The Global Airline Subsidy Controversy

Author's Note:

For the final blog post in my college career, I wanted to look back at the Global Airline topic. In the original post, we examined the Open Skies Agreement and subsidies, identified participating carriers, and discussed the Export-Import Bank. This time, I decided to look into exactly who was opposing the Open Skies agreement, what their argument was, whether or not facts supported them, and the benefits of the Open Skies Agreements. I provide as much research as I could find and I make my recommendations. 

Final Blog

Around the world, international aviation is as complex as any other subject of foreign relations, and the environment of international aviation is subject to trade agreements and requires some diplomacy. In the interest of creating a global airline economy that opens up markets and attempts to tap into otherwise inaccessible revenue streams, many nations create mutual agreements that allow the cooperating nations’ airlines to operate internationally and grants mutual rights in doing so. These international agreements are known as “Open Skies” agreements. The United States has many foreign nations with which it has established these Open Skies agreements. As stated on the United States Department of State website under “Civil Air Transport Agreements”:

The Department of State, working with the Departments of Transportation and Commerce, negotiates bilateral and multilateral civil air service agreements with foreign aviation partners. Since 1992, the United States has pursued an “open-skies” policy designed to eliminate government involvement in airline decision-making about routes, capacity, and pricing in international markets” (U.S. Department of State, 2002).

The Department of State negotiates the Open Skies agreements with foreign entities. The Open Skies agreements are created for the following reasons, that are outlined on the Department of State website:

America’s Open Skies policy has gone hand-in-hand with U.S. airline globalization. By allowing U.S. air carriers unlimited market access to our partners’ markets and the right to fly to all intermediate and beyond points, Open Skies agreements provide maximum operational flexibility for airline alliances (U.S. Department of State, n.d.). 

As of recent, the United States is involved with over 120 partners in reciprocal Open Skies agreements. The United States has established many of the Open Skies agreements in bilateral form. In addition to the bilateral agreements, the United States is involved in two multilateral Open Skies agreements. As outlined by the Department of State:

In addition to bilateral Open Skies air transport agreements, the United States has negotiated two multilateral Open Skies accords: (1) the 2001 Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation (MALIAT) with New Zealand, Singapore, Brunei, and Chile, later joined by Samoa, Tonga, and Mongolia; and (2) the 2007 Air Transport Agreement with the European Community and its Member States. The United States maintains restrictive non-Open Skies air transport agreements with a number of other countries, including China (U.S. Department of State, n.d.).

Recently, the Open Skies agreements between the United States and certain Middle Eastern countries have come under scrutiny. The Delta Airlines News Hub reports:

Delta, along with American and United through the Partnership for Open & Fair Skies, have asked the U.S. government to open consultations with Qatar and the UAE to address the issue of $42 billion in government subsidies given to the Gulf carriers, which violate the Open Skies agreements between the U.S. and those nations (Modolo, 2015). 

The subject of controversy is government subsidies provided to foreign airlines that are perceived as an unfair advantage and as a violation of the Open Skies agreements. The “Big Three” United States air carriers, Delta, American, and United airlines, joined forces in creating the Partnership for Open & Fair Skies. An article by Modolo in USA Today states that “the Partnership submitted a nearly 400-page document to the United States government clearly outlining the harm subsidized Gulf carriers are doing to U.S. airlines” (Modolo, 2015). According to USA Today, the Big Three and their unions “urged the government Thursday to renegotiate treaties with the Persian Gulf countries” (Jansen, 2015). Despite the claims of the Big Three, the United States should keep the Open Skies agreements because of the agreements’ economic benefit to the United States, other United States air carriers and organizations support the agreement, and the gulf carriers are justified since all airlines receive financial support from their home governments to some extent. 

The Big Three airlines and their proponents, including associated unions, want the U.S. government to intervene. USA Today highlights that:

The airlines want the government to begin formal consultations with Qatar and United Arab Emirates to resolve complaints. They are also asking the government to prevent any additional Gulf routes to the USA until the dispute is resolved. Ultimately, the treaties between the countries could be terminated (Jansen, 2015). 

