Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 46): The Emirates airline is run to earn money, not to spend it.

And this means what? You've got to spend if you want to earn.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 34): Mayor, Again you generalise. All coach pax want the cheapest fare and no hot food even TransContinental or to Hawaii and Alaska. It is an insult to the intelligence. Australia is the same size and has 4 legacy owned airlines. One offers meals on every flight over one hour. A second offers snacks plus a hot meal on all flights over 3 hours. The third and fourth function as LCCs. We have one twelfth of your population but we have consumer choice. You just have pseudo-monopoly low quality clones. It's as if every single car for sale in the country is a fifteen year old Ford sedan or a new Toyota Camry. If you want a CD player or air conditioning, your only choice is to buy the expensive option, the equivalent of First Class. You want a hot meal between Chicago and Honolulu? It's First Class or nothing. So much for consumer choice!

I'M generalizing? Seems like you've completely forgotten my example of WN. Why are they so popular? They offer NO meals (barely snacks) and yet people flock to them, even back when the legacies were still offering hot meals. WHY? Because of price. Even with choice, it seems like price trumps amenities, at least in the domestic market. Your whole argument completely forgets the rest of the carriers in the U.S. market......their good or bad points.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 34): Again you generalise. All coach pax want the cheapest fare and no hot food even TransContinental or to Hawaii and Alaska.

Actually, no.......what I said is why is WN so popular with no meals. And since they carry more domestic pax than any of the Big 3, it's a valid question. Don't bother to answer. I know the answer and so does everyone else. It's PRICE. It will be interesting to see what WN offers once they start flying to Hawaii. What are they offering to Alaska......I'll bet it's not a meal.

Why do the Big 3 continue to fill up their a/c with pax, even though the service is so bad (according to you)? Where were the Big 3 a decade ago, in terms of service? I think the offerings are much improved. Now, it's how you use those offerings that makes a difference and I can only talk in terms of DL, but I see a lot of improvement at least for them. Lie flats? WiFi?......they weren't there a decade ago. Meals? Ok.......but if you know about it ahead of time, buy something to eat. There are those on here that would rather read a book than use WiFi, so as far as what the frequent flyers want, the message can be mixed. As far as operating an OLD fleet is concerned, next time you fly, ask the passenger next to you if they know how old the a/c is that you are on. If it has been refurbished, I doubt if they can tell you unless they're an airline geek. I doubt if they can even tell you what it is, let alone the age. It will sadden those on this site, but the vast majority of pax don't know or care what the a/c is. They aren't aviation geeks.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 47): If that's the case, why are the US3 lobbying the government.

You're assuming they're purely concerned about service levels. That's not it at all. They're lobbying the government to force ME3 to compete on a level playing field. In this case it means, as they have stated ad nauseaum, the ME3's costs are artificially lowbecause of government subsidy. It is that simple.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 49): Are you sure you want to use that as standard.

The DOT and State have to decided whether the type of aid qualifies as "subsidy". Quantity is irrelevant. They can't set arbitrary qualifications based on amount of aid received. That would quickly result in them being accused of playing favourites.

So if they have to pursue this, then SQ, AI, CA, MS, AF, AR, GA, AZ, AT, PK, TP, LO, SV, SA etc. will also have to be reviewed. They all are either wholly owned or partly owned by their host governments. And all of them fly to the USA. How many countries is the State department willing to risk relations with over a non-threat to the US3?

Quoting YTZ (Reply 47): There's absolutely a difference. Is SQ mismanaged? It is majority owned by the government of Singapore. Some governments are just better at managing certain businesses than others.

Actually 100% owned by the Gov't via Temesek Holdings, which is a Gov't Financial Entity.

Bottom line is that the ME3, SQ, CX and a few others are one hub Airlines with a lower cost of operation. None of these Carriers would be able to sustain nonstop service to any of the longhaul destinations that they serve (with the exception of CX), without their worldwide spoke systems, which "open skies" makes possible. The US3 have multiple domestic hubs to contend with as well as international operations from these multiple hubs, and it's really pointless in comparing them to these foreign carriers as the structures of the carriers are entirely different. Comparing the US3 to China is more appropriate.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 52): The DOT and State have to decided whether the type of aid qualifies as "subsidy". Quantity is irrelevant. They can't set arbitrary qualifications based on amount of aid received. That would quickly result in them being accused of playing favourites.

I am not setting any limits or using a arbitrary qualifications to what constitutes a subsidy.

The total sum of all equity infusions, subsidies bailouts or any other financial benefit from GoI to AI is $1.92 Billion in 82 years.

ATF in India
EK pays $1, AI pays $1.70

MX in India
EK pays $1, AI pays $1.43

How is that a subsidy to AI, it is actually a burden.

Now can you show DXB numbers for EK and AI.

[Edited 2015-02-20 10:07:54]

Quoting catiii (Reply 51): It is that simple.

Except it's not that simple. Governments can't make arbitrary policy. If we start talking government subsidy, it'll be quite the discussion of what exactly is a subsidy and then which carriers infringe. And there will be many more than the ME3 that will be guilty.

And their case is particularly weak, when prima facie, the US3 have higher margins and are choosing to underinvest in their product.

