Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EK Eyes UK US Routes  
User currently offlineUAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 1023 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 19 hours ago) and read 24184 times:

Emirates want to put leg in one of the busiest routes in the world, US UK route, according to EK they want to fly from the northern part of the UK.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/emira...s-uk-us-direct-flights-510527.html

162 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 19 hours ago) and read 24203 times:

This has been something of an open secret for quite some time. I wonder if anything will come of it...


Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2907 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 18 hours ago) and read 23678 times:

They are starting MXP-JFK so I can see this as the next step in their offering.

Having tried from HAM originally and failed, it will be interesting to see how this goes.

MAN or NCL to the US would be interesting options.


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 18 hours ago) and read 23560 times:

I read about this yesterday and believe it or not I actually think it's a great idea.

User currently offlineUAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 1023 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 17 hours ago) and read 23492 times:

I believe this will be a lucrative route if they started from BHX, GLA, and MAN, especially with the A380 which is an attractive aircraft for many

User currently offlineAS737MAX From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 293 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 17 hours ago) and read 23378 times:

Forgive me if i'm missing the point, but so these flights would be for example:
DXB-BHX-JFK
DXB-GLA-JFK
DXB-MAN-JFK
So these flights would just be added because EK has the capacity to fly them? So it's just Dubai-Under Utilized British airport-Existing United States destination? These flights seem a little odd, my opinion though.



38 Flights/37,891 Miles Flown
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (1 year 17 hours ago) and read 23243 times:

Does EK have unlimited fifth freedom rights from the UK to the US? Once EK starts destroying the UA, AA and DL yields from hubs to smaller UK/EU airports, see how long it takes for the US to rescind Open Skies with Dubai.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 17 hours ago) and read 23244 times:

Quoting AS737MAX (Reply 5):
So these flights would just be added because EK has the capacity to fly them?



Yes and no. EK's growth IS going to be curtailed over the next 2 years due to DXB runway works.

Call me crazy, but I think that this is also about building the value proposition of Emirates (and Skywards Frequent Flyer) to draw in more traffic. Take MAN, where EK have a pretty loyal following due to little in the way of non-stop competition. My mothers' employer is a Manchester based company with significant operations in HK and PRC. Guess which airline the executives buzz around on? In paid F to boot.

If they were to launch MAN-JFK then that could help to cement them as the go-to longhaul airline in the region: one-stop to the World via DXB, plus they can also get you to the global financial hub, and beyond to the entire United States with B6.

That is quite a pretty valuable network, and could very attractive to business travellers.

This wouldn't work at LHR due to the myriad of non-stop options (in both directions) plus the fact that EK are smart enough to know that there is bats chance in hell that BA wouldn't throw everything at the City to keep the corporates locked in. That's why I think that it would only prove effective in relatively underserved markets (such as MXP and MAN)

Quoting AS737MAX (Reply 5):
So it's just Dubai-Under Utilized British airport-Existing United States destination?

Possibly, I've heard a rumor of DXB-MAN-BOS, believe it all or not. Probably nothing to it, but en-route traffic could help build the economic case for launching a new route which might not currently have sufficient demand to the Gulf and South Asia to warrant a non-stop service (don't forget that EK rarely launch a route at sub-daily frequency - in most markets they would rather not launch at all than fly 3 weekly)



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 17 hours ago) and read 23207 times:

Quoting AS737MAX (Reply 5):
So these flights would just be added because EK has the capacity to fly them? So it's just Dubai-Under Utilized British airport-Existing United States destination? These flights seem a little odd, my opinion though.

EK already operates, for example, DXB-GLA. Under the aegis of operating DXB-GLA-JFK, what will actually happen is that the plane load of pax arriving in GLA from DXB will disembark, a new plane load of pax will embark and EK will, effectively, be operating a GLA-JFK flight.

If you believe in a parochial approach to air transport then you probably think this is a "bad thing" (and the flight should only be flown by US or UK airlines).

If you believe that air transport should be regarded as a business like any other, without artificial barriers, then you probably think an EK A380 from GLA to JFK is a "good thing" for consumers (and Scotland).

All depends on your perspective .....



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,B463,(..50 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 17 hours ago) and read 23108 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
Once EK starts destroying the UA, AA and DL yields from hubs to smaller UK/EU airports, see how long it takes for the US to rescind Open Skies with Dubai.

Sorry, not happening. There are much broader National Security implications about harming relations with the UAE than protecting Delta.

What the USA might do, however, is simply refuse them fifth freedom routes if the airlines lobby loud enough (I honestly have no idea what the relevant Open Skies bilaterals say about this)



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6684 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (1 year 17 hours ago) and read 23110 times:

Not discounting the other Northern airports.......

Historically, transatlantic flights from MAN have been predominantly leisure rather than expensive seats so it would be interesting to see if EK can generate a market there.

With flights to JFK, the only competition is an AA752 which was full the last couple of times I was on it. Whether a 77X could fill enough seats is another matter. Certainly an A380 would be wasted.

Same for EWR with a daily UA752.

Would a West coast flight work? It's one hole in the MAN list of destinations.

Any flight like this is probably not going to get many pax flying the whole route when there's more than likely a direct service to/from DXB (unless it's cheaper) and it would be an additional 2 or 3 hrs on a flight of over 12hrs (DXB-JFK, for example), so I'd expect each leg would have to be considered as an individual flight. EK are looking to go 4x day from MAN so there's no problem there. Would EK have to look at some sort of mini alliance(s) to increase connections at MAN should they go transatlantic? MAN doesn't lack connections to most of Europe which is a major benefit if they were going to have MAN as a mini-hub, for want of a better expression.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (1 year 16 hours ago) and read 22858 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 9):
Sorry, not happening. There are much broader National Security implications about harming relations with the UAE than protecting Delta.

Well, Dubai Ports has had completely legal deals partially or fully blocked.

If EK starts running A380s from the UK it will impact our national carriers' ability to run their hub-to-point system, greatly harming the US market place. We are so worried about fairness when it comes to HND, Mexico and South America rights, we will be just as worried when EK starts doing to US airlines what it is doing around the world. They can't do it directly from DXB, but if you think of it like a game of RISK and they first conquer the EU and then use that stronghold to attack North America, we will respond.

We are a pretty protectionist nation when it comes down to it. In aviation like to create open sky situations when we don't think it can harm us, or it will be mutually beneficial. The Open Skies treaty with Dubai was signed with short sight, as we didn't think it could harm us, and it surely isn't mutually beneficial. The treaty vetters likely thought EK would be like another SQ, flying a few routes to the USA via waypoints to simply connect the US and the UAE financially.

SQ never really competed directly with US carriers on a large scale, and took as much traffic away from foreign airlines than domestically based ones. And PA flew to SIN with SPs so we had a direct interest in access to SQ has a destination. But EK flying GLA or HAM or MAN to New York doesn't harm foreign carriers. It directly impacts domestic carriers and would likely put some of those routes to pasture. And it has nothing to do about traffic to Dubai, as EK is flying many US routes directly to Dubai and will add more.

Canada was more far sighted when it came to EK in that respect.

[Edited 2013-07-24 02:11:50]

[Edited 2013-07-24 02:15:16]


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (1 year 16 hours ago) and read 22723 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
We are a pretty protectionist nation when it comes down to it.

True...and for the most part, we've managed to leverage the use of Open Skies deals to confer a protectionist benefit upon our carriers, which is what ultimately quarantines the impact of Emirates on the USA market.

United and Delta will be just fine if EK decides to flood the USA-UK market with unnneeded widebody capcity -- they have strong hubs and consumer bases to leverage, while EK will struggle in finding a sustainable traffic mix (which is what ultimately led to the demise of the JFK-HAM-DXB flight).



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 15 hours ago) and read 22526 times:

There would never be enough pax to fill an A380 from MAN to BOS never mind GLA-JFK, they can barely support year round daily on smaller aircraft. The only way would be freedom rights to pick up extra enroute but why on earth would DXB pax bound for US want a double drop when they could choose to fly direct.

User currently onlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 14 hours ago) and read 22160 times:

Quoting UAEflyer (Reply 4):
I believe this will be a lucrative route if they started from BHX, GLA, and MAN, especially with the A380 which is an attractive aircraft for many

They won't be able to fill it without a hub operation on either end, which will never happen because as soon as they get big enough to actually implement such a system governments will be imposing restrictions left and right.


User currently offlineDanfearn77 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 1810 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (1 year 13 hours ago) and read 21870 times:

MAN-JFK with EK was rumoured for a long while before the flight eventually went to MXP. As others have said EK are in a strong position at MAN and it won't be long before the evening flight is up gauged to an A380 and I suspect a 4th daily will follow at some point. This could be that 4th flight.


Eagles may soar high, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines!
User currently offlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4748 posts, RR: 43
Reply 16, posted (1 year 13 hours ago) and read 21741 times:

There was a UK CAA report published in 2002 that stated that EK was very keen on flying to Houston via Manchester at that time with a B777-200ER.

For UK-USA, EK should focus out of MAN and the routes that have the highest demand are as follows:

MCO 340,000 (yes i know low yielding etc etc)
NYC 210,000
LAS 87,000 (same as MCO low yielding)
LAX 45,000
SFO 40,000
ORD 40,000
MIA 35,000
BOS 31,000
PHL 25,000
IAH 15,000

BHX-USA is useless and should not even be looked at !

Now if I was in EK and given a blank cheque, the next trans-atlantic I would launch is PARIS-LOS ANGELES daily with an A380 as only AF operates this sector nonstop on a double daily basis and it can use with some much needed direct competition which EK can effectively provide with a daily A380 product. Market size CDG-LAX is 340,000 passengers with lots of high yielding premium pax ! FYI EK does have 5th freedom traffic rights between France and USA so no issues here bilaterally as well.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 13 hours ago) and read 21656 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
Does EK have unlimited fifth freedom rights from the UK to the US? Once EK starts destroying the UA, AA and DL yields from hubs to smaller UK/EU airports, see how long it takes for the US to rescind Open Skies with Dubai.

If you read the original article it quickly becomes clear that EK don't hold the necessary rights

“We do hold some rights out of the regions, so I would never say never. One of the things we are keen to say to the Davies Commission [UK Airports Commission], to relieve pressure on the south-east, is why don’t we make all the regional airports completely open skies,

My assumption is that the rights they hold are the ones they presently utilise to fly directly to DXB, hence the idea of making an open skies submission to the Davies commission.

“Emirates could flood the North Atlantic with swathes of Airbus A380s and 777-300ERs out of places like Birmingham and Manchester, two cities which are bursting with pent up passenger demand, tempered only by the lack of long haul airlines operating there, particularly for Birmingham,” he said, adding that if the Dubai carrier goes through with the plan “British Airways and Virgin Atlantic will be the big losers.”

The above quote is hilarious to say the least, if there were such a pent up passenger demand BA, VS and their US counterparts have surely been missing a huge potential profit for decades, plus why did BD fail in their MAN service across the Atlantic ? Why are the US carriers sending 752's when they should have been sending 744's ? Lastly unless the pricing was predatory to the extent that passengers would be willing to travel from the South East up to MAN or BHX the big losers would be the US carriers presently on these routes, the effect on BA and VS would be minimal.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8195 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (1 year 12 hours ago) and read 21396 times:

I've been saying this for a long time and some people refused to accept it. EK's business plan of connecting every 2 cities with 1 stop has big limitations and if they want to continue to grow as an airline they have no choice but to start flying 5th freedom routes. DXB may be in the center of the world but it's not in the center of the airline world because there is no such thing. Look at the biggest air markets and you quickly realize how far off DXB really is. TATL, TPAC, Asia, EU-Africa, Americas. That leaves 2 good makets only: EU-Asia/Australia, Asia-Africa.

User currently onlineMIflyer12 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 960 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 12 hours ago) and read 21384 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
We are a pretty protectionist nation when it comes down to it. In aviation like to create open sky situations when we don't think it can harm us, or it will be mutually beneficial. The Open Skies treaty with Dubai was signed with short sight, as we didn't think it could harm us, and it surely isn't mutually beneficial. The treaty vetters likely thought EK would be like another SQ, flying a few routes to the USA via waypoints to simply connect the US and the UAE financially.

It depends on whether one thinks government regulation and treaties should focus on creating restricted markets to drive monopoly profits, or to enhance consumer gains. There are lots of ways the U.S. is protectionist but it is an unquestioned leader in airline deregulation, both in domestic dereg and in pursuing Open Skies treaties.


User currently offlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3001 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 12 hours ago) and read 21283 times:

How could this work, especially from a northern airport?

As Emirates have no active codeshares, to feed traffic through a US Hub, to allow passengers to fly on to other destinations in the USA, I cannot see this working...

The only reason the likes of US, UA, AA and DL make MAN work is that they can feed traffic through their respected hubs! Even UA's MAN-EWR route is heavily reliant on connecting traffic and there is not enough O&D traffic just for the NYC region. Also this route, only seems to be able to support a 757.

BA demonstrated this could not work, when they tried MAN-JFK and they could offer onward connection with AA.

So I find it farcical how people are mentioning they could operate see an A380 operating between MAN and the USA!

I still don't really see a market, but MAN has been crying out for a link to the West Coast of the USA... Emirates have also been keen to operate the A380 on their DXB-LAX route, but I think it struggles range wise, so just maybe MAN could be used as a Technical stop on the route to refuel and maybe they could offer 10-20% of the seats of the route for passengers wishing to fly MAN-LAX... This would also offer a small amount of additionaal capacity for passengers flying MAN-DXB, while not really stepping on the toes of the other three flights a day EK fly to MAN and would also reduce the need of upgrading another one of the exisiting 77W flights on the route to an A380 for the next year or two.


User currently offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2857 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (1 year 12 hours ago) and read 21200 times:

Quote:
Aviation analyst Saj Ahmad, chief analyst at StrategicAero Research, said there is still obvious demand in the market for Emirates to capitalise on.
Quote:
“Emirates could flood the North Atlantic with swathes of Airbus A380s and 777-300ERs out of places like Birmingham and Manchester, two cities which are bursting with pent up passenger demand, tempered only by the lack of long haul airlines operating there, particularly for Birmingham,” he said, adding that if the Dubai carrier goes through with the plan “British Airways and Virgin Atlantic will be the big losers.”

So says Saj Ahmad, the self proclaimed Chief analyst,,,LOL, make that the only analyst at StrategicAero Research. Who is StrategicAero Research ? A pompous name from behind which he spouts out his own personal opinion and tries to cloak it in legitimacy

No listed company, no financial accounts, he's a self proclaimed consultant who in reality is simply a serial blogger.

http://sajahmadfactcheck.blogspot.co.uk/p/who-is-saj-ahmad.html

Only the foolish follow his progress.



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinegkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24906 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (1 year 12 hours ago) and read 21197 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 20):
BA demonstrated this could not work, when they tried MAN-JFK and they could offer onward connection with AA.

EK can offer onward connections with JetBlue in the US, and links with FlyBe at the MAN end



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 12 hours ago) and read 20663 times:

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 21):
Only the foolish follow his progress

A real dislike. Seems a little harsh...


