Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is your measuring stick for "better"? Are you salty over the fact that specific routes like Atlanta - Dubai, NYC - Doha, etc etc are being flown by ME3 rather than American carriers? You've implied that repeatedly.
To those specific destinations, ME3 carries have a massive advantage. The domestic markets from ANY American city to those destinations is necessarily tiny. They make their business on connections, which it's impossible for Americans to do (likewise, it's impossible for the ME3 to offer connections within the US).
It's the same thing that happens with Icelandair. They can offer direct flights to Seattle, NYC, Denver, Portland, Anchorage, DC, Boston, and Chicago. Americans, on the other hand, can only muster routes from NYC and Minneapolis, both on Delta. That's because the Americans have to go only on the O&D available from the very small Iceland market, while Icelandair can leverage connections into Europe.
It's the same reason Delta flies to cities like Bogota and Panama City from Atlanta, when both have super established hub carriers that don't fly to Atlanta.
Geography and connecting markets are everything in civil aviation.
I was under the impression many in this thread were claiming the ME3 were just "better" airlines than all US airlines and that the playing field is level.
But if all you are saying is that certain countries are better positioned to be connecting points for certain routes and other countries are better for other routes then I agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by testa50
And? Just because our federal government has some potentially stupid subsidies doesn't mean we should cancel them out by some form of local protectionism, whatever the folks on Virginia Avenue might think.
So you want to keep the "potentially stupid subsidies" around because of some spite you have towards Delta?
I was under the impression many in this thread were claiming the ME3 were just "better" airlines than all US airlines and that the playing field is level.
But if all you are saying is that certain countries are better positioned to be connecting points for certain routes and other countries are better for other routes then I agree with you.
Again, what does "better" mean? Perhaps the in-quality service of those carriers on longhaul flights is better than Delta's (I've never flown one, being a moderately fierce Delta loyalist), although that doesn't make them a better airline.
Quote:
So you want to keep the "potentially stupid subsidies" around because of some spite you have towards Delta?
I'm definitely not arguing in favor of exim bank, although that's not what this conversation is about. And as a platinum medallion I definitely pay my dues to Delta, which sometimes means getting fleeced by them as a captive customer on monopoly routes they are able to sustain due to government protection, which they in that case are perfectly content to exploit.
We are not comparing the merits of routes to the Caribbean compared to routes to India. We are talking about flying from US to the Middle East and vica versa. That should be a level playing field for US and ME carriers. But it is not.
You are not single out one carrier that is great vs another carrier that is bad, you are saying all US carriers are terrible and all heavily subsudized ME are great.
That is not some weird coincidence
Location IS very important. I don't understand how you can dismiss its importance. Are you sure you're not dismissing it because you know it's a powerful blow to your argument? Everyone on this thread knows the significance location plays.
Jsvh, have you ever ridden Delta or U.S. Airways to the 'M.E.?' Do you know anyone who has and has also used international carriers? I know people who when they get the choice, they jump on an international carrier. It's not even given much thought. Usually the only reason people choose a U.S. carrier is because of the time and day and it being the ONLY choice available. They often are upset that the only choice they have is a U.S. carrier.
Please don't ignore the role location and service plays.
Location IS very important. I don't understand how you can dismiss its importance. Are you sure you're not dismissing it because you know it's a powerful blow to your argument? Everyone on this thread knows the significance location plays.
Jsvh, have you ever ridden Delta or U.S. Airways to the 'M.E.?' Do you know anyone who has and has also used international carriers? I know people who when they get the choice, they jump on an international carrier. It's not even given much thought. Usually the only reason people choose a U.S. carrier is because of the time and day and it being the ONLY choice available. They often are upset that the only choice they have is a U.S. carrier.
Please don't ignore the role location and service plays.
You make zero case for why "location" is the key factor. If both airlines have direct flights, "location" is no more an advantage for a foreign carrier flying to US than a US carrier flying to a foreign country.
And yes, I travel a lot. Usually internationally at least a few times a year for both work and pleasure. And know many other regular travelers.
And you only further prove my point with: "I know people who when they get the choice, they jump on an international carrier. It's not even given much thought. Usually the only reason people choose a U.S. carrier is because of the time and day and it being the ONLY choice available. They often are upset that the only choice they have is a U.S. carrier. "
You don't care about the routes or even which particular airline you fly. You are bucketing all airlines by country and thus how much government subsidy they get.
Do the ME3 offer better service for the price then all US airlines? Yes. Will I personally fly foreign carriers because they offer a better product for the price? Sure.
But you need to stop lying to yourself that that is due to "location".
And yes, I travel a lot. Usually internationally at least a few times a year for both work and pleasure. And know many other regular travelers.
Forgive me... I'm honestly trying not to laugh here...
Please explain to the several of us here who are frequent fliers and seem to know much more about how the airlines work what you think traveling "alot" is?
