# Camp Mirage Superthread



## RecDiver (2 Aug 2005)

** REMOVED **


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Aug 2005)

"secretive airbase"

not so much no eh.

What's your source for this.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (3 Aug 2005)

Source was probably this:

http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.html?id=3347c216-7871-46a1-999a-270d3904d44e

or

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=30546


----------



## Armymedic (4 Aug 2005)

from the embedded reporter in Camp Julien...

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/08/03/1158116-cp.html

Runway incident delays troops' homecoming

By TERRY PEDWELL

KABUL (CP) - The families of 150 Canadian soldiers heading home from Afghanistan will have to wait a little longer for their loved ones to arrive. 

An accident on a runway at the secretive Camp Mirage air base elsewhere in the region will mean soldiers ending a six-month rotation at Camp Julien in Kabul won't leave until Saturday at the earliest, military officials said. 

Several other soldiers who helped Canada set up a provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar, Afghanistan, will also have their departure delayed. 

On Tuesday, a Boeing 737-300, operated by Aerosvit, a Ukrainian airline, made an emergency landing at Camp Mirage after its pilots radioed that they suspected one of the plane's tires had burst during takeoff from Dubai International Airport. 

No one was injured, but the plane caused a large gash in the runway that required extensive repair. 

Canadian Forces officials say the incident will mean soldiers, mainly from CFB Petawawa, Ont., who were scheduled to leave Afghanistan on Thursday and Friday will have to wait until the weekend. 

Another 150 soldiers, heading into Afghanistan, will also have their deployment to Afghanistan postponed. 

The Canadian Forces closely guards the location of Camp Mirage, in south Asia, so as not to offend the base's host country, although its whereabouts has been reported publicly. It serves as a stopover for flights to and from Afghanistan. 

Canada is deploying 250 troops to Kandahar for the provincial reconstruction team, billed as an implementation of the new "3-D" policy of combining diplomacy, defence and development abroad. 

There are also about 700 Canadian troops based at Camp Julien in Kabul as part of the NATO security force protecting the UN-backed Afghan government.


----------



## mover1 (5 Aug 2005)

AND?!?! I love the spectacular reporting on such an minor incident.


----------



## Armymedic (5 Aug 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> AND?!?! I love the spectacular reporting on such an minor incident.



Yes minor...esp if your NOT one of the 300 soldier or thier families waiting to fly out of Mirage and CJ, who are getting home 1-3 days late after a 6 month tour.

I suppose it minor to if you not one of the others waiting to go home on later flights, or one of the 1000 waiting to come onto the tour, wondering when you'll get to fly...

Its not so bad, as I am done, with no handover to do because my replacement isn't in...but for those who had to redraw thier weapons and head back out the gate yesterday...

I'd think to them it could be life altering news if something bad were to happen.


----------



## Franko (6 Aug 2005)

Tell me about it Ash......    :    ;D

Regards


----------



## Blakey (6 Aug 2005)

Armymedic

Its not the first time and it wont be the last, that soldiers have to suck it up and do more than a 6 month tour. I can think of at least 2 separate occasions when our BG had to stay longer than expected, once in '93 we stayed a month later, due to the fact that there were problems with the incoming BG (the vandoo's  : }. As well Roto 12, but that was just for a week or so for some of the troops.


----------



## Armymedic (6 Aug 2005)

Not like this is my first time either...going in on both this and roto 13 were delayed...it is what you expect to happen, and glad when it doesn't. 

It is an inconvenience, but by no means minor to those who are experiencing it for the first time. And to those of us who have, we look at the pluses like the extra 3 days of tour pay I am getting, etc.

I take offense to someone saying its "minor" news, on a site called Army.ca.

edit: I did not mean to give rise to airforce/army animosities, as there is an Airbus crew stuck in Mirage as well. Perhaps I am taking it personal, and whining a bit here. But I think you would be too after sitting in Camp Julien for 5 days in the heat, with nothing to do but eat, sleep, go to the gym, and wait to call home. 

And to top it all off, our beer cards have expired... :crybaby:


----------



## GerryCan (6 Aug 2005)

Could be worse, you could be doing a year long tour with less pay and far less leave like our american friends over here.  
You can also look on the bright side and think of the extra cash you're making and some guys are getting an extra point out of the deal.

There's always a bright side, it's just not always that easy to see. Regardless, we'll all be home shortly.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Aug 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Not like this is my first time either...going in on both this and roto 13 were delayed...it is what you expect to happen, and glad when it doesn't.
> 
> It is an inconvenience, but by no means minor to those who are experiencing it for the first time. And to those of us who have, we look at the pluses like the extra 3 days of tour pay I am getting, etc.
> 
> I take offense to someone saying its "minor" news, on an army site no less.



Armymedic,

It realy was minor news.  So things are delayed a day or 2...sucks but definately not worthy of a news report.  I am not trying to create an army/air force pissing contest here but the last part of your comment realy got to me.  Everyone gets delayed here and there, we sure do everytime the planes break at some foreign base at the end of some exercise. That doesnt make the news now does it ?

"on an army site no less"...........give it a rest  :


----------



## jmacleod (6 Aug 2005)

Aerosvit have an operating agreement with Air Canada and offices in Toronto. They commenced
operations about ten years ago with mostly Boeing aircraft (737-200,300, Boeing 767) and were
seeking TC licenses to operate in Canadian cities (Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg) wnd
there was some focus on Windsor ON (linked to Detroit). They probably have a DND contract
through Air Canada to provide airlift capacity as required. I'll bet their Toronto staff know where
Camp Mirage is in any event. Aerosvit is a long established private sector airline venture in the
Ukraine Republic, with an excellent reputation and probably some Air Canada investment. There
was a lot of work done for various commercial air passenger and air cargo from the former Soviet
Union in Ottawa, about five years ago. Some were licensed, some were not. Skylink Toronto
lease Russian and Ukrainian aircraft for DND support to this very day. MacLeod


----------



## mover1 (6 Aug 2005)

It happens. Two or three days is nothing. If there was any real delays because it was a MAJOR incident. there would have been alternate arrangements made. 

AESOP your making me tear up again man.


----------



## Franko (7 Aug 2005)

Watch the tone troops.....no personal attacks now. Keep it clean.

Regards


----------



## mover1 (7 Aug 2005)

What personal attacks?


----------



## darmil (29 Sep 2005)

I heard there is a tour coming up with the airforce to gaurd the airstrip at Camp Mirage its the resupply base for afghanistan has anybody heard anything.


----------



## eliteboris (29 Sep 2005)

Yes that is correct. There will be two D&S platoons. The positions have been filled. Not sure what else i can say but judging by your avatar you should talk to some of your L.E.R. buddies.


----------



## ImanIdiot (29 Sep 2005)

...............OPSEC.........?


----------



## Redeye (29 Sep 2005)

MasterPrivate said:
			
		

> ...............OPSEC.........?



Noted, topic changed accordingly.

Camp Mirage's location is not public information.