User currently offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2857 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (1 year 12 hours ago) and read 20562 times:

Quoting by738 (Reply 23):
A real dislike. Seems a little harsh...

Because he wraps himself in supposed legitimacy with a string of fancy sounding analytical companies, none of which are registered, none of which produce accounts, and none of which stand up to scrutiny.

Blogspot is quite revealing if you take time to read through the links and read Mr Ahmad's blogs and articles.

It's not the person I dislike, it's the lack of legitimacy, objectivity and authenticity.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 hours ago) and read 20555 times:

I wouldn't discount the cargo dimension. So much more efficient to airlift cargo with one-stop to the US, not to mention being able to carry even more from MAN or GLA.

I would rule out the East Coast. Too much competition. If EK does this, it'll be to the West Coast imho.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8195 posts, RR: 10
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 hours ago) and read 20385 times:

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 19):
There are lots of ways the U.S. is protectionist but it is an unquestioned leader in airline deregulation, both in domestic dereg and in pursuing Open Skies treaties.

I disagree. The U.S. WAS an unquestioned leader but it no longer is. As pointed out above, it lead the way when it was the unquestionable economic superpower and its airlines rulled the skies the world over. Who would have thought back in the 80's that PanAm and TWA wouldn't be leading world carriers for years to come? That was the environment in which the U.S once was the unquestionable leader in airline deregulation. I don't believe for a second that in today's environment the U.S. government would follow the same steps.


User currently offlines4popo From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 hours ago) and read 20622 times:

Could this be used to ease EK in the MIA market. I know there's been plenty of rumors over the last few years about DXB-MIA, but there might be less risk launching DXB-MAN-MIA first. Just a thought.

User currently offlineSR 103 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 hours ago) and read 19232 times:

Quoting behramjee (Reply 16):
as only AF operates this sector nonstop on a double daily basis and it can use with some much needed direct competition

Actually Air Tahiti Nui flies the route as well, so AF is not the only non stop airline.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 16):
Market size CDG-LAX is 340,000 passengers with lots of high yielding premium pax !

There are plenty of hubs between LAX and CDG that cater to the market just fine. I think if you take the time to understand the US market rather than just look at MIDT data, you might be able to figure out why things are the way they are. UA and AA have tried this route in the past.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 16):
FYI EK does have 5th freedom traffic rights between France and USA so no issues here bilaterally as well.
CDG is not as open to EK as you may think. Good luck to you if you think its that simple!

[Edited 2013-07-24 09:13:12]

User currently offlineQatarA340 From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1802 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 hours ago) and read 18909 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):


Does EK have unlimited fifth freedom rights from the UK to the US? Once EK starts destroying the UA, AA and DL yields from hubs to smaller UK/EU airports, see how long it takes for the US to rescind Open Skies with Dubai.

The bilateral relationship between UAE and USA is more powerful than EK flying to the US from England. US will not rescind Open Skies simply because of inreased competion; otherwise it would have rescinded Open Skies with the EU a long time ago.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 9):
Sorry, not happening. There are much broader National Security implications about harming relations with the UAE than protecting Delta.

+1

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
Well, Dubai Ports has had completely legal deals partially or fully blocked.

The reason is the Zionist lobby in the US behind this blockage.



لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20365 posts, RR: 62
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 hours ago) and read 18514 times:

Quoting UAEflyer (Thread starter):
Emirates want to put leg in one of the busiest routes in the world, US UK route, according to EK they want to fly from the northern part of the UK.

Flying out of Heathrow may become an option:

Competition For PHL-LHR With Merger (by cjpmaestro Jul 24 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 29):
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
Well, Dubai Ports has had completely legal deals partially or fully blocked.

The reason is the Zionist lobby in the US behind this blockage.

I reject that reasoning. Nearly all foreign investment in the US is looked at by way of the harm it could do to national security. For example, a Chinese company is attempting to buy the largest pork processor in the US right now. The deal is hung up on whether foreign control over an essential part of the food supply could disrupt the economy and the military. Zionists have nothing to do with it, but the deal is receiving the same scrutiny that the Dubai Ports deal did, just not the same amount of publicity.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDanfearn77 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 1810 posts, RR: 9
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 hours ago) and read 18308 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 20):

MAN-EWR sees a very large percentage of terminating NYC pax. MAN-IAD however is a different story with only a handful of pax terminating in IAD.



Eagles may soar high, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 hours ago) and read 18269 times:

There could be an A380 from EDI to BTV to carry gnomes between those hilly and chilly regions. With Emirates, it's hard to say really.  

User currently offlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4748 posts, RR: 43
Reply 33, posted (1 year 7 hours ago) and read 17629 times:

Quoting SR 103 (Reply 28):
Actually Air Tahiti Nui flies the route as well, so AF is not the only non stop airline.

yes you are right, I totally forgot about that.

Quoting SR 103 (Reply 28):
There are plenty of hubs between LAX and CDG that cater to the market just fine. I think if you take the time to understand the US market rather than just look at MIDT data, you might be able to figure out why things are the way they are. UA and AA have tried this route in the past.

Stats are not from MIDT but rather MarketIS and SSMM and from this figure of 340,000 it reads as follows in terms of market share:

AF 51%
TN 17%

So in essence 68% of the market flies nonstop and not one stop hence a clear indication of what the market prefers. The airline with the biggest one stop market share is BA followed by US Airways who each have only 2% market share only each respectively. Yes AA and UA did try this route in the past and did not seem to fare well but EK's ability to market and sell a product is world class especially since the main focus here (for EK) is primarily O&D traffic and not transfer.

Now what is interesting to also note that out of the 51% of the AF traffic uplifted (173,000) on the CDG route i.e. 52% (90,000) has CDG as the final destination followed by domestic France which stands at 16% and the rest is transfer traffic bound to EU/Africa/MENA.


User currently offlineojas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2957 posts, RR: 24
Reply 34, posted (1 year 7 hours ago) and read 17452 times:

Thanks for the numbers behramjee.

While I'm no expert here, but I feel if UA and AA cannot make it work ... It will be a challenge for EK to get good yielding traffic. From what I understand FF loyalty plays a HUGE role for long distance travel; and if star alliance and one world failed to capitalise on CDG LAX ... I would really curious to know how will EK manage that without major undercutting of fares.



A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep
User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 7 hours ago) and read 17253 times:

Looking at the wider picture here, what I believe EK are saying is, when the Davies Commission looks at airport capacity and needs for the UK it should consider that the regions if properly allowed and developed could help relieve the South East pressures by allowing more passengers to fly from a regional airport than say, LHR. In effect EK are saying the same thing as MAN and BHX have been suggesting and promoting. They can be part of the answer, it isn't all necessarily about LHR.

BHX acknowledges it loses a tremendous amount of business to LHR. "high prices" are often the quoted reason but that is down to the airlines. I wonder how much airlines operating out of BHX/MAN etc. and LHR increase the regional price just to make the LHR price look attractive so they can fill the capacity they've pushed into LHR as it is seen as "the place to be"? I wonder if the price to EWR from BHX was the same price as LHR-EWR if UA would fill a larger aircraft out of BHX...but what would the flight out of LHR then look like? In essence, how much of this capacity crush in the S.E UK is been caused by airlines offering a price differential sufficient to tempt customers to LHR from outside the region, even to the detriment of their own operations in the regions?

EK are saying, instead of a passenger traveling from NCL to LHR to fly to JFK they are offering to fly them direct to JFK, all without impacting their LHR business, as their business goes East out of LHR.


User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2566 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 7 hours ago) and read 17301 times:

The days for a possible EK DXB-STN-JFK have arrived.
Also seems BRS catchment area wants an EK flight but due to BRS runway, that flight could operate DXB-CWL-JFK and kill 2 birds with one shot since that same area would be getting its NYC flight back as UA doesn't seem keen to re-start EWR-BRS or start EWR-CWL, not even as a seasonal service.



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (1 year 7 hours ago) and read 17153 times:

If the Brits and Americans accept this, they should first make the Emir of Dubai their head of state and accept their role as rightless slaves in a brutal medieval tyranny.

User currently offlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4748 posts, RR: 43
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 hours ago) and read 16836 times:

Quoting ojas (Reply 34):
Thanks for the numbers behramjee.

While I'm no expert here, but I feel if UA and AA cannot make it work ... It will be a challenge for EK to get good yielding traffic. From what I understand FF loyalty plays a HUGE role for long distance travel; and if star alliance and one world failed to capitalise on CDG LAX ... I would really curious to know how will EK manage that without major undercutting of fares.

EK's premium product and ability to market it will go a long way to making it work in the long run. If this is the logic, then EK would struggle on MXP-NYC too right? due to Sky Team (AZ/DL), UA and AA all operating daily nonstops to JFK/EWR respectively. But EK are willing to take them on a route that sees less demand but much more nonstop competition.

Now with regards to fares, the average r/t fare charged by airlines on this route (combining J/Y classes), it is as follows (includes YQ):

AF $ 1900
TN $ 1050 (this means they are not attracting many premium paying pax)
BA $ 1650
US $ 1200
DL $ 960
AA $ 1100
UA $ 1050

Now what EK needs to only do is charge initially somewhere in between TN and AF in its first year of service and then once the product + service awareness is there, they only need to be 20% cheaper than AF on average. Also Skywards is a powerful FFP with Jetblue part of. So even if you are a B6 FFP member, you can earn miles on EK + just like on MXP-JFK, B6 too would definitely want to code share on LAX-CDG to provide what ever incremental feed it can from LA based FFP member residents. Initially, EK's main target is to poach away the TN pax and many of the 1 stop carrier ones and then slowly but gradually attack AF's market share which would lose a little bit (not a lot but a little bit) with an EK A380 operated daily here.

FYI out of the 340,000 pax on this route, 30,000 flew J class of which 85% market share AF controls where as on MXP-JFK, 38,000 flew of which 78% flew on the nonstop carriers !

Notice how successful EK has been on another major 5th freedom route which sees much higher demand and more competition such as BKK-SYD (competing with TG BA QF multiple daily nonstops combined).


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 hours ago) and read 16709 times:

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 29):

Not true re: the EU. There is little competition between US and EU carriers, actually. Between alliances, code shares, ATI, etc. it's more a matter of US/EU partnership A vs. partnership B vs. partnership C.

And other than major market to major market, the EU carriers complement the US carriers. For example, AF only flies to the US from CDG but to many cities. US airlines will fly to other French cities but not as many flights to CDG from US cities. Same goes for BA and the UK.

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 19):

I'm not advocating. It's not a matter of "if you think" or "I" think it should. It's the government. And usually they can be swayed with lobbyist dollars. Thing is, there would be only EK lobbyist money pro EK doing this, and lots of lobbyist money against it. If the US government can pressure the UK to be the "bad guy" we will do it that way. But if push comes to shove some restrictions will go into place from our side of the Atlantic.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineQatarA340 From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1802 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 hours ago) and read 16573 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 39):
Not true re: the EU. There is little competition between US and EU carriers, actually. Between alliances, code shares, ATI, etc. it's more a matter of US/EU partnership A vs. partnership B vs. partnership C.

And other than major market to major market, the EU carriers complement the US carriers. For example, AF only flies to the US from CDG but to many cities. US airlines will fly to other French cities but not as many flights to CDG from US cities. Same goes for BA and the UK.

I understand what you mean. But, in the US you have the option of using way more airlines from Europe or US airlines to go from any point in the US to any point in EU. For example you can fly from Little Rock to Toulouse, either by American Airlines (via a point in US and EU) or British Airways (via some other airline), ect...

EK will just be another option. It already has codeshares with Jetblue and can also an addition to the open market. Afterall, this is what capitalism is all about.



لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 hours ago) and read 16002 times:

Quoting behramjee (Reply 38):
EK's premium product and ability to market it will go a long way to making it work in the long run. If this is the logic, then EK would struggle on MXP-NYC too right?

EK faltered on NYC-HAM in the wake of a competitor that had a hub on one end of the flight. They're free to try other routes if they have the authorities, but the days of non-US/EU carriers having anything more than a trivial max 1 or 2 flights day between the US and EU are over.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 39):
There is little competition between US and EU carriers, actually. Between alliances, code shares, ATI, etc. it's more a matter of US/EU partnership A vs. partnership B vs. partnership C.

And other than major market to major market, the EU carriers complement the US carriers. For example, AF only flies to the US from CDG but to many cities. US airlines will fly to other French cities but not as many flights to CDG from US cities. Same goes for BA and the UK.

Indeed, the US and EU authorities are to be commended for the skillful joint use of Open Skies and antitrust immunity to establish a framework that at once encourages vigorous competition by US and EU carriers while strongly protecting the North Atlantic market from "third country" interlopers.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 hours ago) and read 15884 times:

Quoting gkirk (Reply 22):
EK can offer onward connections with JetBlue in the US

Small potatoes compared to the formidable machines the immunized alliances have built.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 38):
Also Skywards is a powerful FFP with Jetblue part of.

Skywards is an afterthought, at best, in the USA and France...and would be even less relevant in supporting what would essentially be the only flight sector of its kind for Emirates.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4748 posts, RR: 43
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 hours ago) and read 15733 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 41):
EK faltered on NYC-HAM in the wake of a competitor that had a hub on one end of the flight. They're free to try other routes if they have the authorities, but the days of non-US/EU carriers having anything more than a trivial max 1 or 2 flights day between the US and EU are over.

HAM-NYC market size demand per year cannot be compared to CDG-LAX at all. Also EK used an in-efficient aircraft on this route i.e. the A345 which didnt help much the performance economics + at that time "its" market demographic had not been adequately established to warrant a 3rd daily service so fast. FYI over the past one year, the HAM-NYC market size demand was only 90,000 passengers versus 340,000 on CDG-LAX !

At LAX, EK currently only has 1 daily nonstop flight which is being upgraded soon from a B77W to an A380. Eventually down the road it will reinstate the double daily service (hopefully nonstop but if not nonstop then via CDG according to me is the best option available versus any other EU route)


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 884 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 hours ago) and read 14977 times:

EK feels like they can make (lets just say) JFK-GLA and/or JFK-MAN work year around with either a 773er or an A380. So my question is why is it that the airlines who are already flying these routes (or EWR-GLA, MAN) struggle to fill much smaller planes during the off season? What is EK's plan during the winter months when demand on US to UK routes drops. EK's VP is saying a lot in the article I just don't see this working out year around because the demand is not there during the slow season and with 2 nonstops already to DXB from JFK plus a direct flight via MXP there is no need for them to offer JFK-MAN-DXB and a JFK-GLA-DXB routing because then EK would just be cannibalizing themselves.

Can I see this plan working during the peak travel season yes I can but once it's over EK would have a lot of capacity and no a lot of passengers to fill up that capacity. And make no mistake BA, VS, AA, DL , UA, US will use every tactic at their disposal to stop EK from destroying their market share on US to UK routes.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 hours ago) and read 14194 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
Once EK starts destroying the UA, AA and DL yields from hubs to smaller UK/EU airports, see how long it takes for the US to rescind Open Skies with Dubai.

Think you're underestimating brand loyalty in the US. Americans (make that North Americans) aren't known for being the most well-informed people in the world, let alone about airlines. Between the relatively strong FF offerings and the lack of EK brand strength, I don't think the masses will rush over to EK in droves. Most of them will stick to their home airlines - the ones they use most for domestic travel.

