I'm starting to wonder whether the OP was among those who predicted when the A380 was announced that it will never fly and if it did 'NO ONE' will buy it.

Let's go over the short list of major carriers who were sane enough (or insane) to sign up to the big bird and actually receive them, in no particular order:
LH, AF, BA, SQ, EK, QR, EY (later this month), KE, QF, TG, OZ, MH, CZ.
There's also VS, UU, and UN who have confirmed orders but no delivery schedule.

Almost all of these airlines run the A380 to the US, exceptions are QR, EY, TG, and MH.

Based on the OP's logic, all of these airlines deserve to be viewed as financial scams.

Jeez, you guys are a tough bunch. But I might suggest that talking about the "success" of the A380 -- especially today when there's talk of ceasing production because only Emirates is interested in buying the plane (and even they're demanding new engines) and Airbus isn't willing to pour more billions into this loss-making plane -- doesn't help your argument.

I wasn't talking about the success of the A380 programme. My reply was to debunk a major myth on which you seem to base your opinion:'for an airline to fly A380's into the US, they must be a financial scam'.

You're gonna say BA/AF/LH don't count because it's the EU. But then you have QF, KE, CZ, OZ and SQ all flying A380 to the US. I mentioned earlier, couple of times how QF flies SYD-DFW non stop using an A380. I estimated the potential market sizes for US-AU, and compared it with US-M.E./Asia/Africa that EK covers. If QF is able to send 3x A380 to the US, PLUS 2x 747 EACH DAY and profit from it for a market that's about 30mil at most, then why EK wouldn't/couldn't do it for a market that's in the lowest estimates 30 times as big?

You're the one who seems to be missing the point. Or perhaps like others said, taking us for a troll. None of us really stand for EK. We're just providing tons of arguments, built on a pile of evidence. Whereas you keep spinning the same wheel based on a baseless opinion, or in the best part quotes by airline executives taken out of context.

I asked you in post 316 to name 3, just above the post you chose to reply to in the most misguided way. Still waiting on those. If you do, I'd be happy to reconsider my views/position on this.

The amount of O/D traffic between the USA and Australia is at least 10x the O/D traffic to Dubai. Maybe 100x? I can assure you that Qantas would not be flying those routes to serve "connecting traffic." They also use their close partner AA -- the world's largest airline -- to feed those flights in their home country. Emirates has no such feed in Texas.

Comparing what Emirates does to any other airline is foolhardy (well, except perhaps what some other Middle East airlines are now trying to do), because the economics don't seem to work for any public company.

The point is Emirates aren't an O/D carrier, they are in the connections business..

I think we can all be grateful for one thing iahphx is that u are not a lawyer. While countless people provide evidence to counter your claims you provide pretty much zero evidence to back your claims.

What if I tell you, between USA/Canada, and Australia, there's only 1.7 mil seats (that's capacity not actual number of passengers) and the figure includes Canada too. https://www.bitre.gov.au/publication...ts_2013_14.pdf. And even if we add to that 10pc of the traffic going to NZ (0.4 mil) ends up in the US, that's still less than US-DXB which is 2.3 mil as eternaltransit mentioned earlier.

You really need to reconsider the above because from it seems your assumption that 'demand between US-AU is 10-100x times that of the UAE' is factually flawed.

And BTW, EK partners with B9 in the US. This isn't for feeder traffic to EK, it's the other way around :P

I suppose you haven't heard of say Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines?

Perhaps rather than keep trolling this forum, if you have evidence to support your assertions of financial irregularity, pass the information on to an appropriate regulator

Stop quoting facts! It's not what the OP wants to hear.

EK will not just fly into the US, they will start domestic operations using the A380. Word is they will target SFO-LAX, JFK-MIA and JFK-LAX. They will take over from AA/UA offering fares as low as $49 coast to coast in Y, and just $9 on the shorter hops. This is part of their evil plan to dominate the domestic US market because it is after all the hub of all aviation in the world. If you want to go from VVO to ACC, there's no escaping from a swift transfer in ATL or ORD or PHX.

And EK have the resources to make this happen. Their secret owners gave the executives full access to a fund worth 15 trillion dollars. They went to Airbus and Boeing and ordered every plane to be manufactured for the next decade, thereby forming a monopoly on the aviation market. While UA can only dream of owning an A380, AA will struggle just to get a 77W delivered without having to pay a hefty price to EK to let them in the long queue.

On top of that, EK have access to free fuel, all across the globe. And free catering too. The mischievous management made sure they owned all oil wells, farms, refineries, suppliers and service operators in all the countries they fly to.

And as if free fuel and food were not enough, they made a pact under the table with many countries to supply them with slaves, dressed up in uniforms serving as flight attendants.

They brain washed thousands of pilots who came in droves surrendering themselves, working for food and shelter.

But none of the above matches the ingenuity of paying people to fly in their planes to the most of exotic destinations, just so their DoT stats show solid growth.

They're a scam indeed. A big ol'scam that has been running too long unstopped. Until 11 November 2014, when a FlyerTalk Evangelist, with more than 12,500 posts under his belt, came to expose the evil scheme.

To his surprise, many replied but no one listened. No one listened to the real voice of truth, that was as real as the FlyerTalk impostors working a sweatshop in China to cover up the whistle blowing and down play the suspicions. After all there were no real flyers left, just paid-for fake flyers booked on an eternal itinerary to make-show their flights are full.

You joke, but I wouldn't be surprised if some start-up gets their hands on some unwanted A380s and thinks with cheaper fuel that it's a good idea to fly NYC-LAX transcons.

Mind you, I think this is a horrible idea, but if Emirates actually makes money, this would be a far more logical business plan.

Don't know why but I feel OP is laughing out loud from post #1.

Clark called on Airbus to step up its A380 marketing efforts, saying it was flying "full to the gunwales" and making good profits if configured correctly. The aircraft was designed to help airlines cope with airport congestion.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/emirat...094551715.html

Has OP ever flown transpacific or transatlantic ? Since he quoted American Airlines, here is an example. American Airlines launched Hong Kong to Dallas nontstop this year. Surely one doesn't expect this route to be O/D traffic only ? Even on a typical transpacific flight on Cathay Pacific (say between Hong Kong and Vancouver) where this is a lot of O/D traffic, there is still a significant proportion of passengers connecting at Vancouver to various destinations in Canada, as well as at Hong Kong to various other destinations in China / Asia.

Singapore Airlines / Cathay have tons of flights between London and their home territories not only because of the O/D traffic, but because of the significant amount of volume on the Kangaroo route.

Any start-up that doesn't do their sums before starting is doomed to fail, and doing an A380 NYC-LAX transcon is pretty easy to do the math for (and makes me agree with you that A380 transcons will be a terrible idea in the current economic environment)

Max revenue is 110k from pax (assuming it's 3 class with 489 pax, but even 1 class at 850 Y pax it's difficult to boost that by any more) at current yields on other carriers on the route, fuel costs 50-80k (2-3USD/gal) because you only fuel the thing about 33% (distance is 25% max range, add contingency fuel and take into account disproportionate fuel use for takeoff/landing), total costs to operate sector are 150-220k depending on the unit cost (with fuel at 35-40% of total operating cost). In a couple of simple calculations which you could do on the back of an envelope, you can see why A380 NYC-LAX isn't going to work at current yields, no matter how much fuel costs drop.

How would it be a more logical business plan than flying to the US with A380s when you can do similar calculations for the pax yields and fuel costs for ULH routes and show profitability whereas you can't for NYC-LAX - not until yields double on NYC-LAX. Of course if you could persuade people to pay double their current prices for NYC-LAX (in all classes), then you might be able to do it.