Has anyone verified anything she's posted as fact yet though? Who does she work for? For how long? Etc. Pretty much anyone around here that makes these kinds of claims can substantiate them, and they are verified in the industry as knowing WTF they are talking about. Has this happened with her yet, or are we just taking it as gospel with no real proof?
An effort to educate (world airline strategy)
- Thread starter typhoonpilot
- Start date
Has anyone verified anything she's posted as fact yet though? Who does she work for? For how long? Etc. Pretty much anyone around here that makes these kinds of claims can substantiate them, and they are verified in the industry as knowing WTF they are talking about. Has this happened with her yet, or are we just taking it as gospel with no real proof?
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
Our source...was the NEW YORK TIMES!
Englisch Wortstellung ist verwirrend. Or, in English, "English word order confusing is!"
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
Очевидно, шпион
Koenigsberger_Katjase
Well-Known Member
Sorry he's the former head of Pacific planning. He is not there any more I found out, so I guess it's very likely I could be wrong about SFO-CTU. We'll see
Englisch Wortstellung ist verwirrend. Or, in English, "English word order confusing is!"
It's usually not, but I maybe had one too many Hefes last night before posting
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I'm with you on all the rest of the issues in this thread, but this is where you go off the rails.
You do realize that those "wide spread calls for reform" of the Ex-Im are all coming form the far right wing nuts that you usually despise, right? It's the talk radio wackjobs, the Ayn Rand aficionados, etc. Organized labor in general is very fond of the Ex-Im, as it leads to lots of jobs for unionized workers here in the States. The only reason that ALPA is on the other side of this issue is because Moak is one of aforementioned far right wing nuts.
Sorry he's the former head of Pacific planning. He is not there any more I found out, so I guess it's very likely I could be wrong about SFO-CTU. We'll see
And now it sounds as if your friend is outside "the circle of trust" too.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Sometimes the conflicts of unionized labor cross each other, such as the case here. ALPA has been a lot quieter on the bank's future so I think that it is being worked out internally with the AFL-CIO.
citrus
No good millennial
Agreed. It's pretty brazen of you call out someone's specific title at a company. I would highly recommend against it since this would be confidential information and an easy terminable offense for the individual.
It's happened before. That's all I was pointing out. If one isn't willing to stand behind what one says, and where/how one got information, then it's probably best to keep ones mouth shut. No one, as far as I can tell, has verified anything from her posts, and not a single member has stepped up and vouched for her that has any credibility.
Edit to add: I've had mine handed to me on a silver platter before for calling B.S. and being told I was wrong. I'd rather that than someone spew a bunch of misinformation.
Last edited:
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
Emirates CEO Tim Clark Blasts Big 3 U.S. Airlines, Especially Delta -- Since 'Delta is Delta'
Emirates CEO Tim Clark makes it clear that he finds Delta to be the most problematic of the big three U.S. carriers.
Clark doesn’t like American or United much either, but he singled out Delta during his talk Tuesday at the National Press Club.
Clark noted that Emirates delivers 500,000 passengers to U.S. carriers annually. “We do feed passengers to them (and) maybe $100 million or $150 million a year in incremental revenue,” he said. “I haven’t heard them saying they don’t want it.”
Despite the potential for even higher benefits, he said, the big three won’t code share with Emirates. He said that after merging with Continental, United cancelled a code share agreement between Emirates and Continental involving passengers who connected at London Gatwick for Dubai, Houston or Newark. American, he said, “refused to deal with us.
“And Delta is Delta – enough said there,” Clark said. He apparently referred to Delta’s role as the initiator of the campaign to challenge the Middle East carriers’ efforts to dump capacity in the U.S., a campaign that American and United subsequently joined.
Earlier, Clark blasted Delta for its aggressive effort to return capital to shareholders. “Delta is returning $7 billion to its shareholders,” he said. “Why couldn’t they spend that improving what they do – investing in product, making the consumer enjoy their product?
“But no, they return $7 billion to their shareholders – we don’t do that.”
Delta responded to Clark in a public statement, saying “While Delta has returned $3.2 billion to investors since 2013, the Atlanta-based carrier over that same timeframe has invested $4 billion in aircraft acquisitions and $5 billion in customer experience and product initiatives including terminal renovations in New York and Los Angeles, premium cabin upgrades, customer-focused mobile technology, expanded in-flight entertainment, dining and lie-flat seats, enhanced Sky Club experiences and more.”