If they didn't, the EU carriers would have trounced US carriers by now .

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 7):
Yes and no. EK's growth IS going to be curtailed over the next 2 years due to DXB runway works.

Indeed. If they can't land as many aircraft at their own airport, they might as well send them all over the place.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 8):
If you believe in a parochial approach to air transport then you probably think this is a "bad thing" (and the flight should only be flown by US or UK airlines).

If you believe that air transport should be regarded as a business like any other, without artificial barriers, then you probably think an EK A380 from GLA to JFK is a "good thing" for consumers (and Scotland).

Amen.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
Well, Dubai Ports has had completely legal deals partially or fully blocked.

Dubai Ports fell apart because of a lot of high profile political opposition, and a semblance of public opposition. I doubt EK will inspire that kind of political or public opposition, but what do I know. You may be right, but only if this issue galvanizes folk as much as Dubai Ports World did. Personally, I don't think it'll gain any traction because this isn't about foreign ownership; its about one more airline.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
If EK starts running A380s from the UK it will impact our national carriers' ability to run their hub-to-point system, greatly harming the US market place.

Unless EK duplicates every route (I doubt it will), this isn't going to happen. A couple of airlines may lose a couple of routes, but this whole "greatly harming the US market place" piece is highly unlikely. Dropping a couple of 757 routes is not going to kill any airline.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
In aviation like to create open sky situations when we don't think it can harm us, or it will be mutually beneficial.
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
to create open sky situations when we don't think it can harm us, or it will be mutually beneficial. The Open Skies treaty with Dubai was signed with short sight, as we didn't think it could harm us, and it surely isn't mutually beneficial.

Who is "us"? Is it US airlines? Is it Americans? The chink in your armour is a very visible one - Walmart. Has it harmed "you" (I m not American, so I can't say 'us')? Does it benefit "you"? The jury is either still out on it, or in favor of it, or else "Made in PRC" would be a novelty in the US. But its not,

Given a.net's aviation obsession, there is a tendency to believe that the airline is the be all and end all, and whats good for the airline must be good for the country. But is that the always the case? Some aviation policies focus on both the supplier and the consumer; some focus only on the supplier. Be careful what you wish for. As a consumer, the value-for-money proposition is paramount - hence the proliferation of cheap Chinese goods in the US, regardless of the consequence for X and Y American company. Government restrictions simply to protect one set of companies/ limit consumer choice in the US? I don't know about that - can't even ban health-damaging sugary drinks without starting some deep soul searching.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
SQ never really competed directly with US carriers on a large scale, and took as much traffic away from foreign airlines than domestically based ones.
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
But EK flying GLA or HAM or MAN to New York doesn't harm foreign carriers.

Very revealing posts.

1. First, there is the assumption that EK will enter each and every route (it wont - between slot restrictions and competition, it won't survive on the vast majority of them).
2. EK flying GLA, HAM or MAN to NYC won't affect the foreign carriers? Why not? I can only assume its because only US carriers fly those routes, in which case, what's wrong with injecting some competition? Is this just about maintaining some monopolies for US carriers? I don't know how anyone can argue that a monopoly on any route is good for everyone in both countries.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
It directly impacts domestic carriers and would likely put some of those routes to pasture.

If they require monopolistic conditions and can't handle one other competitor on the route, they're not doing a very good job of serving the people on either side of that route, are they? Its a good illustration of the misgivings I have about your conception of "us". You're only talking about the airlines. What about consumers (ie the majority of people affected)?

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 37):
If the Brits and Americans accept this, they should first make the Emir of Dubai their head of state and accept their role as rightless slaves in a brutal medieval tyranny.

What would a thread about EK be without a typically pointless LH post.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 39):
There is little competition between US and EU carriers, actually. Between alliances, code shares, ATI, etc. it's more a matter of US/EU partnership A vs. partnership B vs. partnership C.

If its A v B v C, then what difference does it make if you add D. D still has to compete with A, B and C. Its just one more airline.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 39):
Thing is, there would be only EK lobbyist money pro EK doing this, and lots of lobbyist money against it.

I don't recall too many US carriers being flush with cash.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 41):
Indeed, the US and EU authorities are to be commended for the skillful joint use of Open Skies and antitrust immunity to establish a framework that at once encourages vigorous competition by US and EU carriers while strongly protecting the North Atlantic market from "third country" interlopers.

How the world has changed eh. There was once a time when all the "third country" interlopers came from the US and EU. Now, they're being pushed aside by carriers from the very regions they ...errr..'interloped 'in not too long ago. Which makes it unacceptable, of course.

The moralizing around here is hilarious.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17330 posts, RR: 46
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 hours ago) and read 13898 times:

This is a terrible idea, and mildly concerning if this and JFKMXP are their next best strategy when they still have loads of 380s coming. Loads of seats, no flow, no corporate contracts. It's a nonstarter.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 21):
“Emirates could flood the North Atlantic with swathes of Airbus A380s and 777-300ERs out of places like Birmingham and Manchester, two cities which are bursting with pent up passenger demand,

Pent up demand from BHX and MAN    So much demand US dropped BHX

Quoting gkirk (Reply 22):

EK can offer onward connections with JetBlue in the US, and links with FlyBe at the MAN end

At dreadful fares.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24803 posts, RR: 22
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 hours ago) and read 13734 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
Does EK have unlimited fifth freedom rights from the UK to the US?

US-UAE is Open Skies so they have unlimited 5th freedom rights between the USA and anywhere in the world, subject only to having the same rights from the 3rd country involved. I think UK-UAE is also basically an Open Skies bilateral (as are many other Europe-UAE bilaterals).

[Edited 2013-07-24 15:49:39]

User currently onlineadamh8297 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 827 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 hours ago) and read 13702 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 46):
At dreadful fares.

Dreadful for the consumer or the airline's bean counters?


User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 hours ago) and read 13400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

EK would hardly be making these proposals if they haven't run the numbers, considered their strategy and decided they'd make money on the routes. Its doubtful they'd run via JFK or EWR given slot restrictions.

EK would most likely look to cities with a strong demand for UK service that were also candidates for double dailies such as LAX, SFO and possibly IAH or DFW.

I'm not saying it isn't risky but there are lots of folks who fly to the UK who'd be very happy to give LHR a miss including me. If I were able to fly into BHX or STN from SFO instead, I'd do it in a flash.


User currently offlineAllegiantFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 hours ago) and read 13333 times:

can we see a JFK crew base in the future of EK?

User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3204 posts, RR: 10
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 hour ago) and read 13281 times:

Why is everybody so scared of EK?

Honestly, I can tell you, living in Australia, basically along with new zealand two countries that are basically European/UK outposts that have heavily depended on being connected to the 'old country' culturally for a long time, we've never had it so good in this regard. We get REAL aircraft. Big ones. That have some of the best outfits in the industry onboard. We get daily, double daily or triple daily flights from ALL our major capitals on them, Not just sydney one stop to EVERYWHERE in europe. It means those of us needing to go Stockholm, or Malta, or Nice, from Brisbane or Melbourne can go there onestop. In great comfort in GOOD aircraft at reasonable prices (not they're NOT the cheapest, that honour goes to less glamorous outfits like China Southern and by a long way too). Linking us VIA dubai instead of Singapore, Hong Kong and Bangkok is literally the BEST we've ever had it in terms of product, frequency and one stop connections. AND we didn't even have to give up Bangkok or Singapore, they're still stop over options from some cities if you don't want to go direct. Okay given the time involved in making this trip it's a little different to transatlantic (hence perhaps the willingness of part of the market to pay MORE for economy tickets rather than take China Southern for example) But it's brought the best product we've ever had to the marketplace.


User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 hour ago) and read 13005 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When it comes to AUSTRALIA, EK has reshaped the marketplace. It's created tremendous new competition and given folks all over Australia options they've not had before in terms of convenience and frequency. QF is a sad koala but they simply couldn't adapt fast enough to compete so they had to jump in bed with EK instead  

EK entering the TATL marketplace would be great. It will force the competition to look at how their operations compare and adapt to compete. It should also apply downward pressure on fares which is never a bad thing either.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17330 posts, RR: 46
Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 hour ago) and read 12852 times:

Quoting adamh8297 (Reply 48):
Dreadful for the consumer or the airline's bean counters?

Great for the consumer, if they don't mind two interline connections. Terrible for the airline.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 49):
EK would hardly be making these proposals if they haven't run the numbers, considered their strategy and decided they'd make money on the routes.

Same could be said for most awful ideas in airline history

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 49):

EK would most likely look to cities with a strong demand for UK service that were also candidates for double dailies such as LAX, SFO and possibly IAH or DFW.

That's even worse--what on earth would be on a IAHMAN 330? Let alone anything bigger?

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 51):
Why is everybody so scared of EK?

I don't think anyone is scared of EK point to point--it'll be like JFKHAM or JFKMXP--they'll come in, ruin the market temporarily, and then predictably shut it down.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 hour ago) and read 12765 times:

Quoting AllegiantFlyer (Reply 50):
can we see a JFK crew base in the future of EK?

No, that we can say with absolute certainty. EK base everyone out of DXB, and even fifth freedom routes that have been operated for years are still flowed from DXB.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 52):
When it comes to AUSTRALIA, EK has reshaped the marketplace. It's created tremendous new competition and given folks all over Australia options they've not had before in terms of convenience and frequency.


Absolutely



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 hour ago) and read 12762 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 53):
Same could be said for most awful ideas in airline history

I'd like to hear what terrible business decisions the management team at EK has made over that last several years during their massive growth phase.

They've gone from a two bit regional airline with a handful of narrow bodies to a world-wide juggernaut that beat QF senseless, put massive pressure on European legacy airlines and is basically dictating the design of the next generation of 777.

Pretty much everywhere they've added service has upgauged a/c size and added service.

As I said, this fifth freedom option isn't without risk but if any airline can pull it off, its EK.


User currently offlineSelseyBill From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 hour ago) and read 12690 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 51):
Why is everybody so scared of EK?

I don't think Americans/ Europeans should be or are 'scared', but they should be 'concerned' by these Middle Eastern megalomaniacs trying to get their foot in the EU-US door.

Apart from helping to secure thousands of aircraft manufacturing jobs in Seattle and Toulouse etc, what's the trade-off for EU and US businesses ? What access are US/EU companies getting to Emirati markets in return ?

It would be interesting to see the reaction in the Emirates if for example the 'Oneworld' carriers got together and applied to set up a new JV airline at DXB; ('Oneworld-DXB'). I'm not saying for a moment this is likely to happen, but it sure would be interesting to see their reaction.


User currently offlineWAC From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year ago) and read 12594 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 55):
They've gone from a two bit regional airline with a handful of narrow bodies to a world-wide juggernaut that beat QF senseless

QF has always been a regional player....their international presence has been typicaly historically of a regional flag carrier. Their long haul fleet historically and today has been attributed to their location and distances that need to be covered rather than being a global player or in your words a world wide juggernaut-
Also EK is a fundamental basis of an economic plan to turn Dubai into world destination, while Australia is a destination in itself with or without QF...
The reason why QF decided to tie the knot with EK is that they believed they could leverage better revenues and profits with EK rather than go with status quo. Not because EK has become a mega long haul carrier. If that was the case they woud have married SQ a long time ago.


User currently offlinedavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7361 posts, RR: 14
Reply 58, posted (1 year ago) and read 12520 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jayunited (Reply 44):
EK feels like they can make (lets just say) JFK-GLA and/or JFK-MAN work year around with either a 773er or an A380. S

Err... they would be the top-up for the likes of the existing GLA-DXB and MAN-DXB. More specifically, it's more about MAN. Current MAN-DXB services are above 80% loads in the off-peak months...there was a period earlier this year where it was 95%+ for weeks on end. This way, they get the mooted 4th daily service in whilst allowing DXB to get a 2nd daily service to a West Coast USA city


User currently onlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year ago) and read 12461 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 49):
EK would hardly be making these proposals if they haven't run the numbers, considered their strategy and decided they'd make money on the routes. Its doubtful they'd run via JFK or EWR given slot restrictions.

Or they've begun to run out of points to connect through Dubai either through the limitations of the facility, or simply places that can sustain service with their high capacity aircraft, and are having to be more creative with their future strategies.


User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2566 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year ago) and read 12416 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 53):
That's even worse--what on earth would be on a IAHMAN 330? Let alone anything bigger?

EK MAN - IAH may not work, however, EK GLA - IAH or EDI - IAH (Scottish airports runway-lenght permitted) might.
There's some kind of demand trigger by oil-business on both ends of the route, not really sure if it's really that big - passengers + cargo - to make EK move to or add PIK in order to fly non-stop between Glasgow and IAH.



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineWAC From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12201 times:

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 60):
EK GLA - IAH or EDI - IAH (Scottish airports runway-lenght permitted) might.
There's some kind of demand trigger by oil-business on both ends of the route, not really sure if it's really that big - passengers + cargo - to make EK move to or add PIK in order to fly non-stop between Glasgow and IAH

It would have to ABZ as most of oil and gas ops are operated out of there on the mainland. GLA or PIK are too far and EDI does not have the airspace for the much needed heli-traffic. Then ABZ does not have a long enough runway for any aircraft operated by EK. IAH-Scotland is out of the question for now for anyone. At the moment AF-KL and BA-AA cater to the markets for the oil and gas industry through ABZ via AMS/CGG/LHR.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17330 posts, RR: 46
Reply 62, posted (12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11943 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 55):
I'd like to hear what terrible business decisions the management team at EK has made over that last several years during their massive growth phase.

Not very many since most of their additions have been to their hub--have you seen very many long haul tags work at any carrier recently?

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 60):
EK GLA - IAH or EDI - IAH (Scottish airports runway-lenght permitted) might.
Quoting WAC (Reply 61):
It would have to ABZ

Who would be on a GLA/EDI/ABZ IAH plane? It would be completely empty without a partner on either end. You might get some of the ABZ high yield market onboard, ops issues aside, but even if you got all of them it would only be about a dozen pax.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11707 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 62):
Not very many since most of their additions have been to their hub--have you seen very many long haul tags work at any carrier recently?

Not many. EK has one or two and a handful of carriers have one but not on any great scale.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 62):
Who would be on a GLA/EDI/ABZ IAH plane? It would be completely empty without a partner on either end. You might get some of the ABZ high yield market onboard, ops issues aside, but even if you got all of them it would only be about a dozen pax.

It would depend on if the business pull is there as it is for IAH to LOS where the oil business traffic drives that flight.

The ABZ runway is about 3,500 feet too short to realistically host EK aircraft.


User currently onlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11641 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 62):
Who would be on a GLA/EDI/ABZ IAH plane? It would be completely empty without a partner on either end. You might get some of the ABZ high yield market onboard, ops issues aside, but even if you got all of them it would only be about a dozen pax

There is more traffic on the IAH-ABZ sectors than PDEW numbers might show but most of it is flying in the oil companies' own fleet of aircraft. Whomever flew the route would have to get some of that traffic via corporate contracts then it COULD work but much like Norway-Houston what is not on company planes is locked into BA/*A/AF-KLM



Ciao Windjet mi manchi
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 65, posted (12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11641 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 51):
But it's brought the best product we've ever had to the marketplace.

