Competition and Subsidies in Air Transport Liberalization— The UAE-North America Dispute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subsidy allegations against the three major Middle-Eastern carriers—Emirates Airlines, Etihad Airways, and Qatar Airways—have been brought by the three major U.S. carriers—American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines. The latter claim that the Gulf trio receives letters of credit and subsidies from their governments. They claim also that their rivals take passengers and revenues from U.S. carriers and force them to reduce, terminate, or forego services on international routes. This article rationalizes the ongoing debate without arguing whether the subsidy allegations are founded or not. It seeks to understand the basic rationale behind any findings and conclusions drawn by the different stakeholders that are involved or concerned by the subject. It is important to shed light on the conflicts of interests that might harm air transport development as a whole, and hence the fundamental right of the people: freedom of movement and, more specifically, the needs of the people for “efficient and economical air transport” prescribed by Article 44 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The focus is on the North American region. The air transport policies and competitive issues are addressed from different national and international perspectives, specifically, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), national civil aviation authorities, and for-profit organizations. The analysis is based mainly on scientific data and legal and regulatory aspects, which are discussed through a case study of the United States and Canada on the one hand and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the other.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".