Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5727104/

Topic: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: g500
Posted 2013-03-31 07:53:41 and read 21679 times.

I hope for European airlines' sake someone listens to this man before is too late.... things continue the way they are, Emirates will be flying A380s into every European airport some day

"Head of Franco-Dutch group says it would be suicide for European airlines if restrictions on Gulf carriers flying into European airports were removed"

http://www.investment-guru.com/lates...for-restrictions-on-gulf-airlines/

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-03-31 08:03:27 and read 21616 times.

In fairness, the reasons for his remarks should be listed. Mr. Spinetta believes that there are unanswered questions regarding government subsidies for the Gulf carriers, such as lower airport user fees at their hubs, and the opportunity to tap into cheaper state-backed financing.

Quote:
He insisted the Gulf carriers must clarify these issues, so that European governments could determine whether they are competing on a level playing field with EU airlines. Only then should the EU consider a so-called open skies agreement with the Gulf states that could allow their carriers unfettered access to European airports.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-03-31 08:05:27 and read 21593 times.

I don't agree. I'm not saying it's all good, but if what he is saying were true...

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
"Head of Franco-Dutch group says it would be suicide for European airlines if restrictions on Gulf carriers flying into European airports were removed"

...then why are KLM expanding into the UK regional market, partly on the basis that they are able to offer onward connections. His very airline is proof that it's still possible to find a profitable model, even in a country where competition from the Middle East carriers is at its greatest.

Personally I don't find routings via the Middle East to be that cheap, maybe a £50 difference over the 'historic' one stop options, but that's not enough to sway 90% of the people I book flights for.


Dan  

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: g500
Posted 2013-03-31 08:18:17 and read 21457 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 2):
I don't agree. I'm not saying it's all good, but if what he is saying were true...

I do agree with him 100%

The Gulf carriers buy lots of Boeing and Airbus and they get free reins through out the European union, and really through out the world

The Gulf carreiers and Western aircraft manufacturers are the biggest winners in all of this. The Western airlines are by far the biggest loosers of the Gulf carrier revolution...

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: SCQ83
Posted 2013-03-31 08:23:52 and read 21419 times.

Is it the same company that codeshares with EY from CDG and AMS??? Or do they mean EK when they are talking about "Gulf carriers"?

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: moo
Posted 2013-03-31 08:29:55 and read 21356 times.

Between the lines, this is what he says:

"we won our passenger and freight markets the hard way - by state sponsorship, state subsidised purchases and routes, and strict regulation on competitors. But we did all that 30 or 40 years ago, so the same rules aren't good enough for others now..."

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: factsonly
Posted 2013-03-31 08:52:14 and read 21190 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
Between the lines, this is what he says:

"we won our passenger and freight markets the hard way - by state sponsorship, state subsidised purchases and routes, and strict regulation on competitors. But we did all that 30 or 40 years ago, so the same rules aren't good enough for others now..."

Well not entirely.............

If you go back 30 or 40 years all airlines were under the same strict government regulations everywhere. Routes, aircraft type, capacity, frequency and even fares were set by Government not by the airlines. As this was the same for all airlines it was a level playing field of sorts. This may sound strange today, but governments everywhere acted similarly and airlines knew there was no 'free' market.

Today we are in a transition phase, though many markets are liberalised and airlines are mostly free to set capacity, frequency and fares, in many countries governments still play significant roles in aviation. Mr. Spinetta is calling attention to the fact that airlines do NOT operate on a level playing field today, as Government favours are now much less obvious. He is asking the EU to pay more attention to hidden forms of support.

Spinetta knows full well, that AF/KL is still government dependent in certain markets (Latin America, Africa, Asia) where bilaterals result from negotiations, but the UAE-Europe market is mostly liberalised (an exception is Germany which still restricts Emirates)....and lets not forget UAE-Canada!!

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2013-03-31 09:42:12 and read 20851 times.

Just because EK or other Gulf carriers have come up with a terrifric business plan along with product that can run circles around many slow dinasour legacy carriers is hardly the reason try to restrict them.

Frankly business world is a tough place where the strong survive and the weak die.

Europe sheltering companies from competition and much needed reform is hardly a beneficial long term path.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-03-31 09:48:10 and read 20798 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Just because EK or other Gulf carriers have come up with a terrifric business plan along with product that can run circles around many slow dinasour legacy carriers is hardly the reason try to restrict them.

How is their plan any different from any other hub and spoke carrier in the world?  
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Europe sheltering companies from competition and much needed reform is hardly a beneficial long term path.

The problem isn't so much Europe "sheltering" its carriers so much as Europe constantly trying to destroy its own carriers through regulation, taxes, and restrictions.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: kaitak
Posted 2013-03-31 10:03:11 and read 20690 times.

Quoting g500 (Reply 3):
The Gulf carriers buy lots of Boeing and Airbus and they get free reins through out the European union, and really through out the world

For a start, this didn't help them in Berlin. America has long been pushing for Open Skies, so that is separate from their purchase of Boeings.

And what about the rest of the world, places which don't build aircraft - or build aircraft which ME carriers haven't bought?

And the fact that EK has bought lots of European aircraft didn't help EK to get rights to Berlin.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
The problem isn't so much Europe "sheltering" its carriers so much as Europe constantly trying to destroy its own carriers through regulation, taxes, and restrictions.

That's part of it, but another major part is that the EU flag carriers only fly from capitals/major hugs (ok, as mentioned above, they offer connections through AMS, CDG etc), but ME carriers fly to secondary cities, not yet served - or not sufficiently served.

This brings me to the core argument AGAINST restricting ME carriers. The aim of EU bilateral rights (or indeed bilateral rights anywhere) should NOT be to protect airlines, but to encourage economic growth, tourism and trade to more peripheral, less served locations. Between the ME and major EU flag carriers, the former do this much better and because they have their own metal flying to more peripheral destinations (Dublin, for example), they have an incentive to market Dublin, which the likes of LH, KL, AF etc don't.

How would this more peripheral destinations fare if ME carriers were restricted? Would it actually help the EU flag carriers? Whose interests should take precedence here?

Every two bit airline in the world wants to make their main base a hub; some do it badly, some do it very well. It just so happens that EK has done it extremely well - too well for the liking of EU carriers. Is that really a reason to restrict them? It would be a severely retrograde step if it were.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-03-31 10:03:39 and read 20686 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):

I think it's more complex than what you say... I used to think the same way you do. I do not pretend to know the answers, but are the Middle Eastern carriers actually better managed, or do they get more favorable government treatment? Is it Europe's fault, are they making it too hard for their airlines? Is the difference in culture (Europe has more unions, not saying that is bad, but it has lead to higher wages for example) that is hurting the European airlines?

I obviously am not well versed in this subject, but I doubt it is simply "all these Middle Eastern carriers found the right solution and most of the European airlines took the wrong path"

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-03-31 10:12:03 and read 20593 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 9):
That's part of it, but another major part is that the EU flag carriers only fly from capitals/major hugs (ok, as mentioned above, they offer connections through AMS, CDG etc), but ME carriers fly to secondary cities, not yet served - or not sufficiently served.

For the same reason EK doesn't fly longhaul from AUH--that's the whole point of a hub. EU flag carries fly to far more 'secondary', 'tertiary', and down right whole-in-the-wall cities than the Gulf carriers; they just do it several times a day on smaller aircraft rather than once or twice daily on a 777.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
"all these Middle Eastern carriers found the right solution and most of the European airlines took the wrong path"

No one can point to a single thing the Gulf carriers differently are doing that other airlines can copy and succeed...they're all doing the same thing--the Gulf carriers just have the implicit (and arguably explicit) backing from their government.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2013-03-31 10:28:04 and read 20456 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):
No one can point to a single thing the Gulf carriers differently are doing that other airlines can copy and succeed...they're all doing the same thing--the Gulf carriers just have the implicit (and arguably explicit) backing from their government.

That makes me think of an Economist article a few years ago saying that one of the most important things China needs to learn is how let go of some of their state-sponsored/endorsed enterprises and let the private market take over (i.e., let them go bankrupt and liquidate instead of endlessly propping them up).

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: g500
Posted 2013-03-31 10:31:40 and read 20440 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):
No one can point to a single thing the Gulf carriers differently are doing that other airlines can copy and succeed...they're all doing the same thing--the Gulf carriers just have the implicit (and arguably explicit) backing from their government.

The Gulf carriers are not hubled by unions, and labor relations comittes like Western airlines... In the West, if you don't agree with something, you are allowed to say something. If you're being over-worked or they want to take a benefit away, you have the option to fight it.

In the Gulf, is their way or the highway... Plain and simple.. that's gotta to be a cheaper way of conducting business

Yes the backing of the governments also help the Gulf carriers

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-03-31 10:35:31 and read 20396 times.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 12):
That makes me think of an Economist article a few years ago saying that one of the most important things China needs to learn

It's an interesting comparison, since the EU, Gulf, and China have all had their respective governments deeply invested in their carriers at one point in time or other. The EU has stifled its carriers with red tape to the point of bankruptcy, the Gulf has pretty much let them do whatever they want, and who knows what China is doing but it has ended up in a bunch of really dumb airlines, and empty 380s to LAX.

Quoting g500 (Reply 13):
The Gulf carriers are not hubled by unions, and labor relations comittes like Western airlines...

Good luck translating that to the EU carriers

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: KL911
Posted 2013-03-31 10:42:02 and read 20335 times.

I am against, let the market do its work. AF/KL etc should compete on price AND quality, and lower operating costs. Plus, ban all Unions.

With an open skies deal AF/KL can also fly from every EU airport to the gulf. Not that they will, but they can.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2013-03-31 10:45:09 and read 20297 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
It's an interesting comparison, since the EU, Gulf, and China have all had their respective governments deeply invested in their carriers at one point in time or other. The EU has stifled its carriers with red tape to the point of bankruptcy, the Gulf has pretty much let them do whatever they want, and who knows what China is doing but it has ended up in a bunch of really dumb airlines, and empty 380s to LAX.

That's why I find intriguing about all this - will a natural middle ground evolve, or will state-sponsored Gulf or Chinese carriers just pound the European legacies into dust eventually?

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: mercure1
Posted 2013-03-31 10:46:34 and read 20274 times.

Aviation is like any other industry in a global marketplace.

The winners will be the most efficient producers of product and services.

Unfortunately Europe has priced itself out in industry after industry and has become reliant on protections methods to prop up enterprises where it can no longer fight in global arena. Just look at all the regulations and artificial subsidy that is all over Europe.

As time pass problems will only become worse for such financially uncompetitive industry and cost to protect will become even more burdensome.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-03-31 10:54:40 and read 20209 times.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 16):
That's why I find intriguing about all this - will a natural middle ground evolve, or will state-sponsored Gulf or Chinese carriers just pound the European legacies into dust eventually?

I think the Gulf and EU carriers are going to sorta converge to that middle ground, but the Chinese carriers are just on Neptune--I don't think anyone is worried about them yet. The EU carriers have lots of efficiencies to root out, and I think the Gulf in general is in for some creative destruction in a lot of ways, not just in the airline industry. At least the Gulf governments knew enough to bring in people with aviation experience to run the carriers, and then (mostly) get out of the way. The Chinese carriers are just the height of incompetence, with the government ordering every airplane according to political winds, building airports where there's no demand, setting up subsidiaries with no rhyme or reason, all while nothing is really working on a network level.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: commavia
Posted 2013-03-31 11:23:50 and read 19984 times.

How comical.

European carriers from (by global standards) small countries that built their networks upon connections among and between foreign markets are now complaining about Gulf carriers doing ... the same thing.

If the Gulf carriers are doing something illegal, or getting subsidies or special treatment (e.g., cheap fuel), then that's one thing. But I have yet to see any conclusive evidence of that. The Gulf carriers claim they're much more like Singapore Airlines - government-owned, but at arm's length.

And I don't remember the European carriers complaining about Singapore Airlines - another globally-recognized carrier with a strong product depending on connections over its totally-non-domestic hub.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
The problem isn't so much Europe "sheltering" its carriers so much as Europe constantly trying to destroy its own carriers through regulation, taxes, and restrictions.

This is the key.

By far the biggest disadvantages European carriers faced are those imposed upon them by their own governments and regulatory systems. And, on the flip side, by far the biggest advantage the Gulf carriers have over their European competitors is that their home countries have essentially made their entire national policy staunchly pro-airline.

If European governments focused effort, energy, attention and, of course, money on airports, low taxes, simplified regulation, relaxed labor laws, etc. - the European carriers would be vastly more competitive. But European governments - for a variety of social and political reasons - are uninterested in such policies. And as such, they, and European airlines, have to live with the consequences, their complaints not withstanding.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: DTWHKG
Posted 2013-03-31 11:24:23 and read 19980 times.

Quoting g500 (Reply 3):
I do agree with him 100%

The Gulf carriers buy lots of Boeing and Airbus and they get free reins through out the European union, and really through out the world

The Gulf carreiers and Western aircraft manufacturers are the biggest winners in all of this. The Western airlines are by far the biggest loosers of the Gulf carrier revolution...

That there are winners and losers in a market is not a reason to restrict someone.

You may also want to restrict Camry and Accord in the US, so they can sell more Focus and Malibu.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2013-03-31 12:02:11 and read 19743 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18):

Well put. I do have to give the Gulf carriers credit for bringing airline experts to run them.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: rutankrd
Posted 2013-03-31 12:06:56 and read 19707 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18):
Chinese carriers are just the height of incompetence, with the government ordering every airplane according to political winds, building airports where there's no demand, setting up subsidiaries with no rhyme or reason, all while nothing is really working on a network level.

Totally agree with you on the smoke and mirrors that is China .

Its not a real free market as they are almost all just the CAAC is differing disguises.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: mozart
Posted 2013-03-31 14:24:46 and read 18162 times.

Oh no, not again. He (and some of his peers from other European legacy airlines) sound like a broken record.

There are "natural competitive advantages" which any company, airline or not, benefits in a certain business environment. In the UAE and Qatar that includes being geographically placed at the crossroads between Europe and large parts of Asia and Australia and between Africa and Asia, lower taxes, lower social security charges for their employees, space to build new airports or existing ones, less red tape in conducting business. In Europe natural competitive advantages compared to the Gulf carriers include its geographic position, very large and wealthy home markets (the "O" in O&D), being at the receiving end of a lot of traffic (the "D" in O&D; for instance Paris is the most visited city on the planet and France the most visited country), a pool of well developed talent right in front of the doorstep (no need to attract FAs, pilots, mechanics from around the world for a lot of money), the possibility to serve secondary and tertiary destinations with smaller planes, helfpul tax laws (tax breaks/credits for losses).

