Indeed - these are specific, targeted subsidies which are worth bearing in mind, more so than the idea of bankruptcy proceedings. I actually agree with iahphx's point in the last paragraph of 613 that Chapter 11 proceedings in the USA are a red herring with regards to the idea of subsidies of airlines specifically - in much the same way that Dubai offers a favourable economic environment to do business in general (e.g. no corporate taxes, no personal income taxes), the US and other jurisdictions offer via their civil law a procedure for struggling companies of all sorts to undergo restructuring procedures. I think the fact that Chapter 11 bankruptcy law isn't an airline specific procedure means we should class it as part of the economic fabric of doing business in the United States, rather than evidence of targeted direct support for a loss making business.

However, we mustn't then use the fact that Chapter 11 is brought up and then rejected as specific assistance as evidence that US based carriers are entirely free from external support!

What is really disingenuous on the part of US carriers is the idea they wish to propagate which is that they themselves are helpless underdogs in the face of unfair competition. As evidenced by midtownapsk, being a US based carrier gives you much passive and active state support, which effectively is fiscal transfer.

The main ones: Civil Reserve Air Fleet payments, where the US government makes ongoing payments to carriers part of the program simply for the commitment of their fleet in case of airlift requirement. Note, this is not payment for commandeering aircraft in times of operational requirement, this is on going payment for the commitment and also preference in peacetime contract awards. Note that it has only been activated twice in recent times.
http://www.dot.gov/mission/administr...et-allocations

Fly America Act - any federally funded - directly or indirectly, and so, contractors - air travel must be on US based carriers, no matter the cost difference. Perhaps one could make a flimsy argument on security grounds for a small proportion of federal travel, but for the vast majority of travel, it is eerily similar to idea of getting an affiliate of your owner to buy inflated cost tickets to inflated your revenue at the cost of the purchasing affiliate. In the case where the affiliates are all owned by the same entity, one could argue the logic is questionable. In the case where the affiliate is the federal government and the entity's whose revenue is being inflated is a private (although perhaps publicly traded) corporation, that's unnecessary expenditure, at best...

Restriction on cabotage in US domestic operations - I don't think that needs any elaboration...!

Antitrust immunity for alliances - specifically a major problem TATL. The cartel is able to align prices, even to the now demonstrated detriment of consumers.
ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp10080.pdf

So, when a CEO wants a "level" playing field, or "fair skies", he is clearly being disingenuous and hypocritical when he doesn't elaborate on what "level" and "fair" actually means, to him - and in the case of Richard Anderson, moving the goalposts, as it were, by shifting the implicit definition of "subsidy" to help his case. In the case of the 40 billion, some of it, by his own admission, is not all cash transfer, therefore at that point he is admitting that subsidy doesn't entirely encompass direct fiscal injection, but then later in the interview denies he receives any government assistance (now changing his definition of subsidy to simply mean cash injections), whilst ignoring things such as the above.

Deliberately relying on obfuscation and dropping contentious terms to put something in the public consciousness (with no elaboration or clarification by his company or by himself!) - to me that points to a different motive than the one stated ("fair competition!"), because I don't think any CEO goes out there without a solid media briefing. He knows exactly what he's saying.

-
I think though, we have moved on from the discussion of whether Emirates is a financial scam and more onto a discussion of "who's got the most assistance", or indeed, what "assistance" actually encompasses, and what's "right" when it comes to operating a business - a discussion that isn't really a discussion, because you have various facts that reflect the reality on the ground, but the comments really hinge only on your ethical judgement of what are acceptable external forces in the game of international trade.

As Tim Clark said in his CNN interview - no one has actually seen this report, so how can we possibly comment on the accusations? All there is now is giving life to these innuendos which, intentionally or unintentionally, cloud the issue. Many arguments have been put forward to show on an operational and financial basis how the EK operation can be sustainably profitable. Nothing has changed in that regard - only the political and public relations environment that lets headline grabbing statements seep into the discussions about reality.