In the earlier of today's announcements the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) informed Godolphin that the 15 horses known to have been administered with either Ethylestranol or Stanozolol have been suspended from running in races for a period of six months, with effect from Tuesday 9th April 2013.

The BHA said that "the length of suspension reflects the period beyond which the BHA is confident that the horses in question can have derived no performance related benefit from the administration of these prohibited substances."

So the performance enhancing substances can positively impact performance for up to six months. What does that mean for some previous winners from this stable?

The trouble is so many questions are still unanswered: Who administered the steroid injections into the horses? Were records kept? Was trainer Mahmood al Zarooni present? Who supplied the steroids, who paid for them and who else knew? Did Al Zarooni bring the drugs from Dubai, is steroid use common there? After two Godolphin horses returned post race positives last Aug, what policies put in place to protect the integrity of the operation?

Al Zarooni has been with Godolphin for over five years. This was the first year that most of his stable stayed in Newmarket for the winter rather than moving to Dubai. His comments that he did not see a problem as the horses were out of competition suggests that steroids may be regularly used outside the UK as they legally can be.

Anabolic steriods are permitted out of competition in UAE, as they are in Australia. Then at the start of the season trainers can call for elective testing to screen the horses before racing to ensure they are clean.

"Will it ever be possible to watch a Godolphin horse win again without a nagging doubt?", wrote a letter-writer in The Times today. That is the damage done to the Godolphin brand.

In Sheik Mohammed's strong statement he states his shock that the rules of racing in the UK had been broken.  But clearly horses in Dubai and Australia have very different rules regarding steroids. At its simplest this case has highlighted need for consistency worldwide. If trainers can use steroids they will use them. The solution is a worldwide ban with regular testing in and out of the season.

For those unfamiliar with these medications, the use of anabolic steroids such as stanozolol, better known as Winstrol, can increase appetite, muscle mass, strength and red blood cell production in horses. Whether it will make a slow horse faster is a point of debate, but it can undoubtedly help a horse to physically thrive and reach its full athletic potential.

In Australia and Dubai, Al Zarooni would have actually escaped punishment altogether for his offences, as out-of-competition use of anabolic steroids is permitted as long as they don’t turn up in raceday samples.

In America, anabolic steroids were a legitimate and routine part of the conditioning of racehorses until being banned by most states in 2009.

However, there is a totally different stance on anabolic steroids in Britain and Ireland. They are not permitted to be used on horses in licensed racing yards at any time.

Simon Crisford, Godolphin’s racing manager, is conducting an internal review into the stable’s procedures but an independent investigation is surely warranted.

Crisford is making it very clear that the fault is all down to Zarooni. He has made the unlikely claim that vetinerary assistants gave the injections under orders from Zarooni without knowing what they were injecting.

The discovery of the steroids has also been condemned by a leading equine welfare organisation. Roly Owers, chief executive of World Horse Welfare, said: ‘These drugs are banned from racing for good reason, one of which is protecting horse welfare. Horses can become quite aggressive but, most significantly, horses are bulked up to a weight their body is potentially not able to cope with."

But Godolphin is “too big to fail”. Godolphin and Sheikh Mohammed have become so hugely powerful in the sport, investing hundreds of millions of pounds around the world, that for it to pull out would bring catastrophe on the industry. Which is why everyone will want to move on as quickly as possible from this scandal.

But it is also why an independent enquiry would be so much wiser than an internal enquiry lead by the damaged Crisford.

The Goldolphin probe must be quick — but not so fast that too many questions remain unanswered.

The Godolphin operations are systemically important to the industry but must be properly scrutinised. If not, racing’s reputation will be hobbled for years to come.

Abu Dhabi - Jetihad's gateway to India

24 April 2013

Hail the birth of Jetihad.

Only last week it was Jatihad after the Serbian national airline JAT joined with Etihad Airways in a code-share partnership. Etihad said their partnership could prove to be the first step towards a more comprehensive tie-up.

Now Etihad has taken a 24% interest in NareshGoyal-owned Jet Airways of India. The deal is accompanied by a huge revision of air capacity between India and Abu Dhabi.

In the backdrop of the financial deal between Jet Airways and Etihad, the two respective government authorities decided to revise up air capacity to Abu Dhabi by 36,670 seats per week from the existing 13,300 seats.

The linking of bilaterals with the investment into Jet is far from transparent and suggests that both governments were heavily involved in the outcome of this transaction between two private companies.

National carrier Air India along with other private airlines have been protesting the revision of traffic rights between India and Abu Dhabi, saying that this would serve to create another Emirates, Dubai's national carrier, which through a similar windfall increase in bilateral rights has now cornered the largest share of Indian outbound traffic.

This revision of 36,670 seats per week allocated to each region, which will be staggered over 2013-15, is against a demand of 42,000 seats per week that Abu Dhabi government had asked for.

"What's happening now is worse than Emirates. At least Emirates did whatever it had to on a standalone basis. Jet Airways is literally the Trojan Horse right now carrying Etihad inside it. So now both Jet and Etihad will feed traffic to Abu Dhabi," a senior official from Air India said.

An official statement from the partner airlines underscores this fear saying, "The proposed codeshare expansion will significantly enable Etihad Airways to tap into India's rapidly growing travel market, providing additional passenger traffic to Etihad Airways' Middle Eastern, North American and European destinations, and give Jet passengers from various cities access to an expanded network."

Jet Airways will sell 27.26 million new shares in a preferential offer to Abu Dhabi-based Etihad at Rs 754.74 a share – 32% higher than the stock’s closing price in Mumbai – totalling $379 million, or a little over Rs 2,061 crore.

The deal will give Etihad 24% stake in the Indian carrier, subject to shareholder approvals. The overall investment by Etihad will be $600 million, including $150 million in Jet’s frequent flyer programme and $70 million for buying three pairs of Heathrow slots from Jet through a sale and leaseback agreement announced in February.

“Its a great deal for Jet Airways and Etihad. Jet will now have adequate capital and a source for future capital needed for expansion at low interest rates. On the other hand, Eithad will get a strong foothold in the Indian market,” said Saroj Datta, aviation expert and ex-Jet Airways official.

The deal could well help Jet wrest back leadership in the domestic market, which it had surrendered to IndiGo last year. In February, IndiGo continued to be the largest airline with a 27.4% marketshare, followed by Jet Airways group (including Jet Konnect) at 25.4%, SpiceJet at 20.4%, Air India (18.9%), and GoAir (7.8%), as per data provided by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation.

The big deal for Jet is the cash injection; otherwise Jet was in danger of heading the way of Kingfisher with debts it could not service.

Etihad has also made equity investments into Air Berlin, Air Seychelles, Virgin Australia Holdings and Aer Lingus Group Plc. It's management and oversight of these investments must be a significant stretch for Etihad.

In the end what this deal really means is Jet feeding passengers into Abu Dhabi who then continue on code-shared flights operated by Etihad into Europe and North America.

It is good news for Abu Dhabi and Etihad. It is bad news for the hub ambitions of both Mumbai and Delhi international airports.

Etihad and Jet Airways were expected to announce the deal in the second week of February, but the Arab carrier was said to have sought an assurance from the Indian government against any policy reversal that would mean being forced into making a similar exit.

It is hard to determine a real strategy at Etihad beyond randomly sweeping up small investments in struggling airlines. Jet and Virgin Australia may be obvious long term strong partners, but  Air Seychelles, Aer Lingus and Air Berlin all have financial issues.

Interesting times. I wonder if EK and EY discusss their alternative strategies and investments or whether they are healthily competitive.

Godolphin's reputation shattered

23 April 2013

A reputation that took 20 years to build could now be in tatters after Godolphin trainer Mahmood Al Zarooni admitted administering outlawed drugs to horses in his yard.

The trainer is to attend a British Horseracing Authority (BHA) disciplinary inquiry after the positive tests from eleven of the horses in his care at Newmarket, southern England.

Certify, unbeaten in four outings and among the favourites for next month’s 1000 Guineas, was one of the seven horses whose samples tested positive for ethylestranol.

Opinion Poll, winner of the Dubai Gold Cup, was one of four horses that tested positive for stanozolol.

Forty-five horses were tested. Eleven positive results suggest the doping is widespread.

Adam Brickell, Director of Integrity, Legal and Risk for the BHA, said: “Ethylestranol and stanozolol are anabolic steroids and therefore Prohibited Substances under British Rules of Racing, at any time – either in training or racing.

At its most basic Godolphin needs to act quickly. Any investigation should be independent and not internal. And it needs to be transparent. There are simply too many champion horses caught up in this scandal.

Al Zarooni said on Godolphin's website (www.godolphin.com): "I deeply regret what has happened. I have made a catastrophic error. Because the horses involved were not racing at the time, I did not realise that what I was doing was in breach of the rules of racing. I can only apologise for the damage this will cause to Godolphin and to racing generally."

"Because the horses involved were not racing at the time, I did not realise that what I was doing was in breach of the rules of racing. I can only apologise for the damage this will cause to Godolphin and to racing generally."

The trouble with this is that Zarooni was fined last year after two of his horses tested positive for the painkiller propoxyphene ; he knew that the BHA would re-test anytime in the following year.

Godolphin racing manager Simon Crisford said the incident marked a "dark day" for Godolphin. "His Highness Sheikh Mohammed was absolutely appalled when he was told and this is completely unacceptable to him. We will await the outcome of the BHA inquiry before taking any further internal action.