An article from USA Today revealed that, the United States airlines involved in the Big Three, acting upon the belief that there were unfair practices being conducted by the Gulf carriers, raised allegations to three associated departments in the government to be reviewed: 

Airline executives revealed a month ago they circulated a 55-page briefing paper outlining the subsidies to officials at the Transportation, State, and Commerce departments, in an effort to change or scrap treaties called “open skies” agreements with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar (Jansen, 2015). 

The allegations against the Gulf carriers, put forth by the Big Three, target the “benefits such as interest-free government loans, cheaper access to airports and services such as fuel and ground handling that are governed by airline officials” (Jansen, 2015).

The executives of both Emirates and Etihad airlines quickly disputed the complaints of the Big Three airlines regarding government subsidies. Tim Clark and James Hogan, the CEOs of Emirates and Etihad respectively, claimed that they would “rebut the charges one-by-one from a 55-page report that the three largest U.S. airlines submitted” (Jansen, 2015). Hogan, the CEO of Etihad, claims that the government subsidies are misunderstood. In the USA Today article “Emirates, Etihad rebut U.S. airlines’ charge”, it is revealed that:

Hogan acknowledges at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce aviation summit that Etihad got equity investment and shareholder loans from its owner, the United Arab Emirates. But he said Etihad started from scratch in 2003 needing to buy planes, develop airport access and build up customers – and he denied getting free fuel or ground handling, as had been rumored in the past (Jansen, 2015).

Hogan was quoted telling aviation industry representatives at the Chamber of Commerce summit that, “Etihad is a David that has been facing Goliaths since 2003 when we started” (Jansen, 2015). The origin story of Etihad depicted by Hogan pretty closely aligns with the origin of the United States carriers. As stated in another article on USA Today, titled “How much do taxpayers support airlines?”, it is revealed that:

In large measure, U.S. legacy airlines actually were created by federal largesse, particularly the Contract Air Mail Act of 1925, which provided agreements and subsidies that pioneered what would eventually become the carriers’ domestic route maps. As the Smithsonian noted, the U.S. industry in the 1920s “depends for its existence almost wholly upon orders placed by Government services (McGee, 2015).

The Contract Air Mail Act of 1925 was not the last time that U.S. air carriers received government subsidies. Most recently, there was the airline bailout in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the grounding of commercial aircraft. The Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act was quickly passed by President Bush and Congress (McGee, 2015). The claim that U.S. air carriers do not receive government subsidies can be contested. Examples of on-going government aid are the Fly America Act, the Essential Air Service program, and the billions of tax dollars going to aviation infrastructure (McGee, 2015). The Fly America Act, created in 1974, requires federal agencies to “use U.S. air carriers to transport passengers and cargo when such travel is funded by the government” (McGee, 2015). The Essential Air Service program “currently provides subsidies for airlines serving 163 rural communities nationwide” by subsidizing airlines to continue routes that they would otherwise abandon, and leave void of air service, because of the lack of profitability (McGee, 2015). 

An argument posed by the Big Three maintains that “the advantages have allowed substantial growth in the last decade despite almost no growth in overall passengers, with Emirates reaching the top capacity in the world last year, with Qatar 10^thand Etihad 13^th” (Jansen, 2015). The United States airlines so strongly oppose the government subsidization and claim that it provides an unfair advantage for the foreign carriers, and yet the United States government has provided subsidies since the conception of the airlines and contributes billions of tax dollars toward the airline industry and its infrastructure. 

The USA Today article titled “Gulf airlines woo U.S. fliers as trade spat gains intensity” proposes the true reasons behind the so-called “trade spat” that the United States carriers have brought about in the following:

The three fast-growing “Gulf carriers” have ruffled the feathers of the three biggest U.S. airlines, tweaking them with their breakneck growth and broad expansion into the U.S. market.

Those airlines – Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways – also have cultivated high-end reputations, winning over many U.S. customers in the process.

Each of the Gulf carriers touts a fleet of sparkling new widebody jets. The airlines’ customer service also routinely rates as among the best in the world (Mutzabaugh, 2015).

The USA Today article suggests that the Big Three are raising concerns about unfair practices, but in actuality, the Gulf carriers are winning over their passengers with a superior experience. The Gulf carriers have newer, more accommodating aircraft and better customer service proving to have competitive advantages over the Big Three.

