Quoting 777way (Reply 44):

World Class Airline! ? A single hub sub 200aircraft operator is not a WCA. EK is a WCA!

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 65): This seems to have started (or the time I noticed it) around the time an American was traveling on a passport from Isreal and was denied boarding on an EK flight to Paris.

And where was this genius flying on EK to Paris from?

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 65): To What Detriment are you referring to? And PLEASE be EXACT in your reply. Anderson seems to be saying the ME3 cannot just come to the USA and ride Roughshod where ever they damn well Please.

I am referring to Anderson's proposed review of our Open Skies agreement with Qatar and the UAE. This agreement permits the ME3 to serve our cities, limited only by facility traffic restrictions, freeing them from bilateral market agreements.

You are aware these three carriers have increased their service levels to numerous US cities, opening travel to the Middle East, South Asia (India, Pakistan, etc.), Central Asia, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia to millions of Americans at superior service levels and fares compared to competing carriers from EU3 or the US3.

DL, UA and AA should focus on competing effectively with these ME3 carriers, rather than complaining to our policy makers, requesting a unnecessary and damaging "review" of our Open Skies agreements. There is nothing wrong with our Open Skies agreements; they are doing exactly what they were designed to do: benefitting us, the traveling public in the United States. We need to be the focus of our policy makers, not the US3 carriers.

Quoting PDPsol (Reply 68): Middle East, South Asia (India, Pakistan, etc.), Central Asia, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia to millions of Americans at superior service levels and fares compared to competing carriers from EU3 or the US3.

The Middle East and Southwest Asia (India, Pakistan) are the only legitimate arguments here. The rest of Asia has carriers that beat the ME3 standards--like SQ. If you want the very best of service and are willing to pay for it--SQ, KE, JL, etc. Those options have been around.

For the ME and India/Pakistan--the only "better" service argument is in J or F as just about every carrier, be it the ME3 or US3 or EU3 is basically the same in coach. Fares in F/J are not the low prices that most Americans are looking for.

Quoting PDPsol (Reply 68): I am referring to Anderson's proposed review of our Open Skies agreement with Qatar and the UAE. This agreement permits the ME3 to serve our cities, limited only by facility traffic restrictions, freeing them from bilateral market agreements. You are aware these three carriers have increased their service levels to numerous US cities, opening travel to the Middle East, South Asia (India, Pakistan, etc.), Central Asia, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia to millions of Americans at superior service levels and fares compared to competing carriers from EU3 or the US3. DL, UA and AA should focus on competing effectively with these ME3 carriers, rather than complaining to our policy makers, requesting a unnecessary and damaging "review" of our Open Skies agreements. There is nothing wrong with our Open Skies agreements; they are doing exactly what they were designed to do: benefitting us, the traveling public in the United States. We need to be the focus of our policy makers, not the US3 carriers.

Sounds like it came directly from the ME3's pr departments. All the US3 are looking for is a level playing field. IF the subsidies are true then this, "superior service levels and fares compared to competing carriers from EU3 or the US3" is what the legacies are looking for but unable to compete with the ME3 on this level because of the subsidies.

Quoting 777way (Reply 66): And where was this genius flying on EK to Paris from?

As I recall, it was from NYC-London, on an Israeli passport, but I don't recall the rest of the details.




Found it:
American/Israeli Files Suit Against Kuwait Airways (by jfklganyc Feb 6 2015 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2015-05-10 16:20:48]

But that guy I quoted said EK to Paris not KU to London.

Quoting billreid (Reply 56): I for one despise his comments against the support to foreign airlines for purchasing of Boeing aircraft yet he used similar funding to buy Airbus aircraft.

false. US airlines are not eligible for the EU version of ExIm. On the same note EU carriers are not eligible for ExIm for Boeings.

Quoting billreid (Reply 56): I am waiting for him to act supportive of American consumers and workers.

80,000 Delta employees would like to say hi.


And Delta employees aren't, you know, basically slaves.......

