Seggy on Emirates!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks @jynxyjoe for the thorough answer. You were on point! Bravo! Thanks for the other answers too! Good reading. Now for something embarrassing:

I literally, just now, understood the title of this thread. I'll admit I only skimmed the first page and didn't read the article until a few mins ago. I honestly thought @Derg started this thread with an article about someone wearing a chewbaca suit on an Emirates flight and it turned into the thread it is now. Sorry @Seggy. I won't let it happen again ;)
 
@jynxyjoe : recklessly quoting real reporting from the Economist for years now... and by quoting he means remembering as best he can. When mostly remembered facts matter, think MONKEY!
 
So when he says that the 'US Airlines get subsidizes from the US Government due to the bankruptcy laws in the United States', you believe that?
Apparently you have forgotten the two-thirds of the $15 billion bailout doled out by the Department of Transportation from the Federal government funds approved by the President that went to the major carriers after 9/11. (5 billion in direct payments and 10 billion in loan guarantees for lost business). $20 million was shoveled to three bankrupt airlines like Vanguard, Midway, and Reliant. They also lost money on the loan guarantees to ATA Airlines and Aloha Airlines. Look at how many major carriers filed for bankruptcy after the bailouts. 80% of the monies went to the 9 largest commercial carriers at that time.UAL for instance, got the biggest slice of the pie at $644 million. The biggest airlines essentially got everything they asked for, and responded by laying off thousands of employees, drastically reducing service and eventually soon after filing for bankruptcy. More than 70,000 workers were fired and hundreds of flights were canceled after the bailout was signed into law. The golden parachutes and management payouts and bennies never missed a beat, however.

If the bailout wasn't enough for taxpayer-financed subsidies, the economic stimulus bill passed by Congress in March also allowed companies to file amended tax returns and receive refunds on taxes paid in past years for losses incurred in 2002 and 2001. UAL for example, received a $464 million tax refund, bringing their total compensation to over $1 billion. AA, DAL and other carriers also greatly benefited from the refunds.

Further, at the expense of taxpayers, the federal government has become a financial backstop for numerous failing airline carriers. Most of the companies that received a federal cash infusion had fiscal troubles that before both the events of September 11th and the economic slowdown. Bailing out unprofitable airlines only papers-over the long-term and structural problems of an embattled industry. Again, look at the mergers, BKs and simply no longer in business that has happened since then.

Small example: From 2012 WSJ: "American Airlines has saved $2.1 billion since 2006, thanks to two congressional measures that allowed it to reduce contributions to its pension plans. The company said it would make up any shortfall later.

Later has come, but there’s been a change in that plan.

American Airlines, whose parent company filed for bankruptcy in November, said this week that i wnats to terminate it's four pension plans for 130,000 workers and retirees and ask the federal government’s Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. to bail out its unfunded pension obligations to the tune of $9 billion. It would be the largest PBGC bailout ever. Without the congressional relief, the gap would have been smaller, the PBGC said.

The move, which needs approval from a New York judge, has angered the PBGC and labor unions representing American Airlines workers, in part because the airline had $4 billion in cash when it filed for bankruptcy and because it hasn’t yet made any proposal for restructuring its massive debt to financial institutions.

“American and other carriers have repeatedly asked Congress to give them funding relief in the last six years. More than $2 billion was diverted from their pension funds to their bankruptcy war chest,”Josh Gotbaum director of the PBGC, said Friday. “In effect, the Congress of the United States and the employees of American Airlines provided half of the money to sustain American in bankruptcy.”

You need to study up on the details of the BKs that the carriers have filed (some of them twice now) and just how much money the government has given them and just how the bankruptcy laws for those carriers has financially enhanced them, because they surely have.

BKs have become the norm for how carriers operate now. If you don't think that BKs are planned by management, then you are even more naive than I thought.

Here's an older but good article for you:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17858408/ns/business-us_business/t/airlines-bankruptcy-land/#.VJi0tf8JAA
 
BKs have become the norm for how carriers operate now. If you don't think that BKs are planned by management, then you are even more naive than I thought.
BK's do get planned but that's what happens to businesses when they fail but still have value to someone.

In fairness to airline management, the GAO has done a long and exhaustive analysis/investigation years back on management use of BK as a weapon against stakeholders (pilots, aircraft manufacturers, FA's, MX, hotels). The evidence is available for you to read, but the conclusion is that BK aren't used as a weapon and are only planned to save an airline, not a purposeful strategy to duck obligations at regular intervals.

You wrote a nice reply, I agree with most of it.
 
Apparently you have forgotten the two-thirds of the $15 billion bailout doled out by the Department of Transportation from the Federal government funds approved by the President that went to the major carriers after 9/11. (5 billion in direct payments and 10 billion in loan guarantees for lost business). $20 million was shoveled to three bankrupt airlines like Vanguard, Midway, and Reliant. They also lost money on the loan guarantees to ATA Airlines and Aloha Airlines. Look at how many major carriers filed for bankruptcy after the bailouts. 80% of the monies went to the 9 largest commercial carriers at that time.UAL for instance, got the biggest slice of the pie at $644 million. The biggest airlines essentially got everything they asked for, and responded by laying off thousands of employees, drastically reducing service and eventually soon after filing for bankruptcy. More than 70,000 workers were fired and hundreds of flights were canceled after the bailout was signed into law. The golden parachutes and management payouts and bennies never missed a beat, however.


If the bailout wasn't enough for taxpayer-financed subsidies, the economic stimulus bill passed by Congress in March also allowed companies to file amended tax returns and receive refunds on taxes paid in past years for losses incurred in 2002 and 2001. UAL for example, received a $464 million tax refund, bringing their total compensation to over $1 billion. AA, DAL and other carriers also greatly benefited from the refunds.

This was a one time measure taken by the government, not a continual state subsidy we see from the Middle East Carriers.

Further, at the expense of taxpayers, the federal government has become a financial backstop for numerous failing airline carriers. Most of the companies that received a federal cash infusion had fiscal troubles that before both the events of September 11th and the economic slowdown. Bailing out unprofitable airlines only papers-over the long-term and structural problems of an embattled industry. Again, look at the mergers, BKs and simply no longer in business that has happened since then.

Small example: From 2012 WSJ: "American Airlines has saved $2.1 billion since 2006, thanks to two congressional measures that allowed it to reduce contributions to its pension plans. The company said it would make up any shortfall later.

That's unethical business practice. Not a state subsidy.


Later has come, but there’s been a change in that plan.

American Airlines, whose parent company filed for bankruptcy in November, said this week that i wnats to terminate it's four pension plans for 130,000 workers and retirees and ask the federal government’s Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. to bail out its unfunded pension obligations to the tune of $9 billion. It would be the largest PBGC bailout ever. Without the congressional relief, the gap would have been smaller, the PBGC said.

The move, which needs approval from a New York judge, has angered the PBGC and labor unions representing American Airlines workers, in part because the airline had $4 billion in cash when it filed for bankruptcy and because it hasn’t yet made any proposal for restructuring its massive debt to financial institutions.

“American and other carriers have repeatedly asked Congress to give them funding relief in the last six years. More than $2 billion was diverted from their pension funds to their bankruptcy war chest,”Josh Gotbaum director of the PBGC, said Friday. “In effect, the Congress of the United States and the employees of American Airlines provided half of the money to sustain American in bankruptcy.”

You need to study up on the details of the BKs that the carriers have filed (some of them twice now) and just how much money the government has given them and just how the bankruptcy laws for those carriers has financially enhanced them, because they surely have.

BKs have become the norm for how carriers operate now. If you don't think that BKs are planned by management, then you are even more naive than I thought.

Of course Bankruptcies are planned by management. But to say that they are a form of government subsidies is laughable at best.

If other folks really believe that you can compare the bankruptcies in the United States Airline industry to state sponsorship, I have more bridges to sell.
 
I don't care for all the arguing, but the best comment has to be, "here's some advice, STOP OFFERING BAD SERVICE!"

That's like asking McDonalds to stop serving crappy food. You get what you pay for, I doubt Jeff Smisek's long term plan has ever included offering "BAD SERVICE." Maybe it's in United's mission statement, idk.:rolleyes:
 
Tourism/transportation is an important part of the government strategy to maintain the flow of cash into Dubai to be not as dependent on oil. The airline was founded by the royal family of Dubai. The current CEO is the son of the former ruler of Dubai, the brother of the former ruler of Dubai, and the uncle of the current ruler of Dubai. Need I go on more? I will.....Isn't he also the head of the equivalent of the FAA in Dubai? Do you think Richard Anderson would be appointed to be the FAA head here in the States while CEO of Delta? Is that a law we should change here in the States to level the playing field? Is that an innovative approach you talk about?

Oh, by the way.....your talking points are the same one used by a speaker I heard in 2011 with @ATN_Pilot.


Very common misunderstanding. The UAE GCAA is the regulatory body in the UAE that is the equivalent of the FAA. They are the ones who set the rules that Emirates and any other company in the UAE operate under. Sheikh Ahmed is not the head of the UAE GCAA he is the President of the Dubai Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) – the governing body that oversees the activities of Dubai International Airport, Maktoum International Airport and Dubai Duty Free, among others.

Care to try again?



TP
 
Very common misunderstanding. The UAE GCAA is the regulatory body in the UAE that is the equivalent of the FAA. They are the ones who set the rules that Emirates and any other company in the UAE operate under. Sheikh Ahmed is not the head of the UAE GCAA he is the President of the Dubai Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) – the governing body that oversees the activities of Dubai International Airport, Maktoum International Airport and Dubai Duty Free, among others.

Care to try again?



TP

Well...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Civil_Aviation_(Dubai)

It specifically mentioned and referenced that all the entities you mentioned were split off and that a focus was put on regulatory aspects of that agency.
 
Last edited:
Delta doesn't treat pax like crap anymore.


I wish this were the case.

I have more than 200k sky miles including my children and wife and put more on my delta Amex than the average American makes. My last three bookings have been absolutely the worse I've experienced. They made it right all three items but took me making phone calls and going pretty far up the tree.

I have been extremely loyal to Delta longer than I've known about this website and continue to fly them when traveling across the pacific. However I've come that close e to dropping them and flying other options.

I've been very very disappointed with them recently.
 
Well...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Civil_Aviation_(Dubai)

It specifically mentioned and referenced that all the entities you mentioned were split off and that a focus was put on regulatory aspects of that agency.


Again, not the equivalent of the FAA. The UAE GCAA is the regulatory body for airlines, general aviation, and airman in the UAE. Sultan Bin Saeed Al Mansoori is the Chairman of the UAE GCAA:

https://www.gcaa.ae/en/pages/default.aspx


TP
 
The person I was talking about sits on the Board of Directors for the GCAA. So it would be like Richard Anderson sitting on the Senate Transportation Committee while CEO of Delta.

Yes, it's a little incestuous but a far cry from the original claim you made. I suspect you learned something from this exchange today.

I think it would be great if Richard Anderson was on the Senate Transportation Committee. He is one of the more competent individuals in the airline business. To say he has no influence there though would be somewhat naïve.

If you were on a kick to get a more focused national aviation policy in the USA I would be with you 100%. It would be good for U.S. airlines and good for the economy. One of those win-win scenarios I like so much.

Which might bring us back to Emirates serving DXB-IAH in an A380. Why do they do that? The answer is that is was an under-served market. There is a lot of oil worker/executive movement between IAH and the Middle East. Add in connecting traffic from India and Africa and Emirates are able to fill up the airplane. I think only Atlas is doing the charters from IAH to Luanda, other than that no U.S. carrier or their alliance partners are serving the market. That's where U.S. carriers are falling down badly. Do a search for IAH-HYD. Only EK, QR, and BA are offering it with one stop service. No U.S. carrier. Then do a search IAH-LUN, again no U.S. carrier offering service in anything resembling a tolerable trip. Then do a search LAX-SGN. You can't get to Vietnam on a U.S. carrier. A country of 90 million people with a very large ethnic community in the USA all travelling on SQ, Thai, Philippine Airlines, CX, etc.

Instead ALPA, et al are worried about an insignificant Scandinavian airline offering Spirit Airline's level of service (or lack thereof) across the North Atlantic all while ignoring the 1.2 billion people in India and the billions more in Africa and Asia that don't have U.S. carriers as a choice to fly on.


TP
 
I wish this were the case.

I have more than 200k sky miles including my children and wife and put more on my delta Amex than the average American makes. My last three bookings have been absolutely the worse I've experienced. They made it right all three items but took me making phone calls and going pretty far up the tree.

