Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 31
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8412
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Sun May 03, 2020 5:29 pm

Aither wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
None of the conditions Emirates made the world's largest international carrier exists today.

Dubai's family, friends and neighbors don't have easy access to cash like they used to. Repeating Dubai never had oil money is beating the dead horse.

Reality is, UAE, Kuwait and Saudi have very limited disposable income to support neighbor's vanity projects. Dubai itself will not have tourism money also.
International business travel is not going to reach pre-COVID19 levels anytime soon.
International VFR will never reach pre-COVID19 levels.
All the highlights of EK model, like product and service are irrelevant now, every crew-passenger contact point is a risk, very difficult to show personal touch with full PPE.
Passengers will look for fastest travel options, mostly P2P. Not many passengers want to congregate in airport lounges at huge hubs.

On a side note, what are av bloggers going to do, find another real job.


I believe the exact opposite of basically everything you say here.

- EK, based on efficiency and a sound business model, will benefit of failing vanity projects.

- EK is more about trade than tourism.

- International travel will recover faster than you think : for one european/american not travelling, you will have 2 Asian/African starting to travel.

- Full PPE and avoiding hubs is a short term thing. The alternative is not point to point it's no aviation anymore. Hubs will benefit from consolidated networks & airlines reducing capacity.

If today I have the choice to travel between Asia and Europe, I would look first at Emirates. Emirates is for me a symbol of efficiency, and as a consequence an airline I trust more than others to do things the right way.

What many are miscalculating is that in many regions where EK is strong people don't travel just for leisure but a lot because the economic situation in their home countries is not good so they need to migrate and rely more on trading, finding new markets. Crisis make people move.


Mostly wishful thinking. EK runs on the premise of free travel, which is history. Asians and Africans to travel where? There has to be enough countries with relatively open borders for EK model to work.

What is the monthly cash burn rate of Emirates? 250 leased planes and 100,000 employees are not free.

Anyone who wants to travel from country A to country B won't seek out cheap tickets or bling, they will try to avoid any third country.

Free market economies quickly pulled out their unpublished socialist playbooks and bailing out billions of dollars/Euros to their own airlines, no one is saying let our airline fail, Emirates is going to operate, may be except India(Air India).
All posts are just opinions.
 
Aither
Posts: 1299
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Sun May 03, 2020 9:44 pm

Well, if your scenario is the end of air travel obviously EK will be in a bad shape...
There is nothing to be discussed about a worst case scenario. It's just the end of everything. The only thing I'm 100% certain is that If you only prepare for the worse then only the worse can happen to you.

Saying "None of the conditions Emirates made the world's largest international carrier exists today." is just ignoring the centre of gravity in the world has changed. And it's not a health or financial crisis that are going to change that. Europe & North America will probably suffer more than anywhere else. This on the contrary, will make EK relatively even more the largest international carrier in the world.
Last edited by Aither on Sun May 03, 2020 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Never trust the obvious
 
Whalejet
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:31 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Sun May 03, 2020 10:01 pm

COVID-19 is going to result in airlines consolidating hub operations to cut costs. Yes, P2P is slightly better from a public health standpoint - but I am talking about after a vaccine is developed and COVID-19 is eradicated. There are dozens of other things that governments can do to prepare for the next pandemic, ditching airline hubs is pretty low on that list. I haven't heard of any super-spreader events at airports (I don't want to turn this into a big discussion about how pandemics start btw).

With hubs consolidating comes a greater role for Emirates, and I am sure the Dubai government knows this - they will ensure EK survives. When EK comes out, it will be a different world, with many airlines utilizing fewer hubs than before. That is where EK, with its monster planes, can shine. Furthermore, low oil prices help EK's bottom line tremendously. Dubai isn't dependent on oil revenue whatsoever - that's Abu Dhabi's problem, which will weaken Etihad.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19172
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Sun May 03, 2020 10:42 pm

Aither wrote:
Well, if your scenario is the end of air travel obviously EK will be in a bad shape...


Not to mention every other airline in the World. Some still waiting breathlessly for Emirates to fail.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
acavpics
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:54 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Sun May 03, 2020 10:55 pm

EK is without doubt the strongest of the gulf carriers. QR has been making losses since the 2017 GCC blockade. EY has been losing money due to pure and utter mismanagement. EK is the only one to have remained in profitability up until COVID-19. They will definitely make it through this and restore a good chunk of their previous operations.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Sun May 03, 2020 11:30 pm

PANAMsterdam wrote:
I see EK as the Pan Am of my time. They are the airline everybody looks up to and compares itself to. The 747 was Pan Am's icon, as is the A380 for Emirates. But just as Pan Am, EK seems to have made the same mistake about their fleet.

Pan Am had a massive problem on its hands in the early 70's when the oil crisis begun: gigantic aircraft with not enough passengers to carry, making their operations severely unprofitable. They had too many 747's on their hands, and too many on order. Pan Am had miscalculated the industry, they thought the industry could/would only grow and never shrink. But the oil crisis swept them off their feet, and many agree that the $530 million order for 25 747's aimed to make Pan Am bigger, was ironically the first nail in their coffin.

Now EK has consolidated its fleet structure around two massive aircraft: The 777 and A380. Which makes sort of sense in good times (given their geographical location), but no sense in lesser times let alone in bad times. EK has plenty of regional destinations that would be served well with a 737/A320 (Iraq / Iran / Saudi Arabia and so on). But now that the the demand has fallen 95%, EK has suddenly the same problem as Pan Am had: gigantic aircraft to fill with not enough passengers. And this low passenger number will likely not recover in the foreseeable future.

Other airlines like QR or KL can (re)start/continue their operations with their narrow body fleet & smaller wide bodies like the A350 or 787 while parking or converting their 777's (for freight). EK can't do that. And the smallest wide body they had, the A330, left the fleet a few years ago. Now EK has realized that, by ordering A350's and 787's but far too late to help them in this corona crisis.

Additional problem for EK is that they are located in a country that lives on and breathes oil. But the unthinkable has happend: the world is suddenly not hungry for oil anymore. So that source of income for Dubai's rulers has (almost literally) dried up and makes it harder to find cash to invest in EK. They will find a way, since the growth of EK and Dubai goes hand in hand, and because Dubai isn't suddenly a poor country. But together they grew, but it seems like together they are falling too.


Interesting thoughts, but you forget something: the 95% drop in demand for passenger flights and the world not hungry for oil anymore are not forever, this is a temporary situation that will improve over time.
Also Emirates can compete pretty well unlike Pan Am in their final years and they have no terrorism problem + the government is willing to give them cash if needed.

But I think as well that Emirates is the Airline in the world that comes Pan Am closest.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 3:34 am

Toinou wrote:
I never wanted to say that you can do every kind of business without meeting in person. Just that in many fields where it was said to be impossible to work without travel, people suddenly realized in the last months that they can still do quite a lot of business using video-conference. I think that this may well be a lasting legacy of this situation. Will business travel bounce back? Obviously. Will it bounce to the level it was, I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't.
Besides video-conference, your explanation overlook another aspect: many large companies, in the fields you mention, have global network of subsidiaries or associates that can do many local businesses for them.
You talk about precious metals trade. I know quite well how it works an I can tell you that most people travel very few. The metals do, in very controlled circuits, with a few trusted people making sure that everything is working according to standards. So in this aspect, the need is more about cargo transport. I wouldn't say they same about precious stones. This still drives many people to travel as there is much less trust.
Anyone looking to trade precious metals travels. Anyone looking to trade precious stones, travels. And it is not isolated to simply the big conglomerates.......there are a lot of smaller companies and individuals looking to, and having success cutting off the middle man.

Secondly, all large companies trading commodities travel, and a lot. Why do you think corporate contracts exist when it comes to airlines? And why do they do it when they can just teleconference? Is there waste? Yes, but if you are not traveling, you are losing business and in this age where there is more demand to expand revenues, get more agreements in place, increase partnerships...........an age of globalization and increased competition.

Lastly, no business works on the basis of trust, and this is why we have contracts, proof of payment etc.
 
