If the OP ever was interested in the discussion, this blog post has some interesting points to raise and succintly summarises many of the issues raised in this thread - especially viable long-haul business models:

http://blog.thetravelinsider.info/20...-airlines.html

The blog post is somewhat funny when it downplays the size increase of the 380 over the 747. 25pc IS a significant increase, not to mention cargo payload and range. Marketing talk aside, the 380 could have been an evolution if it was built by Boeing as they already had a double decker - The 748 is one. The 380 is a revolution considering the then Airbus product range and their shift in strategy.

I don't disagree with the notion that the 380 is a hard product to sell to the industry. But it found its niche with EK, and rightly so. If EK weren't at least pleased with it they wouldn't have ordered them like Sultan of Brunei orders his Bentley's and Rolls Royce's.

There are people who say things like "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going".

There are people who are chauvinistic to the extreme, and would never dream of flying a carrier other than their own flag carrier (or any other carrier from their home country).

There are people who may have extremely negative or biased opinions about certain countries/regimes/regions and who therefore would never contemplate flying on carriers from those countries/regimes/regions.

There are people who may cling to outdated assumptions about the standards of development in certain places, and who therefore would never contemplate connecting in airports in those places.

There are people who may be familiar with what "their" airline could and could not be able to do, and who therefore assume that these inner biases are not only true for their own airline, but hold true for all airlines in all sorts of markets everywhere in the world.

There are people who may not fully grasp the greater importance of the hub-and-spoke model to airlines that forego the "point-to-point" model that may be of greater importance to the airlines with which they are more familiar. To talk about "long, thin routes" in such a context is almost meaningless - thin routes are routes with little prospect of offering connections at either end, and this simply does not apply to the Middle East Big 3 airlines, where all of their routes (sometimes via an intermediate stop) connects at a giant hub where all points of the globe can be reached. DXB is now the busiest international airport in the world (Heathrow's passenger numbers are only just above DXB's, but strip out LHR's domestic figures, and DXB is on top)!

There are people who may not have travelled ever, or not often, with any of the Middle East Big 3 and therefore simply cannot comprehend that airports in what they may consider impossibly distant, inconvenient, out-of-the-way locations are mega hubs overtaking all of the traditional hubs.

There are people who may consider that routings involving a "large" detour automatically makes such routings undesirable, or who may consider itineraries involving long, or late-night, stopovers in "exotic" airports as undesirable, although many more will have no such qualms, particularly when these routings are cheaper than other more direct routings.

There are people who may believe that no "foreign" airline could ever match the standards of comfort, service, and safety that their airline of choice offers, and who would never stray from the familiar.

There are people who stick with their airline out of loyalty, and yet seemingly don't consider that other airlines may similarly have loyal customers, and who therefore would absolutely have no trouble booking "large detour" or "long layover" or "middle-of-the-night-stopover-in-the-middle-of-nowhere" itineraries on their preferred carrier.

There are people who think that, based apparently on a tiny current snapshot and failing to consider the fact that all of the main American carriers have, and in some cases more than once, been in in Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and somehow deem American carriers to either be the best and/or most profitable and/or the standard bearers for the aviation industry.

There are people who feel that "Johnny Foreigner" cannot possibly run a successful business, or if it seems that he is managing to, that it is a confidence trick and cannot be real.

However, these people are, I feel, in a rather small minority.

The rest of the people have no hesitation in voting with their feet and travelling on airlines that didn't even exist a generation ago. And some of these airlines have turned a profit each year for the last XX years!!!

(XX: being a number that is far greater than for most American or European carriers).

Is Emirates a financial scam?
 

A well argued, albeit somewhat long winded, set of points !

It has one thing in common with the thread, then!

I enjoyed reading it. Thanks guy from the Irish area of Shanghai ;-)

.. unless ofcourse you are talking about the OP's points :rolleyes: ;)

Is Emirates a financial scam?
 

Yes indeed. Would then be a poorly argued still long-winded pointless post!

So we can all conclude that Emirates is not a scam. :D

Am I the only one who misses the entertainment of this thread? Come on iahphx, come back with something lol

You are not alone.

I am eagerly awaiting his reply. :D

Imo this thread has run its course. And, if I were the Op, I wouldn't fancy jumping back into the ring. We should all just let it go (I.e. no need to stoke a nonexistent fire).

I'll be back in a few months when there's more evidence. In the meantime, the new, ridiculous USA A380 routes are wide open for award travel -- because there obviously aren't enough paying customers. Enjoy.

iahphx, in the meantime, how about answering some of the points made using existing evidence. It might give you something to do whilst other data is being gathered.

There hasn't been any evidence so far