AAB is completely unprofessional and beyond the pale here. There is business and then there is personal insult. If he want's access to the U.S. market, he better start behaving to the norms of the U.S. Market. That said, Anderson's ire is misplaced - its his own government that is anti-business and has restrictions in place, that at the core makes his product and business model less competitive and scalable - he should railing the Obama administration, the FAA and DOT to help U.S. carriers compete more effectively by removing draconian and outdated safety and work rules, overhauling an archaic and disgusting U.S. infrastructure and focusing on giving U.S. carriers a fighting chance by being enabled by the citizens of the U.S., not hampered by their Government.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 72):

He does have around 1billion in exim style financing for regional jets.

Quoting 777way (Reply 71): But that guy I quoted said EK to Paris not KU to London.

I believe he was WRONG

Quoting mayor (Reply 49): Never will understand how lying can be "refreshing".

Not what I said, let's not get into twisting of words, that never ends well. Anyone including yourself can go back & re-read what I wrote, so they can see you're twisting the last drop of truth right out of what I said.

You love DL & we ALL get it. DL can do no wrong in your eyes, everyone else is lying except Richard Anderson. I'm not interested in playing who's airline is bigger, better, or who is going to kill off who.

What I said is that AAB speaks his mind, he doesn't sugar coat crap like his western counterparts & it is stark & real & against our western societal morays.

However, right or wrong, it's what is on his mind & YES, some people find that refreshing. I made no agreement to his content, in fact I side with the US3 that there isn't much in an open skies agreement for AA, UA or DL. But if QR wants to charge less for a LAX-DOH-SYD flight than QF & someone wants to go 3/4 of the way around the world to get there, so be it.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 76): Quoting mayor (Reply 49): Never will understand how lying can be "refreshing". Not what I said, let's not get into twisting of words, that never ends well. Anyone including yourself can go back & re-read what I wrote, so they can see you're twisting the last drop of truth right out of what I said.

Well, here's what you said:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 23): Well, he did say he would not mince his words, I guess that is how he feels, that's freedom of speech here. It certainly is not the sugar coated crap that's being said most of the time, refreshing, some may say.

Now, I guess you can interpret any way you want, but Baker's interpretation of Anderson's character is basically a lie, which certainly isn't "refreshing".

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 76): Not what I said, let's not get into twisting of words, that never ends well. Anyone including yourself can go back & re-read what I wrote, so they can see you're twisting the last drop of truth right out of what I said. You love DL & we ALL get it. DL can do no wrong in your eyes, everyone else is lying except Richard Anderson. I'm not interested in playing who's airline is bigger, better, or who is going to kill off who.

Now who is twisting words? I never said that Anderson was or wasn't lying.........I said that what Baker said about Anderson's character was a lie. Yes, I love DL......what in the world is wrong with that? I suppose if I didn't, I wouldn't have worked for them as long as I did. You seem to be the only one bothered by this. However, I would ask you this......please, please quit throwing out there the fact that I did work for DL and that I love them as though it was some kind of disease.

Anyway, this sentence of yours....."You love DL & we ALL get it. DL can do no wrong in your eyes, everyone else is lying except Richard Anderson." is in no way reflected by what I said in any of my posts in this thread.

Quoting sharktail (Reply 33): You are confusing 2 separate and different issues. Subsidies would be unfair. I haven't seen proof that Emirates receives subsidies. Taxes and airport charges are sovereign decisions by each government. They are 100% fair.

No I am not.

Proves that EVERY ME3 airlines is receiveing state subsidies are likely to come out soon as reports from everywhere are starting to emmerge. I highly doubt that 3 big american airlines would start such a move against ME3 with nothing in hands proving what they are claiming. It's just a matter of time before we have some sort of report in hands. People will then interpret it as they like.
And NO taxes and airport charges in Dubai for instance are disguised subsidies as no one can believe such brand new and huge airports can cost that few to resident airlines. The managing companies handling such airports are state own and making the price they like to EK for orperating costs.... This is a form of subsidy.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 63): Al Baker's outrage is a tactic...nothing more.