PANAMsterdam
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:45 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 9:19 am

DLHAM wrote:

Interesting thoughts, but you forget something: the 95% drop in demand for passenger flights and the world not hungry for oil anymore are not forever, this is a temporary situation that will improve over time.
Also Emirates can compete pretty well unlike Pan Am in their final years and they have no terrorism problem + the government is willing to give them cash if needed.

But I think as well that Emirates is the Airline in the world that comes Pan Am closest.


But we don't know how long this temporary drop in demand will be. And even if passenger numbers will recover a bit, EK still only has a fleet of gigantic A380's and 777's.
Each airline can be hit by terrorism, and EK too. Let's hope that will never never never never happen, but see what happend to flight IR655, MH17 and more recently PS752.

First and foremost: everyone's health is the number one priority but let's hope for us AV geeks that the industry will recover as quickly as it collapsed, but I have my doubts :cry:
Every country has an airline. The world has Pan Am.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 9:53 am

Various projections are out there, most estimate 2023/2024. Which hopefully includes vaccine.

EK right now plan to restart flights in July. Guess will depend a lot how quickly countries end their lockdowns and quarantines.

Let's hope they have the financials to stick it out. Not that they will go bust. But it will cost a lot.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 10:08 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Dubai has long since reached a stage where it will remain relevant as a regional trade center. It isn't going away. There will always be a need for air transport to and from Dubai. That said, I believe it will shrink, both the airline and the city.
For Emirates, I see a smaller future where connecting Dubai and the UAE to the world is going to make up a bigger part than connecting Europe and Asia.
They will still hold a massive advantage in the developing world. In markets such as Africa to Asia and ME to anywhere they hold stronger cards than pretty much any other airline.

Their future is probably smaller more efficient aircraft which is why they were maybe interested in A330's and A350's. Emirates and other hub carriers will always have a presence in Europe, and a significant one because of how aviation is structured. Hubs are still king because even the biggest European carriers cannot justify flying point to point and long haul from some of the smaller airports.

So long as there is a premium to fly non stop, and the middle east/Asian carriers offer cheaper one stop options, there will be a significant market that they can tap onto going forward. Not to mention that their service is top quality.


Firstly, I believe that EK's "interest" on the A330 and A350 came as a compromise with Airbus so that they could cancel any remaining A380s they had on order. This allowed Airbus to effectively close the books on the A380 with some offset as well as avoided EK having to pay a huge fine for the order cancellation.

Dubai will continue to play a role as you stated but the HUB situation may change since you will have less people flying on aircrafts that are more modern, more economic and have more range. This will allow more point-to-point travel and reduce risks of potential exposure to diseases whilst on transit.

The big HUB idea was Airbus' view of the future when it implemented the A3XX project and it was something that had its place when loads of people were flying and we did not have aircrafts able to make a journey like, for example, LHR-SYD. The load factor was too high for a single aircraft and prices were way too high, making connections a cheap and effective way to go around the world.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 10:13 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
PANAMsterdam wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
There is hardly any oil in the country.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this point, could you please explain that further? What i read is that 45% of the export of the UAE is crude oil.

From Wiki:
The sovereign constitutional monarchy is a federation of seven emirates consisting of Abu Dhabi (which serves as the capital), Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras Al Khaimah, Sharjah and Umm Al Quwain. Their boundaries are complex, with numerous enclaves within the various emirates.[9] Each emirate is governed by a ruler; together, they jointly form the Federal Supreme Council. One of the rulers serves as the President of the United Arab Emirates.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates

Financially, each of the 7 emirates functions as a separate country. The UAE is like a mini EU for them. Dubai has almost no oil, but Abu Dhabi has a lot.
They are more like the USA. Only that the so called ruler is always from Dubai and the Prime Minister (with basically as much power but less public appearances) is from Abu Dhabi (or vice-versa but always from these Emirates).

Oil IS a very important commodity for them.

The one where GAS takes prerogative is Qatar.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 10:16 am

Toinou wrote:
Is India really considered a "high revenue market"?


Course it is. It caters for all expats working in the Middle East (but Qatar nowadays) industry - millions of them.
It also, because of the above, provides connections from remote parts of India to Europe and the World.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 10:38 am

Jomar777 wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Dubai has long since reached a stage where it will remain relevant as a regional trade center. It isn't going away. There will always be a need for air transport to and from Dubai. That said, I believe it will shrink, both the airline and the city.
For Emirates, I see a smaller future where connecting Dubai and the UAE to the world is going to make up a bigger part than connecting Europe and Asia.
They will still hold a massive advantage in the developing world. In markets such as Africa to Asia and ME to anywhere they hold stronger cards than pretty much any other airline.

Their future is probably smaller more efficient aircraft which is why they were maybe interested in A330's and A350's. Emirates and other hub carriers will always have a presence in Europe, and a significant one because of how aviation is structured. Hubs are still king because even the biggest European carriers cannot justify flying point to point and long haul from some of the smaller airports.

So long as there is a premium to fly non stop, and the middle east/Asian carriers offer cheaper one stop options, there will be a significant market that they can tap onto going forward. Not to mention that their service is top quality.


Firstly, I believe that EK's "interest" on the A330 and A350 came as a compromise with Airbus so that they could cancel any remaining A380s they had on order. This allowed Airbus to effectively close the books on the A380 with some offset as well as avoided EK having to pay a huge fine for the order cancellation.

Dubai will continue to play a role as you stated but the HUB situation may change since you will have less people flying on aircrafts that are more modern, more economic and have more range. This will allow more point-to-point travel and reduce risks of potential exposure to diseases whilst on transit.

The big HUB idea was Airbus' view of the future when it implemented the A3XX project and it was something that had its place when loads of people were flying and we did not have aircrafts able to make a journey like, for example, LHR-SYD. The load factor was too high for a single aircraft and prices were way too high, making connections a cheap and effective way to go around the world.
The hub and spoke model is not going anywhere. Try flying from a smaller city, where there is not enough traffic or competition and see how much you will pay to go non stop to a big city.

Hubs increase competition, they give consumers options on time, and they host airlines from a whole host of nations. Heathrow, CDG, Frankfurt, JFK, HKG, Changi........these huge hubs are going nowhere regardless of how efficient planes get.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8412
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 11:08 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Try flying from a smaller city, where there is not enough traffic or competition and see how much you will pay to go non stop to a big city.


Assuming traffic is down by considerable amount, most airlines will be charging reasonable fares i.e., not heavily discounted, and every other seat has to be kept empty, it will open up lot of P2P routes.

What will be A321XLR range with every middle seat unoccupied, 77W cannot compete.

Super Hubs and VLA enabled only some airlines to dump capacity and throw in hub efficiency as a talking point.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 11:25 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Assuming traffic is down by considerable amount, most airlines will be charging reasonable fares i.e., not heavily discounted, and every other seat has to be kept empty, it will open up lot of P2P routes.

What will be A321XLR range with every middle seat unoccupied, 77W cannot compete.

Super Hubs and VLA enabled only some airlines to dump capacity and throw in hub efficiency as a talking point.

How many XLR's are there in the market?
How many routes can you cover? Could you go Hong Kong to London? Chinese east coast to Western Europe? Europe to South East Asia? West Africa into Asia? How many schedules would you run?
How would you adapt in several years time when traffic is back?
Why would anyone make long term bets on a plane that has limited range and capacity?

Super hubs are going nowhere. Airlines will not charge less to fly non stop from smaller towns where there is limited competition, and they are unlikely to fly those routes because you would need a tonne of equipment.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8412
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 11:42 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
How many XLR's are there in the market?
How many routes can you cover? Could you go Hong Kong to London? Chinese east coast to Western Europe? Europe to South East Asia? West Africa into Asia? How many schedules would you run?
How would you adapt in several years time when traffic is back?
Why would anyone make long term bets on a plane that has limited range and capacity?

Super hubs are going nowhere. Airlines will not charge less to fly non stop from smaller towns where there is limited competition, and they are unlikely to fly those routes because you would need a tonne of equipment.


We are talking about EK here, lets not bring in the discussion about strategic visions. EK scores an F in that subject.

