I agree with you 100%.

itisi wrote:

I don't care what anyone says. The A380 is the best plane I've flown on, space, smooth and comfortable, I'm talking about economy... where it matters and where most of us fly.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Your analysis is valid if EK is the only player in those markets. The 2hr 30min example, DXB-BOM, there are 5 Indian private carriers competing with narrowbodies with much lower operational cost. Cycles/Hours aside a half full A380 is not going to make money while competing with NB with a 1/4th operational cost.

IMHO, Saudia has the most profitable regional widebody A333R.
QF an A380 operator replacing MEL-DXB-LHR with MEL-PER-LHR to 789.
SQ an A380 operator chose all business A350ULR.

None of these CEOs know what they are doing?

How many of those Indian carriers operating BOM-DXB are making a profit, the large national carrier that always seems to be in the red, or that other carrier that could not pay its staff wages recently ?

The A380 on a short sector like that is cheaper than a narrow body, the narrow body that route is required, it is bought for that route, whereas the A380 it is just an opportunity between long haul flights. The A380 is also connecting passengers onto their long haul sectors.

Flying EK in Indian culture is a status symbol, it is a sign you have made it. So is going to DXB which is one of the most visited cities for Indians. Many Indians have stopovers in DXB to shop and meet. The large number is passengers A380s bring in has a very positive effect not only for EK, the the city.

DXB relies heavily on its main carrier to bring people so they buy additional services, this can by accommodation, food, tourism. EK is also like SQ that relies on the airport to generate a significant amount of GDP and employment.

A narrow body does not come close to competing with a wide body where there high demand like BOM-DXB, EK is taking the premium yield with its brand presence and leaving the scraps for the narrow bodies.

QF is not replacing an A380 with a 787, the A380s are still flying. Project sunrise may still fall flat. It is in an evaluation phase.

Saudia by far is not operating the best regional network, the visa requirements actually impedes visiting and transiting.

SQ is not operating an all business ULR, it is all premium, business and premium economy. They will supplement their one stop A380 services.

In summary your post was not close to being accurate.

zeke wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Your analysis is valid if EK is the only player in those markets. The 2hr 30min example, DXB-BOM, there are 5 Indian private carriers competing with narrowbodies with much lower operational cost. Cycles/Hours aside a half full A380 is not going to make money while competing with NB with a 1/4th operational cost.

IMHO, Saudia has the most profitable regional widebody A333R.
QF an A380 operator replacing MEL-DXB-LHR with MEL-PER-LHR to 789.
SQ an A380 operator chose all business A350ULR.

None of these CEOs know what they are doing?

How many of those Indian carriers operating BOM-DXB are making a profit, the large national carrier that always seems to be in the red, or that other carrier that could not pay its staff wages recently ?

The A380 on a short sector like that is cheaper than a narrow body, the narrow body that route is required, it is bought for that route, whereas the A380 it is just an opportunity between long haul flights. The A380 is also connecting passengers onto their long haul sectors.

Flying EK in Indian culture is a status symbol, it is a sign you have made it. So is going to DXB which is one of the most visited cities for Indians. Many Indians have stopovers in DXB to shop and meet. The large number is passengers A380s bring in has a very positive effect not only for EK, the the city.

DXB relies heavily on its main carrier to bring people so they buy additional services, this can by accommodation, food, tourism. EK is also like SQ that relies on the airport to generate a significant amount of GDP and employment.

A narrow body does not come close to competing with a wide body where there high demand like BOM-DXB, EK is taking the premium yield with its brand presence and leaving the scraps for the narrow bodies.

QF is not replacing an A380 with a 787, the A380s are still flying. Project sunrise may still fall flat. It is in an evaluation phase.

Saudia by far is not operating the best regional network, the visa requirements actually impedes visiting and transiting.

SQ is not operating an all business ULR, it is all premium, business and premium economy. They will supplement their one stop A380 services.

In summary your post was not close to being accurate.

An excellent point around the fact EK is a vehicle to bring tourists to Dubai and the associated money they bring to the Emirate.

Dubai has gone from virtually nothing to one of the most visited city on Earth. Reality is EK is not like most of the world's carriers for a vast array of reasons. Clearly the A380 works for them.

jfk777 wrote:

If the A380 is so great then why doesn't EK fly one to Miami daily instead of a 777 to FLL ? Hey such a big airline should be able to fill an A380 to MIA with no problems.

Maybe Miami doesn't have the demand? The place isn't far from being a sh*thole. Not sure when serving Miami became a gauge for being a "great" aircraft. There are many other routes that the A380 serves successfully.

Mayday111 wrote:

I agree with you 100%.

itisi wrote:

I don't care what anyone says. The A380 is the best plane I've flown on, space, smooth and comfortable, I'm talking about economy... where it matters and where most of us fly.

