Originally Posted by jakesterUK

If you do a search on the web, you will find plenty of articles which point to cheap labour in Dubai (these are general and not specifically related to Emirates), however, I would be very surprised if one of the main factors in their success was the relatively low costs of using Dubai airport.

Additionally, as Dubai is their base, and doubtless they have staff based in other cities around the world, they are going to benefit from more cost effective routes transiting their own country, just as SQ, CX and other Asian and Middle Eastern carriers will.

BA and LH probably have the edge if you are flying from the Middle East to anywhere in America (perhaps with the exception of New York, but even then BA or LH may be more competitively priced). But flying to Asia Pacific from Europe, EK is bound to be able to be so competitive, because its frequencies, and as I mentioned the relatively low costs at Dubai (I stand to be corrected as far as Dubai is concerned, but I can't believe that EK is paying a lot to use this airport).

Originally Posted by sadiqhassan

If EK is getting a free ride, countries won't want to allow EK to fly there because it will harm the airlines flying there because they won't be able to compete with EK. An example is in Austrailia. Qantas constantly accuses EK of getting help, and they also accuse EK of flooding the trans-tasman market making it impossible to compete with them.

Cheers

Originally Posted by dusordua

The "narrowest" seats are 1 inch less (17) than on other aircrafts (18).
I understand, that for some people one inch matters.

On the other hand they have 3 inch more legroom (34 against 31 on most other airlines), this is much more important for lot of other people!

Originally Posted by Dudster

The assistance EK receives is rather indirect. Much of it revolves around the airport. For instance, there is only one ground handling agent at DXB -- Dnata, which is owned by EK. All other airlines at DXB must use Dnata for all services (ramp, ticketing, pax handling, etc.). Dnata's fees are quite high compared to airports where services are competitive (e.g. most of Europe). The govt perserves this monopoly for EK which forces other airlines to subsidize EK. Want catering? Your only choice is Emirates flight catering. Who was contracted for all of the IT infrastructure for the new terminal at DXB? Mercator, EK's systems integration subsidiary. If the government were to allow competition for all of these services, EK would be much less "profitable"

Originally Posted by Kiwi Flyer

Well the airlines I fly most often have 34 or similar pitch and at least 18 inches (if not more) width. EK's seat is noticeably smaller in economy (and in business for that matter).

Originally Posted by trekkie

This i agree. All airlines that are majority owned by governments would have some sort of "help." For SQ, the increased insurance costs after the tragic crash in Taipei was picked by up the singapore government. Im sure Emirates would have some sort of financial assistance as well.

For airlines such as Qantas or US based airlines that do not have any government state, do not have this financial support to depend on.

But if you talk to these airline officials, im sure they will tell you to the tone of " its strictly business." a bit similar to the concept of the american TV show, "the Apprentice" by Donald Trump.

Originally Posted by sadiqhassan

I'm jealous The airlines I usually fly normally have seat pitches around 31"-32", so EK's 777s are a welcome treat. I've heard great things about NZ's Y class seating, though.

Cheers

Originally Posted by bensyd

QF doesnt have "help"??? Have you checked out SYD-LAX prices recently? And the government has prevented SQ from flying that route....QF derives 15% of its profit on that single route....thats protection....
US based airlines....check out the assistance they got after 9/11
Airlines are the most protected business in the world IMHO...partly because of the dependance of air travel now, and more importantly because for a lot of countries they represent a certain level of national pride....and also lets not forget the $$$$

Originally Posted by GUWonder

It must be remembered that more direct national government ownership of airlines and airport authorities/facilities exists elsewhere -- or existed elsewhere -- and that's been no guarantee of success. If anything, that's normally been a formula for lousy travel (with notable exceptions).

Originally Posted by Dudster

I think you miss the point, which is that the airline is likely subsidized by other group companies (e.g. Dnata and Mercator) who are the beneficiaries of government spending (in what are likely not competitive bids) or forced subsidization by other airlines.

Originally Posted by GUWonder

Last time I flew NZ's Y class long-haul, there was no personal IFE.

Originally Posted by UA Fan

Didn't QF also get help from the Aussie govt indirectly? I heard that the govt has shown partiality to them over other Aussie competitors itself most notable Ansett?

Originally Posted by Kiwi Flyer

Stopping an airline flying trans-tasman if it wants to is very difficult if not impossible. NZ & Australia have an open air trans-tasman agreement which means that any airline flying to one country can fly to the other, include freedoms between the two countries.

NZ & QF have often used EK as an example for why they should be allowed to merge/engage in anti-competitive practices.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Flyer

Hint - check out what routes DJ has (and doesn't have) to CBR.