By ADAM SCHRECK
The Associated Press
Tuesday, November 9, 2010; 8:07 AM

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- The United Arab Emirates will soon force Canadians to get a visa to travel to the Persian Gulf federation as ties sour between the once-close countries.

The new requirement announced by the UAE's embassy in Ottawa comes amid an increasingly bitter spat centered on landing rights for Emirati airliners. The dispute has already cost Canada access to a military air base that is a crucial link in the supply line for its mission in Afghanistan.

Previously Canadians, like travelers from the U.S., much of Europe and a number of other countries, generally didn't have to apply for a visa before coming to the Emirates and simply had their passports stamped on arrival.

That visa waiver policy will no longer apply to Canada because relations had dipped to a point where they were "neither healthy nor hopeful," according to an official source in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi with knowledge of the matter.
ad_icon

"The visa waivers are granted to countries with a special relationship ... built on economic and other areas of close and growing cooperation," said the person, who was granted anonymity to speak freely about diplomatic matters. "The current status of relations with the government in Canada compared with other countries on the visa waiver program is at a much lower level... It isn't fair to include it with countries with which we have a healthy and productive relationship."

Emiratis need a visa to travel to Canada.

Some 25,000 Canadians live in the Emirates, which is Canada's largest trade partner in the Middle East, according to the UAE. About 200 Canadian companies have operations in the Gulf state.

Jacques Labrie, a spokesman for Canada's Foreign Affairs minister, confirmed that all Canadians traveling to the UAE will need visas beginning Jan. 2.

"All sovereign states have the right to decide the entry requirements for visitors to their countries," Labrie said in an e-mail.

Emirati officials have ratcheted up the pressure on Ottawa after failing to secure additional landing rights for their growing government-backed airlines.

Abu Dhabi last month moved to bar Canada from using a secretive air base outside Dubai that was expected to play an important role in the drawdown of Canadian troops and equipment from Afghanistan. Canada contributes about 2,900 troops to the NATO-led mission.

A UAE official has said the Emirates lobbied against Canada's bid for a non-permanent United Nations Security Council seat. Canada pulled out of the race after falling behind rivals in an early round of voting in what was seen as a significant setback for the G-7 economic power.

The UAE has pushed Canada for years to win greater access for its state-run carriers Emirates and Etihad Airways, arguing they should be allowed more flights to keep up with demand. The two carriers are growing rapidly by launching long-haul routes that funnel travelers through their hubs in Dubai and Abu Dhabi for connecting flights.

Air Canada has argued against increasing the flights, saying little passenger traffic originates from the UAE. It says the airlines are merely taking Canadians to third countries with stopovers in the Gulf.

Emirates and Etihad each run three flights a week to Canada, from Dubai and Abu Dhabi respectively.

Emirates, the Mideast's largest airline, uses its biggest plane, the double-decker Airbus A380, on the Dubai-Toronto route. It says the route - served by a wide-body Boeing 777-300ER until June 1 last year - averaged occupancy levels of more than 90 percent throughout 2009, the most recent year for which it had figures available.

Word of the new visa rules comes just over a month after the UAE dropped its threat to ban key data features on BlackBerry smart phones. The devices, popular with affluent UAE residents, are made by Research in Motion Ltd., one of Canada's most prominent companies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110901892.html

Wow the little guy keeps firing at Canada when Canada does not fire back.
Does the U.A.E. want stale relations???

First they target our gov't by lobbying against our united nations seat, secondly they target our companies (RIM), now the Canadian people!..

I live in the U.A.E, and I'm not liking this at all! ...

Just about to post this article. I think it's ridiculous. Oh well, it's the UAE's loss.

Canada should just ban Emirates from flying over Canadian airspace.

Reaaalllyy stupid move by the UAE. They continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

Really a playground spat.

By Laurence Frost and Andrea Rothman

Pierre-Henri Gourgeon, chief executive officer for Air France-KLM Group. Photographer: Antoine Antoniol/Bloomberg

Air France-KLM Group is teaming up with Europe’s biggest airlines to push for European Union action to slow the encroachment of Emirates and other Gulf carriers, saying the region’s status as an air-travel hub is under threat.

“Europe is at the crossroads of international air travel, and this is a role we need to value and defend,” Air France Chief Executive Officer Pierre-Henri Gourgeon said in an interview. “What we’re telling the authorities is that we need a strategy that gives us a chance to resist.”

Gourgeon, British Airways Plc CEO Willie Walsh and Deutsche Lufthansa AG’s Wolfgang Mayrhuber are among executives scheduled to attend a meeting of the Association of European Airlines on Oct. 15 in London. They will discuss a joint push with American rivals for a change to the export-guarantee regime and the trans-Atlantic trade agreement that enshrines it, said Christian de Barrin, a spokesman of the Brussels-based industry group.

For the past two decades, the U.S. and Europe have agreed to withhold export credit guarantees from airlines registered in five countries where Airbus SAS and Boeing Co. airliners are built: Britain, France, Germany, Spain and the U.S. This means many European and all American carriers are denied cheaper government-backed plane financing available to rivals from countries including Gulf states.

‘Home-Country’ Rule

The role of export financing has ballooned since the credit crunch reduced banks’ willingness to lend. The share of plane deliveries covered by government guarantees more than doubled to 34 percent in 2009, Airbus and Boeing figures show.

“Our ability to fund the acquisition of new aircraft is handicapped by the so-called ‘home-country’ rule,” BA spokesman Paul Marston said. “These guarantees are not operating in the way they were intended -- and we therefore urge the EU to amend the rules to remove the competitive distortions that have developed.”

In a policy paper published on its website last week, Lufthansa called for an end to “market imbalances” resulting from export-credit financing, saying “basic rules of regulatory policy are being disregarded.”

Emirates, the biggest Gulf carrier, already pays very little in the way of airport charges or fuel tax at its Dubai hub, as well as escaping many of the social charges that weigh on European companies, Air France’s Gourgeon said. Those benefits could generate 3 billion euros ($4.2 billion) of operating income if applied to Air France-KLM, he said.

No Tax?

“When you’re supported in this way you can offer the end product at very low prices,” the CEO said in the Oct. 7 interview at Air France’s headquarters near Paris Charles de Gaulle airport. “They don’t pay tax -- they don’t even have a word for it.”

European carriers may also seek action under EU Regulation 868, which imposes protective duties on foreign carriers that use subsidies or other forms of “non-commercial advantage” to undercut prices, the AEA’s de Barrin said.

“When so many entities and economies around the world are being shored up by governments in order to survive, it is surprising to single out Emirates with unsubstantiated claims of being subsidized,” President Tim Clark said in comments e- mailed to Bloomberg. “We have grown without subsidy through the success of our commercially-driven business model -- and see no reason to apologize for what we have achieved.”

Qatar, Etihad

The European Commission, the 27-nation EU’s executive arm, said it aims to settle the matter through the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

“The commission believes the solution to this issue will be found in the renegotiation of the OECD sector understanding on export credits for civil aircraft,” John Clancy, trade spokesman, said by e-mail from Brussels. “The commission is working towards this goal on behalf of the EU member states but of course appreciates all dialogue with the relevant stakeholders.”

Emirates overtook Lufthansa last year as the biggest carrier on international flights, following a sixfold increase in traffic since 2000, when it ranked 24th. British Airways, top in 2000, now stands fourth in the International Air Transport Association ranking, which treats Air France and KLM as separate airlines.

Airbus and Boeing together have outstanding orders for 102 widebody planes from Qatar Airways, 59 from Etihad Airways and 175 from Emirates, which has already taken delivery of 13 of the 90 Airbus A380 superjumbos it has ordered in total.

Level Playing Field

The U.S. Export-Import Bank guaranteed $414 million of Emirates bonds last year to fund the purchase three Boeing 777 jets, an example of the cheaper financing that would be off limits for Lufthansa or Southwest Airlines Inc.

“There’s definitely an argument that there needs to be a level playing field in financing,” said Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BGC Partners. “Any pressure that France, Britain and Germany can bring to bear makes good sense.”

For investment-grade U.S. carriers, cost savings from the agency-guaranteed financing they are denied would amount to 3 percent of total loan value annually, according to Air France data comparing the spreads on guaranteed debt with those of commercially traded plane-financing notes over the past two years.

“That’s a lot of money,” Marc Verspyck, the French carrier’s senior vice president for finance, said in an interview. In addition to the actual savings, eligibility for guarantees cuts financing risk when ordering planes, he said.

Manchester Route

Air France rose 1.4 percent to 12 euros at the 5:30 p.m. close of trading in Paris. Lufthansa slipped 0.4 percent to 14.35 euros on the Frankfurt exchange. British Airways gained 1.6 percent to 268.4 pence in London.

European airlines may struggle to maintain efficient connections as Middle Eastern carriers lure more passengers away with new destinations, Gourgeon said. He cited Emirates’s introduction of an Airbus A380 superjumbo flying between Dubai and Manchester, northern England.

“It will progressively become more difficult for British Airways to have enough passengers to offer the same frequency of flights to Hong Kong,” the CEO said. Traffic through Paris, Milan and Munich would also suffer, he said.

If left unchecked, the competitive imbalance between the Gulf and Europe will eventually lead to a mass shift in stopover traffic, and other economic activities, to Middle Eastern hubs, Gourgeon said.

“I think it’s very dangerous for Europe,” he said. “What they’re trying to do is buy our jobs.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Laurence Frost in Paris at lfrost4@bloomberg.net Andrea Rothman in Paris at aerothman@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Kenneth Wong at kwong11@bloomberg.net; Benedikt Kammel at bkammel@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-10/air-france-ceo-gourgeon-calls-for-eu-curbs-on-expansion-by-gulf-carriers.html

“The Conservative government’s incompetence has turned minor problems in Canada-UAE relations into a crisis,” said Paul Dewar, the Foreign Affairs critic for the NDP.

“This is an unprecedented step that will have a major impact on travel and business between Canada and the UAE. Last week, it cost our military $300-million to scramble out of our base in the UAE – now this. The government has to be held accountable for its failure to maintain what used to be a strong relationship between Canada and UAE.”


I'm getting a little annoyed at the rhetoric from certain parties about how this is our own fault. How about some backbone?

I think its due time our government does something though. As it stands right now, it seems as if they are just sitting on their hands while the relationship worsens. Maybe we are waiting till all our troops are pulled out of UAE to impose some retaliatory measures? I think taking away spots from Emirates and Etihad would be the most logical move.

By Shane McGinley

Emirates Airline’s global expansion plans will be increasingly challenged by governments' reluctance to agree more traffic rights, a senior executive at Air France KLM reportedly said in New York earlier this week.

The Dubai-based airline is likely to face "more and more reluctance to grant traffic rights," Peter Hartman, chief executive of the KLM unit of Air-France-KLM, and a member of the airline's governing board, told the Dow Jones Newswires in New York.

At the Berlin Air Show earlier this month, Emirates announced it had signed a $11.5bn deal to buy 32 additional A380 ‘superjumbo’ aircraft from European manufacturer Airbus. This was in addition to the 48 Airbus 380s, 70 Airbus 350s, 18 Boeing 777-300s and seven Boeing air freighters on order, totaling 143 wide-body aircraft worth more than $48bn at list price.

[B]However, the carrier’s ambitious expansion plans are encountering obstacles around the globe, as governments implement increasingly protectionist policies to safeguard their own national carriers.

Recently, an unsourced report in the French La Tribune newspaper said the French government had rejected requests to allow Emirates to obtain more landing slots in Paris and had only agreed to one new landing slot, between Dubai and the French city of Lyon. Emirates has also been refused permission to increase its capacity to Canada and South Korea and is also embroiled in a fare dispute with the German government, which last year forced it to raise its rates on some routes to Germany so that it did not undercut EU carriers.

An Emirates spokesperson told Arabian Business in an emailed statement on Thursday that “the decision on airport slots are negotiated by the Dubai Civil Aviation Authority (DCAA) and the aeronautical authorities of the governments involved.”

The chances of European countries blocking route applications from Gulf carriers are slim because of the impact that would have on Airbus, said Richard Aboulafia, vice president at Fairfax, Virginia based consultant Teal Group.

The planemaker has plants in France, Germany, Spain and the UK, has 280 orders for its A380 and A350 models from Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad Airways of Abu Dhabi.

“The Middle East is grabbing market share from legacy airlines and European governments seem willing to make that sacrifice," Aboulfia added.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/air-france-klm-chief-warns-emirates-over-expansion-292985.html

I think its due time our government does something though. As it stands right now, it seems as if they are just sitting on their hands while the relationship worsens. Maybe we are waiting till all our troops are pulled out of UAE to impose some retaliatory measures? I think taking away spots from Emirates and Etihad would be the most logical move.

+1

Uhmmm.... the funny thing is, it will only inhibit tourism from Canada to the UAE (if there is any left, that is). I don't think they are being very mature, diplomatically, to be
upping the ante like this.

UAE will learn the hard way. Trust me, Canada will have the last laugh.