The accusation of state subsidies is ambiguous: EK got two capital injections at the beginning of its existence and since then has always been profitable. QR is a "GRE" (government-related entity) and accounts that show its profitability have not been published. However I do know from own experience that the State of Qatar is EXTREMELY generous when it comes to providing "seed" financing to new ventures so that the venture can start up and stand on its own feet, we have seen this in a number of industries the country wanted to enter. However, all investments need to go through the Supreme Council of Investment and the gentlemen there are also EXTREMELY tough when it comes to scrutinizing a business plan and usually refuse flat out any request for further money. The philosophy is "we've given you all the money you wanted to get up and running. If you're not successful enough to build your own capital or find new shareholders then that is your problem." So it's not a case of governments pouring unlimited sums of money into these companies. Plus one might argue that some decades back the European companies benefited from the same government subsidies. It's not because it's over now in Europe that others aren't allowed to use those same methods to establish their airline industry.

It is ridiculous to complain about these natural advantages, they do exist. And whilst I do not hear the ME carriers complain about the natural advantages of European companies I do hear the Europeans complain.

Then there is the more serious stuff where direct intervention happens to favour one's home airline. Whilst it has been proven many times that the ME airlines do not benefit from less expensive fuel they have the benefit of lower airport charges at their home airports. Then there are some things where European carriers and airports benefit. For instance when the state subsidizes the building of high speed rail links to airports or subsidizes parts of the network.

In the end it is naive to play in the most global of industries and to complain about people from other parts of the global using their natural advantages. It also is naive to believe that those companies only attract more customers because of their natural advantages. To take AFKL and Lufthansa (the airline, not the group): their products are just vastly inferior to what the ME3 have to offer. So customers shift their business. And not just because of price. I know plenty of people who are price-insensitive but service-sensitive who have abandoned their year-long loyalty with European legacy carriers and now do a bulk of their flying with EK, QR and EY. Therefore I find that whining from European airline CEOs pathetic and just deflecting from their own failures to offer a product that customers like (where "product" is hard product in the air and on the ground, soft product in the air and on the ground, network, schedule, etc)

[Edited 2013-03-31 14:26:11]

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: FWAERJ
Posted 2013-03-31 14:39:05 and read 17969 times.

Quoting DTWHKG (Reply 20):
You may also want to restrict Camry and Accord in the US, so they can sell more Focus and Malibu.

Not a valid comparison. All of the Camrys and all of the (non-plugin hybrid) Accords sold in the US are made in American factories by American workers using mostly American suppliers.

OTOH, EK, EY, and QR may be buying Airbus products from EU member nations, but the labor, financing, and (on the flights back to the EU) jet fuel don't come from EU suppliers. I can see AF/KL's point (though I don't necessarily agree with it).

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: cedarjet
Posted 2013-03-31 15:01:27 and read 18255 times.

This is ridiculous, especially coming from a French airline. Emirates have placed a quarter of all orders for the A380, the pride of European manufacturing, made in Toulouse. If Emirates are hobbled by European meddling / regulation, the A380 will go with it. So if really comes down to it, which is more important - Air France or Airbus? Airbus could stop selling whales to Emirates tomorrow if they wanted to.

And in any case Emirates is not the reason Air France is suffering - AF are a horrible horrible airline - I have flown with them quite a few times in the last few years and every time I promise myself is the last time - 24h delays (twice), lost bags, missed connections, the world's most frustrating hub and to top it off, every staff member I have had contact with is rude, sometimes jaw-droppingly so. I can immediately think of half a dozen exchanges with AF personnel where I have been amazed that anyone would speak to another human in such a way, let alone in a customer service role. And I don't see Emirates having the kind of crash that a PPL student would be able to fly their way out of, again (Paris) and again (Toronto) and again (Rio). Air France have a long way to go before they start blaming others for their woes.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-03-31 15:37:47 and read 17823 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 25):
This is ridiculous, especially coming from a French airline. Emirates have placed a quarter of all orders for the A380, the pride of European manufacturing, made in Toulouse. If Emirates are hobbled by European meddling / regulation, the A380 will go with it. So if really comes down to it, which is more important - Air France or Airbus? Airbus could stop selling whales to Emirates tomorrow if they wanted to.

What does Air France have to do with Airbus? The Air France CEO isn't the government of France speaking, or a representative for Airbus for that matter. It's possible for 2 different companies from the same government to disagree on something

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-31 15:39:29 and read 17975 times.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 6):
and even fares were set by Government not by the airlines.

Fares were set by the airlines, often through IATA agreements (international routes only) but then had to be filed with and approved by governments.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: cedarjet
Posted 2013-03-31 15:56:53 and read 17808 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26):
What does Air France have to do with Airbus? The Air France CEO isn't the government of France speaking

Oh no? The Air France CEO is asking the French government to intervene and do what the free market will not eg support Air France's crummy operation - which will be at the expense of a very well run French enterprise called Airbus, which provides the hardware for Emirates to steal AF's lunch.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-03-31 15:57:20 and read 17741 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
The problem isn't so much Europe "sheltering" its carriers so much as Europe constantly trying to destroy its own carriers through regulation, taxes, and restrictions.

So the key is to ensure that since EU taxes make their airlines uncompetitive a way has to be found like the Carbon trading scheme to ensure that carriers the world over have the same taxes to level the playing field, weird I know but the principle of the thing.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):
EU flag carries fly to far more 'secondary', 'tertiary', and down right whole-in-the-wall cities than the Gulf carriers; they just do it several times a day on smaller aircraft rather than once or twice daily on a 777.

I recall this type of operation being blasted as fictional in discussions about why the USA does not have more A380 or 4 holers in operation.

CNN has a video up on the meeting in the snow of EU leaders talking about the Euro Zone, one of the items being pushed as a way forward is a free trade agreement with the USA, go figure that free trade in one direction is a saviour but in the other direction its a non-starter.
Bummer

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-03-31 16:09:26 and read 17660 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 25):
This is ridiculous
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 25):
AF are a horrible horrible airline - I have flown with them quite a few times in the last few years and every time I promise myself is the last time - 24h delays (twice), lost bags, missed connections, the world's most frustrating hub and to top it off, every staff member I have had contact with is rude, sometimes jaw-droppingly so. I can immediately think of half a dozen exchanges with AF personnel where I have been amazed that anyone would speak to another human in such a way, let alone in a customer service role. And I don't see Emirates having the kind of crash that a PPL student would be able to fly their way out of, again (Paris) and again (Toronto) and again (Rio)

Indeed it is ridiculous. Particularly the part about a PPL student being able to fly their way out of Paris, by which I guess you mean the Concorde crash. You really have issues with AF. Yet, you "have flown with them quite a few times in the last few years." One has to wonder why. BDSM addiction, perhaps? I don't have nearly as many complaints about AF, and yet I've managed to avoid them for the last 5 years...

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-03-31 16:16:19 and read 17542 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 28):

Probably should have phrased it better, you said it was 'ridiculous coming from a French' airline, why would it be ridiculous for Air France to complain? The French government might have a dilemma (take Air France's side or supposedly Airbus') but I don't see why that creates a double standard for AF or something

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: airproxx
Posted 2013-03-31 16:36:10 and read 17379 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 28):
The Air France CEO is asking the French government to intervene and do what the free market will not eg support Air France's crummy operation - which will be at the expense of a very well run French enterprise called Airbus, which provides the hardware for Emirates to steal AF's lunch.

I highly doubt EK would stop buying A380, even if french gov would do anything against them, simply because Airbus is the only manufacturer providing an aircraft with such capacity, and EK needs them. Your point is irrelevant.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: airproxx
Posted 2013-03-31 16:40:17 and read 17321 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 25):
And I don't see Emirates having the kind of crash that a PPL student would be able to fly their way out of, again (Paris) and again (Toronto) and again (Rio).

This statement is probably even less smart than what you can ear from a Beavis & Butthead show. Pathetic.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: airlinebuilder
Posted 2013-03-31 17:39:49 and read 16813 times.

The advantage of the Gulf Carriers is that most of the time they are backed up by the whims of the Royalties and Government, they would do anything to always have the First, Biggest and the Landmark on everything else, needless to say "never to be outdone" and they get it all the time, that is why airline CEOs on that part of the region are elated because most if not all they put on the table is acted upon and backed up

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-03-31 18:14:52 and read 16456 times.

Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 34):
The advantage of the Gulf Carriers is that most of the time they are backed up by the whims of the Royalties and Government, they would do anything to always have the First, Biggest and the Landmark on everything else, needless to say "never to be outdone" and they get it all the time,

and to get these things they hire a ton of expat workers from all over the world including Europe, purchase a ton of goods manufactured in Europe among others, so it is not as if Europe does not benefit from their "excess" to choose a term.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-03-31 18:49:34 and read 16159 times.

What happened to it being a good thing for a government to expand roads and rail to an airport? What happened to airport expansion?

The mid east carriers thrived in an environment where the European carriers severely restricted their own airlines growth and now they complain? Why not waive the curfews? For as long as so many airports have curfews, those connecting hubs sans curfews will have a competitive advantage.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Just because EK or other Gulf carriers have come up with a terrifric business plan along with product that can run circles around many slow dinasour legacy carriers is hardly the reason try to restrict them.

And like the old days have governments helping with growth instead of hindering.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):
No one can point to a single thing the Gulf carriers differently are doing

For EK I can. Look at their annual reports. EK is a numbers run company like Starbucks and Home Depot. What do they do so much better than their competitors? They manage costs, growth, and product just a little better than the competition. In a low margin business, such as airlines, the numbers run company will always have a slightly higher profit margin.

QR and EY, I do not get their business model as much.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
The EU has stifled its carriers with red tape to the point of bankruptcy,

And there is the issue. The mid-east airlines really grew to prominence due to a lack of European and Indian airline hub growth. If the European hubs had more frequency and fragmentation it would have been far tougher for the mid-east airlines to grow. We would not have seen the spectacular growth of the mid-east carriers of the European carriers had been meeting demand from Europe to the new destinations (India, Pakistan, Africa, and Asia). There would have been some growth... but not the spectacular growth we witnessed.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Flighty
Posted 2013-03-31 19:36:56 and read 15744 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 36):
They manage costs, growth, and product just a little better than the competition. In a low margin business, such as airlines, the numbers run company will always have a slightly higher profit margin.

My belief is that EK enjoys labor and political advantages because of where it is based, and macro trends there. Exactly as KLM and AF once did in their home areas.

Running an airline isn't _that_ hard. KLM and AF have very capable staff. My point is mgmt deserves neither the credit nor the blame for these political trends. Labor has no power in UAE. LH or AFKL would find it child's play to run EK - and EK would have a bit of trouble running its business out of 2010s Western Europe.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: BMI727
Posted 2013-03-31 19:44:22 and read 15680 times.

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers

Aww, look who can't compete. Better get the whambulance.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 36):
The mid east carriers thrived in an environment where the European carriers severely restricted their own airlines growth and now they complain? Why not waive the curfews?

  

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: RyanairGuru
Posted 2013-03-31 19:57:15 and read 15597 times.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 37):
Labor has no power in UAE. LH or AFKL would find it child's play to run EK

I wouldn't be so sure, as Lightsaber says EK is a numbers company to the nth degree.

QR and EY are different, they are possibly "me-too" vanity projects, but people on here and elsewhere seem to underestimate how EK works. Lots of cheap airport space is great, but that isn't enough to run a profitable airline.

Michael O'Leary could probably run Emirates (a lot of his bluff is just that, and he is actually a pragmatic businessman that wouldn't trash their product). The CEO of Ikea or Zara probably could. CEO of Air France? Probably not, it's a different game.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: enilria
Posted 2013-03-31 20:09:21 and read 15500 times.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 4):
Is it the same company that codeshares with EY from CDG and AMS??? Or do they mean EK when they are talking about "Gulf carriers"?

What a slap in the face to their new partner? Do they realize that EY and EK are essentially owned by the same govt?

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
"we won our passenger and freight markets the hard way - by state sponsorship, state subsidised purchases and routes, and strict regulation on competitors. But we did all that 30 or 40 years ago, so the same rules aren't good enough for others now..."

Exactly. Well said.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Just because EK or other Gulf carriers have come up with a terrifric business plan along with product that can run circles around many slow dinasour legacy carriers is hardly the reason try to restrict them.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
I used to think the same way you do. I do not pretend to know the answers, but are the Middle Eastern carriers actually better managed, or do they get more favorable government treatment?

Actually, they have geography and the lack of powerful European unions to propel them forward. Both are legitimate competitive advantages. JetA is cheap in DXB but I think the price is the same for anybody.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18):
The Chinese carriers are just the height of incompetence

Agreed

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: SCQ83
Posted 2013-03-31 20:52:54 and read 15172 times.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 39):
I wouldn't be so sure, as Lightsaber says EK is a numbers company to the nth degree.

QR and EY are different, they are possibly "me-too" vanity projects, but people on here and elsewhere seem to underestimate how EK works. Lots of cheap airport space is great, but that isn't enough to run a profitable airline.

Michael O'Leary could probably run Emirates (a lot of his bluff is just that, and he is actually a pragmatic businessman that wouldn't trash their product). The CEO of Ikea or Zara probably could. CEO of Air France? Probably not, it's a different game.

I completely agree. IMO, Emirates' success has a lot to do with their positioning as the first truly global airline (the same way that Ikea or Zara are global brands, ubiquitous of their home country). Or like Ryanair is the truly pan-European airline. Location and government-backing are assets, but carriers like GF, KU or SV have the same advantages and have been around for much longer and they are what they are today.

I was last week in Rio and it was quite amazing to see Emirates' "Hello Tomorrow" ads in every other bus stop... with a picture of Asian women doing tai-chi and the Oriental Pearl Shanghai to advertise their flights to China. Among the crowd and traffic of Rio, it certainly made their new video look real  http://youtu.be/xG-NGPbtOOk.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2013-03-31 20:55:31 and read 15115 times.

I think the questions he asks are pointed and valid, but the usual crowd can't wait to ignore them as soon as possible and blame their favorite boogeymen instead, governments and unions.

And yet it is fair to ask.
-Are government owned and operated airports in AUH, DXB and DOH charging carriers well below cost? If so, while all airlines benefit obviously, it is clearly an indirect subsidy to the home carriers, much like it would be if the state of Texas took over DFW and charged every airline a $100 flat fee per landing. All carriers but American would be screaming for blood.
-Are Etihad, Emirates and Qatar Airways able to borrow from capital markets at lower rates because they are state owned? Again, if the state of Texas suddenly announced that it would guarantee AMR's loans, their cost of money would drop significantly and other carriers would complain of government interference.

