8 ms·

The Big 4 Middle East/Gulf airlines (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Turkish) have been giving legacy US carriers a lot of grief lately, since they're both cheaper and

The Big 4 Middle East/Gulf airlines (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Turkish) have been giving legacy US carriers a lot of grief lately, since they're both cheaper and better on essentially all counts, so I can't help but wonder if they have their finger in the pie here. Few businessmen will opt to fly long-haul if they can't use their laptops, and they're specifically targeting 9 airlines here, not just airports or countries. It's also beyond bizarre that the US trusts Abu Dhabi's security enough to locate its only Middle Eastern Customs/Immigration preclearance facility, but not enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring tablets...

waqf 10y ago
That's incredibly evil, but I'm sad to say that after some thought I believe you. It's hard to think of another reason why the ban would be given as a list of specific airports — and it just so happens that American carriers don't fly direct to any of the specified cities. (AA sells flights to a few but they are all codeshares, thanks JamilD for correcting my previous statement.) (Plus, can confirm that the ME airlines are highly competitive. They're subsidized by their governments: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2015/03/airline-subsidies-gulf http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2015/03/airline-subs... (thanks hueving)).
- JamilD 10y ago
  JetBlue codeshares with Emirates, who flies to Dubai. JetBlue is a relatively small, mostly domestic airline without any widebody planes. American doesn't fly to any Middle Eastern cities but they partner with both Etihad and Qatar, who do.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > Plus, can confirm that the ME airlines are highly competitive. They're subsidized by their governments That's not true, at least not for Emirates and Etihad, which were the main airlines accused. Delta and other US airlines did accuse them of violating the Open Skies agreement, yes. Which is quite hypocritical since Delta (like other US airlines) has also taken direct subsidies from the US government. But, as Emirates showed in their subsequent lawsuit, their financial records prove that they have never taken government subsidies, despite Delta's accusations. Etihad did, but long before Open Skies was signed (1999). This behavior isn't unusual; the Big Four are just using this as an easy way to smear their biggest competitors, while ignoring other airlines that have similar financial history (China Southern, etc.). But China Southern isn't (currently) drawing passengers away from the Big Four, whereas Emirates/Etihad/Qatar are. The Gulf aiflines are more efficient than the US airlines because they exclusively serve one city - Emirates, for example, flies only flights to or from Dubai (with a couple of tiny exceptions). That makes it a lot easier to provide excellent service and cheap flights.
lucaspiller 10y ago
It says that other carriers will be informed on Tuesday, so maybe they aren't aware yet. But yes it's sounds a bit weird to ban it on only some carriers...
bogomipz 10y ago
>"It's also beyond bizarre that the US trusts Abu Dhabi's security enough to locate its only Middle Eastern Customs/Immigration preclearance facility" This is not correct Quatar has one as well. I'm also unsure why you would find this "bizarre" as all of the Emirates are incredibly wealthy.
- kingofpandora 10y ago
  That's not what he said. He wrote: > It's also beyond bizarre that the US trusts Abu Dhabi's security enough to locate its only Middle Eastern Customs/Immigration preclearance facility, but not enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring tablets... It's a good question.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    Indeed I didn't read the sentence correctly my apologies. However, I don't see that as a vote of confidence in them since they are still permitting flights. I think similar could be said of the TSA in the US - the DHS trust them enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring shampoo as carry on but not enough if those shampoo bottles are greater than 3.4 ounces, despite having gone through their security. I think its less about a vote of confidence and more about absurdist theater.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I think similar could be said of the TSA in the US - the DHS trust them enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring shampoo as carry on but not enough if those shampoo bottles are greater than 3.4 ounces, despite having gone through their security. This is not about DHS trusting TSA, since the specific part of DHS that makes that regulates that is...TSA.
      - bogomipz 10y ago
        The parallel I was trying to draw was that they don't trust the own systems and procedures, hence things like arbitrary liquid distinctions and now anything with a battery except cell phones.
et-al 10y ago
As an anecdote, I've flown United and Turkish across the Atlantic and it's a world of difference. In 2016, the United airplane I was in still did not have a seatback screen and they expected all 200+ passengers to connect to the wifi to try to get in-flight entertainment. Of course no one got on. So all of us were left craning our necks trying to catch a glimpse of whatever was on the CRT in the aisle. Meanwhile, Turkish Airlines has a touchscreen interface with beautifully done transitions and an amazing selection of movies and music. I remember seeing Radiohead's Kid A on there, along with the Blade Runner soundtrack. Next month, I'm flying to Berlin via Turkish even though it will take 4 more hours because the price and comfort are worth it. Only problem is, this electronics ban may compromise my electronics. (And yes, I'm aware of early adopter pitfalls and government subsidies for airlines, but United has no qualms treating non-status passengers like trash.)
- megablast 10y ago
  > In 2016, the United airplane I was in still did not have a seatback screen This just depends which plane you get. They all have new and old planes, you can get unlucky on any airline.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Does Turkish Airlines have airplanes in their fleet without seatback screens? Do these planes fly international routes?
    - rtpg 10y ago
      Not sure about TA, but my experience is that 95% of this is just about when the planes get bought. Entertainment systems solve the "keep people happy problem" for relatively cheap. But it's pretty expensive to replace all the seats just for that. JAL/ANA have very new planes with cool entertainment systems, but they also fly their older planes on some routes with a bunch of stuff that looks like it's powered by VCR. To your question: they probably don't for their major international flights.
  - davidgay 10y ago
TuringNYC 10y ago
I'm not an expert here, but Kindles (readers, not tablets) seem like the most harmless things. They are almost the perfect devices for long haul flights since the battery life is so long. I usually devour books on long-haul flights on my Kindle. I wonder if including Kindles is more a jibe against Bezos. Perhaps this is a stretch.
addicted 10y ago
This seems like the most likely explanation to me. Abu Dhabi security was far more stringent than anything I have been through in Europe, (and ironically Brussels, when I was in the Brussels airport in transit when it was attacked).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

waqf 10y ago

That's incredibly evil, but I'm sad to say that after some thought I believe you. It's hard to think of another reason why the ban would be given as a list of specific airports — and it just so happens that American carriers don't fly direct to any of the specified cities. (AA sells flights to a few but they are all codeshares, thanks JamilD for correcting my previous statement.) (Plus, can confirm that the ME airlines are highly competitive. They're subsidized by their governments: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2015/03/airline-subsidies-gulf http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2015/03/airline-subs... (thanks hueving)).

JamilD 10y ago
JetBlue codeshares with Emirates, who flies to Dubai. JetBlue is a relatively small, mostly domestic airline without any widebody planes. American doesn't fly to any Middle Eastern cities but they partner with both Etihad and Qatar, who do.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
chimeracoder 10y ago
> Plus, can confirm that the ME airlines are highly competitive. They're subsidized by their governments That's not true, at least not for Emirates and Etihad, which were the main airlines accused. Delta and other US airlines did accuse them of violating the Open Skies agreement, yes. Which is quite hypocritical since Delta (like other US airlines) has also taken direct subsidies from the US government. But, as Emirates showed in their subsequent lawsuit, their financial records prove that they have never taken government subsidies, despite Delta's accusations. Etihad did, but long before Open Skies was signed (1999). This behavior isn't unusual; the Big Four are just using this as an easy way to smear their biggest competitors, while ignoring other airlines that have similar financial history (China Southern, etc.). But China Southern isn't (currently) drawing passengers away from the Big Four, whereas Emirates/Etihad/Qatar are. The Gulf aiflines are more efficient than the US airlines because they exclusively serve one city - Emirates, for example, flies only flights to or from Dubai (with a couple of tiny exceptions). That makes it a lot easier to provide excellent service and cheap flights.

lucaspiller 10y ago

It says that other carriers will be informed on Tuesday, so maybe they aren't aware yet. But yes it's sounds a bit weird to ban it on only some carriers...

bogomipz 10y ago

>"It's also beyond bizarre that the US trusts Abu Dhabi's security enough to locate its only Middle Eastern Customs/Immigration preclearance facility" This is not correct Quatar has one as well. I'm also unsure why you would find this "bizarre" as all of the Emirates are incredibly wealthy.

kingofpandora 10y ago
That's not what he said. He wrote: > It's also beyond bizarre that the US trusts Abu Dhabi's security enough to locate its only Middle Eastern Customs/Immigration preclearance facility, but not enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring tablets... It's a good question.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  Indeed I didn't read the sentence correctly my apologies. However, I don't see that as a vote of confidence in them since they are still permitting flights. I think similar could be said of the TSA in the US - the DHS trust them enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring shampoo as carry on but not enough if those shampoo bottles are greater than 3.4 ounces, despite having gone through their security. I think its less about a vote of confidence and more about absurdist theater.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I think similar could be said of the TSA in the US - the DHS trust them enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring shampoo as carry on but not enough if those shampoo bottles are greater than 3.4 ounces, despite having gone through their security. This is not about DHS trusting TSA, since the specific part of DHS that makes that regulates that is...TSA.
    - bogomipz 10y ago
      The parallel I was trying to draw was that they don't trust the own systems and procedures, hence things like arbitrary liquid distinctions and now anything with a battery except cell phones.

et-al 10y ago

As an anecdote, I've flown United and Turkish across the Atlantic and it's a world of difference. In 2016, the United airplane I was in still did not have a seatback screen and they expected all 200+ passengers to connect to the wifi to try to get in-flight entertainment. Of course no one got on. So all of us were left craning our necks trying to catch a glimpse of whatever was on the CRT in the aisle. Meanwhile, Turkish Airlines has a touchscreen interface with beautifully done transitions and an amazing selection of movies and music. I remember seeing Radiohead's Kid A on there, along with the Blade Runner soundtrack. Next month, I'm flying to Berlin via Turkish even though it will take 4 more hours because the price and comfort are worth it. Only problem is, this electronics ban may compromise my electronics. (And yes, I'm aware of early adopter pitfalls and government subsidies for airlines, but United has no qualms treating non-status passengers like trash.)

megablast 10y ago
> In 2016, the United airplane I was in still did not have a seatback screen This just depends which plane you get. They all have new and old planes, you can get unlucky on any airline.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Does Turkish Airlines have airplanes in their fleet without seatback screens? Do these planes fly international routes?
  - rtpg 10y ago
    Not sure about TA, but my experience is that 95% of this is just about when the planes get bought. Entertainment systems solve the "keep people happy problem" for relatively cheap. But it's pretty expensive to replace all the seats just for that. JAL/ANA have very new planes with cool entertainment systems, but they also fly their older planes on some routes with a bunch of stuff that looks like it's powered by VCR. To your question: they probably don't for their major international flights.
- davidgay 10y ago

TuringNYC 10y ago

I'm not an expert here, but Kindles (readers, not tablets) seem like the most harmless things. They are almost the perfect devices for long haul flights since the battery life is so long. I usually devour books on long-haul flights on my Kindle. I wonder if including Kindles is more a jibe against Bezos. Perhaps this is a stretch.

addicted 10y ago

This seems like the most likely explanation to me. Abu Dhabi security was far more stringent than anything I have been through in Europe, (and ironically Brussels, when I was in the Brussels airport in transit when it was attacked).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]