Those are questions, not facts. And an unsupported allegation.

Facts, please!

Dude. Stop digging and put down the shovel; you're sounding ridiculous.

Well said, everyone knows that TATL flights shouldn't cost 4 figure (usually) for cheapest Y fare. Protectionist policy at their finest moment, and I def know that it hurt tourism to some degrees because my friends say just let's go with ME3 to SE Asia, and have time of their life, due to cheaper (be fair, it's not that CHEAP like it used to be) fare than those price-gouging US3-EU JV fares.

Bottom line, US3 & their lobbying wing is throwing desperate hail mary passes, and hope something will come out of thin air.

iahphx

I want to divert from this whole "fact" thing for a moment in order to ask this:

1) The situation is going to get much worse (i.e. AA, DL, UA will suffer)
2) AA, DL, UA have a slam dunk case against EK, which be resolved quickly

If you seriously believe in #2, then why do you give a rat's behind about #1?

It's interesting that this year that EU-US-EU and US-EU-US fares seem to have dropped at least a bit. I have to ask myself if I should thank the ME3 for having expanded GCC service to/from US and thereby helping my bank accounts by freeing up space on US and EU carriers' flights providing TATL US-EU/EU-US service. :D

I thank Norwegian too, even as I don't fly them TATL.

I was kidding, I fully agree with Kiwi Flyer.

The DL route to bring up is PDX-AMS. Isn't this route subsidised by PDX gov? But the OP will beg to differ and call that mandatory government assistance which is both legitimate and unquestionable...:rolleyes:

No, that route is subsidised by Nike (Head office: Beaverton, EMEA HQ: Hilversum) who were the ones that got the route set up in the first place.

Some of the other companies mentioned may also have minimum-purchase contracts for seats on the route, too.

PDX-NRT was (and maybe still is) subsidized directly by the city and the port.

There are numerous examples of US airports/cities/whatever directly subsidising new and/or existing services.

Sometimes not entirely legally, either.

BWI is one that is well-known and controversial:

Aer Lingus also briefly served BWI some years back - I assumed as a result of similar subsidies.

It could very well be that PDX subsidises the AMS route to some extent, but I know for a fact that at least Nike, out of the previously-mentioned "large customers", guarantees the survival of the route by, at the very least, guaranteeing a minimum spend on tickets on the route.

Yes.

The evidence of this thread strongly suggests that any other answer is not acceptable to the OP, and thus this reply, accurate or otherwise, would have made the thread 77 pages shorter.

Wow, still ongoing?

Once again, Kudos to the guys trying to defend the ME3 despite pretty obvious facts. ^

Again, there is no doubt that all legacy carriers received massive Government support throughout their history and even with massive financial support, it turned out to be a bucket case for most of them, except for industry leaders like Lufthansa. As pointed out so often, the ME3 are merely a copy of other successful airline strategies ranging from Singapore to Kelsterbach and Deutz. The DXB conglomerate mirrows approaches run by the Netherlands and Schiphol to perfection, earlier copycats of this appraoch can be found in Singapore.

There is hardly any airport not supporting new long-haul service, which is perfectly fine with many local laws on competition, at least as long as the same support is available to every other airline as well. It normally lasts 2-4 IATA seasons and is as normal as a half-empty EK A380 crossing the Atlantic.

Utilizing local laws to benefit in global competition is also not really new to the aviation landscape, carriers like Ryan and Easy experimented with such laws long before Norwegian took it to the next level.

But comparing Norwegian with the ME3 is pointless, Norwegian cares about earning profits from operating aircraft, the ME3 could not care less about profits from operating aircraft and this is exactly the point the US3 are trying to make. Just recently France and Germany joined the party, a bit late and not dressed appropriately, but still two major major players calling the shots in Aviation (and their respective alliances) will make it more difficult for the ME3 to expand further.

You use the word facts, but offer none...

I really do not know how you reached this conclusion...

Aside from the facts I presented in this thread and the facts the US3 presented as well, I really fear that you did not pay enough attention.

Without the time to repeat them again and again, I recommend browsing through the last 78 pages once more.

I really understand that this thread destroys the dream of some posters, destroys their belief that this 1000 and 1 night fairy tale comes to an end, so the reactions are quite strong.

As posted before, you do not really have to convince me, I know what is going on. And I am really not trying to offend you, I understand the roles of certain posters on this board, but I do not really know anyone in this industry believing that EK is clean. Of course, the fans or ambassadors might have a different point of view...

I like to compare EK to Lance Armstrong these days. It worked for both of them for quite some time.

And despite the fact that both are on drugs, it is still commendable what they did for cancer awareness and in-flight quality.

Under the bottom line, both cheated, but do you really care whether he made it up to Alpe d'Huez in 12 or 13 minutes and or whether EK received 12 or 13 billion in subsidies as long as you enjoy watching him going up the mountains while nibbling on a piece of Walker's Short-Bread inflight on EK.

As far as anyone knows for sure the only advantage EK has is:

1. access to a large cheap labour market attractive due to the tax laws;

2. access to cheap fuel; and

3. a very good location for global travel.

The US carriers can't do a lot about any of those. They can't compete - life isn't fair all the time. It's like saying Jimmy has a better job because his dad could afford to send him to Uni where as Tim could not.

Show me some real facts and evidence....