I think they are valid questions that need an answer, and if the answer is positive, it needs to be quantified.

In addition, I don't think anyone can argue more clarity could be demanded of Qatar Airways' and Ethiad's financials.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
The EU has stifled its carriers with red tape to the point of bankruptcy

Which carriers exactly have gone bankrupt because of red tape?

Quoting g500 (Reply 13):
In the Gulf, is their way or the highway... Plain and simple.. that's gotta to be a cheaper way of conducting business

In the Gulf you may be fired at any time for any reason without any recourse. That is indeed a cheaper way of doing business, but I'd rather not see the scale tilted exclusively in favor of business.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: sierra3tango
Posted 2013-03-31 21:19:45 and read 15007 times.

Quoting enilria (Reply 40):
Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 4):
Is it the same company that codeshares with EY from CDG and AMS??? Or do they mean EK when they are talking about "Gulf carriers"?

What a slap in the face to their new partner? Do they realize that EY and EK are essentially owned by the same govt?

EK & EY are NOT essentially owned by the same governments. They are owned by the Governments of Abu Dhabi and Dubai respectively, totally different governments

Quoting enilria (Reply 40):
JetA is cheap in DXB but I think the price is the same for anybody.

Dubai doesn't have a refinery worth talking about, most of the JetA (think its A1) is imported by tanker from the old Caltex (now BAPCO) refinery in Bahrain. The price be discounted a bit by BAPCO for volume but that's about it

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: mariner
Posted 2013-03-31 21:29:16 and read 14915 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 36):
The mid east carriers thrived in an environment where the European carriers severely restricted their own airlines growth and now they complain? Why not waive the curfews? For as long as so many airports have curfews, those connecting hubs sans curfews will have a competitive advantage.

The joke is that several of the nations now complaining helped to create the Gulf carriers.

Time was when just about every European airline flying the to the East or Australia stopped at one of the Gulf airports - DXB, or AUH or BAH.

Then the 747-400 came along and they all dropped the Guif ports like a hot potato. Guess what happened then.  

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-31 21:41:01]

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: RyanairGuru
Posted 2013-03-31 21:39:56 and read 14802 times.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 41):
IMO, Emirates' success has a lot to do with their positioning as the first truly global airline (the same way that Ikea or Zara are global brands, ubiquitous of their home country). Or like Ryanair is the truly pan-European airline

Good points, and I agree with you, but I was referring to their uber focus on costs and their dynanicism.

If you watch this clip (its only 3 minutes) you will see precisely what I mean, especially after 1:05: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhCM0F81vEg. It's from the Australian TV show "Hungry Beast", a slightly satirical current affairs program.

Other than the bit about no advertising, I think you will be able to understand why I see parallels between Emirates and Zara. (and Ikea adopts a very similar approach as well)

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2013-03-31 22:00:38 and read 14670 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 42):
-Are government owned and operated airports in AUH, DXB and DOH charging carriers well below cost?

Most airports in the world are not run along commercial for profit lines. Airports are large infrastructure projects which by their nature being infrastructure is a loss leader often. Just like roads, bridges, public transport etc..

Nations invest in infrastructure for a host of reasons, and even if airlines were operating for free, the fact of having the activity can produce other offsetting benefits for a nation beyond direct revenues generated at the airport.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: mercure1
Posted 2013-03-31 22:04:46 and read 14637 times.

Bit ironic that Air France which itself was government owned for majority of its life and generated massive losses and subsidy paid for by French citizens and now as private has hard time competing in the global arena, chooses to complain about probably one the worlds most efficient and well managed aviation enterprise as if being government owned is now a crime.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-03-31 22:41:10 and read 14423 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 9):
And the fact that EK has bought lots of European aircraft didn't help EK to get rights to Berlin.

EK can fly to BER tomorrow if they wish. They just have to give up DUS,HAM or FRA or MUC. EK is not restricted in Germany, there is a bilateral agreement that gives EK a choice, run 7 daily services from up to 6 cities or as many seats as you like from four cities.

Between them, the ME3 serve all the 6 economically viable destinations in Germany. They cover all regions and STR is 72 minutes away from FRA by ICE train, not a big obstacle for pax from that area and Deutsche Bahn offers interline agreements.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: sierra3tango
Posted 2013-03-31 22:42:12 and read 14387 times.

Quoting mariner (Reply 44):
The joke is that several of the nations now complaining helped to create the Gulf carriers.

Time was when just about every European airline flying the to the East or Australia stopped at one of the Gulf airports - DXB, or AUH or BAH.

Then the 747-400 came along and they all dropped the Guif ports like a hot potato. Guess what happened then.

Agreed but at that point when the 744 came along (~1992) the traffic out of MUS/AUH/DXB/DOH/BAH was pretty limited, those calls were more like fuelling stops, most carriers stopping there had 5th Freedom rights but didn't expect to lift major volumes of PAX.

Anyway at that time (70s & 80s) there was a 'home grown' airline, remember the "5 star Tristars" on GF. The 10.00 BAH/LHR was THE flight to get, the blue riband service which was far and away superior to anything else on offer. GF had a similar business model to EK (complicated by multiple ownership, hubs & rights), it was quality back in the 80s & look where its ended up. It went downhill fast in the 90s prior to EK's major rise and QR & EYs birth.

EK seemed to really take off when they bought (firstly) the A345 and subsequently the 77L & 77W which meant they could offer Aus one stop from Europe which was the same as any European carrier could offer. IF (& a big one) an aircraft is created capable of Europe / Aus economically non stop, then I wonder if history might not repeat itself at least in part

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: mariner
Posted 2013-03-31 23:17:48 and read 14102 times.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 49):
Anyway at that time (70s & 80s) there was a 'home grown' airline, remember the "5 star Tristars" on GF.

Indeed, For a while there, I thought Gulf would be the one to beat.

My point is that even when the 747-400 came along, a smart manager might have realised that ''something" was happening in that part of the world - Emirates first flight to London was in 1987 - and perhaps it was, or could be, more than just a fuel stop.

The irony is that Maurice Flanagan, the founding brain behind Emirates, came from British Airways to Dnata, and he knew what was going on, he clearly saw the potential.

And all of it - the whole shebang - was foreseen by Nevil Shute in his prophetic book "Round the Bend" - about an engineer who starts a single plane airline in Bahrein after WW2, which airline becomes a giant.

That was in 1951. A road map was there for anyone who had the wit to see.

mariner

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: RyanairGuru
Posted 2013-03-31 23:19:28 and read 14099 times.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 49):
A345 and subsequently the 77L & 77W which meant they could offer Aus one stop from Europe

Also non-stop to the USA, but yes I agree with you that the advent of ULH aircraft is what really cemented EK's position.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: sierra3tango
Posted 2013-04-01 00:09:55 and read 13590 times.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 51):
Also non-stop to the USA, but yes I agree with you that the advent of ULH aircraft is what really cemented EK's position.

Agreed but as the thread is meant to be about European airlines belly aching so gave it a miss

Quoting mariner (Reply 50):
My point is that even when the 747-400 came along, a smart manager might have realised that ''something" was happening in that part of the world - Emirates first flight to London was in 1987 - and perhaps it was, or could be, more than just a fuel stop.

The irony is that Maurice Flanagan, the founding brain behind Emirates, came from British Airways to Dnata, and he knew what was going on, he clearly saw the potential.

Agreed, but obviously the smart managers missed a big trick. The (or not so smart) managers at BA came out the Gulf in 96 / 97 or thereabouts to (led to believe, but not absolutely certain) to trade in there 5th Freedom rights for the services previously (by 742) operated (or at least some of them) for intra Gulf rights like AUH/MUS and BAH/DOH etc; though fairly sure UAE has an open skies policy reciprocated by the UK! If any UK airline wants to take on EK /EY on its own home turf!

Maurice Flanagan was certainly the leader but also quite a number of managers came from GF to EK as their jobs were 'indiginised' at GF in the late '80s



Quoting mariner (Reply 50):
And all of it - the whole shebang - was foreseen by Nevil Shute in his prophetic book "Round the Bend" - about an engineer who starts a single plane airline in Bahrein after WW2, which airline becomes a giant.

Remember it well have got a copy somewhere. The book was based on the man who started GF in about 1950 Freddy Bosworth who from memory died somewhere in southern England testing an aircraft. Its on the GF site if you want the details

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: raptors
Posted 2013-04-01 01:14:49 and read 12987 times.

It will be intersting to see what happens in the ME as tensions between Iran/Israel-USA increase.
If my memory serves me correctly, the US has stated that it will not let Iran become a Nuclear powered state, something I'm sure Israel agees with. I don't see Iran changing course at the moment, something has to give!
If, (and I really hope it doesn't come to it), a conflict occurs between the above mentioned states, will passengers leaving Europe really want to travel via the ME or will they prefer to bypass the area? I guess time will tell!

The ME3 clearly have advantages over the European legacy carriers based not only on geograpical location, but also with regards to labour laws etc. I'm sure if BA could dismiss 50% of it's workforce and bring in an equal number of employees paid a lot less then from a business perspective it would be good news for the company. Would it morally be the right thing to do? Is this the sought of society we want to live in?

I was curios a while back about tax free salaries and based upon my own observations I saw that a job in the UK and the UAE paid a similar amount after tax. So, if BA pays somebody £30,000 gross, then this would roughtly equate to £20,000 nett. EK would simply pay £20,000 gross, tax free. This means that BA would be paying approx. 30% more than EK, clearly a disadvantage as far as BA would be concerned. I haven't looked for a while and I'm sure that are some instances where this might have changed but it was something a spotted a while ago.

Earlier in the thread, somebody stated that the cost of uplifting fuel was the same for all carriers in DXB, and I'm sure it is. This doesn't mean though that the home carriers don't have an advantage. Again, taking BA as an example, they have two flights a day, how many do EK have? What percentage of EK's flights start with a fuelling at DXB, 45%? Again, clearly an advantage for the home base carriers.

The effect that ME carriers are having on European carriers would be like have Volaris having 2,000 aircraft and having and open skies agreement with the US. Cheaper salaries, less protection for employees etc.

Ultimately it will be the consumer who decides.European carriers will have to match both price and quality, not something that is unobtainable, however you can't blame CEO's trying to look after their companies, afterall it is what they are paid to do!

"Head of Franco-Dutch group says it would be suicide for European airlines if restrictions on Gulf carriers flying into European airports were removed"

I for one tend to agree.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Azure
Posted 2013-04-01 02:01:20 and read 12505 times.

The title of this thread (and the title of the article) are misleading: AF CEO does not call for more restrictions, he calls for maintaining the status quo. Quote : It would be “suicide” for European airlines if restrictions on Gulf carriers flying into European airports were removed, unless this is accompanied by assurances about fair competition.". He is not even ruling out a possible removal of restictions!

Sincerely, what can you expect from the CEO of a European legacy ? That he urges the regulator for more competition ? Actually this kind of rhetorics - using the ME3 threat - serves his interests by putting some pressure : a/ on the regulator b/ on "his" unions.

The case for fair competition can be discussed ad nauseam but I find it ironic that the advocates of an open sky agreement, with the excuse of free trade and liberalism, support de facto state-owned airlines like EK, EY or QR !

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-04-01 02:16:15 and read 12343 times.

Quoting Azure (Reply 54):
The case for fair competition can be discussed ad nauseam but I find it ironic that the advocates of an open sky agreement, with the excuse of free trade and liberalism, support de facto state-owned airlines like EK, EY or QR !

True. European airlines are publicly listed companies that have to work in accordance with corporate laws. For the manager of the ME3, it is by far easier to take a risk, he has the order to create a large airline, whatever it takes. No worries about balance sheet, financing is available starting from Airbus and Boeing export financing to German "KG" tax reducing (for the German investor) ownership models for A380s which are then leased to EK. EK has virtually no risk wth that financing model, if a war breaks out in the region they simply give the aircraft back to the lessors.

.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Azure
Posted 2013-04-01 03:18:56 and read 11719 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 55):
financing is available starting from Airbus and Boeing export financing to German "KG" tax reducing

You are raising an important point here. Actually, according to regulations implemented in the 1980s, American, British, French, German and Spanish airlines cannot benefit from export credit loans when they place an order at Boeing and Airbus while the ME3 for instance - or Irish FR - can, which clearly establishes unfair competition between airlines members of aircraft manufacturing countries and the others. AF, BA, and LH have requested - and obtained - an exemption for 2 A380 each. But still... I am pretty sure AF CEO, whose no one can accuse of not knowing how to rule an airline, had this case in mind when he claimed for fair competition between the ME3 and the European carriers (we all know it is not only a question of airport taxes).
About export credit loans (in French) : http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-...rdits-du-financement-d-avions.html

Quotes : " After obtaining an exemption to finance two A380s in export credit (as Lufthansa and British Airways), the French airline seeks to finance a third A380 in export credit. As a rule from the 1980s, airlines from "Airbus countries" do not have the right to benefit from it. US airlines neither. This creates distortions of competition.
(...)
Their main rivals, the Irish Ryanair or the Gulf airlines, such as Emirates and Etihad, can benefit from such a system. It was denounced three years ago by nine European airlines (Air France, Lufthansa, British Airways, Easyjet, Air Berlin, Iberia, Virgin Atlantic, Monarch and Air Europa) and the Association of American companies (ATA), who shouted about this distortion of competition. Rates are in fact more advantageous. This is also after this discontent and the discussions that followed in 2010, that the three European airlines have been allowed to order only 2 A380s each in export credit. A "favor to calm them down", said a banker.
(...)
Far from its original vocation ("the country risk"), credit-export is partly responsible for the surge in aircraft orders since 2005. "This system must stop. Should be that everyone benefits," they say at Air France."

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: christao17
Posted 2013-04-01 03:59:38 and read 11322 times.

Just one question: what happened to the free market? If legacy European carriers have a business model that will no longer make their investors money, then they need to update their business model.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: RWA380
Posted 2013-04-01 04:43:15 and read 10923 times.

Quoting KL911 (Reply 15):
With an open skies deal AF/KL can also fly from every EU airport to the gulf. Not that they will, but they can

This is a very one sided advantage to M.E. carriers, there is very little M.E. for the European airlines to fly to, while there is so much more for carriers like EK or EY to gain as an advantage.

Quoting commavia (Reply 19):
or getting subsidies or special treatment (e.g., cheap fuel),

SA)">DL has it's own refinery, does this mean that SA)">DL should be penalized because they get A1 at a better price than if they had to buy it on the open market? SA)">DL has a slight advantage, IMO, EK & EY to name two, do get better deals on fuel than we suspect.

Quoting mozart (Reply 23):
Plus one might argue that some decades back the European companies benefited from the same government subsidies.

