|
Glass house and stones. That's what the US3 managements should be aware of. But it seems in their haste to go after the ME3 with the worst thought out excuses and fabricated claims (have you seen their propaganda videos?), they'd forgotten about past actions that demonstrate their hypocrisy.
I can't believe how some minds blindly believe that the claims raised by the US3 are valid, especially that the focal point of the argument is that the ME3 are taking AWAY US jobs! If anything the ME3 are employers of hundreds if not thousands of US citizens, with benefits that cover their families (something that the US3 and their clam orchestra can't get their minds around), and indirectly employ tens of thousands through aircraft manufacturers, parts suppliers, service suppliers etc. It's about time someone put a lid on this malarkey. This is just a snippet, in no particular order: 1- http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsi...nd-401k-plans/ AMR, the parent company of American Airlines, filed for bankruptcy on November 29, 2011. American sponsors four defined benefit pension plans covering nearly 130,000 workers and retirees. On February 1, 2012, American Airlines announced it would seek to terminate all four of its pension plans. According to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., “America’s four defined benefit plans have assets of $8.3 billion and liabilities of $18.5 billion, and officials at the agency, which sits on the airline’s creditors committee, pressed American to avoid terminating the plans.” Under pressure from the PBGC, American relented and On March 7, 2012, AMR announced it would freeze, not terminate, the pensions of its non-pilot employees. ... American Beacon was created in 1986 by American Airlines to provide short-term cash management services to AMR and its employee retirement plans. Today the firm contracts with other money managers, as sub-advisers, who actually manage many of its equity and other style investment funds. In other words, with respect to these funds, American Beacon is merely a middleman—a dispensable intermediary whose fees could presumably be eliminated by contracting directly with the underlying advisers. The airline sold American Beacon Advisers in 2008 to two private equity firms for $480 million. That’s right- American sold the affiliate it created to manage employee pensions for almost half a billion and then with its pensions failing, tried to dump $10 billion in unfunded pension obligations onto the PBGC. Talk about heads we win, tails pension participants and the government lose. In specific, it allows a group of top named executives to have their pension contributions removed from the company’s assets and placed in the independent trust. The list includes Peter Bowler, president of American Eagle; Daniel Garton, executive vice president of marketing; general counsel Gary Kennedy; and most of AMR’s other vice presidents. That money is considered direct income and is subject to federal taxes, but after it is transferred to the trust, it is no longer part of AMR’s assets and cannot be targeted by creditors if the airline were to go bankrupt. It is a legitimate retirement option under 402(b) and 404(a) of federal tax code, which also requires the company to deduct taxes from the retirement funds before it turns them over to the trust. Many companies adjust the gross value of the contribution to cover the required taxes. The trust is governed by an executive committee, which includes Carty, American president Gerard Arpey, CFO Jeffrey Campbell and Susan Oliver, senior VP of human resources. All qualify for retirement benefits through the trust. The funds are managed by an independent trustee, in this case Wachovia Bank of Winston-Salem, N.C., which also manages the carrier’s executive pension program. Wachovia, consulting with the committee, can invest the cash as it sees fit so long as it adheres to some broad guidelines to “preserve principal and liquidity” and “maximize income.” 3- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/895493/posts After Employees Agree to Cuts, American Airlines Discloses Trust to Shield Executives FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- One day after American Airlines employees agreed to annual cuts of $1.8 billion, the cooperative spirit turned acrimonious Thursday as union leaders expressed outrage over newly disclosed perks granted to executives. "If members had known about these compensation agreements, there would have been a higher turnout of 'No' votes," Little said. ..... According to the SEC filing, the company's board agreed to fund 60 percent of the pension trust established for 45 top executives and it approved bonuses for six top executives if they stay through January 2005. The bonuses would be double each executive's pay. More than $500 million in direct U.S. government aid couldn't stem huge losses at AMR Corp.'s American Airlines as the world's largest airline