Schibulsky, GoreTex et all, you guys are making interesting points..but I can't help thinking that your wider view (context) is certainly not on the agenda with respect to Canada, the fatherland, and a few other places besides who are now making noises about the unfairness they face in their competitive fight against EK (lets be honest, the goat and EY are bit players at the moment)
Protectionism in its various forms has done little other than delay innovation and evolution in the marketplace, it is a useful tool to delay, but it will only ever delay the inevitable.
EK's geographic and structural cost advantages aren't going away anytime soon, moreover the airlines' commercial department (inspite of the usual line pilot grumbles) continue to put bums on seats, cargo in holds and make the airline fantastically profitable.
Despite what others think, my view is that the only way to effectively compete against the likes of EK requires a competitor to play to their strengths. For EU carriers that means innovation innovation innovation, Air NZ IMHO (although in a different hemisphere) are a good example of what can be done with a little bit of lateral thinking.
Governments can and will continue to put artifical trade barriers in place to protect what they see as strategic industries etc...but the reality is the market will decide on its course.
Look at the traffic now choosing AMS instead of LHR, or using SEA instead of YVR.
Lastly with respect to Pan Am, Schibulsky, most countries had little choice given the persona of Mr Tripp and his tacit approval from the US state department, it was 10% about industry development, and 90% spreading US influence
