stop fifth freedom rights?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dubai
Age: 44
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. More ignorant tripe about how things work here in the sandpit.
There is a huge difference between Emirates and Ehitad. Emirates was given an initial injection of money from the Dubai royal family and has then had to sort itself out. The only government 'advantage' it has received since is that the government keeps building it bigger and better terminals (the second one, Terminal 4, to open soon will be there solely to facilitate the EK A380s). Apart from that, it operates in the exact same environment as every other airline that flies in and out of Dubai. In this environment, it turned a profit of over US$1 billion last financial year. On the other hand, Ehitad has not turned one cent of profit. The last year has seen a huge drive to reduce costs and end up cost neutral but up until then, it was all about developing the airline. It does, however, have much deeper pockets backing it up but it is way behind Emirates in it's size (and probably always will be). It doesn't fly to as many destinations and does it less frequently than Emirates. However, like Emirates, it gets treated like everyone else who flies through it's home port.
Either of these airlines (and Qatar as well) is far superior to QANTAS in flying to Europe because they fly to a million more cities and do it 20 times more each day. For example, Emirates flies to Heathrow and Gatwick - 5 times a day to Heathrow and 3 times to Gatwick. That's 8 flights a day between Dubai and London. This means connections are much better and allow you to choose a time which will suit you better. Then there's the fact that Emirates flies to Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Paris, Rome, Nice, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Munich, Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Milan, Vienna, Prague, Amsterdam, Zurich, Geneva, Athens, Larnaca, St Petersburg, Dublin, Moscow and Istanbul as well in Europe (think I got them all!). Not to mention the soon-to-be 7 cities it flies to in North America or multiple destinations in Africa. This is one huge advantage of flying with Emirates - you want to go to see Prague Castle/Morocco/take your pick, fly Emirates with one stop from Oz. Who else in the world offers that?
Vorsicht, I disagree a bit with your comment on QANTAS not being able to operate enough through traffic. I agree that they can't operate the through traffic from SIN/BKK since it would require B772's at least and loads would probably not quite stack up. But from here, they could easily operate A330's to anywhere in Europe/Africa, which means smaller load to be profitable. I reckon daily to London, Frankfurt, Paris, Rome and Athens would be possible and (if they were allowed to pick up passengers in Dubai - not sure how business sponsorship rules go there) they could make a killing on ex-Dubai traffic. Everyone here knows that Emirates is the most expensive airline out of Dubai, even European 'legacy' carriers are cheaper so they could make a fair bit of dosh from filling the gap.
I wish people would stop with the rubbish about the carriers here. They operate in the same environment as everyone else here - if the environment is better for an airline business, that's hardly Emirates'/Ehitad's fault and it is definitely not their fault if their competition don't take advantage of the same environment. Emirates is doing as well as it is because of geography and hence it is able to offer a very good product for a damned good price. QANTAS could try and at least match it but that would involve acknowledging the role of it's front line workers (and not browbeating them), investing in new aircraft and adding to the mainline business - things that we all know that senior management do NOT want to do. As far as I am concerned, why should they receive support from the public in the form of removal of fifth freedom rights when they have made stupid decision after stupid decision?
There is a huge difference between Emirates and Ehitad. Emirates was given an initial injection of money from the Dubai royal family and has then had to sort itself out. The only government 'advantage' it has received since is that the government keeps building it bigger and better terminals (the second one, Terminal 4, to open soon will be there solely to facilitate the EK A380s). Apart from that, it operates in the exact same environment as every other airline that flies in and out of Dubai. In this environment, it turned a profit of over US$1 billion last financial year. On the other hand, Ehitad has not turned one cent of profit. The last year has seen a huge drive to reduce costs and end up cost neutral but up until then, it was all about developing the airline. It does, however, have much deeper pockets backing it up but it is way behind Emirates in it's size (and probably always will be). It doesn't fly to as many destinations and does it less frequently than Emirates. However, like Emirates, it gets treated like everyone else who flies through it's home port.
