That's preposterous! I think you're way off base on this!

Sincerely,

John Byerly.

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.

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:eek:

""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:D

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.

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?

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.

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.

Good luck trying to convince pilots on this board that actually have gone through the CH11 process with our families, that what happened was a government subsidy. As an employee, and a shareholder, I find the "argument" adds insult to the injury of Etihad's cheating.

No offense but your pensions being lost (or what pilots went through in bankruptcy) is a drop in the bucket compared to the "subsidies" of repeated bankruptcy, filling management's coffers and creation of D-class wages, for decades, now.

Its a small narrow minded world out there.....:p

You sure have a funny way of not offending. You know what my family and I went through?

As a shareholder in another airline's bankruptcy, I took an additional bath. The owners of airlines lose everything in CH 11. If the state made shareholders whole, maybe Etihad would have a case. For now, they have nothing to answer for getting caught cheating.

My point was that, its not just you, who lost something. And not everyone lost. Its management types making gold and diamonds and 16,000 sq feet homes, while everyone loses. Someone, somewhere did get subsidized.
Thats our version of capitalism :p

But, blaming the ME3 carriers is the flavor of the month, so carry on with your blind hatred and shoot the messengers, while you are at it too. Your anger is obviously well directed, since they were the ones that took away what belonged to you.

I think the conversation would be better served if your posts contained an element of logic, and was lighter on the sarcasm.

I'm well aware that our executives protected themselves, but it does not constitute a subsidy. Right now, my focus (anger is your word) is on the three airlines that are stealing from mine, and distorting competition. I have no issue with airlines that do not steal, and as far as executives on my side that steal, that could be the topic of another discussion.

I just isn't the topic of this thread, no matter how much you try to obfuscate.

Don't pay any attention to Drofdeb, he/she is a ****ed off RJ pilot that blames ALPA and the legacy pilots for his/her $h11ty paycheck.

Thanks. That would explain the bizarre posts.

You're right… part of Chapter 11 allowed the airline to use its employees as a subsidy, by allowing it to reject current collective bargaining agreements and forcing pay/benefit cuts. It's also allowed them to cash in on the insurance and leave pensions underfunded by billions, again at your expense.

All this happened before Etihad was even formed.

I'm truly sorry for those who lost big on pay and retirement plans, but this is a cat fight between several large companies. I have no emotional stake in these arguments, my loyalties are to whoever is signing my paychecks.

I get that you see ME3 encroachment on US markets as potential threat to your welfare as an employee, however empirical evidence would show your largest threat being those in your corporate offices shielded by golden parachutes.

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code is NOT a government subsidy. What IT IS is a mechanism that is not available in the rest of the world for a company to reorganize on backs of its shareholders, creditors and employees. The practical application of that is that it has allowed U.S. companies to reduce operating costs. In much of the rest of the world, similar reorganization is not available and they must either trudge on or liquidate. I believe that the ability to have something short of liquidation is enlightened BUT IT DOES uneven the competitive playing field from the perspective of companies that have to compete with that.

Not all of the White Paper or the accompanying 1000 page report dealt with subsidies. They also used examples of relationships, mechanisms and infrastructure that caused an "uneven" playing field in their opinion. I think the point is that it works both ways and the US3 are not the only aggrieved parties.

Where direct subsidies can be proved, by all means do something as an agreement was signed that precluded them but given the anti-trust immunity that the major U.S. carriers have for their alliances and the consolidation that has been allowed at the expense of consumers, I can't help but see some similarities with the behavior of the large U.S. companies in the late 19th and early 20th century. The US3 have gotten almost everything they have asked for and now they want more.

Good post. Of course, even if were to disagree as to what is the #1, vs. #2 threat, the reality is that we must deal with both.

None of this is relevant to the issue with the mid east airlines.

I think you're accidentally arguing against yourself. The CH 11 process, which was known to all signatories to these treaties, is arguably better than the system in place at some European airlines.

But no system comes even close to having the State being willing to back-stop any loss or difficulty, because the state is the owner of the airline. Hedge loss? No problem? Losing money on routes? No problem.

Nothing is a problem, really, when the state, the airline, and the owner are undistinguishable from one another. If they really want to inject restructuring into the discussion, the ME3 look foolish trying to equate the CH11 system to subsidies, when their own airline have the ultimate downside protection.

Changing the subject from subsidies.

The ME3 are gutting the European carriers except for the European's flights to the U.S.

But it looks to me like the ME3 carriers will soon run out of routes that will have much effect on U.S. carriers. Even if they fly from every U.S. city to their Gulf hubs they will only poach the traffic out of the US to the middle east and southeast asia. Those Gulf hubs can't touch the U.S. traffic to Europe, South America, Japan, China, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I have answered all calls to action and agree they are unfairly subsidized. I work for Delta and am ****ed we have pulled out of India. But are they really a major threat to U.S. carriers? I honestly don't see the U.S. negotiating new agreements that allow them to fly from countries other than their own to the U.S. (i.e. Milan to JFK) And I don't see passengers preferring the ME carriers so much they would add 10 to 12 hours of connection/flight time to their trip to Europe.

Eventually it seems they are going to sink under the weight of all those huge aircraft orders.

JMHO
Hook

This is exactly why they are hell bent on poaching US-EU (and other country to US) routes as well as trying to code share with any US airline that will have them.

You're correct. What happens outside of the US is that companies liquidate and then the management of those companies open up a shiny new company without having to deal with chap 11. They're able to dump all of their employees - because the company is liquidated - and hire 'new' employees to their 'new' company at lower wages. The new company has a lower cost structure than the old one that was liquidated.

The ME3 want unrestricted 5th, 8th, and 9th freedom rights in the US. Emirates was able to grease enough wheels in DC and Rome to get JFK-MXP. They were going to apply for several other 5th freedom routes, but I suspect that they're finding more roadblocks now.

Let's see, they can fly from SEA, ATL, ORD, PDX, LAX, PHX, DFW, IAD, PHL, MCO, MIA and several others that I didn't think of, to DXB and pints beyond. We can fly from anywhere in the US to DXB, and then oh. hmmmm back to the USA. Our government doesn't give a damn about US carriers and US business as they have proven many times. If they can get more taxes and bribes from the emirates, they will favor them. It really is that simple. Yeah, they are a real threat. And lastly, if those long flights are cheap enough, people will add more time than you can imagine to save a few sheckles.

Hopefully they go under, but with endless government money that is doubtful.

Nothing bigger bribes won't solve.

This paper just came out:

http://www.openandfairskies.com/wp-c...-Traffic-1.pdf

Take a read and see if you change your mind about the damage these highly subsidized ME airlines are causing and could cause US airlines.

I totally got a boner when they started talking about regression analysis in the paper I linked above. Was that wrong?

The Etihad paper was.....well....lame for the same reasons mentioned above. The US government handed 36 Billion bucks to the US airlines when they went through restructuring? I must have missed that one. The US Government gave the US airlines 30 Billion through the PBGC program? The PBGC program isn't even funded by the US governement. Does the Risk Advisory Group, who wrote the analysis for Etihad, even have access to Google? Wait. Probably not since the government in the countries in question get to choose what their "loyal subjects" see and not see on the internet and in the media. The poor guys at Risk Advisory probably tried to Google "PBGC" and got a handsome picture and bio of one the sheikhs instead.

Its an opinion. Plenty of those floating around just like in-denial AHs :p. I'm going back to corporate to remedy my bum paycheck. Thank you for your concern :).

You all are welcome to ignore all opinions that do not conform to your own. The US Airline RJ-pilot-chapter-11-subsidy issue is real. Dont throw stones when you live in a glass house Mr. DAL/UAL/AA.

Wake me up when the RJ industry is dead, and I'll reconsider. Until then enjoy the ME3 and reaping what you sow.

**** off loser!

Okay I read it. In a nutshell it said the Gulf carriers now own the routes to India and southeast Asia. They have also taken a little of our traffic that would have connected with our JV partners in Europe to southeast asia.

Delta lost one flight per day to India. I don't like it and I am all for the fight to get that route back. And more importantly make sure that they do not get rights to our country from other than their home country. But again barring them bribing their way into rights that are not written into open skies agreements, where else are they going to poach traffic?

Again JMHO

Kind of like ordering a million dual subsidized super jumbos to replace/poach US and EU international lift currently operated with senior higher cost employees with ones making less on a tax haven loophole from a "country" with no labor laws or tort expenses. Its the ultimate labor busting "reset button" only on a global scale never before seen that would make the labor busting pirates that took down our maritime industry blush in amazement.

Shouldn't you be suing to get on a mainline seniority list or something? If that somehow doesn't pan out, an industry devistating scorched earth response should help ease your regional martyrdom. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that'll show em.

lol :D

PM the person below for more details on how to pool your resources :p. Maybe that will help.

Im just a messenger, I cant help you or do anything to "save" the poor majors.

Very mature response....:D. Cannot refute, so lets get personal.

Just like a certain CEO who is leading this charge? After all, people from that hemisphere were responsible for 9/11, so it must be that company's fault! :cool::eek:

Yeah that's the reason. Bruh I still don't understand why you're cheerleading for them. Do you really think there is some sweet code share action in it for you or something?

I am not cheerleading for them, "bruh," as you put it. All the questions I asked were to become knowledgeable about the debate.

In order to form an opinion, you must seek to understand both sides, weigh the facts / opinions, then make a decision. I must say that many who have posted here against the ME3 come across as uninformed, blinded (understandably, because they feel their jobs are at risk but nevertheless still blinded to an honest debate), and slightly sychophantic.

I will say that the attitude of some on here against the ME3 (ad hominem attacks, name calling, saying others aren't good enough to be hired by the US3, etc.), does not bode well for your argument.

First of all bruh its cold blooded to put "bruh" in quotes as if you don't mean it bruh.

Anyway I don't care about who they are, I only care about what they are doing and why they are doing it and the effect it will have on all of us.

Bruh.

No, "bruh," I think you only care how it will affect you, and that's okay. Just be honest.