I fear you did not really understand what the guys from EASA did last week. I also fear that you fail to understand the dynamics of EASA and the German regulator. ;)

But you should understand that EASA pulled the trigger fast enough to avoid being blamed for the accident as well. I guess you know where their headquarter is located.

Once again, Germany is setting the standards when it comes to aviation safety, hence you see them training the whole aviation world when it comes to such issues.

Of course, for airlines with such a drastic approach to costs, hiring supervisors from LH Technik is simply more expensive than hiring folks from Air India, PIA or Biman.

Now it is up to you whether you prefer flying on an aircraft checked by someone with a German or British engineering degree, let's say from RWTH or Stuttgart or Cranfield, or from the Technical Institute of Bangladesh.

Reminds me of the comment from one of the most senior crash investigators at ICAO and his very short list of airlines he actually used for travelling.

Again, I am not saying that folks at EK are underqualified, but it takes decades to build up knowledge. And, once again, folks from the first aviation world often do not really consider the Near East as the ultimate paradise when it comes to finding an ideal working place. Add the increasing costs of living and you have even more problems finding qualified staff, not only when it comes to actually flying the aircraft.

Again, it is beautiful to see the EK apologists trying to defend their airline while blaming the US3 for other things, incl. fleecing the customer.

Well, indeed, flying has become very very expensince since deregulation started in the US some 35 years ago. Hardly anyone can afford it anymore, so the amount of people being able to fly is actually decreasing heavily since decades... :D

As pointed out about 134 times now, everyone has been subsidised at a certain point in time and with all due respect to most people contributing, I fear that most of them lack both the knowledge and access to data to be able to compare whether Air Inter received more direct subsidies in comparison to BEA or Interflug. Sabena, anyone?

Again, nobody outside of Qatar, Abu and Dubai copied the business model yet, which is normally not the case when a company is growing like crazy while making lots of money at the same time.

So let me repeat my earlier request once more:

Can you name an expert who defends the business model of the NE3, states that they are clean and make money flying aircraft around the world?

I will be honest with you, for the sake of the discussion, I would really help you out, but I do not know anyone who believes that the NE3 are not on steriods.

Oh come on, who's shifted the thread from subsidies to safety?

The 2 usual suspects, without a shred of evidence to back up their claims again.

You should not underestimate that the US3 received a lot of support from the Government over the last decade or so, not only when it came to approving the revenue and cost neutral TATL JVs, but also regarding the massive consolidation on US turf. I mean we saw the big auditing firms going down from 8 to 4 over time, but witnessing the legacy carriers going down from 6 to 3 in such a short period of time was only possible with a lot of help on Capitol Hill, especially during the last merger.

Hence, I am really surprised that posters like GUW are wondering why the travel associations support the NE3. Is it really surprising that such organisations support basic principles of supply and demand? Not really, at least in my book.

I do not really see safety becoming an issue. We all know that EK is cutting a few corners, but they are still ahead of many many other countries and airlines operating to/from the US. China, India, Pakistan, Turkey anyone? And I should not start with the southern part of the American continent. :(

And again, do not underestimate the lobbying power of Boeing and Airbus...and both might have to rely more and more on civil aircraft due to decreasing military budgets. Emirates, Qatar and Etihad are good buddies of the manufactorers and also most airports, I mean they pay insane amounts for their own lounges, check in counters etc. and so far they paid their bills.

Well, to be honest, somebody paid their bills. ;)

In a conversation with another FT poster via private mail, I stated recently that I am not really sure of the real (tangible) intention of the US3. The situation in Germany and France is quite obvious, everybody has to endure the status quo for some time, but on the other side of the Atlantic it seems that sticking to the status quo is not really an option.

But do you see Washington acting on ony level until late 2016, so before the next election?

Are you referring to the two Emirates ambassadors on this board? ;)

Safety is a major major cost factor and cutting a few corners here and there helped EK achieve their current CASM, which is amazingly low given the bells and whistles they offer.

The US3 also mentioned safety in their report, so I really wonder why you want to neglect posts in this regard.

Your agenda seems to be obvious, I do not have any, I just care about BIC practices in the industry and whether the business model of the NE3 can be, should be, well, must be copied by all other airlines on this planet.

Washington's not going to act. Not in any meaningful way. They might throw a few shapes to appease the Delta pilots and unions (who appear to be the main instigator of this hissy fit).

But everything will continue as before.

Re: post 1291 by FD1971 -
To decode the oblique references to the EASA for the benefit of other readers, I assume you mean that the EASA is headquartered in Cologne, along with LH, and that they either suffer from some sort regulatory capture and/or have a political rivalry with the LBA (the German regulator) - and that the release of the story about medical oversight deficiencies involved an element of politics.

I don't doubt that could be the case, but the incidents still happened - the political element don't negate the facts of the case.

However, safety concerns are a digression from the discussion about EKs profits from operations. Whilst it may make some people feel better that they are flying on aircraft solely maintained by, e.g. LH Technik and they go out of their way to fly on a maintenance record, I don't think maintenance providers have any impact on yields and passenger demand - or has any input into the purchasing decisions on the vast majority of travellers.

What matters to the vast majority of travellers (no matter what you think of them) is that the airlines are not blacklisted or censured by global regulators - and EK clearly satisfies the major global regulators (FAA/EASA) and therefore all the other agencies that copy their guidelines from them.

There was one interesting thing to note from the digression into safety issues though:

On the one hand, EK is accused of "cutting a few corners" (post 1294) in safety and by implication that they do not have the money to invest in maintenance or finding/training skilled workers. Sure, finding talent is not entirely a question of money, but to think that suitably skilled (even to the poster's clearly quite specific training requirements) workers could not be persuaded by a rather sizeable tax-free salary and the living conditions in DXB for skilled expats is I think, rather naive. Not everyone has the same motivations and outlook on life, of course - and some are simply motivated by earning 2-4x times what they could earn elsewhere especially if they think of doing it for only 2-3 years.

There is of course a rather more unpleasant undertone that could be read into the comments, one of prejudice in thinking that people from the Indian subcontinent can't be trusted to safely - and the definition here is to satisfy global regulators, not some sort of local goalpost - maintain or inspect an aircraft. I don't think this thread should stray any more into that territory though as some of the more credible arguments work perfectly well without it.

So, on the one hand, EK is implied to not have enough cash to invest in maintenance and skills, but on the other, one post down in 1929, they are then accused of being "on steroids" - presumably, the recipient of unlimited government cash support.

It can't be both, can it? Unless the accusation is that EK deliberately under-invests in maintenance and safety to the extent that it would have to operate multiple fleets, one to fly to places with stringent regulators, and a cheaper fleet to fly to less strictly regulated destinations.

No airline is going to deliberately under-invest in safety. On a purely economic basis, the costs are enormous. Even Michael O'Leary knows that - it's (or it was, this was pre-Ryanair's reinvention into being a more friendly airline) the only cost centre at FR that he didn't try and cut: http://www.theguardian.com/theguardi...michael-oleary

Maintenance's main cost factor is in the labour required to maintain - parts etc. are globally priced. So, once again we are back to DXBs competitive advantage in being able to offer tax free salaries and having an environment where an expat can have a better standard of living (in at least, purely material terms, which is enough for some), cost of living is relatively cheap, access to various leisure destinations is easy (only 3-6 hours away) and take-home and save even more than they would back home.

That is why EKs maintenance costs are lower - and the idea that costs are directly correlated to safety standards is, I think, rather inaccurate. It completely ignores the fact the cost base is different.

-
Re: comments in 1292 -

FD1971, I think you have been on Flyertalk for long enough to know that Flyertalk Ambassadors are not lobbyists for airlines, but members of FT who want to help out in certain areas of the site. To accuse DYWKIA of being a lobbyist just because he is pointing out certain issues - which never get resolved by stating facts to answer his questions properly - opens you up to the same charge, although it is difficult to see whether you could be accused of being a lobbyist for LH specifically, or German aviation as a whole. The mud-slinging about hidden motivations is rather distasteful and quite irrelevant in the discussion, I think: readers simply want clearly stated facts to address all of the various questions and independent facts that have arisen.

As to the question about why no one has copied QR, EY and EK - you, along with many other posters, have said that EK copied CX, SQ, KL etc. and then QR and EY copied EK. EY was founded in 2003, which is a relatively short time when you think of the capital expenditure required to build aviation infrastructure from nothing, so it is too early to say whether anyone will want to copy QR and EY in the future. What the ME3 have right now that the other airlines like CX/SQ/KL didn't have when they first started was the the confluence between geography, demographics and economics that we now see - 2 billion people within a 6hr flight of DXB, a billion of which can now afford air travel - and have enough education or global diaspora connections to be motivated to do so. Calculations have been made previously in this thread about potential flows and why it is not necessarily all low yield.

I agree though that nothing will happen until after 2016 at the earliest. Asking for a public consultation seems to be an easy way to bury an issue in endless committees and reports, allowing much face to be saved.

An Open Apology to Nicole Kidman from American Airlines Flight Attendants.

Please know Ms. Kidman that this media mishap has little to do with you as a spokesperson and everything to do with the fact that American Airlines, Delta Airlines and United Airlines (the “Big Three'”) are asking the United States government to amend the “Open Skies” agreement in an effort to limit Etihad Airways, Qatar Airways and Emirates’ (the “Gulf airlines”) access to the U.S. Market. As you may have read, the Big Three allege that the Gulf airlines have an unfair advantage because of government subsidies. This rift is now exacerbated by the Gulf airlines’ allegations that the Big Three (1) use bankruptcy as a means of dumping employee obligations on taxpayers, (2) accept government bailouts to shore up the bottom line, (3) accept state fuel tax exemptions, and (4) accept interest-free loans to further expand. The question the media is asking now is how the Gulf airlines’ subsidies are different than those of the Big Three. It’s like the pot calling the kettle charcoal-gray.

https://wesupportnicolekidman.wordpr...6/hello-world/

This does wonders for American Airlines credibility when even they're flight attendants think they're full of it.

Seems like EK's crew are a happier non union bunch than AA's union crew, how ironic.:confused:

There you go again...

I still haven't figured out why these airlines need to "cut corners" and drive down cost given that, to paraphrase the main allegation of this thread, they have benefactors with deep pockets who will issue blank cheques and cover any and all losses - apparently indefinitely.

But regardless, whatever EK does, it's grabbed as evidence of chicanery/skulduggery/worst practice.

Question: what is the opposite of "apologist"?

We'll see, but I don't think there are many folks in DC worried about upsetting the UAE. Really, the only Americans hurt by curtailing the Gulf flights (other than those who get subsidized tickets to Asia) are with Boeing. And Boeing undoubtedly knows there's something fishy about the ME3 "business model" -- and would be just as happy crushing Airbus' order book.

DOT regulatory actions tend to be VERY fact based. And the facts are truly horrible for the ME3 here. They ARE heavy subsidized, which is obvious to everyone in the industry because their business plans are impossible without such subsidies.


Yeah, I think just about everyone actually concerned about the subsidies isn't particularly concerned about the safety issue. That's a completely different issue, of which I personally have little opinion about. It's certainly possible they're less safe than more established slower-growing airlines, and it's certainly possible they're just as safe (or "safe enough").

Bingo. If this model actually worked, DAL out of ATL, UA out of EWR and AA out of ORD would be flying hundreds (thousands?) of A380s halfway around the world (and not give a fig that the other two were doing the exact same thing :)). There are brilliant businessmen running these airlines these days -- they're making BILLIONS of dollars a year now. The fact that they are HORRIFIED by such a business model (zero A380s have been sold to US carriers) is certainly evidence that, in a free market, it doesn't work.

The travel associations make money when tourists come to their towns. They LOVE the idea of huge double-decker planes disgorging thousands of new customers who wouldn't come if they had to pay economically-sustainable airfares. They don't give a fig whether such flying is subsidized. I'd call this short-sighted, but it is what it is.

If you believe that, you are in dreamland.

Unionized airline employees often act illogically, and fights between warring flight attentant factions can get particularly nasty. It's a strange dynamic, and one that, candidly, suggests that unionization is not actually good for (most) workers. But, that said, I don't think it's a particularly good career move for Nicole Kidman to be a spokesman for an airline that doesn't seem particularly "progressive" in the way it treats its female workers -- at least from a Western perspective. Heck, you can get in trouble in Hollywood being a Republican. :)

Right, 'western' airlines' flight attendants life is just peachy. :rolleyes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-uniforms.html

"I'd call this short-sighted, but it is what it is":

An indication of how iahphx's post can refute itself in at least some part:

Are you trying to get your own thread shutdown? If so, is that because the arguments in this thread are falling flat with the majority of its audience?

And you have evidence of EK cutting a few safety corners to scrounge for big bucks while jeopardizing their customers' lives and their business' growth prospects? Or is this another one of those claims based on prejudices, like believing that certain ethnic and/or religious groups are more suicidal and thus the GCC3 are fine with their businesses committing suicide as long as they take out others with them?

Comparing subsidies to steroids is not a valid comparison. There's nothing illegal or morally wrong about an airline owner investing equity or whatever into it. If DL was a privately owned carrier with DOH as their prime hub, trying to stay afloat in the face of QR, then that's the limit where you could start calling the 'subsidies' unfair.

I'm no EK apologist. I'm not defending 'my' airline. I own no stake in it whatsoever. I'm not affiliated with their owners in any way. I was merely pointing the inaccuracies and fallacious statements made by the OP.

The argument about 'replicating growth outside the gulf' is a weak one because:
1- there exists other airlines within the gulf, SV, GF, WY, KU that are state backed -with deep pockets, but they live in the dust of the ME3 in terms of network/service/fleet. EK/EY/QR must be doing SOMETHING right to a varying degree.
2- following your logic, the same can be said about DL/AA/UA in the US market. Why can't we see the same in say, China? or the EU?