Agreed.

Waterbomber wrote:

The A380 is what gives their subsidised business model mass and some sustainability thanks to passenger preference. Cut off the A380 and replace them by B777X's and suddenly the business model stops working because people won't choose them as much.

That's 100% speculation. There's no reason to believe that EK wouldn't be just as impactful flying any other VLA. Their rise and the use of the A380 is correlative, and not clearly causal.
As per accepted meme, pax choose the lowest fares, and care not about aircraft - and surely, EK delivers low Y fares everywhere. Their premium offerings are good in the air (regardless of type) and at the hub, and this is what draws the biz pax. The A380-specific showers, bars and flats (or whatever) are mere gimmicks.

FlyHappy wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

The A380 is what gives their subsidised business model mass and some sustainability thanks to passenger preference. Cut off the A380 and replace them by B777X's and suddenly the business model stops working because people won't choose them as much.

That's 100% speculation. There's no reason to believe that EK wouldn't be just as impactful flying any other VLA. Their rise and the use of the A380 is correlative, and not clearly causal.
As per accepted meme, pax choose the lowest fares, and care not about aircraft - and surely, EK delivers low Y fares everywhere. Their premium offerings are good in the air (regardless of type) and at the hub, and this is what draws the biz pax. The A380-specific showers, bars and flats (or whatever) are mere gimmicks.

I wouldn't say its 100% speculation considering there is plenty of evidence to back up that claim. I know several people including family that will only fly on the A380 and have a preference to flying with EK. I have a preference to flying quads on long flights as I like the roominess. And I prefer the A380 over the B744. As B744s leave the fleets and not many airlines have ordered the 748 (none that I fly), i only fly the favourable A380 on transatlantic flights. I'd still like to try the 787 and A350, but then it will be back to the A380. I always avoid the 777. Tried it, and don't like it.

Jayafe wrote:

caljn wrote:

Let's get real, we all know the business case for the A380 did not exist. It was built solely as a "vanity project" as Airbus did not enjoy playing second fiddle to the ICONIC 747...something no Airbus aeroplan will ever be. That is because their products, while marvels of engineering, are dull as dishwater.

When you say “we all” you mean YOU, right? Because the amount of birds flying around seem to disagree with your rage. But hey, up to you.

If a plane that is widely recognised wherever goes, loved by even Y passengers, most relevant piece of marketing and advertising for one of the biggest airlines in the world, a profile recognised everywhere it goes, and a marvel of engineering is not iconic, some serious therapy is needed here pal.

Sorry, but great in most measures? Yes. Iconic? No.
And not enough in numbers flying around.

Slug71 wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

The A380 is what gives their subsidised business model mass and some sustainability thanks to passenger preference. Cut off the A380 and replace them by B777X's and suddenly the business model stops working because people won't choose them as much.

That's 100% speculation. There's no reason to believe that EK wouldn't be just as impactful flying any other VLA. Their rise and the use of the A380 is correlative, and not clearly causal.
As per accepted meme, pax choose the lowest fares, and care not about aircraft - and surely, EK delivers low Y fares everywhere. Their premium offerings are good in the air (regardless of type) and at the hub, and this is what draws the biz pax. The A380-specific showers, bars and flats (or whatever) are mere gimmicks.

I wouldn't say its 100% speculation considering there is plenty of evidence to back up that claim. I know several people including family that will only fly on the A380 and have a preference to flying with EK. I have a preference to flying quads on long flights as I like the roominess. And I prefer the A380 over the B744. As B744s leave the fleets and not many airlines have ordered the 748 (none that I fly), i only fly the favourable A380 on transatlantic flights. I'd still like to try the 787 and A350, but then it will be back to the A380. I always avoid the 777. Tried it, and don't like it.

That's anecdote, not evidence. EK has no problem filling their B777's on the same high demand routes. Whether you prefer the A380 is irrelevant, as you have the choice. As you say, people you know prefer to fly EK..... would they stop flying EK if the A380 were not available to them? That... is speculation. And really - "only fly on the 380"? So, they simply will not travel at all if the 380 isn't available?

FlyHappy wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

That's 100% speculation. There's no reason to believe that EK wouldn't be just as impactful flying any other VLA. Their rise and the use of the A380 is correlative, and not clearly causal.
As per accepted meme, pax choose the lowest fares, and care not about aircraft - and surely, EK delivers low Y fares everywhere. Their premium offerings are good in the air (regardless of type) and at the hub, and this is what draws the biz pax. The A380-specific showers, bars and flats (or whatever) are mere gimmicks.

