ME3 vs US3

WorldTraveler said:
consumers will care when any carrier dominates service to/from the US. As much as you want to think it's just an "other side of the world problem" as long as the US and the ME3 countries have Open Skies and the US has it with countries in Europe or Asia, the ME3 could start services.

the public never sees those dangers... that is the job of government and private industry thinkers.... it is no different from waking up one day and realizing you have no manufacturing base or no refining capacity because you made laws so stringent that those jobs and capabilities were all imported.
So I guess you aren't in favor of letting the market decide anymore?  Only when its favorable to Delta?  Or should working people be the only ones who have to deal with such things, lets bail out the airlines, lets bail out the auto industry (but only if the workers in those industries agree to concession, hell lets bail out the banks too, but without the concessions requirement.   Yes, ME3 is subsidized, so us US3, sure its done differently but its still done, you just don't like it when the rules aren't tailored to your liking, hey "they can always move" those assets into other markets. The US3 also has the advantage of the largest Domestic market in the world, one that ME3 does not have access to. So US3 could likely afford to match ME3 prices and make up for the losses with the profits they make on routes in markets that ME3 cant get into. 
first one more time, AA and UA are also in on the anti-ME3 campaign. this isn't just about DL.

second, the market works fine if everything really is decided in the market without subsidies.

and no, the US are not subsidized. Lower labor rates than what you want is not a subsidy. Strangely, you are the one that can't understand that the market has decided labor rates. and the reason why AA labor groups get paid less is because they accept those lower rates. If they walk away and go work somewhere else then AA has no choice but to up its rates.

the size of the market doesn't and never will justify government distorting subsidies.

as much as you and others want to think it is different, the US is no stranger to foreign subsidies in other industries.

the only thing AA, DL, and UA want is for the airline industry to have the same mechanisms for imposing penalties on countries that distort the market as exists with other products and services.
Bob Owens said:
Hmm, so the Airline that pays its mechanics $10/hr more than AA is OK with open skies as well.     
Of course they are, they benefit greatly from it.
Cargo airlines are not in the same world as PAX airlines......  
and FedEx has substantially larger operations in the Middle East that they could stand to lose if Open Skies gets axed and the US government is not capable of showing the ME3 that their bribes of more widebody aircraft orders doesn't give them license to run roughshod over US passenger carriers.

Nor does it say that FedEx should be allowed to thrive at the expense of passenger carriers - if the ME3 isn't willing to separate passenger and cargo business.
... at the NYU Hospitality Conference where hotel CEOs were also clearly on the side of the Middle East carriers in their dispute against United, Delta, and American. Hotel chains compete globally, including on service, so aren’t likely to be convinced by pleas for protectionism
As Wyndham’s CEO noted,

he’d rather fly @emirates @qatarairways @EtihadAirways over @AmericanAir @Delta @united

The funny thing – at least to me – is that such a preference ought to be very aircraft-specific. Emirates has 10-abreast seating on their 777 (so does American, but not Delta or United). Emirates and Qatar have angled business class seats across much of their fleets, while American, United, and Delta are mostly flat across their international networks.
The Middle East carriers have a reputation for service, and it’s service as much as hard product that matters in the hotel business.
and what hotel gurus and others still can't get is that if there are subsidies being paid, it is very easy to offer a higher quality service or product and win in the marketplace.

The root of the issue is whether there are subsidies or not.

The US3 said that despite the lack of international accounting standards being applied to ME3 financial statements, there is enough evidence to show that their governments are not holding them to the same standards that other carriers around the world have to follow.

The issue solely is whether there are subsidies and whether those carriers are being subsidized by their governments. If they are subsidized, then it is not hard to see how they can order tens of billions of dollars in new aircraft, offer lower prices and higher products, and distort the market.

Subsidies or not is the only question.

and the 3 departments of the US government - Commerce, State, and Transportation have to answer those questions.

and if they find that there are illegal or marketing distorting subsidies, then the US likely with the EU will find ways to implement market correcting actions such as has taken place in many other industries in the past.
Etihad blasts U.S. subsidy allegations as 'hypocrisy'
Etihad Airways on Monday became the first of three Persian Gulf airlines accused of receiving billions in government subsidies to release a formal response with U.S. officials, calling the claims "inflammatory and inaccurate."
Etihad, Emirates and Qatar Airways are accused of receiving $42 billion in subsidies during the last decade, according to detailed allegations filed with the U.S. government in January by the three largest airlines: American, Delta and United.
But Etihad denied getting $17 billion in subsidies, as alleged. Etihad also charged that the three U.S. airlines received $70 billion in comparable benefits from bankruptcy filings since 2000 that wiped out debt and reduced pension obligations.
U.S. executives have dismissed comparing bankruptcy benefits to subsidies because creditors and workers suffered those costs, rather than the government...
U.S. executives have dismissed comparing bankruptcy benefits to subsidies because creditors and workers suffered those costs, rather than the government...
and sadly you like others - but not all US airline employees - fail to understand the grave danger that the subsidized ME3 do to not only the US3 but also the EU3 which are major partners even if BA has been bought off so can't think clearly.

This is yet one more issue where US airline unions can't see the strategic risks and act too slowly to be of any value.

It is government and the US carriers themselves that will solve the problem if it is solved at all at the expense of the unions who did nothing to stand up for jobs and income which ALL 3 of the US3 recognized as being threatened.
I would be shocked if the Obama admin really does anything  given that the govt does things slower than a snail.     Emirates has announced MCO ops starting Sept 1 I believe    Qatar is going to replace the 777 in PHL with a A350  as well as starting ATL  LAX  BOS and adding 1 JFK all with a 350     I believe if the govt were to do something  I would of thought something would been done by now    
the case has just been presented to the US government and they supposedly have 90 days to act based on some bill... but I don't know if that bill has been approved.

This case is no different from other trade violations which the US has acted on in the past.

The difference is that the ME3 airlines are trying to pit aircraft manufacturers against the airline industry in an attempt to push into markets while killing the airlines based there.

The difference between this case and other government owned and subsidized airlines is that the ME3 are engaging in massive growth at the expense of EU and US airlines and doing so by massively buying aircraft as if doing so is a justification for violating free trade accords in passenger airline treaties.

The US has been VERY effective in identifying and isolating the exact problem in trade violations and crafting solutions that address those problems.

FedEx and Boeing are screaming that they fear they might lose if the US deals with subsidies in the passenger airline segment of the industry.

The US has acted and can and must act within that segment and not be held hostage to the ME3's market distorting actions which threaten US airline viability and US airline jobs.

To fail to recognize the threat that the ME3 pose to US airlines and their employees is one of the great challenges of this era of aviation.

You need only look at the airlines in other countries that have lost billions of dollars in revenue to the ME3 and which are cutting jobs as a result. And the list is growing.