The Emirates Advantage… Not just subsidies
#132
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
First of all, the regulators already looked at that and apparently didn't think it was that big of a deal. Because it wasn't. Getting one slot at an oddball time (due to Japanese protectionism, which you claim to be opposed to) and then suspending service during the low season isn't abnormal at all. At. All.
And that was before the hub was as built up (and growing) as it is now, and full time service looks like it'll happen, although realistic relief will obviously need to be granted on the definition of full time because as of now 2 cancellations in a row for WX or MX might count as a "service suspension" which is flat out ridiculous.
DL is suspending SVO service too the last few months of the year because of a massive dropoff in demand. I suppose EK should start dumping 380's on that too.
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
The US government doesn't think long term and is led by a man who makes Chamberlain look like Genghis Khan. On one hand we have a (currently) profitable airline industry and on the other a dire need to use Al-Dhafra Air Base, UAE ports, and UAE airspace. The US government will not mess with open skies and risk angering the UAE. Even Bush kowtowed to the oil monarchies, Obama is worse (for different reasons). I expect no relief from the US government, I hope I am wrong.
#134
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: B777 Captain
Posts: 93
Okay, so I'm not that great at dissecting theses things and I didn't read the entire 1000 page report but could anyone direct me to where in the report was the so-called "smoking gun" regarding Emirates? What I could find was a few vanilla balance sheet statements for 1996-1999 (?) that had nothing that I could find and then a 1 paragraph statement that said "it's out there" (I'm paraphrasing). In reading the White Paper, I assumed that there would certainly be SOME justification for the charges leveled.
If that's all they've got, disingenuous doesn't even begin to cover it. It would appear that the strategy here is to use the subsidies of Etihad and Qatar (I'm still assuming that there is at least some substance in those claims but given what's not in there on Emirates, that may not be a fair assumption!) to hammer Emirates which IS the biggest commercial threat to the US3 (which may work because it is a country to country dispute).
Gloopy, perhaps you could cite the evidence (other than just saying it's there because I said so). Seriously, that's it?
If that's all they've got, disingenuous doesn't even begin to cover it. It would appear that the strategy here is to use the subsidies of Etihad and Qatar (I'm still assuming that there is at least some substance in those claims but given what's not in there on Emirates, that may not be a fair assumption!) to hammer Emirates which IS the biggest commercial threat to the US3 (which may work because it is a country to country dispute).
Gloopy, perhaps you could cite the evidence (other than just saying it's there because I said so). Seriously, that's it?
#135
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
I am sure they will when they get Vlad to finance them with even cheaper oil and no landing fees. The sheiks do speak the same language as Putin does ya know. (F America at every opportunity in case you didn't know)
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 474
Okay, so I'm not that great at dissecting theses things and I didn't read the entire 1000 page report but could anyone direct me to where in the report was the so-called "smoking gun" regarding Emirates? What I could find was a few vanilla balance sheet statements for 1996-1999 (?) that had nothing that I could find and then a 1 paragraph statement that said "it's out there" (I'm paraphrasing). In reading the White Paper, I assumed that there would certainly be SOME justification for the charges leveled.
If that's all they've got, disingenuous doesn't even begin to cover it. It would appear that the strategy here is to use the subsidies of Etihad and Qatar (I'm still assuming that there is at least some substance in those claims but given what's not in there on Emirates, that may not be a fair assumption!) to hammer Emirates which IS the biggest commercial threat to the US3 (which may work because it is a country to country dispute).
Gloopy, perhaps you could cite the evidence (other than just saying it's there because I said so). Seriously, that's it?
If that's all they've got, disingenuous doesn't even begin to cover it. It would appear that the strategy here is to use the subsidies of Etihad and Qatar (I'm still assuming that there is at least some substance in those claims but given what's not in there on Emirates, that may not be a fair assumption!) to hammer Emirates which IS the biggest commercial threat to the US3 (which may work because it is a country to country dispute).
Gloopy, perhaps you could cite the evidence (other than just saying it's there because I said so). Seriously, that's it?
#137
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
#139
In the UAE, the United States has a quiet, potent ally nicknamed ?Little Sparta? - The Washington Post
#140
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post