"Invasion" by Arab Gulf Airlines.
Nov 10, 2014, 11:03 am
#136
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
I agree with others here that the gulf state airlines' treatment of their employees is a real concern. Having said that, I am simply not up enough on the issue to necessarily lump EY, EK and QR together, as I've only seen (appalling) reports on the last of the three.
On the issue of competition, however, I like the idea of greater foreign competition for our US carriers, given how little competition there is among them in many regards and how lousy they are in many regards.
Even more important, the US carriers are incredibly coddled by our government, as most flights by government personnel or on government contracts must use US carriers to get overseas even if they are more expensive. Ironic that we preach free trade and the free market on the one hand yet stifle it when it comes to the airlines industry.
On the issue of competition, however, I like the idea of greater foreign competition for our US carriers, given how little competition there is among them in many regards and how lousy they are in many regards.
Even more important, the US carriers are incredibly coddled by our government, as most flights by government personnel or on government contracts must use US carriers to get overseas even if they are more expensive. Ironic that we preach free trade and the free market on the one hand yet stifle it when it comes to the airlines industry.
I think the Fly America Act is fair, because do you really want you tax dollars going to support horrendous labor policies in Qatar, or making jobs at home in the US. For every surly FA you put up with on a US carrier, that's a person that's not on welfare, Medicaid etc, so for that reason I think that it's still worth it to have this. On the other hand, I don't think we should become like Canada and basically shut out the ME carriers, because if individuals want to fly ME carriers, they should have that choice.
Codeshare flights with U.S. flight numbers but operated by foreign carriers count as a U.S. flight. Therefore, one can fly, say an AA flight operated by RJ, an AA flight operated by GF, or an AA flight operated by EY - not to mention AA flights operated by BA, IB, CX, etc. Likewise one can utilize a UA flight operated by TK, MS, SQ, etc.
Additionally international treaty trumps the requirement to utilize U.S. carriers. Because of treaties with the E.U. and with K.S.A., one can utilize any E.U. carrier or SV without violating Fly America Act requirements.
As to Canada, please note that EK, EY, LY, MS, QR, RJ & SV all have flights to Canada. Additionally, while not in the Middle East proper, one might note that carriers AH, AT, ET, PK, & TK, often but incorrectly associated with the Middle East, also have flights to Canada. I'm, thus, not sure why you assert that Canada has "basically shut out the ME carriers[.]"
Nov 10, 2014, 11:25 am
#137
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,057
As to Canada, please note that EK, EY, LY, MS, QR, RJ & SV all have flights to Canada. Additionally, while not in the Middle East proper, one might note that carriers AH, AT, ET, PK, & TK, often but incorrectly associated with the Middle East, also have flights to Canada. I'm, thus, not sure why you assert that Canada has "basically shut out the ME carriers[.]"
Nov 10, 2014, 11:28 am
#138
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
I think the Fly America Act is fair, because do you really want you tax dollars going to support horrendous labor policies in Qatar, or making jobs at home in the US. For every surly FA you put up with on a US carrier, that's a person that's not on welfare, Medicaid etc, so for that reason I think that it's still worth it to have this. On the other hand, I don't think we should become like Canada and basically shut out the ME carriers, because if individuals want to fly ME carriers, they should have that choice.
Nov 10, 2014, 11:52 am
#139
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
Your apology should be for your ignorance and not because of the nature of your comments. The Americans with Disabilities Act has been interpreted by SCOTUS to include weight/obesity, so it is illegal for any airline to preclude screening or passengers because of weight issues. The unions have NOTHING to do with that.
I'm sorry, but weight of passengers on a commercial airline usually have absolutely NOTHING to do with airline safety. There hasn't been a single example of a commercial airline flight being in any way endangered because of a passenger's weight. Not sure what your big issue is here but it doesn't sound like it's cogent at all.
I'm sorry, but weight of passengers on a commercial airline usually have absolutely NOTHING to do with airline safety. There hasn't been a single example of a commercial airline flight being in any way endangered because of a passenger's weight. Not sure what your big issue is here but it doesn't sound like it's cogent at all.
