@FD1971, you do raise some valid points with regards to competition and subsidies. But you seem to be assuming that it's a turf war, like east versus west, or two competing suitors. The thing is, EK are only one of many competitors to LH in several markets. EK are NOT THE sole competitor. Competition is a lot more dynamic than portrayed.

Going back to the point of subsidy, EK, along with a whole heap of other major carriers, are subsidising Airbus through continued orders for airframes, those monies flow through the EU to one way or another subsidise European enterprises, among them EU airlines.

To sum up the above: one could assume a position of suspicion about EK et al about their finances and their market strategy but, even if these assumptions were valid, they do work eventually to the benefit of one's compatriots and not to their disadvantage.

You also seem to ignore how several airlines are using their A380 profitably. I still have to refer back to QF's SYD-DFW, the longest A380 route. Going westward from DFW the loads are restricted (usually blocking as many as 80 seats). Now that works out to be about 80% load when going full house. This is an ULH route with SYD's catchment area a tiny fraction of EK's around DXB. And this isn't their sole A380 route to the US. Yet all we hear from QF are praises for the A380 and its performance. This is coming from an airline known to shuffle entities to reduce tax liability, bring forward depreciation to show massive losses and use that as excuse to reduce the workforce size. And QF pay top dollar for their jet fuel, crew salaries, and so on. Their A380 seats 452 in a 4-class configuration, whereas EK's are 3-class 489-517. So while QF may have higher yields, they're capacity constrained. EK's high density configuration means they can achieve lower cost per seat mile.

If QF with their lower density can make the A380 work, EK should be able to do the same at a much larger scale. I am not assuming that margins are linear, it's just the QF case can be seen as a model much more constrained than EK.

@eternaltransit, the discussion has moved on indeed to a higher level of abstraction where the questions and answers are more speculative and less definite. Data and anecdotes as evidence become less relevant. I think this is an indicator that the discussion at its ground level has been exhausted.

But dare I say despite all the evidence presented, arguments put forward and the perspectives brought to this thread, it is barely scratching the surface. Many theories that may sound logical or plausible, if put to a test may actually fail. They are after all, interpretations, mental models of a reality that can never be be fully disclosed from a single vantage point. And similarly, what we might all see as Truth now, may and will change over time.

Your analytical summary of the discussion, along with the perspective defying questions are spot on. If there was an award for the best post of the year, then yours should definitely be it. ^^