Yes, but before this develops into another QF knocking session....EK's 'hugely profitable & popular" service to DXB is almost entirely based on connecting traffic feed to and from Europe and elsewhere, much of which is to secondary cities such as GLA where a one stop service to Oz trumps the BA/QF offerings via LHR & SIN. As BA found with its service to Charlotte in the days after the abandonment of the US Air codeshare, feeding a competitor's hub (as opposed to an alliance hub) isn't clever, even in the extremely unlikely event that the competitor will offer the same add on rates as it charges itself for onward travel from the hub.
There remains the issue of the "real" Oz/DXB O&D market, but even this is a problem as QF would have to compete in the business market with the high frequency EK competition sustained by the hordes of connecting pax. Finally, and unfortunately in the background of all such debates, we also have the economic issue of "a bleeding contest with a bloodbank" in respect of EK's highly questionable cost base and the owners' near monopoly as provider of handling & other services at DXB.
In summary, I suspect that there's enough O&D and intra Middle East transfer traffic to justify a token QF service but full planes aren't necessarily the end of the story, nor is it always wise to follow big markets rather than to find profitable ones.
As an aside, QF's problematic position as a major carrier at the "end of the line" geographically is pretty much unique. Apart from the smaller examples of NZ and maybe SA and LanChile, I can't think of any majors who have to cope with an unhubbable base (other than domestic traffic).
As an outsider, I am amazed by the leeway, actual or contemplated, given by you chaps to EK, SQ and similar "mid point" carriers who pull the Canberra political levers supremely well on behalf of their respective owners, but in reality have bugger all to offer Australia in return for such valuable trades.
To my mind, the solutions seem to be:
1) Fly non stop to Europe with enhanced levels of comfort in all classes as soon as economics, technology and safety allow. Despite the usual luddite mutterings of objection which have preceded any new development since the 6 week steamship trip, passengers will pay for non-stop as long as airlines give a bit of legroom and a few more Y class loos in return. I forecast that in 10 years Oz -bound passengers will happily view SIN and DXB (OK, on a great circle it will be HKG!) from 40,000' in the same way as they now do to Nadi,Honolulu, Wake, Gander and Goose Bay. The guys with a mid-point hub will always have a cost/service advantage as long as an en route stop is required but will be impotent as soon as they can be by-passed. No wonder DXB is working as fast as it can to turn itself into a tourist resort in its own right (yuk!)
2) Licence a second carrier on the Pacific - preferably an Austrlian one or if not, one where the bilateral actually benefits BOTH QF and the overseas. I actually think QF is great but there's no doubt that the high trans Pacific fares (just look at the SYD/LAX price vs LHR) do inhibit tourism to the detriment of other equally worthy Australian businesses.
Cheers from the the sunny home of cricket.