Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AF-KLM CEO Calls On Restrictions For Gulf Carriers  
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 998 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 21609 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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/

111 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20728 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 21546 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.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11666 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 21523 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  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 998 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 21387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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...


User currently onlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1020 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21349 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"?

User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4003 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21286 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..."


User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 942 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21120 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!!


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25729 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 20781 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.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17655 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 20728 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.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12515 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 20620 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.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 20616 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"



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17655 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 20523 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.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1600 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20386 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).


User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 998 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20370 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17655 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20326 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



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5199 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20265 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.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1600 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20227 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?


User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1599 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20204 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.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17655 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20139 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.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11752 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 19914 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.


User currently offlineDTWHKG From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 19910 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.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1600 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 19673 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18):

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


User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3016 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 19637 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlinemozart From Luxembourg, joined Aug 2003, 2186 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 18092 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]

User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3768 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 17899 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).



"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
25 cedarjet : This is ridiculous, especially coming from a French airline. Emirates have placed a quarter of all orders for the A380, the pride of European manufact
26 DeltaMD90 : 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 matt
27 Viscount724 : Fares were set by the airlines, often through IATA agreements (international routes only) but then had to be filed with and approved by governments.
28 cedarjet : 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
29 par13del : 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 car
30 UALWN : 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 c
31 DeltaMD90 : 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 compl
32 airproxx : 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
33 airproxx : This statement is probably even less smart than what you can ear from a Beavis & Butthead show. Pathetic.
34 airlinebuilder : 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
35 par13del : 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 amo
36 lightsaber : 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 carri
37 Flighty : 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 th
38 Post contains images BMI727 : Aww, look who can't compete. Better get the whambulance.
39 RyanairGuru : 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 proje
40 enilria : What a slap in the face to their new partner? Do they realize that EY and EK are essentially owned by the same govt? Exactly. Well said. Actually, th
41 Post contains links and images SCQ83 : 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 a
42 blueflyer : 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 boogey
43 sierra3tango : EK & EY are NOT essentially owned by the same governments. They are owned by the Governments of Abu Dhabi and Dubai respectively, totally differe
44 Post contains images mariner : 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 th
45 Post contains links RyanairGuru : 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)
46 LAXintl : Most airports in the world are not run along commercial for profit lines. Airports are large infrastructure projects which by their nature being infr
47 mercure1 : 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 citi
48 PanHAM : 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 agree
49 sierra3tango : 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 fuelli
50 mariner : 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 rea
51 RyanairGuru : 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.
52 sierra3tango : Agreed but as the thread is meant to be about European airlines belly aching so gave it a miss Agreed, but obviously the smart managers missed a big
53 raptors : 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
54 Azure : 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 statu
55 PanHAM : 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 e
56 Post contains links Azure : You are raising an important point here. Actually, according to regulations implemented in the 1980s, American, British, French, German and Spanish a
57 christao17 : 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,
58 RWA380 : 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 c
59 par13del : 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
60 MaverickM11 : 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 bombin
61 BA0197 : 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 tha
62 enilria : 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
63 PanHAM : 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 fo
64 sierra3tango : I really don't get this fuel cost point. Dubai doesn't have a refinery worth talking about Yeah Abu Dhabi has bailed out Dubai many times including o
65 par13del : 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, afte
66 Viscount724 : Assume you're referring to fuel for a car. Jet fuel prices rarely have much in common.
67 PanHAM : 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 pla
68 UALWN : Bringing free market rhetoric to a discussion about state-owned EK, QR and EY is, well, rather disingenuous...
69 SQ325 : 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
70 par13del : 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
71 avek00 : 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 enthusia
72 sierra3tango : 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
73 planesmart : 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
74 sierra3tango : Totally agreed (quote) and the rest of it too
75 Viscount724 : 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
76 Post contains links ElPistolero : Amen. Tell that to the union folk at Air Canada. Everytime they mutter the word 'strike', the Government comes flying in to rescue AC. Saw the same t
77 ikramerica : Aren't you blaming the victim? This is one of the "restricted" airlines complaining, not the French government. And by your argument, they SHOULD com
78 Azure : 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 di
79 something : 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
80 EK413 : 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
81 par13del : 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 rule
82 PanHAM : 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
83 ElPistolero : I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that work to address it has been taking place for a while. For the sake of brevity, I will reduce that solely to LX,
84 something : I have at no point stated that our democratic process was particularly representative, efficient or that I am in agreement with all political decisio
85 something : 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 curfe
86 PanHAM : 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 ruli
87 RyanairGuru : 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
88 PanHAM : 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 woul
89 ElPistolero : 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
90 par13del : I thought Export credit was used to create the volumes of products necessary for industrial countries to move their products and maintain their high
91 PanHAM : 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 a
92 ElPistolero : 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 effective
93 EK413 : 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
94 PanHAM : 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
95 EK413 : Or never hit the production lines and shelved... EK413
96 Azure : 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
97 ElPistolero : 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
98 Viscount724 : 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.
99 aa757first : Other huge winner: consumers. Not always true. The US market was deregulated in 1978, while the European market was deregulated in the early 1990s. T
100 par13del : Various governments have sufficient taxes and fees in place for international travel that by defacto they influence the "fare" that the pax pays, you
101 Azure : No. Once again you are reading the word "open skies" litteraly. You are ignoring the actual content of these agreements. Check your sources. EK opera
102 Post contains links ElPistolero : 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
103 par13del : 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 gove
104 Azure : No. Are you aware that the US carriers can fly to ZRH or GVA from as many US cities they see fit ?... Indeed. I repeat : the so-called "open skies" a
105 sierra3tango : 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)
106 Post contains links Humberside : Not according to this: "The existing bilateral framework allows full flexibility on the routes, capacity, number of frequencies, types of aircraft an
107 Post contains images ElPistolero : 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 a
108 Viscount724 : 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. carrie
109 ElPistolero : Again, I was merely applying the logic used in the following quote: ... and somehow managed to get drawn into a longer exchange on it, with another p
110 Post contains images RWA380 : Don't you just hate that? I guess others feel the ME carriers have far more to gain than EU carriers, huh...wonder why?
111 Speedbird128 : 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
KLM CEO Comments On KLM Brand + Alitalia?! posted Sat Jan 8 2011 10:45:54 by super80
AF/KLM To Place 1B Order For 70-100 Seaters posted Thu Aug 2 2007 14:35:03 by Lowecur
Working For Gulf Carriers.. posted Mon May 22 2006 23:42:01 by Ronerone
AF/KLM CEO: No Plans To Raise AZ Stake posted Sat Apr 23 2005 08:38:41 by Scotron11
Gulf Carriers Bashing - AF CEO Joins The Party posted Mon Oct 11 2010 02:26:30 by AirIndia
Are Gulf Carriers Looking For Alliances? posted Thu Dec 9 2010 15:00:24 by worldliner
AF/KLM To Start Charging For Second Bag posted Wed Oct 14 2009 03:50:48 by TomFoolery
US CEO Calls For More Consolidation posted Wed Jun 10 2009 12:34:34 by HAJFlyer
AF/KLM Appoint Bank For AUA Takeover Talks posted Thu Aug 21 2008 04:50:22 by Beaucaire
AF-KLM Spinetta On Present And Future Vision posted Thu Dec 20 2007 11:40:53 by Pihero