Either of these airlines (and Qatar as well) is far superior to QANTAS in flying to Europe because they fly to a million more cities and do it 20 times more each day. For example, Emirates flies to Heathrow and Gatwick - 5 times a day to Heathrow and 3 times to Gatwick. That's 8 flights a day between Dubai and London. This means connections are much better and allow you to choose a time which will suit you better. Then there's the fact that Emirates flies to Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Paris, Rome, Nice, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Munich, Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Milan, Vienna, Prague, Amsterdam, Zurich, Geneva, Athens, Larnaca, St Petersburg, Dublin, Moscow and Istanbul as well in Europe (think I got them all!). Not to mention the soon-to-be 7 cities it flies to in North America or multiple destinations in Africa. This is one huge advantage of flying with Emirates - you want to go to see Prague Castle/Morocco/take your pick, fly Emirates with one stop from Oz. Who else in the world offers that?
Vorsicht, I disagree a bit with your comment on QANTAS not being able to operate enough through traffic. I agree that they can't operate the through traffic from SIN/BKK since it would require B772's at least and loads would probably not quite stack up. But from here, they could easily operate A330's to anywhere in Europe/Africa, which means smaller load to be profitable. I reckon daily to London, Frankfurt, Paris, Rome and Athens would be possible and (if they were allowed to pick up passengers in Dubai - not sure how business sponsorship rules go there) they could make a killing on ex-Dubai traffic. Everyone here knows that Emirates is the most expensive airline out of Dubai, even European 'legacy' carriers are cheaper so they could make a fair bit of dosh from filling the gap.
I wish people would stop with the rubbish about the carriers here. They operate in the same environment as everyone else here - if the environment is better for an airline business, that's hardly Emirates'/Ehitad's fault and it is definitely not their fault if their competition don't take advantage of the same environment. Emirates is doing as well as it is because of geography and hence it is able to offer a very good product for a damned good price. QANTAS could try and at least match it but that would involve acknowledging the role of it's front line workers (and not browbeating them), investing in new aircraft and adding to the mainline business - things that we all know that senior management do NOT want to do. As far as I am concerned, why should they receive support from the public in the form of removal of fifth freedom rights when they have made stupid decision after stupid decision?
Wow. More ignorant tripe about how things work here in the sandpit.
They operate in the same environment as everyone else here
1. Emirates has virtually unlimited funds at almost 0% interest
2. It pays NO tax on fuel in Dubai that has a cost price of less than 50% what QF pays in SYD
3. It pays none of the taxes that Qantas has to pay in relation to its employee base
4. It pays no income tax
5. No GST
6. It has by the way of a complicated corporate structure subsidies/commissions paid to it for helping promote Dubai as a destination.
7. It has a unique geographic location that Qantas doesn't have
8. It does not have to pay fees to ASIC and/or dividends to sharheolders like a public company nor payroll taxes and/or superannuation
9. It pays its staff on average way less than Qantas, making its overheads dramatically less
In summary Emirates has almost unlimited funds, SIGNIFICANTLY less overheads, a geographic advantage and an almost unlimited access to world markets
definitely not their fault if their competition don't take advantage of the same environment
The likes of EK have HUGE operating advantages that other airlines cannot replicate
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an idea. Maybe I should set up an airline that
1. Struggles to get funds at high interest rates
2. In a country that has high tax rates
3. In an environment where the government provides no subsidies or assistance like building new terminals for helping tourism
4. With its main base in a $hitty geographical location
5. Then go public so I'm forced to give profits away rather than reinvest in the company
6. And finally pay more than everyone else.
Then lets throw our toys out of the cot and cry unfair that airlines with good business plans are allowed to come into our backyard!
