Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Markam
Topic Author
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:17 am

The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:46 am

My apologies if this article on the Economist has already been posted, but I could not find it in previous threads about the US3 vs. the ME3:

http://www.economist.com/news/leader...nswer-open-skies-flights-hypocrisy

The article argues that while the US3 are indeed right that the aviation industry has indeed received government aid, that is true for them in the first place (the examples provided direct subsidies, airport and ATC infrastructure building, tax breaks, or favorable bankruptcy laws, and they allegedly sum up to more than $155 billion). Also, it argues that while some airlines would be worse off, further liberalization of the international aviation industry would benefit both consumers and the economy as a whole.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8995
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:18 pm

Unfortunately The Economist being a UK based its views are most likely leaned towards ME3. I wouldn't trust anything coming out UK on this issue, SkyTrax, Oxford Economics, Brand Finance, British Media (broadsheet, tabloid, electronic), Auditors, Consultants all are part of EK's Multinational Multifaceted Multimedia campaign. So does CAPA from Australia.

With $1.3 Billion/year marketing/advertising money in play, it is hard to believe their views, analysis, reports, opinions or suggestions are not distorted.
All posts are just opinions.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:24 pm

You being an American...

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 1):
it is hard to believe your views, analysis, reports, opinions or suggestions are not distorted.
 
bobdino
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:55 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:33 pm

In related news, an academic quoted in the US3's report claims his research is being misrepresented to draw false conclusions. He's written a detailed piece that criticises the US3, praises IAG, and generally attacks the ineptitude of various British governments for not doing more to support the aviation industry:

http://atwonline.com/open-skies/comm...rriers-distorts-my-academic-report

Interesting reading.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:33 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 1):
Unfortunately The Economist being a UK based its views are most likely leaned towards ME3. I wouldn't trust anything coming out UK on this issue, SkyTrax, Oxford Economics, Brand Finance, British Media (broadsheet, tabloid, electronic), Auditors, Consultants all are part of EK's Multinational Multifaceted Multimedia campaign. So does CAPA from Australia.

With $1.3 Billion/year marketing/advertising money in play, it is hard to believe their views, analysis, reports, opinions or suggestions are not distorted.

Absolutely outrageous allegations. You are seriously deluded.

But thanks very much for libelling me.
 
BA0197
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:09 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:35 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 1):
Unfortunately The Economist being a UK based its views are most likely leaned towards ME3. I wouldn't trust anything coming out UK on this issue, SkyTrax, Oxford Economics, Brand Finance, British Media (broadsheet, tabloid, electronic), Auditors, Consultants all are part of EK's Multinational Multifaceted Multimedia campaign. So does CAPA from Australia.

With $1.3 Billion/year marketing/advertising money in play, it is hard to believe their views, analysis, reports, opinions or suggestions are not distorted.

I'm sorry- I cannot accept this statement. Firstly, The Economist is based in the UK, but it is a magazine that focuses on wholly economic advice to write its articles. It takes a view of what would be best for businesses, consumers and the economy.

Secondly, the British Media- if anything, would veer more towards protecting the USA carriers IMHO and the British public would rather hear that. However, unlike the USA- the British Media, with some exceptions, do not pander to promoting British patriotic feelings, especially when it come to an economic matter. The British will take out patriotic feelings and rash decisions when it comes to matters of finance and the economy. They will not tell people what they necessarily want to hear- whereas Fox will back the American ideal without hesitation and support US industries and interests wholeheartedly. We in the UK do not like to think we are the best (although that's what we may think, we don't want to hear it). We would prefer to be the nation of rational decisions making solely on the basis of fact, not emotion.

Let's not bring up the $xxxxxxxx a year that American marketing/advertising money that are in play in the USA- does that make it hard to believe their views, analysis, reports and distort their opinions?

