Suddenly my perception of you changed from being armchair analyst to being a lobbyist for the US3.

Classic lobbying play though: allege irregularities -> other party gives response -> claim "I don't believe you" -> keep shouting anything until media has to report something -> persuade legislators there's an issue by pointing to media coverage you generated -> profit

I just wish we could deploy these lobbyists into picking apart the trans-atlantic antitrust joint-venture immunities so I could fly west from Europe without being gouged...I don't think I would mind Norwegian for a few hours, after all I can handle 3-4-3 EK Y :D

Their claim of "an increase in 85 daily bookings" is based on cherry-picked data: comparing 2008 with 2014, ignoring the fact that we also had the great recession in between.

I'm just waiting to see how this will play out.

I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogistic_fallacy is a better fit.

The OP ignored my previous similar comment.

http://www.emirates247.com/business/...03-05-1.583160

Clark still waiting to see the US3's report.

Great story...'at an event in Berlin' :D

It is a pretty big event after all, the biggest one on the planet. ;)

It's amazing you haven't learned a thing after starting this thread....

Guys,

you put up a good fight.

The facts were pretty obvious, I really enjoyed most of your contributions ranging from explanations what is a subsidy and why it is not one in the case of Dubai (eternal had some great posts) why EK has to be profitable (it is like claiming Michigan is simply better than Ohio State, because it is Michigan...) and why EK has so many competitive advantages (well, in the end, most of them result in subsidies) so is it really necessary whether the final number is closer to 42.3, 40 or 30 billion?

The facts by the WSJ support the artificial traffic explanation I brought up earlier almost perfectly, especially the facts about people flying to the Gulf and the number of people connecting there is staggering.

Again, it is not a problem at all selling 350 Y seats from SFO to India @ $1k a piece.

Making money with those passengers without add. income at DXB, at Dubai Mall, the Burj Observation platform, taxes from hotel stays etc. is almost impossible and SYD-AKL will not save you.

Most importantly, and nicely done in the presentation, the report is referring to a time period after 2004 and if you take the period after 2004 into account, the ME3 are killing the European and American competition, when it comes to subsidies.

For the period before 2004, the verdict is even more definitive, the clear winners are the European and American legacy carriers.

So again, what is all the fuss about?

All state-owned legacy carriers were and are highly highly subsidised during certain periods of their existence, case closed.

To be a bit flippant, and also to bring it back to one of the pillars of FT (and indeed the title of this main forum) ......if EK is subsided so much, why oh why can't they make some of those subsidies available to Skywards members. Why do my Skywards points (45,000) only save me $100 USD on a $600 USD airfare, with extremely limited availability.

Oh hang on, it's the government that subsidises EK, whereas elsewhere in the world its really businesses (in any industry) that accept credit card and pay exorbitant credit card fees (some of which are turned into miles) that subside airlines.:D:D

I suggest we pause this debate until the itemized $40 billion list is released. Tomorrow, right?

Also I just noticed this little gem on the fairskies site from Lucky's blog:

"Virtually all airports"? Really? Pardon my ignorance I am resident of Asia Pacific region and it isn't like that here. I know for a fact that SIN do not charge such a fee to connecting passengers. The I checked both MEL (AKL-MEL-SIN on QF) and BKK (DXB-BKK-SIN) - and oddly enough neither airport has fees for connecting passengers.

Whatever views are on the cross subsidisation/ government funding claims are it is a bit disingenious to distort the facts this way and argue that "Virtually all airports" make these sort of charges for connecting passengers, when it's so easy to find 3 examples demonstrating that other airports do this as well.

Boeing is taking a neutral view. There was actually a wire service correction last week, as it was initially reported that Boeing was supporting Emirates.

Boeing has huge contracts with both the Middle Eastern airlines and the USA airlines. There's no value in taking sides for them. Also, a limitation on Emirates flying would hurt their major competitor, Airbus, a lot more than it would hurt Boeing. I'm sure Boeing is also sophisticated enough to know that Emirates business plan is a scam. Remember, they bet on the 787 and said the A380 would be a financial disaster. Boeing was right, of course -- except for the subsidized Middle Eastern airlines!

I'm not a lobbyist. I am an investor. I will make exactly zero dollars in the stock market when Emirates' flights are restricted, because Wall Street will value this as zero to the American carriers (wrongly, but that's Wall St). I just know how this business works -- and what can work, and doesn't work, without subsidy. It will make me happy when the full story comes out. I'll be waiting -- a long time I suspect (like forever) -- for the apologies from Emirates "there's nothing to see here" apologists.

Meanwhile, I'm fascinated my Tim Clarks' insistence that Emirates' hasn't gotten a dime in subsidies in years from the gov't. I don't think there's anyone in the industry who believes that. I'm wondering why he's taking that approach, instead of coming clean (Emirates is in all probability much less subsidized than its even more ridiculous Middle Eastern competitors). I don't think he's delusional. But we'll see.

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0M...50305?irpc=932

Holding talks, hmm... wonder if that means lobbying :D