|
Originally Posted by mrtibbs1999
(Post 23434021)
Afford a whole one? Remember the 3 F's. If it flys floats or fornicates: Lease it.
|
Originally Posted by JW76
(Post 23433535)
But if you are flying, say, the entire board of your company ... to a remote location ... on a per-person basis, it's possibly comparable to F in price. And faster. And it goes direct to where you want to go. With no stopovers. On your schedule. Etc. In other words .... you get what you pay for.
Probably not a good idea, and not allowed by rules of most companies. Companies I've worked for even have limits on the number of us peons who can be on the same flight, let alone loading the entire board of directors onto one plane. |
Originally Posted by dll
(Post 23432228)
It's a way to attract travellers who prefer a more private space but are never going to pony up huge amounts of $$ for an F fare. I think that could be a model worth exploring. You'd essentially see planes operating with Y, Y+ (Premium Economy), J and J+ (a few well-planned business seats).
In the case of EK and EY at least, they're already nose heavy, it's quite unlikely that either of these two will ever drop F. I don't think it's about regional customs of wealth exhibition either. EK go several hops along the way to CMB/SIN BKK/HKG MEL/SYD/BNE AKL/CHC with F, rarely if ever empty. Not to mention their J cabin is overcrowded most often than not (both in terms of occupancy and seat density) allowing them to oversell into F or even operate a 3-class as 2-class without sacrificing the bottom line. The original Bloomberg article is a storm in a cup. It could have been published post 911 and still made sense to some then. The debate about F is not new. It's been there since the 1970s (or perhaps even before). That's when F was simply Y with few more perks. Oh wait, that still happens to this day in many parts of the world! |
This thread is hardly ek specific is it? Must be a better place for this so others can contribute.
|
Originally Posted by kapkap46
(Post 23434195)
Well that may be true but only because their J is so far inferior to the J in 2 Cabins!!
Personally I think UA F is the biggest waste of cash or even GPU's in the air. |
Deleted
|
IMHO domestic first class IS doomed with the exception of the long haul domestic routes ala transcons and those routes known for premium demand i.e. DFW-LAX as one example.
Then again my own personal travel habits is I will use my status to Upgrade where possible on typically flights over 4 hours and anything less its Y+ in an exit row or bulkhead. Westbound flights over 4 hours is where I try the hardest to snag an upgrade or in recent time pay full price on B6s new product or Virgin America in main cabin extra or paying up at 6 hours before the flight to snag F. Ex SEA-SAN I question is F necessary or is E+ enough for anyone? I can deal with the later and on some airlines I will take the bulk head pr exit row over F just for the legroom. The food and 2 extra inches in width are not always worth it. And for one example I find AS new F seats very uncomfortable to my bum except on the latest 737-900 I flew with sky interior. |
Originally Posted by paulyras
(Post 23435873)
Personally I think UA F is the biggest waste of cash or even GPU's in the air.
|
Originally Posted by m3red
(Post 23430512)
on some airlines maybe but not EK ex DXB.
Demand on certain routes eg JFK and LHR mean F is here to stay. Having recently flown J out to HGK and F back, there is still a fairly big difference between the two. Not to mention the advent of "affordable" private jet ownership/fractionalization combined with increased range of these aircraft, means the airlines are seeing fewer customers actually paying to fly in this cabin. Asian and Gulf carriers will still have the clientele who can and will pay for F so will continue to offer it. However, cost-conscious airlines elsewhere will carefully consider which routes on which it can be maintained at a viable level. |
Originally Posted by Shareholder
(Post 23436048)
But only a handful of routes can justify operating such a cabin and service. Increasingly we are seeing a paring down of fleets and configurations to remove F cabins on BA, QF, LH, AA, UA and others. Many carriers have abandoned it completely like AC, NZ, OS, TK, LAN and dozens of others.
|
There was a really interesting interview a while back with the CEO of Air France about First Class - he literally described it as a 'marketing gimmick' and stated that 'no-one is making money with first class'.