No argument, they did! Now the carrier that has done it lately is SAA, should they now be penalized? Or better yet, left to fend without any government help from now on? Then South Africa will be at the mercy of Foreign carriers to provide all the lift to their country. That would certainly have DeBeers looking for new mules to tote their diamonds and executives away. In fact, wit the diamond trade passengers, and cargo (wink) I do not understand why SA cant keep it together.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-04-01 06:58:26 and read 9521 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 42):
And yet it is fair to ask.
-Are government owned and operated airports in AUH, DXB and DOH charging carriers well below cost? If so, while all airlines benefit obviously, it is clearly an indirect subsidy to the home carriers, much like it would be if the state of Texas took over DFW and charged every airline a $100 flat fee per landing. All carriers but American would be screaming for blood.
-Are Etihad, Emirates and Qatar Airways able to borrow from capital markets at lower rates because they are state owned? Again, if the state of Texas suddenly announced that it would guarantee AMR's loans, their cost of money would drop significantly and other carriers would complain of government interference.

I think they are valid questions that need an answer, and if the answer is positive, it needs to be quantified.

In addition, I don't think anyone can argue more clarity could be demanded of Qatar Airways' and Ethiad's financials.

Ok, so how is it their fault that governments in Europe choose not to own their own carriers, operate their own airports and all the other points you raise above, did the Middle East carriers pass / force any laws on Europe to prevent them from doing the same, or did Europeans simply decide that they are above such economic activities, and once again, how is that the fault of the Middle East carriers?

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-04-01 07:19:05 and read 9293 times.

Quoting raptors (Reply 53):
It will be intersting to see what happens in the ME as tensions between Iran/Israel-USA increase.

I don't think that matters at all--everyone hates the Shia, and all the Gulf countries and neighbors will implicitly if not explicitly support bombing Iran back to the stone age, were that to become an option.

Quoting christao17 (Reply 57):
If legacy European carriers have a business model that will no longer make their investors money, then they need to update their business model.

There's no difference in the model. The difference is in the environment. The Gulf carriers have supportive governments, including endless building of questionably viable projects, whereas the EU carriers are crushed by their governments' regulations, taxes, and an overall economic malaise.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: BA0197
Posted 2013-04-01 07:19:06 and read 9327 times.

This is what puzzles me.

BA has had invasion on its land and does not say anything about restrictions placed on ME carriers. May I remind everyone that BA has (5?) A380s a day plus several other rotations to the UK each day from EK. They don't complain because they relize that it is competition.

Why does Canada, Germany, and France have objection to competition? For the sake of national-pride?

BA is behaving like a responsible carrier should, AF-KLM/LH are reacting in a childish way instead of improving their product and lowering operating costs. That is free competition.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: enilria
Posted 2013-04-01 07:34:33 and read 9121 times.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 43):
EK & EY are NOT essentially owned by the same governments. They are owned by the Governments of Abu Dhabi and Dubai respectively, totally different governments

In case you missed it, Abu Dhabi bailed out Dubai which was on the verge of bankruptcy. They now have a great deal of financial control over Dubai's government owned entities. Do they control EK? Probably not, but the lines have blurred since then and as recently as last year Abu Dhabi was again called upon to help Emirates NBD prevent a large Dubai bank from failing.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 43):
Dubai doesn't have a refinery worth talking about, most of the JetA (think its A1) is imported by tanker from the old Caltex (now BAPCO) refinery in Bahrain. The price be discounted a bit by BAPCO for volume but that's about it

You are saying that fuel isn't cheap in Dubai? It seems cheap to me when I'm there.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 46):
Most airports in the world are not run along commercial for profit lines.

Actually, outside the USA (ironically) most medium/large airports are now privatized and are very much run for profit.

Quoting raptors (Reply 53):

It will be intersting to see what happens in the ME as tensions between Iran/Israel-USA increase.

Hopefully they won't. Korea is enough of a handful.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-04-01 07:39:05 and read 9074 times.

Quoting BA0197 (Reply 61):
Why does Canada, Germany, and France have objection to competition? For the sake of national-pride?

I can only speak for Germany and as said before, EK can freely compete in this market, they have no restrictions to the number of seats. That goes for all 3 ME carriers. EY actually has bought itself an addtional advantage by investing in AB and using them as feeder carrier to AUH.

Quoting christao17 (Reply 57):
Just one question: what happened to the free market? If legacy European carriers have a business model that will no longer make their investors money, then they need to update their business model.

Simple answer, a free market can only work in a level playing field.

.
you want us to fall back into the dark ages of state ownership with unlimited subsidies?

Quoting par13del (Reply 59):
Ok, so how is it their fault that governments in Europe choose not to own their own carriers, operate their own airports

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: sierra3tango
Posted 2013-04-01 08:10:53 and read 8735 times.

Quoting raptors (Reply 53):
Earlier in the thread, somebody stated that the cost of uplifting fuel was the same for all carriers in DXB, and I'm sure it is. This doesn't mean though that the home carriers don't have an advantage. Again, taking BA as an example, they have two flights a day, how many do EK have? What percentage of EK's flights start with a fuelling at DXB, 45%? Again, clearly an advantage for the home base carriers.

I really don't get this fuel cost point. Dubai doesn't have a refinery worth talking about

Quoting enilria (Reply 62):
Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 43):
EK & EY are NOT essentially owned by the same governments. They are owned by the Governments of Abu Dhabi and Dubai respectively, totally different governments

In case you missed it, Abu Dhabi bailed out Dubai which was on the verge of bankruptcy. They now have a great deal of financial control over Dubai's government owned entities. Do they control EK? Probably not, but the lines have blurred since then and as recently as last year Abu Dhabi was again called upon to help Emirates NBD prevent a large Dubai bank from failing.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 43):
Dubai doesn't have a refinery worth talking about, most of the JetA (think its A1) is imported by tanker from the old Caltex (now BAPCO) refinery in Bahrain. The price be discounted a bit by BAPCO for volume but that's about it

You are saying that fuel isn't cheap in Dubai? It seems cheap to me when I'm there.

Yeah Abu Dhabi has bailed out Dubai many times including one you didn't mention - the Dubai RTA got bought out BUT the one asset Dubai won't sell is EK. Abu Dhabi don't own Dubai, but they now own quite a lot of assets based in Dubai

Next time you're in the UAE check out the price of petrol / gasoline against the price of diesel. You will find that the price of diesel is DOUBLE or thereabouts - its easy, just ask on any forecourt. The reason? the price of petrol is controlled (by Federal Govt Law) but the price of diesel is open market. ENOC had lost (2 or 3 years back) over $500m on this and things have got so bad that RAK, Fujairah, UAQ & Ajman have very few (if any) ENOC or Emerat stations selling petrol any more (but you can buy diesel at those stations)

Whilst you're on the forecourt try and find a Saudi (or Bahrani / Kuwaiti) national (from the number plate) and ask him what he thinks about the price of gasoline in the UAE, he'll tell you its extortionate and that in his country its half (or whatever) the price and he'll be right.

If the price of petrol on the forecourt is your gauge of the price of Jet A1 you should be directing your thoughts to Saudi / Bahrain / Kuwait and their cheap petrol prices, (therefore cheap Jet-A1) so magically empowering airlines (GF/SV/KQ) driven by cheap A1 in those countries. Don't think so

[Edited 2013-04-01 08:41:35]

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-04-01 09:47:20 and read 8472 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 63):
you want us to fall back into the dark ages of state ownership with unlimited subsidies?

No, I expect you to continue to evolve as the Middle East carriers are doing, to expect them to evolve at the same time of Europe is a bit much, after all, most societies only pass on their advanced technology after they have perfected it and are ready to move on to something else.
Imagine the rest of the world trying to prevent the EU or the implementation of the Euro because it would create and imbalance between smaller nations who were previously equivalent to European countries who are now at a disadvantage when compared to the EU?
See the principle, what the Middle East carriers are doing is working for them, they are profitable and providing jobs over and above what their citizens require, thus them having a large migrant work force.
To compare, the EU provide social benefits for their migrants, not jobs, in time the Middle East will also evolve to this new model.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-04-01 10:22:49 and read 8301 times.

Quoting enilria (Reply 62):
You are saying that fuel isn't cheap in Dubai? It seems cheap to me when I'm there.

Assume you're referring to fuel for a car. Jet fuel prices rarely have much in common.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-04-01 11:03:04 and read 8172 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 65):
To compare, the EU provide social benefits for their migrants, not jobs, in time the Middle East will also evolve to this new model.

You are mixing up a lot of different things in your statement. We are talking about airlines, not the EU and the Euro.

We are talking about level playing fields in competition. That starts, in this comprison with the fact that we are comparing airlines in a feudal society ruled by decret and airlines in a democratic society ruled by the law, meaning the playing field is uneven from the start. That's why there are bilateral agreements about traffic rights and working conditions in the guest country.

These traties are bilateral and should be even and fair. I think that LH can live with what the ME3 enjoy in Germany, although their home country has much less to offer for LH.

Falling back decades into state ownership would increase the problems the European legacy carriers have.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-04-01 12:57:28 and read 7979 times.

Quoting christao17 (Reply 57):
Just one question: what happened to the free market? If legacy European carriers have a business model that will no longer make their investors money, then they need to update their business model.

Bringing free market rhetoric to a discussion about state-owned EK, QR and EY is, well, rather disingenuous...

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: SQ325
Posted 2013-04-01 13:45:20 and read 7872 times.

Quoting christao17 (Reply 57):
Just one question: what happened to the free market? If legacy European carriers have a business model that will no longer make their investors money, then they need to update their business model.

Since slavery is forbidden in europe it is not a question of business models it is about competing in the same market with state owned airlines using their state owned airports with planes belonging state owned leasing companys!

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-04-01 13:46:08 and read 7865 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 67):
You are mixing up a lot of different things in your statement. We are talking about airlines, not the EU and the Euro.

Ah no, we are talking about the evolution of societies, you claim that Europe is at the stage where they do not believe in state ownership, good for Europe, in time the rest of the world will catch up to Europe's progression.
The member nations who make up the EU have advanced that union to a point where the EU is now responsible for negotiating traffic rights, does that mean every other region of the world is at the same level of progress?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 67):
We are talking about level playing fields in competition. That starts, in this comprison with the fact that we are comparing airlines in a feudal society ruled by decret and airlines in a democratic society ruled by the law, meaning the playing field is uneven from the start. That's why there are bilateral agreements about traffic rights and working conditions in the guest country.

The UK has imposed a tax on travel to the Caribbean that is higher than that to the USA which is further away, the minister practically stated that due to the lack of competiton, they can do as they please whether fair or not.
So when you talk about level playing fields and rule of law, does this count?
Laws exist in the Middle East, they are not European laws so does that make them lawless?
How exactly did they force Europe to sign trade agreements that were not fair, did Europe have other priorities?
Right now the agreements signed are benefitting the Middle East carriers much more than the European carriers, so do like the American's did with the unfair Bermuda agreements renegotiate and or abandon them, that's much better than trying to bring back the dark days of protectionism, right?

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: avek00
Posted 2013-04-02 08:42:13 and read 7252 times.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 17):
Aviation is like any other industry in a global marketplace.

This has NEVER been true at any point in the history of commercial aviation, and is still not true today.

Many sincere aviation analysts and enthusiasts fail to grass the point that international air transportation was never intended to be governed exclusively by "free market" forces in part because creating the prerequsite condition for a true free market -- a relatively level playing field where most players can avail themselves of comparable cost, revenue, infrastructure, and regulatory bases -- is impossible on a global basis (and in the 21st century, it's still frequently impossible even on a bilateral basis). Furthermore, international air rights are still granted between countries with two guiding ideas in mind (that really haven't changed much over time):

1. The primary consideration of the international flying at issue is to transport people to and from the home country, with third-country traffic of secondary consideration; and/or

2. The granting of air rights furthers the economic and foriegn affairs interests of the countries involved.


Air France and KLM are right to call for restrictions on the Gulf carriers, since their services further neither objective vis-a-vis the EU.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: sierra3tango
Posted 2013-04-02 09:44:25 and read 7136 times.

Quoting SQ325 (Reply 69):
it is about competing in the same market with state owned airlines using their state owned airports with planes belonging state owned leasing companys!

There is a maxim used here in the UAE which roughly translated states 'from one pocket to the other (pocket)'. In short if a profit is to be made (in this example lets say ground handling) it is better going from one UAE pocket to another UAE pocket.

There is a falacy in such a premise as was proved in the DXB 2009 bust. Its not unlike that which occured with Bernie Cornfeld and IOS; not that I am suggesting any illegality here (as was IOS) in the processes; but the result is not dissimilar; as was proved in the credit melt down here at the time

To give you an example having tendered in (~2008) for a Project at, shall we say $10m, having gone through all the necessary processes, we won. We were then advised to issue the necessary documentation via a 3rd party (goverment owned) company. The primary user of the goods & services (government owned) then received back to back documentation at a value from the 3rd party of shall we say $15m (it was definitely a 50% uplift). The primary user spent months arguing with the 3rd party to no avail, by which time the credit crunch hit and that was that; and can give you hundreds more such examples.

In short there is a cost to all these government owned entities, they create jobs for UAE citizens (&costs thereof), need for office space and all the other accoutements you need to run a business, at what expense? But are these entities based on solid foundations, when there is only (effectively) one ultimate hand on the cheque book? And the trouble is that the bank account has seen better times.

Am minded to recall GF which was the No1 for quality in the 70s & 80s, where is it now and how did it get there. It was going downhill fast way before the ME3 got going

What goes around comes around

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: planesmart
Posted 2013-04-02 10:39:18 and read 6995 times.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 72):

It's referred to by some as 'clipping the ticket'. Happens in the West and East, and points in between, to varying degrees, overtly and covertly.

In the West we have subsidies and tax avoidance / tax effective funding too, which at the end of the day, create costs and/or lose revenue for a country's low and middle income wage earners (those on high incomes create their own schemes).

Over the last 40 years, with the benefit of hindsight, taxpayers would have been better off if our respective Governments had got out of the airline business in the 70's.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: sierra3tango
Posted 2013-04-02 10:52:04 and read 6940 times.

Quoting planesmart (Reply 73):
Over the last 40 years, with the benefit of hindsight, taxpayers would have been better off if our respective Governments had got out of the airline business in the 70's.

Totally agreed (quote) and the rest of it too

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-04-02 13:33:36 and read 6787 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 70):
The UK has imposed a tax on travel to the Caribbean that is higher than that to the USA which is further away,

The UK APD is based on mileage bands calculated using the mileage between London and the capital city of the other country, Washington in the case of the U.S. There are no points in the Caribbean closer to the UK than Washington.

