I think people misunderstand the word "subsidy", and then go on to treat it as a dirty word later. Most people think of subsidies as direct cash injections from a government. The biggest issue with cash subsidies is that they tend to cause market distortions and are generally viewed as unsustainable.

EK benefits from in-kind subsidies (low labour costs, lax labour laws, minimal bureacracy etc etc), or what is broadly called a pro-aviation / business policy. Many international companies have benefitted from this, and no market distortions have been created.

I have been lucky to work for a company that has a commercial interest in QR and EK, and have been able to examine their books. I would say QR receives cash injections from their government, while EK does not.

The Dubai government just does not have the cash to support companies in that manner, especially since 2008 when they almost went belly-up. If anything, they are now relying on EK to pay into the government's coffers. Even as they hit record profit levels, they are not giving bonus payments to flight deck or cabin crew, so that the government can meet its obligations. Cash subsidies in QR and EY, i'll listen. Not EK.

Someone made a point about lower credit cost and the like. True in most cases, but what 2008 crisis taught the banks is that while there was always an implicit understanding that a lot of the Dubai Inc companies were backed or owned by the government, the legal status was murkier, and many of these companies are now forced to borrow at commercial rates. Won't speculate on whether this includes EK .

Dubai is unique among Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain because it is not an oil state. It runs an economy built around trade and logistics that benefits from the oil economies (and their associated inefficiencies) surrounding her, having used what oil wealth they once had well. This means the only waste they can afford is patronage for their people, which serves a political purpose.