Trump didn't show any love for the airlines over last weekend, we'll see how this plays out.

Leaders of the three biggest U.S. airlines are seeking to meet with new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to revive their stalled complaint that rivals from the Middle East are getting unfair government subsidies.

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker said Thursday that Emirates' announcement — coming as the Obama administration was leaving and before the Trump administration was at full speed — "certainly looks like a shot across the bow."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-airlin ... nance.html

I hope this happens, its not a level playing field.

but then right after that Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

Pretty sure the US3 are all making record profits. If they lose pax to the ME3 they have only themselves to blame.

No US carrier will serve the route but they want to stop another carrier from serving it? How does that help the American consumer? And btw ATH-EWR-ATH soaks up a complete 777-300ER, I don't know if US carriers understand this but if their country is to have a strong airplane manufacturing sector they do have to build and sell planes for foreign carriers, and aforementioned US carriers might occasionally have to compete with them. (But not on ATH to NYC, because none of them fly on the route.)

cedarjet wrote:

No US carrier will serve the route but they want to stop another carrier from serving it? How does that help the American consumer? And btw ATH-EWR-ATH soaks up a complete 777-300ER, I don't know if US carriers understand this but if their country is to have a strong airplane manufacturing sector they do have to build and sell planes for foreign carriers, and aforementioned US carriers might occasionally have to compete with them. (But not on ATH to NYC, because none of them fly on the route.)

United serves the route seasonally, and Delta serves Athens from JFK.

deltal1011man wrote:

I hope this happens, its not a level playing field.

but then right after that Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

I agree that requiring USA crews but allowing all heavy maintenance to be done offshore is ridiculous, but EK isn't subsidized (QR and EY are in a different category) and Delta has more 5th freedom than EK.

Maybe UA should announce EWR-DXB-MEL.

deltal1011man wrote:

.........Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

Can you calculate and report the amount of money that AA, DL and UA "save" by exporting maintenance?

How would those costs be paid for if the work was brought back to the USA?

Higher ticket prices? Reduction in profits?

How many jobs does this work represent?

Thanks for sharing these facts with us.

BobPatterson wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

.........Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

Can you calculate and report the amount of money that AA, DL and UA "save" by exporting maintenance?

How would those costs be paid for if the work was brought back to the USA?

Higher ticket prices? Reduction in profits?

How many jobs does this work represent?

Thanks for sharing these facts with us.

Alternative facts, my friend. That's what they are.

Dear AA/DL/UA leaders,

The best way to fight the ME3 is to focus your time and resources on improving your own airline's onboard product, so customers will want to fly your airline over your competitors.

That'd be hysterical if they got their wish re: ME3 but were required to onshore all their MX

US3 need to up their game onboard and on the ground instead of just whining. Take the money you spent on the lobbyist and put it into service improvements.

deltal1011man wrote:

I hope this happens, its not a level playing field.

but then right after that Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

So what exactly is a level playing field then? You want every airline to serve the US to pay the same as the US3 pays or what? Because what Partnership for Open and Fair Skies and what all these CEOs complain about happen on a daily basis all around the world yet they only complain about the ME3.

They can approach the Sec. of State but the US gov is not going to do anything except do what the Obama admin did and enter "informative talks" with the countries. Trump has economic interests in the UAE.

BobPatterson wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

.........Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

Can you calculate and report the amount of money that AA, DL and UA "save" by exporting maintenance?

How would those costs be paid for if the work was brought back to the USA?

Higher ticket prices? Reduction in profits?

How many jobs does this work represent?

Thanks for sharing these facts with us.

Hopefully the administration will actually see the forest through the trees here. Billions in aircraft orders, jobs in the US supporting these airlines, all of the tax revenue being brought in by increased traffic... would seem to far outweigh the perceived "losses" that the US3 are "enduring" because of the "unfair" advantages the ME3 enjoy.

deltal1011man wrote:

I hope this happens, its not a level playing field.

