EK - We are not subsidized

[9V-JKL]

http://f.chtah.com/s/3/2087210970/Ai...233-845771.pdf

[kt74]

Correct - EK is not directly subsidised

It's just that (a) nobody has to pay any tax, and (b) they got a shiny new airport (two, if you count Dubai World) built for them

I'm not complaining, mind you - if it lowers the cost of travel, and breaks the unions in Europe and the US, it can only be a good thing...

[CarbonMan]

The stats buried in that report are actually quite revealing. Thanks for the post 9V-JKL!

[Sethor]

I think EK plays it fair, other airlines are just making up excuses for bad performace due to their own part.

[kt74]

I think EK plays it fair, other airlines are just making up excuses for bad performace due to their own part.

Well, EK has no unions, and may pay its staff well, post-tax, but it does tend to get its pound of flesh (as an Australian, you may remember the overworked pilots who almost crashed a fully laden A340 on take off from MEL?)

Now, if QF could only destroy the unions, have a staff cost base like EK's, pay near-zero corporation tax, and have 24 hour single terminal operation and an extra runway at its main hub, do you think it would be more competitive?

Like I said, I'm not complaining... but let's be clear, EK has plenty of natural-born advantages - it's just that direct government subsidy is not one of them

[cscs1956]

Well, EK has no unions, and may pay its staff well, post-tax, but it does tend to get its pound of flesh (as an Australian, you may remember the overworked pilots who almost crashed a fully laden A340 on take off from MEL?)

Now, if QF could only destroy the unions, have a staff cost base like EK's, pay near-zero corporation tax, and have 24 hour single terminal operation and an extra runway at its main hub, do you think it would be more competitive?

Like I said, I'm not complaining... but let's be clear, EK has plenty of natural-born advantages - it's just that direct government subsidy is not one of them

May be a better example is SQ and unions for SQ?

[SQtraveller]

EK has plenty of natural-born advantages - it's just that direct government subsidy is not one of them

post deleted

[Sethor]

Now, if QF could only destroy the unions, have a staff cost base like EK's, pay near-zero corporation tax, and have 24 hour single terminal operation and an extra runway at its main hub, do you think it would be more competitive?

Removing the curfew & adding a extra runways at airports like LHR & SYD will also have its disadvantages to its home carriers. BA & QF have strangehold of its hub airport slots, I bet you EK would love to have all it's London flights to operate to & from LHR.

[Guy Betsy]

EK also has no fuel surcharges !

[9V-JKL]

Thanks for the post 9V-JKL!

I 'borrowed' the link from Singapore_Air's post on ANet. Credit must go to him..

[Sethor]

EK also has no fuel surcharges !

That does not mean anything other than that they build fuel costs into the fare.

[boing]

This report blasts away the misconception that the industry had of EK. To be honest, I too was one of them who thought EK had access to cheap fuel due to them being in the Mid-East.
Although there is one fact that they got wrong in which they report that Singapore has a monopoly in the ground handling and catering in SIN. There is SATS(which is no longer under SIA) and ahem, DNATA.

It's also interesting to note how they acknowledge Singapore as its role model in their operational structure. Now, tables have turned and SQ might need to take a few pointers in how to operate an airline from EK

[Rambuster]

On labour costs they have fiddled the stats.
I assume some of their true fixed cost has simply been declared as variable cost to lower their own figures.

[boing]

On labour costs they have fiddled the stats.
I assume some of their true fixed cost has simply been declared as variable cost to lower their own figures.

Are you suggesting they have deflated their true labour costs ?

[Rambuster]

Are you suggesting they have deflated their true labour costs ?

Yes, that's what I think.