In examining the benefits of the Open Skies agreements, the agreements “have vastly expanded international passenger and cargo flights to and from the United States, promoting increased travel and trade, enhancing productivity, and spurring high-quality job opportunities and economic growth” (U.S. Department of State, n.d.). A key component of the service provided by the Gulf carriers, is that they bring millions of travelers to the United States from places in the world that are not serviced by the U.S. carriers. USA Today says, “Emirates carried 2.4 million travelers to the United States last year, including 1.7 million from Africa, India and other countries without much U.S. service” (Jansen, 2015). The services of the Gulf carriers are a benefit to the United States’ economy. The 2.4 million travelers inevitably provide a boost in revenue for U.S. businesses, falling in the category of tourism, while they are in country. 

The Gulf airlines also provide economic benefit to United States aircraft manufacturers. USA Today states:

Danny Sebright, president of the U.S.-UAE Business Council, said Boeing sold $130 billion worth of aircraft at the 2013 Dubai Air Show to UAE airlines. 

“UAE airlines are the biggest international buyers of U.S. manufactured commercial aircraft and engines, with over 400 airplane deliveries and orders in the last 15 years,” Sebright said. “And with 252 non-stop flights a week to the U.S., UAE airlines are bringing millions of visitors a year to cities across America, filling local airports, hotels, attractions and restaurants” (Jansen, 2015).

The UAE purchasing all of these American-made Boeing aircraft results in the creation and continuation of American manufacturing jobs.

Support for the Big Three is not unanimous even among United States companies and organizations. Many propose that all airlines receive government support in their own ways and to varying degrees. The following is from a USA Today article:

“There’s not a playing field in the world that is level,” says Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition and an opponent of restricting access to Gulf airlines. Other parties – including U.S. carriers FedEx, JetBlue, and Hawaiian – agree with Mitchell and have challenged the Big Three’s claims they’re protecting American jobs rather than protecting their turf (McGee, 2015).

In addition to the chairman of the Business Travel Coalition and these United States-based air service providers, the CEO of the U.S. Travel Association, Roger Dow, disagrees with the argument of the Big Three. As noted in USA Today:

Roger Dow, CEO of the U.S. Travel Association, said the three largest U.S. airlines have been helped enough by the federal government over the years “that playing the subsidy card strains credulity in the extreme.” 

“The bar should be extremely high to roll back these trade agreements that have unquestionably benefited travelers and the U.S. economy,” Dow said (Jansen, 2015).

Ultimately, the United States benefits from the Open Skies agreements, in numerous ways, and the United States government should leave the agreement in place. The global aviation market can never be a completely fair playing field, but the United States airlines have been at the top and are doing well enough abroad that they should continue to compete. It would behoove the United States government to assist its’ domestic air carriers in catching up or surpassing foreign carriers in their fleet acquisition. The Gulf carriers are able to purchase new aircraft at lower than market interest rates through the Export-Import Bank, which is not available to the domestic carriers. The United States government has a chance to pacify the Big Three by supporting them more, and in doing so, the United States could potentially increase its economic strength if it were to increase market share in the global air transportation market. 

References

Jansen, B. (2015, March 5). U.S. airlines contend Gulf rivals are subsidized unfairly. USA Today. 

Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2015/03/05/airline-treaties-american-delta-united-emirates-etihad-qatar-gulf/24422137/

Jansen, B. (2015, March 17). Emirates, Etihad rebut U.S. airlines’ charge. USA Today. Retrieved 

from https://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2015/03/17/gulf-carriers-etihad-emirates-subsidies-us-chamber-aviation-summit/24844191/

McGee, B. (2015, September 2). How much do taxpayers support airlines? USA Today.

Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2015 /09/02/how-much-do-taxpayers-support-airlines/71568226/

Modolo, K. (2015, October 28). Subsidized Gulf carrier competition forces Delta to cancel 

ATL-Dubai. Delta News Hub. Retrieved from https://news.delta.com/subsidized-gulf-carrier-competition-forces-delta-cancel-atl-dubai

Mutzabaugh, B. (2015, March 15). Gulf carriers woo us fliers as trade spat gains intensity. USA 

Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2015/03/17/gulf-carriers-woo-us-fliers-as-trade-spat-gains-intensity/24908245/

U.S. Department of State. (2002). Air Transport Agreement between the government of 

the United States of America and the government of the United Arab Emirates. US Department of State. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/documents/organizatio n/1 25743.pdf

U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). Civil air transport agreements. US Department of State. 

Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/

ATC Privatization Dead, And Hopefully Stays Dead

According to the FAA, “NextGen is the FAA-led modernization of our nation’s air transportation system. Its goal is to increase safety, efficiency, capacity, predictability, and resiliency of American aviation” (FAA, 2017). NextGen has all these effects by consolidating dozens of innovative technologies, capabilities, and procedures. The National Airspace System (NAS) with NextGen will transform how users see, navigate, and communicate. With ADS-B and other implementations, NextGen provides air traffic controllers with exact aircraft locations and a clear picture of surrounding conditions. NextGen includes a switch from ground-based to satellite-enabled navigation systems that are more precise. The satellites enable the FAA to create optimum routes anywhere in the NAS for departing, cruise altitude, approach and arrival operations. Data communications, a new digital communication method, help pilots and controllers communicate more quickly, more easily, and with less risk of miscommunication than radio (FAA, 2017).

GA has traditionally spoken against privatization because of the concern of user fees. A company in charge of air traffic controlled would be concerned about profit, while the current system is government service that isn’t designed as a for-profit enterprise. Recently, the EAA posted an article called “You Did It! GA Turns Back Privatization”. The article, posted at the end of February, announced that ATC privatization language has been removed from an FAA reauthorization bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, as a result of the efforts of more than 200 aviation associations and advocates (EAA, 2018).

The airlines have been in favor of ATC privatization. Airlines are pushing for privatization so that they can gain more control over air traffic control, so that they can get priority. According to an article by the Alliance for Aviation Across America, privatization “would allow the airlines to collude and engage in anti-competition behavior” and “privatization would not alleviate delays or costs” (Alliance for Aviation Across America).

Canada, north of us, is an example of a country that has privatized ATC. Air traffic has been controlled by Nav Canada, an Ottawa-based non-profit, since 1996. Nav Canada oversees air traffic control and Transport Canada oversees the safety of Nav Canada. Under the same model, the FAA would oversee the safety of a private ATC enterprise. The system would be funded by user fees. Privatized ATC systems are as safe as a government system, and in Canada, the ATC system is managed so that it breaks even every year, and last month, it announced a rate reduction and fee refund of $44.5 million US (Bachman, 2017).

For converting to a private system, a bill would have to go through Congress and the President would have to sign it. Since the privatization language was recently removed from the FAA reauthorization bill that is being worked on in the House, ATC privatization does not look like it has a strong likelihood of being implemented. A new bill would have to go through Congress, and the FAA would have to transfer the ATC system to a private organization. Trump says that privatized ATC is a “no-brainer”, but without Congressional support, Trump can’t mandate the FAA to privatize it.

I do not think that ATC privatization would be a good thing. Currently, most of the FAA’s funds are generated by taxes on aviation fuel, fees and taxes. The FAA is a government entity that can be unbiased about providing fair service at a fair price. The concern of a privatized ATC organization, is that airlines would receive preferential treatment, or be able to buy it, while general aviation users would be stuck with second-class service and user fees. As a general aviation pilot, I want to be able to fly freely, like aviation has been for the last hundred plus years.

Alliance for Aviation Across America. (n.d). The truth about big airlines push to privatize our 

nation’s air traffic control system. Aviation Across America. Retrieved from https://www .aviationacrossamerica.org/issues/privatization/

Bachman, J. (6 June 2017). Will privatized air traffic control put you in danger? Bloomberg.

Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-06/will-privatized-

air-traffic-control-put-you-in-danger

Experimental Aircraft Association. (27 February 2018). You did it! GA turns back privatization

grab, Experimental Aircraft Association. Retrieved from https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/e aa-news-and-aviation-news/news/02-28-2018-you-did-it-ga-turns-back-privatization-grab

Federal Aviation Administration. (4 December 2017). How NextGen works. Federal Aviation

Administration. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/

Aviation Organizations

Despite AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) and ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association) being the two most important aviation organizations for an aviation professional to belong to, I’m going to talk about a few less-recognized aviation organizations that are still worthwhile.