http://www.businesstraveller.com/opi...ss-had-its-day I guess the reality is, outside SE Asia and the Mid-east it only works on limited routes. For example LHR-JFK or LHR-LOS. Yet of course with large network airlines they can't dedicate just a few aircraft with F to certain routes. The logistics would be a nightmare. So how can a cabin which seems full with passengers paying c$10,000 for a seat not be profitable? Well I guess it all depends on how many of those passengers are actually paying that full F fare. And in reality, I think it's very few with the large majority upgrading with points of cash, deals like 'buy J get F' and largely reduced corporate rates. But First does have it's uses - for example when airlines are trying to bargain for large corporate travel contracts. Throwing in the offer of First Class for top management can be a sweetener in nabbing the deal. Likewise from a FF POV it's a good marketing strategy to have a First cabin to burn those miles/points. |
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23434510)
Clearly, American tastes and customs are different in terms of these extravagances compared to those in Asia, the Middle East, and even parts of South America--places with longer histories of significant wealth disparity where there always have been a solid group of super-rich. That is why American carriers offer less extravagance compared to counterpart carriers in those other regions...and even why European carriers offer less extravagance in comparison or in the same volume. But you are incorrect in assuming that UA's value proposition for F is so different. UA doesn't put as much extravagance in its F compared to its Asian/Middle Eastern counterparts, but its F product is as good if not slightly better (and far more available) than that of AA (with just 14 planes offering it) and DL (since they don't even offer true international F). So UA is competitive for these F paying customers COMPARED to AA and DL. It's a big American market, and they get a large piece of that pie. It's also a nice perk to offer their GS and most elite customers (upgrade to F from J, Sir or Madame?), which helps keep some of those elites and GS happy with UA compared to foreign airlines. Everyone forgets that US rich can't fly frequently on a foreign carrier unless they ALWAYS fly to the same region--as the Asian carriers don't serve the USA to Europe and the Gulf/European carriers don't serve the USA to Asia. Sometimes, the US carriers are the better way to go for corporate contracts, and these permit UA to continue to offer F (for the time being at least). Also, in a global context, it doesn't matter how UA compares to AA/DL. Someone spending money on F tickets doesn't care so much about flying the same airline all the time - and can still stick to Star Alliance while completely avoiding UA, but flying F everywhere, if they desire. No reason to stick to the same carrier.
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23434544)
For the average person or even the average rich person, it does seem ridiculous. Yet I live in Newport Beach and work with super rich people in Newport, LA, SF, Miami, NYC, and Chicago--not to mention in Asia, Europe, and South America. The difference in price between J and F is peanuts to them. It's like the difference between buying a 3 series BMW or an Aston Martin for them--and they have the money so they sometimes buy the Aston and don't think twice.
Originally Posted by Always Flyin
(Post 23435109)
That is simply not correct.
Firstly, it solely looks at UA, and those with the disposable income and half a brain are not flying UA in paid international F. If revenue international F was viable out of EWR for UA, they would have more than just a few flights a day offering it. CX has four flights a day to JFk, all of which have F. They started service to EWR, with an aircraft with no F. The F routes out of the New York City area are out of JFK. There is plenty of profitable F out of LAX, just not on UA. NH, JL, OZ, KE, CX and SQ all of have F out of LAX. Not so out of SFO. UA just doesn't do competition, since it loses, so it focuses on SFO. Asking UA about international F is similar to asking KIA about high-end luxury cars. I disagree. American carriers are run by American CEOs who were taught in business school the road to profits is made in cutting costs. The entire concept of spending money and improving the product to entice customers is lost on U.S. airlines. As a result, I fly in paid F regularly, but not on a U.S. carrier (except for the new AA 77W flight from LAX to LHR because it is superior to BA). You seem to think that passengers are locked into a single carrier. I generally fly LH/LX to Europe and CX/SQ/NH/OZ to Asia (OZ only from JFK with the suites and now with the A380 out of LAX). While the West Coast to Asia through the Middle East is a long-way around, from NYC it is not. For the major cities on the East Coast, Middle East airlines are competitive to Asia. AA is downsizing international F. It is not giving it up. But UA is downsizing it as well and will continue to do so. Doesn't really matter to me as I generally don't fly either internationally unless I am flying to LHR. Then I fly AA since BA is United with an accent and more arrogance than indifference. I don't have a single wealthy client or friend who regularly flies in F who has bought a revenue ticket in F on UA in the past three years. They all fly anybody else. United is now a carrier for those locked into captive hubs, those on corporate contracts (and those contracts are diminishing in number), Kayakers, and those who just don't know any better. |
Originally Posted by m3red
(Post 23435852)
This thread is hardly ek specific is it? Must be a better place for this so others can contribute.