I would happily say that this article takes a very balanced, pragmatic and statistical view of the situation. They have aired on the side of "protectionism is bad and damages the economy for the consumer". Unfortunately, it does not fit the American narrative. The British are not afraid of competing and are in many respects far ahead of America when it comes to international trade and competition (stemming centuries). I happily subscribe to the view that The Economist has determined and dislike protectionism- it's bad for the consumers and great for the companies reaping the benefits (and this is only a problem because the companies that this practice would benefit are not American).

From a Brit-American having lived in both places.
 
yenne09
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:02 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:40 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 1):
I wouldn't trust anything coming out UK on this issue,

Why such a comment ? The European countries are seeing the world differently than USA. The information
coming from European sources are generally more accurate than the US ones. Why you are almost unable to
believe in accuracy of anything coming out from outside the US. I remember seeing a picture of an Austrian aircraft
in Erbil (Irak). in the December 2006 issue of Airliner's World (I my memory is correct). As a North American I was
completely astonished. After doing some researches I learned that Northern Irak was in full development at that
time. No North American Newspapers wrote something about that. That is the difference.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8995
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:42 pm

Quoting BA0197 (Reply 5):
I would happily say that this article takes a very balanced, pragmatic and statistical view of the situation.

Not really. If every dollar(155 Billion) America ever spent on aviation infrastructure is under US3 account, almost entire Emirates Group total should be counted for Emirates Airlines.

DXB ~$17 Billion, future DXC ~$32 Billion together $49 Billion under EK. US3 claimed only $2.2 Billion related to discounts on services.

If entire FAA budget is for US3, what about GCAA and DCAA budgets??
All posts are just opinions.
 
hinckley
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:43 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 1):
Unfortunately The Economist being a UK based its views are most likely leaned towards ME3.

Have you ever read the Economist? It's probably the best truly fact-based English language news magazine in the world. That doesn't make it correct all the time, but you should know what you're talking about before you put a statement forward in print. The Economist usually does.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:46 pm

Quoting Markam (Thread starter):
that is true for them in the first place (the examples provided direct subsidies, airport and ATC infrastructure building, tax breaks, or favorable bankruptcy laws, and they allegedly sum up to more than $155 billion)

And that extraneous nonsense is patently ridiculous - when applied to the US3 or ME3. It is ridiculous for the US3 to claim that the ME3 get unfair "subsidies" or "support" because their countries have invested billions in infrastructure to facilitate their growth, and/or have lax labor laws. That does not constitute a "subsidy," nor unfair "support" - that's simply intentional public policy by national leaders that, regardless of their opinions on human rights or anything else, have what I'd consider a fairly enlightened and visionary view about the centrality and criticality of civil aviation to their economies. I wish democratically-elected U.S. and European politicians thought the same way! Similarly, it is equally ridiculous for the ME3 (and The Economist, a publication I typically disagree with but respect) to fall back on that laughable 1999 CRS report and claim that the same type of government investment in infrastructure - airports, radar, etc., 80 years ago - constitutes a "subsidy," and it's also comical for them to suggest that Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws are a "subsidy" or unfair "support" for the US3. I think American's Will Ris had it right at the CAPA event: "Subsidies are the government giving money to businesses to compete. In the bankruptcy situation, you shrink the company, you lay off people. You do all sorts of painful things to survive." Bankruptcy is not a subsidy.

I wish that both sides would stop mixing in this stupid stuff that is designed more for desired effect with the uninformed general public and even-less-informed politicians and instead focus on actual, potentially-market-distorting "subsidies" and "support." I read through much of the report that the US3's forensic investigators compiled. All of the above was hardly compelling to say the least. But the reports of zero-interest loans that never have to be paid back, and sovereign assumption of fuel hedges and other unfavorable liabilities - that was interesting. It was right there in black and white, and I think that is worth exploring and better understanding. But the US3 do themselves, and all of us, absolutely no favors by introducing all this other stuff because all it does is give the ME3 the ability to throw the same garbage right back, and thus distract everyone from potentially legitimate issues of debate.
 
