The blame ME3 game

Back to Forum

This topic contains 46 replies, has 21 voices, and was last updated by  EUFlyer 14 Dec 2015
at 18:11

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 47 total)

  • Anonymous


    Dear all,

    I don’t know if it just me, but with the latest news from United withdrawing from Dubai and blaming ME3, I can’t help but to feel sick and tired of such childish behaviours from these major carriers. Such behaviours from US and EU carriers to me just says:

    1. They are too dumb to retaliate, and blame ME3 for their own failure. (sorry, been watching too much of Trump on CNN, ps. I do not support him in any way).

    2. They are too gready and only want all for themselves (think LH), consequently cooperation with any of ME3 (or other better than them, such ad TK) is out of the table. (well done BA to face the challenge by taking a proper business action like an adult to the matter, LH and AF endless bickering should be deemed as national embarrassment, refer to point 1).

    3. Didn’t all of those complainers also received subsidy from the government, if not now then way back in their history? So if they can do it then when they were young, why not allow ME3 to do it now as they’re too still young? Perhaps the ME3 do noblemen received such subsidy and these all are empty accusation for their own inability to face their weakness, changing competitive landscape and own failure?

    If ME3 managed to ‘steal’ passengers from EU and US carriers, why not step up your game instead of just crying like babies? AF customer service sucks big time, so does LH’s and US3’s. I was looking at United Airlines offering, I’d rather take a boat from Amsterdam to NYC instead of flying them. Perhaps instead of crying, they should tend to their own failure instead of, again, simply crying like babies.

    The reason why I post this, is because ibamnherr really tired hearing complaints about ME3 by EU and US giants, look at the Asians and Australian NZ, do they complaint? How about BA? ME3 are still there yet BA still profitable, in fact the most profitable among the EU3. Perhaps if those US and EU complainers focus on improving their products rather than complaining, they could perform better. BA and KLM are living proof.


    Totally agree, the US/EU carriers in questions sound like a broken record and appear to put too much attention and energy into worrying about their competitors rather than get their own house in order and deliver great products & service.

    Whilst there may or may not be explicit subsidies / guarantees, the US Carriers have benefitted from Chapter 11 in recent years (a massive competitive advantage over non US carriers) and European carriers have received in past from restriction of traffic rights to other airlines, they have little right to be angry or upset in that new airlines have taken advantage of their geographical location and delivered arguably massively superior products / service – which in turn has lead to improvement across the board for all carriers.


    Some 30 years ago, at the time I visited NYC to interview BA, the US carriers were feared on the world stage.

    Unlike their rivals in, say, Europe, Mid East and Asia, they had two priceless advantages: their mammoth US hubs and their strong FFPs.

    The FFP advantages no longer apply to the same extent but they still retain their formidable hubs.

    Why weren’t they able to better capitalise on them ?


    I agree Alex, and without harping on about Air Canada’s recent deterioration in service levels. You could arguably use their current poor short term management decisions as a case study in the history of the US and European carriers inability to overcome a threat from 3 airlines that have risen out of a hot and dusty desert in the middle of a potential warzone. .

    It feels to me that the CEO’s and their teams are stuck in the 80’s & 90’s managing an airline manual


    Alex – surely it’s a factor of geography. The ME countries are well positioned for all Europe to Asia/Australasia type trips, however I can’t think of many international routes where flying via a US hub would have much advantage.

    That and the general level of hassle that seems to surround any travel touching the USA.


    Simon S1 @12.42- Yes, plus the fact that they can operate from home bases that are open 24/7(and they are as busy at 0200 as they are at 1400) and have way more capacity than most of their rivals.


    TimFitzgerladTC, AMcWhirter, Canucklad ++

    BA and Delta (although the latter is also complaining) are actually a good example of how ME3 do no harm if you put your house in order.

    Arguing from ‘advatages geographic location’ the ME3 are not on the path between China, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Europe. And those Asian markets are the ‘premium’ ones. But even SQ, GA and QF whose hubs’ locations make sense to travel via ME3, are still profitable. So I don’t think it is just about that. Furthermore, EK are no longer the cheapest to travel out of AMS. LH is. But I’d rather (and most of my friends) pay 100€ more just to fly SQ, ME3, or GA to SE Asia. Why? Simply because the product and service standard are better.

