Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

DolphinAir747 · Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:08 pm

EY and QR have much more extensive networks in China. Why doesn't EK fly to more cities?

tortugamon · Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:58 pm

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Thread starter):
EY and QR have much more extensive networks in China.

Is this true? I believe QR has 5 mainland China destinations but doesn't EY have the same number of destinations as EK (3)? They do swap CTU/CAN fro their third. Also EK flies A380s to PEK and PVG I believe while QR operates 77Ws. I haven't looked at whether or not frequencies are daily but EK and QR seem quite close in terms of total cities and EY appears to be have the least capacity to China.

tortugamon

flyboy_se · Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:49 pm

QR flies to PEK (B777+B777), PVG (B777), HGH (A330), CAN (B777), CKG (A330) and CTU (A330)

EK flies to PEK (A380+B777) , PVG (A380+B777) and CAN (B777)

EY flies to PEK (A330) , CTU (A330) , PVG (A330)

I did not count HKG to any airline.

Note that QR flies only PEK 2 daily, while EK flies both PEK and PVG 2 daily.

LAXintl · Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:54 am

Bilaterals.

UAE frequency and destination rights must be split between EK, EY, FZ and G9.

Lastest ASA was signed in 2013.
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/uae-c...al-expand-air-services-514425.html

=

thekorean · Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:05 am

Like Canada, don't expect that to change soon. Chinese government will want to proteect their babies. And they make no bones about it.

WorldspotterPL · Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:02 am

Does anyone know the exact frequency/destination limits of the bilaterals with UAE and Qatar?

The article only states an "increase [in] passenger and combination services frequencies for operations to Urumqi, Xining, Kashgar, Yinchuan and Zhengzhou.", which all seem very nichy.

DolphinAir747 · Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:07 am

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 5):

The article only states an "increase [in] passenger and combination services frequencies for operations to Urumqi, Xining, Kashgar, Yinchuan and Zhengzhou.", which all seem very nichy.

URC and KHG probably have traffic to the Middle East as they are mostly Muslim areas. CZ already flies some Middle Eastern and Central Asian routes out of URC.

SCQ83 · Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:37 am

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 5):
The article only states an "increase [in] passenger and combination services frequencies for operations to Urumqi, Xining, Kashgar, Yinchuan and Zhengzhou.", which all seem very nichy.

Sichuan Airlines is actually starting Yinchuan-Dubai according to Wikipedia.

hz747300 · Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:50 am

Bi-laterals would be the answer then.

If you are looking ex-Europe to China via Dubai, I also think the Chinese carriers are cheap enough that EK and the others lose their typical advantage. The further north in China your destination is, the more this is true too.

I am a little surprised that ex-Dubai at least to the numerous African destinations where China has multiple infrastructure and mining projects, natural resources, et al..., that there is not more traffic on these routes.

winginit · Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:30 pm

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Thread starter):
EY and QR have much more extensive networks in China. Why doesn't EK fly to more cities?

???

What's your source? Unless I've misclicked in DIIO the data shows that the opposite of what you've claimed is true for FY2015

PhoenixVIP · Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:40 pm

There's actually enough flights out of China to European destinations that sort of negates any need for EK to come involved. EK works as a transit hub where the Chinese airlines, and let's add CX in, act like that too. HU is using the 787s as the opportunity to open new markets and Chinese carriers are increasing their aircraft size and frequency for main routes too from PEK and PVG. Yes DXB is a popular tourist destination but not enough to justify the dumping of A380s on these sort of routes as yet. The fares and routes are good enough to not necessitate any ME3 to join the fray.

jetblue1965 · Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:59 pm

China is smart that they allow the gradual build-up and strengthening of home grown carriers. Now CA MU CZ and HU are reaching the point where they're self sustainable against international competitors.

