Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
The Emirates Advantage… Not just subsidies >

The Emirates Advantage… Not just subsidies

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

The Emirates Advantage… Not just subsidies

Old 05-07-2015, 07:22 PM
  #201  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

Originally Posted by Timbo View Post
Yup, they have something better, and they've been doing it in Washington DC for more than the last two years, it's called,

"Campaign Contributions".
That's preposterous! I think you're way off base on this!

Sincerely,

John Byerly.
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 05-08-2015, 06:05 AM
  #202  
Line Holder
 
Whip Whitaker's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: MD-80 Captain
Posts: 48
Default

Originally Posted by Nantonaku View Post
I currently have no dog in this fight, I hope to someday, but that article is condescending and lacking in details. I enjoy your posts because I like reading agreements on both sides of the debate but in this case I don't see how that article supports your side at all. The Restoring Open Skies white paper was incredibly detailed and clearly laid out specific examples of the ME carriers breaching the agreement. Basically the current response from Emirates is just that the white paper is not true. Literally that is their rebuttal, just to say the accusations are not true and print out a couple route maps. This has been building for a long time and that is all they have? That right there to me is pretty incriminating to their case. Surely they have something better than that article? They didn't know this was coming? If they knew ALPA was working on this two years ago what have they been doing for the last two years?
Actually, one of the authors of an academic research paper quoted many times by the "White Paper" says his views were misrepresentated and felt strongly enough about this to write a rebuttle. Kind of sad when one of the people you use to make your point says your full of it.


http://m.atwonline.com/open-skies/co...cademic-report


By the way Sink R8. Emirates does not take our passports. We come and go as we please. Not sure where that one came from.
Whip Whitaker is offline  
Old 05-08-2015, 08:40 AM
  #203  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 472
Default

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot View Post
Did you read it?

Pretty hard to argue with some of the route diagrams and especially about the strong denial of the fuel hedge issue at Emirates.

So you'll take the U.S. airlines white paper at face value even though it clearly had an agenda, but not the response from one of the competitors?


TP
Not specifically directed at TP, but to those who are taking the sheikh's side of the debate....

I read on Yahoo! Finance that Emirates is supposed to be writing some sort of rebuttal to all the points made in the white paper. I would think that their glossy magazine article hit piece with a "oh no we didn't" response is not the formal response to the charges.

He can strongly deny whatever he wants. The reader of the magazine (both this one and the one that hopefully will come out in the future with actual facts and numbers) has to remember that Tim Clark is the "Baghdad Bob" of Emirates. He works for an authoritarian regime with little transparency. Of course he is going to strongly deny everything. "There are no American infidels in Baghdad." Got it Tim.

The problem I see is that he could have simply laid out factual data in the article, but he didn't. The only thing that comes close is page 3, but it is totally lacking the detail the U.S. airlines provide in their charges. In response to the fuel hedges, he has some convoluted story, when all he had to do was say, "Hey we had XX million dirhams in the bank on the date the fuel hedges required payment, the expired contracts cost YY million dirhams, and when we accounted for the losses we had ZZ million dirhams left over. See? We had plenty of cash to cover the losses and therefore didn't need government help."

Then he could have pointed to the accounting in the airline's annual report that justified XX, YY, and ZZ. But he didn't do that. Why not? That would be so easy. Take a look at Delta's (for example) last quarterly report. They clearly state the write down they're going to take due to their hedging losses and you can see their cash flow and their cash balance. Easy for a U.S. airline. Hard if you're an airline run by an absolute monarchy apparently?

Same thing with the landing fee/airline subsidy debate. Notice the choice of words: "Emirates pays the full published rates at DXB." Yeah, Timmy, the published rates are the problem. They're too low to cover the cost of the money needed to support a shiny new airport's operation in an expensive country. He talks about Singapore and Hong Kong making significant investments in their airport infrastructure (and they are, AW&ST recently talked about the huge changes that will be happening in SIN and HKG in the near future), but then fails to compare the rates at DXB to those airports and instead chooses KUL. KUL? The charge being leveled against Emirates is that the DXB is not charging Emirates enough in fees, taxes, whatever, to cover the cost of a hugely expensive airport, and not having to pay those fees are a subsidy when the sheikh is picking up the tab.