Uhmmm.... the funny thing is, it will only inhibit tourism from Canada to the UAE (if there is any left, that is). I don't think they are being very mature, diplomatically, to be
upping the ante like this.

Like the Conservatives or not, they're behaving the way a government from a mature western democracy behaves. Restraint and diplomacy is the way to go. The UAE are behaving like spoiled children. Let them have their hissy fit, Canada won't play those games.

Well,,, I did some reading on this issue. And our govt is protecting Air Canada. I was on Air Canada a few days ago. The food and services were appalling. I dont think I'll be flying Air Canada again. KLM was much much better in contrast.

I think approving landing rights not only for Emirates/Etihad but other foreign airlines will be good for Canada, Canadians and our cities. It will bring more competition, force Air Canada to improve there services and standards. .. more competition will lead to competitive rates, and more carrier options for travellers seeking to travel abroad.

Competition is always healthy for the consumers, but not for the companies (Air Canada) ... Moreover, Canada, Canadians and the Emiratis are the losers, the only winner I see emerging from this blockade is is Air Canada...

Emirates Airline's flagship A380 "superjumbo" made a return to the Dubai-New York route yesterday, helping to lift the world's largest airline's capacity to the US by half.

US authorities have welcomed the new capacity from Emirates, which includes the recent launch of twice-daily flights to Houston and Los Angeles, in contrast with the stance of nations such as Canada, Germany and France, where governments have blocked access to the Dubai-based carrier.

Emirates is now operating 49 flights per week to four American gateways, the new services will generate a raft of benefits for trade, commerce and tourism.

A 2007 study by the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation found one long-haul flight a day to the airport generates $623.5 million (Dh2.28 billion) in annual economic benefits, sustains 3,120 jobs in southern California and produces $156m in annual wages.

http://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/emirates-puts-a380-back-on-new-york-route

Opening up the Canadian airspace to foreign airlines will help increase tourism, trade and will bring new jobs to the cities, and revenue for the airports.

A flight between Calgary and Dubai would be good to boost oil trade between the two. But our govt' is too conservative as it seems.

We are busy focusing on trade with the U.S, I think its about time we start developing new trade ties outside North America..

Yes Competition is healthy. That is a given. But competition on an even playing field is what works. Not when one has a hand up over the other. That is not competition.

What I would like to know is if we open the floodgates and allow every airline to do what they want, if and when AC goes bust, will you be willing to pay more taxes in order to support the 20,000+ Canadians that will be out of work? What about those brand spanking new airport constructed or under construction across the country? Whom is going to pay the fees to keep them going? Do you really believe that WS or AT will be able to absorb those international routes that AC has?

Reality is that there should be more competition. I totally agree and I am sorry that your experience on AC was not the best. Mine have always been good. No issues but then again I am usually in Business Class. When I compare AC to the likes of United, Continental, Delta and so on, I can see a HUGE difference. I am rather tall and it is not fun when you are in Economy with with your knees to the seat in front.

If you note, it is not only Canada and Europe, the article states that South Korea has also refused more slots. Seems the ill winds are spreading beyond Europe and North America.

All I have to say is play fair or don't play at all. When that happens then we can truly see the benefits of an open and free market and the benefits to consumers. That applies to AC just as well as the others.

Competition on a level playing field? I don't think Canada plays by those rules anyway, forcing AC to run a government mandate to fly even loss-making routes to keep the country connected, and now protecting it from international competition. The fact that the market opens means the best survivor is left standing. I don't think AC stands much chance if the floodgates open and other real competitors start moving in. So what is a level playing field? If others can run leaner cost structures, are they suddenly not on a level playing field? And it's OK for AC to get protection to be less efficient?

So in order to sustain more jobs than economically efficient by protecting our national carrier, are we willing to pour more tax dollars to make this protectionism work, or let those jobs that shouldn't be there go when real capitalism takes over? Food for thought.

Emirates has certainly stirred up a lot of attention globally wherever it goes. They've successfully bargained for lots of concessions and are very good at lobbying their government. I can also say that's true for AC. When they were going under, Ottawa came to bail them out. Only AC is not as good at doing that all the way and grabbing every good deal with Ottawa than EK.

Well Air Canada received a bailout package of $1 billion CAD, $600 million of which came from the Canadian government.

While Emirates does not receive any subsidies from the government, and Air Canada has received government loans to prevent bankruptcy, isn't it really Air Canada that is government supported?

And of course the Canadian government needs to make good on its investment in Air Canada, so no wonder the government wants to keep Emirates out.

I don't understand all the negative criticism of Air Canada's service. I've flown with them both domestically and internationally and found the service and flight attendants very nice, and there was nothing wrong with the food. The only negative thing I can say about Air Canada is that their flights are quite expensive. I've flown with numerous other carriers and can't say they were any better, and many were worse.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/uae-envoy-explains-tit-for-tat-visa-demand/article1791860/

“Reciprocity” – not retaliation – is the official explanation for a decision by the United Arab Emirates to impose visa requirements on Canadian travellers in the new year.

Visitors from the UAE currently need a visa to enter Canada, and the new rules will simply level the playing field, says a statement from the Gulf country's ambassador in Ottawa.


“The policy is based on a policy of reciprocity,” Ambassador Mohamed Abdulla Al Ghafli said via his office Tuesday.

The line was echoed by officials at the Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa.

“In 2009 the UAE made a decision to pursue visa reciprocity with many countries, including Canada, that did not offer UAE citizens visa-free access,” spokesman Jacques Labrie said in an email.

“The UAE government is now implementing its 2009 decision.”

Neither the Canadian nor UAE official line alluded to the continuing dispute over commercial airline landing rights that has soured relations between the two countries and led to the Canadian Forces being evicted from a key military transit base near Dubai.

However, behind the scenes, officials in the Emirates and in Ottawa with knowledge of the dispute confirm that is the root of the visa decision.

Relations with Canada have reached the point where they are “neither healthy nor hopeful,” an official source in Abu Dhabi told The Associated Press.

“The visa waivers are granted to countries with a special relationship ... built on economic and other areas of close and growing co-operation,” said the person, who was granted anonymity to speak freely about diplomatic matters.

“The current status of relations with the government in Canada compared with other countries on the visa-waiver program is at a much lower level. ... It isn't fair to include it with countries with which we have a healthy and productive relationship.”

A source in Ottawa said negotiations over access to Canadian airports ended badly after Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon won an extension of the Camp Mirage lease last June by promising to resolve the dispute. Canada had been using the base rent-free since 2001.

Instead, said the source, Canada offered only to permit one more flight per week to Canada, but not to Toronto, and then followed up with a second offer that “actually involved a capacity cut from the current agreement.”

“There was a sense that Canada was insulting the UAE because they had agreed at the ministerial level to try and negotiate a fair deal on air access and then proceeded to offer nothing of value,” the source said.

The UAE informed Ottawa in October that it had a month to clear out of Camp Mirage. The base was a critical logistics and supply point for Canada's 2,750 troops in Afghanistan and its loss is complicating withdrawal plans for Canadian soldiers next year.

Insult was added to injury when the UAE refused to allow Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Chief of Defence Staff Walt Natynczyk to land at Camp Mirage en route to Canada from Afghanistan last month.

There are about 25,000 Canadians living in the U.A.E., according to the oil-rich country's embassy website.

^^so Canada receives rent free use of the base for 10 years, and wins an extension of the lease based on a promise to work out the air access dispute.

Canadian citizens have been receiving visa waivers, but the Canadian government does not grant reciprocity to the UAE.

After all these years of Canada taking from the UAE and not giving anything in return, I don't understand how you are surprised the UAE is withdrawing all the things it gave Canada.

Canada cannot bully around the UAE without expecting some kind of negative response.

Toronto,

I agree with all your points. However, the U.A.E is firing at Canada alone it seems. France, and South Korea have denied them additional slots, but they are only taking strict measures against Canada and Canadians, e.g imposing visa restrictions. I dont see these visa restrictions against those other countries.

I currently live in the U.A.E and I have family in Canada who visit me, tansit by while traveling to third countries, and its always good to spend time with loved ones while they stop over for a few days... But now it seems that will be hard .. I was just speaking to a friend about this situation and he is also having the same issue ...

I'm not asking Canada to liberalize the airspace completely to allow just about anyone in, but there has to be some sort of liberal rules in place to allow more flights into Canada by different carriers. Toronto is geographically well-situated to be a North American aerospace hub, servicing flights to Canada and the U.S but I still believe we need to allow some access to foreign airlines not at the cost of our national interests.

Also, when new airlines open up routes they shall be hiring employees, maintainence crew, pay taxes, landing fees, refuel, etc. this will be helpful for the newer airports as they could generate very very valuable $$ ...

But lets hope for the best.. :)

Stephen Harper really screwed up on this one :)

Competition on a level playing field? I don't think Canada plays by those rules anyway, forcing AC to run a government mandate to fly even loss-making routes to keep the country connected, and now protecting it from international competition. The fact that the market opens means the best survivor is left standing. I don't think AC stands much chance if the floodgates open and other real competitors start moving in. So what is a level playing field? If others can run leaner cost structures, are they suddenly not on a level playing field? And it's OK for AC to get protection to be less efficient?

So in order to sustain more jobs than economically efficient by protecting our national carrier, are we willing to pour more tax dollars to make this protectionism work, or let those jobs that shouldn't be there go when real capitalism takes over? Food for thought.

Emirates has certainly stirred up a lot of attention globally wherever it goes. They've successfully bargained for lots of concessions and are very good at lobbying their government. I can also say that's true for AC. When they were going under, Ottawa came to bail them out. Only AC is not as good at doing that all the way and grabbing every good deal with Ottawa than EK.

I said it applies to AC and others. But the fact of the matter is whether you want to accept it or not is that National Governments protect what they want to protect. That applies to All, not only Canada.

And there is no denying that many airlines globally with their current structure cannot compete effectively with Emirates/Ethiad/Qatar.

Toronto,

I agree with all your points. However, the U.A.E is firing at Canada alone it seems. France, and South Korea have denied them additional slots, but they are only taking strict measures against Canada and Canadians, e.g imposing visa restrictions. I dont see these visa restrictions against those other countries.

I currently live in the U.A.E and I have family in Canada who visit me, tansit by while traveling to third countries, and its always good to spend time with loved ones while they stop over for a few days... But now it seems that will be hard .. I was just speaking to a friend about this situation and he is also having the same issue ...

I'm not asking Canada to liberalize the airspace completely to allow just about anyone in, but there has to be some sort of liberal rules in place to allow more flights into Canada by different carriers. Toronto is geographically well-situated to be a North American aerospace hub, servicing flights to Canada and the U.S but I still believe we need to allow some access to foreign airlines not at the cost of our national interests.

Also, when new airlines open up routes they shall be hiring employees, maintainence crew, pay taxes, landing fees, refuel, etc. this will be helpful for the newer airports as they could generate very very valuable $$ ...

But lets hope for the best.. :)

I completely agree. I am not against EK or EY having their landing rights. I am all for it. More planes for me to spot at the airport. (Big plane buff here).

If you want something, like THY does, they are certainly working to prove it. Ethopian is also working hard along with Egyptian who are all seeking/got access to Canada. Funny enough, they received pretty much the same treatment with 3/week. So can we say that there is some unfair treatment being given out? I don't know as I am not privy to the hallowed halls of Parliment.

It is just funny how it all started and everyone is screaming bloody murder. Lets not all blame Canada for this and I am not saying it is all the UAE. Things could have been handled better but this point a finger is getting old. If this does escalate further, and it will, what will this all serve?

If this is so important, then negotiate an open skies agreement and let EK/EY get a hub in Canada but then AC can do the same in Dubai. I can bet bottom dollar that they would be all over it just so they could set up the same structure and lower wages/costs with a hub in Dubai.

The unions would not be happy but as some seem to stress, why support taxpayers here vs. elsewhere. No net benefit from tax dollars elsewhere as it is not flowing to the Cdn government.

Many countries support the main airline of the country; Canada is hardly alone in that respect. Don't be expecting a "level playing ground" in every airport in the world simply because you loudly demand it. It is our country, and our airport we are talking about, not that of the UAE. We should make up our minds who lands here and when, not the other way around.

Well Air Canada received a bailout package of $1 billion CAD, $600 million of which came from the Canadian government.

While Emirates does not receive any subsidies from the government, and Air Canada has received government loans to prevent bankruptcy, isn't it really Air Canada that is government supported?

And of course the Canadian government needs to make good on its investment in Air Canada, so no wonder the government wants to keep Emirates out.

As you said, if we assume that both companies are government supported (to varying degrees) why does it not make sense to protect the company in which you have invested so much? Fact of the matter is that the airline industry and aerospace sectors are, by their expensive nature, intrinsically linked with the government. It is foolish to assume that we live in a world in which truly "open skies" exist. Canada is not the first one to protect its flag carrier and it most certainly won't be the last.

When Greece held the Olympics, they tried to use them as leverage against Canada to allow more landing spaces in Toronto. This type of bullying has been going on for years.