I didn't envisage the posts of War and Peace proportions I must admit. :) I would add, as many have alluded to, that there are many complex reasons why people purchase luxury goods and services and these can vary from culture to culture so what our star spangled friends might say applies in their country would most definitely not in other countries. Hedonism is more important in societies where individuality is important, there's more peer group pressure in the east where collectivism is more important, some look mainly at function and quality rather than prestige (eg Germans), others just look at prestige. What is the difference between a plain garment made in the far east and the same plain garment but with a swoosh, 3 stripes, crocodile, etc? Answer, nothing really apart from a price premium of many hundreds of % and most people wouldn't consider the former in their wildest dreams.;) I'm the OP so I can post a mini War and Peace. :D |
Originally Posted by m3red
(Post 23435852)
This thread is hardly ek specific is it? Must be a better place for this so others can contribute.
|
Originally Posted by DYKWIA
(Post 23437679)
I assumed it had been moved here, as I don't think I've seen most of the participants posting on the EK forum before.
We will be happy to leave again if you prefer. ;) |
OzTennis, I see your point re the War & Peace analogy, but would add - in fairness to those contributing - that the overall quality of posts strikes me as being higher than much of what appears on many other 'generic' type threads. A lot of genuinely interesting stuff here IMO, whether it be well-informed, evidence-based material, or purely subjective opinion.
As the OP who linked us to the article itself, you should take any credit that's going ...!! :cool: Quite apart from the often complex commercial reasons which determine the merits of continuing with a full F product (or not, as the case may be....), air travel is - from the consumer perspective - a fairly emotive subject when it comes to the matter of class of cabin & spending priorities ; perhaps more so than many other budgetary decisions. It's not uncommon to come across people who will habitually shop at discount stores and spend the bare minimum on, say, their food & clothing, but who will happily shell out on expensive business /first class tickets when they travel. Conversely, I know some folk who will buy designer label shirts and hand-made shoes, but not even consider sitting anywhere other than the back of the plane. And then you get quirky instances of mega-wealthy, high profile individuals (but often very reclusive and /or shy) who could comfortably afford to run their own private jet, but instead choose consciously to use low-cost carriers wherever possible. I seem to remember the founder of the IKEA business as being one such case. It's a crazy world we're living in (Jamiroquai, IIRC.....) |
Originally Posted by flyernick
(Post 23435672)
Probably not a good idea, and not allowed by rules of most companies. Companies I've worked for even have limits on the number of us peons who can be on the same flight, let alone loading the entire board of directors onto one plane.
|
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23434451)
I doubt rebranding domestic F is confusing anyone. The market segment that flies these classes likely understands quite well the distinction. The general lay person out there that doesn't isn't likely to be in the market for these F seats, anyway.
|
Originally Posted by Calchas
(Post 23436145)
A reduction doesn't point to an evaporation though. Several carriers are investing in new F seats and configurations.
I think with certain carriers three-class F is doomed including, probably, UA. It speaks volumes that IPTE is nearly a decade old and UA isn't adding planes with 3-class to their post-merger fleet, even though historically they had F on their 763s, so they COULD on 788s... but clearly they don't want to. I think they're going to ape DL like they seem to do these days. EK? Probably not, a superhub in DXB works well for funneling F demand from all over on ULH into A380s, plus there are good cultural reasons for the product to work there. I would expect lots of bling going forward for a good long while. I also bet they'll get nice prices for their A380s, since they've turned out to be such duds compared to the twin-engines. ;) |
Originally Posted by Calchas
(Post 23437703)
This topic is on the front page under the "Must Read" list.
We will be happy to leave again if you prefer. ;) |
Originally Posted by Mike Jacoubowsky
(Post 23433817)
Premium F isn't going to work for US airlines until they drop the label from their domestic "F" offerings. What "F" means on a US carrier is so ridiculously all over the map that it can never have the value, in many customer's minds, that it needs to command a high-enough price to justify a super-premium service.
On FT, sure, we understand the differences between International anything and Domestic anything. But the domestic carriers do nothing to draw attention to those differences, and I doubt it could be unwound at this time. The damage is done. In Europe, most "domestic" (within EU) flights don't even claim an "F" section, but rather "business" which is nothing more than a middle seat that's been replaced by a tray. As much of a perversion of the notion of "business" as the US carriers do with "first class." Wonder how much of that has to do with FF redemption? People flying an International leg on a legit C that don't want to see that "mixed cabin" note? It's interesting the comparison between domestic F to intra-European C. The seat in the USA is significantly more "premium" than the seat in Europe; but the treatment in Europe is significantly more premium, at least on LH, LX, and BA.