The last comments about stealing revenue and passengers......I'll agree with his statement that passengers aren't propietary property of anyone. But if you're dumping subsidized capacity in a market, allegedly illegally, then yes, you are stealing revenue and passengers. If Emirates is dumping an A380 into a market with first class suites with showers, new airplanes, and better service only because a sheikh is propping them up financially, then yeah, it's stealing.

"We offer a great product at a competitive price, which appeals to the consumers who choose to fly with us," is stated in the article, but the real question is, could Emirates afford (or the market sustain) this great product at a competitive price if Emirates had to abide by the rules of Open Skies and did not receive significant subsidies? Probably not, but again no hard proof was provided in the article.

Since I find myself repeating the same thing over and over, I'm done after this less than pithy response. I'm anxiously awaiting the "real" response from Emirates, although with the lack of transparency an absolute monarchy/authoritarian regime provides, I doubt we'll ever be able to peek behind the veil.
globalexpress is offline  
Old 05-08-2015, 08:50 AM
  #204  
Gets Weekends Off
 
poostain's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 351
Default

Originally Posted by globalexpress View Post
Not specifically directed at TP, but to those who are taking the sheikh's side of the debate....

I read on Yahoo! Finance that Emirates is supposed to be writing some sort of rebuttal to all the points made in the white paper. I would think that their glossy magazine article hit piece with a "oh no we didn't" response is not the formal response to the charges.

He can strongly deny whatever he wants. The reader of the magazine (both this one and the one that hopefully will come out in the future with actual facts and numbers) has to remember that Tim Clark is the "Baghdad Bob" of Emirates. He works for an authoritarian regime with little transparency. Of course he is going to strongly deny everything. "There are no American infidels in Baghdad." Got it Tim.

The problem I see is that he could have simply laid out factual data in the article, but he didn't. The only thing that comes close is page 3, but it is totally lacking the detail the U.S. airlines provide in their charges. In response to the fuel hedges, he has some convoluted story, when all he had to do was say, "Hey we had XX million dirhams in the bank on the date the fuel hedges required payment, the expired contracts cost YY million dirhams, and when we accounted for the losses we had ZZ million dirhams left over. See? We had plenty of cash to cover the losses and therefore didn't need government help."

Then he could have pointed to the accounting in the airline's annual report that justified XX, YY, and ZZ. But he didn't do that. Why not? That would be so easy. Take a look at Delta's (for example) last quarterly report. They clearly state the write down they're going to take due to their hedging losses and you can see their cash flow and their cash balance. Easy for a U.S. airline. Hard if you're an airline run by an absolute monarchy apparently?

Same thing with the landing fee/airline subsidy debate. Notice the choice of words: "Emirates pays the full published rates at DXB." Yeah, Timmy, the published rates are the problem. They're too low to cover the cost of the money needed to support a shiny new airport's operation in an expensive country. He talks about Singapore and Hong Kong making significant investments in their airport infrastructure (and they are, AW&ST recently talked about the huge changes that will be happening in SIN and HKG in the near future), but then fails to compare the rates at DXB to those airports and instead chooses KUL. KUL? The charge being leveled against Emirates is that the DXB is not charging Emirates enough in fees, taxes, whatever, to cover the cost of a hugely expensive airport, and not having to pay those fees are a subsidy when the sheikh is picking up the tab.

The last comments about stealing revenue and passengers......I'll agree with his statement that passengers aren't propietary property of anyone. But if you're dumping subsidized capacity in a market, allegedly illegally, then yes, you are stealing revenue and passengers. If Emirates is dumping an A380 into a market with first class suites with showers, new airplanes, and better service only because a sheikh is propping them up financially, then yeah, it's stealing.

"We offer a great product at a competitive price, which appeals to the consumers who choose to fly with us," is stated in the article, but the real question is, could Emirates afford (or the market sustain) this great product at a competitive price if Emirates had to abide by the rules of Open Skies and did not receive significant subsidies? Probably not, but again no hard proof was provided in the article.

