[AnthonyDunn]

I seem to recall being told that the UK has an open skies agreement with the United Arab Emirates – signed, incidentally, well before the Gulfies became what they are today and well before there was any indication that they intended to expand so aggressively.

Consequently, can anyone tell me what impediments there might be (hypothetically) to say BA or Virgin pitching up at one of AUH/DXB/DOH and setting up a hub there – beyond their own lack of ambition and/or competitive edge?

Clearly DOH might be something of an issue with Al-Baker/QR. But if the UAE signed an agreement, they’d have to live with the consequences (even if unforeseen)…. Or am I just being naive?

[JohnHarper]

Ian, you are right but QF appear to have walked up to the EK altar to be slaughtered rather than looking after their own business interests. Surely one of the things that should have been included was the dropping of one EK service between DXB and LHR as there would have been capacity on QF services but no and IIRC the agreement came in to force as EK introduced the A380 on all its LHR services.

QF management have some explaining to do. Hopefully the present incumbant will not be too long in his role.

The open skies agreement with the UAE is indeed an old one and at the time it was drawn up it was clearly in the interests of BA and no one else. How things have changed.

[SimonS1]

Anthony – yes I believe there is an open skies agreement between UAE and UK and the only restrictions are some 5th Freedom rights.

AFAIK there is nothing in the aviation agreement to stop any UK airline setting up a hub in Dubai. Of course local law has its challenges (eg all companies in UAE must be 51% locally owned unless based in a free zone) however there are many British companies that successfully operate that way, either through a j/v or franchise agreement. Plus of course BA has experience of franchising, as does Virgin, so potentially either could make that work.

There would also be a question of capacity – I doubt enough slots would be available at Dubai International but there is plenty of capacity at the new Maktoum International.

The UAE government has always been pro trade and I think they would be quite happy with the investment and jobs it would bring.

In reality I couldn’t see it happening, to be competitive it would need massive investment on a scale that would be beyond Virgin’s capacity and probably BA’s as well. Plus would they generate an acceptable share of business?

[canucklad]

Remembering of course that BA is now a Spanish registered company !

[AnthonyDunn]

@ canucklad – 10/04/2014 16:02 GMT

Sorry to be an utter pedant but I’ve previously been hauled over the coals for imprecision on this issue.

BA is a UK registered plc – at the Waterside – and subject to UK taxation. IAG is the parent company of British Airways, Iberia and Vueling. It is a Spanish registered company with shares traded on the London Stock Exchange and Spanish Stock Exchanges. The corporate head office for IAG is in London, UK – somewhere else in Hounslow.

@ SimonS1 – 10/04/2014 15:51 GMT

+1 I am sure that you are (disappointingly) right. The capex required and the level of risk would fly in the face of everything that the BA bean counters have injected into the company’s operations/thought processes – as far as I can tell, anyway. Oh, and BTW, I still have a certain response that I must finally collate and post – suitably toned-down after all this time…

[canucklad]

Cheers for the clarification AD

Find it rather strange that you’re able to gamble shares in IAG and BA, cause and effect and all that. Still, eggs and baskets come to mind.

I’m not convinced that the UAE would welcome foreign carriers creating bases there. The little men in my head niggle me into thinking that these carriers are already under the different Emir’s thumbs ?

[SimonS1]

Canucklad – you can’t buy shares in BA as they are no longer listed. You can only buy IAG. However British Airways is still a UK company and a designated UK carrier.

There are no Emirs in UAE, only Rulers……

[canucklad]

Secondly, I’ve just read FivestarFred’s review of his journey from SYD-LAX-JFK normally operated by a 380 ,didn’t realise QF flew to NY so it got me wondering how it’s possible that QF can manage this route but struggle via DXB to LHR.

I’m also aware that from reading various forum contributors’ comments that QF’s premium product is very good, I know their economy product is excellent, so it got me wondering…..

Surely it’s not out with QF’s schedulers’ grey matter to deploy their 380’s on an East to West & vice versa SYD-LAX-JFK-LHR-DXB-SYD. This would also solve the long downtime at LHR currently experienced!

I don’t fly to NY on business but if I did QF’s 380 service would surely trump anything that’s out there at the moment. So my Thursday poser….

Would anyone choose a QF 380 to NY rather than your current preferred choice?

[TominScotland]

Interesting idea, Canuklad

Not an answer to your question but I think I am right in saying that the last RTW offering by one airline and single aircraft (not code-share) was by United – was it offered in both directions? I cannot remember when that ceased. I also seem to remember that North West Orient operated a similar routing? Air New Zealand’s services via LAX and HKG did this, in effect, but with fewer stops en route.

I presume there would not be any regulatory barriers to Qantas offering such a service? At the moment, QF do not have traffic rights from LAX to JFK so I think they use an A330 to consolidate passengers originating from SYD, MEL and BNE.

[JohnHarper]

One of the reasons that QF do well across the Pacific is that there is still a great deal of protection on Trans-Pacific routes between the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I think it also covers South America too where I think only LAN and QF operate.

SIA have been trying to break in to it for years and have failed. If there were competition the story might be very different.

[MarcusUK]

Sadly John, the protecvtion on the trans tasman routes were changed some years ago.
Hence as on my regular trips out there, the last two months ago, Auckland is full of Emirates Aircraft 3-6pm every day. These are A380’s and 77300-ER’s going to each major Australian city. They fly down from DBX, then go on to Auckland.
This has stripped much business from QF and indeed Air New Zealand. At one time, ANZ had only small airbus on the routes EK took so much business, but now they run flights for codeshares with others and Virgin Australia, Singapore, and Etihad, agreements for the route.

QF no longer do well on the Trans Tasman routes, and it all changed due to EK’s imposition on another market, a corner of the world where just a few Airlines like NZ, had to shrink.

[JohnHarper]

Marcus quite right though NZ do still manage to operate a 772 to BNE most days and also 767s to SYD but I agree with you EK have stolen a huge share of the trans-Tasman market.

[pelorus]

Canucklad, what is excellent about Qantas economy class product ? Safety perhaps, but a 31 inch seat pitch puts it at the bottom of the space table, along with BA. Not a patch on Emirates’ product as many Australians and New Zealanders have decided. Nor a patch on SQ’s product.

[canucklad]

Touche pelorus

The few times I’ve flown QF I’ve always bagged EE seats!
I was making the comment based on the personable and antipodean nature of the service provided by the excellent CC.

[JohnHarper]

Cabin crew used to be a strong selling point of QF and from what I saw on a recent trip to Aus where we used them on domestic services it still is. They were excellent and consistent.

I don’t know about long haul though, we went there and back on SIA.

[Author]

Posts