scbriml wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

As if the US doesn't have the 3 largest airlines in the world itself.

How many of those very expensive 77Xs do the US3 currently have on order?

How many will EK keep as their "Business" tanks?

Collectively the US3 have over 500 long range aircraft to replace in the next decade.

I never cease to be amazed at how gaga a.net goes for shiny jet syndrome. Why don't you guys become pilots or crew and see reality if you love aviation so much?

US3 should try code sharing with one the Indian LCCs like IndiGo or SpiceJet or AI Express to see if they can make DXB work as a hub. If they can't, then stop whining and focus on "calculated miseries"

Bricktop wrote:

Still 4 x A388 daily to JFK and the new B77W daily to EWR. When those downgauge I will get nervous for EK.

Why? Lately there are quite a few TATL LCCs came onto this market (WOWAir, Norwegian) and EK don't see much demand anymore. It's normal.

The Main Street media is portraying the cuts are due to Trump's travel ban from selected mid-east nations, while just the opposite is true. Travelers from those countries can fly to DXB and connect on Emirates to the States. More passengers, not less.

chrisnh wrote:

klm617 wrote:

BOS and SEA were way over served to begin with. You guys act like BOS-DXB is this huge market and can fill an A380 most of those were connection passengers from the JetBlue partnership and if they thought BOS needed the extra capacity they wouldn't have cut one flight so no no A380 to BOS.

The only way EK turns two 77Ws into one 77W in Boston without missing a beat is if both flights were operating at 50% loads or worse...and they weren't. They were in the high 60s to high 80s. So you do the math: they need more than a 77W in Boston if the plan is one flight per day. Ergo, the A380.

This isn't how it works. As mentioned before, people are not entitled to a seat on EK as though it is government run public transport service.

EK could fill 4 x daily flights to BOS, but this doesn't make it profitable. The second daily flight may have more than a 50% load factor and carry more passengers than the capacity of 1 x 77W, however it dilutes the yields with the added capacity.

With one daily flight they can focus more on increasing the yield, and redeploy the capacity from the removal of the second daily 77W elsewhere on a more profitable route.

The cutback on flights to the US may, in turn, make the US network stronger as it can funnel connecting passengers onto other US routes, further strengthening their demand.

It could be that EK is focussing on removing the flights that "induce demand" and focus on capturing the existing demand from Asia/Africa/ISC to the USA.

wenders825 wrote:

EK can deny it all they want, but having no legacy partner in the US is hurting them.

I wonder this as well, particularly when their interlines with the US Legacies were cut.

The FT reports that Airbus are postponing 12 A380 deliveries to Emirates (behind pay wall).

jumbojet wrote:

Obviously, seat mappers aren't the most accurate way to gauge capacity but check out Emirates two daily flights to SEA for next week. Both flights are totally and completely wide open in all classes, all week. But I guess, since business flyers cant work on planes anymore with their own laptops, they just aren't going to fly to business meetings I am sorry, but that is the lamest excuse ever given by the ME3.

I am not likely to fly DXB-US, but whenever I fly long haul (often), I do count on the flight as productive time. Losing that productive time, having to plan for the lost time with a sleepless night at the hotel when I arrive and having to worry for how well my expensive electronics will be carried and returned to me means no booking. Simple.

vadodara wrote:

Emirates's highly successful experiment to transform Dubai comes crashing down.

Not by a very long shot my friend. Not at all. You clearly are not familiar with the place.

vadodara wrote:

Emirates's highly successful experiment to transform Dubai comes crashing down.

It's only 25 less flights per week out of more than 3,600 that Emirates currently operates weekly...

So this will mean a lot of spare capacity in the short term. Do you think they will redeploy it elsewhere, perhaps by opening new routes, or will they take the hit and park the aircraft?

jumbojet wrote:

You left out the biggest advantage, government subsidies.
http://www.businessinsider.com/american ... icy-2017-4

In a statement, the Partnership for Open and Fair Skies — the lobbying organization that speaks on behalf of American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines — said it was "laughable" that Emirates would refer to itself as a profit-oriented enterprise

.

What is laughable is that anyone can even attempt to paint EK as anything other than a profit-oriented enterprise.

The whole reason for the existence of EK is to make profits to support the Emirate of Dubai. The flow of cash is entirely from EK to the Emirate, not the other way around.

AsiaTravel wrote:

It's only 25 less flights per week out of more than 3,600 that Emirates currently operates weekly...

