Not without inviting further restrictions.

E.g. Tack DXB-BOM onto DFW-DXB for $1.

:eek::eek::eek:

The only problem, Changi was already modeled after Schiphol and the original SQ pretty much copied approaches from Swissair and Lufthansa. And why wouldn't you? The original Senator service, not to mention Swiss hospitality or the Technik divisions of both airlines.

And please spare us with your rather loop-sided comments about DL fleecing customers, the US3 being so mean, annoying KL and LH management etc.

Perhaps - but I'm struggling to see how anyone could penalise an airline for making US bound/originating tickets flexible [a boon to the US consumer] and selling lots of same-day departure tickets at their Dubai ticket desk.

But if the US was determined to cast Emirates as violating the law, then I'm sure they'll create that law if they can't find any existing laws!

Cargo is a nice side business, but in recent years the yield turned out to be problematic. Cargo in the belly plus pax on the deck above is still more suitable aside from a few dozen routes on the planet, where it makes sense to fly dedicated Cargo aircraft.

Unfortunately, aircraft on ultra long haul flights are not really able to load too many pallets...one major reason why the numbers look so bad.

No wonder that Clark pushes for the 380NEO...20 tons less fuel = 2 pallets and a few dozen pax.

If you do not have to pay for the aircraft, because somebody helps you with that you can make profits flying low yield pax and low yield cargo.

Again, speed is of utmost importance, care and reliability is also a factor. Hence, many customers book the td flash care package.

Network economies are certainly always a factor as well, but speed is the ultimate factor for high yield cargo.

If you cannot offer a suitable combination of all the factors mentioned above, you will only get the lower yield business (which can be a suitable business model, no doubt about that)

Well, you would think that ALL airline bosses would push for newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft without having any underlying reason necessary other than that it's better for their bottom line.

But given the number of "crap 35-year-old planes" (to quote Mr. Al Baker!) clogging the skies, it seems that many are happy to plod on without modernising. I guess that's why the protectionist blanket is the first tool they clutch for once the dummy has been spit out of the pram...

No, actually a few weeks ago another publication from a major player in the leasing industry (IIRC, it was Barclays) showed us that the Neos are not necessarily more efficient given the price of oil at the moment. New aircraft are already insanely expensive, so older aircraft (fully depreciated or at low leasing payments) are still en vogue.

Do not fall for the old argument again.

As stated before, the only real strong ally the ME3 have in Germany, France and the US is the respective manufactorer.

Etihad tried to get more influence by taking over local airlines, but so far it cost them hundreds of millions (if not more) without getting any significant benefit on the political front.

It will be interesting to see in how far the financial institutions join the lobbying game. Those guys in combination with the Freshfields and Linklaters of this world are experts lobbying on more subtle grounds, at least in comparison to Anderson just recently.

You mean Airbus and Boeing?

I think they have allies in the travelling public who vote with their wallets when buying long-haul tickets, too!

I know no-one around here seems to put any faith in the figures/stats announced by the ME3, or that other airline analysts see benefit in the strategy, but Etihad derives a large, and growing, share of revenue and passengers from its partners (both equity, and simple codeshare).

Of course, airberlin has proven difficult to turn around, and they will have their hands full trying to turn Alitalia around, too. But I don't see the logic in Etihad - when you start from the premise that it is a "fake airline" with a bankrupt business model and can fly only because clearly-delusional fat cats are seemingly willing to pour endless money into the black hole of a business that, by itself, is unsustainable - pouring additional money down the drain by investing in other unsustainable businesses, or businesses that provide no upside to Etihad?

It could very well be that airberlin and Alitalia both end up dragging the whole edifice down. But if the businesses are so terrible, then surely the naysayers will achieve their best possible outcome if they just let these deluded megalomaniacs pour away all their money until such time as not even Abu Dhabi can bankroll this folly anymore?

(Note to readers, in case it's not apparent - I'm writing the above paragraphs from the (in my opinion) blinkered/biased/closed opinion of the naysayers who are roaming the halls of FT, DC and the US Media at present!)

