PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - US3 v ME3 - 'The Economist' weighs in
View Single Post
Old 15th May 2015, 18:23
  #27 (permalink)  
fliion
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IAGs turn....and consider This is is AAs big TATL partner...pendulum swinging?

"IAG responded yesterday - May 14 - to the US3's Gulf carrier subsidy claims. The response is pro-Open Skies and pro-competition. In the response IAG states: "The White Paper’s allegations on subsidies to Gulf carriers do not withstand scrutiny. IAG also has serious doubts about the way information is presented in the White Paper."

Some key takeaways from the doc:

- Not only do Gulf carriers bring competitive service and prices, they also stimulate the market, so that much of the increase in their own passenger traffic is incremental, not taken from existing operators.

- “IAG disputes the evidence and conclusions that unfair subsidies are being provided by the Gulf States to the Gulf airlines contained in the White Paper prepared by American, Delta and United. IAG believes the evidence and therefore the conclusions to be unreliable and wholly inappropriate as a means of informing important government policy decisions. The White Paper’s arguments should be rejected as a return to international aviation policies that protect airlines from competitors instead of fostering competition.”

- British Airways has faced direct competition from Emirates for over 25 years.

- The White Paper makes much of the Gulf carrier impacts in relation to passengers travelling indirectly e.g. between India and the US, as if consumers should be denied this choice. Passengers travelling between two points on the globe do not “belong” to any particular airline or group of airlines. Airlines must compete to offer passengers what they want. The outdated concept of “ownership” of passenger traffic must be rejected by all governments.

- Fuel subsidies to any of the Gulf carriers are non-existent. It is not credible to make allegations simply because the States concerned have large oil and gas reserves, especially when there is clear evidence that the carriers concerned have standard commercial contracts in place with well-established jet fuel suppliers.


The full response can be found here: http://www.eturbonews.com/58984/wron...d-right-etihad-emirates-and-qatar-"

f.
fliion is offline