But at least their CEOs have moved past making xenophobic comments.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 49): AI got $1.92 Billion in 82 years. Are you sure you want to use that as standard. EK probably gets that much every month in hidden benefits.

In what way should Dubai be able to do this? Where should the money come from?

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 56): In what way should Dubai be able to do this? Where should the money come from?

No need for money to change hands.

1) Sovereign counter guarantees on aircraft purchases.
2) Volume/Family discounts on landing/parking fees
3) Volume/Family discounts on catering
4) Volume/Family discounts on ATF
5) Volume/Family discounts on MX.
5) Interest free loans from family/friends.
6) Write-offs on oil hedge bet losses.

Because in this case state,family,company and individuals all are part of government, it is all state subsidy.

Unless you can prove EK is paying exactly same as UA, BA or AI for landing, parking, catering, fuel and maintenance you have no case.

Quoting catiii (Reply 44): Ooook...and United has 110 A350/787/773 on order, and 150 737 MAX/NG on order. What's your point? They're making responsible fleet planning choices based on their capital and needs. You dinged Delta based on their fleet age and fleet choices they've made relative to the fleet choices Emirates has made. Again, Emirates has the ICD backing it. Delta doesn't. A more relevant observation would have been to compare Delta's fleet planning to United's, instead of throwing up some canard about Lufthansa.

So I cannot reference another carrier that is also not backed by a government because they might not prove your point? I can only reference another of the US3 that follows the same strategy as DL in trying to make a point?

I think LH is actually very relevant to this discussion. In fact they are even more in the firing line against EK. Is it possible that they realized they need a newer more advanced fleet to compete with a carrier that also employs an advanced fleet against them?

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 37): So now this isn't the question anymore?

I can't speak for others, but that certainly was ~NOT~ what I asked you to provide.

Here, let's review:

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 11): And you base this on what: a detailed analysis showing the net variance between the constant bailouts and support taxpayers unwittingly give to struggling carriers vis-a-vis the difference in price paid to stronger ones who need no such support?

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 37): seems as though you are on the side of the big corporations

On the side of whomever I can get the most money from/with/out of, in any given situation.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 37): The JVs were sold as a benefit to consumers as the costs for those partners in the JV would decrease and this would be passed on to you*

And who actually BELIEVED *that*?????

.....I mean the fact that people actually believed STL, CVG, CLE (and soon PHX ) would stay legacy hubs after mergers, is testament to the fact that some gullible putz probably did.

But to anyone else, that's laughable.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 59): I can't speak for others, but that certainly was ~NOT~ what I asked you to provide.

We were discussing the benefits of the JVs to the consumer. You asked what I base my opinion on that the consumer is paying more due to the JVs between the airlines. I have given a link to a paper that discusses this issue. I believe I have provided the link on why I feel the consumer suffers.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 59): On the side of whomever I can get the most money from/with/out of, in any given situation.

That is a nice sentiment. You are out for yourself and the rest be damned?

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 59): And who actually BELIEVED *that*????? .....I mean the fact that people actually believed STL, CVG, CLE (and soon PHX&nbsp  would stay legacy hubs after mergers, is testament to the fact that some gullible putz probably did. But to anyone else, that's laughable.

Well when this is what was told to regulators as the reason for granting the antitrust immunity then it is the regulators who believed it I guess. I was hoping that if the regulators find they have been lied to they would have a look again at the behaviour of the airlines involved, but then again asking for fairness is maybe a foreign concept that people might not understand....I mean holding people to their promises should be a good thing, not something to be taken advantage of.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 37): Your answer is interesting as well, seems as though you are on the side of the big corporations. Do you also believe that they are people as well? The JVs were sold as a benefit to consumers as the costs for those partners in the JV would decrease and this would be passed on to you*. It hasn't happened because, corporations do not care about you* they only care about their value and profits.

Sounds like the pot calling the cattle black. Why? Because you obviously don't give a F* about the people who put their own money at risk to run airlines and whether the employees are working in a healthy and stable industry.

And may I add, a healthy and stable industry is what companies like Boeing and Airbus and Bombardier need to stay alive and keep producing and designing aircraft.

But go ahead, stick with the great mentality your post demonstrated.

edit: let's not forget the benefits and healthy and stable industry bring to consumers - like greater capital investment and compeition, which then drives costs and prices down.

[Edited 2015-02-20 16:19:59]

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 34):

Are you sure this airline offers free meals on EVERY flight over one hour? My god, how much do their frequent flyers weigh?

You keep talking about how free food on a plane is a big deal. I have been flying for many, many years. Normally I always passed on airplane food. It just isn't very good. Even in first class. It's just reheated, pre-made food.

Americans have decided they want cheap fares, not five star service and guess what? Fares are low enough now that anyone in the U.S. can purchase a ticket and fly. Can't say that for many other places in the world.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 34): Australia is the same size and has 4 legacy owned airlines. One offers meals on every flight over one hour. A second offers snacks plus a hot meal on all flights over 3 hours. The third and fourth function as LCCs.

Quoting DDR (Reply 62): Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 34): Are you sure this airline offers free meals on EVERY flight over one hour? My god, how much do their frequent flyers weigh?

