EK claims another victim - UA pulling IAD-DXB

[eolesen]

Let me get this right... it's bad for a foreign entity to own a US airline because of national defense, but it's OK to have our armed forces REQUIRED to fly on a foreign airline codewhoring with a US airline because the contract was given to them vs. the incumbent US airline that's actually flying the route?....

The mind, it boggles...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-dubai-idUSKBN0TS2FC20151209

 

United Airlines on Wednesday said it will cancel flight service between Washington and Dubai starting in late January, meaning no U.S. passenger carrier will fly direct to the Gulf states.

The move comes after the U.S. government awarded a government contract for travel on the route in 2016 to rival JetBlue Airways Corp (JBLU.O) and its codeshare partner Emirates, which will operate the Washington-Dubai flights, parent United Continental Holdings Inc (UAL.N) said in an Internet posting.

Dubai-based Emirates will carry an estimated 15,000 U.S. government employees, United said, adding, "We formally protested this decision but were ultimately unsuccessful."

United, along with Delta Air Lines Inc (DAL.N) and American Airlines Group Inc (AAL.O), have accused Emirates and two other Middle Eastern carriers of receiving subsidies from their governments that let them buy more aircraft and drive down ticket prices. The Gulf airlines have denied the allegations.

Delta has planned to end all flights between Atlanta and Dubai starting in February 2016. It cited what it claims is "overcapacity" on routes to the region following the expansion of Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways, which now serve a dozen U.S. cities with around 200 flights per week.

The Obama administration is considering whether to start talks with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar to address the subsidy allegations, per the U.S. airlines' requests.

United said its customers will still be able to book travel to the region via its partners Deutsche Lufthansa AG (LHAG.DE) and Air Canada (AC.TO).

(Reporting By Jeffrey Dastin in New York; Editing by David Gregorio)


Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-dubai-idUSKBN0TS2FC20151209#tSrlXQs4UcbDgJ7b.99

 

[xUT]

 
The move comes after the U.S. government awarded a government contract for travel on the route in 2016 to rival JetBlue Airways Corp (JBLU.O) and its codeshare partner Emirates, which will operate the Washington-Dubai flights, parent United Continental Holdings Inc (UAL.N) said in an Internet posting.

 
 
WTF?
JB can barely fly US routes but the Gooberment awarded them a contract...??? :wacko:

 

[700UW]

Let me get this right... it's bad for a foreign entity to own a US airline because of national defense, but it's OK to have our armed forces REQUIRED to fly on a foreign airline codewhoring with a US airline because the contract was given to them vs. the incumbent US airline that's actually flying the route?....The mind, it boggles...http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-dubai-idUSKBN0TS2FC20151209

Where in the article does it state "armed forces"?

It states 15,000 government employees.

Most troops are transported by military planes or airline charters, not on commercial flights.

 

[FWAAA]

United's internal communication to its employees made clear that armed forces personnel were among the federal agency passengers:

Due to Gulf carriers’ expansion and a recent U.S. government decision, we are discontinuing our Washington Dulles-Dubai service. Our last departure from Washington, D.C. to Dubai will be on Jan. 23, 2016, and the last departure from Dubai will be on Jan. 25, 2016. Our joint venture partners Lufthansa Group and Air Canada will continue to serve Dubai.

Even though we successfully operated the Washington-Dubai route for the past seven years, the entry of subsidized carriers such as Emirates Airline and Etihad Airways into the Washington, D.C. market has created an imbalance between supply and demand to the United Arab Emirates. As they’ve added subsidized capacity, our Washington-Dubai route has become less profitable.

In August, the General Services Administration (GSA) announced that it awarded the U.S. government contract for 2016 on the Washington-Dubai route to JetBlue, a codeshare partner of Emirates. We formally protested this decision but were ultimately unsuccessful.