tallied a third-quarter net loss of $414 million, or $2.68 a share. From the early days of flight up through the early 1970s, the U.S. government provided more than $155 billion in direct support for the aviation industry. Even after the industry was deregulated in the 1970s, federal and local governments have continued to play a crucial role in supporting the industry by providing infrastructure support, tax exemptions, and low-cost financing. .... The airline industry has received an estimated $8 billion in federal assistance since the 9/11 attacks, with few strings attached. Even after the industry returned to profitability in 2006 and 2007, airlines continued to benefit from several of these subsidies. [in the form of loan guarantees, war risk insurance, protecting pension plans] ..... Since 2002, the [US] airlines have received an estimated $487 million in state and local subsidies in California, including tax exemptions and low-interest bond financing. ..... In essence, the industry is doubly subsidized: once through direct airline subsidies and again through workers’ reliance on government assistance programs and public health care facilities. [a summary about UA bankruptcy] United CEO Glenn Tilton joined the company in 2002 with a pay package that included a $950,000 annual salary, a $3 million signing bonus and a $4.5 million retirement plan. When the company filed for bankruptcy and dumped its pensions later that year, he took a pay cut—around $344,000 over the next few years—but retained the signing bonus and the retirement package. When United emerged from bankruptcy in February 2006, it was with a management compensation plan that set aside 8 percent of outstanding shares in the reorganized company for 400 of its managers. The top eight managers thus stood to receive $45 million in shares, including $15 million for Tilton, depending on how the company was valued once it emerged. Airline Pilots Association International president Captain John Prater, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, estimated Tilton’s post-bankruptcy compensation at more than $40 million. By comparison, he stated, the pilots underwent two pay cuts—first 30 percent, then an additional 12 percent—harsher work rules, decreased job security,and the termination of their pension plan,and emerged from bankruptcy with only a 1.5 percent raise and a form of profit sharing worth about 0.5 percent of their annual earnings. |
Originally Posted by moondog
(Post 24722417)
"Credentials" are generally out of bounds on FT because we like to preserve an element of privacy. If the OP told us that he graduated at the top of his class at Harvard, and rocked the house during his two year stint at GS, we might be somewhat impressed. But, we don't demand such. Rather, simply give us facts that we can verify on our own.
In this case, it's been very quiet on that front.
Originally Posted by edy4eva
(Post 24724914)
I can't believe how some minds blindly believe that the claims raised by the US3 are valid, especially that the focal point of the argument is that the ME3 are taking AWAY US jobs!
|
Originally Posted by pstravels
(Post 24721326)
It really BAFFLES me that this is a legit thread. 100 pages....lmao
Originally Posted by avcritic
(Post 24722282)
Thanks for the summary. EK seems to be defying every known economic/business model, to say the least.
A few posters, myself included I have to admit, just can't let these unfounded and arguably demonstrably false statements be stated with no challenge: Flyertalk is a discussion board, not a platform to air propaganda or spread misinformation. Plus, even though there are a lot of side topics in this thread, I think those who have followed it from the very beginning can attest to the wide-ranging nature of issues raised, which is (mostly) within the spirit of knowledge-sharing and lively discussion. Perhaps there is also an element of perverse satisfaction in both arguing on the internet and seeing the thread approach 100k views! In reply to avcritic: you stated in 1471 that you had "read as much as possible" and come to the conclusion that EK "seems to be defying every known economic/business model, to say the least", but then another poster, Fredrik74 in 1499 states the thread has convinced him to conclude the opposite ("Emirates is a legit commercial operation"). Did you read the thread from the very beginning? (I realise that now at 101 pages that is probably a big ask, haha!). I'm quite interested in how the arguments for and against stack up in disinterested readers and new joiners to the forum, so I would welcome it if you could run us through your train of thought in coming to that conclusion, given that others come to the same thread, reading the same arguments and evidence, and come to a different conclusion? |
I also realised that it is a meaningless effort to address the minuscule threads that the OP and co have been throwing. These are side theatre battles that lead no where.
