New visa fees annoy Canadians as Gulf airlines get aggressive
Posted on 03 January 2011 with 3 comments from readers
Canadians are turning on their government in anger at the imposition of stiff new fees for entering the UAE, for which visas must also now be obtained in advance. The visas follow years of fruitless negotiations for additional landing rights and shameless protectionism by the Canadian Government.
However, there is also a backlash against the success of the long-haul Gulf Airlines, Etihad, Emirates and Qatar Airways. There is political lobbying by their European and US rivals to end financial subsidies paid as sales inducements to boost nationally supported aircraft manufacturers.
Gulf airline expansion
That airlines are getting defensive is not surprising. Three years of recession-like conditions have upped competition and forced mergers and consolidation globally. The Gulf carriers have just carried on expanding, making the region a new hub for global travelers.
This year Dubai International Airport will handle 50 million passengers, more than four times the volume 15 years ago. And it is not hard to see why the Gulf airlines are winning passengers.
Their aircraft are much younger, offer the latest entertainment systems and better food. Their staff are also much younger and less jaded by the experience, indeed many still seem to find flying fun. Routing to key Asian destinations is also excellent, and Dubai airport is widely acknowledged as a world standard.
Air Canada
Poor old Air Canada. Its planes look as tired and old as their cabin crew. And to think travelers to the UAE will now pay up to $270 each to keep this lot in business. Not that the experience of other countries allowing Emirates or Eithad access to their skies has actually been a loss of business. BA flies more not less flights to Dubai than it used to.
The whole point that Canadian bureaucrats are missing is that opening up more flights from the Gulf into Canada will actually bring expanded business opportunities. That has certainly been the experience in Australia since the first flight landed with this correspondent in July 1996.
If national airlines want to defend themselves against foreign competition they should do so by providing better service and aircraft, not by blocking landing rights. It’s pure protectionism as there is no shortage of landing slots in Canadian airports, pointing again to poor management by the public sector.
3 Comments posted by readers:
This is true where you say opening up more flights will bring in expanded business and this is also true for Dubai that bringing down visa fees,residency fees and giving residency to expats will bring in more expanded and local business. I guess different governments mention the obvious only when it is in their favor lol..
Canada is one country that can do whatever it likes. Foreigners can take it, or leave it. It is a large democracy with a small, well educated population with vast deposits of oil, gas, uranium, nickel, gold, diamonds, potash, farmland with sufficient rainfall, huge hydroelectric potential (Wikipedia James Bay Project. It is one AMAZING achievement, and is still not finished! Those French Canadians can sure build dams , tunnels, & generating stations. Think what they could do in the Rockies.), and ports on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. They have a democracy as their ONLY neighbor that buys a lot of their exports and protects them from invasion, so that they don’t have to spend a lot on defense. How nice is that. One day, they might even be able to charge tolls for ships to go through their inland passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. A Panama Canal with no maintenance cost! Only the winter climate leaves a LOT to be desired. Imagine if they all spoke English.
Well, I guess I know of too few Canadians, either in person or on-line, as I have heard *nothing* about this revolt. However, a search of their state-run broadcaster reveals stories which state that your airlines receive generous subsidies to fly, and can undercut their non-subsidized national airline and hurt it severely. Canadians love fairness to a fault, and this is not very fair if true. So, if you do subsidize, your piece was disingenious not to mention this explicitly (analysis of this would be nice). If you do not, or only a little bit, you need to inform your Canadian target audience with the facts. Right now, they see it as a good decision. Worse, other stories show that the forced closure of the Canadian forward airbase in the Gulf supporting their troops in Afghanistan because of this argument is seen as mean-spirited partisanship, putting Gulf airlines business interests ahead of any combined interest in security. This has not won you supporters. Sadly, you also forgot to mention this in your article.