but then right after that Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

That's not enough. I think we should just turn the clock back to the 1960s when America was GREAT. First, cancel all the Open Skies agreements. They are BAD deals. Worst ever! Re-regulate the airline industry so the new CAB will determine who fly where on what route with what frequency charging what price. As for international flights, why do you have so many airlines flying 20+ daily between NYC and LON? This is ridiculous. Just 1 daily from a US airline and 1 daily from a UK airline! And who wants to fly to PEK? No way, just 1 flight every 2 weeks is enough, and the routing shall be SFO-HNL-NRT-PVG-PEK. There will be no international trade anyway. Trade is bad! That way, I guarantee you that the high paying maintenance, flight crew and ground crew jobs will all come back.

enilria wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

I hope this happens, its not a level playing field.

but then right after that Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

I agree that requiring USA crews but allowing all heavy maintenance to be done offshore is ridiculous, but EK isn't subsidized (QR and EY are in a different category) and Delta has more 5th freedom than EK.

I could never understand why everyone makes the claim that Emirates is not subsidised. The Emirates Group belongs to the Dubai Government (ICD). Maybe they can survive without asking the gov't for extra funds, but they exist thanks to the state. To me that sounds like a form of subsidy.

http://www.icd.gov.ae/transportation/

BobPatterson wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

.........Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

Can you calculate and report the amount of money that AA, DL and UA "save" by exporting maintenance?

How would those costs be paid for if the work was brought back to the USA?

Higher ticket prices? Reduction in profits?

How many jobs does this work represent?

Thanks for sharing these facts with us.

You look it up it's only vital to your point not his. You want those fact to prove your point you need to find them. The idea is to get company's take care of where there bread is buttered. Home.

hispanola wrote:

enilria wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

I hope this happens, its not a level playing field.

but then right after that Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

I agree that requiring USA crews but allowing all heavy maintenance to be done offshore is ridiculous, but EK isn't subsidized (QR and EY are in a different category) and Delta has more 5th freedom than EK.

I could never understand why everyone makes the claim that Emirates is not subsidised. The Emirates Group belongs to the Dubai Government (ICD). Maybe they can survive without asking the gov't for extra funds, but they exist thanks to the state. To me that sounds like a form of subsidy.

http://www.icd.gov.ae/transportation/

Do you think it's considered an "unfair subsidy" then, what the US3 claims it to be?

If EK can hold on its own right, it doesn't matter who owns them. Period.

Apparently more than three quarters of ATH-US traffic is served indirectly from various EU hubs plus IST.
The US3 handle the rest directly because they only fly during the summer.
So why shouldn't this route have year round service? What is in it for the Greeks and the traveling public on that route to give in to the US3 demands?
If IST with far, far fewer Turks leaving in the US than Greeks can have 10-15 daily flights to the US then I think ATH can support one.
And that is the crux of the US3 argument, that somehow no market exists for year round flights.
It is they who want to determine who fly where on what route with what frequency charging what price

MaverickM11 wrote:

That'd be hysterical if they got their wish re: ME3 but were required to onshore all their MX

Well said. Their arguement is so one sided in that respect.

deltal1011man wrote:

but then right after that Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

I assume you won't have an issue paying higher fares because of increased costs and less competition?

9w748capt wrote:

Pretty sure the US3 are all making record profits. If they lose pax to the ME3 they have only themselves to blame.

Yep, kind of weakens the whole "unfair competition" argument. Not seeing much sympathy for the US3, frankly.

deltal1011man wrote:

I hope this happens, its not a level playing field.

but then right after that Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

It is alright taking this protectionist stance, but then the countries affected might decide not to buy Boeing Aircraft. That would lose a lot of high paying jobs.

BobPatterson wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

.........Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

Can you calculate and report the amount of money that AA, DL and UA "save" by exporting maintenance?

How would those costs be paid for if the work was brought back to the USA?

Higher ticket prices? Reduction in profits?

How many jobs does this work represent?

Thanks for sharing these facts

Can you calculate and report the amount of money that AA, DL and UA "lose" by EK starting EWR-ATH-EWR?

How many jobs does this work represent?

Thanks for sharing these facts with us.

hispanola wrote:

enilria wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

I hope this happens, its not a level playing field.

but then right after that Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

I agree that requiring USA crews but allowing all heavy maintenance to be done offshore is ridiculous, but EK isn't subsidized (QR and EY are in a different category) and Delta has more 5th freedom than EK.

