Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No "Major"Alliance For Emirates?  
User currently offlineBoeingFever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 53
Posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5297 times:

Why doesn't EK belong to a "Major" Alliance? I am aware they are a member of the Arab Air Carriers Organization (AACO).

Such as:

One World
Star Alliance
SkyTeam

I know that AI is going to join Star Alliance 1st Feb. 09' and CO is awaiting approval to join formally. I believe that ME and RO are joining SkyTeam. CI I believe is set to join SkyTeam as well.

What Alliance would EK best fit into?

What is the binding factor in a carrier selecting which Alliance they join?


Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31124 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5237 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't think they need one.

They plan to serve the world on their own.  Smile


User currently offlineN104UA From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 917 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5217 times:

The have a great route structure so don't need one but I would say that they would join STAR because they are not that big in the Middle east and STAR would add to that


"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5087 times:

If they plan on adding hundreds more new planes to the fleet, flying A380s everywhere, why would they want to join any alliance.

User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5070 times:

EK is more than happy to simply codeshare with a handful of carriers and let that be it. That way, they don't have to share revenues with dozens of different airlines.

This allows them to serve the key markets where they need to be (e.g., CO at IAH).



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlinePellegrine From France, joined Mar 2007, 2468 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4844 times:

A lot of being in an alliance is give-and-take and not getting in each others' way. I'll fly this route, you fly that route that complements mine but doesn't compete with it too much. Or if we both fly the same route, we share revenue on it. Obviously this is less fair to the more premium carrier. The more premium carrier put out more money for their service standards but they're not seeing a benefit if they have to split revenue with a sub-par carrier. EK wants to market itself as "one of the best" and they don't want to give up any route opportunities. A big part of this is that EK is still growing. I can see them joining an alliance, or starting a new one, years down the line just as JL has.


oh boy!!!
User currently offlineYWG747 From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4779 times:

Really I don't think they need one.
I seriously can see them being the worlds largest airline sometime in the future.


User currently offlineSpinalTap From New Zealand, joined Mar 2005, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4706 times:

From:
http://www.emirates.com/English/Skyw...s/earning_miles/earning_miles.aspx
Emirates has the following partners:

* Continental Airlines
* Japan Airlines
* Kingfisher Airlines
* Korean Air
* South African Airways
* United Airlines

Their partners certainly have pretty big networks (with the exception of Kingfisher), with these partners they may think that it is not necessary to join an alliance.



"I get what they call a stipend, a stipend is like money but its such as small amount they don't really call it money"
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4683 times:

They have so much worldwide coverage, an alliance could only possibly take passengers away from DXB and away from them.

User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4642 times:

I think there are several possible explanations.

1. HRH Sheikh Maktoum has always had a vision to expand Dubai into one of the World's great tourism and commerce centres. He recognized he needed an airline to match his visions for what Dubai was already on the way to being. If this was his objective, and the airline was to be hub-centric, would there be much need for that airline to be a member of an alliance?

2. Perhaps the goals that HRM Sheikh Maktoum set for EK (24 carat gold brand?) were too high that they might be brought down a step if the airline became a member of any alliance?

3. Much of what has been achieved by EK has been without outside help or sources -- IIRC Shiekh Maktoum head hunted the best airline executives, the best training pilots, the best senior cabin crew, and the best engineers without resorting to any agency. They choose new aircraft that had not been tried and tested by other airlines. They went into undiscovered markets and succeeded where established airlines had failed. So if they have been a success by themselves, why would they want an alliance to dictate terms to them?

4. As already mentioned, EK is probably big enough (or will soon be big enough) to be an alliance by itself.



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineLH526 From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 2375 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4584 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

For the same Reason Chanel doesn't need thrid party retailers!


Trittst im Morgenrot daher, seh ich dich im Strahlenmeer ...
User currently offlineMashimaro1 From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4515 times:

Effectively, Emirates is an alliance within themselves! Their global coverage is just amazing.

User currently offlineEkA380 From Egypt, joined Aug 2008, 120 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4460 times:



Quoting BoeingFever777 (Thread starter):
I don't think they need one.

They plan to serve the world on their own.

I agree with you because I think that Emirates likes to be unique , I don't think they are interested at all. (Although this is just my opinion)

Regards
Islam



Always go the extra mile , its worth it ;)
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4449 times:



Quoting N104UA (Reply 2):
The have a great route structure so don't need one but I would say that they would join STAR because they are not that big in the Middle east and STAR would add to that

Who's not big in the Middle East, EK or Star? From your post I can't quite fathom which one you mean, but from as written you seem to be saying EK aren't.


User currently offlineBoeingFever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4337 times:



Quoting RJ111 (Reply 8):
They have so much worldwide coverage

They fly to a handful of destinations in N/S America.

YYZ
JFK
IAH
GRU

This is why I stated Star Alliance could benefit them.



Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25653 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4266 times:

Quoting BoeingFever777 (Reply 14):
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 8):
They have so much worldwide coverage

They fly to a handful of destinations in N/S America.

YYZ
JFK
IAH
GRU

This is why I stated Star Alliance could benefit them.

I'm sure EK has interline ticketing agreements with most major North American carriers.

[Edited 2008-09-04 09:48:36]

User currently offlineBochora From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2008, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4232 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I don't think they need one.

They plan to serve the world on their own.

Complelely agree!


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4180 times:

At this very moment in time they don't have a lot of coverage in north america. Plans are in the pipline though.

Latin America is not the most significant of markets, at least for a middle eastern carrier.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31124 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4113 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

EK does (did) have a relationship with UA. I think it's just a basic codeshare and baggage interlining.

And all EK needs is another hundred 777s and they can cover North America quite nicely.  Smile


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4084 times:

OneWorld would be interesting for them. Oneworld seems to be airlines like EK. Kind of the large airlines like AA BA QF and cathay pacific is just a unique group. It seems like one airline from each country type of thing, for example Skyteam has NW and DL (CO is leaving) while One World does not. It would be interesting to see EK as part of them, but in reality they don't need an alliance

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31124 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3984 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Part of the problem, I imagine, is EK is aiming right for the heart of major Star and OneWorld operators like LH, SQ, BA and QF.

Now, "keeping your enemies closer" and all that is one thing, but they might feel that their existing alliances is a weapon they can use to try and keep EK at bay.


User currently offlineWunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3341 times:



Quoting BoeingFever777 (Thread starter):
What is the binding factor in a carrier selecting which Alliance they join?

Maybe for once we could reverse the question. Is there an alliance out there who'd be willing to take on a tumultuous, ambitious carrier who might end up taking over half of their international network?

We seem to think that EK would get to pick and choose which alliance they want to be in. But maybe the big three alliances wouldn't want to get near EK anyway...

 Smile


User currently offlineWunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3327 times:

But for the sake of argument, I would think that the alliance with the loosest network in the Eastern Hemisphere would be Skyteam.

Ok, they have Korean and China Southern, but with the MH mess they have no one in South East Asia, nor in Oceania.

Just my AUc2.  Smile


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4405 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3123 times:

Emirates wouldn't get much of anything out of joining a global alliance it can't get from bilateral cooperation agreements with far less expense and hassle.


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineBMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3059 times:

The current EK Network in Europe pretty much explains why no alliance is really needed!

GLA
MAN
NCL
BHX
LGW
LHR
CDG
HAM
DUS
FRA
MUC
VIE
ZRH
VCE
MXP
NCE
IST
ATH
MLA
FCO
LCA



Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3217 posts, RR: 10
Reply 25, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2911 times:

I don't think they would be welcome at either STAR or Oneworld.

EK heavily competes with SQ... trying to draw as much traffic away from SIN as possible so no doubt SQ would scream black and blue if they even suggested it, and
both QF and BA have gone on record in public heavily critising EK...to the point of suggesting their subsidised. They are no friends of EK... EK is very much the enemy. EK is already the 3rd largest international airline into Australia after Qantas and Singapore Air, largely on the back of European traffic, and in some cities, like PER and BNE, EK carries more people then QF/BA to europe.

As far as skyteam is concerned, if AF won't allow MH in... I can't see them allowing EK? MH could compliment AF... its hardly a threat but AF says no. But if they were to (which i don't think they're even slightly interested... they fight on offering fancy products and direct flights into other airports overlooked by majors as well as using big aircraft to keep CASM down) skyteam is the best hope. But what would skyteam offer EK that they haven't already got? I can see what EK could bring to skyteam... but the other way around...how much would it actually help EK?

Lastly, EK flyers tend to be fairly loyal to EK. After they're swayed over by all the fancy advertising (EK understands the importance of constantly being out there showing your face).. many of the passengers are won over. They get on board, are wooed with fancy IFE systems and good catering, plus crew from their own nation(so it feels more 'natural') and that's more then enough to win most of them over. Right now, it costs more for me to fly EK between BNE and SIN in business then it does to fly QF or SQ!!!! and it goes out full all the time too!


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...
Why No Lockheed "1st Generation Jet? posted Thu Dec 11 2003 07:20:47 by Zippyjet
Why No Back Of Clock Ops For Air Asia? posted Thu Jan 3 2008 16:44:35 by 6thfreedom
Why No Codeshare On ATL-AMS For DL/KL posted Fri Mar 16 2007 02:04:46 by Ushermittwoch
Why No 747s In Germany Except For Lufthansa posted Sat Dec 11 2004 10:47:15 by Columba
Southwest: Why No "Illinois One" Or "Chicago One"? posted Wed Nov 28 2007 06:26:50 by FWAERJ
CO - Why No "G" Or "H" Seats? posted Mon Jun 4 2007 22:25:33 by 1337Delta764
Open Skies: EU Still Not Taking "no" For An Answer posted Mon Jan 29 2007 19:29:40 by Kaitak
Why "No Smoking" Still So Prominent In Airlines? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 22:20:33 by Birdwatching
Why No Alliance For EK, EY, MP And LT? posted Sat Oct 21 2006 17:50:21 by RicardoFG
A380: "No Technical Issues", Says Engine Alliance posted Mon Apr 10 2006 21:54:27 by PlaneHunter