From my many observations, the frequent flyers on the one Australian airline Nouflyer said offers meals on every flight over 1hr weigh much, much less on average than the frequent flyers of airlines in the United States who provide much less food (if a tiny bag of peanuts even counts as food) and are known to nickel and dime their passengers        

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 63):

Actually it's hard to get peanuts on a plane anymore too many people with allergies.

But air travel in the U.S. Is cheap enough that anyone can fly, and that is much more important (to me at least) than getting an airplane meal on a 2 hour flight.

[Edited 2015-02-20 17:11:02]

Quoting DDR (Reply 62): Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 34): Are you sure this airline offers free meals on EVERY flight over one hour? My god, how much do their frequent flyers weigh? You keep talking about how free food on a plane is a big deal. I have been flying for many, many years. Normally I always passed on airplane food. It just isn't very good. Even in first class. It's just reheated, pre-made food. Americans have decided they want cheap fares, not five star service and guess what? Fares are low enough now that anyone in the U.S. can purchase a ticket and fly. Can't say that for many other places in the world.

QR, EY, EK and many other airlines offer free meals for all customers on all flights. With the US3 now all profitable I think they should re-visit complimentary meals/snack boxes for Economy Class customers. Many may complain about the quality of the food, but it is a really nice touch to air travel. In Asia it's very common for such snacks to be distributed to all pax (MH, SQ, VN, PG, QV, and many more airlines offer this.)

[Edited 2015-02-20 17:18:56]

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 61): But go ahead, stick with the great mentality your post demonstrated.

And what mentality is that?

Quoting Enzo011 (Reply 60): You asked what I base my opinion on that the consumer is paying more due to the JVs between the airlines.

Considering that I reposted and highlighted the verbatim question that I asked you... why do continue to insist that it was somehow something different?

Quoting Enzo011 (Reply 60): You are out for yourself and the rest be damned?

Sure am.

Quoting Enzo011 (Reply 60): I was hoping that if the regulators find they have been lied to they would have a look again at the behaviour of the airlines involved,

What do you base that hope on? ....considering that that's been the history of mergers/acquisitions/takeovers since the dawn of dereg, and no governing entity has ever really pretended to care; it doesn't really appear to be a hope based on rationale.

Quoting Enzo011 (Reply 66): And what mentality is that?

The most common mentality of all - the one that completely ignores the people behind companies and their rights, then harps on some supposedly evil abstract legal concept called "corporation" (which in and of itself does absolutely nothing - thanks to its abstract nature) all the while being thoroughly hypocritical by defending the consumer who acts in its own self-interest.

As I said before, a healthy and stable industry is good for consumers. It's good for everyone. If higher prices are needed, then so be it. If consolidation is necessary, then so be it:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/industrylifecycle.asp

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 68): As I said before, a healthy and stable industry is good for consumers. It's good for everyone. If higher prices are needed, then so be it. If consolidation is necessary, then so be it:

Amen.

When we had an overpopulation of carriers, starving off the meager fare market, that were too weak to invest in product and constantly needed a form of governmental intervention to survive.... people complained too.

There's really no satisfying the public, which is why the airlines don't. They give them what they ACTUALLY want (i.e., discernment only on price-- not "service," not "amenities," not sub25yr-old eye candy) and just let the whining go in one ear and out the other.

What's interesting is this:

Here we all are following this whole controversy play out with rapt attention and we're all cheerleading for one side or the other and yet my friends at work have no idea that any of this is going on. I asked if any of them had heard about it and they all rolled their eyes and laughed at me (which they do a lot... I amuse them).

It's obvious that different perspectives are fighting at each other. It surprises me that this thread has turned in a dog fight
to see who is the the good and who is the beast. The Gulf carrier has been set set up to diversify the economy of the
UAE. Many things has been built upon scratch. The former British Colonies has now surpassed the master. Dubai is now a bigger international airport than Heathrow and it's difficult for UK people to accept. Even at the emplye level more and more expat from Australia, Canada, Europe and USA .are working for them. This is bothering for many and maybe upsetting but that is like history with the different Empires who are coming one after the other. The USA carrier are no longer the master of the world. It is like Tata of India that bought Rolls Royce or a China company that just acquired Club Med. Times are changing and we have to adapt to a new reality. Gulf carriers are bothering the established order.

In the 70's who would have been able to predict the success of Singapore Arlines that challenged IATA carriers at the time.
Why Amsterdam became the best connection airport for Uk. Who would have imagine that Gulf carrier would have been able to buy stake in European carrier. Things seem to be upside down. In every country the government is involved in the airline industry at a point or another. In the Us company want free market but protected by the federal government. It was the case with the Chrysler bankrupcy in the late 70's. Is there is more competition now that under the regulation era were
everything was regulated (schedules fares, frequencies)? It seems to me that with the Big 3 were back to the starting point.

I fly a lot in the USA. And many of my trips are 2-sector journeys through a hub, which straddle meal time.

I have lost count of the number of times that my 60 minute flight into the hub has been late to the gate and I've had to run to catch the next flight with no time to buy food.

Then on my 3-4 hour flight all that is available for purchases is a snackbox or a revolting alleged sandwich. While other passengers around me who didn't have a connection are stinking out the plane with their food that they bring on board with them.

