Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Backlash Against Middle East Super Carriers?  
User currently offlineReggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1174 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6358 times:

Over the last 10 years we've seen the amazing rise of Middle Eastern carriers Emirates, Qatar and, to a lesser extent, Etihad. This will inevitably lead to these carriers joining the ranks of the global super carriers like SQ, BA, LH, AF/KL, etc.

This rise is enabled primaryly by these Middle Eastern carriers' seemingly endless supply of money for new planes, their appetite for groundbreaking services and equipment (e.g., premium cabins, amenities, airport lounges) and their increasing share of the premium travelers' dollars. However, now that they are making clear their global intentions, could we see a backlash driven by the big flag and legacy carriers in the major aviation markets? I wonder if destination countries are going to start restricting landing rights to these carriers to control them.

Any thoughts?

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCactus742 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6325 times:

Beyond just available capital, there are other factors that have led to the rise of carriers based in the Middle East. As long-range flight has become more viable through large aircraft with longer range, the Middle East is in a nearly perfect global position to be a connecting point between Europe and Asia and Europe and Africa. Carriers based in SE Asia have a similar geographic advantage between the west coast of North America and their hub sities to connect to points in other parts of Asia, such as the Indian subcontinent.

Carriers based in Europe simply cannot match those advantages. While a backlash may be in store, it can't negate the natural advantages that geography has given to the Middle East. SQ, on the other hand, may be better able to retaliate given not only its comparable status as a good global connecting point as well as its in-flight product.



Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6279 times:

Quoting Cactus742 (Reply 1):
Carriers based in Europe simply cannot match those advantages.

Based on what parameters...? Certainly not geography.

About the only thing they cannot match are differences in hiring/employee maintenance.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6244 times:

Quoting Cactus742 (Reply 1):
As long-range flight has become more viable through large aircraft with longer range, the Middle East is in a nearly perfect global position to be a connecting point between Europe and Asia and Europe and Africa.

No, it isn't. I don't understand this viewpoint. It's out of the way for EU to Asia, and out of the way for Africa to EU.

The reason it is viable is because EK and others are connecting secondary cities in the EU with other destinations, something their flag carriers had been ignoring. For whatever reason, flag carriers have been forcing all pax through their central nation hub, while EK, for example, can connect you directly out of Nice to DXB and then on to India. And they plan to do Nice to Dubai on an A380.

As for Africa, in all honesty, any EU carrier could fly non-stop anywhere in Africa. It's close enough. Dubai is out of the way. But EK is a safe and stable waypoint, so again, they can connect many countries with many secondary locations in the EU. And while there may not be enough traffic to fill a 777 to those EU cities on each africa route, when you pool the routes at both ends, it makes more financial sense (read cheaper flights).

But if there was a viable, stable hub point in Egypt, for example, it would make much more sense.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDL777LAX From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 521 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6130 times:

I guess what EK is doing is routing the passanger in lets say GLA GLA-DXB-SYD, where on BA, that passanger would have to do GLA-LHR-SIN-SYD. One connecton vs. two. EK serves alot of secondary markets in Europe and in India/Middle east. They can take that traveller from VCE to HYD through DXB instead of having to fly VCE-EuroHub-IndianHub-HYD. A passenger in New York used to have to fly through Europe to get to major points in India. Today, they can fly nonstop. However, a connection to a smaller city in India through DEL or BOM isn't as desirable as a connection through DXB.

Its one stop versus. two stops.

EK knows exactly what its doing, making passangers connect once instead of twice.



Blindly following anything is bad, unless of course your blind and your following a guide dog.
User currently offlineBAxMAN From St. Helena, joined May 2004, 671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6080 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
For whatever reason, flag carriers have been forcing all pax through their central nation hub, while EK, for example, can connect you directly out of Nice to DXB and then on to India. And they plan to do Nice to Dubai on an A380.