In any hypothetical model a smaller framer has more usability than its larger counterpart.
If traffic comes back, charge more fares, fill the middle seat, and there will be 1000s of grounded WBs ready to picked up.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 12:09 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
How many XLR's are there in the market?
How many routes can you cover? Could you go Hong Kong to London? Chinese east coast to Western Europe? Europe to South East Asia? West Africa into Asia? How many schedules would you run?
How would you adapt in several years time when traffic is back?
Why would anyone make long term bets on a plane that has limited range and capacity?

Super hubs are going nowhere. Airlines will not charge less to fly non stop from smaller towns where there is limited competition, and they are unlikely to fly those routes because you would need a tonne of equipment.


We are talking about EK here, lets not bring in the discussion about strategic visions. EK scores an F in that subject.

In any hypothetical model a smaller framer has more usability than its larger counterpart.
If traffic comes back, charge more fares, fill the middle seat, and there will be 1000s of grounded WBs ready to picked up.
You are stating that airlines that are going to defer orders left, right and center should now start ordering a plane that is not even in service, that they would need a lot of to fill schedules, and is lacking in range.

No airline that was flying 7 A380's into Heathrow is looking to fly 7 A321 XLR's. And when demand comes back, they will just fill seats and continue flying the same A321 XLR's. The likes of Qatar Airways, Etihad, Emirates, Thai, Philippines, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Vietnam Airlines, China Eastern, China Southern, Qantas, British Airways, Ethiopian, Air France, KLM, Lufthansa etc are not changing their model, adding extra stops to fit the A321 XLR.

There is a plane for every airline and a plane for every application. The A380 has done wonders for Emirates, same as the 777. The 747 has done wonders for British Airways.
 
User avatar
brianK73
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:47 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 12:27 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
There is a plane for every airline and a plane for every application. The A380 has done wonders for Emirates, same as the 777. The 747 has done wonders for British Airways.

The phrase, "for every application" has a big implied assumption. That is "for the socioeconomic condition of the given time and place."

The recent popularity of new, fuel efficient planes may make sense only when the fuel is expensive and the capital cost is low.

Also, in terms of containment of communicable diseases, it may be unwise to bring passengers from around the world to a single location, such as Dubai, only to disperse them to every single corner of the earth.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8412
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 12:58 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
You are stating that airlines that are going to defer orders left, right and center should now start ordering a plane that is not even in service, that they would need a lot of to fill schedules, and is lacking in range.

No, I am not. Just gave A321XLR as an example. Any load restricted narrow body can do 6hr 30min DXB-LHR trip, and with no bailout to BA, LHR slots will be wide open.


Gremlinzzzz wrote:
No airline that was flying 7 A380's into Heathrow is looking to fly 7 A321 XLR's. And when demand comes back, they will just fill seats and continue flying the same A321 XLR's. The likes of Qatar Airways, Etihad, Emirates, Thai, Philippines, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Vietnam Airlines, China Eastern, China Southern, Qantas, British Airways, Ethiopian, Air France, KLM, Lufthansa etc are not changing their model, adding extra stops to fit the A321 XLR.

There is a plane for every airline and a plane for every application. The A380 has done wonders for Emirates, same as the 777. The 747 has done wonders for British Airways.


Every other airline except Emirates has mixed fleet and capacity discipline, lack of vision and lack of capacity discipline is going bite Emirates.

I could be wrong, but my predictions about Emirates have been correct, for seven years.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Galore
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2020 12:43 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 1:01 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
in fact, most business cannot be done in this manner. If you are in the clothing business, you have to travel to ascertain the quality of goods. If you are an art dealer, you have to travel, if you deal precious metals, you have to do the same. If you are dealing agricultural produce, if you design electronics.........most businesses that are not service oriented demand this.


That sounds logical. The question is, is this type of business travel prevalent and enough to matter? I’ve been traveling “on business” since 1998. My company paid for business class only for about one year in 2000. The travel policy has gotten extremely restrictive regarding airfare (not hotels, those stayed lavish throughout) because the choice is usually $1200 coach DFW-HKG or $12000 business class (that’s all short notice / 2 days).

We’ve now in the first time in human history ever been able to do everything that we’ve always done via these trips through video conferencing, because we *had no choice* and it works amazingly well.

While I’m certainly not replaceable, I’m fairly well established at my job and I will be as reluctant as possible to ever set a foot into a 15 hour coach cabin “on business (lol)”. My boss better have an absolute extreme line down situation where I have to be physically present to ask me to subject myself to that horrific experience (now with 15 hour mask requirement. In a 3-4-3 777 with 30” pitch - NO.). I have been grumbling about this before this pandemic but now I will simply not agree to fly “on business” but offer to be available 24/7 via WebEx. Added bonus: The customer can work with me without having to wait 2 days.

I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one in this situation. My (huge) employer isn’t an exception requiring to fly coach. The coach cabins were full with people like me - “business” travelers who fly not to land a multi million dollar deal (these people from my employer fly the company jet and not commercial anyways) but to keep operations running. And that can be done 95% via video conferencing.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 2:33 pm

brianK73 wrote:
The phrase, "for every application" has a big implied assumption. That is "for the socioeconomic condition of the given time and place."

The recent popularity of new, fuel efficient planes may make sense only when the fuel is expensive and the capital cost is low.

Also, in terms of containment of communicable diseases, it may be unwise to bring passengers from around the world to a single location, such as Dubai, only to disperse them to every single corner of the earth.

How many airlines will fly a 747 on a regional route in Europe? How many will have what it takes to fly an A380 on a 45 minute or less than two hour trip? How many airlines in Europe will fly twin aisle jets as much as Asian carriers do on regional routes or even local routes as happens in Japan?

A plane might be a good fit for one airline and not a great fit or another. For an airline that has targeted rich cities and emerging markets where travel is bound to explode, formed a brand, and where they mostly enjoy a pricing advantage, having the biggest jets in the market makes sense for Emirates.

dtw2hyd wrote:
No, I am not. Just gave A321XLR as an example. Any load restricted narrow body can do 6hr 30min DXB-LHR trip, and with no bailout to BA, LHR slots will be wide open.

Every other airline except Emirates has mixed fleet and capacity discipline, lack of vision and lack of capacity discipline is going bite Emirates.

I could be wrong, but my predictions about Emirates have been correct, for seven years.
Emirates established itself in Asia, Africa and Oceania. In Europe, it has performed better than some of the legacy carriers on long haul routes that they compete in. Having the biggest jets was key to that, and it is something that then established Dubai not only as a business and trading hub, but also a tourist attraction.

Emirates has grown with the 777 and the A380, and Dubai has reaped the benefits. Going for smaller aircraft is to cede market share. When all is said and done, they will have to go with the 777x/8 and the A350 to replace the A380 to keep most of the capacity they now have. To do anything else is madness.

The hub and spoke model is not dying, and will not die for ages. As long as it is in practice, super hubs, and key time slots will always matter. New comers will have a harder time getting in especially on long haul routes where you have established players. This virus situation is making people overreact.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 3:26 pm

I think that EK biggest problem is that it links US and Europe with India and Africa. These two area are going to have a very long fight to bring this disease back under control dampening a desire by travelers to head for these destinations.
 
THS214
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Mon May 04, 2020 3:34 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Well, the answer might be cargo. With cargo compatible configurations currently available, this might be a good strategy, and again, Dubai location is just in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe. Many of the flights are short enough for them to maximize the cargo payload using long-range aircraft like B777-300ER.


That is an urban legend and was creating by a marketing person who didn't care about truth, or thought that world is flat. Tokyo, Shanghai and even Hong Kong to Vienna via Helsinki is significantly shorter than via Dubai. Even Hong Kong to Vienna is 550 miles shorter via Helsinki than via Dubai and via Amsterdam just 60 miles longer than via Dubai. And this route is good towards Emirates. Pick up Seoul and via Helsinki or Amsterdam is significantly shorter that via Dubai Via Helsinki its over 1 500 miles shorter and via Amsterdam its 900 miles shorter.

I picked Vienna as it makes numbers good to Dubai. Make it Paris and those numbers are even worse to Emirates. On those routes from Hong Kong the difference is like 900 miles.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Tue May 05, 2020 2:52 am

THS214 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Well, the answer might be cargo. With cargo compatible configurations currently available, this might be a good strategy, and again, Dubai location is just in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe. Many of the flights are short enough for them to maximize the cargo payload using long-range aircraft like B777-300ER.