It's just extraordinary that you Americans believe that you will spend different amounts of money on different clothes, houses, TVs and everything else, but you believe that you all want the same trashy coach experience.

Except this. Most American coach passengers hate the product.

The carriers have found a service level which allows THEM to maximise profitability by minimising choice and the financial consequences for them of only selling an inferior product. Three different providers offer identical products so that none of them outshine the others on quality and they can all share the profits.

That is a textbook example of how market forces do not necessarily help consumers at all if the market is skewed from the outset to exclude potential competitors who offer a better product.

Like any Soviet Bloc command economy, the consumer enjoys no real choice at all.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 72): It's just extraordinary that you Americans believe that you will spend different amounts of money on different clothes, houses, TVs and everything else, but you believe that you all want the same trashy coach experience. Except this. Most American coach passengers hate the product. The carriers have found a service level which allows THEM to maximise profitability by minimising choice and the financial consequences for them of only selling an inferior product. Three different providers offer identical products so that none of them outshine the others on quality and they can all share the profits. That is a textbook example of how market forces do not necessarily help consumers at all if the market is skewed from the outset to exclude potential competitors who offer a better product. Like any Soviet Bloc command economy, the consumer enjoys no real choice at all.

And I will ask you, again........IF "most" American coach passengers hate the product, WHY is WN so popular? Why do they carry more pax domestically than any of the Big 3? And, WHY, if they hate the product, are the Big 3 still filling up their a/c? I'm assuming you don't know the answer because after several tries, you still haven't been able to give a reasonable explanation why this is so.

Quoting mayor (Reply 73): And I will ask you, again........IF "most" American coach passengers hate the product, WHY is WN so popular? Why do they carry more pax domestically than any of the Big 3? And, WHY, if they hate the product, are the Big 3 still filling up their a/c? I'm assuming you don't know the answer because after several tries, you still haven't been able to give a reasonable explanation why this is so.

Isn't the answer blindingly obvious to you?

In the USA you aviation market is as if the only choices in a car metaphor are:

a) Three legacy variations on a $3,000 ten year old car with no air-conditioning or radio, or
b) Southwest selling a $2,000 eleven year old car with no air-conditioning or radio.

If no-one offers a better quality product of course you will go for the keenest price.

But that doesn't mean that nobody wants a better product. It means that the dominant providers don't want to endure proper competition and choose not to compete with one another and to do anything they can to keep higher quality new entrants out of the market.

Market forces in a distorted market (due to protectionism and pseudo-monopolies) serve only to maintain a lack of meaningful competition.

Because the combination of monopoly forces and protectionism serve to deprive consumers of a choice.

Quoting mayor (Reply 73): And I will ask you, again........IF "most" American coach passengers hate the product, WHY is WN so popular? Why do they carry more pax domestically than any of the Big 3? And, WHY, if they hate the product, are the Big 3 still filling up their a/c? I'm assuming you don't know the answer because after several tries, you still haven't been able to give a reasonable explanation why this is so.

They're all pretty equally crappy, but if a person needs to travel, what choice do they have? US carriers are hardly known for their excellent customer experience. It's basically a Greyhound with wings.

There really does seem to be a huge disconnect between how employees of these airlines view their "customer service" and what the passenger actually experiences.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 72): but you believe that you all want the same trashy coach experience

Why wouldn't someone believe that. There's every reason to believe that, because whenever a carrier offers a higher-end alternative, they DO NOT receive any manner of premium for doing so, so why bother?

What happened to AA when they tried MRTC?

Compare VX's fortunes with NK's.... tell me what you see. You cannot blame an airline for listening to pax's actions over their words. Pax vote with their wallets, and the airlines simply cater to that effect.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 72): Like any Soviet Bloc command economy, the consumer enjoys no real choice at all.

What are you talking about? There's plenty of choice.

Don't want to drive? ....fly a ULCC, several to choose from.
Don't like ULCC service? ....fly a WN or a Legacy, several to choose from.
Don't like Legacies' Y? ....fly in F, choose from any, they all have it.
Don't like Legacies' F? .....fly privately. Plenty of companies can handle that for you.

Where's the lack of "choice?"

If consumers don't like what they have, they can pay for better. And if they can't pay for better, then they can STFU and deal with it. Heck, that's *life* in a nutshell.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 76): What are you talking about? There's plenty of choice. Don't want to drive? ....fly a ULCC, several to choose from. Don't like ULCC service? ....fly a WN or a Legacy, several to choose from. Don't like Legacies' Y? ....fly in F, choose from any, they all have it. Don't like Legacies' F? .....fly privately. Plenty of companies can handle that for you. Where's the lack of "choice?"

There is a glaring lack of choice, and I can't believe that people are too obtuse to see it.

There is the lack of legacy Y with included baggage and included catering, like 80% of legacy passengers around the world choose.

You are effectively saying this:

"Here in the USA, car purchasers enjoy a full range of choices.

You can buy a 15 year old car with no air-conditioning or radio for $2000.

You can buy a 12 year old car with no air conditioning or radio for $3000.

Or you can buy a top-of-the-range brand-new Mercedes for $75,000."