Ok, so using this analogy, what exactly are EK or any of the Middle Eastern carriers doing differently? AF will 'force' an India-bound NCE passenger through CDG, whilst EK is simply 'forcing' the passenger through DXB. Nasty old EK are still forcing you their own 'central nation hub.'

All the guff that is spouted about the likes of EK rescuing the poor old ignored passengers in the 'regions,' the reality is that EK et al are simply providing cities ike NCE just one destination - whether that be DXB, AUH, DOH etc. EK, QR, EY all want to flood London with an endless stream of A380's, whilst the regions will be getting the 1/2x daily leftovers if they are lucky.

The reasons for the success of these new and expanding airlines (and bear in mind that some are hardly profitable so can't really be called a success) are not as simplistic as you make out. There is clearly an enthusiasm in the host countries' governments (a Big Willy type syndrome) to have major flag carrier and world beating hub. European carriers simply can't even bother trying to compete economically as their cost bases for the immediate future and almost certainly longer will be laughably (perhaps exploitingly) low.

You also can't ignore the fact that onboard, they are providing a solid Y product and are doing their utmost to provide a formidable premium product, too.



I need to get laid
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6033 times:

Quoting Reggaebird (Thread starter):
I wonder if destination countries are going to start restricting landing rights to these carriers to control them.

You mean 'protectionism'. So much for free trade...  Sad


User currently offlineAirbuske From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6010 times:

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 4):
EK knows exactly what its doing,

 checkmark 

When I fly home, my trips usually look like this :
DAB-EWR-LHR-NBO (CO/KQ)
DAB-ATL-CDG-NBO (DL/AF/KQ)
MCO-LGW;LHR-NBO (VS)

If I was to fly upto JFK and then use EK to fly JFK-DXB-NBO, I save about 18 hours in total trip time because of poor timing in connections between Europe and East Africa.

EK plans to start flying to MCO and I can't wait for that.

MCO-DXB-NBO would take me 1.5 days as opposed to 2.5 days, and a get a better in flight service!

The geographical location of DXB and other Middle Eastern hubs offers them immense strategical advantages.

However, I still feel that the chances of them suffering from major overcapacity is more than likely!


User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4845 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6003 times:

The short answers is not really. Other carriers will get fed up, some will cry foul, some will fold but aviation ultimately is governed by treaties at the national level so not that much of a backlash can occur because countries will not want to be accused of protectionism. Simple as that. You will see some minor protection such as the Aussies give QF but nothing further.

The location of the gulf is good, very close (short flying time) to huge markets but in my humble opinion the biggest advantages EK and QR have is a lack of unions and raw aggression.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineCitrusCritter From Pitcairn Islands, joined May 2007, 1081 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5930 times:

A better question might be what will happen to these carriers over the long-term as oil money begins to dry up, as a result of the oil drying up. There has been little emphasis in the Middle East in diversifiying the economy outside of the oil sector, and I'm not sure premium airlines really count.


TLH
User currently offlineScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5897 times:

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 9):
A better question might be what will happen to these carriers over the long-term as oil money begins to dry up, as a result of the oil drying up. There has been little emphasis in the Middle East in diversifiying the economy outside of the oil sector, and I'm not sure premium airlines really count.

dubai has done extensive work on diversifying its economy away from oil. Oil accounts for something less than 10% of its GDP, and look what airline is based there. Just one example of how some areas of the middle east are diversifying heavily away from oil and petroleum economies.


User currently offlineCitrusCritter From Pitcairn Islands, joined May 2007, 1081 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5808 times:

Dubai is definitely taking it seriously, but the rest of the UAE isn't. Abu Dhabi may have less than 10 years oil remaining at current production and certainly economic diversification has not been a major focus in other Middle Eastern countries.


TLH
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5767 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
No, it isn't. I don't understand this viewpoint. It's out of the way for EU to Asia, and out of the way for Africa to EU.

Depends where in Asia or Africa. Presumbably if they use low CASM aircraft, and combine that with lower costs on shorter segments, they could make up for excess distance flied. But only if the customer is willing to stop over in DXB.

