Call to Action... Our futures

[SpauldingSmails]

......and there is the post that shows a severe lack of information.

1) Emirates does not operate 737s.

Yeah, there's no way that they could ever purchase or operate them... Impossible.

If there's any doubt as to the depth of Emirates' incestual relationship with their government, their CEO is also the President of their Civil Aviation Authority for eff's sake.

www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/p...pId=24963869&previousTitle=The Emirates Group

Imagine the outrage if Richard Anderson, Jeff Smisek, Doug Parker or Gary Kelly were the FAA Administrator.

 

[tailhookah]

Well you make a good point about their CEO. As far as operating 737's? It could happen. But it would be years down the road after the ME3 kills the US&European airlines.

Tail

 

[SpauldingSmails]

I was being facetious about the 737's - if they can wrangle an A380, they can sure has heck go out and buy a few of the world's best selling airliners.

 

[tailhookah]

An email just received... More "tripe" as typhoonpilot so moronically calls it.

Partnership for Open & Fair Skies

Friend,

It's been two weeks since we kicked off a grassroots campaign to call attention to the violation of Open Skies policy by Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways and Emirates Airline.

In 14 days, we've seen an outpouring of support. Thousands have joined our team online and are calling on the U.S. government to level the playing field with the Gulf carriers.

Momentum is on our side. Here's why:

Our coalition is growing. We added two new unions to the movement this week. The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA and Communications Workers of America joined our growing base of supporters that's already thousands of workers strong.
The Gulf carriers are in denial. Yesterday, the CEOs from both Emirates and Etihad denied billions of dollars in government assistance…but failed to provide evidence and dodged direct questions.
We're not alone in this fight. The leaders of E.U.-based airlines are calling for similar action against the Gulf carriers. Lufthansa CEO Carsten Spohr said, Bilateral agreements (with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) must be reviewed and must be renegotiated.
The government hears our calls for action. U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster said, They're state-owned companies, and they're getting what we believe are infusions of cash, which is not fair.
Jobs are at risk. Doug Parker, CEO of American Airlines, made the stakes clear at this week's Chamber of Commerce Aviation Summit when he said, If you don't level the playing field, jobs will flow from the U.S. to the Gulf. This is a real threat and it’s why we need you to take action now.
You can see we're off to an amazing start – but the Gulf carriers are fighting back, and we know they don't fight fair.

Right now, we need you to get the word out that you stand with the U.S. airlines and airline employees by sharing this post on Facebook or retweeting this tweet.

Let's commit to winning this thing together. Thanks.

Partnership for Open and Fair Skies

 

[maru657]

For those pilots looking for jobs, the foriegn carriers will probably be hiring US pilots and frankly you don't owe ALPA or the pilots at Delta anything.

 

[tailhookah]

Sure you don't owe anyone anything. But if you want a U.S. airline industry to return to you'll not be such an ignorant schlub like some here. Do what you want. The truth hurts though and anyone with a moron's IQ or better knows I am right.

Tail...

 

[tailhookah]

I've spent a lot of time in Dubai. Go ahead and relocate there. I bet within two years you'll wish you were back here in the USofA. But if you sell out your industry to the sheiks you'll have nowhere else to go. Your problem. Not mine. Don't be naive. Back the PAC.

Tail

 

[Dizel8]

TP,

Posted a long response, got lost in the webs.

Anyway, take a look at the white paper on the ME3. Massive cash infusion to a state owned airline under the guise of buying equity is hardly above board.

Nor is covering a large loss on fuel hedging really legit.

 

[typhoonpilot]

Me thinks Ty works for one of the ME3... let's wait and see.

Well... were waiting.

tail

Nope, don't work for one of the ME3.

If there's any doubt as to the depth of Emirates' incestual relationship with their government, their CEO is also the President of their Civil Aviation Authority for eff's sake.

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/st...irates%20Group

Imagine the outrage if Richard Anderson, Jeff Smisek, Doug Parker or Gary Kelly were the FAA Administrator.

A very common misunderstanding, the Dubai CAA is not the regulator for the airlines in the UAE. The UAE GCAA is the regulator for the airlines in the UAE. The Dubai CAA simply looks after airport infrastructure and such. It has no authority for pilot licensing, flight and duty time limitations, airline oversight, etc. That is what the UAE GCAA does.