That seems to be the AUSNZ way of looking at things. In the Atlantic market, a couple of prominent airlines (AC/LH) have gotten a little unhinged and hysterical. The AC website has an entire webpage calling Australia's aviation policy a failure, though some of its claims appear to be intellectually dishonest, insofar as it tries to attribute the exit of some financially weak carriers, such as AZ, solely to EK, without even factoring in the effect that the likes of SQ, TG, MH etc have had on the Kangaroo route.

AC/LH proponents here on a.net have a happy habit of putting forth all kinds of claims, some lacking substance, others lacking veracity. Go to any of the Canada-EK threads to see what the AC crowd think of Australia. Sadly, some of that poorly reasoned thinking is prevalent in Europe too, largely due to LH and, to a lesser degree, AF. BA is the only major EU airline that doesn't see EK as anything more than just another competitor.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 56):
What access are US/EU companies getting to Emirati markets in return ?

Unless the US/EU have signed non-reciprocal bilats giving EK rights that they don't give to their own airlines (why they would do that, who knows), I think its safe to say that the US/EU airlines have the same rights to Emirati markets as the UAE carriers do to their markets.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 56):
It would be interesting to see the reaction in the Emirates if for example the 'Oneworld' carriers got together and applied to set up a new JV airline at DXB; ('Oneworld-DXB'). I'm not saying for a moment this is likely to happen, but it sure would be interesting to see their reaction.

Why wouldn't they allow it? If the agreement allows EK to do that in the UK, for example, then it will allow UK carriers to do the same thing through the UAE. Its simple reciprocity.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 59):
Or they've begun to run out of points to connect through Dubai either through the limitations of the facility, or simply places that can sustain service with their high capacity aircraft, and are having to be more creative with their future strategies.

The most likely scenario IMHO. Especially with the runway work coming up.


User currently offlineWAC From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11633 times:

MaverickM11 You did not read my last 2 sentences.

Quoting WAC (Reply 61):
AH-Scotland is out of the question for now for anyone. At the moment AF-KL and BA-AA cater to the markets for the oil and gas industry through ABZ via AMS/CGG/LHR.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17330 posts, RR: 46
Reply 67, posted (12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11498 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 63):

Not many. EK has one or two and a handful of carriers have one but not on any great scale.

Exactly, and there's a reason for that.

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 64):
There is more traffic on the IAH-ABZ sectors than PDEW numbers might show but most of it is flying in the oil companies' own fleet of aircraft.

Sure, but little, if any of that, is going to switch to EK, if even in the remotest of possibilities, a nonstop is offered.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently onlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11432 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 67):
Sure, but little, if any of that, is going to switch to EK, if even in the remotest of possibilities, a nonstop is offered.

I don't disagree in that it would not be enough to make a flight viable, but EK has several contracts with the industry now on IAH-DXB (and some onward locales) so a handful would probably take an EK flight as their marketing/biz people are good at negotiating the corp. travel contract flights.

THe amount of corporate traffic on industry owned metal and time-shared aircraft is actually kind of staggering out of Houston. I digress a bit as none of it is enough to market direct flights (save maybe MAR at the moment) but places like KUL get dozens of flights from IAH (usually via HNL) a month. I have a fair amount of family in the industry and the amount of money spent on travel in the energy biz is quite massive. EK is smart to try and take it from the "older" airlines.



Ciao Windjet mi manchi
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 69, posted (12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11291 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 65):
The AC website has an entire webpage calling Australia's aviation policy a failure, though some of its claims appear to be intellectually dishonest, insofar as it tries to attribute the exit of some financially weak carriers, such as AZ, solely to EK, without even factoring in the effect that the likes of SQ, TG, MH etc have had on the Kangaroo route.

I personally feel that AC's claims about Australia actually harm their cause, as it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and therefore just make AC look silly. While some Canadian posters agree with them, as is their right, it portrays a narrow view of the Australia-Europe, that ignores many facts.

The biggest is, of course, that Australia is a long way from Europe. Is it any surprise the economic case for these flights was not there in the 2000s, while it might have been in the 1990s, with the cost of oil?

Second, you need three aircraft to fly Europe-Australia on a daily basis. That's three aircraft to fly one route in which fairs are only double Europe-North America. Maybe my math is rusty, but it seems to me that yields should be 1.5 times higher flying 3 routes to North America than one to Australia. And that ignores the actual cost of flying the route. Your crew are down-route for over a week, so the per diems add up.

Thirdly, other than LHR, the market to any single city in Europe isn't actually big enough to fill an entire aircraft every day. LHR is an anomaly because of strong historical and corporate traffic. Even if there is 350 PDEW between SYD and CDG, say [I have no idea what the number is], there is no guarantee you will draw everyone. Even with connections, the market isn't actually that big, and why would someone go from AMS via CDG when there are other options (including SQ and TG, as well as EK) to take you one-stop.

In short, this is not a market for the end-of-the-line legacies. It is a long, thin market, with very low yields. Qantas International made a $350mn loss last year, of which flying to FRA - their only continental European market - accounted for $300mn. Even LHR only breaks even for QF, BA, and VS.

Did EK destroy these carriers flying to Australia? No. Maybe it was the final nail in the coffin, but the coffin was already closed by that point.

Of topic of course, but sometimes I do feel that the hysteria surrounding EK is removed from the facts.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3204 posts, RR: 10
Reply 70, posted (12 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10839 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 69):
Did EK destroy these carriers flying to Australia? No. Maybe it was the final nail in the coffin, but the coffin was already closed by that point.

Of topic of course, but sometimes I do feel that the hysteria surrounding EK is removed from the facts.

VERY VERY true. That coffin started to be closed in 1972, when Singapore Airlines was born, and decided it would take on the then BOAC and QF with 707s for service between Australia and the UK. BOAC and QF complained that SIA was taking "their passengers" and there were complaints at the time about SIA doing things like having a flight SYD-SIN something like SQ100, and SIN-LHR as something like SQ100A or SQ2100 etc, to make it blatantly obvious for all the intention was this flight would connect. BA annd QF screamed to their governments, who initially listened. Then, singapore started talking to their friends in the region and Indonesia was going to deny QF and BA the right to fly through their airspace if SQ didn't get market access. SQ of course studied KLM's method of connecting PAX in AMS and realised they could do the exact same thing in SIN, so they built changi and got ready to set up a hub. Cathay and thai as they expanded realised they too could get in on the act and the rest is history. It was these carriers very aggressive expansion in the 1990s that kicked the likes of Alitalia, KLM, Olympic ,Lufthansa and Air France off the kangaroo routes. Emirates wasn't even thought of at that point. In fact by the time Emirates got their first flights to Sydney (MEL came first) most of these carriers had well and truly long left Australia.


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10518 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 69):
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 70):

?

We now have two U.K registered full service scheduled carriers flying from the U.K to Australia.

More than there has ever been.

(Ironically considering your posts via SIN and HKG)

?


User currently offlineAyostoLeon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 72, posted (12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10444 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 71):

That might be true but it is also true that airports previously served no longer see BA, PER for example.

The other named carriers did pull out before EK became established although they still sell tickets to Australia. Passengers just continue into Australia on the very airlines that were their competitors. For example, AF codeshares with MH, LH codeshares with TG and SQ.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 73, posted (12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10417 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 71):
We now have two U.K registered full service scheduled carriers flying from the U.K to Australia

Absolutely, indeed you will notice in my post I specifically mention that LHR is a strong enough market to support Aus routes, whereas FRA, CDG etc aren't, both in terms of a smaller overall market, and less corporate travel.

However, you will also note that I say that for all three carriers this is a break-even market, rather than a goldmine. BA have been quite open about that, as have QF. VS haven't said anything, but as they are the weakest link there is no reason to assume otherwise.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 71):
Ironically considering your posts via SIN and HKG

How's that relevant?

I don't think either of us said that the only way form one to the other was through Dubai. Indeed, quite the opposite, we're both saying that the role of EK in this market is, historically, over-rated.

What we were actually discussing was this esteemed document from Air Canada:

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/facts/industry/emirates.html

While the article, cleverly, doesn't explicitly say so, the inference you are supposed to draw is that the ME3, and EK in particular, drove KL, AZ, and OS from the market.

To be clear, I don't have any major objections with Air Canada, but I think these half truths make them look childish and immature. If they have a case to present, then they don't need to use silly examples. If they don't have a case to present, then sit down and shut up.

Just my 2c



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinemainMAN From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 2096 posts, RR: 5
Reply 74, posted (12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10342 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 20):
The only reason the likes of US, UA, AA and DL make MAN work is that they can feed traffic through their respected hubs! Even UA's MAN-EWR route is heavily reliant on connecting traffic and there is not enough O&D traffic just for the NYC region. Also this route, only seems to be able to support a 757.

Not necessarily. The 2 x daily 757s from MAN to NYC are really representative of the market, which is a lot more substantial. Fares on these direct flights can be very high, and in my experience, there's a tendency for AF/KL in particular to be a lot, lot cheaper. Effectively UA and AA are filling their MAN flights with quite high-yielding passengers, for the simple reason that the market is there, and they can.

I've been to New York 4 times in the last 5 years, and only once made it direct (to EWR).


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10261 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 69):
LHR is an anomaly because of strong historical and corporate traffic.

That's a contradiction in terms. You cannot justify an 'anomaly'. If you can it is not an anomaly.

LHR or more accurately the United Kingdom supports the route 'because' of strong historical and corporate traffic.

Indeed LHR is what it is because of 'strong historical and corporate traffic' to many parts of the world.

There is nothing anomalous about it.

That is why countries like Canada view EK as parasitic. Their success is built upon the success of the people they transport and the country of origin through nothing more than a geographical advantage.

All other successful airlines have built up their business through decades of hard work and reliable efficient quality service.

There is no skill involved in what EK does. Any wealthy government in the world could start an airline and throw enough money at it to eventually devour the competition and make an operating profit.

[Edited 2013-07-25 02:53:58]

User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12380 posts, RR: 47
Reply 76, posted (12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10015 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
Their success is built upon the success of the people they transport and the country of origin through nothing more than a geographical advantage.

Nothing more? Seriously?

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
All other successful airlines have built up their business through decades of hard work and reliable efficient quality service.

Which is exactly what EK has done.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
There is no skill involved in what EK does. Any wealthy government in the world could start an airline and throw enough money at it to eventually devour the competition and make an operating profit.

Only if there were a grain of truth in your statement. But I'm afraid there isn't.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 77, posted (12 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9967 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
That is why countries like Canada view EK as parasitic. Their success is built upon the success of the people they transport and the country of origin through nothing more than a geographical advantage.

There are enough threads about EK and Canada for you to peruse at your own leisure. What I find far more curious is your choice of word - in this case, parasitic.

Parasitic on who/what? Given the current DXB-centric setup (at least till these TATL flights get off the ground), EK doesn't compete directly with AC on any route. In fact, AC doesn't fly to any point on which EK wouldn't represent a significant backtrack or massive addition to distance/time. It does, however, compete with many EU carriers (one of which is AC's TATL benefactor) for sixth freedom traffic. Which begs the question - what do Canadian consumers (who do make up the vast majority of Canadian citizens, mind) owe any of these EU carriers? Not a whole lot, I don't think. Other than some misguided sense of loyalty to 'western' airlines.

However, you are on to something with the word 'parasitic'. From a consumer perspective, airlines/companies operating in protected markets are relatively more parasitic than those operating in open, competitive markets. After all, protectionism is an indirect subsidy in itself, at the cost of the consumer. Personally, I would view an airline that lobbies for protectionism in a bid to inflate airfares as far more parasitic than anything EK does, for one simple reason - in this price-conscious value-for-money era, consumers (who, again, outnumber airline employees by quite a margin in every country in the world) benefit more from one than the other.

As for geographical advantage, one can only guess at how viable LH, OS, LX, KL etc long haul networks would be without their geographical location. You could say the same for BA too, I suppose, but BA does cater to a lot of O&D. I read elsewhere on this site that most of LH's traffic in FRA and MUC is transiting.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
All other successful airlines have built up their business through decades of hard work and reliable efficient quality service.

?!

What next - should we abandon Japanese and Korean cars in favor of Ford because Ford started first? All other successful airlines also benefitted from rampant protectionism and state support, as was the norm when they were putting in their 'hard work'. Open skies and strong competition is a relatively recent phenomenon - and EK has evolved in that, which I think is far more impressive than some other 'established' carriers, at least one of whom needs the government to intervene in all matters ranging from foreign competition to in-house labour disputes. I find it terribly ironic that a large part of that success came from 'interloping' (as one poster so aptly put it), in other regions of the world. BA used to fly on what is now one of EK's cashcows - DXB-BOM. But that's okay, because BA started earlier?

And here I thought tribalism was limited to football loyalties.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
There is no skill involved in what EK does. Any wealthy government in the world could start an airline and throw enough money at it to eventually devour the competition and make an operating profit.

Good thing theres more than one wealthy government, then. In fact, there's two in the same country.

Also, I didn't know EK had mastered the art of automation to the point that they don't employ any humans. Talk about innovative. Otherwise, I imagine running any airline takes a lot of hard work from the top to the bottom.


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (12 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9944 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 76):
Only if there were a grain of truth in your statement. But I'm afraid there isn't.

Of course it's true. The airlines of the world with the help of the governments of the countries to which they are registered could price (transfer traffic reliant) EK out of business almost overnight if they had a mind to.

Luckily for EK they operate in an environment in which their 'targets' are not state owned unlike themselves.


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (12 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9931 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 77):

I say again...

The airlines of the world with the help of the governments of the countries to which they are registered could price (transfer traffic reliant) EK out of business almost overnight if they had a mind to.

Luckily for EK they operate in an environment in which their 'targets' are not state owned unlike themselves.


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (12 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9859 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 77):

The strange thing is that EK is a modern day airline dinosaur.

A hybrid spawned ironically from the sudden realisation that such an airline could easily target an increasingly self supporting industry.

That said though the can of worms has been opened and the damage done.

What a shame though that the industry could not have evolved for longer before being thrown back into the dark ages.


User currently offlineAirIndia From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1634 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (12 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9831 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 79):
EK out of business almost overnight if they had a mind to.

Which is where EK saw the potential AND

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
have built up their business through decades of hard work and reliable efficient quality service.


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (12 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9779 times:

Quoting AirIndia (Reply 81):

I rather liken EK to a boxer going into the ring after years of being pumped full of steroids by his beneficiaries.

Not really worthy of any respect or accolade but successful nonetheless.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 83, posted (12 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9735 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 82):
being pumped full of steroids by his beneficiaries.

???? IIRC they only once loaned government money, to start up the company, which they have repayed years ago. They have been profitable ever since....

Granted, they do enjoy a climate with more relaxed labor- and tax lawes, but DXB is hardly the only place in the world where this applies.

I really don't get the steroids by beneficiaries comparison...

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 82):
Not really worthy of any respect

Having the fleet that they have, the consistent profitibality, the size of the operation and the consistent service levels I'd say the deserve every bit of respect they get.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9711 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 83):

They are state owned.