The problem with the APD formula is that points like LAX and HNL, obviously much further than the Caribbean, are subject to the same APD amounts as the east coast.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: ElPistolero
Posted 2013-04-02 15:24:27 and read 6621 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 2):
His very airline is proof that it's still possible to find a profitable model, even in a country where competition from the Middle East carriers is at its greatest.
Quoting commavia (Reply 19):
European carriers from (by global standards) small countries that built their networks upon connections among and between foreign markets are now complaining about Gulf carriers doing ... the same thing.
Quoting BA0197 (Reply 61):
BA has had invasion on its land and does not say anything about restrictions placed on ME carriers. May I remind everyone that BA has (5?) A380s a day plus several other rotations to the UK each day from EK. They don't complain because they relize that it is competition.

Amen.

Quoting g500 (Reply 13):
The Gulf carriers are not hubled by unions, and labor relations comittes like Western airlines... In the West, if you don't agree with something, you are allowed to say something. If you're being over-worked or they want to take a benefit away, you have the option to fight it.

Tell that to the union folk at Air Canada. Everytime they mutter the word 'strike', the Government comes flying in to rescue AC.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 41):
I was last week in Rio and it was quite amazing to see Emirates' "Hello Tomorrow" ads in every other bus stop... with a picture of Asian women doing tai-chi and the Oriental Pearl Shanghai to advertise their flights to China. Among the crowd and traffic of Rio, it certainly made their new video look real

Saw the same thing in Delhi this past week - EK adds for all types of destinations on lamp posts. Including one touting 3 weekly flights to

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 42):
-Are government owned and operated airports in AUH, DXB and DOH charging carriers well below cost? If so, while all airlines benefit obviously, it is clearly an indirect subsidy to the home carriers, much like it would be if the state of Texas took over DFW and charged every airline a $100 flat fee per landing. All carriers but American would be screaming for blood.

Or all of them would be smart and relocate to DFW until the other states got their act together. Not sure what your point is here, since lax tax and labour laws are present in every industry. That certainly hasn't stopped outsourcing. And it probably won't silence the folk here who preach against these lax laws on the one hand, but have no qualms about investing in, and profiting from companies that outsource their manufacturing and services lines to countries that offer cheap labour, weak labour laws and low taxes.

Do AF/KL, LH, AC etc buy everything from local producers, or do they buy products from China (like pillows, amenity kits, blankets)? If they buy them from China, then IMHO there is something inherently hypocritical in criticizing states that offer these 'advantages' on the one hand, and benefitting from these 'advantages' with the other hand. After all, if those cheap headsets are built by Chinese workers, not French, Dutch, Germans or Canadians, then why are people here so upset about the French, Dutch, Germans or Canadians being flown by other countries airlines, instead of their own?

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, and all that.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 42):
-Are Etihad, Emirates and Qatar Airways able to borrow from capital markets at lower rates because they are state owned? Again, if the state of Texas suddenly announced that it would guarantee AMR's loans, their cost of money would drop significantly and other carriers would complain of government interference.

Is this the whole export-import bank financing issue? If so, many airlines used to benefit from this (no idea where it stands now), including AC.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...s-to-hit-air-canada/article562239/

Quoting raptors (Reply 53):
I was curios a while back about tax free salaries and based upon my own observations I saw that a job in the UK and the UAE paid a similar amount after tax. So, if BA pays somebody £30,000 gross, then this would roughtly equate to £20,000 nett. EK would simply pay £20,000 gross, tax free. This means that BA would be paying approx. 30% more than EK, clearly a disadvantage as far as BA would be concerned. I haven't looked for a while and I'm sure that are some instances where this might have changed but it was something a spotted a while ago.

And you could probably get somebody in India to do the same job for $10,000. I don't see an issue here. Merely a reality.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 55):
EK has virtually no risk wth that financing model, if a war breaks out in the region they simply give the aircraft back to the lessors.

Not sure what you're getting at. Is AF/KL or LH at risk of a war breaking out in the EU? If not, how is this relevant?

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 58):
This is a very one sided advantage to M.E. carriers, there is very little M.E. for the European airlines to fly to

Kind of like OS, LX, KL and North America or Asia, eh?

Quoting factsonly (Reply 6):
Mr. Spinetta is calling attention to the fact that airlines do NOT operate on a level playing field today, as Government favours are now much less obvious. He is asking the EU to pay more attention to hidden forms of support.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 63):
Simple answer, a free market can only work in a level playing field.

Never have the words "level playing field" been so utterly misused. All of the constraints that EU carriers face are imposed on them by their own government. Lets put it this way: If you want to compete with the big boys at the Olympic, but get shot in the foot by your government, don't expect the others to shoot themselves in the foot to level the playing field.

Now if you or the AF/KL chief demanded that France follow the same model as the UAE - cut airport taxes etc, then I would be sympathetic. But as it stands, you want everything your way, and if anyone offers an alternative, you demand they be stopped because the playing field isn't level? Suffice it to say, as sad as it is to watch EU airlines being crippled by their governments (Carbon tax!),I don't think the solution to it is to get everyone else to shoot themselves in the foot as well.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 67):
That starts, in this comprison with the fact that we are comparing airlines in a feudal society ruled by decret and airlines in a democratic society ruled by the law, meaning the playing field is uneven from the start.

When in doubt, climb the democratic pedestal and rant against the feudal socieites. A great idea, if it weren't undermined, as it is, by the fact that your great democratic society has many companies that make plenty of money doing business in feudal/despotic/authoritarian societies. The day LH stops flying to any number of countries that are far more oppressive than the UAE, we can discuss the fine points of democracy. Until then, however, lets steer clear of democracy and feudalism.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 67):
I think that LH can live with what the ME3 enjoy in Germany, although their home country has much less to offer for LH.

Sounds a lot like LH and India, eh?

That aside, I've always wondered why people here keep conflating an airline's (LH) interest with a country's (Germany) interest. Personally, I don't give a damn about what is acceptable to LH or not - what interests me is whether Germans in general benefit from it. And to be quite honest, I hope policy-makers think that way too. Otherwise, aviation policies will keep catering to special interests (in this case, the airline) over the greater good.

[Edited 2013-04-02 15:26:59]

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-04-02 16:02:06 and read 6586 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 36):
The mid east carriers thrived in an environment where the European carriers severely restricted their own airlines growth and now they complain?

Aren't you blaming the victim? This is one of the "restricted" airlines complaining, not the French government. And by your argument, they SHOULD complain. They are basically demanding that either the EU stop restricting EU airline growth, or they continue to restrict ME airline growth. I kind of agree there. And because it is unlikely that the EU is going to reverse course on curfews, slot restrictions, tax after tax after fee after fee, then the only thing any EU carrier can really ask for is for the EU to limit access by ME carriers as "compensation" for their hardship.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Azure
Posted 2013-04-03 01:21:20 and read 6292 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 76):
Is this the whole export-import bank financing issue? If so, many airlines used to benefit from this (no idea where it stands now), including AC.

It is a huge issue, do not minimize it ! "Export credit" makes it possible for airlines such as EK, EY, QR or TK, Lion Air to place mega orders at discounted loan rate because the country of the aircraft manufacter (thus the tax payers of said country) guarantees the loan, while the airlines of said country cannot benefit from such a system ! Talk about fair competition and free trade !


Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 76):
Kind of like OS, LX, KL and North America or Asia, eh?

No, no and no ! There is an open sky agreement between the US and the UE (not simply bilaterals between the US and the UE members). US airlines have access to as many points of entry in the UE as the UE carriers in the US, or close to anyway. What do the UAE have to offer in return ?


Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 76):
Now if you or the AF/KL chief demanded that France follow the same model as the UAE - cut airport taxes etc, then I would be sympathetic

Give us a break, please. It is not a question of airport taxes but government subsidies, accounting methods, export credit access, etc... And this is exacty what AF CEO says :"do not lift the restictions until the conditions of fair competition are established". In other words, the ME3 must play by the same rules as we do OR we must play by the same rules as they do.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: something
Posted 2013-04-03 02:29:10 and read 6202 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 76):
All of the constraints that EU carriers face are imposed on them by their own government.

By its people. Which is exactly what PanHAM means when he says that the EU is ruled by law. If the people demand a ban of night flights at FRA, they can enforce it. If people want union representation, they can have it. It's not like the people of other countries would not enjoy to be afforded such luxuries, trust me, but they aren't.

You could argue that Europeans and Americans are idiotic for wanting the cheapest products, but the highest wages. They want their jobs to be protected by unions, but buy products that can only be that cheap because their manufacturers aren't. This brings to mind the figure of speech describing one's desire to retain possession of a baked pastry, while indulging in its consumption simultaneously.

Which is - next to -

Quoting avek00 (Reply 71):
international air rights are still granted between countries with two guiding ideas in mind (that really haven't changed much over time):

1. The primary consideration of the international flying at issue is to transport people to and from the home country, with third-country traffic of secondary consideration; and/or

2. The granting of air rights furthers the economic and foriegn affairs interests of the countries involved.


Air France and KLM are right to call for restrictions on the Gulf carriers, since their services further neither objective vis-a-vis the EU.

exactly my point why the EU governments should be able to control the influx of products of certain origins to its domestic market. This extends to any product, service or retail.

The EU countries have laws that were written by the people, not by a king. If these people want certain rules, then they should apply always. They have their labor representation at work, which brings up the price of the product, so other companies' products should not be available for a lower price because they have been produced in the absense of such laws. Be that through import taxes, or import quotas.

You can now argue all you want about the existence of unions, the existence of rights, the existence of environmental protection, inflation and all other issues resulting from living in a democracy where the law is not dictated by profit only. But that is a separate discussion to have. Here, the CEO of a company is stating that it is impossible for his company to compete with another company that does not have to abide by the same rules as his, and that ideally he'd see an equalizing mechanism to be implemented. That is only logical.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: EK413
Posted 2013-04-03 03:38:29 and read 6094 times.

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
things continue the way they are, Emirates will be flying A380s into every European airport some day

If it wasn't for EK & the 90+ A380's on order Airbus probably would've gone belly up and many European jobs slashed... Plus how can I forget the strong fleet of 100+ B777's...
You should be thankful such an airline exists...

EK413

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-04-03 03:38:36 and read 6088 times.

Quoting something (Reply 79):
The EU countries have laws that were written by the people, not by a king. If these people want certain rules, then they should apply always.

You are talking about a political process used to control the population which is abused on a regular basis as if the citizens vote on all these rules and laws indviduallly, whether by a King, a political party or influential business men, the people are the last ones to have any voice which usually occurs every 5 years or so and by then the laws are already passed and usually cannot be revoked.

The entire world watched the Cyprus money grab, are you saying that if we go to the people in Cyprus they all agreed with loosing their deposits and having access to their funds?
How about the ETS schemes, did the people of Europe go out and vote or did their representatives, folks in regions away from airports whose business suffer due to the hardship of curfews, airline pax whose flights get more expensive due to increased taxes, did they vote?
Let's remember the famous lines when the new EU treaty was being voted on, the people were so involved that they were mandated by themselves to vote again in Ireland, they also changed the process to ensure that future votes would only take place by their elected officials and not the general public, go figure.

Business have to thrive in the environment they create, airlines are involved in shaping their environment, some people seem to think that the front men like Willie are actually calling the shots. Current western societies have created convoluted business / financial structures that allow persons not versed / experienced in various industries to be the primary movers and shakers, the net result is their busines environment, which at this time in Europe is definately anti airline, now if the people voted for this environment why exactly are they complaining, the people also run the airlines right?

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-04-03 04:00:41 and read 6040 times.

We are tlaking about level playing fields.

There is no level playing field when one company is based in a country ruled by the law and the other in a country riuled by decret. That should be understood easily.

We do not need, in a representative democracy, vote on each single issue. But each citizen has the right to sue against the government, if necessary to the highest court. To take your wrong placed comparison with Cyprus, the citizens can sue against - what you call a money grab - Try that in a fedual country.

To get back to the topic, airline business is a service industry whoch cannot be compared to manufacturing. In manufacturing, there are trade agreements which regulate the international exchange of goods. In aviation, such regulation is handled by the laws and rules based on the Chicagpo convention and following conventions. There are bilaterals in place, which is the case with the ME3. These bilaterals give the ME3 a lot of freedom to act like they do.

In manufacturing, the performance of the ME3 could be called dumping and would lead to penalty duties to re-establish a level playing field.

All in all, the ME3 can't complain, they have gained generous access to European markets and can still grow more or less unrestricted, by simply putting larger aircraft in service.




Quoting EK413 (Reply 80):
If it wasn't for EK & the 90+ A380's on order Airbus probably would've gone belly up and many European jobs

Hardly. Airbus would rather be better off without the 380 which is far from break even. The money is made with the A32X

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: ElPistolero
Posted 2013-04-03 04:12:44 and read 5996 times.

Quoting Azure (Reply 78):
It is a huge issue, do not minimize it !

I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that work to address it has been taking place for a while.

Quoting Azure (Reply 78):
No, no and no ! There is an open sky agreement between the US and the UE (not simply bilaterals between the US and the UE members). US airlines have access to as many points of entry in the UE as the UE carriers in the US, or close to anyway. What do the UAE have to offer in return ?

For the sake of brevity, I will reduce that solely to LX, but the larger point remains - why not Open Skies everywhere? It should be noted that the UK and the US have no qualms about providing the UAE with Open Skies despite the presence of the same issues.

Besides, US airlines have all kinds of advantages including, according to media reports here in Canada (in the context of airport rent), subsidized airports. I'm not disagreeing so much as asking you to level your own vision field.

Quoting Azure (Reply 78):

Give us a break, please. It is not a question of airport taxes but government subsidies, accounting methods, export credit access, etc... And this is exacty what AF CEO says :"do not lift the restictions until the conditions of fair competition are established". In other words, the ME3 must play by the same rules as we do OR we must play by the same rules as they do.

Seeing as EK is audited by a global auditing firm and new global accounting standards, like IFRS, are being implemented, not to mention the apparent push to address this export credit access (that article itself is from 2010 - I imagine there's been progress), suggests to me that any advantage that EK currently enjoys is likely going to dissipate soon.

Beyond that, I think "we must play by the same rules as they do" sounds a better option given AF/KLs financial performance of late.

Quoting something (Reply 79):
By its people. Which is exactly what PanHAM means when he says that the EU is ruled by law. If the people demand a ban of night flights at FRA, they can enforce it. If people want union representation, they can have it. It's not like the people of other countries would not enjoy to be afforded such luxuries, trust me, but they aren't.