1. Struggles to get funds at high interest rates
2. In a country that has high tax rates
3. In an environment where the government provides no subsidies or assistance like building new terminals for helping tourism
4. With its main base in a $hitty geographical location
5. Then go public so I'm forced to give profits away rather than reinvest in the company
6. And finally pay more than everyone else.
Then lets throw our toys out of the cot and cry unfair that airlines with good business plans are allowed to come into our backyard!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Springfield
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1a can you explain where EK gets its zero interest loans from? Not from the Dubai government, they are broke. EK funds mainly through bonds issued in the global market,a low rate reflects their quality not some deal. QF was funded this way once, and through Government loans and hand outs but decided it was better to mix the debt with some equity and went public. So now that is done, you suggest going back to the old way. Can't have it both ways.
There is no company tax in Dubai, correct. Yet last financial EK paid almost 35% of operating profit to the Government, it was not the other way around. This was a dividend, how much did QF pay out to its owners?
Fuel is purchased through the Singapore exchange, mostly as futures to hedge the price. QF can do this and probably does as well. It is true that when this fuel hits Dubai there's no GST, but There is 4% import tax to pay. Every carrier gassing up in DXB pays the same, maybe EK gets a deal for bulk, I don't know but why not? QF paid the same rate for their 380 that was nice enough to visit a few months back.
EK gets a Government lift because it's policies are pro aviation. Just as Australias are pro Auto or pro mining. In the last 10 years the government has built 3 new terminals and started a new airport. Are you still waiting for the second SYD airport?? Your current one is only open 75% of the time.
If DXB has a geographical advantage then good luck to it, should Australia give some free iron ore to China because they don't have enough, or maybe some uranium to India as they are a bit short as well because they are "disadvantaged"
You have some valid gripes but the object of your blame is misplaced.
I saw Australias problem when your Capt RPTCDeC was standing in his fine blue blazer, probably gazing over his Navy motor boat bobbing at Anchor in Sydney harbor. Australians think they deserve better than the rest, they have pushed for a constant rise in their standard of living, unions have been at it for years to the extent that the Australian worker is priced out of the now open global market. AJ is right, QF needs to shift drastically to another direction to survive. Complaining about the competition is a waste of your now expensive resources...
There is no company tax in Dubai, correct. Yet last financial EK paid almost 35% of operating profit to the Government, it was not the other way around. This was a dividend, how much did QF pay out to its owners?
Fuel is purchased through the Singapore exchange, mostly as futures to hedge the price. QF can do this and probably does as well. It is true that when this fuel hits Dubai there's no GST, but There is 4% import tax to pay. Every carrier gassing up in DXB pays the same, maybe EK gets a deal for bulk, I don't know but why not? QF paid the same rate for their 380 that was nice enough to visit a few months back.
EK gets a Government lift because it's policies are pro aviation. Just as Australias are pro Auto or pro mining. In the last 10 years the government has built 3 new terminals and started a new airport. Are you still waiting for the second SYD airport?? Your current one is only open 75% of the time.
If DXB has a geographical advantage then good luck to it, should Australia give some free iron ore to China because they don't have enough, or maybe some uranium to India as they are a bit short as well because they are "disadvantaged"
You have some valid gripes but the object of your blame is misplaced.
I saw Australias problem when your Capt RPTCDeC was standing in his fine blue blazer, probably gazing over his Navy motor boat bobbing at Anchor in Sydney harbor. Australians think they deserve better than the rest, they have pushed for a constant rise in their standard of living, unions have been at it for years to the extent that the Australian worker is priced out of the now open global market. AJ is right, QF needs to shift drastically to another direction to survive. Complaining about the competition is a waste of your now expensive resources...
Last edited by Praise Jebus; 10th Jan 2012 at 14:24.
Concur Jebus,
The no income tax is a furfie as well. There are literally thousands of locals who are employed under the nationalisation scheme in EK (And all other large organisations), who do nothing. This requires an expat to be employed alongside to do the work. Some of these locals end up as EVP/SVP/VP etc so are on a good wicket. The expat may get a manager title. So there is a huge tax (subsidy) there!
On another issue is the alliance QF belongs to. I have said it before, alliances are good for the leading member and no-one else.
BA managed to get QF to give up two Heathrow slots. Impressive. BA tells QF to feed onto BA through asia now. More impressive.