----------



## darmil (29 Sep 2005)

i'll look into it more  :threat:


----------



## HollywoodHitman (29 Sep 2005)

Yeah, watch the OPSEC on the location of the SUPER VISIBLE MILITARY INSTALLATION that the enemy already knows inside and out.

Over.


----------



## Redeye (29 Sep 2005)

Whether or not it's the worst kept secret in NATO is totally irrelevant.  It's still technically non-public information.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Sep 2005)

> And while junior ranks caught with photographs identifying the location have been summarily shipped home from Camp Mirage, the general has been promoted.


 :


i think this pretty much sums it up.


> Only the notion that it can be kept under wraps, cherished in some Ottawa quarters, is an illusion.



Much like a little cousin to the JTF,  the hype around this base int he news and on internet forums is what keeps it in the spotlight.

Tell someone they can't do something and they will try to prove you wrong (Only 2 beers a day troops)
Tell someone something is secret and they will want to know more.

If mirage is that important to you, go fiddle around with google earth. While you at it try and find dyer hill and feel good knowing you cracked a 'national secret'


----------



## Gayson (29 Sep 2005)

Aren't there laws that are supposed to prevent corporate entities like google from photographing private government entities (and even miltary) like Camp Mirage.

I've looked at Meaford with Google Earth and noticed that the area was photographed with very little detail.  Tell me that Google atleast photographed Camp Mirage with as little or less detail?


----------



## Gramps (29 Sep 2005)

I just looked it up with Google Earth. There was no real detail and you certainly could not see anything of much use at all. It certainly does not tell you who is there and what they are doing by any stretch of the imagination. In fact to find it you probably have to know where it is first.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2005)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> Aren't there laws that are supposed to prevent corporate entities like google from photographing private government entities (and even miltary) like Camp Mirage.
> 
> I've looked at Meaford with Google Earth and noticed that the area was photographed with very little detail.   Tell me that Google atleast photographed Camp Mirage with as little or less detail?



Whose laws would be able to effectively enforce this?

Supposedly the Satellites can be switched off when the Pentagon deems necessary, allowing only US military use.

The resolution that the majority of civilians can access by these means are not as good as Government Agencies and the large Corporations that use these images to make a living.   The other thing is the Military will have more 'real time' access than Google will have.   Some of the images that you are getting may be quite dated, and stored in a large database.


----------



## Gayson (29 Sep 2005)

You make a good point there George Wallace.

Luckily the photograph of the whole area isn't very detailed.


----------



## STA Gunner (29 Sep 2005)

To back up George Wallace's point,

All the imagery that google is using is civilian imagery.   We in the CF do not have satellites at our beck and call and as our brothers and sisters in D Space D will tell you, the commerical satellite industry is booming.

Look at the imagery of Kabul, and you will see it is at about 2 m resolution, compared to London, Ontario at about 15 m resolution.   Someone paid a civilian agency to gather imagery of Kabul, which is being used by Google.   No one has asked for detailed imagery of London, as the images there are too poor a resolution except for land usage, such as a Landsat 7 survey.   (That is as of today, Google is constantly updating imagery).

So, looking at Mirage, it is at the 15 m resolution, Dwyer Hill on the other hand, is quite detailed.


----------



## wongskc (30 Sep 2005)

> Supposedly the Satellites can be switched off when the Pentagon deems necessary, allowing only US military use.



This is true, however the US government has found a simpler solution:  Buy up all the imagery that exists of an area they want to restrict data on, along with the copyright.  This is easier because satellites never stop recording data, so private companies have data on practically every inch of the earth going back years.

On the other hand, once satellite imagery has made it to the public domain (i.e. after the initial purchase), it becomes open source and practically anyone with internet access can download it (having the software to actually make use of the data is an entirelly different matter).

STA Gunner:  You know a fair bit about satellite imagery... you have any background in it?


----------



## Zoomie (30 Sep 2005)

A large portion of Canada, including CFB Comox, Moose Jaw, Petawawa and other places I can find are at 2 m resolution.  I can my car in the driveway and my small garden shed is very clear.

That being said, the Americans are not the only nation that has satellite capability - it is rumoured that their Keyhole satellites has excellent resolution (less than 10cm) but there hasn't been any categorical proof of that claim.  With the launch of RADARSAT 2 - Canada will be in the position to have an extremely sensitive platform in space that cannot be censured by our brothers to the South.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2005)

Like you say to music and video industries when it comes to file sharing on the internet - suck it up, it's out there.
Same goes with this.

As for how detailed meaford is, its MEAFORD.
In the greater scheme of things- like mapping the EARTH, how important do you think meaford is?
Answer- not very.
Their going to put more resources into mapping ottawa.


----------



## Franko (30 Sep 2005)

Alrighty....I deleted one post...due to OPSEC concerns.

How about I ban the whole lot next time?   :

Watch your lanes Gents.

Locked...this topic can only go down one path.

Regards


----------



## old medic (7 Oct 2010)

Canadian military may pull forces from base in UAE

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101006/dubai-military-base-canada-101006/

CTV.ca News Staff
06 Oct 2010


> The Canadian military is poised to pull its forces out of a secret military base near Dubai that's used as a staging ground for troops serving in Afghanistan, rather than relent to demands made by the United Arab Emirates, CTV News has learned.
> 
> The UAE threatened to close the base unless Canada gave additional landing rights to its two commercial airlines, Emirates Airline and Etihad Airways -- including for direct routes to Calgary and Vancouver.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Oct 2010)

> The Canadian military has already carried out two supply missions from an air base in Cyprus to Kandahar, making Cyprus the new transit point.



I guess that means they bring the "heavies" in from Cyprus and get rid of the Herc flights. Of course it could also mean Herc flights into somewhere else like Mumbai for example. MTF I guess.


----------



## Swingline1984 (7 Oct 2010)

"The Canadian military is poised to pull its forces out of a secret military base near Dubai"

Ummmmmmmmm.......ya


----------



## mover1 (7 Oct 2010)

The self licking ice cream cone is down to the nub.  

The only reason its a secret is because the UAE wanted it to be a secret.


----------



## Swingline1984 (7 Oct 2010)

mover1 said:
			
		

> The self licking ice cream cone is down to the nub.
> 
> The only reason its a secret is because the UAE wanted it to be a secret.



We really held up our end of the bargain didn't we.  Isn't the media held to task when they breach matters of national security?  They have been talking about this "secret" base for years, what are the ramifications if any?  Do they get fined?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2010)

The main point of the article was about the UAE trying to coerce us for business purposes. Let's stick with that.

The existence and status of Mirage has already been discussed at length a couple of times previous. If you'd like to discuss that aspect, do so in one of those threads. There is no need to start another on the subject here.


Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Swingline1984 (7 Oct 2010)

Ack.  Mea culpa.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Oct 2010)

Does anyone have any insight as to what those demands are?


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any insight as to what those demands are?


From the CTV.ca piece


> .... The UAE threatened to close the base unless Canada gave additional landing rights to its two commercial airlines, Emirates Airline and Etihad Airways -- including for direct routes to Calgary and Vancouver.
> 
> An insider told CTV News that Canada was essentially being used as a pawn in heavy-handed blackmail. Transport Canada and Air Canada opposed the move ....