I could never understand why everyone makes the claim that Emirates is not subsidised. The Emirates Group belongs to the Dubai Government (ICD). Maybe they can survive without asking the gov't for extra funds, but they exist thanks to the state. To me that sounds like a form of subsidy.

http://www.icd.gov.ae/transportation/

And Ch.11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. isn't a form of subsidy?

Maybe the US Airlines should be required to bring back the reservation agents and customer service from India and other foreign lands? If the US airlines had a decent product they might not lose so many pax to the ME3. The attitude of UA FA's is very differrent than that of the ME 3. Those CEO should look into their own house to clean up.

What about other state owned airlines around the world. I find it funny that these airlines are kicking up their heals in most cases about markets they don't even want to serve i.e. India, Pakistan and the middle east so what is the issue are they just doing this to protect their alliance partners in Europe who do provide service in these markets. It is a free market place and that's how a free market economy works. If an airline can gain traffic rights on a route than they should be able to service it as the more competition there is the better the customer experience will be. We do have regulation now in the airline market place the only difference between now and then is the airlines are adjusting capacity and prices to that which suits them best and that's not always what's in the best interest of the customer. At least back in the day the customer was getting a fair product for the price they were paying but today with the airlines in charge of regulation that's not always the case. So let the ME3 serve what ever market the deem viable and let the US3 compete as best they can and it's all in the best interest of the customer as they are sure to get more value out of the price they pay for airline transportation.

hispanola wrote:

enilria wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

I hope this happens, its not a level playing field.

but then right after that Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

I agree that requiring USA crews but allowing all heavy maintenance to be done offshore is ridiculous, but EK isn't subsidized (QR and EY are in a different category) and Delta has more 5th freedom than EK.

I could never understand why everyone makes the claim that Emirates is not subsidised. The Emirates Group belongs to the Dubai Government (ICD). Maybe they can survive without asking the gov't for extra funds, but they exist thanks to the state. To me that sounds like a form of subsidy.

http://www.icd.gov.ae/transportation/

Isn't Delta's JV partner partially owned by France?

clrd4t8koff wrote:

hispanola wrote:

enilria wrote:

I agree that requiring USA crews but allowing all heavy maintenance to be done offshore is ridiculous, but EK isn't subsidized (QR and EY are in a different category) and Delta has more 5th freedom than EK.

I could never understand why everyone makes the claim that Emirates is not subsidised. The Emirates Group belongs to the Dubai Government (ICD). Maybe they can survive without asking the gov't for extra funds, but they exist thanks to the state. To me that sounds like a form of subsidy.

http://www.icd.gov.ae/transportation/

And Ch.11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. isn't a form of subsidy?

According to the World Trade Organization, bankruptcy is not a form of a subsidy. So no, it is not.

TonyBurr wrote:

Maybe the US Airlines should be required to bring back the reservation agents and customer service from India and other foreign lands? If the US airlines had a decent product they might not lose so many pax to the ME3. The attitude of UA FA's is very differrent than that of the ME 3. Those CEO should look into their own house to clean up.

Delta did bring back their outsourced call centers.

What's wrong with competition?

Surely the best way to prove everything is by winning customer and returning Pax off the ME3!

Why the need to kick a fuss about them, when only UA (i think) operate to DXB from IAD! All the products and service you receive on the ME3 is far superior than that of any American airline I've been on.

The whole thing is ridiculous, and not warranted in the slightest.

If the US3 want to avoid losing customers, it is simple. Make sure your product is clearly superior to EK's product, and make sure your prices are equal or lower, at all times.

gonnagetbumpy wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

hispanola wrote:

I could never understand why everyone makes the claim that Emirates is not subsidised. The Emirates Group belongs to the Dubai Government (ICD). Maybe they can survive without asking the gov't for extra funds, but they exist thanks to the state. To me that sounds like a form of subsidy.

http://www.icd.gov.ae/transportation/

And Ch.11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. isn't a form of subsidy?

According to the World Trade Organization, bankruptcy is not a form of a subsidy. So no, it is not.

Ch11 is bankruptcy protection, not bankruptcy. If those airlines had gone bankrupt, they would not be around any more.

scbriml wrote:

I assume you won't have an issue paying higher fares because of increased costs and less competition?

