Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4930977/

Topic: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: BAfan
Posted 2010-09-17 11:42:24 and read 13803 times.

Interesting article in the Financial Times yesterday about a speech Willie Walsh made in his role as Chair of the Association of European Airlines.

He warns of the significant threat from Middle Eastern carriers such as Emirates, Etihad and Qatar, and says Europe has failed to recognise the serious threat they represent to the European carriers.

I thought this would be an interesting topic for a thread.

The article can be found at:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f078f56-c...-99c4-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss

What are people's thoughts?

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: bigsmile
Posted 2010-09-17 11:49:40 and read 13759 times.

The FT site i couldn't read.

Found other links:

http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/ne...ief-warns-over-middle-east-threat/

http://news.carrentals.co.uk/willie-...-helping-middle-east-34214520.html

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs....709179848/1058&template=columnists

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2010-09-17 13:21:02 and read 13455 times.

I expect most of the likely comments are probably already covered in the following lengthy current thread.
"EK Order For 90 A380 Not Enough"says Clark (by solnabo Sep 9 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: flyby519
Posted 2010-09-17 13:24:08 and read 13432 times.

go to google and search "BA chief warns of threat from Mideast Airlines" should be one of the first entries

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: Centre
Posted 2010-09-17 14:22:03 and read 13201 times.

Why is he complaining? This is the Capitalist world, Rather than "politically" drive your competitor out of the market or deny them access, you should improve your product and level of service and competition will be no more.
The Luxury of Monopoly, the European carriers had over the market between North American to the Middle East/West Asia and europe/ (east, south east asia as well as the Kangaro route), is no more.

Th common myth here at A.net is that Middle Eastern carriers are in the market because their governments live by the "mine is bigger than yours" mantra.
I don't see much truth to that, as these governments are investing their "oil money" to generate more business/income.
The likes of EK, EY, and QR is no different than the investments made by Abu Dhabi Investment Authority ( with a capital of close to $850 Billion), or those made by Qatari government in International companies like owning a double digit share of the combined VW/Porsche.
etc....

These guys are investing heavily..

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: OP3000
Posted 2010-09-17 21:10:44 and read 11899 times.

Reading these comments I would not be surprised to see BA/IB go for buying a carrier with a hub in the middle east (like Gulf Air for example) - to try to replicate the business model that EK, EH and QR have. IMHO it would not be a smart move, but it does not mean they will not try it.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2010-09-17 21:38:12 and read 11755 times.

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
says Europe has failed to recognise the serious threat they represent to the European carriers.

Europe didn't expand their hubs to match market demand...


The mid-east carriers were only able to establish themselves as viable competition.


Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: Centre
Posted 2010-09-17 22:00:45 and read 11629 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6):
Europe didn't expand their hubs to match market demand...

Other than LHR as a major hub in Europe, as far as I know, there is no other major European hub that is not up to market demand. May be FRA?!, but there are plans to expand and having MUC as a secondary Hub along with the upcoming new Berlin AIrport, LH should be doing just fine in terms of space.

Also, It was BA's decision to entrench themselves at LHR mainly and LGW secondarily, they pulled out of MAN, which is making money for everyone else including the Gulf carriers.

European carriers need to up the level of service and product they are offering, at least BA recognized that. the likes of KLM, AF, LH et al still has a lot of work to do, it's 2010 and they IFE is still not all over the long haul fleet.

Customer loyalty is something to work on, and not depend on!!!

[Edited 2010-09-17 22:29:20]

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: KFlyer
Posted 2010-09-17 22:30:23 and read 11494 times.

Why really cannot they become more efficient and compete, rather than whining always ? QR and EY may not be fair, I agree. But EK certainly is a carrier that has proven how an airline should be run. Rather than blaming it on others, what WW should do is learning from EK. After all, Tim Clark is a Brit.  
I know it is not fair. But are there any laws prohibiting an airline's investors in injecting cash to the airline ?
If European legacies strive to stick to 1960s economical situation, blaming others and without evolving themselves, it only will damage them more. The only way out for them is to compete. Otherwise, the day that they will request a monopoly on every route will not be far away.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: rameshksm
Posted 2010-09-17 23:16:38 and read 11260 times.

Well, cry me a river Willie. Fair or not, this is competition. Fight it or flee it.