Ha...well then he's been using that tactic since he came out of the womb.

Quoting airproxx (Reply 78): Proves that EVERY ME3 airlines is receiveing state subsidies are likely to come out soon as reports from everywhere are starting to emmerge. I highly doubt that 3 big american airlines would start such a move against ME3 with nothing in hands proving what they are claiming. It's just a matter of time before we have some sort of report in hands. People will then interpret it as they like.

There has already been one dossier out, and it had no evidence in it I could see, lots of allegations. Be like someone finding a receipt in your trash for $200, and your wife filing for divorce saying the $200 dollars was for a prostitute and claiming adultery. The receipt in isolation is meaningless.

Quoting airproxx (Reply 78): And NO taxes and airport charges in Dubai for instance are disguised subsidies as no one can believe such brand new and huge airports can cost that few to resident airlines.

There is charges in DXB, just for fun I tried booking a ticket out of DXB and saw the "taxes" in AED added to the ticket price. The cost of terminal, runway, and other passenger charges out of DXB is higher than many other middle east airports, and even some in Asia, for example Cairo, Bahrain, Doha, Kuala Lumpur, Beijing.

Quoting airproxx (Reply 78): he managing companies handling such airports are state own and making the price they like to EK for orperating costs.... This is a form of subsidy.

I don't see government owned public infrastructure like schools, hospitals, roads, buses, trains, ports, bridges, tunnels, or airports as being a subsidy. That is what I think government is there for.

There are lots of similar examples are around the world, Bangkok and Thai, Kuala Lumpur and Malaysia, Singapore, and Singapore Airlines, Silk Air, Scoot, Tiger, any airport n China and any Chinese airline.

Anyone operating out of DXB has the same fees and charges.

Playing devil's advocate here for S&Gs....

Can Mr. Anderson say for sure, that if he was in the same situation as AAB that he would run his airline in any different fashion? For instance, if tomorrow, all labor laws and unions were non existent in the US, if they could get any amount and any size aircraft they wanted at terribly wonderful financing rates with very little down, could Mr. Anderson and the heads at DL honestly say he would run his airline the same exact way he does today? At same pay rates? With same benefits? Same level of service? Or would they too shuffle the deck and make it to greatly benefit "the airline" and the flying public?

With all hi talk of a fair playing field, can he honestly say if it were fair in that aspect that he and the other heads would do anything any differently? Being the ethical red-blooded American he states to be and to support those same Americans who rely on his airline for their livelihood, would he change his sermon?

As a counter point, would the ME3 survive as they are now with the same practices as the US aviation industry adheres to? probably not without drastic changes I'll give you that much....

If it is ruled that the ME3 would have to stop their extensive services in the scenario that Mr. Anderson is proposing, would the US3 take up the slack? Because it's apparent that the demand is there to warrant the service, would they step in to fill the void? or would they immediately expand their interline/code share agreements and keep the status quo while moving traffic through Europe with partner airlines taking it from there? If the former, then it could very well be perceived that this would all have been in the best interest of the American traveling public, if the latter, it would be perceived as a way to fill current market availability, pad premiums as demand raises with little if any capacity increase while doing the same for alliances in the EU WITHOUT regard to the best interests of the American traveling public.

The cut and dry is, all of these questions likely will not ever be or cannot be answered at all or until it's too late to do anything about it.

Just fueling the fire...

Respectfully,

Pohakuloa

Quoting Pohakuloa (Reply 81): Can Mr. Anderson say for sure, that if he was in the same situation as AAB that he would run his airline in any different fashion? For instance, if tomorrow, all labor laws and unions were non existent in the US, if they could get any amount and any size aircraft they wanted at terribly wonderful financing rates with very little down, could Mr. Anderson and the heads at DL honestly say he would run his airline the same exact way he does today? At same pay rates? With same benefits? Same level of service? Or would they too shuffle the deck and make it to greatly benefit "the airline" and the flying public?

