An that doesn't include the Military contracts which in many ways could be considered "subsidies".

28 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

New Zealand oil subsidies are so low they don't even rank ... given that fuel is the highest percentage of overall operation costs of flight/airlines (at about 40%), you could argue US and China airlines have the overall highest governmental subsidized support.

Yes because really all that NZ is doing is lowering the price of Jet Fuel to bring more Airlines here, but nothing for the rest of the fuel supply for the nation. At the pump we are currently paying over $2 NZD a liter, which is similar to the high prices found in Europe, so we don't benefit any at the gas pumps, just the airlines that refuel in Auckland.

http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/

4 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Yes because really all that NZ is doing is lowering the price of Jet Fuel to bring more Airlines here, but nothing for the rest of the fuel supply for the nation. At the pump we are currently paying over $2 NZD a liter, which is similar to the high prices found in Europe, so we don't benefit any at the gas pumps, just the airlines that refuel in Auckland.

http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/

What about Christchurch Intl Matthew ? I assume Cathay, SIA and Emirates etc get subsidied fuel as well ? Wellington ? Just curious.

These responses are funny since I was referring to Qatar and Emirates in my original post, but some people decided to defend their own favorite airlines. Every country does something to benefit their own domestic airlines but these two are notorious in that regard. They and their respective governments are trying to drive out all competition on specific routes.

1 hour ago, Travelling_Wilbury said:

What about Christchurch Intl Matthew ? I assume Cathay, SIA and Emirates etc get subsidied fuel as well ? Wellington ? Just curious.

We only have one refinery in New Zealand, this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsden_Point_Oil_Refinery

It has a pipeline to Auckland, for Wellington and Christchurch they have to transport it which raises the costs somewhat. Every airline pays the same for the fuel regardless of National Origin.

 

32 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

These responses are funny since I was referring to Qatar and Emirates in my original post, but some people decided to defend their own favorite airlines. Every country does something to benefit their own domestic airlines but these two are notorious in that regard. They and their respective governments are trying to drive out all competition on specific routes.

Yes everyone has a similar scheme around the world. I see Dubai no different then Las Vegas, it is a scheme to try and bring people to the middle of a desert, Vegas came first, Dubai learned to do the same thing but on a bigger scale 

http://www.twincities.com/2017/06/01/editorial-raising-an-alarm-about-unfair-airline-competition/amp/

Admittedly this is an editorial piece, but it does explain the issue which has nothing to do with bringing people to the middle of the desert. 

3 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

http://www.twincities.com/2017/06/01/editorial-raising-an-alarm-about-unfair-airline-competition/amp/

Admittedly this is an editorial piece, but it does explain the issue which has nothing to do with bringing people to the middle of the desert. 

It was the same with Air Canada and Canadian Government disputes as well. And yes making Dubai a hub is exactly that, brings people to the middle of a desert regardless for as long as they stay when before they never had a reason to go there. Now they are going in the millions.

If you are in Sydney and you want to go to New York, you used to fly through LA, now more people choose to fly through Dubai instead, even for just a stop over. In the past no one would ever consider doing that. So yes a new business is effecting an old business and governments are subsidizing it to create growth in other areas. Depends on where you live in the world makes it a bad thing or not. USA is less then 5% of the worlds population so the other 95% does have benefits having more options available to them.

My opinion is I have never been through Dubai and never really care to. If I was going to London I could choose Dubai, Singapore or Los Angeles. For obvious reasons I would choose Singapore, simply because they treat you so much better then they do being in transit through LAX, which can be a terrible experience. Changi Airport is the best. 20 years ago LAX would have been the only real option here, having other options is better for everyone. If LAX was to clean up their act people would enjoy that once again. Travel is for pleasure and Changi and Dubai have got that figured out for the moment. 

Emirates using European Stops is also very strategic, because a lot of customers demanded it, if the US Carriers want to be better then do exactly that, be better then the customers will come back, or cry fowl but that isn't fixing the level of service. If I was flying New York to Milan I would absolutely choose Emirates over a US Carrier, simply because the service is better, .and this is the reason why other players are backing growth in this area, when someone else can do it better.

3 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Admittedly this is an editorial piece

Yes it is ... 

Quote

Their letter in April to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao says that the Mideast carriers’ subsidies — amounting to more than $50 billion — foster new routes that come “at the expense of U.S. airlines’ international networks, American jobs and ultimately will harm consumers.” ...

If left unchecked, the Mideast carriers will continue to expand in the United States, pushing out U.S. airlines and harming hard-working Americans, according to the partnership. It has engaged airline employees in the effort, including lobbying their representatives in Washington.

Lower prices harms consumers?  Disagree, lower prices increases travel, increases airport revenue, increases airport services revenue, increases fuel sales, gets more visitors/business moving from A to B and visa versa ... just like my $55 ticket from KOAK to KLAS on SouthWest, consumers go for what costs less.  Just like buying products from China, they costs less, more people by them.  The problem is one of Nationalism which is a barrier to Globalism ... sounds all too much like "made in America" or "made in China" or "made in Germany" ... it's a Global economy like it or not ... high tariffs and taxes doesn't really help anyone, it just makes things less affordable for the majority of people so they spend less everywhere.  Sorta like increasing the Tariffs on Hyundai cars by 200% so a similar equipped Hyundai SUV costs the same as a Ford SUV ... all that does is make consumers NOT buy and hang on to what they have ... you can't squeeze money out of people that don't have the money in an attempt to make them buy "American" or "German" or "Japanese" etc. etc.  

Like the current US government administration Tariff (80%) on Bombardier due to allegations from Boeing which were never proven accurate.  So if Delta wants to buy Bombardier planes it would effectively be a tax of about 300% which means Delta would cancel it's orders.  So now Canada is not going to go ahead and buy any Boeing aircraft.  This is good for who? 

Personally I think we should do away with all subsidies and let companies come and go on their own merit (it's our job to figure out how to beat the competition, not the governments) ... some countries are going to be better at providing products at lower costs than other countries for a variety of reasons, nothing we can or should do about it ... the chips are going to fall naturally, fighting that is a losing proposition (always has been and always will be) for everyone involved.

My "editorial piece" :)

Cheers, Rob.

 

Here is another thing to ponder...

New Zealand is probably the worst country in the world for customer service. We are terrible at it, you can google it and you will see we are not good at it at all. Eat out in New Zealand and you will find out how bad we are. 

The USA in my view is probably the best in the world at customer service. Eat out at a Deli and New York it is awesome, have a coffee in North Carolina and the locals will make you feel right at home. I've been coast to coast and a lot of it in between and I have nothing but praise, I love the USA, you always make me laugh and smile.

Now how is it that Air New Zealand is the best 5 years in a row, when they are hiring people from a population so notoriously bad for Customer Service, and Americans, who are the best in the world at customer service, is so notoriously bad when it comes to serving anyone around Aviation?

Something doesn't make sense here. 

In my 40+ years in aviation I've flown on most of them at one time or the other.  In first class they are all about the same.  Business class will vary substantially.  Obviously going to Europe or Africa it will be DLH.  Going to Asia it will be SIA or CPA.  Don't normally go to New Zealand, but have traveled on ANZ and it was excellent.  Going to Australia it has been both AAL or QFA.  In the US I really like SWA for short trips.  And Yes, there are airlines that I will not ride on.  I've been on a couple of military charters coming home from SE Asia that were not a lot of fun and I had been gone from home for almost 18 months.

blaustern