Clark also suggested that Delta and United, which each operate single daily flights to Dubai, should boost service. Delta flies from Atlanta, while United flies from Washington Dulles. Clark said passenger load factors on the flights are in the eighties (percent) and nineties (percent), and that “under normal rules, you would put a bigger flight on – but they don’t.”
Flying to the Middle East and Asia “is a huge opportunity and one that continues to grow,” he said. “Why is American Airlines not in the Middle East at all? How can we be harming American Airlines if they don’t operate there?”
In general, the big three U.S. carriers all maintain that it is difficult to compete in the Middle East and Asia because they are not subsidized while the principal competitors — Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways — are subsidized and therefore can buy newer aircraft and offer lower fares without worrying about making a profit.
Clark spoke as Emirates unveiled a 400-page rebuttal to a report by the big three U.S. carriers that lists $39 billion in government subsidies, and a $3 billion benefit from non-unionized workforces, for Emirates, Etihad and Qatar. The totals include $6.8 billion in subsidies and unfair benefits to Emirates alone.
Responding to the filing, Jill Zuckman, spokesperson for the Partnership for Open & Fair Skies, which represents the big three carriers and their labor unions, responded in a prepared statement.
“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,” Zuckman said. “Our investigation shows that these massive subsidies have allowed Emirates, Etihad and Qatar airlines to expand far beyond what market forces could ever support.”
Clark did cite some U.S. airlines favorably. He said he has been asked whether Emirates would want to take a stake in JetBlue. “The opportunity is there,” he said. “But we as a rule do not involve ourselves in the equity of other carriers. We prefer to strike meaningful relationships with those carriers.
“The relationship we have with JetBlue is one of the best,” he said. “But they are not alone,” he said, noting that Emirates also has a good relationship with Alaska.
Emirates CEO Tim Clark makes it clear that he finds Delta to be the most problematic of the big three U.S. carriers.
Clark doesn’t like American or United much either, but he singled out Delta during his talk Tuesday at the National Press Club.
Clark noted that Emirates delivers 500,000 passengers to U.S. carriers annually. “We do feed passengers to them (and) maybe $100 million or $150 million a year in incremental revenue,” he said. “I haven’t heard them saying they don’t want it.”
Despite the potential for even higher benefits, he said, the big three won’t code share with Emirates. He said that after merging with Continental, United cancelled a code share agreement between Emirates and Continental involving passengers who connected at London Gatwick for Dubai, Houston or Newark. American, he said, “refused to deal with us.
“And Delta is Delta – enough said there,” Clark said. He apparently referred to Delta’s role as the initiator of the campaign to challenge the Middle East carriers’ efforts to dump capacity in the U.S., a campaign that American and United subsequently joined.
Earlier, Clark blasted Delta for its aggressive effort to return capital to shareholders. “Delta is returning $7 billion to its shareholders,” he said. “Why couldn’t they spend that improving what they do – investing in product, making the consumer enjoy their product?
“But no, they return $7 billion to their shareholders – we don’t do that.”
Delta responded to Clark in a public statement, saying “While Delta has returned $3.2 billion to investors since 2013, the Atlanta-based carrier over that same timeframe has invested $4 billion in aircraft acquisitions and $5 billion in customer experience and product initiatives including terminal renovations in New York and Los Angeles, premium cabin upgrades, customer-focused mobile technology, expanded in-flight entertainment, dining and lie-flat seats, enhanced Sky Club experiences and more.”
Clark also suggested that Delta and United, which each operate single daily flights to Dubai, should boost service. Delta flies from Atlanta, while United flies from Washington Dulles. Clark said passenger load factors on the flights are in the eighties (percent) and nineties (percent), and that “under normal rules, you would put a bigger flight on – but they don’t.”
Flying to the Middle East and Asia “is a huge opportunity and one that continues to grow,” he said. “Why is American Airlines not in the Middle East at all? How can we be harming American Airlines if they don’t operate there?”
In general, the big three U.S. carriers all maintain that it is difficult to compete in the Middle East and Asia because they are not subsidized while the principal competitors — Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways — are subsidized and therefore can buy newer aircraft and offer lower fares without worrying about making a profit.
Clark spoke as Emirates unveiled a 400-page rebuttal to a report by the big three U.S. carriers that lists $39 billion in government subsidies, and a $3 billion benefit from non-unionized workforces, for Emirates, Etihad and Qatar. The totals include $6.8 billion in subsidies and unfair benefits to Emirates alone.
Responding to the filing, Jill Zuckman, spokesperson for the Partnership for Open & Fair Skies, which represents the big three carriers and their labor unions, responded in a prepared statement.
