Seggy may become a Trump fan

hook_dupin

Well-Known Member
Out of curiosity, what is silly about this?
Most all of it.

The mere idea that we should be protectionist in international transport when we have specific international agreements liberalizing air transport is just counter to all of the State Department's work on the matter.

We could start a trade war, but then everyone loses.

It's all very silly. Thankfully, no administration has listened to this ME-3 hogwash.
 

Seggy

Well-Known Member
Most all of it.
It is clear you haven't been paying attention then.

The mere idea that we should be protectionist in international transport when we have specific international agreements liberalizing air transport is just counter to all of the State Department's work on the matter.
Over the last ten years, the ME3 have received $43 Billion in government subsidies and other unfair benefits from their government. That is against the Open Skies agreements the State Department has negotiated.

We could start a trade war, but then everyone loses.
The infusion of these subsidies have distorted the global market.

It's all very silly. Thankfully, no administration has listened to this ME-3 hogwash.
It isn't silly for those that work at airlines whose livelihood could be hurt by the unfair advantages the ME3 have.
 

hook_dupin

Well-Known Member
It is clear you haven't been paying attention then.
I have -I just came to the same conclusions that multiple administrations have come to.

Look, there are just too many winners with increased airline competition that considering such protectionist measures doesn't make any lick of sense.

Why do you think nobody is touching this?
 

mshunter

Well-Known Member
The Best thing to do is go to Seggys profile and hit the ignore button.
It doesn't matter if what he says is right or wrong when no one will listen because they are sick of his crap. I'm sure he has some good things to say about this, probably really well informed and insightful. But because of his attitude, he may as well be Charlie Brown's teacher.
 

Seggy

Well-Known Member
I have -I just came to the same conclusions that multiple administrations have come to.
Fact is, you don't know why the past administration didn't do anything to stop the growth of these carriers. Look what they did to Canada who was limiting flights into YYZ as the market would have been saturated if there were more...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ocks-mackay-from-its-airspace/article1370200/

Look, there are just too many winners with increased airline competition that considering such protectionist measures doesn't make any lick of sense.
I am all for competition as long as everyone is playing by the same rules. Look how Emirates underbid on the GSA contract to Dubai and broke the law.

http://www.openandfairskies.com/pre...emirates-contract-taxpayer-funded-air-travel/

How is that fair?

Why do you think nobody is touching this?
See above.
 

Seggy

Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter if what he says is right or wrong when no one will listen because they are sick of his crap. I'm sure he has some good things to say about this, probably really well informed and insightful. But because of his attitude, he may as well be Charlie Brown's teacher.
Something I have noticed recently is those that are quick on the trigger to call others snowflakes or tell them to find their safe spaces also are quick to put folks on ignore because they don't like what they have to say.
 

milleR

Well-Known Member
Something I have noticed recently is those that are quick on the trigger to call others snowflakes or tell them to find their safe spaces also are quick to put folks on ignore because they don't like what they have to say.
This is why nobody pays any attention to you.
 

ClarkGriswold

Non Nutritive Cereal Varnish Engineer
Most all of it.

The mere idea that we should be protectionist in international transport when we have specific international agreements liberalizing air transport is just counter to all of the State Department's work on the matter.

We could start a trade war, but then everyone loses.

It's all very silly. Thankfully, no administration has listened to this ME-3 hogwash.
Sooo... What would your thoughts be if another start up came into your new business ventures area and didn't care how much they spent because they were state funded, flew fancy new airplanes and charged alot less than your company did?
 

hook_dupin

Well-Known Member
Sooo... What would your thoughts be if another start up came into your new business ventures area and didn't care how much they spent because they were state funded, flew fancy new airplanes and charged alot less than your company did?
If I were making billions per year, I would likely just be told to stop my groaning. If I had declared bankruptcy multiple times and had been allowed to escape billions in my pension debt, I might not actually have a lot of room to cast stones at others. That's why this is silly: it's the pot calling the kettle black, and the pot is doing pretty darn well. The United States government has propped up US airlines at key times, so this whole spat just turns into a protectionist argument. The answer is very different when the question becomes "should we protect a few mediocre airlines from international competition in a way that will cause US consumers to pay more?"

Separate from the airlines, literally every other sector and business wants increased airline competition to lower costs. It's why this won't go anywhere, why there will not be another strike at a major (or even key regional) in the next decade, and why issues like NAI will not go the way the airlines/unions wish.

It's the rest of the economy vs one segment, and an air transport trade war is just dumb. The US airlines will just have to be happy with the billions they're currently making.
 

mshunter

Well-Known Member
If I were making billions per year, I would likely just be told to stop my groaning. If I had declared bankruptcy multiple times and had been allowed to escape billions in my pension debt, I might not actually have a lot of room to cast stones at others. That's why this is silly: it's the pot calling the kettle black, and the pot is doing pretty darn well. The United States government has propped up US airlines at key times, so this whole spat just turns into a protectionist argument. The answer is very different when the question becomes "should we protect a few mediocre airlines from international competition in a way that will cause US consumers to pay more?"

Separate from the airlines, literally every other sector and business wants increased airline competition to lower costs. It's why this won't go anywhere, why there will not be another strike at a major (or even key regional) in the next decade, and why issues like NAI will not go the way the airlines/unions wish.

It's the rest of the economy vs one segment, and an air transport trade war is just dumb. The US airlines will just have to be happy with the billions they're currently making.
If by propping up you mean having to furlough it's employees, dissolving the pensions they worked the last 20 years to accrue, forcing them to merge (for lack of a better way to put it), or just forcing them to shut down completely because they had to file BK, then yeah, they are state funded. But if you mean state funded like free loans, conspicuous business practices, or running an airline like a cruise ship company, a-la NAI (US cruise ship companies are few and far between, and there are even fewer US cruise ship captains, but it didn't used to be that way), then no, that's not what it is.

NAI isn't good for US airlines. From the smallest regional, to the largest mainline. SWA had some ridiculous restrictions placed on them, but NAI get's a free pass? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
If by propping up you mean having to furlough it's employees, dissolving the pensions they worked the last 20 years to accrue, forcing them to merge (for lack of a better way to put it), or just forcing them to shut down completely because they had to file BK, then yeah, they are state funded. But if you mean state funded like free loans, conspicuous business practices, or running an airline like a cruise ship company, a-la NAI (US cruise ship companies are few and far between, and there are even fewer US cruise ship captains, but it didn't used to be that way), then no, that's not what it is.

NAI isn't good for US airlines. From the smallest regional, to the largest mainline. SWA had some ridiculous restrictions placed on them, but NAI get's a free pass? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Interesting though that no one from either major political party in congress is rushing to suggest or even put into motion, any restrictions on NAI or operations. One wonders why.
 
Top