There shouldn't be a price put on safety. And for years the US3 have gotten away with sending their aircraft to facilities that are proven to perform substandard work and have little to no oversight, all to save a few million per year.

And I fail to see how aircraft maintenance correlates to reduced competition

Flighty wrote:

If the US3 want to avoid losing customers, it is simple. Make sure your product is clearly superior to EK's product, and make sure your prices are equal or lower, at all times.

Bingo. I love how the US3 are crying fowl over EK launching a route that is perfectly within the confines of the US-UAE bilateral.

(avoiding all the political talk) but a question: Why the SOS rather than the DOT head? I'm sure there's a reason, but I don't quite get it.

Ignore this reply.

OMAAbound wrote:

What's wrong with competition?

Why the need to kick a fuss about them, when only UA (i think) operate to DXB from IAD! All the products and service you receive on the ME3 is far superior than that of any American airline I've been on.

Not anymore. United ended IAD-DXB service in January 2016. The funny thing is, that US government and DOD awarded the contract to Emirates.
I guess they didn't want to fly on those 20 years old B777 with 2-4-2 business class layout. They've chosen EK instead.
Who's fault is that?

It is not about product. After all, EK is using a 10 across 777 which is the spawn of the devil on here. It is about price.

ALTF4 wrote:

I believe DL flies ATH-ATL year-round, not just summer? I flew on that a few months ago, and am booked on it in a week or two. During the summer, they bump it up to 2x daily or 12x weekly or something like that.

Wikipedia (which we all know can be wrong) only lists a seasonal JFK-ATH and no ATL-ATH at all. I do not see JFK-ATH or ATL-ATH on the schedule for today (Feb 3) or tomorrow (Feb 4) on delta.com

ty97 wrote:

(avoiding all the political talk) but a question: Why the SOS rather than the DOT head? I'm sure there's a reason, but I don't quite get it.

Zero idea, but given that Delta's Chairman donated some $353k to the other campaign last year, Delta might not have any voice and try to grab whatever channel available.

ty97 wrote:

ALTF4 wrote:

I believe DL flies ATH-ATL year-round, not just summer? I flew on that a few months ago, and am booked on it in a week or two. During the summer, they bump it up to 2x daily or 12x weekly or something like that.

Wikipedia (which we all know can be wrong) only lists a seasonal JFK-ATH and no ATL-ATH at all. I do not see JFK-ATH or ATL-ATH on the schedule for today (Feb 3) or tomorrow (Feb 4) on delta.com

I can't believe I just did that. I'm going to ATH, but via FCO - and was sitting here thinking FCO was what we were talking about.

Derp!

Sorry.

Austin787 wrote:

Dear AA/DL/UA leaders,

The best way to fight the ME3 is to focus your time and resources on improving your own airline's onboard product, so customers will want to fly your airline over your competitors.

Thank you. Can't compete? Lobby!

cledaybuck wrote:

It is not about product. After all, EK is using a 10 across 777 which is the spawn of the devil on here. It is about price.

Good post. So, it should be no problem for the Americans then. They have plenty of profit margin to achieve a low price on the route. Or, if they choose not to compete trans atlantic, simply divest the fleets and crews.

Flighty wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

It is not about product. After all, EK is using a 10 across 777 which is the spawn of the devil on here. It is about price.

Good post. So, it should be no problem for the Americans then. They have plenty of profit margin to achieve a low price on the route. Or, if they choose not to compete trans atlantic, simply divest the fleets and crews.

I understand why they are doing it, they want to keep those high profit margins (as they should). As an American, I just hope the US3 are unsuccessful in this regard as I feel it would be a net negative to the American flying public.

gonnagetbumpy wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

hispanola wrote:

I could never understand why everyone makes the claim that Emirates is not subsidised. The Emirates Group belongs to the Dubai Government (ICD). Maybe they can survive without asking the gov't for extra funds, but they exist thanks to the state. To me that sounds like a form of subsidy.

http://www.icd.gov.ae/transportation/

And Ch.11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. isn't a form of subsidy?

According to the World Trade Organization, bankruptcy is not a form of a subsidy. So no, it is not.