What American passengers cannot purchase because nobody will sell it is a new Ford or Toyota for $20,000, or even a newish second-hand one for $12,000.

And that is deliberate by the providers. They don't want to offer a choice, they want to keep their costs as low as possible and their ancillary charges up, while not being outclassed by the competition.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 74): Quoting mayor (Reply 73): And I will ask you, again........IF "most" American coach passengers hate the product, WHY is WN so popular? Why do they carry more pax domestically than any of the Big 3? And, WHY, if they hate the product, are the Big 3 still filling up their a/c? I'm assuming you don't know the answer because after several tries, you still haven't been able to give a reasonable explanation why this is so. Isn't the answer blindingly obvious to you? In the USA you aviation market is as if the only choices in a car metaphor are: a) Three legacy variations on a $3,000 ten year old car with no air-conditioning or radio, or b) Southwest selling a $2,000 eleven year old car with no air-conditioning or radio. If no-one offers a better quality product of course you will go for the keenest price. But that doesn't mean that nobody wants a better product. It means that the dominant providers don't want to endure proper competition and choose not to compete with one another and to do anything they can to keep higher quality new entrants out of the market. Market forces in a distorted market (due to protectionism and pseudo-monopolies) serve only to maintain a lack of meaningful competition. Because the combination of monopoly forces and protectionism serve to deprive consumers of a choice.

Why do you think the ULCCs, LFCs and LCCs were developed in the first place? None of them planned to be a full service legacy, from the beginning. Apparently, they saw a market there, for some reason? Maybe it's because it was what the customers were looking for.......LOW FARES. At the time, there were how many legacy airlines? Prices were too high, for many travellers, so they went looking for an alternative........airlines that specialized in low fares. If you were to do a poll of FFs on this forum or in general, what do you think they would look for first? Think it might be price, followed by schedules and on time records?

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 77): There is a glaring lack of choice, and I can't believe that people are too obtuse to see it.

Nope, I think your a foreigner to American culture and don't get the capitalist economy.

Fundamentally, businesses want to make a profit. We have to break-even with load factors, a maintaining a profit in the airline industry is extremely difference to muster. American's are not "blinded" from real selection. B6, F9, AA, UA, DL, NK, G4, etc. all offer variations of products, granted there is no middle of the road "legacy", but there sure as hell would be one if Americans wanted to pay the premium. There are plenty of rich people who would throw money into it if they saw an inkling of possibility. But I think what you also just plainly don't get is how difficult a profit in an airline is to come by. The profit margins of most airline routes (a few are just plain Bread + Butter rip-offs) are in the single digits.

Americans have choices, and the product you think is so grand isn't always what the frugal American wants. Despite many Americans' complaints of "flying", it's just another product/service that Americans love to hate. Consumerism is America is insanely different from that of citizens of the ME3.

Quoting mayor (Reply 78): Why do you think the ULCCs, LFCs and LCCs were developed in the first place? None of them planned to be a full service legacy, from the beginning. Apparently, they saw a market there, for some reason? Maybe it's because it was what the customers were looking for.......LOW FARES.

      

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 77): What American passengers cannot purchase because nobody will sell it is a new Ford or Toyota for $20,000, or even a newish second-hand one for $12,000.

See, that's the part where your "logic" seems to short-circuit itself, with no ensuing follow-through:

1) if there were an actual demand for such
2) from a public able and willing to pay for it
3) what incentive would carriers (who have the resources to provide such) therefore have, to choose not to do so?

The answer is of course: none.
But you don't quite seem to get that. As to why-- who knows.

Quoting Runningonempty (Reply 79): Nope, I think your a foreigner to American culture and don't get the capitalist economy.

      

Quoting Runningonempty (Reply 79): Nope, I think your a foreigner to American culture and don't get the capitalist economy.

No offence, but I'm not going to take lessons in capitalism from people who defend:

a) 6 competitors merging into 3, and
b) foreign competitors being excluded from competing.

In Australia we have a market in which:

a) People equivalent to those who shop at Neiman Marcus buy Business Class domestic seats (no frequent flyer upgrades).

b) People equivalent to those who shop at Macy's fly Qantas economy.

c) People equivalent to those who shop at Sears or JC Penney fly Virgin economy.

d) People equivalent to those who buy clothes at Wal-Mart fly the LCCs, Tiger or Jetstar.

The same segmentation applies to what food they buy, whether they have pre-paid or post-paid cellphones, what brand (if any) electronics they buy, etc etc.

It's not driven by snob value. It's about why people work hard to advance economically so that their life is more comfortable.

I flew at my employer's expense on a 2 hour domestic flight last night, boarding at 5.35pm, departing 6 pm, arriving 8 pm, collecting my (free) bag at 8.20 pm.

I would obviously choose to fly Qantas Economy and get a high-quality dinner and a glass of wine included in preference to Virgin, who would give me a packet of cheese and crackers and a glass of wine, and I'd fly either - both of which have free seatback or streaming IFE - in preference to flying the two LCCs and arriving home hungry and in bad humour.

But apologists for the terrible standards in the USA argue that no, in the USA the corporate drones like me would choose to fly on the cheapest ticket even though they would arrive home squashed, hungry and irritable. I don't buy it. Ask the passengers getting off a 2 hour Delta Economy flight at 8.10 pm whether they would have liked to be given a hot meal, glass of wine and free IFE during that flight. They'd all be queuing up to say no, right?