It's the same with LH telling AC to lobby the Canadian Gov't to block the gulf carriers access to Canada. AC don't fly to the gulf. But LH do.
LH & BA plus many others hate EK and with good reason. They are threat not only to their alliance but also to themselves. And they protect themselves using the alliance.
It would make perfect sense to use DXB as a One World hub as BA and CX use it. So why not QF?
So take a long look at the friends QF keeps. The enemy may be within, and not the gulf carriers at all.
halas
The no income tax is a furfie as well. There are literally thousands of locals who are employed under the nationalisation scheme in EK (And all other large organisations), who do nothing. This requires an expat to be employed alongside to do the work. Some of these locals end up as EVP/SVP/VP etc so are on a good wicket. The expat may get a manager title. So there is a huge tax (subsidy) there!
On another issue is the alliance QF belongs to. I have said it before, alliances are good for the leading member and no-one else.
BA managed to get QF to give up two Heathrow slots. Impressive. BA tells QF to feed onto BA through asia now. More impressive.
It's the same with LH telling AC to lobby the Canadian Gov't to block the gulf carriers access to Canada. AC don't fly to the gulf. But LH do.
LH & BA plus many others hate EK and with good reason. They are threat not only to their alliance but also to themselves. And they protect themselves using the alliance.
It would make perfect sense to use DXB as a One World hub as BA and CX use it. So why not QF?
So take a long look at the friends QF keeps. The enemy may be within, and not the gulf carriers at all.
halas
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok. I am not talking about stopping EK, and the likes flying direct to Oz, or NZ, if they can make it.... but about flying the tasman.... and picking up extra paxc along the way.
I am pretty sure that QF flying AKL-LAX and back is not in NZ's interest either.....
And Canada hasnt stopped EK flying there, direct from DXB... they just told them to get stuffed when it came to EK wanting to fly from Canadia to anywhere else BUT DXB.
which is fair enough, methinks.ie... DXB-YVR-SYD has been blocked... but not YVR-DXB-SYD. but that is a LONG way
I am pretty sure that QF flying AKL-LAX and back is not in NZ's interest either.....
And Canada hasnt stopped EK flying there, direct from DXB... they just told them to get stuffed when it came to EK wanting to fly from Canadia to anywhere else BUT DXB.
which is fair enough, methinks.ie... DXB-YVR-SYD has been blocked... but not YVR-DXB-SYD. but that is a LONG way
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Springfield
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking alliances, didn't QF code share with Etihad on about 20 flight a week to AUH? Should have operated those flights themselves to AUH then Oz pax would have had a one stop access to all most anywhere in the world. Oh, wait VA now does that...
Or a few year ago set up "Gulf Q " in the Dubai free zone as a LCC or feeder and flown loads into DXB and fed them to Europe or Africa and the subcontinent along with other airline's pax. The 777 would be perfect for....or that's right, forgot to post the order form to Boeing...doh!
Or a few year ago set up "Gulf Q " in the Dubai free zone as a LCC or feeder and flown loads into DXB and fed them to Europe or Africa and the subcontinent along with other airline's pax. The 777 would be perfect for....or that's right, forgot to post the order form to Boeing...doh!
You nearly have it apache, but not quite.
Canada restricts EK, EY to limited service to YVR at a level the Canadian government thinks is sufficient to support a market the size of the UAE.
You can buy a ticket on either carrier to Oz/NZ from YVR- no restriction at all.
But AC don't fly to the middle east. LH do, and more importantly the sub-continent, which is the target market they are all trying to protect.
I agree that the Canadians did the right thing. It cost them nothing to say NO!
Some may say it did, as it made void their staging post for their military in the gulf. But there are ways around that.
Speaking of LH....Did you know that they control the minimum price EK/EY etc charge for airfares out of Germany through government regulation? LH set the price and all foreign carriers must not go below that figure. Maybe QF/NZ could do that?
Now that would be real competition!