JetBlue has no service to the Middle East and no presence in the region. Its codeshare partner, Emirates, will be solely operating this route and will be carrying an estimated 15,000 U.S. government employees, including active duty military personnel, whose official travel is funded by U.S. taxpayers.

“It is unfortunate that the GSA awarded this route to an airline that has no service to the Middle East and will rely entirely on a subsidized foreign carrier to transport U.S. government employees, military personnel and contractors,” said Regulatory and Policy VP Steve Morrissey. “We believe this decision violates the intent of the Fly America Act, which expressly limits the U.S. government from procuring commercial airline services directly from a non-U.S. carrier. For the Washington to Dubai route, JetBlue merely serves as a booking agent for Emirates.”

For months, we’ve been speaking out about the ways unprecedented government subsidies to Etihad, Emirates and Qatar Airways distort competition and threaten U.S. airline jobs. We continue to call on the Obama administration to request consultations with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar to ensure Open Skies agreements are being enforced.

 

[jimntx]

Let's not forget that the U.S. government is required under the law to award bids to the lowest bidder unless they can prove in advance that the bidder is not able to provide the contracted service as specified in the request for bids.  I don't think it says that the bidder is prohibited from using a partner to provide some part of that service.  Just that the service must be provided as specified--i.e., make available some number of seats in a given class on any given day.
 
Even if there were a stipulation that first preference on bid awards be given to U.S-based companies, JetBlue meets that requirement.  (And, personally I think that's how Emirates got into the game using the "cover" that JetBlue is providing the service.  Who knew that issuing the tickets was the major part of the transportation effort from the U.S. to the ME.)

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Let's not forget that the U.S. government is required under the law to award bids to the lowest bidder unless they can prove in advance that the bidder is not able to provide the contracted service as specified in the request for bids.

 
In this case, even a well trained monkey could assemble a well thought out justification of not awarding the contract to B6.  Unless the gov minion was too lazy to use their brain and decided not to spend the extra time/effort to write the justtification (although, it isnt' extra work as it is already a part of their job).  Allternatively, I wonder if a certain D senator from NY, the same one that helped get B6 off the ground, applied some influence into this decision.

 

[eolesen]

United's internal communication to its employees made clear that armed forces personnel were among the federal agency passengers:

Correct. Unless it happens to be between a couple of key locations where there are large numbers of troops (e.g. Germany, Japan), anything less than a company sized movement will go commercial. All of my son's non-deployment travel over the past four years has been on scheduled flights. The only time he has been on a charter was when deploying, and that was a battalion size movement.

Certainly, all of the intel specialists and officer travel who shuttle to/from the Pentagon aren't going to sit around for a couple of days waiting for the next planned AMC movement.

Essentially, the government sends about 40 people a day between DXB and IAD, be it administrative or defense. Defense has been the highest percentage to the region for 15 years now.

What's not right is that instead of providing US based jobs for US citizens, the GSA just outsourced that work to a US company who is outsourcing just about all of the services actually being provided.

If there isn't a US company willing to provide services, Fly America allows contracting with a foreign airline, but that's clearly not what's happened here.

 

[topDawg]

Let me get this right... it's bad for a foreign entity to own a US airline because of national defense, but it's OK to have our armed forces REQUIRED to fly on a foreign airline codewhoring with a US airline because the contract was given to them vs. the incumbent US airline that's actually flying the route?....

The mind, it boggles...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-dubai-idUSKBN0TS2FC20151209

 

yep. 
because profits don't really matter to the ME3 they can under cut the US3 on .gov contracts. sad day today. 

 

[silverbird007]

Whoever made this decision should be tarred and feathered! These are our tax dollars going to a ME govt! Emirates in my opinion is a branch of the UAE govt! Shame on the US govt and whomever made this decision! Does anyone know who actually made this decision? He or she should be fired! Or whichever US senator or representative they work for is never re elected! We need to stop this world takeover of the ME govt of international air travel! This is treason in my opinion!