Originally Posted by
gloopy
That's because there's nowhere near the O&D demand for curent flying, much less dumping additional widebodies on those routes. The ME3 are doing them because they transfer the pax all over the world, quite often to places already served by US airlines and existing partners.
And speaking of whining, its funny watching the ME3 conniption fit over even the possibility that their sky blackening half hourly 777/380 dual subsidized fantasy might not pan out.
Let's just look at some facts instead of rambling rhetoric.
Emirates operates just over 230 aircraft. They currently serve 9 U.S. destinations. Some with more than 1 flight per day. Their combined service equates to around 32.5 aircraft if you use a generous 2.5 aircraft requirement per flight per city pair currently served. That is 13.8% of their total fleet. From that they derive 11.4% of their global revenue. Including freighter service Emirates serves 142 total destinations worldwide. So the amount of U.S. cities is currently 6.3% of their global total. They do that with a 79.4% load factor as reported in the latest annual report.
In the last fiscal year their revenue was $21.9 billion from airline operations. $2.5 billion of that was from the "Americas" market so also includes Toronto, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aries, and Rio. Let's say less than $2 billion directly attributable to the USA.
The other $19.4 billion came from people travelling from Europe (29% of total ), Gulf and Middle East (10.3%), West Asia and Indian Ocean (10.2%), Africa (9.2%), and East Asia/Australasia (29.5%).
Emirates, is getting grouped in with Etihad and Qatar with the word "subsidized", but paid a $224 million dividend to their majority shareholder at the end of the last fiscal year. They have paid similar dividends in previous years. How an airline that is paying a dividend can be termed "subsidized" is kind of difficult to grasp.
Maybe, there is truth to the help they received for the hedge loss but it's interesting to note that they reported a $268 million net profit in the 2008/9 fiscal year and $1.1 billion profit in the 2009/10 fiscal year. The years that hedge loss apparently occurred. Again, they are paying a dividend to their majority shareholder every year. So even if they did get a short term off the books loan how does that make them "subsidized"?
With a 79.4% load factor how are they "dumping additional wide bodies".
What you and everyone else should be looking at is that other 88.6% of revenue from the 133 non-U.S. destinations that Emirates serves. That again is $19.4 billion in revenue.
Instead of trying to protect $2 billion in revenue, much of which is stimulated new demand, why not try to just go after a 10-20% share of what Emirates alone has from their foreign operations? That would equate to more U.S. airline pilot jobs. Grab a share of what Etihad and Qatar do and the numbers go up significantly from there.
But no, the rhetoric we get from you is shut down Boeing's sale of aircraft to foreign airlines. Never mind that could cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of highly paid U.S. manufacturing jobs. Shut down foreign airline service to communities in the USA. Never mind the adverse economic impact that could have on those airports and their cities.
Clearly there is O&D demand for a lot of the routes being flown. It just wasn't served efficiently or stimulated by U.S. airlines and/or their code share partners. They need to up their game and increase their presence in the markets that Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar are serving.
That is the way forward, not the ALPA proposed way.
Typhoonpilot
P.S. Let's not forget your wacko threats to deny the foreign earned income exclusion to Americans working overseas and to ban them from returning to the USA.