I wouldn't say its 100% speculation considering there is plenty of evidence to back up that claim. I know several people including family that will only fly on the A380 and have a preference to flying with EK. I have a preference to flying quads on long flights as I like the roominess. And I prefer the A380 over the B744. As B744s leave the fleets and not many airlines have ordered the 748 (none that I fly), i only fly the favourable A380 on transatlantic flights. I'd still like to try the 787 and A350, but then it will be back to the A380. I always avoid the 777. Tried it, and don't like it.

That's anecdote, not evidence. EK has no problem filling their B777's on the same high demand routes. Whether you prefer the A380 is irrelevant, as you have the choice. As you say, people you know prefer to fly EK..... would they stop flying EK if the A380 were not available to them? That... is speculation. And really - "only fly on the 380"? So, they simply will not travel at all if the 380 isn't available?

Yes, if the A380 were available by another airline and not EK, they would fly another airline. EK A380 is always first choice. A380 second choice. Same with me. If no quad is available, the 777 will be avoided as much as possible.

Slug71 wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

I wouldn't say its 100% speculation considering there is plenty of evidence to back up that claim. I know several people including family that will only fly on the A380 and have a preference to flying with EK. I have a preference to flying quads on long flights as I like the roominess. And I prefer the A380 over the B744. As B744s leave the fleets and not many airlines have ordered the 748 (none that I fly), i only fly the favourable A380 on transatlantic flights. I'd still like to try the 787 and A350, but then it will be back to the A380. I always avoid the 777. Tried it, and don't like it.

That's anecdote, not evidence. EK has no problem filling their B777's on the same high demand routes. Whether you prefer the A380 is irrelevant, as you have the choice. As you say, people you know prefer to fly EK..... would they stop flying EK if the A380 were not available to them? That... is speculation. And really - "only fly on the 380"? So, they simply will not travel at all if the 380 isn't available?

Yes, if the A380 were available by another airline and not EK, they would fly another airline. EK A380 is always first choice. A380 second choice. Same with me. If no quad is available, the 777 will be avoided as much as possible.

you are answering questions I am not asking.
I say there is no compelling evidence that the A380 is specifically responsible for EK's success. You suggest that your anecdotal views constitute evidence for you, and that's fine. But I disagree.

FlyHappy wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

That's anecdote, not evidence. EK has no problem filling their B777's on the same high demand routes. Whether you prefer the A380 is irrelevant, as you have the choice. As you say, people you know prefer to fly EK..... would they stop flying EK if the A380 were not available to them? That... is speculation. And really - "only fly on the 380"? So, they simply will not travel at all if the 380 isn't available?

Yes, if the A380 were available by another airline and not EK, they would fly another airline. EK A380 is always first choice. A380 second choice. Same with me. If no quad is available, the 777 will be avoided as much as possible.

you are answering questions I am not asking.
I say there is no compelling evidence that the A380 is specifically responsible for EK's success. You suggest that your anecdotal views constitute evidence for you, and that's fine. But I disagree.

EK's success isn't compelling enough? The fact they are operating over 200 of the behemoths. Roughly 10x the fleet of the next largest A380 operator?
When every other airliner jumped for Twin WBs in response to the global recession, EK jumped in the opposite direction and ordered a bunch of A380s and made Dubai a major hub. They based their whole business model around the A380. And have done so successfully. Of course, some routes are better served with a smaller aircraft and that's where the 777 comes in. And soon the 787. Many routes are also seasonally rotated. But the A380 is the flagship of the airline.

Slug71 wrote:

EK's success isn't compelling enough? The fact they are operating over 200 of the behemoths. Roughly 10x the fleet of the next largest A380 operator?
When every other airliner jumped for Twin WBs in response to the global recession, EK jumped in the opposite direction and ordered a bunch of A380s and made Dubai a major hub. They based their whole business model around the A380. And have done so successfully. Of course, some routes are better served with a smaller aircraft and that's where the 777 comes in. And soon the 787. Many routes are also seasonally rotated. But the A380 is the flagship of the airline.

It seems you really haven't read what I've previously written.
That's fine if you want to believe that EK success is contingent on a single aircraft type. I disagree, pointing out that correlation is not causation.
That it is their flagship is irrelevant. The A350 is Delta's flagship, but it isn't responsible for their massive profits.

BTW, EK's A380 fleet numbers 102 not over 200, you're way off.

You can have the last word.

FlyHappy wrote:

BTW, EK's A380 fleet numbers 102 not over 200, you're way off.

The number of A380s stated is off, but using the full fleet numbers also has problems, for example they are not planning to fly 11 active 777s this month, and 14 next month. That does not include retirements.

Flown several times on cx/kl/mh/tg 777 and more times with a380... Not possible to compare. I will avoid the 777 for noise and lack of space as much as I can. The noise is just horrible.