To look at this globally which one must as they compete globally - EK is a public sector company competing in a private sector industry.

That's it and all about it.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 85, posted (12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9632 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 84):
They are state owned.

Yes, they are owned by a company (The Emirates Group) who in turn is owned by the Dubai government. But I have never seen any proof or numbers produced that they receive subsidies or cash being pumped into EK in any other way.

They have always been profitable, I don't think they need any steroids to begin with...


And besides, Lufthansa is partly state-owned, same goes for AF/KL and I'm sure quite a few others.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 84):
That's it and all about it.

That's bit easy IMHO. If you suggest EK is like a boxer being pumped full with steroids it would be nice if you could produce some numbers to back that claim up.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 86, posted (12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9613 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
You cannot justify an 'anomaly'. If you can it is not an anomaly

True, poor choice of word, but you know precisely what I mean. The UK market ex-Australia is stronger than any other European market

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
LHR or more accurately the United Kingdom supports the route 'because' of strong historical and corporate traffic

  

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
All other successful airlines have built up their business through decades of hard work and reliable efficient quality service

3 decades of hard work and reliable efficient quality service...

EK don't provide any less "reliable efficient quality service" than KL or QF, both of whom have 9 decades under their belt

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
There is no skill involved in what EK does. Any wealthy government in the world could start an airline and throw enough money at it to eventually devour the competition and make an operating profit.
Quoting 1400mph (Reply 78):
Of course it's true

Saudi Arabian Airlines, Gulf Air, and Kuwait Airlines (as well as LY, MH, AR - dare I say it, even EY) are shining examples of that I suppose?

Setting up an airline is easy if you have the money to burn, you're absolutely right. Setting up a profitable airline is much harder.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
That is why countries like Canada view EK as parasitic

The fascinating thing is, as Lufthansa says, it was SQ who started this so-called parasitical business. While I recognise that "they did it first" isn't a good argument, pretty much everyone has their hand in the Sixth Freedom pie. Including the Euro legacies.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 70):
That coffin started to be closed in 1972, when Singapore Airlines was born, and decided it would take on the then BOAC and QF with 707s for service between Australia and the UK. BOAC and QF complained that SIA was taking "their passengers"

Last year I flew BA LHR-MIA, and sat next to an American women who was flying home BOM-LHR-MIA. Is BA a parasite? After all, she could easily have flown UA BOM-EWR-MIA.

What gives?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 77):
what do Canadian consumers (who do make up the vast majority of Canadian citizens, mind) owe any of these EU carriers? Not a whole lot, I don't think. Other than some misguided sense of loyalty to 'western' airlines.

As you said, there are a lot of threads on the subject, but that's the bit I've never understood. Why LH (a non-Canadian corporation) was entitled to Canadian business over EK (a non-Canadian corporation). If AC was flying DEL and BOM, then maybe I could see the protectionist argument. But why should Canadian Government policy protect one foreign corporation from another?

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 84):
EK is a public sector company competing in a private sector industry.

In Australia we have a state-owned, private health insurance provider, Medibank. They are pretty much the only thing standing between an open market and BUPA having a 100% monopoly. Consumer choice is good, and at the end of the day I would rather have a government owned competitor, than no competitor at all

(and I say that as a BUPA customer )

[Edited 2013-07-25 06:53:40]

[Edited 2013-07-25 06:54:08]


Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 87, posted (12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9544 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 80):

The Dark Ages. I like that. What is so 'dark' about our age? As I see it:

1) More people are flying than ever before.
2) flying is more affordable than ever before.

Which begs the question - what exactly is the point of having airlines? Is it to give airline workers something to do? Or is it about transporting as many people to where they want to go at a price that they can afford? After all, the economic benefits from moving people to where they want to go/need to be in an efficient and affordable fashion are manifold greater than giving airline workers something to do.

As for EU governments, I am sure the EU airlines would do better if the EU governments took a neutral approach instead of treating them as in a hostile fashion, but that is a self-inflicted wound. I don't see how you can blame EK for that. Is EK taking advantage? Absolutely. I would argue that that is a good thing because EK has provided an example of how well an airline can do if it doesn't have to fight the government every step of the way. All these carbon taxes and APDs are causing as much harm to the industry, if not more. By virtue of simply existing, EK is the strongest arrow in any EU airline's repertoire in the battle against punitive taxation.

As it is, the notion that the aviation industry was entering some kind of stable period is a bit laughable - the rise of LCCs hasnt done your old boys club of once state-supported (steroid filled?) boxers any favors. Hilarious analogy btw, though it does make a mockery of your insistence that these airlines have established themselves by hard work and skill in the past, because by your own definition, that hard work and skill was supplemented by government 'steroids'. I don't think you should tout one actor's well known steroid fueled past successes to mock another actor's alleged current steroid fuelled success. It's poor form.

As for the private sector versus public sector argument, i ask again - what is wrong with a state using its airline as a tool for economic development? The fact that other governments don't? By most accounts, EK is profitable, and a lot more places traditionally ignored by EU carriers are more accessible today than ever before.

Strange dark age, this. Unless, of course, you're the LH CEO and need to catch up across the board. For me, the EK-LH battle will always be personified by their very different approaches to PTVs in Y, and the eventual triumph of one approach over the other (to the benefit of flyers, I might add).


User currently offlinea380787 From Canada, joined Jul 2013, 964 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (12 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9529 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 7):
Call me crazy, but I think that this is also about building the value proposition of Emirates (and Skywards Frequent Flyer) to draw in more traffic. Take MAN, where EK have a pretty loyal following due to little in the way of non-stop competition. My mothers' employer is a Manchester based company with significant operations in HK and PRC. Guess which airline the executives buzz around on? In paid F to boot.

If they were to launch MAN-JFK then that could help to cement them as the go-to longhaul airline in the region: one-stop to the World via DXB, plus they can also get you to the global financial hub, and beyond to the entire United States with B6.

So these executives would take a quick 7.5 hour hop in EK paid F to JFK then ensure jetBlue transcon out to SFO/LAX ?


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3204 posts, RR: 10
Reply 89, posted (12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9371 times:

Quoting a380787 (Reply 88):
So these executives would take a quick 7.5 hour hop in EK paid F to JFK then ensure jetBlue transcon out to SFO/LAX ?

Obviously not. but if they were in MAN and they were going to maybe BOS or Washington or upstate New York, hell why not? If they're used to flying european carriers for short hops they don't get a real business class in terms of a wider seat anyway.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 90, posted (12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9315 times:

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 56):
It would be interesting to see the reaction in the Emirates if for example the 'Oneworld' carriers got together and applied to set up a new JV airline at DXB; ('Oneworld-DXB'). I'm not saying for a moment this is likely to happen, but it sure would be interesting to see their reaction.

I have often suggested that this is exactly what alliance carriers should do. Don't even need to set up an airline. Approach the leader of a competitor emirate (like Sharjah or Ajman), offer to build up a solid hub airport and base some crews there from different carriers. Use that hub to service places like India and South-east Asia.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 75):
That is why countries like Canada view EK as parasitic. Their success is built upon the success of the people they transport and the country of origin through nothing more than a geographical advantage.

No different than BA, LH, AF, KL, SR, doing some amazing business taking North Americans to South Asia for example. Do you really think for example that airlines like KL and SR could support daily flights to India if they weren't relying on sixth freedom traffic? Yet, you wouldn't call them parasitic would you? Is that because they followed the old boys club rules of sharing their profits with other old boys through oligopolistic alliances?

I shudder to think of what prices to South Asia from North America would be, if the likes of EK/EY/QR and increasingly TK, weren't around to pressure the Western old boys club.


User currently offlinea380787 From Canada, joined Jul 2013, 964 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9309 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 89):
Obviously not. but if they were in MAN and they were going to maybe BOS or Washington or upstate New York, hell why not? If they're used to flying european carriers for short hops they don't get a real business class in terms of a wider seat anyway.

MAN-FRA-BOS on LH gets you a single terminal transfer, lounge at transfer, and clearing immigration at arrival

MAN-JFK-BOS requires terminal change at JFK, clearing immigration at JFK, and different product experience between EK and B6 (not saying it's bad, just different)


User currently onlineMiami From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 903 posts, RR: 42
Reply 92, posted (12 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9125 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

EK A380 MIA-BHX & BOS-MAN anyone?  

-Miami   



Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible. - Eddie Rickenbacker
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24803 posts, RR: 22
Reply 93, posted (12 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8742 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 85):
And besides, Lufthansa is partly state-owned

Is that correct? I thought the German government no longer had any ownership share in LH.


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 94, posted (12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8602 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 45):
the EU carriers would have trounced US carriers by now .

EU carriers generally don't have the cost structure to trounce anyone but themselves at the moment.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 45):
Think you're underestimating brand loyalty in the US.

Not just brand loyalty, but brand convenience. In the consolidated marketplace, North American consumers are given a choice of carriers that can, via their own metal or in conjunction with closely coordinating foreign partners, take them most anywhere they want to go. Emirates would be a trifling player in the EU-US market because it can't or won't offer a diverse spread of transatlantic flights (which would need to include LHR access to even be worthy of a serious talking point).

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 45):
Given a.net's aviation obsession, there is a tendency to believe that the airline is the be all and end all, and whats good for the airline must be good for the country. But is that the always the case?

From its inception, international civil aviation has been governed primarily by protectionist, not free-market, forces. Air carriers provide a service in the national interest of their home countries, and therefore there is often a close alignment between what's good for a country's air carriers in international flying and what's good for the country itself.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 51):
Why is everybody so scared of EK?

Everyone ought to be scared of an airline that utterly mocks key principles upon which international civil aviation operates, such as the notion that air carriers are to be primarily engaged in the transport of people to and from their home countries, with third-country/fifth freedom traffic to be of a peripheral nature.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24803 posts, RR: 22
Reply 95, posted (12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8607 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 94):
Everyone ought to be scared of an airline that utterly mocks key principles upon which international civil aviation operates, such as the notion that air carriers are to be primarily engaged in the transport of people to and from their home countries, with third-country/fifth freedom traffic to be of a peripheral nature.

There are many carriers where 6th freedom traffic is their dominant market. KLM is one example, plus many other large carriers based in countries with small populations. I would be interested to know what percentage of SQ's traffic, for example, is 6th freedom. I would guess it's a large number. The same for CX/LX/OS/AY, among others.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 96, posted (12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8574 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 94):
From its inception, international civil aviation has been governed primarily by protectionist, not free-market, forces. Air carriers provide a service in the national interest of their home countries, and therefore there is often a close alignment between what's good for a country's air carriers in international flying and what's good for the country itself.

"Has been" =/= "is".

Did we revert back to 1970 sometime over the course of today? That close-alignment argument may have been valid when the airlines were still state-owned and taxpayer supported. I believe that changed about two decades ago.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 94):
Emirates would be a trifling player in the EU-US market because it can't or won't offer a diverse spread of transatlantic flights (which would need to include LHR access to even be worthy of a serious talking point).

I agree. But they would provide another option for those who go out and seek it. I don't see the harm in that.


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 97, posted (12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8546 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 95):
There are many carriers where 6th freedom traffic is their dominant market. KLM is one example, plus many other large carriers based in countries with small populations. I would be interested to know what percentage of SQ's traffic, for example, is 6th freedom. I would guess it's a large number. The same for CX/LX/OS/AY, among others.

I agree that there are other carriers who engage primarily in sixth-freedom business, such as KLM and Singapore (for various reasons, I strongly suspect LX, OS and CX are at or above the 50% mark in pax originating or terminating in their home countries these days).

This is the point in the story where we are reminded that international civil aviation is not a free-market exercise, but a balance of competing national interests and considerations (including foreign policy and "necessity").

KLM benefits from being based in The Netherlands, which has excellent diplomatic and economic relations around the world. It also helps that in many markets, particularly to/from developing countries, KLM often provides sorely-needed pax and cargo access, putting a blue-and-white jet where other industrialized world air carriers offer little or no service. Singapore, for its part, has very strong diplomatic and financial ties to much of Asia, Oceania, and parts of the EU and North America. SQ also happens to provide extensive services to air markets where Westerners simply don't trust the local air carriers much, such as Indonesia. Additionally, neither airline is especially parasitic in its behavior, at least towards the USA and/or EU.

[Edited 2013-07-25 16:00:18]

[Edited 2013-07-25 16:00:48]


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3204 posts, RR: 10
Reply 98, posted (12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8450 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 97):
dditionally, neither airline is especially parasitic in its behavior, at least towards the USA and/or EU.

The US yes, But it has been VERY much so to Australian/EU carriers who basically used to control the skies between Europe and Asia, and Asia and Australia. It was very much SIA's success that lead to the exit of Altialia, Olympic, Air France, Lufthansa from the entire route, with them now struggling to keep up with both product offering and frequency between europe and Asia. Lufthansa and KLM did years ago with SIA, Thai and Malaysia Airlines, what QF is doing with EK now, just not as effectively. They didn't do this by choice... they were left with little or no option. Even now look at what's happening between Thailand and Paris and you can see AF struggling were they thrived in the past (and were plenty of french people actually go) and although part of that is due to Emirates, Part of it is definitely NOT with thai international doing just fine. There is no way in hell you can suggest Thai presences, in these markets hasn't come at the cost of muscling other carriers off the routes or giving them an inability to grow as the market has. And if you use the argument that thai is merely supporting thailand you completely ignore the fact they fill up A380s to places like FRA with at least half of the pax going on to places like Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. Ditto for Thai flying to South Africa. The market between South Africa and thailand isn't going to be anything huge, it's going after people needing to get to factories in China to do business. As far as KLM is concerned... despite what you have claimed, you haven't denied that it basically couldn't sustain half its network if it weren't for going after North America connecting PAX. Like it or not, and whether or not the Netherlands is a better global citizen than the UAE, is irrelevant. KLM and EK are doing the exact same thing, and that is building a network based on connecting other countries other than there own. Without such an extensive hub in Amsterdam I dare say a lot of companies based there would think twice about using that as a european base. How is that different to DXB trying to attract and build dubai by having a big base there? Remember it was initially done on the back of the dutch tax payer!


User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5665 posts, RR: 20
Reply 99, posted (12 months 4 days ago) and read 8328 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 86):
Why LH (a non-Canadian corporation) was entitled to Canadian business over EK (a non-Canadian corporation).

Less security concerns and ethical aspect involved in dealing with LH, an airline from an allied country as opposed to EK a state-owned airline of a frenemy entity? If you think it's too much (geo)politics in what should be a strictly business relationship, then have a look at the (self-)censorship clause attached to the Emirates Air Line cable line business contract with the city of London which Boris Johnson signed without batting an eye (claiming he "had no idea" later making himself look like an incompetent fool) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...hnson-israel-clause_n_3608988.html . That gives you an idea why it is naive to treat both equally.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 37):
If the Brits and Americans accept this, they should first make the Emir of Dubai their head of state and accept their role as rightless slaves in a brutal medieval tyranny.

UAE owns half of London (the other half not owned by Russian mobsters) already.