Though to be fair, from what I gather from friends, BA are doing their best to try to compete.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: OyKIE
Posted 2010-09-18 01:12:35 and read 10605 times.

Quoting Centre (Reply 4):
Why is he complaining? This is the Capitalist world, Rather than "politically" drive your competitor out of the market or deny them access, you should improve your product and level of service and competition will be no more.
The Luxury of Monopoly, the European carriers had over the market between North American to the Middle East/West Asia and europe/ (east, south east asia as well as the Kangaro route), is no more.


You need to realise that it is actually the politics that kills aviation in Europe. It is not a free market. The governments hesitate to grant airports the rights needed to expand, because they want to be more green (not realising that what happens is that just outside Europe others build up large airports and take care of the Europeans needs). The European governments have high taxes on aviation. Now they even wants environmental taxes. Then you have Eurocontrol that increase fees even though they are not giving the airlines more capacity in the skies, or less delays. So as long as you have the politicians, this is not the free market. Willie Walsh is not trying to fend of the Middle East carriers. He is trying to get the European politicians to wake up and see that they are ruining their countries industry, just to let their neighbours pick up traffic. For the European economy, building up Airport infrastructure, and give airlines more fair taxationg would probably boost Europes economy. I support Willie Walsh in this!

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: Centre
Posted 2010-09-18 02:10:57 and read 10187 times.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 10):
You need to realise that it is actually the politics that kills aviation in Europe.

I was talking about the politics of denying EK et al more access to international airports, e.g: France, Germany and Canada.
That's what I call unfair competitive practices.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 10):
The governments hesitate to grant airports the rights needed to expand

Red Tape and getting the neighbors ( voters) angry.
Solution?:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 10):
The European governments have high taxes on aviation. Now they even wants environmental taxes. Then you have Eurocontrol that increase fees even though they are not giving the airlines more capacity in the skies, or less delays.

Generating more revenue!

But, if you are travelling to the far east out of lets say LHR, won't you paying the same "Tax" regardless of the carrier you taking whether that's BA, QR, or EK?

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: Hirnie
Posted 2010-09-18 02:11:29 and read 10190 times.

I absolutely agree with OyKIE that European politicians should wake up and develop airlinefriendly environments. That starts with taxes, goes over infrastructure to airspace structure and other things. When the surroundings are fine, I have no doubts that good run European carriers can compete with the middle east carriers.

With the new tax in Germany politicians again have shown how short sighted they are, regarding air traffic. The problem is not middle east carriers expanding like hell, the problem is politicians in Europe having no idea of aviation.


Just my two cents

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: SAM1987
Posted 2010-09-18 03:02:59 and read 9827 times.

Quoting Centre (Reply 4):
This is the Capitalist world, Rather than "politically" drive your competitor out of the market or deny them access, you should improve your product and level of service and competition will be no more.

Unfortunately it isn't a free market - due to regulation in the form of excessive tax and no airport expansion in the UK, most other countries have it far easier.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 10):
You need to realise that it is actually the politics that kills aviation in Europe. It is not a free market.

Agreed.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 10):
The governments hesitate to grant airports the rights needed to expand, because they want to be more green

... which has no green affect at all, passengers just change their routings.

In the UK it can be cheaper for passengers to fly from MAN-DXB-JNB rather than MAN-LHR-JNB because of the mega departure tax on UK domestic flights.

Quoting Centre (Reply 11):
But, if you are travelling to the far east out of lets say LHR, won't you paying the same "Tax" regardless of the carrier you taking whether that's BA, QR, or EK?

Yes, but BA has to pay this tax for every single passenger departing the UK. EK and QR can subsidise this tax from profitable routes that don't go to/from the UK.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: Centre
Posted 2010-09-18 04:01:43 and read 9431 times.

Quoting SAM1987 (Reply 13):
. EK and QR can subsidise this tax from profitable routes that don't go to/from the UK.

At a certain point of time, the route has to be profitable for EK, Qr for them to continue operation... How long will they keep subsidizing the route Taxes?

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: JL418
Posted 2010-09-18 05:02:12 and read 8969 times.

I think Walsh is somehow right: putting operational costs out of the equation, European carriers need to have their taxes cut if they want to fight the massive competition coming from the Gulf states. Mr. Mayrhuber said something similar some months ago when speaking about the new airline ticket tax imposed by Mrs. Merkel.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: CFBFrame
Posted 2010-09-18 07:31:53 and read 7889 times.