But then a movie of your choice, a meal and free drinks across the ditch would entice the same ones who use it now?
halas
Canada restricts EK, EY to limited service to YVR at a level the Canadian government thinks is sufficient to support a market the size of the UAE.
You can buy a ticket on either carrier to Oz/NZ from YVR- no restriction at all.
But AC don't fly to the middle east. LH do, and more importantly the sub-continent, which is the target market they are all trying to protect.
I agree that the Canadians did the right thing. It cost them nothing to say NO!
Some may say it did, as it made void their staging post for their military in the gulf. But there are ways around that.
Speaking of LH....Did you know that they control the minimum price EK/EY etc charge for airfares out of Germany through government regulation? LH set the price and all foreign carriers must not go below that figure. Maybe QF/NZ could do that?
Now that would be real competition!
But then a movie of your choice, a meal and free drinks across the ditch would entice the same ones who use it now?
halas
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Auckland New Zealand
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since fifth freedom rights are apparently so bad I guess QF should lose their fifth freedom rights SIN-LHR/FRA and AKL-LAX and BA should lose their SIN-SYD fifth freedom rights too.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dubai
Age: 44
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiwi,
Dead right!
1a,
Obviously didn't make myself clear. Wasn't saying that QANTAS had the same political environment to work in but that anyone who uses Dubai as a base is on pretty much the exact same playing field as Emirates. Of course Dubai is different to Oz (I know this only too well!) but, in it's home base, Emirates gets the same treatment as anyone else. My point being, instead of QANTAS whining about an uneven playing field, why aren't they here taking advantage of it? If they moved their Asian hubs to here, they could take advantage of using smaller aircraft to get to Europe which means more flights and choice, two big reasons why people have left QANTAS for the likes of Emirates.
Please don't tell me to pull my head out of the sand. I have lived here long enough and am cynical enough to be more than awake. Yet, Emirates is a true success story (about the only one!). It may be because it works in a pro-aviation environment (as opposed to QANTAS) but why should that preclude it from having fifth freedom rights? It's growth has been well managed while QANTAS's management is absolutely appalling. That's the true story here, not who has access to what. Cut Emirates, Ehitad, Singapore, Cathay, everyone out of the Oz market and QANTAS would probably be in worse shape than it is now! Bad management is bad management, regardless of the environment and nothing should be done to help it.
Given the problems facing QANTAS, I really don't think anything will be achieved by stopping the likes of Emirates from flying the Tasman. Might make some feel better for a while, but long term, it will hurt Australia's interests.
Dead right!
1a,
Obviously didn't make myself clear. Wasn't saying that QANTAS had the same political environment to work in but that anyone who uses Dubai as a base is on pretty much the exact same playing field as Emirates. Of course Dubai is different to Oz (I know this only too well!) but, in it's home base, Emirates gets the same treatment as anyone else. My point being, instead of QANTAS whining about an uneven playing field, why aren't they here taking advantage of it? If they moved their Asian hubs to here, they could take advantage of using smaller aircraft to get to Europe which means more flights and choice, two big reasons why people have left QANTAS for the likes of Emirates.
Please don't tell me to pull my head out of the sand. I have lived here long enough and am cynical enough to be more than awake. Yet, Emirates is a true success story (about the only one!). It may be because it works in a pro-aviation environment (as opposed to QANTAS) but why should that preclude it from having fifth freedom rights? It's growth has been well managed while QANTAS's management is absolutely appalling. That's the true story here, not who has access to what. Cut Emirates, Ehitad, Singapore, Cathay, everyone out of the Oz market and QANTAS would probably be in worse shape than it is now! Bad management is bad management, regardless of the environment and nothing should be done to help it.
Given the problems facing QANTAS, I really don't think anything will be achieved by stopping the likes of Emirates from flying the Tasman. Might make some feel better for a while, but long term, it will hurt Australia's interests.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I mostly agree with what Vorsicht has to say the part ...
Is not correct.
The deal was done that allowed Emirates access as a ACCC push during the proposed ANZ/QF marriage.
