I think the accusation of "short-sighted" follows this line of thought:

1) (Allegedly subsidised) ME3 carriers with a superior product and better pricing start to erode protected margin operations - especially the TATL JV routes which sustain alliances and alliance loyalty programs (with corporate travel contracts).
2) ME3 route network and partnerships with the likes of B6 cause domestic defections to the likes of Southwest, Jetblue, Virgin America
3) US3 have worsening financial results due to domestic defections and poor performance on subsidised high margin routes and an "inability to compete with unfair competition" therefore go out of business in the long run, leaving the only international service ex-USA on foreign carriers
4) American economy suffers as travellers have to pay money to foreigners

The unions meanwhile see:
1) US3, bastions of unionised workforce, go back to the bad old days of losses - except now there's more domestic competition that travellers can fall back and the public appetite for bailing out airlines is probably low
2) US3 have massive layoffs
3) American staff go to work for non-unionised employers like the ME3
4) Labor unions weakened

That, along with the OPs disclosed financial interests in presumably, the US aviation industry, lends a new prism with which to regard his comments and train of thought - now with this doomsday scenario and a sense of desperation as a possible existential issue for the US3 in the future looms.

It is also in the interests of the lobbying force to play up this notion that the ME3 are an existential threat to their operations - I fully expect that to be the next phase of the campaign (if you don't help us, all your travel money will go to foreigners and the US3 will go bankrupt and this time no one can pick up the pieces).

That said, judging by the size of the perennial US trade deficit, I think that American consumers have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about giving their money to foreigners :D

So, the investment success you point to as an example of your acumen is one that was only possible because of a federal subsidy? Without post-9/11 federal loan guarantees, America West would have gone under.

Also, the fact that you've declared that you still own the AAL shares does provide further evidence that you might just be a teensy bit biased when talking about competitive forces in the industry.

Americans don't fly anywhere that requires a change of plane*!

*The only exceptions are: when that change of plane is in Atlanta, New York, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Seattle, Miami, Charlotte, Philadelphia, one of those US-carrier "hubs" in Asia-Pacific, or, at a stretch, London, Frankfurt, or Paris.

I agree - Willie Walsh indeed even complimented Tim Clark on the way Sir Tim has run Emirates:

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/-i-pi...sh-563816.html

I just think the timing of the decision to pull out of the AEA so soon after the Qatar Holding position in IAG was bought is not entirely coincidental :D

Pressure, I think, was the wrong word - I think having a friendly major shareholder on board just firmed up the decision.

I think it more likely to do with other AEA members dusting off their sabres for a good rattling, and currently agitating for AEA to jump on the US3's bandwagon.

AF and LH are suffering industrial relations disputes and poor financial performance; and I suspect their management's focus is not entirely on their immediate and very large problems, but is rather obsessing about the "unfairness" of the competition, particularly now that their US partners are agitating for no apparent reason.

I think obsessing over a foreign enemy is a classic and time-honored way of suppressing internal dissent :D

I'm no longer surprised by the OP stance. He holds shares with a major carrier, perceives his investment as valuable and eyes EK/EY/QR as not only major threats but barriers to further capital gain.

The ME3 do not need to jump at every tax loophole or lobby governments for policy change, because they are based in environments where none of that is required, AND their main and sole shareholder is their respective governments that operate solely for the benefit of their citizens. The citizens are the stakeholders. As opposed to the OP case, someone with a stash of money behind the wall buying shares into an entity for his interest.

But isn't it exactly what the OP is accusing the ME3 govs of doing? And isn't hypocrisy to label this simple act of self interest as unfair, shady and borderline criminal?

The OP should have gone to InvestorTalk with his scam theory.

Actually, if you were to look about 12 posts down, on the front page of the EK forum, you will find this thread:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/emira...sa-points.html

Apologies to the mods for cross-posting but I feel that a direct quote here is in order:
I believe ddelsobral is not the only person who flies to DXB for work. In our very own sub-forum, we have Houstonflyer2139 who literally spends millions of USD of his company's money on sending employees on EK, presumably ex-IAH to the Middle East. We also have chinatraderjmr, who also has spent millions of USD on both passengers and cargo with EK.

Pointing out extant demographic facts is not racist, correct. But claiming a massive (racial) generalisation without any regard for the facts - that is prejudiced.

Specifically in this case, the prejudice is that you seem to think EKs only passengers are Arabs or Indians because the business model seems to be going to the Middle East or India. As stated before, EK many, many city pairs and sits in the middle of many routes and demographic flows.

Perhaps that's where the OP is sourcing some of these gems? :)

GUIDE FOR AVIATION INVESTORS:

Is the airline registered in the USA?
Has the airline been theough Chapter 11? (Bonus point: has it been through Chapter 11 more than once?)
Does it carry more domestic passengers than international passengers? (Bonus point: is it a purely domestic airline?)
Is the Airbus A380 absent from its fleet and from its order book? (Bonus point: does it operate an all-Boeing fleet?)
Is the average age of the fleet greater than 20 years?
Is the average age of the crew greater than 60 years?

RESULTS

If you answered "yes" to 5 or more questions: INVEST! You are onto a sure thing!
Otherwise: DO NOT INVEST! Your target clearly operates in a deprived part of the world, has an unsound business model, flies only low-rev passengers (most likely: asylum seekers) on mostly-empty planes on routes with no natural demand - or, most likely, all of the above.

And CX is starting services from HKG-BOS too. It's some 1300 miles longer than DXB-BOS. Yet they see an opportunity, and they are not a scam. And DXB-BOS is nothing extraordinary in terms of long haul flying on 777s. Its approximately the same distance as SIN-LHR and JFK-NRT (actually slightly shorter), and only slightly longer than SFO-AKL. If you take issue with DXB-BOS, NZ must be a insane for announcing they are going to start AKL-IAH service. How many New Zealanders are there in Houston?

Why do you absolutely refuse to engage in debate or even rebut any arguments that EK could be cross subsidising it's ultra long haul services to the midwest and westcoast from the rest of it's network. It has what about 200 flights a week to/from the US - and 80 of those to/from the east coast. EK has over 3500 flights it operates each week.

But those are not Arab airlines. [Whisper it: both were founded by white men. Shhhhh!] And they don't own A380s. So it makes business sense.

They just need to use small planes. Maybe a narrow body? An Embraer 190 should help them to correctly manage capacity on these ULH routes!!!!

I'd guess that the number of people travelling O/D from AUS to DFW is 10x those flying O/D from Boston to Dubai.

Hubs collect people -- very often regional travelers. They require strong O/D traffic to work. That's why all the remaining USA hubs are in the USA's largest cities.

Instead of trash talking, perhaps it would be worth explaining how the ME3 can "make money" with a strategy that doesn't work anywhere else in the world -- and yet they're all expanding wildly at the same time despite obviously tough economic times in their home towns. See, for example:

http://www.thenational.ae/business/e...oil-price-fall

Honestly, this would be like if AA, UA and DL all expanded wildly in 2009 during the worldwide financial crisis. Instead they, of course, contracted -- and still faced bankruptcy.

Do these economic realities not give ANY of the ME3 fans any pause to consider that -- shock of shocks -- their airlines are heavily subsidized?

If the ME3 were a real threat to the US3, I'd short the US3. If the US gov't were allow the current foolishness to continue for several years -- and the ME3 didn't run out of money before then -- I would certainly consider that strategy. It would certainly make the US3 uninvestible.

But that's not a plausible investment thesis at this point in time. The US airlines are minting money at unprecedented rates. I will say, though, that there is more revenue momentum currently for the purely domestic USA airlines because they don't have to compete against illogical, sometimes-subsidized foreign carriers. Any Wall St. analyst would agree with me on this. The ME3 are already having an impact on the US3 (look at who's exiting the India market this month after decades), but it's just only a drop in the bucket given what else is going on (like half price oil).

The effects of the GFC actually delayed the expansion of EK, specifically in the US by few years. If you search around this forum you should find posts from 2009-2011 where EK were planning to launch a number of US routes but held off.

If EK were really that heavily subsidized they wouldn't have cared about the GFC. They would have expanded during that slump period.

Aircraft availability and fuel costs were also factors. But EK extended leases and delayed retirement on some of their aircraft to allow for expansion, increased their fares and imposed YQ (something that was unheard of for a number of years).

The above is further evidence that EK do worry about their bottom line, and it's counterevidence to the scam theory that you seem to be blindly convinced in.

Explanations for how these airlines could be making money have been offered to you 100+ times in this very thread, yet you choose to ignore such and stick with your "it doesn't work in US, so it's impossible" mantra.