I'm guessing Air Canada is opposed for competitive reasons, but I wonder why Transport Canada would be opposed?

_- edited to add following - _

Apparently, this isn't an entirely new story - this from a 15 Mar 10 industry analysis piece....


> Last week the United Arab Emirates upped the ante in a battle over market access to Canada for its national airlines, Emirates and Etihad. By introducing the issue of Canada’s military bases into the aviation bilateral argument, the UAE  hardly used a new tactic in this age old and archaic industry. Aviation is so close to national economic interests that it raises all sorts of sensitivities which seem bizarre to outsiders – perhaps because they are exactly that.
> 
> Canada and its flag carrier, Air Canada predictably responded with shock and horror, insisting that a restrictive aviation policy was in the national interest. Moreover, it said, admitting these government-owned airlines would be unfair and disastrous for Air Canada. Meanwhile consultants, Intervistas, had produced a report suggesting that Canada was missing out on a potential CAD480 million in economic benefits if Emirates Airline were prevented from expanding. This review examines some of the arguments raised in favour of the status quo, suggesting that the Canadian government is, like King Canute, seeking to hold back the tide of consumer-driven air travel policy. It questions if this approach is in Canada’s – or even Air Canada’s – best interests.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Oct 2010)

I never liked being in Mirage anyways, Cyprus was far cooler.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Oct 2010)

Mirage, except for the food sucked each time there.  All the do's and don'ts for fear of pissing to locals off added to the humidity to add insult to injury.  Cyprus isn't too much farther by 17 either from/to KAF.  The extra travel on the final leg which would be balanced by the cut back of time from Canada as well.  But honestly are we going to be in the sandbox long enough to see a switch and make it worth while?


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Oct 2010)

I spent a few days in Mirage and I can tell you this: I would go friggin nuts there. Too many "zombies" who seem to have no purpose other than to collect a pay cheque and the overseas allowance.
Now I would absolutely volunteer to the the Sergeant Major for a Cyprus go.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I spent a few days in Mirage and I can tell you this: I would go friggin nuts there. Too many "zombies" who seem to have no purpose other than to collect a pay cheque and the overseas allowance.
> Now I would absolutely volunteer to the the Sergeant Major for a Cyprus go.



A couple of close friends of mine who have done that tasking tell me it's too much babysitting. I'd certainly have to give it a long hard thought before I accepted the tasking.


----------



## armyvern (7 Oct 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> A couple of close friends of mine who have done that tasking tell me it's too much babysitting. I'd certainly have to give it a long hard thought before I accepted the tasking.



Your buds did the TLD tasking?? Or Mirage??

Quite different taskings between the two.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Oct 2010)

They did TLD. Now that I think about it again, I'd do a Cyprus TSE tasking.


----------



## CombatDoc (8 Oct 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Mirage, except for the food sucked each time there.  All the do's and don'ts for fear of pissing to locals off added to the humidity to add insult to injury.  Cyprus isn't too much farther by 17 either from/to KAF.  The extra travel on the final leg which would be balanced by the cut back of time from Canada as well.  But honestly are we going to be in the sandbox long enough to see a switch and make it worth while?


In answer to your questions, 1) Looks like a yes and 2) worth while has nothing to do with it, politics has everything to do with it.  Cost efficiency is not going to matter if we are forced to pull stakes and move from CM.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Oct 2010)

Ah, now some of things I heard in the rumourmill over here make more sense.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2010)

.... according to Postmedia News:


> Canadian soldiers and aircrew have only 27 days to pack up their gear and clear out of the secret airbase in the United Arab Emirates that Ottawa established seven years ago to support military operations in Afghanistan.
> 
> After two years of on-and-off negotiations, the Emirates on Tuesday suspended a memorandum of understanding with Canada after the Canadian government balked at a demand that the Gulf sheikdom's two national carriers — Dubai-based Emirates Airlines and Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways — be granted rights to fly as many as 50 flights a week to Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Oct 2010)

No operational effect???  I am sure this going to be big schmozzle for those of us on the last few HLTA blocks.


----------



## 4Feathers (8 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I spent a few days in Mirage and I can tell you this: I would go friggin nuts there. Too many "zombies" who seem to have no purpose other than to collect a pay cheque and the overseas allowance.Now I would absolutely volunteer to the the Sergeant Major for a Cyprus go.



Your lack of knowledge as the "purpose" of CM is quite evident, and quite insulting to the thousands of personnel (your zombies) who have served there with minimal allowances under extreme heat conditions. There is no tax break there, personnel miss their families just as much as anywhere else, and when compared to the Golan, very little difference in conditions, despite the Golan tour getting the tax break. Having done a tour there, as well as Kaf, and Cyprus, I can tell you I have a lot of respect for those who have served in CM. They are certainly not there for the "allowances" as it would not be worth it. I have also served at the TSE in Cyprus during the 1st Gulf War, and would go back there in a flash.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2010)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Your lack of knowledge as the "purpose" of CM is quite evident, and quite insulting to the thousands of personnel (your zombies) who have served there with minimal allowances under extreme heat conditions. There is no tax break there, personnel miss their families just as much as anywhere else, and when compared to the Golan, very little difference in conditions, despite the Golan tour getting the tax break. Having done a tour there, as well as Kaf, and Cyprus, I can tell you I have a lot of respect for those who have served in CM. They are certainly not there for the "allowances" as it would not be worth it. I have also served at the TSE in Cyprus during the 1st Gulf War, and would go back there in a flash.



And when I went through there, there was no tax break for us, from Afganistan either. What I do remember is being cooped up there, with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Getting the stink eye from camp staff for taking one of their sacred ice cream bars, all the while watching them come and go on regular bus runs to downtown coming back and parading all their toys, literally, in front of us while we were confined to the base until our plane came around a few days later.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Oct 2010)

Well, that answers my questions.  27 days.... they will be busy little beavers.  Still, if I get another crack at going back I won't miss giving UAE a miss.  Would be too soon if I darken their doorway again in the next 30 years.


----------



## mover1 (8 Oct 2010)

Couple of things here.
Firstly being in out of CM and KAF every month for the past couple of years I can tell you the crew at CM will give you the stink eye no matter what you are doing.  
They also will go out of their way to get you what you want whenever the demands are reasonable enough.
Secondly I am sick ad tired of the attitude of those people who have been to AFG who think that just because we are in a different trade element job or base that we should bow down and suffer just because of their  own Afghan experience. 
Here is a friggin hammer I will help you pull out the nails so that you can come down off your cross.

CM is closing big whoop.  Now who are you going to bash now the Spangdahlem crews or the Cyprus gangs or where ever we are sent to to help sopport the op. 

I am not looking forward to CM closing. Its going to hurt. A LOT!!
Wait and see.


----------



## 4Feathers (8 Oct 2010)

mover1 said:
			
		

> Couple of things here.
> Firstly being in out of CM and KAF every month for the past couple of years I can tell you the crew at CM will give you the stink eye no matter what you are doing.
> They also will go out of their way to get you what you want whenever the demands are reasonable enough.
> Secondly I am sick ad tired of the attitude of those people who have been to AFG who think that just because we are in a different trade element job or base that we should bow down and suffer just because of their  own Afghan experience.
> ...