Nov 10, 2014, 12:26 pm
#140
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
Quite honestly I don't care whether my tax dollars go to funding government employee travel on AA, DL, BA, QR, EK, or any airline in particular. I believe it should be the traveling employee's choice as to what airline they fly on and I would prefer to see my tax dollars go to the airline offering the best available product rather than some ridiculous rule of patronizing US airlines and their garbage products. I would rather not support companies which like to offer poor customer experiences.
I suppose you too would support employees of private firms choosing on what airline they utilize their employer's funds, making this selection based on who offers the best service, without regard either to which airline is a major client of the employer or which airline offers the employer a lower price. I am all for labor having power, but the power of labor being able to select vendors notwithstanding the employer's policy goes a bit - well, un-American, even for me.
No. Unions help people from being fired unfairly. Without unions (or proper government regulation of employers) employers terminate people simply because they disagree with them, do not like the way the look or talk, or can replace the worker with someone willing to accept less, or simply to be able to pay management or shareholders more $$ despite their commitments to employees. Unions help balance the scale, but even with them, all too often that scale is tipped towards management.
Last edited by Indelaware; Nov 10, 2014 at 12:33 pm
Nov 10, 2014, 12:52 pm
#141
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mountain Time Zone
Programs: AS Million Miler/Marriott Lifetime Titanium/ IGH Ambassador
Posts: 5,992
U.S. airlines might not be as fancy as certain airlines. But to call their product "garbage" suggests to me that you haven't flown on a good number of non-US carriers. Until you have been on certain second- and third-world commercial airliners, as I have been, which have their toilet bowls held together by duct tape, "rain" pouring from the overhead oxygen compartments, cabin crew smoking in flight, pilots who smell of alcohol, and offer sandwiches made with bread so hard that it can't be broken and nearly green "meat" as their food service, I suggest that you might not truly know what is a garbage product.
I suppose you too would support employees of private firms choosing on what airline they utilize their employer's funds, making this selection based on who offers the best service, without regard either to which airline is a major client of the employer or which airline offers the employer a lower price. I am all for labor having power, but the power of labor being able to select vendors notwithstanding the employer's policy goes a bit - well, un-American, even for me.
No. Unions help people from being fired unfairly. Without unions (or proper government regulation of employers) employers terminate people simply because they disagree with them, do not like the way the look or talk, or can replace the worker with someone willing to accept less, or simply to be able to pay management or shareholders more $$ despite their commitments to employees. Unions help balance the scale, but even with them, all too often that scale is tipped towards management.
I suppose you too would support employees of private firms choosing on what airline they utilize their employer's funds, making this selection based on who offers the best service, without regard either to which airline is a major client of the employer or which airline offers the employer a lower price. I am all for labor having power, but the power of labor being able to select vendors notwithstanding the employer's policy goes a bit - well, un-American, even for me.
No. Unions help people from being fired unfairly. Without unions (or proper government regulation of employers) employers terminate people simply because they disagree with them, do not like the way the look or talk, or can replace the worker with someone willing to accept less, or simply to be able to pay management or shareholders more $$ despite their commitments to employees. Unions help balance the scale, but even with them, all too often that scale is tipped towards management.
Sadly that is in the minority rather the unions help keep marginal at best in rather than out. As far as balance goes the only "balance" the unions care for is their bank account. They screamed for Obama Care now their being taxed because their medical plans are far superior to any out there. Their pensions are broke and their looking for US the taxpayers to bail them out.
Thats my opinion on balancing !
Nov 10, 2014, 1:20 pm
#142
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: SFO
Programs: OZ Diamond/*G, IHG Diamond Amb, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,240
While the Fly America Act requires generally requires government traffic to utilize U.S. carriers to the greatest extent possible regardless of fair, the story is not that simple.
Codeshare flights with U.S. flight numbers but operated by foreign carriers count as a U.S. flight. Therefore, one can fly, say an AA flight operated by RJ, an AA flight operated by GF, or an AA flight operated by EY - not to mention AA flights operated by BA, IB, CX, etc. Likewise one can utilize a UA flight operated by TK, MS, SQ, etc.
Additionally international treaty trumps the requirement to utilize U.S. carriers. Because of treaties with the E.U. and with K.S.A., one can utilize any E.U. carrier or SV without violating Fly America Act requirements.
As to Canada, please note that EK, EY, LY, MS, QR, RJ & SV all have flights to Canada. Additionally, while not in the Middle East proper, one might note that carriers AH, AT, ET, PK, & TK, often but incorrectly associated with the Middle East, also have flights to Canada. I'm, thus, not sure why you assert that Canada has "basically shut out the ME carriers[.]"
Codeshare flights with U.S. flight numbers but operated by foreign carriers count as a U.S. flight. Therefore, one can fly, say an AA flight operated by RJ, an AA flight operated by GF, or an AA flight operated by EY - not to mention AA flights operated by BA, IB, CX, etc. Likewise one can utilize a UA flight operated by TK, MS, SQ, etc.
Additionally international treaty trumps the requirement to utilize U.S. carriers. Because of treaties with the E.U. and with K.S.A., one can utilize any E.U. carrier or SV without violating Fly America Act requirements.
As to Canada, please note that EK, EY, LY, MS, QR, RJ & SV all have flights to Canada. Additionally, while not in the Middle East proper, one might note that carriers AH, AT, ET, PK, & TK, often but incorrectly associated with the Middle East, also have flights to Canada. I'm, thus, not sure why you assert that Canada has "basically shut out the ME carriers[.]"
If expansion into Canada wasn't a problem, what would be the purpose of this:
http://www.emirates.com/ca/english/a...nd-canada.aspx
Nov 10, 2014, 1:25 pm
#143
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
U.S. airlines might not be as fancy as certain airlines. But to call their product "garbage" suggests to me that you haven't flown on a good number of non-US carriers. Until you have been on certain second- and third-world commercial airliners, as I have been, which have their toilet bowls held together by duct tape, "rain" pouring from the overhead oxygen compartments, cabin crew smoking in flight, pilots who smell of alcohol, and offer sandwiches made with bread so hard that it can't be broken and nearly green "meat" as their food service, I suggest that you might not truly know what is a garbage product.
I suppose you too would support employees of private firms choosing on what airline they utilize their employer's funds, making this selection based on who offers the best service, without regard either to which airline is a major client of the employer or which airline offers the employer a lower price. I am all for labor having power, but the power of labor being able to select vendors notwithstanding the employer's policy goes a bit - well, un-American, even for me.
I suppose you too would support employees of private firms choosing on what airline they utilize their employer's funds, making this selection based on who offers the best service, without regard either to which airline is a major client of the employer or which airline offers the employer a lower price. I am all for labor having power, but the power of labor being able to select vendors notwithstanding the employer's policy goes a bit - well, un-American, even for me.
Secondly, I absolutely think employees should have the option of what airlines they travel on. If there is a cost issue, then the employee should be given the option of paying the difference to fly on their preferred carrier. There is nothing un-American about giving customers the opportunity to vote with their wallet. Supporting a crappy product blindly simply because that is who your company decided to enter into a contract with one day is exactly what on a 6.5 hour flight from MIA-SEA I have to sit in an F cabin with 38" pitch, minimal recline, and a snack basket passed around rather than something more acceptable.
Nov 10, 2014, 2:31 pm
#144
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
Secondly, I absolutely think employees should have the option of what airlines they travel on. If there is a cost issue, then the employee should be given the option of paying the difference to fly on their preferred carrier. There is nothing un-American about giving customers the opportunity to vote with their wallet. Supporting a crappy product blindly simply because that is who your company decided to enter into a contract with one day is exactly what on a 6.5 hour flight from MIA-SEA I have to sit in an F cabin with 38" pitch, minimal recline, and a snack basket passed around rather than something more acceptable.
You miss why one flies -- to get from A to B safely and to enjoy the miracle of flight, something which has nothing to do with one's seat or meal -- those are just minor add-ons.
Y service is certainly better on certain of the Arab gulf airlines than on certain US airlines. However, one ought not choose one's airline based on such trivial issues as comfort. One picks safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community. On these important issues there are deficiencies among the Arab gulf airlines.
Last edited by Indelaware; Nov 10, 2014 at 2:41 pm
Nov 10, 2014, 2:55 pm
#145
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mountain Time Zone
Programs: AS Million Miler/Marriott Lifetime Titanium/ IGH Ambassador
Posts: 5,992
Amazing. Anyone who is complaining about sitting in F, IMO, needs to re-evaluate things. The vast majority of flyers don't sit in F -- including the vast majority who fly on their employer's dime and the vast majority who fly on any flight -- 6.5 hours, 1 hour, or 15 hours. To judge an airline by its F product makes little sense whatsoever. Those seats are just a drop in the flying-bucket.
You miss why one flies -- to get from A to B safely and to enjoy the miracle of flight, something which has nothing to do with one's seat or meal -- those are just minor add-ons.
Y service is certainly better on certain of the Arab gulf airlines than on certain US airlines. However, one ought not choose one's airline based on such trivial issues as comfort. One picks safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community. On these important issues there are deficiencies among the Arab gulf airlines.
You miss why one flies -- to get from A to B safely and to enjoy the miracle of flight, something which has nothing to do with one's seat or meal -- those are just minor add-ons.
Y service is certainly better on certain of the Arab gulf airlines than on certain US airlines. However, one ought not choose one's airline based on such trivial issues as comfort. One picks safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community. On these important issues there are deficiencies among the Arab gulf airlines.
Nov 10, 2014, 3:12 pm
#146
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
Safety yes your missing the point from a lot of us nobody is forcing these employees to work for the various airlines, they unless someone has proof otherwise chose freely to take these positions. as for the rest of the social reasons I prefer safety then comfort. Let me decide what I pay
The problem is not as simply as the difficulty that some face in exercising their freedom to decide to quit. Some of these airlines have outright morally reprehensible treatment of their female employees. The won't hire - or will fire - an employee who decides to get married, decides (or is naturally designed) to love a person of the same sex, puts on weight, or refuses to wear make-up.
It is one thing to have to purchase from such companies when one is in-country without decent alternatives and must purchase food, hotel, hard good, & etc, but aviation is globally competitive: one can avoid airlines with such poor behavior to their (would be) employees and one should choose to avoid them.
Nov 10, 2014, 3:21 pm
#147
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
You miss why one flies -- to get from A to B safely and to enjoy the miracle of flight, something which has nothing to do with one's seat or meal -- those are just minor add-ons.
Y service is certainly better on certain of the Arab gulf airlines than on certain US airlines. However, one ought not choose one's airline based on such trivial issues as comfort. One picks safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community. On these important issues there are deficiencies among the Arab gulf airlines.
Y service is certainly better on certain of the Arab gulf airlines than on certain US airlines. However, one ought not choose one's airline based on such trivial issues as comfort. One picks safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community. On these important issues there are deficiencies among the Arab gulf airlines.
Do you drive a tank? No? Maybe a Volvo? Why do you value things like comfort in your car? That is just a trivial concern.
And when you say "one" you really shouldn't use that term, as it is generic and applies to many people. I don't know of anybody who chooses an airline based on your "safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community."
And you didn't actually address my question about unions preventing incompetent people from being fired. Does it happen? Because you seem like you don't think it does.
Nov 10, 2014, 3:32 pm
#148
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
Wow, your statement is absolutely amazing. So comfort has nothing to do with anything? I'm going to suppose you would say the same about marketing. It has everything to do with safety.
Do you drive a tank? No? Maybe a Volvo? Why do you value things like comfort in your car? That is just a trivial concern.
And when you say "one" you really shouldn't use that term, as it is generic and applies to many people. I don't know of anybody who chooses an airline based on your "safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community."
And you didn't actually address my question about unions preventing incompetent people from being fired. Does it happen? Because you seem like you don't think it does.
Do you drive a tank? No? Maybe a Volvo? Why do you value things like comfort in your car? That is just a trivial concern.
And when you say "one" you really shouldn't use that term, as it is generic and applies to many people. I don't know of anybody who chooses an airline based on your "safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community."
And you didn't actually address my question about unions preventing incompetent people from being fired. Does it happen? Because you seem like you don't think it does.
It would be a wrong assumption to conclude either that I drive a Volvo or that comfort is something that I value highly in automobiles.
And yes, "one," is the correct term. When one makes a moral claim about how people ought act, one uses the word "one." It doesn't apply to many people, it applies to all people. I suppose I could have said, "Humans" but that would read a bit awkward.
I am sorry that you do not know people who "chooses an airline based on your 'safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community.'" On what ethical standard do your fellows employ when making the choice of air carriers?
And no, I do not know of any statistically significant cases where unions prevent the unqualified from have their employment terminated justly. I suppose it might happen occasionally, but not nearly as often as employment is terminated unjustly.
Nov 10, 2014, 4:03 pm
#149
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mountain Time Zone
Programs: AS Million Miler/Marriott Lifetime Titanium/ IGH Ambassador
Posts: 5,992
In general, comfort ought be a concern only when other things are equal. Yes, one must have minimal comfort -- e.g. don't select an airline that lines the seats with broken glass.
It would be a wrong assumption to conclude either that I drive a Volvo or that comfort is something that I value highly in automobiles.
And yes, "one," is the correct term. When one makes a moral claim about how people ought act, one uses the word "one." It doesn't apply to many people, it applies to all people. I suppose I could have said, "Humans" but that would read a bit awkward.
I am sorry that you do not know people who "chooses an airline based on your 'safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community.'" On what ethical standard do your fellows employ when making the choice of air carriers?
And no, I do not know of any statistically significant cases where unions prevent the unqualified from have their employment terminated justly. I suppose it might happen occasionally, but not nearly as often as employment is terminated unjustly.
It would be a wrong assumption to conclude either that I drive a Volvo or that comfort is something that I value highly in automobiles.
And yes, "one," is the correct term. When one makes a moral claim about how people ought act, one uses the word "one." It doesn't apply to many people, it applies to all people. I suppose I could have said, "Humans" but that would read a bit awkward.
I am sorry that you do not know people who "chooses an airline based on your 'safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community.'" On what ethical standard do your fellows employ when making the choice of air carriers?
And no, I do not know of any statistically significant cases where unions prevent the unqualified from have their employment terminated justly. I suppose it might happen occasionally, but not nearly as often as employment is terminated unjustly.
Nov 10, 2014, 4:04 pm
#150
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: SFO
Programs: OZ Diamond/*G, IHG Diamond Amb, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,240
Amazing. Anyone who is complaining about sitting in F, IMO, needs to re-evaluate things. The vast majority of flyers don't sit in F -- including the vast majority who fly on their employer's dime and the vast majority who fly on any flight -- 6.5 hours, 1 hour, or 15 hours. To judge an airline by its F product makes little sense whatsoever. Those seats are just a drop in the flying-bucket.
You miss why one flies -- to get from A to B safely and to enjoy the miracle of flight, something which has nothing to do with one's seat or meal -- those are just minor add-ons.
Y service is certainly better on certain of the Arab gulf airlines than on certain US airlines. However, one ought not choose one's airline based on such trivial issues as comfort. One picks safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community. On these important issues there are deficiencies among the Arab gulf airlines.
You miss why one flies -- to get from A to B safely and to enjoy the miracle of flight, something which has nothing to do with one's seat or meal -- those are just minor add-ons.
Y service is certainly better on certain of the Arab gulf airlines than on certain US airlines. However, one ought not choose one's airline based on such trivial issues as comfort. One picks safety, route availability, price (including the value of future free air travel earned through FF programs), and how the airline treats its employees, the environment, and the larger community. On these important issues there are deficiencies among the Arab gulf airlines.
Personally, I have qualms about flying QR specifically (and some smaller operators in the region like SV, but I would never fly with them anyway based on product quality) due to how they treat their employees, but I must say their product is pretty good and it would be a poor choice not to allow consumers that option.
I do wonder why US carriers aren't extremely worried about airlines like Air China etc. They are similar to Gulf carriers in many ways: government owned, eating traffic away from US carriers, nicer than US carriers (although probably not as nice as Gulf carriers), and it would be a huge blow if CA or the like starts siphoning off US carrier Asia traffic, as it is a significant destination for US airlines, unlike the Middle East and Indian subcontinent.