We've gone over this dozens of times, there's no coherence or logic in these arguments. It's no different than those wild west dentists selling magic potions that cure unknown illnesses, the cigarettes industry back when doctors were paid to promote it or the unverifiable supplements and make up industries claims using their "clinical" trials. After all, almost 87 percent of us here answered no or don't care when questioned whether EK is a financial scam. If the OP is a well banked long time investor, he should know that voicing his fallacious beliefs on an online forum and expecting sound 'financial' discussion is about as reliable as holding a similar conversation down the pub during happy hour. |
Originally Posted by eternaltransit
(Post 24724976)
Posts like 1497 are the reason that the thread survives on to 100 pages :D
Perhaps there is also an element of perverse satisfaction in both arguing on the internet and seeing the thread approach 100k views! In reply to avcritic: you stated in 1471 that you had "read as much as possible" and come to the conclusion that EK "seems to be defying every known economic/business model, to say the least" I'm quite interested in how the arguments for and against stack up in disinterested readers and new joiners to the forum, so I would welcome it if you could run us through your train of thought in coming to that conclusion, given that others come to the same thread, reading the same arguments and evidence, and come to a different conclusion? If this is a known business model and location is the only advantage, why Qatar Airways and Etihad not making profits. There is too much analysis/editorial explaining Emirates finances with very little supporting evidence. That is a Sunday morning news circus where every pundit reads from same script. Their publicly available financial statements and white papers doesn't seem to convince a small handful of experts. Now that US administration is involved, folks start listening to those out liners. US Government seldom micromanages trade agreements. It is up to someone, like a corporation/union/group to bring any issues related to trade agreements to their attention to start an investigation. The interest shown by US government gives more credibility to US carrier allegations. Emirates haven't released/shared anything new since this fiasco started. Any other airline would have sent a ton of detailed statements to US Government or invite them to audit without any second thoughts. |
Originally Posted by avcritic
(Post 24727591)
Is it state owned? Emirates denied for years now kind of changing position.
If this is a known business model and location is the only advantage, why Qatar Airways and Etihad not making profits. There is too much analysis/editorial explaining Emirates finances with very little supporting evidence. That is a Sunday morning news circus where every pundit reads from same script. Their publicly available financial statements and white papers doesn't seem to convince a small handful of experts. Now that US administration is involved, folks start listening to those out liners. US Government seldom micromanages trade agreements. It is up to someone, like a corporation/union/group to bring any issues related to trade agreements to their attention to start an investigation. The interest shown by US government gives more credibility to US carrier allegations. Emirates haven't released/shared anything new since this fiasco started. Any other airline would have sent a ton of detailed statements to US Government or invite them to audit without any second thoughts. |
Originally Posted by avcritic
(Post 24727591)
Is it state owned? Emirates denied for years now kind of changing position.
If this is a known business model and location is the only advantage, why Qatar Airways and Etihad not making profits. There is too much analysis/editorial explaining Emirates finances with very little supporting evidence. That is a Sunday morning news circus where every pundit reads from same script. Their publicly available financial statements and white papers doesn't seem to convince a small handful of experts. Now that US administration is involved, folks start listening to those out liners. US Government seldom micromanages trade agreements. It is up to someone, like a corporation/union/group to bring any issues related to trade agreements to their attention to start an investigation. The interest shown by US government gives more credibility to US carrier allegations. Emirates haven't released/shared anything new since this fiasco started. Any other airline would have sent a ton of detailed statements to US Government or invite them to audit without any second thoughts. 1 - Emirates has never denied that it is a state-owned airline, and has always denied it has ever received anything in the way of cash injections to keep it afloat, apart from start-up capital (10 million USD), 2 727's and the training facility from the owners, in the amount of 60 million USD (at 2010 exchange rates) http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c1ca9...44feab49a.html 2 - Emirates did indeed reply to claims in the first paper released by the US3 lobbying group here: http://www.emirates.com/english/abou...rticle=2221286 3 - Tim Clark has in fact invited US government officials to inspect the books in Dubai on the 17th April: http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayi...-aid/25945767/ 4 - Emirates has not shared/published anything other than that until it receives more allegations and their supporting evidence: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2015-0082-0020 There are some points about QR and EY and the history of the region (and in fact the superconnecting model being younger than EK, but not younger than QR and EY), not to mention the demographic flows not being available to take advantage of recently, so EKs model has clearly changed over the years - but that will have to wait for after transit and flying! I note that the US3 did ask for full audited results to be published for the ME3 (wait, doesn't EK already publish these?) and all of their government owned suppliers - perhaps it really was just a ploy to get confidential data into the public domain :D That said, more exposure on related party transactions would be useful, but to include in that list "fuel companies, caterers, ground handlers and others" does seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point. I'm sure a snarky legal team at EK could just link them BP and Chevron's annual report :D At this point, Plan B by the US3's lobbyists, (or perhaps Plan C, because Plan B might have been for someone to date an influential congressman :D http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...st-117054.html) looks to be an expensive fishing expedition for ammunition to compete on routes by getting exact cost data to start their own predatory pricing attempts on key routes or to salvage something for use! |
The US3, and the US3's favorite harpies, not only have concerns about the GCC3, they also may want protection from Chinese carriers which have been growing a lot too.