It still doesn't fly (no pun intended). If a democratic system panders to NIMBYs over national interests, it is flawed, if only because national interests are in the interest of the nation, that is to say, the vast majority of the population (more like the entire population minus the NIMBYs). The problem then is not that one state is feudal and the other democratic - the problem is that the latter apparently needs some problems ironed out with regard to how its citizens are represented in decision making structures that deal with issues that aren't politically volatile/resonant.

I will also point out that some have a tendency to overemphasize democratic input into most Government decisions. Did UK citizens vote on APD in particular? Does it reflect the democratic will directly? Its just an example. Many government policies might as well be decrees, if only because most people don't know about them - or don't care.

As for unions, this is a very important, but entirely separate issue. I don't know how things work out in the EU, but here in North America, companies (Walmart being the obvious example) can choose simply not to recognize unions. Similarly, here in Canada, WS is relatively union-free. I won't pretend to know how that plays out in the EU.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: something
Posted 2013-04-03 04:22:40 and read 5968 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 81):
You are talking about a political process used to control the population which is abused on a regular basis as if the citizens vote on all these rules and laws indviduallly, whether by a King, a political party or influential business men, the people are the last ones to have any voice which usually occurs every 5 years or so and by then the laws are already passed and usually cannot be revoked.

I have at no point stated that our democratic process was particularly representative, efficient or that I am in agreement with all political decisions. Look at Germany for a second.. how can a few misguided weirdos that live near by the airport choose to refuse the airport's offer to buy their property well above market value, take the airport's money to insulate their homes and yet still get a night curfew enforced even though the people affected by the new runway - which brought about the discussion about the curfew - are not even affected by night flights? Or look at the seemingly infinite strikes that serve no other purpose than for the unions to look busy, to somehow justify the contributions its members pay.

But that isn't the point of the discussion. The point is that we have those laws, and that the UAE doesn't. We can't afford our people with union protected, high paying jobs and cheap stuff, that is the product of un-protected labor at the same time. Regulating the influx of goods and services by quotas or taxes is only a logical reaction, or else you'll have to realize that the people aren't willing to pay their own salaries.

Quoting par13del (Reply 81):
The entire world watched the Cyprus money grab, are you saying that if we go to the people in Cyprus they all agreed with loosing their deposits and having access to their funds?
How about the ETS schemes, did the people of Europe go out and vote or did their representatives, folks in regions away from airports whose business suffer due to the hardship of curfews, airline pax whose flights get more expensive due to increased taxes, did they vote?
Let's remember the famous lines when the new EU treaty was being voted on, the people were so involved that they were mandated by themselves to vote again in Ireland, they also changed the process to ensure that future votes would only take place by their elected officials and not the general public, go figure.

Business have to thrive in the environment they create, airlines are involved in shaping their environment, some people seem to think that the front men like Willie are actually calling the shots. Current western societies have created convoluted business / financial structures that allow persons not versed / experienced in various industries to be the primary movers and shakers, the net result is their busines environment, which at this time in Europe is definately anti airline, now if the people voted for this environment why exactly are they complaining, the people also run the airlines right?

Not only is this way off topic, but it looks like a deliberate attempt to divert the discussion from ''can AF compete with the ME3'' to ''how flawed are democracies''. They are, and without them we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. If you want to discuss and compare the merits of democracies and dictatorships, then history books will be your best friend in finding those answers.

I don't agree with incredibly many things that happen here, but I have yet to find a dictatorship where that'd be different. Of course many things here are stymied by what the dimwitted constituents of whatever jurisdiction decide on or what the inept politicians of whatever color or creed mess up. But at the end of the day, I have access to uncensored internet and don't go to jail for kissing my girlfriend in public.

Quoting par13del (Reply 81):
if the people voted for this environment why exactly are they complaining, the people also run the airlines right?

1. Nobody ever said things here were perfect.
2. Nobody is complaining about the environment here, but about the environment elsewhere.
3. If it weren't for the flawed western societies, the ME3 wouldn't exist.

Again, stick to the discussion at hand. The AF CEO doesn't want the ME3 to get more access to the EU market because they play by other rules. At no point does he critisize France, democracies, claim that AF is the best airline on earth or that his company's results couldn't be improved otherwise. He merely claims that those airlines have an artificial advantage that he wants to see equalized - be that through tougher restrictions on EK, or eased (economic) restrictions on him.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: something
Posted 2013-04-03 04:41:21 and read 5933 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 83):
If a democratic system panders to NIMBYs over national interests, it is flawed, if only because national interests are in the interest of the nation, that is to say, the vast majority of the population (more like the entire population minus the NIMBYs).

The small issue you seem to overlook is that everybody is something's NIMBY. You can't single out those fools at FRA that have brought upon the curfew, against all logical reason, and conclude that NIMBY's stand in the way of the greater good.

Much rather you have to look at those people at FRA symbolically. They stand for something, that would never work in any other form of governance. They stand for the people in Hamburg that don't want the Elbe river dug out, people in Munich that don't want a third runway, people in Stuttgart that don't want a new train station etc. Where do you draw the line between what NIMBYism is acceptable and what isn't?

In the end, everyone who isn't a slave stands in the way of economic progess. So much in fact, that it's the slave-ish countries that are the poorest and the countries of freedom (not only entrepreneurial) that seem to be richest nations on earth.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 83):
Did UK citizens vote on APD in particular? Does it reflect the democratic will directly?

People want the government to take over certain roles, many of which cost money. Money needs to come from somewhere so the government looks at places to get it.

If aviation were that crucial to the British economy, or the APD that much of a burden, ask yourself why nobody in the UK wants to stop giving the financial sector prostate massages galores? This is also not a discussion about the UK.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 83):
Many government policies might as well be decrees, if only because most people don't know about them - or don't care.

->

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):
But each citizen has the right to sue against the government, if necessary to the highest court. To take your wrong placed comparison with Cyprus, the citizens can sue against - what you call a money grab - Try that in a fedual country.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-04-03 04:48:37 and read 5913 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 83):
If a democratic system panders to NIMBYs over national interests, it is flawed, if only because national interests are in the interest of the nation, that is to say, the vast majority of the population (more like the entire population minus the NIMBYs). The problem then is not that one state is feudal and the other democratic -

The system does not pander to NIMBYs, the system is that a supreme administration court has ruled about the opering hours of a hub airport. That ruling, although it tries to be in the interests of all concerned, is not optimal for the carriers based at that airport. However, the carriers have accepted it and more or less arranged their ops with that ruling.

The NIMBYs have not, they want one additional hour of curfew at each end and a maximum number of annual ops which is a 100K less than the current amount and 300K below capacity. The system is that, to work in the national interest, the government must bring in a new law. to regulate curfews at hub airports. this will not happen in an election year. If it happens, the people can sue against that law. All this takes time, it may not be efficient but it is the best political system available.

I would not want to swap it for a system where one person can set the rules, even if that ruler is liberal. The result may please me in this particular issue, but what could happen next, what will happen if the liberal ruler is replaced?

There can be no doubt that ME3 have ample access to European markets. Between them they cover the 6 top airports/regions in Germany, in the UK they make use of the fact theat LHR lacks runway capacity and in centralistic France they cover all the main markets. I think they do not have any reasons to complain and when a CEO of a top3 European carrier makes a statement about restricting the ME3, he has a good cause and a lot of reason to do so..

[Edited 2013-04-03 05:28:48]

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: RyanairGuru
Posted 2013-04-03 05:32:31 and read 5832 times.

Quoting something (Reply 79):
the EU governments should be able to control the influx of products of certain origins to its domestic market

And they do, they don't allow EK to fly domestic flights within their domestic market. But international flying doesn't count as "domestic market" to use your term. So a whole new set of rules apply. If AF is angry at anyone it should be the French government for supporting SNCF and building the TGV. That decimated their "domestic market".

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-04-03 05:40:02 and read 5812 times.

EK is not interested to fly cabotage routes and countries will not open cabotage to foreign carriers. For a good number of reasons, the bilateral would stand against it. But EK could do what EY did, buy shares in a EU carrier and fly domestic and intro EU routes.

They could, at any time, sign an interline agreement with SNCF or DB Rail.if they haven't done so already.

BTW. railway lines are national infrastructure, like airports.....

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: ElPistolero
Posted 2013-04-03 08:21:08 and read 5624 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):

To be clear, I don't disagree that EK has more than enough access to the EU. That said, I disagree with the constant attempts to conflate what's good for an airline with what's good for a country. Would the average Frenchman or Berliner benefit from more international access to their local airport? Undoubtedly. Would AF or LH benefit from it? Probably not.

That, of course, leads to the question of where the airlines fit in. I believe they are strategic assets and should be treated as such. Many others believe this too (including, I suspect, yourself). The UAE and Turkey have taken the extra step - they have harnessed the strategic value. This has caused some consternation amongst established airlines, because they don't subscribe to the conventional norms of western aviation. This begs the question: are conventional ways of running airlines, airports or even the aviation industry really the best way? Or are we being guided by ideology over common sense ('this is how it should be' vs 'this is the best way forward'). I genuinely believe that SQ and later EK and now TK are showing how to harness the potential of aviation instead of using it as a simple cash cow. Should an airport be managed any differently than a road or any other piece of infrastructure. Of it serves as an enabler in the wider economy, I see nothing wrong with subsidizing it.

I will add that democratic governments have a long history of treating strategic assets in an exclusive way, away from public scrutiny and criticism (say 'national security' and anything goes), so why not aviation? This is one of the reasons I am critical of the usual detractors that EK attracts. Sure they don't do things the way we do, but does that mean that their way is not a better way. Innovation and creativity are considered desirable traits, but are reviled when they shake up the old, possibly obsolete, order. That is what is happening now. The UAE gave EK the tools to succeed. Is that a bad thing or is it something more nations should emulate? And what is the national goal - to allow more connectivity, or to fill national carriers?

Furthermore, I disagree with the comparison to dumping. As I understand it, governments agree on the range of fares, which restricts the ability to dump. LH and EK can offer the same minimum price, which is negotiated by the governments. If more people choose EK than LH on this fare, then that's not dumping - that's the market at work. People choose what works for them. As they should. They owe nothing to any airline. Selling a product at a govt approved price is hardly akin to dumping, even if supply vastly outstrips demand.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-04-03 08:43:49 and read 5579 times.

Quoting Azure (Reply 78):
It is a huge issue, do not minimize it ! "Export credit" makes it possible for airlines such as EK, EY, QR or TK, Lion Air to place mega orders at discounted loan rate because the country of the aircraft manufacter (thus the tax payers of said country) guarantees the loan, while the airlines of said country cannot benefit from such a system ! Talk about fair competition and free trade !

I thought Export credit was used to create the volumes of products necessary for industrial countries to move their products and maintain their high levels of employment and benefits, if the "Western" airlines would purchase the thousands of a/c Airbus / Boeing need to sell there would be no need to entice foreign nations with your tax dollars to to take on debt.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):
We are tlaking about level playing fields.

Yes, a very generic term.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):
There is no level playing field when one company is based in a country ruled by the law and the other in a country riuled by decret. That should be understood easily.

How is that truly relevant, are you saying that the ME carriers had their rulers pass a decree forcing the democratically elected leaders of Europe to sign trade agreements, perhaps the complaint should be to teh European elected officials?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):
To take your wrong placed comparison with Cyprus, the citizens can sue against - what you call a money grab - Try that in a fedual country.

The difference is what, that the money grab has not / is not taking place, is there a suit that we don't know about, is the Troika standing up for this injustice or are they waiting for John Q Public to
See quote below, everyone does want government to rule by decree on some things.

Quoting something (Reply 85):
People want the government to take over certain roles, many of which cost money. Money needs to come from somewhere so the government looks at places to get it.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):
In aviation, such regulation is handled by the laws and rules based on the Chicagpo convention and following conventions.

Unfortunately, going by the rules of the Chiacgo Convention is not universal, it is more of a convenience to accomplish one's goals, see the EU court of appeals ruling related to the ETS trading scheme and its legality.

Quoting something (Reply 84):
Not only is this way off topic, but it looks like a deliberate attempt to divert the discussion from ''can AF compete with the ME3'' to ''how flawed are democracies''

Well someone did bring up the rule of law.

Quoting something (Reply 84):
But at the end of the day, I have access to uncensored internet and don't go to jail for kissing my girlfriend in public.

Which is the bigger problem, it is a rule of law in those countries which us foreigners do not like since it is not our law, however, it is still a law and persons in the region who are fighting and dying on a dialy basis in the Arab Spring uprising and not doing so to implement western style laws.

The ME carriers are using bilaterals negotiated in good faith by both sides and are reaping, that the EU side did not include their airlines is not the fault of the other party, it is entirely possible that the Europeans who negotaied the agreements were more concerned with the greater value of a/c sales versus pax on local carriers, however, that was the basis of their negotiations and not the fault of the other party.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-04-03 08:50:59 and read 5578 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 89):
Would the average Frenchman or Berliner benefit from more international access to their local airport? Undoubtedly. Would AF or LH benefit from it? Probably not.

The average Berliner has ample access to international air services from his home airport, always has been that way even when BER was an island, PA an BE provided access. Competition is so much that airfares in BER would not be reduced by additional carriers. If EK wants, they can fly to BER, no problem, they just have to give uüp another destination or, they can fly to FRA MUC DUS HAM and BER, but then are limited to 49 weekly flights. But their sponsor EY serves the city and with the turkish population in BER IST and SAW are well connected with all the transit options offered.

The government does not negotiate fares, carriers are free n their calculation like any other business. The rule is that EK cannot undercut LH fares but how can you control that when EK forks in a free or cheap night in transit at a DXB luxury hotel. EK plays the fiddle quite well and offering, from next year on a 77W and an A380 daily from DUS is dumping seats

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: ElPistolero
Posted 2013-04-03 11:32:28 and read 5444 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 91):

The rule is that EK cannot undercut LH on prices? That's interesting. I don't know what definition of 'dumping' you're using, but this rule effectively precludes the possibility of dumping (based on most standard definitions of dumping, which tend to focus on predatory pricing). This ostensibly amounts to dumping since it includes the advantage of a hotel, thereby lowering the cost of the actual airfare.

Here's my problem: what's stopping LH from doing the same thing? If they can control the prices, surely they can increase it just enough to include rooms at discounted corporate rates? There's nothing stopping both airlines from offering rooms, particularly when the airline with the higher costs controls the pricing.

LH's problem has been very poor management of the customer experience side of things. The reluctance to put in PTVs even when the profits were flowing in, is testament to that. EK built its reputation on a better than average Y product. LH lagged far behind on Y service for years. That has more to do with poor management choices than feudal decrees.

