The beamounth in the corner is EK
, the other 2 are bit part players as far as the US3 are concerned
The US3 have the least case against it ..think thats agreed ? stated in their report / paper; whatever is over
exuberantly stated here.
The only way the US3 are going to compete for places like Asia etc is by, at a very minimum, matching them
on seat cost. The only way the US3 are going to do this is by changing their business model. Which in turn
costs lots of money / work and is higher risk; also risks bonuses / increases shareholder risk
The US3 model is concentrated on a domestic short / mid haul business and provides an acceptable transport methodoly for that type of business alone. They then wish to export this model to the world long haul and (with the support of the US Government) fail in so doing. OK
they are trying to up the game now but far to late, the train is leaving / has left the station.
haven't got a case to answer, so what to do? (as they say in this part of the world)
1) Change your business model - chinese walls / long haul subsidiaries with different SOPs - sort of bring back
a PA subsidiary; buy dozens of A380's to compete, whatever cuts the mustard / seat cost. No too risky / expensive
doesn't fit the model, maybe even risks the management bonus; short term thinking
2) So construct (possibly) a prime face case against 2 of them and chuck in the beahmouth in to tarnish all 3
with the same brush.
The travelling public will work it out in the long run - its the vision (or lack of it), short termism and very much
an unwillingness to change that irritates / which will stick with the pax in the long run.
What will it be next - the Chinese carriers ?
Bring back PA in its glory days
[Edited 2015-03-20 11:05:12]