SMT, that's not entirely true that US are domestic only. Most of the big 3 domestic feed comes from their regional airline partners, by most, I mean 50-60%. So that leaves the remaining 40-50% to be divided up by the mainline fleet. A good portion of that is operating internationally. Most int'l flights don't charge for food, only bags. As far as the debate on that topic it all comes down to the marketplace, the consumer. THIS is what the consumer ultimately wanted, meaning an "unbundled" product. US consumers typically have no loyalty to any given carrier and are often members of all FF programs. They shop in the following manner 1) On-time ranking 2) Price 3) the rest, the fluff.
Nobody really wants a crappy US domestic meal, so why provide it? On the int'l flights, meals are still provided. SWA will start up Central America flights this year and so we'll see if the public choses price over amenities. I'm guessing they'll chose price. If SWA starts to dominate, the US carriers will drop the food on those segments in order to match price. Sure the public will whine about it, but like I said, it's ultimately what they wanted.
Continental was the last hold out to serve meals? It made no difference in terms of customer retention. Sure people would say they preferred CAL over the others, but they'd still fly American, UAL (prior to merger) or DAL just to save 8 bucks on ticket. So CAL had to ditch the free meal service on domestic as well. Hawaiian still serves meals but they typically dominate their markets and are sort of a niche carrier.
With respect to bags... nobody likes it but, again, it is what the customer wanted, by default of their lack of loyalty to any given carrier and their propensity to chase around the last buck on tickets. The airlines tested the waters by first charging $15 for the first bag, then $25, then that same amount for the second bag. Now it's graduated up to $45 per bag. Ouch! But US airline managements also did one thing carriers like EY and QR haven't bothered to consider, capacity discipline. IOW, they keep demand just ahead of supply (of airline seats), which gives them pricing power. They don't order mass amounts of aircraft then guess where to fly them. Instead they surgically pick their future markets and study whether it makes sense to order growth planes. By restricting capacity, all 3 benefit. It's basic business sense.
Don't like the bag charges? You can fly SWA and take all day to get to your destination because of their point-to-point network. But since time is more valuable than money, the core of the big 3 carriers customers still want to fly via the hub-and-spoke system. And seeing how there's a shortage of seats, the big 3 can finally charge a cost-plus rate for the lift. Those who want to travel with too much crap can pay for it. Those who don't can still bring their carry-on. So the big 3 in the US have the ticket price just low enough to be competitive and keep the government off their backs, while competing with the LCCs, but if you want more on your pizza, you pay for it. Want a meal? Pay. Want to bring 10 pairs of shoes for that weekend trip? Pay. Like anything else in life. Want to save money? Eat before you get on board and travel light (what most people do).
As far as the OPs questions, if I may add my $.02. I flew in the M.E. and S. Asia on contract jobs for years, so I'm a bit more qualified to comment than the average Yank who isn't presently flying for EK, EY, or QR. The issues is labor... ME carriers and some S. Asian carriers lack proper labor protections afforded by traditional unions. As long as that's the case there is nobody going to bat for you while you're out flying the line. The only thing assuring your career satisfaction is supply and demand. As long as there is an endless supply of applicants to take your place, which there is, mgmt will undermine you at every turn, with respect to how it deals with pilots, etc. Sure they'll pay heed when they turnover reaches an unusual level. And no they're not going to create all that hostile an atmosphere for fear of pissing off the pilots. But the overall changes in terms of upward progression will always be far less than what the pilots were expecting and deserve. It is what it is. Contrary to popular belief, unions don't kill an airline. Look at UAL, DAL, and AAL.
The only way out is to do what thousands of EK aviators before you have done and vote with your feet. Otherwise, relax, take comfort in the fact that there are still quite a few good attributes to the EK career, and enjoy your time there. Just don't expect much in the way of positive change.
NOTE: I'm not trying to denigrate EK. I have many buddies there who really like it. But having worked at too many non-union carriers in the past, I prefer the union-protection for my career over the offerings of a EK/ QR setup. I'm not saying one is better than the other. Each has it's strengths. Its all about what works for you.
Last edited by Geebz; 26th Oct 2014 at 14:41.