A few times a year? Really?
Don't be "that guy."
That isn't alot.
Also, where do you typically fly to in a given normal/typical year?
For the original argument... Many of us have explained in great detail why locations matters, you're just not reading/addressing any of the points. The burden is on you at this point, because you have a rather hard to defend position and haven't adaquetly explained it to anyone else here.
I fly domesticly a few times a month. Often doing the Monday - Thursday trips multiple weeks in a row for a project. But that all just varies based on what I am working on. But international trips usually don't get to come home on the weekends.
But even if I had never been on a plane in my life, that does nothing to make your argument any more valid.
And no, you are not explaining how location matters between two direct routes where both airlines have a base at one of the airports.
In fact you are proving that location doesn't matter by saying things like " the only reason people choose a U.S. carrier is because of the time and day and it being the ONLY choice available".
With that you are claiming that anywhere a foreign carrier flys it is automaticlly better than a US carrier.
I fly domesticly a few times a month. Often doing the Monday - Thursday trips multiple weeks in a row for a project. But that all just varies based on what I am working on. But international trips usually don't get to come home on the weekends.
But even if I had never been on a plane in my life, that does nothing to make your argument any more valid.
And no, you are not explaining how location matters between two direct routes where both airlines have a base at one of the airports.
In fact you are proving that location doesn't matter by saying things like " the only reason people choose a U.S. carrier is because of the time and day and it being the ONLY choice available".
With that you are claiming that anywhere a foreign carrier flys it is automaticlly better than a US carrier.
It has everything to do with making my argument more valid and yes I have explained this. You're just not taking the time to address it or comprehend it.
All I do for work is travel and its mostly international. If I'm working, I'm traveling to do it.
Additionally, I manage crews of guys and have to get them all to places on time. I know very well how the hub systems work, how the competition comes into play, how it affects prices, etc...
I know all too well that a Delta flight to Doha will mostly be funneling people through a North American hub from North American cities to Doha as a O&D.
I know all too well that the Qatar Atlanta route will mostly be funneling people to/from Atlanta, but to many more connecting points futher east on Qatar's network.
I know all too well that the markets Qatar and Delta would serve on the same route are not the same. There is overlap, but they serve different customers for different reasons using hubs. The issue Delta is having is the competitive playing field to get North American customers to Doha or Dubai on a single connection is quite crowded, whereas the growing demand further east to growing economies leading to a surge in airline passengers has left a large growing demand to get passengers to other destinations.
I also know that location is everything in why hubs are where they are and what their competitive advantages are.
I also know as Atlantans, we are better connected to the world having a Qatar flight to Doha, than a Delta one. Delta does not have the alliance relationship set up to help us (and Delta) very well in that part of world. Delta has better relationships for customers flying west and customers flying to Europe (which is a very large market). I know Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, and Turkish Air can provide single stop connections for Atlanta travelers that Skyteam/Delta can not provide as competitively.
That is why Delta is threatened. They are cutting back on how the operate, because they lack the resources in that part of the world and are overly dependent on Europe. They can't compete with the other airlines that can attract different markets that Delta is not positioned to serve. The markets from Atlanta going to India that the Middle East is an ideal place to connect is HUGE. Airlines like Emirates and Qatar are well positioned to compete for those customers and put them on an Atlanta-Doha or an Atlanta-Dubai flight, whereas Delta is not in position to do that.
The blatant obstinate ignorance being show by yourself on this subject is laughable and shows you have had very limited experiences having to ticket people on demanding schedules long distances to a variety of mid-size cities that require use of hubs. The more you do this, the more you will understand what carriers have an advantage of others for different markets (ie. the market being moving a person from a specific location to another specific location). This is frequently different from the mentality from someone ignorant enough to think these flights are mostly about point to point traffic is astounding to say these least.
Furthermore Geography has EVERYTHING to do with hub locations. Atlanta is the powerful air hub it is, because of our geography domestically. We are equidistant to many of the USA's major cities not on the west coast. It is about the same distance to Chicago, the Texas triangle, southern Florida, and the Bos-Wash corridor. That is why we have always been able to say we live within a 2 hours flight of 80% of the nation's population. As the nation grows further west, that will become less true, but we are ideally located to be a major connection point for mid size cities in the center of the countries major population centers. There is a reason we are the largest passenger hub in the world and location has a great deal to do with it. There is a reason Delta has been so competitively successful here against other domestic carriers.
For similar reasons the ME3 are well positioned centrally between Europe and Asia's fast growing markets to offer as a connecting point for many fliers. Delta just happens to have a weak spot in their alliance network in this region and there are few countries/cities ideal for building air hubs at given the sparser/poorer populations giving tax havens that attract wealth a huge competitive advantage to build a network.
And if this is really still going over your head... summarize this up in a very simply way....
Flying is about moving people from point A to point B. It is a location based thing. Of course location has everything to do with it.
It has everything to do with making my argument more valid and yes I have explained this. You're just not taking the time to address it or comprehend it.
All I do for work is travel and its mostly international. If I'm working, I'm traveling to do it.
Additionally, I manage crews of guys and have to get them all to places on time. I know very well how the hub systems work, how the competition comes into play, how it affects prices, etc...
I know all too well that a Delta flight to Doha will mostly be funneling people through a North American hub from North American cities to Doha as a O&D.
I know all too well that the Qatar Atlanta route will mostly be funneling people to/from Atlanta, but to many more connecting points futher east on Qatar's network.
I know all too well that the markets Qatar and Delta would serve on the same route are not the same. There is overlap, but they serve different customers for different reasons using hubs. The issue Delta is having is the competitive playing field to get North American customers to Doha or Dubai on a single connection is quite crowded, whereas the growing demand further east to growing economies leading to a surge in airline passengers has left a large growing demand to get passengers to other destinations.
I also know that location is everything in why hubs are where they are and what their competitive advantages are.
I also know as Atlantans, we are better connected to the world having a Qatar flight to Doha, than a Delta one. Delta does not have the alliance relationship set up to help us (and Delta) very well in that part of world. Delta has better relationships for customers flying west and customers flying to Europe (which is a very large market). I know Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, and Turkish Air can provide single stop connections for Atlanta travelers that Skyteam/Delta can not provide as competitively.
That is why Delta is threatened. They are cutting back on how the operate, because they lack the resources in that part of the world and are overly dependent on Europe. They can't compete with the other airlines that can attract different markets that Delta is not positioned to serve. The markets from Atlanta going to India that the Middle East is an ideal place to connect is HUGE. Airlines like Emirates and Qatar are well positioned to compete for those customers and put them on an Atlanta-Doha or an Atlanta-Dubai flight, whereas Delta is not in position to do that.
The blatant obstinate ignorance being show by yourself on this subject is laughable and shows you have had very limited experiences having to ticket people on demanding schedules long distances to a variety of mid-size cities that require use of hubs. The more you do this, the more you will understand what carriers have an advantage of others for different markets (ie. the market being moving a person from a specific location to another specific location). This is frequently different from the mentality from someone ignorant enough to think these flights are mostly about point to point traffic is astounding to say these least.
Furthermore Geography has EVERYTHING to do with hub locations. Atlanta is the powerful air hub it is, because of our geography domestically. We are equidistant to many of the USA's major cities not on the west coast. It is about the same distance to Chicago, the Texas triangle, southern Florida, and the Bos-Wash corridor. That is why we have always been able to say we live within a 2 hours flight of 80% of the nation's population. As the nation grows further west, that will become less true, but we are ideally located to be a major connection point for mid size cities in the center of the countries major population centers. There is a reason we are the largest passenger hub in the world and location has a great deal to do with it. There is a reason Delta has been so competitively successful here against other domestic carriers.
For similar reasons the ME3 are well positioned centrally between Europe and Asia's fast growing markets to offer as a connecting point for many fliers. Delta just happens to have a weak spot in their alliance network in this region and there are few countries/cities ideal for building air hubs at given the sparser/poorer populations giving tax havens that attract wealth a huge competitive advantage to build a network.
And if this is really still going over your head... summarize this up in a very simply way....
Flying is about moving people from point A to point B. It is a location based thing. Of course location has everything to do with it.
Well said and thanks (because I didn't have enough energy to respond to an earlier post regarding location).
I am not debating that having a hub in the middle east makes ME3 better positioned to do one-stop flights to smaller airports in that part of the world. Or that where you have your hub matters to what routes you will be able to competively serve. I agree with that.
What I am debating is that makes the ME3 all around "better" airlines that people in this thread are claiming, that the reason people claim that they will fly on any non-US carrier over a US carrier on any route does not have to do with "location", and that the large amount of subsidies and state-owned nature of the ME3 puts US carriers at an unfair competitive disadvantage.
I am not debating that having a hub in the middle east makes ME3 better positioned to do one-stop flights to smaller airports in that part of the world. Or that where you have your hub matters to what routes you will be able to competively serve. I agree with that.
What I am debating is that makes the ME3 all around "better" airlines that people in this thread are claiming, that the reason people claim that they will fly on any non-US carrier over a US carrier on any route does not have to do with "location", and that the large amount of subsidies and state-owned nature of the ME3 puts US carriers at an unfair competitive disadvantage.
For crying out loud ...
Are you reading your own argument before hitting send?
Stop contradicting yourself and or just being ridiculously ignorant to what you are talking about.
Flip-flopper... they are better located... they can be a better hub for that part of the world... but it has nothing to do about location....
geez... would you like a shovel so your hands don't get hurt clawing through the Georgia Red?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