Originally Posted by eightblack
(Post 23434127)
That's the funniest thing I have heard all day. I'm going to wait until my wife gets home from work and tell her you told me to say that ;)
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23434451)
I doubt rebranding domestic F is confusing anyone. The market segment that flies these classes likely understands quite well the distinction. The general lay person out there that doesn't isn't likely to be in the market for these F seats, anyway.
And good thing i did - I saved him a few thousand dollars over BA. (I still love the treatment by FAs in GF on UA)
Originally Posted by Always Flyin
(Post 23435109)
I disagree. American carriers are run by American CEOs who were taught in business school the road to profits is made in cutting costs. The entire concept of spending money and improving the product to entice customers is lost on U.S. airlines.
As a result, I fly in paid F regularly, but not on a U.S. carrier (except for the new AA 77W flight from LAX to LHR because it is superior to BA). Those who can afford F generally don't fly U.S. carriers and the UA GS members aren't going anywhere since the entire CO fleet is already two-class and they fly on those and maintain GS. |
Originally Posted by joshwex90
(Post 23440123)
You'd be surprised though. I have a friend who flew domestic F, and then considered an international trip. He was going to not fly UA F purely because he felt that their F isn't up to par, since "other airlines have these seat-bed combo things, and UA was just like a recliner chair." I had to explain to him that domestic F and international F are completely different beasts. And good thing i did - I saved him a few thousand dollars over BA. (I still love the treatment by FAs in GF on UA)
OK, but are they wrong? Compare the profits at UA, AA, and DL to the profits at SQ, EK, EY, etc. |
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23440174)
There's always a few! Nice save! And we must be two of the very few persons here on FT who actually enjoy the FAs in GF on UA. I agree with you--we've always had very nice service in GF.
You nailed it on the head that UA, AA, and DL have much bigger profits than SQ, EK, CX, and the like. Everyone loves to talk about the amazing service and seats on those 5 star airlines that basically are state-owned enterprises with state subsidies that allow them to offer such amenities. They have tiny profits. Of course, I love to fly those premium classes on those state-owned carriers, too--but I don't hate on my UA and other US carriers because they make profits and try to run a business for profit! |
Originally Posted by joshwex90
(Post 23440300)
I'm someone who loves complaining! But I HATE complaining for the sake of complaining. UA GF FAs have been incredible on every flight. Only consistency I've ever had. And the seat (I believe they're now all the new one) is fantastic. It's no suite, and obviously I'd take SQ or EK if I had the chance. But what more can I want than an intimate cabin, a seat wider and longer than I need it, comfy, all the storage I need, nice IFE screen, no one climbing over me and no one for me to climb over, etc.
I so agree. I don't deny that F in SQ and CX (and EK I'm sure, as I'll be flying that in Jan) are better overall, especially on food/service, but the GF on UA has been more than satisfactory for me when I've flown it (about half the time I fly F). I've found UA GF to have pretty good service, pretty fun FAs, pretty decent food, and excellent IFE. The seat is nice--not as good as SQ or CX, but about as good as TX (non suite) and BA (non A380). |
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23440343)
Wow, where have you been when all of this time as the FTers have been bashing me for my like of UA GF?
What may be in dispute is thinking that UA's GF product is particularly key in driving their current business model, or that the fact that UA decided on their IPTE model back in the last decade, and AA is deciding on a model that only has F on a small number of routes, means we can conclude that UA is more successful with their F product than AA is. I think that if UA thought their GF product was a key driver for their business model, it would be treated much more like EK's (or even LH's), with the soft product touched up quite a bit. It is clearly not; a soup course on top of a C meal seems like minimal effort to differentiate F and C at best. With the arrival of new aisle-access, lifeflat longhaul C products at competitors (AA and DL), the differentiation seems to be getting smaller. There's also no sign that UA is refreshing their IPTE product in F (something CX, SQ, AA, BA and LH have all announced recently in THEIR F cabins), their recent 763 refurb post-merger did not include F seats (contra their pmUA 763s), and no UA 788s have shown up with F seats. I'll happily reconsider this once I start seeing some new planes with globes on the tails sporting 3-cabin F cabins. To try to make this on-topic... EK seems to make consistent profits: http://www.theemiratesgroup.com/engl...al-report.aspx |
Originally Posted by eponymous_coward
(Post 23440566)
No-one is bashing you for a preference (or if they are, that's silly, that's like bashing someone for liking strawberry ice cream and Coca-Cola over caviar and Dom Perignon).