What stands out in the US market is:

a) How bad your Economy class products are, even at legacy carriers, and
b) How bad your First Class products are.

[Edited 2015-02-21 00:25:19]

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 81):

No offense but letting foreign company form an airline and compete against airline owned domestically is stupid.

Quoting bgm (Reply 75): There really does seem to be a huge disconnect between how employees of these airlines view their "customer service" and what the passenger actually experiences.

Especially if those passengers have experienced other airlines outside the USA.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 74): In the USA you aviation market is as if the only choices in a car metaphor are:a) Three legacy variations on a $3,000 ten year old car with no air-conditioning or radio, orb) Southwest selling a $2,000 eleven year old car with no air-conditioning or radio.If no-one offers a better quality product of course you will go for the keenest price.

On the money.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 67): Considering that I reposted and highlighted the verbatim question that I asked you... why do continue to insist that it was somehow something different?

I don't know if you are trying to deliberately confuse the issue but the discussion I was replying to was the fact that the JVs has had a negative effect on the consumer. You then added the following,

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 11): Quoting enzo011 (Reply 8): You do realise who suffers from this? The consumer is the one that pays the price. And you base this on what: a detailed analysis showing the net variance between the constant bailouts and support taxpayers unwittingly give to struggling carriers vis-a-vis the difference in price paid to stronger ones who need no such support?

I never stated what I based this on. You asked if I based it on your question and you wanted to see your question answered. I provided a link that discusses the effect the JVs have had. This doesn't fit your agenda so you now hammer me on a question from yourself. I can only provide details on why I take a stance on an issue. In this instance, Joint Ventures and their effect on the consumer, I believe it has been detrimental to the consumer. If you are looking for specific answers to your own specific questions you have to answer them yourself.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 67): What do you base that hope on? ....considering that that's been the history of mergers/acquisitions/takeovers since the dawn of dereg, and no governing entity has ever really pretended to care; it doesn't really appear to be a hope based on rationale.

My hope that a government will actually work for the people that voted for them and not for their pay masters. But that is a hope that will not be realized, doesn't mean I should stop hoping for it.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 68): The most common mentality of all - the one that completely ignores the people behind companies and their rights, then harps on some supposedly evil abstract legal concept called "corporation" (which in and of itself does absolutely nothing - thanks to its abstract nature) all the while being thoroughly hypocritical by defending the consumer who acts in its own self-interest. As I said before, a healthy and stable industry is good for consumers. It's good for everyone. If higher prices are needed, then so be it. If consolidation is necessary, then so be it:

Thanks, you have taught me nothing about myself. I will gladly go and work for the "evil" corporation at any time. I will have no problem buying their products or using their services. I have no qualms about big corporations making profits, if they find enough people to spend their money on what they are selling, good for them. I have an issue when those companies go out of their way to screw their employees or customers for more money when they are showing healthy profits. I have an issue when it is sold as good for me, the consumer, but it turns out to be a lie. Maybe I just don't like being lied to.

Regarding the choice for US flyers. I have a question for those that travel in the US. You state that because there are 8 airlines out there you have enough choice. Can you get a complimentary meal on any of these airline for flights in the US when in economy?

In Europe you have a real choice. Fly Ryanair or Easyjet or any other LCC and you pay for your meals/snacks and drinks. You also pay for your bags to be flown in the hold and if you are late or cancel your ticket the chances of getting your money back are slim. Fly a legacy carriers, LH or BA, you get a complimentary meal and don't have to pay for your drinks. You can get free baggage allowance as well on some carriers. How many US airlines provides you with this choice?

The choice in the US seems to be the same product but different airlines. The choice in the EU is a difference between your seat and pay for everything else, or a full service flight. You pay more for it, but not the difference between cattle class and business class.

According to CNN flying is expensive.

http://money.cnn.com/video/luxury/20...ckets-are-still-expensive.cnnmoney

Very amusing seeing people defending the US carriers.

Let's face it: US carriers suck. They're horrible. You just have variations from the not-so-horrible (B6, VX) to downright atrocious (UA, NK etc), with everything else in between. You can use whatever arguments you want to justify it, but the fact is that service standards on US carriers are subpar to the rest of the world.

This is what I mean with the veneer coming off DL.
Ego's get inflated. And then they say stupid things, no matter how they're being perceived. It's that perception vs. reality demon rearing its ugly head.

I get it, everything is political, including business. But it's better to keep your head down and work then go public with all your rants.
Delta is gonna start to feel the merged AA heat very soon if not already. They are still coasting on momentum but RA knows this can't last.

Going public about your politics like this is just idiotic.

[Edited 2015-02-21 09:40:19]

Quoting mayor (Reply 73): And I will ask you, again........IF "most" American coach passengers hate the product, WHY is WN so popular? Why

There is a big difference between sitting in a WN seat for 3-5 hours and sitting in a DL seat for 8-14 hours.

Now, DL has a better international Y product than WN domestic, and for that matter DL's domestic coach product isn't that bad, either, but one of the things that sucks about a Y-class seat is the amount of time you spend in it.

