AntonS

Let's put allegations of government subsidies of ME3 aside. At least EK seems to be profitable. I am asking something completely different.

Its clear that Emirates and ME3 and parasite airlines that carry most of their passengers between other countries. To be more precise, between USA/Europe and India, Africa, Asia and Australia. ME3 hubs are perfectly located to be "world center" hubs and they allowed more passengers to travel more conveniently, but let's also put this aside. Overall ME3 brought little to economies of the countries they connect with exception of huge orders of Boeing and Airbus. Is it all about Boeing and Airbus or there is more politics to it?

If USA and EU did not want M3 to become what they are today, they would limit flights (just like Canada) and M3 would be tiny airlines flying a few passengers who need to get to/from Dubai.

As a result, the airfares would be higher and less passengers would travel overall. There would be less demand for Boeing and Airbus but other airlines would eventually build up capacity and Boeing / Airbus would need to build similar number of available seats. A380 may not exist in the first place without EK but European and American airlines would grow significantly to fill in demand and bring more local jobs. Boeing and Airbus would get additional orders from European and American airlines - less than from ME3 but overall there maybe more jobs created in the US and Europe as a result of airline expansion + aircraft orders. At least it's not clear what would be better overall to USA and EU economies.

Recently I was reading about Canadian standoff about EK landing slots in Canada and how it resulted in despute over Canadian mitary bases in UAE. Is it what US is really afraid of? Was Emirates and ME3 expansion traded for friendly relationship , military presence and influence in the region?

What would happen to economies and situation in the region if USA and EU said no to ME3 by limiting landing slots and restricting open skies?

extramileage

Because, trade.

You could ask the same question of any cross border movement of goods and services.

skywardhunter

EK provides incredible 1-stop access to many new markets that didn't receive regular, reliable service, most of the ME3 do. They enable global business travelers to effectively travel across the globe and carry millions of tons of cargo. They also operate their own lounges in a massive number of locations, creating many jobs.

The US signed the Open Skies agreement of their own free will, affording US airlines the same access to the UAE that the UAE has to the US. The fact the US3, arguably some of the worst legacy airlines in the history of aviation, have not capitalized on this is surely no one's fault but their own.

AntonS

Do not compare US airlines flying to UAE and EK flying to US. There is very small demand overall for travel to UAE compared to all connecting pax that EK carries through UAE.

US airlines would never benefit from open skies as much as EK even if US carried all traffic between US and UAE who has final destinationis UAE. I did not see published numbers from EK on DXB vs connecting pax but I would guess only 10-20% goes to DXB and 80-90% is connecting.

DYKWIA

Not sure what your point is... The ME3 are doing exactly the same as what BA/AF/KL/LH/CX and a host of others have done for years. They use their hubs to transfer passengers.

Most airlines have adapted to the competition to try and stay profitable.

skywardhunter

Why shouldn't I compare? That's the agreement the US signed. In a free market economy surely you want vusinessbu to grow. It's the US model. The ME3 provide a superior product and a superior network and the US3 are too profit blind to compete.

​​​​​​Ultimately there's actually not that much overlap between US3 and ME3. The US3 operate to a tiny fraction of the international destinations that EK does. Certainly the Trans-Atlantic market the US3 have a big advantage with their direct flights

DYKWIA

US airlines use their alliances. However, most people would prefer a nice A380 to a clapped out B767 or B757 if prices are similar.

ft101

If the US airlines thought hey could make money carrying passengers between the USA and India/Africa/ME/Asia they would do it. The reality is they are inefficient when put head to head with the competition and their service is inferior. The positioning of Dubai, Abu Dhabi etc is the icing on the cake and the geography isn't going to change.

croberts134

I'm sorry but you lost all credibility (and exposed your real agenda) when you referred to them as "parasite airlines"...

AntonS

I apologise for bad wording. ME3 definitely benefits flying public (lower prices, more chocies, shorter flights). I only wanted to stress that majority of the pax they carry does not need to go to DXB etc. and could be if needed flying on other airlines, albeit with slightly longer routes. And besides Boeing and Airbus there is no clear benefit to economies of EU and US from ME3.

From this point of view BA is also a "parasite" but 1) at least they are/were... in EU and carry pax between EU and US/Asia; 2) There is a lot of competition from other hub airlines in EU; 3) There is significant number of pax who goes to London or UK, not just connecting.

DYKWIA

Ah, so it's OK for EU airlines, but not Asian airlines. All clear now.

AntonS

I do not think Asian airlines enjoy unlimited access or open skies to Europe or US, but I maybe wrong.

croberts134

Here's the thing though: the ME3 didn't appear overnight and become instantly as big as they are. The only reason they were able to be so successful connecting US and EU passengers to other destinations is that the US and EU carriers were not serving that demand. I believe you are fundamentally incorrect in asserting that if the ME3 had never been able to grow in the US and the EU that the home carriers would have just stepped in. The evidence points to the opposite since the ME3 were able to exploit years of neglect.

Additionally, the ME3 meeting this demand certainly benefits the economies of the origin, destination and connecting airports. Whether that be increased trade, increased tourism, increased employment at the airports, productivity gains from faster connections, more freight from larger aircraft. You cannot reasonably claim that there are no benefits to the ME3 services.

LondonElite

sydtogla

What is the alternative? The traffic is there. If you limit slots to ME3, what on earth do you think could fill it?

For a very silly illustration. QR just started flying to Cardiff, Wales. If that slot is somehow prohibited (which it won't), it would destroy any real potential that airport has of servicing beyond awful budget airlines and flag carriers doing regionals (ie the US network in a nutshell).