Ok, thread drift I know, but I will offer an answer.
1. AA claimed subsidy from the US Government to pay for insurance costs following the 911 attacks. The costs of airlines all over the world for insurance were substantially increased, but US airlines claimed subsidy from the US government, subsidies which were not available to other competitor airlines.
2. The US Government requires all government employees to travel on US based airlines. This protectionist measure ensures that US airlines are protected from competition on many routes. Comparable measures are not in place in other countries. For example, on the key US/UK transatlantic routes, some of the most travelled routes in the world. The UK government requires their employees to get "best value" and has no prohibition on the use of US airlines. US government employees on the other hand are prohibited from travelling on non US carriers. On some routes in the world, this can amount to almost 15% of the total seats sold on the route, a significant government cross subsidy.
3. In the US, there is considerable subsidy for the provision of infrastructure costs such as Air traffic control, airport infrastructure, airport security, etc. These are costs which are borne by the airlines themselves in many other jurisdictions.
This is just a few.. I could give you loads.
|