+1 Well said.


----------



## FoverF (8 Oct 2010)

Hmmm... 

I can't say that I approve of the UAE trying to bend us over the barrel. 

But I also can't approve of comrpomising military operations, and increasing the costs of an already enormously expensive operation in order to protect the margins of an incompetently run business.

Air Canada is already $11 billion or so in the hole. They benefit from a huge amount of protectionism already, and still can't keep their affairs in order. Should we really bend over backwards at government expense to help their margins?

Screw them, and screw their rude and disrespectful corporate culture.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Oct 2010)

mover1, I always had good service from the folks at CM.  I can applaud the effort of working in the heat and humidity to get the shit over to TFA that needed to get there.  My bitches were directed at the UAE in particular.  I did not like the climate, the greediness of the merchants, the having to be sooooo frigging careful not to offend anyone local with my great satan behavior and the chickenshit rules that came with it, the shit attitude of the local MP's at the gate coming in and out.   Transit through there was painful and friggin boring, I hated most of it.

I understand and accept that the guys and girls at CM could be a little pissy during a RIP.  I am sure it is a couple of months of bloody hard work, seeing the same damn problems crop up again and again, same dumb questions etc etc etc.  But I for one have no complaints about the folks there, glad I was not one of them.   This Sailor thanks them one and all for the support they gave me during my tours.


----------



## mover1 (8 Oct 2010)

I don't care for the locals either. Whenever we get into their airspace the first things they do is make sure we know who is in control. 
The Rips don't suck. Its a few hours of hard work by MAMS and the clerks to get people sorted out and ff to where they need to go.  What sucks is the attitudes of the one or ten guys off of each plane load that think the world is owed to them. 154 people on a flight and 5 dickheads with attitudes. They are the ones pissing on the floor in the bathroom of the 17 and spitting their chewing tobacco on the floor. 

There is my rant. I am done now.

BTW I hate going it CM.

farewell BE-NO Ops


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Oct 2010)

I was personally impressed by the speed and efficiency of the rip process at CM. I half expected it to be just like the 3 DAG "cattle lines" I went through in Valcartier, where they never had the information right.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2010)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Your lack of knowledge as the "purpose" of CM is quite evident, and quite insulting to the thousands of personnel (your zombies) who have served there with minimal allowances under extreme heat conditions. There is no tax break there, personnel miss their families just as much as anywhere else, and when compared to the Golan, very little difference in conditions, despite the Golan tour getting the tax break. Having done a tour there, as well as Kaf, and Cyprus, I can tell you I have a lot of respect for those who have served in CM. They are certainly not there for the "allowances" as it would not be worth it. I have also served at the TSE in Cyprus during the 1st Gulf War, and would go back there in a flash.


Don't presume to lecture me. I've been there, done that and have several T Shirts. I mean what I say. At CM I saw several self absorbed people doing not much of anything.
Been to hot places with no tax breaks either. Or HLTA. Or the NATO allowances people receive.


----------



## CombatDoc (9 Oct 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I was personally impressed by the speed and efficiency of the rip process at CM. I half expected it to be just like the 3 DAG "cattle lines" I went through in Valcartier, where they never had the information right.


+1.  I've also been impressed by the efficiency, no matter what time of day or night.  My thanks to all who served at TSE, your contribution and service to the mission are valued.


----------



## Arsenal (10 Oct 2010)

mover1 said:
			
		

> I don't care for the locals either. Whenever we get into their airspace the first things they do is make sure we know who is in control.
> The Rips don't suck. Its a few hours of hard work by MAMS and the clerks to get people sorted out and ff to where they need to go.  What sucks is the attitudes of the one or ten guys off of each plane load that think the world is owed to them. 154 people on a flight and 5 dickheads with attitudes. They are the ones pissing on the floor in the bathroom of the 17 and spitting their chewing tobacco on the floor.
> 
> There is my rant. I am done now.
> ...



Maybe those five guys spent the last six months sleeping on the ground, eating rats, getting shot at and blown up.. So what if there are a few "bad" attitudes?


----------



## armyvern (10 Oct 2010)

Arsenal said:
			
		

> Maybe those five guys spent the last six months sleeping on the ground, eating rats, getting shot at and blown up.. So what if there are a few "bad" attitudes?



Pissing and spitting on the floor of the aircraft is beyond "bad" attitude. They're being dickheads.


----------



## 4Feathers (10 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Don't presume to lecture me. I've been there, done that and have several T Shirts. I mean what I say. At CM I saw several self absorbed people doing not much of anything.
> Been to hot places with no tax breaks either. Or HLTA. Or the NATO allowances people receive.



Not a lecture, just responding to your less than kind comment "Too many "zombies" who seem to have no purpose other than to collect a pay cheque and the overseas allowance" I find it innappropriate to paint everyone there with the same brush, knowing personally that most of them care about the support they are providing and work long and hard hours. Most of the comments in this thread about the support they provide speak volumes of the professionalism and pride with which they provide a support service.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Oct 2010)

Back from the us v them.... sources are now reporting that the base will be closed in less than a month:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101010/canada-dubai-base-101010/


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2010)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is breaking news:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/uae-closes-airpsace-to-mackay-blocks-his-flight-from-afghanistan/article1752151/


> UAE closes airpsace to MacKay, blocks his flight from Afghanistan
> 
> JANE TABER AND DANIEL LEBLANC
> 
> ...




We cannot leave a minute too soon. These pissant little countries are not worth the effort – as will soon be seen when e.g. Dubai defaults on its loans.



Edit: spelling     - thanks dapaterson


----------



## Franko (11 Oct 2010)

Quite a bold move on their part though.

Regards


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Oct 2010)

They're only playing hard ball because they know that in a year, their time is up. Once we leave Afg and no longer have a need for Dubai, then they're out of bargaining chips. I applaud the Government's standing up to them.


----------



## old medic (11 Oct 2010)

MacKay confirms Forces to leave UAE base
Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News · Monday, Oct. 11, 2010

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/MacKay+confirms+Forces+leave+base/3653881/story.html


> KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Defence minister Peter MacKay confirmed Monday that the United Arab Emirates has ordered Canada to abandon an important staging base known as Camp Mirage that Canada used to sustain its combat mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> “At this point we will abide by the wishes of the Emirates and that is that we will be leaving the base,” Mr. MacKay said at the end of three-day trip to Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2010)

The Americans have a huge base in Qatar, perhaps we can use their airspace?


----------



## dapaterson (11 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is breaking news:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/uae-closes-airpsace-to-mackay-blocks-his-flight-from-afghanistan/article1752151/
> 
> We cannot leave a minute too soon. These puissant little countries are not worth the effort – as will soon be seen when e.g. Dubai defaults on its loans.



You've made a typo, and included a U in pissant.


----------



## ProudNewfoundlander (11 Oct 2010)

CTV has just said the UAE has just closed their airspace to Canadian aircraft


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You've made a typo, and included a U in pissant.