That is an urban legend and was creating by a marketing person who didn't care about truth, or thought that world is flat. Tokyo, Shanghai and even Hong Kong to Vienna via Helsinki is significantly shorter than via Dubai. Even Hong Kong to Vienna is 550 miles shorter via Helsinki than via Dubai and via Amsterdam just 60 miles longer than via Dubai. And this route is good towards Emirates. Pick up Seoul and via Helsinki or Amsterdam is significantly shorter that via Dubai Via Helsinki its over 1 500 miles shorter and via Amsterdam its 900 miles shorter.

I picked Vienna as it makes numbers good to Dubai. Make it Paris and those numbers are even worse to Emirates. On those routes from Hong Kong the difference is like 900 miles.


You don't understand. The reason EK's cargo could dominate is to provide a bottom rock price that resulted on losses just to keep the business going.
Truth is, whichever cheaper options available. Those options gonna get popular.

Southeast Asia/South Asia - Africa/Europe would also be a big factor for them. Also, let's be realistic here, majority of products gonna come from Canton region, Vietnam, Bangladesh and India.

You don't use the straight line to determine which routes work. You determine by price. It might be longer by 60-900 miles sure, but if it's $10,000 cheaper, do you think they would just slide it off when the difference is less than 1-3 hour flights?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Tue May 05, 2020 7:41 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
International business travel is not going to reach pre-COVID19 levels anytime soon.
International VFR will never reach pre-COVID19 levels.

You have these exactly backwards:
  • People aren't going to stop visiting their families or vacationing, it's just going to take a bit to recover to previous levels. That's something no other technology can replace, supplement, or replicate-- not until a teleporter is invented, anyway.
  • There is essentially nil reason for int'l biz travel to be what it was: e-meeting has grown each time a disaster (1998, 2001, 2003, 2008/9, etc) has affected the air travel market, and the technology's proficiency has grown by a quantum leap in 2020 since any of those times.



dtw2hyd wrote:
EK runs on the premise of free travel

Huh?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Toinou
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:21 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Tue May 05, 2020 7:52 am

LAX772LR wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
EK runs on the premise of free travel

Huh?

I guess in this case "free travel" means that the business model of EK is based on the fact that people have the freedom to travel.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8412
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Tue May 05, 2020 11:14 am

International VFR
1) Do people wish to travel, yes humans always want to travel
2) Can people afford to travel. Depends on economy, most likely people will cut discretionary spending
3) Do countries welcome international tourists with open arms. In pre-COVID19, if you are bringing enough cash to spend, you were welcome, now are you carrying a highly communicable disease.

Corporate Travel
1) Do employees want to travel. Yes.
2) Can corporations afford? Less than pre-COVID19. Corp travel is the first victim when companies are in cash conservation mode.
3) Does technology reduce corporate travel? More than before. If you could complete a task remotely during COVID-19 lockdown, sure you can post lockdown.
4) Domestic corp travel related issue. Can training be done remotely? Yes, online or even onsite training may become preferred choice. One instructor from Salesforce training 20 of your employees at your site is always cheaper.
5) Do countries keep relatively open borders. Not like in the past.

Why is it so difficult to understand traffic volumes won't be the same? VFR or Corp, both have issues.
All posts are just opinions.
 
THS214
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Tue May 05, 2020 4:17 pm

ewt340 wrote:
THS214 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Well, the answer might be cargo. With cargo compatible configurations currently available, this might be a good strategy, and again, Dubai location is just in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe. Many of the flights are short enough for them to maximize the cargo payload using long-range aircraft like B777-300ER.


That is an urban legend and was creating by a marketing person who didn't care about truth, or thought that world is flat. Tokyo, Shanghai and even Hong Kong to Vienna via Helsinki is significantly shorter than via Dubai. Even Hong Kong to Vienna is 550 miles shorter via Helsinki than via Dubai and via Amsterdam just 60 miles longer than via Dubai. And this route is good towards Emirates. Pick up Seoul and via Helsinki or Amsterdam is significantly shorter that via Dubai Via Helsinki its over 1 500 miles shorter and via Amsterdam its 900 miles shorter.

I picked Vienna as it makes numbers good to Dubai. Make it Paris and those numbers are even worse to Emirates. On those routes from Hong Kong the difference is like 900 miles.


You don't understand. The reason EK's cargo could dominate is to provide a bottom rock price that resulted on losses just to keep the business going.
Truth is, whichever cheaper options available. Those options gonna get popular.

Southeast Asia/South Asia - Africa/Europe would also be a big factor for them. Also, let's be realistic here, majority of products gonna come from Canton region, Vietnam, Bangladesh and India.

You don't use the straight line to determine which routes work. You determine by price. It might be longer by 60-900 miles sure, but if it's $10,000 cheaper, do you think they would just slide it off when the difference is less than 1-3 hour flights?


I fully understand. You wrote " Dubai location is just in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe." and its not true. Now you write that price is what matters and I fully agree. But that is not what you wrote and what I responded.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Tue May 05, 2020 9:23 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Their future is probably smaller more efficient aircraft which is why they were maybe interested in A330's and A350's. Emirates and other hub carriers will always have a presence in Europe, and a significant one because of how aviation is structured. Hubs are still king because even the biggest European carriers cannot justify flying point to point and long haul from some of the smaller airports.

So long as there is a premium to fly non stop, and the middle east/Asian carriers offer cheaper one stop options, there will be a significant market that they can tap onto going forward. Not to mention that their service is top quality.


Firstly, I believe that EK's "interest" on the A330 and A350 came as a compromise with Airbus so that they could cancel any remaining A380s they had on order. This allowed Airbus to effectively close the books on the A380 with some offset as well as avoided EK having to pay a huge fine for the order cancellation.

Dubai will continue to play a role as you stated but the HUB situation may change since you will have less people flying on aircrafts that are more modern, more economic and have more range. This will allow more point-to-point travel and reduce risks of potential exposure to diseases whilst on transit.

The big HUB idea was Airbus' view of the future when it implemented the A3XX project and it was something that had its place when loads of people were flying and we did not have aircrafts able to make a journey like, for example, LHR-SYD. The load factor was too high for a single aircraft and prices were way too high, making connections a cheap and effective way to go around the world.
The hub and spoke model is not going anywhere. Try flying from a smaller city, where there is not enough traffic or competition and see how much you will pay to go non stop to a big city.

Hubs increase competition, they give consumers options on time, and they host airlines from a whole host of nations. Heathrow, CDG, Frankfurt, JFK, HKG, Changi........these huge hubs are going nowhere regardless of how efficient planes get.


As you can see with LGW (although much smaller than LHR), HUBS can actually suffer if demand is not there. Maybe the US will be more impervious given that loads of cities where, in Europe for example, you would normally drive/take a train to, a flight is the best available option. But otherwise... If there's no enough demand, P2P will cater for those and hubs will mainly come into play when there's enough demand to warrant a connection (and henceforth, lower prices).
 
Aither
Posts: 1299
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Wed May 06, 2020 12:11 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
International VFR
1) Do people wish to travel, yes humans always want to travel
2) Can people afford to travel. Depends on economy, most likely people will cut discretionary spending
3) Do countries welcome international tourists with open arms. In pre-COVID19, if you are bringing enough cash to spend, you were welcome, now are you carrying a highly communicable disease.

Corporate Travel
1) Do employees want to travel. Yes.
2) Can corporations afford? Less than pre-COVID19. Corp travel is the first victim when companies are in cash conservation mode.
3) Does technology reduce corporate travel? More than before. If you could complete a task remotely during COVID-19 lockdown, sure you can post lockdown.
4) Domestic corp travel related issue. Can training be done remotely? Yes, online or even onsite training may become preferred choice. One instructor from Salesforce training 20 of your employees at your site is always cheaper.
5) Do countries keep relatively open borders. Not like in the past.

Why is it so difficult to understand traffic volumes won't be the same? VFR or Corp, both have issues.


Less traffic means less airlines, less routes, less frequencies. In that picture EK could gain market shares. The argument that people will not want to mix at hubs is valid for short haul. On long haul however do you think connecting at Paris or London is better ? all these airports mix passengers from many regions as well.
However DXB or SIN are state of the art airports full of cheap workers to make sure that things get cleaned every hour. Other hubs cannot match this. So If I have to travel long haul now, I would definitely fly through DXB instead of any other airport.