Just look at what happened to India - they signed bilaterals without thinking through all the consequences, and now EK/QR became the de-facto long-haul carriers for India, and that nation has nearly no hope of ever bringing 9W and AI up to a point where they're meaningful competitive on the world stage. Of course, GoI's policy of forcing strong startups to engage in domestic-only for years is resulting in significant overcapacity (e.g. "destructive growth") while EK is eating all their lunch.

winginit · Mon Aug 31, 2015 2:20 pm

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 10):
There's actually enough flights out of China to European destinations that sort of negates any need for EK to come involved.

Would we not argue that EK is already involved? That's a decent chunk of capacity.

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 10):
Yes DXB is a popular tourist destination but not enough to justify the dumping of A380s on these sort of routes as yet.

They already deploy a daily A380 to both PVG and PEK to compliment their 77W services to each of those airports as well. While it's not an avalanche of capacity comparable to say European gateways, it's not insignificant.

lightsaber · Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:46 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):

Thank you. I know EK has tried for more, but did not succeed.

While I think long term China would benefit from more flights, short term more capacity would flood the market. I'm sure EK could make a profit with 5X to 6X A380 a day to PEK and PVG, it just won't happen. I calculated that EK could fill a daily 77W down to China's #43 airport if no more than 10 additional ME3+TK daily flights were added.

This will be interesting to follow.

Lightsaber

jetblue1965 · Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:55 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 13):
I calculated that EK could fill a daily 77W down to China's #43 airport if no more than 10 additional ME3+TK daily flights were added.

Just out of curiosity, are you just calculating China to Europe/ME/Africa/SouthAm PDEW from those cities and assuming EK captures 100% of that traffic ?

lightsaber · Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:01 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 14):

I assume growth in traffic. No where near 100% of the traffic. I personally know six executives who need better access to *both* India and China. Since Dubai is the only hub serving both the spouses would live (not India, not China), flight growth would explode demand.

China to Africa is under served.

We're only talking ten more flights per day, that was an important caviet in my post. I know too many people who have foregone a trip to interior China as getting to their next destination had poor options.

Lightsaber

Viscount724 · Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:31 pm

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 10):
There's actually enough flights out of China to European destinations that sort of negates any need for EK to come involved.

From most points in China to major markets in Europe it's also much further via DXB than nonstop, e.g. from PEK to LHR almost 40% further. PVG to LHR almost 30% further

BaconButty · Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:42 pm

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 5):
Does anyone know the exact frequency/destination limits of the bilaterals with UAE and Qatar?

As I understand it, EK are still effectively constrained by the previous 2005 Air Transport Agreement - the 2013 changes excluded them, though I haven't been able to track down the details - that is 35 frequencies per week to PEK, PVG and CAN.

So the answer to the OP is most definitely bilateral constraints - EK are very eager for greater access, CKG and CTU in particular IIRC.

DolphinAir747 · Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:49 pm

Quoting winginit (Reply 9):
???

What's your source? Unless I've misclicked in DIIO the data shows that the opposite of what you've claimed is true for FY2015

See this. I was talking about number of destinations, which your data does not show. EK is bigger in PEK and PVG with double daily A380s but does not have nearly as extensive a network in China.

Quoting flyboy_se (Reply 2):

QR flies to PEK (B777+B777), PVG (B777), HGH (A330), CAN (B777), CKG (A330) and CTU (A330)

EK flies to PEK (A380+B777) , PVG (A380+B777) and CAN (B777)

EY flies to PEK (A330) , CTU (A330) , PVG (A330)

I did not count HKG to any airline.

Note that QR flies only PEK 2 daily, while EK flies both PEK and PVG 2 daily.

PhoenixVIP · Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:01 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16):
From most points in China to major markets in Europe it's also much further via DXB than nonstop, e.g. from PEK to LHR almost 40% further. PVG to LHR almost 30% further

Some placed like, say Manchester, Dublin, Venice, are smaller cities which will eventually get services by mainland Chinese carriers when 787 and A350 come online to make them feasible, otherwise EK is the only sort of carrier in place to facilitate that. It would be a waste of time and money to fly a ME3 carrier to Europe otherwise seeing as carriers like CA cover pretty much all continents across the globe.

