Emirates' "Golden Age of Travel"

1. Helps when you have government subsidies.
2. Golden age was great, but only the elite and those on company business flew much. I was middle class but the only time I flew was when my wealthy grandmother payed for it.
3. Can't imagine what would happen if US airlines tried to use the hiring/firing rules for FAs that foreign airlines used. If only...
 
Years ago I was non-reving on a certain airline where the pilots wear double breasted jackets and the #1 FA was working the flight. Look up worthless old hag in a dictionary and there is a picture of her. I don't see any FAs from these airlines in the airports that even remotely resemble her.
 
Blackhawk said:
1. Helps when you have government subsidies.
2. Golden age was great, but only the elite and those on company business flew much. I was middle class but the only time I flew was when my wealthy grandmother payed for it.
3. Can't imagine what would happen if US airlines tried to use the hiring/firing rules for FAs that foreign airlines used. If only...
Click to expand...

Although I completely oppose subsidies I would caution that nothing has been proven yet, so until we hear anything officially, I would reserve judgement. Even though WTO doesn't count bankruptcies as "subsidies" I think we all know that AAL, DAL, UAL have all used bankruptcies (multiple times in some cases) to wipe their slates of their obligations to their stock and debt holders, business partners and their employees. Plus, looking at the fact that the government has allowed so much consolidation within the last decade alone, I thought they all pitched these mergers to create synergies and economies of scale LOL? All of this should put them at an advantage to fight against any entrant within the NA market. US3's international growth is tepid at best IMO and they're now chasing profitability whereas ME3 are chasing market share - two very different benchmarks.

Additionally, if anything the service that the ME3 provide goes to highlight the fact that there is market for a superior product and service - one that AAL, DAL and UAL haven't been able to provide. We wouldn't be seeing the kind of growth by ME3 unless there was a demand, I recently read that Emirates will be up to 105 weekly flights within the US. JFK for example will be serviced by 4 A380s daily (3 direct + 1 through Milan).

And to borrow an argument out of the ME3's book, where were the US carriers when no such market existed before? Just because the US3 weren't able to create or sustain a market in certain sectors doesn't rule out the fact that others can't.

Competition breads innovation and creativity, I think its time that the US3 step up to the plate rather than crying foul and advocating protectionist legislation - this will only hurt the US travel market.
 
citrus said:
Although I completely oppose subsidies I would caution that nothing has been proven yet, so until we hear anything officially, I would reserve judgement. Even though WTO doesn't count bankruptcies as "subsidies" I think we all know that AAL, DAL, UAL have all used bankruptcies (multiple times in some cases) to wipe their slates of their obligations to their stock and debt holders, business partners and their employees. Plus, looking at the fact that the government has allowed so much consolidation within the last decade alone, I thought they all pitched these mergers to create synergies and economies of scale LOL? All of this should put them at an advantage to fight against any entrant within the NA market. US3's international growth is tepid at best IMO and they're now chasing profitability whereas ME3 are chasing market share - two very different benchmarks.

Additionally, if anything the service that the ME3 provide goes to highlight the fact that there is market for a superior product and service - one that AAL, DAL and UAL haven't been able to provide. We wouldn't be seeing the kind of growth by ME3 unless there was a demand, I recently read that Emirates will be up to 105 weekly flights within the US. JFK for example will be serviced by 4 A380s daily (3 direct + 1 through Milan).

And to borrow an argument out of the ME3's book, where were the US carriers when no such market existed before? Just because the US3 weren't able to create or sustain a market in certain sectors doesn't rule out the fact that others can't.

Competition breads innovation and creativity, I think its time that the US3 step up to the plate rather than crying foul and advocating protectionist legislation - this will only hurt the US travel market.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that the airlines used bankruptcy laws, but those laws were not designed specifically for the airlines. Chapter 11 was designed to give companies the ability to restructure while staying viable versus the liquidation route.
I don't disagree with the US airlines needing to step up. While tongue in cheek, however, my point about the FAs is valid and is an example of what US carriers must face as far as government regulation. Could you imagine the fire storm in this country if an airline followed the hiring practices of Air Emirates for FA's? Man, I wish they could...
 
