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 04-18-2015, 11:08 PM
  #91  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: tri current
Posts: 1,485
Default

Originally Posted by globalexpress View Post
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.


But it's okay for Cathay Pacific to have 100 widebodies and Singapore Airlines to have 100 widebodies?

Could ATL, CLT, DTW, SEA, and many other U.S. hubs support the number of flights they have from a single airline based on the size of those cities?

See the point?, your above argument is fatally flawed. Hubs are the name of the game these days. The ME3 can support those numbers because of their near perfect geographical position. Emirates was the first to truly recognize it. Etihad, Qatar, and now Turkish are expanding on it. They are serving 4 billion people within an 8-9 hour flying radius of their airports. This compared to the 1 billion or less within 8-9 hours of U.S. hub airports.

Those are just the plain simple facts. The U.S. carriers just don't have the geographical position to serve some of the markets as efficiently as the ME3.

You complaint about their size also does not take into consideration the small percentage of their route network and revenue that North America represents. In earlier posts I pointed out that, as an example, the number of aircraft in Emirates fleet to serve their current U.S. flights was something like 15% and total revenue was something similar. So you would punish them for being good at running an airline on the other 85% of their flying not involving the USA?



Typhoonpilot
Typhoonpilot is offline  
Old 04-19-2015, 12:23 AM
  #92  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 474
Default

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot View Post
Total money given was close to $5 billion when jetBlue, Alaska, etc are figured in.

TP
OK, found the verbage in the Act that you are referring to, and that I was no longer aware of:

(2) Compensate air carriers in an aggregate amount equal
to $5,000,000,000 for—
(A) direct losses incurred beginning on September 11,
2001, by air carriers as a result of any Federal ground
stop order issued by the Secretary of Transportation or
any subsequent order which continues or renews such a
stoppage; and
(B) the incremental losses incurred beginning September
11, 2001, and ending December 31, 2001, by air
carriers as a direct result of such attacks.


Are you arguing that this $5B that the airlines received to compensate them for the losses they incurred when our country was attacked and our airspace shut down was an unfair subsidy that they used to gain a competitive advantage?


Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot View Post
But it's okay for Cathay Pacific to have 100 widebodies and Singapore Airlines to have 100 widebodies?

................................

You complaint about their size also does not take into consideration the small percentage of their route network and revenue that North America represents. In earlier posts I pointed out that, as an example, the number of aircraft in Emirates fleet to serve their current U.S. flights was something like 15% and total revenue was something similar. So you would punish them for being good at running an airline on the other 85% of their flying not involving the USA?

Typhoonpilot
Yes, Singapore, Cathay, Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, et al., are allowed to have as many widebodies as they desire. However there is no way the big ME 3 would be able to expand as fast as they are without A LOT of governmental help. And all those subsidized jets with their subsidized airfares that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford are now going to be dumped on European and US shores to my detriment. Great.

Yes, I get how a hub can have a geographic advantage and the advantages offered- particularly with the Turks.

But they DON'T get to fly their connecting traffic to the United States if they're not going to comply with Open Skies. They DON'T get to fly them to the United States if they're getting sweetheart deals with landing fees, fake government "loans" with "no contractual obligations to repay," fuel hedging losses being covered by a king or a shiekh, handling fees by "Dubai Inc.," opaque financial transactions, government cash infusions and such. If their biz plans are so wonderful and so potentially successful, they shouldn't need ANY help from kings or sheiks, right? Yet they do accept billions of dollars, they use it to distort markets, and it's an unfair competitive advantage that no independent airline will be able to effectively complete against, regardless of geographic hub locations.
globalexpress is offline  
Old 04-19-2015, 03:31 AM
  #93  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: C47 PIC/747-400 SIC
Posts: 2,100
Default

I can only attest to the quality of the product ,even in coach the ME3 are moving the bar higher, in my last cockpit I deadheaded intl quite a bit on the ME, EUropean, Asian, and US carriers, United was best of us, but the ME3 set the standard, we have to improve our game.
727C47 is offline  
Old 04-19-2015, 04:05 AM
  #94  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,226
Default

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot View Post
But it's okay for Cathay Pacific to have 100 widebodies and Singapore Airlines to have 100 widebodies?

Could ATL, CLT, DTW, SEA, and many other U.S. hubs support the number of flights they have from a single airline based on the size of those cities?

See the point?, your above argument is fatally flawed. Hubs are the name of the game these days. The ME3 can support those numbers because of their near perfect geographical position. Emirates was the first to truly recognize it. Etihad, Qatar, and now Turkish are expanding on it. They are serving 4 billion people within an 8-9 hour flying radius of their airports. This compared to the 1 billion or less within 8-9 hours of U.S. hub airports.

Those are just the plain simple facts. The U.S. carriers just don't have the geographical position to serve some of the markets as efficiently as the ME3.

You complaint about their size also does not take into consideration the small percentage of their route network and revenue that North America represents. In earlier posts I pointed out that, as an example, the number of aircraft in Emirates fleet to serve their current U.S. flights was something like 15% and total revenue was something similar. So you would punish them for being good at running an airline on the other 85% of their flying not involving the USA?