Quoting winginit (Reply 12):
They already deploy a daily A380 to both PVG and PEK to compliment their 77W services to each of those airports as well. While it's not an avalanche of capacity comparable to say European gateways, it's not insignificant.

Definitely involved and filled but Chinese carriers haven't been particularly concerned with DXB services especially with MU flying their most clapped out aircraft on this route via a secondary city. But this is exactly what the ME3 business model is so good on them.

Chinese carriers are always more conservative in their growth for international routes and don't have the need to worry about competitors while they are protected though as correctly pointed out earlier, self sufficiency is now the case.

behramjee · Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:39 pm

EK is very strong in the China-Africa market segment in particular and now slowly doing the same for China-Iraq, China-Saudi Arabia plus on a whole there is a massive P2P traffic demand between DXB and PVG/PEK/CAN.

In 2014:

PEK-DXB-PEK...180K pax
CAN-DXB-CAN...174K pax
PVG-DXB-PVG...159K pax

Yes they are relatively strong in certain EU-China market segments such as MAN/BHX/DUS/MXP/LIS/BCN/FCO but not that much in the larger metro cities of CDG/LHR/AMS/FRA/MUC etc

WorldspotterPL · Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:00 am

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 17):
As I understand it, EK are still effectively constrained by the previous 2005 Air Transport Agreement - the 2013 changes excluded them, though I haven't been able to track down the details - that is 35 frequencies per week to PEK, PVG and CAN.

Thanks! I thought it was all about bilaterals. But how come EK is tied to it and EY isn't? How come they are allowed to fly into CTU? Aren't bilaterals usually valid for all airlines of a given country?

And if

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
UAE frequency and destination rights must be split between EK, EY, FZ and G9.

how come EK alone operate 35 frequencies per week?

Either I am missing something or something does not add up.

BaconButty · Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:09 am

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 21):
Either I am missing something or something does not add up.

I can't find the ATA online, but if you look at this document from last year it confirms what I'm saying:

Quote:
The 2005 agreement was generous at the time of its signing, but has not kept pace with the rapid growth of passenger and cargo traffic and demand between China and global markets, including the widely underserved markets of the Middle East and Africa. The 2013 UAE-China Air Services talks provided no immediate opportunity to viably grow Emirates’ operation beyond the existing 35 weekly frequencies to Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.

As a result, Emirates’ plans to develop a western hub via daily flights to Chengdu or Chongqing and the launch
of daily services to Hangzhou are on hold at present.

I can only presume the frequencies in the bilateral are specific to the particular Emirate - quite often individual Emirates negotiate the own ATA's as was the case in the various India bilaterals.

Edit: The link is http://content.emirates.com/download...rates_China_Factsheet_May_2014.pdf

[Edited 2015-09-02 03:12:12]

ojas · Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:48 am

For the record:

(1) Qatar Airways: (31 weekly flights)

* PVG - Daily B77W
* PEK - Daily B77W
* CAN - Daily B77W
* HGH - 4pw A332
* CTU - 3pw A332
* CKG - 3pw A332

(2) Emirates: (35 weekly flights)

* PVG - Daily A380 + Daily B77W
* PEK - Daily A380 + Daily B77W
* CAN - Daily B77W

(3) Etihad Airways: (21 weekly flights)

* PVG - Daily A332
* PEK - Daily A332
* CTU - Daily A332

WorldspotterPL · Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:26 am

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 22):
I can only presume the frequencies in the bilateral are specific to the particular Emirate - quite often individual Emirates negotiate the own ATA's as was the case in the various India bilaterals.

Thanks a lot - you learn something everyday I guess!

Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

RE: Why Isn't EK Stronger In China?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net