Of course he wouldn't. You can't get to CEO of a firm like Delta if you can't make those decisions. As a CEO your decisions have to be in the best interest of the company, regardless of what they are. General rule, if it's legal, there is no public outcry about it and people don't really care, it will be done if it benefits your company. If child slavery were legal and the population were fine with it, any CEO at that level will do it. If not you will find your desk cleared out in no time and someone sitting there that will do what you didn't want to.

Quoting Pohakuloa (Reply 67): Can Mr. Anderson say for sure, that if he was in the same situation as AAB that he would run his airline in any different fashion? For instance, if tomorrow, all labor laws and unions were non existent in the US, if they could get any amount and any size aircraft they wanted at terribly wonderful financing rates with very little down, could Mr. Anderson and the heads at DL honestly say he would run his airline the same exact way he does today? At same pay rates? With same benefits? Same level of service? Or would they too shuffle the deck and make it to greatly benefit "the airline" and the flying public?

Nice theory except for the fact that there are only two unions at Delta.......the pilots and the dispatchers.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 58): false. US airlines are not eligible for the EU version of ExIm. On the same note EU carriers are not eligible for ExIm for Boeings.

So you think DL bought the foreign Airbus product because it was simply better?
Were there no EU funded discounts? Did DL pay list prices for all the aircraft?

Start looking at AF KL UA BA etc etc.
From a fleet perspective they always buy Airbus to support their own workforce and EU products. They also buy Boeing products where it fits. But nationalistic pressure exists to support ones own economy.
I find it totally unequal and a conflict of interest for a US Airline to suggest dropping US-Exim support while knowing the same support will always exist for Airbus in Europe.
Anderson knew that if Exim ends in the US it will eliminate thousands of jobs domestically. He also knows that Airbus will give him a discount for taking up that battle. How do you spell Anderson ....... Benedict Arnold!

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 58): 80,000 Delta employees would like to say hi. And Delta employees aren't, you know, basically slaves.......

Regardless of DL employees Andersons comments and actions are what they are. I'm a million miler with DL. I loved flying with you. But I lost a great deal of interest in DL based on Anderson's comments on the Exim support. Boeing is the US's largest exporter and to suggest simply shifting those sales outside the USA is despicable. Anderson should learn to keep his mouth shut and manage the airline, he pisses off more people in a day than MOL does in a century.

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 18): Richard is also a very nice person for those who haven't met him. He's also surprisingly humble.

Thats the public face he puts on. I have seen him behind closed doors where "humble" doesn't exist. More like he's cold and calculating, with a raging temper and a "win at all costs" mentality. Most of his senior staff works in fear of him.

But yeah, out on the line he does the "aw shucks I'm from Houston" routine...

Quoting Slider (Reply 72): Being needlessly provocative in this manner only escalates tensions, and it's poor form for a CEO to act this way. It doesn't advance his cause, so the faux-outrage merely reflects poorly on him.

Richard is notorious for the same kinds of outbursts, albeit not necessarily in public (the 9/11 comments notwithstanding). He's workd behind the scenes to launch personal attacks on competitors and public figures whom he feels are working against him.

In any event get the popcorn...this'll be fun.

Can we get Baker vs. Anderson on PPV? It'll easily out-sell Mayweather/Pacquiao!  

The fact that we are seriously distracted by the tone of the debate tells me the strategy is working. Put yourself in AAB's place: why not express extreme anger and go ballistic, ungentlemanly and personal? If he is correct and the accusations are erroneous, then yes, he is completely justified in his reaction to what would indeed be an outrage. If it all turns out to be true (as many people already believe,) they're done, nothing more to lose.

To those that ask about how much it affects US carriers and the US population. The smaller cities are the ones that will probably hurt as people start to skip flying out of those cities and drive to the bigger gateways to get on their flights.

Also their pricing of the ME3 is crazy. To go from the US-Europe recently, EK's C fares were about the same or lower as US/EU plus NZ and SQ Y fares and about half of their C fares.