BA0197
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:09 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:50 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 7):
Not really. If every dollar(155 Billion) America ever spent on aviation infrastructure is under US3 account, almost entire Emirates Group total should be counted for Emirates Airlines.

DXB ~$17 Billion, future DXC ~$32 Billion together $49 Billion under EK. US3 claimed only $2.2 Billion related to discounts on services.

Again wrong. Firstly, you state that the US government have $155Billion to aviation infrastructure. Fair. However, as I'm sure you know, most airports in the USA are government owned and were built with taxpayer money- in 1950, 1960etc. The figure you have given is, secondly, not adjusted to inflation. What is the real terms figure (I think you will find it is over 1 Trillion)?

Secondly, are you suggesting that the US has the right to build airports yet for some reason the UAE does not?- and let's not talk about how much the US has pumped into infrastructure with tax payer money for airports- and still is considering they are government owned.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5843
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:51 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 4):
But thanks very much for libelling me.

Are you The Economist - or, more particularly, the author of the cited Economist article?

If not, chill- someone throwing-down on an article or source you cite is not, by so doing, making any offensive comments about you.

---


And (FWIW), The Economist typically provides pretty credible analysis.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:55 pm

Quoting sccutler (Reply 11):
If not, chill- someone throwing-down on an article or source you cite is not, by so doing, making any offensive comments about you.

Then I suggest you read what he actually wrote. As a UK based consultant, I am most definitely included by his extremely broad-brush, and totally erroneous allegation.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8995
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:08 pm

Quoting BA0197 (Reply 10):
Again wrong. Firstly, you state that the US government have $155Billion to aviation infrastructure. Fair. However, as I'm sure you know, most airports in the USA are government owned and were built with taxpayer money- in 1950, 1960etc.

Not exactly, over same period US Government collected $240 Billions from passengers as user fees, used $155 Billion to develop aviation infrastructure.

BTW, A380s are not landing on American deserts or farm lands under VFR. They are using same infrastructure. They are also demanding American airports (by extension of your logic American Tax Payer) to upgrade airports to Code F.

Even on A.net, within 20 posts members figured out only $1.8 Billion of $155 Billion was related to airlines.

A leading economic newspaper couldn't figure that out??
All posts are just opinions.
 
bgm
Posts: 2535
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:15 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 12):
Then I suggest you read what he actually wrote. As a UK based consultant, I am most definitely included by his extremely broad-brush, and totally erroneous allegation.

Don't be offended, just ignore him. He has continuously spouted verbal diarrhea ever since the whole US3 v ME3 thing started. Don't feed the troll.  
 
yenne09
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:02 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:18 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 9):
because their countries have invested billions in infrastructure to facilitate their growth,

The case of Dubai is interesting. Dubai has to do something to build up an economic foundation because the petroleum
accounts for only 2% of the Gross Domestic product. So the government choose to focus on tourism with the neceassary
infrastructures like airports. "Dubai became important ports of call for Western manufacturers".

"Dubai Internet City, now combined with Dubai Media City as part of TECOM (Dubai Technology, Electronic Commerce
and Media Free Zone Authority) is one such enclave whose members include IT firms such as EMC Corporation,
Oracle Corporation, Microsoft, Sage Software and IBM, and media organisations such as MBC, CNN, Reuters and AP".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Dubai
 
Markam
Topic Author
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:17 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:27 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 1):

Unfortunately The Economist being a UK based its views are most likely leaned towards ME3.

I do not think that this is true, at all. The Economist is definitely biased, but towards liberal economics (defined in the classical sense), and they are quite transparent about it. If you ask me, they are certainly a more reliable source and have a more neutral point of view than the US3 or the consultants hired by them.

Quoting BA0197 (Reply 5):
I'm sorry- I cannot accept this statement. Firstly, The Economist is based in the UK, but it is a magazine that focuses on wholly economic advice to write its articles. It takes a view of what would be best for businesses, consumers and the economy.