Ever been on a HA 717? It's really uncomfortable, but nobody really minds because you're never going to sit in one for more than an hour or so. So part of what makes the experience is the amount of time that you'll be subjected to it.

The best summary i can write for ME3 vs US3 (or even the rest of the world) unfair subsidy/unfair competion/lack of level playing field war of words is this -

1) US Govt will do nothing because ME3 will shift their orders to Airbus and Boeing will come crying to USG & WTO about Airbus subsidies. Boeing exports & jobs are too valuable for the USG to shoot themselves in the foot.

2) European Govts will also probably not do anything much because of the same reasons with Airbus. Especially if EK business goes down because of any knee jerk action by the European govt. then you can pretty much kiss the A 380 line good bye and it will spell a even more premature end to it than it did for the A 340 line. Of course, even other programs will suffer if ME3 decide to go shopping with Boeing.

3) Indian Govt will do absolutely nothing because of their spineless lack of vision and mismanagement of their aviation policy inspite of sitting on a goldmine of - 1) the fastest growing aviation market other than China & 2) a huge O&D population base. They are in a big way responsible for the success of the ME3 and their transit model which in the case of EK depends on 80% transit traffic.

4) Quantas is happy and cares less now because they are in bed with EK and taken care of; otherwise they would also be complaining.

But, the glory of ME3 is a passing phase. With signicant dependence on a transit model and without a strong economic base to support a large O&D volume as aircraft technology evolves (aircraft flying longer, faster and more efficiently) the ME3 hub will most likely fall by the wayside (not completely, but will probably be signficantly weaker) in the next 2 or 3 decades regardless of cheap labor, product etc.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 89): 4) Quantas .

Hand over your First Class membership please  

Quoting Enzo011 (Reply 84): You asked if I based it on your question and you wanted to see your question answered. I provided a link that discusses the effect the JVs have had.

So I ask you a question, which is a fair thing to do on an open forum..... you respond with something irrelevant to that question.... and you actually wonder why you get called out on ducking it?  

Quoting Enzo011 (Reply 84): If you are looking for specific answers to your own specific questions you have to answer them yourself.

That's the weakest cop-out I've seen on these forums yet, and I've lurked here for 12yrs! lol

Quoting Enzo011 (Reply 84): But that is a hope that will not be realized, doesn't mean I should stop hoping for it.

So what you're saying, is that you're going to do the same thing over and over again, despite (as indicative by your own words) knowing that nothing's going to change?

....there's a word for that, you know.

Quoting bgm (Reply 86): Let's face it: US carriers suck. They're horrible.

No, they're actually quite good at what they do: responding to what customers (by their actions) SHOW what they want, as opposed to what they SAY what they want.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 89):

Actually your #1 and #2 are linked. EU already lodged a complaint against Washington State's $8 Billion incentives for B777X program. If WS pulls out incentives for any reason, there goes B777X.

Actually it will be blessing in disguise, it can continue to sell more B787s and slightly improved B777s.

On #3. You are absolutely correct. India is doing nothing, ie., it is not giving away seats like it used to do. Best EK can do is go from 80% transit pax to 100% transit pax.

The suggestion here that only US is complains is mind boggling. US carriers watched ME3 activity for years, gathered enough evidence to make their case. Lets see what happens.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 88): There is a big difference between sitting in a WN seat for 3-5 hours and sitting in a DL seat for 8-14 hours.

Actually, in my posts, I WAS referring to domestic........the member's contention that flyers in the U.S. want all the amenities is refuted by my post that WN flys more domestic pax, basically because they go by price......which he denies.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 91): So I ask you a question, which is a fair thing to do on an open forum..... you respond with something irrelevant to that question.... and you actually wonder why you get called out on ducking it?   That's the weakest cop-out I've seen on these forums yet, and I've lurked here for 12yrs! lol

Not going to go in circles with this, you have dismissed the link I posted as it doesn't suit your argument. I cannot answer for a opinion you attributed to me and now want me to answer something that came from yourself.

Quoting Enzo011 (Reply 94): you have dismissed the link I posted as it doesn't suit your argument

I'm not arguing, I just asked you a (rather basic) question that that 1) you continue to duck and that 2) that article has nothing to do with.

I don't know why you seem to believe that questions can only be asked on an exact issue that someone else was discussing prior... but here on planet Earth, that's not how it works.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 92): If WS pulls out incentives for any reason, there goes B777X.

Extremely doubtful.

Quoting mayor (Reply 93): .the member's contention that flyers in the U.S. want all the amenities is refuted by my post that WN flys more domestic pax, basically because they go by price

    

Quoting Enzo011 (Reply 84): Thanks, you have taught me nothing about myself. I will gladly go and work for the "evil" corporation at any time. I will have no problem buying their products or using their services. I have no qualms about big corporations making profits, if they find enough people to spend their money on what they are selling, good for them. I have an issue when those companies go out of their way to screw their employees or customers for more money when they are showing healthy profits. I have an issue when it is sold as good for me, the consumer, but it turns out to be a lie. Maybe I just don't like being lied to.

Lied to? Your ignorance of the industry and markets in general does not mean they are lying to you, Mr. Armchair CEO.