Regarding your comments on travel demand your points are valid however there are counterpoints for every argument you are saying. When there are crises people also travel to find jobs or new markets for their products. People also travel when after a health crisis you start to think you should not postpone things you always wanted to do. Diversifying the supply chain is a hot topic in the business community : if you go for more but smaller manufactures all other the places that will stimulate demand for business reasons. Video conferences are not new. Today it's much talked about because we started telework between colleagues living in the same cities.
Never trust the obvious
 
ewt340
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Wed May 06, 2020 1:11 am

THS214 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
THS214 wrote:

That is an urban legend and was creating by a marketing person who didn't care about truth, or thought that world is flat. Tokyo, Shanghai and even Hong Kong to Vienna via Helsinki is significantly shorter than via Dubai. Even Hong Kong to Vienna is 550 miles shorter via Helsinki than via Dubai and via Amsterdam just 60 miles longer than via Dubai. And this route is good towards Emirates. Pick up Seoul and via Helsinki or Amsterdam is significantly shorter that via Dubai Via Helsinki its over 1 500 miles shorter and via Amsterdam its 900 miles shorter.

I picked Vienna as it makes numbers good to Dubai. Make it Paris and those numbers are even worse to Emirates. On those routes from Hong Kong the difference is like 900 miles.


You don't understand. The reason EK's cargo could dominate is to provide a bottom rock price that resulted on losses just to keep the business going.
Truth is, whichever cheaper options available. Those options gonna get popular.

Southeast Asia/South Asia - Africa/Europe would also be a big factor for them. Also, let's be realistic here, majority of products gonna come from Canton region, Vietnam, Bangladesh and India.

You don't use the straight line to determine which routes work. You determine by price. It might be longer by 60-900 miles sure, but if it's $10,000 cheaper, do you think they would just slide it off when the difference is less than 1-3 hour flights?


I fully understand. You wrote " Dubai location is just in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe." and its not true. Now you write that price is what matters and I fully agree. But that is not what you wrote and what I responded.


Uhmm sir, the map said otherwise. Dubai is located in the middle east. It's a perfect crossroad between southeast asia/south asia to Europe or East asia and Africa.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Wed May 06, 2020 2:06 am

Jomar777 wrote:
As you can see with LGW (although much smaller than LHR), HUBS can actually suffer if demand is not there. Maybe the US will be more impervious given that loads of cities where, in Europe for example, you would normally drive/take a train to, a flight is the best available option. But otherwise... If there's no enough demand, P2P will cater for those and hubs will mainly come into play when there's enough demand to warrant a connection (and henceforth, lower prices).
Each and every airport suffers when demand is not there.

BA is not going to fly to Nairobi from Manchester.
Lufthansa is not going to fly to Cape Town from Dusseldorf.
Alitalia is not going to go to New York from Sardinia.
Air France is not going to go to SFO from Cote d'Azur.
Iberia is not going to fly form Lanzarote to Dubai.
Ethiopian is not going to fly to Mumbai from Awassa.

All these mega hubs have one thing in common, they are wide body jet magnets with daily schedules being run to a multitude of destinations nonstop. They were purpose built to leverage narrow body jets that lack range from various local and regional cities where traffic may not be high, and regional routes where there might be wide body demand e.g. a 767, to connect more destinations from a single airport.

Mega hubs have their place in aviation, they will continue to exist whether there is a crisis or whether there is none. This crisis will wipe out some of the weaker airlines, it will see to it that there is a shrinkage in some of the larger airlines as they meet lower demand. You might see lower prices at the start, but as excess capacity is wiped out, and competition shrinks, you will see increased prices. In the interim, you may simply see what happened in the US after 9/11 where airlines ended up cutting free food from domestic flights. Either way, hubs are still going to be here.
 
myki
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:43 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Wed May 06, 2020 3:42 am

ewt340 wrote:
THS214 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

You don't understand. The reason EK's cargo could dominate is to provide a bottom rock price that resulted on losses just to keep the business going.
Truth is, whichever cheaper options available. Those options gonna get popular.

Southeast Asia/South Asia - Africa/Europe would also be a big factor for them. Also, let's be realistic here, majority of products gonna come from Canton region, Vietnam, Bangladesh and India.

You don't use the straight line to determine which routes work. You determine by price. It might be longer by 60-900 miles sure, but if it's $10,000 cheaper, do you think they would just slide it off when the difference is less than 1-3 hour flights?


I fully understand. You wrote " Dubai location is just in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe." and its not true. Now you write that price is what matters and I fully agree. But that is not what you wrote and what I responded.


Uhmm sir, the map said otherwise. Dubai is located in the middle east. It's a perfect crossroad between southeast asia/south asia to Europe or East asia and Africa.

It is in the Middle East, but the middle for who?

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=c%3Ablack% ... blue&DU=mi

Going via DXB means a big detour for some, or a small detour for others. When it comes to cargo though, time isn't always the most important factor though so to save some coin, a detour could be acceptable.
 
xwb777
Posts: 903
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:13 pm

EK's possible future?

Wed May 06, 2020 5:04 am

According to the following interview, Sir Tim Clark is currently finding a way out and a solution for the grounding.

Sir Tim stated that the A380 and B747 era is over and the way forward going into the future is with both the A350 & B787.

Source: https://amp-thenational-ae.cdn.ampproje ... -1.1015208


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Wed May 06, 2020 5:26 am

xwb777 wrote:
According to the following interview, Sir Tim Clark is currently finding a way out and a solution for the grounding.

Sir Tim stated that the A380 and B747 era is over and the way forward going into the future is with both the A350 & B787.

Source: https://amp-thenational-ae.cdn.ampproje ... -1.1015208


Sir Tim speaks Heresy
 
Dirigible
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:53 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Wed May 06, 2020 8:02 am

Curious about the statement in this article 'Had the natural laws of supply and demand survival of the fittest worked, I think we would have seen the culling of many airlines'. the overtones of which imply that Emirates would not have been at risk as one of those airlines. It was however announced on March 31st, the end of the financial year, that Emirates is to be given a capital injection by the Dubai government. In my opinion, STC comes across as being self righteous, yet fails to see the error of his ways in his stewardship of EK. The company has lost direction in recent years, relying on thin margins and low operating costs to generate modest profits in lucrative times. It always was a risk to defy rational wisdom and order a fleet of behemoth aircraft, which left the airline exposed to any downturns and unable to reduce capacity quickly on thinner routes. Agreed Covid-19 is a black swan event, but even prior to the virus, there were signs that at least a slowdown was probable, yet EK failed to position itself.

His statement that the A380 era is over and the way forward is contrary to what he was quoted just a few months ago in November. He criticises BA for not ordering 'hundreds' of A380, and admonishes Airbus for cancelling the program.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emi ... -use-a380/

I agree the world has massively changed, but my argument is that EK were left with an unnecessary exposure to the possibility of a retraction in demand, and lacking in foresight.
As he contemplates retirement I wonder whether he rues not letting go of the reigns a little sooner, as his reputation is certainly tarnished.
 
THS214
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Wed May 06, 2020 4:37 pm

ewt340 wrote:
THS214 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

You don't understand. The reason EK's cargo could dominate is to provide a bottom rock price that resulted on losses just to keep the business going.
Truth is, whichever cheaper options available. Those options gonna get popular.

Southeast Asia/South Asia - Africa/Europe would also be a big factor for them. Also, let's be realistic here, majority of products gonna come from Canton region, Vietnam, Bangladesh and India.

You don't use the straight line to determine which routes work. You determine by price. It might be longer by 60-900 miles sure, but if it's $10,000 cheaper, do you think they would just slide it off when the difference is less than 1-3 hour flights?


I fully understand. You wrote " Dubai location is just in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe." and its not true. Now you write that price is what matters and I fully agree. But that is not what you wrote and what I responded.


Uhmm sir, the map said otherwise. Dubai is located in the middle east. It's a perfect crossroad between southeast asia/south asia to Europe or East asia and Africa.