Mr. Walsh is planting the seed for investing in airlines outside of Europe and moving their business to that region to build a new growth engine.

Quoting Centre (Reply 14):
At a certain point of time, the route has to be profitable for EK, Qr for them to continue operation... How long will they keep subsidizing the route Taxes?


Centre, you're right with all your points if the European airlines operated in a marketplace where competition was the primary driver. It's not also not easy when your Middle Eastern comp is using Europe's dream to lead commercial aerospace as a tool to grow. Mr Leahy is one of Mr Walsh worst enemy. And, Mr. Walsh has to deal with the unions who are demanding more to add to the taxes and green costs the poor man is dealing with. I've tried to tell people that the industry is shrinking, and it's issues such as these that are causing the shrinking. Airlines like EK are picking up customers at the expense of airlines dealing with these type issues. It's a bubble game right now, and the Middle Eastern airlines are gather up Mr. Walsh bubbles. The good thing about bubbles is that your comp will begin to face growth issues which will move the market back to equilibrium. If overall customer grows slower than your growth plans, you will need to slow your growth. But, if that's 15 or 20 years from now Mr. Walsh won't be here to whine any more.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: f4f3a
Posted 2010-09-18 08:13:28 and read 7508 times.

In addition to the constraint of taxes and infrastructure that impedes the european carriers theres also the hefty cost of pensions and national insurance and employers tax.

I dont think emirates or etihad has to pay these large fees so even though the salaries may may good there actually cheaper than the cost of hiring in europe

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2010-09-18 12:08:18 and read 5989 times.

Quoting Centre (Reply 11):
I was talking about the politics of denying EK et al more access to international airports, e.g: France, Germany and Canada.
That's what I call unfair competitive practices.

So you would advocate abandoning bilateral and other agreements between countries. Your advice should be directed against your own country. It has it's share of anti-competitive rules and regulations surrounding the airline industry.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: Centre
Posted 2010-09-18 12:35:37 and read 5926 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 18):
So you would advocate abandoning bilateral and other agreements between countries. Your advice should be directed against your own country. It has it's share of anti-competitive rules and regulations surrounding the airline industry.

I wasn't advocating anything of that sort!... Through out the year, I live between Tampa and Toronto ( Married to a Canadian). Having said that, Government involvement in the US is no where close to that in Canada on so many levels, same goes with the Tax System, (HST)!!!, Rogers and Bell duopoly, and AC and WS duopoly as well ( same price on most of the routes year round).
YYZ is second highest in the world in terms of landing fees.
The $20 dollar we have to pay for "Airport Improvement Fee" every time I travel out of YYZ ( This is a fee that was introduced at the time of building Terminal 1, people were paying it because they have to fly, and now it's a set fee that will always be there even after all construction is complete, and it was increased recently).

The only way for AC to compete with EK for passengers travelling to India, Iran...etc was through lobbying against granting EK any more slots at YYZ, as if it's slot constrained, and deny them complete access to any other Canadian airport.

The rules here are much more relaxed, because if they were not AC, and WS would have to shut down long time ago because Trans-border flights is their primary source of income, unlike the major airlines here.
Imagine what would happen if the likes of B6 and WN establish bases at YYZ, YVR, YYC, and YUL?

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: mariner
Posted 2010-09-18 12:54:11 and read 5865 times.

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
He warns of the significant threat from Middle Eastern carriers such as Emirates, Etihad and Qatar, and says Europe has failed to recognise the serious threat they represent to the European carriers.

There is also the potential of a threat from US carriers.

According to CAPA, the introduction of non-stops to the US from the Middle East and Africa is - apparently - drawing traffic away from the European hubs:

http://www.centreforaviation.com/new...africa-away-from-europe-hubs/page1

"US non-stop services divert traffic from Middle East and Africa away from Europe hubs"

This has been mostly because of the Middle Eastern carriers, but, as the article notes, Delta and United are getting on on the act as well.

mariner

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: Timboflier215
Posted 2010-09-18 13:18:58 and read 5806 times.

Did anyone actually bother to read Willie Walsh's comments? He was not whining, or asking for the imposition of taxes on EK et al, or the removal/withholding of landing rights etc. He was simply saying these airlines pose a threat to European airlines, which the European airlines themselves have yet to fully wake up to. He's calling on European carriers to compete more effectively, not hide behind protectionism.

