Dubai Announces World's Largest Airport

In article ,
Jim Ley wrote:

The real money for the airlines is in long-haul
business-class travel between major business centers:

Except of course the airlines that attempt to cater for this market
are losing money, and the airlines that don't cater for it (according
to you) are making money.

Airlines make or lose money for a thousand different reasons. Some have
horrible legacy labor costs and pension obligations, others hedged
their fuel purchases, etc. etc. If US airlines had the same cost base
as Emirates, they'd be minting cash.

So what happens in your plans if private jets costs reduce and allow
the "time is money" business traveller to avoid the busy airports, and
get direct to where they want to be.

Bad news for the airlines. I see this already happening in the US.

The reality is that cost matters a lot to the vast majority of
business travellers, most are flying in economy now, and most are not
important enough to shave off a couple hours travelling at a cost of
thousands of dollars

The few who *are* important enough are the ones who generate all of
the long-haul airlines' profit. I recall that for many years premium
classes at BA were generating more than 100% of the profit (i.e.,
BA was losing money in the back of the cabin).

You fail to realise that demand is not a static thing, the fact there
are connections from Dubai into other places can easily increase
demand

You don't understand how the airline business works. There is a growing
demand for flights between the US and India (outsorcing and whatnot).
This does not increase the demand for flights connecting in Dubai.
Instead, airlines start new nonstops from the US to India - which is
what AA, CO, and DL did this year.

you obviously think 18 hours on a non-stop flight is the way
the businessmen wants to get to his meeting

Flying from Europe to India, China, Japan is nowhere near 18 hours.
And yes, given a choice between a nonstop flight and a connection in
Dubai, the kind of business traveler that airlines are interested in
will always choose a nonstop.

Emirates have a good thing going with Australia, because you have
to stop over between Australia and Europe no matter how you fly.
This niche will disappear soon, and they'll be stuck with their white
elephant of an airport and the A380s that they'll be filling with
shopping-mall crowds.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 01:48:51 -0800 (PST), (VS)
wrote:

In article ,
AJC wrote:

Emirates is providing connectivity between Europe and South
Asia, Far East Asia, Africa and Australia/New Zealand in a manner that
no other airline will be able to match in the near future

Boeing has midsize airplanes now that are capable of flying any of
these routes nonstop.

Err, no it doesn't, well not as viable commercial services.

Plenty of airlines operate viable commercial nonstops between Asia and
Europe with 777s (and soon 787s). The only major business center that's
out of reach now is Australia, where Emirates seem to have a profitable
niche, which will disappear once high-yield business travelers start
flying nonstop. Emirates will be stuck with bottom-of-the-barrel
economy passengers who are willing to endure stopovers for the sake
of saving a few bucks.


OK, so you've retracted your statement above, that's a start. Emirates
will certainly continue to fill up with low-yield traffic, but will
also continue to build on their success providing a top-end product.
First class on their 345s is the best in the world, they will offer
the same on their 380s.




Hub-and-spoke systems, such as the one operated
by the Emirates, are on their way out, which is why 777 and 787 are
successful, while A380 will be a mega-flop. Soon one will be able to
fly nonstop from any large airport in Europe to any city in Asia or
even Australia - no need for stopovers in Dubai or anywhere else.

What about all the people who don't live near large airports? Not
everyone lives near LHR, CDG, FRA, but do live near airports such as
GLA, NCE, DUS.

So Emirates will be flying A380s into GLA, NCE, DUS?


Highly unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future. This is why they
will operate a mixed capacity fleet, 330/345 up to 380 size, to serve
a route network which links DXB with both secondary points such as
those above, and also major destinations.




At any rate, these second-tier cities may have large populations, but
that's neither here, nor there. They generate negligible business
traffic, which is why the number of flights out of, say, LHR is
disproportionately larger than out of GLA. If airlines could sell
business-class seats out of GLA, they would. But they can't.


They can't because there isn't sufficient demand on a city-pair basis.
There is sufficient demand when funneled through a hub. And this will
always be the case. By the time there is sufficient demand for a
direct flight from GLA, demand will have grown from EDI or NCL
sufficient to justify a link to the hub, and so it will continue from
all regions in to the hub.



It sounds as
if you don't really understand the traffic patterns, volumes, the
predicted growth, and existing congestion on these routes.

What congestion? Europe has what, 1 or 2 slot-controlled airports?
America has none. How many in Asia?


There is more to congestion than slot-controlled airports. You've
obviously never sat on the ground at KUL waiting for a slot through
the busy corridors across central Asia. You've obviously never had to
hang around the skies of Southern Europe waiting for a passage through
busy central European air space.



You are confusing volume with profitability. The real money-maker
for the airlines is long-haul business class with 5-digit fares.
And traffic patterns for this kind of travel are simple and predictable:
nonstops between financial and industrial centers. Period.

Endure stopovers? Have you ever made ultra-long-haul journeys?

LAX-SYD. LAX-AKL. LAX-SVO. Flying ATL-ICN tomorrow. I've been
averaging over 100K miles per year for the past few years, most of
them transcontinental.


None of those are ultra-long-haul journeys. And of course none of them
are of any relevance to Emirates' DXB hub.



For many, most even, a stopover is a desirable part of the journey.

Maybe for vacationers with tons of time on their hand (even then,
Dubai is the probably the worst stopover imaginable),

Strange that those that have actually been there view it differently.


but certainly
not for the passengers that really matter as far as airline economics
are concerned, that is, business travelers who need to be at their
destination at a specific time, fly business class and don't have half
a day to waste on showers and swims along the way.


Half a day? Hardly.

--==++AJC++==--

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 02:39:07 -0800 (PST), (VS)
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Ley wrote:



Emirates have a good thing going with Australia, because you have
to stop over between Australia and Europe no matter how you fly.
This niche will disappear soon,


No it won't. Where do you get this from? As has already been
explained, the only possibility 'soon' is of a very restricted, very
expensive service linking one or maybe two points in Australia with
the same in Europe.
--==++AJC++==--

VS wrote:
Boeing has midsize airplanes now that are capable of flying any of
these routes nonstop. Hub-and-spoke systems, such as the one
operated
by the Emirates, are on their way out, which is why 777 and 787 are
successful, while A380 will be a mega-flop. Soon one will be able to

fly nonstop from any large airport in Europe to any city in Asia or
even Australia - no need for stopovers in Dubai or anywhere else.

------

I know that the hub and spoke system of legacy carriers in the US has
taken a beating by the low cost ones that operate point to point
flights. But that system will not disappear totally in the US. It will
stay in conjunction with the point to point flights. You cannot
commercially (aka profitably) operate point to point flights between
EVERY two US cities imaginable. Because of the hub and spoke system
that Emirates is continuing to build, the airline can tap into demand
from virtually every city in Europe (and some in North America) to as
many airports in Asia, Africa and so on. I don't think you'll ever be
able to daily fly a large jet between Vienna to Kochin (southern
India). But travellers can seemlessly fly between these two cities by
flying through Dubai on Emirates. US carriers have recently started
flying non-stop to India. But Delhi is as far as they go. In order to
proceed to other Indian cities, one then has to deal with the ordeal of
domestic Indian travel (not as bad as it used to be). But once Emirates
expands more in North America, you can have a situation where you can
fly from Detroit to Amritsar (northern India) with one stop in Dubai.
That would be a far more attractive proposition than flying American
Airlines Detroit-Chicago-Delhi and Air Sahara from Delhi to Amritsar.
Emirates' flights from JFK to Dubai has been very popular thanks to the
South Asian travellers. It will only be a good thing when Emirates
starts flying to more cities in North America.

As far as non-stop flights between Europe and Australia goes, one can
seriously question whether passengers want to stay inside an aircraft
for 20 hours or so. Don't know if there is sufficient demand for such
flights. Time will tell.

On 1 Dec 2005 03:21:36 -0800, "Riaz" wrote:

VS wrote:
Boeing has midsize airplanes now that are capable of flying any of
these routes nonstop. Hub-and-spoke systems, such as the one
operated
by the Emirates, are on their way out, which is why 777 and 787 are
successful, while A380 will be a mega-flop. Soon one will be able to

fly nonstop from any large airport in Europe to any city in Asia or
even Australia - no need for stopovers in Dubai or anywhere else.

------

I know that the hub and spoke system of legacy carriers in the US has
taken a beating by the low cost ones that operate point to point
flights. But that system will not disappear totally in the US. It will
stay in conjunction with the point to point flights. You cannot
commercially (aka profitably) operate point to point flights between
EVERY two US cities imaginable.

Unfortunately some people seem to take the US as an example of how the
rest of the world works. This inevitably leads to their lack of
understanding of other markets. Hub and spoke may be stagnating, or
even dwindling in the US, along with most of their major carriers, but
in other parts of the world hub and spoke is thriving, and increasing
as are the airlines that have embraced it.


Because of the hub and spoke system
that Emirates is continuing to build, the airline can tap into demand
from virtually every city in Europe (and some in North America) to as
many airports in Asia, Africa and so on. I don't think you'll ever be
able to daily fly a large jet between Vienna to Kochin (southern
India). But travellers can seemlessly fly between these two cities by
flying through Dubai on Emirates. US carriers have recently started
flying non-stop to India. But Delhi is as far as they go.


NW did almost start Bangalore, but that has been postponed. European
airlines have started service to secondary Indian cities, but only
from major hubs, relying on feeder traffic to support the routes.


In order to
proceed to other Indian cities, one then has to deal with the ordeal of
domestic Indian travel (not as bad as it used to be). But once Emirates
expands more in North America, you can have a situation where you can
fly from Detroit to Amritsar (northern India) with one stop in Dubai.
That would be a far more attractive proposition than flying American
Airlines Detroit-Chicago-Delhi and Air Sahara from Delhi to Amritsar.
Emirates' flights from JFK to Dubai has been very popular thanks to the
South Asian travellers. It will only be a good thing when Emirates
starts flying to more cities in North America.

As far as non-stop flights between Europe and Australia goes, one can
seriously question whether passengers want to stay inside an aircraft
for 20 hours or so. Don't know if there is sufficient demand for such
flights. Time will tell.

Very very limited. When Boeing flew their 777LR around for nearly 23
hours from HKG to LHR as a publicity exercise, on arrival the report
from journalists on board was that it was a marvellous achievment, but
physically exhausting to be shut on a plane for so long with no break.



--==++AJC++==--

In article ,
AJC wrote:

Plenty of airlines operate viable commercial nonstops between Asia and
Europe with 777s (and soon 787s). The only major business center that's
out of reach now is Australia, where Emirates seem to have a profitable
niche, which will disappear once high-yield business travelers start
flying nonstop. Emirates will be stuck with bottom-of-the-barrel
economy passengers who are willing to endure stopovers for the sake
of saving a few bucks.

OK, so you've retracted your statement above, that's a start.

Ahem... Let me repeat for your reading comprehension:

Boeing has midsize airplanes now that are capable of flying any of these
routes nonstop. (And 787, once its deployed, will destroy whatever
remains of Emirates' high-yield market between Europe and Australia.)

At any rate, these second-tier cities may have large populations, but
that's neither here, nor there. They generate negligible business
traffic, which is why the number of flights out of, say, LHR is
disproportionately larger than out of GLA. If airlines could sell
business-class seats out of GLA, they would. But they can't.

They can't because there isn't sufficient demand on a city-pair basis.
There is sufficient demand when funneled through a hub.

No, there isn't. There isn't even much demand for flights from GLA
to American hubs (and the UK has much closer ties with the US than
with Asia). Every US carrier with an international network flies to
LGW or LHR from each of its hubs, often with multiple flights every day,
while only a couple fly to GLA, and with smaller planes, too.
There is very little business traffic originating from GLA.

There is more to congestion than slot-controlled airports. You've
obviously never sat on the ground at KUL waiting for a slot through
the busy corridors across central Asia. You've obviously never had to
hang around the skies of Southern Europe waiting for a passage through
busy central European air space.

No facts, then, just rhetoric? Just as I thought.

Endure stopovers? Have you ever made ultra-long-haul journeys?

LAX-SYD. LAX-AKL. LAX-SVO. Flying ATL-ICN tomorrow. I've been
averaging over 100K miles per year for the past few years, most of
them transcontinental.

None of those are ultra-long-haul journeys.

Oh, pardon me. I did not realize that this discussion was limited to
the 3 routes in the world that are longer than 10,000 miles. Well,
none of the routes between Europe and Asia are ultra-long-haul, then,
so I am glad you agree there is no need for stopovers on these routes.

And of course none of them
are of any relevance to Emirates' DXB hub.

Nothing has relevance to Emirates' DXB hub, because that hub is a
white elephant. Some sheikh's vanity project, based on megalomania,
a misreading of the trends in the airline business, and a mistaken
assumption that lots of passengers value their time so little that
they will abandon convienient nonstops for the sake of low fares and
duty-free shopping on long stopovers.

AJC wrote:
European airlines have started service to secondary Indian cities, but
only
from major hubs, relying on feeder traffic to support the routes.

-----------

Indeed. British Airways feeds its flights to Europe, Middle East, South
Asia and Africa with passengers arriving from North America and vis
versa. Lufthansa and KLM has been doing that for ages as well.

VS wrote:
GLA to PER via DXB sounds nice in theory,
but in reality there is no viable business there, even when funneled
through a hub.

---------------------

But Emirates is already carrying passengers on this route through
Dubai!!!!

Bucky wrote:
VS wrote:

Dubai has no industry, no natural or cultural attractions, just a
bunch of shops (for tourists whose idea of a good vacation is a trip
to a giant shopping mall), hotels with gold-plated toilets (for the
European chavs with more money than sense and their Arab equivalents),


Sounds like Las Vegas, which started as nothing in the middle of the
desert. But now is a huge international tourist attraction. It's just
shopping, hotels, and casinos.


And bankruptcy. Both personal and corporate. It appears some folks can
go bust even with house odds.

On 1 Dec 2005 08:27:45 -0800, "Riaz" wrote:

VS wrote:
GLA to PER via DXB sounds nice in theory,
but in reality there is no viable business there, even when funneled
through a hub.

---------------------

But Emirates is already carrying passengers on this route through
Dubai!!!!


Indeed, with business class on both sectors, catering to all sections
of the market. But I guess the op will just remain in denial!
--==++AJC++==--