"Sheikh Mohammed has instructed me to begin an urgent review of all of our procedures and controls. That is already underway and we will take advice from the BHA in completing it."

This suggests an internal investigation which could end up hiding rather than revealing the truth.

One other concern. It is early in the UK's flat season. Many of these horses wintered in Dubai. Where did the doping start?

Samples were taken from 45 horses at Godolphin's Moulton Paddocks Stables on April 9. Founded in 1992, the Godolphin stable has won more than 2,000 races worldwide with winners in 14 countries.

This is the the biggest drugs scandal to hit British racing; it will embarrass the rulers of Dubai. Godolphin is renowned for its great expertise in racing across a variety of jurisdictions; it is an unlikely candidate for breaching one of the most fundamental rules in the sport.

Al Zarooni, who has been three years in the job, is almost certain to receive a long ban from UK racing. The question is how was Zarooni able to jeopardise the whole operation without alarm bells ringing somewhere.

The consequences will be far-reaching. Reputations are at stake, personal and professional, and the man caught up in the middle of it is the biggest owner that racing has ever seen.

Godolphin's damage-limitation exercise is already under way – Zarooni's biographical page on their website has already been deleted – but then, they had a head start, because the British Horseracing Authority alerted Zarooni and his employers to the results of their "testing in training" visit to Moulton Paddocks on 9 April. Most of us are still trying to grasp the idea that a man who had spent his entire working life around horses could make such a hideous and calamitous mistake.

Since Zarooni is not disputing the results of the tests, it will be for the BHA's disciplinary committee to decide whether he is indeed guilty of the most dull-witted incompetence in turf history or whether he is willing to be damned for all time as the most inept trainer to hold a licence, because the truth is even worse.

The case against him, as so often, comes down to the question: mistake or conspiracy? Is it, in essence, even faintly credible that anyone in charge of any training yard could be unaware that anabolic steroids, the most dangerous and insidious performance-enhancing drugs of them all – are banned under all circumstances?

The Guardian's racing pages make clear a number of questions that now need to be addressed:

Assuming that Zarooni was not creeping around the yard after midnight with a rucksack full of syringes, who was helping him? And who was supplying the steroids for what was, even if it was inadvertent, such a significant doping programme? Where were the drugs stored and who knew that they were there?

How many other horses have been given steroids at Moulton Paddocks since Zarooni took charge in 2010? Eleven from 45 implies perhaps two dozen more may have had a dose this year alone. And that is only the start.

What about Encke, for instance, who denied Camelot the Triple Crown at Doncaster last September when tens of thousands of spectators and millions of TV viewers were aching for history to be made? Were they all duped by a doper too?

Any Classic winner will be tested, so Encke must have been clean after the Leger. Yet anabolic steroids are such insidious substances that there is now a cloud of doubt over the entirety of Zarooni's relatively brief but very lucrative training career. What about Blue Bunting, surprise winner of the 2011 1,000 Guineas ? And what about Monterosso, another outsider, who won last year's Dubai World Cup? Was he even subject to a post-race test?

Ouch - that last question could really hurt Dubai.

Beyond this particular case, there are obvious questions for British racing too. If Zarooni was injecting horses with steroids, either in the belief that it was not against the rules or, alternatively, that he would not get caught, how many other trainers have, or are, labouring under the same misapprehension? Are there trainers, both in Newmarket and elsewhere, who are suspending their own "medication" programmes this morning, at least until the Zarooni case blows over?

If there is a morsel of positivity to be drawn from this scandal, it is that the BHA has caught and charged Zarooni without any regard to his status in the sport or that of his employer, Sheikh Mohammed.

There will be more to come on this story.

On 24th April His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum issued the following statement (from the Godolphin web site):

"I was appalled and angered to learn that one of our stables in Newmarket has violated Godolphin's ethical standards and the rules of British racing. I have been involved in British horse racing for 30 years and have deep respect for its traditions and rules. I built my country based on the same solid principles. There can be no excuse for any deliberate violation. Godolphin is fully cooperating with the British Horseracing Authority to get to the bottom of this matter and take any appropriate disciplinary action. I have ordered the Godolphin management to undertake an immediate review of our internal procedures and controls to ensure to prevent any reoccurrence of this type of activity in any stables of mine. We will be locking down the Moulton Paddocks stables with immediate effect, and I have instructed that I want a full round of blood samples, and dope testing done on every single horse on that premises. I can assure the racing public that no horse will run from that yard this season until I have been absolutely assured by my team that the entire yard is completely clean. I have worked hard to ensure that Godolphin deserves its reputation for integrity and sportsmanship, and I have reiterated to all Godolphin employees that I will not tolerate this type of behaviour."

Maybe - one day!

22 April 2013

EK A350-800 - as drawn by Airbus.

RIP Mike Denness

20 April 2013

Mike Denness was captain of Kent cricket club when I went to the University of Canterbury in 1976. In my early days on UKC Radio I did a one hour interview with Mike. He was charming and very generous with his time and comments.

The interview was also included in Incant - the university newspaper.

He died yesterday aged 72 from cancer - this is the Guardian's obituary:

****************************
Mike Denness, who has died of cancer aged 72, was an immaculate cricketer, the first Scot to captain England, whose record of almost 26,000 runs was achieved with an elegance as pleasing to the eye as that of any batsman of his time. He was known for graceful drives to the offside, but was also a deft and twinkle-footed player of spin, and a brilliant cover fieldsman. Fourteen times he made 1,000 runs in an English season, and once abroad; he played 28 Test matches between 1969 and 1975, 19 of them as captain, and his win-loss ratio left him in credit.

As captain of Kent from 1972, in succession to Colin Cowdrey, he proved a resourceful leader of a very good team, and helped them lift six limited-overs trophies in five years as well as a runners-up place in the county championship. When he was relieved of the captaincy, he left Kent and joined Essex, where he helped the team to their first ever county championship title.

His accession to the captaincy of England was not greeted with universal acclaim, for although there was an undeniable toughness and shrewdness to his character, he was viewed by some as too sensitive to handle strong characters. Having played only a single Test match, he had been appointed vice-captain to Tony Lewis in India in 1972-73 and although he did not play a Test that summer, was made captain in the West Indies the following winter in succession to Raymond Illingworth. The antipathy said to be felt by Geoffrey Boycott at what he saw as a snub to his own hopes of leading the side never left.

In the final match in Trinidad, in a relatively low-scoring match, Boycott scored 99 first-innings runs and then 112 in the second, instrumental in a 26-run win to level the series. Of his own volition, Boycott, who was England's most prolific batsman, never played under Denness again.

Denness led through the summer of 1974, in which India were beaten 3-0 (the captain, at Lord's and Edgbaston, becoming the first since Peter May to score back-to-back hundreds for England) and Pakistan were held to a draw. Denness was duly chosen to lead the side to Australia for the Ashes series that winter. In this he was honoured but unfortunate because, deprived at the outset of Boycott – who opted out – they encountered Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson at their collective peak.

His team were battered mercilessly and none more so than he, his form so shattered by the pace that after scores of 6, 4, 2, 3, 8 and 5 in the first three Tests, he dropped himself from the team for the fourth Test. He returned to finish the series and made a courageous 188 in the final Test, which, as consolation, England won by an innings. But by then Thomson was injured and Lillee bowled just six overs before he, too, retired from the fray.

England progressed to New Zealand after that series and Denness made the fourth and final hundred of his Test career in Auckland, where he and Keith Fletcher added 266, which remains an England record for the fourth wicket against New Zealand, and the third highest for any wicket against them.

The Australians came to England in the summer of 1975, and in the first Test, at Edgbaston, Denness, having first consulted with his senior players, made the catastrophic decision to put Australia in to bat under cloudy skies, despite a prediction of rain and the prospect of difficulty for them on an uncovered pitch. Help for his seamers failed to materialise as expected, Australia making 359, whereupon England, after a heavy thunderstorm had changed the character of the pitch, capitulated for 101 and 173 against Lillee, Max Walker and, second time around, Thomson, the young debutant Graham Gooch making a pair. It was enough for Denness, who resigned and handed over the reins to Tony Greig. He never played for England again.

Denness, born in Bellshill, Lanarkshire, began playing cricket when his family moved to Ayr, where the ground was close to his home. Educated at Ayr academy, he made his debut for Kent in 1962. Denness retired from professional cricket in 1980, after 501 first-class and 232 one-day matches over almost two decades, and earned a subsequent living in insurance, finance and public relations.

He also became an International Cricket Council match referee, an appointment that was to embroil him in far-reaching and lasting consequences in South Africa in 2001. Following a Test match against India in Port Elizabeth, he sanctioned six of the visiting team, including the captain, Sourav Ganguly, for an inability to control his team's behaviour, and, most controversial of all, Sachin Tendulkar, for ball tampering. Denness, under ICC orders, failed to offer explanations at a subsequent press conference and India threatened to abandon the tour if he was not replaced.

The ICC supported Denness, but the South African board sided with India, replacing him for the next match and refusing him entry to the ground. The ICC therefore deemed the Test "unofficial" and awarded the series to the home side. The bans on Ganguly and Tendulkar were eventually overturned but that on Virender Sehwag remained, so that the Indian insistence that they would select him regardless, making future matches also unofficial, almost put England's impending tour of India in doubt. Negotiations between the two boards resulted in Sehwag missing the first match and the series going ahead.

