U.S. Airline Unions Do Support Subsidies… When It Benefits Them

We’ve seen a lot of hypocrisy from U.S. airlines when it comes to their condemnation of the Gulf carriers. For example, the lobbying group of the major U.S. legacy airlines shamed the U.S. Travel Association for working with the Gulf carriers, when one of their member airlines has a partnership with two of the three carriers themselves (American partners with both Etihad and Qatar).

Well, when it comes to hypocrisy regarding the Gulf carriers, I don’t think it gets more obvious than this:

President Trump wants to eliminate the Essential Air Service program

As I wrote about yesterday, President Trump’s proposed budget would eliminate the Essential Air Service program, which is a federal program that guarantees air service to small communities that are otherwise underserved, with subsidies reaching over $250 million per year.

Of course the U.S. airlines love these subsidies, since it means they can turn a profit on some of these routes even when the planes fly empty.

While many will agree that there’s value in this program existing in some markets, other markets are more questionable. As I talked about yesterday, Lancaster Airport has an EAS subsidy, even though it’s just a ~34 mile and ~35 minute drive from Harrisburg Airport. Should taxpayers really be subsidizing that?

The airline unions chime in on the Essential Air Service program

As noted by Live and Let’s Fly, the Association of Flight Attendants (representing flight attendants from major U.S. airlines) chimed in regarding the possibility of the EAS program being eliminated. Here’s what they had to say (bolding mine):

“We are extremely concerned that the [proposed Trump] budget guts the Essential Air Service (EAS) Program. These cuts would harm rural and underserved communities that lack access to a fully-mature transportation system, and rely on subsidized air transportation services or face further economic isolation.”

Meanwhile how do they feel about Emirates’ new flight between Athens and Newark, which is the only year-round nonstop flight between the two countries? Well, they feel a bit differently, as you might expect (bolding mine):

AFA Members, ALPA and other Unions, along with United Airlines management, rallied at Newark Airport to protest the launch of Emirates Airlines flight from Athens to Newark. This route is permissible under the U.S.-Gulf States Open Skies agreements. However, Emirates is only able to enter this obscure market due to enormous subsidies received from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) government, in violation of this same agreement.

So they protested to stop a route that’s only possible due to “enormous subsidies received from the government.” Meanwhile when enormous subsidies received from the government benefit U.S. carriers, that’s a good thing.

Emirates’ new flight between Athens and Newark is the only year-round service between the two countries. There’s no denying that it benefits the communities traveling between the two countries, and that the transportation system in Greece isn’t “fully mature” (they don’t have a longhaul airline, for example).

The Partnership For Open & Fair Skies recently wrote the following open letter to President Trump, which included the following:

“These subsidies allow carriers like Emirates to fly some of the biggest planes on the planet at the lowest fares, regardless of whether they have enough seats filled to make a profit. It hurts American customers, markets, and most importantly, middle-class workers”

If you take out the words “Emirates” and “biggest planes on the planet,” it sounds a whole lot like the EAS program, no?

Partnership-Fair-Open-Skies

Conversations (44)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Jerome Guest

Has anyone blogging flown the ME 3 carriers? I have flown all three, as well as the other US carriers and the other major world airlines. No comparison in terms of quality of service. Every Delta flight I took from Dubai to Atlanta was full; and they can't make money?

0
‼ 0
Caleb Guest

@iahphx this is isn't an "ignorant and biased article" , it's a blog post.Lucky can say whatever he likes you nut job, and you are choosing to read and interact with it.We're not reading the NY Times or the Washington Post here.

0
‼ 0
iahphx Guest

I find it very weird that all the points bloggers -- who take lots of free "luxury" trips on the Middle East airlines -- are so vehement in their support of those carriers. These are people who, logic would suggest, would be smart enough to see what's problematic about their current strategy. Instead, they make absurd Pravda-like arguments, like the idea that there's anything remotely similar about the often-stupid-but-modest EAS subsidies and the billions being pumped into the Middle East government-owned airlines by their authoritarian rulers. I'm happy to have my travel subsidized by Emirates, Qatar and Etihad, but I know this isn't free fair market competition, and I understand that US airlines and their employees are being harmed when their competitors get to operate economically-insane flights (year-round EWR-ATH will alone lose $25 million/year). Why we keep getting these insanely vehement, ignorant and biased articles by people who should know better astounds me.

0
‼ 0
Lucky's Reader Guest

@checklist, could you please clarify your sentence that "If the free-market forces were really at work either the US carriers would be promoted and subsidized for international travel or the international carriers coming to the States wouldn’t get the benefit of their government subsidizing their routes," as I am unclear on your use of the term free-market. @Credit, I've heard of the Export Import Bank before, but how do I find out what specific loans they have guaranteed and for how much? Would the middle-eastern carriers have been able to purchase the aircraft without the loan guarantees? Has the Export Import Bank ever had to pay on a loan it guaranteed that went into default and if so, what were the details? If they didn't guarantee the loans, would the ME3 have been able to obtain other financing and if so, how much more expensive would that have been? @Patrick L, thank you for alerting us to union interests as being another factor with both intersecting and dissimilar interests with the airlines themselves. This was helpful to help increase understanding. @chasgoose, how do we find out if Harrisburg "likely also relies" on EAS subsidies? Is there a way to find this out for sure? Your comment made me wonder if some airports have a combination of subsidized AND unsubsidized flights. If they did, how would this affect the discussion? @checklist I was also intrigued by your statement that "allowing a foreign competitor to the States under cabotage rules is nothing like investing in our own country." What is the difference between subsidies and investments--could you explain this for us? @checklist's comment also made me think of some other comments on this blog and elsewhere claiming UAE residents were disadvantaged by Emirates and Etihad because they charged so much more for nonstops originating from UAE, compared to onestops on other carriers and itineraries originating outside the UAE. If these carriers are indeed being subsidized to "our" (US) detriment, shouldn't UAE residents also be against the same subsidies since their fares are higher? If anyone could illuminate further on this, it would be fantastic. Thank you.

0
‼ 0
Patrick L Guest

Although I agree that criticism of the ME3 by US airlines is hypocritical and goes against the interests of the flying public, there appears to be some confusion in this post. US airlines do not care about - let alone support - Essential Air Services. The unions do. The purpose of EAS was to serve cities the airlines have chosen to ignore. They have no intention of offering service to these cities now. The unions would like to protect those jobs. Both unions and airlines oppose the ME3, but for vastly different reasons. The unions see them as undermining the terms of the labor agreements they've brokered with airlines. The airlines see them as impediments to offering inferior service at higher prices and greater profit. They see the federal government's ability to assign rights as a public good that they would like to control. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the interests of unions and those of the airlines are very different. They coincide on the ME3 but are miles apart on EAS. IMO, some EAS services must be maintained. Cutting them undermines the economic and social viability of hundreds of communities. Maintaining EAS will have no impact on major US air carriers. As with other proposals from this administration, this one shows little evidence of forethought or an understanding g of potential consequences, notably the impending economic damage to the very people who voted for Trump.

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published