The only thing he did argue for was the lifting of bans on European countries providing credit to their airlines, since they are able to provide credit to the Mid-East carriers ("funding the competition" as he called it), thus in that sense, it's not an entirely level playing field. (Though BA/LH/AF etc obviously don't have too much difficulty finding credit abroad - perhaps they just want it cheaply from their own governments...)

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: par13del
Posted 2010-09-18 14:22:28 and read 5706 times.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 10):
The governments hesitate to grant airports the rights needed to expand, because they want to be more green (not realising that what happens is that just outside Europe others build up large airports and take care of the Europeans needs).

Maybe these governments are more concerned with the environment for all the citizens versus those who travel, which is greater?

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 10):
He is trying to get the European politicians to wake up and see that they are ruining their countries industry, just to let their neighbours pick up traffic.
Quoting JL418 (Reply 15):
European carriers need to have their taxes cut if they want to fight the massive competition coming from the Gulf states.

Anyone ever consider that the governments may eventually decide that it is an industry they could do without? History of the developed world has shown that at some point, societies advance to a level where some industries are no longer viable. Aviation will continue to exist but there may be a trend to reduce its size and importance.
The politicians doing this are the same ones who are praised for other initiatives, they know the effects of their legislations. Smoking used to be much bigger than it presently is, increase taxes even under the guise of health was a means to an end.

Quoting f4f3a (Reply 17):
In addition to the constraint of taxes and infrastructure that impedes the european carriers theres also the hefty cost of pensions and national insurance and employers tax.

So benefits provided to the citizens who pay taxes and elect politicians to put such rules and regulations in place for their benefit are now a liabilty.

Quoting mariner (Reply 20):
There is also the potential of a threat from US carriers.

According to CAPA, the introduction of non-stops to the US from the Middle East and Africa is - apparently - drawing traffic away from the European hubs:

I would say it is technology and the economic investment in the aviation industry of member countries. If Middle East and African countries had the means and the "moxey" to purchase or invest in ULH a/c decades ago the stop over hubs in Europe would never have grown so large.
If a/c like the 787 and A350 offer range and economic payload for bypassing Europe directly into North America their importance as stop over hubs will continue to decrease.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: mariner
Posted 2010-09-18 14:43:23 and read 5660 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 22):
If Middle East and African countries had the means and the "moxey" to purchase or invest in ULH a/c decades ago the stop over hubs in Europe would never have grown so large.


In the case of Dubai, it amuses me that virtually all the European airlines flying east and all the eastern airlines flying west used to stop there for refueling, or one of the Gulf airports.

It was known then that Dubai could be an important cross-roads, but the longer range aircraft made Dubai unnecessary so they dropped it - immediate self-interest over a more long term view?

So surely no one is surprised that Dubai wanted some of that traffic and revenue back, and more, and going into its own pocket?

mariner

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2010-09-18 16:30:11 and read 5522 times.

Quoting Centre (Reply 19):
The only way for AC to compete with EK for passengers travelling to India, Iran...etc was through lobbying against granting EK any more slots at YYZ, as if it's slot constrained, and deny them complete access to any other Canadian airport.

AC doesn't fly to India at the moment (they most likely will when they get 787's) so the airline directly will lose some traffic to and from Europe (mainly FRA due to *A connection) the European airlines that serve YYZ might leave completely and they could be lobbying the Canadian government.

The Canadian government agree with them or not choose to base the amount of slots given to an airline based on O+D and not 5th freedom beyond an airline's hub and EK and EY have slots that meet that demand.

Personally I would give EK access to YVR and YYC on a 3x weekly basis to start and up YYZ to daily. The only thing that I fear about doing this is the fact that all other airlines in the middle east will want equal rights so who do we give them to (some will say all) or do they have to prove their case.

Quoting Centre (Reply 19):
Government involvement in the US is no where close to that in Canada on so many levels, same goes with the Tax System, (HST)!!!, Rogers and Bell duopoly, and AC and WS duopoly as well ( same price on most of the routes year round).
YYZ is second highest in the world in terms of landing fees.

