. BTW those first 3 "lack of choice airlines" would likely not be able to make their routes work if EK was daily or multi-daily. I gues "choice" is only choice if you are choosing EK. I don't get it. Multiple carriers in my mind are much more competitive than one or two dominant ones.

Most of those carriers manage cohabitate perfectly well together at major US airports like JFK, EWR, ORD, LAX, IAD, IAH, etc. Just to reiterate, Canada is a smaller and less premium market than is the USA, so all the aforementioned carriers would adjust capacity accordingly.

--For a number of countries like Saudi Arabia, there is a specific market segment that wants nonstop flights back home, even if they are just a couple of days a week.

--For network carriers like Ethiopian, they have their own unique connections that are distinct from those of Emirates.

As for EY, its future appears to be in doubt (note their withdrawal from a number of US markets as well as other places), so let's see how that changes the picture.