  

Quoting BA0197 (Reply 5):
I would happily say that this article takes a very balanced, pragmatic and statistical view of the situation. They have aired on the side of "protectionism is bad and damages the economy for the consumer". Unfortunately, it does not fit the American narrative.

  

Quoting hinckley (Reply 8):
Have you ever read the Economist? It's probably the best truly fact-based English language news magazine in the world. That doesn't make it correct all the time, but you should know what you're talking about before you put a statement forward in print. The Economist usually does.

     

Quoting commavia (Reply 9):
the US3 do themselves, and all of us, absolutely no favors by introducing all this other stuff because all it does is give the ME3 the ability to throw the same garbage right back, and thus distract everyone from potentially legitimate issues of debate.

I do not completely agree with your post, but I respect your opinion, and I definitely share the feeling that you convey in this last paragraph.

[Edited 2015-04-29 06:28:40]
 
Thomaas
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:52 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:16 pm

So Emirates is owned by the same company that own the airport, which in turn is owned by the Dubai Government yet people still question whether its actually government owned.
 
Markam
Topic Author
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:17 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:59 pm

Quoting Thomaas (Reply 17):
government owned.

"Government owned" does not necessarily imply government subsidized. There are many corporations which are publicly owned or participated, but managed as a private enterprise, and reliant only on their own resources (i.e. the government is just another shareholder).

[Edited 2015-04-29 08:50:57]
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Quoting Markam (Reply 18):
"Government owned" does not necessarily imply government subsidized. There are many corporations which are publicly owned or participated, but managed as a private enterprise, and reliant only in their own resources (i.e. the government is just another shareholder).

Absolutely agree. Government ownership per se is not the problem. Again - the real issue here, if there is any, is the zero-interest, no-repayment-timeline loans and the assumption of liabilities off these companies' balance sheets. All the other stuff is extraneous.
 
nikeherc
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:40 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:09 pm

The fact is that air travelers in the United States have paid for the infrastructure. They pay for it in the taxes that the federal government levies on air travel, the landing fees and rents that the airlines pay for gates and other space at airports and in the exorbitant prices that they pay for food and other merchandise at airports (rents for vendors are astronomical).

I believe that if you look at the amount of taxes levied for the airways trust fund and the amount paid out, it has made a profit for the federal government.

Most airports in the U. S. are built by airport commissions and are financed by bond issues. The bonds are paid of through funds generated by the airports.
DC6 to 777 and most things in between
 
PanAm1971
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:28 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 9:50 pm

I find the whole argument to be silly. However the ME3 got their start-they are here to stay. Deal with it... or don't. Compete or go away. There is zero use complaining about. All the consumer cares about is getting the most value for their money. That's it. They don't care about subsidies or "level playing fields" or who is getting whatever unfair money from whomever. Enough already. Just make your airline service better and explain to your shareholders that it is in the airlines interests to do so because the ME3 are here to stay and they offer better service/value for the money.
 
Thomaas
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:52 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:20 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 19):
Quoting Markam (Reply 18):
"Government owned" does not necessarily imply government subsidized. There are many corporations which are publicly owned or participated, but managed as a private enterprise, and reliant only in their own resources (i.e. the government is just another shareholder).

Absolutely agree. Government ownership per se is not the problem. Again - the real issue here, if there is any, is the zero-interest, no-repayment-timeline loans and the assumption of liabilities off these companies' balance sheets. All the other stuff is extraneous.

Does anyone really believes that 140 A380s and 150 77Ws were intrinsically financed ? Even the world's largest airlines do not have such an order book, the next large A380 customer only ordered 24 of them. They started from an airport with almost zero O&D and have built up, just like everything in Dubai, this was done with government money. It is also foolish to assume that Emirates does not get preferential treatment from other government entities, you need simply to look at the incident that happened between the UAE government and Canada when they tried bundling more air rights for their carrier into Canada as a condition to keep a military base in the country. This here is proof that the UAE does not consider EK and EY to be private enterprises.
 
