Why should the burden of proof be on the accused? (Most modern legal systems don't work like that.)

A small correction, Dubai actually run out of money simple because they invested too much some years ago. Now it is up to you whether the main drainage resulted from the airport, the airline, the tower, the islands, the metro. And let us avoid a discussion about unserved debt in the area.

But I fear that even a well performing airline, with profit margins being higher than the WACC is not really able to pay for a tower a few thousand feet high let alone other major infrastructure projects.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Dubai Duty Free is highly highly profitable, there is also no doubt that DNATA is charging insane amounts for handling foreign carriers (well known industry standards) but again you cannot sustain losses of a few hundred million from ops by selling some bottles of booze or charging Air France a few percentage points more than at comparable airports for handling a 773. :eek:

Just for the sake of a more educated world...

Maybe it is just me, but I always feel sorry in case people without access to information etc. look a bit, well, uninformed (without using more drastic terms...)

Hence, I invested quite some time trying to give the readers a more balanced and educated view how the ship is sailing.

Obviously, the US3 have a more specific agenda, but does it really matter whether or not they blew up the subsidies by 20,30,40%

I give you the benefit of the doubt today, so maybe the subsidies only amount to $25 or 30 billion. What a big and decisive difference.

Just out of curiosity, do you know anyone how is really believing that they are not subsidised beyong belief and/or that they are earning profits from flying aircraft on ultra long haul flights?

I mean even Clark stated that they face huge operational issues on US flights due to too many bags and weight. And before anyone asks for a source, I believe it was an interview in Airline Business.

So let me summarize it once more.

They operate a business model which nobody mastered so far on aircraft performing well below what was promised by Airbus and the engine provider. They have a super low RASM, they cannot transport cargo, they have huge marketing & communication costs, they have mostly only connecting pax...but they still make money, in other terms:

They just re-invented the wheel ^

I'm still waiting for your promised quotes/references from these "industry experts".

So you've got a degree. Surely you should be able to come up with some data that *proves* EK is getting subsidies? Just repeating you're an industry expert, so it must be true, doesn't count.

:confused:

How is it possible to prove that? That question just goes to prove your credibility on this issue. As I've said, I don't know one way or the other.

All I can do is look at what's been posted on here. The 2 naysaysers have constantly ignored any facts or calculations from the more respectable posters on here (eternaltransit, irishguy28 for example). Their argument is "I don't understand it, so it must be a scam". Both paint themselves as "industry experts", and thus, everyone else is an idiot who doesn't understand.

Jeez, could you try and be a bit more condescending is your next post?

At this point, the situation is comparable to the few people who do not understand that we are experiencing a climate change and their petty attempts and pointless quips at scientists accusing them of lying because of their 'leftist' agenda.

Of course, we only have real scientific climate data since 150 years or so, of course, we only have 70,80,90% of the data we have to have to make a more definitive statement in how far EK and their buddies are subsidised, but the evidence should be more than enough to point in a certain direction...

I think we can leave it at that, until anyone can provide an expert (I am really happy with a Weather Channel intern...) confirming the usual EK statement:

'We are happy with the development of the route'

(a direct quote of an EK board member at a major aviation conference months before they cancelled the JFK service from HAM)

I did not mean to insult you, but at a certain point in time this discussion is pointless, especially with the weekend approaching fast and brilliant weather expected for most of Germany. I hope you understand that I prefer a Cannondale ride to some more verbal cannon shots about EK subsidies over the weekend. See you around.

Well, you've alluded to your unnamed, unsourced experts, and your own apparent insider knowledge and huge aviation experience, but have failed to come up with anything other than the "Fair Skies" dossier, which may indeed have been assembled by your cherished Weather Channel intern.

But to run with your main thesis - DXB-HAM-JFK was running at a loss, which is (in your opinion) business as usual for Emirates - why did they pull this route? One route out of hundreds of loss-making routes isn't going to make much difference. What was so special about this route, then?

Why do you keep repeating various forms of this line every couple of days? In what way is it relevant?

How many airlines have you started?

What is the industry-accepted definition of the "minimum starting requirements" for "an airline like Qatar, Etihad or Emirates"?