Denness refereed only two more Tests and three one-day internationals before ill-health forced him out. The ICC committee abandoned its investigation after Denness underwent heart surgery. His career as match referee came to an end when he was not selected for the new ICC elite panel despite endorsement from the England and Wales Cricket Board. He was made an OBE in this year's New Year honours.

His marriage to Molly ended in divorce; they had a son and two daughters. He is survived by his partner, Doreen.

• Michael Henry Denness, cricketer, born 1 December 1940; died 19 April 2013

Thatcher service - overdosed, over-hyped, over-spent

16 August 2013

I am all for giving people a good sending off into the next world but the trouble with the Thatcher funeral service today is that it feels like a political rally, rather than a family and friends celebrating the life and mourning the passing of an 87 year old.

It is not a state funeral; it is not a private funeral; but it is a ceremonial funeral with military honours which will involve more than 700 personnel from the three armed services, largely recognising the awful and peculiar little war over the Falkland Islands.

The last state funeral for a British Prime Minister was Churchill's 1965 funeral. Churchill of course led Britain through World War 2. He also led a national government comprising all political parties.

A state funeral requires legislation; this is not at that level. The Queen always sends representatives to all the funerals of British Prime Ministers but for Thatcher the Queen herself is attending and that gives it the trapping of a State event.

Six Prime Ministers have died since Churchill; Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, Alec Douglas-Home, Harold Wilson, Edward Heath and James Callaghan. None have had a ceremonial funeral anywhere close to this scale.

I remember the Churchill funeral; I was 8. Television was grainy and black and white. 

After his funeral service, Churchill's body was loaded onto a barge to be transported along the Thames to Waterloo station and then by train to Blenheim; as it passed them, in the most moving moment of a day of genuinely national mourning, the workers in the dockyards lining the river silently lowered their cranes one by one. Those industries are gone, but a similar tribute to Thatcher from today's industrial workers (those that are left) is difficult to conceive.

"This was the last time that such a thing could happen," wrote O'Donovan of Churchill's extraordinary funeral. "This was an act of mourning for the imperial past."

With this ceremony Thatcher is being buried as a stateswoman; a mythic figure. This is no leveller, it is calculated elevation.

There is some uproar among the Tory faithful at an apparent snub by the Obama government. The US will be represented officially by George Shultz, Ronald Reagan's second secretary of state, and James Baker, who was the late president's treasury secretary. Dick Cheney, the US vice-president under the second President Bush, will attend in a personal capacity.

No Obama and no previous US President will attend.

Part of this is down to the confusion between a state and ceremonial event; some countries are sending former leaders, for example Australia's John Howard, while several serving prime ministers have said they will attend, including Stephen Harper of Canada, Italy's Mario Monti, and Donald Tusk from Poland.

It is easy to respect Thatcher for her service to the country; for her resoluteness and for her determination. It is sad to think that by the time of her death this strong forceful woman had become a shadow of her former self. Ageing can be fearsome.

Let her rest in peace. Let the protests be dignified. But a more restrained service would have been appropriate and would have avoided the controversy that Thatcher embraced in life and that has also been a part of her death. 

More: Margaret Thatcher's legacy: roundup of the best writing

What Churchill’s funeral says about Margaret Thatcher’s

16 April 2013 - Jon Snow's blog at Channel 4 news

It was the smoke billowing above the dreaming spires far away down the line that announced he was coming.

We had stood in the bitter January wind waiting for what seemed hours. In our grey flannel suits and inadequate coats, we waited for the coffin of a man we had been told was perhaps the greatest prime minister of all time. In short, a man who saved the very country into which we had been born.

I was 17. I had no memory of the war, I was a bulge baby born after it. In life Churchill had seemed a remote figure from history. And yet as the train bearing his coffin drew closer, announcing its presence with a wailing horn, I and the boys among whom I stood felt huge emotion.

We had all grown up among parents who still grieved for lost loved ones; parents who had lived in the Blitz; parents who spoke chillingly of Hitler and the concentration camps; parents who talked of the “few”.

There had been strip cartoons about Churchill in our Eagle comics. We knew of his time in the Boer war as a correspondent. We knew too that he had written a remarkable multi-volume History of the English Speaking Peoples.

History records his flaws: spirits, a temper, a headstrong sense of his own being and capacity. But above all we knew that this was a man like no other who had led our families and the country through the country’s darkest hour.

When I saw Churchill’s coffin, draped in the union flag, flanked by a guardsman at each corner of the wagon. I cried and bowed my head. This was history, and every fibre of my being knew it. I glimpsed the driver in the engine cab, the guard at the rear, and then the disappearing red tail light as the train wound its way on to Blaydon and his final resting place.

I find myself thinking of that day, on Oxford’s Port Meadow. Today we bury another prime minister, a leader who leaves a population divided upon her legacy. It is a kind of moment in history.

For me, however – and, I feel sure, for a good many who witnessed Churchill’s passing – the emotions are less stirred. Respectful, aware that this day is not the same, and not eliciting the same acknowledgement of history.

7 years of Downtown Dubai

15 April 2013

Europe’s Top Airlines Squeezed by Emirates-Ryanair Growth

16 April 2013 Bloomberg

European network carriers including Air France-KLM Group (AF) and Deutsche Lufthansa AG (LHA) face a heightened challenge from both local discount airlines and Gulf operators serving routes to Asia, analysis by Amadeus IT Holding SA (AMS) shows.

Low-cost carriers led by Ryanair Holdings Plc (RYA) lifted their share of European traffic 4 percent to 38 percent in 2012, while travel from Europe to Asia via the hubs of Emirates, Qatar Airways Ltd. and Etihad Airways PJSC grew 20 percent, according to data from Madrid-based Amadeus’s global booking system.

Air France, Lufthansa and Iberia of Spain are among former flag-carriers revamping short-haul operations in an effort to end losses and stave off the advances of Ryanair and its peers. Cologne-based Lufthansa said last month it might also establish a low-cost operation to Asia in response to airlines that have exploited the Gulf’s geographical position to grab a growing share of lucrative inter-continental transfer traffic.

“These figures are quite worrying for the network carriers,” said Yan Derocles, an analyst at Oddo Securities in Paris with a “neutral” rating on Lufthansa and IAG SA, parent of Iberia and British Airways, and a “buy” on Air France-KLM. “They’ve begun to take action in Europe, where the challenge is crystal clear, but they’re going to have to do more to maintain market share in long-haul, which has been quite profitable.”

Low-cost penetration is greatest in Europe, according to Amadeus. The nations there with the highest proportion of departing passengers using discount airlines are Spain, on 57 percent, and the U.K., home country of EasyJet Plc (EZJ) and the location of Ryanair’s biggest base, with 52 percent.

In the long-haul market, Gulf airports in Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi have already grabbed a 15 percent share of air traffic from Europe to the Asia-Pacific, according to the report.

While IAG’s British Airways has maintained some room for maneuver by recruiting Qatar Airways to its Oneworld alliance, Air France-KLM and Lufthansa will “have to fight” to stave off the Middle Eastern challenge, Oddo’s Derocles said.

Airlines everywhere face heightened competition, Amadeus said, with 38 percent of total traffic involving routes served by four or more airlines, rising to 75 percent in Asia, where 27 percent of travel involves markets with at least five carriers.

Only 35 percent of traffic worldwide is on routes with one or two operators -- a four-point drop in the past two years -- falling to 25 percent in Asia.

Seven of the world’s 10 busiest routes by passenger volume are in Asia, according to the report, with the globe’s busiest link being between the South Korean island of Jeju and Seoul, followed by flights between Sapporo, Japan, and Tokyo.

Guantanamo Bay - President Obama's shame: The forgotten prisoners of America's own Gulag

15 April 2013 - The Independent

For long periods we forget it, even though it is a human rights disgrace surely unequalled in recent American history. But now, 11 years after it opened, the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay is demanding our attention once again, thanks to the largest hunger strike by detainees in its infamous history. Al-Qa'ida has been decimated; America's war in Iraq is over and the one in Afghanistan soon will be. But the scandal of Guantanamo endures.

Today, 166 inmates remain. Three have been convicted, while a further 30 will face trial. Fifty or so are in a legal no-man's-land, deemed by the authorities too dangerous to release but against whom there is not enough evidence to prosecute. And then there are 86 who have been cleared for release, but who instead rot in a hell from which there is no escape. No wonder yesterday more than 160 of them were involved in clashes with guards that led to what the US said were "less than lethal" rounds being fired.

In 2009, Barack Obama entered office vowing to close Guantanamo within a year. Perhaps he should have listened more closely to his predecessor. George W Bush, too, wanted to shut Guantanamo; even he came to understand it was perhaps the most powerful single recruiting agent for global terrorism. But, he warned presciently, the devil was in the detail – or, more exactly, in Congress.

Mr Obama's planned to transfer most inmates to a high-security prison in Illinois, but that idea was blocked. Then Congress made things harder still, first scotching a plan to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the organiser of 9/11 and Guantanamo's best-known prisoner, in a civil court in the US, and effectively banning the use of public money to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the US or abroad.

Even so, Dan Fried, the special envoy in charge of closing the prison, managed to resettle 40 detainees during Obama's first term. But at the end of January, Mr Fried was reassigned and not replaced, his duties incorporated into the State Department's existing legal office. For the 86 inmates eligible for release it was the last straw. Within a week the hunger strikes started.

Detainees tell their lawyers that up to 130 now are taking part. The Pentagon claims they number no more than 40, of whom a dozen are being force-fed. Given the lack of independent access to Guantanamo, the exact number is impossible to establish.

