Originally Posted by
IQuitEagle
In no way am I saying that Ch. 11 was designed to benefit airlines. It is so much broader than that: it is designed to help US businesses in any industry.
You seem hung up on the "transfer of money" aspect. But if the point of contention is that government subsidies provide for unfair competition, our Ch. 11 policies do come into play. You don't even have to look outside the US to see this. AA (or more specifically, Arpey) wanted to avoid BK. But since UA/DL/NW had already restructured in BK protection, shedding loads of costs, AA was in a disadvantaged situation. They declared BK with a record amount of cash in the bank. And like the others, they emerged profitable. Not due to any revamp of the business plan, or innovative product offering; just due to lower institutional costs.
Hardly a process which falls in to the "fair competition" concept.
Yes I have read the paper to the end. It makes a good case, but like any other piece written and sponsored by authors with an ulterior motive, it is far from objective in its intent, scope, research, and presentation. As such, a true understanding of the issue requires broader thinking and a deeper level of research.
Just consider that the ME airlines are not the only airlines to receive government assistance. (for example, consider:
Subsidies: the state aid that companies would like to forget...,
The UK in airport subsidies | Environment | The Guardian) If the objection is truly over subsidies, other airlines, including numerous US JV partners would be on the list and detailed in the report. But they are not. So it is less about subsidies, and more about the success of ME carriers.
Again, not buying the Ch 11 argument and of course I'm hung up on the transfer of money. That's the problem, isn't it? I don't like the reorganization laws, but then again I suffered greatly under them so of course that would be true. However, just because a country allows a company to reorganize under the watch of a bankruptcy judge (just like the UAE does, for example), it doesn't mean that said government is artificially subsidizing that entity. And CERTAINLY not to the tune of the billions of dollars in question in the paper.
I read the links you supplied and the spreadsheet. There were some arguments that appeared compelling, and if the EU and the US wanted to investigate some of those financial transactions further, I wouldn't be opposed to it. If found illegal, the transactions should be reversed or open skies agreements nullified. But c'mon. A lot of that stuff was pretty trivial. Do you think we'd be here arguing about a government paid for hangar in Dubai or a government provided railway platform in Doha?
Frankly, I really could care less about the "small potato" stuff because just as is mentioned above, there isn't a company on the planet that doesn't somehow benefit from their respective governments' policies. But again, when a group of airlines receives benefits that are so out of whack that a tiny country in the Middle East can order 100's of widebody aircraft, larger than the entire fleet of aircraft in the US.....something's not right. And, by the way America and Europe, we want to dump these subsidized aircraft on your shores and put US and European airline workers out of work so we can diversify our economies away from oil and keep the gravy trail rollin' for our Sheikhs and self-appointed kings when the oil dries up.