We rented two planes from the Pakistani International Airlines and worked on them - Sheikh Mohammed

[Shahzaz ud din]

We rented two planes from the Pakistani International Airlines and worked on them - Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktou

In the 37th chapter of his latest book, Qissati, His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, reveals how he set up the Emirates airline and its journey to becoming the best in the world.

By the end of the 1970s, we announced an 'open sky' policy in Dubai to attract airlines. Our target was to enhance competition and to open more sectors in our economy. Gulf Air, which was supported by some countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and operated many trips to Dubai, was worried that some other airlines would benefit from our policy.

Gulf Air's problems with the Dubai airport kept increasing and they asked me clearly and directly to end the open sky policy so that they could protect their market share. They gave us a few weeks to announce it, threatening to withdraw from our airport, which meant the end of 70 per cent of the airport's work. After holding many meetings, I stressed that the policy would never change and that it was essential to the way we work. We reached a dead end and Gulf Air reduced the number of flights to Dubai.

I hate such disputes, because it is never a smart or civilised way to solve problems.

In 1984, I invited the manager of an aviation company called Dnata in Dubai, Maurice Flanagan, to my office, to discuss with him a dream I always had. I wanted to establish an airline in Dubai.

He was an expert in this field. He made a team and provided me with a plan. The team suggested naming the airline Dubai air, but I said we should name it Emirates Airline and told them to put the UAE flag on the aircraft.

I asked about the cost of launching the airline and they said $10 million. We had six months to launch the new airline. We rented two planes from the Pakistan International Airlines and worked on them. The working team asked me to give them special privileges to protect the airline from competition, but I said the policy of open sky would remain.

Today, Emirates Airline has been recognised as the best airline several times and continues to make profits. The total income for the company in 2018 reached $28 billion. It has more than 260 planes and transports more than 60 million travellers annually.Sometimes, companies bring problems upon themselves by fearing competition and results in a competitor pushing them out of the competition.

In what he is calling his "incomplete biography", His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, has broken his latest book, Qissati (My Story), into 50 chapters, narrating 50 stories in his 50 years of serving the nation. Khaleej Times got a signed copy of the book from the Dubai Ruler and everyday, we will be featuring excerpts from each of the 50 chapters.

Advertisement

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Emirates pilots and cabin crew down to technicians were trained by PIA.

And look where PIA is today.

 

[Path-Finder]

This is Face(f#cking)Palm moment.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Emirates pilots and cabin crew down to technicians were trained by PIA. And look where PIA is today.

Let's not get carried away. The real engine behind Emirates was Mauruce Flanagan and his 'team'. The Sheikh makes it pretty clear and attributes just 'rented planes from PIA'.

In 1984, I invited the manager of an aviation company called Dnata in Dubai, Maurice Flanagan, to my office, to discuss with him a dream I always had. I wanted to establish an airline in Dubai.

He was an expert in this field. He made a team and provided me with a plan. The team suggested naming the airline Dubai air, but I said we should name it Emirates Airline and told them to put the UAE flag on the aircraft.

 

[airmarshal]

The point is lack of fear. When we fear, we start protecting. When we protect, we destroy. PIA was destroyed due to protectionism and the screw up of Pakistan economy started by Bhutto in 70s.

Bhutto was a vindictive man. He wanted to reverse all the good done by Ayub. That reversal led to destruction of education, industry and corporations like PIA and PIDC. We are still reeling from those decisions.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The real engine behind Emirates was Mauruce Flanagan and his 'team'. The Sheikh makes it pretty clear and attributes just 'rented planes from PIA'.

Now, had he hired people from PIA management then we could brag but the Sheikh was not so stupid or else Emirates would have ended up like PIA today. Then maybe it was Yahoodi sazish that fcuked up PIA ...

 

[airmarshal]

When the Sheikh dreamt of Emirates, UAE was a desert and PIA was one of the top airlines of the world. PIA could have become what Emirates is today if our leadership, political and military, had thought about country beyond themselves or devising policies to please Washington.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The point is lack of fear. When we fear, we start protecting. When we protect, we destroy. PIA was destroyed due to protectionism and the screw up of Pakistan economy started by Bhutto in 70s.

Bhutto was a vindictive man. He wanted to reverse all the good done by Ayub. That reversal led to destruction of education, industry and corporations like PIA and PIDC. We are still reeling from those decisions.

