Even then, it's better than the 14-18k HKD a month that CX pays to live in the 9th most expensive city in the world (admittedly, also tax free due to this amount being under the basic allowance.)
source: CX Secrets

What I anticipate will happen is that the USA gov't will determine that the Gulf airlines are competing unfairly and impose limitations on their flights. The most likely outcome is a freeze on new USA service, although more draconian steps are certainly possible. Of the ME3, only Emirates seems to have even a plausible case for being a "real" airline, and by the nature of their actions -- most notably their preposterous USA business strategy -- I doubt much distinction will be made between the three.

I then expect this ruling to embolden regulators in other parts of the world -- especially but not exclusively in Europe -- to impose similar restrictions on ME3 flights. Due to geography, many of these countries have much more "at stake" in regulating the ME3, and most of these countries are far more protectionist than the USA.

I'll be surprised but not shocked if "safety" becomes a major component of this campaign. While we can't rule out the possibility of over-stretched resources, I don't see how it's in the interest of the ME3 to take shortcuts on safety. That's no way to build a business, subsidized or unsubsidized.

I would like to hope that the investigation (paid for by our tax dollars) would focus on addressing the allegations of subsidies in an objective manner. Last I checked, assessing "preposterous USA business strategies" was not on the menu.

Where on earth have you dragged that from? You now seem to be saying that you think EK aren't actually subsidised, but they have safety issues :confused: You really are scraping the barrel now.

For those of use that had the pleasure of visiting the EK training centre a couple of years back, we *know* that EK has a top class training facility, and take safety extremely seriously.

As has been said, most of the crew are from what you'd describe as 'first world' countries. They may b1tch and moan, but doesn't that happen in every airline?

Easier said than done. Not only are there different treaties involved and different tying issues that complicate matters, the mechanisms for addressing trade disputes -- if the Executive even agrees to pursue the matter as an inter-governmental trade dispute -- may not be all that monolithic. There are also other angles that make the final outcome of this pursuit (by US3 cartel players and their favorite domestic and foreign harpies) anything but certain.

I thought this rather strange as well, given that the FAA have specific issues with UA at present.

From the Chicago Tribune...
Full article here...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...410-story.html

Yes they have a lot "at stake". If ME3 are restricted, competition reduces, supply goes down, demand reduces, less people visit and tourism industry contracts, shipping goods becomes more expensive, cost of doing business with outside world increases. But substandard national carriers are protected!

In a lot of the world governments take more holistic view of things than just the multi-million dollar lobbying efforts of those with the most to gain by restricting competition.

I think it will form one of the US3+US union attacks: it's a story that looks on first glance, quite plausible, to an uninformed observer and I think is in a similar vein to the Flight Attendants union saying that cabin crew in the ME3 are held in slave-like conditions and are miserable (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/32202615)

In the way, seeding into the public (or DC at least) consciousness that because the ME3 are cheap airlines they cut corners on safety at first glance might seem plausible, until you look into the matter and learn about global aviation regulation - essentially you need to be as stringent as the toughest regulator of the destinations you fly to: in this case, the US FAA, EU EASA and Australian CASA I think are sufficiently credible regulators.

And further as you pointed out, regulators don't seem to be having problems with the ME3 airlines at all, but US and EU legacies recently - your UA example (http://www.wsj.com/articles/faa-call...ted-1428623965), the German regulator being censured by the EASA for being able to keep a good enough eye on LH as above.

Of course, the unintentional irony of on the one hand attacking airlines for having unlimited cash support and on the other hand being cheap, I think is being deliberately swept under the rug - and hence I suspect the pilots union turn to step up and be the attack dogs will be coming soon!

Actually, any plausible reading of my posts indicates that I believe the exact reverse: I think EK is heavily subsidized, but I think the "safety issue" is a red herring in this discussion.

Speaking of red herrings, Ted Reed, the excellent USA aviation reporter, today totally demolishes the silly argument that the subsidies provided by the Gulf airlines "are just like" what the USA gov't has done for the USA airlines.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/...rtner=yahootix

That was one of the better articles that you've referenced here, but it fails to provide verifiable proof of ek subsides, and the conclusion does not account for innovation.

The whole historical issue about who had what subsidies when, I think is a distraction - a cynic might say it was an attempt to drag this out until after the US Presidential elections - as it is clear from various reports from all sorts of reputable sources and admissions that governments have started airlines and fostered environments for aviation industries since forever and it has been tolerated as most of those airlines have encountered competitive problems in their history. That shouldn't have a bearing on the current situation - the idea that government involvement in capitalism is tolerable only if private/public companies can do things better veers a bit too close to economic ideology to the exclusion of things such as the public interest in having effective competition and better consumer choice/value.

I think the "they (the US3) had subsidies in the past so even if we (Gulf Airlines) have subsidies now, it's ok" is quite a weak argument - it makes an admission that the cash injections etc. are actually subsidies for a start, which undermines their (ME3) arguments slightly. Hence the relative silence from EY and QR.

EK's case to the public and interested regulators should be entirely predicated on their representations that they receive no on-going cash/equity injections from their owners to cover any operating losses at all and demonstrate that using a variety of information that they have, both public and independent data, and if necessary confidential data that can be presented regulators (e.g. the details of derivative contracts in the case of the fuel hedge, or yield data).

I doubt your prediction will be accurate since Qatar/UAE could exert pressure on USG to do nothing or little, such as meaningless lip service or they could link this to defense issues, which is FAR important to U.S. government than US3's whiny claims. Also, aviation industry play a huge role in those countries, and I can assure you that key players between ME3's aviation industry and government gonna make US3 paying price.

Meanwhile, EK add 2nd DXB-BOS, it really feel like US3 really poke EK hard enough to shift their attention toward US. that's what gonna happens when you wake up sleeping giant from desert. :D

Having just watched all 4 seasons, this tale could work as a season long story for Suits. Just saying.

This is the biggest pile of bovine manure I have read so far.

Checking out the facts seems something that you don't care to do. The first sign that someone is full of it, is when they pomp a person's non-verifiable and irrelevant credentials, as if that's going to make their words more believable. We're in 2015, not 1965.

The mandated excise taxes collected by the AATF and used to support back the industry are subsidies that could have been appropriated for other matters, after all it's an Act not carved in stone.

These monies are NOT donations handed out by airlines/users.

That writer seems to only read half of what he claims he did, then writes half the fact, the half that serves whatever agenda he's been paid to push.

Well, for someone who actually taught at various EK facilities and did not only visit them, your conclusion is rather short-sighted (again, not surprisingly given your role as an EK lobbyist...)

If I understand you correctly, a top class training facility equals the highest standards in safety.

WOW (and I am not referring to the cargo alliance...)