It is not even as many as 25 - they are redeploying aircraft to other routes:

pa747sp wrote:

So this will mean a lot of spare capacity in the short term. Do you think they will redeploy it elsewhere, perhaps by opening new routes, or will they take the hit and park the aircraft?

EK has already said that they will be redeploying the aircraft elsewhere - see post 28.

Cipango wrote:

The cutback on flights to the US may, in turn, make the US network stronger as it can funnel connecting passengers onto other US routes, further strengthening their demand.

I think that is their goal, as it allows them to maintain more or less what they have now by strengthening demand so they can continue expansion. Kudos to EK.

Maybe the lack of convenience is not worth the savings. In most cases EK is carrying beyond traffic from DXB which means from most cities in the US that B6 links them up to require a double connect. In some case passengers from the upper Midwest are being routed over FLL to get to their destination you may try it once to save money but when you realize the great inconvenience and you're traveling a lone on business you're going to chose a quicker option. I think rather than doubling up they should invest in adding more direct flights to DXB from the USA rather than relying on B6 connections. That should be secondary to getting people to their destination with one stop service some thing all the US3 can do from every major city in the USA with one stop where EK is at a disadvantage. Also the electronic ban makes their 2 stops even more of an inconvenience so hence the cuts. Their cheaper tickets which was their only advantage against the US3 has now evaporated.

Egerton wrote:

The FT reports that Airbus are postponing 12 A380 deliveries to Emirates (behind pay wall).

That was at the end of last year:
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... -delivery/

<i>
Following an agreement reached between Emirates Airline and Rolls-Royce and a consecutive agreement between Emirates Airline and Airbus, the Toulouse based aircraft manufacturer is to adapt the A380 delivery stream with six aircraft deliveries postponed from 2017 to 2018 and six others from 2018 to 2019.

Airbus re-confirms the target to deliver around 12 A380s per year from 2018 as announced earlier in July 2016.

Further fixed cost reduction initiatives will be accelerated so the impact on break-even in 2017 is minimal.</i>

mcogator wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Wow a ton of people don't want to visit Dubai? Shocker.

The world isn't US centric. Dubai was the 4th most visited city in the world last year by the international traveler, with 2.5 million more international visitors than NYC.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/the-10-most-visited-cities-around-the-world-in-2016-a7487791.html

Do you understand that list?

Those are international visitors only. Not total visitors.

It is why island cities and developing countries with one major city have huge "international" stays....all their tourism comes from outside their borders.

Get a source with "total" tourism numbers to make your point about Dubai being the most visited city.

For instance, NY jumps to 50 million visitors...much larger tourist draw than say Dubai.

lightsaber wrote:

Egerton wrote:

The FT reports that Airbus are postponing 12 A380 deliveries to Emirates (behind pay wall).

That was at the end of last year:
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... -delivery/

<i>
Following an agreement reached between Emirates Airline and Rolls-Royce and a consecutive agreement between Emirates Airline and Airbus, the Toulouse based aircraft manufacturer is to adapt the A380 delivery stream with six aircraft deliveries postponed from 2017 to 2018 and six others from 2018 to 2019.

Airbus re-confirms the target to deliver around 12 A380s per year from 2018 as announced earlier in July 2016.

Further fixed cost reduction initiatives will be accelerated so the impact on break-even in 2017 is minimal.</i>

Thanks, I got a comment alert this morning.The FT is just re-cycling old news in a new item on 'Emirates cuts back US flights'. Apologies.

jfklganyc wrote:

mcogator wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Wow a ton of people don't want to visit Dubai? Shocker.

The world isn't US centric. Dubai was the 4th most visited city in the world last year by the international traveler, with 2.5 million more international visitors than NYC.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/the-10-most-visited-cities-around-the-world-in-2016-a7487791.html

Do you understand that list?

Those are international visitors only. Not total visitors.

It is why island cities and developing countries with one major city have huge "international" stays....all their tourism comes from outside their borders.

Get a source with "total" tourism numbers to make your point about Dubai being the most visited city.

For instance, NY jumps to 50 million visitors...much larger tourist draw than say Dubai.

I think mcogator is right, of course people within the US are bound to visit NYC at some time or another, but attracting international visitors is a far harder task and should not be underwritten. The UAE is roughly the size of the state of NY, but is its own country and inherently doesn't have another 49 states to draw visitors from. I think it is a testament to how well run both EK and Dubai are that they can coordinate a visa program that makes it easy to get a stopover facilitated by EK's scheduling and network vs. the US where tourism numbers will steadily decline as it becomes difficult or undesirable, especially as of late. True tourism is measured in Int'l numbers and that is why Dubai has topped NYC and that gap will only continue to grow.

mcogator wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Wow a ton of people don't want to visit Dubai? Shocker.

The world isn't US centric.

Maybe a ton of people don't want to visit the US

jfklganyc wrote:

Do you understand that list?
Those are international visitors only. Not total visitors.
...
Get a source with "total" tourism numbers to make your point about Dubai being the most visited city.
For instance, NY jumps to 50 million visitors...much larger tourist draw than say Dubai.

Do you understand what he wrote?:

mcogator wrote:

by the international traveler

Domestic visitors are irrelevant to the point he was making.

anrec80 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Still 4 x A388 daily to JFK and the new B77W daily to EWR. When those downgauge I will get nervous for EK.

Why? Lately there are quite a few TATL LCCs came onto this market (WOWAir, Norwegian) and EK don't see much demand anymore. It's normal.

From DXB-NYC? OK and one a day stopping at MXP and ATH but still. I don't see many TATL passengers flying all the way east to DXB to backtrack to NYC.

Egerton wrote:

I wonder how long it will take for Boeing to advise President Trump that actions have consequences?

If the ME3 are unwelcome in the USA, the first in line to be hurt are Boeing and GE whose sales contracts for 777-9 etc will be easier to cancel by force majeure or whatever break clause comes handy.

I'm no supporter of Trump but his travel ban both of them have been blocked by federal judges, his laptop ban just went into effect there is no way bookings dropped that significantly because of that ban.
A.netters is pro EK overtime EK upguages a route to a A380 there is a thread about it and I will say EK is a great airline I have flown on them in the past just because I wanted to experience what most people on this site rave about when every Ek is mentioned. However for a few months now there have been reports signaling EK may have some underlining problems.
Sine this thread is about the US lets just focus on the US. Every time EK added a flight or made a flight a daily double it was congratulations EK and while many people thought this expansion was at the expense of the US3 is seems as if this expansion was at EK's own expense. One of the prime examples I can think of is Texas. EK was daily double out of IAH then they added DFW and reduced IAH so daily. If you go back you can see their load factors out of DFW were good if not great. (it is unfortunate that DFW is the only airport where we can obtain load factors for international airlines). Now if you track EK's expansion from that time what you will notice is the load factors on their DFW flight rose but then took a dip. What many people who work in this industry in the US kept saying is EK's success is not built solely upon O&D traffic but on connecting traffic as well. Though B6 is EK's partner there were a lot of EK customers who flew AA, UA and i'm assuming DL to connect to a EK flight either at LAX, SFO, SEA, IAH, DFW, or JFK. I know for sure UA when I was working in airport operations we had a lot of people flying down to IAH to connect to EK we also had some connections flying to DFW. But those connections ended when EK launched ORD. The ORD flight had a negative impact on EK's Texas flights the ORD flight in that it siphon away a lot of the Midwest connections that up until that point either connected in Texas or JFK. Just look at their DFW outbound load factors it is undeniable that as EK expanded their load factors on other established routes around the US have taken a hit.
While load factors are meaningless in terms of measuring if a route is profitable it is no secrete that EK was and probably stills the cheapest option for people traveling between the U.S. and India or the Middle East. EK has successfully TKO'd the US3 out of the Middle East the exception being TLV and the only airline still flying to India is United and we can only muster 2 daily flights to entire country. EK fueled their rapid expansion by selling their economy class and in many cases their business class seats for anywhere between 25% - 50% cheaper than the US3 which offered inconvenient connections through their partners across Europe. So what has changed we have a much stronger dollar, EK has basically beaten the US3 at their own game but at their own expense, and but most importantly and what EK probably is refusing to admit is their US operations is probably loosing money and probably has been loosing money for quite some time.
How do you fix it you may ask? The first thing the airline industry always does when an operation is loosing money is to cut capacity, they've made a small cut. The next move is to raise fares. I believe the capacity cuts announced will last for a lot longer than EK would have the public think, I think EK's own hubris is the main reason why the continue to service FLL and MCO. Those destinations could be served by their partner B6 or by other US airlines. At the end of all of this EK will have to do something it clearly does not want to do and that is raise its ticket prices. In many cases it was more expensive to fly round trip from LAX to HNL on a US airline than from LAX to DEL on EK.

Both SEA and BOS may have been over served to begin with. So back to once daily. I am not surprised at FLL and MCO, 4/5 times a week is ideal for these markets (not every market needs a daily flight). LAX though I am puzzled. I am surprised that LAX cannot sustain 2 flights a day.

oldannyboy wrote:

vadodara wrote:

Emirates's highly successful experiment to transform Dubai comes crashing down.

Not by a very long shot my friend. Not at all. You clearly are not familiar with the place.

My limited point is that free-market came crashing down; protectionism won.

If anything, I am not happy about this!

Theseus wrote:

[
I am not likely to fly DXB-US, but whenever I fly long haul (often), I do count on the flight as productive time. Losing that productive time, having to plan for the lost time with a sleepless night at the hotel when I arrive and having to worry for how well my expensive electronics will be carried and returned to me means no booking. Simple.

I am sorry but just bc you cant use your own laptop for work purposes on a ULH flight means you cancel a business trip? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

330west wrote:

The solution would be to raise fares in an effort to turn what was obviously a poorly performing route into a stronger route. They aren't a public transit authority. Not everyone is entitled to a seat on the bus.

The fares in J are already higher than anyone else. The reason why my company won't let me travel with EK to India from BOS is because their $5,000 fares can't compete with BA's $3,000 fare. Of course now that I can't carry a laptop with me, EK is not even an option at all.

klm617 wrote:

BOS and SEA were way over served to begin with. You guys act like BOS-DXB is this huge market and can fill an A380 most of those were connection passengers from the JetBlue partnership and if they thought BOS needed the extra capacity they wouldn't have cut one flight so no no A380 to BOS.

Until the travel/laptop ban both flight were in the 70+% LF range (and higher in peak season), so clearly the numbers prove that your opinion is wrong.
The problem is when passengers can't use the airline because of some imaginary danger then yes, obviously there will be less demand.
And that's why the A380 isn't happening. Way too many J seats to fill and people traveling in J are much more likely to be traveling with a laptop. No one in their right mind will check their work laptop. My company has a strict policy for how I can handle my laptop and checking it in or leaving it inside my car is a big no-no.

jumbojet wrote:

Theseus wrote:

[
I am not likely to fly DXB-US, but whenever I fly long haul (often), I do count on the flight as productive time. Losing that productive time, having to plan for the lost time with a sleepless night at the hotel when I arrive and having to worry for how well my expensive electronics will be carried and returned to me means no booking. Simple.

I am sorry but just bc you cant use your own laptop for work purposes on a ULH flight means you cancel a business trip? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Depending on your job title, Theseus' post above is very plausible.

The DXB-USA flights are ultra long haul being between 13-16 hours long. Why not use this time typing reports/creating pivot tables than doing nothing.

jumbojet wrote:

Theseus wrote:

[
I am not likely to fly DXB-US, but whenever I fly long haul (often), I do count on the flight as productive time. Losing that productive time, having to plan for the lost time with a sleepless night at the hotel when I arrive and having to worry for how well my expensive electronics will be carried and returned to me means no booking. Simple.

I am sorry but just bc you cant use your own laptop for work purposes on a ULH flight means you cancel a business trip? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Yes for a few reasons: 1) Most of us work on the flight; 2) Because in this day and age companies have strict policies that will not allow you to lose sight of your work laptop, which means when you travel the laptop has to be in your possession at all times; 3) For the same reason people don;t like to check their luggage. If it doesn't arrive you've wasted a work trip and potentially a lot of money and lost business.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I think Emirates has just hit a ceiling. They grew in all the easy and under served markets. The US is not easy or undeserved, and alot of foreigners are nervous to fly or connect thru here. It kind of makes sense. They are right sizing, to maximize profits, nothing wrong. They are still gonna make a ton of money, they are smart to adjust.

It doesn't look like EK are hitting a ceiling. According to Tim Clark, bookings are down because of Trump's travel restrictions.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -u-s-plans

So there still is a lot of potential, the US just need to remove the restrictions.

jumbojet wrote:

Theseus wrote:

[
I am not likely to fly DXB-US, but whenever I fly long haul (often), I do count on the flight as productive time. Losing that productive time, having to plan for the lost time with a sleepless night at the hotel when I arrive and having to worry for how well my expensive electronics will be carried and returned to me means no booking. Simple.

I am sorry but just bc you cant use your own laptop for work purposes on a ULH flight means you cancel a business trip? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I'm guessing Theseus means that they won't be booking with affected routes/airlines not that they will cancel the trip completely, but rather just book on another airline/routing that is not affected by the restrictions.

KarelXWB wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I think Emirates has just hit a ceiling. They grew in all the easy and under served markets. The US is not easy or undeserved, and alot of foreigners are nervous to fly or connect thru here. It kind of makes sense. They are right sizing, to maximize profits, nothing wrong. They are still gonna make a ton of money, they are smart to adjust.

It doesn't look like EK are hitting a ceiling. According to Tim Clark, bookings are down because of Trump's travel restrictions.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -u-s-plans

So there still is a lot of potential, the US just need to remove the restrictions.

that's according to Tim Clark. Why believe him? What tangible proof does TC have? Seriously doubt the laptop ban will be removed.

If you read he Bloomberg article, it mentions other factors at play such as oil prices and terrorism attacks that tend to hurt tourism in that particular region

LAX is interesting. So many equipment changes since they started service around 10 years ago:
1x 77L
1x 77W
1x 77W + 1x 77L
1x A380
1x A380 + 1x 77L
1x A380 + 1x 77W
2x A380
1x A380

Also, this is kinda weird since they just built their new lounge at LAX like 8 months ago.

gregn21 wrote:

LAX is interesting. So many equipment changes since they started service around 10 years ago:
1x 77L
1x 77W
1x 77W + 1x 77L
1x A380
1x A380 + 1x 77L
1x A380 + 1x 77W
2x A380
1x A380

Also, this is kinda weird since they just built their new lounge at LAX like 8 months ago.

Reminds me of how Delta will shift planes around its network to make adjustments for its own capacity needs. Very smart of Emirates to take a page out of the DL playbook.

jumbojet wrote:

Theseus wrote:

[
I am not likely to fly DXB-US, but whenever I fly long haul (often), I do count on the flight as productive time. Losing that productive time, having to plan for the lost time with a sleepless night at the hotel when I arrive and having to worry for how well my expensive electronics will be carried and returned to me means no booking. Simple.

I am sorry but just bc you cant use your own laptop for work purposes on a ULH flight means you cancel a business trip? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I did not say that I would *cancel* a trip.
I said I would not book a flight with certain restrictions.
Different things. If other people that have to fly India to Europe feel the same, they would probably book a connection via Europe instead of ME3, and reduce the capacity needed on DXB-US flights.

jumbojet wrote:

that's according to Tim Clark. Why believe him? What tangible proof does TC have? Seriously doubt the laptop ban will be removed.

Sure, why wouldn't we believe the President of Emirates? If I may ask, what proof do you have?

To back up the story, airline traffic is still growing on an annual basis. Emirates cannot hit a ceiling from this point of view. If bookings are down, the reason must be searched elsewhere. If terrorism and travel restrictions are the reason, the downturn may just be temporary.

Utah744 wrote:

The Main Street media is portraying the cuts are due to Trump's travel ban from selected mid-east nations, while just the opposite is true. Travelers from those countries can fly to DXB and connect on Emirates to the States. More passengers, not less.

Humm, you do realize that DXB is one of the "banned" airports, right?

hohd wrote:

Both SEA and BOS may have been over served to begin with. So back to once daily. I am not surprised at FLL and MCO, 4/5 times a week is ideal for these markets (not every market needs a daily flight). LAX though I am puzzled. I am surprised that LAX cannot sustain 2 flights a day.

Exactly

While EK may very well be leaving these markets do to huge loses, it doesn't change the fact that finacial consideration is never their top priorioty when entering a market.

UpNAWAy wrote:

While EK may very well be leaving these markets do to huge loses, it doesn't change the fact that finacial consideration is never their top priorioty when entering a market.

So what is their top priority?

Most airlines starting a new route will not expect it to be profitable from Day 1. It takes time to build volume and to pay for the start-up costs.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Most airlines starting a new route will not expect it to be profitable from Day 1. It takes time to build volume and to pay for the start-up costs.

Two issues with this argument.

If network planning did their expert analysis, FLL loads shouldn't be this bad. Keep in mind, travel/ped bans are only few week old.
If the route gestation period theory is true, with so many new routes every season, EK shouldn't be profitable in the past.