FlyHappy wrote:

That's fine if you want to believe that EK success is contingent on a single aircraft type. I disagree, pointing out that correlation is not causation.

So how would you want to prove that is not the case? You wouldn't even find a correlation, simply because there is no other airline like Emirates without A380.

Gruß, masi1157

zeke wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

BTW, EK's A380 fleet numbers 102 not over 200, you're way off.

The number of A380s stated is off, but using the full fleet numbers also has problems, for example they are not planning to fly 11 active 777s this month, and 14 next month. That does not include retirements.

if there was one airline in Asia that could have achieved what EK has it was CX
especially considering the stronger O and D at HKG
but Swire was way to conservative

The fact of the matter is, EK was able to grow exponentially at airports that A380's could be sent to. Other places they are stuck with B777's because the airports are not capable or they can't build the demand.


A cramped airliner is a good trap for the incidental flyer who wants to spend as little as possible. But then they might as well fly a Chinese carrier for a lot less.

However, longhaul travel also sees frequent travellers even in Y. Or do you think that people working for smaller companies and goverment agencies walk straight up to their business class thrones?
As one of those frequent Y travellers, I can tell you that I'm not alone.

On the routes that I fly I generally spend 5 USD cents per mile and I fly A350's or 8 abreast B787's.
If EK starts flying the A380 at my local airport, they will get some business too, but there's no way that I'll take any of their B77W flights at the same or often higher cost than above options.

Double post

masi1157 wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

That's fine if you want to believe that EK success is contingent on a single aircraft type. I disagree, pointing out that correlation is not causation.

So how would you want to prove that is not the case? You wouldn't even find a correlation, simply because there is no other airline like Emirates without A380.

Gruß, masi1157

Saying that the A380 is the key to EK's success ignores that many of the major factors that lead to EK's rise are independent of aircraft selection.
-Cooperative government support
-Very business-friendly environment with low business costs
-Geographic location leading to high demand
-Visionary leadership and smart management that can take advantage of the above.

Those things don't change just because the A380 doesn't exist. Without the A380, it is far more likely that EK would still be a successful airline flying tons of 77Ws and (stretched?) 748s everywhere than that they'd cease to be a viable airline.

This really sums up the 380 well.

If you can fill it then it kicks butt, otherwise its too much plane

"If you can fill it" is a red herring that applies equally to every plane flying out there not just the Superjumbo. As for the other claim can you provide any back up to what you are saying? There are also more A320's than 777's flying. A bigger plane will almost always sell less so another red herring.[/quote]

Qf648 wrote:

If you can fill it then it kicks butt, otherwise its too much plane

Doesn't that apply to every airliner?

It is just that you need more pax to make the A380 break even and some airlines are not in the league of EK to be able to attract so many pax.

An airline operating B738s won't make much money if it can't carry sufficient load too. But because the B738 is a much smaller aircraft, it is easier to sell the number of tickets required to break even. And if that small time airline cannot sell enough tickets on a B738, maybe it should buy a smaller regional aircraft so that it can fill it and make money!

Channex757 wrote:

The plane has the same halo effect that the original 747 had for Pan Am and TWA. It's a huge change from the preceding generation of airliners and as it's both big and exceptionally comfortable, that halo effect draws in passengers.

Even if the route is actually a 777 operated one, the A380 still has that star effect that brings passengers to the airline. The average punter doesn't have detailed aviation knowledge, they just see Emirates as the Ritzy middle-eastern airline with that double decker flying palace. It's a great marketing tool, just as Concorde was for BA and AF.

When I was booking a seat there was a choice between 777 and A380. For not much more the A380 was an easy choice.

JustSomeDood wrote:

Those things don't change just because the A380 doesn't exist. Without the A380, it is far more likely that EK would still be a successful airline flying tons of 77Ws and (stretched?) 748s everywhere than that they'd cease to be a viable airline.

"More likely"? How would you prove that? Emirates has A380s, not stretched 748s or anything like that, and they have built their business model around it. Without the A380 they might have done something else, who knows.

Personally I am glad they fly A380 to the places where I want to spend my holidays (especially New Zealand) and I am glad they now fly DXB-AKL direct on an A380. It is so much more comfortable than the 777 that we (still?) have to use to get from HAM to DXB. And it is the only aircraft that my wife enjoys to fly in, while she gets anxious in any other aircraft (and we tried many).


Gruß, masi1157

masi1157 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Those things don't change just because the A380 doesn't exist. Without the A380, it is far more likely that EK would still be a successful airline flying tons of 77Ws and (stretched?) 748s everywhere than that they'd cease to be a viable airline.

"More likely"? How would you prove that? Emirates has A380s, not stretched 748s or anything like that, and they have built their business model around it. Without the A380 they might have done something else, who knows.


