U.S. airline coalition releases more than 1,000 pages from probe into Gulf airline fi

[go46ball]

Interesting. Not that I read all 1,000+ pages, I fly to much.

U.S. airline coalition releases more than 1,000 pages from probe into Gulf airline finances | | Dallas Morning News (http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/u-s-airline-coalition-release-more-than-1000-pages-from-probe-into-gulf-airline-finances.html/)

[Need to Know Basis]

Planet America ! US airlines have been subsidised for decades in whichever way they wish to call it.....being the USA and also UAE - both subsidised ! Maybe the US airlines dont like it because UAE / GCC countries give bigger & better subsidies than US airlines get ? Toys & Pram comes to mind.

[Wizofoz]

By far the biggest unfair commercial advantage the US carriers have is their monopoly on the US domestic market- Let's try suggesting foreign owned airlines be allowed into THAT market, and see how much our free- marketeers stick to their principles!!

[new tomcat]

The U.S. Airlines are not against free market. In fact the Big 3 are actually in favor of the Open Skies agreements signed by the government.
If you read their complaint they are against direct payments by governments which is a violation of the agreement. There is nothing specified in the agreement against Bankrupcy or allowing foreign airlines to fly into the U.S. Domestic market. Every single country provides some form of subside to their airlines. Chapter 11 often comes up in arguements against the U.S. but just about every airline in the world has received some kind of help in the past.
Air Canada, BA, Air NZ (they wouldn't be around if their gov't didn't bail them out), Alitalia, Air France, KLM and JAL all have had their governments bail them out immensely including the Big 3 U.S. Airlines. The bankruptcy argument is an entirely different argument from the Open Skies policy.
Of course every signal foreign airline would love to fly within the U.S. Domestic market. It is the largest market in the world by far. But what country allows a forgeign airline to fly within its borders? Not Aus, not China, not Japan, not the UK and not Canada. Australia doesn't even allow 5th freedom to the U.S.
The U.S. Airlines are subsidized but not unlike any other airline.
For the record I do not believe that Emirates is given direct money from their government. The other two airlines in the complaint probably do, even Hogan practically admitted it saying the UAE gov't is an investor who gets taken care off. Of course now comes the tough part, trying to prove their complaint.
It is good to have you back Wiz.

[OnceBitten]

I would have thought Chapter 11 would be a cushy subsidy!

Don't recall the likes of Ansett, TAP, Varig et al being afforded such luxuries.

[lospilotos]

But what country allows a forgeign airline to fly within its borders?

Ryanair (of Ireland) is the second largest domestic carrier in Italy, behind Alitalia...

[SMT Member]

Norwegian (of, well, you guessed it) is the second largest domestic carrier in Denmark behind SAS, which is registered in Sweden...

If I, as a EU national of non-British descent, had a Billion and wished to turn it into Millions, nothing could stop me from launching an airline in the UK and start flying any domestic routes I fancied. I could also take my G-reg aeroplanes and fly domestic in any other EU country, if I felt the drain on the finances was not going fast enough.

[ekwhistleblower]

http://skift.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/White.Paper-2.pdf[/QUOTE]

The White paper makes lots of allegations that are nicely tied together hearsay. Apparently, LHR, JFK and all the other international airports were fully funded by the U.S. Airlines otherwise they would have got subsides. Of course they haven't got any bailouts!

Big Airlines Benefit from Bailout Bill | Taxpayers for Common Sense (http://www.taxpayer.net/library/weekly-wastebasket/article/big-airlines-benefit-from-bailout-bill)Big Airlines Benefit from Bailout Bill | Taxpayers for Common Sense (http://www.taxpayer.net/library/weekly-wastebasket/article/big-airlines-benefit-from-bailout-bill)

[new tomcat]

I doubt very much that Norwegian flies between Copenhagen and Alborg, the domestic Danish market. Since Norwegian is not a Danish airline they are probably allowed some kind of 5th Freedom to fly from EKCH to KJFK or other airports inside of Denmark to places other than Norway.
Ryanair probably has some subsidiary based in Italy to allow them to fly within Italy if in fact they do fly FCO-MXP. Everyone knows they have pilot bases within Italy.
So SMT is saying any European airline can fly to any place within Europe but can they pick up and drop passengers within someone else's country? Can Air France fly LHR-MAN or can BA fly FRA-MUC? If so that is the exemption but I don't think any forgeign airline flies within the UK and I know some of the large aviation markets don't allow foreign airlines to fly within their borders. Australia, Canada, Japan and China are all examples.

[Laker]

I don't think the powers that be at the ME3 need the help of the labourers to argue their cause. But I'm sure it warms their heart to see everyone advocating so passionately despite the current terms and conditions.

[Trader]

You can start an airline in the EU and fly within the EU because of the common market-- the essential FTA among the EU states. An agreement made between those states. Foreign airlines do not have that ability in other countries either.