KaiTak747
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:08 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:18 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 1):

Unfortunately The Economist being a UK based its views are most likely leaned towards ME3. I wouldn't trust anything coming out UK on this issue, SkyTrax, Oxford Economics, Brand Finance, British Media (broadsheet, tabloid, electronic), Auditors, Consultants all are part of EK's Multinational Multifaceted Multimedia campaign. So does CAPA from Australia.

With $1.3 Billion/year marketing/advertising money in play, it is hard to believe their views, analysis, reports, opinions or suggestions are not distorted.

These allegations are outrageous and without a shred of evidence.

Are you suggesting that there is some sort of conspiracy in which EK has influence over the world media?

This issue is a matter of opinion, just because you disagree doesn't mean everyone else is wrong. You're very ignorant to dismiss one of the world's leading Economics publications as untrustworthy.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:28 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 1):
Unfortunately The Economist being a UK based its views are most likely leaned towards ME3.

Heh. Rant of the day, I guess.

But it is wrong on so many levels that it is not so funny actually.

The Economist is of course a highly reputable magazine, I'd rate it as one of the most reliable sources of information in the press globally.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:42 pm

all of this is academic. The US3 Leveled the charges and the US Govt. is looking into the charges. If the ME3 want to Refute the charges then all they need DO is prove them Wrong.
If they Can't or Won't then they might get reprisals. Certainly the EU isn't going to DO anything about it because these guys aren't EU. And if they DO? then what have We got to LOSE in the USA?
Nothing!! As a matter of tit for tat? there are many in the USA who would like to see our resources ONLY used in support of the USA. So?? Let anybody make a play. I'm sure the CEO's of United American And Delta
have already thought of possible scenarios. Richard Anderson gave great thought to his statements as have Parker and Smisek with them all having Lawyers or Being Lawyers. I don't think they Care.
No foreign correspondence is going to change WHAT they think. They've got a bone and they're going to Pick it! I suggest the ME3 get their proof together because they really have no other choice..
 
bgm
Posts: 2535
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:52 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 25):
then what have We got to LOSE in the USA?

The consumer certainly loses. As is always the case.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 25):
As a matter of tit for tat?

All those Boeing orders, not to mention the military equipment being ordered...

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 25):
I'm sure the CEO's of United American And Delta have already thought of possible scenarios.

Those CEOs can barely see past the next quarter.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 25):
They've got a bone and they're going to Pick it!

Good for them. I doubt anything will come of it. Between the "pot kettle black" arguments, and the amount of money these airlines give to the US economy.... money talks.
 
infinit
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:12 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:07 am

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 1):
Unfortunately The Economist being a UK based its views are most likely leaned towards ME3.

As would an American publication be biased towards the US carriers.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8995
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:45 am

Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 23):
You're very ignorant to dismiss one of the world's leading Economics publications as untrustworthy.
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 24):
The Economist is of course a highly reputable magazine, I'd rate it as one of the most reliable sources of information in the press globally.

Reputation will disappear rather quickly if a media outlet repeats talking points verbatim.

Can you explain what kind of research went into this masterpiece???

Quote:
the federal government had helped airlines in all sorts of ways, from direct subsidies to the building of airports and control towers, to the tune of $155 billion.

False

Passengers paid $240 Billion
Aviation infrastructure got $155 Billion
Airlines got $1.8 Billion

Quote:
But a tax break on aviation fuel that benefited Delta by tens of millions of dollars a year got the chop only this month, after a vote in Georgia, where the carrier is based

All airlines in GA enjoyed jet fuel tax exemption, not just Delta. What is the % of fuel purchased by Delta compared to total sales in GA.

IL has highest jet fuel tax in the country, where UA is headquartered.