I have been extremely loyal to Delta longer than I've known about this website and continue to fly them when traveling across the pacific. However I've come that close e to dropping them and flying other options.

I've been very very disappointed with them recently.
My dad couldn't take the Delta attitude on international after they bought NWA, went to United for a while and now at American. Thats not to say Delta didn't get better, but he was taking his business elsewhere early on.

I don't know how much pac and eur you're doing, but my old man is doing 10 or 12 business classes a year international plus all his domestic stuff that isn't SWA. He's not a sales guy traveling 180days a year though, so a lot of these miles programs just aren't for him.

I love talking to the freqent flyers if they can stand me, I'd love some sales big whig explain all that miles stuff to me someday and why they do everything they do. Looks like dark magic to me.
 
Yes, it's a little incestuous but a far cry from the original claim you made. I suspect you learned something from this exchange today.

It isn't a far cry at all from what I was saying.

I didn't learn a thing.

I think it would be great if Richard Anderson was on the Senate Transportation Committee. He is one of the more competent individuals in the airline business. To say he has no influence there though would be somewhat naïve.

If you were on a kick to get a more focused national aviation policy in the USA I would be with you 100%. It would be good for U.S. airlines and good for the economy. One of those win-win scenarios I like so much.

I would love a national aviation policy. Mine would probably look a lot different than yours though.

Which might bring us back to Emirates serving DXB-IAH in an A380. Why do they do that? The answer is that is was an under-served market. There is a lot of oil worker/executive movement between IAH and the Middle East. Add in connecting traffic from India and Africa and Emirates are able to fill up the airplane. I think only Atlas is doing the charters from IAH to Luanda, other than that no U.S. carrier or their alliance partners are serving the market. That's where U.S. carriers are falling down badly. Do a search for IAH-HYD. Only EK, QR, and BA are offering it with one stop service. No U.S. carrier. Then do a search IAH-LUN, again no U.S. carrier offering service in anything resembling a tolerable trip. Then do a search LAX-SGN. You can't get to Vietnam on a U.S. carrier. A country of 90 million people with a very large ethnic community in the USA all travelling on SQ, Thai, Philippine Airlines, CX, etc.

You can get to Vietnam one stop or with easy connections from the U.S. on a U.S. Airline (BTW it's a lot easier to figure that out than what I was trying to figure out). Maybe you can learn that the U.S. airlines aren't as far behind with their global route network, especially with their alliances, as you claim. See below...


Instead ALPA, et al are worried about an insignificant Scandinavian airline offering Spirit Airline's level of service (or lack thereof) across the North Atlantic all while ignoring the 1.2 billion people in India and the billions more in Africa and Asia that don't have U.S. carriers as a choice to fly on.


TP

Notice how Air India was brought into the STAR Alliance? That opens up a lot of revenue opportunities for United. Emirates isn't in a global alliance, they have to provide all their own lift to those secondary cities.

European Airlines, Asian, and U.S. airlines are covering that lift with their alliances.
 
Last edited:
And so is my wang.
Get out the tape measure

10805571_10152918902666800_2218006369037178269_n.jpg
 
My dad couldn't take the Delta attitude on international after they bought NWA, went to United for a while and now at American. Thats not to say Delta didn't get better, but he was taking his business elsewhere early on.

I don't know how much pac and eur you're doing, but my old man is doing 10 or 12 business classes a year international plus all his domestic stuff that isn't SWA. He's not a sales guy traveling 180days a year though, so a lot of these miles programs just aren't for him.

I love talking to the freqent flyers if they can stand me, I'd love some sales big whig explain all that miles stuff to me someday and why they do everything they do. Looks like dark magic to me.


It is dark magic. To make matters worse it cost me .01 to transfer my kids and wife's miles into my name.

I haven't noticed the cabin service to be worse rather it has been the bookings etc. I'm not sure when it became ok to book a flight with seats next to each other and then separate all four reservations. My 7 and 3 year old children can not travel alone, especially on 15 hour international flights.

The sad part is they don't rectify it until I remind them of all the other options I have.

I still fly with them because it's not all about the cheapest seat and I have "American pride"

I've flown just about every airline across the pacific and the best service I have ever received was on air New Zealand.

The last three flights with DAL have really sucked, but in the end they always make it right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top