Quoting Enzo011 (Reply 84): In Europe you have a real choice. Fly Ryanair or Easyjet or any other LCC and you pay for your meals/snacks and drinks. You also pay for your bags to be flown in the hold and if you are late or cancel your ticket the chances of getting your money back are slim. Fly a legacy carriers, LH or BA, you get a complimentary meal and don't have to pay for your drinks. You can get free baggage allowance as well on some carriers. How many US airlines provides you with this choice? The choice in the US seems to be the same product but different airlines. The choice in the EU is a difference between your seat and pay for everything else, or a full service flight. You pay more for it, but not the difference between cattle class and business class.

How about YOU defend the European practice of eating an entire meal on a freakin' schengen flight first? Is it REALLY necessary?

Also, how about cultural differences? Does it not play any role here?

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 81): and in bad humour.

I'm thinking you have a headstart on this.

Quoting Enzo011 (Reply 84): In Europe you have a real choice. Fly Ryanair or Easyjet or any other LCC and you pay for your meals/snacks and drinks. You also pay for your bags to be flown in the hold and if you are late or cancel your ticket the chances of getting your money back are slim. Fly a legacy carriers, LH or BA, you get a complimentary meal and don't have to pay for your drinks. You can get free baggage allowance as well on some carriers. How many US airlines provides you with this choice?

For one reason or another, the U.S. legacies have felt that they need to competed against the LCCs as well as each other, WITHIN THE U.S. On international flights, the U.S. carriers are catching up, but remember that the foreign longhaul carriers have a heck of a headstart in catching up with this kind of service. Not until foreign flyers started flying U.S. carriers have they felt the need to provide service equal to others......but they will.

Quoting Enzo011 (Reply 84): The choice in the US seems to be the same product but different airlines. The choice in the EU is a difference between your seat and pay for everything else, or a full service flight. You pay more for it, but not the difference between cattle class and business class.

So, how is this supposed choice in the EU any better than the choices in the U.S.? For that matter, perhaps you could remember that the cultures and expectations in the EU are markedly different than those in the U.S. This, alone, makes what is offered and what the pax expect much different from one another. And, like I said, the U.S. carriers need to catch up in longhaul, but I don't think you can deny that they are indeed, trying. Were any of the U.S. legacies using flatbeds a decade ago? Or did they have WiFi? A little over 40 years ago, DL wasn't much larger than a regional carrier (old definition). Look how far they've come. BA, LH, etc. have been flying international longhaul for how long?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 96): How about YOU defend the European practice of eating an entire meal on a freakin' schengen flight first? Is it REALLY necessary? Also, how about cultural differences? Does it not play any role here?

Not really, what we see is just terrible management groupthink in the USA.

I gave an example earlier, but it applies at breakfast time, lunchtime and dinnertime to flights of 2-6 hours.

A flight which is scheduled for 530pm to 730pm actually boards no later than 5pm and disembarks around 7.40pm. It's "only" a two hour flight, but it wipes out meal time.

That is why airlines which value their yields provide a meal.

But airlines in the USA have become trapped in a collective race to the bottom which destroys their own yields.

Consider Qantas domestic flights or SilkAir or Singapore Airlines regional flights in Asia of identical sector lengths to US domestic flights.

Those airlines command a yield premium over competing carriers (some of which are their own subsidiaries) because they differ by selling fares which include:

a) Hot meals at mealtime in Economy.
b) IFE in Economy
c) checked baggage in Economy
d) a Business Class cabin which you have to pay for with money or inventory-limited miles upgrades.
e) lounge access to top and middle tier elites.

The business model in the USA in contrast is something which would get a high school economics student thrown out of his or her class in disgrace.

a) Economy passengers enjoy no extra amenities over LCC passengers apart from free soda. The galleys have almost all been removed so the airline's scope to drive up yields has vanished.
b) You bring your own IFE - it is not used as a yield-driver.
c) Baggage fees are the same as LCCs - again, it is not a yield-driver.
d) The First Class cabin is gifted to elites and is rubbish except for wide seats with the same seating pitch as Premium Economy in other countries - again, the opportunity to build yields is spurned.
e) Elites do have to pay for lounge access - but their annual membership is cheaper than buying a single one-way First Class ticket if they weren't being comped into it.

American aviation is a masterclass in economic self-harm. The only reason the legacy carriers are currently in temporary forays out of bankruptcy are because:

1) Oil is cheap,
2) They have removed competition from the market,
3) Their few remaining competitors are just as bad,
4) Genuine competition is excluded by protectionism.
5) Most Americans don't travel overseas as often as their peers in other rich economies, so they don't know that they are being ripped off for shocking service.

A middle-class passenger on the 2 hour flight from Brisbane to Melbourne has 4 choices of airline. They will segment themselves into those who pick the carrier with hot meals, those who pick the carriers with snacks and those who pick the two LCCs.

But in the USA, all three legacy carriers have abandoned the very products in Economy class which make Qantas (and to a lesser extent Virgin Australia) passengers pay up a bit more money for a better Economy (or Business Class) experience.

And when you have abandoned pursuit of profitable yields, you are only a short distance away from your own death spiral.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 98):

Thus proclaims Nostradomus