The growth of the various Asian carriers -- and the GCC3 are rooted in Asia -- is natural given the demographically-driven, cross-border market dynamics for long-haul service are not so stagnant there as elsewhere in the world. |
Originally Posted by eternaltransit
(Post 24724976)
another poster, Fredrik74 in 1499 states the thread has convinced him to conclude the opposite ("Emirates is a legit commercial operation"). Did you read the thread from the very beginning? (I realise that now at 101 pages that is probably a big ask, haha!).
I'm quite interested in how the arguments for and against stack up in disinterested readers and new joiners to the forum, so I would welcome it if you could run us through your train of thought in coming to that conclusion, given that others come to the same thread, reading the same arguments and evidence, and come to a different conclusion? It's not only that one side is making an effort to understand if the OP's question should be answered Yes or No but that the No side appears to have the stronger arguments. |
Debate hosted on this subject by CAPA today: http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...tourism-220150
Anyone know if there will be a video or transcript posted? |
Originally Posted by OMGImInPattaya
(Post 24718933)
His ilk don't understand this...don't forget, 75 percent of Americans don't have passports and consider Hawaii a foreign country. Sorta like my Stateside friends who think my home in Thailand is in Taiwan; and send me worrying emails every time a killer hurricane passes through there.
Originally Posted by avcritic
(Post 24727591)
Is it state owned? Emirates denied for years now kind of changing position.
If this is a known business model and location is the only advantage, why Qatar Airways and Etihad not making profits. There is too much analysis/editorial explaining Emirates finances with very little supporting evidence. That is a Sunday morning news circus where every pundit reads from same script. Their publicly available financial statements and white papers doesn't seem to convince a small handful of experts. Now that US administration is involved, folks start listening to those out liners. US Government seldom micromanages trade agreements. It is up to someone, like a corporation/union/group to bring any issues related to trade agreements to their attention to start an investigation. The interest shown by US government gives more credibility to US carrier allegations. Emirates haven't released/shared anything new since this fiasco started. Any other airline would have sent a ton of detailed statements to US Government or invite them to audit without any second thoughts. |
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 24735162)
Yup, lots of knee-jerk support for Emirates (on the, um, Emirates board :)). But the facts will be the facts. And I am certain they won't be Tim Clark's version of the facts.
|
Originally Posted by DYKWIA
(Post 24735222)
There's that word again... Do you actually know the meaning of the word?
|
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 24735162)
If so few Americans have passports, why the rush to add so many seats so fast to a place that 99+% of Americans certainly have no interest in visiting? :) Doesn't sound like the greatest business plan to me (and it certainly is not).
Yup, lots of knee-jerk support for Emirates (on the, um, Emirates board :)). But the facts will be the facts. And I am certain they won't be Tim Clark's version of the facts. Emirates has published their story (their accounts and their replies to accusations levelled against them), you don't believe them. That's fine. But that doesn't change the existence of independent data and the reality of the 21st century world. The only thing that is whether you trust that enough to incorporate it into your thinking. Those facts won't change whether you believe them or not. Also, given the number of guests and new readers to this sub-forum and their replies, I hardly think a lot the replies are "knee-jerk". After all, they have had months to digest all the information out there, and to have followed this thread from the beginning... |
Originally Posted by eternaltransit
(Post 24735735)
One doesn't need to have an American passport to be on an EK service to or from the United States - however, I will grant you that ex-USA travellers will likely be more lucrative, given the fare differentials you see on the global distribution systems. Luckily for EK, there seems to be at least some ex-USA demand for DXB, considering the number of posts on here asking for advice for revenue travel.
Not bad for a remote backwater in the middle of the desert :D It is also interesting to google "global financial centres" (being a proxy for ability to sustain higher margin business traffic) and Dubai seems to rank somewhere between mid teens to mid twenties on the list, depending on source. Not a top tier , but certainly not a backwater. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:14 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.