Gruß, masi1157

Again, Emirates business model aircraft highly benefits from flying large aircraft for traffic, the A380 just happens to be the biggest aircraft available, hence EK flys a boatload of them. But that doesn't mean that EK's continued existence as a business entity entirely depends on the A380's continued existence. That's akin to saying that WN and FR would have went poof without the 737NG, instead of the far more reasonable assumption that they (and EK) would look to the next best things as alternatives.

It's two different factors, the airplane would suck for most airlines given the reasons already stated. EK found a niche role, exposed it, and is profiting from it. The other EY and QR have struggled to fill the same role, especially EY with its rapid contraction. TK fills a slightly different niche and seems to be holding on just fine. The one that surprises me is that SQ couldn't fill that same niche with a different level of service than EK, and why CX never ordered them.

So the plane works for EK, which is great. If it worked for other airlines, they would be ordering more too, don't kid yourself. STC needs to have full planes going through his hub, otherwise the whole operation will fall apart.

For those who think everything is peaches 'n cream at EK though, I advise you to read the ME forums on PPRUNE. The planes may be great, but the pilots are worked to the bone...

JustSomeDood wrote:

But that doesn't mean that EK's continued existence as a business entity entirely depends on the A380's continued existence.

Did anybody say that? Tim Clark seems to see a benefit from the A380 continued existence. And I personally see a benefit in Emirates flying them. Tim Clark would surely look for alternatives, if more A380s were not available. And I would look for alternatives, if Emirates would no longer offer the fastest, cheapest and most comfortable way for me to get to e.g. New Zealand.


Gruß, masi1157

We should not discount the fact that EK also has a big advantage now - they have over 100 A380s in the fleet and economies of scale will mean they can operate the A380 at a lower cost than others.

zeke wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Your analysis is valid if EK is the only player in those markets. The 2hr 30min example, DXB-BOM, there are 5 Indian private carriers competing with narrowbodies with much lower operational cost. Cycles/Hours aside a half full A380 is not going to make money while competing with NB with a 1/4th operational cost.

IMHO, Saudia has the most profitable regional widebody A333R.
QF an A380 operator replacing MEL-DXB-LHR with MEL-PER-LHR to 789.
SQ an A380 operator chose all business A350ULR.

None of these CEOs know what they are doing?

How many of those Indian carriers operating BOM-DXB are making a profit, the large national carrier that always seems to be in the red, or that other carrier that could not pay its staff wages recently ?

The A380 on a short sector like that is cheaper than a narrow body, the narrow body that route is required, it is bought for that route, whereas the A380 it is just an opportunity between long haul flights. The A380 is also connecting passengers onto their long haul sectors.

Flying EK in Indian culture is a status symbol, it is a sign you have made it. So is going to DXB which is one of the most visited cities for Indians. Many Indians have stopovers in DXB to shop and meet. The large number is passengers A380s bring in has a very positive effect not only for EK, the the city.

DXB relies heavily on its main carrier to bring people so they buy additional services, this can by accommodation, food, tourism. EK is also like SQ that relies on the airport to generate a significant amount of GDP and employment.

A narrow body does not come close to competing with a wide body where there high demand like BOM-DXB, EK is taking the premium yield with its brand presence and leaving the scraps for the narrow bodies.

QF is not replacing an A380 with a 787, the A380s are still flying. Project sunrise may still fall flat. It is in an evaluation phase.

Saudia by far is not operating the best regional network, the visa requirements actually impedes visiting and transiting.

SQ is not operating an all business ULR, it is all premium, business and premium economy. They will supplement their one stop A380 services.

In summary your post was not close to being accurate.

My post is accurate. Language parsing skills don't change facts.

I knew someone would throw the profit issue, hence didn't include EY, QR or AI in the comparison. You are arguing a state-owned subsidized carrier cares more about private carriers. That is sad.

EK has to funnel thru DXB, but Indian carriers have the ability to offer non-stops from Kerala to 6 other emirates or a different country

A380 costs $24000/hr carries 525, a 737/a320 costs $6000/hr carries 189 passengers. Who has the lowest operating cost, can offer lower fares and has the flexibility to adjust frequency or route.

Not the one with highest trip-cost and 400 employees/plane. It is the airline with the lowest trip cost

JustSomeDood wrote:

Again, Emirates business model aircraft highly benefits from flying large aircraft for traffic, the A380 just happens to be the biggest aircraft available, hence EK flys a boatload of them. But that doesn't mean that EK's continued existence as a business entity entirely depends on the A380's continued existence.