Seggy said:
No, I will continue to do so. It is apples to apples as well.

http://www.openandfairskies.com/dubai-inc/
Click to expand...


Your intractableness is indicative of the ineptness within ALPA national when it comes to strategy. They would be well served to stop lumping Emirates in with Etihad and Qatar. It would make their "subsidy" arguments much stronger.

Honestly, if ALPA wants to win a battle like this they have to show some intelligence. As an example, your letter to the editor was very simplistic. Perhaps that is because you were doing that on purpose for an uninformed target audience or perhaps you really just do not understand the entire situation and it's dynamics.

Legislators and government officials will see right through ALPA and U.S. airline management's arguments against the Middle East three, especially with Emirates lumped in together. Emirates will be able to clearly show that they are not subsidized in any way. That kind of destroys the case and shows a certain form of desperation. Once that is done it throws some doubt as to the veracity of any other claims against Etihad and Qatar.

Emirates is the biggest threat because they are the oldest and most well established so perhaps that is why ALPA and U.S. airline management have chosen to keep them included in the argument even when they could find no real subsidies in their two year investigation.


Typhoonpilot
 
I don't know if it will work, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

For US carriers who tend to have networks with a high frequency of flights in a relatively closely spaced route network, flying in First/Business class is primarily a reward for frequent fliers who fly a lot on that carrier. The profit is based on selling a relatively cheap/value product at a high volume.

For long haul international carriers such as Emirates, it's to make your First/Business class so attractive that you can sell those tickets at a high premium, and make your profit off of that. The seats in the back are just to break even. The marketing message- at least to Western audiences- seems to fit that model, as it should.

Okay back to studying...
 
I looked around the terminal today when this ad was playing.

Nobody had interest.

I thought it was a nice ad though.
 
AAL made $4 bil in profit last year. Half is being used to buy back stock. Yet the food at McDonald's taste better and has less preservatives than the crap they give to first class passengers.

Older FA's are actually better IMO. They are much more educated and easier to deal with than the just-out-of-waitressing ones we've hired recently. So unprofessional. Now that doesn't mean I want a cranky one, but most are pretty good.

The airlines need a roaming team that observes all the customer service interactions. That is their main failure at this point. Go to a hotel, if they treated me like I've seen agents and FA's treat passengers they would be fired on the spot!
 
Emirates formally rebuts US carriers' subsidy claims
By: Ghim-Lay Yeo
Washington DC
Source:

Emirates Airline says it was assured by the US government that it would assess the ongoing dispute over alleged subsidies to Gulf carriers, without being influenced by the three US mainline carriers.

“We were assured by each department that they would examine this case on the facts, that they would not be influenced by theatre, tactics, or whatever,” says Emirates president Tim Clark at a media briefing in Washington DC today.

Clark met on 29 June with officials from the Departments of Transportation, State and Commerce. The three agencies are tasked with reviewing the allegations of Delta Air Lines, American Airlines and United Airlines that Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad Airways have received more than $42 billion in state subsidies.

Emirates filed its formal response to the allegations today. The 210-page report is a point-by-point rebuttal of the US carriers’ accusations, says Emirates. The US mainline carriers in March released a white paper detailing the alleged subsidies received by the Gulf carriers.

It is not immediately clear when the US government will take a decision, if any, in handling the US carriers’ complaints. Delta, American and United are calling for the US government to stop the Gulf carriers from adding new flights to the USA and begin talks with the UAE and Qatar, but this has not happened. Clark says today that US officials have not asked Emirates to hold off on adding new capacity.

Clark reckons that the three US agencies will likely review the allegations in “July or August”. “They’ve been receptive, they’ve been listening. They’ve been very anxious to receive this document to put some balance in the argument,” he says. “This inter-agency group will eventually - I hope - come up with an assessment from the facts and do the right thing.”

In Emirates’ response, the Dubai-based carrier rebuts the US carriers’ allegations, including those that claim Emirates had its fuel hedging losses assumed by the Dubai government and that the airline had paid below market rates for products and services.

