An interesting observation. Of all the worlds 'best' airlines (best product, best managed, best financials, etc), not a single one of them is US based (Southwest excluded). Look at the successful airlines: Singapore, British Airways, Qantas, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Air France/KLM, Lufthansa. Most of them operate in higher taxed domiciles, with higher labour costs and higher operating costs than the US carriers. This being the case, why are the US airlines singularly hopeless? I believe it is to do with 'American' management. US companies are very resistant to having foreign CEO's. Perhaps it is time to realise that there are better ways to run an airline, and most of those better ideas are present in the minds of people from other countries. It seems suicidal for the US government and unions to resist allowing foreign companies to purchase a controlling share of a US airline. The way things are going, it will be your only chance of survival.....
It's not an invalid point, although Singapore is a lower taxed country and their labour costs will probably be lower than come of the others cited. It is interesting that all the ones cited are, or were, national flag carriers whereas I am not sure that the US has such an airline.
It's always been my contention that the reject executives from all other industries gravitate to the U.S. airline industry...whether they come from making car batteries or women's tampons...the rejects somehow become airline execs.
Many of your answers confirm my point. Why don't you try debating the facts..? The only arrogance involved is the arrogance of narrow-minded and blind US managers who have 'managed' their airlines to their impending doom. Nearly all of the companies I mentioned are privately owned (with the exception of Singapore and Emirates). Please do respond with more personal comments pertaining to my 'motives' and character. Will be interested to see if anyone can explain the facts that I have stated. Perhaps you would rather have a ringside seat to the total meltdown of the US carriers and the jobs they provide? Something to consider: British Airways last two CEO's were Australian and Irish......
Right on Apple Tree!! I have lived both here in the States and Europe. I am constantly amazed at the comparison between the US airlines and those from Europe (not to mention some Asian airlines like Cathay). BA has the most fantastic business class product. Night and day compared to that of United or American. The service is much better, the aircraft better maintained and cleaned, and the experience something you want to repeat. These airlines have to survive in a more difficult environment than the US carriers, and seem to manage to achieve great financial results, reinvest in new product and equipment, and basically show we Americans the way.
Although I don't like to admit it, you are right in pointing out the discrepancy between our airlines and those that you mention. Let BA take over American...please!
ps...btw, we Brits are useless at managing car companies...so don't think i'm being 'anti-american'...
It seems suicidal for the US government and unions to resist allowing foreign companies to purchase a controlling share of a US airline.
Not just airlines either... protectionism is rampant there. Competition is good for business goes the US mantra, as long as its a one way street...
I've been watching US companies buy up anyone here with a product even vaguely competing for last 20 years - said hundreds of small Brit businesses now subsumed into said larger US ones, all identity gone, all employees gone, workshops sold off, directors paid out silly sums for a couple of years to play the corporate game, sometimes enticed over the water, usually see the light sometime later, too late - all gone, often wifey as well
Buying up competitors is not competing, it's sidestepping genuine competition. Sorry, it has to be said, its' all been turned into a game of who can raise the most capital, not make the best product or offer the best service!
US companies, especially airlines, are in big trouble. The problem with American management:
1. Airline managers aren't "airline people." They don't care if it's an airline or candy company. They have NO passion for the product they provide, but are there only to extract as much compensation and privilege as they can in the shortest period of time, then move on . . . . like locusts through a farm field.
2. Incompetence is rewarded the same as competence. These guys all serve on each others Boards of Directors, like a corrupt "old boy" network and ensure that their compensations approach 4000 percent of the average worker. They then use the lie that it's simply market rate. What they don't tell you is that market rate is "fixed" by a wide network of corruption and mutual back-scratching.
3. They have no long term strategic thinking. Everything is short term and seeks to maximize their own personal compensation.
4. They don't think of themselves as Americans. They think themselves above the quaint notions of national identity. MONEY is their god and they see themselves as the new world aristocracy.
The US government is no better, failing badly both in national defense and in leadership of the economy. My guess is that the completely failed Bush Administration will soon push to sell off more of the nation's assets to foreigners, and of course, that money will go into the pockets new aristocracy.
I agree completely with Roadtrip. Those are the exact complaints of most US airline employees. The employees are mostly union and tied to their employers where as the execs just pass through plundering the company as they go.
I think if you look around this forum, that some of the comments apply across the globe. In the Middle East, Mr Hogan (EY) Down here Mr Dixon. Need I go on? However, only in the USA do you have Chapter 11. I suppose it is more of a surprise that more don't go to the wall with such people at the helm? Come to think of it, I am always amazed that the shareholders don't see this (greed & ineptitude) & get rid of them................
I agree with all of the above but this situation with the lack of good management isnt only with legacy carriers,it's happening in the low cost word too.
I think you have some very good points 'ATY' for the most part American airlines are a badly run mess, although I think that Continental should be added to the Southwest exception.
And while I understand that the Carriers you mentioned are now private entitities, they did have a hell of a head start didn't they ?
Singapore, BA, Qantas, were all government subsidised at one point, Ba was finally sold off by Maggie leaving them in the cold, with all their debts paid off (bought their Concordes for one pound each) and a dominant position at what was / is ? the worlds premier international hub.
Cathay was well managed from it's post war start, and they have capitalised on Hong kongs location and incredible economy.
Emirates ? well I don't think its quite fair to say they do not enjoy a significant advantage in fuel cost alone.
Air France and KLM both enjoyed Government subsidys in their time as did Lufthansa, they were, 'set free' once again in an extremely dominant position.
You would have to be a bit thick to screw up that advantage wouldn't you ?
The legacy US airlines never enjoyed the financial head start of the unquestionably fine carriers you mentioned, but went straight from a cozy regulated environment to a 'free for all'
That took many years to be replicated anywhere else in the world, plenty of time in which the older established carriers were able to adjust to the new environment and low cost carriers from their existing dominant positions.
American management is the epitome of greedy capitalist mercantilism...reap immediate rewards if possible or leech the airlines dry, then move on while the " proletariat " pick up the pieces. Having said that, the management may not be the only one to be blamed. After the misconceived deregulation by the Carter administration, the whole of US is full of airlines, competing to fulfill the travel bug of many " undeserving " travellers. Americans travel by air for the shortest distance when the love of big cars and gas guzzlers does not appeal to them for the slightest inconvenience. Where air travel is warranted for reasons like time constraints, urgent business or other pressing needs for the sensible, Americans travel by air at the slightest whim of fancy......must be a macho thing indicating status as citizens of the most " superior ' nation on earth. Well what do they care as long as there are emerging countries to mop up their mounting debts. A lot of air travel in the US are really unnecessary, adding carbon/toxic gas emissions to the already sickened atmosphere. However greedy " entrepreuners " love and encourage this, leading to start ups after start ups, flooding the market with " cheap " travel which really mean overcapacity, too many pilots, cheap tickets and absolutely cheap labour.... there are pilots working for peanuts!
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
