U.S. airline coalition releases more than 1,000 pages from probe into Gulf airline fi
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Dubai, UAE
Age: 44
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S. airline coalition releases more than 1,000 pages from probe into Gulf airline fi
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
U.S. airline coalition releases more than 1,000 pages from probe into Gulf airline finances | | Dallas Morning News
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DoT
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.
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!!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New England
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by new tomcat; 23rd Apr 2015 at 14:23. Reason: Content addition
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hotels
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 SenseBig Airlines Benefit from Bailout Bill | Taxpayers for Common Sense
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 SenseBig Airlines Benefit from Bailout Bill | Taxpayers for Common Sense
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New England
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
t what country allows a forgeign airline to fly within its borders? Not Aus,
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Wizofoz; 23rd Apr 2015 at 19:42.
short flights long nights
Backing up Wiz here, Tom has no idea of what he speaks.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New England
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
So how come Singapore can not fly SYD-LAX? They have been trying for years and the Aussies won't let them.
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'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.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New England
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.