Those Duopolies that you speak of are the result of free market conditions, Rogers and Bell dominate telecommunications in Canada because they drive competition out of business which is not necessarily ethical but is not something that the government interferes with within Canada. Where they do interfere is that they only approve other Canadian based competition and not open the floodgates to foreign competition. We get criticized for that with banking but we are #1 in that industry.

As for AC and WS it has been determined that Canada can't sustain more than 2 major airlines due to our population and geography. Also the argument can be made that the US is flooded with too many airlines and that has been corrected in recent years with mergers.

Quoting Centre (Reply 19):
Imagine what would happen if the likes of B6 and WN establish bases at YYZ, YVR, YYC, and YUL?

Personally I say bring them on because if either of those airlines had an interest in serving Canada they wouldn't be denied based on the amount of cross border traffic and AC and WS would fight them on marquis routes. VX just started YYZ in June and time will tell if they can sustain them with AC's hold on YYZ-California.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: RyanairGuru
Posted 2010-09-18 17:33:22 and read 5548 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 24):
he airline directly will lose some traffic to and from Europe (mainly FRA due to *A connection) the European airlines that serve YYZ might leave completely and they could be lobbying the Canadian government.

I'm not trying to be controversial but by their own logic shouldn't the Canadian government reduce AC's traffic rights to Frankfurt since it is clear that passengers are *not* going to Germany?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 24):
Those Duopolies that you speak of are the result of free market conditions
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 24):
As for AC and WS it has been determined that Canada can't sustain more than 2 major airlines due to our population and geography

Yeah, you can't compare apples and oranges between the USA and Canada. Canada and Australia, however, are two very similar markets: massive country with tiny population. Therefore both have, primarily, two airlines, two telecom companies etc because the market is simply too small and the vast distances mean that required investment (especially in telcoms) is very high. It would simply be impossible for 5 airlines to operate profitably in either country.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2010-09-18 17:36:14 and read 5543 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 24):
Personally I would give EK access to YVR and YYC on a 3x weekly basis to start and up YYZ to daily. The only thing that I fear about doing this is the fact that all other airlines in the middle east will want equal rights so who do we give them to (some will say all) or do they have to prove their case.

The bilateral is between Canada and the UAE, not Dubai. It's up to the UAE to designate the carriers to serve Canada within the permssible frequencies and destinations. Politically, I can't see EK being allocated more frequencies than EY, unless of course EY decided to suspend service to Canada.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: crownvic
Posted 2010-09-18 20:32:57 and read 5493 times.

Willie Walsh's scare is 100% justified...You can do all the finger pointing you want and talk about all the reasons for European airlines not stepping up when they should have, but I totally disagree. Is there one European airline (or U.S. carrier for that matter) that can buy A380's like they're Cessna 172's? I think not and and that is the bottom line. These MIddle East carriers have huge bankrolls and can throw the money at their product with relative ease whether it is showers on-board an aircraft, meals, lounges or a new fleet. The European airlines do have a serious threat right next door to them and the only reason the U.S. carriers have some relief, is strictly for geographic reasons.

Yes, I have flown on many European and U.S. carriers and I have also flown the "Big 3" from the Middle East. No matter how hard the European and U.S. carriers try, if they are working with far less finances, how can this not be a threat?

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: rameshksm
Posted 2010-09-18 21:48:48 and read 5415 times.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 27):
No matter how hard the European and U.S. carriers try, if they are working with far less finances, how can this not be a threat?

Isn't that one of the facets of globalization? That somewhere out there is a competitor that would be better organized or better financed or better able to provide the services you are providing, and could undercut you in virtually every way?

Without wanting to start a war of words, this so-called "threat" from the mid-East airlines is simply the tide changing in the grand scheme of things.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: TN486
Posted 2010-09-19 00:16:14 and read 5282 times.

Quoting OP3000 (Reply 5):
IMHO it would not be a smart move, but it does not mean they will not try it.

Why do you feel it would not be a smart move??

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: RyanairGuru
Posted 2010-09-19 00:26:30 and read 5264 times.

Quoting OP3000 (Reply 5):
MHO it would not be a smart move, but it does not mean they will not try it.

I think that the only reason it wouldn't be a smart move is that GulfAir hasn't made a profit in goodness knows how long. Still I think I read that the Bahrani Government are looking to divest their stake in GF, so maybe it wouldn't go amiss to seize the opportunity to take the battle with EK to their own back yard. If you can't beat them join them and all that.....