Quote:
And if the Gulf states’ ban on unions, which keeps labour cheap, constitutes an “artificial” advantage, as the American carriers claim, then perhaps America’s business-friendly bankruptcy law, which has let its airlines shed pensions and other liabilities, counts as one too?

They could have laid off all employees and return all planes.
Hire only young cute FAs and lease brand new planes.
They wouldn't face the product/service quality issues they are having now.

Didn't do that,because no Judge is going accept that plan.
All posts are just opinions.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7368
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:30 am

Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 23):
You're very ignorant to dismiss one of the world's leading Economics publications as untrustworthy.

And surpassingly bigoted to label the entire UK as a mouthpiece for EK (EK specifically, note).

If any posters were unsure of the level of objectivity being deployed here, I think they can put their minds at rest now.....

Those are deeply offensive allegations. When emotion dominates logic to that extent, it's time to stand back from the argument IMO

Rgds
 
bobdino
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:55 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:08 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 29):
Those are deeply offensive allegations. When emotion dominates logic to that extent, it's time to stand back from the argument IMO

It's a pity; it could have been a nice thread. There's two interesting articles posted and absolutely zero discussion on them.
 
[email protected]
Posts: 16616
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:29 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:39 am

A load of immature, unfounded, boring, and pointless nonsense.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
 
lukeyboy95
Posts: 1063
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:07 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:24 am

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 1):
Unfortunately The Economist being a UK based its views are most likely leaned towards ME3. I wouldn't trust anything coming out UK on this issue, SkyTrax, Oxford Economics, Brand Finance, British Media (broadsheet, tabloid, electronic), Auditors, Consultants all are part of EK's Multinational Multifaceted Multimedia campaign. So does CAPA from Australia.

Just to briefly say that you, my friend, are a fool and perhaps a troll, and your fellow countrymen must hold their heads in their hands with despair when they read that sort of baseless diatribe. The Economist is a superb publication, internationally respected, and you would do well to inform yourself a bit more by taking in some of it's contents. I will always take it over the Times when offered a choice on a plane.
Breaking down the stereotypes - one by one
 
captainmeeerkat
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:13 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:51 am

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 28):
False

Passengers paid $240 Billion
Aviation infrastructure got $155 Billion
Airlines got $1.8 Billion

Could you also please count the amount of money that US airlines avoided paying by using Chapter 11?
my luggage is better travelled than me!
 
Markam
Topic Author
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:17 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:52 am

Quoting bobdino (Reply 30):
It's a pity; it could have been a nice thread. There's two interesting articles posted and absolutely zero discussion on them.

Agreed. My apologies, because when I started the thread I was hoping for some insightful discussion of the article. However, not even close.

In any case, thank you very much to those who at least tried.

  
 
sccutler
Posts: 5843
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:09 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 12):

Quoting sccutler (Reply 11):
If not, chill- someone throwing-down on an article or source you cite is not, by so doing, making any offensive comments about you.

Then I suggest you read what he actually wrote. As a UK based consultant, I am most definitely included by his extremely broad-brush, and totally erroneous allegation.

Ah!

I thought (mistakenly) you referred to the OP in this thread; the first reply is that to which you refer, and it is pretty inflammatory, isn't it? Broad brushes do splatter a lot.

Carry on.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:25 pm

Quoting Markam (Reply 34):
Agreed. My apologies, because when I started the thread I was hoping for some insightful discussion of the article. However, not even close.

You definitely have no need to apologise. It was a perfectly suitable topic for discussion and I personally found the linked article an interesting read, thank you.

Shame that the very first reply totally killed the thread for you but that user seems to only be here to destroy any discussion that is even remotely critical of what the US3 are trying to do at the moment, by posting increasingly outlandish nonsense, and then refusing to substantiate any single bit of it.

Personally, I would prefer to be able to hear both sides of the story without any of that nonsense, and then make up my own mind as to exactly where the truth lies (most likely in the middle somewhere).

Quoting sccutler (Reply 35):
Carry on.

Just try and stop me  
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8995
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:44 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 36):
refusing to substantiate any single bit of it.

The entire article is a patchwork of cut and paste of ME3 talking points. I doubt either the author or the editor even spent 10 seconds to verify facts. Read #28.

Would you trust everything CNN shows, because it is reputed?

This article and quite a few recent Economist articles prove my point, their views are biased. Google it.

To be perceived as balanced a media outlet should exhibit that behavior by writing a balanced view once in a while.

One cannot sell snake oil forever based on past reputation. Slowly word gets out.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 2751
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:04 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 37):
Would you trust everything CNN shows, because it is reputed?

I would not disregard a publication, or label a whole country as biased because it neatly fits in with my point of view.

Instead, I would read it and other publications, to get a balanced view from which to make up my own mind. It would be nice to also debate and discuss the matter on a forum like this without inflammatory and derogatory posts such as yours.
 
Markam
Topic Author
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:17 am

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:11 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 36):
Personally, I would prefer to be able to hear both sides of the story without any of that nonsense, and then make up my own mind as to exactly where the truth lies (most likely in the middle somewhere).
Quoting Richard28 (Reply 38):
I would not disregard a publication, or label a whole country as biased because it neatly fits in with my point of view.

Instead, I would read it and other publications, to get a balanced view from which to make up my own mind. It would be nice to also debate and discuss the matter on a forum like this without inflammatory and derogatory posts such as yours.

   Hear, hear!
 
MPadhi
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:33 pm

RE: The Economist On US3 Vs. ME3

Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:27 pm

Another article from the Economist: HERE

Some of the key points from the article:
"Lufthansa says its Frankfurt hub has lost nearly a third of its market share on routes between Europe and Asia since 2005"

"Emirates now publishes full accounts but Etihad and Qatar still do not."

"the low labour costs that the Gulf airlines enjoy, partly because of their home states’ ban on unions, and the benefits they, like other businesses in the Gulf, gain from those states’ generally low tax rates, would seem legitimate means of promoting business development"

"Fares can be kept low because of the efficiency of their long-haul-to-long-haul model."

The article's quite long, and lists many factors, but I believe the ones I quoted are quite telling. It gives reasons why some carriers are feeling the need to try and kerb the expansion of the ME3. If I was a shareholder in one of these companies who relied on a hub strategy for revenue, I'd expect them to try their best to erect any barriers to entry for new firms entering the market, it's in the businesses' best interest to restrict competition. The allegation is of course about whether this is fair competition, which The Economist suggests may not be the case with Etihad and Qatar,who are yet to publish their accounts. I find this interesting because in all the threads about the US3 vs ME3 that I've spent the last weeks lurking in, the arguments have always gone back to EK, who seems to be the cleanest of the three by quite a margin.

The most important point is the efficiency of the long haul flights to a hub strategy used by the ME4 (including TK). This gives a good explanation as to how they can offer such low fares, and the vast majority of people outside of A.net care only about the fares; the only caveat being any airlines that have a very poor reputation, or offer significantly longer journey times.

I've seen some posters claim that the lax labour regulations are a subsidy, a point that I can't agree with in the slightest. If the US3 wished, they could very well relocate to a country with similarly lax labour regulations and benefit from this. US corporations already benefit from the comparative advantages some countries have on labour (eg. China). The US3 can't take as much of advantage of cheap labour in producing its output as Apple can when producing its products, but that doesn't mean to say that Apple is gaining subsidies! Similarly, the ME3 can take advantage of the cheap labour whilst the US3 can't - so unless you claim that Apple is gaining from subsidies, I don't see how you can say the ME3 are (on labour at least...). Finally, the US3 still do gain from cheap labour costs every time they buy something abroad, whether this be an aircraft, the peanuts served to their passengers, or even the computers they use to manage their bookings; everyone gains from free and open markets, that's certainly the US's view anyway.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos