I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't give a fig what the DOT does on this. I'm also sure the UAE does.

Meanwhile, there's an interesting story in tomorrow's WSJ about the "gumshoes" hired by the US airlines to comb through various documents worldwide to uncover the subsidies. The US3 are going to release 1,000 pages of documents tomorrow.

Honestly, the story regarding Etihad and Qatar is more sad than interesting. Nobody could realistically question the massive subsidies those two airlines received from their governments. The Emirates situation is far more interesting, because Emirates is much more of a real airline and the subsidies, assuming they exist, were hidden from their auditors.

Here's one passage from the WSJ story:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-airl...5?mod=yahoo_hs

My earlier post (#955) talks about the fuel hedge contract. The counterparties to EK's hedging contracts were Morgan Stanley. I wonder why that fact hasn't been mentioned at all, and no one has reached out to them for comment.

As for the documents being released tomorrow... they should make this thread interesting again!

doubt US prez want to work much with House of Rep's Transportation Committee Chairman, his girlfriend, and her lobbying firm to please whiny US3 :D.

I suspect that UAE ruler might request US to stay low on subsidy claims in exchange of grant more supports or favorable deals for US military in the Middle East region.

http://www.newser.com/story/205565/h...-lobbyist.html

Busted! Of course, there are no allegations of impropriety about setting the agenda! :D

In reply to the OP in 1381 EK did in fact comment on the fuel hedging: http://www.emirates.com/us/english/a...s-release.aspx

for convenience I will quote it:
As Xlr noted - he also responded with points about fuel hedge derivatives and the conclusion that without further evidence we don't know how the trade was settled.

I look forward to the new document releases!

Taking this conversation sideways here to point out my surprise at the 5 votes so far that seem to believe that EK is a financial scam.

Could the mod perhaps establish that the 5 votes are by old/active FT accounts please?

And why is there a 'don't care' option? They care enough to vote! Perhaps it should have been yes/no/maybe/not sure.

The question in itself is biased and convoluted. Especially that we have no idea whether the voters have flown EK before, or more relevant to the nature of the question whether they have an interest in the Fair Skies movement and whether they have any hard evidence.

Polling for this simple and general question on FT without further background questions could be the equivalent of asking shoppers at a food tasting station in a supermarket for their views on the outcome of the 2016 elections.

US3 has written a letter to the US gov't asking for an immediate freeze on new ME3 flights because of a rush of new service in front of a possible future freeze.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ats-amid-probe

It's certainly possible some of the "goofy" new service is in response to fears that it wouldn't be allowed in the future. That said, the flights don't really seem any odder to me that the ones they launched BEFORE these proceedings started.

The US3 apparently seem to think that the best they can hope for is a freeze on new services/frequencies.

Not true. The US3 amplified the news about EK expansions and are presenting it as cause to "emphasize the need for a freeze on the Gulf carriers’ expansion until a resolution of the disagreement is reached".

There's no mention of 'immediate freeze', unless you have access to that document that features this specific expression.

As for the expansions, well going double daily and adding a route is hardly a RUSH, and the only new destination is MCO, all other changes have been in the works/announced for months. In the case of EY, since last year.

The letter and article about it have desperation written all over them. US3 are the ones rushing much like you seem to be rushing into concluding (and hoping) that the perceived rush is the actual cause for the emphasis on the need for a freeze.

I am one of the "I don't care," crowd because I honestly don't care if airlines are subsidized.

I would love to be able to attend this!!!

Alitalia May Be Next to Quit AEA as Rift Over Gulf Rivals Grows
 

AB also exited.

Indeed!

I'm truly impressed that Sir Tim Clark will make an appearance in Vegas! Where is Richard Anderson?

Will be fun to see if Clark make announcement that EK launch new route to Las Vegas in Vegas with EK's usual Vegas-worthy noise :D.

Btw I did click "I don't care" because i knew US3 receive many different kind of subsides yet I still fly with them when I have to. If ME3 receive some subsides from government, good for them because they ensure that passengers can enjoy excellent products & service which US3 with wide range of subsides aren't able to do that.

I voted 'don't care'.

As an academic exercise, I find this debate interesting. The US3 are trying to use public opinion to sway the US government to find in their favor (hence the numerous ads produced by them talking about the 'ME3 subsidies'). I am intellectually curious as to whether their argument actually holds water. However, as a frequent flyer, I don't care whether they receive subsidies or not. I care whether they are safe, comfortable, and fly where I want to fly. I am not worried about the competition they might provide to the US3. At this point, the US3 need more competition to force them to up their game.

I do know that the Emirate of Dubai does not have the financial wherewithal to subsidize EK to the extent that it is going to seriously impact the US airline industry. Qatar and Etihad might have more backing, but with current oil prices, I don't think the State of Qatar or the Emirate of Abu Dhabi have unlimited resources to pour into their airlines, either, and a lot more would be required to bring them to the point of seriously impacting the US airline industry. So for me, if the subsidies exist, they are subsidizing me in the form of cheaper, more comfortable flights. If the subsidies don't exist, then these airlines are providing a great service without subsidies.


Consequently, I don't care if EK is a 'financial scam' although I would also say that I am 'not sure' whether it is or not, as well.