Thanks; and to make it worse the words are antonyms!  :-[


----------



## PiperDown (11 Oct 2010)

I am glad we are not bowing to the demands of the UAE. But slightly worried about where ( or IF ) I will be flying to next week when I am ( currently) scheduled to fly into theatre.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2010)

PiperDown said:
			
		

> I am glad we are not bowing to the demands of the UAE. But slightly worried about where ( or IF ) I will be flying to next week when I am ( currently) scheduled to fly into theatre.



Wherever it is, it won't be like walking off the plane into a wall of hot salt water.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Oct 2010)

ProudNewfoundlander said:
			
		

> CTV has just said the UAE has just closed their airspace to Canadian aircraft


More on that from CTV.ca:


> A diplomatic spat over aviation landing rights has sent Canada packing its bags from a Dubai-area military base and has reportedly seen the United Arab Emirates close down its airspace to a plane carrying Canadian officials.
> 
> The UAE government had threatened to kick Canada out of Camp Mirage -- a military base located near Dubai -- if Ottawa did not approve new Canadian landing rights for national carriers Emirate and Etihad ....


....and from CP:


> A plane carrying two cabinet ministers and the head of the Canadian military was denied the right to land in the United Arab Emirates on Monday in a diplomatic rebuke from the wealthy Gulf country.
> 
> The UAE closed its airspace to Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen. Walt Natynczyk, who were on their way from a three-day visit to Afghanistan, a military source in Ottawa confirmed to The Canadian Press ....


----------



## dapaterson (11 Oct 2010)

Tomorrow should be interesting; I could see our ambassador being recalled over this, and I also suspect some other airlines may get enhanced Canadian landing rights - who are the biggest competitors of Emirates Air?


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Tomorrow should be interesting; I could see our ambassador being recalled over this, and I also suspect some other airlines may get enhanced Canadian landing rights - *who are the biggest competitors of Emirates Air?*




That might be Qatar Airways - they are moving, very aggressively, to expand they market share. But Qatar, like UAE and Dubai is sitting on fiscal quicksand.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Oct 2010)

Then again, we probably don't have to wager much if we ask the Brits for permission to transit through Akrotiri in Cyprus.


----------



## 57Chevy (11 Oct 2010)

A simmering dispute between Canada and the United Arab Emirates threw Defence Minister Peter MacKay's (pictured) travel plans into chaos Monday morning, when the UAE refused MacKay and his entourage permission to land on or even cross over UAE territory.

Read more: article link

The increasingly acrimonious dispute pits the world’s second largest country against a tiny, but immensely wealthy Gulf sheikdom whose ambition is to create two of the world’s largest airlines.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Oct 2010)

PiperDown said:
			
		

> I am glad we are not bowing to the demands of the UAE. But slightly worried about where ( or IF ) I will be flying to next week when I am ( currently) scheduled to fly into theatre. [/quote
> 
> Cyprus seems to be the most likely destination which would make sense. The Brits already have an airbase there that we could use and our troopies already go to de-compress when there tours ends.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Oct 2010)

From what I understand, Europe is also have "issues" with Air Emirates.  
I guess that the fellow Commonwealth nation of India is of no help for us to use as a staging area?


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> From what I understand, Europe is also have "issues" with Air Emirates.
> I guess that the fellow Commonwealth nation of India is of no help for us to use as a staging area?



You'd have to fly through Pakistani airspace, and they don't like playing ball all the time.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2010)

That's too bad. I'd rather fly Emirates than Air Canada any day.


----------



## captloadie (12 Oct 2010)

We used to fly through the British base in Cyprus, until it became to busy for them to handle us. I doubt the situation has changed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Oct 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You'd have to fly through Pakistani airspace, and they don't like playing ball all the time.



Speaking of Pakistan, this from the Canadian Press:


> Pakistan is in the process of considering a request from Canada to use its military bases for next year's scheduled withdrawal from Afghanistan.
> 
> A source in the Pakistani Foreign Ministry says Canada lodged the request several months ago ....



Yeah, that sounds easy, NOT.  Still, the options appear small (unless we hit up one of the former Soviet 'Stans).


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> That's too bad. I'd rather fly Emirates than Air Canada any day.



me too.


----------



## mover1 (13 Oct 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You'd have to fly through Pakistani airspace, and they don't like playing ball all the time.



No problems anytime I went through.  We  overfly it all the freakin time


----------



## opcougar (14 Oct 2010)

You've got to love how our media is just guessing and pin pointing location this week about where we operated out of. My question though, who are the people giving interviews to the media about this stuff?


----------



## dapaterson (14 Oct 2010)

Well, it started with the MND doing an interview and mentioning the place, and it went downhill from there.


If news reports are correct, this suggests a major tactical blunder on the part of the UAE (or possibly a cultural misunderstanding); they wanted to keep their provision of facilities under the radar (so to speak), yet still wanted actions to reflect goodwill for their doing it.

Imagine the spin, had things gone differently:  the Press would have been filled with stories about the CF in the UAE (not "undisclosed locaiton in the Middle East"); travel features about the area, news and opinion pieces about how they're such a great and reliable ally - and then they request a few more landing slots - popular opinion would have gone with them, and a half dozen or so A380s would land in Calgary every week.

Instead, "Don't tell anyone you're here!" followed by surprise that, having done no sales job to the public, they did not receive the commercial benefits they wanted.  In a nation dominated by a small elite, the concept of popular support was probably missed - to their commercial detriment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Oct 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In a nation dominated by a small elite, the concept of popular support was probably missed - to their commercial detriment.


It appears their priority was not to upset other MidEast states by visibly supporting the ISAF invaders forces - oh well, no Calgary landing rights for _you_.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Oct 2010)

And now this, more gasoline on the fire.  Shared with the usual caveats.

UAE lobbied against Canada's UN bid
Last Updated: Thursday, October 14, 2010 | 10:27 AM ET Comments366Recommend117The Associated Press 
A UAE official says the country lobbied against Canada's bid for a United Nations Security Council seat in the latest blow to relations that have soured after disputes over airline routes.

The official says the United Arab Emirates opposed Canada's UN effort in part because of its trade policies. Canada failed earlier this week to win one of the non-permanent Security Council seats after coming behind Portugal in second ballot voting in New York.  The UAE has pushed back hard against Ottawa for not opening up more routes for its airlines Emirates and Etihad. Canadian troops are being forced to leave Camp Mirage, a military base in Dubai used to supply Canadian forces in Afghanistan.

The UAE official spoke on condition of anonymity Thursday because of standing government rules on behind-the-scenes briefings.  Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said the lack of support from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff for Canada's bid helped scuttle it, an assertion Ignatieff called "ridiculous."  The Liberals have also criticized the Conservative government's handling of negotiations with the UAE, but NDP defence critic Jack Harris said he supported the government on the issue.