Just read through this thread for the first time in ages.

It seems to me that far from giving an educated view you haven't yet produced a single source, link etc to substantiate your view.

So for all we know you could well just be contributing to global warming.

He must be, given all the airlines he's running....:D

But at least for his own transport needs, he relies on his own trusty Cannondale.

So, do the "industry experts" out there believe there are ANY parts of the EK network that are operationally profitable, without "subsidies"? And if so, which parts?

Interesting as one of the key points of the OpenSkies Dossier (page 29) is that Dubai charges are artificially low and about a quarter of what US airports charge, so this must benefit EK as the predominant user of the airport.

http://www.openandfairskies.com/wp-c...hite.Paper.pdf

So which is it? Your "well known standards" or their published facts?

I'm no industry expert, but is it not standard practice that many airlines are willing to offer unprofitable routes and stick with them until the market matures and they become profitable? [Or bail out completely when they appear to be no-hopers, as FD1971 kindly reminded us that Emirates is ruthlessly liable to do]

Garuda is currently doing just that - it returned to Europe last year with a service to London Gatwick via Amsterdam. Not what they wanted, at all - a direct service to Heathrow was their target - but they're sticking with it and attempting to build up their markets.

The US is a huge market and it would therefore be rather odd for any global airline to shy away from the market.

OK, I know that many airlines, like Malaysia Airlines, Thai Airways, etc, have struggled and cut routes or left the market altogether - but they are facing huge problems (MAS is in the process of being reconfigured to look even more like a regional, rather than intercontinental, airline). But there are many others who don't.

And given that the US counts for such a small percentage of any of the ME3's markets (in no case does it, I believe, account for anything more than 6%) - though they do want to grow this, each of them - then I don't see that the business model is unsustainable, unless we are to believe that no part of their business is profitable.

There must be some very creative bookkeeping going on in the Gulf, in that case.

Yeah, we get it - you and the OP are the only ones who know anything. Trying to win an argument by insulting the other side is not convincing. You might want to download this chart on logical fallacies and read up on "ad hominem" and "personal incredulity" for a start.
The US 3 have claimed (and I don't believe this has been proved conclusively yet) that:

Subsidies to EY + Subsidies to QR + Subsidies to EK = $40 billion.

The question of this thread is whether EK is subsidized. It is possible (not proven) that between them, EY and QR have subsidies of $40B and EK has none. This would support the claim of the US3 while leaving the answer to "Is EK a financial scam?" a resounding "NO."
As someone who books EK flights SYD-DXB-Europe well in advance before they sell out, and who even then flies on a packed flight, I'll put my hand up. EK has three flights a day SYD-DXB (2 on A380 and one on B777, not to mention a codeshared QF A380). When I went to book more than two months in advance, two of the 3 had sold out in Y. As of today there are no seats left (in Y) on my flight either, and only 1 in J.

Isolated case? No. This is my fifth SYD-DXB-Europe in three years and apart from one DXB-SYD that was 2/3 full, every flight has been at 90 - 100% capacity.

It doesn't get much more ultra-long-haul than SYD-DXB. So yeah, I believe EK are earning profits from flying A380s on ULH.

Now, if you mean earning profits on ULH flights to/from the USA that may or may not be different. @:-) But the USA is not the whole world, or even most of the world. @:-) And lots of extremely profitable companies lose (a bit of) money on some products but make it up with (a lot of profit) on other products, usually as a temporary measure or because the loss-leader increases sales. So even if (and it hasn't been proved) the US ULH flights are being subsidized by the Australia/Europe/Asia EK flights, it doesn't mean the overall airline is losing money.

Further, as has been pointed out above, Dubai is not in a financial position to offer huge subsidies year after year to EK.
"Operational issues" is not the same as "losing money" or "subsidized" or "bad business case." QF has operational issues on SYD-DFW due to the distance/fuel/wind speed challenge. So what?

Don't forget to add China/NE Asia-Africa. Chinese investment in Africa is huge, and at the moment there are not that many service direct from the E Asia to Africa, so there is limited competition.