What the Airlines Want to Get Out of Donald Trump Today

Airline CEOs are gathering in Washington today to have a little sit down with the President of the US. This is one in a series of meetings that Trump is arranging with business leaders, and the focus is apparently supposed to be on job creation. Still, the airlines haven’t been happy with the way government has treated them over the last 8 years, and they’re bound to have a laundry list of hopes and dreams for Trump to… likely ignore. That won’t stop them from trying. Here are some of the issues that I expect will be at the top of the list.

Stopping Norwegian
After years of stalling, the feds finally approved Norwegian’s Irish subsidiary to be able to fly to the US. The Open Skies agreement between the US and the European Union says that’s exactly what should have happened, but labor in particular is not fond of this plan and continues to hope that the Trump Administration will overturn the approval. Why? Well, they say Norwegian will have foreign workers operate the flights for less money and without the protection of US labor standards. This should be right up Trump’s alley since it’s a jobs issue, and this will kill good American jobs! Or will it?

Trump’s press secretary was asked about this, and the response makes it seem unlikely that there will be any reversal here. He specifically mentioned the number of US-based (not low-paying foreign) jobs involved with Norwegian, not to mention all the jobs created to build the airline’s all-Boeing fleet. The airlines might want this to happen, but it’s not likely.

Block the Middle East Carriers
We all know that the big 3 US carriers are concerned about the continued, subsidized growth of the Middle East big 3 airlines (Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar). Emirates fanned the flames recently by announcing a flight from Newark to Athens that’s not going to make money on its own. The growth of Middle East airlines, especially in fifth freedom markets that aren’t nonstop to their home markets, appears to be high on the list of things the airlines want stopped, but will it happen?

Just thinking about all the Boeing airplanes on order at those airlines… it’s going to be hard for the administration to do something that would hurt that relationship. Airplane orders = jobs. Plus, not all the US airlines are on the same page. FedEx relies on its ability to hub in the Middle East for cargo, and it’s afraid that will go away in a fight. Further, JetBlue and Alaska/Virgin America love feeding these guys and don’t want to see them blocked from growing.

On the other hand, if the big 3 can swing a narrative that US jobs are at risk, then Trump could be swayed. I just don’t know if it’ll be enough of a threat for him to bother. It will undoubtedly be easier to ignore this spat.

Fix Airports
The airport funding system in the US effectively requires that the users of airports pay for improvements. That may explain why some of the big airports in the US have a pretty poor passenger experience. (Just ask the President, who likened LaGuardia to something that should be in a third-world country.) It’s difficult and expensive to fix, and it’s hard to do something that will put financial pressure on the airlines and travelers.

In theory, I’d imagine Trump could goad Congress to allocate a bunch of federal dollars to pour into big airports in order to improve the experience without hitting the airports’ rates and charges. I don’t know anything about the various mechanisms that might be involved, but you’d imagine it would be a slog to get through. Would he bother trying? It seems like a stretch considering how much spending he’s committing to other gigantic projects like building that wall (since the Mexicans aren’t paying for it). This would create good construction jobs, and he’s clearly in favor of that. It would fit nicely as a piece of the infrastructure push he promised to make, but it’s unclear what types of projects will float to the top of that effort.

Fix Air Traffic Control
Attempts to modernize the air traffic control system have been around forever, and they almost succeeded in the last Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) re-authorization go-around. In the end, nothing happened, and Congress just kicked the can down the road. The problem is that there is no consensus on what to do. American and United (along with the industry lobbying group A4A) think that air traffic control should be put into a non-profit corporation to give it more independence. Delta says the current structure is fine as it is.

This isn’t really a jobs issue, so I imagine it’s going to be a tough sell. But when it comes time to re-authorize the FAA again, maybe it will finally happen.

Don’t Kill Travel
Though there are plenty of things the airlines may want Trump to do, there are other things the airlines want Trump to avoid doing. Killing travel, for example, would be at the top of that list. The uncertainty around who can enter the country and when is something that has the real potential to stop visitors from wanting to come here. I was surprised when one of our Cranky Concierge clients canceled a trip to the US because he didn’t like to visit “politically unstable” countries. This is the kind of perception that is the worst possible outcome for the US. Travel creates a tremendous number of jobs and is vitally important. The airlines are likely to ask the President to simply “do no harm.”

I do expect that to fall on deaf ears. Trump made a lot of promises during the campaign, and some of those are going to hurt air travel (among other things) if implemented. The airlines are smart to ask, and having the President’s ear this early in his term is a nice, positive sign. But I wouldn’t get my hopes up if I were them.

(Visited 3,132 times, 1 visits today)

Get Posts via Email When They Go Live or in a Weekly Digest


Join the Conversation

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

53 Responses to What the Airlines Want to Get Out of Donald Trump Today

  1. Chris says:

    Love the picture !

  2. Chris says:

    ” I was surprised when one of our Cranky Concierge clients canceled a trip to the US because he didn’t like to visit “politically unstable” countries ”

    While the politically unstable might not be the best chosen words, when you read at the world press before and after Trump’s election, it’s clear that this customer might not be the only one. It would be interesting to look at pricing tendencies, load factors and seat offerings to/from the US in the next few months…

  3. Tim Dunn says:

    The President is interested in creating American jobs, first and foremost. He has made that abundantly clear. The primary themes of the meeting are likely to revolve around those topics. Airlines will throw in issues that involve job protection and will show the enormous economic impact of the airline industry to the US economy, but I suspect he realizes that already.

    The problem with NAI is not that they buy US airplanes and have US-based crew but that they won’t put in writing their commitment to maintaining US workers as part of their commitment to building a network in the US. There is nothing that should stop NAI or any other airline that wants to operate low fare services AS LONG AS they follow the law. NAI is using the flag of convenience system that destroyed the US maritime industry to open the door for airlines to do the same thing. By convention and law, airline crews have to be hired under labor laws on either end of the route. It takes very few additional words to ensure that ALL US Open Skies routes agreements contain that language.

    It is a whitewash to argue that any airline can break laws because they buy US made aircraft just as it is that Fedex or UPS benefit by Open Skies in the Middle East while JetBlue benefits by codesharing to/from US gateways for ME3 airlines. If the United States is going to be a strong place for business, then American business can’t pit one industry against another or one company against another. The issue with the ME3 is solely whether they are subsidized or not and that includes the massive airports that those governments are building for which the airlines aren’t paying anywhere close to market rates for their use. Likewise, it takes very few words to require that government support of airlines be limited to what can be obtained at industry-acceptable and commercially viable terms.

    As far as ATC reform, if the issue is job creation, it is hard to argue that spinning off the system will create jobs if it increases costs to users – which there is ample evidence that it is very likely to do. The FAA might have its issues but it provides its services very cost-effectively by any global or US standard and they do what they do very well. ATC delays are not due to good weather but to a lack of technology to improve system capacity in bad weather. Cities like NYC and San Francisco are particularly hard hit because runway configurations at airports in the region reduce capacity in bad weather. Privatizing ATC won’t fix that problem; investing in technology to safely operate aircraft under bad weather will fix the problem. Airlines and their passengers provide more than enough money to fix the system; the problem is that money isn’t used as it is supposed to be. Privatizing ATC doesn’t fix that problem; reforming Congressional spending will fix that problem. Spinning off ATC just as the FAA is investing in significant amounts of new ATC technology will only delay improvements.

    I suspect that one of the issues which few are willing to admit will be an issue at the meeting is bringing maintenance jobs back to the US. Airlines like LUV and JBLU built their business models from the beginning based on outsourced maintenance with a lot of it going outside the US. Most airline jobs are attached to where a plane lands and takeoff but maintenance jobs can go anywhere in the world.

    The legacy carriers have slowly but continually outsourced maintenance jobs including to Asia. Airlines need to be able to hire Americans without the enormous costs in order to bring American jobs back home. (Obamacare hit the airlines hard and heightened the fear of hiring American workers) At the same time, airlines DO have substantial maintenance capacities in the US and they should be used to compete for maintenance work around the world. Right now, Delta is the only airline that is heavily engaged in actively insourcing maintenance work from airlines around the world, even if it also outsources parts of its maintenance operation where it does not believe it can compete because of US labor rates. Aviation is highly skilled which is precisely the kinds of jobs American companies should be building for their workers.

    The final real benefit for airlines is tax reform, not only at the corporate income tax level but the enormous litany of taxes which make air travel one of the most highly taxed industries in the world. Trump will certainly hear about US airlines’ desires for a less burdensome tax structure.

    Should be an interesting meeting… hopefully we’ll hear some tidbits about what was discussed in the not-too-distant future.

  4. A says:

    I’ve always thought the argument that the ME3 buy Boeing jets is a classic strawman. What the US legacy carriers are arguing has nothing to do with who builds aircraft. It’s changing the subject and not at all related. In a free market an airline should buy the best aircraft for their needs and we have to assume that is what has been happening at both the ME3 and US carriers.

    Now if the Boeing orders do come up and the US carriers try to refute it I think Trump has a very good response. US carriers have by no means been loyal to Boeing, sans Southwest. Not a place I’d go since aviation is a global industry and Airbus themselves has a lot of US manufacturing be it key components or final assembly. That said, I don’t expect this issue to end anytime soon.

    • Tim Dunn says:

      The issue of whose aircraft an airline buys is what the Middle East airlines have used to justify their invasion of Europe and the United States. It is not an argument the US carriers have used.

      The A380 wouldn’t exist without the ME3 but Europe has sold its airline industry down the river in order to be able to able to say they build the world’s largest passenger aircraft even though it still loses money.

      Your statement is absolutely correct that the best airplane should be ordered and jobs should be protected regardless of the industry.

      • Harrold says:

        If the service on the ME3 flights wasn’t so darn gone good I just might agree with you.

        Protecting the jobs of surly and grumpy union employees is getting harder and harder to justify these days.

    • A – You’re thinking rationally, and that doesn’t apply in Washington. You know that Boeing is going to lobby hard against doing anything to hurt the ME3. And Boeing has quite the machine in Washington. The CEO has already met with Trump multiple times.

  5. Jon says:

    @Tim Dunn

    I agree for the most part, but the anti-ME3 sentiment rests on subsidization of those countries, while ignoring our own subsidies via government-funded airport rebuilds (including roads surrounding the airports), We waive corporate development taxes (we call it “TIF” instead of “subsidy”) and pit municipalities against each other to the benefit of private corporations (see: Wright Amendment).

    Claims that we don’t subsidize in the US but the ME3 are subsidized willfully ignores reality.
    The subsidies in Qatar may be more obvious, but since the Postal Air Service days the legacy airlines have received almost constant subsidies from US taxpayers in one form or another.

    And quite frankly, the best way to stick it to the ME3 is to continue our push towards energy independence. Emirates is already cutting back due to stagnation in the price of oil. Continuing along this path is the only way to benefit American consumers by keeping costs low while simultaneously drying up the funding that subsidies those airlines.

    • Joey Jaidee says:

      How,specifically,has the US government subsidized the USAirlines?

      When I think of a subsidy I think of money changing hands.

      • Jon says:

        A subsidy can include policies and tax-offsets that other businesses would have to pay that airlines did not. This is preferential treatment by the government that benefits private company shareholders. A subsidy. If your definition is that of outright giving cash to the carriers directly, then the ME3 also do not fit that definition.

        Most notable in the US are the Kelly Act which the US used to spur our passenger aviation industry, airport funding received from both states and the federal government, and government policies that do not tax certain aviation services and fees, which allows the airlines to reduce their tax burden at the expense of travelers and US taxpayers.

        Last but not least, there is 0 evidence from the legacy (ie non-LCCs) that reduced competition benefits consumers. Nor is there evidence that the legacy-airlines are losing money thanks to this competition. Take a look at TATL and TPAC pricing before and after the ME3 began in markets around the globe, and compare that to profits by the US legacy airlines. The ME3 have lowered pricing to American consumers at the same time that US legacy airlines have made more money than they ever have.

        As I said earlier, if the government wants to help consumers at the expense of the ME3, the best option is to continue our move towards energy independence to keep Oil prices down.

        • Tim Dunn says:

          The Kelly Act was over 90 years ago, well before deregulation and Open Skies.

          The only real subsidy to airlines was post 9/11 when the US government paid for the hardened cockpit doors which are required in the US and many parts of the world now.

          Airports are paid for by user fees including taxes just as roads are whether to or from airports or any other building.

          You are correct that cutting off demand for Middle East oil by pumping in the US and exporting it and all of its refined products is the most effective way to shut down the Middle East.
          There are already plenty of cracks in the Middle East money grab including among its airlines – but that doesn’t mean the US should turn the cheek and hope the problem will just go away, esp. since the ME3 thrives on telling the world they “met a need” by providing air service from one failing country in Europe to the US.

          As for tax credits, the US and its individual states offer big incentives to foreign manufacturers to create jobs here… the automobile industry in the SE US is full of foreign brands. So, yes, some industries benefit from tax benefits; I am hard-pressed to come up with a list of how US airlines benefit from other country’s tax or strategic policies.

          Competition is good and should not be stopped. An uneven playing field cannot be tolerated for airline employees any more than it can or should for any other industry.

          • Kilroy says:

            Roads in the US aren’t really paid by user fees. Gas, taxes, and vehicle fees don’t come close to covering the cost of maintaining roads in the US, and they are rarely implemented at any level below the state level. Most of the road miles in the US are maintained by municipalities and counties, not the feds or states.

            The reality for many states is that roads aren’t being maintained well. That means that either fuel taxes need to go up and/or concessions need to be granted to operate more roads as toll roads, whether privately or publicly maintained/run.

      • Chris says:

        While the United States government does not DIRECTLY subsidize airlines, the effect is the same. For example, the Essential Air Service program provides subsidies for airlines serving rural communities. There’s also the Fly America Act, which since 1974 has required federal agencies to use U.S. air carriers to transport passengers and cargo when such travel is funded by the government. Ironically, the Fly America Act allows government employees to travel on an ME3 via a code share with Jetblue since the government’s still buying “American.” That’s gotta drive Delta insane. Let’s not forget the bailout after 9/11- the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act.

        • David M says:

          The EK/B6 codeshare might drive DL insane, but they do the same thing. For one example, DL has the contract for LAX-TPE and offers nonstop service. But nonstop service on that route is operated by China Airlines, not Delta. Delta also sells government fares on other partners, including KLM. United does the same thing with Star Alliance partners.

  6. David SF eastbay says:

    As far as Norwegian goes, to do anything to stop then, the whole cruise ship industry would need to be shut down. The big players are based in the US but register ships in places like Malta to take advantage of their laws and hire tons of foreign workers.

  7. Itami says:

    I agree that the Boeing card is probably what will make the ME3/NAI topic such an uphill battle for the US3. When it comes down to it, the US (like most other countries) will prioritize manufacturing and manufacturing jobs over other sectors.

    As for airports, I think a lot of the doomsaying and handwringing is overblown. Anyone who uses LaGuardia as a shorthand for US airports as a whole lives in a bubble. The infrastructure at hubs like MIA, DEN, DTW, and PDX was more than adequate when I was there. Even megahubs like ATL and DFW were fine, if a little crowded.

    • Jon says:

      I agree with your airport assessment. Other than LGA and JFK, what airports are in such terrible shape that government-funded renovations are necessary? I mean, are there terribly designed airports, or airports that don’t work as well post-9/11 (I’m looking at you, MCI)? Sure. But the only one that I can think of that’s downright dysfunctional is LaGuardia.

    • Andreas says:

      At the same time, Trump hasn’t been shy to jeopardize the recent deal between Boeing and Iran Air. (How would the Iranians even come to the U.S. for the delivery flight home?) They clearly wanted to buy from both Boeing and Airbus, but based on the Trump administration’s recent actions, I would be surprised if Iran Air doesn’t grow the Airbus order instead.

      • Itami says:

        A very valid point. Clearly it becomes a question of whether loving manufacturing can outweigh hating Iran.

        Also, let’s not forget that Trump is mainly a hawk towards countries too poor to sport Trump-branded properties. That also probably counts in the ME3’s favor.

  8. Eric Morris says:

    I wish one of these execs told him to kill TSA and the US empire. KSM wrote a letter saying they attacked us for we do to them in the Middle East.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-09/911-mastermind’s-letter-obama-here’s-why-we-attacked-america

    • ex-New Yorker says:

      I wouldn’t hold up KSM as having a legitimate point of view. He’s a savage. There’s no excuse for 9/11 and we don’t have to legitimize the barbarian point of view.

  9. Jeff says:

    While Trump likened LaGuardia to an airport that belongs to a third-world country, the source of that quote was actually former Vice-President Biden, who first made that observations two years prior.

  10. DougYWG says:

    Lots of my fellow Canadians have declared that they will now avoid travel to the U.S. They still can travel, they choose not to. What would be the number one source of visitors to U.S.A.? Umm…perhaps, Canada, maybe? Time will tell if they really mean it. Me? I’m in Minneapolis as I write.

  11. MB says:

    US bankruptcy protections = ME direct subsidies in my opinion

    • Tim Dunn says:

      All of the currently existing US airlines have either not filed for bankruptcy or used Chapter 11.

      Do you understand what chapter 11 bankruptcy involves?

      C11 is a swap of debt for equity. There is no subsidy when a company restructures its debt for equity in the new company.

      Companies don’t just walk into court and dump debts; they exchange equity in the new company for the harm/loss that they have caused other companies.

      In the case of labor, nearly all US airline labor groups received hefty bankruptcy settlements in the form of new stock, most cashed it out shortly after it was given, and they have NOT benefitted from the rise in value in airline stocks over the past several years.

      • Scott says:

        And, unless the government holds debt in the company (news flash, they don’t) the only thing the Gov’t provides is the Bankruptcy Court to hold the hearings.

        • Wall Street says:

          Exactly. Only the silly idiot shareholders who bought stock in the company are left holding the bag.

      • Joey Jaidee says:

        Yeah they gave us about$12,000 in stock that we couldn’t sell as it was put in our 401k for us taking a 35%haircut and having our pension stolen.

        Great deal for the employees-NOT!!!!

        • Joey Jaidee says:

          By the way to make certain of the point the frontline employees were not able to sell their stock. It was dumped into the 401k.

  12. Ted says:

    “seems like a stretch considering how much spending he’s committing to other gigantic projects like building that wall (since the Mexicans aren’t paying for it).”

  13. Dave says:

    For the record, US airlines have been subsidized by regulation, research or outright grants day-in and day-out by the federal government almost since the day they were formed. The 747, which most of them just recently stopped flying, was Boeing’s attempt at building the C5-A galaxy. Jet engine technology, metallurgical developments, air traffic control, high altitude flying etc., all were built on federal research and development.

    Until 1978, every route in the United States was a near monopoly tightly regulated by the government to constrain competition. Many international routes, including Asia and South America are effectively a form of subsidy because competition is restrained to one or two foreign carriers and one or two domestic carriers. Even now, we have essential air service subsidies, postal contracts and other federal benefits to airlines.

    There’s a reason you won’t be seeing Southwest, JetBlue, Spirit or a host of other discount airlines flying to Toyko anytime soon.

    • Scott says:

      The lack of open skies agreements and restrictions by other countries is a subsidy? d’ohkay. This is also the first time I’ve ever heard of regulation being a subsidy. Most consider regulation a cost.

      • Regulators MountUp says:

        Politics. There’s a reason why Delta, AA, UA want new regulations limiting competition by Gulf states. LaGuardia and Love Field are great domestic examples of pro-incumbent regulation via “perimeter” rulings. Any expensive regulation that the legacies are already implementing voluntarily that they can enforce on their competitors is a regulation they’ll support.

        The Telecom industry is also rife with regulations that actually support the baby-bells and big cable vs price-competition. Most recently, regulations designed to hamper community broadband network deployments, as well as often proposed legal regulations that are costly to implement for all but the largest telcos.

  14. Scott says:

    So I am sitting in the swamp, 2 blocks from the White House. I can tell you there is zero appetite from Congressional Republicans for a massive infrastructure spending program. Right now, the R’s on the Hill are trying to figure out how to repeal/replace/repair the ACA and then they want to do comprehensive business tax reform. There is simply no room (time) for infrastructure while these two issues are being debated.

    When (if) they do get around to an infrastructure bill they need to figure out a way to pay for it. Option A is to increase taxes and we know R’s are not going to do that. Option B is to borrow the money through deficit spending. They don’t want to do that either.

    Trump has proposed an infrastructure tax credit, which won’t work for a very simple reason. There isn’t enough tax equity supply in the market to meet demand. Existing supply is around $30 billion/yr and existing demand is around $50 billion/yr. If you cut taxes (decreasing tax equity supply) and then add say $100 billion in additional demand for tax equity financing, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see there isn’t enough capital to actually build projects using a tax credit.

    There are some opportunities for PPPs, but there is nothing really stopping state and local governments from doing them already.

  15. Donald says:

    ” (since the Mexicans aren’t paying for it).”

    yet.

  16. Tim Dunn says:

    Scott,
    the Japanese prime minister is supposedly (seriously) preparing a package of investment in the US – many speculate to ward off hostile action against Japan because of the perpetual trade surplus Japan has with the US. Let’s see how it pans out but if Trump is truly serious about reworking trade agreements, there might be a whole lot of countries looking to do deals with the US in return for keeping access to their largest market. Trump is all for building pipelines to connect Canadian oil fields with the Gulf of Mexico – but he made it clear that the Canadians will pay for it.

    and lest you think otherwise, all of these companies that are announcing plans for new plants in the US WILL pay taxes including plants like Intel’s state of the art plant in Arizona that will very likely produce chips for the world market.

    Dave,
    cell phones, GPS, and a zillion other products are possible because of US military and government spending so should we allow foreigners to take over all of those industries because the US government spent the money that ultimately led to products which have transformed modern life throughout the world?

    The US airline industry was deregulated before 1978… but the point is precisely that it is not now regulated. Open Skies in international markets are based on the same deregulation and allowing market forces to work that the US demonstrated to the world could make air travel affordable to the masses.

  17. USBT says:

    Well there’s a video of the first 20 minutes of the meeting and reports of what were discussed. ATC and the state of US airports got a good airing.

    The ME3 apparently was barely mentioned. Which isn’t surprising as *all* the US carriers’ CEOs were there except Doug Parker (including FedEx and UPS). So if Ed Bastian had brought it up he’d have gotten into a right old slanging match in front of the Donald. Trump did acknowledge the issue im passing in his preamble

  18. iahphx says:

    From published accounts of today’s meeting, it sure seems like Trump is receptive to the complaints by the US carriers over the subsidies to the Middle East carriers. He even called the situation “very unfair.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-08/u-s-airline-chiefs-set-to-talk-jobs-traffic-control-with-trump

    If Trump is as good at dealmaking as he claims to be, the obvious move is to eliminate the ME3’s Fifth Freedom rights. There is absolutely no reason for these rights to exist in today’s aviation world. Even if these carriers weren’t subsidized, it would be a bad one-sided deal for America.

    While I personally don’t think this move would go far enough (the subsidies are so massive that they pervert the entire world aviation industry), it would maximize happiness. Doug Parker has said that is what the US airlines primarily want (shielding the USA-European market from subsidized competition). Boeing could continue to sell lots of planes. The American tourism industry would continue to benefit from a (subsidized) influx of Middle Eastern and Asian tourists. And the shiekhs themselves will be unburdened from having to subsidize US-European flights that don’t much enhance the glory of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha.

    • USBT says:

      “If Trump is as good at dealmaking as he claims to be, the obvious move is to eliminate the ME3’s Fifth Freedom rights. There is absolutely no reason for these rights to exist in today’s aviation world. Even if these carriers weren’t subsidized, it would be a bad one-sided deal for America.”

      Except that US carriers also fly 5th freedom. Not as much as before. But if Emirates were forced to give up MXP/ATH-JFK would United give up HKG-SIN and NRT-ICN, and Delta give up NRT-SIN and NRT-PVG?

      None of those are necessary given current aircraft.

      • iahphx says:

        There’s no reason the US airlines would need to give up unrelated Fifth Freedom rights. These OpenSkies deals are bilateral.

        I would also note that foreign airlines don’t fret much about the Fifth Freedom rights held by USA airlines because these unsubsidized aren’t particularly harmful to them. It’s only when a foreign airline has an open checkbook from their gov’t that Fifth Freedom rights become “dangerous.”

  19. Bernardo Ng says:

    Ok look. The reality of things is that our legacy carriers have been around for a very long time. American Airlines was founded in 1926 as Robertson Aircraft with a DH-4 biplane carrying mail from St. Louis to Chicago.

    Delta Airlines started out as a crop duster. With a Huff Daland Dusters, in Macon, GA. In 1924. And United Airlines started out as Varney Airlines in 1926 in Boise, Idaho as an air mail carrier.

    All of our airlines have been around for a very long time. Sir Tim Clark, Tim Hogan, or Akbar Al Baker weren’t even born and our airlines were already in the making.

    Fast forward to 1985 and Emirates is founded with a Boeing 737-300, an Airbus A300-200 and two Boeing 727-200. And a 10 million dollar start up.

    And that’s only Emirates. But it’s the same for Qatar and Etihad. All three of them had a huge advantage when they were founded and ever since then they have grown exponentially with a business model that is based on spending billions of dollars on gigantic airplanes and building airports just as big, taking advantage of open skies treaties that never envisioned such a thing in order to steal passengers from traditional, established airlines that need to make a profit in order to survive.

    So I understand when US airlines or European airlines ask their governments to stop the middle eastern carriers from expanding. It’s not just a matter of this airlines being subsidized or not. It’s a matter of airlines working their asses off day in and day out for almost a century to get to where they’re at just so that in less than 10 years (Since Emirates first flight to the US in 2007) these foreign airlines can come and take away everything our airlines had worked so hard for. It’s just not fair.

    • Bill Hough says:

      I’m sorry, but what does an airline’s longevity have to do with anything? Some long-lived airlines like PA, EA and Swissair couldn’t sustain themselves in the long run and went bust. The US airlines that have made it this far seem intent on degrading their product and alienating their customers, while on EK the coach experience is at least tolerable. Why should I be sympathetic to DL, UA or AA?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!