© The Canadian Press, 2010


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/10/14/canada-uae-un-security-council.html#ixzz12M6MezNT


----------



## opcougar (14 Oct 2010)

Let's be honest though, don't think this is what really decided the outcome of the sit. Once Germany won the first round, it was going to be tough for Canada to gain a sit. Why don't we fight for a permanent sit too? Pearson will be turning in his grave


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2010)

In 1945 we _could_ and, arguably _should_ have had out own, permanent seat on the UNSC. In 1945 Canada was one of the 'great powers' and Truman/Byrnes and Atlee/Bevin wanted Canada rather than France on the UNSC.

King (the Canadian PM) was an instinctive isolationist who was just relieved that he had, barely, managed to 'survive' the war with Canada more or less intact. He recoiled at the thought that 'little Canada' might have a seat at the 'top table' with America, Britain, Russia and China and could, potentially, become involved in 'keeping' the new and possibly fragile peace. King wanted none of it or of the big, dangerous world.

Thus are great opportunities lost by small men.


----------



## old medic (18 Oct 2010)

Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan air bases could host Canadian planes

Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan air bases could host Canadian planes
By BRYN WEESE, Parliamentary Bureau
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/10/18/15736361.html



> OTTAWA — The Canadian government is considering a German air base in Uzbekistan or an American air base in Kyrgyzstan as a possible short-term fix for the loss of Camp Mirage, the Canadian air base near Dubai, Qmi Agency has learned.
> 
> The United Arab Emirates is evicting the Canadian Forces from Camp Mirage in three weeks because the Canadian government refuses to grant the country's national airlines additional flights to Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## aesop081 (18 Oct 2010)

Manas is a bad idea.......


----------



## FDO (19 Oct 2010)

I wonder what this little spat between the UAE and Canada will do for those other Canadians working in the UAE. There are 27,000 Canadians and about 200 Canadian companies. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few weeks.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Oct 2010)

Perhaps another pebble in the shoe that is CAN-UAE relations lately?


> Canadian officials are being tight-lipped over claims a suspect in the killing of a Hamas leader in Dubai earlier this year has been arrested in Canada.
> 
> Lt.-Gen. Dahi Khalfan Tamim, the Dubai police chief, told broadcaster Al-Arabiya that Canada informed United Arab Emirates officials back in June about the arrest but were asked that it not be announced. He claimed that officials are covering it up.
> 
> ...


More at CBC.ca here and Al Arabiya here.


----------



## gaspasser (19 Oct 2010)

I believe most of Dubai is being built by Canadians~~~~

So much for political sword jingling~~~~~~

Do the words "bug out" mean anything in the air force???

Three weeks notice to move, with all that kit and equipment, luckily we have Hercs somewhere in the area~~~ :


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Manas is a bad idea.......



How so?


----------



## aesop081 (19 Oct 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How so?



Well :

a) Its a politicaly unstable shithole ; and
b) The already tried the "pay us $xxxxx or we'll kick you out" on other allies (the US) and succeeeded.


----------



## Ignatius J. Reilly (19 Oct 2010)

Retired FDO said:
			
		

> I wonder what this little spat between the UAE and Canada will do for those other Canadians working in the UAE. There are 27,000 Canadians and about 200 Canadian companies. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few weeks.


Indeed. Lots of civilians over there teaching English. I wonder how all this will trickle down for them.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well :
> 
> a) Its a politicaly unstable ******* ; and
> b) The already tried the "pay us $xxxxx or we'll kick you out" on other allies (the US) and succeeeded.



Makes sense, we'd be no better off than with UAE.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2010)

> Even though the United Arab Emirates evicted Canada from an airbase used to supply troops in Afghanistan, there will be a Camp Mirage closing ceremony to thank the U.A.E., Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday.
> 
> He told a House of Commons committee the U.A.E. had let Canada use the airbase for transporting troops, equipment and supplies for free for nearly a decade and "always treated Canadians with utmost respect and dignity."
> 
> Canada's military still has a "bit of a cushion" to clear out as ordered by the U.A.E. because of a trade dispute over airline landing rights, and will meet the Nov. 5 eviction deadline, Gen. Walt Natynczyk signalled. The Canadian military has stopped flying troops to and through its base in Dubai ....


More from Postmedia News here.


----------



## JB 11 11 (29 Oct 2010)

Slap a Canadian and he'll apologise for it:

We are now going to "Thank" the UAE for kicking us out. Great... wonderful. Canada's International rep wasn't bad enough... Maybe I am naive, but this smacks of grovelling to me.

http://www.infomedia.gc.ca/international/articles/unrestricted/2010/10/int2010101312885529_9.htm


----------



## DirtyDog (29 Oct 2010)

Recenty, on return from HLTA, we were met at the airport and advised we would not be admitted to CM.  So instead we spent the night at the airport (earlier flights got hotels).

As far as Emirates versus Air Canada....

I've always avoided Air Canada as the general concensus was that they are undesirable.  Much of my HLTA flying (I had over 10 flights) was done through them and I was impressed with the level of service and comfort.

Having flown back on an Emirates A380, the only thing that impressed me was the plane it's self.  Boarding seemed very laboured and the service was not as professional as I would have expected.  The flight attendants seemed inexperienced and hurried quite often.  The economy seats and entertainment were however top notch as was the food.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Oct 2010)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I've always avoided Air Canada as the general concensus was that they are undesirable.  Much of my HLTA flying (I had over 10 flights) was done through them and I was impressed with the level of service and comfort.



I always found Air Canada's international service to be very different than its domestic service. While i avoid AC at all costs here at home, for international travel, i dont mind them at all.


----------



## old medic (9 Nov 2010)

Canada relocating Camp Mirage operations to Cyprus
The Canadian Press
Date: Friday Nov. 5, 2010 1:57 PM ET
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20101105/camp-miraeg-closes-101105/



> STELLARTON, N.S. — Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the Canadian military will use facilities in Cyprus in addition to a base in Germany as a supply route for its mission in Afghanistan after the closing of Camp Mirage.
> 
> MacKay said Friday that Cyprus has already been used by the Canadian military.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (12 Nov 2010)

Qatar, Canada do airline deal
  Article Link
3 passenger, 3 cargo weekly. Quiet, quick agreement in sharp contrast to dispute with United Arab Emirates

By MATTHEW FISHER, Postmedia News November 12, 2010

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

The U.A.E. 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 U.A.E. by cancelling the six flights a week that Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways currently fly to Toronto or by banning U.A.E. aircraft from Canadian airspace as the U.A.E. 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 U.A.E.'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 yesterday 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.
end


----------



## dapaterson (12 Nov 2010)

Gee, you think this might be intended as a mild slap to the UAE?


----------



## GAP (12 Nov 2010)

Especially if they get landing rights for Afghanistan flights....camp mirage II


----------



## armyvern (12 Nov 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Gee, you think this might be intended as a mild slap to the UAE?



Nope; the UAE already has landing rights such as this in Canada - what _they_ wanted was unlimited daily flight landing rights.


----------



## GAP (18 Nov 2010)

Apparently the increase in UAE landing rights was a move that would have hurt AC Asian flights.....right now they have to go the long way around, whereas they wanted to pick up a chunk of North American traffic to asia via Canada...


