Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 24501474)

This matter is still far removed from reaching the WTO for adjudication.

Originally Posted by irishguy28 (Post 24501534)

A French Member of the European Parliament recently submitted a written question referencing the "clear evidence of unfair competition" from the ME3 (though neglected to specify where this evidence is clear - presumably in the US3 document!) and asks, somewhat naively, if the Commission could set up a unit to police unfair competition....

Originally Posted by iahphx (Post 24501577)

I'll be surprised if this movement doesn't spread to Europe.

Originally Posted by iahphx (Post 24501577)

It's pretty much a sideshow for the USA carriers: they just don't want to see 25 Emirates flights from the USA to Dubai.

Originally Posted by sc82491 (Post 24469723)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli...subsidies-gulf

Interesting reading, it appears Emirates has less to hide than its rivals, which is what I expected all along.

Originally Posted by iahphx (Post 24501773)

The most explosive allegation is that Emirates "buys off" journalists to curry favorable coverage.

Originally Posted by irishguy28 (Post 24501772)

I'd love to hear your assessment of China Southern Airlines, with their increase from less than 7 weekly flights to 55 weekly flights, in just 5 years, between China and Australia.

Here's some grist for your mill: China Southern Airlines nearing target of 55x flights to Australia/NZ, continuing international push

Makes Emirates' slow push into a market of 320 million look rather sedate, don't you think? (Australia only has 23 million people - about 7% of the US number).

Originally Posted by iahphx (Post 23820506)

I'm not sure how much most of you guys know about airline finance, but there seems to be something fundamentally illogical with Emirates' business plan. They -- and other Middle Eastern airlines -- seem to be able to place enormous airplanes on long thin routes where no other airline could possibly make money by providing such service. And then they spend more money per passenger on service than other airlines spend.

Like take this latest USA expansion:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...tml?cmpid=yhoo

As most of us know, the economics of the A380 aren't terribly attractive to most airlines. Indeed, no USA airline has bought one. The non-Middle East airlines that fly them tend to fly them on very heavily travelled routes -- where the economics of offering 600+ seats on a flight could make sense. There are only a handful of such A380 flights from the USA to the much larger European market. Yet, Emirates flies these planes on "long thin routes" like Houston to Dubai.

You'd have to be smoking something (as Gordon Bethune would say) to think there are more than 600 pax a day who want to fly from Houston to Dubai. Nor is Dubai a logical connecting point to pretty much anyplace other than the Middle East and India.

So where is the money coming from for this service? Are the books of Emirates and other Middle Eastern airlines audited the way Western companies are audited? There must be some massive subsidies coming into these companies somehow, because there's no logic to this business plan.

Originally Posted by Wpgjetse (Post 24503930)

Very simple. Money comes from government. The government pays a lot of their bills, Emirates airport fees, sponsorship deals and advertising, and no fuel tax for the airline. This is only the published $$$.

Originally Posted by Wpgjetse (Post 24503930)

Very simple. Money comes from government. ...

Originally Posted by iahphx (Post 24494129)

There was an interesting verbal exchange yesterday between Emirates and the Big 3 US airlines over Emirates 2 for 1 USA sale, as documented by the excellent Dallas News airline blog. Aviation reporters were interested in this because, well, it's highly unusual to see such a deeply-discounted airfare sale, much less one good for 9 months. And in the context of the current subsidy battle, it seemed interesting and provocative.

The US airline spokesman offered a perfectly logical, pitch-perfect PR statement: “Fueled by tens of billions of dollars in government subsidies, the Gulf airlines do not operate as independent commercially viable entities. This promotion is a prime example of how these carriers tilt the playing field.”

Emirates responded as follows: “Fare promotions are a very common airline marketing tactic which US carriers frequently employ, too. To say one of our seasonal offers is actually evidence of subsidy is not only totally irrelevant and unfounded, but also smacks of desperation on the part of the Delta-AA-United coalition to ‘prove’ their spurious allegations.”

I know there are a ton of Emirates apologists here, but that was a simply awful PR response. This isn't a garden-variety "fare promotion": it is a highly unusual 2 for 1 ticket offer with few restrictions. Under the circumstances, some explanation of why this would actually make financial sense for the airline (introductory routes, perhaps?) instead of downplaying its significance would have been wise. And then claiming the US airline comments are "desperation"? Wow -- that is totally out of left field, flat out silly and makes Emirates look like they employ the most vicious PR hacks in the world. It reminds me of the worst types of political spin I've ever seen. It's the kind of thing you say when you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and you're trying to bluster your way through a crisis. I can assure you that the smart US aviation reporters like Dallas News' Terry Maxon aren't buying that line for a second.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...gateways.html/

Originally Posted by Wpgjetse (Post 24503930)

Very simple. Money comes from government. The government pays a lot of their bills, Emirates airport fees, sponsorship deals and advertising, and no fuel tax for the airline. This is only the published $$$.