If you had simply said they would use the next best available a/c you would have been fine, but on A.Net you had to mention the dreaded 777W without even a hint of the A346 hence the numerous other post running around your central theme.
The other carrier which made good use of their geographic location also has A380's unfortunately, they were already being squeezed by longer range a/c overflying their hub and rather than double down, they chose a mixed approach, SQ could have had a much larger fleet, especially if the A.Net wisdom of folks preferring that a/c over others, they should have put it to the test.
If the A380NEO comes about they may well do so, time will tell, but the geography of their location is not changing.

dtw2hyd wrote:

A380 costs $24000/hr carries 525, a 737/a320 costs $6000/hr carries 189 passengers. Who has the lowest operating cost, can offer lower fares and has the flexibility to adjust frequency or route. Not the one with highest trip-cost and 400 employees/plane. It is the airline with the lowest trip cost

But it's not about trip cost, it's all about profitability. If we followed your logic to the ultimate conclusion, every airline would be flying everyone around in 2-seater light aircraft.

The point you seem to be missing is that what makes EK work so well is not the O&D traffic, it is connecting traffic. Can't be bothered going to look for the exact numbers but I believe it's up in the 80-90% region.

EK offer pleasant, easy, 1-stop trips to a huge number of destinations from passenger's local airports. This is why they are able to start new routes from regional airports using 777s or A380s - often from airports that other airlines can't justify serving, even with RJs. EK will have plenty of routes that might make a loss when viewed in isolation but add a lot to the bottom line when those connections are factored in.

speedbored wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

A380 costs $24000/hr carries 525, a 737/a320 costs $6000/hr carries 189 passengers. Who has the lowest operating cost, can offer lower fares and has the flexibility to adjust frequency or route. Not the one with highest trip-cost and 400 employees/plane. It is the airline with the lowest trip cost

But it's not about trip cost, it's all about profitability. If we followed your logic to the ultimate conclusion, every airline would be flying everyone around in 2-seater light aircraft.

The point you seem to be missing is that what makes EK work so well is not the O&D traffic, it is connecting traffic. Can't be bothered going to look for the exact numbers but I believe it's up in the 80-90% region.

EK offer pleasant, easy, 1-stop trips to a huge number of destinations from passenger's local airports. This is why they are able to start new routes from regional airports using 777s or A380s - often from airports that other airlines can't justify serving, even with RJs. EK will have plenty of routes that might make a loss when viewed in isolation but add a lot to the bottom line when those connections are factored in.

To make a profit one has to first cover the cost.

The bulk of Dubai-India carried by Indian carriers, not EK.

Connection traffic fares are heavily discounted across all cabins.

The highest trip cost in the industry + Bloated workforce(World's top #3) + Heavily discounted ticket prices = Yuge profits ???

I think you need some help, where is the SD button.

dtw2hyd wrote:

To make a profit one has to first cover the cost.

Again, you are looking a a route in isolation.

EK don't care about the low yield O&D traffic. Yes, in common with just about every airline out there, there will be plenty of loss-making passengers. But EK are making good profits as a whole by having some routes that are loss-making supplying passengers to generate profits on other routes that more than cover those losses.

If you can't (or don't want to) understand that, then there's really no point discussing it further.

speedbored wrote:

This is why they are able to start new routes from regional airports using 777s or A380s - often from airports that other airlines can't justify serving, even with RJs.

I almost blew coffee out my nose.
Can you please tell me what airport EK is serving that others won't with an RJ ? I mean, clearly - there's no apples to apples, since they are only going to take you to Dubai, but what city does not merit an RJ, but a widebody to Dubai?

FlyHappy wrote:

speedbored wrote:

This is why they are able to start new routes from regional airports using 777s or A380s - often from airports that other airlines can't justify serving, even with RJs.

I almost blew coffee out my nose.
Can you please tell me what airport EK is serving that others won't with an RJ ? I mean, clearly - there's no apples to apples, since they are only going to take you to Dubai, but what city does not merit an RJ, but a widebody to Dubai?

I didn't say "... that no other airline can justify serving with an RJ".

The irony of ironies is that Europe made an unprofitable airliner that helped Emirates at the expense of European Airlines.

The perils of unchecked egos. The real cost of the 380 is not how much Airbus lost on it but how it siphoned traffic to DXB away from Europe.

hisham wrote:

The irony of ironies is that Europe made an unprofitable airliner

False.

hisham wrote:

...that helped Emirates at the expense of European Airlines.

False again.

hisham wrote:

The perils of unchecked egos.

Falso one more time.

hisham wrote:

The real cost of the 380 is not how much Airbus lost on it but how it siphoned traffic to DXB away from Europe.

And still false. Can’t understand why people think that repeating the same mantra helps to consolidate a fake argument.

Jayafe wrote:

hisham wrote:

The irony of ironies is that Europe made an unprofitable airliner

False.

hisham wrote:

...that helped Emirates at the expense of European Airlines.