Ch. 11 is Bankruptcy PROTECTION, not bankruptcy. Bankruptcy protection is absolutely a subsidy U.S. airlines receive from our gov't. Stop spending time quoting organizations and spend more time comprehending the posts you're reading on here.

grbauc wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

.........Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

Can you calculate and report the amount of money that AA, DL and UA "save" by exporting maintenance?

How would those costs be paid for if the work was brought back to the USA?

Higher ticket prices? Reduction in profits?

How many jobs does this work represent?

Thanks for sharing these facts with us.

You look it up it's only vital to your point not his. You want those fact to prove your point you need to find them. The idea is to get company's take care of where there bread is buttered. Home.

You are overlooking a few things. Delta1011man made a claim, without giving any evidence to support his position. In doing so he is merely trumping Mr. (President) Trump. Just shout it out giving no facts or possibly using "alternate" facts.

I have no point to prove. I am only asking that those who make claims do so by proving evidence for them. For all I know he will convince me that his position is correct.

As for where a company's bread is buttered, it depends on where the buttering is being done and at what cost. The "butter" is cost or profit gained or lost. From a competitive viewpoint, reducing costs below those of one's competitors is a good thing.

Personally, I would prefer to see maintenance on American planes be performed by American workers, and with the American public paying for it, at higher ticket prices if need be. I am very much opposed to the current atmosphere of "race to the bottom". Within reason.

However, I would probably lose my argument if it was put to a vote by the American public.

By the way, would you have Boeing source all aircraft components only from the USA? How would that affect sales of Boeing aircraft? Should American airlines be forced to buy only aircraft made in America?

Why should the sourcing of scheduled maintenance be any different?

Why should USA-based airlines be permitted to generate profits by flying to/from places such as Mexico, Puerto Rico and China while discriminating against aircraft service providers in those countries?

This is surely something that ought to be considered by our new Secretary of State during consultations and negotiations with aviation interests from around the world.

Nope, I never have sympathy for the US3. That being said, if they do succeed and Emirates is denied/kicked out of flying this route, then the government needs to require them to operate year round service out of multiple hubs. A seasonal flight out of EWR, JFK, and PHL aren't going to cut it. If you're going to get rid of one aspect of competition you have to replace it with another.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

.........Trump needs to stop all the cheap airline maintenance going to Mexico and China.
He wants jobs, force AA, DL UA to start doing that work in-house and it will create plenty of high paying jobs.

Can you calculate and report the amount of money that AA, DL and UA "save" by exporting maintenance?

How would those costs be paid for if the work was brought back to the USA?

Higher ticket prices? Reduction in profits?

How many jobs does this work represent?

Thanks for sharing these facts

Can you calculate and report the amount of money that AA, DL and UA "lose" by EK starting EWR-ATH-EWR?

How many jobs does this work represent?

Thanks for sharing these facts with us.

Sorry, but that gambit will not get you anywhere with me. You cannot deflect criticism regarding your inability or unwillingness to provide evidence for your claims, by raising a straw man.

The matter of EK starting EWR-ATH-EWR is a distinctly different issue and one that was not addressed by me.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

gonnagetbumpy wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

And Ch.11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. isn't a form of subsidy?

According to the World Trade Organization, bankruptcy is not a form of a subsidy. So no, it is not.

Ch. 11 is Bankruptcy PROTECTION, not bankruptcy. Bankruptcy protection is absolutely a subsidy U.S. airlines receive from our gov't. Stop spending time quoting organizations and spend more time comprehending the posts you're reading on here.

What is your definition of a subsidy? It seems to differ greatly from common understanding of the concept. We can argue the fairness of US bankruptcy code in the context of a global economy, but that argument doesn't change the fact that there is no governmental monetary transfer associated with it - which is what a subsidy is.

scbriml wrote:

I assume you won't have an issue paying higher fares because of increased costs and less competition?

9w748capt wrote:

Pretty sure the US3 are all making record profits. If they lose pax to the ME3 they have only themselves to blame.

Yep, kind of weakens the whole "unfair competition" argument. Not seeing much sympathy for the US3, frankly.

Indeed. I'm having a difficult time sympathizing with the US 3 on this one. In previous years UA and DL were asking in the 1300 range for a discount Y ticket in summer. I'm now finding nonstop fares in the 900 range on EK and 1K for UA and DL.