or (d) it was a big screwup in releasing fares

Given that UA suspended sales quickly due to a mistake in releasing fares ex Denmark , I don't see that it was a scam etc at all

I should have known the fat-finger cheerleaders would show up.

What evidence is there that it was an error? That's what the airline says - but what else would you expect them to say???

You should know that any airline subjected to any allegation of misconduct here is clearly in the wrong. Doesn't matter what the airline says. They can't be trusted after all, once they have aroused your suspicion.

I, personally, suspect it's a), b) and c). Why don't they open their books?

The US Government should investigate. Specifically the DoT.

(((;))))

That really helps the discussion no end .. hmmm

I think that there is an approach that accusations imply guilt therefore EK must be guilty , but perhaps OMNI might be what may be looking for

At some point someone may have evidence that something untoward has occurred but even without that there seems to be at least one person starting with a ridiculous expectation that EK should prove it isnt being subsidised

It was a J-O-K-E!!!!!*

This thing here -> :) helps you identify whether a post is serious or not.

*A joke is something spoken, written, or done with humorous intention.

and if that is the case , .where is it in post 586 then?

Oh, plus it helps if a joke actually is humorous

It made me chuckle :)

Sorry you didn't get it, or enjoy it.

I was just trying out a new "style", which I thought would have been immediately obvious to anyone in this thread. Of course, it was a poor attempt and I could never come close to the original!!!

I'll stand in a corner for the rest of the day, and consider what I've done.

Here is a video of Richard Anderson, the CEO of Delta on CNN, strongly asserting that the Middle Eastern airlines getting direct, cash subsidies from their governments.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2...erson-intv.cnn

Thanks for linking the video iaflyer - interesting stuff and also interesting to see that Richard Quest (interviewer) is also going to get some of the ME3 airline CEOs on as well in the coming days.

Just had a listen to the interview (only 6:33) so I will summarise the key things that stood out for me:

around 00:30-01:00 - spent the last two years analysing their financials, Delta CEO claims "documented evidence that can't be refuted of tens of billions of dollars in direct subsidies"

01:00-01:15 - "the United Arab Emirates and Qatar Airways are not airlines, they are governments" [sic]

01:30 - not an argument against Open Skies

02:15 - "level the playing field to set off around 40 billion in subsidies much of which is direct subsides"

02:40 - "the middle east carriers, the UAE and Qatar cannot deny huge government subsidies, and those government subsidies are the issue and they are violations of the WTO definition of subsidy and a violation of US Open Skies agreements, so let's not be distracted by the huffing arguments the UAE makes"

03:30 - Quest: "you and your report say one thing then you go to the gulf three and they deny specifically in words of one or other syllables have not [..]" Anderson: "that is false, and we have the evidence and we have shared that evidence with their actual certified financial statements that we found in other territories around the world that are certified by the big accounting firms that you would recognise"

04:35 - "it's against fair trade policies ... and in the end the US is a big loser because it's all about jobs"

05:00 - Quest: "the allegation that you restructured under Chapter 11, civil defence fleet, [..] the argument is that you, in your own ways have had your hand in the bailout trough"
Anderson: "that is categorically false, and it's a great irony to have the UAE, from the Arabian Peninsula, talk about that, given the fact that our industry was really shocked by the terrorism of 9/11 that came from terrorists from the Arabian Peninsula, that caused us to go through a massive restructuring and in the United States our restructuring process is transparent and there is no government subsidy, and in fact there were billions of dollars of equity and unsecured debt that were wiped out through that process"

06:00 - "if the United States cannot correct a blatant case of huge direct cash subsidies, then it's going to be very difficult to proceed with the TPA agreement and the Pacific Trade agreement and the Fast Track authority"

So - Delta CEO has a number of 40 billion dollars, of which he says much are direct cash subsidises. This is a massive violation of Free Trade Agreements: when the report is released, it will be very interesting to see where this number comes from and where it goes.

The cynic in me thinks this is the continued PR campaign in the battle for the public imagination (in an election year!) against "hostile foreigners taking our jobs". To wit:

- if the Delta CEO has this extremely compelling evidence of massive violations of WTO trade agreements etc. why has he not released the evidence and the US government started proceedings against the UAE in a dispute settlement immediately? Why is he going instead on a PR campaign in major newspapers/online reporting/news interviews and via lobbying on Capitol Hill?

- Related to this - why are there no figures on direct cash subsidies per airline quoted? Why does he simply lump "Qatar" and "the UAE" together, when he knows very well that Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai are separate owners of separate airlines - and why does he simply quote 40 billion without giving a specific number on the direct cash subsidises, which I assume he already has information on?

- at 02:40 - it's pretty much only Tim Clark at EK that "huffs" about these accusations, the other two carriers generally keep silent. It's telling that Anderson simply labels this "the UAE" instead of "Dubai"

- this discussion is about EK and we see Anderson saying that the ME3, of which EK are a part of, of course, are lying about their statements. Then he brings up the fact that the data he sees is audited by "big accounting firms" as a way of bolstering his point, conveniently omitting the fact that EK is itself audited by one of these firms... (the other two aren't, but this isn't mentioned by Anderson)

- I found the statement at around 5 minutes quite distasteful: blaming US airline problems on 9/11 and the link to "arabian peninsula terrorists"...and then denying point blank any claim of bailout, whilst ignoring historical subsidy. It sounds almost as if this isn't really about getting to the truth of things objectively but really a rallying call to a political base to further their objectives...but then, alarm bells always start to ring when people use a massive tragedy in the furtherance of some sort of political aim...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0LF01W20150211

Perhaps that Reuters article and the fact that US airlines and its JV partners are rapidly losing share is more concerning to them, and an election year is a perfect opportunity to get some political pressure exerted...

Here's a quote from the article:
Now it will be interesting if it turns out that a big chunk of that 40 billion dollars turns out to be Ex-Im Bank financing for Boeing purchases...!

And as for tax exemptions - is it really a tax exemption if there is no tax (for anyone!) in the first place to exempt them from...? In the case of EK which states it makes a profit and makes dividend payments to its owner, isn't the fact that the owner is ultimately 100% the government make the dividend payment essentially a tax payment anyway...?

What a prize prick.

I can't believe this thread is still going...

Did anyone see his pupils reading the answers from a teleprompter? This is a scripted interview, the questions and answers came out of DL's own PR kitchens.

That terrorism reference is a major fail. It's just disgusting and ignorant.

I now think the whole ME3 pretext is just to get some subsidy from the US Government, not to punish others.

Haha - I think it's been helped along by this new PR battle in various media outlets giving people who don't generally venture out of their usual FT sub-forums to see what discussions are flying around other parts of FT. I would think that most frequent contributors to FT are also known as a "travel person" amongst their circle of acquaintances, and so want to have some sort of reply for anyone who brings it up offline :D

A NY Times editorial (not op-ed) from yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/op...kies.html?_r=2

and a piece from last week with some more information about the current front on the battle, with points raised about antitrust immunity and TATL joint-ventures etc., and some rebuttals by Tim Clark e.g. about the rabbit hole of state-owned/managed airlines globally and new demographics with regard to globalisation (e.g. the demand for Seattle-Hyderabad with one stop being popular with tech workers)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/bu...greements.html

I thought it was ironic and funny.

Sense of humour failure, perhaps? ;)