[Edited 2013-07-25 18:23:39]

User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 100, posted (12 months 4 days ago) and read 8292 times:

I don't think you thought this through.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 97):
KLM benefits from being based in The Netherlands, which has excellent diplomatic and economic relations around the world.

Sure they do. The Netherlands is also utterly inconsequential in most capitals of the world. I daresay the UAE carries more clout than the Netherlands in more capitals around the world, particularly those in developing nations. Warm relations and substantial relations are two different things.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 97):
It also helps that in many markets, particularly to/from developing countries, KLM often provides sorely-needed pax and cargo access, putting a blue-and-white jet where other industrialized world air carriers offer little or no service. Singapore, for its part, has very strong diplomatic and financial ties to much of Asia, Oceania, and parts of the EU and North America. SQ also happens to provide extensive services to air markets where Westerners simply don't trust the local air carriers much, such as Indonesia.

And EK/EY/QR offer extensive service/convenient connections to ~ 25-30 cities in 5 South Asian countries. Out of those 5 countries, EU carriers serve 5-6 points in one country (India), and have a rather bizarre route to one city in one other country (BA LGW-MLE-CMB).

By your own logic, EK "provides sorely-needed pax and cargo access" to Pakistan (population 176 million), Bangladesh (population 150 million), Nepal (population 30 million) and Sri Lanka (population 20 million). And that's not even factoring the Indian cities that get no EU service: AMD (pop 5.5 million), COK (2.1 million), CCU (14.6 million), CCJ (2 million), TRV (1.7 million).

Furthermore, the UAE has very strong ties with this region, as well as many African and ME nations, not to mention the muslim nations of South East Asia (which include Indonesia and Malaysia). I think its safe to say that EK, like SQ, "also happens to provide extensive services to air markets where Westerners simply don't trust the local air carriers much", such as Pakistan or Bangladesh or Nepal for that matter.

Its not just that I disagree with your 1970s way of looking at things. What strikes me as far more amusing is the double standards inherent in your post. If one airline does it, its okay, but if another does it, its not? EK excels in the criteria you used to justify your lack of opposition to SQ and KL, but you either didn't realize that (in which case one must question how thoroughly you've assessed the situation before coming to a conclusion) or you simply don't want to admit it (in which case. some misguided dogma is taking precedence over reality).

Quoting avek00 (Reply 97):
Additionally, neither airline is especially parasitic in its behavior, at least towards the USA and/or EU.

As for this nonsense about parasitic behaviour (what does that even mean?), the Comptroller and Auditor General published a report in 2010 that stated that 87% of LH's traffic out of India was sixth freedom traffic (KL was at 76%, BA at 61% and EK at 59%). Would that make LH a parasite? And more to the point, would things be better for Indians if LH was booted out? I think not.

[Edited 2013-07-25 18:29:21]

User currently offlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 721 posts, RR: 1
Reply 101, posted (12 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8102 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 97):
KLM benefits from being based in The Netherlands, which has excellent diplomatic and economic relations around the world. It also helps that in many markets, particularly to/from developing countries, KLM often provides sorely-needed pax and cargo access, putting a blue-and-white jet where other industrialized world air carriers offer little or no service. Singapore, for its part, has very strong diplomatic and financial ties to much of Asia, Oceania, and parts of the EU and North America. SQ also happens to provide extensive services to air markets where Westerners simply don't trust the local air carriers much, such as Indonesia. Additionally, neither airline is especially parasitic in its behavior, at least towards the USA and/or EU.

That is some BIZARRE logic you have there to justify how KL and SQ are okay to siphon/channel air traffic from all over the continents while the EK/QR/EY folks are not allowed. Biased much?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 100):
By your own logic, EK "provides sorely-needed pax and cargo access" to Pakistan (population 176 million), Bangladesh (population 150 million), Nepal (population 30 million) and Sri Lanka (population 20 million). And that's not even factoring the Indian cities that get no EU service: AMD (pop 5.5 million), COK (2.1 million), CCU (14.6 million), CCJ (2 million), TRV (1.7 million).

Thanks, man ... I couldn't have said it better. Those account for almost the population of EU - that's just one area that EK serves well ... because others won't. BA and KL both stopped serving DAC because those are not profitable enough, while EK does 3x DAILY and QR does 2x DAILY ... all widebodies of course. If they can find a way to profitably 'serve' where service is sorely needed ... just like KL/LH/BA do in many other countries of the world, I think it is completely justified even in avek00's bizarre logics.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 99):
UAE owns half of London (the other half not owned by Russian mobsters) already.

I thought the Qatari Emir owned the third half!  


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 102, posted (12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8092 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 100):
I don't think you thought this through.

I thought it through quite well.

Quoting ASA (Reply 101):
That is some BIZARRE logic you have there to justify how KL and SQ are okay to siphon/channel air traffic from all over the continents while the EK/QR/EY folks are not allowed. Biased much?

Who said my explanation was "logical"? Remember, international air rights are NOT a matter not of objective "logic", but rather "politics". I freely admit there are political reasons why some carriers get a pass while others do not.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 103, posted (12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8058 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 99):
If you think it's too much (geo)politics in what should be a strictly business relationship, then have a look at the (self-)censorship clause attached to the Emirates Air Line cable line business contract with the city of London

Interesting, I hadn't heard of that before

To their credit, Emirates did withdraw the terms (that's an observation, not a blind defense of Emirates!). This does make me wonder how many other like terms there are out there, given how many pies that Emirates have their finger in.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 102):
Remember, international air rights are NOT a matter not of objective "logic", but rather "politics"

And think we can all agree with that, regardless of perspective

Quoting a380787 (Reply 88):
So these executives would take a quick 7.5 hour hop in EK paid F to JFK then ensure jetBlue transcon out to SFO/LAX ?

As I said, it was a crazy thought, and I won't defend it to my grave. That said, with the rumors that we've heard about the new B6 F product, it doesn't sound too bad, no worse than what other US airlines offer. In Y there is very little difference between B6 and other airlines, if anything B6 are superior.

It might not be the best set-up, but it could attract some people. FF Status makes people do funny things, myself included: despite supporting in principle the fact that EK can get you from anywhere in Australia to anywhere in Europe, until QF-EK I stuck to BA via LHR as my QF status was recognised, and it helped build towards the following year. BNE-DXB-MAN is definitely preferable to BNE-SIN-LHR-MAN.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12380 posts, RR: 47
Reply 104, posted (12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7934 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 78):
Of course it's true.

EK hasn't done that. Give me one example of such an airline.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 83):
IIRC they only once loaned government money, to start up the company, which they have repayed years ago. They have been profitable ever since....

Perfectly true, but something that many on this site simply cannot accept.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 84):
They are state owned.

Let me fix that for you - "They are an efficient and very profitable, state-owned airline that once received some seed capital from their owners."

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 85):
Yes, they are owned by a company (The Emirates Group) who in turn is owned by the Dubai government. But I have never seen any proof or numbers produced that they receive subsidies or cash being pumped into EK in any other way.

It's pointless trying to convince anyone that's not prepared to listen.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3204 posts, RR: 10
Reply 105, posted (12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7871 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 104):
It's pointless trying to convince anyone that's not prepared to listen.

Well there is one benefit when it comes to banking in having your sole shareholder the government. And that is, banks will lend a lot more money to you on far more favourable terms because they know the government has the ability to repay them if you go belly up. Other than that though, it is exactly how you say and the same was true for SIA too! The nature of these countries is different. If it were western government owned, the unions would ultimately play politics with it enough to be able to interfere with management strategy and decision. Politicians scared of the public reaction to business based decisions (like using non union staff, or cutting under performing route from that member of parliaments home city etc, or perhaps offshoring/outsourcing some work, or buying aircraft types/engine types purely to support local industry rather than what actually suits the carries needs... sound familiar?) would ultimately meddle. Even if its not obvious, that would effect who was put forward to the board and subsequent management team.

In these other countries though, that doesn't happen anywhere near the extent so, they executives are told "this is your goal, this is what you've got to get it done with in terms of resources, go and out and get it, and don't stuff up because you're not getting anymore money. However if you do get it, here's your share of the reward".


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7852 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 87):
1) More people are flying than ever before.

?

There are more cars on the road than ever before. More fresh water is needed than ever before. More food is eaten than ever before and so on. That's just population growth. With or without state owned airlines more people would still be flying believe it or not.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 87):
2) flying is more affordable than ever before.

I flew to L.A and back 21 years ago and it cost me 500 quid. Same dates this year - VS £1397, BA £876, KL £736.

One of the results of more people flying. As with any industry as resource consumption increases their cost rises and prices go up. Not sure where you've been lately but if you 'eat' you can't help but have noticed ? It is an unavoidable vicious circle and will only get worse.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 87):
As for EU governments, I am sure the EU airlines would do better if the EU governments took a neutral approach instead of treating them as in a hostile fashion, but that is a self-inflicted wound. I don't see how you can blame EK for that. Is EK taking advantage? Absolutely. I would argue that that is a good thing because EK has provided an example of how well an airline can do if it doesn't have to fight the government every step of the way. All these carbon taxes and APDs are causing as much harm to the industry, if not more

Trying to do the right thing by the environment is not a bad thing even if other parts of the world don't bother and there are many things in this world that can be taken advantage of in the cause of financial gain........

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 87):
As it is, the notion that the aviation industry was entering some kind of stable period is a bit laughable - the rise of LCCs hasnt done your old boys club of once state-supported (steroid filled?) boxers any favors. Hilarious analogy btw, though it does make a mockery of your insistence that these airlines have established themselves by hard work and skill in the past, because by your own definition, that hard work and skill was supplemented by government 'steroids'. I don't think you should tout one actor's well known steroid fueled past successes to mock another actor's alleged current steroid fuelled success. It's poor form.

The LCC's ( that phrase now a total misnomer by the way) were not facilitated by the state.

Airlines being supplemented by government steroids is the past. Yesterdays world. Archaic and old fashioned. Not a healthy way to run a competitive and healthy global aviation industry. EK's tactic of global domination funded by a localised government is going to delay or even prevent new comers to the industry in certain parts of the world.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 87):
Strange dark age, this. Unless, of course, you're the LH CEO and need to catch up across the board. For me, the EK-LH battle will always be personified by their very different approaches to PTVs in Y, and the eventual triumph of one approach over the other (to the benefit of flyers, I might add).

I fear you maybe correct but in the long run it certainly won't be to the benefit of flyers.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 107, posted (12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7748 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 93):
Quoting travelavnut (Reply 85):
And besides, Lufthansa is partly state-owned

Is that correct? I thought the German government no longer had any ownership share in LH.

You are of course correct! My apologies  



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (12 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7637 times:

Of course the other factor is that with political/government involvement in the ownership of 'some' airline we will never see global open skies which allows 'true' competition.

Many countries or blocs will now never lift current ownership regulations on their airlines in the future if their paths could be steered towards anything but commercial gain by other governments.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 109, posted (12 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7536 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 104):
They are state owned.

Let me fix that for you - "They are an efficient and very profitable, state-owned airline that once received some seed capital from their owners."

Precisely. There is a huge difference between EK and SQ, and AI and AR.

I would be intrigued to hear what 1400mph has to say about Air New Zealand, a respectable, old-school legacy carrier, and a card carrying member of the country club, but ....... state owned *gasp*

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 105):
executives are told "this is your goal, this is what you've got to get it done with in terms of resources, go and out and get it, and don't stuff up because you're not getting anymore money. However if you do get it, here's your share of the reward".

Precisely

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 106):
There are more cars on the road than ever before

Of course.

I don't know what type of car you have, but I have a Japanese car. Is Japan a parasite? After all, there are plenty of cars built locally.

Why do I not drive one? Because when I consider all the pertinent factors that influence my decision (quality, fuel economy, price, performance and handling etc) the local cars can't even begin to compete.

If an informed consumer makes a value judgment about flying (quality, comfort, schedule, number of stops etc) and EK comes out on top of their local carrier, how is that anyone's fault other than the other airline? The competition is there, you might not like it, but it's there. Compete without you have got or die. BA are very good at this, they recognise that enough people value non-stop over one-stop that they have a value-adding USP, and they are therefore relatively unpurturbed by ME3. Burying your head in the sand and crying, however, doesn't achieve anything.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 106):
Airlines being supplemented by government steroids is the past. Yesterdays world

Absolutely. Which is why SQ and EK don't receive "government steroids"

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 106):
Archaic and old fashioned. Not a healthy way to run a competitive and healthy global aviation industry

Ditto protectionism

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 108):
Of course the other factor is that with political/government involvement in the ownership of 'some' airline we will never see global open skies which allows 'true' competition.

You've probably figured by now that I'm a big advocate of completely open skies, but I would suggest that this case is the PROOF that governments will never make the potentially unpopular reason of fully opening skies, rather than the REASON.

Just my opinion, you're fully entitled to yours



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (12 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7521 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 109):
You've probably figured by now that I'm a big advocate of completely open skies, but I would suggest that this case is the PROOF that governments will never make the potentially unpopular reason of fully opening skies, rather than the REASON.

Well I would of thought it was more to do with threatening to close down military bases or blackmailing with aircraft orders (or lack of)........


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 111, posted (12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7365 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 102):
Who said my explanation was "logical"? Remember, international air rights are NOT a matter not of objective "logic", but rather "politics". I freely admit there are political reasons why some carriers get a pass while others do not.

On this, we agree. What we don't agree on is the manner in which you apply the word 'parasitic'. I think its fair to say that you use the word in a pejorative manner, and apply it to one airline but not to another even though they both fulfill the criteria you yourself set.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 106):
?

There are more cars on the road than ever before. More fresh water is needed than ever before. More food is eaten than ever before and so on. That's just population growth. With or without state owned airlines more people would still be flying believe it or not.

Ah semantics. Ok, lets try this again. A greater percentage of the populations of countries around the world can afford to fly today than they could 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years. Do you disagree? I'm not talking about absolute numbers, I'm talking about proportions. I think its fair to say that a greater percentage of Indians and Chinese fly today than was the case 20 years ago. The same probably applies of the UK as well, courtesy of the Easyjets, Ryanairs and other misnomered LCCs of this world.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 106):
I flew to L.A and back 21 years ago and it cost me 500 quid. Same dates this year - VS £1397, BA £876, KL £736.

21 years ago would be 1992. A cursory glance at purchasing power indexes indicates that 500GBP in 1992 is the equivalent of 880GBP in 2013.

And that's not even factoring the reality that prices fluctuate on a day to day basis and your dates 21 years ago may have fallen on weekdays instead of weekends (and so on).

Might have to book your tickets a little earlier, but I think you'll find that LHR-LAX goes for as low as 535 GBP on VS' website.That would be the equivalent of a shade over 300 GBP in 1991, which appears to be somewhat cheaper than 21 years ago.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 106):
One of the results of more people flying. As with any industry as resource consumption increases their cost rises and prices go up. Not sure where you've been lately but if you 'eat' you can't help but have noticed ? It is an unavoidable vicious circle and will only get worse.

I don't care much for Malthusian economics.

But that aside, people are also richer than before, and technology is moving faster than before. I don't think its any great secret that the 777 is a far more fuel efficient aircraft than the 747. This notion that more and more people will compete for scarcer and scarcer resources was overcome the first time round by science and technology (we haven't starved ourselves to death yet, have we?), and I expect that will continue.