What may be in dispute is thinking that UA's GF product is particularly key in driving their current business model, or that the fact that UA decided on their IPTE model back in the last decade, and AA is deciding on a model that only has F on a small number of routes, means we can conclude that UA is more successful with their F product than AA is. I think that if UA thought their GF product was a key driver for their business model, it would be treated much more like EK's (or even LH's), with the soft product touched up quite a bit. It is clearly not; a soup course on top of a C meal seems like minimal effort to differentiate F and C at best. With the arrival of new aisle-access, lifeflat longhaul C products at competitors (AA and DL), the differentiation seems to be getting smaller. There's also no sign that UA is refreshing their IPTE product in F (something CX, SQ, AA, BA and LH have all announced recently in THEIR F cabins), their recent 763 refurb post-merger did not include F seats (contra their pmUA 763s), and no UA 788s have shown up with F seats. I'll happily reconsider this once I start seeing some new planes with globes on the tails sporting 3-cabin F cabins. To try to make this on-topic... EK seems to make consistent profits: http://www.theemiratesgroup.com/engl...al-report.aspx I will point out that Emirates profits for a year are about comparable to what AA, DL, and UA can make in a quarter, however. Again, I say that those state-owned enterprise carriers like EK, SQ, EY, TK, CX, etc. seem to be the only ones with the "tremendous" service and amenities and outrageous suites--with LH being the biggest exception. That says tons about LH and what it is able to do as a true private enterprise, and it reflects the challenges with other private enterprise carriers like UA, DL, AA, BA, AF, and the like in competing with those state-owned enterprises. It's easier for more authoritarian states like Thailand, China, UAE, and Singapore to build airports where and how they want compared with the industrialized and more democratic West, and it's easier IMO for those state-owned enterprise carriers to implement more fabulous offerings without the same profit concerns as their counterparts in the West, too. |
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23440637)
Wow, a well composed and clearly articulated response--thank you! I actually agree with your assessments for the most part.
I will point out that Emirates profits for a year are about comparable to what AA, DL, and UA can make in a quarter, however. Again, I say that those state-owned enterprise carriers like EK, SQ, EY, TK, CX, etc. seem to be the only ones with the "tremendous" service and amenities and outrageous suites--with LH being the biggest exception. That says tons about LH and what it is able to do as a true private enterprise, and it reflects the challenges with other private enterprise carriers like UA, DL, AA, BA, AF, and the like in competing with those state-owned enterprises. It's easier for more authoritarian states like Thailand, China, UAE, and Singapore to build airports where and how they want compared with the industrialized and more democratic West, and it's easier IMO for those state-owned enterprise carriers to implement more fabulous offerings without the same profit concerns as their counterparts in the West, too. |
Originally Posted by eponymous_coward
(Post 23440863)
Two things:
|
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23440637)
Again, I say that those state-owned enterprise carriers like EK, SQ, EY, TK, CX, etc.
|
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23440174)
You nailed it on the head that UA, AA, and DL have much bigger profits than SQ, EK, CX, and the like. Everyone loves to talk about the amazing service and seats on those 5 star airlines that basically are state-owned enterprises with state subsidies that allow them to offer such amenities.
|
Originally Posted by 84fiero
(Post 23433362)
I'm curious, how do those compare in price to an F ticket (generally speaking)?
do the math. |
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23440637)
Wow, a well composed and clearly articulated response--thank you! I actually agree with your assessments for the most part.
I will point out that Emirates profits for a year are about comparable to what AA, DL, and UA can make in a quarter, however. Again, I say that those state-owned enterprise carriers like EK, SQ, EY, TK, CX, etc. seem to be the only ones with the "tremendous" service and amenities and outrageous suites--with LH being the biggest exception. That says tons about LH and what it is able to do as a true private enterprise, and it reflects the challenges with other private enterprise carriers like UA, DL, AA, BA, AF, and the like in competing with those state-owned enterprises. It's easier for more authoritarian states like Thailand, China, UAE, and Singapore to build airports where and how they want compared with the industrialized and more democratic West, and it's easier IMO for those state-owned enterprise carriers to implement more fabulous offerings without the same profit concerns as their counterparts in the West, too. |
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23440637)
Wow, a well composed and clearly articulated response--thank you! I actually agree with your assessments for the most part.