I think Etihad has the biggest potential of giving the US3, and European legacy's some serious headaches in the future concerning TransAtlantic service.

Alitalia has always been a sleeping Tiger that was managed wrong. Etihad could easily turn that airline around into something very, very chic. Italy is world famous when it comes to design, fashion, jewelry, art, music, autos/motorcycles, food, culture, etc, etc. Etihad could really turn Atlitalia into the best airline in Europe if they play they're cards right.

I also like Hogans no apology approach with my boss has money, lots of money, so put up, or shut up.

So far I did not see the EK apologists forming lines on Capitol Hill or the lawn before the Reichstag with signs showing the F class shower cabin on the A380 asking for more civility in the sky.


I am sorry, I can only repeat myself. I see parts of Emirates working financially, mainly Europe-Asia during certain months. But the guys from Qatar and Etihad have to be even better actors making their points without cracking in front of a committee.

I mean, com' on, Alitalia and Air Berlin...that is even worse than most of the airlines being sucked up by SAir under operation 'Hunter'

Never ever forget that LTU did not only kill Swissair, it also killed Air Berlin.

But I do not think that a 150 plane airline can actually do much harm to Abu Dhabi, although they just posted record losses, IIRC.

Hence, you can imagine how certain people in the aviation world reacted when they announced that AB CFO Hütte left AB after 9 years to start working for (you will never guess it.....) Etihad.

Did you ever read 'The Peter Principle' ?

Italy used to be world-famous for all of that, but Berlusconi managed to destroy what was left over after 20-30 years of mismanagement already.

And the market is not big enough to support two hubs, still the major problem.

Aside from that, the low cost competition and high speed trains have taken over parts of a formerly lucrative domestic market and the profits from those routes kept AZ afloat for some time

It is still a major major tourist market and the ME3 are certainly able to transport low yield Chinese tourists to/from Italy (once again Europe-Asia might work for EK)

The greater Milan area is still lucrative, but the current set up with Linate and Malpensa makes it difficult for airlines to operate. MXP-NYC is certainly a pain for Sky Team. One should not underestimate that CDG sucked up most of the TATL traffic out of Italy. LH did a good job as well, especially in Northern Italy via its hubs across the Alps.

Under the bottom line, the Flying Dead, airlines like Air Serbia, Air Berlin, Alitalia should have been eliminated long ago and their corpses are just annoying for the well-managed airlines in Europe.

Financially, the investments to keep them in the air should never justify tiny tiny profits that might come around in a few years...

If you ask me, Etihad arrived twenty years too late for Alitalia. But the Alitalia lounges still look like the early 1990's. ;)

"Flying Dead, airlines like Air Serbia, Air Berlin, Alitalia" ^

Alitalia FCO Lounges, I would go back a decade more than the 90's!

The only problem, you are relying upon cherry-picking and combining tulips with cholocates as if that can't be done by saying SQ and SIN looked to other garden-lovers and other foods in becoming what it became. The world is a small place but it's not so small that continental Europe is now or ever was the be-all and end-all for the airlines that annoy KL and LH management.

Is that "us" the equivalent of the so-called royal tool "we" that confirms the Eurocentric and continental Northern European cheerleading so expected? It wouldnt be unexpected. If you want to be spared something or anything, you are of course welcome to ignore what you wish, as you wish, or imagine things, as you wish -- that's a typical way to cherry-pick in convoluted ways that loop. ;)

I agree.

Etihad had apparently been cleared by the Irish government to commence transatlantic services from Dublin - but this was not allowed by the US. It's probably less of a concern for them now, anyway, as they now have preclearance in AUH. The first "third-party" airline will commence service from Dublin to the US this summer - Ethiopian - so the rationale for refusing EK and EY's requests would have been weakened (until bolstered by the US3's braying).

Alitalia has been mismanaged for so long that most people mistakenly assume that an Italian carrier just could never be a force to be reckoned with. I think that, under Etihad's control, many people will be shown that that was an incorrect assumption.