    But arguing from geographical location, EU is right between SE Asia and east coast US and Canada (where ME3 are restricted) as well as Brazil. Why not capitalised on those markets? If those are small markets, remember, travel between EU and N. America are still monopolized by EU and US carriers. And most of premium markets are located in both EU and USA.
    Why can’t some are still unprofitable? Perhaps instead of complaining they should look in management and strategy.

    I am grateful for ME3 as they drive price down and push carriers Un EU to innovate. KLM 787, AF New J. I don’t think they will have it if ME3 were not there.



    I normally try and stay out of such debates, but this one has really hit note with me. The EU/US carriers have had a free run for so many years that they seem to perceive there products as being superior to all other carriers. Well why are the ME3 carriers doing so well, perhaps they have taken notice of what the travelling public really wants and not been so preoccupied with there own self image.

    I try to remain loyal to carriers but even my patience is beginning to run out. I recently put up an thread about Easyjet offering passengers the ability to return home from trips early if space is available, yet you try asking the likes of BA if you can travel early they try to charge you a fortune unless you are on a fully flexible ticket.

    So come on EU/US carriers get your marketing people to see what passengers really want and model the service on there needs.


    SimonS1 – If the US airlines and the US govt would seriously promoted flying via the USA (along with the axing of transit visas) it would offer Europeans a good transfer opportunity for the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America.

    As you may know, Air NZ already routes its LHR-AKL service via LAX. And it seems to work, even though transit passengers need to obtain a visa.

    The Gulfies (for flights to/from the US) do well because they are serving not just the Gulf region but many dozens of onward points in Asia.

    But the US carriers can score by offering 100s of domestic connections via their US hubs.


    I don’t think it is a coincidence that on the same day the US3 release this statement American has announced it will be adding premium economy cabin to it’s widebody fleet.
    As many have mentioned above we feel the airlines should focus more on the product they are providing rather than pointing fingers and pouting.
    I also believe BA has possibly influenced/consulted American on this decision. Although American are clearly unhappy at least they are actively trying to improve the service onboard which could pull passengers back from ME3/EU carrier.

    Finally, and it has been mentioned above also, but the US airlines have to move away from emphasising that their airports are “US hubs” and move towards a more international focus. As mentioned they have great access to the Carribean, South America and the Pacific markets, so perhaps they should focus on building these markets up as much as they attempt to hype the domestic market.


    I doubt many people would go to the time and trouble of applying for transit visas and the chances of the requirement being removed are zero in the current climate.

    The catchment of the ME airlines is I would suggest many times bigger than the number of people going to Caribbean, Mexico etc.


    Agreed Alex
    I did the EDI-YVR run via the good ol’ US of A, and I’d avoid, unless the price was such that I could justify all the extra hassles involved.
    Add in US carriers disdain for a decent on board experience in Y and it’s just a no win , no go option.

    In my opinion , this has a lot to do with US carriers historically believing they have a god given right to feel superior to the rest. Almost as if they made decisions under the protective influence of a Pan Am halo, yet forgetting what contributed to the sad demise of that carrier. ..

    Ironically, they also seem to forget, just how well their government protects from outside competition , yet at the same time blackmailing other countries to give them preferential treatment !

    Just all very laughable, if you think about !


    I have no wish to get into the financials and subsidies here as I would not be sure where to start!!

    However, I think it is worth bearing in mind very real issues of of human rights’ abuse when talking about the ME3 and their operating environments. There has been much discussion recently in this forum about Qatar’s new airport and its lounges. The question must be asked “At what cost are they able to operate in the way they do?”. While this report ( ) focuses on construction ahead of the World Cup, it is unlikely that safety standards and labour practices were any better in the building of Hamad International. Likewise, the treatment of cabin crew by some of the ME3 is also well documented.

    In condemning the ‘whinging’ of US and European airlines, I think it is worth reflecting on these issues as well.


    @TominScotland – 10/12/2015 18:18 GMT

    Did you catch the BBC TV “Panorama” programme on Monday last in which the veteran reporter Andrew Jennings looked, once again, at FIFA? Inevitably, the question was raised of how and why Russia and Qatar respectively won the right to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. According to the programme, Qatar spent some £107million – or about six times what the English FA and HMG spent. Bearing in mind that FIFA headquarters and their corporate junkets have become bywords for Bungopolis, you have to wonder just whose outstretched palms were greased and to what extent. It would appear that “no bribes, no hope” became the principal consideration in assessing bids.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 47 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below