The case against future international growth
 

Report Says Gulf Airlines Got $39B (With More to Come) in Illegal Subsidies - Pg.2 - TheStreet


http://www.independentmail.com/news/...over-subsidies

Oh, I remember the ATSB loans and aid. United, one of the airlines directly affected by 9/11 didn't get aid or loans. I don't think American even applied.

Neither did NWA or DAL.

Those of us at UAL certainly do appreciate the pilots who wrote letters against our ATSB loan guarantee application. Another in a long list of distasteful acts.

.......yup!

And even though Congress allocated up to $5B in "loan guarantees" very little was ever taken, and it was all paid back with interest by the airlines that borrowed it.

Of course the press for YEARS talked about the $5B handout to the airlines.

Yep just as disgusting as the TORQUE campaign.

If UA/DAL/AA really want to stab these airlines in the heart... hire every expat pilot at those airline that want to come home. There are quite a few.

Right. One was a overt, hyper competitive, and at times vicious campaign to extract customers from an airline at Denver Stapleton. The other, a campaign with the underlying intentions of forcing a company out of business, sending 100,000 workers to the street while Pavlov's dogs were salivating at the thought of carving up one of the best route structures in the world.

It's akin to comparing an international guppy to an international whale.

Guppys......whales.....aye aye captain sponge bob.

I think you're underplaying TORQUE. Its goal was to put Continental out of business. I don't see much difference between the two campaigns.

Taking passengers away Continental at Stapleton was going to sink the airline? How did Continental fair when they pulled out of Denver?

Was CAL a Scab Airline when the TORQUE program was started?

I seem to remember a group walking around with stickers saying,"One LESS airline can make a difference."

Before my time, but it wasn't limited to Denver.

Fantastic idea. Would force them to increase their pilot costs at the very least. I LOVE this idea! Lol

Yep definitely a good place for a guppy whale SLI barb. I have gotten to know quite a few strikers with well earned battle stars that refused to wear the sacred pin due to TORQUE campaign interactions with ALPA brethren. Guess they were overreacting. After all, one less airline can make a difference...

Let's try and stay on topic gentlemen. ...And yes I use that term loosely.;)

Once again a complete lack of knowledge is displayed as to why we wear the pin.

It's kind of amazing that somebody like Intrepid would be upset that a competitor was trying to compete and thinks that they were capable of putting CAL out if business during the 1980s. If there was one true enemy of CAL and CAL pilots it was their very own Frankie Lorenzo and the vast number of "replacement" workers that were being hired. Not to mention bankruptcy 1 and 2 all within a 6 year period. If there was ever a once proud airline gone bad that needed to be put down it was CAL in the 80s.

Lie detector tests, false medical claims, massive management harassment, scabs galore, many of whom still grace us with their slimy presence, the place was truly an evil empire of an airline.

Read about it here.

Flying the Line II: Chapter 14

Roger that. Given that some replying have that in the past branded us as members of 'scab' culture, why bother? And once the Flying The Line lectures start, it's time for far better things. Thankfully never run into this attitude at work, only APC

Whatever man. Post number 4 quoted above is a dig at the CAL pilot group. Intrepids reply points out that the UAL group is not without its own distasteful acts. I don't know of anyone who wrote such letters but I am sure some did, I believe Cal MGT did. As you said a competitor was competing. I agree with what Andy has pointed out, not much difference between the two campaigns.

Hoss what your post above represents is the double standard I see at times displayed. One act is distasteful if committed against LUAL yet justified if committed against LCAL because of our past. I got news for you, LCAL is part of OUR airlines history now, yours and mine at UCH.

Just keeping it real. If you guys want to lob schit around expect some return fire.

I think if you go back and look at the start of the thread, post 4,you will find the poo lobing started from your side. Your side also started the torque campaigns first as well. If any pilots did write letters to stop any ATSB loans my guess is it was those that had witnessed the ugliness of that campaign. I know it did leave an everlasting mark on some. As you said, expect return fire.

You CAL guys sure do get you knickers in a twist. First post no 4 wasn't lobbing anything at CAL. I never heard of any CAL pilots writing letters and the post had nothing to do with CAL. My later CAL response resulted from the TORQUE comment and how nasty United was and the harm inflicted upon CAL. Then it turned into a why we don't wear our pin diatribe. Get over it fellas.

You guys need to stop looking for the boogeyman in places where he isn't.

I guess they have taught monkeys to fly, because we're seeing the proverbial feces-flinging from both sides of the aisle.

Let's review:

Lorenzo: gone.

ATSB: history.

TORQUE: over; stripped the nuts.

Every day: one day closer to a scab-free airline.

Get the thread back on topic or it closes.

The real enemy is incompetence at the top, misguided corporate priorities, and flagging service standards.

19 may 2028.

^^+1. And we can always hope they lose their medical or take early reirement.

Now: back to International flying growth. "Doctor, ever since I started flying to Rio, I've had this weird bump on my..."

TF, right?

Oh yeah, I fully support hiring every Gulf guy that wants to come back ASAP.

The real reason the ATSB denied the loan guarantee. My guess is that a pilot letter writing campaign had nothing to do with their decision.

Washington, D.C.) – The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today celebrated a victory as the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) announced it will stick with its June 17 decision to refuse a federal loan guarantee to United Airlines. United lowered the request from $1.6 billion to $1.1 billion last week in a third and final bid to secure federal backing for private loans. All board members joined in the decision, reaffirming that the company could probably obtain the $2 billion in private financing without a federal loan guarantee, and that the company’s struggle to emerge from bankruptcy did not threaten the nation’s aviation system. A federal guarantee would have made taxpayers responsible to cover the costs of the loan if the company defaulted. “With two out three federal agencies represented on the ATSB saying they would be open to reconsidering United’s application with more information, the board should pay heed to a recent statement by airline economist Daniel Kasper,” CCAGW President Tom Schatz said. “His May 19 expert report and declaration to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division stated, ‘Notwithstanding the progress the Company has made over the past 18 months, United still needs to reduce its costs wherever possible—including its retiree health costs—if it hopes to compete successfully against both low cost and other full service airlines for the long term.’ United Airlines is clearly not ready for prime-time flying,” CCAGW President Tom Schatz said.
“Mr. Kasper’s comments make it clear the company has not done enough to correct the problems that caused its bankruptcy in the first place. A quick screening of United shows that its problems can no longer be blamed on Sept. 11. If the application is approved, and a sound business plan never materializes, taxpayers will be left holding this carry-on bag,” Schatz said.
As reported by the Associated Press earlier today, Henry H. Harteveldt, vice president for travel research at Forrester Research, blamed United’s problems on “broader business issues” not related to Sept. 11. According to the New York Times, United Airlines’ operating costs are the second highest in the industry at 10.8 cents per seat per mile. Although the company reduced costs by 7 percent from 2001 to 2003, it still lags behind its competitors. Over the course of the last three years, United has lost almost $10 billion, including more than $3 billion while under bankruptcy protection during the last 16 months.
In December 2002, United was denied a similar request for a loan guarantee by ATSB because its business plan was found to be financially unsound and seriously flawed. The Board cited its responsibility to taxpayers as a major concern in deciding not to grant the loan.
“Nothing has changed since 2002 that is worth risking tax dollars, especially in a time of record federal budget deficits. ATSB needs to remember its past concern for taxpayers,” Schatz concluded. “It is time for United to leave the taxpayers’ nest and fly on its own. A loan guarantee is not a safety net – it’s a safety hammock, paid for by taxpayers. It would give the airline an unfair business advantage and encourage more risk-taking in the airline industry.”\

Between 2001 and 2003, the ATSB approved applications for loan guarantees from seven carriers: America West Airlines, US Airways, American Trans Air, Aloha Airlines, Frontier Airlines, Evergreen International Airlines, and World Airways. These carriers accepted loan guarantees worth $1.179 billion.

Not one of those was attacked on 9/11.

Scott

And how many of those are still around today? 1?

Well, AWA and US Air now count as 1 and there is Frontier, so, 2.

2 out of 7 ain't bad...Right? It is the airline industry after all....;)

AWA and US Air are now part of American.

As they didn't go out of business I think they are fair game for the count...Or you know like, whatever.

Sleeves-You need to understand the perspective. At the time, CAL was a total SCAB airline. Putting them out of business was a worthy goal. That would mean Lorenzo FAILED. It took those of us at EAL (yes, I am one of them) to drive the stake into his heart at the expense of our jobs. I would do it again a thousand times, because we are ALL better off without that miserable excuse of a BFMF. And make no mistake; it was the Eastern pilots strike of 1989 that took him down. Did we have our share of scabs? We did. But, there were enough of us to ensure his failure. Do your homework on the history of our (ALPA-and yes, it's not them, it's us) union and it's fight against Lorenzo types. They've existed since the 30s and have been our mortal enemy since. Smisek is just a renewed iteration of the same ilk. He HATES unionized employees and pilots in particular. The ONLY reason we are not out-sourced like the out station agents is that he can't; because of our ALPA negotiated contracted and the very real shortage of qualified pilots. Rant complete.

Captain obvious. "I wouldn't stay here tonight, and you should fix that pipe!":D