I will point out that Emirates profits for a year are about comparable to what AA, DL, and UA can make in a quarter, however. Again, I say that those state-owned enterprise carriers like EK, SQ, EY, TK, CX, etc. seem to be the only ones with the "tremendous" service and amenities and outrageous suites--with LH being the biggest exception. That says tons about LH and what it is able to do as a true private enterprise, and it reflects the challenges with other private enterprise carriers like UA, DL, AA, BA, AF, and the like in competing with those state-owned enterprises. It's easier for more authoritarian states like Thailand, China, UAE, and Singapore to build airports where and how they want compared with the industrialized and more democratic West, and it's easier IMO for those state-owned enterprise carriers to implement more fabulous offerings without the same profit concerns as their counterparts in the West, too. LX also offers a fantastic F product, though you could make the argument that they're the same airline
Originally Posted by eponymous_coward
(Post 23440863)
EK is doing a ridiculous amount of expansion/plane buying. That impacts profits. They're doing the Amazon-style "go for market share" thing. USA airlines, in a very mature market, are considerably more restrained.
3 things to watch though:
|
Originally Posted by DYKWIA
(Post 23441995)
Note that DL, AA, UA would be out of business if it wasn't for Chapter 11 protection. Is this any better than 'state subsidies'?
|
Originally Posted by ukdoctor
(Post 23432606)
People who can afford first but don't travel enough to justify a private jet???
|
Originally Posted by JW76
(Post 23432532)
It will survive for long-haul routes which cannot easily be reached by private jet. Who would voluntarily submit to the TSA for anything under 6 hours?
|
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23440637)
Wow, a well composed and clearly articulated response--thank you! I actually agree with your assessments for the most part.
I will point out that Emirates profits for a year are about comparable to what AA, DL, and UA can make in a quarter, however. Again, I say that those state-owned enterprise carriers like EK, SQ, EY, TK, CX, etc. seem to be the only ones with the "tremendous" service and amenities and outrageous suites--with LH being the biggest exception. That says tons about LH and what it is able to do as a true private enterprise, and it reflects the challenges with other private enterprise carriers like UA, DL, AA, BA, AF, and the like in competing with those state-owned enterprises. It's easier for more authoritarian states like Thailand, China, UAE, and Singapore to build airports where and how they want compared with the industrialized and more democratic West, and it's easier IMO for those state-owned enterprise carriers to implement more fabulous offerings without the same profit concerns as their counterparts in the West, too. |
Originally Posted by joshwex90
(Post 23442011)
Government funding (meaning no need to rely on your actual revenue) is very different than bankruptcy protection
|
Originally Posted by DYKWIA
(Post 23442357)
Can you provide proof that EK receives government funding? As far as I know, it's a completely self sufficient airline that makes a profit.
- a low/no tax state, which allows them to offer attractive salary and benefit packages (as regulars on this board know, it's basically, free accommodation and living costs) which reduces their cost of labour compared to other carriers - as EK lease the vast majority of their aircraft, the interest rate they pay is the best in the market considering EK's financial position (healthily profitable) and implicit debt guarantees from the emirate of Dubai The subsidy that people imply is generally fuel - which actually isn't subsidised at all. In fact, if you look at the recent financial history of Dubai, EK actually contributed to the Dubai treasury during their recent problems I think... The other benefit is the 30 odd percent discount they get on their widebodies, which I would assume is at the top end that Airbus and Boeing offer considering EK's purchase power. |
DYKWIA - I suspect you will wait a long time for such proof.
It's a very common myth amongst many travellers with limited/zero first-hand experience of Emirates, and the part of the world in which they are based, that the airline is heavily subsidised - or even totally state-funded. I think the myth gets peddled around as the result of a misguided belief that it must be, surely ....I mean ...... with all that money they've got out there ....... :eek: My own understanding, having previously spent some years living in the region, is that in the early days of its inception & initial development, the airline did indeed receive significant 'state support'. However, the intention all along was that it would stand on its own feet, and the clearest indication that the transition to a conventional commercial operation had been successfully completed was the first publication (can't quote the actual year) of fully-audited company accounts & reports, a practice which of course has continued ever since. State-run industries are not in the habit of providing Annual Reports for public consumption .....! One qualification I would add - and this more by way of an educated assumption than any sort of 'inside knowledge' - is that if by chance EK ever got itself into serious, 'life-threatening' difficulties, then those holding the reins of power in Dubai would not wish to see their flag carrier fail. Given the airline's ongoing level of success, such protection seems unlikely to be needed ; but I'd bet my mortgage that it would be there. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:14 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.