Since I find myself repeating the same thing over and over, I'm done after this less than pithy response. I'm anxiously awaiting the "real" response from Emirates, although with the lack of transparency an absolute monarchy/authoritarian regime provides, I doubt we'll ever be able to peek behind the veil.
Don't worry globalexpress, Timmy will come back with a sledgehammer to set things straight

""Having read the report, you could drive a bulldozer through just about everything... We will deal a sledgehammer to that report as far as Emirates and Dubai is concerned," Clark said at a conference in Dubai."

I'm a sucker for emotional propaganda
poostain is offline  
Old 05-08-2015, 09:03 AM
  #205  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

Originally Posted by Whip Whitaker View Post
By the way Sink R8. Emirates does not take our passports. We come and go as we please. Not sure where that one came from.
My apologies if false. I got it from an article circulted via fb, focusing on a Swedish FA, Spanish pilot, and various other actors. Don't have it front of me. Memorable alleged quote by Baker, to FA's: "The pilots are just my chauffeurs; they only want to f:::: you".

Anyone have the article?
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 05-08-2015, 09:39 AM
  #206  
Line Holder
 
Whip Whitaker's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: MD-80 Captain
Posts: 48
Default

Originally Posted by Sink r8 View Post
My apologies if false. I got it from an article circulted via fb, focusing on a Swedish FA, Spanish pilot, and various other actors. Don't have it front of me. Memorable alleged quote by Baker, to FA's: "The pilots are just my chauffeurs; they only want to f:::: you".

Anyone have the article?
Al Baker is the the head of Qatar Airways, not EK. I don't have enough knowledge about Qatar to comment on their passport policies.
Whip Whitaker is offline  
Old 05-08-2015, 10:09 AM
  #207  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

Originally Posted by Whip Whitaker View Post
Al Baker is the the head of Qatar Airways, not EK. I don't have enough knowledge about Qatar to comment on their passport policies.
My apologies again, you are correct. Here is the article in question: The truth about the luxury of Qatar Airways | Nyheter | Expressen

It's true that I sometimes make the mistake of lumping these state-championed, open-skies-violating airlines together, without regards to varying degrees of abuse, or without drawing large distinctions between the way one might treat women poorly, or another might treat them worse.

I'm not trying to get an education on the subtleties of ME airlines, I just make distinctions between airlines that cheat, and airlines that don't.

I'll stipulate to the appearance that, on the surface, Emirates cheats less than the others. Maybe they're upset that their neighbors are getting in on the action, and getting a bit greedy? Maybe Emirates developed their cheating strategy to be borderline, but not so obvious as to draw outside scrutiny too early, and maybe the other guys jumped in too fast, too obvious, and with too much funding, and ruined the whole game for them? When you compare the charges, it seems like there are far less demonstrated subsidies for Emirates than the others.

Which one of these was first, anyway?
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 05-09-2015, 07:11 AM
  #208  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: B777 Captain
Posts: 93
Default

Originally Posted by globalexpress View Post
Not specifically directed at TP, but to those who are taking the sheikh's side of the debate....

I read on Yahoo! Finance that Emirates is supposed to be writing some sort of rebuttal to all the points made in the white paper. I would think that their glossy magazine article hit piece with a "oh no we didn't" response is not the formal response to the charges.

He can strongly deny whatever he wants. The reader of the magazine (both this one and the one that hopefully will come out in the future with actual facts and numbers) has to remember that Tim Clark is the "Baghdad Bob" of Emirates. He works for an authoritarian regime with little transparency. Of course he is going to strongly deny everything. "There are no American infidels in Baghdad." Got it Tim.

The problem I see is that he could have simply laid out factual data in the article, but he didn't. The only thing that comes close is page 3, but it is totally lacking the detail the U.S. airlines provide in their charges. In response to the fuel hedges, he has some convoluted story, when all he had to do was say, "Hey we had XX million dirhams in the bank on the date the fuel hedges required payment, the expired contracts cost YY million dirhams, and when we accounted for the losses we had ZZ million dirhams left over. See? We had plenty of cash to cover the losses and therefore didn't need government help."