Just imagine the competitive advantage it would give BA/IB over LH and AF.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: scbriml
Posted 2010-09-19 02:01:42 and read 5095 times.

While I'm a supporter of both BA and EK, BA need to take a look at themselves in the mirror. Its many critics will point to BA's lack of international destinations served from airports outside London.

If I want to fly to Mumbai from the UK, my only choice on BA is from Heathrow. Emirates, on the other hand, can connect me to Mumbai from both Heathrow and Gatwick as well as Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow. More often than not, it's cheaper to go Emirates via Dubai than get to London to fly on BA.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: OyKIE
Posted 2010-09-19 02:07:57 and read 5078 times.

Quoting Centre (Reply 11):
Generating more revenue!

But, if you are travelling to the far east out of lets say LHR, won't you paying the same "Tax" regardless of the carrier you taking whether that's BA, QR, or EK?

This is correct. So if we where talking Origin and destination traffic going only between Europe and the Middle East, then I would see no problems. But if the final destination is somewhere in Asia or Africa and you are just transiting through the Middle East your second part of the journey could end up less taxed than if you where flying directly with a European airline. This is when it is not a fair competition for the European airlines. It is just like we Norwegians drive just across the border to Sweden to buy very cheap food, alcohol and tobacco. These airports nearby Europe, tends work the same. Get more value from most of your journey since the EU does not take all your money flying nonstop.

Quoting Hirnie (Reply 12):
With the new tax in Germany politicians again have shown how short sighted they are, regarding air traffic. The problem is not middle east carriers expanding like hell, the problem is politicians in Europe having no idea of aviation

Indeed they are. History has shown that if taxation is to high, nations has falled.

Quoting f4f3a (Reply 17):
In addition to the constraint of taxes and infrastructure that impedes the european carriers theres also the hefty cost of pensions and national insurance and employers tax.

   and ad to that labor unrest. The U.S has the same problems, but it ads up.

Quoting par13del (Reply 22):
Maybe these governments are more concerned with the environment for all the citizens versus those who travel, which is greater?

But as long as the EU countries do this alone, then there will hardly be any effect. Like Norway is saying we can be the most environmentally friendly country it does not matter as long as most of the pollution is made elsewhere. Killing your own economy, while not changing the impact globaly means very little. At best it sets Europe back many centuries.

Quoting par13del (Reply 22):
Anyone ever consider that the governments may eventually decide that it is an industry they could do without?

The Ash clouds over Europe showed that our society do not have the infrastructure to move the amount of travelers without airplanes.

Quoting par13del (Reply 22):
Aviation will continue to exist but there may be a trend to reduce its size and importance.

As long as it is the fastest means of transportation, aviation will be one of the most valuable means of transportaions. This is not an do we need airplanes dicsussion. It is how can we reduce the impact aviation has on the environment. What makes aviation travel less needed is ICT technology. It is faster to get in touch with others than aviation. Everything that makes the journey longer will be a step backwords.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: cedarjet
Posted 2010-09-19 02:29:24 and read 5048 times.

BA are a hub themselves, flying thousands of punters every day from India, Middle East and continental Europe to N America. They just got their shiny new terminal so it's all under one roof. I don't see how they differ from EK at all, except EK is better run.

Quoting rameshksm (Reply 28):
Isn't that one of the facets of globalization?

And globalization is what has contributed so many punters to BA's loads every day. The phrase "global mass transit" was unheard-of ten years ago. Look at BA's New York flying, two jumbos a day not so long ago. Now it's eight. Hard to complain really.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: RyanairGuru
Posted 2010-09-19 02:48:07 and read 5028 times.

Quoting Centre (Reply 11):
But, if you are travelling to the far east out of lets say LHR, won't you paying the same "Tax" regardless of the carrier you taking whether that's BA, QR, or EK?

True, but let's say I want to fly from Manchester to Mumbai.

If I fly MAN-LHR-BOM I pay UK departure tax twice: ex MAN and then again ex LHR

If I fly MAN-DXB-BOM I only pay it once

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: afriwing
Posted 2010-09-19 03:26:22 and read 4971 times.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
True, but let's say I want to fly from Manchester to Mumbai.

