Gulf airlines under fire. Aside from the rhetoric and dust flying, what’s the underlying agenda?

There's no shortage of heat and light in the US vs Gulf airlines battle. But much less clear is why the Gulf airlines' relatively limited impact should attract so much focus. After all, their impact on the US airlines is marginal; and many airlines which operate to the US, under open skies or not, are subsidised in one form or another - as are many of Delta's SkyTeam partners. Many of their competitors have argued the US majors are heavily subsidised too.

The fact is subsidy is rampant in aviation, in one form or another, both directly and indirectly, always has been and always will be.

So, leaving aside the name calling, there has been little of substance to explain quite why Delta - apparently supported by an otherwise publicly shy American and United - is so trenchantly opposed to the operations of Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways. If in fact the playing field is uneven, the ones who should really be most aggrieved are India's airlines. It is "their" traffic at the heart of the squabble.

Not all of the US airlines are with the big three of course; FedEx wants no part of it and neither do many others. But the noise is music to the ears of Air France and Lufthansa - whose services are impacted by the Gulf airlines and who have been agitating strongly for restitution of their sixth freedom status quo.

Meanwhile, as five of the world's largest airlines push to wind back the clock, the consumer's interests are apparently not on the table.