----------



## 57Chevy (19 Nov 2010)

MacKay, Baird divided over U.A.E. decision
Video:    MacKay's feelings on the UAE
 Defence Minister Peter MacKay is overheard telling a Tory senator that relations with the United Arab Emirates have been set back a decade. Global National's Carolyn Jarvis talks to Calgary Herald columnist Don Martin for analysis.
               ____________________________________________________________

OTTAWA — An internal rift in the Conservative government's cabinet was laid bare Thursday, as House leader John Baird said the Tories did the right thing by refusing to strike a deal with the Middle East country that once provided a military airbase for Canadian troops — while Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the failed negotiations have set back relations with the U.A.E.

Canada lost the military base in the U.A.E. this fall because it would not grant aircraft landing rights in Canada as requested by the Gulf sheikdom.

Baird and MacKay were reportedly at odds at the cabinet table over whether Canada should adopt a hard line, and Baird ended up convincing Prime Minister Stephen Harper to stand fast.

In the House of Commons on Thursday, opposition critics accused the government of dropping the ball and leaving troops without a reliable airbase to use while in transit to Afghanistan.

article continues

here
                        (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## 57Chevy (25 Jan 2011)

Chretien criticizes Harper's handling of UAE relations

OTTAWA — Former prime minister Jean Chretien is taking shots at the Harper government for its handling of relations with the United Arab Emirates.

"I think this problem has not been well managed," he is quoted as saying on the website of Arabian Business, from the sidelines of a conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

In recent months, the UAE has evicted Canada from the military base Camp Mirage, which was used to support war efforts in Afghanistan. As well, Canadians have recently been required to pay for visas to visit the UAE that continue to be offered free to citizens of other western countries.

Such moves are seen as retaliation for Canada's refusal to grant additional landing rights to airlines from the UAE.

"I hope (the Canadian government) will resolve the difficulty because we need good relations with this part of the world," Chretien told Arabian Business.

Chretien, who led a Liberal government from 1993 to 2003, added: "I never had any problems when I was prime minister with the countries here. I never had, in the 10 years I was there, had that type of problem without finding a solution."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was in Switzerland Tuesday for meetings on women's and children's health. Officials from the Prime Minister's Office were not immediately available for comment.

In previous comments to media, Harper has expressed disappointment in the UAE as an ally for linking to business disagreements the use of its territory for help in global security.

Dimitri Soudas, Harper's director of communications, recently told Postmedia News that what the UAE has been asking for is "not in the best interest of Canadian workers."

He criticized the Liberals on this issue for not defending "the interests of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy at a time when we need it most."

                        (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jan 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Chretien criticizes Harper's handling of UAE relations
> 
> OTTAWA — Former prime minister Jean Chretien is taking shots at the Harper government for its handling of relations with the United Arab Emirates.
> 
> ...




It is always _nice_ to have "good relations" everywhere, but that "part of the world" is not, really, all that important.

Regions that *really* matter to Canada:

USA;

East Asia - especially, but not only, China, South Korea, Hong Kong (with which we need to have separate "good relations" from China) and Japan, in that order;

South Asia - especially, but not only, India;

South East Asia - especially, but not only, Singapore and Malaysia;

South Pacific - especially, but not only, Australia and New Zealand; and

North West Europe - especially, but not only, Norway, Denmark and the United Kingdom.

Regions that matter quite a bit:

Caribbean;

Europe;

The Pacific Rim - including South American Pacific countries; and

Israel and, by extension, its immediate neighbours.

Regions that hardly matter at all, except as already mentioned:

Africa;

Middle East;

Central and West Asia;

Latin America; and

Everything else.

Let Portugal care; they got elected to the UNSC.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jan 2011)

But it's probably very important to Power Corporation though, hence the Chretien connection. On the face of it, IMHO, it has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with making money for his cronies and himself.......again.


----------



## MJP (25 Jan 2011)

A counter blow by Ezra Levant to Chretien's huffing and puffing.

http://ezralevant.com/2011/01/emirates-airlines-owned-by-dic.html

Can Emirates Airlines even really be called a company, if it's 100% owned by a foreign dictatorship, doesn't pay taxes, gets a free, state of the art airport built by near-slave labour, etc., etc.? And today the great moral exemplar, Jean Chretien, took its side against Canada. From pepper-spraying Canadians protesting against Suharto at the APEC conference, to shilling for China, to this, is there a world dictator Chretien won't support?

I'm all for competition amongst companies. But I think there's a difference when a foreign dictatorship dresses up as a company, and pretends to compete as a company, but is actually a tool of foreign policy. Maybe someone ought to write a book called "Ethical Airlines".  Here's a documentary about the treatment of workers in Dubai.  I know it's not as much fun to talk about as all that great shopping. You'd think the parties of the left would give a damn about the treatment of workers. But there's all that great shopping! And the stewardesses on Emirates are so pretty.

More on Link


----------



## nuclearzombies (26 Jan 2011)

I'm quite insulted by the UAE's apparent notion that we have ANY obligation to let their subsidized bling-bling airline cut grass on our lawn. So to speak....


----------



## GAP (31 Jan 2011)

Winding down Kandahar mission to cost Canada another $90 million
  Article Link 
By Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News January 31, 2011

SPANGDAHLEM, Germany — It will probably cost Canada an extra $90 million to sustain and then wind up its mission in Kandahar by the end of the year because its military aircraft are still banned from the United Arab Emirates, according to calculations by Postmedia News.

Several senior officers have confirmed that the previously cited $300 million — which was widely reported in the media and attacked by the opposition in November — was far too high as the cost of leaving the U.A.E. base.

But the military and the Harper government have not provided a breakdown of the additional costs that will be incurred because the military has had to shift its air hub for Kandahar from Camp Mirage in Dubai to a U.S. airbase at Spangdahlem, Germany.

A fairly accurate calculation was awaiting a decision on which alternate airfields the military might end up using and how much cargo would be shipped home or left behind in Afghanistan to be sold, donated or thrown away.

Enough information is available now, however, to make a rough estimate of the cost of closing down Mirage.

Based on conversations with planners and others who will work on the move, it appears that Canada's four C-17s may clock about 3,400 additional flying hours as the result of having lost access to Dubai. Those flights have been going directly to Germany since before Christmas, when a small military team was withdrawn from what was a temporary arrangement in Cyprus.

Right now, there are about one sustainment and two passenger flights to and from Germany every week. They have been using a southern route that loops around Iran before heading north again.

Each round trip to Kandahar generally involves about 20 hours of flying time, compared to about five hours in the air for a round trip between Kandahar and Dubai.

However, a shorter route north from Kandahar over Turkmenistan and then across eastern Europe, which was tested by a C-17 last week, will cut the round trip from southern Afghanistan to Germany by more than 4,000 kilometres and about 15 hours.

This new route is expected to become operational sometime in early February. From then on a team of C-17 pilots, loadmasters and technicians will be based at Kandahar Airfield.

Beginning sometime in the spring, when the pullout of materiel from Kandahar begins, cargo flights will land at Cyprus if, as seems likely, that Mediterranean island nation becomes the transit point, with the rest of the journey to Canada being made by sea.

A C-17 takes about 12 hours to make a return trip from Kandahar to Cyprus.
More on link


----------



## captloadie (1 Feb 2011)

Either the C-17s are going to start going supersonic on the new route, or someone needs to rewrite this piece so it makes more sense. I don't think they mean it will reduce the trip _*to*_ 15 hours, not *by* 15 hours.

These reporters must be speaking with different movers than I am. It doesn't make much economical sense to repat all the equipment by air to Cyprus when there are some overland routes that can be used for generic equipment and sea containers.


----------



## GAP (1 Feb 2011)

He's saying the trip now takes 20 hours.....if they fly north west and cross Europe, it takes 5 hours....no?


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2011)

captloadie said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> These reporters must be speaking with different movers than I am. It doesn't make much economical sense to repat all the equipment by air to Cyprus when there are some overland routes that can be used for generic equipment and sea containers with generic equipment in them.



Have you seen the new CTAT/ITAR interim policy [awaiting the DAOD]?? Not too much is considered generic these days, nor transportable without the almighty "accompanied by" pers holding the appropriate levels of security clearance. That'd be the kicker to assuming the bulk can be transported overland through, let's say, not-so-friendly territory.


----------



## captloadie (1 Feb 2011)

There lies the problem. Why is so much of the stuff over there considered ITAR equipment? If the decision is to *ship back * all the computer equipment, furniture, uniforms, vehicle spares, etc, why fly it? Alot of equipment made its way in unescorted, so logically it should be able to leave unescorted as well. I mean, when NATO is having discussions with certain nations to allow Armoured vehicles to be shipped in via rail, how concerned are they really with breaching ITAR regulations.

And ask the Germans, Brits, and the US, just to name a few, about what they ship through some of these, ahem, not so friendly countries that don't start with PAK but still end in STAN.


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2011)

captloadie said:
			
		

> There lies the problem. Why is so much of the stuff over there considered ITAR equipment? If the decision is to *ship back * all the computer equipment, furniture, uniforms, vehicle spares, etc, why fly it? Alot of equipment made its way in unescorted, so logically it should be able to leave unescorted as well. I mean, when NATO is having discussions with certain nations to allow Armoured vehicles to be shipped in via rail, how concerned are they really with breaching ITAR regulations.
> 
> And ask the Germans, Brits, and the US, just to name a few, about what they ship through some of these, ahem, not so friendly countries that don't start with PAK but still end in STAN.



It made its way unaccompanied back in the day when regulations pertaining to its handling were different.

I don't know who assigns the ratings (usually US - for their technology), but the law says we have to follow them because Canada (regardless of what other nations do) says we have to. The troops who are deploying on MCU are receiving trg in how to 'challenge' those to drop to lower ratings, but at the end of the day ...


----------



## mover1 (2 Feb 2011)

The flights for passengers will be a lot shorter once the Airbus starts going into theater. Thank goodness too.  I like you guys but I hate taking passengers. The C-17 is a great cargo aircraft but someone keeps insisting that we travel with pax and in those god awful seat pallets too.

I get from the article that the writer assumes that the C-17 is in theater all the time. Well that is a misnomer. When Mirage was open we did weekly flights from Canada to KAF. All HLTA flights were with the Hercs. Now as a stop gap we have had the C-17 in theater since the last Rip and we have been rotating crews in and out. Sure its extra hours but still thats the cost of doing business.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Feb 2011)

Don't stop flying pax in it yet, I still want to check C-17 off my "fly list".  >


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Feb 2011)

Air Canada right to resist--from _NY Times_ business section:

Emirates’ Ambitions Worry European Rivals
Emirates’ growing reach, from its Dubai hub, is unnerving rivals like Lufthansa and Air France. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/business/13emirates.html



> ...
> Emirates, for instance, offers 184 flights a week from Dubai to India, to cities like Ahmedabad, the commercial hub in the state of Gujarat. It flies to 17 cities in Africa and, in China, to Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Guangzhou. It runs two daily flights to Bangkok and *nine to Australia* [emphasis added, QUANTAS very unhappy
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/qantas-mayday-on-foreign-flights/story-e6frg9io-1225999785592 ].
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Feb 2011)

Mark, I wonder if that article will ever see the light of day in any Canadian media (less the NP, SUN).


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2011)

> On February 16, Saeima Speaker Solvita Aboltina (Unity) met with the Canadian Ambassador to Latvia Scott Heatherington, during which the two sides discussed possibilities in increasing economic cooperation between the two countries, including the possible transit of non-military cargo from Canada to Afghanistan via Riga Port, LETA was informed by the Saeima's press service.
> 
> ''Relations between Latvia and Canada have historically been very good, with cooperation on the parliamentary level especially active the past several years,'' Aboltina said. In January of last year, the Speaker of the Canadian Senate Noel A. Kinsella visited Latvia, whilst in 2008, then Saeima Speaker Gundars Daudze (Union of Greens and Farmers) visited Canada. Aboltina accented that economic cooperation between Latvia and Canada is one of the areas still with much room for development.
> 
> ...


A bit more here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jul 2011)

_*That'll *_teach ya, UAE....


> Today, the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, as part of two days of meetings in the Middle East, stewarded the signing of a Canada-Kuwait Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The Memorandum of Understanding is a framework document to allow for logistical support to Canadian operations in Afghanistan.
> 
> Canada and Kuwait enjoy a steadfast friendship and strong bilateral relations.
> 
> ...


Source:  CF news release, 11 Jul 11 - backgrounder here, and mainstream media coverage here and here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jul 2011)

From the "hindsight being 20-20" section of _The Economist_:


> .... Switching operations to Kuwait will cost the Canadian government hundreds of millions of dollars in moving expenses and rent payments. A souring of relations could also hurt Canada’s business dealings with its biggest trading partner in the Middle East. And Canadian travellers will be stuck paying higher fares: a round-trip from Toronto to Dubai last week cost C$1,000 more on Air Canada than on Air Emirates.
> 
> The Canadian government seems to have realised belatedly that it had little to gain from squabbling with the UAE: John Baird, who became its minister of foreign affairs following a national election on May 2nd, met the Emirati ambassador at last on July 5th. Had his predecessor done so earlier, Canadian soldiers might still be based in Dubai today.


More here.


----------



## armyvern (19 Jul 2011)

mover1 said:
			
		

> I like you guys but I hate taking passengers. The C-17 is a great cargo aircraft but someone keeps insisting that we travel with pax and in those god awful seat pallets too.



Ahhh, but I preferred the ride with you over the herc ... even with those awesome seat pallets. I just avoid the first row.


----------



## Jammer (19 Jul 2011)

Side jump seat are the only way to go...


----------



## Loachman (19 Jul 2011)

Not for everybody. I don't like them at all. I prefer the second row from the front of the airline seats - there is more legroom than in the following rows, and it's closer to the sandwich boxes.


----------



## Jammer (19 Jul 2011)

I have the math down perfect to get best seat depending on how the Herc is configured...(It helps to know the loadie as well). I haven't quite got it yet for the C-17 though....given enough time however.


----------

