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

[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


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:


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.