Like others before it, the protest may have been sparked by complaints that guards were abusing detainees' copies of the Koran. But even the Pentagon admits the real reason was despair. Inmates were "devastated" by the signal that the administration no longer believed that closing the prison was a realistic priority, Marine General John Kelly told Congress, so "they want to turn the heat up, get it back in the media". And who can blame them?

By all accounts, the atmosphere within Guantanamo has never been as bleak. The Soviet Union had gulags, "but no Soviet gulag ever had 52 per cent of its prisoners cleared for release," says Clive Stafford Smith, director of the legal charity Reprieve, who has been representing Guantanamo detainees almost since the place opened in January 2002.

One of his clients is the Saudi-born British resident Shaker Aamer, captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 and brought to Guantanamo in February 2002. He has been cleared not once but twice, in 2007 and then by the Obama administration in 2009. But the US won't let him go, not even back to its trusty ally Britain, where Aamer's family live. Fluent in English, Mr Aamer is regarded as a "leader" among the detainees. Many suspect that the Americans will never free him, because he knows so much, and would speak out.

Today, even George Orwell would have been pressed to conceive the plight of the 86: cleared for release, but denied freedom, using a hunger strike as their last weapon, only to be kept alive by the very people who will not let them go. On Thursday, Mr Aamer gave the most recent account of events at Guantanamo to Mr Stafford Smith in an hour-long phone conversation, described by his lawyer in a sworn affidavit.

Mr Aamer is participating in the hunger strike, although he is not yet being force-fed. But other harassments abound. He is in Guantanamo's Camp Five, where "non-compliant" prisoners are held. His health is poor and deteriorating. There is noise throughout the night. It is getting harder to speak to lawyers. Then there are the FCEs, or "forcible cell extractions", to use the euphemism for being picked up and shackled by a team of six guards who burst into your cell. "They FCE me just to give me water," Mr Aamer recounted.

Each day, he says, there are 10 to 15 "code yellow" incidents, when a prisoner on hunger strike collapses or passes out. Even contact with lawyers is a mixed blessing. "Each phone call [from a lawyer] is a curse. They hear what I am saying to you and use that against me to make things worse," he told Mr Stafford Smith. The situation, in short, is grimmer even than during what Mr Aamer calls "Miller time". For ordinary residents of the US, the phrase advertises a well-known brand of beer. But in the extra-territorial Hades of Guantanamo, the reference is to General Geoffrey Miller, the prison's second commandant before he was sent to Iraq in August 2003 to advise on "more productive" interrogations of prisoners, that is, to "Gitmo-ise" Iraq.

The hunger strike is succeeding in returning the spotlight to Guantanamo. On the day Mr Stafford Smith talked to Mr Aamer, Chuck Hagel, the Defence Secretary, told Congress he favoured closing the prison, while leading human rights groups wrote to Mr Obama demanding again that Guantanamo be shut and its inmates either released or tried in civilian court. But it seems optimism bordering on insanity to believe these entreaties will succeed where every other has failed.

Mr Aamer, by all accounts, is a proud man not given to self-pity. But by the end of the phone call, Mr Stafford Smith declared, his client seemed to be crying. "They are killing us, so it is hard to keep calm. It's hard to understand what they are doing, or why. No matter how much I show you I am tough, in reality I am dying inside. If you want us to die, leave us alone. But they do not want us to die, and they do not want us to live like a human being. What is worse than that?" What indeed?

International medical groups have denounced the forced-feeding of Guantanamo Bay prisoners, which invariably involves strapping detainees into restraint chairs (marketed as a "padded cell on wheels" by their manufacturer), pushing a tube up their nose and down their throat, and pumping liquids into their stomach. Although it is considered a method of torture by the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the US military insists forced-feeding is a form of "medical intervention" and that the practice is less aggressive than it was.

Forced-feeding first received widespread public attention in the Edwardian era, when it was used against hunger-striking suffragettes who were held down as the instruments were painfully inserted into their bodies, an experience that has been likened to rape. This technique was also performed on hunger-striking Irish Republicans: in 1917, Thomas Ashe died as a result of complications from the procedure.

Forced-feeding in prisons has been outlawed since 1975 when the World Medical Association issued the Declaration of Tokyo, guidelines for physicians concerning torture and other cruel or degrading treatment in relation to detention. The declaration stipulates that: "Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgement concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially."

More: Why Obama Can't Close Guantanamo

Not a day to stay dry

14 April 2013 The Economist on Songkran

Songkran, the Buddhist festival marking Thailand’s new year that begins on April 13th, was once, it is said, a mellow, pious affair. Thai people visited temples to sprinkle scented water on monks, symbolically bathing them. It is now a nationwide water war, where the weapons are water-pistols, buckets and hoses, the battlefield is the street and the fuel that keeps the armies going is often alcoholic.

Survivors have a ball, albeit a soaking-wet one. But alongside those who have long lamented the corruption of an ancient religious tradition are others who worry about the growing number of casualties. Last year 320 people died in 3,129 road accidents, up from 271 in 2011. Of those who died in 2012, three-fifths were driving or riding pillion on motorcycles. Most were not wearing helmets. Most had been drinking.

The carnage this year has already started. On April 11th, in the warm-up to the holiday proper, and already the first of seven dangerous days, 39 people across the country died and 342 were injured in 326 road accidents.

An effort has been made to tighten up. Alcohol-free zones have been declared in 86 locations in 66 provinces, after a campaign by the culture ministry, the Thailand Health Promotion Foundation and the Stop Drink Network.

But a campaign for a national ban on alcohol over the holiday was thwarted. Songkran is good for tourism, one of the country’s most important industries. Few of the white-skinned tourists who turn out seem to mind that they are especially favoured targets for a dousing.

Helmets are already compulsory for motorcyclists and drinking and driving is illegal. The problem seems to be not so much the laws and regulations, as the enforcement of them.

Brett Bivans of the International Centre for Alcohol Policies, a not-for-profit group financed by multinational drinks companies to promote responsible drinking, says that many traffic policemen are loth, for example, to use their breathalysers to test drivers in their own villages—and still less in other peoples’.

In Thailand’s neighbour, Myanmar, breathalysers are usually not even available. Thingyan, the Burmese variant on the new-year water festival, makes Songkran seem tame. In Yangon, the main city, open-top trucks tour the streets to be drenched by what amount to water-cannon fired from temporary road-side pavilions sponsored by local businesses.

As each day lurches on, Myanmar's drenchers and drenchees alike lose most of their inhibitions and all of their sobriety. In the years of military rule, the festivities could have a rather desperate, angry undertone. Last year, falling just a fortnight after the by-elections that put Aung San Suu Kyi and the opposition party she leads into parliament, it had the euphoric air of a post-revolutionary celebration.

No reliable statistics are available for Thingyan casualties. But it is a fair bet that one sad side-effect of the country’s reforms is that they will mount.

One rule for some

13 April 2013

The picture is the official statement from the Masters rules committee - after Drop-Gate...

It is a poor decision; which would probably have only been made for Mr. Woods.

So it is OK to penalise a 14 year old Chinese amateur. But how about applying the rules to a multi major winner and golfing icon?

This was Tiger's press conference last night:

Q. How hard is it, that second shot on 15 after getting a bad break like that?

TIGER WOODS: Well, I went down to the drop area, that wasn't going to be a good spot, because obviously it's into the grain, it's really grainy there. And it was a little bit wet. So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards further back and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit.
And that should land me short of the flag and not have it either hit the flag or skip over the back. I felt that that was going to be the right decision to take off four right there. And I did. It worked out perfectly.

Q. He's playing with a guy shooting in the 80s, just wonder what you think of the harshness of that.
TIGER WOODS: Well, rules are rules.

Tiger Woods press conference is here.

Signing an incorrect scorecard should result in a disqualification. The question appears to be twofold: 1) since Tiger took his drop about two yards back from the original location of the shot, did he violate a rule saying his shot must be played from the same spot; or 2) he should have taken a drop on the line last crossed, which was at different angle from where he dropped.

The rule that covers this issue is Rule 26-1, which reads:

26-1. Relief For Ball In Water Hazard

It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke:

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or

b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the holeand the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind thewater hazard the ball may be dropped;

The fact is that the rules will not be applied equally; the Masters cannot afford to lose Tiger Woods. CBS cannot afford to lose him from their TV broadcasts. And now he will probably win.

But his press conference makes it very clear that he deliberately dropped the ball two yards further back from the original shot in order to take advantage of the new position - which he did.

What the rules committee did was give Woods a two-shot penalty after applying a change in the rules that was brought in last year to alleviate the situation where players are disqualified for signing for the wrong scorecard as a result of television evidence coming into play.

A statement said the incident had already been reviewed by the rules committee - prompted by a television viewer - prior to Woods' second round being completed. They determined he had complied with the regulations.

Since no one was discussing this at the close of the golf last night it is incredibly unlikely that the Rules Committee or anyone on the Committee was aware of an issue with Tiger's drop on the 15th last night.

This is the new rule 33.7 which the Royal & Ancient and US Golf Association announced before the 2011 Masters and seeks to ensure that pPlayers who learn of a violation after they sign their cards can be penalised without being disqualified.

Fred Ridley, chairman of the competition committee, said: "After he signed his scorecard, and in a television interview subsequent to the round, the player stated that he played further from the point than where he had played his third shot. Such action would constitute playing from the wrong place.

"The subsequent information provided by the player's interview after he had completed play warranted further review and discussion with him this morning.

"After meeting with the player, it was determined that he had violated Rule 26 and he was assessed a two-stroke penalty.

"The penalty of disqualification was waived by the Committee under Rule 33 as the Committee had previously reviewed the information and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the player's round."

Even though Woods was able to continue his quest for a fifth Green Jacket, three-time Masters champion Nick Faldo believes the American should have disqualified himself from the tournament.

"He still has time," Faldo told BBC Radio 5 live. "He is going to be watching this and he knows what has gone on. If he is smart and if he understands we have got to uphold the rules of this game, the gentlemanly conduct and the integrity of our game."

"He took advantage and he knows he took advantage and he knows you are not allowed to."

The 2001 Open champion, David Duval, agreed with Faldo.

He said on Twitter: "There is some leeway with the signing the incorrect card. Not with intentionally not dropping as near as possible.

"I think he should withdraw. He took a drop to gain an advantage."

And that is the point - Woods even said that he dropped where he did to gain an advantage.

Maybe it is a fair outcome - Woods was unlucky that the ball hit the flag and ricocheted into the water. But as Woods himself said "rules are rules".  Rule 33-7 exonerates player if they couldn't have known they broke a Rule. Tiger should have known. Ignorance of the laws is no excuse. 33-7 was inspired by a ball moving fractionally (Harrington), visible only in slo-mo HD replay, not to the naked eye. It's not for bungling a basic drop.

The Committee has used a rule that protects a player from disqualication for signing for the wrong scorecard as a result of HD television evidence coming into play. But this was not about TV evidence. This was about Tiger's own admission that he dropped to his advantage.

This is all about keeping Tiger Woods in the tournament. There is an awful lot of feeling within golf that Tiger Woods broke a rule - inadvertently, but did break a rule in regard to how he dropped a ball at the 15th yesterday. They have used a technicality to keep Tiger Woods in the tournament. That is not right.

As for Woods he tweeted:

"At hole #15, I took a drop that I thought was correct and in accordance with the rules. I was unaware at that time I had violated any rules. I didn’t know I had taken an incorrect drop prior to signing my scorecard. Subsequently, I met with the Masters Committee Saturday morning and was advised they had reviewed the incident prior to the completion of my round. Their initial determination was that there was no violation, but they had additional concerns based on my post-round interview. After discussing the situation with them this morning, I was assessed a two-shot penalty. I understand and accept the penalty and respect the Committees’ decision."

Golf and integrity. History. Masters and its supposed value. Bullshit

Emirates meets its Waterloo

11 April 2013

Emirates Airline has announced that it will begin operating a daily flight to Stockholm, Sweden from 4th September 2013.

Consistently voted in the world’s top ten places to live and work, Stockholm is famous for offering visitors a vibrant and diverse cityscape. Sweden is well known for iconic global brands such as IKEA, Volvo, and fashion clothing brand H&M.

The new service will provide welcome connections to the Swedish winter travelers; many of whom head for Thailand where Emirates currently operates six flights per day.”

Operated by a Boeing 777-300ER the daily service will offer three cabin classes with eight seats in First Class, 42 seats in Business Class and 304 seats in Economy Class.

Emirates new daily flight to Stockholm will depart Dubai as EK157 at 0715hrs and arrive at Stockholm Arlanda Airport at 1200hrs the same day. The return flight, EK158 will depart at 1355hrs and arrive at Dubai International Airport at 2225hrs.

In addition to passenger operations Emirates SkyCargo will offer 19 tonnes of cargo capacity between the two cities. Popular commodities are expected to be; Pharmaceuticals, construction equipment, electronics, perishable food items, textiles, leather goods, plants and flowers. Emirates SkyCargo already successfully operates a three times weekly service to Gothenburg in Sweden and the addition of Stockholm is expected to further boost the airline’s cargo operations in the region.

Stockholm, is the most populated urban area in Scandinavia with over 1.4 million residents. Emirates’ launch of Stockholm will follow on from the launch of Haneda on 3rd June. Closely following the launch of Stockholm in September Emirates will launch a daily flight to Clark in the Philippines on 1st October.

An Abba reunion at the Stockholm launch party has to be a possibility.

IVF pioneer Robert Edwards will never be forgotten by those he helped

11 April 2013

For someone who transformed the lives of so many, Sir Robert Edwards, who passed away yesterday, was a remarkably modest and unassuming man. It was the pioneering work he carried out along with his colleague Patrick Steptoe that had allowed me to have my own two children, both conceived by IVF, so when I was sent to interview him I was daunted at the prospect of coming face to face with the man who contributed so much to my own happiness.

What was immediately apparent on meeting Edwards was the empathy that he had for those with fertility problems. It's not easy to understand how devastating infertility can be unless you have had difficulty conceiving yourself, but although he was in his early 80s at the time, he was still passionate about helping infertile couples to have families of their own.

If you ask most parents to imagine life without their children, they'd probably joke about having more time, or more money or more sleep – but Edwards appreciated just how precious children really are to their parents. A kind and generous man, he was very aware of the difference his work could make to those who were trying unsuccessfully to conceive. He felt that everyone should have access to the treatment that might allow them to have a child of their own, and told me it made him angry that the postcode lottery in the UK was denying many people the opportunity to have NHS-funded IVF.

The aspect of his work I'd never really appreciated until meeting him was what a lonely business it had been in the early days: when Edwards began trying to fertilise human eggs in the laboratory, his attempts were not greeted with enthusiasm. He and his colleague, the gynaecologist Dr Patrick Steptoe, endured years of criticism as they attempted to develop the technique of in vitro fertilisation. They faced the disapproval not just of the media, the church and a sceptical public, but were also attacked by many of their fellow scientists, who denounced their work as potentially dangerous and unethical. They were refused funding by the Medical Research Council, and it was only their resolve and strength of character that enabled them to carry on. Edwards said that he had felt "quite alone" at the time, but that he'd been carried by his absolute certainty that eventually he would be proved right. It was that certainty and his determination that so many of us have to thank for our families today.

Even after the birth of the first IVF baby, Louise Brown, in 1978, Edwards and Steptoe were still regarded with some suspicion, but couples who couldn't conceive began flocking to their fertility clinic at Bourn, Cambridge, to try this amazing new treatment. Scientists across the world learnt from them and were soon successfully performing IVF, and offering hope to thousands of couples with fertility problems.

Infertility has an impact on every aspect of your life when you are trying unsuccessfully to conceive. It affects your friendships, your work and your well-being; it makes you feel powerless, angry and guilty; you put your life on hold, waiting for something that might never happen; you become isolated, depressed and lonely, blaming yourself for being a failure. I know I didn't realise quite how much infertility had changed me, how much it had soured my outlook on life, until I finally got pregnant after my second attempt at IVF. It was as if someone had lifted a grey veil I'd been looking through for years, and suddenly the world was full of colour again.

My first IVF baby is now 16, and his younger sister is 12. There's not a day that passes that I don't have cause to remember how very lucky I am to have them, and I will be forever indebted to Edwards for battling against adversity for what he believed in, and for bringing such joy into my life.

It always seemed strange to me that a man who had done so much for so many didn't gain the accolades he truly deserved until relatively recently, receiving a Nobel prize in 2010 and a knighthood in 2011. Edwards may not receive the pomp and circumstance of a ceremonial funeral, but he will be remembered forever in the hearts of those of us who have benefitted from his work, and he has an extraordinary legacy with the birth of an estimated 5 million IVF babies across the world.

Bangkok -- the Lady Gaga of Asia

11 April 2013 Robert Oliver in The Huffington Post

I love Bangkok. I even love arriving here, slipping into the languorous heat of this fabulous city. Food, traffic, sex, pollution: this town has it all. Far from the austere majesty of Beijing, the befuddling hubbub of Hanoi, the dilemma that is Delhi, Bangkok screams and teems. All pinks and neons, there is nothing half-baked about Bangkok. Pouting, flouting, leering, sneering, Bangkok is the Lady Gaga of Asia.

Thai food is like condensed milk: I cannot even imagine the amount of self loathing required to not absolutely love it.

And Bangkok is hands down the world's greatest city for street food. It simply doesn't get better than this. I've never had a bad meal here, and its street food is the foundation of Thai culinary culture. In fact, twice I have been here and only eaten street side, it's that good. Everywhere, everyday everyone chows down on cheap, great grub.

In a few short chilli addled days, I quaffed sweet sausage soup with salted egg and rice noodles, sugar stoked Thai iced coffee with espresso, evaporated milk, sugar, sugar and then sugar (when once I asked to "hold the sugar," I got a look that conveyed concern at my sanity), fresh squeezed fresh juice made from giddily sweet tiny green oranges, Chiang Mai sausage, som tum-Thailand's eponymous green papaya salad made to order in a big wooden mortar, green coconut juice, spicy fried chicken, jackfruit smoothie, searingly hot noodle dishes, sparkling salads of pork skin and morning glory, fried crab and green mango. It's a rollercoaster of counterpoints: hot, cold, smooth, crunchy, sweet, sour, up, down that at times has you gasping, but always happy. Countless satays, noodle salads, fresh cut mangoes, guavas, papayas juicily displayed in glass cases on wheels, and more and more and more that you grab and graze as you go. It's endless and fabulous and expertly made. People specialize -- one vendor makes only coconut pancakes, another banana fritters -- that's it. Hence, they are perfect, all finesse and focus.

But do you know what I see, as I jostle through barely passable streets and markets, crowded with food stalls and happy eaters? I see an extremely successful cuisine. Each of these vendors is a micro- economy -- often family based -- making food that is an expression of the heart. And because this food is Thai in origin, it reaches further into the farms and fisherman and food producers to create a dynamic of culinary prosperity.

With all of this outside, why would you go into a restaurant? Simple, really. In a city that is devoted to eating, the excellence on the street has urged even greater excellence indoors. So when my buddy Quentin Dante, a restaurant refugee from New York, now happily based in Bangkok from where he creates restaurants all over Asia, said to me one sultry Silom soir "Tonight I am going to take you to the best restaurant in the world," I nodded meekly like an obedient food slave.

Issaya Siamese Club is a gorgeous, colourful Thai style plantation mansion -- replete with its own organic gardens -- set within an intestinal maze of streets in Bangkok's Sathorn district, an absolute oasis in the midst of the madness. Ian Kittichai, hands-down Thailand's hottest, hippest celebrity chef, owns it, although he would never call himself that. I knew of him from New York days when he wowed som tum savvy New Yorkers with his sparkling cuisine at Kittichai. At Issaya, we loved the banana flower and heart of palm salad, with crispy shallots and roasted peanuts in a dried chili-coconut dressing -- all crunch and contrast -- and woofed down the warmly spiced chilli glazed baby back ribs, cooked on a small banana leaf wrapped grill on the table. Equally more-ish was "Larb Gai," a tangy, bright chicken salad with home-grown mint and saw tooth coriander in a roasted sticky rice dressing. In fact, everything we ate was a revelation -- it was as if I had never had Thai food before. Everything was familiar, yet reinvented and refined. Ian was bought up on the streets of Bangkok, and as a lad cooked for his mothers food stall, Ian is the real deal. Chatting with him, the street is never far away. His playful nature coupled with seriously good food makes him far more than a celebrity chef -- he is strengthening Thai food culture. This food, in this place, with this very likeable chef: the sum of the experience, yep, I'm with Mr. Dante. Issaya Siamese Club really may be the best restaurant in the world.

When it rains in this town, it does so forcefully and outdoor dining loses it's thrill quickly. Rain forced me off the street and into Som Tum Der on Soi Saladaeng just off Silom, and I am glad it did. Once again, the menu here respects the roots of its wonderful dishes, this time from the Isan region in Northern Thailand. Chef and partner Kornthanut Kittiyanon excels at casual but terrifically satisfying plates like Sa Pok Kai Tod Der, the best fried chicken I've ever had, som tum green papaya salad with Isan's distinctive fermented crab, cooling Lemongrass Ice Tea, and his desserts are worth a long distance flight for. I loved his Bua bi Pheuk, smoothly soothing taro balls in a kind of warm coconut soup with shredded young coconut meat. Plus he is about the chicest chef you'll ever see, sporting a jauntily askew panama hat and a fabulous smile! The room is wi fi wonderful and a cool respite from the street. I noticed that there was terrific clarity of flavour here that I put down to using high quality oils and less sugar than the more typical Bangkok fare. Chatting to co-owner Eh Laoraowirodge, I was impressed by the dedication that both he and Chef Korn have for the preservation of Isan cuisine. " You ought to try my other restaurant then" he said. "That's Isan home style food."

One adrenalin pulsing tuk-tuk ride later, I was in Sukhumvit and at Supanigga Eating Room. The menu is based on the dishes that Eh's mother and grandmother cooked for him as child, Isan Soul Food. It's a whole education in the heritage of the region, with unique ingredients and dishes that evoke country cooking and warmth. Moo Cha Muang (Pork stew with pleasingly bitter cha muang leaves with supposedly medicinal properties) is out and out grandma food. I loved the hard boiled eggs with a tangy tamarind dressing, and the chilli spiked pork mince served on a cooling tangerine round. Yam Cha Plu- a delicate warm sardine salad with cha plu leaves was, well... sardines have never been so well dressed. Eh is passionate about this food, it is full of emotion and recollection for him, and he comes alive when talking about it. The room is like the home you wish you had, with lighting that makes everyone look sultry in an unfussed but stylish décor.

I love that all three restaurants offer authentic, rooted cuisine, but with the added know-how of great technical chefs, the cuisine is energized, made dynamic. Also -- I learnt so much about Thailand from each place. This is Thailand beyond tum yum. All three "told the story" and this is what I think makes a restaurant truly great.

Ed Miliband's statement on Margaret Thatcher

10 April 2013

Mr Speaker, I want to join the Prime Minister in commemorating the extraordinary life and unique contribution of Margaret Thatcher.

And I want to join him in sending my deepest condolences to her children, Carol and Mark, the whole family and her many, many close friends.

Today is an opportunity for us to reflect on Margaret Thatcher’s personal achievements, her style of politics and her political legacy.

As the Prime Minister said, the journey from being the child of a grocer to Downing Street is an unlikely one.

And it is particularly remarkable because she was the daughter, not the son, of a grocer.

At each stage of her life, she broke the mould.

A woman at Oxford when there was not a single woman in the University who held a full professorship.

A woman chemist when most people assumed scientists had to be men.

A woman candidate for Parliament in 1950, against the opposition of some in her local party in Dartford, at the age of only 24.

A woman MP in 1959 when just 4 per cent of MPs in the whole of this House were women.

The only woman in the Cabinet when she was appointed in 1970.

And, of course, the first woman Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, it is no wonder she remarked as early as 1965 in a speech to the National Union of Town Women’s Guilds’ Conference:

"In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman."

I am sure some people in this House—and no doubt many more in the country - will agree with this sentiment.

Having broken so many conventions as a woman, it can’t be a coincidence that she was someone who in so many other areas of life was willing to take on the established orthodoxies.

Margaret Thatcher’s ability to overcome every obstacle in her path is just one measure of her personal strength.

And that takes me to her style of politics.

You can disagree with Margaret Thatcher.

But it is important to understand the kind of political leader she was.

What was unusual, was that she sought to be rooted in people’s daily lives, but she also believed that ideology mattered.

Not for her the contempt sometimes heaped on ideas and new thinking in political life.

And while she never would have claimed to be, or wanted to be seen as, an intellectual, she believed, and she showed, that ideas matter in politics.

In 1945 Mr Speaker, before the end of the War, she bought a copy of Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. There is even a story that she suggested that Conservative Central Office distribute it in the 1945 campaign.

She said, "it left a permanent mark on my political character."

And nobody can grasp Margaret Thatcher’s achievements, and Thatcherism, without also appreciating the ideas that were its foundation.

And the way in which they departed from the prevailing consensus of the time.

In typical home-spun style, on breakfast TV she said this in 1995:

"Consensus doesn’t give you any direction. It is like mixing all the constituent ingredients together and not coming out with a cake...Democracy is about the people being given a choice."

It was that approach that enabled her to define the politics of a whole generation and influence the politics of generations to come.

The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I all came of age in the 1980s, when you defined your politics by being for or against what she was doing.

It’s fair to say, we took different paths.

Thirty years on, the people of Britain still argue about her legacy.

She was right to understand the sense of aspiration of people across the country.

She was right to recognise our economy needed to change.

She said in 1982:

"How absurd it will seem in a few years time that the state ran Pickfords removals and the Gleneagles Hotel."

She was right.

And in foreign policy, she was right to defend the Falklands and bravely reach out to new leadership in the Soviet Union.

And something often forgotten, Mr Speaker, she was the first political leader in any major country to warn of the dangers of climate change.

Long before anyone thought of hugging a huskie.

But it would be dishonest and not in keeping with the principles that Margaret Thatcher stood for, even on this day, not to be open with this House about the strong opinions and the deep divisions there were, and are, over what she did.

In mining areas, like the one I represent, communities felt angry and abandoned.

Gay and lesbian people felt stigmatised by measures like section 28, which today’s Conservative Party has rightly repudiated.

And it was no accident that when he became leader of the Conservative Party, the Right Hon Member for Chingford wrote a pamphlet, called There is Such a Thing as Society.

And on the world stage, as this Prime Minister rightly said in 2006, when he was Leader of the Opposition, she made the wrong judgement about Nelson Mandela and about sanctions in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, debates about her and what she represented will continue for many years to come.

This is a mark of her significance as a political leader.

Someone with deep convictions, willing to act on them.

As she put it:

"Politics is more when you have convictions than a matter of multiple manoeuvrings to get you through the problems of the day."

And as a person, nothing became her so much as the manner of her final years.

The loss of her beloved husband, Denis, and her struggle with illness.

She bore both with the utmost dignity and courage.

The same courage she showed decades earlier after the atrocity of the Brighton bombing.

And Mr Speaker, I will always remember seeing her at the Cenotaph in frail health but determined to pay her respect to our troops and do her duty by the country.

Whatever your view of her, Margaret Thatcher was a unique and towering figure.

I disagree with much of what she did.

But I respect what her death means to the many, many people who admired her.

And I honour her personal achievements.

On previous occasions, we have come to this House to remember the extraordinary Prime Ministers who have served our nation.

Today, we also remember a Prime Minister who defined her age.

Lyon's friendly folks and food failures

9 April 2013

Tai and I spent last weekend in Lyon. One of Emirates newest and perhaps less than likely destinations. The flights are doing well and are full of traveling French who no longer need  to pilgrimage to Paris for an international flight.

A few thoughts.

The good people of Lyon were universally welcoming, friendly, entertaining and happy to try their English or to indulge my French.

People still shop at markets....sure Carrefour is big. But the markets are full of character and characters.

The city is largely closed on Sunday beyond the main tourist area of the old town. That means finding somewhere decent to eat can be a challenge. Worse the city only slowly wakes up on a Monday - this is not good when you arrive late on Saturday and are leaving on Monday evening.

The weather felt more like Manchester than Dubai - it was not very spring-like.

The public transport system is a safe and rapid way to get around town. A map of all routes is far more helpful than a map of just the major routes.

A day pass on all metro service is Euro5. Uselessly the ticket machines at each stop require coins and do not take notes.

The biggest disappointment - the food. This is meant to be a gastronomic capital. In the 19th century hungry silk workers clustered in tiny bistros, called “bouchons” to consume the robust, cheap fare necessary to carry them through their 18-hour work days.

Then, bouchons were bare-bones, family-run establishments, sorely lacking in style and décor, but infused with a welcoming, home-style atmosphere.

The bouchons continue now. They serve traditional Lyonnaise cuisine, heavily meat based, often offal. This is not nouvelle cuisine, this is simple, cheap, rich food.

Local dishes include:

salade lyonnaise (Lyon salad): green salad with bacon cubes, croutons and a poached egg;
saucisson chaud: a hot, boiled sausage; can be cooked with red wine (saucisson beaujolais) or in a bun (saucisson brioché);
quenelle de brochet: dumpling made of flour and egg with pike fish and a crayfish sauce (Nantua sauce);
tablier de sapeur: marinated tripes coated with breadcrumbs then fried, even locals often hesitate before trying it;
andouillette: sausage made with chopped tripes, usually served with a mustard sauce;
gratin dauphinois: the traditional side dish, oven-cooked sliced potatoes with cream;
cervelle de canut (cervelle' = ' brain): fresh cheese with garlic and herbs.
rognons de veau à la moutarde: veal kidneys in a mustard sauce. a textural experience.

Avoid the poached fish fillets in a white sauce. This is tasteless.

Some of Lyon's best food can be found at Lyon’s main food market, Halles de Lyon Paul Bocuse. This 60 store market is located near the Part-Dieu station; this is where to buy local fruits, vegetables, game, fish, fowl, produce and a host of French delicacies. The shop of Renée Richard, the celebrated cheese monger, has famous creamy St. Marcellins. Chefs throughout Lyon buy their cheese from Madame Richard. It is busy later in the day and at weekends.

As for wine the house wine will likely be either a Beaujolais or Côtes du Rhône, both of which are wines of the region. The Beaujolais wine region lies just north of Lyon, while the Côtes du Rhône region is just south. The wines are distinctly different. Beaujolais are almost always reds made from Gamay grapes, producing a light-bodied wine. Côtes du Rhône may come from any of several grape varietals, may be white, rosé or red, and have flavors that range from flowery to dessert sweet. At traditional bouchons, you may have to drink whatever wine the owner is serving.

Another city market is Marché St.-Antoine (Quai St.-Antoine and Quai des Célestins): go here for ripe cheeses, salamis, baked breads, pungent fish, roasting chickens, briny oysters, quince tarts, praline tarts. Nearby are the outdoor book dealers along the adjacent Quai de la Pêcherie. There are books, vintage maps, postcards and LPs.

On top of the hill overlooking Lyon is the Croix-Rousse market. It opens on Tue-Sun 7AM-1PM. It is very local and very popular. On Tuesdays, also sells non-food items. This really is a neighbourhood market. But it is easily accessible by bus. Then walk back down the hill to the City Hall at Place des Terreaux.

It is a city for exploring.

But after two days I was craving a good Thai red curry!

Thatcher's sorry legacy

9 April 2013 - from Giar

Baroness Margaret Thatcher died yesterday aged 87. She was the British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. She was also the most divisive political leader in British history. Her legacy is a noun. Thatcherism. No other Prime Minister was that dubious honour.

What is clear from social media is just how divisive her legacy is. All the debates that matter today in the public arena, whether in economics, social policy, politics, the law, the national culture or this country's relations with the rest of the world, still bear something of the imprint she left on them.

She changed politics. She changed the nation. There were things to admire. There was plenty that was wrong.

She was Britain's first and so far only woman major party leader and then Britain's first, and only, woman prime minister. These are huge landmarks.

But she was also a political dogfighter and a loner. She had this depressing conviction that she was always right; and that those who did not agree with her were against here.  She had little need for consensus; she had a force of will that others in her cabinet fawned upon; and needed for their own political office.

She stepped up as the compromise leader in a divided conservative party. A Britain led by Willie Whitelaw or Michael Heseltine would have faced most of the same challenges that the one led by Thatcher faced. But the response would have been completely different.

Major events in British history would not have happened the way they did under different leadership.

The first was the Falklands war of 1982 and an astonishing and absurd military triumph; which was a calculated gamble to ensure sweeping electoral success.

A second, which was supported by her massive electoral win, was the dethroning of trade union power. She would not compromise. And she had the backing of major (greedy) business leadership; including Murdoch's media empire. She fought the miners' strike to the bitterest of finishes.

Her economic policy was based on the assumption that the public sector was an unproductive burden on the wealth-creating sector and on taxpayers, and must therefore be reduced and privatised. She insisted that government economic policy should never give priority to reducing unemployment or to stimulating demand.

But Thatcher's market driven economy was assumed to require strong state intervention and support including the abolition of local government autonomy; enhancement of police powers, intolerance towards gay rights, a broadcasting ban on Sinn Féin, and increased defence spending.

She made enemies. Her rule was marked by the most serious urban riots of the 20th century, one of the most divisive strikes in recent times, and the century's most audacious prime ministerial assassination attempt (the Brighton bombing), which thankfully she survived.

During her time in office she used up more than 100 ministers and surrounded herself with yes-men. She was never interested in the women's movement, and only one women made it into her cabinet during her long tenure.

She also enjoined two confrontations that ultimately undid her. The first was the poll tax, which was disastrous and unjust. It was her policy alone. The poll tax came to embody a prime minister who ruled from conviction not sense, and who did not care about, indeed gloried in, a confrontation that destroyed the Tory party in Scotland and may indirectly come to destroy the union she otherwise championed.

In Europe, Thatcher began her prime ministership as a pragmatic, if often acerbic, European. But as she became a bigger figure on the world stage she became increasingly strident and disruptive towards Europe.

Thatcher's British vision was a low-tax, home-owning, privatised, high-carbon, possessive, individualist, winner-takes-all nation. Any many did win. The rich got richer. The poor poorer. The north south divide became a chasm.

There was plenty wrong with 1979 Britain including undemocratic and abusive union power. But, as Germany and other northern nations have shown, economic dynamism has been possible without the squandering social cohesion.

Thatcher created division. She thrived upon it. And now the gushing tributes and other more questioning obituaries show the extent of that division.

When she spoke, as she often did, about "our people", she did not mean the people of Britain; she meant people who thought like her and shared her prejudices. She abhorred disorder, decadence and bad behaviour.

She was an exceptional leader. No question. But her legacy is of public division, private selfishness and a cult of greed, which together shackle far more of the human spirit than they ever set free.

Emirates goes transatlantic - again

8 April 2013

Dubai-based Emirates Airline said it has received approval from the Italian Civil Aviation Authority to launch direct flights between Milan and New York commencing on October 1.

Operated by a Boeing 777-300ER, the service will originate in Dubai with passengers then able to enjoy a stopover in Milan en-route to New York. On the return flight, passengers will have the option of stopping in Milan before continuing on to Dubai.

"Operating a trans-Atlantic route has been on our agenda for some time," said Tim Clark, President Emirates. "Having carefully monitored traffic flows we have identified strong demand for both a direct connection and, importantly, for the Emirates product. The route is currently underserved, particularly with a strong premium product offering this is where we see a clear opening for Emirates. We intend to capitalise on this opportunity, stimulating further demand and encouraging additional traffic flow in both directions,"

Emirates has previously flown transatlantic from Hamburg to New York.

The new service, an extension of Emirates three daily flights to Milan, home to the Emirates-sponsored football club AC Milan, will boost Emirates' flights to New York to three daily.

Emirates flight EK205 will depart Dubai at 09:05hrs arriving in Milan at 13:50hrs, the flight will then depart Milan at 16:00hrs arriving in New York at 19:00hrs the same day. The return journey on flight EK206 will depart New York at 22:20hrs arriving in Milan at 12:15hrs the following day before departing for Dubai at 14:00hrs, touching down in Dubai at 22:05.

DWC to start passenger operations in October

3 April 2013

Dubai Airports has announced that Dubai World Central will open its doors to passengers on October 27, 2013 when launch carriers nasair and Wizz Air commence operations into Dubai's second airport.

nasair plans to operate over 50 flights per week between Dubai and a number of destinations in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi-based carrier already operates 950 weekly flights to 28 destinations with a fleet of 21 aircraft comprised of Airbus A320s and Embraer E190s.

Wizz Air, which provides low-cost air transport across 30 countries with 16 bases across Europe, will provide non-stop services linking Dubai World Central to Central and Eastern Europe. Wizz Air has a fleet of 40 Airbus A320 aircraft operating over 1,500 weekly flights to 93 destinations.

WizzAir will fly 4 weekly flights each from Budapest & Kiev and 3 each from Bucharest & Sofia.

Bucharest – Dubai Al Maktoum eff 29OCT13 - 3 weekly
W63255 OTP1430 – 2120DWC 320 246
W63256 DWC2155 – 0105+1OTP 320 246

Budapest – Dubai Al Maktoum eff 28OCT13 - 4 weekly
W62497 BUD1140 – 2005DWC 320 x246
W62498 DWC2040 – 2340BUD 320 x246

Kiev Zhulyany – Dubai Al Maktoum eff 28OCT13 - 4 weekly
WU6021 IEV0615 – 1310DWC 320 x246
WU6022 DWC1345 – 1700IEV 320 x246

Sofia – Dubai Al Maktoum eff 29OCT13 = 3 weekly
W64429 SOF1230 – 1925DWC 320 246
W64430 DWC2000 – 2320SOF 320 246

Reservations for these new services have already opened.

Dubai Airports say that construction of the DWC passenger terminal building was completed in 2012. That is hard to believe after driving to see it last week. The basic structure is there but the supporting infrastructure looks incomplete. Upon opening, the new facility will offer full retail as well as food and beverage amenities.

DWC has a single runway, 64 remote aircraft stands; there are no air bridges. It has capacity for up to 7 million passengers per year. The terminal will undergo a full testing and trial programme over the coming months to ensure a seamless opening.

What the airport will need is a transport infrastructure. It's location is remote from most of Dubai - though reasonably convenient for Jebel Ali. It will not have rail/metro access therefore will need airport buses to a downtown location. The only passenger car parking appears to be open air and not ideal.

Upon completion, Dubai World Central will become the world's largest airport with five runways and an ultimate capacity of 160 million passengers and 12 million tonnes of cargo per annum.

Canada and UAE start to make their peace

2 April 2013

Canada and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to end their visa dispute which has for the last two years required Canadians to pay visa fees to enter the Gulf country.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and his U.A.E. counterpart Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan say they have agreed to restore the visa regime that existed prior to a dispute that erupted in 2010.

They say the two countries are also ready to sign a nuclear co-operation deal. Details on the two agreements will be formalized in the next month.

The two countries have also created a Canada-UAE business council to improve commercial relationships.

And presumably at some time soon we will see an announcement extending Emirates' and Etihad's flying rights to Canada.

In 2010, Canada refused to grant two Emirati airlines extra landing rights in Canada, while Baird was minister of transport. That move prompted the UAE to end access to a key Canadian Forces staging base outside Dubai. The following year, the expensive visa requirements were put in place.

Baird is on a lengthy swing through the Middle East, which has included a surprise visit to Iraq as well as stops in Jordan and Cyprus.

Visitors from most European countries, Australia and the U.S. don’t need visas for the UAE. Canadians, however, must pay $165 for a single-entry, 30-day visa; $330 for a single-entry 60-day visa; and $660 for a six-month, multiple-entry visa.

London losing hub business

2 April 2013

Heathrow Airport has strongly defended its status as the UK’s only hub airport in a submission to the country’s independent airports inquiry.

The airport, which is running at capacity, said that the UK is currently losing out on additional hub traffic and warned that “a significant proportion” of un-served hub demand could be lost for good by the time the country builds more runways.

Completely self-serving of course - and in reality London is a bit of a hybrid - more a destination that it is a hub.

Heathrow argues that rivals such as Dubai and Istanbul are making major investments that “exploit the UK’s hub capacity constraint”.

The Airports Commission was set up late last year and is investigating if and how the UK should expand its airport capacity.

Of course if London was Dubai or Beijing you would not need a year long commission or 12 years to build a single runway!

The commission will recommend to the government whether Heathrow should be allowed to build a third runway, or whether expansion should take place elsewhere.

In its submission to the Airports Commission, the airport said: “by 2024 the UK’s hub will have been capacity constrained for two decades and a significant proportion of the un-served hub demand will have been lost, either for good, or for the very long term until it can be recaptured.

“Overseas governments, airlines and hub airports, such as Dubai and Istanbul, are already making major investments that exploit the UK’s hub capacity constraint.

“The UK has an urgent need for hub capacity to meet continued growth in hub demand and UK connectivity needs.”

Other proposals include new runways at Gatwick or Stansted – or a brand new four-runway hub airport, which would overtake Heathrow as the UK’s main gateway.

What the Commission has not heard is that people like to use hubs in Dubai, Amsterdam or Istanbul so that they can avoid Heathrow's appalling and creaking infrastructure, its miserable security staff, and the complete paralysis that breaks out any time the weather turns marginally inclement.

The fall and rise of Don Muang

2 April 2013

Its a done deal. Airports of Thailand says it will open Don Mueang Airport to all international airlines putting it on an equal par with Suvarnabhumi Airport.

The mothballed airport arises from its ashes.

The decision will open Don Muang to all airlines regardless of their business model. Today, the airport is open to domestic airlines, low-cost airlines, charters and regional airlines that serve point-to-point routes and do not need to offer connections to other services or airlines.

International scheduled airlines all operate out of Suvarnabhumi Airport, but the plan is to offer them an option at Don Muang.

AoT officials hinted that the OneWorld alliance, led by Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific Airways, have expressed interest in using Don Muang airport.

The airlines group also suggested that the airport should be expanded to allow for giant Airbus A380 aircraft to use the airport.

Bangkok’s main international airport, Suvarnabhumi, has the capacity of 45 million passengers per year. It is now handling over 51 million passengers per year and is needs to be extended urgently to keep pace with growth.

It is also an unpopular airport with many Bangkok residents and visitors. Long queues at immigration checkpoints have been standard at Suvarnabhumi; in part dues to unmanned desks. a

The Thai government closed Don Mueang Airport when the new airport opened in 2008. Airport of Thailand expects Don Mueang airport will be able to handle 60 million passengers by 2017 taking considerable pressure of Suvarnabhumi; indeed this would probably delay any further expansion of Suvarnabhumi.

Don Mueang Airport (DMK) regained its international airport status last November after AirAsia moved all of its regional services out of Suvarnabhumi. Of all the domestic airlines use it as their home base with the exception of THAI (including Thai Smile) and Bangkok Airways that continue to serve their domestic networks from Suvarnabhumi, due to the need to provide connecting services for international flights.

Doha's jinxed new airport

1 April 2013

And this is not an April Fool story.

The new Doha airport was initially scheduled to start operations in 2010, but the opening was put off to November 18, 2011, a date that was also scrapped.

The new opening date was December 12, 2012 (12/12/12), but the inauguration was again delayed to April 1. Today was meant to be a soft opening; just for low cost ailines that dod not require lounge access in the terminal for premium passengers; as the lounges are still not ready.

But then it appears that the airport itself is not ready; as the opening of Qatar’s new Hamad International Airport (HIA) has been delayed hours before the first inaugural Qatar Airways plane was scheduled to arrive at 12.20am.

The last-minute cancellation was reportedly due to the airport’s failure to meet the new safety and security standards set by the Civil Defence Department.

Apparently flights were already enroute when the Notam was published (with typos!):

"A0203/13 NOTAMR A0188/13
Q)OBBB/QFAXX/IV/NBO/A/000/999/2516N05136E005
A)OTHH
B)1303312030 C)1305312359 EST
E)OPENNING OF HAMAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WILL BE DELAYED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE"

This presumably was known some time ago; and airlines and crews would have been planning to arrive at the new airport today.

The two runway airport sits on reclaied land just on the north side of the existing single runway airport; which is due to stay open until the new airport is finally complete.

Abdul Aziz Al Nuaimi, Chairman of the New Doha International Airport (NDIA) Steering Committee, said in a statement that the new date for the opening of the airport would be announced within days, Qatari media reported.

Qatar is of course set to host the football World Cup finals in 2022, prompting the authorities to push hard for massive development, construction and infrastructure projects to reshape the country. The precedent should be a concern.

Qantas and Emirates launch their alliance

31 March 2013

Pictures of the Sydney flypast are here.

Qantas and Emirates marked the official launch of their partnership today with two A380s flying in tandem over the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

The planes flew over the bridge at about 1,500 feet (450 metres).

The planning was complex and included seeking approval from safety regulators in both Australia and the United Arab Emirates."

Pilots from both airlines completed dozens of special simulator training sessions since January.

The aircraft took off from Sydney airport early Sunday, flying north along the coast, then south and slightly out to sea, before turning and cruising over the city, passing the Opera House and flying over the Harbour Bridge.

Qantas says that it has moved its hub for European flights from Singapore to Dubai, ending a decades-long partnership with British Airways on the London route.

But it is not really a Qantas hub. Two planes a day fly from Australia to Dubai and continue to London. What the alliance does offer is one stop travel via Dubai to multiple points in the Middle East, Europe and Africa; but this will be a Qantas codeshare using Emirates hardware and crews.

The impact  has been significant already. Qantas says bookings for trips to Europe have gone up six-fold.

The tie up should be worth about $90 million a year before tax to Qantas, as it fills more seats on combined flights to Europe, New Zealand and Southeast Asia and drops the unprofitable Frankfurt service, according to an analyst at Goldman Sachs.

The upside for Emirates is the increased passenger flow to its worldwide network.

The airlines describe this as a seismic shift for the industry. It is not. It is a recognition of the strength of the middle east carriers and their geographical hubs.

And despite all the rumours running around the Dubai HQ of Emirates it is just two airplanes a day from Australia. And no, there will not be QF staff on EK flights or vice versa.