EuropeanPete

I assume you mean that "doesn't" - And I could simply name almost all of them. Unlike all major US airlines which have benefited from significant state write-off of debts in the form of Chapter 11 in the last 15 years, European airlines have had to survive by themselves without state support. Indeed, the European Union has very tough regulations on where the state is allowed to intervene to support players in a market - the likes of which would make US Congressman give up and go home.

Incidentally, as another businessman, I much prefer it when governments don't attempt to micro-manage industry which is what you appear to be calling for.

cmd320

All I really want is for the three remaining US majors to shut up and enjoy the environment of halved competition they've been allowed to create over the past six years. If you're losing customers to EK, QR, EY, well guess what, it sucks to suck. Deal with it by actually trying to compete with their vastly superior products rather than crying to the government yet again about how unfair life is. They should feel lucky that they barely have to compete with anyone meaningful on the domestic front and can offer customers as crappy a product as they do already.

lloydah

^^ And why don't some people do a bit of research before posting? Not all things in Europe are USA style by any means.

nkedel

In the case of domestic US air travel, I'll call for it outright -- it's time to revisit the question of regulation. We got the benefits of deregulation for a couple of decades, but it has long since ceased to serve the public and now serves the oligopoly (perhaps even a cartel) of a few major carriers.

cmd320

Agreed. Either re-regulate or allow foreign competitors.

airplanegod

Personally, I would be perfectly fine with being "invaded" by air carriers from the Middle East, Africa, Asia, South America, or Europe, i'm not picky at this point. I personally am tired of "dealing with it" in regards to less legroom, less amenities, and more fees. I think the US carriers need to "deal with it" and either invest in their product to compete with air carriers around the world, or go out of business.

edgewood49

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

GUWonder

Most legacy major airlines in Europe get some home government assistance, and so too do the US legacy majors get some home government assistance.

As an investor and businessperson, I'm rather happy with how the US economy has turned out in recent years *** [Moderator edit to remove overly political text.]
If anything, I fault the current Admin for too much continuinity, including with regard to allowing the US airline mega-mergers and the ATI JV's when it comes to TATL and TPAC service.

Box5

The best thing to do to stop Qatar, Etihad, and Emirates is to limit rights between the U.S. and Europe. One flight from Milan Malpensa to JFK is fine but not too much more than that. If it's not limited then eventually Emirates can have 25 flights to European cities (where most passengers get off) and 25 transatlantic flights (siphoning traffic there)

Those airlines do provide a service that U.S. airlines don't. Flying to Eritrea, Pakistan, etc. With quite a few refugees in the U.S. and Canada, they have to go home for visits eventually. As far as good business class service, if you are flying to India or the Middle East, they provide it. Singapore Airlines isn't a good competitor anymore because you have to stop somewhere before Singapore then there's the connecting flight to India.

The difficult point to address is when is the Emir a private investor and when is he the state (so it's state funding). Hard question.

Another difficult point is how to improve U.S. airlines business class service. There have been good improvements in the seat, however. That's a plus!

GUWonder

[Moderator conforming edit re quote since deleted and reply thereto.]


It doesn't bother me in the least if EK finds it practical to have as many dozen flights between Europe and the US or Canada as it wishes to have. Is there anything to stop US investors from investing in a new UAE-based airline to take advantage of the international legal agreements applicable to existing UAE-based airlines? Maybe some US airlines can try to get in on the same game.

wco81

Are there any indications that they want to get more into the TATL market between the US and Europe?

Without transiting through the mideast first?

NY to London alone would attract some demand, though it would be brutal competition. But that would be good for consumers.

Amelorn

If the ME3, somehow, started more TATL routes, I would hope it would link cities that may have required a connection in the past (like MXP).

As someone who used to be in Y on TATL 757 flights, all I can say to the US airlines is ---- 'em. The experience of flying US carriers made me feel as if I were regarded with contempt by the airline: $7 for a drinkable beer in the lounges, no lounge arrangement for non-T con F pax, ancient planes, equipment swaps on lesser int'l routes (domestic F 757 on a TATL J trip? bloody hell), pedestrian menus, and rapidly degrading the FFPs. My recent F trip on VX gave me hope (good service, food & beverage, comfortable seat), although their financials don't bolster that hope.

Also, this article came out: link

cbn42

Bankruptcy protection is not a state subsidy. It is part of the cost of doing business. When a business borrows money or purchases services with the promise of later payment, the cost reflects the probability of default. Most likely, US airlines are paying higher rates for just about everything, in order to account for their poor record in this area.

I don't think regulation is necessary. What we need is better enforcement of our antitrust laws. It may be too late, but none of the mergers in the last 10 years should have been permitted.

I'm sure the rulers of the UAE will have absolutely no objection to foreign investors coming to their state-owned airport to compete against their state-owned airline

cmd320

I actually tend to think they wouldn't really care. I just don't think there are any US investors interested in such an endeavor.

wco81

That NYT article had an interesting point. US has a $20 billion trade surplus with one of those countries, largely because of aircraft purchases.

Wonder if that's annual though.

In any event, with that kind of money involved, it doesn't seem likely they'll hinder the ME carriers or else Boeing and other aerospace firms will lobby.