Oh please. Look at the long thin routes that my place is starting like SFO-CTU, the addition of Air India in the Star Alliance, the recent purchases of Brazilian Airlines by United and Delta for easier code-share rights, and a host of other things shows that the United States Carriers aren't forgetting that international air travel is the bread and butter of the business.
I have, in fact, mentioned the SFO-CTU route as a shining example of what needs to be done by the U.S. carriers. It's a good start, but that is about the only example that can be found. There needs to be about 100 more of those routes started to catch up to where they need to be.
In regards to Air India, I would not hold that up as a good decision in any context. That airline is not a good addition to the alliance. Anybody that flies a code shared ticket bought from UAL on them one time will probably not return to UAL again.
Since you bring up the alliances with Brazilian carriers, I'll chime in. Here you are trying to "protect" U.S. airline jobs on the one hand, but when they are given away with the other hand you use that as a good example. UAL's new alliance with Azul will likely mean no new flying by UAL into Brazil and perhaps even a reduction of the current flying over time. While there may be an increase in revenue to the parent company and there may be increased domestic flying as a result of connecting passenger, I do not see alliances like that as a win for the U.S. airline pilot. That was who we are trying to help after all, isn't it?
Just to remind folks, the coalition against the ME3, which includes industry here in the states, international players such as Air Canada, Lufthansa, Air France/KLM, and labor want 2 of the 115 Open Skies agreements looked at. We aren't afraid of fair competition, we want fair competition. You have admitted that Qatar and Ethiad are getting unfair government subsidies. Emirates does as well, you just won't admit it. That creates an unfair advantage and needs to be addressed.
Again, there is no proof that Emirates is subsidized like you and the coalition claim. You've been given a link to read that will help you see the facts.
I just want to make it clear to everyone that he has A LOT of interests in the success of these ME3 Carriers. He isn't giving an impartial view. I will admit my view is obviously skewed towards the US Airlines, but folks need to make sure he also has a very skewed view. Would
@Derg say that bankruptcy law is a government subsidy? I don't think so. Neither would 99.99999% of other pilots that went through that process or under the laws of the treaties in place.
Ah, the old attack the messenger ploy.
Actually most people outside of the USA see U.S. bankruptcy laws as an unfair competitive advantage for U.S. companies. That is a simple fact.
Now since you are so against subsidies and export credit financing might I ask why it is okay that the heavily subsidized Airbus industries and their export credit agency financing are okay? If the U.S. carriers and ALPA are so much against subsidies and so much against government back financing why is it they are taking advantage of it to buy hundreds of Airbus aircraft? The hypocritical nature of it would be laughable if it were not for the fact that it adversely affects American workers at companies like Boeing, Honeywell, Goodrich, GE, Pratt & Whitney, etc.
Typhoonpilot