As for Berlin, the issue isn't simply quantitative; it is qualitative as well. It's not simply about how much service - its also about the quality / value for money of the service. Would Berliners benefit from better value-for-money service? I think so.

As for DUS, if EK isn't engaging in predatory pricing, then I fail to see how it's dumping. If they're charging as much as LH is, then it's up to LH to make itself an attractive proposition. Since LH is dictating the fares, it clearly has the advantage on this count. That it can't harness it cannot be blamed on EK.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: EK413
Posted 2013-04-03 11:38:49 and read 5428 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):
Hardly. Airbus would rather be better off without the 380 which is far from break even. The money is made with the A32X

Perhaps I should've been somewhat clearer, the point I was making is the fact EK kept the A380 program alive regardless of other program's which may or not save Airbus... How many A380's would've been on the order books had it not been for Emirates...?

EK413

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-04-03 12:32:53 and read 5357 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 90):
How is that truly relevant, are you saying that the ME carriers had their rulers pass a decree forcing the democratically elected leaders of Europe to sign trade agreements, perhaps the complaint should be to teh European elected officials?

LOL, no I would never come to such silly conclusions. It goes from the top to the bottom, not vv. In countries like the UAE it is much easier to set up the needed infrastructure without such nasty things as subjects calling the courts to oppose night operations or new runways or even new airports. As long as the financing stands, infrastructure is built in a few years and not the 15 to 20 it takes in democratic confessed countries.



Quoting EK413 (Reply 93):
Perhaps I should've been somewhat clearer, the point I was making is the fact EK kept the A380 program alive

It wuld be either spread over more years or it would not have gone into production but it would not have killed Airbus.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: EK413
Posted 2013-04-03 13:05:51 and read 5296 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 94):
It wuld be either spread over more years or it would not have gone into production but it would not have killed Airbus.

Or never hit the production lines and shelved...

EK413

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Azure
Posted 2013-04-03 14:10:27 and read 5226 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 83):
No, no and no ! There is an open sky agreement between the US and the UE (not simply bilaterals between the US and the UE members). US airlines have access to as many points of entry in the UE as the UE carriers in the US, or close to anyway. What do the UAE have to offer in return ?

For the sake of brevity, I will reduce that solely to LX

LX ? It is a subsidiary of the LH group, a European entity. Switzerland and the EU have a whole bunch of agreements on transportation and furthermore Switzerland and the US signed an open sky agreement a loooong time ago...

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 83):
why not Open Skies everywhere?

I do not know if you are aware of what open sky agreements often consist in... Many of these agreements are not as open as their name would let us believe. For instance, the open sky agreement between the UK and the UAE is restrictive on authorized entry points and excludes fifth freedom rights. There is not much difference between this agreement and the general EU / UAE agreement, even if this latter is not called an "open sky"...
As for the USA / UAE "open skies", it was signed in 1999 but until recently, EK was not allowed to land in the US because the FAA thought there was not enough independant overview on this airline... Some regulators seem to share the same concerns as the AF CEO, see...

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 83):
Seeing as EK is audited by a global auditing firm and new global accounting standards, like IFRS, are being implemented, not to mention the apparent push to address this export credit access (that article itself is from 2010 - I imagine there's been progress), suggests to me that any advantage that EK currently enjoys is likely going to dissipate soon.

Right. So you admit this advantage has not dissipated yet. You therefore agree with the AF CEO : no need to end the restrictions until the conditions of fair competition are estabished.
Furthermore, your statement is valid for EK only, not for QR or EY which are still far from satisfying to the IFRS standards for instance...

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 83):
I think "we must play by the same rules as they do" sounds a better option given AF/KLs financial performance of late.

AF/KL long haul operations are profitable, just like EK's (we do not really know for QR and EY, do we ?). AF domestic / short haul operations are loss making, but please admit EK does not have to deal with the same situation as AF : no domestic market, no domestic competition with LCCs in a totally deregulated market AND an extensive high-speed train network...

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 83):
I don't know how things work out in the EU, but here in North America, companies (Walmart being the obvious example) can choose simply not to recognize unions.

In France, the workers rights are in the constitution and a company cannot choose not to recognize an union if it has enough members inside said company...

Quoting par13del (Reply 90):
I thought Export credit was used to create the volumes of products necessary for industrial countries to move their products and maintain their high levels of employment and benefits, if the "Western" airlines would purchase the thousands of a/c Airbus / Boeing need to sell there would be no need to entice foreign nations with your tax dollars to to take on debt.

The trouble is that these "western" airlines cannot benefit from this very favorable financing scheme and these carriers consider this situation as unfair. Why should they be disadvantaged because they operate from an aircraft manufacturing country ?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 94):
It wuld be either spread over more years or it would not have gone into production but it would not have killed Airbus.

Agreed ! Or other airlines would have benefitted from the market growth and would have ordered A380s (or by larger orders than their current ones)

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: ElPistolero
Posted 2013-04-03 14:48:57 and read 5174 times.

Quoting Azure (Reply 96):
LX ? It is a subsidiary of the LH group, a European entity. Switzerland and the EU have a whole bunch of agreements on transportation and furthermore Switzerland and the US signed an open sky agreement a loooong time ago...

Doesn't change the fact that the US has a lot more to offer LX than Switzerland does to US carriers.

In any event, the exchange you are referring to were in response to this:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 58):
This is a very one sided advantage to M.E. carriers, there is very little M.E. for the European airlines to fly to, while there is so much more for carriers like EK or EY to gain as an advantage.

You're pulling it out of context.

Quoting Azure (Reply 96):
I do not know if you are aware of what open sky agreements often consist in... Many of these agreements are not as open as their name would let us believe. For instance, the open sky agreement between the UK and the UAE is restrictive on authorized entry points and excludes fifth freedom rights. There is not much difference between this agreement and the general EU / UAE agreement, even if this latter is not called an "open sky"...

I am, indeed, aware of that. I will simply note that EK operates to 6 UK airports and 7 US airports, as opposed to 3 French airports. Not much difference indeed.

Quoting Azure (Reply 96):
As for the USA / UAE "open skies", it was signed in 1999 but until recently, EK was not allowed to land in the US because the FAA thought there was not enough independant overview on this airline... Some regulators seem to share the same concerns as the AF CEO, see...

Source? A simple google search reveals nothing about this. I can understand the FAA not approving EK on safety grounds, but what do you mean by independent overview? Do AIr India and Air China and other state-owned carriers have enough independent overview?

Quoting Azure (Reply 96):
Right. So you admit this advantage has not dissipated yet. You therefore agree with the AF CEO : no need to end the restrictions until the conditions of fair competition are estabished.
Furthermore, your statement is valid for EK only, not for QR or EY which are still far from satisfying to the IFRS standards for instance...

No. I say that IF any current advantages exist, they will disappear soon enough. I don't definitively state that they exist - I am simply giving you the benefit of doubt on that count. Of course I find it very odd that you are admitting that EK is close to satisfying / has satisfied IFRS requirements given, seeing as you yourself explicitly listed accounting methods as a cause for concern. I don't agree with the AF CEO, since the idea of "conditions of fair competition" is never going to be achieved, if only because every nation has competitive advantages, and your conditions of fair competition, by definition, would require them to give this competitive advantage up. They don't do it in other sectors; why should they do it in aviation? After all, is Airbus not producing aircraft in China? Is that not related to specific characteristics of the Chinese economy that make it unfairly competitive with the French workers in France and the German workers in Germany who are missing out on these jobs?

Preaching the idea of level playing fields and fair competition is great, but it loses its steam when it becomes apparent that these conditions don't exist anywhere; furthermore, EU companies are actively benefitting from the unlevel playing field and lack of fair competition. If the AF CEO pledges to buy no products from the developing world (that includes Airbus aircraft built in China), then I will be more sympathetic to his position. Till then, he's just a hypocrite.

Quoting Azure (Reply 96):

AF/KL long haul operations are profitable, just like EK's (we do not really know for QR and EY, do we ?). AF domestic / short haul operations are loss making, but please admit EK does not have to deal with the same situation as AF : no domestic market, no domestic competition with LCCs in a totally deregulated market AND an extensive high-speed train network...

Admit what? That AF faces a lot of competition on domestic/shorthaul? I have no qualms about admitting that. But if this is the case, why not drop those routes? Because they feed the longhaul flights? In which case, should the longhaul flights be considered profitable, given that their feeder flights are loss makers?

Quoting Azure (Reply 96):

The trouble is that these "western" airlines cannot benefit from this very favorable financing scheme and these carriers consider this situation as unfair. Why should they be disadvantaged because they operate from an aircraft manufacturing country ?

On this, we agree. I m surprised it hasn't been resolved yet.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-04-03 15:05:45 and read 5134 times.

Quoting Azure (Reply 96):
LX ? It is a subsidiary of the LH group, a European entity. Switzerland and the EU have a whole bunch of agreements on transportation and furthermore Switzerland and the US signed an open sky agreement a loooong time ago.

U.S.-Switzerland has been Open Skies for almost 18 years (June 1995). It was one of the first few such agreements with the U.S.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: aa757first
Posted 2013-04-03 16:23:26 and read 5055 times.

Quoting g500 (Reply 3):
The Gulf carreiers and Western aircraft manufacturers are the biggest winners in all of this. The Western airlines are by far the biggest loosers of the Gulf carrier revolution...

Other huge winner: consumers.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 6):
If you go back 30 or 40 years all airlines were under the same strict government regulations everywhere. Routes, aircraft type, capacity, frequency and even fares were set by Government not by the airlines. As this was the same for all airlines it was a level playing field of sorts. This may sound strange today, but governments everywhere acted similarly and airlines knew there was no 'free' market.

Not always true. The US market was deregulated in 1978, while the European market was deregulated in the early 1990s. This actually favored the US carriers immensely, because their transatlantic operations were more efficient than their European competitors.

Quoting g500 (Reply 13):
In the Gulf, is their way or the highway... Plain and simple.. that's gotta to be a cheaper way of conducting business

Workers in the U.S. enjoy less protection than their European counterparts. Should the US-EU open skies deal be nixed?

Don't forget, the Middle Eastern carriers also have almost home country workers to employ. They rely on expats, who are more expensive. An Emirates flight attendant makes more than one employed by an American carrier and, I believe, one employed by a European carrier.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-04-03 17:23:24 and read 5008 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 91):
The government does not negotiate fares,

Various governments have sufficient taxes and fees in place for international travel that by defacto they influence the "fare" that the pax pays, you cannot get your ticket without paying the taxes and fees even if your fare is only $1.00.

Quoting Azure (Reply 96):
The trouble is that these "western" airlines cannot benefit from this very favorable financing scheme and these carriers consider this situation as unfair. Why should they be disadvantaged because they operate from an aircraft manufacturing country ?

Because their governments were too short sighted and looked only at themselves when they negotiated the agreement versus having the vision to see that the world they live in was more than just Western Europe and the USA.
Even if the credits allowed the purchase of more new a/c at a faster rate, it is what the OEM governments wanted for their economy, along with the fact that most of the financing is held by foreign banks thus providing another leverage point / controling interest in that debtor nation. Remember that at one point in time, the USA was the largest user of Airbus a/c, and that was with Boeing also providing a/c.
So back where we started, the European / USA governments are putting their own carriers at a disadvantage.

Ok, I'm a fan of the X-Files, so here's the conspiracy, has it occurred to any of us that this is exactly what the politicians wanted?
Create manufacturing jobs in the EU and USA and allow non-industrial countries to provide service, look at the threads about poor service in the USA airline industry. The general thought is that cabottage is required so the average US pax will benefit from the superior service of the non-US carriers, so extend this to Europe.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Azure
Posted 2013-04-04 01:36:22 and read 4839 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 97):
Doesn't change the fact that the US has a lot more to offer LX than Switzerland does to US carriers.

No. Once again you are reading the word "open skies" litteraly. You are ignoring the actual content of these agreements. Check your sources.



Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 97):
I am, indeed, aware of that. I will simply note that EK operates to 6 UK airports as opposed to 3 French airports. Not much difference indeed.

EK operates to 5 destinations in the UK, not 6.
Not much difference with 3 destinations in France when you consider : 1 /that the UK is an island (while French residents often use foreign airports located close to a border such as GVA or BCN as their "home airport"). 2/ the historic links between the UK and the UAE.



Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 97):
Quoting Azure (Reply 96):
I can understand the FAA not approving EK on safety grounds, but what do you mean by independent overview? Do AIr India and Air China and other state-owned carriers have enough independent overview?

It was not for security. While EK was not allowed to land in the US, PIA was...



Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 97):
After all, is Airbus not producing aircraft in China? Is that not related to specific characteristics of the Chinese economy that make it unfairly competitive with the French workers in France and the German workers in Germany who are missing out on these jobs?

Preaching the idea of level playing fields and fair competition is great, but it loses its steam when it becomes apparent that these conditions don't exist anywhere; furthermore, EU companies are actively benefitting from the unlevel playing field and lack of fair competition. If the AF CEO pledges to buy no products from the developing world (that includes Airbus aircraft built in China), then I will be more sympathetic to his position. Till then, he's just a hypocrite.

You are mixing things up. An airline CEO is not responsible for aircraft manufacturing companies.



Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 97):
Admit what? That AF faces a lot of competition on domestic/shorthaul? I have no qualms about admitting that. But if this is the case, why not drop those routes? Because they feed the longhaul flights? In which case, should the longhaul flights be considered profitable, given that their feeder flights are loss makers?

What a lack of ambition ! How about taking the appropriate measures to make this loss-making operations profitable ?



Quoting par13del (Reply 100):
Because their governments were too short sighted and looked only at themselves when they negotiated the agreement versus having the vision to see that the world they live in was more than just Western Europe and the USA.

Short-sighted ? Not at all ! This export credit scheme is responsible for all the mega orders we have seen recently ! The US and European Governments have reached their goal : building the ideal environment for B and A to grow !

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: ElPistolero
Posted 2013-04-04 02:56:03 and read 4766 times.

Quoting Azure (Reply 101):

No. Once again you are reading the word "open skies" litteraly. You are ignoring the actual content of these agreements. Check your sources.


Again, all I'm pointing out is that, like the UAE (AUH, DXB), there are only two cities in Switzerland that warrant long haul traffic (ZRH, GVA). The US, on the other hand, has any number of airports that LX can consider viable. Ergo, LX benefits more than US airlines.

Quoting Azure (Reply 101):
EK operates to 5 destinations in the UK, not 6.

->

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 97):
I will simply note that EK operates to 6 UK airports

I specifically said airports: LGW, LHR, NCL, BHX, GLA, MAN. I include LGW because it alone has more EK frequencies than CDG.

Quoting Azure (Reply 101):
Not much difference with 3 destinations in France when you consider : 1 /that the UK is an island (while French residents often use foreign airports located close to a border such as GVA or BCN as their "home airport"). 2/ the historic links between the UK and the UAE.

Not much difference? A cursory Google glance shows the following:

LHR: 4 daily (EK 1, 3, 5, 7)
LGW: 3 daily (EK 9, 11, 15)
MAN: 3 daily (EK 17, 19, 21)
GLA: 2 daily (EK 25, 27)
BHX: 2 Daily (EK 37, 39)
NCL: 1 daily (EK 35)

Thats a total of 15 daily flights or 105 weekly flights.

CDG: 2 daily, 1 six weekly (73, 75, 71)
NCE:1 daily (EK 77)
LYS: 5 weekly (EK 81)

Thats 3 dailies, 1 six/wk and 1 five/wk or 32 weekly flights.

Thats less than 1/3rd, which strikes me as a big difference. The kicker, of course, is that while the AF/KL CEO moans and groans and wrings his hands, his British BA counterpart, who is facing significantly more competition, has this to say:

"I am actually somewhat different from my counterparts around Europe. I have no problem with what Middle East carriers are doing. Rather than be critical I think we should look to them as an example of what can be done."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/uk-iag-idUKBRE83O17D20120425

I see a big difference. Granted, I belong to the school of thought that Walsh himself belongs to: that better ideas can and do originate in any part of the world at any given time, and that instead of castigating them because of where they come from, we should consider them objectively to see if lessons can be learned. This goes back to my earlier post on how we in the west view aviation: strategic assets/enablers or cash cows.

Not sure what to make of the historical ties comment, since I suspect that it was EK that put DXB on the map for the vast majority of the British population. I doubt there was all that much historic traffic between the UK and the UAE before EK came around, which is testament to the manner in which the UAE has used aviation to enable it to become a tourist/commercial hotspot.

And the island comment: given that the two nations have roughly similar sized populations, and assuming that due to historical ties (whatever that means, if it even exists) Brits are twice as interested in travelling to DXB, you would still have to assume that 1/3rd of France's flying public goes to airports in neighbouring to give credence to your argument that there is "not much difference".

In other words, your claim is very suspect.

Quoting Azure (Reply 101):

It was not for security. While EK was not allowed to land in the US, PIA was...

I said safety, but who's counting. Do you have a source? I can't find anything.

Quoting Azure (Reply 101):

You are mixing things up. An airline CEO is not responsible for aircraft manufacturing companies.

No, I am not. I am merely pointing out that a French airline CEO should not go around demanding protection from the French Government when his own French company benefits from unfettered access to countries that are not on a level playing field vis-a-vis French companies. If he is so upset about the absence of level playing fields, perhaps he should put his money where his mouth is and support local (read French) industries over those that are based in countries with lax labour laws, taxes and other thing that he complains about. Surely if its bad for his French company, its bad for all French companies.

Simply put, if he and his company can benefit from cheap priced products originating in other countries, then I see no reason why the average French citizen should not.

Quoting Azure (Reply 101):

What a lack of ambition ! How about taking the appropriate measures to make this loss-making operations profitable ?

Ambition? You have an interesting way of interpreting things. I said AF/KL aren't doing so great. You said their SH is unprofitable but their LH is profitable. I didn't disagree - I pointed out that if SH is unprofitable, perhaps it should be dropped. In the event that it is needed to feed LH routes, its lack of profitability should be deducted from the LH profitability.

In other words, if short and long haul ops are unconnected, then why keep unprofitable routes up. If they are connected, then the loss-making aspect of one side has to be balanced against the profitability of the other. Its straightforward enough - and not a question of ambition.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-04-04 03:20:07 and read 4719 times.

Quoting Azure (Reply 101):
Short-sighted ? Not at all ! This export credit scheme is responsible for all the mega orders we have seen recently ! The US and European Governments have reached their goal : building the ideal environment for B and A to grow !

So then you agree with all of us who state that the European airlines are simply blowing smoke complaiing about the ME carrier because their own governments are the one's who put them at a disadvantage, its what some of us have been saying all along.
The CEO's of these airlines need to go to their government for relief of their conditions versus trying to place onerous conditions on their competitiors to "create a level playing field".

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Azure
Posted 2013-04-04 07:31:58 and read 4535 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 102):
Ergo, LX benefits more than US airlines.

No. Are you aware that the US carriers can fly to ZRH or GVA from as many US cities they see fit ?...

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 102):
Not much difference?

Indeed. I repeat : the so-called "open skies" agreement between the UK and the UAE is not of a different nature from the agreements that regulate the flights between the UAE and France or Germany for instance. Again you are reading the word "open skies" litterally. UK/UAE "open skies" is restrictive on the number of points and does not grant 5th freedom rights.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 102):
LHR: 4 daily (EK 1, 3, 5, 7)
LGW: 3 daily (EK 9, 11, 15)
MAN: 3 daily (EK 17, 19, 21)
GLA: 2 daily (EK 25, 27)
BHX: 2 Daily (EK 37, 39)
NCL: 1 daily (EK 35)

Thats a total of 15 daily flights or 105 weekly flights.

CDG: 2 daily, 1 six weekly (73, 75, 71)
NCE:1 daily (EK 77)
LYS: 5 weekly (EK 81)

Thats 3 dailies, 1 six/wk and 1 five/wk or 32 weekly flights.

There is one simple reason for this difference of volume, but you have choosen to ignore it : historic links, not only between the UK and the UAE, but also between the UK and many destinations served by EK : India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and a large part of Eastern Africa (Kenya, South Africa)... The market to these destinations is larger, much larger from the UK than from France.
EK is well aware of this situation by the way. It is free to operate any aircraft to France, but it operates a modest A330-200 to Lyon and a dated B777 to Nice. No A380s. So what's the case here ?
But if you have one single reason to believe that EK can sell as many seats from France as from the UK, just let it know and negotiate a good job for yourself.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 102):
(...) better ideas can and do originate in any part of the world at any given time, and that instead of castigating them because of where they come from, we should consider them objectively to see if lessons can be learned.

I definetely agree with this but I fail to understand which new idea the ME3 brought to this world, objectively.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 102):
a French airline CEO should not go around demanding protection from the French Government

Have you read the article ? He is not asking for protection, he is calling for establishing conditions for fair competition before ending the current restrictions...

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 102):
Simply put, if he and his company can benefit from cheap priced products originating in other countries, then I see no reason why the average French citizen should not.

Which cheap products are you talking about ? Aircraft ? Oil ? Catering ? IFE ? Avionics ? Furniture for their lounges ? On board amenities ? Cars to transfer F pax ?...

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 102):
If they are connected, then the loss-making aspect of one side has to be balanced against the profitability of the other. Its straightforward enough - and not a question of ambition.

No. Large corporations, like individuals, have to be ambitious to be succesful. There is no reason why loss-making operations cannot become profitable, especially when they once were or when others can make them profitable.

Quoting par13del (Reply 103):
So then you agree with all of us who state that the European airlines are simply blowing smoke complaiing about the ME carrier because their own governments are the one's who put them at a disadvantage, its what some of us have been saying all along.
The CEO's of these airlines need to go to their government for relief of their conditions versus trying to place onerous conditions on their competitiors to "create a level playing field".

These CEOs have been doing so for over three years (see reply 56 here).

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: sierra3tango
Posted 2013-04-04 08:26:32 and read 4479 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 102):
Not much difference? A cursory Google glance shows the following:

LHR: 4 daily (EK 1, 3, 5, 7)
LGW: 3 daily (EK 9, 11, 15)
MAN: 3 daily (EK 17, 19, 21)
GLA: 2 daily (EK 25, 27)
BHX: 2 Daily (EK 37, 39)
NCL: 1 daily (EK 35)

Thats a total of 15 daily flights or 105 weekly flights.

CDG: 2 daily, 1 six weekly (73, 75, 71)
NCE:1 daily (EK 77)
LYS: 5 weekly (EK 81)

Thats 3 dailies, 1 six/wk and 1 five/wk or 32 weekly flights.

You've missed out one LHR daily, think its the EK32 that 5 daily so 16 x 7 = 112 weekly flights and (6 x 7) 42 of them are A380's (5 x LHR + 1 x MAN).

How does it compare seat wise UK v France?

Add in the fact that QR has

LHR: 5 daily
MAN: 10 weekly
Total 45 weekly

And EY has
LHR: 3 daily
MAN: 2 daily
Total 35 weekly

So thats about 192 flights weekly all on widebodies from the ME3 to the UK ignoring Gulf, Saudia, Oman Air, Kuwait.

I can't believe France & the Netherlands (combined) take a 1/3 of the numbers of flights and maybe 1/4 of the number of seats

BA don't grumble (publicly, at least) but AF/KLM do

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Humberside
Posted 2013-04-04 13:31:44 and read 4336 times.

Quoting Azure (Reply 104):
UK/UAE "open skies" is restrictive on the number of points and does not grant 5th freedom rights.

Not according to this:
"The existing bilateral framework allows full flexibility on the routes, capacity, number of frequencies, types of aircraft and allows for specific fifth freedom rights."
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...uae_February405.xml&section=theuae

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: ElPistolero
Posted 2013-04-04 14:24:26 and read 4294 times.

Quoting Azure (Reply 104):
Indeed. I repeat : the so-called "open skies" agreement between the UK and the UAE is not of a different nature from the agreements that regulate the flights between the UAE and France or Germany for instance. Again you are reading the word "open skies" litterally. UK/UAE "open skies" is restrictive on the number of points and does not grant 5th freedom rights.

I won't pretend to know what EK and France's dealings have been. I will simply ask the obvious question: if EK has maxed out its capacity in France and doesn't want anymore, why is he calling for restrictions? Does he want their access rolled back? I can't access the link because its behind a paywall.

Quoting Azure (Reply 104):
There is one simple reason for this difference of volume, but you have choosen to ignore it : historic links, not only between the UK and the UAE, but also between the UK and many destinations served by EK : India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and a large part of Eastern Africa (Kenya, South Africa)... The market to these destinations is larger, much larger from the UK than from France.

France attracted 79.5 million tourists in 2011, compared to 29 million for the UK. It is the world's largest tourist destination (79.5 million works out to ~ 218,000 unique visitors per day) . I dare suggest that people from France travel to parts of the world that are east/south of DXB. I also dare suggest that tourists from those parts of the world visit France. Is there a market for EK in France? I expect so, given that it is served by carriers such as AI, PK, SQ, MK, CX, CZ, BR, MH, TG, SV, VN, IY etc.

Quoting Azure (Reply 104):
I definetely agree with this but I fail to understand which new idea the ME3 brought to this world, objectively.

They brought the idea of bringing favourable conditions for the airlines success and using it as a tool in tandem with other government-owned entities, rather than as a standalone. Many of the indirect subsidies that western airlines complain about are actually quite sensible - for example, what is wrong with subsidizing airports? After all, what is the end goal? Is it to increase connectivity and bring more people in, or is to run a profitable airport? Are there greater beneftis from having a profitable airport? Or more tourists in the country?

The UAE obviously believes that the latter generate more revenue than an airport ever would - and so it offers top notch facilities that are allegedly subsidized. Its safe to say that the ME carriers bend over backwards to ensure that their hubs are top notch and that the airlines operations are facilitated to the fullest; CDG is a shambles by comparison, while FRA and LHR are handicapped by NIMBYs.

Quoting Azure (Reply 104):
He is not asking for protection, he is calling for establishing conditions for fair competition before ending the current restrictions

How do you establish conditions for fair competition without imposing restrictions? Until the UAE imposes an income tax, he will always have cause for complaint, but is the UAE really going to do that?

Quoting Azure (Reply 104):
Which cheap products are you talking about ? Aircraft ? Oil ? Catering ? IFE ? Avionics ? Furniture for their lounges ? On board amenities ? Cars to transfer F pax ?...

A320s for starters   . Pens? Computers? Pillows? Blankets? Headphones? Plastic cutlery? Amenity bags? If any of these, or other similar products, are made in China, he is a hypocrite.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-04-05 14:58:38 and read 3982 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 102):
Quoting Azure (Reply 101):

No. Once again you are reading the word "open skies" litteraly. You are ignoring the actual content of these agreements. Check your sources.


Again, all I'm pointing out is that, like the UAE (AUH, DXB), there are only two cities in Switzerland that warrant long haul traffic (ZRH, GVA). The US, on the other hand, has any number of airports that LX can consider viable. Ergo, LX benefits more than US airlines.

I don't see your point. LX can feed the rest of their European network via ZRH or GVA (maiinly ZRH as GVA is largely O&D traffic) and U.S. carriers can feed their huge domestic networks via their many U.S. hubs. How does LX benefit more since they serve far fewer U.S. destinations than any U.S. carrier? LX also serves far fewer points in Europe tnan any major U.S. carrier serves in North America.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: ElPistolero
Posted 2013-04-05 19:26:31 and read 3871 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 108):
I don't see your point. LX can feed the rest of their European network via ZRH or GVA (maiinly ZRH as GVA is largely O&D traffic) and U.S. carriers can feed their huge domestic networks via their many U.S. hubs. How does LX benefit more since they serve far fewer U.S. destinations than any U.S. carrier? LX also serves far fewer points in Europe tnan any major U.S. carrier serves in North America.

Again, I was merely applying the logic used in the following quote:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 58):
This is a very one sided advantage to M.E. carriers, there is very little M.E. for the European airlines to fly to, while there is so much more for carriers like EK or EY to gain as an advantage.

... and somehow managed to get drawn into a longer exchange on it, with another poster, which has managed to make it seem as though I agree with the logic when, frankly, I don't.

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: RWA380
Posted 2013-04-07 03:35:12 and read 3546 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 109):
... and somehow managed to get drawn into a longer exchange on it, with another poster, which has managed to make it seem as though I agree with the logic when, frankly, I don't.

Don't you just hate that? I guess others feel the ME carriers have far more to gain than EU carriers, huh...wonder why?  

Topic: RE: AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers
Username: Speedbird128
Posted 2013-04-07 05:24:24 and read 3445 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 36):
Why not waive the curfews?

Holy cr@p!! How can you think like that!!!! LOL!!!

I live here and the constant nauseating bitching and moaning about FRA is unbelievable. They bitch about night noise, so more flies during the day, then they bitch about noise during the day and want no traffic overflying their house blah blah blah. "Fluglärm mach krank" (aircraft noise causes illness) and "No to FRA expansion" banners in cities villages all over the show.

They are happy to moan ad nauseum about the noise, but still expect cheap flights 24/7 and overnight courier services from Amazon etc etc etc.

They truly are hurting their own aviation industry yet appear to be blindingly stupid to realise it.


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/