Then he could have pointed to the accounting in the airline's annual report that justified XX, YY, and ZZ. But he didn't do that. Why not? That would be so easy. Take a look at Delta's (for example) last quarterly report. They clearly state the write down they're going to take due to their hedging losses and you can see their cash flow and their cash balance. Easy for a U.S. airline. Hard if you're an airline run by an absolute monarchy apparently?

Same thing with the landing fee/airline subsidy debate. Notice the choice of words: "Emirates pays the full published rates at DXB." Yeah, Timmy, the published rates are the problem. They're too low to cover the cost of the money needed to support a shiny new airport's operation in an expensive country. He talks about Singapore and Hong Kong making significant investments in their airport infrastructure (and they are, AW&ST recently talked about the huge changes that will be happening in SIN and HKG in the near future), but then fails to compare the rates at DXB to those airports and instead chooses KUL. KUL? The charge being leveled against Emirates is that the DXB is not charging Emirates enough in fees, taxes, whatever, to cover the cost of a hugely expensive airport, and not having to pay those fees are a subsidy when the sheikh is picking up the tab.

The last comments about stealing revenue and passengers......I'll agree with his statement that passengers aren't propietary property of anyone. But if you're dumping subsidized capacity in a market, allegedly illegally, then yes, you are stealing revenue and passengers. If Emirates is dumping an A380 into a market with first class suites with showers, new airplanes, and better service only because a sheikh is propping them up financially, then yeah, it's stealing.

"We offer a great product at a competitive price, which appeals to the consumers who choose to fly with us," is stated in the article, but the real question is, could Emirates afford (or the market sustain) this great product at a competitive price if Emirates had to abide by the rules of Open Skies and did not receive significant subsidies? Probably not, but again no hard proof was provided in the article.

Since I find myself repeating the same thing over and over, I'm done after this less than pithy response. I'm anxiously awaiting the "real" response from Emirates, although with the lack of transparency an absolute monarchy/authoritarian regime provides, I doubt we'll ever be able to peek behind the veil.
Have you read the section of the "1000 page report" on Emirates? There is nothing in there that shows a subsidy other than the statement that the information is available publicly. If it's out there, why didn't they quote it?

We're basically in a he said, she said situation regarding Emirates but to level the charges that they have, I would expect a lot more than what is in that report from the US3.
Gillegan is offline  
Old 05-15-2015, 12:29 PM
  #209  
Gets Weekends Off
 
RemoveB4flght's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 500
Default

Etihad put up on their company website the findings of an outside company Risk Advisory Group, which they hired to counter investigate alleged government subsidies to the Big three US carriers, finding they collectively received $71.5 billion in benefits:

http://www.etihad.com/Documents/keep...y-report-1.pdf
RemoveB4flght is offline  
Old 05-15-2015, 01:09 PM
  #210  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,698
Default

Originally Posted by RemoveB4flght View Post
Etihad put up on their company website the findings of an outside company Risk Advisory Group, which they hired to counter investigate alleged government subsidies to the Big three US carriers, finding they collectively received $71.5 billion in benefits:

http://www.etihad.com/Documents/keep...y-report-1.pdf
VERY weak case.
Bankruptcy = NOT government subsidy
PBGC = insurance program, NO government funds involved.
Fuel Subsidies = NO advantage; report acknowledges same tax rate for all commercial carriers, foreign and domestic.

Risk Advisory Group is an outside company, but they wrote exactly what Etihad wanted them to write. Their paychecks came indirectly from Etihad.
Andy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Dune
Foreign
33
12-14-2011 03:41 PM
vagabond
Foreign
12
11-19-2011 03:43 AM
joel payne
Foreign
48
11-19-2009 04:28 PM
Past V1
Foreign
5
06-16-2008 02:20 PM
ToiletDuck
Hangar Talk
0
02-21-2007 10:26 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread