"Invasion" by Arab Gulf Airlines.
Nov 10, 2014, 5:21 pm
#151
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
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.
I will say that one should choose their airline based on who is offering them the most acceptable product at the most acceptable price. Internal affairs should never even be known by the customer in my opinion.
Nov 10, 2014, 7:03 pm
#152
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
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?
Nov 10, 2014, 10:37 pm
#153
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,045
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.
Carriers like CA and JL are different because: 1) they offer up attractive home markets in parity with those that they fly to; and 2) int-int connections aren't nearly as important to them.
Nov 11, 2014, 2:34 am
#154
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Anglia UK
Programs: BA-S UA LH-Sen KLM/AF-Plat.
Posts: 1,627
Maybe a bit off the subject of Middle Eastern airlines but you only have to compare most European airlines to the US ones to know how sad some US ones are in comparison. I don't think the "forced labour /harsh contracts" apply to them. I don't fly internal US much these days but with the length of some of them equal to TATL the First product is mank and definitely should be better for the prices they charge. So it's not simply down to the competition having cheap labour, higher subsidies in every case, it's down to lack of both initiative and respect for the customer by US airlines who have a captive audience.
Nov 11, 2014, 11:47 am
#155
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
CX and SQ are the only non-Gulf carriers I can think of that operate under similar circumstances (small home markets + lots of connecting passengers). But, neither HK nor SG has the geographical advantage that the ME offers (i.e. within flying range of 80% of the earth's population).
Carriers like CA and JL are different because: 1) they offer up attractive home markets in parity with those that they fly to; and 2) int-int connections aren't nearly as important to them.
Carriers like CA and JL are different because: 1) they offer up attractive home markets in parity with those that they fly to; and 2) int-int connections aren't nearly as important to them.
Nov 13, 2014, 3:18 am
#156
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 537
Minor and irrelevant point. The main point of my post remains valid. Flying US airlines out of a misguided sense of patriotism is doing a disservice to the country. The US carriers sure don't give a damn about the American passenger, why fly them? They should depend on their own management and quality of service product, not the patriotism of their passengers. Relying on patriotism is not going to make them more competitive on their own or make them treat their passengers better.
Nov 13, 2014, 10:24 am
#157
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,379
Minor and irrelevant point. The main point of my post remains valid. Flying US airlines out of a misguided sense of patriotism is doing a disservice to the country. The US carriers sure don't give a damn about the American passenger, why fly them? They should depend on their own management and quality of service product, not the patriotism of their passengers. Relying on patriotism is not going to make them more competitive on their own or make them treat their passengers better.
Patriotism on the other hand is a completely different matter. Not being an American, I think it's ridiculous. But if people want to support their own country then I don't see why they should be moaned at for it. No airline "gives a damn" about the American passenger - but then that's not the reason they've given for supporting US airlines.
The reason is presumably to keep their money within America and protect American jobs. Others will have a more ethical standpoint - I've heard shocking things about how Qatar airlines treat their staff in particular. As I say, it's not a philosophy I personally subscribe to, but it is perfectly logical.
Nov 13, 2014, 12:46 pm
#158
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
Nov 13, 2014, 1:10 pm
#159
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mountain Time Zone
Programs: AS Million Miler/Marriott Lifetime Titanium/ IGH Ambassador
Posts: 5,991
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[.]"
SO not knowing where your information comes I am here.
Nov 13, 2014, 1:11 pm
#160
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
This assumes that one's interest is strictly in limiting $$ spent. As others have said some value frills-of-product, others value seamless same airline origin-to-destination, others value supporting their fellow countrymen/women, others value the way labor is treated, others find economic benefit to themselves in keeping the $$ with the local firm, those dollars much more likely to stay local enriching the home quality of life.
Nov 13, 2014, 1:27 pm
#161
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
This assumes that one's interest is strictly in limiting $$ spent. As others have said some value frills-of-product, others value seamless same airline origin-to-destination, others value supporting their fellow countrymen/women, others value the way labor is treated, others find economic benefit to themselves in keeping the $$ with the local firm, those dollars much more likely to stay local enriching the home quality of life.
Nov 13, 2014, 3:39 pm
#162
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,379
Regardless, yes it is. Lose the American airlines and you lose millions of jobs. If you're patriotic it therefore makes perfect sense to support American companies over foreign competitors.
Nov 13, 2014, 4:38 pm
#163
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: NZ*S
Posts: 773
Domestic flights will stilled have to staffed by local people. You aren't going to fly cabin crew in from Singapore, put them up in hotels just so they can work the IAD-JFK run, its just not cost effective. Ditto with all the support jobs, baggage handlers, gate agents, catering, basic engineering etc. Those jobs are tied to locations physically within the USA. The same thing happens with intl flights with early morning departures. You either run a red-eye flight (at a loss) in to position a crew/aircraft for the morning departure, or you base your staff at the location.
The jobs you could lose are the ones that are not tied to a physical location, so call centres, IT & management primarily. Heavy engineering is already heavily outsourced, so no change there.
Nov 13, 2014, 6:52 pm
#164
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
This has nothing to do with patriotism, this has to do with business. If a company is unwilling to show me any loyalty and cannot provide me with an acceptable product, I'm not going to give them my business whether they're based in the US, Canada, UK, Singapore, or Somalia.
Nov 13, 2014, 7:25 pm
#165
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
However, while ordinary employees of the big three are certainly not being enriched they are receiving something. Better, perhaps, to be underpaid than unemployed. There is also economic benefit to the airlines' suppliers, while smaller than it should be, it is something for the greater economy.