That's not true and you know that. The DoT figures discussed several times in this thread show that demand from the US side to these places is increasing. Competitors are decreasing their already strapped capacity because:
A- Cannot compete on convenience.
B- Cannot compete on value.
C- Cannot compete on service level.
D- Cannot compete on frequency.
And so the US market is voting with their feet and money avoiding your US3 mafia.

Now adding to the above, EK market fares in more than 100 countries (2 Billion+ in population) TO the US (around 320 mil), and this group of countries is probably at least 6 times the size of the US making the USA essentially a small destination market NOT a major source of revenue.

The above does not require business degrees or "expertise". It is simple logic that a 1st grader could understand.

I'm guessing I wasn't alone in hoping that the only (announced) analyst in this thread would avail of the opportunity to show us his feathers by critically assessing the reported numbers.

You are just getting ridiculous... As usual, the link you posted says nothing of the sort. You've posted this link before, and it's been pointed out before that you've misread it.

So, you're either stupid, or wilfully posting misleading information in your posts.

Note that Singapore's (modest) profitability is in decline, despite the serious woes of its two major competitors: Malaysia and Air Asia (compare that to the wild expansion of Emirates' competitors). And this despite making the hard choices that real airlines have to make: like reducing capacity to match demand.

There's just nothing like Emirates' "business model" anywhere else in the aviation world. Nothing ever goes wrong. Even when it's obvious that things are going wrong.

And please, Mr. Expert, tell me why Emirates would rapidly increase capacity when o/d airfares are in freefall? Is it that connecting airfares are skyrocketing? We know the opposite is the case from the USA, and it's safe to conclude (due to currency if nothing else) that this is not the case for Europe. So explain where the money is coming from. I'll be waiting.

What on earth have SQ and MH got to do with this?

It's one thing applying selective cherry-picking to articles you find on the internet, but to do it on a forum where the author is right here online replying to you...really?!

Did you actually read my post? EKs profitability is a measly 5.1%, with operating margins of 6.6%. That is distinctly average for global airlines and poor by the standards of say the US3 or a company like BA or successful LCCs, with double digit margins.

EKs yields are down and unit costs are up - the profitability increase this year is pretty much entirely down to one thing: fuel. Quite apart from the completely inaccurate airplane configuration statement you made (EK receives quite vociferous complaints on this very site about 3-4-3 in economy, 76(!) in J on an A380 or 2-3-2 in J on a 777, and 8/14 in F, compared to something like AF which has 4 in F, or even AA with 2 rows of 1-2-1 in F, 1-2-1 in J), and the statement about load factors being modest (79.6% - the same as DL, pretty healthy), everything you said has been taken into account in all the posts made here - and the fact you didn't actually state a completion to your statement aside, although I think you meant if you want all that and have profits - then clearly, EK is heading towards breakeven and losses quite soon unless load factors start to nudge up further along with yields.

6% operating margin is poor compared to 16% operating margins of the US3, clearly, but how is that indicative of fraud or poor management, given their constraints? And yes, EK has constraints - a transfer-oriented business model with 2 geographically close competitors which actually do receive cash injections from wealthy owners. I really would say, given the situation they find themselves, that they are quite good at running their airline, being able to least break even and provide some return to owners.

As to your point about SQ - what relevance does this have to SQ, except to say that in a highly competitive super-connector environment, publicly traded, totally for-profit SQ can still make profits. However, we must, of course, use the correct facts and I think it is good to highlight the source in this case.

https://www.singaporeair.com/pdf/Inv...r-q3fy1415.pdf

One can see SQ took hits on a backfiring fuel hedge strategy and FX fluctuations (EK took a 196m USD hit to expenses as well). Even so, SQ still made a net margin of 3.65%, even with 2 loss making subsidiaries.

Speaking of those loss making subsidiaries in that report, SQ is repositioning to take advantage of their local growth markets, which is Asian LCC travel - that is the conclusion of the report you linked. EK is positioned to take advantage of their local growth markets which is Indian subcontinent/Asia middle-class travellers to Europe/USA and VFR travel.

So, we can say that yes, EK and SQs reports for the year 2014-15 and SQ's 3Q which you picked out do seem to be consistent in terms of the affects on their airlines from global economic and demographic factors.

Which leads me to a question - I thought perhaps you deliberately ignored questions you feel would undermine your position and/or carefully constructed self-image based on this rather dogmatic approach to aviation investing/analysis. But now I am not so sure, after this complete misconstrual of my post 1720 - it seems that you and I are either reading the same posts and coming to different conclusions from the same information, or you and I are reading different threads...