What we do know is that airlines are still in expansion mode.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 106):
Trying to do the right thing by the environment is not a bad thing even if other parts of the world don't bother and there are many things in this world that can be taken advantage of in the cause of financial gain........

And what percentage of the APD goes to fixing the environment?

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 106):
EK's tactic of global domination funded by a localised government is going to delay or even prevent new comers to the industry in certain parts of the world.

And LH/KL/BA/AF's interloping around the world for the past five decades didn't have that affect? IIRC, they were state-supported at the time.

Truth is - nothings changed in that regard. We aren't seeing some dramatic shift. What we are seeing is a changing of the guard with regard to the actors. EK/EY/QR are pushing LH/BA/AF/KL aside. Instead of LH delaying or preventing the rise of new comers, EK is doing it. I don't see how that is, in any way, worse than what LH/BA were doing all along. Are you planning on condemning those two airlines?

Personally, I don't see the point of having airlines for the sake of having airlines. If they can't survive/compete on a domestic or global scale, they don't 'need' to exist. As a Canadian far smarter than me put it, airlines do not exist just to give airline workers something to do. I buy Korean TVs and Japanese cars. Why shouldn't I? I think they produce quality I can afford.


User currently offlineSurfandsnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2846 posts, RR: 30
Reply 112, posted (12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7294 times:

This seems like a great strategy to me. They added a 2nd daily nonstop DXB-LAX, then dropped it. Now they could extend one of the DXB-MAN flights to LAX, restoring a second daily DXB-LAX option and providing a unique new nonstop link between MAN and LAX while avoiding the ULH costs of another nonstop DXB-LAX. While I presume new markets like BOS, MIA, and ORD will be served nonstop from DXB, those markets all have decent demand to secondary British markets as well. Stuff like DXB-MIA-MAN, DXB-BHX-ORD, or DXB-GLA-BOS might be an interesting way to serve new U.S. markets directly rather than in a more expensive ULH fashion. They could even kill two birds with one stone by starting two new markets at once. Something like, oh I don't know, DXB-EDI-ORD  .


Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (12 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7211 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 109):
Absolutely. Which is why SQ and EK don't receive "government steroids"
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 111):
I think its fair to say that a greater percentage of Indians and Chinese fly today than was the case 20 years ago. The same probably applies of the UK as well, courtesy of the Easyjets, Ryanairs and other misnomered LCCs of this world.

The Indians and the Chinese are just richer. Ask any high end retailer in the shopping capitals of Europe.

Easyjet and Ryanair are no longer any more affordable than any other carrier in the U.K. Not only is the title LCC a misnomer but Easyjets business model is becoming increasingly more traditional as it increasingly emulates the likes Of BA. There is no longer anything more 'easy' about Easyjet than any other airline.

Then we have that model of respectability Ryanair. Desperately searching for ever more outlandish ways to extract cash from its punters. Why don't they just include it in the price and be done ?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 111):
21 years ago would be 1992. A cursory glance at purchasing power indexes indicates that 500GBP in 1992 is the equivalent of 880GBP in 2013.

19 years and no cheaper. What's your point then ?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 111):
But that aside, people are also richer than before, and technology is moving faster than before.

Make up your mind. Are more people flying because airlines are dramatically cheaper or because people are richer ? Boeing and Airbus are behind technologically advanced aircraft. No dramatic operational change occurring there either by the airlines. They just bought the new aircraft. All of them. Level playing field !

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 111):
And LH/KL/BA/AF's interloping around the world for the past five decades didn't have that affect? IIRC, they were state-supported at the time.

When did those four ever engage in a tactic of global domination when they were in the public sector ? They just originated from countries with strong historical ties to the rest of the world and heavy corporate involvement with the rest of the world.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 111):
EK/EY/QR are pushing LH/BA/AF/KL aside. Instead of LH delaying or preventing the rise of new comers, EK is doing it. I don't see how that is, in any way, worse than what LH/BA were doing all along. Are you planning on condemning those two airlines?

This kind of thing I just love....

How can EK/EY and QR ever push LH/BA/AF/KL aside when hardly any of the traffic they carry originates or ends in either the UAE or Qatar ?

All they can offer is a rather hot, sweaty and tiresome transfer through Dubai, Doha or Abu Dhabi.

No one is suggesting they will not do well at regional airports but they will never supplant the European legacies where the action really is or compete with non-stop options at these airports.

Where a transfer is unavoidable the decimation of the Kangaroo route is no great financial loss to BA and even here we still have two British carriers to choose from.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 111):
I buy Korean TVs and Japanese cars. Why shouldn't I? I think they produce quality I can afford.

?

When you buy your Korean TV or Japanese car you don't have to have travel to Korea or Japan to buy it though do you.

This isn't about the origin of goods and all the airlines we have discussed are quality outfits. It's about who provides the fastest most efficient service at an acceptable price. I'm afraid the ME3 with their transfers don't even come close out of the likes of LHR on the vast majority of routes.

[Edited 2013-07-26 05:59:04]

User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 114, posted (12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7091 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 113):

I can't seem to copy/quote, so please bear with me.

1. Yes, India and china are relatively richer, but when they spend money at high end retailers in the UK, someone in the UK is better off for it.

2. Easyjet and FR do not have to be 'any more affordable' than other carriers. They just have to be affordable. Their very presence has an effect on prices - makes them more affordable. FWIW, that model of respectability, Ryanair, offers very similar services/charges to AC, UA,US and AA, all respectable carriers. Its the same nickel and diming model.

3. 19 years and no cheaper? Aside from the fact that you initially said 21 years, you appear to have missed the post about 535 GBP fares, which are the lowest fares available now. That's a shade over 300 GBP in 1992, or ~35% less. You ve picked random dates and gone from there. A slightly better way to run that comparison would be to compare the cheapest fate in 1992 with the cheapest fare in 2013. For all you or I know, the flight two days before your 1300GBP flight could be priced at 535GBP.

4. Cheaper / richer - -> I m not getting into another battle of semantics. For simplicity's sake, let's just focus on affordability (which incorporates both richer and cheaper). Is flying more affordable today? I would say so. I think i f you took the percentage of the worlds population that flies today versus the percentage which flew 21 years ago, you will note a significant increase.

5. What was BA doing flying between DXB and BOM? Or BOM and MAA? Or MAA and KUL? Extrapolate from there. The point being that they weren't doing local carriers any favors (the same thing you accuse EK of).

6. I never said EK/EY/QR are pushing BA/LH etc aside all over the world. I said they're pushing them aside in the 'certain' parts of the world where you accuse them of impeding the growth of local carriers. You may not be familiar with my posts, but if you ever look them up, you will find that I argue the same thing as you - namely that EK's 'threat' is blown way out of proportion, and that LH/AC's hysteria on the matter is absurd because EK will never realistically chalkenge them on TATL and most of TPAC. In fact, I ve stated as much in posts on this thread.

7. In the context of the point above, note that you re the one bandying about terms like 'global domination' and predicting doom and gloom.


User currently offlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 721 posts, RR: 1
Reply 115, posted (12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7067 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 113):
How can EK/EY and QR ever push LH/BA/AF/KL aside when hardly any of the traffic they carry originates or ends in either the UAE or Qatar ?

???

We are talking about international air traffic here ... not just traffic originating in the home airports of these airlines. I'm surprised this is coming up after 100+ posts in this thread. Let's look at sectors like YYZ-DEL, BOS-BOM, JFK-KUL, LHR-BNE, CDG-BKK, OSL-SIN etc ... are you saying that market share has not transferred from the old guards (LH/BA/AF/KL) to the new (EK/QR/EY/TK) ?

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 113):
This isn't about the origin of goods and all the airlines we have discussed are quality outfits. It's about who provides the fastest most efficient service at an acceptable price.

For the consumer, it is the same thing. A good or a service - that is affordable AND has quality.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 113):
I'm afraid the ME3 with their transfers don't even come close out of the likes of LHR on the vast majority of routes.

I think they not only come pretty darn close - provides better service in many routes. But of course, this is subjective and dependent upon personal expectations and opinions. But I think the market trends point to that quite well.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 113):
All they can offer is a rather hot, sweaty and tiresome transfer through Dubai, Doha or Abu Dhabi.

When was the last time you transfered in DXB ... if you didn't have to use a remote parking stand (which happens, sometimes) ... that is one of the best Concourses there is. DOH should have their new airport running soon too.

"hot, sweaty" is relative. You are entitled to your opinion and preferences. People living in Middle East, Africa, and most of Asia are in warm climates anyway. A person living in BKK or SIN would find the DXB temperature perfectly fine.


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7001 times:

Quoting ASA (Reply 115):
We are talking about international air traffic here ... not just traffic originating in the home airports of these airlines. I'm surprised this is coming up after 100+ posts in this thread. Let's look at sectors like YYZ-DEL, BOS-BOM, JFK-KUL, LHR-BNE, CDG-BKK, OSL-SIN etc ... are you saying that market share has not transferred from the old guards (LH/BA/AF/KL) to the new (EK/QR/EY/TK) ?

So what if they have ? I don't see BA or LH sending dozens of aircraft to the desert ? Quite the opposite in recent times. Transfer traffic is fair game for all and rightly so. Can't speak for LH/AF/KL but BA isn't reliant on it like the ME3.

Quoting ASA (Reply 115):
I think they not only come pretty darn close - provides better service in many routes. But of course, this is subjective and dependent upon personal expectations and opinions. But I think the market trends point to that quite well.

Provides better service ? By having to transfer in the middle east when you can fly non-stop ? You can keep the 100 film channels and the shower thanks if it means an unnecessary stop.

Quoting ASA (Reply 115):
When was the last time you transfered in DXB ... if you didn't have to use a remote parking stand (which happens, sometimes) ... that is one of the best Concourses there is. DOH should have their new airport running soon too.

You go in there then and I'll be on the BA jet flying overhead non-stop next time I go east.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12380 posts, RR: 47
Reply 117, posted (12 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6908 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 113):
19 years and no cheaper.

It's massively cheaper today when you factor in fuel costs.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinea380787 From Canada, joined Jul 2013, 964 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6869 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 86):
Why LH (a non-Canadian corporation) was entitled to Canadian business over EK (a non-Canadian corporation). If AC was flying DEL and BOM, then maybe I could see the protectionist argument. But why should Canadian Government policy protect one foreign corporation from another?

LH and AC are JV over Atlantic, so the same pax going via LH still helps AC (and the Canadian economy) in some form or another

Just look at how EK has decimated QF's long haul network (before they joined forces) and it should be clear why Canada doesn't want that to happen to them. At the bare minimum, AC's European route network would be chopped in half if EK has unfettered access into YYZ.


User currently offlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 721 posts, RR: 1
Reply 119, posted (12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6751 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 116):
Transfer traffic is fair game for all and rightly so.

Thanks - that's all I was hoping to hear. Please don't call EK/EY/QR parasitic anymore.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 116):
Provides better service ? By having to transfer in the middle east when you can fly non-stop ? You can keep the 100 film channels and the shower thanks if it means an unnecessary stop.
Quoting 1400mph (Reply 116):
You go in there then and I'll be on the BA jet flying overhead non-stop next time I go east.

If that suits you better, of course would will! I would too! But for all the people flying CDG-SYD, LHR-BNE, MAD-BKK, etc ... more will be stopping in DXB than flying overhead  


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24803 posts, RR: 22
Reply 120, posted (12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6461 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 109):
I don't know what type of car you have, but I have a Japanese car. I

But where was it built? Probably the U.S. or Canada or Mexico.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 121, posted (12 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6349 times:

Quoting a380787 (Reply 118):
LH and AC are JV over Atlantic, so the same pax going via LH still helps AC (and the Canadian economy) in some form or another

Helps AC? Yes. Helps the Canadian economy? That's a simplistic assumption. If generating inefficient jobs and products helped countries, we wouldn't see the whole world (including Canada) leaning towards free trade and outsourcing. At the moment (and probably in the near future), economic growth is going to be very reliant on consumer spending. Overpaying to support inefficient sectors takes place at direct cost to more efficient sectors. In simple words, paying $1.50 for a product that can be had for $1.00 may be good for the company receiving $1.50, but in the long run, you're depriving some other, more efficient company of $0.50.

That's one of the main reasons behind outsourcing - to avoid dumping capital in inefficient sectors at the cost of efficient ones. As I've stated repeatedly, what's good for one entity should not be misconstrued as always being good for a country as a whole. In many cases, its simply not the case.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 118):
Just look at how EK has decimated QF's long haul network (before they joined forces) and it should be clear why Canada doesn't want that to happen to them.

Has it? EK hasn't really affected QF's longhaul Asian and American routes + SCL and JNB. It's had an impact on a couple of 1-stop services to a handful of European cities. 1 stop services are difficult to keep up and running - ask AC, with its forays into India. FWIW, I wouldn't give EK all the credit - at some point you have to give credit to CX, MH, SQ and TG - all airlines that are ranked higher than North America's best airline. In fact, in SQ and CX, you have two of the most respected airline brands in the world.

Just to put it into context:

SQ - ADL (12 weekly), BNE (21 weekly), MEL (28 weekly), PER (24 weekly), SYD (24 weekly)
CX - ADL (7 weekly), BNE (7 weekly), CNS (4 weekly), MEL (21 weekly), PER (10 weekly), SYD (28 weekly)
MH - ADL, BNE, MEL, PER, SYD (DRW restarts Nov)
TG - BNE, MEL, PER, SYD

Giving credit solely to EK sounds like another snippet generated by typical AC hysteria. Its simply not grounded in reality. Granted QF seems quite happy with the partnership, which in many ways resembles the AC/LH partnership.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 122, posted (12 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6354 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 120):
But where was it built? Probably the U.S. or Canada or Mexico.

And EK is run by westerners, who also make up a significant portion (if not the majority) of the cockpit crew, as well as a significant proportion of the cabin crew. I even recall watching a PIA cockpit landing video, in which the ATC controller has a very pronounced British accent.

What is your point, exactly?


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3204 posts, RR: 10
Reply 123, posted (12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6179 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 121):
CX - ADL (7 weekly), BNE (7 weekly)

Not to nit pick but CX is more than that, its double daily about every other day , but sometimes it doesnt show on the GDS as some of the flights stop in CNS first. But that just makes your argument even stronger!


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 124, posted (12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6066 times:

Quoting a380787 (Reply 118):
At the bare minimum, AC's European route network would be chopped in half if EK has unfettered access into YYZ

Please understand that I'm not try to be abrasive, but what are you basing this on?

Quoting a380787 (Reply 118):
Just look at how EK has decimated QF's long haul network (before they joined forces) and it should be clear why Canada doesn't want that to happen to them

I invite you to re-read #69

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 113):
How can EK/EY and QR ever push LH/BA/AF/KL aside when hardly any of the traffic they carry originates or ends in either the UAE or Qatar

Actually DXB is an O&D market in itself. EK fly something like 1,200 seats a day AND Nampa - Municipal (Ritchey Field) (MAN), USA - Idaho">MAN-DXB, and DXB is their third largest market ex-AND Nampa - Municipal (Ritchey Field) (MAN), USA - Idaho">MAN.