The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) is an organization that anyone with an interest in aviation should belong to. I am a Lifetime Member of the EAA, and the organization’s purpose goes well beyond experimental aircraft. The EAA has existed since 1953 and is comprised of almost 200,000 members. EAA is self-described as “the Spirit of Aviation”. As described on the EAA website, the EAA serves the aviation community by:

Inspiring new participants in aviation

·       Inviting the public to experience flight

·       Providing a compelling view of possibilities

·       Nurturing interest in aviation

·       Supporting clear pathways to participation

Enriching the participation experience

·       Protecting rights and the freedom to fly

·       Encouraging affordable flying in a local environment

·       Cultivating and providing knowledge, information, and resources

·       Embracing diverse interests, camaraderie, and fun 

·       Supporting and promoting aviation events and activities

(EAA, 2018)

Aviation interests served by the EAA include learning to fly, pilot resources, homebuilts, ultralights, light sport aircraft, warbirds, vintage aircraft, aerobatics, and more. The EAA has chapters at airports all around the country and hosts VMC and IMC clubs, as well as the world’s largest aviation event in Oshkosh. The EAA provides advocacy for the freedom to fly and offers resources to keep the entire general aviation community safe.

While the EAA doesn’t specifically cater to aviation professionals, the EAA has an immense member base, and there are endless opportunities to meet other aviators, both professional and recreational. The EAA also has many job opportunities, including, one of particular interest, part-time positions as a Ford Tri-Motor pilot. Becoming an EAA member is a great way to network and create lifelong friendships.

Another organization is the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). The NBAA is an organization founded on the use of general aviation aircraft for business purposes. Another way of describing the NBAA’s focus is corporate aviation under Part 91. The NBAA website states,

Throughout its history, NBAA has worked to support policies that foster business aviation in the United States and around the world. Among the policy priorities for the Association and the industry it represents are modernization of the nation’s aviation system, building upon the already outstanding safety record for business aviation and preserving secure access to airports and airspace (NBAA, 2018).

The NBAA is an organization for anyone with an interest in corporate or business aviation. The organization provides networking opportunities, career resources, and advocacy for issues that are important to the industry. The NBAA can help its members land jobs in a multitude of business organizations that use aviation to excel. Corporate flight departments can be lucrative opportunities, they offer flying opportunities, as well as the opportunity to work within the company in other capacities.

Belonging to any organization is important to connect with others. Aviation is not a huge industry, but you won’t believe how much is missed when the only person you interact with is the pilot in the seat next to you. By reaching out and contributing to the aviation community, an individual can feel the sense of belonging within a larger group. Who you know means a lot in aviation. Relationships open doors for careers and friendships and make the profession more enjoyable overall. Take a little time to network on a daily basis. You don’t know who somebody else knows.

Sources:

Experimental Aircraft Association. (2018). Who we are. EAA. Retrieved from https://www.eaa

.org/en/eaa/about-eaa/who-we-are

National Business Aviation Administration. (2018) Legislative & regulatory issues. NBAA.

Retrieved from https://www.nbaa.org/advocacy/issues/

Open Skies

Describe the US-UAE Open Skies Agreement. List and describe two long-haul carriers that are a part of this agreement that also receive government subsidies.

The Open Skies Agreement is a deal between the governments of the US and the UAE to create an “international aviation system based on competition among airlines in the marketplace with minimum government interference and regulation” (U.S. Department of State, 2002). The agreement, signed by the U.S. Department of State, permits the other country’s airlines to “establish offices in the territory of the other Party for the promotion and sale of air transportation” (p. 6).

“Delta, along with American and United through the Partnership for Open & Fair Skies, have asked the U.S. government to open consultations with Qatar and the UAE to address the issue of $42 billion in government subsidies given to the Gulf carriers, which violate the Open Skies agreements between the U.S. and those nations” (Modolo, 2015). Emirates and Etihad are two Gulf airlines that are a part of the agreement and government subsidized.

Do any long-haul US carriers receive subsidies or have received subsidies in the past? If so, which airlines? Why?