I said it applies to AC and others. But the fact of the matter is whether you want to accept it or not is that National Governments protect what they want to protect. That applies to All, not only Canada.

And there is no denying that many airlines globally with their current structure cannot compete effectively with Emirates/Ethiad/Qatar.

So Ottawa should not be complaining EK gets support from the UAE and make that as a reason to stop their expansion into Canada. Because they're doing exactly the same thing, but less capable to pull off as much for AC.

I also don't think it's Emirates' fault for being able to leverage so much from their governments while others cannot do so.

So Ottawa should not be complaining EK gets support from the UAE and make that as a reason to stop their expansion into Canada. Because they're doing exactly the same thing, but less capable to pull off as much for AC.

I also don't think it's Emirates' fault for being able to leverage so much from their governments while others cannot do so.

My friend, I am not sure what the issue is but where is it that you saw in any public release that Ottawa was complaining about EK getting support.

The crux of the matter is that EK wanted and publically complained about not being able to expand in Canada. Now being someone from Toronto, I can tell you that Toronto is NOT Canada. It is a city in a part of Canada.

So when the CBC confirmed that they were offered 7 slots to YYC/YVR but none to Toronto, why was it rejected? Please answer me that? Even still, why were they when offered more slots to Canada but they had to downgrade the A380 to a 777 to Toronto, was the offer rejected?

And in responce to your last point, AC does the same thing and there is an issue. Why is that? If you think they are being hampered by Canada, wait till the proverbial sh*t hits the fan and other countries jump on the bandwagon. This is but the begining. Thanks to the UAE's actions, it is now front and Centre.

One last point, it is this country's right just as it is any countries right to deny any carrier access to their market. Just as it is your right to not want to fly AC but take EK.

Its a case of the pot calling the kettle black, with most countries openly favouring and supporting their own national carriers. There is no such thing as a "level playing ground", and we have no choice but to accept that every nation will decide who it lets land in its own airports. Now, if a powerful nation like the USA bullies, it is one thing, but if the UAE tries bullying, it may find it is a less effective tactic than they imagine, and they may even be shooting themselves in the foot with a further decline in tourism and investment that we have witnessed in the past few years. I am not convinced they can afford to be slapping tourist visas unnecessarily on countries where there is zero chance that anyone is going to try and arrive from claiming refugee status. As angry as Mexico was last year at some rather short sighted diplomatic moves by Ottawa, they were not foolish enough to slap tourist visas on Canadians because they know full well who they would be hurting the most with such a move.

So Ottawa should not be complaining EK gets support from the UAE and make that as a reason to stop their expansion into Canada. Because they're doing exactly the same thing, but less capable to pull off as much for AC.

I also don't think it's Emirates' fault for being able to leverage so much from their governments while others cannot do so.
EK isn't 'leveraging' from the government - they are the government, like everything else in the UAE. Not a fair comparison. Even though disagree with this, let's assume that Canada is totally in the wrong about EK and it's intentions, the UAE's response is childish, foolish and short-sighted. Ultimately, it's not going crush Canada and unfortunately for the UAE it's sends a message to the rest of the world that if a country simply negotiates with them in a way that isn't to their liking, they will retaliate with a knee-jerk response. Bravo...

^^so Canada receives rent free use of the base for 10 years, and wins an extension of the lease based on a promise to work out the air access dispute.

Canadian citizens have been receiving visa waivers, but the Canadian government does not grant reciprocity to the UAE.

After all these years of Canada taking from the UAE and not giving anything in return, I don't understand how you are surprised the UAE is withdrawing all the things it gave Canada.

Canada cannot bully around the UAE without expecting some kind of negative response.

Exactly. Good on the UAE. :cheers:

Well, best of luck to them in their quest.

Exactly. Good on the UAE. :cheers:

I find what you have just said as offensive. At no point in time did Canada ask to be part of this Peace Mission.

It is doing so out of good will and to take the two things and lump them in saying about flights/commercial air agreements? That shows me the kind of thinking. Yes the UAE agreed to let Canada stage there for free. Good on them. If that is their part, I thank them for the efforts and whole heartedly acknowledge what they have done, but to link a peace keeping mission to an airline(s) not getting flights is pretty low.

I will agree about the Visa waiver. Heck, if Canadians get in without a visa, then there should be the same in return for residents of the UAE.

Based on that logic:

For any peace keeping missions, if you use a base in another country (free or not), any airline from that specified country will automatically gain unlimited flights to the other country. Therefore that should equal out and no one will complain. Not just flights but complete open skies and no one from any govenrment can object. Lets take it to the UN and put it into a Code of Conduct.

The visa waiver can also be sorted out in a different way. For example, Chilean nationals need a visa to enter Canada. Chile charges $134 USD to anyone from Canada entering Santiago by air - a one time 'reciprocity fee'. I think the Chilean government has recognized that imposing visa requirements on Canadians will only hamper their own investment opportunities. Now I'm not saying that Chile and the UAE are in the same boat financially, but if they still wanted to take a shot at Canadians, in my view this would have been the way to do it.

Canada's use of Al Minhad Air Base as a staging base (which is to this day used by other nations for the same purpose) was part of the UAE's own contribution to ISAF's efforts in Afghanistan. In my opinion, this makes "rent free" argument that I've been reading about on this site pretty weak.

I'd like to see what would happen if Canada played as dirty as the UAE and cancelled the existing bilateral thereby not allowing EK/EY to use Canadian airspace. How would EK manage to unload all their seats on the U.S.? It would be nice and expensive, excessively long and virtually impossible to fly into American cities. Nice to see Canada isn't as petty. Also nice to see some foresight by not shooting themselves in the foot, unlike the UAE.

would be good for westjet i bet

but ac needs to change its system they could be doing so much better

Strongarm t5actics are nothing new in the world of global air travel but this is getting ridiculous. The UAE can build Dubai into a global hub without Canada so how this spat really affects them is when it comes to larger markets and players that look at these tactics and wonder who they're dealing with. The EU is watching closely and so are rivals in the Gulf. The UAE ain't the only game in town.

Strongarm t5actics are nothing new in the world of global air travel but this is getting ridiculous. The UAE can build Dubai into a global hub without Canada so how this spat really affects them is when it comes to larger markets and players that look at these tactics and wonder who they're dealing with. The EU is watching closely and so are rivals in the Gulf. The UAE ain't the only game in town.
Yes and no...the South Asian expat community in Canada, in particular Toronto is huge, which is essentially the market that EK is trying to funnel through Dubai. Factor in the massive South Asian community in the US that can use partner airlines to connect in YYZ and the fact that these communities have very strong business ties to the Indian subcontinent as well you have a significant portion of EK's hub strategy.

After all these years of Canada taking from the UAE and not giving anything in return, I don't understand how you are surprised the UAE is withdrawing all the things it gave Canada.
.

This one slid past me earlier without my noticing. Canada taking from the UAE and not giving anything in return!?!? WTF are you talking about? Do you think our Armed Forces are over there to be making some sort of profit for Canada, or something? Good God! All they are doing is using a bit of land. This kind of attitude frankly shocks me. The sooner Canada gets out of that region, the better. We have wasted enough resources and sacrificed too many soldiers as it is. Canadians thinking we should pay the UAE to use a bit of land on top of all of it just blows my mind.

Yes and no...the South Asian expat community in Canada, in particular Toronto is huge, which is essentially the market that EK is trying to funnel through Dubai. Factor in the massive South Asian community in the US that can use partner airlines to connect in YYZ and the fact that these communities have very strong business ties to the Indian subcontinent as well you have a significant portion of EK's hub strategy.


Well they can kiss goodbye to all of that if they are thinking anyone is going to bother getting a visa for UAE just to make a connecting flight through Dubai. Travel is all about taking the path of least resistance.

I find what you have just said as offensive. At no point in time did Canada ask to be part of this Peace Mission.

It is doing so out of good will and to take the two things and lump them in saying about flights/commercial air agreements? That shows me the kind of thinking. Yes the UAE agreed to let Canada stage there for free. Good on them. If that is their part, I thank them for the efforts and whole heartedly acknowledge what they have done, but to link a peace keeping mission to an airline(s) not getting flights is pretty low.
.

+1

This one slid past me earlier without my noticing. Canada taking from the UAE and not giving anything in return!?!? WTF are you talking about? Do you think our Armed Forces are over there to be making some sort of profit for Canada, or something? Good God! All they are doing is using a bit of land. This kind of attitude frankly shocks me. The sooner Canada gets out of that region, the better. We have wasted enough resources and sacrificed too many soldiers as it is. Canadians thinking we should pay the UAE to use a bit of land on top of all of it just blows my mind.


Oh please. As if Canada is in the war to protect the UAE out of the kindness of its heart. Canada's involvement in the war is to protect itself from any potential threats. And if their involvement in the war somehow benefits the UAE, its only an unintended byproduct.

And your assumption that the UAE has itself not contributed soldiers to the war effort is equally arrogant.

Yes and no...the South Asian expat community in Canada, in particular Toronto is huge, which is essentially the market that EK is trying to funnel through Dubai. Factor in the massive South Asian community in the US that can use partner airlines to connect in YYZ and the fact that these communities have very strong business ties to the Indian subcontinent as well you have a significant portion of EK's hub strategy.

+5

Oh please. As if Canada is in the war to protect the UAE out of the kindness of its heart. Canada's involvement in the war is to protect itself from any potential threats. And if their involvement in the war somehow benefits the UAE, its only an unintended byproduct.

And your assumption that the UAE has itself not contributed soldiers to the war effort is equally arrogant.

The base was given to Canada by the U.A.E as part of its contribution to the coalition forces. So I don't see how Canada used U.A.E and gave nothing in return. :S

My friend, I am not sure what the issue is but where is it that you saw in any public release that Ottawa was complaining about EK getting support.

The crux of the matter is that EK wanted and publically complained about not being able to expand in Canada. Now being someone from Toronto, I can tell you that Toronto is NOT Canada. It is a city in a part of Canada.

So when the CBC confirmed that they were offered 7 slots to YYC/YVR but none to Toronto, why was it rejected? Please answer me that? Even still, why were they when offered more slots to Canada but they had to downgrade the A380 to a 777 to Toronto, was the offer rejected?

And in responce to your last point, AC does the same thing and there is an issue. Why is that? If you think they are being hampered by Canada, wait till the proverbial sh*t hits the fan and other countries jump on the bandwagon. This is but the begining. Thanks to the UAE's actions, it is now front and Centre.

One last point, it is this country's right just as it is any countries right to deny any carrier access to their market. Just as it is your right to not want to fly AC but take EK.

Actually, the notion of Emirates being a government-supported airline has irked a lot of souls here in this thread. We see that manifest in one of the replies to my post already. :)

Emirates runs a business, just like any other airline. If they don't get what they want, they'll push back. If China offered Guangzhou to AC instead of Shanghai, does that mean AC will suddenly start flights to Guangzhou? What about the economics? Would they make money? Clearly, Toronto, being the largest city, would have more potential than Calgary and Vancouver. Toronto is what Emirates wanted, so why would they accept something they didn't ask for? I doubt it'll be any different if AC was the one asking the same from another country.

But to think if 7 weekly slots were offered for Vancouver and Calgary, which are much smaller cities, then Toronto appears underserved. I also think Vancouver and Calgary were purposedly offered to EK to refuse, since EK will likely need to make a fuel stop somewhere in Europe as the distance is too far for even the long-haul planes to reach Dubai in one shot. This will diminish the desire to go East to reach South Asia vs. heading west with another airline, which will require 1 less stop. So even less chance of making money from these 2 routes. Notice Montreal, the 2nd largest city, was nowhere in this picture.

AC is a classic example of a seemingly private enterprise with insurance from Ottawa so it will never fail. So it's in substance a quasi-crown corporation. If anyone out there thinks Emirates being a government-owned entity is a problem, then AC should not escape as well.

Canadian bilateral negotiators will not likely use the same tactics as what the UAE is doing when they negotiate new agreements with foreign governments. This is the first time I've seen such drastic action. However, noting what Canada was willing to give, I'm not convinced Ottawa wanted to give anything more to them in the first place. Ultimately, Ottawa has the right to say yes and no to any foreign carrier trying to fly in. But that doesn't mean when it does so it is doing it based on the right reasons. :)

EK isn't 'leveraging' from the government - they are the government, like everything else in the UAE. Not a fair comparison. Even though disagree with this, let's assume that Canada is totally in the wrong about EK and it's intentions, the UAE's response is childish, foolish and short-sighted. Ultimately, it's not going crush Canada and unfortunately for the UAE it's sends a message to the rest of the world that if a country simply negotiates with them in a way that isn't to their liking, they will retaliate with a knee-jerk response. Bravo...

Why is it not a fair comparison? AC has basically insurance from Ottawa that it is too big to fail. Ottawa has bailed them out before. It's just the UAE's involvement in EK is more direct in appearance from their wholly-owned shareholding, while Ottawa's involvement is slightly more indirect in the form of taxpayer-funded loans.