Over 100 airlines other than EK fly to DXB - including BA 3x daily - that should give you some idea of the size of the Dubai O&D market. I want to say that it's bigger than the Singapore O&D market, but I'll to confirm that.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 113):
It's about who provides the fastest most efficient service at an acceptable price. I'm afraid the ME3 with their transfers don't even come close out of the likes of LHR on the vast majority of routes.

To LHR you are right, assuming you are not talking about a secondary Indian city, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, a secondary Australian city, a secondary Chinese city....

Of course ME3 isn't always the best options to those destinations (especially China) but there is still a market for one-stops through a true global hub

(how is this relevant? I hadn't realised how OT we've drifted, I apologise for my role in that)

Quoting ASA (Reply 115):
For the consumer, it is the same thing. A good or a service - that is affordable AND has quality

  

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 116):
You go in there then and I'll be on the BA jet flying overhead non-stop next time I go east

As is your choice.

If you want to make certain consumer choices with your money, then you are free do so. But why beat down other people who also make consumer choices based on their own value judgment.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that LHR-HKG is better than LHR-DXB-HKG, but what about LHR-PER or CPH-CMB? EK aren't out to win over every non-stop market, only those not served already .

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 120):
But where was it built? Probably the U.S. or Canada or Mexico

I live in Australia, so Japan, Korea, or Thailand.

(The Toyota Camry is built in Australia, but I have a Mitsubishi and better half a Mazda which are definitely Asian imports)



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (12 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5941 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 114):
5. What was BA doing flying between DXB and BOM? Or BOM and MAA? Or MAA and KUL? Extrapolate from there. The point being that they weren't doing local carriers any favors (the same thing you accuse EK of).

I think that had something to do with aircraft technology ( that you mentioned ) range etc. The aircraft was on its way to Australia.

It was not flying solely between BOM and MAA.

Please also don't tell me you are unaware of historical links between the U.K and certain countries to the east of it.

And anyway if you want to talk about India they have banned the A380. Intentionally indirectly inhibiting EK.

Quoting ASA (Reply 119):
Thanks - that's all I was hoping to hear. Please don't call EK/EY/QR parasitic anymore.

I didn't say it was not parasitic and I think to be reliant on it in this day and age to the extent that some are puts a different spin on it.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 124):
I don't think that anyone is arguing that LHR-HKG is better than LHR-DXB-HKG, but what about LHR-PER or CPH-CMB? EK aren't out to win over every non-stop market, only those not served already .

LHR-PER is served by QF. Oh sorry, what's left of QF.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 126, posted (12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5872 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 125):
LHR-PER is served by QF

Actually it's not.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 125):
Oh sorry, what's left of QF

Read into that what you will. If you want to go along with the view purported by AC then go ahead. However, as myself and Lufthansa in this thread, plus a whole litany of Australian posters in past threads, have tried to say over-and-over it misrepresents history and does not accurately portray the changes in the market over the past decade.

As to "what's left" of QF. FYI "what's left" of QF is a very profitable airline, with a strong domestic and North American network, and one which is repositioning itself to better serve the Asian market. Europe was, basically, the only bit of Qantas that lost money, so they don't fly there anymore. That's a pretty obvious business decision, but before they left they made sure that contingencies were in place that not just met the needs of their FF pool, but met them better than existing arrangements.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5874 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 126):
with a strong domestic and North American network

Did they not have these attributes before ?

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 126):
Europe was, basically, the only bit of Qantas that lost money, so they don't fly there anymore

And if state owned SQ manages to gain access to QF's trans-Pacific market ? How long have they been trying now by ?

Sorry, not buying.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 128, posted (12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5840 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 127):
How long have they been trying now by ?

A very long time, and the answer is probably even more "no" than it was pre-2008. Incidentally, they have stopped trying.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 127):
Did they not have these attributes before

Of course they did, I don't think you get what I'm saying: the vast majority of the company is in very good shape. The bit that isn't is a perennial loser.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5834 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 128):
Of course they did, I don't think you get what I'm saying: the vast majority of the company is in very good shape. The bit that isn't is a perennial loser.

With state owned SQ and state owned EK on the scene is it any surprise ?


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3204 posts, RR: 10
Reply 130, posted (12 months 13 hours ago) and read 4844 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 127):
And if state owned SQ manages to gain access to QF's trans-Pacific market ? How long have they been trying now by ?

I highly doubt that is on the cards now, unless they try and do so from New Zealand (which I also doubt they'd be interested). Why? They took a stake in Virgin Australia for strategic reasons and V Australia serves that market. Any such move by SIA would be undermining their own investment, and also risks other major shareholders, Etihad and Air NZ ganging up against SIA's wishes.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 131):
QF's European services have been decimated by state owned airlines.

You could just as easily say Continental European carriers Australian services have too. But a better and more realistic view is that midway hubs have opened up more direct and convenient options for the consumer, which the consumer has largely accepted and liked.


User currently offlinehohd From United States of America, joined May 2008, 392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (12 months 11 hours ago) and read 4703 times:

About the only cities where EK can fly without disturbing existing competition is DXB-MAN-BOS and/or DXB-MAN-LAX. BOS itself cannot support a daily flight to DXB but with MAN may be can. And for LAX, it can be the second flight from DXB and the only flight on LAX-MAN sector. Even DXB-MAN-SFO is a bit of a stretch since I doubt if there is enough traffic on SFO-MAN or for a second flight on DXB-SFO sector.

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 132, posted (12 months 11 hours ago) and read 4663 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 18):
I've been saying this for a long time and some people refused to accept it. EK's business plan of connecting every 2 cities with 1 stop has big limitations and if they want to continue to grow as an airline they have no choice but to start flying 5th freedom routes

5th freedom routes have never worked, especially in markets where there are strong home market airlines. SQ has had the right to fly UK-US for several years now, and have not exercised them. I doubt EK, despite its scale and other strengths, can pull it off.


User currently offlinea380787 From Canada, joined Jul 2013, 964 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (12 months 11 hours ago) and read 4644 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 121):
Has it? EK hasn't really affected QF's longhaul Asian and American routes + SCL and JNB. It's had an impact on a couple of 1-stop services to a handful of European cities. 1 stop services are difficult to keep up and running - ask AC, with its forays into India. FWIW, I wouldn't give EK all the credit - at some point you have to give credit to CX, MH, SQ and TG - all airlines that are ranked higher than North America's best airline. In fact, in SQ and CX, you have two of the most respected airline brands in the world.

Just to put it into context:

SQ - ADL (12 weekly), BNE (21 weekly), MEL (28 weekly), PER (24 weekly), SYD (24 weekly)
CX - ADL (7 weekly), BNE (7 weekly), CNS (4 weekly), MEL (21 weekly), PER (10 weekly), SYD (28 weekly)
MH - ADL, BNE, MEL, PER, SYD (DRW restarts Nov)
TG - BNE, MEL, PER, SYD

CX and SQ served Australia nonstop for ages, and yet it was in a state of equilibrium where QF and BA managed to maintain services on their own.

The moment EK got equipment that allowed DXB-Australia nonstop, the entire equilibrium was disrupted.

What was left of QF ? A good chunk of domestic market share (including business travelers) going over to VirginAustralia (plus a formidable alliance with EY), handing AKL-LAX to NZ on a silver platter, handing SFO-SYD to UA on a golden platter, being desperate enough to partner with a poor-reputation carrier like MU just to take on CX


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3204 posts, RR: 10
Reply 134, posted (12 months 10 hours ago) and read 4526 times:

Quoting a380787 (Reply 137):
The moment EK got equipment that allowed DXB-Australia nonstop, the entire equilibrium was disrupted.

That's not true and an oversimplification. QF/BA were restricted to 21 sevices a week between Australia and the UK under the old bilaterals. This had to be torn up before it could be expanded, which explained why at some points weird stuff happened like BA had a tag on from MEL or SYD, or at one point in the late 90s QF got off the BNE-SIN sector completely and BA and QF both operated a SIN - MEL sector at similar times (neither could add additional capacity to LHR). SIN had long before saw the opportunity and started to pouch the then Ansett's frequent flyer base, with cities like BNE ADL and PER getting multiple daily frequencies. EK expanded aggressively but QF was dumping Paris, Rome and Athens long before EK ever even touched down in Perth or Brisbane.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 137):
CX and SQ served Australia nonstop for ages, and yet it was in a state of equilibrium where QF and BA managed to maintain services on their own.

QF and BA still maintain services of their own! What they can't do, that they once had a nice time doing, is force everybody to fly to LHR then backtrack.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 137):
What was left of QF ? A good chunk of domestic market share (including business travelers) going over to VirginAustralia (plus a formidable alliance with EY), handing AKL-LAX to NZ on a silver platter, handing SFO-SYD to UA on a golden platter, being desperate enough to partner with a poor-reputation carrier like MU just to take on CX

Also not accurate. firstly lets deal with domestic. VA needs all this network with EY etc to stand any kind of chance at getting corporate contracts but I can tell you as I've got friends in VA.. they haven't got too many of them. The empirical evidence completely supports this. VA really haven't made too much more profit just yet, and although they have grown their revenue they haven't grown it more than their increased costs YET. That means they have won a few passengers but not enough to cover the extra costs...in other words they're not coming over in masses. Go to any Australian domestic airport and you'll still see the overwhelming majority of the suits and ties dashing straight for the Qantasclub... something VA hasn't matched yet on offerings. QF is still VERY profitable domestically, and virgin is a very long way from claiming any kind of victory there. So much so, that QF has the highest Price to Earnings ratio of any airline in the world!

Next... International has its challenges but where VA is challenging it is North America and thats where this post claims QF is strong. I'll give you the example of QF 15 BNE-LAX as i used it a bit. The QF 744 that goes out on the route has almost DOUBLE the amount of J class seats that virgin 77W has. It's virtually impossible to get an upgrade to this cabin (one or two seats max and you'll need to redeem them 6 months in advance) and QF is able to maintain a slight premium for their J class tickets. About $8000 return vs $7000 for discounted ones. So you can pretty easily see how QF is comfortably earning a big revenue premium on this sector. Now for SFO... well UAL has a hub there, QF doesnt really, so switching the flight to DFW made a lot more sense and made QF stronger, even if it meant giving UAL some of the O & D SFO pax. WHY? QF was, without feed only on the route about 3 times per week. DFW quickly grew to double, and is well performing. Once again selling for a premium over connecting in SFO. so QF and AA can offer you a single connection to almost ANYWHERE in north america. UA can't do that from either SFO or LAX and nor can DL from LAX. So by switching to DFW, and being the only carrier being able to offer a single stop service from Sydney to basically everywhere from Northern Brazil, Cancuun, stange places in the south nobody ever heard of on small ATR's ex DFW, to all of Canada, places directly AC/UA and DL don't fly from LAX, QF got a lot lot stronger.

As for the comment about MU. Yes, MU isn't wonderful, but QF wanted to make an investment in China. That means...they needed well connected people inside china as partners otherwise every door in town would be close to them or they'd be stonewalled. So given China Southern has decided it wants to try flood the Australian market...I can't see them wanting to partner up. The next two carriers inside china of any size are MU and Air China. They had to pick one of them. It's not like China has some hidden Singapore Airlines Inc based out of Beijing they could have got instead. You do realise the only way you successfully do business in China is with local partners right? MU is based in the most important business city in China so that alone makes it not a bad choice given the likely connections.


User currently onlineadamh8297 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 827 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (12 months 9 hours ago) and read 4433 times:

Quoting hohd (Reply 135):
BOS itself cannot support a daily flight to DXB but with MAN may be can.

Actually BOS can support a flight (healthy Indian traffic, growing DXB-BOS + other Middle east markets, and B6 partnership) though it will be tougher now that TK is in play with an A333. However, EK is not one to shy away from competition with the exception of ORD.

I think a MAN stop would be a disadvantage especially with TK starting BOS-IST. Its important to note that AA used to run BOS-MAN as a coach only flight .


User currently offlinea380787 From Canada, joined Jul 2013, 964 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (12 months 8 hours ago) and read 4293 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 137):
Yes, MU isn't wonderful

That's quite an understatement. I can count a lot of third-world flag carriers with better service and reputation than MU.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 137):
You do realise the only way you successfully do business in China is with local partners right?

CX has a huge Chinese network and is not technically a mainland carrier. CX is ~20% owned by CA but operates independently.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 137):
MU is based in the most important business city in China so that alone makes it not a bad choice given the likely connections

MU+QF's joint venture is based out of HKG, and has nothing to do with leveraging MU's existing PVG/SHA hubs.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 137):
Now for SFO... well UAL has a hub there, QF doesnt really, so switching the flight to DFW made a lot more sense and made QF stronger, even if it meant giving UAL some of the O & D SFO pax.

Neither UA's hub at SFO or AA's hub at DFW came out of nowhere in the 2000s, but yet it took QF ages to figure out something that you now claim is obvious.

That's what QF's long haul has been reduced to - with the notable exception of JNB and a handful of Asian services (BKK, PVG etc), nearly every single flight goes to a partner hub. For anyone not living in SYD, double-connections is the norm at QF.


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 137, posted (12 months 7 hours ago) and read 4188 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 130):
Quoting 1400mph (Reply 127):
And if state owned SQ manages to gain access to QF's trans-Pacific market ? How long have they been trying now by ?

I highly doubt that is on the cards now, unless they try and do so from New Zealand (which I also doubt they'd be interested). Why? They took a stake in Virgin Australia for strategic reasons and V Australia serves that market. Any such move by SIA would be undermining their own investment, and also risks other major shareholders, Etihad and Air NZ ganging up against SIA's wishes.

SQ taking a stake in VA is tantamount to the them gaining access to QF's trans-Pacific market. With SQ's markets being devoured by EK no wonder they are looking elsewhere. It's almost poetic justice.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 130):
You could just as easily say Continental European carriers Australian services have too

Not quite the same thing though is it. Continental European carriers have operated little if any service to Australia over the years.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 130):
But a better and more realistic view is that midway hubs have opened up more direct and convenient options for the consumer, which the consumer has largely accepted and liked.

There are definitely advantages to having a base positioned between Europe and Australia although in this instance they are not midway. LHR-SIN-SYD or LHR-BKK-SYD is no different to LHR-DXB-SYD from a passenger perspective.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 138, posted (12 months 7 hours ago) and read 4148 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 137):
SQ taking a stake in VA is tantamount to the them gaining access to QF's trans-Pacific market. With SQ's markets being devoured by EK no wonder they are looking elsewhere. It's almost poetic justice.

Don't think this is necessarily the case. SQ had a 49% stake in Virgin Atlantic for years, and I don't think anyone viewed that as SQ gaining access to BA's trans-Atlantic market.

SQ's desire to fly TPAC from Australia dates back to the mid-2000s, and is in-fact is or was probably more closely linked to SQ's desire to get back to Qantas for its then SIN-LHR market presence, one of SQ's bread and butter routes, than anything to do with EK.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 139, posted (12 months 3 hours ago) and read 3890 times:

Quoting a380787 (Reply 133):
CX and SQ served Australia nonstop for