You know I used to think that as well but I now entirel;y disagree. Blaming and dumping on Bhutto is overlooking some hard facts. He went nearly 40 years ago. We have had four decades, at least seven governments, military, elected and all people can do is dump it on 'Bhutto'. In 40 years we could not undo what he did in one government?

The reality is lot more sober and nuanced. First the booming 60s had little to do with latent [desi] Pakistan genius. It was mostly American aid money in huge quantaties that put the Pakistan economy on steriods. But that was like life support being provided by America. When and if it was cut the steriod injection would run out and Pak would drop down. And sure after 1965 war it began to drop. Rest is history.

The other thing to keep in mind was PIA was nothing especial even in it's glory days. In those days all airlines were largely or partly extentions of the governments and operated in a very protected environment thus these state airlines were monopolies or civil versions of the national airforces. If the governments were healthy the airline would be healthy. It was more about national prestige then profit.

However by late 1970s this began to change. Open skies brought in free market forces and the age of national airlines was over. One by one most were privitised. British Airways went private in 1980s. The era of competion had set in and only the fittest would survive. And PIA increasingly was exposed for what it was. A inefficient state monopoly that struggled in open free market without protection.

And much as I suppprt PTI I think they will fail to reform PIA. The airline needs to be declared bankrupt and liquidated. Then a new private airline needs to pick up afresh. PIA is a mafia ran for the benefit of it's workers who have huge political clout and PTI I think has shied away frpm taking on.

 

[airmarshal]

What I said about Bhutto @Indus Pakistan is because after him, no one tried to reverse the economic downturn in general.

From a net positive economy in Ayub time, we have become a begging bowl now. The rot was started by Bhutto. He introduced unions as he wanted to act socialist. The unions were introduced to deter 'seth' culture of 50s and 60s. Those unions actually were recruiting centres for PPP hooligans called 'jiyalas'. Each successive govt, used these unions as employment centres for their favorites. This was never reversed. In fact this culture of unions became dens of badmaashi and phudda culture which disrupted industrialization and flight of capital. Once capital and enterprise is gone, what we are left with is expenses only which are paid for by loans.

He also destroyed bureaucracy by promoting his favorites and introducing politics. My uncle was Deputy Secretary of Industries in Ayub time. He was a bright apolitical bureaucrat. When Bhutto came, he demoted him and brought a deputy secretary and secretary of industries of his choice. Each successive government after Bhutto did not reverse this trend. In fact it became a trend in each government tenure to promote bureaucrats of its choice and even bring outsider for top grade 22/23 positions.

This is just an example of how Bhutto destroyed bureaucracy and industry which was never reversed.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

From a net positive economy in Ayub time, we have become a begging bowl now. The rot was started by Bhutto.

I am a staunch PTI guy so don't confuse me with PPP phile. However a serious study of Pakistan's fortunes will show you the underlying dynamic that was bigger then Bhutto. Ayub roaring 60s was fueled by massive US aid grants ~ greater then we have ever seen since. Don't forget WEst Pakistan's population was about 5 times less [40 million] and that inflow of US money fed the famous boom of 1960s.

By 1965 the downturn had began as US started to reduce aid on account of 1965 war. In fact this weakened Ayub's government and Bhutto took advantage of that. Not until 1980s and the re-introduction of US aid did we see uptick in Pakistan's economy.

There is direct correlation between US aid in 1960s [ayub], 1980s [Zia], 2000s [Musharaf] and Pakistan's economy. This factor figures above whatever the governments in the intervening period did.

 

[Nilgiri]

I am a staunch PTI guy so don't confuse me with PPP phile. However a serious study of Pakistan's fortunes will show you the underlying dynamic that was bigger then Bhutto. Ayub roaring 60s was fueled by massive US aid grants ~ greater then we have ever seen since. Don't forget WEst Pakistan's population was about 5 times less [40 million] and that inflow of US money fed the famous boom of 1960s.

By 1965 the downturn had began as US started to reduce aid on account of 1965 war. In fact this weakened Ayub's government and Bhutto took advantage of that. Not until 1980s and the re-introduction of US aid did we see uptick in Pakistan's economy.

There is direct correlation between US aid in 1960s [ayub], 1980s [Zia], 2000s [Musharaf] and Pakistan's economy. This factor figures above whatever the governments in the intervening period did.

This is basically it in a nutshell. Well done.

One has to remember that when we use the USD nominal for GDP, it will be directly correlated to the presence of activities taking place using the US Dollar (rather than the local currency) regarding that country and the world at large (given that is what shapes the exchange rate and thus extrapolation of further domestic econometrics from that when USD is the reference).

This was one of the reasons why PPP was eventually created for better economic tabulation across countries (for international comparison purposes)....given USD exposure is by no means anywhere close to a constant amount everywhere (and even within the same country across time as you have shown here given Pakistan did not trade all that much in its modern history...and thus quite sensitive to USD flows via aid + remittance etc.)

Bhutto definitely gets lot more blame than he deserves (on economic front, the rest is another subject).

Sweden for example did far more intense nationalisation of its industries/manufacturing (given the % scales realised of those compared to the total economic size w.r.t developing country like Pakistan) during the 70s and 80s (the much studied western "democratic" socialist experiment), yet it had the underlying capacity in USD trade etc (that acted as a plank/floorboard) that did not significantly alter/diminish its nominal GDP (the problems arose in Swedish Krona side which ultimately needed reversal of the policy, but thats another story).

A reverse of what happened in Sweden would be Russia in the ruble collapse, Russia lost an immense amount of its nominal USD value for GDP....but its PPP value was relatively steady.

The periods I am talking about are given below....Sweden you can see the effect especially in the 1980 - 1985 region (as you can see the erosion was not that great at all in nominal USD)...and for Russia the period is 2013 - 2016 (where it lost half its nominal USD value of GDP as you can see).

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=RU-SE

When we look at PPP, you can see that Russia did not lose much at all in the 2013 - 2016 time period:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?locations=RU

Unfortunately PPP only kicked in as a thing from 1990 onwards (when the ICP process took effect) so there is no figures available for Sweden case (but I would assume it took a significant enough hit given the political upheavel and correction that happened). Something can be gleamed on the matter on pages 60-61 of this paper:

http://www.historia.se/SPEH12.pdf

The (Krona based) growth rates in the 70s and 80s (up to early 90s) clearly were affected compared to what Sweden enjoyed before and after it....and also compared to the USD based ones (though of course some correlation is there given Sweden's integration with world market).

@M. Sarmad @VCheng @That Guy @Major Sam @GeraltofRivia @Oscar @Joe Shearer @Chak Bamu @farhan_9909 @Vergennes @saiyan0321 @vostok @balixd @Zibago @waz @Arsalan @WAJsal

@Jungibaaz

 

[VCheng]

This is basically it in a nutshell. Well done.

One has to remember that when we use the USD nominal for GDP, it will be directly correlated to the presence of activities taking place using the US Dollar (rather than the local currency) regarding that country and the world at large (given that is what shapes the exchange rate and thus extrapolation of further domestic econometrics from that when USD is the reference).

This was one of the reasons why PPP was eventually created for better economic tabulation across countries (for international comparison purposes)....given USD exposure is by no means anywhere close to a constant amount everywhere (and even within the same country across time as you have shown here given Pakistan did not trade all that much in its modern history...and thus quite sensitive to USD flows via aid + remittance etc.)

Bhutto definitely gets lot more blame than he deserves (on economic front, the rest is another subject).

Sweden for example did far more intense nationalisation of its industries/manufacturing (given the % scales realised of those compared to the total economic size w.r.t developing country like Pakistan) during the 70s and 80s (the much studied western "democratic" socialist experiment), yet it had the underlying capacity in USD trade etc (that acted as a plank/floorboard) that did not significantly alter/diminish its nominal GDP (the problems arose in Swedish Krona side which ultimately needed reversal of the policy, but thats another story).

A reverse of what happened in Sweden would be Russia in the ruble collapse, Russia lost an immense amount of its nominal USD value for GDP....but its PPP value was relatively steady.

The periods I am talking about are given below....Sweden you can see the effect especially in the 1980 - 1985 region (as you can see the erosion was not that great at all in nominal USD)...and for Russia the period is 2013 - 2016 (where it lost half its nominal USD value of GDP as you can see).

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=RU-SE

When we look at PPP, you can see that Russia did not lose much at all in the 2013 - 2016 time period:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?locations=RU

Unfortunately PPP only kicked in as a thing from 1990 onwards (when the ICP process took effect) so there is no figures available for Sweden case (but I would assume it took a significant enough hit given the political upheavel and correction that happened). Something can be gleamed on the matter on pages 60-61 of this paper:

http://www.historia.se/SPEH12.pdf

The (Krona based) growth rates in the 70s and 80s (up to early 90s) clearly were affected compared to what Sweden enjoyed before and after it....and also compared to the USD based ones (though of course some correlation is there given Sweden's integration with world market).

@M. Sarmad @VCheng @That Guy @Major Sam @GeraltofRivia @Oscar @Joe Shearer @Chak Bamu @farhan_9909 @Vergennes @saiyan0321 @vostok @balixd @Zibago @waz @Arsalan @WAJsal

@Jungibaaz

This one's for you @Nilgiri :

https://www.economist.com/asia/2019...s-doubt-on-the-indian-governments-credibility

Bullock cart or locomotive?
A deceptive tweet casts doubt on the Indian government’s credibility
Some say it is also understating unemployment and overstating economic growth

Print edition | Asia
Feb 16th 2019| DELHI

Nothing hurries governments more than an approaching election. But sometimes, as Piyush Goyal, India’s minister of railways, recently found, haste can cause accidents. Keen to tout the Vande Bharat Express, a fast new service, he posted a clip that showed the made-in-India train roaring through a station at a blinding pace. As eagle-eyed viewers swiftly noted, however, the film had been altered to run at double speed. Jokesters quickly counter-posted a cascade of mockingly accelerated footage, including a lightning-fast bullock cart zooming along a dirt track.

With a general election looming in April it is not just pictures, but dreary statistics that the government has been accused of doctoring. Indian opposition parties have often charged their rivals in power with massaging official data. But since the landslide victory of Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014, critics claim, the practice has become commonplace.

In January two of the five members of the body that vets official statistics resigned in protest, after the government blocked release of what many consider the most accurate indicator of unemployment. The numbers were soon leaked, and to no one’s surprise they showed an embarrassing rise, to a 45-year high of 6.1%.

Other numbers have also sown suspicion. Soon after taking office Mr Modi’s government announced it would revise the official method of calculating gdp and rebase the data to a new year. Frequently since then, economists have puzzled over numbers that consistently show stronger growth than seems justified by other indicators. They also seem strangely impervious to obvious shocks, such as Mr Modi’s banning in 2016 of all currency bills worth more than 100 rupees ($1.41), or the imposition of a stiff sales tax with no fewer than seven separate rates and laborious forms for businesses to fill in.

In November, after an inexplicable three-year delay, the government’s number-wallahs released a new back series for gdp growth according to the new methodology. To some surprise, considering that the noughties are recalled as an era of unprecedented boom, the new statistics showed Mr Modi’s government smartly outperforming its predecessor.

Sceptics abound, as do theories of how and how far the government’s numbers stray from the truth. Some blame flawed adjustments for inflation. Arun Kumar, an economist, argues that the government’s estimates of the growth of the informal economy, which accounts for nine in ten jobs and perhaps 45% of gdp, presume too strong a correlation with the formal economy. Mr Kumar argues that it is quite possible for the easily measured, tax-paying part of the economy to be growing by 7%, even as the less perceptible poor are quietly suffering. Taking into account such drags as Mr Modi’s “demonetisation”, the shrinking of credit and a prolonged and continuing slump in farm prices, Mr Kumar suspects that the informal economy may in fact be contracting—something that would substantially reduce overall growth.

Mr Kumar may be off the mark; even neutral outfits such as the imf and rating agencies share Mr Modi’s numerology. But the government’s credibility keeps taking knocks. On February 1st Mr Goyal, as acting finance minister, released a budget that promised lavish handouts while purporting to hold the deficit to 3.4% of gdp. Many observers said he was pulling a fast one.

This article appeared in the Asia section of the print edition under the headline "Bullock cart or locomotive?"

 

[Sugarcane]

He went nearly 40 years ago.

He is still alive, So are practices of overstaffing SOEs and giving freebies instead of generating jobs and reducing poverty by promoting economic activities.

 

[Baby Leone]

Pakistan has supported almost all countries connected to Pakistan in some way.

but unfortunately we never tried to build our own.

 

[Nilgiri]

This one's for you @Nilgiri :

https://www.economist.com/asia/2019...s-doubt-on-the-indian-governments-credibility

Bullock cart or locomotive?
A deceptive tweet casts doubt on the Indian government’s credibility
Some say it is also understating unemployment and overstating economic growth

Print edition | Asia
Feb 16th 2019| DELHI

Nothing hurries governments more than an approaching election. But sometimes, as Piyush Goyal, India’s minister of railways, recently found, haste can cause accidents. Keen to tout the Vande Bharat Express, a fast new service, he posted a clip that showed the made-in-India train roaring through a station at a blinding pace. As eagle-eyed viewers swiftly noted, however, the film had been altered to run at double speed. Jokesters quickly counter-posted a cascade of mockingly accelerated footage, including a lightning-fast bullock cart zooming along a dirt track.

With a general election looming in April it is not just pictures, but dreary statistics that the government has been accused of doctoring. Indian opposition parties have often charged their rivals in power with massaging official data. But since the landslide victory of Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014, critics claim, the practice has become commonplace.

In January two of the five members of the body that vets official statistics resigned in protest, after the government blocked release of what many consider the most accurate indicator of unemployment. The numbers were soon leaked, and to no one’s surprise they showed an embarrassing rise, to a 45-year high of 6.1%.

Other numbers have also sown suspicion. Soon after taking office Mr Modi’s government announced it would revise the official method of calculating gdp and rebase the data to a new year. Frequently since then, economists have puzzled over numbers that consistently show stronger growth than seems justified by other indicators. They also seem strangely impervious to obvious shocks, such as Mr Modi’s banning in 2016 of all currency bills worth more than 100 rupees ($1.41), or the imposition of a stiff sales tax with no fewer than seven separate rates and laborious forms for businesses to fill in.

In November, after an inexplicable three-year delay, the government’s number-wallahs released a new back series for gdp growth according to the new methodology. To some surprise, considering that the noughties are recalled as an era of unprecedented boom, the new statistics showed Mr Modi’s government smartly outperforming its predecessor.

Sceptics abound, as do theories of how and how far the government’s numbers stray from the truth. Some blame flawed adjustments for inflation. Arun Kumar, an economist, argues that the government’s estimates of the growth of the informal economy, which accounts for nine in ten jobs and perhaps 45% of gdp, presume too strong a correlation with the formal economy. Mr Kumar argues that it is quite possible for the easily measured, tax-paying part of the economy to be growing by 7%, even as the less perceptible poor are quietly suffering. Taking into account such drags as Mr Modi’s “demonetisation”, the shrinking of credit and a prolonged and continuing slump in farm prices, Mr Kumar suspects that the informal economy may in fact be contracting—something that would substantially reduce overall growth.

Mr Kumar may be off the mark; even neutral outfits such as the imf and rating agencies share Mr Modi’s numerology. But the government’s credibility keeps taking knocks. On February 1st Mr Goyal, as acting finance minister, released a budget that promised lavish handouts while purporting to hold the deficit to 3.4% of gdp. Many observers said he was pulling a fast one.

This article appeared in the Asia section of the print edition under the headline "Bullock cart or locomotive?"

Fairly balanced (an issue largely found in every developing country to various degrees). They have blown hot and cold on China too.....sometimes questioning its growth and economic figures to somewhat crazy degree (they entertained in few articles I remember that Chinese "real" growth was already as low as 4% or maybe lower).

Too bad they didn't go after the previous Indian govts on the "credibility" at least just as much....especially during the highest "hot money" phase of Indian economic bulking (from 2005 - 2010 approx). The economist has a political slant now, which is too bad. I used to respect them a lot more before. But they still produce a few valued nuggets here and there in the grand spectacle of pro-globalist bias (somewhat dying gasps of an earlier time).

I just tend to gleam them (nuggets) a few weeks before they put it to print though....legacy media is struggling I tell you. The smart ones have left readership mostly (or just keep a few tabs on it like me)....and thus the readership has devolved to the uneducated emotional types + totally isolated gated elites with some chip on shoulder....that creates another echo chamber of perpetual free fall imo.