At the time ANZ were flying ex-SYD to LAX and with the tie up between the two the federal government decided to allow foreign airlines access to trans-tasman as a tag on to the ever growing DXB frequency's via Asia (no DCT DXB then).
Then the wedding was off the rat and the kiwi went their separate ways.... but the deal had already been done and EK have been laughing all the way to the bank ever since.
Now for those of you keen on geography open a world map and have a look were EK fly.... the only part of a round the world service they miss is trans pacific. The little jewel that SQ also desperately wanted access to ex SYD for years.
These two knew that upwards of 40% of QF total flight ops profit came from transpac and wanted a piece of the action.
Fastforward 10 years, the dollar has appreciated against the greenback, the US economy is in the rear lav, NZ is gone but Delta and Virgin are on the route and barely breaking even, yields have plummeted as a cumulative result.
I doubt that SQ want back in the game as they only ever enter a new market where they can increase yield. EK would probably want to do it as it would make an interesting ego boost to say they now fly around the world.... and could make for some serious interesting shift patterns for EK 77W crews
No back door deals, EK just happened to be johnny on the spot when the coward st clowns where planning a bit of spit roast kiwi.....
Now who's on top?
No doubt the Arabs have paid handsomely for the privilege
The deal was done that allowed Emirates access as a ACCC push during the proposed ANZ/QF marriage.
At the time ANZ were flying ex-SYD to LAX and with the tie up between the two the federal government decided to allow foreign airlines access to trans-tasman as a tag on to the ever growing DXB frequency's via Asia (no DCT DXB then).
Then the wedding was off the rat and the kiwi went their separate ways.... but the deal had already been done and EK have been laughing all the way to the bank ever since.
Now for those of you keen on geography open a world map and have a look were EK fly.... the only part of a round the world service they miss is trans pacific. The little jewel that SQ also desperately wanted access to ex SYD for years.
These two knew that upwards of 40% of QF total flight ops profit came from transpac and wanted a piece of the action.
Fastforward 10 years, the dollar has appreciated against the greenback, the US economy is in the rear lav, NZ is gone but Delta and Virgin are on the route and barely breaking even, yields have plummeted as a cumulative result.
I doubt that SQ want back in the game as they only ever enter a new market where they can increase yield. EK would probably want to do it as it would make an interesting ego boost to say they now fly around the world.... and could make for some serious interesting shift patterns for EK 77W crews
No back door deals, EK just happened to be johnny on the spot when the coward st clowns where planning a bit of spit roast kiwi.....
Now who's on top?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Battle royale - EK vs QF ding ding!
Praise jebus,
True. But how much did QF management pay themselves in salaries, bonuses, retentions, KPI incentives etc etc etc, probably as much as what the Arab governemnt took out of EK.......
The other thing to take into account are the 'financial reportables', in other words what is put in print, and the 'financial unreportables' which is the cash/under table method of business which is part and parcel of Middle East/Asian culture particularly. (I stress that I am not saying at all that EK operate this way, for the record).
In other words, a Western airline may for example fork out $300 million in government charges/taxes/aviation sundries etc, yet on paper the equivalent airline in Asia may fork out what appears on paper to be $100 million, yet the 'fiancial unreportables' could be an additional $100 million, maybe even $300 million, who knows.
So there are challenges involved in comparing one airline with another when they operate under different playing fields.
The interesting think with Dubai is that they know the oil they have is diminishing, they are very astute when it comes to understanding 'peak oil'. They have been building infrastructure and a tourism base for the past 8 or so years in preparation of the day when oil is not their major source of revenue anymore. However GFC Part 1 has given them a hiding and they don't have a lot of money, if any, left in the kitty.
That is why EK sometiems operates what may appear to be unprofitable routes, it is more of an advertising campaign for their country rather than a route profitabilty exercise.
However up the road a little you have Abu Dhabi on the other hand who still has a massive oil supply left in the ground!
Sunfish could probably add some good input into these business models as I think he has an additional 10 or so years experience in this field than I do.
