Of course VA receives subsidy, it's classed as a US domestic airline! :D

Receiving government assistance in an indirect form is impossible to avoid in the aviation business - especially if the term is so broad. Receiving assistance doesn't in itself imply any flaws or failure to be a commercial sustainable operation, which I think is the logical concept that can be hard for some to grasp :D

I agree on both counts: 1) aviation subsidiaries are common all over the world, and 2) they aren't necessarily a bad thing in principal. I'm reminded of the city of Portland's annual $5 million subsidy to nw and later DL in order to launch and maintain the pdx-nrt flight (I'm not sure if this still exists because I don't live there any more, but it used to get renewed every year). Or whenever a city ponies up the money to expand an airport. Sure pfcs and the ensuing broader econimic benefit usually result in such being financially sensible investments, but not always (e.g. pit). Over here, hkia's 30 billion usd third runway may well be good for hk but is really, really good for CX.

Like it or not, this is just the way things work. Is ek more subsidized than DL? I have no idea. And, as a consumer, I really don't care.

Another poor example by folks trying to justify Emirates gov't subsidies.

Virgin America is not subsidized by the gov't. It was started by investors, including Richard Branson, who thought a little pizzazz might work in the USA domestic airline industry. So far it hasn't worked too well, but when they say a rising tide lifts all boats, they're probably talking about these guys. Given the incredible consolidation of the USA domestic airline business and the plunge in fuel prices, Virgin America has become marginally profitable (at least before beginning this service).

Virgin clearly needs to make a splash at Love Field given that the federal gov't, in its infinite wisdom, gave Southwest a near monopoly on gates at that airport. Obviously a semi-private 2 for 1 sale is extreme - I can't remember the last one offered by any USA airline -- but the circumstances are pretty unusual, too. And Southwest has been doing a lot of advertising due to their own expansion at the airport with the end of the Wright Amendment restrictions.

Bottomline, if you're using a promo from a small, largely profitless, unsubsidized airline in an unusual situation as a comparison to Emirates', you're really reaching for justification.

Another well-researched, well-reasoned article about the Middle East subsidies.

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...with-us-c.aspx

What people keep getting wrong, IMO, is under-estimating the lobbying power of the major USA airlines in Washington. Yes, they're not going to get much public support because most Americans dislike them (because frills are way down and prices and annoying ancillary revenue are way up). But the Middle East airlines aren't going to get public support either (except from a few annoyed travel writers who like cheap fares and full frills flights), because their conduct is dubious and Americans dislike Middle East countries. So, in a way, this issue will be decided by how "Washington thinks." I think that's a good playing field for the airlines because they have excellent political ties -- smartly supplemented by having the airline unions lead the charge -- and their complaint makes logical sense. It's a slam dunk factual case against Etihad and Qatar, and Emirates has more than enough subsidies to get thrown into the pool. So I think it's a good bet the USA airlines will get some assistance from the USA gov't.

I don't think that article was well-researched at all. It's based on a single source, which means it is actually below Wikipedia standards.

Emirates is having a webcast out of DC, at 1.30pm EDT on March 17. Let's see what they have to say. Qatar and Etihad obviously have nothing to say, so they are keeping quiet.

Still an opinion piece that presents no value.

The reasoning is shallow, the information is partial and inaccurate, e.g. DXB does NOT have The author credentials aren't something to be amazed of for this particular topic (political science BA and MA, with investment experience).

I guess a little tongue-in-cheek humour isn't a concept you recognize either.

In regard to this post, and your previous posts, I'd imagine you're also implying that Virgin America isn't a "real airline" (as you mentioned earlier)? Shame, I guess I missed what constitutes a real airline, perhaps it involves the words Delta, American, or United in it?

I was just merely pointing out that there are other airlines in the world besides Emirates which offer 2 for 1 sales. I'd also check your definition of what a subsidy is. By claiming Virgin America is 'unsubsidized' is most probably incorrect. As pointed out by other posters, subsidies don't just come from the government; airlines receive subsidies from airports to support routes. But that's besides the point I guess.

It's not at all a 'slam dunk factual case' - as you put it. The fact of the matter is that the only thing which comes remotely close to being classed as an unfair 'government subsidy' (for Emirates), according to the white paper is the fuel write-off. People have already pointed out plausible reasons for how this may not actually be a subsidy.

I'd disagree completely, I'd say it's a good bet that the USA airlines will not get any assistance form the USA government. Imagine the outcry from Americans if the ME3 suddenly shifted billions of dollars worth of aircraft orders to Airbus.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/...nd-new-york/2/ another poor-written article. I am afraid that some bozos in Washington will read those materials.. In this article, author stated 7th freedom flight and def a cheerleader for US3 while using "dubai" in title to fuel fear reactions (clearly he don't do his homework on 5th freedom flights)..

Thanks for the Sunday laugh.:)

I'd love to try out one of those "golf" carriers.

Tim Clark talks tough
 

This has become the greatest airline story ever!

Emirates CEO says the USA airlines "will be eating their words" once Emirates shows that it's not subsidized.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0a841...#axzz3UUwH78Iz

It's fascinating stuff. I've always thought the bluster was part of his act, but now I'm not so sure. I'm willing to consider the possibility that he is actually delusional. There's no freakin' way Emirates can come out of this smelling like a rose. At best, there are massive indirect "subsidies" -- the Dubai gov't picking up the tab for things other airlines pay for, and the benefit of Dubai's unusual labor and tax laws. And, candidly, I'd be very surprised if that's all there is: even with these things, I still think they'd lose billions.

The proof remains in the pudding. No other airlines operate like this. If Clark's model really worked "in the real world," there would be A380s flying ultra long haul premium service throughout the world from major hubs offering low fares in coach and massive suites up front. And it wouldn't matter a fig if plenty of other competitors in the same region were massively expanding with the exact same strategy.

And there would also be plenty of dancing unicorns.

Well seeing as Tim Clark is in the position he is in, and you iaphx are here constantly thrashing your usual diatribe with no firm proof still to show for it, is it at all possible that you sir are the one that is delusional.

It's such a shame then that so many are that ignorant/uneducated.
(UAE and Qatar are both very safe nations, and more competition is always a good thing for consumers.)

Its such a shame that so many people are prejudiced. It illustrates the global surfeit of ignorance, would you not agree?

Please do correct me if i am wrong as i am by far less educated than many folk on here when it comes to this sort of thing, but iaphx you are complaining that the governments of ME3 are throwing wad's of cash at their national airlines, and your stamping your feet because of this, but then u say this is a great case for the US govt to then feed some cash to the US3. So its not okay for them to have cash subsidies but it is okay for the US to subsidize their airlines??

This. Then again FT is filled with airline apologists and ex-employees / current ones.

Why anyone would fly US3 anywhere internationally beats me. Service poor, hard product poor, lounges poor, pretty much the ONLY place where the US3 wins is elite op ups. I guess when your on company dime that ain't so bad, but any average flyer who is paying out of his own pocket wouldn't dare touch a US3 if the prices were equal.

US3 know that. Looks like the easy way out is through uncle sam and its "lovely" lobbying industry.