False again.

hisham wrote:

The perils of unchecked egos.

Falso one more time.

hisham wrote:

The real cost of the 380 is not how much Airbus lost on it but how it siphoned traffic to DXB away from Europe.

And still false. Can’t understand why people think that repeating the same mantra helps to consolidate a fake argument.

Because there are no false opinions. That is a fact.

Revelation wrote:

hisham wrote:

The irony of ironies is that Europe made an unprofitable airliner that helped Emirates at the expense of European Airlines.

The perils of unchecked egos. The real cost of the 380 is not how much Airbus lost on it but how it siphoned traffic to DXB away from Europe.

Yes, EK's business plan works quite well with A380+777 but I can imagine it'd work somewhat well with 747s so EU might as well get the dosh for selling the airliners.

On the other hand, I do think in an ideal world Airbus would prefer a more diverse customer base.

PS: "Posts: 727 Joined: 19 years ago" has to be some sort of record for longevity and brevity all in one member!

Whilst EU airlines may have suffered in pax numbers because of Emirates I 100% agree that with 747s they'd probably have made a similar success. The long and short of it is that Emirates have an incredible hard cabin product, and whilst the 3-4-3 on the 777s isn't fun, it's not like BA or AF provide anything much more compelling on their 777-dominated LH fleets...

hisham wrote:

The irony of ironies is that Europe made an unprofitable airliner that helped Emirates at the expense of European Airlines.

The perils of unchecked egos. The real cost of the 380 is not how much Airbus lost on it but how it siphoned traffic to DXB away from Europe.

There are a lot more factors that are involved in siphoning away traffic from European airlines to the ME3..... it's things like the quality of the service , the better choice of departure points and destinations. If I wanted to fly BA long-haul it's a 400 mile trip to just get to LHR for me..... I've 4 airports within 150 miles of me offering long-haul via DXB, DOH and AUH at competitive prices....

masi1157 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Those things don't change just because the A380 doesn't exist. Without the A380, it is far more likely that EK would still be a successful airline flying tons of 77Ws and (stretched?) 748s everywhere than that they'd cease to be a viable airline.

"More likely"? How would you prove that? Emirates has A380s, not stretched 748s or anything like that, and they have built their business model around it. Without the A380 they might have done something else, who knows.

Personally I am glad they fly A380 to the places where I want to spend my holidays (especially New Zealand) and I am glad they now fly DXB-AKL direct on an A380. It is so much more comfortable than the 777 that we (still?) have to use to get from HAM to DXB. And it is the only aircraft that my wife enjoys to fly in, while she gets anxious in any other aircraft (and we tried many).


Gruß, masi1157

Not to wade into the argument here, but I find it hilarious that something that isn't happening (i.e. EK flying stretched 748s) is considered "far more likely" than something that is actually happening (EK flying A380s). Only here on A-net lol. Basic probability would tell you that, P(being successful while flying stretched 748s) = 0 and P(being successful flying A380s) > 0, possibly 1. Last time I checked, > 0 is greater than zero. So it amuses me that you try to use hypotheticals to argue success over a real thing.

NeBaNi wrote:

masi1157 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Those things don't change just because the A380 doesn't exist. Without the A380, it is far more likely that EK would still be a successful airline flying tons of 77Ws and (stretched?) 748s everywhere than that they'd cease to be a viable airline.

"More likely"? How would you prove that? Emirates has A380s, not stretched 748s or anything like that, and they have built their business model around it. Without the A380 they might have done something else, who knows.

Personally I am glad they fly A380 to the places where I want to spend my holidays (especially New Zealand) and I am glad they now fly DXB-AKL direct on an A380. It is so much more comfortable than the 777 that we (still?) have to use to get from HAM to DXB. And it is the only aircraft that my wife enjoys to fly in, while she gets anxious in any other aircraft (and we tried many).


Gruß, masi1157

Not to wade into the argument here, but I find it hilarious that something that isn't happening (i.e. EK flying stretched 748s) is considered "far more likely" than something that is actually happening (EK flying A380s). Only here on A-net lol. Basic probability would tell you that, P(being successful while flying stretched 748s) = 0 and P(being successful flying A380s) > 0, possibly 1. Last time I checked, > 0 is greater than zero. .

It amuses me that in your rush to reply, you completely misread my argument, just to make it clear:

Without the A380, it is far more likely that EK would still be a successful airline flying tons of 77Ws and (stretched?) 748s everywhere than that they'd cease to be a viable airline.

I.E: P(Emirates still successful flying 77Ws and 748s| A380 doesn't exist) > P(Emirates fails to be a viable airline|A380 doesn't exist).

JustSomeDood wrote:

I.E: P(Emirates still successful flying 77Ws and 748s| A380 doesn't exist) > P(Emirates fails to be a viable airline|A380 doesn't exist).

Don't worry, I understood what you are trying to say. Nevertheless, from what facts do you derive those probablilities? There is no causation. There is not even a correlation, simply because there is no other airline comparable to Emirates, that uses 77W or "stretched 748" instead of A380.

Emirates are successful for a number of reasons, one of them is (according to Tim Clark) using many A380. Nobody says the A380 is the only reason for their success, If they would be as successful without A380, none of us can say. But I can say, that they attract me as a passenger more than other airlines, because they offer fast and cheap travel to e.g. New Zealand. And because they fly A380 on the larger portion of the journey.


Gruß, masi1157

not sure about that
not many people in Aus/NZ would book EK if it were not for the A380's...
SQ/CX would have been march larger if EK did not have A380's

Kashmon wrote:

not sure about that
not many people in Aus/NZ would book EK if it were not for the A380's...
SQ/CX would have been march larger if EK did not have A380's

and you do not think the drastic reduction of fares by EK has anything to do with it?

FlyHappy wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

not sure about that
not many people in Aus/NZ would book EK if it were not for the A380's...
SQ/CX would have been march larger if EK did not have A380's

and you do not think the drastic reduction of fares by EK has anything to do with it?

EK are rarely if ever the cheap option from Australia. They are seen as a premium carrier so you pay a premium.

I just looked up a random date in July SYD - LHR and SQ, CX, TG,MH, CA, EH, BA are all cheaper in Y and C. Emirates success in Australia is not based on being cheap.

JamesCousins wrote:

Revelation wrote:

hisham wrote:

The irony of ironies is that Europe made an unprofitable airliner that helped Emirates at the expense of European Airlines.

The perils of unchecked egos. The real cost of the 380 is not how much Airbus lost on it but how it siphoned traffic to DXB away from Europe.

Yes, EK's business plan works quite well with A380+777 but I can imagine it'd work somewhat well with 747s so EU might as well get the dosh for selling the airliners.

On the other hand, I do think in an ideal world Airbus would prefer a more diverse customer base.

PS: "Posts: 727 Joined: 19 years ago" has to be some sort of record for longevity and brevity all in one member!

Whilst EU airlines may have suffered in pax numbers because of Emirates I 100% agree that with 747s they'd probably have made a similar success. The long and short of it is that Emirates have an incredible hard cabin product, and whilst the 3-4-3 on the 777s isn't fun, it's not like BA or AF provide anything much more compelling on their 777-dominated LH fleets...

The 747 is not nearly as quiet as the A380. It is alno not as roomy. The 747 expierience is simply not nearly as nice as the A380.

EK says the A380 expierience vs the 777 is a very large part of what makes the A380 so attractive. The 747 doesn't really offer an improved experience vs the 777.

NTLDaz wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

not sure about that
not many people in Aus/NZ would book EK if it were not for the A380's...
SQ/CX would have been march larger if EK did not have A380's

and you do not think the drastic reduction of fares by EK has anything to do with it?

EK are rarely if ever the cheap option from Australia. They are seen as a premium carrier so you pay a premium.

I just looked up a random date in July SYD - LHR and SQ, CX, TG,MH, CA, EH, BA are all cheaper in Y and C. Emirates success in Australia is not based on being cheap.

A few comments.
I did not mean fares as they stand today. I mean fares as they were before the ME3 rise versus now, and specifically comparing one-stop options. I believe ME3 were largely responsible for massively dropping AUS/NZ LH travel in general. Now those fares are absurdly low (given the length) with matching competition from the Chinese and other Asian carriers.
Secondly, not everyone is going to LHR My random search AKL-CDG shows the ME3 all right near the cheapest, with only TG offering a notably lower fare.
Finally, we all know that broad statements about airfares are hard to quantify, but I am dubious that SQ is typically cheaper.

I have no doubt that EK is seen as premium, but suggest that this is really due to good service, food, and a nearly unbeatable short transit (thus overall travel time) thru their advantageous hub locations. I get that the A380 is beloved, but the high loads on EK's on 777's belie the idea that their success is greatly tied to the aircraft. Just my opinion.

fsabo wrote:

....

EK says the A380 expierience vs the 777 is a very large part of what makes the A380 so attractive. ....

So, Why not operate the only A380s if that is the best plane which gives the best experience to the customer. While at it operate only 3 class A380s.

If customer experience is so important, first bring back those perks and stop nickel and diming.

The 777 and 787s will still be the backbone of the EK fleet and they are the backbone for nearly any major airline. That tells you a lot of which design won the long haul war.

It is nice and big. I think that might be useful sometimes.