Back on track and of the oil topic my point is that there are numerous variables in this discussion, but I honestly believe that EK intentions would be more holistic and of a long term plan than anything the fly by night greedy leprechaun does.
There is no company tax in Dubai, correct. Yet last financial EK paid almost 35% of operating profit to the Government, it was not the other way around. This was a dividend, how much did QF pay out to its owners?
The other thing to take into account are the 'financial reportables', in other words what is put in print, and the 'financial unreportables' which is the cash/under table method of business which is part and parcel of Middle East/Asian culture particularly. (I stress that I am not saying at all that EK operate this way, for the record).
In other words, a Western airline may for example fork out $300 million in government charges/taxes/aviation sundries etc, yet on paper the equivalent airline in Asia may fork out what appears on paper to be $100 million, yet the 'fiancial unreportables' could be an additional $100 million, maybe even $300 million, who knows.
So there are challenges involved in comparing one airline with another when they operate under different playing fields.
The interesting think with Dubai is that they know the oil they have is diminishing, they are very astute when it comes to understanding 'peak oil'. They have been building infrastructure and a tourism base for the past 8 or so years in preparation of the day when oil is not their major source of revenue anymore. However GFC Part 1 has given them a hiding and they don't have a lot of money, if any, left in the kitty.
That is why EK sometiems operates what may appear to be unprofitable routes, it is more of an advertising campaign for their country rather than a route profitabilty exercise.
However up the road a little you have Abu Dhabi on the other hand who still has a massive oil supply left in the ground!
Sunfish could probably add some good input into these business models as I think he has an additional 10 or so years experience in this field than I do.
Back on track and of the oil topic my point is that there are numerous variables in this discussion, but I honestly believe that EK intentions would be more holistic and of a long term plan than anything the fly by night greedy leprechaun does.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne
Age: 56
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am in CHC, "normal" online retail fares to SYD are as follows..
$149.00 with DJ
$179.00 with JQ
$189.00 With NZ
$229.00 With EK
with baggage allowance for each airline.
whats the big deal? EK are the most expensive across the ditch, with a B777 against the B737/A320 offerings by the competition. the equipment and cabin product makes the difference.
$149.00 with DJ
$179.00 with JQ
$189.00 With NZ
$229.00 With EK
with baggage allowance for each airline.
whats the big deal? EK are the most expensive across the ditch, with a B777 against the B737/A320 offerings by the competition. the equipment and cabin product makes the difference.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If geographical location, lower labour costs, lower income taxes and corporate taxes are the be all and end all, why is it that Jetstar Asia, which is located in a supposedly better geographical location, has access to supposedly cheaper labour, in a jurisdiction with corporate tax rates about half that of Australia and income tax rates much, much lower than Australia, has struggled to turn a profit after 7 years?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hazard a Guess
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answer to Dr. Pepz Question
Totally incompetent management who are way way overpaid.
Remuneration is inversely proportional to competence
Just like the Mainline Parent~Qantas
Remuneration is inversely proportional to competence
Just like the Mainline Parent~Qantas
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bolivia
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
International Hog Driver
No doubt what you say had an impact, but do not forget the amount of money Emirates pumps into the Australian economy via sponsorship. Everywhere you look there is an EK banner. They almost single handedly fund the horse racing industry here, not to mention substantial contribution to all codes of football, which is always near and dear to the average punter.
Further to that, the ever increasing access to Australia almost certainly comes with implied commitments for the arabs to give preference to certain Australian companies when contracts are handed out in Dubai. There is no ASIC or ACCC there to protect the rights of tenderers. So I would still maintain that they most likely committed substantial funds to secure the access they have to Australia. And their investment paid off handsomely i would think.
So, i would hope that i am correct in my assertion. If the Australian Government allowed EK to access the Aus market without screwing them substantially then I would have to admit that they are as inept as everyone suspects they are.
Surely no Australian Government would be that stupid..............would they
Further to that, the ever increasing access to Australia almost certainly comes with implied commitments for the arabs to give preference to certain Australian companies when contracts are handed out in Dubai. There is no ASIC or ACCC there to protect the rights of tenderers. So I would still maintain that they most likely committed substantial funds to secure the access they have to Australia. And their investment paid off handsomely i would think.
So, i would hope that i am correct in my assertion. If the Australian Government allowed EK to access the Aus market without screwing them substantially then I would have to admit that they are as inept as everyone suspects they are.
Surely no Australian Government would be that stupid..............would they
I know dumping of seats just to destroy a competitor might be somewhat illegal.
But it makes you wonder why EK, with their current load factor between AU-NZ which according to the latest BITRE figures would persist.
New Zealand
Flights 124
Pax Carried 27403
Seats Available 47988
Load Factor 57.1%
and Emirates throws down challenge to incumbents
So they barely fill what they currently have to just over half full and they're going to dump more seats on the route.
But hey!
According to the government lobbyists that managed to convince the Howard government at the time, EK is a friend of Australia ! Dump away EK, dump away.
Emirates - A friend of Australia | Ogilvy Public Relations Australia
But it makes you wonder why EK, with their current load factor between AU-NZ which according to the latest BITRE figures would persist.
New Zealand
Flights 124
Pax Carried 27403
Seats Available 47988
Load Factor 57.1%
and Emirates throws down challenge to incumbents
The decision to operate an A380 superjumbo each day on the Auckland-Melbourne-Dubai route instead of a Boeing 777-300 from next October
But hey!
According to the government lobbyists that managed to convince the Howard government at the time, EK is a friend of Australia ! Dump away EK, dump away.
Emirates - A friend of Australia | Ogilvy Public Relations Australia
Not sure about the A388 on the Tasman runs, but on the boeing it's what's underneath that counts.
Freight is good coin. And there is a lot of freight in the 777 holds when l have operated on those sectors.
Punters on top is just cream on the cake. Would not surprise me if they continued the runs even if there were no pax at all.
Also remember prior to crossing the ditch, EK would park their planes for the day in SYD and MEL to suite the onward connection schedule out of DXB.
Airframes don't make money being idle. So as mentioned before, when the Tasman opened up...bingo. A chance to earn some coin out of some otherwise idle aircraft.
halas
Freight is good coin. And there is a lot of freight in the 777 holds when l have operated on those sectors.
Punters on top is just cream on the cake. Would not surprise me if they continued the runs even if there were no pax at all.
Also remember prior to crossing the ditch, EK would park their planes for the day in SYD and MEL to suite the onward connection schedule out of DXB.
Airframes don't make money being idle. So as mentioned before, when the Tasman opened up...bingo. A chance to earn some coin out of some otherwise idle aircraft.
halas
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dubai
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5th Freedom Rights
In the early days I recall operating EK 777's across the Tasman with NO passengers but tonnes of freight, the EK airport manager told me these flights were still profitable. EK Commercial are already investigating & planning sectors like JFK-AKL. I was told this sector would make a 'shirt-load' for EK & would hub into Australia from AKL, along with other trans-pacific flights from what are already EK Destinations. That would help pump up the load-factor! Tim Clark (EK Boss) is on record as saying joining the gaps across the pacific between established EK Destinations is the "next phase of expansion." Provided GFC Phase 2 and protectionism doesn't throw sand in the gearbox...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
JFK-AKL????
FOOLS!!!!!!!!
Don't you know that would require an economic long range twin with extended ETOPS provision that enlightened airline managements wouldn't touch with a barge pole???
MORONS!!!!!!
Let me read to you the comprehensive list of such airlines.....
1. QF
So........ how do you like them apples?? Or those potatoes!
FOOLS!!!!!!!!
Don't you know that would require an economic long range twin with extended ETOPS provision that enlightened airline managements wouldn't touch with a barge pole???
MORONS!!!!!!
Let me read to you the comprehensive list of such airlines.....
1. QF
So........ how do you like them apples?? Or those potatoes!