Chapter 11 is a US Bankruptcy law. Better termed a reorganization law. The creditors, through the courts, set terms that the bankrupt company must follow. Hardly a subsidy if the creditors approve the plan. They will lose something but a going concern is better than a complete loss.

It is not even close to an all out subsidy/gov't owned entity.

[FcU]

Can we please stop lumping the slave traders in Doha and the unmentionables with the the award winning airline in Dubai.

[Wizofoz]

t what country allows a forgeign airline to fly within its borders? Not Aus,

And Tom's rank freaking ignorance shines through once again.


Australia has an open skies domestic policy, and wholly foreign owned airlines are indeed allowed to fly domestic in Australia (i used to work for one!!)

I doubt very much that Norwegian flies between Copenhagen and Alborg, the domestic Danish market. Since Norwegian is not a Danish airline they are probably allowed some kind of 5th Freedom to fly from EKCH to KJFK or other airports inside of Denmark to places other than Norway.
Ryanair probably has some subsidiary based in Italy to allow them to fly within Italy if in fact they do fly FCO-MXP. Everyone knows they have pilot bases within Italy.

So much wrong in so few sentences!

The EU has total open skies in all markets for all of it's members.

Any European airline can fly any european route, bas it's pilots (IT'S pilots, it doesn't need a subsidiary) anywhere in the Union.

Why comment when you clearly are just plucking stuff out of your butt with no clue what you're talking about?

nd I know some of the large aviation markets don't allow foreign airlines to fly within their borders. Australia, Canada, Japan and China are all examples.

Wrong about Australia, the other three have openly protectionist policies. Don't say you support competition, then cite anticompetitive countries as your benchmark.

[SOPS]

Backing up Wiz here, Tom has no idea of what he speaks.

[fliion]

The US majors complaints about fifth freedom & subsidies fall on deaf ears around here because they or their partners directly benefit from both yet neglect to mention.

On Fifth Freedom some quotes below from CAPA on the extensive 5th rights enjoyed by the majors in Asia:

---

"For most carriers Southeast Asia represents a major growth market, with demand continuing to increase despite the challenging global economic conditions. Delta is the only other US carrier currently serving Southeast Asia, operating daily flights from Tokyo to Bangkok, Manila and Singapore also for a total of about 13,000 weekly roundtrip seats."

"Otherwise, Delta and United have extensive pick-up rights in Tokyo and Hong Kong."

"United also incurs high operating costs for its extra intra-Asia legs (pilot costs are particularly expensive because while United has flight attendant crew bases in Asia, its Asian-based pilots are on US salaries)."

"By operating B737-800s on these routes, United will lower its costs and no longer have to worry about picking up passengers in Hong Kong."

"When contacted by CAPA to explain the downgrade of its Hong Kong-Ho Chi Minh and Hong Kong-Singapore routes, United explained: “One of the biggest benefits of the merger is that United is now able to optimize its fleet. We are introducing Continental’s B737 aircraft on Hong Kong - Singapore and Hong Kong – Ho Chi Minh City routes because this fleet optimization allows us to match the right aircraft to the right market to meet customer demand"

"At the same as downgauging the Hong Kong to Ho Chi Minh and Singapore services, United also resumed service on the Hong Kong to Tokyo route with B737-800s"

"US narrowbodies to Southeast Asia is unusual, but could be standard"
"US carriers operating narrowbodies in Asia is not unusual. Besides Continental Micronesia, Delta operates B757s on some intra-Asia routes and previously even based A320s at Narita. But these aircraft were and are only used for routes within North Asia. It is unprecedented for US carriers to be using narrowbodies to serve Southeast Asia."

"It would not be surprising to see Southeast Asian passengers, accustomed to widebody aircraft, reacting a bit shell-shocked when seeing a tiny B737 in Ho Chi Minh and Singapore for their first leg of a journey to the US. But with American carriers frequently selected on the basis of price, not service or the passenger experience, passengers in the Southeast Asian market may reluctantly accept this narrowbody deployment."

---

On govt subsidies airlines like Delta need look no further than their Skyteam partners Saudia & Aeroflot which both receive massive subsidies form their govts's

Any major in code share with The Chinese big 3 also enjoy the benefit of their govt subsidies.

Credibility in question for the US majors?

f.

[Bidule]

And what about the US express freighters flying intra-European flights with their US crews (not all even based in Europe)?

[new tomcat]

So how come Singapore can not fly SYD-LAX? They have been trying for years and the Aussies won't let them.
UAL is not allowed to pick up and drop off passengers on their SYD-MEL route. That is a domestic Australian route.
Only European airlines can fly within Europe. No foreign passenger airlines can fly within Europe. So the same arguement about not opening the U.S. Japan, Canada China applies to Europe which is not even a country but a concept.
So the arguement is if your country doesn't allow foreign airlines to come into your county you are anti competing? I never said I am for competition especially when it comes in the form of low wages and non exist tent work rules.

[Wizofoz]

So how come Singapore can not fly SYD-LAX? They have been trying for years and the Aussies won't let them.

That's a fifth-freedom right. We are talking about domestic operations. Tiger, for instance, was 100% foreign owned until VA recently bought it. Ansett was 100% foreign owned unit it went under, The US has protectionist policies which do not allow foreign owned airlines to operate within the US.

Only European airlines can fly within Europe. No foreign passenger airlines can fly within Europe. So the same arguement about not opening the U.S. Japan, Canada China applies to Europe which is not even a country but a concept.

True- just don't then complain about facing competition on international routes when your International Airlines benefit from non-competitive domestic policies.

So the arguement is if your country doesn't allow foreign airlines to come into your county you are anti competing?

Yes. You take the advantages of having a monopoly on domestic routes, then parley that into increased on-carrige and cross subsidisation on international routes.

I'm not saying don't do it- I'm saying don't bitch about foreign airlines competitive advantages being unfair when you keep this huge advantage to yourself.

I never said I am for competition especially when it comes in the form of low wages and non exist tent work rules.

Except, of course, in the US regionals who provide around 40% of the capacity on the US domestic network!! You're happy to reap the benefits of THOSE low wages.

[Emma Royds]

Only European airlines can fly within Europe. No foreign passenger airlines can fly within Europe. So the same arguement about not opening the U.S. Japan, Canada China applies to Europe which is not even a country but a concept.

new tomcat - please do some research before you make comments that are well off the mark.

Off the top of my head, these are some of the fifth freedom routes within Europe and there will be a number that I have not mentioned.

Singapore Airlines MUC-MAN-MUC
Garuda AMS-LGW-AMS
Kuwait Airways GVA-FRA-GVA
Lan Chile MAD-FRA-MAD

Europe nowadays is as level a playing field as you will probably find anywhere else.

[new tomcat]

Just so everyone knows no one is complaining about competition including me.
Some and only some are complaining about abusing the Open Skies Agremment which spells out no direct payment from governments to their airlines. Most on this forum are trying to muddy the waters by bringing other concepts into the discussion.
The U.S. allows the most 5th Freddom flights than any other nation.
Cathay VVR-JFK
RAM. JFK-YYZ
Singapore FRA-JFK
NZ LAX-LHR
IB. MIA-SJU
KAL LAX-NRT
And the list goes on and on.
All the routes you listed Emma are between two independent countries. None of your routes flies WITHIN one country. No one has shown me i.e LHR-MAN or FRA-MUC just for example. Again some are trying to muddy the waters by saying Europe is all one country which we all know it is not, they are saying and acting as one country.

Wiz you never commented on UALs SYD-MEL route.
I or anyone other U.S. Pilot do not benefit from the regionals but are severely disadvantaged by those guys. Ask how many major pilots were laid off at the very same time regionals we're hiring big time. Again that is an arguement for another topic.

[TransitCheck]

In Summary......

The US airlines say that it is ok to lose enormous amounts of cash over a 5 to 7 year period, declare bankruptcy, and directly places monetary burden on the taxpayer, other corporations, employees, and the government.

Yet.........

It is not ok for a government to invest heavily in their aviation infrastructure and in some cases (not EK) inject money that comes from the public and corporations within that country to mitigate a bankruptcy issue.

Sounds like a lot of "YA'll should just do it our way or its not right" to me.

[Wizofoz]

Wiz you never commented on UALs SYD-MEL route.

That is cabotage-not allowed in any country-and not a domestic operation as such.

If United wanted to set up a wholly owned domestic airline in Australia, it could.

If Emirates wanted to buy or set up a US domestic carrier, it couldn't.

I or anyone other U.S. Pilot do not benefit from the regionals but are severely disadvantaged by those guys.

The profitability that allows the US majors to pay you what they do is largely due to the lousy pay at regionals. You say you are against competion based on low wages, yet work for a company that does just that- what have you or any Major pilot done to redress that?

Ask how many major pilots were laid off at the very same time regionals we're hiring big time.

Less than if the Majors had gone under- something which off-loading routes onto the regionals helped prevent.

Clearly you are just another "Conditional capitalist"- all for freedom and free markets- right up until it adversely effects you!

[Trader]

If someone wanted could they set up and run an airline in the UAE? You can't even start a small shop in the UAE without local ownership.

If the Aussies want to allow foreign firms in to do business then so be it. But don't expect others to do the same.

[glofish]

not wanting to take a side, but apart from all the various arguments here, it runs down to the following statement:

These government-owned Gulf carriers are not playing by the rules their governments agreed to when they signed Open Skies agreements with the U.S.

If this can be proven, then it is a breach of contract. Something we all experience with the reigning mentality in the ME.
Basically we should therefore sustain it ........

On the other hand it remains to be checked, if the following statement is part of the mentioned rules as well:

They (ME carriers) say the U.S. legacy carriers' bankruptcy, bailouts and other perks helped put them in their current position.

If not, this argument will not withhold in any court dealing with the pretended violation of these 'rules'.

[SMT Member]

new tomcat said:

I doubt very much that Norwegian flies between Copenhagen and Alborg, the domestic Danish market. Since Norwegian is not a Danish airline they are probably allowed some kind of 5th Freedom to fly from EKCH to KJFK or other airports inside of Denmark to places other than Norway.

I doubt you know anything at all about aviation in general, or any specific market in detail. Allow me, please, to present the evidence to you in form of picture:

Here's DY's daily CPH-AAL production
http://i57.tinypic.com/20px65g.png

Here's the destinations available out of CPH, the lines in red are direct services. If you look carefully, you'll see that just 3 of them terminate in Norway:
http://i60.tinypic.com/aazxac.png

Having thus established you feel entitled to manufacture your own facts, further discussions seem futile.

[Emma Royds]

new tomcat

All the routes you listed Emma are between two independent countries. None of your routes flies WITHIN one country. No one has shown me i.e LHR-MAN or FRA-MUC just for example. Again some are trying to muddy the waters by saying Europe is all one country which we all know it is not, they are saying and acting as one country.

You mentioned that only European airlines can fly within Europe and you didn't mention operating within one country. Domestic traffic is not worth even talking about in countries, such as Belgium and the Netherlands. With the open borders in amongst many European countries, some people will fly to a country which is not their final destination.

However, if you want an example of a domestic European fifth freedom route then look no further than the UK a few years ago when Qantas wet leased an aircraft to operate LHR-MAN-LHR. It was a ridiculous arrangement to protect a slot and the aircraft often flew nearly empty.

[Wizofoz]

Easyjet (a UK company) operate routes wholly within France.

[fliion]

Aer Lingus - the Irish Flag carrier operates flights wholly within the UK - LGW to Belfast, it'd be like Delta doing YYZ - YVR

Next.

f.

[Trader]

Not trying to protect new tomcat - but all your examples are within the EU Common Market. As someone mentioned, many countries are so small that their domestic market is non existent.

The fact that Australia allows foreign ownership (but not 5th freedom) is their CHOICE just as it any other countries CHOICE.

The whole Ch. 11 argument is bogus as well since it is NOT a subsidy but rather the creditors taking a haircut - WHICH THEY AGREE TOO! If not the company goes under. Cents on the dollar is better than nothing.

I'll go back to the ME example as well, since that is where this spat lies. How many foreigners or foreign companies can come here and start a business with no local ownership or outside of expensive free zones (with their restrictions)?

I'm not defending the Americans in general, but in this instance it is wholly warranted. EK may be profitable but the other two are not. It was only a few years ago that Al Baker was quoted as saying that QR had enough money to fly empty for 25 years.

[LHR Rain]

All of the examples are within Europe by European carriers. The EU allows for this under a special agreement. No one had listed (I'm not saying they don't exist just haven't seen it yet) a foegeign carrier flying within one country.
This is what some on this site are advocating to open the U.S. Domestic market.
A foreign airline or person can invest in a U.S. Airline they can only own 49% though.
Again we are talking apples and oranges.

[Wizofoz]

LHR,

The point wasn't that the US would or should open its domestic market to foreign airlines- just that the US airlines don't have much of a case about unfair competition when they have the enormous advantage of sole access to the largest domestic market on Earth.

[uba737]

LHR, I think a foreign company can only own 25% of a US carrier, if I remember correctly!

[LHR Rain]

There is something about 25% and 49% in the foreign ownership rules. I know, why would you invest in a company if you can't control it?
I think there is about 3-4 different arguements going on here.
You can't really expect the Yanks to open the largest market in the world can you? As they say "I don't have a dog in this fight".

[donpizmeov]

If we loose the North American flights it would free up a lot of crews. We should then be able to take leave etc. So not all bad right?

[paokara]

Finally you will be able to get your 42 days leave and no more illegal flights over 16 hrs or CI 400

Thanks to Americans you will have a life and a fatigue free schedule from your rulers


The end is near

[donpizmeov]

Paokara, leave it alone. Lots of people didn't get through the recruiting sim, so don't take it so personally.

[Dropp the Pilot]

Ah, Don

Always quick with the kind word. I think Dante had a special circle of hell for Job's comforters. You might want to look up their names to ease the meet-and-greet when you get there.

[donpizmeov]

Checking the names now dropp. Hope they found a way to cool the beer.


Where you doing recruiting SIMs in 2003? You may have been the rude bugga that let him down.