If I fly MAN-LHR-BOM I pay UK departure tax twice: ex MAN and then again ex LHR

If I fly MAN-DXB-BOM I only pay it once

   exactly .. and MAN dep tax is less than LHR dep tax .. so MAN-DXB-BOM will still work out cheaper than MAN-LHR by train then a LHR-BOM flight (which is what the new UK government is trying to promote)

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: rutankrd
Posted 2010-09-19 03:35:00 and read 4963 times.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):

True, but let's say I want to fly from Manchester to Mumbai.

If I fly MAN-LHR-BOM I pay UK departure tax twice: ex MAN and then again ex LHR

If I fly MAN-DXB-BOM I only pay it once

Wrong if your on the same ticket MAN-LHR-BOM (With connection within 6 hours) or MAN- DXB- BOM on the same ticket the level of ADP payable is the SAME
BAND C on the Customs table - thats £50 in economy and £100 in other classes.

You will however have differing charges applied for spurious things such as airport security levies, handling etc.....
(But these are in the main just an opportunity for the airport and airlines to leverage more cash from YOU - They are not taxes !)

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2010-09-19 05:35:31 and read 4769 times.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 25):
I'm not trying to be controversial but by their own logic shouldn't the Canadian government reduce AC's traffic rights to Frankfurt since it is clear that passengers are *not* going to Germany?

I wouldn't think that applies because why would the Canadian government control what international destinations AC serves, wouldn't that be up to the German government to decide. I'm no expert on this so if someone could clarify I would appreciate that.

Also the O&D between Germany and Canada is pretty significant anyways and I believe their is a Canada & EU openskies as well.

[Edited 2010-09-19 05:38:00]

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: Timboflier215
Posted 2010-09-19 06:24:51 and read 4678 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 31):
While I'm a supporter of both BA and EK, BA need to take a look at themselves in the mirror. Its many critics will point to BA's lack of international destinations served from airports outside London.

But you have to connect through a hub in both cases (BA in LHR, EK in DXB). Saying 'look at EK flying l/h from BHX, MAN, EDI etc. is all very well, but it's not as though they fly directly to where you want to go... BA and EK are both hub and spoke airlines. The hubs are just in different locations.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: AirNZ
Posted 2010-09-19 06:35:17 and read 4655 times.

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
and says Europe has failed to recognise the serious threat they represent to the European carriers.

Or, what he really means is that they are competition for BA which BA can't handle by buying them out or receiving protection from. People do have a choice and many are quite correctly and validly, exercising that choice.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: scbriml
Posted 2010-09-19 06:38:52 and read 4651 times.

Quoting Timboflier215 (Reply 38):
BA and EK are both hub and spoke airlines. The hubs are just in different locations.

Yes, but my point was, in most cases, EK is cheaper than BA to fly from A to B via either London or Dubai. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: Timboflier215
Posted 2010-09-19 08:44:42 and read 4472 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 40):
Yes, but my point was, in most cases, EK is cheaper than BA to fly from A to B via either London or Dubai. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Ah, right, in which case I do agree with you!

As is so often the case, the costs for the big European and American carriers are really killing them when faced with competition from new airlines on s/h and l/h routes which do not have such high costs, especially as far as staffing is concerned - BA's staff perks, a legacy from many years ago, are financially crippling it today. U2, FR, EK etc. do not have such legacy costs.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2010-09-19 15:30:22 and read 4203 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 37):
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 25):
I'm not trying to be controversial but by their own logic shouldn't the Canadian government reduce AC's traffic rights to Frankfurt since it is clear that passengers are *not* going to Germany?

I wouldn't think that applies because why would the Canadian government control what international destinations AC serves, wouldn't that be up to the German government to decide. I'm no expert on this so if someone could clarify I would appreciate that.

Canada-Germany (and the other 26 EU countries) is Open Skies. Any Canadian or European carriers can operate as often as they want between anywhere in Canada and anywhere in the EU.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2010-09-19 19:38:50 and read 4073 times.

Quoting Centre (Reply 7):
It was BA's decision to entrench themselves at LHR mainly and LGW secondarily, they pulled out of MAN, which is making money for everyone else including the Gulf carriers.

EK is doing the exact same thing as BA--they're DXB airways just as much as BA is London Airways.

