Delta & Qatar Feud
Dec 23, 2018, 7:05 pm
#16
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Again, there is nothing wrong with Delta promoting its own self-interest. Those that pretend they are taking the moral high ground have been taken for a ride.
Dec 23, 2018, 7:40 pm
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
Thank you for the condescension. I presume that means you are unable to further engage in a logical, fact-based discussion.
Again, there is nothing wrong with Delta promoting its own self-interest. Those that pretend they are taking the moral high ground have been taken for a ride.
1) Their local markets are simply way too small to warrant the size of the fleets that they have. You mentioned Saudia, well SA’s GDP is double that of the UAE and something like 4x that of Qatar. Yeah, tourism is bigger, but not enough to warrant EK being the 4th largest carrier in the world, for example. The ME3 simply aren’t intended to drive traffic to/from their tiny countries, but to connect travelers between other markets.
2) The claim that they’ve turned profits is thinly supported (note that financial statements in the Middle East are notoriously unreliable and not up to international standards). QR, in particular, is almost certainly unprofitable and likely to remain so. EK, for their part, has related party income and expenses that are sizeable and opaque enough to provide ample opportunity for accounting fraud/creative accounting.
3) I never said that the US carriers are saints. I’m aware of their failings, but the irony of whining about oligopolies while defending carriers engaged in predatory pricing is, well, silly and demands comment.
4) You never actually made any fact-based claims. You made some sweeping statements about intent that is, well, inconsistent with the record and basic economics. That is what I responded to in a manner you found condescending. I didn’t feel it necessary to respond in detail to a post that started with patently unbelievable assertions that the ME3 aren’t interested in monopoly power.
5) You discussed partnering, yet the only ME3 carrier that is in an alliance is threatening to quit!
I encourage you to be more skeptical of claims made by government-owned airlines that are regulated by the very same governments that own them.
FWIW, I don’t actually care whether people fly QR or EK or EY or whoever. I’ve flown them and will do so in the future. But... I think the FT wailing of “HYPOCRISY!” every time DL criticizes anti-competitive behavior from them to be incredibly irritating.
Dec 23, 2018, 7:47 pm
#18
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Okay...
1) Their local markets are simply way too small to warrant the size of the fleets that they have. You mentioned Saudia, well SA’s GDP is double that of the UAE and something like 4x that of Qatar. Yeah, tourism is bigger, but not enough to warrant EK being the 4th largest carrier in the world, for example. The ME3 simply aren’t intended to drive traffic to/from their tiny countries, but to connect travelers between other markets.
2) The claim that they’ve turned profits is thinly supported (note that financial statements in the Middle East are notoriously unreliable and not up to international standards). QR, in particular, is almost certainly unprofitable and likely to remain so. EK, for their part, has related party income and expenses that are sizeable and opaque enough to provide ample opportunity for accounting fraud/creative accounting.
3) I never said that the US carriers are saints. I’m aware of their failings, but the irony of whining about oligopolies while defending carriers engaged in predatory pricing is, well, silly and demands comment.
4) You never actually made any fact-based claims. You made some sweeping statements about intent that is, well, inconsistent with the record and basic economics. That is what I responded to in a manner you found condescending. I didn’t feel it necessary to respond in detail to a post that started with patently unbelievable assertions that the ME3 aren’t interested in monopoly power.
5) You discussed partnering, yet the only ME3 carrier that is in an alliance is threatening to quit!
I encourage you to be more skeptical of claims made by government-owned airlines that are regulated by the very same governments that own them.
FWIW, I don’t actually care whether people fly QR or EK or EY or whoever. I’ve flown them and will do so in the future. But... I think the FT wailing of “HYPOCRISY!” every time DL criticizes anti-competitive behavior from them to be incredibly irritating.
There is is no rule that says airlines need to be profitable. Most foreign, state-owned airlines exist to advance the local economies, not turn a profit. That’s obviously not a problem for Delta if the airline is in SkyTeam.
If if there are other facts you’d like, there are ample sources I’d be happy to point you to. The Partnership for Fair and Open Skies is not one of them.
Dec 24, 2018, 1:40 pm
#19
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,033
1) Their local markets are simply way too small to warrant the size of the fleets that they have. You mentioned Saudia, well SA’s GDP is double that of the UAE and something like 4x that of Qatar. Yeah, tourism is bigger, but not enough to warrant EK being the 4th largest carrier in the world, for example. The ME3 simply aren’t intended to drive traffic to/from their tiny countries, but to connect travelers between other markets.
Dec 24, 2018, 2:38 pm
#20
Join Date: Jul 2004
Programs: DL; AA; UA; CO; LHLX; NZ; QR; EK; BA
Posts: 7,408
PRG - served nonstop from JFK summer seasonal (1x 764 daily S19)
SVO
ATH - served nonstop from JFK summer seasonal (2x A333 daily S19)
WAW
IST
STR - served nonstop from ATL year-round
HAM
TXL - served nonstop from JFK summer seasonal (being upgauged from 76Z to 764 1x daily S19)
DUS - served nonstop from ATL year-round
And BOM will be coming back online later in 2019 from either ATL or JFK nonstop on Delta metal.
Even today with the three big TATL JVs, the fares in many markets are still ridiculously low. You can get $400-$500 round trip fares between JFK and ZRH in winter/spring 2019 for example. Cities like IND, RDU, MCO or TPA would not be getting their Europe non stops if there was no JV to support it.
In the TPAC, do you seriously think that DL would have been able to sustain a flight to SYD without the JV with VA (Virgin Australia)? An unknown name in the Australian market, a very long (and costly) flight to operate, DL would not have been able to survive there against the QF juggernaut or a long-established UA (which inherited Pan Am's TPAC routes). Again, how would that have helped the consumer if the DL-VA option did not exist between Australia and the US?
Dec 24, 2018, 2:57 pm
#21
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
Dec 24, 2018, 3:03 pm
#22
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,033
Dec 24, 2018, 3:12 pm
#23
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
Less than 50% accuracy on the European destinations. Ouch.
MLW is the wrong code, but almost every airline has pulled out of Liberia (KL is pulling out next month). ROB sees total passenger counts of roughly 1/3 those of FNT. Yikes. I’m honestly not sure what DL ever saw there.
I’m also pretty sure DL has never served MAA.
As noted, DL is resuming BOM.
Care to try again?
Last edited by pbarnette; Dec 24, 2018 at 3:18 pm
Dec 24, 2018, 3:17 pm
#24
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
Sure. And the “shades” for the ME3 are in the tens of billions of dollars. That is not the case for either SQ or CX.
I suspect DL finds them quite relevant. Heck, I suspect CX and SQ, both of which are hurt even more by the ME3 find it relevant, too.
2. How growth aspirations relevant?
Dec 24, 2018, 3:59 pm
#25
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Your accusations about growth are also dubious. Limitations on growth is not part of any Open Skies agreement. While this can be a function of bilaterals, Delta's silence - and your ignorance - of Chinese airline behavior is dubious.
Dec 24, 2018, 4:41 pm
#27
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
Much of the "subsidies" claimed by Delta are "free and reduced landing fees" and airport infrastructure that is paid for by the government and not recovered with airline charges. All carriers operating at AUH, DOH, and DXB enjoy the same benefits. The governments in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and other countries also provide similar benefits. Delta is applying a double standard because it suits their narrative.
Your accusations about growth are also dubious. Limitations on growth is not part of any Open Skies agreement. While this can be a function of bilaterals, Delta's silence - and your ignorance - of Chinese airline behavior is dubious.
Your accusations about growth are also dubious. Limitations on growth is not part of any Open Skies agreement. While this can be a function of bilaterals, Delta's silence - and your ignorance - of Chinese airline behavior is dubious.
And I’m not ignorant of the Chinese airlines behavior. Absent open skies, though, it is what it is.
Dec 24, 2018, 4:47 pm
#28
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
Less than 50% accuracy on the European destinations. Ouch.
MLW is the wrong code, but almost every airline has pulled out of Liberia (KL is pulling out next month). ROB sees total passenger counts of roughly 1/3 those of FNT. Yikes. I’m honestly not sure what DL ever saw there.
I’m also pretty sure DL has never served MAA.
As noted, DL is resuming BOM.
Care to try again?
And STR and DUS are definitely not year round. They were not operating when I did the search on Delta.com.
Dec 24, 2018, 4:54 pm
#29
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Actually, most of the subsidies are actual subsidies. Like when Dubai assumed EK’s hedging losses. And when they were gifted a roughly $8bn terminal. That is before you get to the opaque, non-market revenuess from the governments. I suspect there is more, but given the ME3’s books aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, It is hard to say definitively. But it is telling that, in the most recent negotiations, the ME3 did admit to billions in subsidies after years of denial.
And I’m not ignorant of the Chinese airlines behavior. Absent open skies, though, it is what it is.
As to the hedging loss, it was supported by Emirates' owner to preserve Emirates' equity. This is in contrast to the U.S. carriers, which eliminated their equity through a series of book losses. Without government-enabled restructuring and the support of PBSG, where would Delta's equity be?