Quoting PM (Reply 6):
You mean 'protectionism'. So much for free trade... Sad

Come on, these ME countries engage in cartel activities to control oil prices, something other than free trade. The pricing delta that results from collusion over production rates is financing the purchases of these planes one way or another. Why not stick it to them where you can? You can't do anything about the price fixing.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5732 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 12):
Why not stick it to them where you can?

Wouldn't "sticking it to them" mean they'd stop buying scores of American and European aircraft with American and European engines? Who would that hurt?


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5689 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 13):
Wouldn't "sticking it to them" mean they'd stop buying scores of American and European aircraft with American and European engines? Who would that hurt?

Of course poor health of those carriers would lead to reduced sales to them.

I would note that ME carriers will have limited impact on US carriers as geography dictates that there are not many routes that a DXB routing would be competitive.

Anyway, the backlash doesn't have to come only from US or European carriers. And not all European countries care about Airbus.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5645 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
And they plan to do Nice to Dubai on an A380.

I don't think the runway at NCE is long enough for that. Even the 773 they use now has to make a stop in FCO, because it can't take off with a full load nonstop NCE-DXB. Plus the terminal infrastructure at NCE is woefully inadequate for an A380 (also, there isn't the demand to fill it - NCE simply couldn't fill an A380, I don't think).


User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3930 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5559 times:

Quoting Reggaebird (Thread starter):
I wonder if destination countries are going to start restricting landing rights to these carriers to control them.

Before Emirates started up in 1980, the Dubai government made the very bold (at the time) move to go for open skies. They announced that DXB would be open to all carriers without restriction. They then founded Emirates and started signing open skies treaties with anyone that would. As Emirates was a two aircraft airline nearly everyone else signed up. Now the rest of the world is paying the price as Emirates has unrestricted access to their markets.


User currently offlineGr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 3069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5279 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
It's out of the way for EU to Asia,

The Middle East IS in Asia....you probably want to refer to the Far East....?  smile 


User currently offlineReggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5193 times:

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 16):
Before Emirates started up in 1980, the Dubai government made the very bold (at the time) move to go for open skies. They announced that DXB would be open to all carriers without restriction. They then founded Emirates and started signing open skies treaties with anyone that would. As Emirates was a two aircraft airline nearly everyone else signed up. Now the rest of the world is paying the price as Emirates has unrestricted access to their markets.

Excellent point as that is not widely known. It is inline with my original question. That is, could countries that have signed open skies agreements with these Middle Eastern nations rescind or renegotiate those agreements?

Reggaebird


User currently offlinePhilzh From Switzerland, joined May 2007, 146 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5083 times:

Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 19):
Excellent point as that is not widely known.

You may be interested in CHRISBA777ER's fascinating analysis of EK posted here .


User currently offlineReggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5015 times:

Quoting Philzh (Reply 19):
Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 19):
Excellent point as that is not widely known.

You may be interested in CHRISBA777ER's fascinating analysis of EK posted here .

Philzh,

Thanks for the reference link. That was an excellent summary of EK and it's likely strategy. I wonder is Qatar, Etihad, et al, are doing the same?

Reggaebird


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4981 times:

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 4):
I guess what EK is doing is routing the passanger in lets say GLA GLA-DXB-SYD, where on BA, that passanger would have to do GLA-LHR-SIN-SYD. One connecton vs. two. EK serves alot of secondary markets in Europe and in India/Middle east.

Suggest you do some research. The "competitive" fares for EK, from places like LHR, FRA offer two connections to OZ. It's through DXB and then SIN or BKK. If you want a one-stop you will pay more to go non-stop from DXB.

DXB is only 7 hours from LHR another 7 to SIN and then 7 more to SYD. A flight from LHR is actually quicker since it's 12-13 hours from LHR and then 7 from SIN.


User currently offlinePlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6639 posts, RR: 78
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4938 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
No, it isn't. I don't understand this viewpoint. It's out of the way for EU to Asia, and out of the way for Africa to EU.

The ME is not out of the way for EU-(South East) Asia or EU-Subcontinent traffic. Just compare flying times between a number of destinations.

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 4):
EK knows exactly what its doing, making passangers connect once instead of twice.

Exactly.

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 9):
There has been little emphasis in the Middle East in diversifiying the economy outside of the oil sector, and I'm not sure premium airlines really count.

The UAE and Qatar are indeed very active in diversifying the economy.


PH



Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
User currently offlineYellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 5885 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4770 times:

Quoting Airbuske (Reply 7):
When I fly home, my trips usually look like this :
DAB-EWR-LHR-NBO (CO/KQ)
DAB-ATL-CDG-NBO (DL/AF/KQ)

Forgive me, but how did you get to LHR from EWR on CO......maybe it was BA you thik of....CO only goes to LGW at this time....



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7329 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4730 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BAxMAN (Reply 5):
EK, QR, EY all want to flood London with an endless stream of A380's, whilst the regions will be getting the 1/2x daily leftovers if they are lucky.

32.8% of the passengers on the UK-Dubai sector were on those regional flights. Pretty sizeable "leftovers"?!

Quoting BAxMAN (Reply 5):
Ok, so using this analogy, what exactly are EK or any of the Middle Eastern carriers doing differently? AF will 'force' an India-bound NCE passenger through CDG, whilst EK is simply 'forcing' the passenger through DXB. Nasty old EK are still forcing you their own 'central nation hub.'

Errr...perhaps EK can offer the India bound NCE pax a one-stop service rather than a 2 stop strategy. Something like the pax flying MAN-Australia have found - only about 20% perfer the two stop strategy offering by BA/QF


25 Post contains images Airbazar : Geographicaly speaking, Europe is far better positioned that the Gulf region is. However, as has been noted, European carriers have long neglected se
26 Richardw : In the winter EK wins on routes to PER, from GLA, NCL, BHX, MAN and for those passenegers near to LGW, against BA/QF, one connection at DXB is a real
27 Rdwootty : It is easy for us in the Midlands, we have been abandonded by our contries flag carrier BA as there are no flights to either LHR or LGW from BHX so ou
28 Post contains images Cedarjet : From whom would the backlash come? I'm sure all the gov'ts of nations served by EK et al are thrilled to have the extra visitors and the boost to the
29 Airbuske : The current Bermuda II allows only United and American to fly their aircraft into LHR. BAA has allowed CO to codeshare with VS but CO doesn't have th
30 Goldorak : I know it sounds crazy, but EK is definitely planning DXB-NCE with A380 but the flight is supposed to continue somewhere else in Europe (but can't re
31 David_itl : BA is offering is 2 destinations. Whoop-de-whoop. I must kiss the feet of all the BA executives for blessing MAN a whopping 2 destinations non-stop.
32 Babybus : I doubt there'd be a backlash from pax as the Middle East super carriers will have the most modern aircraft and I guess with the A380, the most spacio
33 Airbuske : Do you think Middle East carriers (especially EK) would see massive gains once Dubai Aerospace starts up due of economies of scale? Both Airbus and Bo
34 BAxMAN : Sure you can kiss my feet. I find that quite flattering. Just tell me when you plan on doing this so I've got Dettol ready for when you've finished.
35 LTBEWR : You may see some backlash as major carriers in the EC, North American and South Asia as well as the national governments they are based at to try to g
36 VV701 : If elapsed time is important to you as it seems it might be why not: MCO-LGW BA2036 d. 1720hrs a.0625hrs LHR-NAI BA065 d. 1020hrs a. 2045hrs Total el
37 Moek2000 : On top of that, Dubai is a growing city with a really nice airport. Connection times are excellent and even if you have a 4-5 hours layover, it goes b
38 OceansWorld : I doubt it that the 773 can't make it non stop to DXB from NCE. If the flights use 4R/22L, the runway has a 3119m/ 10234ft take off distance at sea l
39 Post contains links 474218 : According the the attached site your 10% figure on is a little low. Dubai's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) = 171 billion Dirham (Dhs), non-oil GDP 114
40 Jacobin777 : ...ever check fights on EK or EY lately? they are hardly "cheap"...for the "imported Pakistanis" at least, there are carriers which are cheaper than
41 Philzh : Ah, you remind me to start planning for moving to NZ (flying with EK, of course). I find it depressing to think of how Dubai, of all places, will pos
42 JGPH1A : Maybe it can, but they don't do the flight nonstop - it stops at FCO in both directions, so if it's not an operational restriction then it must be be
43 YOWza : He's rferring to the labor as being "cheap not the flights. Indeed. I wonder if Oman Air or Kuwait Airways are seriously going to try and grow as the
44 Airbazar : NCE-DXB at 2500nm is not a long-haul flight by any stretch of the imagination. You can barely make a case for medium-haul. There are domestic flights
45 Jacobin777 : ..ok..that is not what it seemed.....as many here incorrectly state that EK sell "cheaper seats" against their competitor..which is incorrect... ..th
46 Ncfc99 : I have flown MAN-DXB-SIN-BNE myself and I wouldn't call the SIN stop a connection (IMHO) as it was a fuel stop that pax could get off the plane if th
47 Bimmerkid19 : Nasty--- EK? I cant believe you said this! There is no other airline in the world that has as good of a IFE Selection in Economy. Also.. Flying Econo
48 David_itl : And don't forget their DUS and HAM service. That's them offereing twice as many destinations out of MAN than BA. Quite mild mannered. Got to be in my
49 Ikramerica : Already answered. One connection instead of two. Better timing of connections. Comes from the destination nations focusing on their national hubs and
50 BAxMAN : But likewise there are many more (and no less important) 'secondary' European cities served by European carriers who, in turn, fly direct to more US
51 PVG : So why isn't BA jumping on a plane like the 787 that can fly say 150-200 passengers direct from GLA to SIN, re-fuel, and continue to SYD (or direct t
52 PVG : oil is not going to dry up in our lifetimes. Its just going to be alot more expensive to produce and buy than we're used to. The party of cheap fuel
53 Ikramerica : CO does DEN-HEL one stop. DL doesn't fly there at all. Sweden doesn't have a major international flag carrier (it's limited). Why choose DL to prove
54 Ikramerica : Correction. CO doesn't fly there. I thought it was announced.
55 Post contains images Gr8Circle : Here's what Cactus742 said.... ...and here's you reply to him..... Your reply seemed to say that DXB is "out of the way to Asia".....a whole lot of p
56 Post contains images Airbuske : 1.5 days was just an rough estimate. Its actually closer to 30 hours, but that includes the 7 hour time difference. So with EK it would be about 23 h
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
No American Carriers Direct To The Middle East? posted Mon Nov 10 2003 04:08:05 by ConcordeLoss
Should Middle East Carriers Be Scrutinized? posted Sat Oct 27 2001 15:05:55 by ContinentalEWR
Japanese Carriers To The Middle East posted Wed Jan 3 2001 14:45:13 by Airmale
Detroit To The Middle East, Lacking. posted Sun Jun 17 2007 06:08:25 by FXramper
MaxJet Interested In Middle East Flights posted Wed May 9 2007 20:12:06 by Behramjee
L'avion Expanding Into The Middle East posted Sat Mar 24 2007 04:09:23 by Timo007
Chinese Airlines To Middle East posted Sun Jan 7 2007 08:55:21 by Detroiter
EK Announces 2007 Middle East Expansion Plan posted Thu Dec 28 2006 15:08:51 by Fly2CHC
China Southern Plan New Middle East/Africa Routes posted Wed Dec 20 2006 18:42:43 by 777way
More Middle East Orders Brewing posted Wed Dec 6 2006 14:41:52 by Flying-Tiger