In the past, the Contract Mail Act of 1925 provided “agreements and subsidies that pioneered what would eventually become the carrier’s domestic route maps” (McGee, 2015). USA Today added that the Essential Air Service program and Fly America Act are evidence of US airline subsidies. The Essential Air Service program “currently provides subsidies for airlines serving 163 rural communities nationwide” (McGee, 2015). Since 1974, the Fly America Act has “required federal agencies to use U.S. air carriers to transport passengers and cargo when such travel is funded by the government” (McGee, 2015). After 9/11, “Congress and President Bush put forth the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act. Washington so quickly assisted the airlines that virtually nothing was asked in return, not even the quid pro quo of implementing the many passenger rights proposals put forth during that time” (McGee, 2015). It is apparent the U.S. government, like any other nation, does assist its aviation businesses.

Another complaint is that long-haul foreign carriers have made aircraft purchases at "below market interest rates" that are unavailable to US carriers. How is this possible? Please discuss the Export-Import Bank.

The Export-Import Bank’s purpose is to “help American businesses sell their goods and services abroad” (Lipton & Weisman, 2015). Boeing claims that “the Ex-Im Bank is crucial in allowing the company to compete against export credit agencies in France and Germany, which are only too happy to offer guarantees for the purchase of jets from Airbus, Boeing’s sole competitor in the wide-body market” (Lipton & Weisman, 2015). Delta Airlines has claimed that competitors, including Emirates, have “used the Ex-Im guarantees to lower their borrowing costs, and then used the savings to cut ticket prices on international routes that compete with Delta or buy still more new jets” (Lipton & Weisman, 2015). American companies are not able to use the Ex-Im Bank to secure these low interest rates for purchasing Boeing aircraft.

Are there any current issues with Norwegian International Airlines and the Open Skies Agreement? What about with carriers such as Emirates or Qatar?

U.S. carriers take issue with Norwegian in a similar way to Gulf carriers. Norwegian uses a crew-leasing scheme by employing staff from a firm called OSM Aviation (Lazare, 2017). Norwegian Air uses the crew leasing scheme “to sharply undercut pilot pay scales at the U.S.-based carriers. According to the data provided by U.S.-based pilots, a typical Norwegian Air captain flying the Boeing 787 Dreamliner earns approximately $115,000 yearly, while a captain flying a Dreamliner for United or American would earn approximately $270,000 annually” (Lazare, 2017). The issue U.S. carriers have with foreign carriers is that they are subsidized by foreign governments and they don’t have unionized work forces.

Finally, critically analyzing the above information, do you feel that the global "playing field" of long-haul carriers is fair?

Based on the information that I found, the international aviation industry is not a level playing field. In a sense, it is a pay-to-win structure where the airlines that get the most government assistance are able to offer the lowest rates and obtain the most customers. I do not think it is right for the U.S. to essentially ‘tear up’ the Open Skies Agreement because foreign carriers are subsidized. It is not on Etihad, or any other airline, to not accept government subsidies or take advantage of the Export-Import Bank offered. It is on the U.S. government to ramp up assistance to domestic carriers and compete on the global level.

Sources:

U.S. Department of State. (March, 2002). Air Transport Agreement between the government of

the United States of America and the government of the United Arab Emirates. US Department of State. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/1 25743.pdf

Modolo, K. (October 2015). Subsidized Gulf carrier competition forces Delta to cancel ATL-

Dubai. Delta News Hub. Retrieved from https://news.delta.com/subsidized-gulf-carrier-competition-forces-delta-cancel-atl-dubai

McGee, B. (September 2015). How much do taxpayers support airlines? USA Today. Retrieved

From https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2015/09/02/how-much-do-taxpayers-support-airlines/71568226/

Lipton, E. & Weisman, J. (April 2015) Boeing and Delta spend millions in fight over Export-

Import Bank’s existence. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/20 15/04/07/business/boeing-delta-air-lines-export-import-bank.html

Lazare, L. (February 2017) Why United, Delta and American pilots are still calling out Norwegian

Air. Chicago Business Journal. Retrieved from https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/ne ws/2017/02/15/united-delta-american-pilots-take-on-norwegian-air.html