I agree that but that is not what you wrote initially that I replied. " Dubai location is just in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe." and that is not true. Now you write totally different. Its clear that you can't admit being wrong and you write something totally different. Was that what you wrote initially or not? I know the answer so I leave it here.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Wed May 06, 2020 9:38 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

There are things that you cannot teleconference. As such, airlines will always be viable businesses. We have had 9/11, the .com bubble, the 2008 recession and now covid which is likely to be followed by another deeper recession. Once debt gets to manageable levels, economies will grow, travel will come back.


I agree with this, and the present situation actually illustrates your point. Yes, videoconferencing has its uses; but it is patently obvious that it is not an eternal substitute for face-to-face meetings. We are relying it now exclusively because we have to, not because it's an optimal solution for everything if alternatives are available.
 
tayaramecanici
Posts: 255
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:03 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Wed May 06, 2020 9:58 pm

myki wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
PANAMsterdam wrote:
Additional problem for EK is that they are located in a country that lives on and breathes oil.

There is hardly any oil in the country.

I recall reading somewhere (happy to be corrected!) that Abu Dhabi emirate has 20 years of oil left, so yes there is oil left in the country but doesn't mean they need to share the dirhams around with the rest of the country ...


Whilst living in DXB in the 90's, i was told by an UAE vatani, AUH has over 500B-BL of Oil. He told me that AUH airport is floating on OIL. That will be the last well to be digged.
AUH Sovereign fund is close to $1T.
''You are as good as your nearest competitor'' Bob Crandall.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Thu May 07, 2020 12:19 am

THS214 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
THS214 wrote:

I fully understand. You wrote " Dubai location is just in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe." and its not true. Now you write that price is what matters and I fully agree. But that is not what you wrote and what I responded.


Uhmm sir, the map said otherwise. Dubai is located in the middle east. It's a perfect crossroad between southeast asia/south asia to Europe or East asia and Africa.


I agree that but that is not what you wrote initially that I replied. " Dubai location is just in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe." and that is not true. Now you write totally different. Its clear that you can't admit being wrong and you write something totally different. Was that what you wrote initially or not? I know the answer so I leave it here.


Please stop blowing things out of proportions. We all have access to google map, we could see that Dubai is in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe. Stop arguing about facts.

If you don't know, South Asia, Southeast Asia and East Asia are actually part of Asia if you could believe that D'oh. Flying from East Asia to Africa, or from Southeast Asia/South Asia to Europe. You would cross the middle east for most of the time. Dubai is located in the middle east.

There, some logic for consideration. I can't believe I have to explain this....
 
THS214
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Thu May 07, 2020 8:58 pm

ewt340 wrote:
THS214 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

Uhmm sir, the map said otherwise. Dubai is located in the middle east. It's a perfect crossroad between southeast asia/south asia to Europe or East asia and Africa.


I agree that but that is not what you wrote initially that I replied. " Dubai location is just in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe." and that is not true. Now you write totally different. Its clear that you can't admit being wrong and you write something totally different. Was that what you wrote initially or not? I know the answer so I leave it here.


Please stop blowing things out of proportions. We all have access to google map, we could see that Dubai is in the middle between Asia and Africa/Europe. Stop arguing about facts.

If you don't know, South Asia, Southeast Asia and East Asia are actually part of Asia if you could believe that D'oh. Flying from East Asia to Africa, or from Southeast Asia/South Asia to Europe. You would cross the middle east for most of the time. Dubai is located in the middle east.

There, some logic for consideration. I can't believe I have to explain this....


You use Google maps, that explains it. In Google maps world is flat. Use great circle map for real life.

For example http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=del-vie%2C ... 450&SU=kts (hope this works)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Fri May 08, 2020 2:35 am

Dirigible wrote:
Curious about the statement in this article 'Had the natural laws of supply and demand survival of the fittest worked, I think we would have seen the culling of many airlines'. the overtones of which imply that Emirates would not have been at risk as one of those airlines. It was however announced on March 31st, the end of the financial year, that Emirates is to be given a capital injection by the Dubai government. In my opinion, STC comes across as being self righteous, yet fails to see the error of his ways in his stewardship of EK. The company has lost direction in recent years, relying on thin margins and low operating costs to generate modest profits in lucrative times. It always was a risk to defy rational wisdom and order a fleet of behemoth aircraft, which left the airline exposed to any downturns and unable to reduce capacity quickly on thinner routes. Agreed Covid-19 is a black swan event, but even prior to the virus, there were signs that at least a slowdown was probable, yet EK failed to position itself.

His statement that the A380 era is over and the way forward is contrary to what he was quoted just a few months ago in November. He criticises BA for not ordering 'hundreds' of A380, and admonishes Airbus for cancelling the program.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emi ... -use-a380/

I agree the world has massively changed, but my argument is that EK were left with an unnecessary exposure to the possibility of a retraction in demand, and lacking in foresight.
As he contemplates retirement I wonder whether he rues not letting go of the reigns a little sooner, as his reputation is certainly tarnished.

dtw2hyd wrote:
I didn't start the thread about possible future of EK. Every airline is vulnerable, but most are better prepared including QR and EY. EK is not. EK took a lot of wrong decisions over decades, putting itself in a much vulnerable position,

EK seems to be banking on the idea every country will let go their airlines, so EK can gain bigger share. As always never planned for a "what if every country bailouts their own airlines". Just like never planned for "what if we cannot fill a A380 or 77W".

U-Turn Al wrote a nice letter to all crew members explaining why their jobs will be redundant, very reasonable, no fluff. Let's see how Sir Totally Clueless handles the situation, who is still talking about A380. Which lessor/financier is saying it is ok Sir TC, if you don't like we will take all those A380s back, BTW how many new planes you want to order.

I think these are fair criticisms. STC seems to be great at firing both barrels at others, not so good at issuing critiques of his own decisions. It is ludicrous for him to suggest that others are taking unfair advantages when EK has been owned by the government since inception and he's now in line to drink at the government trough.

SurlyBonds wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
There are things that you cannot teleconference. As such, airlines will always be viable businesses. We have had 9/11, the .com bubble, the 2008 recession and now covid which is likely to be followed by another deeper recession. Once debt gets to manageable levels, economies will grow, travel will come back.

I agree with this, and the present situation actually illustrates your point. Yes, videoconferencing has its uses; but it is patently obvious that it is not an eternal substitute for face-to-face meetings. We are relying it now exclusively because we have to, not because it's an optimal solution for everything if alternatives are available.

That is an exaggeration if I've ever heard one. No one is saying it is an eternal substitute for face to face meetings but I am sure it will reduce the amount of travel for face to face meetings going forward tremendously. A large percentage of the workforce that once were travel candidates now has the equipment to do teleconferencing and has installed at least one set of software to do it. I myself have used Webex, Zoom, Hangouts and Skype in the last week alone. The barrier to entry has been broken. Going forward travel budgets are going to be scrutinized heavily and I bet it will take VP level signatures to get travel approved.

And no, this is not 9/11/2001 or 2008. Back then few had fast enough computers or fast enough networks to do teleconferences of dozens of people. Now homes have enough bandwidth and standard laptops, tablets and phones have enough computing speed to do teleconferencing. A large percentage of the work force has been forced to figure out the hardware and software aspects of teleconferencing and what is learned does not get easily unlearned. This did not happen en masse in 2008 or 2001.

Think of the person who's now a junior level employee working from home. Do you think they're ever going to forget how business got done during this period? I doubt it. So as they rise up the management chain they aren't going to be signing off on big trips when they know much of it can be done by teleconferencing. They probably aren't going to be willing to sacrifice their private lifes to make trips they know can be done via teleconferencing. Sure, some things will still require hands on or face to face attention but it won't be a lot.

