Nothing too new came out of the media briefing, except that Emirates is maintaining what they have always said. Tim Clark said the fuel hedge bailout allegation was nonsense when he was asked about it.

I guess we have to wait for the actual written response.

Yup, I'll now be expecting all the bad-mannered Emirates apologists here to come forward and defend Tim Clark for stonewalling.

As best I can tell from the media reports (I haven't had a chance to listen to the actual "press conference," but I did just see him stonewall on CNBC), Clark will provide all his evidence "later."

Yeah, sure. Folks, if the allegations are "bogus," it's easy to produce evidence. Like if the Dubai gov't didn't actually pick up that $2 billion in hedging loss, show us. Why he would come to DC to explain himself and then explain nothing is truly bizarre.

It is increasingly obvious that Clark is blustering while he figures out what to do now that we know his hands have been in the cookie jar of unlimited state funding.

I have question where you get the idea that, assuming there is state funding going on, that it is 'unlimited'.

Well, it seems to be at least $40 billion. And counting.

And the more money-losing service they offer to the USA, the counting is going to go faster. No unsubsidized airlines could sustain itself with those losses.

The GDP of Dubai is 82.1 billion annually. Even if we assume that all those resources are going to keep Emirates afloat (which is obviously impossible), it does seem that that is an upper limit, no? There is a danger in making exaggerated claims. It makes all your statements seem suspect, even if some are the truth.

Secret documents leaked showing Delta receiving fuel subsidies: http://wjcl.com/2015/02/28/lawmakers...deltas-dismay/

I love this quote from the thread " Look up the definition of a subsidy...its a grant not a tax reduction".

Hmmm

This is obviously $23 million that would be unfathomable for Emirates to have to pay.

I'm pretty sure the main reason he's here is to meet with State, Commerce, and Transport deparrment officials, which he did Monday (but he didn't comment on those meetings beyond them being "very constructive").

Was this the CNBC video? http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000362460

I guess we're back to playing Cowboys and Indians until EK prove they're defence, or the US3 prove with out a doubt they're case.:D

I remember 10-20 years ago it was the in thing to be a privately run airline, and the government airlines we're considered dinasours with very bad service, and old airframes.

I don't think any body in they're right mind saw the total opposite would come around from the Middle East.

Nice progress today on the Fair Skies campaign. This is obviously a very well funded and sophisticated operation: they're tweeting like mad. :)

They were smart to use AA's CEO Doug Parker as their spokesman. Those of you who don't know about Doug Parker will quickly learn his genius. Note the following passage from the Financial Times today:

_______________________________

The US airlines are particularly unhappy about the effect of competition on routes between the US and India, where the Gulf carriers have a significant market share.

Doug Parker, American Airlines’ chief executive, told Bloomberg the US carrier would like to fly to India but was unable to do so because Gulf airlines’ fares were so low.

“They’re flying at fares that certainly can’t be profitable,” Mr Parker said. “If you don’t level the playing field, jobs will flow from the US to the Gulf.”

_______________________________________________

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/716ea072-c...#ixzz3UgBHMHQY

Unlike Clark, Parker isn't blustering. This is the real deal, and the real impact of these subsidized flights. He's already got the powerful chairman of the House Transportation Committee demanding action.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MD1ZW20150317

With the Europeans also moving to impose limits, I don't think Airbus is going to be retooling the A380 engines anytime soon.

Yes, and Clark was lucky that the CNBC anchors (who tend not to be the world's greatest reporters), didn't press him further: like why he couldn't provide any answers right here and right now. They certainly should have. If he didn't want to say anything, why was he there?

The OP is conflating EK with all three of the ME3 airlines mentioned in the report when stating that the alleged subsidies are "at least $40 billion".

As he has admitted earlier in this thread, the only quantifiable figures of alleged support for EK specifically relate to a the fuel hedge issue and rescue finance provided by EKs owner of up to 4 billion USD (depending on the terms of the derivative instruments used to hedge the fuel).

I think most readers of this thread have noticed that most posters are careful to focus specifically on EK issues and point out when posters are lumping them all in together unfairly.

I think that's exactly the issue - the thread boils down to how much revenue are these A380 flights to the US actually generating. If they can breakeven over the year, case closed. If not, then they need to show that the rest of their network can be profitable enough and lobby Washington that the losses are not politically unpalatable in an election year.

The only way this could be answered is if EK divulge sensitive commercial information - perhaps this is an extremely cunning way for global airlines (that is, airlines who are at direct risk from EK entering their markets such as in Europe), using the US3 as their alliance spearhead partners, to get the ME3 to publish detailed operating costs and revenue data...!

Also, Doug Parker is clearly "Good Cop" in this situation, compared to Richard Anderson's "Bad Cop" or perhaps "PR disaster cop" what with beady eye and unhelpful statements.

But he is a clever guy - dropping in the buzzwords about jobs moving from the US to Gulf. What he fails to elaborate on, deliberately of course, because what's "save our jobs" if not a sure-fire lobbying tool in election season, is that the economic stimulus effect (read: Americans have more money to spend in the domestic economy, boosting demand and therefore...jobs!) of having US companies and consumers travel costs subsidised by lower cost foreigner companies is likely to more than outweigh the reduction in pilot and staff costs by the US3 carriers. Or you may see these Americans move abroad to work for the ME3 (not tax free, if you are a US citizen!) on higher salaries than they receive already, or domestic competitors picking up the slack from bloated carriers forced to downsize.

I do hope that argument is put forward - as I suspect it is by the likes of FedEx and JetBlue - but the US3 and the labor organisations allied with them do have a formidable lobbying machine!