Call to Action... Our futures

[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.