The US carriers say that the Dubai government gave Emirates a multi-billion dollar subsidy by assuming its fuel hedging losses in 2008 to 2009 when fuel prices were volatile.

In response, Emirates says it had transferred its fuel hedging contracts to state-owned fund Investment Corporation of Dubai (ICD) to avoid a misleading picture of its operating results due to mark to market paper losses. Delta took the same position in its 2009 financial results, points out Emirates.

The fuel hedging losses were ultimately paid using Emirates’ resources, says the Gulf carrier. The airline paid dividends to ICD, and the fund eventually made a profit of $100 million in net fuel hedging gains, says Emirates.

Emirates also refutes allegations that it paid below market rates for jet fuel and airport fees at Dubai International airport, among other services.

The US carriers and their unions, which have formed a coalition to lobby the US government for action on the Gulf subsidies allegations, were quick to respond today to Emirates’ filing.

“Emirates can submit as many pages as it wants, but it still won’t paper over what has been well-documented: Emirates has received billions in subsidies and unfair benefits from the treasury of the UAE,” says a spokesperson for the Partnership for Open and Fair Skies. “We respectfully ask that the US government request consultations with Qatar and the UAE, and stand up against these unfair government subsidies that violate our open skies agreement.”

The issue has sharply divided the airline industry. US carriers JetBlue Airways, Hawaiian Airlines and FedEx have called on the US government to ignore the mainline carriers’ call for action. Delta, American and United have been backed by Lufthansa and Air Canada in their campaign.
 
typhoonpilot said:
The issue has sharply divided the airline industry. US carriers JetBlue Airways, Hawaiian Airlines and FedEx have called on the US government to ignore the mainline carriers’ call for action. Delta, American and United have been backed by Lufthansa and Air Canada in their campaign.
Click to expand...

Pardon me if this has already been explained before or elsewhere, but what is the general reason(s) or agenda of the underlined carriers and their respective stances on this issue........the three US ones being with the ME, and the 2 foreign ones being against?
 
The easiest one to explain is FedEx. FedEx relies heavily on 5th and 7th freedom flying. They have over 40 frequencies per week through Dubai, none of which are non-stop to the USA. They are carrying packages from Dubai to countries other than the USA. Any moves towards protectionism by the U.S. government could result in a backlash against FedEx, not only in the UAE but in many other parts of the world.

JetBlue codeshares with carriers operating into JFK. They get a benefit in the form of connecting traffic to/from their route network. So any move to reduce the flying of their code share partners would end up being a reduction in revenue for them. Hawaiian is probably similar, although I am not sure.

Lufthansa and Air Canada share the view of the Legacy U.S. carriers towards protecting their home carriers from competition. In the case of Canada, they only allow 3 times weekly service to Emirates even though the market could easily sustain daily service and even though Air Canada does not serve the YYZ-DXB route. Germany restricts Emirates to 4 cities in their country. They will not allow any further expansion.

The important thing to remember is that not one U.S. pilot job has been lost or harmed by the emergence of the Middle East carriers. Since Emirates began operating to the USA both Delta and United have started service to Dubai and their flights are doing quite well. Look at the graphs showing the growth in Africa, Asia, and Other markets that I posted in another thread and you'll see the tremendous emergence of new traffic in those regions that the ME3 are serving. What truly confounds me is why the U.S. carriers do not see that simple truth and why they are not taking steps to capture some of that revenue.


Typhoonpilot
 
Skåning said:
Or union, kinda like your shop right?
Click to expand...
I simply, politely, but firmly say "no" when they do something out of policy. It works surprisingly well, and I don't feel threatened when I can quote chapter and verse and more or less have my chain of command on the same page of "yes, we should follow our policy."

(We don't HAVE a lot of policy, which helps with that.)
 
typhoonpilot said:
Legislators and government officials will see right through ALPA and U.S. airline management's arguments against the Middle East three, especially with Emirates lumped in together.
Click to expand...

This has not been my experience, perhaps because the coalition fighting the expansion of the ME3 is right! Imagine that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top