“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,” Zuckman said. “Our investigation shows that these massive subsidies have allowed Emirates, Etihad and Qatar airlines to expand far beyond what market forces could ever support.”
Clark did cite some U.S. airlines favorably. He said he has been asked whether Emirates would want to take a stake in JetBlue. “The opportunity is there,” he said. “But we as a rule do not involve ourselves in the equity of other carriers. We prefer to strike meaningful relationships with those carriers.
“The relationship we have with JetBlue is one of the best,” he said. “But they are not alone,” he said, noting that Emirates also has a good relationship with Alaska.
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
Note the highlighted portion of the article and try to follow the reasoning here.
Emirates business model flies a lot of Indians (from India) to the USA. Previous to Emirates entering the market in 2004 with their first flight to JFK the majority of India travelers, outside of Mumbai and Delhi, would have flown British Airways, Air India, KLM, Lufthansa, or some other carriers. Almost certainly not on a U.S. carrier. BA alone flies to 25 U.S. cities and Lufthansa 17 so it is highly unlikely there was much opportunity for their American code share partners to pick up any of that revenue.
Now that Emirates flies to many cities in the USA they have taken some of that traffic away from Air India and the European carriers and delivered incremental revenue to jetBlue and Alaska Airlines, among others. Net benefit is to the U.S. airline pilot, especially those at jetBlue and Alaska.
Typhoonpilot
Emirates business model flies a lot of Indians (from India) to the USA. Previous to Emirates entering the market in 2004 with their first flight to JFK the majority of India travelers, outside of Mumbai and Delhi, would have flown British Airways, Air India, KLM, Lufthansa, or some other carriers. Almost certainly not on a U.S. carrier. BA alone flies to 25 U.S. cities and Lufthansa 17 so it is highly unlikely there was much opportunity for their American code share partners to pick up any of that revenue.
Now that Emirates flies to many cities in the USA they have taken some of that traffic away from Air India and the European carriers and delivered incremental revenue to jetBlue and Alaska Airlines, among others. Net benefit is to the U.S. airline pilot, especially those at jetBlue and Alaska.
Typhoonpilot
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Is it?
Because I can easily make the argument that the code share is hurting lucrative international growth for the pilot group because if you farm out your international lift, you aren't flying that which leads to limited growth, pay, and QOL opportunities that international flying provides.
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
So you're saying that jetBlue and Alaska Airlines, two all narrow body airlines that have stretched to being short haul international were planning their own service to India?
TP
Seggy
Well-Known Member
A decade ago, how many islands in Hawaii did Alaska fly to? Was JetBlue doing premium transcontinental service at that time as well? Were these even in the cards of these airlines to look at these markets? Doubtful.
Businesses change over time. As you keep saying 'airlines need to evolve' and the natural progression for these carriers could have included larger equipment for longer haul international flights. But as they 'farm it out', who knows?
I wonder if after the large expansion America West made in the early 90s, would possibly make some carriers cautious in doing this. Remembering that America West was a domestic airline whose biggest plane was the 757, who decided to get into the Hawaii/Japan game and buy a few 747s and jump in......in over their heads some would say. Granted, the start of Gulf War 1 in that same early 90s time didn't help.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Seriously? You are comparing the airline business of 1990 to 2015 in an attempt to make a point?
Was Southwest flying to MCO in 1990? What about AirTran? How about the orders Pan Am has for those A310s!
I'm seriously asking if things like that are a consideration or worry still of some airlines, or the business in general. I don't know the answer to that. It seems today that chances of something big worldwide occurring that could squash best laid plans or gambles, is higher than back then. I do wonder if had Desert Storm never occurred, if America West would've ever seen that first BK, or even subsequent ones.
Just an interesting musing.
'90 or '91, I flew an AW 747 from HNL back to the 48. This was the days of free booze and warm towels on arrival to freshen up.
Ecl!pse
Well-Known Member
You are asking the right questions. Airlines still generally have little appetite for enterprise risk. Moving from solely NB operations to WB operations is a large risk with significant complexity, and many of the aforementioned carriers would be hesitant to jump into that flying.
Segg's is correct that over time business adapt to their environments. But the risk associated with new stations and new configurations, on the same equipment type, is far lower than the risk associated with both new equipment types and new markets/competitive arenas. That said, I do think in time we'll see the current NB players (ALK, LUV, JBLU, etc.) move into widebodies to diversify. Not in the immediate future though, IMHO.
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
You sure that wasn't the massage on hotel street before going to the airport???JEP said:
