Emirates' "Golden Age of Travel"

[citrus]

You seriously linked the slowest time period load factors? Look at the yearly load factors for the last 3 years.

I'm not from Missouri but show me!

---------------------------------------------------->

Taken from United's 2013 Annual Report (2014 not available) - http://ir.united.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=83680&p=irol-reportsannual

Taken from Delta's 2014 Annual Report - http://ir.delta.com/stock-and-financial/sec-filings/default.aspx

Taken from AA's 2014 Annual Report - http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=117098&p=irol-reportsannual

 

[typhoonpilot]

Once again, Qantas is shrinking, while they expand a code share, an agreement where management gets revenue, but hurts the employees and you OK with that? Seriously?

Qantas has one destination in Europe, London. They used to go to Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Rome, and Manchester. Now, Emirates does that. How is that good?

Also posted by Seggy in the "Effort to educate" thread:

Yeah, the US Airlines ARE adapting. Look at the purchase of stake in the Brazilian carriers by United and Delta. Look how the Joint Ventures and Alliances are changing. That is playing fairly in the global marketplace

Oh please. Look at the long thin routes that my place is starting like SFO-CTU, the addition of Air India in the Star Alliance, the recent purchases of Brazilian Airlines by United and Delta for easier code-share rights, and a host of other things shows that the United States Carriers aren't forgetting that international air travel is the bread and butter of the business.

So, on the one hand code share and alliances are bad if they are linked to Emirates and on the other hand they are good if they are linked to a U.S. carrier. I actually stated that it's quite possible the new link between Azul and United could harm UAL pilots over the long term and you refuted that. Yet, you say when Qantas links with Emirates it harms their pilots. So which is it?


Typhoonpilot

 

[Seggy]

I'm not from Missouri but show me!

---------------------------------------------------->

Taken from United's 2013 Annual Report (2014 not available) - http://ir.united.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=83680&p=irol-reportsannual

Taken from Delta's 2014 Annual Report - http://ir.delta.com/stock-and-financial/sec-filings/default.aspx

Taken from AA's 2014 Annual Report - http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=117098&p=irol-reportsannual

Big difference between those numbers and 79%.

 

[Seggy]

So, on the one hand code share and alliances are bad if they are linked to Emirates and on the other hand they are good if they are linked to a U.S. carrier. I actually stated that it's quite possible the new link between Azul and United could harm UAL pilots over the long term and you refuted that. Yet, you say when Qantas links with Emirates it harms their pilots. So which is it?


Typhoonpilot

It has to do with the Pilot union's contractual language and scope. As stated, if you knew about the UAL Pilot's Scope provisions you would see how the Azul code-share will most likely beneficial to the United Pilot's as well as the corporation.

 

[citrus]

Once again, Qantas is shrinking, while they expand a code share, an agreement where management gets revenue, but hurts the employees and you OK with that? Seriously?

Qantas has one destination in Europe, London. They used to go to Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Rome, and Manchester. Now, Emirates does that. How is that good?

Yes, because I'm sure "TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION" is written somewhere in Qantas' charter; they should never have to cut unprofitable routes or recalibrate their business due to the changing dynamics of the marketplace. Why don't we look at some European destinations that are either no longer served or their service was reduced/terminated at some point by the US3 in comparison. The list is not comprehensive by any means but I'm highlighting a few here:

AA - BRU (reinstated), HEL (codeshare), GLA (reinstated), BOS-LHR (reinstated), BUD, EDI (reinstated)
DL - JFK-ZRH (reinstated), IST (reinstated), MIA-LHR (operated by Virgin Atlantic), JFK-BUD
UA - EWR-OSL (to be suspended), EWR-ARN (to be suspended), EWR-STR, EWR-IST, IAH-CDG, DEN-LHR, EWR-ATH.

So given all this, what is stopping QF from going back into Europe at some point in the future? They terminated their agreement with BA after 18 years and what's stopping them from doing so if it doesn't work out with EK? Additionally, you're neglecting to consider the economic instability within Europe currently, why would a company expose themselves to greater risk during a period of reorganization? By entering into codeshare w/ EK in addition to their OneWorld partnerships, they've delegated the risk onto others which is a strategically smart on QF's part, especially if conditions worsen within Europe - who stands to loose more QF or EK in this case?

Also, while QF might be delegating their European flying onto their partners, they're looking to expand further into NA by launching SYD-SFO in Dec. 15. and AA launching LAX-SYD. Where QF sees growth and opportunity is exactly where it should be looking to operate especially if they're looking to improve their margins. The resilience of the US economy gives them exactly such an environment to operate in, Europe is a toss up at this point. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/american-airlines-qantas-airways-add-190000737.html

And FYI, in 2014 Alan Joyce citied Virgin Australia's competitive cost structure and QF's massive debt levels as their biggest issue. Their partnership with EK had nothing to do with it much like JV with AA. http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-pushes-ahead-with-job-cuts-20140508-37x2r.html

 

[Seggy]

You are missing the point that Qantas is now 'flying' those routes with Emirates and is a shrinking airline.

 

[typhoonpilot]

It has to do with the Pilot union's contractual language and scope. As stated, if you knew about the UAL Pilot's Scope provisions you would see how the Azul code-share will most likely beneficial to the United Pilot's as well as the corporation.

Are those the same kind of scope provisions that were meant to limit RJ flying by "commuter" airlines 25 years ago? That worked out really well for the major pilots and the entire pilot workforce in the USA. .

Basically, you're missing the point. You might have strong scope language to prevent a reduction in current flying, but what about growth in international flying? Wouldn't it be nice to have organic growth in your own international flying? More widebody flying = more high paying positions. What happens when that EWR-Brasilia route grows and needs an additional daily frequency? Does it get operated by Azul or United? See the point?

Also, with code-share and alliances your passengers are at the whim of other companies for much of their journey on long routes. You stated that passengers quickly forget, but I guarantee you that is not the case. Just last night I discussed this with a colleague who is travelling Thailand to somewhere in South America. The last two times he has travelled on Thai/Lufthansa via Frankfurt. He really dislikes the Lufthansa product (they do not have lie flat seats in business class) so this time he made sure to book on DAL who do have lie flat seats on their long haul fleet...... and since you brought up Air India in another post, I guarantee you I would not travel on any UAL/Air India combination over another choice such as pure UAL, pure DAL, or Emirates.



Typhoonpilot

 

[citrus]

Big difference between those numbers and 79%.

Yeah you're right, 3-500 basis point difference > you're originally quote percentage of 90%. Talk about fuzzy math....

You are missing the point that Qantas is now 'flying' those routes with Emirates and is a shrinking airline.

You clearly missed the point/benefits of JV and codeshares. Like @typhoonpilot mentioned, any flying linked to EK is tainted. :thumbsup:

 

[Seggy]

Austrian pulling out of Vienna to Dubai market.

http://www.austrianairlines.ag/Press/PressReleases/Press/2015/07/058.aspx?sc_lang=en&mode={30999B4B-42D0-45A6-B671-FE5E3CB68ED8}

look at this quote from the press release...

The over-capacity, built up in recent years, resulted in fierce price competition as up to 800 seats per day were on offer. This ultimately made the Vienna-Dubai route unsustainable for Austrian Airlines.

Emirates put two 777-300s on that route when only one A330 was probably needed. If you think this can't happen in the United States, you are wrong!

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Yoounited still flies IAD to Dubai despite Emirates. If UA pulls out of DXB, it'll be Smisek's fault for not integrating properly, not Emirates fault.

 

[Seggy]

How can anyone compete when Emirates doesn't play be the same set of rules others do?

 

[Seggy]

Great article questioning if paying for the luxury of the ME3 is worth it from a human rights perspective...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-britton/is-this-a-luxury-you-want_b_7810644.html

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

How can anyone compete when Emirates doesn't play be the same set of rules others do?

Emirates has been around since 1985 and everyone has been doing so for 30 years now. The job losses in the USA for pilots from the past 30 years had nothing to do with Emirates and everything to do with poor management, wars, fuel.

 

[typhoonpilot]

Austrian pulling out of Vienna to Dubai market.

http://www.austrianairlines.ag/Press/PressReleases/Press/2015/07/058.aspx?sc_lang=en&mode={30999B4B-42D0-45A6-B671-FE5E3CB68ED8}

look at this quote from the press release...



Emirates put two 777-300s on that route when only one A330 was probably needed. If you think this can't happen in the United States, you are wrong!

You really need to stop using Emirates as the whipping dog Seggy. I used to fly the DXB-VIE route all the time because it was my favorite layover in Europe. The loads are quite good all year long. What we really need is MH to come on here and explain for you, he is a Jetcareers member and Tyrolean/Austrian pilot. While there is competition from Emirates and others, with Lufthansa pulling the strings at Austrian, things are not always what they seem.

Emirates does not operate routes at a loss. They do not add capacity unless there is demand for it. If a route is not operating at a profit or if they have added a frequency and it is not successful they will pull out of it. I can't say the same for Etihad and Qatar. I've told you time and time again your battle is not with Emirates, it's with Qatar and Etihad if anything. Stop believing the ALPA propaganda. They will lose the battle over the long run, but most importantly they will harm themselves in the process if they continue on their current strategy.

Your last comment is the sad reality of U.S. airline managers. They just aren't seeing the demand for air travel to the Indian Sub-Continent or they have no idea how to capture the market. The result is those people are flying on Emirates and others who do see the demand and who do effectively serve the market.


Typhoonpilot

 

[Seggy]

You really need to stop using Emirates as the whipping dog Seggy. I used to fly the DXB-VIE route all the time because it was my favorite layover in Europe. The loads are quite good all year long. What we really need is MH to come on here and explain for you, he is a Jetcareers member and Tyrolean/Austrian pilot. While there is competition from Emirates and others, with Lufthansa pulling the strings at Austrian, things are not always what they seem.
Typhoonpilot

Well, he is the one who showed me the link. We've been talking quite a while about the ME3 actually. Yes, there is a lot going on internally with LH, but that is not the reason for the pull down on this route.

 

[typhoonpilot]

Great article questioning if paying for the luxury of the ME3 is worth it from a human rights perspective...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-britton/is-this-a-luxury-you-want_b_7810644.html

What can I say to this. If this is how the argument is going to go we're into completely new and different territory. I won't defend some of the things that go on with treatment of employees, but the article is, of course, somewhat sensational. Again notice how it, in almost totality, uses examples from Qatar Airways yet somehow wants to provide guilt by association with Etihad and Emirates. Emirates flight attendants can get married and they can take maternity leave. They owe no bond for leaving.

So, if this is where outrage has to be then how about all the people who buy iPhones and any other product made in Chinese factories? Are they worth it from a human rights perspective?


Typhoonpilot

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

So, if this is where outrage has to be then how about all the people who buy iPhones and any other product made in Chinese factories? Are they worth it from a human rights perspective?

Can you show me a smart phone that's not made in China? Because there are plenty of airlines not based in the middle east.

 

[typhoonpilot]

Can you show me a smart phone that's not made in China? Because there are plenty of airlines not based in the middle east.

I can show you plenty of airlines that pay 1/2 to 1/3 what the Middle East airlines pay their flight attendants and have similar work rules to the ME3.


TP

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I can show you plenty of airlines that pay 1/2 to 1/3 what the Middle East airlines pay their flight attendants and have similar work rules to the ME3. TP

Cool story, bro, but that wasn't the question.

 

[typhoonpilot]

Cool story, bro, but that wasn't the question.

So you're saying it's okay to buy products when they are made in slave like factory conditions as long as it's only confined to one country and it's a product that everyone has or wants, but when an airline hires people and brings them to a Muslim country to work, often at 3-4 times the pay they can make in their own country, they can't have certain rules that ensure some of the religious rules of the host country are not violated? Just want to make sure because it sounds a little bit hypocritical.


TP