Quoting catiii (Reply 71): Thats the public face he puts on. I have seen him behind closed doors where "humble" doesn't exist. More like he's cold and calculating, with a raging temper and a "win at all costs" mentality. Most of his senior staff works in fear of him.

Quoting catiii (Reply 73): He's workd behind the scenes to launch personal attacks on competitors and public figures whom he feels are working against him.

      I call BS on both of these statements. I'm just having a big problem believing either one. I'd like to see a little proof of the truth of what you say.

Quoting PDPsol (Reply 53): I am referring to Anderson's proposed review of our Open Skies agreement with Qatar and the UAE. This agreement permits the ME3 to serve our cities, limited only by facility traffic restrictions, freeing them from bilateral market agreements.You are aware these three carriers have increased their service levels to numerous US cities, opening travel to the Middle East, South Asia (India, Pakistan, etc.), Central Asia, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia to millions of Americans at superior service levels and fares compared to competing carriers from EU3 or the US3.DL, UA and AA should focus on competing effectively with these ME3 carriers, rather than complaining to our policy makers, requesting a unnecessary and damaging "review" of our Open Skies agreements. There is nothing wrong with our Open Skies agreements; they are doing exactly what they were designed to do: benefitting us, the traveling public in the United States. We need to be the focus of our policy makers, not the US3 carriers.

And all you say might be true, I do not doubt what you say, But Why then is this in question?
Who in the US Govt. will stand up and say this is true?? And if Anderson's end game is to have them thrown OUT??
What's in it for Mr. Anderson (Delta) , Mr. Smisek (United) and, Mr. Parker (American) to do so?
Cause let's face it !! They're doing this for financial gain. Those guys don't go to the "Bathroom" without a PLAN. I'll bet they look at Fecal matter as a source of "revenue" or how to turn it IN to Revenue.
American's are NOT flocking to fly ET,EK, and QR. Their ME3 home countries do Not have any strangle hold on Oil as in the past Isis is the only faction in the ME
that can sway their policy and the Big Producer there The Saudi's are strangely reticent. It could be that Anderson believes our "Open Skies" might be TOO open.
But then why not Lobby the White House and Congress??
UNLESS!! There's another reason we do not as yet know of. And I have NO IDEA what that might be..
Do You have any IDEA??

Quoting mayor (Reply 62): Now who is twisting words? I never said that Anderson was or wasn't lying.........I said that what Baker said about Anderson's character was a lie. Yes, I love DL......what in the world is wrong with that? I suppose if I didn't, I wouldn't have worked for them as long as I did. You seem to be the only one bothered by this. However, I would ask you this......please, please quit throwing out there the fact that I did work for DL and that I love them as though it was some kind of disease.

You have no idea who is lying here (if anyone is at all) any more than than the rest of us, I did NOT say lying was refreshing, I said speaking one's mind IS. I've said it three times now, please accept that is what I'm saying & stop speaking on my post inaccurately.

I don't care if you love DL, it matters not to me, (let's put that old argument of yours to bed for good) be proud of where you once worked, I think they are a fine carrier & I have stated so many times publicly here.

Your love does make your posts tirelessly one sided & that's annoying especially when your misinterpretation of my comment, get's you upset & you start jabbing & cherry picking for a response.

Quoting mayor (Reply 62): Now, I guess you can interpret any way you want, but Baker's interpretation of Anderson's character is basically a lie, which certainly isn't "refreshing"

And of course you chose to interpret it in a way that was not my intent, nor what I had stated & you try to put me on the defensive? Maybe that's what got the ball rolling?

Given our history I think you've taken something I said, decided it meant something it didn't (with the love of DL in your eyes) you responded poorly, I've explained myself three times & now let's put a pin in it once & for all & bury the hatchet.

Ach-bar is losing! This is why he is defensive. Fact is fact.. Nuff said...

Europe is now backing the facts. M3-3 = fair play... How can tiny countries have big airlines unless they are planning........?

To easy not to figure. Again, facts are facts. .


Let the defensive non airline workers speak opinion....

Nothing else to say.

Akbar reminds me of little kids that get caught lying, they get defensive, blame others, call others liars etc. You don't see EK and EY's yelling, screaming, and stomping their feet.

Lastly the "US3" are not the only ones saying things, the Euro carriers and countries are all crying foul.

Quoting mayor (Reply 75): I call BS on both of these statements. I'm just having a big problem believing either one. I'd like to see a little proof of the truth of what you say.

Mayor, I have tremendous respect for you and for your love of Delta, but the fact of the matter is that the guy can be an SOB, in the same way Ron Allen was an SOB behind closed doors but a different person when out on the line (and we all know those stories...). It doesn't make him a bad CEO, but he cultivates one image with the front line employees and acts a diferent way many times behind closed doors. IM me and I would be glad to share specifics but RIchard is no angel...

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 79): Akbar reminds me of little kids that get caught lying, they get defensive, blame others, call others liars etc. You don't see EK and EY's yelling, screaming, and stomping their feet. Lastly the "US3" are not the only ones saying things, the Euro carriers and countries are all crying foul.

  

Quoting catiii (Reply 80):

That doesn't sound like the Richard I've met even behind closed doors. I think I have to side with Mayor and Burnsie.
He may not be an angel but to make him out to act like AAB is insanity.

Did anyone catch the article in the economist ?

U.S. Government provided 155 billion to the sector in the U.S. ?

Quoting zeke (Reply 82): U.S. Government provided 155 billion to the sector in the U.S. ?

And what sector would that be? Specifics, please.

Quoting mayor (Reply 83):

They describe it as commercial aviation

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

Quoting zeke (Reply 84): Quoting mayor (Reply 83): They describe it as commercial aviation http://www.economist.com/news/leader...nswer-open-skies-flights-hypocrisy

Most of that did not go directly to the carriers, but to municipalities to build airports and to improve the faa, etc.

The comparison is hardly valid and not even worth of an apples and oranges tag. More like apples and pigs, actually.


The "Economist" states that these "subsidies" that commercial aviation in the U.S. was receiving, started in 1918 and most of that is no longer there and hasn't been for quite awhile.

Quoting mayor (Reply 85):

I get it now, since the airlines and the airports in the US are established, and no longer need the funding, establishing aviation sectors in other countries are not allowed to do the same as what happened in the US, because the US stopped doing it. Is that the apples and pigs comparison ?

Do you realize how silly that sounds ?

US commercial aviation sector received 155 billion ( a 1999 figure determined Congressional Research Service), and when foreign governments spend a fraction of that all of a sudden it is unfair ? What have they gained since then in the past 16 years ?

"Much of that largesse ended long ago. But a tax break on aviation fuel that benefited Delta by tens of millions of dollars a year got the chop only this month"

What the article is also saying,which a lot of other poster on this site have also said

"But there are many good reasons, besides generous state owners, why the super-connectors are doing so well: the advantageous positioning of their home bases, between Europe and Asia; their superior service and slick marketing; and their fleets of efficient new planes."

What the economist article is clearly showing is that US commercial aviation sector had a significant advantage over the rest or the world for a significant period of time, and they alone failed to take advantage of it.

They have also had government negotiated open skies agreements with many countries for a long period of time, have failed to take advantage of them.

When the other side to the agreement grows their side, all of a sudden it is time to start looking at restricting them ?

Do you realize how silly that sounds ?

Do you think consumers are that silly not to see the benefits these carriers are adding to the choice ?

In the second article "Super-connecting the world" linked to the first, they go on to say

"The West’s legacy carriers put a lot of effort into letting politicians know about their concerns. But the chances that the American and European governments will roll back their open-skies commitments and halt the expansion of the super-connectors do not look good. American and European makers of aircraft and engines, which are benefiting hugely from the expansion of the super-connectors’ fleets, also form a powerful lobby. So do passengers, who have shown little sympathy for their struggling national airlines and plenty of interest in their rivals’ cheap fares.

If anything, matters can only get worse for the legacy carriers. If Norwegian makes a go of low-cost transatlantic flights, Ryanair and others will pile in. China’s huge, state-backed airlines are surely planning to boost their market share on Pacific routes. And the high profits that America’s airlines have recently been enjoying at home are likely to encourage the expansion of low-cost carriers there. In all, the future looks poor for investors in the legacy airlines. For travellers, however, the age of cheap flying is set to go on and on."

I am sorry, I think Mr Anderson has failed this time to lead and innovate. The initial attacks on the ME3, including remarks associating them terrorism has in my view had a very predictable response. If you want to pick a fight with someone, first make sure you have no skeletons in your cupboard, as they will be found. I do not see how any person could think they could make those remarks, and do this level of lobbying without any respose.

I do see the need for structural changes in the US commercial aviation sector, removal of taxes, fixing problems with ATC, fixing problems with airports. Attacking the ME3 in my view is not the way the leader of such a large airline should be going about this.

If you want to see aviation consumer friendly markets, look to South America, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. In Australia, look at the high percentage of foreign carriers in the market place, they have had 100% foreign owned carriers operating domestically.

I really need to stop speed reading through things. I read the title very quickly, incorrectedly, and a very different image ran through my mind 

Quoting zeke (Reply 86): "But there are many good reasons, besides generous state owners, why the super-connectors are doing so well: the advantageous positioning of their home bases, between Europe and Asia; their superior service and slick marketing; and their fleets of efficient new planes."

Doing well? Only one publishes financials and it's doing slightly above average.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 88): it's doing slightly above average

7th largest in revenue, 4th largest in profits, 4th largest in passenger-miles (2013/2014 numbers) is "slightly above average"?

Maybe you think there are only 10 airlines in the world, not 5000+?

By just about any measure, Emirates is currently doing a whole lot better than "slightly above average".

Quoting speedbored (Reply 89): By just about any measure, Emirates is currently doing a whole lot better than "slightly above average".

IATA forecasts a net margin for 2014 around 3%. EK's (the airline only) was 5.1%. Not bad, not incredible either. Air Arabia was triple that; JL and DL double. CM around 4x EK.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 90): EK's (the airline only) was 5.1%. Not bad, not incredible either.

But most definitely considerably higher than the "slightly above average" that you asserted. A 5.1% margin would easily put them up in the top 5-10% of airlines, as they have consistently been for a number of years.

Quoting zeke (Reply 86): The initial attacks on the ME3, including remarks associating them terrorism has in my view had a very predictable response.

You need to read, again, what he actually said.........all he was doing was saying they both came from the same country or area, not that they were actually mixed up in terrorism.

Quoting zeke (Reply 86): I get it now, since the airlines and the airports in the US are established, and no longer need the funding, establishing aviation sectors in other countries are not allowed to do the same as what happened in the US, because the US stopped doing it. Is that the apples and pigs comparison ? Do you realize how silly that sounds ?

I might understand if the ME3 were involved in a fledgling aviation industry in their countries, but they're not. It already seems to be well established.

Quoting zeke (Reply 86): I get it now, since the airlines and the airports in the US are established, and no longer need the funding, establishing aviation sectors in other countries are not allowed to do the same as what happened in the US, because the US stopped doing it. Is that the apples and pigs comparison ? Do you realize how silly that sounds ? US commercial aviation sector received 155 billion ( a 1999 figure determined Congressional Research Service), and when foreign governments spend a fraction of that all of a sudden it is unfair ? What have they gained since then in the past 16 years ? "Much of that largesse ended long ago. But a tax break on aviation fuel that benefited Delta by tens of millions of dollars a year got the chop only this month" What the article is also saying,which a lot of other poster on this site have also said "But there are many good reasons, besides generous state owners, why the super-connectors are doing so well: the advantageous positioning of their home bases, between Europe and Asia; their superior service and slick marketing; and their fleets of efficient new planes." What the economist article is clearly showing is that US commercial aviation sector had a significant advantage over the rest or the world for a significant period of time, and they alone failed to take advantage of it. They have also had government negotiated open skies agreements with many countries for a long period of time, have failed to take advantage of them. When the other side to the agreement grows their side, all of a sudden it is time to start looking at restricting them ? Do you realize how silly that sounds ? Do you think consumers are that silly not to see the benefits these carriers are adding to the choice ? In the second article "Super-connecting the world" linked to the first, they go on to say

We haven't agreed over the years on a number of items but you are basically "spot on" here.   

Quoting mayor (Reply 92): I might understand if the ME3 were involved in a fledgling aviation industry in their countries, but they're not. It already seems to be well established.

EK started only 30 years ago. EY started only 11 years ago. QR started about 20 years ago and its really been the past decade or so where they have started to expand.

How long has DL, UA, AA been around for? Oh, that's right, 80-90 years.   

Quoting zeke (Reply 86): What the economist article is clearly showing is that US commercial aviation sector had a significant advantage over the rest or the world for a significant period of time, and they alone failed to take advantage of it.

So, the rest of the world was doing NOTHING during that time span with their own aviation sectors?


Do you know how silly THAT sounds?

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 93): Quoting mayor (Reply 92): I might understand if the ME3 were involved in a fledgling aviation industry in their countries, but they're not. It already seems to be well established. EK started only 30 years ago. EY started only 11 years ago. QR started about 20 years ago and its really been the past decade or so where they have started to expand. How long has DL, UA, AA been around for? Oh, that's right, 80-90 years.

So, the ME3 had the advantage of starting their operations when the world aviation sector was pretty well already established......is that about right? They didn't have to do any of the dirty work, eh? Who established the aviation industry in the Middle East.......BA? PA?

Quoting mayor (Reply 94): So, the rest of the world was doing NOTHING during that time span with their own aviation sectors? Do you know how silly THAT sounds?

Who gives the right for anyone to say "you can't start now" or "why didn't you start earlier"?

Quoting mayor (Reply 94): So, the ME3 had the advantage of starting their operations when the world aviation sector was pretty well already established......is that about right? They didn't have to do any of the dirty work, eh? Who established the aviation industry in the Middle East.......BA? PA?

What "dirty" work? There are many industries, concepts, ideas, etc. that that United States certainly didn't invent, start, patent, etc yet are used extensively in the USA.

Apropos, I guess one extend that ("didn't any of the dirty work") to WN as well since they started post-deregulation and didn't have to deal with any of the "legacy" costs associated with UA, DL, AA, etc.

Al Baker has a point. Richard Anderson is a brilliant man but he does not operate within Anti-Trust law. He has perverted and broken the law enormously. IMO.

More than anyone else, Anderson is responsible for today's high-profit, high price environment in the USA. For better and for worse.

[Edited 2015-05-13 09:03:14]

I respect Anderson as a business man. I don't like that Delta is leading the charge downgrading the experience for their elite flyers and hope market forces keep them in check. Nonetheless I love watching Anderson cuckold Al Baker. Al Baker's airline is many many times smaller than delta and others yet he acts like he is "the big deal" in the airline industry.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 96): Richard Anderson is a brilliant man but he does not operate within Anti-Trust law. He has perverted and broken the law enormously. IMO.

So wait a sec, are you accusing Anderson of breaking laws? Which would those be? Pretty strong acerbic words here.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 96): More than anyone else, Anderson is responsible for today's high-profit, high price environment in the USA.

Whoa whoa whoa...let's just slow that train down. Air travel is still cheap, abundant and safe. No one's getting priced out of the market just because the airline industry--FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ITS EXISTENCE--has a period of sustainable profitability.

When this "furball" started I read a lot of coments saying Anderson should shut up and Not say anything about the ME3.
Now I read the Tide is turning. Ok? So just what changed your mind??
I don't know totally what Anderson had a burr under his saddle about .
I'm Still not sure this isn't Xenophobic or even racist.
What I am sure of is that the ME3 are trying to "come to the table and they bring NO Food".
So? Is "open skies" REALLY open?? Or was this merely a slogan??