I doubt the UAE expects Canada to suddenly back off its decision. But if they're not getting what they want, they might as well go out with the most inconvenience to Canada. However, I'm curious to know whether transit passengers from Canada are subject to this visa requirement at all? Wouldn't this apply if the passenger passes through immigration only? I don't recall the same type of reaction with the Australians though. They were probably far more worried with Emirates since it impacts all Europe flights from Down Under.

Emirates had a similar issue with Australia ? Then why hasn't the U.A.E asked Australians for visas for coming to the U.A.E ? ... This is an event to just single out Canada.. The Emiratis are calling it visa reciprocity but then they should require all visa waiver countries to acquire visas prior to arrival.

Emirates runs a business, just like any other airline. If they don't get what they want, they'll push back. If China offered Guangzhou to AC instead of Shanghai, does that mean AC will suddenly start flights to Guangzhou? What about the economics? Would they make money? Clearly, Toronto, being the largest city, would have more potential than Calgary and Vancouver. Toronto is what Emirates wanted, so why would they accept something they didn't ask for? I doubt it'll be any different if AC was the one asking the same from another country.

Except that Emirates came out with a study explaining how beneficial it would be to fly into YVR and YYC. Bullsh*t, yes, and that's probably why Ottawa offered it, to call their bluff. EK claimed that they wanted 50 landing slots per week - if they got their double daily to YYZ that's 14, 7 to YVR and 7 to YYC, that's 28 in total. I'm sure YUL would have been on their radar but even they knew that was way too much to ask for up front.
If AC didn't get their way in another country I'm sure Ottawa wouldn't be using a military base or similar as a bargaining chip. The UAE's inflated sense of self importance is the only thing that distinguishes them from just about every other place I've seen.

Except that Emirates came out with a study explaining how beneficial it would be to fly into YVR and YYC. Bullsh*t, yes, and that's probably why Ottawa offered it, to call their bluff. EK claimed that they wanted 50 landing slots per week - if they got their double daily to YYZ that's 14, 7 to YVR and 7 to YYC, that's 28 in total. I'm sure YUL would have been on their radar but even they knew that was way too much to ask for up front.
If AC didn't get their way in another country I'm sure Ottawa wouldn't be using a military base or similar as a bargaining chip. The UAE's inflated sense of self importance is the only thing that distinguishes them from just about every other place I've seen.

+1

They think their free oil money, won in the geophysical lottery, can buy them importance. They have little if any real importance. They just have a lovely collection of 300m souvenirs of greatness that never was. Kind of like castles in Spain.

In that case why don't we Canadian stop travel to that country all together,we have plenty of places on earth who appreciate our hard earn money.Beside with their strict rule against sex and gays I will absolutely never ever travel to UAE.

But to think if 7 weekly slots were offered for Vancouver and Calgary, which are much smaller cities, then Toronto appears underserved. I also think Vancouver and Calgary were purposedly offered to EK to refuse, since EK will likely need to make a fuel stop somewhere in Europe as the distance is too far for even the long-haul planes to reach Dubai in one shot. This will diminish the desire to go East to reach South Asia vs. heading west with another airline, which will require 1 less stop. So even less chance of making money from these 2 routes. Notice Montreal, the 2nd largest city, was nowhere in this picture.

AC is a classic example of a seemingly private enterprise with insurance from Ottawa so it will never fail. So it's in substance a quasi-crown corporation. If anyone out there thinks Emirates being a government-owned entity is a problem, then AC should not escape as well.

Canadian bilateral negotiators will not likely use the same tactics as what the UAE is doing when they negotiate new agreements with foreign governments. This is the first time I've seen such drastic action. However, noting what Canada was willing to give, I'm not convinced Ottawa wanted to give anything more to them in the first place. Ultimately, Ottawa has the right to say yes and no to any foreign carrier trying to fly in. But that doesn't mean when it does so it is doing it based on the right reasons. :)

The one thing missing from this whole discussion is what exactly did the UAE put on the table to offset what they wanted? I would love to hear and or read about that!

As someone already mentioned, Emirates did a study and then publicly released it about the benefits of their service to YYC, YVR etc. So, if they espouced the views that they wanted to serve those cities publicly, then why is it now that we find out their intentions are only for YYZ? Yes those are smaller centres than YYZ but then don't claim to want to do something when in reality you don't.

If Ottawa offered not once but twice, then that was part of the negotiations process. So yet again, Canada the villain was trying to hold back a competitor. However, THY, Egyptian, Korean, and the list goes on, are all serving here. There must be something wrong if they are letting all these different airlines in to the shagrin of AC.

Why anyone would want to travel there in the first place is beyond me...

Canada and Qatar airline deal set to take off

Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan — Canada and Qatar have quietly signed an aviation agreement that will allow Qatar Airways to fly three passenger flights and three cargo flights a week to and from the Gulf sheikdom.

Talks were successfully concluded on Oct. 25 after only three days of negotiation, according to Qatari news media.

The quick agreement with Qatar was in sharp contrast to a dispute between Ottawa and the United Arab Emirates over flights to and from Canada. It caused the UAE to kick the Canadian military out of Camp Mirage, a key logistical base in Dubai that had been used for nine years to support the war in Afghanistan.

Before talks broke down last month, Canada and the UAE had haggled for five years over greater access to Canadian airports for Emirate Airlines and Etihad Airways — an expansion that was strongly opposed by Air Canada and Transport Canada.

Air carriers in Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands also have strongly objected to the rapid expansion of flights to Europe by Gulf carriers.

Canada had not publicized the new air agreement with Qatar, perhaps fearing potential further fallout from its escalating dispute with the UAE. Newspapers in the UAE have not published any details of the air agreement between Canada and Qatar although media there usually cover the aviation industry very closely.

The UAE placed a visa requirement on Canadian visitors earlier this week. When the edict comes into effect in the coming weeks — on Jan. 2, — Canada will be the only western country whose citizens face such a restriction.

Qatar does not require that Canadian citizens have a visa before travelling there. In a sign of warming relations, Canada is to open an embassy in Qatar early next year.

Canada could retaliate against the UAE by cancelling the six flights a week that Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways currently fly to Toronto or by banning UAE aircraft from Canadian airspace as the UAE did when they refused access last month to a flight carrying Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Canada's top soldier, Gen. Walt Natynczyk. Such a move could cost the UAE's two national carriers hundreds of millions of dollars a year in additional fuel costs because it would add several hours' flying time and an additional stop to about a dozen passenger flights every day to the western United States and an hour per day of additional flying time to about half a dozen flights to the U.S. East Coast.

Qatar is a peninsula connected to Saudi Arabia which juts into the Persian Gulf only a few kilometres from the UAE's territorial waters. The country is the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas reserves.

Qatar is home to Al-Jazeera, the Arab- and English-language all-news network, which is hugely popular across the Middle East.

Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and in South Asia, has its forward headquarters in Qatar and the U.S. air force has a major airbase there.

The military was mum Thursday about whether Canada will try to negotiate access to that airbase for its military transports. Since being forced out of Camp Mirage on Nov. 3, passenger flights from Canada to Kandahar have been routed via Cyprus. Cargo flights will soon be added from a U.S. airbase in Germany.

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+Qatar+airline+deal+take/3812753/story.html

Issues with issuing Visas

But that aside, Kipp doesn’t think very highly of the UAE’s strategy to problem-solve in the democratic arena: let’s just hit back by revoking their visas.

The UAE is acquiring a bit of a contentious track record with its dealings with visas. This year Gulf News reports of the sudden change in the issuance and renewal of investors visas: what happened to them, you ask? They are obsolete. What this means is people who did buy property in the UAE with the express ambition of securing their future by in the country are left standing with their mouths hanging open, with no official reasons given to them. Consider the case of Dr. Horst Hoeller, a retired Austrian, who bought his three-bedroom flat in Jumeirah Beach Residence in 2003 and just found out this October that his investor’s visa is no longer valid.

It’s not front page news, we know. But this is spur of the moment in visa regulation. These almost knee-jerk reactions do little for the UAE’s reputation abroad nor its appeal for visitors and workers.

Maintaining its image as the business hub in the Middle East not to mention a popular tourism destination requires a certain amount of stability that is betrayed by impromptu tantrums as with Canada, or moving the goalposts for wealthy investors.

http://www.kippreport.com/2010/11/issues-with-issuing-visas/2/

Canada and Qatar airline deal set to take off

Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan — Canada and Qatar have quietly signed an aviation agreement that will allow Qatar Airways to fly three passenger flights and three cargo flights a week to and from the Gulf sheikdom.

Talks were successfully concluded on Oct. 25 after only three days of negotiation, according to Qatari news media.

The quick agreement with Qatar was in sharp contrast to a dispute between Ottawa and the United Arab Emirates over flights to and from Canada. It caused the UAE to kick the Canadian military out of Camp Mirage, a key logistical base in Dubai that had been used for nine years to support the war in Afghanistan.

Before talks broke down last month, Canada and the UAE had haggled for five years over greater access to Canadian airports for Emirate Airlines and Etihad Airways — an expansion that was strongly opposed by Air Canada and Transport Canada.

Air carriers in Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands also have strongly objected to the rapid expansion of flights to Europe by Gulf carriers.

Canada had not publicized the new air agreement with Qatar, perhaps fearing potential further fallout from its escalating dispute with the UAE. Newspapers in the UAE have not published any details of the air agreement between Canada and Qatar although media there usually cover the aviation industry very closely.

The UAE placed a visa requirement on Canadian visitors earlier this week. When the edict comes into effect in the coming weeks — on Jan. 2, — Canada will be the only western country whose citizens face such a restriction.

Qatar does not require that Canadian citizens have a visa before travelling there. In a sign of warming relations, Canada is to open an embassy in Qatar early next year.

Canada could retaliate against the UAE by cancelling the six flights a week that Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways currently fly to Toronto or by banning UAE aircraft from Canadian airspace as the UAE did when they refused access last month to a flight carrying Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Canada's top soldier, Gen. Walt Natynczyk. Such a move could cost the UAE's two national carriers hundreds of millions of dollars a year in additional fuel costs because it would add several hours' flying time and an additional stop to about a dozen passenger flights every day to the western United States and an hour per day of additional flying time to about half a dozen flights to the U.S. East Coast.

Qatar is a peninsula connected to Saudi Arabia which juts into the Persian Gulf only a few kilometres from the UAE's territorial waters. The country is the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas reserves.

Qatar is home to Al-Jazeera, the Arab- and English-language all-news network, which is hugely popular across the Middle East.

Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and in South Asia, has its forward headquarters in Qatar and the U.S. air force has a major airbase there.

The military was mum Thursday about whether Canada will try to negotiate access to that airbase for its military transports. Since being forced out of Camp Mirage on Nov. 3, passenger flights from Canada to Kandahar have been routed via Cyprus. Cargo flights will soon be added from a U.S. airbase in Germany.

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+Qatar+airline+deal+take/3812753/story.html

Great news. Funy thing is how soon can they start up? How much traffic can they pull away from Emirates? This is why I think EK was pushing hard for so that they can get a hold on that market segment.

Oh well, so much for the non cempetition theory. :lol:

Wait, shh...if you listen closely you'll hear the sound of fair negotiations. Can't wait to see Qatar at YYZ!
I'll have to find the link again but there was a report in a UAE online paper that stated that Canada told its government officials not to fly any UAE carriers. Can you say PROPAGANDA!! Obviously Canada has said no such thing. I think by now we can safely discredit just about every report the UAE issues.

go fil!

Wait, shh...if you listen closely you'll hear the sound of fair negotiations. Can't wait to see Qatar at YYZ!
I'll have to find the link again but there was a report in a UAE online paper that stated that Canada told its government officials not to fly any UAE carriers. Can you say PROPAGANDA!! Obviously Canada has said no such thing. I think by now we can safely discredit just about every report the UAE issues.

Here's this link from bloomberg...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-10/u-a-e-minister-says-canada-bans-officials-from-flights-on-u-a-e-carriers.html

But...

Canada's foreign office has denied issuing such an order to its ministers. "There has been no such directive," said Melissa Lantsman, the director of communications for Lawrence Cannon, the Canadian minister of foreign affairs.

Canada's Blue Sky policy does not place restrictions on the travel of its citizens for official or unofficial purposes, she said. "All official and unofficial business is conducted based on the choices that exist without restriction - this includes [the] Emirates."

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/sheikh-abdullah-comments-on-canada-flight-row

No wonder UAE was desperate to grab the YYZ-Middle East route for its two airlines. They would have had to have known that other major players in the market such as Qatar were hot on the heels. So even from a strictly competition standpoint, I'd much rather have Emirates/Etihad and Qatar airways 6 times a week than just Emirates/Etihad 7 times a week. I don't know why the government would not want to publicize this though. I'm sure the spinsters in UAE are trying to convince everyone who would listen in the Gulf region that Canada is not to be trusted. News like this can go a long way in restoring some trust and goodwill between Canada and the ME at large.

No wonder UAE was desperate to grab the YYZ-Middle East route for its two airlines. They would have had to have known that other major players in the market such as Qatar were hot on the heels. So even from a strictly competition standpoint, I'd much rather have Emirates/Etihad and Qatar airways 6 times a week than just Emirates/Etihad 7 times a week. I don't know why the government would not want to publicize this though. I'm sure the spinsters in UAE are trying to convince everyone who would listen in the Gulf region that Canada is not to be trusted. News like this can go a long way in restoring some trust and goodwill between Canada and the ME at large.
I agree - this actual competition from multiple airlines. Much prefer that.

Here's this link from bloomberg...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-10/u-a-e-minister-says-canada-bans-officials-from-flights-on-u-a-e-carriers.html

But...

Canada's foreign office has denied issuing such an order to its ministers. "There has been no such directive," said Melissa Lantsman, the director of communications for Lawrence Cannon, the Canadian minister of foreign affairs.

Canada's Blue Sky policy does not place restrictions on the travel of its citizens for official or unofficial purposes, she said. "All official and unofficial business is conducted based on the choices that exist without restriction - this includes [the] Emirates."

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/sheikh-abdullah-comments-on-canada-flight-row
Thanks for finding that...

Oh please. As if Canada is in the war to protect the UAE out of the kindness of its heart. Canada's involvement in the war is to protect itself from any potential threats. And if their involvement in the war somehow benefits the UAE, its only an unintended byproduct.

And your assumption that the UAE has itself not contributed soldiers to the war effort is equally arrogant.

-1
misguided baloney.

The one thing missing from this whole discussion is what exactly did the UAE put on the table to offset what they wanted? I would love to hear and or read about that!

As someone already mentioned, Emirates did a study and then publicly released it about the benefits of their service to YYC, YVR etc. So, if they espouced the views that they wanted to serve those cities publicly, then why is it now that we find out their intentions are only for YYZ? Yes those are smaller centres than YYZ but then don't claim to want to do something when in reality you don't.

If Ottawa offered not once but twice, then that was part of the negotiations process. So yet again, Canada the villain was trying to hold back a competitor. However, THY, Egyptian, Korean, and the list goes on, are all serving here. There must be something wrong if they are letting all these different airlines in to the shagrin of AC. I have suspicions that EK expected in order to get more Toronto flights, they need to launch new service to Vancouver and Calgary. But they probably balked when they were expected to fly Vancouver and Calgary but no additional Toronto.

Great news. Funy thing is how soon can they start up? How much traffic can they pull away from Emirates? This is why I think EK was pushing hard for so that they can get a hold on that market segment.

Oh well, so much for the non cempetition theory. :lol:

3 a week? Isn't that what Emirates has now? Wonder if Ottawa will let them do more in the future (so it becomes a repeat of the Emirates saga now).

Here's a question; since everyone wants fly in to Toronto, does YYZ even have enough slots for everyone who wants them?

Air Canada third largest carrier on Canada-Middle East sectors

Emirates and Etihad both offer more weekly frequency between Canada and the Middle East than Air Canada, with 31% and 24% capacity shares respectively compared with 22% capacity share for Air Canada.

Canada-Middle East capacity: Oct-2010

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/3858/canadamiddleeast.jpg

Source: Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation and OAG
Data is for week commencing 11-Oct-2010

Meanwhile, it was been reported in CBC News that Canada refused to grant more landing rights to the airlines because the UAE tried to "blackmail" it into doing so by using access to a key Dubai military base as a bargaining chip.

Following the Canadian decision, the UAE closed its airspace on 11-Oct-2010 to Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Chief of the Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk who were returning from a three-day visit to Afghanistan. Canada is also being forced to vacate its military base Camp Mirage in the UAE following the failure of negotiations to expand aviation links between the two countries. This creates challenges for transporting equipment and troops to/from Afghanistan with the base being used to stage operations in Afghanistan. The government is now preparing to relocate the forces based in the UAE to an alternative base, with alternative destinations reportedly being considered in Cyprus, Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey.

Meanwhile, the UAE reportedly lobbied against Canada's bid for a UN Security Council seat. Canada pulled out of its request for a non-permanent Security Council seat after falling behind rivals in the first rounds of voting, in a major setback for the G-8 nation. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon's spokeswoman Catherine Loubier stated Mr Cannon spoke to his UAE counterpart this week and that the two "agreed that the bilateral relationship should remain strong and not be put at risk".

3 a week? Isn't that what Emirates has now? Wonder if Ottawa will let them do more in the future (so it becomes a repeat of the Emirates saga now).

If you note, it is pretty much 3/week for any new entrant unless there is an open skies agreement. Note the same was done for THY. So at least you know that there is not any form of discrimination. As for EK, they had the option of 6/week but chose not to use it. EY came in and took 3 which forced EK to take up the additional 3. EK wanted daily and refused to serve the market and lost out when EY came in.

The point of 3 is to prove your ability and the traffic. There is pent up demand for travel to and from Turkey. It has opened up the market and there has been a large increase 50% (I believe) since the start up and this is O&D. There are additional transfer possibilities.

If you note, it is pretty much 3/week for any new entrant unless there is an open skies agreement. Note the same was done for THY. So at least you know that there is not any form of discrimination. As for EK, they had the option of 6/week but chose not to use it. EY came in and took 3 which forced EK to take up the additional 3. EK wanted daily and refused to serve the market and lost out when EY came in.

The point of 3 is to prove your ability and the traffic. There is pent up demand for travel to and from Turkey. It has opened up the market and there has been a large increase 50% (I believe) since the start up and this is O&D. There are additional transfer possibilities.
Exactly. I don't think Ottawa ever had a bone to pick with EK originally, but the UAE's strong-arm tactics proved ineffective to a point now where other countries are taking a harder stance against their ambition for global domination…for air travel anyway.

If you note, it is pretty much 3/week for any new entrant unless there is an open skies agreement. Note the same was done for THY. So at least you know that there is not any form of discrimination. As for EK, they had the option of 6/week but chose not to use it. EY came in and took 3 which forced EK to take up the additional 3. EK wanted daily and refused to serve the market and lost out when EY came in.

The point of 3 is to prove your ability and the traffic. There is pent up demand for travel to and from Turkey. It has opened up the market and there has been a large increase 50% (I believe) since the start up and this is O&D. There are additional transfer possibilities.
I'm not surprised with the 3 as an initial frequency. But it seems EK has grown beyond 3 and now want to expand after some time flying to Toronto. This is no surprise. I expect the same from AC once a route builds up and they would naturally want to increase frequencies. But then, Turkey is end-point traffic while UAE is transfer traffic. So allocating the two markets the same frequencies doesn't seem logical.

Etihad is probably not a very strong transfer carrier at this point. Their network range is still relatively limited compared to a much stronger Emirates. I think Ottawa would be more comfortable having the two share the quota rather than let Emirates grow too strong and impact AC's India expansion plans.

Can you really see Emirates, and Etihad losing all their slot's in YYZ, and not being able to use Canadian airspace ?

Can it really get that bad ?????

Anything can happen in a world when an "ally" closes their airspace to a foreign Defence Minister and unceremoniously turfs that country from using an agreed military space as a bargaining chip for landing slots in an airport.

hkskyline,

Why doesn't AC improve there standard and decide on flying to the middle east, rather than using Sky Alliance members? Canada and Qatar signed an agreement on Qatar airways flights to Toronto 3/ week .. So why doesn't AC fly to Qatar through London ? or even fly to Dubai through London?

Anything can happen in a world when an "ally" closes their airspace to a foreign Defence Minister and unceremoniously turfs that country from using an agreed military space as a bargaining chip for landing slots in an airport.

And when this ally happens to rally countries to vote against Canada in the united nations security council; and enacts visa requirements for people travelling from Canada.. .

hkskyline,

Why doesn't AC improve there standard and decide on flying to the middle east, rather than using Sky Alliance members? Canada and Qatar signed an agreement on Qatar airways flights to Toronto 3/ week .. So why doesn't AC fly to Qatar through London ? or even fly to Dubai through London?

AC will never do it because Qatar or Dubai are not end-point destinations. They're transit points, and unless Star Alliance can set up a big hub there, I don't envision AC will make any money flying to these places.

Can you really see Emirates, and Etihad losing all their slot's in YYZ, and not being able to use Canadian airspace ?

Can it really get that bad ?????

The U.A.E shut down its airspace to Canada's minister of defense last month. So what makes you think Canada could not do so ? But that is if things get like REALLY REALLY sour ...

I believe they'll have another round of talks and might resolve the issue ...

The best way to solve the issue is to allow Emirates to fly to Toronto 7/ week, and AC 3 - 6/ week to Dubai via London..

AC will never do it because Qatar or Dubai are not end-point destinations. They're transit points, and unless Star Alliance can set up a big hub there, I don't envision AC will make any money flying to these places.

Since U.A.E is an unfriendly country and an unreliable partner I think Star Alliance should see if it is feseable to set up a hub in Qatar or Bahrain .. and transit people to Europe and / or Asian countries..

I think after what has happened with the strong arm tactics by the UAE, nothing is going to be resolved for awhile. No way Harper is going to cave in on this to placate them after being so obviously punched (diplomatically speaking). Frankly I don't think there is any great rush to give them what they want after this type of attempts at bullying. Let them wait. Maybe next time they won't use sensitive issues like military bases to try and blackmail more landing slots at an airport. They really need to get some diplomatic manners if they want to be respected and trusted internationally.
As for their requiring visas for Canadians; well, wait and see whose tourism that is going to hurt.

Since U.A.E is an unfriendly country and an unreliable partner I think Star Alliance should see if it is feseable to set up a hub in Qatar or Bahrain .. and transit people to Europe and / or Asian countries..

I recall Qatar flights are eligible for mileage on United's Mileage Plus program. So perhaps there's a possibility of a further partnership. But Qatar is expanding quickly as well. Perhaps soon they'll be another Emirates.

Bahrain has Gulf Air, which is the loser in all this rivalry.

Anything can happen in a world when an "ally" closes their airspace to a foreign Defence Minister and unceremoniously turfs that country from using an agreed military space as a bargaining chip for landing slots in an airport.

When you put it that way, I really can't see them getting away with this. What goes round, comes round. I wish this can get solved, but now I really can't see that happening any more.

I'm seriously considering selling my vacation home in Dubai. We were promissed residency visa's by all the developer's, and the government knew all about it. In the end the UAE government refused visa to investor's, or if you do get one, it's a total rip off. I find this visa issue a total insult.

Just make sure you don't get into debt troubles there.

Just make sure you don't get into debt troubles there.

I was a cash buyer, no worries.

I'm very educated with the law, and culture there.

Not to worried with the UAE because I also have a vacation home on the Croatian coast which is very popular now.

As much as the UAE would love to have the rest of the world believe, this is not a place that opens it arms to everyone from other countries. It's a society built on slave labour, archaic laws, money laundering and human trafficking. That aside, I'm not going to sit here and claim that the rest of the world is great but the UAE is a jurisdiction that feels it can play by it's own rules because of the mirage of never ending wealth that it purports to have.
There isn't an airline/country in the world that has completely blocked EK from entering its market, however strong-arm tactics rarely, if ever, work so more then just landing slots, it speaks volumes about how a country will be down the road in international negotiations.

All in all time will tell what happens. Let them keep doing what they are doing with no responce from Canada. Funny enough, I think they got a responce with the expedited Qatar deal.

Even though, some there are not happy with the 3/3 deal that was given. I guess Canada is just supposed to alot 7/14 or however many slots are asked for because that is just how things are. Sure enough though, it will always turn out to be AC's fault because the gov't is protecting them.

Just for fun, I thought I would look the meaning up for a few words:

Negotiation is a dialogue intended to resolve disputes, to produce an agreement upon courses of action - Have we got a solution?

and:

Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal substantially true information unless a demand is met. This information is usually of an embarrassing, socially damaging, and/or incriminating nature.

one more:

Demanding, requiring or claiming more than is generally felt by others to be due: a demanding country. Calling for intensive effort or attention; taxing: a demanding airline.

All in all time will tell what happens. Let them keep doing what they are doing with no responce from Canada. Funny enough, I think they got a responce with the expedited Qatar deal.

Even though, some there are not happy with the 3/3 deal that was given. I guess Canada is just supposed to alot 7/14 or however many slots are asked for because that is just how things are. Sure enough though, it will always turn out to be AC's fault because the gov't is protecting them.

Just for fun, I thought I would look the meaning up for a few words:

Negotiation is a dialogue intended to resolve disputes, to produce an agreement upon courses of action - Have we got a solution?

and:

Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal substantially true information unless a demand is met. This information is usually of an embarrassing, socially damaging, and/or incriminating nature.

one more:

Demanding, requiring or claiming more than is generally felt by others to be due: a demanding country. Calling for intensive effort or attention; taxing: a demanding airline.
:applause:

Link:
Emirates and Canada (http://www.emirates.com/ca/English/about/public_affairs/emirates_and_canada/emirates_and_canada.aspx)

Emirates website outlining the relationship between Canada and the U.A.E. also encouraged readers to contact Canada's minister of transport to voice their support for Emirates.

Ultimately, Emirates accuses Air Canada of trying "to deny choice to Canadian consumers and protect itself from fair and reasonable competition."

Air Canada has rebuffed such accusations in the past.

Read more: http://www.emirates.com/ca/English/about/public_affairs/emirates_and_canada/emirates_and_canada.aspx

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/9414/kjdkjafhdafd.jpg

Those three weekly flight's to Canada do look out of place.

Has any body considerd that Bombardier has a very good chance of not getting the UAE mega rail road project because of this dispute.

Do you also think we lag behind in diplomatic issue's with developing country's such as China. We as Canadian's loose a lot of money, and job's just because of this. We need to be a little more dynamic, but also not get pushed around.

Those three weekly flight's to Canada do look out of place.

Has any body considerd that Bombardier has a very good chance of not getting the UAE mega rail road project because of this dispute.

Do you also think we lag behind in diplomatic issue's with developing country's such as China. We as Canadian's loose a lot of money, and job's just because of this. We need to be a little more dynamic, but also not get pushed around.

At the end of the day, what goes around comes around. So if that is the petty game that is played vs. the best bid then so be it. What you do to one will come back around to bite you in the a**. Not you per say but just in general. Lets leave it to play out and see what happens.

Link:
Emirates and Canada (http://www.emirates.com/ca/English/about/public_affairs/emirates_and_canada/emirates_and_canada.aspx)

Emirates website outlining the relationship between Canada and the U.A.E. also encouraged readers to contact Canada's minister of transport to voice their support for Emirates.

Ultimately, Emirates accuses Air Canada of trying "to deny choice to Canadian consumers and protect itself from fair and reasonable competition."

Air Canada has rebuffed such accusations in the past.

Read more: http://www.emirates.com/ca/English/about/public_affairs/emirates_and_canada/emirates_and_canada.aspx
I don't think all those flights to other countries go into one city. Emirates was offered slots in other major Canadian cities and turned them down.

That said, I would have supported giving Emirates more slots because I don't believe in letting Air Canada dictate policy on this matter. However, after the complete over-reaction from the UAE, I don't think it is possible to give them anything until this dispute is over.

Those three weekly flight's to Canada do look out of place.

Has any body considerd that Bombardier has a very good chance of not getting the UAE mega rail road project because of this dispute.

Do you also think we lag behind in diplomatic issue's with developing country's such as China. We as Canadian's loose a lot of money, and job's just because of this. We need to be a little more dynamic, but also not get pushed around.
I do think Canada could sometimes be better served by loosening some trade agreements with some developing countries. I still think where this whole thing falls off the rails (can't really stress this enough anymore) is the tactics of some countries - UAE, I'm looking at you. The normal course of action is diplomacy not bullying and knee-jerk responses. I posted on the YYZ thread that there must be something behind the scenes that is going on because Canada as rule I don't think is any more protectionist than other countries given the amount of foreign ownership in this country. I've mentioned this before as well - Qantas and United (a Star Alliance partner at that) blocked AC from YYZ-LAX-SYD. Australia has even blocked Singapore Airlines to fly 5th freedom rights from Australia to the U.S. So-called 'protectionsim' is not unique to one country, but ultimately my point is that no other country has reacted the same way that the UAE has.

^^so Canada receives rent free use of the base for 10 years, and wins an extension of the lease based on a promise to work out the air access dispute.

Canadian citizens have been receiving visa waivers, but the Canadian government does not grant reciprocity to the UAE.

After all these years of Canada taking from the UAE and not giving anything in return, I don't understand how you are surprised the UAE is withdrawing all the things it gave Canada.

Canada cannot bully around the UAE without expecting some kind of negative response.

Is a promise to work out the dispute the same or different from a hand shake deal stating that gates gates increased.

Also let us not act like the UAE is doing Canada a favor by letting in Canadian citizens to the UAE to buy and spend their money there. I am sure Canada would also like to do the same. The only two major reasons why a nation shouldn't welcome tourist as a rule from another nation is if they have reasonable expectation that the underclass in X nation will attempt to flood the labor market by overstaying for their visas or that they perhaps their national security issues at play by allowing unlimited access.

I do think Canada could sometimes be better served by loosening some trade agreements with some developing countries. I still think where this whole thing falls off the rails (can't really stress this enough anymore) is the tactics of some countries - UAE, I'm looking at you. The normal course of action is diplomacy not bullying and knee-jerk responses. I posted on the YYZ thread that there must be something behind the scenes that is going on because Canada as rule I don't think is any more protectionist than other countries given the amount of foreign ownership in this country. I've mentioned this before as well - Qantas and United (a Star Alliance partner at that) blocked AC from YYZ-LAX-SYD. Australia has even blocked Singapore Airlines to fly 5th freedom rights from Australia to the U.S. So-called 'protectionsim' is not unique to one country, but ultimately my point is that no other country has reacted the same way that the UAE has.

The Australians have been quite vocal about limiting open skies on the transpacific sector, although there are a few carriers from both sides flying the route right now. The rationale for denying SQ is they have no reason to be there, and a premium carrier will not lower prices for these flights. At least the likes of Virgin, Qantas, and United have a reason to fly their citizens both ways. However, they've allowed Emirates to fly in with a big quota, which has far bigger implications than the transpacific route since it impacts every single connection to Europe.

Protectionism is expected in the world of aviation, but 3 a week into Toronto in light of the comparison with other countries does seem a bit odd. Emirates flies to 6 cities in Australia and New Zealand only, and they got 70+28 flights.

The Australians have been quite vocal about limiting open skies on the transpacific sector, although there are a few carriers from both sides flying the route right now. The rationale for denying SQ is they have no reason to be there, and a premium carrier will not lower prices for these flights. At least the likes of Virgin, Qantas, and United have a reason to fly their citizens both ways. However, they've allowed Emirates to fly in with a big quota, which has far bigger implications than the transpacific route since it impacts every single connection to Europe.

Protectionism is expected in the world of aviation, but 3 a week into Toronto in light of the comparison with other countries does seem a bit odd. Emirates flies to 6 cities in Australia and New Zealand only, and they got 70+28 flights.
Emirates flies to 6 cities in Australia and New Zealand only, and they got 70+28 flights.

...which apparently are almost all money losers. Explain how they keep flying them then. Umm, could be the fact that they're government backed. Qantas has been VERY vocal on the issue.

...which apparently are almost all money losers. Explain how they keep flying them then. Umm, could be the fact that they're government backed. Qantas has been VERY vocal on the issue.

Qantas simply does not have the network or the fleet to compete with Emirates. Emirates flies to a big range of destinations in Europe. Whether they lose money or not on individual routes, nobody notes, but overall, the airline is profitable. Perhaps you can show me some route-specific profit numbers, but the fact is, the Australian government gave them the frequencies despite Qantas' opposition. It's up to the airlines to determine how they charge and how to make money. That's not the government's responsibility.

I've flown Emirates to Sydney, and Auckland last year, and trust me they are kicking Qantas's ass on the kangaroo routes. I talked to a lot of the passenger's on the plane who were Australian, and they only fly Emirates because they think it's a superior service compared to Qantas.

I'm a frequent flyer with Emirates, and can personally say it's the best airline in the world, hand's down. State of the art aircraft, aircraft interiior's, service, food, Dubai airport, etc, etc. They give you that personal touch legacy carrier's don't offer. Emirates number's speak for them selve's, a 82 percent average loud factor, 970 million USD half year profit till date, over 3 billion USD of cash reserve fund's.

The Canadian government, and Air Canada very well know that Emirates is like a lawn mower where ever they enter any market. They have out shined airlines such as Cathy Pacific, and Singapore Airlines who are really good airlines. Air Canada to them is a walk in the park, the airline has a monopoly, need's protection from the government, it's really not a good service, and is way over priced for what you get.

It's kind of comparing a GM car to an Aston Martin. For god sake's Emirates has enough money to buy Air Canada if it want's, where Air Canada is broke.

What we really need is more flight's to Canada from many other airline's so we the consumer have a better choice. Every time I use Air Canada it kind of remind's me of Roger's, or Bell. A corporation that has a monopoly, and really doesn't care about their customer's.

Now let's hope this whole issue can get resolved. I'm on Canada's side on this one, but I've been in Dubai for a while, and know the way Emirates are. I have a gut felling there is a lot more to this than we all know. The leader's in the UAE are very dynamic, they run their country like a corporation, and what they have made of it is simply mind boggling. It's the leader's in Abu Dhabi who are the mover's, and shacker's there, and they are the one's who have a beef with the Canadian government. Who really know's what was said, or discussed behind closed door's. They also have the world's largest soviern wealth fund in Abu Dhabi, and the way they do business, they have no time for bull shit. To them Canadian politician's are simply elected official's who come, and go, where they are a ruling family. The way they reacted in this whole issue show's they were insulted in some way, how, I don't know.

One thing is for sure, any country that has good politcal, and economic ties with the UAE makes a lot of money. Just look down south, the United States is making a killing with their trade with the UAE. It's in our inerest to find a solution to all of this because the way the balance of power is changing in the world these day's, we don't want to miss the boat. The same goes for our stance with China.

Excerpts taken from a news article published on March 15, 2010

Emirates aims to dump surplus capacity on Canada: Rovinescu

Mr. Rovinescu said he has been “particularly exorcised” by Emirates actions because the UAE has linked the debate over greater bilateral access for Canadian and UAE-based carriers to Canada’s continued access to the Camp Mirage military logistics base there. “How’s that for no state involvement in their affairs?”

The UAE has increased pressure on Ottawa in its efforts to get additional landing rights for its commercial airlines Emirates and Etihad Airways, suggesting that the renewal of Canada’s lease on the Camp Mirage forward operating base could be in jeopardy when it comes up for renewal in June if those landing rights are not granted.

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/Emirates+aims+dump+surplus+capacity+Canada+Rovinescu/2685509/story.html

Minister of Transport, Chuck Strahl responds, excerpts taken from another article Oct 21, 2010

Strahl also suggested the UAE is blowing the issue out of proportion by making it an international dispute and linking landing rights to Canada's use of Camp Mirage, the military base near Dubai used by Canadian Forces as a staging ground for troops and gear travelling to and from Afghanistan.

"If that's what they want to do, they can do that, but that's not our style," Strahl said, breaking his silence on the incident.

"Our style is we take a position, we take it in and put it on the table and it is in Canada's best interest. And we don't do it in the media and we don't link it to other issues and we don't try to make an international or national splash about it."

Strahl's comments come just over a week after a simmering dispute between Canada and the UAE boiled over and Defence Minister Peter MacKay's plane was refused permission to land at Camp Mirage. MacKay told reporters at the time that Canada would likely have to vacate Camp Mirage within the month.

Currently, landing-rights talks with the UAE have broken off, but Strahl said they could resume in the future.

However, the transport minister didn't appear pleased with the UAE's recent approach.

Strahl said Canada is actively pursuing expanded landing-rights agreements with China, Japan and South Korea.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Canadians+divided+landing+rights+transport+minister+says/3707986/story.html

I'm getting a little annoyed at the rhetoric from certain parties about how this is our own fault. How about some backbone?

Can't argue with ya on this one. This garbage started when the Emiratis demanded more landing spots for their airlines and we didn't give it to them. If you guys have so much demand, assign A380s to all your spot - Emirates has ordered 58 (!!!) such airplanes - and be done with it.

^ those planes be having trouble.

I thought they were using A380's for all of their designated slots to Toronto.

Can't argue with ya on this one. This garbage started when the Emiratis demanded more landing spots for their airlines and we didn't give it to them. If you guys have so much demand, assign A380s to all your spot - Emirates has ordered 58 (!!!) such airplanes - and be done with it.

All that supposed "traffic" between Canada and South Asia and the Gulf is just a red herring. This is really about TORONTO TO HEATHROW. That's the fight and Canada isn't alone in seeing the mad grab for slots and lucrative routes that the UAE is leveraging their sad political "muscle" to get for their overleveraged and overpriced airline.

sad political "muscle"

Best quote yet...I love it!

All that supposed "traffic" between Canada and South Asia and the Gulf is just a red herring. This is really about TORONTO TO HEATHROW. That's the fight and Canada isn't alone in seeing the mad grab for slots and lucrative routes that the UAE is leveraging their sad political "muscle" to get for their overleveraged and overpriced airline.

Now I won't offer any thoughts on this as I have been told that I have a simplified view and you are entitled to your thoughts/opinions. However I keep saying that it is funny that the only country publicly complaining hard is the UAE. Oh well, what do I know.

:cheers:

All that supposed "traffic" between Canada and South Asia and the Gulf is just a red herring. This is really about TORONTO TO HEATHROW. That's the fight and Canada isn't alone in seeing the mad grab for slots and lucrative routes that the UAE is leveraging their sad political "muscle" to get for their overleveraged and overpriced airline.

Heathrow? I thought EK doesn't fly to Toronto via London? Even then, the Heathrow slots are very hard to come by. Even if given unlimited rights, securing a landing slot would be very expensive. Hence, I was surprised they didn't grab up bmi!

They don't care about Heathrow, and BMI is part of Star Alliance, and owned by Lufthansa now.

What they want is as many flight's as possible from Canada to go threw their own hub in Dubai. Dubai has surpassed Heathrow, and Frankfurt Main now in passenger traffic. Give a few more year's the way thing's are looking with the number's they will surpase Atlanta as well to be number one.

One more thing that is very important, and that no one has mentioned is they are the number one airline in the world now when it come's to seat kilometer's. That is the most important figure of all in the airline industry. Their aircraft have an average sixteen hour's a day in the air. They have turned from an ordinary airline, into the largest long haul player in the world. They only have wide body aircraft, and the rest of their order's are wide body, long haul as well. They are starting to put Super Jumbo's at secondary airport's like Manchester which is scarring the shit out the legacy carrier's. Munich, Hamburg, and Birmingham will also have the SJ soon, where Air Canada can't even get a Super Jumbo up, and running from Toronto to Heathrow.

One of the post's mentioned they have "sad political "muscle" , but then they had enough muscle to cost us a UN seat, and who know's how much money will can potentially lose if we don't find a solution to this soon. They don't really need us that much, most of their oil is sold to Japan, and they are more focussed on MENA, and Asia when it come's to trade.

Our solution is not to make new ties with Qatar just because we have our difference's with the UAE. Qatar will only do what is good for them, and not Canada. It's all back to square one if we go down that road, where we have achieved so much in the UAE, and we must learn to adjust, solve problem's, and move on. The UAE will alway's be the business capital of the MENA region, and it is to India, what Hong Kong is to China.

:)

One more thing I forgot to mention. Remember when Air Canada was making a good profit, then Robert Milton took the profit's, and transferd them back to ACE Aviation Holdings Inc, instead of investing it back into the airline.

It all show's the people who are running AC don't care about their employee's, customer's, nor the Canadian government, and tax payer's. All they care about is them selve's, and how much profit they can get out of it, even if it cost's Canada trade war's.

When you open your eye's a little this whole issue is more about greed, and dirty politic's, with a few twist's to make it look like it's in Canada's best interest using Canadian expate's abroad as pawn's so a few can live it up in Maskoka. How many job's will this really cost Canadian's in the end, a big part of tbe economy is expot, and we cannot afford to lose that.

In the end we can learn a lot from Emirates on how to run an airline properly, and you can never knock success. The government could also stop being big brother, and tell Air Canada to start doing their job , we've taken care of you enough, it's time you learn how to take care of your self. Air Canada have all the resourses in the world to do that, now will the greedy, lazy, out of date CEO's in AC know how to pull it off with out the advantage of the government giving them a head start all the time ????

Your guess is as good as mine. :)

Dubai has surpassed Heathrow, and Frankfurt Main now in passenger traffic.

Where in the world did you hear that???

It all show's the people who are running AC don't care about their employee's, customer's, nor the Canadian government, and tax payer's. All they care about is themselves, and how much profit they can get out of it

I forgot how much EK and the UAE in general cares about it's employees. It only takes the passports of half it's population so that they remain indentured servants until they're booted out of the country.

You're right, AC is the only company out to make a profit...good one.

I've had several friends and family work for EK and believe me when I tell you - EK doesn't give a rats ass about its employees. The reason it cares about its government? Oh, oh...wait for it...IT IS THE GOVERNMENT!

Where in the world did you hear that???

If you follow the latest montly traffic threw airport's in the last couple of month's, than you will see that I'm rite as of now.

Figure's for this year up till July 2010 show Heathrow, and Frankfurt are up, but that will change when the new yearly figure's come out. 2011 will show with out a doubt I'm correct. In the meantime Emirates, and Fly Dubai keep recieving new aircraft that make that number rise with their organic growth. We will see even bigger growth once the new concourse at terminal three is finished 2012. That will be dedicated just for the Super Jumbo, it will have 18 gates just for that aircraft, and there SJ-T7 deliveries will accelarate to atleast two aircraft a month beacause the infastructure will be there to handle the aircraft. I'm not even going to get into what will happen when the new Dubai World Central open's up 2020, and the A350's also start to enter service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic

Look at the last couple of year's how much Dubai airport is working it's way to the top, only Beijing has simular advances.

I forgot how much EK and the UAE in general cares about it's employees. It only takes the passports of half it's population so that they remain indentured servants until they're booted out of the country.

You're right, AC is the only company out to make a profit...good one.

I've had several friends and family work for EK and believe me when I tell you - EK doesn't give a rats ass about its employees. The reason it cares about its government? Oh, oh...wait for it...IT IS THE GOVERNMENT!

I see your point, and yes two wrong's don't make it rite.

In true honesty, what big company, and the board really care about their employee's, and put's them first before profit ? What I can't stand is AC's twisting of the truth, and their argument's are really, really weak. I have the rite to my opinion because I fly the airline frequently, I'm also an Air Canada Super Elite card holder with all the travel ( tier miles ) I do from Europe to North America every year, and it's my airline of choice on those sector's because I'm a loyal Canadian.

I also know a lot of people who work for EK, and you can hear a lot of opinio's, but all in all they like it. The pay is ok, but it's the life style, good weather, no taxes, travel. room, and board, and the list goes on, and on. No one in that airline is a survant, or has their passport taken away from them. For god sake's how could they work if they had no passport unless you know some other new way of entering a country that I havn't heard of. Every employee is free to leave the airline at any time if they wish, the only catch is they lose all their bonus's if they quit before their contract expire's.

Yes the owner's, and investor's of Emirate Airlines are the ruling family of Dubai, but don't forget it's Tim Clarke, and Maurice Flanagan from the United Kingdom who are the brain's behind the project, and they run the show.

If you follow the latest montly traffic threw airport's in the last couple of month's, than you will see that I'm rite as of now.

Figure's for this year up till July 2010 show Heathrow, and Frankfurt are up, but that will change when the new yearly figure's come out. 2011 will show with out a doubt I'm correct. In the meantime Emirates, and Fly Dubai keep recieving new aircraft that make that number rise with their organic growth. We will see even bigger growth once the new concourse at terminal three is finished 2012. That will be dedicated just for the Super Jumbo, it will have 18 gates just for that aircraft, and there SJ-T7 deliveries will accelarate to atleast two aircraft a month beacause the infastructure will be there to handle the aircraft. I'm not even going to get into what will happen when the new Dubai World Central open's up 2020, and the A350's also start to enter service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic

Look at the last couple of year's how much Dubai airport is working it's way to the top, only Beijing has simular advances.
This is from ACI...sorry dude. DXB is nowhere near LHR and still a good 4 million off FRA.

http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-212-218-222_666_2__

No one in that airline is a survant, or has their passport taken away from them. For god sake's how could they work if they had no passport unless you know some other new way of entering a country that I havn't heard of.

Obviously, passports aren't taken away from airline crew or from anyone at EK. My point was to rebut your argument that AC doesn't care about it's employees. While I agree 100% that AC is out to make the biggest profit it can (like every other company on Earth), and it means that it will do unfait things to its employees (no question) EK and the UAE as a whole do not have very good employment practices. And yes, there are SEVERAL companies in the UAE that take the passports of its employees so this is not just hearsay. As I have never worked for EK I can only comment on the stories that I have heard from family and friends - who all quit because of completely inappropriate treatment - getting slapped in the face by superiors, yelled at in front of passengers, chastised for drinking coffee in the main boarding area before a flight at DXB...to name a few.

Anyway, a bit off topic...

This is from ACI...sorry dude. DXB is nowhere near LHR and still a good 4 million off FRA.

http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-212-218-222_666_2__

Thank's for the info ACT7, can you get the result's for just October, and November airport passenger traffic this year, I'm really interested to see the exact number's ????

I was way off for total up to date passenger number's this year, so it will be 2011 when Dubai surpases Frankfurt, and maybe Heathrow which is still unbelievable for such a new hub.

BTW does ACT7 stand for Air Canada Triple Seven ?

Obviously, passports aren't taken away from airline crew or from anyone at EK. My point was to rebut your argument that AC doesn't care about it's employees. While I agree 100% that AC is out to make the biggest profit it can (like every other company on Earth), and it means that it will do unfait things to its employees (no question) EK and the UAE as a whole do not have very good employment practices. And yes, there are SEVERAL companies in the UAE that take the passports of its employees so this is not just hearsay. As I have never worked for EK I can only comment on the stories that I have heard from family and friends - who all quit because of completely inappropriate treatment - getting slapped in the face by superiors, yelled at in front of passengers, chastised for drinking coffee in the main boarding area before a flight at DXB...to name a few.

Anyway, a bit off topic...

Sorry to hear about what happend to your friend's in EK. My first neighbor at my holiday condo in Dubai is a SJ captain for EK, took me on a tour of the the head quarter's in Dubai, showed me the flight simulator as well. He seem's to be really happy there, and all his friend's who are pilot's speak the same of Dubai when we go out for drink's. Was on a flight once from Heathrow to Dubai when he was working, got the royal treatment on board.

The flight attendant's I Know in EK are more concerned about getting married, and never working another day of their life.

Back to topic, I'm stuck with the chance of having to get a visa when I enter the UAE, and I wan't that solved. I go in, and out of Dubai multiple time's when I'm there for business, and pleasure, and the visa issue will kill me.

I also love Emirate Airlines, and Air Canada, actually I love aviation in general, it's one of my passion's, just like skyscraper's.

Canada signs air landing rights deal with Qatar
November 15, 2010 | 13:59

Canada has signed an airline landing rights agreement with Qatar, a Canadian government official said on Monday, amid a months-long air service dispute with the United Arab Emirates.

The Foreign Affairs Department spokeswoman declined to provide further details on the deal but media outlets in Canada and the Middle East reported that three Qatar Airways passenger flights a week, plus three cargo flights, will be allowed to land in Canada.

The agreement comes as a dispute over aircraft landing rights in Canada heats up between Ottawa and Qatar’s neighbor, the United Arab Emirates.

“We must manage a strong international demand for access to the Canadian market. The new agreement with Qatar is in the best interest of Canadians,” Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Melissa Lantsman said in an email.

She said the air agreement was not related to any other negotiations.

Media reports said the deal was signed on Oct. 28.

Despite heavy lobbying, the UAE has so far failed to convince Canada to allow its two major airlines, Dubai-based carrier Emirates and Abu Dhabi’s Etihad Airways, to increase flights to the country.

Emirates has been lobbying Ottawa to allow it to expand its three-day-a-week Dubai-Toronto service. It also wants to fly to Calgary and Vancouver.

The dispute escalated last month when the UAE ordered Canada to vacate a military base near Dubai which was used as a staging post for Canadian forces in Afghanistan.

UAE’s efforts to gain more landing rights in Canada has been fiercely criticized by Air Canada, which has accused the Mideast airlines of wanting to steal away connecting passengers that help make its routes profitable.

Allowing a foreign carrier like Emirates to take some of the most profitable connection traffic could have an impact on Air Canada’s ability to maintain its domestic service, threatening jobs, the Canadian Labor Congress said Monday.

The union group represents 3.2 million Canadian workers.

http://money.canoe.ca/money/business/canada/archives/2010/11/20101115-135956.html

Thank's for the info ACT7, can you get the result's for just October, and November airport passenger traffic this year, I'm really interested to see the exact number's ????

I was way off for total up to date passenger number's this year, so it will be 2011 when Dubai surpases Frankfurt, and maybe Heathrow which is still unbelievable for such a new hub.

BTW does ACT7 stand for Air Canada Triple Seven ?
I only have what ACI posted and they're only posting to August right now, but they just get their stats from the airport authorities themselves so I would just check their websites if you need more info. I'll give you that DXB might surpass FRA in a year or so but they're a long way off of LHR...about 14 million off.

Yes, that's what ACT7 stands for.

Sorry to hear about what happend to your friend's in EK. My first neighbor at my holiday condo in Dubai is a SJ captain for EK, took me on a tour of the the head quarter's in Dubai, showed me the flight simulator as well. He seem's to be really happy there, and all his friend's who are pilot's speak the same of Dubai when we go out for drink's. Was on a flight once from Heathrow to Dubai when he was working, got the royal treatment on board.

The flight attendant's I Know in EK are more concerned about getting married, and never working another day of their life.

Back to topic, I'm stuck with the chance of having to get a visa when I enter the UAE, and I wan't that solved. I go in, and out of Dubai multiple time's when I'm there for business, and pleasure, and the visa issue will kill me.

I also love Emirate Airlines, and Air Canada, actually I love aviation in general, it's one of my passion's, just like skyscraper's.
Well, I'm sure they don't 'abuse' their pilots because you don't want a bunch of unhappy people flying airplanes. I guess they figure their flight attendants and ground crew...even some back office people are expendable.

If I were you I would find out exactly what the visa requirements are because I'm sure you can get multiple entry visas or long term stay visas. Publicly it may sound like they're trying to royally screw Canadians but I think even they know the value of keeping regular business travellers from Canada happy and keeping foreign investment from Canada alive.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepol...ir-canada.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/892780--canada-uae-relations-suffer-after-diplomatic-dust-up

“Why will this reckless minister not just admit to a very stupid mistake?”

MacKay out of step with Harper on UAE

Defence Minister Peter MacKay appears to be testing Stephen Harper’s patience by straying offside on a dispute with an Arab military ally over a base that supplied Canada’s war effort in Afghanistan.

Ministers are expected to march in lockstep with cabinet and their prime minister once a government decision has been made. But this week, Mr. MacKay fell out of formation over a bilateral spat that ended with Canadian soldiers kicked out of a secret Mideast base after Mr. Harper refused to give the United Arab Emirates additional landing rights for its airlines in Canada.
More related to this story

On Thursday, one day after he was spotted wearing a “Fly Emirates” baseball cap in apparent defiance of Canada’s position – and overheard recounting the dispute’s costs – Mr. MacKay offered further thoughts on the matter, telling reporters that Ottawa has to mend relations with the UAE.

“We have some work to do in repairing the relationship with the United Arab Emirates,” he said. “Clearly the circumstances under which we left the base require, now, some work.”

Questions about the Defence Minister’s recent behaviour on this file followed Mr. MacKay on to the Prime Minister’s plane on Thursday as he left for a NATO meeting in Portugal – where he’ll be expected to stand shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. Topics at the Lisbon gathering will be, among other things, Canada’s decision to extend its military effort in Afghanistan.

The Defence Minister’s attention-grabbing conduct comes just one week after reports that in October, he discussed a job with a Bay Street law firm, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP. Mr. MacKay denies he’s leaving politics.

Speaking before his flight to Portugal, Mr. MacKay refused to discuss a Parliament Hill reporter’s Wednesday account of overhearing the minister tell a Conservative senator the decision to deny the UAE extra landing slots has set back relations with the Arab country by 10 years.

Astral Radio’s Hill bureau chief Daniel Proussalidis found himself chatting outside Parliament’s Centre Block with Senator Michael Meighen and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on Wednesday after a fire alarm cleared the building.

“It was all small talk until Defence Minister Peter MacKay walked up and joined the conversation, wearing a red ‘Fly Emirates’ baseball cap on his head and a grin on his face,” Mr. Proussalidis wrote on Toronto Newstalk 1010 Radio’s website.

According to Mr. Proussalidis, the Defence Minister’s unusually frank comments also included the contention that Canada could have continued using Camp Mirage if Ottawa had granted additional landing slots to the UAE airlines.

Mr. MacKay is believed to be unhappy with Ottawa’s UAE decision, but he rebuffed repeated questions about his chat with Mr. Meighen, saying “I don’t comment on private conversations.”

The Globe and Mail reported in October that the Defence Minister, who had favoured doing more to help the UAE, was cut out of Canada’s negotiations on the matter. Mr. Harper ultimately sided with forceful arguments made by former transport minister John Baird against big concessions for the UAE and its airlines, Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways.

In his Wednesday encounter with Mr. MacKay, Mr. Proussalidis also recounted that “as I stood with the group, Senator Meighen asked about the [Emirates] cap, and that’s when the conversation became interesting. MacKay joked that he wore the cap for Baird.”

Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Mr. Baird defended refusing UAE more landing rights, which the government worried would have unfairly bled intercontinental traffic from Air Canada.

“The government made a difficult decision. I think we did what was right.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mackay-out-of-step-with-harper-on-uae/article1805296/

I wonder how much long Mr MacKay will be in politics.

UAE raises the stakes for Canada

Dubai is learning an old lesson, which is that linkage is only good when it works.
By Peter Zimonjic

It's safe to say the business environment in the United Arab Emirates is less friendly to Canadians now than it was a couple of months ago. Back then, Canadians didn't need visas to get into the country, Canada had a key military base there, and, if the website of the UAE's embassy in Ottawa can be believed, there were soon to be more flights between the tiny Gulf state and Canada.

This was the state of play in late September when the UAE and Canada were nearing the end of negotiations to increase landing rights in Toronto, Calgary and Edmonton for the UAE's two state–owned airlines, Etihad Airways and Emirates Airlines. The UAE said three round–trip flights a week, for each airline, to Toronto and back was not enough. But in early October the Canadian government disagreed. It was welcome news to Air Canada. It was concerned UAE's airlines would eat into its market by using the additional flights to route passengers from Canada through Dubai to India, Pakistan and other points east. But while Air Canada celebrated, the UAE plotted to overturn the decision by forcing Canada to play high–stakes diplomatic poker.

Canada had been using Camp Mirage, just outside Dubai, as a forward base for its Afghan mission for nine years. When the deal fell through, the UAE decided to gamble that the base was more important to Canada than landing rights, and sent Canada a 30–day eviction notice. The UAE then tried upping the stakes by refusing to let Defence Minister Peter MacKay fly through its airspace on his return flight from Afghanistan. It was a bad bet. Canada left and is now using bases in Cyprus and Germany; in retaliation, the UAE slapped Canadian travellers with a visa that kicks in Jan. 2.

In a matter of weeks, the UAE turned a seemingly small trade dispute into a military and diplomatic quarrel that has Canadians who do business in the region wondering what's going to happen next. "I don't see how this can get any worse, but you never know," says Walid Hejazi, a professor at the Rotman School of Management who travels to the UAE regularly to teach and network. "This definitely moves Canada–UAE business relations in the wrong direction. This will hurt. The question is, to what extent."

Hejazi is eagerly awaiting the details of coming visa requirements. The UAE government owns both of its airlines, so it could simply include them in the cost of a ticket, or just ask passengers for a few dollars upon arrival in Dubai in exchange for a stamp in their passports. However, if the UAE decides Canadians need to travel to Ottawa to get their visa before they fly, the issue could become what Hejazi calls: "a big administrative uncertainty" that could dissuade Canadians from going to the UAE at all.

It's certainly not great news for Canadian companies trying to do business in the UAE. Bennett Jones, a Canadian law firm specializing in corporate deals on energy and infrastructure, became the first Canadian firm to open an office in the UAE on Nov. 2. The decision to branch into the Gulf was driven by the widespread belief in Bennett Jones and beyond that the UAE is the commercial and financial hub for the Gulf and the best place to take advantage of the trillions in liquidity there just waiting to be invested. "It would be fantastic if all of these issues went away," says Dany Assaf, Bennett Jones's Middle East managing partner. "There's no doubt it would be very positive to have strong and continuing relations on all levels between Canada and the UAE."

Bilateral trade between the two countries stands at $1.8 billion, a number that has risen more than 350% over the decade. Canadian exports account for $1.4 billion of that. Assaf says he doesn't think the dispute will harm Bennett Jones or Canada–UAE business interests on the whole, because growth is strong in the Gulf, and the UAE is a crucial hub.

But Hejazi is far more pessimistic. His office at the Rotman School has been flooded with e–mails from UAE business executives since the dispute kicked off. "The whole perception is that it's building a divide between Canada and the UAE," Hejazi says. "The perception things are going in the wrong direction will limit the extent to which UAE companies will engage with Canadian companies because they don't know what will happen next."

This uncertainty was fuelled by the UAE's decision to aggressively link various elements of its foreign policy. Linkage diplomacy is based on the simple idea that if a country wants action on file A, they will need movement on file B. "The view among officials has always been that it's a dumb way to pursue policy, but that doesn't mean there weren't times when you did it," says Michael Hart, a professor at Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. "One of the ways to concentrate the mind of politicians in the country that you are complaining to is to show them your retaliation list."

Linkage worked for China back in September when it secured the release of a fishing trawler captain taken into custody by Japan after threatening to start a trade war over the issue. But if the UAE was looking for Canada to fold under a similarly styled threat, it had to be upset when another Gulf state, Qatar, quietly signed an aviation agreement with Canada on Nov. 11. The deal will allow Qatar Airways to fly three passenger flights and three cargo flights a week to and from Canada.

"The thing about linkage is, it's a good thing when it works for you and a bad thing when it doesn't," says James Lindsay, a director of studies with the Council on Foreign Relations. "You can counter the linkage by linking to something else or by playing another card."

And while Harper may have just played the Qatar card, no one is celebrating. The game is still on, and neither Canada nor the UAE appears willing to fold.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/strategy/article.jsp?content=20101206_10006_10006

And I guess it is safe to say investment in UAE from Canada will now suffer, too.
Canada should focus its trade with nations that are our friends and allies; not nations that try and bully us with "linkage".

And I guess it is safe to say investment in UAE from Canada will now suffer, too.
Canada should focus its trade with nations that are our friends and allies; not nations that try and bully us with "linkage".
Agreed. I'm sure at some point Canada would have granted EK more landing slots into YYZ but allowing them right now pretty much validates what the UAE is doing and speaks to how future negotiations will look like should the UAE not get its way. To reiterate, I think future landing slots would have been inevitable.
By the way, when did Edmonton enter the picture???...seems like someone mispelled 'Vancouver'. Unless this was one of those cities that the UAE just kept throwing desperately at Canada as a place to fly into.

And I guess it is safe to say investment in UAE from Canada will now suffer, too.
Canada should focus its trade with nations that are our friends and allies; not nations that try and bully us with "linkage".

Yeah that would be great if corporations and governments dealt in morality instead of their actual motivator: greed.

They are lecturing Canada on how much money it can make by granting their demands; maybe they should pay for the $300 million it cost us to forcibly and immediately vacate our military base.
They may have been letting us use their piece of sand "for free", but we were providing the actual soldiers, equipment, etc.... "for free", too. Its not like we actually want to be there in the first place.

This is a country that uses slave labour, discriminates based on skin colour, and where homosexuality is punishable by death. I don't want to have anything to do with the UAE and we shouldn't be bargaining with peasants like this to begin with. They can fall into the sea for all I care.

^^ Not to mention one of only 3 countries (Saudi and Pakistan the other 2) who recognized the Taliban as an actual government...

This is a country that uses slave labour, discriminates based on skin colour, and where homosexuality is punishable by death. I don't want to have anything to do with the UAE and we shouldn't be bargaining with peasants like this to begin with. They can fall into the sea for all I care.

Seriously. And there's nothing more pitiful than non-emiratis that sold their souls to live and work there, for little else than the sleazy promises of tax-free luxury goods and a villa nobody else wants.

Every time I read about these inhumane scumbags(their officials) and this conflict I start to get angry. I mean c'mon....the way they treat humans is ridiculous.

I'd ban all their aircraft from our airspace out of spite so they have to pay more money to go around. I'd also kick their asses out of Ottawa. I'd also give any of their gay citizens and other persecuted people and easier route to emigrating here.

How is a skyscraper forum, with a UAE slap's Canada with visa thread turning into a gay thread, please explain that ???????

Can we stick to the topic in hand. It originated with EK/EY requesting more landing slot's, and not getting them, and the rest is history.

I see a bit of confusion in some of the arguments here. While some people detest the UAE government's involvement in Emirates, noting it's interference and unfair subsidization, then others claim EK should not get slots because of the UAE's government policy, which is out of the airline's control. People are linking airline route planning with government involvement / policy in contradicting ways.

So if other countries deny Canadian carriers slots because of the plight of Aboriginals or the relative 'liberal' values in the West (vs. traditional conservatism), how would Canadians think?

They are lecturing Canada on how much money it can make by granting their demands; maybe they should pay for the $300 million it cost us to forcibly and immediately vacate our military base.
They may have been letting us use their piece of sand "for free", but we were providing the actual soldiers, equipment, etc.... "for free", too. Its not like we actually want to be there in the first place.u sure weren't doing that for the UAE's sake :lol: maybe Canada should pay for the rent free base for the last 9 years so 300 by 9 = 2.7 billion. :nuts:

If I was in charge I wouldn't even let Canada for free in the first place (not that I have anything against Canada, I just don't believe in freebies) and btw, it wasn't immediate, they give them a 30 days notice.

and btw, it wasn't immediate, they give them a 30 days notice.

30 days notice to find a new base to move out the 3rd largest allied contingent in Afghanistan? That's not ample notice. And btw, the allies are there trying to achieve stability in a rogue state. That's to the benefit of everyone, including the UAE.

If the UAE think it's just Canada pissed off over this, they're sadly mistaken. Do you think the US, UK, and our other allies in Afghanistan and NATO will forget about it any time soon? You can bet your bottom dollar that this issue has made many people irate at the Pentagon, British Armed Forces brass, etc.

And charging rent for Camp Mirage? You do know what people call others that try to profit from war, don't you? Regardless, what's done is done. The UAE has made their position clear. Canada will find another friend in the Middle East. The UAE isn't the only game in town.

Ok, that's enough. The topic has been flogged to death.