An email just received... More "tripe" as typhoonpilot so moronically calls it.

We can debate, but you'll have to stop with the name calling first. I will not engage someone who stoops to character assassination as a form of debate. Are you not an intelligent educated former navy pilot? Why are you afraid of rational debate?

TP,

Posted a long response, got lost in the webs.

Anyway, take a look at the white paper on the ME3. Massive cash infusion to a state owned airline under the guise of buying equity is hardly above board.

Nor is covering a large loss on fuel hedging really legit.

Dizel and I go back close to a decade and he does not insult me so he gets first response.

Let's talk about the fuel hedge covering. If it actually happened, which we'll probably never know, Emirates pays a dividend to their primary shareholder every year. That dividend has been averaging around $200-300 million for the last few years. So if the government stepped in with a "loan", it certainly is well on it's way to being paid back in full. I would hardly call that a "subsidy". You can read Emirates annual reports for yourself to see the dividend that they pay to their primary shareholder (which is a government investment structure).

Now, on to other points.

Can someone please find for me this mystical "level playing field"? Is there such a thing in any global industry? Weren't at one time, or are still currently: British Airways, Air France, Qantas, Air China, Korean, Vietnam Airlines, Singapore Airlines, Air India, etc, etc state owned or controlled carriers?

But my cabotage point is when they get them? Do you know what cabotage is?

This one gets brought up a lot. It's a false flag since we all know that pretty much everyone is against it. No foreign passenger airline is asking for cabotage rights in the USA. It's an incredible leap from the issue at hand, which is foreign competition on international routes.

The latest front of the ME3?s war against our carriers is our European routes. After entering an already competitive market in 2013, Emirates now accounts for nearly 19 percent of the bookings between New York and Milan.

So what percentage of the bookings do DAL and UAL account for from NRT to SIN? NRT to MNL? NRT to BKK? , etc. If DAL and UAL can fly 5th freedom why can't Emirates?

..............and better yet, what percentage of the express package and freight market does FedEx and UPS account for in most of the world? Who has a hub in Guangzhou that operates, not just 5th freedom, but 7th freedom flights?



Typhoonpilot

 

[Flopgut]

So what percentage of the bookings do DAL and UAL account for from NRT to SIN? NRT to MNL? NRT to BKK? , etc. If DAL and UAL can fly 5th freedom why can't Emirates?

..............and better yet, what percentage of the express package and freight market does FedEx and UPS account for in most of the world? Who has a hub in Guangzhou that operates, not just 5th freedom, but 7th freedom flights?

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/...ivil-Aviation-Organization-ICAO-CREATION.html

"In the economic field, ICAO has no regulatory powers, but one of its constitutional objectives is to "prevent economic waste caused by unreasonable competition." In addition, under the convention, member states undertake to have their international airlines furnish ICAO with traffic reports, cost statistics, and financial statements showing, among other things, all receipts from operations and the sources of such revenues."

So in 44 the concern is the more powerful US carriers would use stronger economics to overrun international air transport by strategically wasting/outspending other countries. The U.S. could not do it then, why do you (Typhoon) think the ME3 can now?

Do not strike from consideration that in 1944 the U.S. had just finished changing the entire world for the better. ME3 countries could not care less about the world, human rights, or anything like that.

 

[typhoonpilot]

Since you linked it:

One group of countries, led by the US, wanted an international organization empowered only to make recommendations regarding standard technical procedures and equipment. In its economic aspects, these countries believed, air transportation should be freely competitive.

TP

 

[Flopgut]

Yes, thank you. It's a great link!

Don't forget the context my friend. The U.S. airlines would look a lot like Fedex and UPS (since you mentioned them) in the fair market of 1944.

The level playing field we want is for ME3 to attempt to thrive by the same terms imposed on US airlines when we were stronger.

 

[Dizel8]

TP,

It is my belief, and those of others, that the hedging loss happened as described. Not because of what the airline reported, but because the other side of the hedge reported it as profit.

Secondly, as the white paper pointed out, the ME3 are so vertically integrated that it is very hard to actually figure out who pays who for what, at what rates and what services are provided.

Certainly Emirates Airline benefits greatly from this relationship. No expense will be spared by the Sheikh to support the airline.

Obviously these airlines are a direct extension of their respective governments. The UAE as a nation is expanding aggressively, in buildings, resorts, airlines. Behind it all is the Sheikh or his closets family. Not a problem per se, but it is a problem if he is subsidizing the airline as he appears to be.

Etihad is probably a much more egregious violator of the rules. Their expansion plans makes little sense, considering Emirate right next door.

Now having said all that, hope you and yours are well.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

ME3 countries could not care less about the world, human rights, or anything like that.

Spot on. Practically limitless wealth at their disposal - and what's their contribution to the world? The finest educational institutions, world leaders in medicine or state of the art technological research? Nope. Experts at influence peddling and amassing a Matterhorn of luxe goods. Sovereign pimps, legitimized.

 

[X-rated]

Emirates now flies from Rome to the US direct... so you don't think Cabotage is possible? Wake up man! It's coming if we all have your outlook on it.

No, they don't. I believe you probably meant Millan? So what? I'm no legal expert on Cabotage, but maybe you can educate me why it's Cabotage when EK flies DXB-MXP-JFK, but not Cabotage when UA flies BAH-KWI-IAD?

I fly 3 or 4 full fare RT Business or occasionally First class trips from the UAE to the States every year. Give me Emirates or Etihad or I'm NOT going! You can bitch and make excuses all day long, but until your airline has a product that can compete, what's the point? I won't subject myself to 15+ hours of pain when I don't have to. Emirates and Etihad are considerably more expensive yet they still kick your tails. Ever consider the real problem is your management doesn't have a clue what passengers want in the long haul market? To be fair, even if they do, they know the unions would never allow the airline to provide it. Seniority ensures those least able to tolerate 14-16 hour flights are the only ones who can hold them. Exhausted, entitled, and lazy grandmothers can't compete with bright eyed 20 year olds who are living an adventure that hasn't been available to US aviators for decades.

I don't really see why it matters if your investor is a Sheikh or a hedge fund. Deep pockets are deep pockets and profitable is profitable. Regardless, considering how much Emirates and Boeing contribute to US exports and the effect it has on the US trade balance, you're certainly destined to lose this one. But, by all means continue to bitch and make excuses about how unfair it is and why you can't compete. Really, what else can you do?

 

[tailhookah]

Because they signed a fair and open skies accord that set the rules a long time ago as to what's fair and what isn't. And now they are breaking those accords... Easy peasy...

Tail

 

[typhoonpilot]

Do we call the $1.3 billion runway that the city of Atlanta built for Delta a "subsidy"?

Do we call The PBGC taking over the pensions of USAir and Delta a "subsidy"?

Do we call the hundreds of millions of dollars that the U.S. government gave (literally gave) to the U.S. airlines post 9-11 as "subsidy"?

Do we call the ability to enter chapter 11 bankruptcy and have debt either forgiven or restructured a "subsidy"?

Remember the battle between Airbus and Boeing on "subsidy" allegations? It went on for years and pretty much anything that either government touched that had anything to do with either corporation became labelled a "subsidy".

You complain about Ex-Im financing, but Ex-Im financing creates jobs in the USA. Generally high paying union manufacturing jobs. Airbus has the same thing in Europe and I can guarantee you the lower prices that U.S. airlines are paying for Airbus aircraft over Boeing aircraft are exactly because Airbus has been subsidized by their backing governments over the years. It's certainly not because European labor is cheaper. Then those aircraft get financed by the Export Credit Agency.

You really, really, really have no clue what you are talking about. You are just parroting ALPA's talking points without doing any serious research yourself nor any critical thinking.

What you are fighting for, if you really take the time to think about it, is to shield an ever decreasing percentage of the world travel market from competition. Then if you get into the psychology of it you'll see that one of the major motivations is exactly because the U.S. airlines, who have been the world leaders for decades, are no longer going to be the world leaders. Many who are fighting this battle feel entitled that the U.S. carriers stay the biggest in the world and lash out at companies who dare to threaten them.

There never has been a level playing field in the airline business and there never will be. Just as there pretty much isn't a level playing field in any global business. The companies that innovate; are creative; and who offer a product the customer wants; where they want it; and when they want it, are the ones who will prosper and survive long term.

I actually hope that the U.S. airlines can do that. But all this bleating from ALPA and certain airline managers is doing nothing towards helping them survive long term in the growing global travel market. What is needed is innovative ideas and good leadership/management, not protectionism.



Typhoonpilot

 

[tailhookah]

Er... the runway was built at a delta hub. Show me where delta gets cheaper landing fees than aa or southwest or Ual or ... No different than the new runway at o'hare a few years back. Keep smoking that hookah man.

I am right. I don't claim I came up with the facts of the ME3's subsidies but I find it hard to believe all the other major airlines of the U.S. and Eurozone are wrong, as you say. It's funny that you don't see JetBlue joining the fight. B6 is the one of the major feeds for the ME3 and has agreements in place for NAI's feed if they get approved to operate... Hmmmm.

Anyway Ty... I don't agree with ya. One bit.

Tail

 

[Flopgut]

Seniority ensures those least able to tolerate 14-16 hour flights are the only ones who can hold them. Exhausted, entitled, and lazy grandmothers can't compete with bright eyed 20 year olds who are living an adventure that hasn't been available to US aviators for decades. ?

UAL mgt recently offered senior FAs as much as $100k cash to retire. It received limited participation, and not from the ones the offer really intended to retire. Mgt is making an effort. However, there's another problem emerging. FA applicants in the US are not who you might imagine they are. "Bright eyed 20 year olds" that you want working your flight, don't want to work on US airlines. They grew up with the ugly reality visited upon the US (and specifically US airlines) and they don't want the job, that is very much now available. Should the same region of the world that visits an attack (and a continued threat perpetuating ongoing problems) on an industry, be able to then dominate and take over that industry?

 

[Flopgut]

Do we call the $1.3 billion runway that the city of Atlanta built for Delta a "subsidy"?

Do we call The PBGC taking over the pensions of USAir and Delta a "subsidy"?

Do we call the hundreds of millions of dollars that the U.S. government gave (literally gave) to the U.S. airlines post 9-11 as "subsidy"?

Do we call the ability to enter chapter 11 bankruptcy and have debt either forgiven or restructured a "subsidy"?

Remember the battle between Airbus and Boeing on "subsidy" allegations? It went on for years and pretty much anything that either government touched that had anything to do with either corporation became labelled a "subsidy".

You complain about Ex-Im financing, but Ex-Im financing creates jobs in the USA. Generally high paying union manufacturing jobs. Airbus has the same thing in Europe and I can guarantee you the lower prices that U.S. airlines are paying for Airbus aircraft over Boeing aircraft are exactly because Airbus has been subsidized by their backing governments over the years. It's certainly not because European labor is cheaper. Then those aircraft get financed by the Export Credit Agency.

You really, really, really have no clue what you are talking about. You are just parroting ALPA's talking points without doing any serious research yourself nor any critical thinking.

What you are fighting for, if you really take the time to think about it, is to shield an ever decreasing percentage of the world travel market from competition. Then if you get into the psychology of it you'll see that one of the major motivations is exactly because the U.S. airlines, who have been the world leaders for decades, are no longer going to be the world leaders. Many who are fighting this battle feel entitled that the U.S. carriers stay the biggest in the world and lash out at companies who dare to threaten them.

There never has been a level playing field in the airline business and there never will be. Just as there pretty much isn't a level playing field in any global business. The companies that innovate; are creative; and who offer a product the customer wants; where they want it; and when they want it, are the ones who will prosper and survive long term.

I actually hope that the U.S. airlines can do that. But all this bleating from ALPA and certain airline managers is doing nothing towards helping them survive long term in the growing global travel market. What is needed is innovative ideas and good leadership/management, not protectionism.



Typhoonpilot

Most recent runway construction in the US has been to accommodate the A380. Which US airlines don't fly...

The PBGC has recently been funded and flush with $ from the seized retirement plans, that it turns out weren't that BK after all. They were stolen by mgts with the govts help. (Or perhaps that was vice versa?)

The only millions given the U.S. airlines were direct reimbursement for being parked 4 days. The other $ that is often mistaken as a gift was actually only loan guarantees, that ultimately were not approved. UAL had a retirement plan until the 2nd loan application was turned down.

GM was bailed out. The banks and housing were bailed out. US airlines were not bailed out like these other entities. Consider the larger truth of what is going on here: The ME3 airlines are in the discussion, but not the problem entirely. They are good airlines with very good people and a great product. They're an example for us to aspire to. ALPAs main issue is with how the govt has treated (neglected) US airlines. We've reached a tipping point, and it's time our govt take a close, serious look at this industry.