Reggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1169 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5509 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.
Cactus742 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 226 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5476 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.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5395 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.
DL777LAX From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 521 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5281 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.
BAxMAN From St. Helena, joined May 2004, 671 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5231 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.
YOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4781 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day ago) and read 5154 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.
CitrusCritter From Palau, joined May 2007, 1072 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day ago) and read 5081 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.
ScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1486 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day ago) and read 5048 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.
CitrusCritter From Palau, joined May 2007, 1072 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 4959 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.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 4918 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!!
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).
TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3693 posts, RR: 34 Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 4710 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.
Reggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1169 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 12 hours ago) and read 4344 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?
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 10 hours ago) and read 4132 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.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7144 posts, RR: 14 Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 3881 times:
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 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 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 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 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 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