In summary, the genie is not going back in the bottle. Mangers will think twice about approving business travel. Tourists will think twice about getting on a cruise ship where a viral outbreak can put their lives in peril. People will sell 2nd homes because they worry about future international health care and border crossing issues. I have one extended family member who just put their 2nd home on the market, and another who withdrew a bid on a 2nd home in a foreign country. This indicates to me that VFR traffic will be down. People will hunker down closer to home even after COVID-19 becomes a non event, IMO.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Airlinerdude
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:07 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Fri May 08, 2020 2:46 am

Contrary to popular opinion on this forum, I think it's very possible that this pandemic has killed the chances of Emirates taking any of the 789 orders. There will soon be an excessive amount of wide body aircraft coming onto the market which will make it a lessee's market for a few years to come. Extending a lease on a 12 year old 77W might soon become much cheaper than leasing a brand new 789 and make the economics of keeping their 77Ws more favourable than new 789s in EK's network. Taking into account the savings of not having to induct an entire new fleet type for just 30 frames, it might be enough to sway Emirates.
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Fri May 08, 2020 2:59 am

Airlinerdude wrote:
Contrary to popular opinion on this forum, I think it's very possible that this pandemic has killed the chances of Emirates taking any of the 789 orders. There will soon be an excessive amount of wide body aircraft coming onto the market which will make it a lessee's market for a few years to come. Extending a lease on a 12 year old 77W might soon become much cheaper than leasing a brand new 789 and make the economics of keeping their 77Ws more favourable than new 789s in EK's network. Taking into account the savings of not having to induct an entire new fleet type for just 30 frames, it might be enough to sway Emirates.


Exact same for the 30 A350s as well too.

Wonder why you did not the mention thems also too.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Fri May 08, 2020 3:50 am

Revelation wrote:
That is an exaggeration if I've ever heard one. No one is saying it is an eternal substitute for face to face meetings but I am sure it will reduce the amount of travel for face to face meetings going forward tremendously. A large percentage of the workforce that once were travel candidates now has the equipment to do teleconferencing and has installed at least one set of software to do it. I myself have used Webex, Zoom, Hangouts and Skype in the last week alone. The barrier to entry has been broken. Going forward travel budgets are going to be scrutinized heavily and I bet it will take VP level signatures to get travel approved.


I disagree with this view, for several reasons.

First, look at history. After every recession, people like Revelation have predicted that "business travel will never come back." But it always does. Teleconferencing has been common since, what, the late 1980s? (A Google search suggests it's been around even earlier than that.) The only thing that's changed now is that you can add a videoconferencing element with less fancy equipment; anecdotally, it seems to me that a lot of people turned off the cameras after the first couple of weeks. If either of these technologies were going to put an end to business travel, it would have happened long, long ago.

Second, we've seen myriad reports that people are less productive on conference calls: "you're on mute." "I got disconnected." "I hear a crying baby." "We can see you, but not hear you." Parodies of how inefficient they are are but a YouTube search away. And beyond that, there is the difficulty of making character assessments remotely. You can't easily read someone's body language on a conference call. You can't ask really probing questions if you're doing diligence on a company. You can't see telltale signs -- what Malcolm Gladwell called "thin slicing" -- of things that are wrong at a company, or for that matter things that are right, via a conference call. Scripted calls when people are on their best behavior are no substitute for site visits.

Third, everyone now associates endless conference calls with what may be one of the most harrowing, isolating, and alienating experiences of their lives -- the Pandemic of '20. Budget or not, this is not an experience people will want to repeat.

Fourth, don't discount the benefit of travel on employee morale. I'm in finance, and I've worked on both the sell side and buy side in business and legal functions. Nearly every single person I've worked with thrives on business travel and, to some degree, views it as a perk. A long time ago, I read some advice in a career guide for undergraduates thinking of entering strategy consulting: "do airplanes make you happy or sad? If the former, you'll like consulting; if the latter, you'll hate it." Those who tire of it leave, but for those who like it, it would take a *lot* more compensation to get them to stay behind a desk. That's before we get to missed networking opportunities at places like investor conferences.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Fri May 08, 2020 4:51 am

Revelation wrote:
Dirigible wrote:
Curious about the statement in this article 'Had the natural laws of supply and demand survival of the fittest worked, I think we would have seen the culling of many airlines'. the overtones of which imply that Emirates would not have been at risk as one of those airlines. It was however announced on March 31st, the end of the financial year, that Emirates is to be given a capital injection by the Dubai government. In my opinion, STC comes across as being self righteous, yet fails to see the error of his ways in his stewardship of EK. The company has lost direction in recent years, relying on thin margins and low operating costs to generate modest profits in lucrative times. It always was a risk to defy rational wisdom and order a fleet of behemoth aircraft, which left the airline exposed to any downturns and unable to reduce capacity quickly on thinner routes. Agreed Covid-19 is a black swan event, but even prior to the virus, there were signs that at least a slowdown was probable, yet EK failed to position itself.

His statement that the A380 era is over and the way forward is contrary to what he was quoted just a few months ago in November. He criticises BA for not ordering 'hundreds' of A380, and admonishes Airbus for cancelling the program.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emi ... -use-a380/

I agree the world has massively changed, but my argument is that EK were left with an unnecessary exposure to the possibility of a retraction in demand, and lacking in foresight.
As he contemplates retirement I wonder whether he rues not letting go of the reigns a little sooner, as his reputation is certainly tarnished.

dtw2hyd wrote:
I didn't start the thread about possible future of EK. Every airline is vulnerable, but most are better prepared including QR and EY. EK is not. EK took a lot of wrong decisions over decades, putting itself in a much vulnerable position,

EK seems to be banking on the idea every country will let go their airlines, so EK can gain bigger share. As always never planned for a "what if every country bailouts their own airlines". Just like never planned for "what if we cannot fill a A380 or 77W".

U-Turn Al wrote a nice letter to all crew members explaining why their jobs will be redundant, very reasonable, no fluff. Let's see how Sir Totally Clueless handles the situation, who is still talking about A380. Which lessor/financier is saying it is ok Sir TC, if you don't like we will take all those A380s back, BTW how many new planes you want to order.

I think these are fair criticisms. STC seems to be great at firing both barrels at others, not so good at issuing critiques of his own decisions. It is ludicrous for him to suggest that others are taking unfair advantages when EK has been owned by the government since inception and he's now in line to drink at the government trough.

SurlyBonds wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
There are things that you cannot teleconference. As such, airlines will always be viable businesses. We have had 9/11, the .com bubble, the 2008 recession and now covid which is likely to be followed by another deeper recession. Once debt gets to manageable levels, economies will grow, travel will come back.

I agree with this, and the present situation actually illustrates your point. Yes, videoconferencing has its uses; but it is patently obvious that it is not an eternal substitute for face-to-face meetings. We are relying it now exclusively because we have to, not because it's an optimal solution for everything if alternatives are available.

That is an exaggeration if I've ever heard one. No one is saying it is an eternal substitute for face to face meetings but I am sure it will reduce the amount of travel for face to face meetings going forward tremendously. A large percentage of the workforce that once were travel candidates now has the equipment to do teleconferencing and has installed at least one set of software to do it. I myself have used Webex, Zoom, Hangouts and Skype in the last week alone. The barrier to entry has been broken. Going forward travel budgets are going to be scrutinized heavily and I bet it will take VP level signatures to get travel approved.

And no, this is not 9/11/2001 or 2008. Back then few had fast enough computers or fast enough networks to do teleconferences of dozens of people. Now homes have enough bandwidth and standard laptops, tablets and phones have enough computing speed to do teleconferencing. A large percentage of the work force has been forced to figure out the hardware and software aspects of teleconferencing and what is learned does not get easily unlearned. This did not happen en masse in 2008 or 2001.

Think of the person who's now a junior level employee working from home. Do you think they're ever going to forget how business got done during this period? I doubt it. So as they rise up the management chain they aren't going to be signing off on big trips when they know much of it can be done by teleconferencing. They probably aren't going to be willing to sacrifice their private lifes to make trips they know can be done via teleconferencing. Sure, some things will still require hands on or face to face attention but it won't be a lot.

In summary, the genie is not going back in the bottle. Mangers will think twice about approving business travel. Tourists will think twice about getting on a cruise ship where a viral outbreak can put their lives in peril. People will sell 2nd homes because they worry about future international health care and border crossing issues. I have one extended family member who just put their 2nd home on the market, and another who withdrew a bid on a 2nd home in a foreign country. This indicates to me that VFR traffic will be down. People will hunker down closer to home even after COVID-19 becomes a non event, IMO.
People underestimate just how many businesses have closed shop.
People underestimate how quick populations are to forget.
People overestimate the use of tech when it comes to replacing face to face meetings. If you are not traveling, competitors will eat you alive for all manner of reasons across different industries.