AED is pegged to the USD within a small band.

The major currencies that EK deal with that aren't USD or pegged to USD (aka GCC currencies) are: ZAR, INR, AUD, EUR, GBP and JPY.

EK themselves state they hedge between 2% to 69% of the surplus on each of those currencies. Also if you look at the 12 month trailing charts of those currencies against USD, you don't see precipitous changes, you see gradual strengthening so clearly you aren't going to take the hit all in one go.

Those 6 currencies account for 42% of revenue, whereas USD-pegged currencies result in 35% of revenue. Even after accounting for FX swaps/forward settlements, EK still took a 1.5bn AED hit on both revenue and operating expenses (the 196m USD i mentioned in my previous post was only on the operating expense side).

So, yes, yields dropped. But not precipitously because FX movements were not precipitous; the drops were mitigated as well by high yields on a constant currency basis naturally coming from the GCC region (as most GCC currencies also have a strong USD peg) - O&D demand to DXB as you say, is profitable. Fares to DXB may be lower - but lower fares once again does not mean below cost, especially if costs are also decreasing.

When even Emirates, the airline that is the most dedicated to adding destinations and frequencies, cannot add planes and services as fast as it would like, why would you assume that the US carriers have the same appetite for launching new destinations and services?

They show little interest in expanding their footprint. And they are far happier operating in the domestic market, a walled-off garden where they can generally make good money. Why would they want to go exploring options at the very extremes of where they could feasibly fly? They have never shown such interest before.

You automatically assume that this is because such routes are unprofitable. And yes, they most likely would be horrendously loss-making for any US airline that tried to lay on a fresh assault, now, on the Indian market. The fares that the US3 would charge would be very high; they lack the first-mover advantage that Emirates (in particular - it's effectively the unofficial airline of India) has; the service/planes/frequencies would be inferior; additionally, none of the US airlines could match the itineraries that can be offered to Indian customers by Emirates. (India to Africa? No; couldn't do that with an American carrier; India to Europe? No - cheaper, and quicker, with a European or Gulf carrier; India to Asia? No - cheaper, and quicker, with an Asian or Gulf carrier; India to Latin/South America - this is potentially the only logical connection an American carrier could offer the Indian market. But I don't think this would be a big market at all....just as well, for the American carriers lose money on every connecting passenger!!!).

Just because an American carrier cannot do something profitably, does not mean that an airline based in Europe, India, Asia, or the Middle East, cannot do so profitably

If you mean you'll wait for the "SUBSIDIES!! SUBSIDIES!!" camp to come up with a considered, thorough, accurate and reasoned commentary on the figures that bolsters their case...I think you will be waiting a long, long time. No such forensic analysis of any of Emirates' reports has yet emerged from that camp.

And it has been explained, in detail, with independent references and actual numbers, that the Dubai gov't does not have an unlimited bucket of money - or even a medium-sized bucket of money - from which to subsidize EK to the extent you claim.

So you go first: Explain where the money is coming from to subsidize EK. We've all been waiting for several months.

More stuff to chew on:

IATA data shows a 1.5 point decline in load factors for Middle East airlines in March. Couple that with the reports of a freefall in airfares, and the Arabian dream will be tested.

Also -- surprise -- Air Canada is RESTORING its service to India this fall! Why would it be doing this at the same time as Delta is pulling out? The reason is obvious: Canada prevents the UAE from dumping unprofitable seats into Canada, so it can be economically feasible to provide the nonstop service that customers want. And, yes, the flight will be flown with the 787. In other words, real world airline economics.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle23903767/

But then travellers will need to apply for US transit visas. It's a similar case transiting via Europe (unless the passenger holds certain types of visas to the US). This is part of the reason why India's market is less attracted to US/EU airlines, and more towards the ME3 (and to some extent SQ/MH/TG/JL).

Your comment obviously needs to be amended to read:

Just because an American, European, Indian, Asian or Latin carrier cannot do something profitably, does not mean that an airline based in the Middle East cannot do so "profitably."

Right, but you forgot to mention AC starting service to DXB which is supposed me the middle of no where, dead end destination for AC, with EK having the upper hand in capacity (add to that EY/QR/RJ/MS/TK serving Canada nonstop).

So your argument is once again, ill-conceived at best.

One month in isolation doesn't mean much. For example timing of Easter can affect passenger numbers year on year for the relevant months for many airlines.

EK can't dump capacity in Canada because the Canada-UAE bilateral treaty applies a strict cap on flights which EK can offer. Given EK is constrained in not being able to have as much service as it would like, it is not surprising that AC finds the market attractive. Excess demand generally means good pricing.