Typhoonpilot
No one really cares about everything you are posting. What we care about is that when we compete with Middle East carriers it's with the understanding that the carriers are on equal footing. Delta as a example does not fly any route that is not profitable or forecast to be profitable in a reasonable time frame. The audit of Emirites flights paints a very different picture. It's not rocket science to look at the average loads and yield per flight to make a reasonable conclusion on giant subsidies.
Milan to JFK is just one of hundreds of flights that is a perfect example. 777 charging around 800.00 with a 40% load factor!
Wait however there is more! THEY ARE UPGRADING IT TO A A380!
GMAFB
sailingfun is online now  
Old 04-19-2015, 04:55 AM
  #95  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: C47 PIC/747-400 SIC
Posts: 2,100
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
No one really cares about everything you are posting. What we care about is that when we compete with Middle East carriers it's with the understanding that the carriers are on equal footing. Delta as a example does not fly any route that is not profitable or forecast to be profitable in a reasonable time frame. The audit of Emirites flights paints a very different picture. It's not rocket science to look at the average loads and yield per flight to make a reasonable conclusion on giant subsidies.
Milan to JFK is just one of hundreds of flights that is a perfect example. 777 charging around 800.00 with a 40% load factor!
Wait however there is more! THEY ARE UPGRADING IT TO A A380!
GMAFB
That's all fine and dandy but the general public could care less, it's all about cost, and a decent product, the US legacies need to up their game in a big way in the cabin to combat this, I don't think the government is going to do anything, this isn't as agregious as the Norwegian Air ****tle flag of convenience fiasco
727C47 is offline  
Old 04-19-2015, 05:12 AM
  #96  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,226
Default

Originally Posted by 727C47 View Post
That's all fine and dandy but the general public could care less, it's all about cost, and a decent product, the US legacies need to up their game in a big way in the cabin to combat this, I don't think the government is going to do anything, this isn't as agregious as the Norwegian Air ****tle flag of convenience fiasco
Sadly we have labor laws in the US. How many flight attendants over 50 have the Middle East carriers hired? How many over 40? In addition airlines that have to fly for a profit can never compete on service with airlines that don't. If you can't understand why that is then I suggest you think about it more.
What you also omit is while the middle east carriers have a right to operate with giant subsidies, they don't have the right to open skies agreements in that situation. No one is asking for anything more then upholding the existing agreements.
If the Middle East carriers want to prove the giant subsidies are false then they need only open their books to audits. I am willing to bet they never agree to that!
The governments of the Middle East big three could care less if their state owned airlines currently make a dime. They are being managed, run and expanded to provide a political relevance and power base for when the oil runs out. Nothing more or less.

Last edited by sailingfun; 04-19-2015 at 05:23 AM.
sailingfun is online now  
Old 04-19-2015, 05:39 AM
  #97  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: C47 PIC/747-400 SIC
Posts: 2,100
Default

I agree sailing fun
727C47 is offline  
Old 04-19-2015, 06:26 AM
  #98  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TeddyKGB's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
Default

Oil reserves in the United Arab Emirates, according to its government, are about 98.63 billion barrels (15.681×109 m3), almost as big as Kuwait's claimed reserves. Of the emirates, Abu Dhabi has most of the oil with 92 billion barrels (14.6×109 m3) while Dubai has 4 billion barrels (640×106 m3) and Sharjah has 1.5 billion barrels (240×106 m3). Most of the oil is in the Zakum field which is the third largest in the Middle East with an estimated 66 billion barrels (10.5×109 m3). The UAE produces about 2.9 million barrels per day (460×103 m3/d) of total oil liquids, but has stated its intention to increase this to 5 million barrels per day (790×103 m3/d) by 2014. The UAE's reserves-to-production is about 93 years.[1]
TeddyKGB is offline  
Old 04-19-2015, 06:30 AM
  #99  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TeddyKGB's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
Sadly we have labor laws in the US. How many flight attendants over 50 have the Middle East carriers hired? How many over 40? In addition airlines that have to fly for a profit can never compete on service with airlines that don't. If you can't understand why that is then I suggest you think about it more.
What you also omit is while the middle east carriers have a right to operate with giant subsidies, they don't have the right to open skies agreements in that situation. No one is asking for anything more then upholding the existing agreements.
If the Middle East carriers want to prove the giant subsidies are false then they need only open their books to audits. I am willing to bet they never agree to that!
The governments of the Middle East big three could care less if their state owned airlines currently make a dime. They are being managed, run and expanded to provide a political relevance and power base for when the oil runs out. Nothing more or less.
Thats the bottom line that people like TP don't get. They signed an agreement but they don't want to play by the rules. Time to play by the rules you agreed to ME3. You can spout superior service, geographic location, hot F/A's all you want but it's all irrelevant. All that matters at the end of the day is that the ME3 is in major violation of the open skies agreement which they signed and enough is enough.
TeddyKGB is offline  
Old 04-19-2015, 06:53 AM
  #100  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Default

Originally Posted by 727C47 View Post
I can only attest to the quality of the product ,even in coach the ME3 are moving the bar higher, in my last cockpit I deadheaded intl quite a bit on the ME, EUropean, Asian, and US carriers, United was best of us, but the ME3 set the standard, we have to improve our game.
How can we do that when they can fire their cabin crew at the drop of a hat? Or by their having a birthday? Or Getting married? Or fat?
BenderRodriguez 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
Your Privacy Choices