Before you continue through out the Delta-funded talking points, I would suggest looking at Emirates' financial statements. They're audited in accordance with international standards and QR and EY have committed to doing the same.
Dec 24, 2018, 4:58 pm
#30
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
Lots of inaccuracies in your list.
PRG - served nonstop from JFK summer seasonal (1x 764 daily S19)
SVO
ATH - served nonstop from JFK summer seasonal (2x A333 daily S19)
WAW
IST
STR - served nonstop from ATL year-round
HAM
TXL - served nonstop from JFK summer seasonal (being upgauged from 76Z to 764 1x daily S19)
DUS - served nonstop from ATL year-round
And BOM will be coming back online later in 2019 from either ATL or JFK nonstop on Delta metal.
Do you have any statistical proof of this? Without ATI and/or JV with AF, KL, VS, and AZ, Delta's transatlantic system would be much smaller today and it would have exited even more markets - and how would that help the consumer if there was one less player? It is hardly a secret that Delta's JFK TATL routes were real money-losers on a year-round basis when DL was on its own, especially when they did not have London. However even with London, Delta struggled on its own as it didn't have a good partner on the UK side to help boost UK point of sale; having the VS tie-up has actually enabled DL/VS together to be a more credible alternative to BA - and how is that bad for the consumer? Before DL's investment in VS, Virgin was also on a losing streak against the BA juggernaut at LHR, and without DL's help, VS could conceivably have lost even more money (meaning more cutbacks - so how would that have helped the consumer)?
Even today with the three big TATL JVs, the fares in many markets are still ridiculously low. You can get $400-$500 round trip fares between JFK and ZRH in winter/spring 2019 for example. Cities like IND, RDU, MCO or TPA would not be getting their Europe non stops if there was no JV to support it.
In the TPAC, do you seriously think that DL would have been able to sustain a flight to SYD without the JV with VA (Virgin Australia)? An unknown name in the Australian market, a very long (and costly) flight to operate, DL would not have been able to survive there against the QF juggernaut or a long-established UA (which inherited Pan Am's TPAC routes). Again, how would that have helped the consumer if the DL-VA option did not exist between Australia and the US?
PRG - served nonstop from JFK summer seasonal (1x 764 daily S19)
SVO
ATH - served nonstop from JFK summer seasonal (2x A333 daily S19)
WAW
IST
STR - served nonstop from ATL year-round
HAM
TXL - served nonstop from JFK summer seasonal (being upgauged from 76Z to 764 1x daily S19)
DUS - served nonstop from ATL year-round
And BOM will be coming back online later in 2019 from either ATL or JFK nonstop on Delta metal.
Do you have any statistical proof of this? Without ATI and/or JV with AF, KL, VS, and AZ, Delta's transatlantic system would be much smaller today and it would have exited even more markets - and how would that help the consumer if there was one less player? It is hardly a secret that Delta's JFK TATL routes were real money-losers on a year-round basis when DL was on its own, especially when they did not have London. However even with London, Delta struggled on its own as it didn't have a good partner on the UK side to help boost UK point of sale; having the VS tie-up has actually enabled DL/VS together to be a more credible alternative to BA - and how is that bad for the consumer? Before DL's investment in VS, Virgin was also on a losing streak against the BA juggernaut at LHR, and without DL's help, VS could conceivably have lost even more money (meaning more cutbacks - so how would that have helped the consumer)?
Even today with the three big TATL JVs, the fares in many markets are still ridiculously low. You can get $400-$500 round trip fares between JFK and ZRH in winter/spring 2019 for example. Cities like IND, RDU, MCO or TPA would not be getting their Europe non stops if there was no JV to support it.
In the TPAC, do you seriously think that DL would have been able to sustain a flight to SYD without the JV with VA (Virgin Australia)? An unknown name in the Australian market, a very long (and costly) flight to operate, DL would not have been able to survive there against the QF juggernaut or a long-established UA (which inherited Pan Am's TPAC routes). Again, how would that have helped the consumer if the DL-VA option did not exist between Australia and the US?
You should read this article.
https://www.travelersunited.org/antitrust-immunity/
And why do you think DL would have pulled even more destinations from Europe without a JV with AF/KLM? I don't see what that has to do with anything. It's not like someone would fly from Eurooe to one of Delta's hubs to connect back to Europe. Notice that the only new service that Delta has started is to AMS and CDG. There isn't much local demand from Orlando to Amsterdam, Martin Air tried and couldn't make it last. Most of the passengers will be connecting to other destinations once served from ATL or JFK.
Oh and STR and DUS are definitely not served year round. They were not operating when I ran the flight status search.