Humanities desk
< April 24	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 25[edit]

France and Canada Freedoms of the air status[edit]

In 2020, Air France ran a flight from Paris CDG to Tahiti PPT, with a "technical stop" in to Vancouver YVR[1]. (quotation marks around "technical stop" because the passengers actually leave and re-enter the plane, so I am not sure whether this counts as a technical stop or not.)

Passengers could not leave the airport at YVR, nor could new passengers get on from YVR.

I suspect that this was because France did not have the 5th Freedoms of the air with Canada:

5th : The right to fly between two foreign countries on a flight originating or ending in one's own country.

But it could be also the case that France has 5th Freedoms of the air with Canada, but chose not to exercise that freedom in this particular flight because of some other reason (economic, too much paperwork, temporary route and thus not worth the trouble, etc).

Is that a way to check exactly which types of Freedoms of the air that France and Canada have negotiated with each other?

Thank you very much. Cheers. Mel Gervais (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a "technical stop" (second freedom) would require passengers to remain on the plane; it could take awhile.

Second Freedom. The freedom to stop in a foreign country for a technical/refueling purpose only. A flight from a home country can land in another country for purposes other than carrying passengers, such as refueling, maintenance, or emergencies. The final destination is a third country. For instance, in the earlier stages of transatlantic flights, a refueling stop was often required in Newfoundland (e.g. Gander) and Ireland. With the extension of the range of airplanes, this is becoming less relevant.

"Air Freedom Rights". The Geography of Transport Systems. Hofstra University. 12 November 2017.

I'm sure they'd appreciate the opportunity to stretch their legs and get some fresh air. --136.56.52.157 (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right about the definition of the technical stop.

It's just that before I posted that, I googled "technical stop" and clicked on the first link[2], which said: "No traffic is unloaded or loaded during a technical stop".

So if I used the phrase "technical stop" without the quotation marks, someone would've chimed in to correct me, saying: "since the passengers left the plane, it's technically not a 'technical stop'." So I had to use the quotation marks.

In hindsight, it probably would've been better if I didn't use the word at all. Usage of any non-rigidly-defined-word tends to sidetrack the conversation online. Mel Gervais (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that departing the aircraft may be required in some cases for refueling. While it's generally possible to refuel with passengers on boards including I think in Canada [3] [4] [5] [6] and the EU [7] (while the refueling occurred in Canada, it's doubtful that Air France would have wanted to do something forbidden in the EU), I'd imagine some airlines and airports may prefer not to do it, especially if as the IP mentioned, it's going to take a long time. There may also be other reasons for requiring passengers leave the plane. When Malaysian Airlines had flights between KL and Auckland with a stop in Melbourne, while the stop wasn't technical (not surprising given the agreements between NZ and Australia), all passengers even those going on to Auckland or KL were require to deplane/unboard. I heard but never confirmed this was required by the airport with the hope you'd spend money at their duty free or other stores. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "freedoms of the air" refer to rights enjoyed by airlines, and not to rights enjoyed by passengers carried by the aircrafts of such airlines. --Lambiam 08:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the Canada-France Air Transport Agreement is available here. While it gives France the right to operate flights between Vancouver and French Polynesia, it does not do so between metropolitan France and Vancouver (only flights to Toronto and Montreal are allowed). So I would expect that clause to preclude parceling off the Paris-Papeete flight into sub-sections and selling passage on some of its segments ending or originating in Vancouver. But the agreement is very general, and specific issues are dealt with through exchanges of diplomatic notes, which are not public (contrary to the treaty itself). So if that particular flight was discussed between France and Canada, you would need to do an Access to Information request (i.e. ATIP) to obtain details. Xuxl (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Whatever freedoms France has negotiated with Canada, the EU has also negotiated a fairly wide agreement with Canada [8] [9]. The fifth freedom part of the agreement seems to be destined for a later date.

The status of the basic agreement even now over 10 years after it was signed is a bit unclear to me [10]. However it does the bilateral agreements including for France [11] I assume at the time it was drafted but I doubt that has changed as France probably didn't feel the need with the EU agreement.

I'd also note if it was in force in 2020, or whatever agreements were in force, you'd need to look at how specifically it treats Tahiti or probably French Polynesia. Does it treat it as a foreign country or as part of France? Because if it's treated as part of France then what you had was a flight originating from France to Canada "back" to France albeit a different part of France.

The status of Tahiti or French Polynesia as an overseas country and their autonomy in certain areas, may be relevant, but also what the agreement actually says if anything about such matters. (If the agreement predated the changes to French Polynesia's status in France, you'd need to double check there wasn't something that changed that you missed.)

Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to en.wiki, French Polynesia is an Overseas collectivity, so it looks to me like yes, it was indeed a flight from France to France, legally speaking. IANAL tho. Elinruby (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The technical reason for the stop is certainly refuelling. Air France was operating a Boeing 777 for that flight, and while the longest range version (with a range of 15,843km) could theoretically fly the great circle distance from Paris to Tahiti (15,711km) non-stop, it could not do so with sufficient reserves for diversions during the long route segments over the Pacific. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freedoms of the air says Canada withdrew from the treaty in the late 1980s Elinruby (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, the OP presumes that a direct, non-stop flight from Paris to Tahiti is trivial, and seems to be confused by the need to make a stop in a non-France country. AFAICT, there is only one plane in current service, a modified Airbus A350, which could do so, having a range necessary to make the 15,706 km trip in one go. Only one airline, Singapore Airlines operates that plane, Air France does not. Air France operates the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the Airbus 350-900 in its fleet, with a maximum range of 15700 km and 15000 km respectively; there's a possibility these planes could make it to Tahiti without crashing into the Pacific, but given the bad press that would cause if they didn't make it (which is likely to happen frequently given that the distance to Tahiti is just outside of the operating range), that means Air France flights from Paris to Tahiti will have to refuel somewhere. Since the passengers on said flight do not likely have Travel visas for Canada (the country where the refueling is happening), while passengers may get off the plane, they need to remain behind customs control points, and cannot leave the airport to wander around Canada at will. That's the easiest explanation here. As noted, Freedoms of the Air are about the rights of the airplane itself; the right to stop in Canada to refuel exists, not the rights of the passengers to disembark early and travel around Canada without a visa. --Jayron 32 14:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32 Great explanation. But wait, the airplane has rights? Just kidding; I know what you mean. David10244 (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shock and awe[edit]

I remember at the time, it was mentioned that, in part, the term was chosen because it phonetically resembled an appropriate term in Farsi (or Arabic?). The article doesn't mention this; am I misremembering, or something? (By "something", I don't mean to suggest that I'm "getting old"). -- 136.56.52.157 (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term was coined in 1996 by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in a paper with the title Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance. Nothing in the paper suggests that the words shock and awe are anything other than common English words. --Lambiam 08:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found one or two dodgey websites connecting it with Shekhinah, which means "the presence of God (in a place)". Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This book says it was an internet meme propogated by the Christian right in the US. Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That book says on its copyright page "This is a work of fiction", so I wouldn't give its claim much credence. CodeTalker (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly Parton has used that phrase for her two biggest assets. I saw it on a talk show... David10244 (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]