Quoting JL418 (Reply 15):
I think Walsh is somehow right: putting operational costs out of the equation, European carriers need to have their taxes cut if they want to fight the massive competition coming from the Gulf states

EU governments are trying to figure out how to tax their carriers into oblivion and additional runways and terminals require the consent of the messiah, as well as every politician large or small. The Middle East doesn't have to deal with that, obviously.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 10):
You need to realise that it is actually the politics that kills aviation in Europe

  

Quoting mariner (Reply 23):
It was known then that Dubai could be an important cross-roads, but the longer range aircraft made Dubai unnecessary so they dropped it - immediate self-interest over a more long term view?

Gander was a major stopping point as well. There was no reason to stop in DXB until some sheikh decided he needed to spend (and then lose) enormous amounts of money to make it a place people wanted to go.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 31):
Its many critics will point to BA's lack of international destinations served from airports outside London.

EK doesn't serve any international destinations from any of the other emirates, so they're both doing the same thing and consolidating on one hub.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 31):
If I want to fly to Mumbai from the UK, my only choice on BA is from Heathrow

Either way it's a one stop itinerary, so what's the difference, all else being equal?

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 33):
I don't see how they differ from EK at all, except EK is better run.

EK doesn't face a fraction of the obstacles BA does, so it's hard to make that comparison. There's really not much US or EU carriers can learn from the ego projects in the Middle East, other than that a cooperative government will get you farther than one that fights you every step of the way. Sadly no carrier can change that.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: mariner
Posted 2010-09-19 19:52:50 and read 4065 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 43):
Gander was a major stopping point as well. There was no reason to stop in DXB until some sheikh decided he needed to spend (and then lose) enormous amounts of money to make it a place people wanted to go.

The geographic position of the two is entirely different.

Gander was always only a refueling stop for trans-Atlantic flights. From Gander you cannot fly non-stop to all the most populous destination centers on the planet, even these days, as is possible from Dubai.

mariner

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2010-09-19 20:40:33 and read 4021 times.

Quoting mariner (Reply 44):
From Gander you cannot fly non-stop to all the most populous destination centers on the planet, even these days, as is possible from Dubai.

With a 777 you can hit just about anything except for Australia.

Quoting mariner (Reply 44):
The geographic position of the two is entirely different.

Okay, so then why not BAH, MCT, or even SHJ, which were more common stopovers for carriers than DXB?

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: mariner
Posted 2010-09-19 20:47:12 and read 4010 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 45):
With a 777 you can hit just about anything except for Australia.

My statement remains valid.

But if you're willing to discount Australia, then some bright spark should start an airline hubbed in Gander. Nothing is stopping 'em.

mariner

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: david_itl
Posted 2010-09-19 23:54:56 and read 3883 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 45):
Okay, so then why not BAH, MCT, or even SHJ, which were more common stopovers for carriers than DXB?

BG, CX, RB used (or still use) DXB for example. Perhaps you can refresh us with the airlines that used MCT, BAH and SHJ?

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: SR4ever
Posted 2010-09-20 04:01:34 and read 3719 times.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 47):
Perhaps you can refresh us with the airlines that used MCT, BAH and SHJ?

Let's try  

BAH: BA, CX, SQ, TG, UT, SR, QF

SHJ: CA

MCT: UT, BA

Can' remember where KL, AZ, LH and MH would stopover.

Topic: RE: Willie Walsh : Threat From Middle East Carriers
Username: par13del
Posted 2010-09-20 06:43:49 and read 3559 times.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 32):
But as long as the EU countries do this alone, then there will hardly be any effect. Like Norway is saying we can be the most environmentally friendly country it does not matter as long as most of the pollution is made elsewhere. Killing your own economy, while not changing the impact globaly means very little. At best it sets Europe back many centuries.

Europeans won't care too much about that argument, that is exactly the reason the US Administration gave for not signing the Kyoto Accords and the EU did not support them so a EU principle has already been set.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 43):
EU governments are trying to figure out how to tax their carriers into oblivion and additional runways and terminals require the consent of the messiah, as well as every politician large or small. The Middle East doesn't have to deal with that, obviously.

As nations young in their physical development lets hope that they have learned from the penny wise pound foolish issues that current developled nations took, so far they seem to be doing ok.
The UK has plans to build a new airport away from the congested LHR region, other plans to build an additional runway, all have been shelved through no fault of any Middle Eastern carrier, so the ball is in whose court??


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/