So,
Where are you traveling to with so many countries blocking air travel?
Where is the demand for products when people are not working?
Where is the production if there is no consumption?
Where there is demand, what are the supply chain issues being faced even in essential goods? Look at farming worldwide and just how many products are going to waste, or how Wendy's stated that they have supply chain issues and are running out of beef. Same business, two different problems either on demand, or logistics of supply.

Travel will take time to come back, that is a function of economics. There is too much debt in the system, economies will take time to ramp up (and even longer if the expected recession that was projected before Covid19 hits), this is something that will hit consumer spending. There won't be as many jobs coming back either, because demand will not be at the same level.
As for people not looking to buy a second home, or travel.........well, this is normal. If we have a recession, or weakened demand, asset prices will drop. It is also normal that when economies have shrunk that people want curb spending until they are sure that things will be back to normal. Consumer spending habits are the first to go when a recession hits, and they are the last to recover.....huge swings from taking debt, to having savings for a rainy day.
 
Airlinerdude
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:07 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Fri May 08, 2020 4:52 am

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Exact same for the 30 A350s as well too.

Wonder why you did not the mention thems also too.


For two reasons:
1. The hot and high performance on the A350 has been pointed out by those in this forum to be superior, which is an important factor for operating out of DXB during the summer.
2. That EK would probably have some significant contract cancellation fees given these aircraft were mostly substitutes for their 380 order.

In terms of the 777-9, it's a fantastic aircraft that still has potential in being a huge success at Emirates. After all, it is designed right to EK's specs. Though I can't envision EK receiving these aircraft at such a high rate for the foreseeable future. Perhaps the delivery schedule will have to be prolonged to match what I see as slower retirements of existing 77Ws should leases be extended.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Fri May 08, 2020 4:52 am

SurlyBonds wrote:
Revelation wrote:
That is an exaggeration if I've ever heard one. No one is saying it is an eternal substitute for face to face meetings but I am sure it will reduce the amount of travel for face to face meetings going forward tremendously. A large percentage of the workforce that once were travel candidates now has the equipment to do teleconferencing and has installed at least one set of software to do it. I myself have used Webex, Zoom, Hangouts and Skype in the last week alone. The barrier to entry has been broken. Going forward travel budgets are going to be scrutinized heavily and I bet it will take VP level signatures to get travel approved.


I disagree with this view, for several reasons.

First, look at history. After every recession, people like Revelation have predicted that "business travel will never come back." But it always does. Teleconferencing has been common since, what, the late 1980s? (A Google search suggests it's been around even earlier than that.) The only thing that's changed now is that you can add a videoconferencing element with less fancy equipment; anecdotally, it seems to me that a lot of people turned off the cameras after the first couple of weeks. If either of these technologies were going to put an end to business travel, it would have happened long, long ago.

Second, we've seen myriad reports that people are less productive on conference calls: "you're on mute." "I got disconnected." "I hear a crying baby." "We can see you, but not hear you." Parodies of how inefficient they are are but a YouTube search away. And beyond that, there is the difficulty of making character assessments remotely. You can't easily read someone's body language on a conference call. You can't ask really probing questions if you're doing diligence on a company. You can't see telltale signs -- what Malcolm Gladwell called "thin slicing" -- of things that are wrong at a company, or for that matter things that are right, via a conference call. Scripted calls when people are on their best behavior are no substitute for site visits.

Third, everyone now associates endless conference calls with what may be one of the most harrowing, isolating, and alienating experiences of their lives -- the Pandemic of '20. Budget or not, this is not an experience people will want to repeat.

Fourth, don't discount the benefit of travel on employee morale. I'm in finance, and I've worked on both the sell side and buy side in business and legal functions. Nearly every single person I've worked with thrives on business travel and, to some degree, views it as a perk. A long time ago, I read some advice in a career guide for undergraduates thinking of entering strategy consulting: "do airplanes make you happy or sad? If the former, you'll like consulting; if the latter, you'll hate it." Those who tire of it leave, but for those who like it, it would take a *lot* more compensation to get them to stay behind a desk. That's before we get to missed networking opportunities at places like investor conferences.


Agreed. There is no long term substitute for face to face communication. Business is about relationships, and a key component is being with the person. How big of a check would I write to someone whom I've never personally met? Not a very big one.

Looping back to EK, it will be interesting. There is a lot of doom and gloom reporting, as is typical during the bottom of recessions, but it usually proves excessive because the human element is not factored in. EK has a lot going against it, but how well EK responds will matter even more.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: EK's possible future?

Fri May 08, 2020 5:10 am

SurlyBonds wrote:
Revelation wrote:
That is an exaggeration if I've ever heard one. No one is saying it is an eternal substitute for face to face meetings but I am sure it will reduce the amount of travel for face to face meetings going forward tremendously. A large percentage of the workforce that once were travel candidates now has the equipment to do teleconferencing and has installed at least one set of software to do it. I myself have used Webex, Zoom, Hangouts and Skype in the last week alone. The barrier to entry has been broken. Going forward travel budgets are going to be scrutinized heavily and I bet it will take VP level signatures to get travel approved.


I disagree with this view, for several reasons.

First, look at history. After every recession, people like Revelation have predicted that "business travel will never come back." But it always does. Teleconferencing has been common since, what, the late 1980s? (A Google search suggests it's been around even earlier than that.) The only thing that's changed now is that you can add a videoconferencing element with less fancy equipment; anecdotally, it seems to me that a lot of people turned off the cameras after the first couple of weeks. If either of these technologies were going to put an end to business travel, it would have happened long, long ago.

Second, we've seen myriad reports that people are less productive on conference calls: "you're on mute." "I got disconnected." "I hear a crying baby." "We can see you, but not hear you." Parodies of how inefficient they are are but a YouTube search away. And beyond that, there is the difficulty of making character assessments remotely. You can't easily read someone's body language on a conference call. You can't ask really probing questions if you're doing diligence on a company. You can't see telltale signs -- what Malcolm Gladwell called "thin slicing" -- of things that are wrong at a company, or for that matter things that are right, via a conference call. Scripted calls when people are on their best behavior are no substitute for site visits.

Third, everyone now associates endless conference calls with what may be one of the most harrowing, isolating, and alienating experiences of their lives -- the Pandemic of '20. Budget or not, this is not an experience people will want to repeat.

Fourth, don't discount the benefit of travel on employee morale. I'm in finance, and I've worked on both the sell side and buy side in business and legal functions. Nearly every single person I've worked with thrives on business travel and, to some degree, views it as a perk. A long time ago, I read some advice in a career guide for undergraduates thinking of entering strategy consulting: "do airplanes make you happy or sad? If the former, you'll like consulting; if the latter, you'll hate it." Those who tire of it leave, but for those who like it, it would take a *lot* more compensation to get them to stay behind a desk. That's before we get to missed networking opportunities at places like investor conferences.
I think that people underestimate, and rather gravely just how much travel means to business. It is not simply looking at big business. There is a lot of small business that needs to travel to make everything work, networking opportunities that lead to partnerships, and when I used to do investment banking, some of these meets was where you really got to see first hand how much better or worse some of the competitors were doing when it came to offering investment products. While in science, you probably needed not travel, you could simply wait for an academic paper; but these conferences have been key in how relationships are cultivated and new projects initiated.

I have seen it all, from individuals traveling to Europe/Asia to buy finished goods, people going to African countries for precious metals, people going to India for pharmaceutical products, testing to see that they work as designed, investment banking forums, tourism board meets, music industry etc. If as a business you are not traveling, you will soon be out of business either losing employees, or more importantly, losing clientele.

It also does not take into consideration what some communities are and the culture there exists behind building relationships.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: EK's possible future?

Fri May 08, 2020 6:04 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
International VFR
1) Do people wish to travel, yes humans always want to travel
2) Can people afford to travel. Depends on economy, most likely people will cut discretionary spending
3) Do countries welcome international tourists with open arms. In pre-COVID19, if you are bringing enough cash to spend, you were welcome, now are you carrying a highly communicable disease.

Do you not understand that VFR is not the equivalent of vacation/holiday travel, though?
The latter is far more elastic than the former.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 31

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos