35:20
Flying business class on a US airline is a luxury in name only. After doing it once, most people learn to never pay cash for it again. More often than not, you deal with mushy food and grumpy attendants who take every request like a personal offense. But take a flight on a leading Asian airline and it's like stepping foot into a different planet where every passenger, even in economy, gets metal cutlery, hot towels, Haagen-Dazs, and prompt service from attentive, attractive attendants who kneel down to your eye level whenever you speak. And it's impossible to ignore the extravagance in the premium cabins where passengers can sleep on beds in private suites, indulge in caviar, sip vintage wines, and feast on lobster and
Wagyu steak. Even if you only ever fly economy, there is a sense of pride among the staff and a remarkable degree of thoughtfulness built into every leading Asian airline. Restrooms get cleaned mid-flight, every seat is built with lumbar support and adjustable footrests, plush pillows and thick blankets are given out to all rather than rationed, and every meal is meticulously engineered for quality and presentation. In contrast, the US airline experience feels hollow, soulless, and insultingly transactional. Cabin crews spend more time in the galley on their phones than with passengers and slam down trays of slop like they're feeding cattle. Meals are outsourced to industrial caterers at
the cheapest possible cost and get served with less care than a high school cafeteria. The difference is not just in the product itself, but in the sense of care and intention behind it. Once you experience a premium Asian carrier, it's difficult to go back to US airlines. As a result, Americans today save up their cash and points for seats on foreign carriers simply because the domestic product is rarely, if ever, worth the cost. The strangest part is that US airlines pull in billions more in revenue and absolute profit than nearly every other carrier on planet Earth. Why can't they offer this kind of service and care? Is it greed or is it culture?
It's the same industry, the same business model, the same planes flying the same routes. So, how could the experiences be worlds apart? How does an airline that treats you worse somehow make more money doing it? The popular narrative is that Asian airlines are only able to achieve this level of hospitality and luxury because of state support. The argument goes that these experiences are all artificially subsidized by their countries who pump billions into their carriers and airports to attract tourists, whereas the fully privatized for-profit independent US airlines are forced to make do with none of these handouts. In this episode, we analyze every leading Asian airline to break down the market dynamics that have uniquely enabled
these international carriers to outclass their American rivals over decades in product, service, and standards. Flying in the US has become a taxing experience where the cramped seats and rough service all drive this feeling where passengers are treated as costs to be minimized rather than human beings. Even though every airline gets you from point A to point B, who you choose makes all the difference. The same is true for mental health where there are a lot of options on paper that do the same thing, but there's a tremendous difference between being processed and being genuinely cared for. Therapy taught us to write down our worries on a list for later. Our brain learns to let them go
instead of tossing and turning all night, and we get up the next day ready to problem solve. Let's be real, the hardest hurdle for most people with therapy is not therapy itself, but instead getting started. Finding a professional that you trust, figuring out the logistics, matching your schedule with theirs, and then worrying before a session if they're even the right fit for you. This friction is what makes people put off therapy or try it once and never do it again. BetterHelp, the sponsor of today's video, is built to remove exactly this pain point. You start by taking a short quiz about what you're looking for and get matched with a licensed therapist quickly. No more endless browsing, cold calling offices,
or waitlists. From there, you connect however you're most comfortable, phone, video, or text, whatever fits your life and comfort level. And the best part is that if it's not the right fit, you can switch therapists anytime at no extra cost. No awkward conversations, no nagging follow-ups, and no starting over from scratch. You just keep going until you find the right professional who clicks. This flexibility is a big reason why over 6 million people have gotten help through BetterHelp to date, and why their app holds a 4.8 out of five rating on the App Store. If you've been telling yourself you'll get to point B of eventually, BetterHelp is the easiest, smoothest, and most comfortable version
of arriving at your destination. Click the link in the description or go to betterhelp.com/modernmba and get 10% off your first month of therapy. Thank you to BetterHelp for supporting Modern MBA and making this episode possible. To understand the global passenger aviation business, we must first understand credit cards. Credit cards are a uniquely American phenomenon that provide US airlines a massive financial advantage that no other carrier in the world gets. The co-branded credit cards and mileage programs generate billions in profit every year for every major carrier. Whether it's Delta and American Express or United and Chase, the deals are all the same. These airlines sell
virtual miles to banks every year in exchange for billions in cash. These banks then dangle those same miles to consumers as incentives for credit card sign-ups and spending. The reality is that if we strip out credit card revenue, the entire US airline industry effectively collapses. Every major carrier today is already losing money flying passengers from point A to point B. But once you add credit card revenue, these same airlines instantly return to profit with the cash to make payroll and keep their planes in the air. In short, credit card revenue today has become not a bonus, but a critical lifeline for US airlines. This difference is why smaller carriers like Frontier and Southwest are
struggling, and a big reason why Spirit today is bankrupt. They generate far less cash from credit cards and thus must ruthlessly squeeze every penny out of passengers to offset costs. From this angle, the goal of every major US airline is to pull you into their ecosystem. That way, you'll fly with them no matter what because you want the points. Throw in perks, upgrades, and reward multipliers, everything is designed to make you stick with the same carrier as much as possible. Thus, the only way for foreign carriers like Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Singapore Airlines, or ANA to win your business is to create a product gap so wide that you would feel worth trading up for. If
their in-flight experience and service was only marginally better, then Americans would just stick to the standard path of Delta, United, or American for points and status. At the same time, the home countries of these Asian airlines are tiny compared to the United States. Singapore, Dubai, Taiwan, Hong Kong, with the exception of Japan, these countries don't have the population, land mass, or need for domestic air travel. Without adequate local demand, their airlines have no choice but to poach Westerners to fill their planes. As a result, the leading Asian airlines are all international based operators. This is the inverse of the major US airlines, which are all domestic based businesses in revenue and volume. Even though China has the
greatest number of travelers and Europe has plenty of businesses, winning over American travelers is the fastest path to profit for foreign airlines. For one, Americans fly far more frequently than any other demographic. When flying are your only two options for transit, you really have no choice but to jump on a plane. Infrastructure constraints aside, Americans uniquely possess the disposable income and willingness to splurge. Because all the money in aviation is in the premium cabins, where a single business class seat generates more profit than the entire row of economy behind it, everything in the market pushes foreign carriers towards the same strategy. Unless you can bank
on billions in credit card revenue or fall back on a massive domestic market, you must go upmarket to win over Americans and thrive as an independent airline. So, if that means serving a better steak, making a comfier seat, and pouring a more expensive champagne, Asian airlines are broadly willing to make these investments to close the sale. Japan Airlines is first class boasts 43-in 4K screens, headphone-free audio, and Michelin-starred fine dining. ANA's business class offers some of the widest plane seats in the world, sliding privacy doors, and intricate Kaiseki meals. Taiwan's EVA Air serves food from Din Tai Fung, hands out free pajamas from renowned fashion designers, and
provides lie-flat cabins. Meanwhile, Starlux perfumes first-class cabins with custom scents, sources meals from Taipei's trendiest restaurants, and offers seats designed to lower your blood pressure. Singapore Airlines is legendary for its suites, where every passenger gets to eat lobster in their own bed and armchair. Cathay Pacific boasts custom lighting, luxury bedding, and freshly pulled espressos, lattes, and cappuccinos available on demand. Meanwhile, Emirates first-class passengers get to take hot showers, socialize in an onboard bar, and sleep in floor-to-ceiling suites with unlimited champagne and caviar. And over in Qatar Airways, cabins can be freely combined into dining spaces, where
passengers can order anything off the menu at any time. Each of these carriers are renowned for their service and hospitality, delivered meticulously by cabin crews made up of mostly young, attractive women. Collectively, they blow past the best offerings of even the biggest and wealthiest American carriers. But, in reality, these Asian airlines are not really competing against Delta One or United Polaris. US airlines operate under a completely different set of incentives. They only need to provide a premium product that's compliant enough to satisfy corporate travel policies and comfortable enough to prevent executives from complaining.
This, in turn, has become the defining standard for the modern American business class, inconsistent service and mediocre food tossed onto cheap plastic. For them, business class is not about excellence, but instead doing just enough to win the corporate contracts that lock thousands of employees into their ecosystems. Investing millions in caviar, bedding, and bread has virtually no upside, especially when these carriers are already losing billions anyways doing the bare minimum. Thus, the true competition for Asian airlines is with each other. They must outdo one another in extravagance and hospitality to win over American travelers in the rare instances they step outside of
their credit card ecosystems. But even though Americans fly more than any other demographic, the majority of flights they take are domestic. Only 18% of Americans fly internationally every calendar year and only 6 to 8% of this group flies to Asia. This means that Asian airlines are all competing for the top 1% of this 1.5% to fill their premium cabins. So, if credit cards are the ace up the sleeve for US airlines, then luxury is the only trump card for Asian carriers. Yet today, in-flight experience is no longer enough. International carriers have invested billions to extend their brand and prestige into lounges and terminals.
Singapore Airlines' first-class passengers get to dine on free Wagyu burgers, lobster, and champagne at Changi Airport. Cathay Pacific's lounges are stocked with private cabanas, stone bathtubs, and massage stations at Hong Kong International. Japan Airlines' lounge features a dedicated sushi bar with handmade nigiri and self-serve sake. Starlux passengers get picked up in black cars, escorted through their own immigration, and lounge in private villas. Meanwhile, EVA Air operates multiple lounges, each with their own theme and all with self-serve Häagen-Dazs. Emirates' first-class passengers get their own terminal where they can indulge in exclusive cigar lounges, spas, bars, and restaurants, all separated from the public crowds of
the main terminal. These amenities are all calculated investments by every carrier to woo travelers before they've settled on an itinerary. In contrast, the lounges offered by US airlines, whether domestic or international, are overcrowded and sad experiences built around buffets of frozen food and cheap alcohol. Ironically, the most luxurious lounges in American airports today are not by the carriers themselves, but rather the very same credit card companies that are keeping them alive in the first place. The narrative is that Asian airlines can only afford this opulence because of endless subsidies from their governments. The argument goes that these lounges, cabin services,
and infrastructure are all vanity projects bankrolled by the state for the sole purpose of national prestige. Asian carriers are free to ignore profit and can operate without constraints in ways that US carriers can't, but the reality is the exact opposite. Most Asian carriers are not state-owned. With the exception of Singapore Airlines, Qatar, Etihad, and Emirates, the rest are all publicly traded for-profit corporations. Broadly speaking, these Asian carriers are all not just surviving, but instead thriving as the most profitable airlines in the world. Like their American peers, they all publicize their financials and any excess returns must be redistributed
back to shareholders. Every government in the world provides some degree of financial backing and safety net for its domestic airlines, but no state can magically fill seats or manufacture profits. From a business standpoint, important distinction of all is that these airlines make money flying passengers, whereas US carriers depend entirely on credit card revenue to survive. But there is a point where luxury becomes excess. Through the 2010s, legacy US airlines, Delta, United, American, aggressively lobbied the Obama and Trump administrations to ban Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar from American airports. They asserted that there was no way any airline could afford onboard showers, cocktail bars,
and unlimited caviar. These luxuries were only possible because of the tens of billions of dollars that these oil states were pumping into their airlines. Backed by infinite public funds, these Middle Eastern giants were breaking the free market in the eyes of US carriers, flooding popular international routes with fares and experiences they could never match. The nuance is that US airlines also receive significant government support. Like automakers, airlines are critical to economic sovereignty, national security, and employment. A country without its own airlines would need to depend on a foreign power to move citizens and
commerce. Obviously, this is an outcome that no superpower would ever accept. Thus, big airlines are modern-day flag carriers, just wrapped in private logos, and everyone is backed by their state in some way. In the US, airlines don't get free cash from the government, but instead are propped up by the tax code and municipalities. In the 2000s, nearly every major carrier filed for bankruptcy. Despite their collapse, the planes were never grounded, and passengers continued to fly. The airlines got to use federal bankruptcy as a legal shield to dump their billion-dollar liabilities onto taxpayers, tear up existing union contracts, force 30% salary cuts onto their workforce, and erase the billions owed to suppliers. This kind of
bankruptcy protection would have been illegal in any other nation. The US government has also done cash injections. The first was after 9/11, when Congress handed $5 billion to US airlines to keep them afloat during the subsequent slump when Americans were too scared to fly. The second was during the pandemic when US airlines collectively received $59 billion so they could keep staff on payroll without having to dig into their own cash reserves. But at the end of the day, protectionism exists only for those too big to fail. A low-cost carrier like Spirit doesn't get a bailout simply because it's too small to be worth saving. At the same time, when an airline wants to build a new fancy terminal for themselves, they get to tap
into special low-interest financing. The municipality that owns the airport issues tax-exempt municipal bonds on behalf of the airline and then passes on public proceeds to fund the private construction. This cheap state-facilitated capital has funded most of the mega terminal projects in the US of the past decade. Ultimately, the greatest irony is that for all the money that the Middle East has pumped into its airlines, their amounts still don't come close to the billions that legacy US carriers receive every year from credit cards. Like automakers, passenger aviation is not and will never be a free market. Across Asia, governments operate in deep alignment with their airlines. Even in fully privatized markets like Japan and
Taiwan. For these small countries, a premium airline is a critical instrument for economy and diplomacy. As a city-state, Hong Kong is fueled entirely by services. The country has spent generations building up its status as the finance and logistics hub for Asia. Cathay Pacific serves as that physical backbone, flying in overseas travelers, business leaders, lawyers, and power brokers to close deals while flying out goods made in China to the West. If the airline goes down, the entire country goes with it. As a result, Hong Kong is willing to do anything to keep its airline alive, even if that means breaking away from its strict laissez faire dogma. During the pandemic, Hong Kong injected billions of public
taxpayer funds to save the private for-profit carrier, marking the first ever government intervention in the country's history since 1998. This symbiotic relationship means that Cathay Pacific will forever remain the dominant airline at Hong Kong International with the best real estate, gates, time slots, and lounges. The same dynamic is at play with Singapore. As another city-state, Singapore has no natural resources. Thus, Singapore Airlines and Changi Airport operate in tandem as a unified state-owned engine that anchors the nation, flying in the fresh food needed to feed its citizens, attracting the foreign investment needed for growth,
and flying out the high-value microchips manufactured on the island. From this lens, Singapore Airlines' legendary business cabins are not there for wealthy tourists as much as they are for Fortune 500 executives. All the excess profits get returned to the government in the form of dividends. Naturally, when the pandemic hit, the airline was given a $14 billion rescue package to keep staff employed, planes in the air, and the entire country humming. Even in Japan, where all domestic airlines are fully private ventures, ANA and JAL operate in step with government priorities. While cars remain the country's top export, tourism has surged in recent years to become the second largest contributor to GDP. The historic
depreciation of the yen has turned Japan into an affordable destination. With millions of tourists flooding in every year, both carriers are now regarded as critical growth engines that are injecting much-needed foreign cash into the country's stagnant economy. The Japanese government grants its domestic airlines the best real estate and gates at its airports, and in return, those carriers help advance national priorities, promoting rural Japan and marketing travel packages designed to funnel tourist spend into regions beyond Tokyo. Yet, the dynamic in Taiwan is totally different. The country's world-class semiconductor industry generates massive organic demand for air freight and business travel. Tech executives will fly to Taiwan for its
chips and expertise by any means necessary. Because the nation's economic value is rooted in technology, the country doesn't need domestic airlines to project its prestige or drive foreign investment. As a result, EVA Air and Starlux receive no public subsidies as for-profit entities and compete head-to-head alongside the state-owned China Airlines. In Qatar, there is no boundary between airline and airport. Both are state-owned assets controlled by the same leaders. As a fossil fuel state where natural gas exports make up 80% of GDP, Qatar's leaders understand better than anyone that its present-day riches cannot last. The country has
aggressively reinvested its fortunes into building up Qatar Airways in the hopes that the airline can drive the country's transformation away from oil and towards finance and tourism. From this lens, Qatar Airways is both the marketing muscle and the funnel that physically carries international cash and talent into Doha. In contrast, Dubai possesses little oil. With oil production down since the '90s, the state recognized early that a new economy of tourism, logistics, and trade would only be possible through aviation. Today, aviation is the lifeblood of the emirate, contributing 27% of the nation's GDP and employing one out of every five workers in the state.
Emirates Airline serves as an all-in-one advertisement and pipeline for Dubai, bringing in rich tourists, foreign investors, and institutional capital that in turn fuel the city's real estate. In short, the smaller and less self-sufficient a nation, the more likely it will cultivate, foster, and nurture a premium airline to develop trade and convey prestige in the absence of hard military or economic power. On the other hand, US airlines are not treated as flag carriers. While they are still recognized as critical national infrastructure, the federal government treats United, Delta, and American like utility providers. Beyond safety and antitrust, the US remains hands-off. With an abundance of hard power and soft
power as the global leader in military, currency, banking, culture, and entertainment, the country has no incentive to elevate its airlines. America is a brand-name destination. Tourists will visit, the wealthy will immigrate, and the talent will come no matter how poor the in-flight experience and onboard product gets. Thus, the overwhelming priority is punctuality and safety, rather than aesthetics and experience. This mindset bleeds into the infrastructure, where airports have historically been designed for efficiency rather than spectacle. Most US airports languish far behind those of
Asian countries with faded carpets, low ceilings, cramped spaces, and outdated lighting. Things only started to change in 2014 when Joe Biden said the quiet part out loud as vice president, describing New York LaGuardia as something out of a third world country. His viral comments and efforts since have driven bipartisan investment. While a few airports in recent years have begun to buck the trend like Portland and SFO, these upgrades took over a decade to materialize, billions in funding, and remain limited to a handful of big cities. The challenge is that American airports are run by either a state agency, city government, or local port authority, who must keep the lights
on by charging fees to passengers and airlines, issuing bonds, or receiving federal grants. This fragmentation in governance and funding is the reason behind the extreme inconsistency of American airports, and also generally limits renovations to cities where aviation is a political priority or is already thriving. Because US airports are not subsidized by taxpayers, they generally don't have the money lying around to fund billion-dollar rebuilds and expansions on their own. As landlords, they have to rely on airlines to lead and finance renovations on the very terminals they rent as tenants. For airports that are dominated by a single carrier, the path of least resistance is to let that airline take even greater
control over its own terminal and decide everything from the type of chairs passengers sit in to the number of gates their planes get to park at. As we covered in the past on Modern MBA, the major US airlines rule through fortresses. These are airports where United, Delta, or American single-handedly hold 70% or more market share, and physically block out competition by dominating the limited number of gates, ticket counters, and real estate available. These carriers love this arrangement where they lead renovations and financing because it gives them leverage over the airport. Terminal renovations aren't just about making bigger, nicer spaces for planes and passengers, but about asserting control over the passenger journey.
Airports are public facilities built on public land that exist to benefit all travelers. Yet, under this model, public infrastructure gets warped to serve private interests, and a terminal gets optimized for a single carrier, brand, and set of passengers, rather than the general public it's meant to serve. Because the flashiest upgrades cost billions, this strategy is available only to the richest and biggest US carriers. They're the only ones with the cash flow and fortresses to play this game in the first place. Thus, even if a renovation runs over in both time and budget, the airline still comes out ahead as a new terminal solidifies the airport's dependence on it for the next
few decades. It's a case where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This also leads to inevitable fragmentation within a single airport, where a new, privately funded terminal will sit adjacent to another with its outdated flooring, amenities, and chairs, simply because that rival airline could not match that investment for their own space. In contrast, Asian and Middle Eastern airports operate on a top-down model where the airport authority designs, expands, and renovates every terminal under a single aesthetic and holistic vision. Beyond the lounges, no control is ever ceded to an airline, and even state-owned carriers must operate within the space provided. The airport funds everything itself, and no tenant
is allowed to commandeer a terminal the way US airlines do. Singapore proactively upgrades Changi Airport to ensure the infrastructure keeps up with their airline. And as Japan has expanded Tokyo's airports, ANA and JAL have matched the state in timing and scope by deploying their own capital to fill these new terminals with cutting-edge lounges. Dubai has committed $35 billion to build a new, bigger, flashier international airport for the growing Emirates. And the same is happening for Qatar Airways. What's notable is not just the timing and coordination of these upgrades between airport and airline, but that these capital projects are ultimately financed by passengers.
Asian countries bundle significant departure fees directly into every plane ticket based on cabin class. Singapore collects $50 from every passenger in economy leaving Changi Airport, Hong Kong collects $60, the Gulf States charges $40, and Japan takes $30. Now, the US also charges departure fees, but the vast majority get pocketed by the federal government rather than the airport. The passenger facility charge is the only fee that flows to the airport and has been capped at $4.50 for a direct domestic or international flight for the past 25 years. To put into perspective just how absurdly low this is, Taipei International collects more revenue per passenger than any
American airport. US carriers have successfully lobbied Congress for decades to keep the passenger facility charge low in order to depress ticket prices, preserve the perception of domestic air travel as affordable, and to stifle public demand for high-speed rail. In contrast, Asian airports keep the lion's share of their departure fees. As a result, American municipalities are starved of the income stream that is meant to fund capital improvements for the airport in the first place. They have no choice but to rely on federal grants, local bonds, or private entities for upgrades. Under this lens, US airlines effectively strangle the very airports they operate from. Meanwhile, in Asia, this divide between public and private or airport
and airline just doesn't exist. What's tricky about this kind of cross-border analysis is that there are stark differences in geography and scale. Asian carriers get to concentrate virtually all their investment and effort on one single airport, at most two. If a crisis occurs, the entire airline can mobilize into restoring their crown jewel. In contrast, the major American carriers must oversee a massive continental footprint. They each operate seven to 10 major hubs and serve hundreds of airports nationwide, dozens of which also double as bases for crew, maintenance, and parts. On any given day, they could be tackling a winter
storm in New York, a labor strike in San Francisco, a mechanical failure in Chicago, a catering shortage in Los Angeles, or a scheduling error in Florida. With their fleet, staff, and operations spread out across hundreds of domestic venues, worrying about if the champagne at the lounge has been properly chilled is nowhere on the list of priorities. Now, an Asian airline can unveil a world-class flagship lounge at its lone fortress in a single ceremony, a US carrier must split its resources across 7 to 10 key hubs. They have to peanut butter spread their capital, which instantly dilutes any premium experience into a standardized, replicable, watered-down product. Luxury is a function of exclusivity and
personalization, yet the sheer scale of American passenger aviation makes delivering a bespoke service inherently difficult. United alone carries more passengers annually than Emirates and Singapore Airlines combined. Since most customers are domestic, US carriers use mostly short-haul narrow-body aircraft. In comparison, Asian carriers all use wide-body long-haul aircraft. US carriers also have way bigger fleets to sustain their passenger volume, and the bigger the fleet, the bigger the workforce. They each employ hundreds of thousands of flight attendants, baggage handlers, support agents, and mechanics across hundreds of hubs. Meanwhile, Asian airlines employ an order of magnitude less and get to concentrate
their workforce within a single venue. This difference in scale is why US airline executives forever focus on safety and on-time percentages as their North Star ahead of customer satisfaction and prestige. But, if we pause and review all the concepts covered, it seems that Asian carriers shouldn't need to compete on service as much as they do. They operate out of a single state-protected fortress and get all the best real estate, gates, and time slots on home turf. If a traveler wants a non-stop flight to Singapore, Taipei, Tokyo, or Dubai with favorable arrival times, they almost always have to fly the flag carrier. As long as the country is a popular destination, the carrier should always have business.
But, the nuance is that Asian carriers are battling each other for transit travelers, not just passengers whose journey start or end at their home country. Transit travelers are those with layovers who only enter the country as a stepping stone to their final destination. Since they're just waiting at the airport, they don't individually inject a meaningful amount of capital into the local economy relative to a visiting tourist or businessman. But, transit travelers are vital for unit economics. There are statistically not enough people in New York or San Francisco who want to fly to Tokyo or Dubai every Tuesday, at least not enough to consistently fill a 400-seat plane. At the same time, those business and
first class cabins only generate those great profits if the economy rows behind them are also filled. From this lens, economy is the floor that covers the flight's fixed operating costs, while premium cabins raise the ceiling. And an airline must fill both sections to maximize profit. Thus, transit traffic is essential to providing the critical mass needed to fill the back of the plane and make long-haul routes profitable in the first place. Leading Asian carriers are successful not only because of their in-flight experiences and infrastructure, but also because they're all located in countries with geographic advantages that make them good transit hubs in the first place.
Half of the world's population lives within a 5-hour flight to Hong Kong International. Because China's airspace is restricted, Hong Kong's open skies stand out for business and commerce. Cathay Pacific sweeps up regional passengers across East Asia and pools them all into single mega flights to North America. Singapore sits between two hemispheres, making the country a natural gateway for long-haul non-stop flights between the West and South Asia. The shortest flight path between North America and Asia is not a straight line across the Pacific Ocean, but a curve that goes over Alaska. Japan is the first land mass that most trans-Pacific
planes hit along this route. The two Japanese carriers use this edge to capture travelers from North America heading to Southeast Asia and vice versa. Taiwan sits at the midpoint between Japan and Southeast Asia, making it attractive for transit passengers looking for a 2 to 4-hour hop to Southeast Asia rather than the 6 to 8-hour flight that they would have to endure if their layover was in Tokyo. EVA Air and Starlux both pull Southeast Asian traffic every afternoon into waves of red-eye flights to the US. While the Asian airlines excel at the linear corridors across the Pacific or Indian Ocean, the Middle Eastern carriers sit
at the center of the Afro-Eurasian land mass. Emirates, Qatar, and Etihad can connect virtually any city pair on Earth with a single stop like China to Africa or Europe to India. And while Japan, Australia, and Europe shut down their airports at night with strict curfews, these barren Middle East airports are open 24/7. The only international routes that the Gulf carriers don't have an advantage in are the ones between the US and East Asia. And this corridor remains exclusive to ANA, EVA Air, Cathay Pacific, Korean Air, and so on. Transit traffic is also invaluable because it unlocks cargo as a major revenue stream.
Since these carriers all operate massive wide-body aircraft, they can fit freight pallets and heavy shipments beneath the passengers they're already carrying. Conversely, cargo is small fries for US airlines. With mostly narrow-body aircraft, there's no capacity for heavy shipments. The air cargo business that does exist has long been vacuumed up by dedicated giants like FedEx and UPS who offer better infrastructure, service, and expertise than what Delta, United, and American could ever piece together. Ultimately, success is not down to money alone, but rather the combination of money and geography. A country that is
not a popular destination or physically on the way to a major market can build the world's most opulent airline and airport and still fail. The Middle East carriers are thriving not because of their onboard showers or caviar service, but because planes that are flying between Europe to Asia or Europe to Australia naturally pass over the Gulf. They simply tapped into the existing traffic overhead and use luxury to elevate their airlines. At a macro level, it's a flywheel. The more a country becomes as a destination or transit hub, the greater volume of passengers that it can move through its airport. The greater the traffic, the more departure fees the airport gets to collect, and the greater the likelihood
that planes can be packed to capacity. The higher the load factor, the lower the operating costs, and the greater the profit margins for the airline. This surplus then flows back into the in-flight product and infrastructure, which in turn fuels the airline's profits, the airport's revenues, the national economy, and the country's standing on the world stage. Because transit travelers have a choice of where to spend their layover, Asian countries and airlines must continually elevate their onboard experiences, lounges, and airports to ensure that their hub remains the most compelling layover or destination. The final and most insurmountable difference between American and Asian airlines is labor. US carriers employ rigid unionized
workforces who are protected from involuntary termination and governed by strict work rules. Under this structure, the compensation and assignment is dictated by seniority rather than performance. This is why if you ride United or Delta's business class, you'll generally end up with the oldest and most jaded flight attendants. Since flight assignments are determined by higher date, the most senior staff will always lock down the popular international long-haul flights for themselves. These routes allow them to complete their monthly flying quotas in just a few trips, maximize their daily stipends, and enjoy company paid layovers in luxury hotels at top-tier destinations. Since pay is based on tenure, there is no incentive to do
anything beyond the bare minimum. Those who do go above and beyond don't get rewarded as merit does not supersede seniority. To control labor costs, every US airline staffs their aircraft to the minimum required by law. In contrast, leading Asian carriers generally overstaff their planes well above the legal minimums to guarantee high-touch service and a good baseline experience for all cabins. While being a flight attendant in the US is seen as a stable middle-class job, being a flight attendant in Asia is a coveted, prestigious role. The applicant pool is ultra-competitive with training regiments that cover everything from grooming and posture to presentation and emotional intelligence. Every carrier imposes uncompromising standards,
employment structures, and hiring criteria that would be illegal in the West. Flight attendants are chosen based on gender, age, fitness, and appearance. Most crew are hired on fixed 3-to-5-year contracts where only the cream of the crop who pass the medical assessments, performance reviews, and visual evaluations get extended. Those who fail or simply age out get transitioned to back office roles or leave the sector entirely. While unions are banned in the Middle East, they exist in East Asia. However, their governments historically side with management during disputes as the airline is simply too vital to the
economy and country to be bogged down by collective bargaining. These carriers also regularly hire from beyond their home country, which enables them to suppress salaries over time, widen recruitment to billions of applicants, and foster competition even for existing hires. In contrast, labor is the single largest operating expense for Delta, United, American, and Southwest. On top of the day-to-day staff, each of these carriers also must shoulder hundreds of millions every year to fund the lives of their retirees. Meanwhile, because leading Asian countries have public health care and nationalized pensions, their carriers don't have to carry retirement liabilities the same way that US Airlines do. These structural
differences of depth versus breadth enable foreign carriers to perennially outperform American Airlines in product and business, capturing maximum spend from American travelers in US dollars, paying smaller expenses in weaker local currencies, committing all their resources for few rather than many, and reinvesting the remaining margin into aircraft, infrastructure, and innovation. Ultimately, the main ingredient behind all of this is culture. Not every Asian airline is a success. And if we look at legacy European carriers like British Airways, Lufthansa, and Air France, these are airlines with massive international appeal, strong access to capital, geographic advantages, and single fortress hubs. British Airways maintains
a near monopoly over London Heathrow, which is the world's busiest and most lucrative international airport. The same is true for Lufthansa and Frankfurt. With the soft power of the UK and Germany, these two carriers on paper have everything they need to match the success of Asian Airlines. But in reality, the in-flight experience and onboard product at these European Airlines is just as bad, if not worse, than US carriers. Thus, British Airways and Lufthansa are counter examples that prove that even if you have a single fortress hub, endless demand, global relevance, and an abundance of power, it means nothing if the culture and ambition doesn't exist.
