Originally Posted by
Sink r8
So your thesis is that 2, or 3 of the ME3 are violating agreements, but since they ALSO enjoy a geographic advantage, that the US legacies don't seem to "understand"... it's OK to let the process meander through the WTO (which I think doesn't address this sort of case), but not OK to have state-to-state negotiations that address the actual grievances, because at the end of the day, the US carriers are still not focusing on the legitimate part of the advantage?
Just like it wouldn't be right to ask for a math teacher that's mollesting you kid to be removed, because the teacher is also teaching math to the kid?
No, I think that all 3 ME carriers are guilty, just to VERY differing degrees. I also think that the overall argument that the U.S. Carriers make in the paper is partially disingenuous. It makes SOME valid points that I think deserve to be addressed but I also think that the overall threat is partially of the U.S. carriers making so I don't support unilateral sanctions. I would support freezing routes at current levels until this is sorted out. The problem with the WTO from the U.S. carriers perspective is they will generally assign credit on both sides for subsidies (as they exist) and proceed from there. That would mitigate the U.S. Claims somewhat. It may be valid that the WTO doesn't do these types of disputes - I don't know.
The "problem" is twofold; there have been subsidies that make it difficult to compete AND there has been a change in traffic and demographics that the ME 3 are uniquely positioned to take advantage of. I support addressing the first through normal channels. However you do that, it's not going to address the second problem. Inflammatory rhetoric about child molesters isn't going to change that. There are a lot of issues that a "trade war" or whatever you want to call it would bring up that are not in our countries interest, just the interests of DL, UAL and AA. I'm not opposed to state-to-state negotiations. I'm just pointing out that some of the claims of the U.S. carriers are self-serving and IMO without merit. I don't begrudge them being made because, after all, they are ONLY being made in their own narrow self-interest. I just think that the issue should be decided differently from what is generally being written on here.