EK fans flip-flop more than Trump.

Miami wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

To see FLL (Miami area) get cut so soon after launch is pretty telling about demand to S. Fla from the ME/India/sub-continent. Having EK reduce services to 5x weekly, as well as Turkish not too long ago announced reduced services.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... operation/

And the hate continues. Shocker.

No hate, stop being so sensitive about anything that's not positive about your precious MIA. Guess you don't know how to handle reality.

dtw2hyd wrote:

If network planning did their expert analysis, FLL loads shouldn't be this bad. Keep in mind, travel/ped bans are only few week old.

Were the loads bad? Honest question since I'm not familiar with FLL.
But I am with BOS and the loads at BOS sure weren't bad save for 1 or 2 months in the year. But then again, DL's LHR flights from BOS have been in the 50-60% LF for years even in peak season and that's somehow acceptable.

dtw2hyd wrote:

If the route gestation period theory is true, with so many new routes every season, EK shouldn't be profitable in the past.

The route gestation period is true. EK does not start "so many routes every season". And your theory is wrong because if the profits from established routes are greater than the losses from a few new routes, then the overall result should still be a profit.

KarelXWB wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I think Emirates has just hit a ceiling. They grew in all the easy and under served markets. The US is not easy or undeserved, and alot of foreigners are nervous to fly or connect thru here. It kind of makes sense. They are right sizing, to maximize profits, nothing wrong. They are still gonna make a ton of money, they are smart to adjust.

It doesn't look like EK are hitting a ceiling. According to Tim Clark, bookings are down because of Trump's travel restrictions.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -u-s-plans

So there still is a lot of potential, the US just need to remove the restrictions.

Unless another court over-turns the revised ban. it's going to stick. If 45 had his way, the only people entering the United States would be privileged white people.

The ME3 a run in a way that when they enter a market it's more about product exposer and national pride when the US3 are more run out of greed when they enter a new market. The US3 want maximum profit while the ME3 just want to have their planes in every major market just for the sake of being there. Why is it for years when all the foreign carriers were owned by their respective government no one had an issue with them but for some reason now the ME3 are operated pretty much the same way it's a big problem for people. When an airlines is run by the government the service seems to be a notch above because a government owned airline is not trying to cut costs every where to maximize return on investment while for government subsidized airlines it's a matter of national pride.

Ah klm617 you never fail to disappoint. Some of the cities that EK added were questionable at best. Also, the US3 are not run out of greed. Do you even understand how capitalism works? How is making a profit greed? My 401 (retirement) is largely tied to my airlines financial success. Them being profitable helps me and millions of other people. Please do some research before making false posts.

Personally I don't think EK is subsidised, but even if it is who cares and the majority of the public don't care etheir.

I don't live in the US but I can see how the laptop ban will have an impact on EK. However I never thought they'd drop an important city like LA down to 1x daily.

For those who think EK gets illegal subsidies, if there subsidised why have they dropped all these flights?

Theseus wrote:

I am not likely to fly DXB-US, but whenever I fly long haul (often), I do count on the flight as productive time. Losing that productive time, having to plan for the lost time with a sleepless night at the hotel when I arrive and having to worry for how well my expensive electronics will be carried and returned to me means no booking. Simple.

Concur. Most of my international flying is business-related. My preference remains with the ME3, but................ For personal travel I will still use them, because then I make a point of leaving technology at home.

If the ME3 and Turkish effect is diminished, watch prices rise and service levels diminish further. Great times ahead for the US3?

klm617 wrote:

Why is it for years when all the foreign carriers were owned by their respective government no one had an issue with them

For one, because in most of the cases you're likely referencing there weren't applicable Open Skies agreements - it's for this reason that the US3 aren't making a fuss about the CN3 - there's no Open Skies between the US and China so it isn't an issue because there's no agreement for subsidies to violate

klm617 wrote:

but for some reason now the ME3 are operated pretty much the same way it's a big problem for people.

Open Skies. When the agreements between the US and UAE/Qatar were signed the ME3 were mere regional carriers at best

klm617 wrote:

When an airlines is run by the government the service seems to be a notch above because a government owned airline is not trying to cut costs every where to maximize return on investment while for government subsidized airlines it's a matter of national pride.

That's a difficult blanket statement to make given both the quantity of government owned airlines that there are and the various degrees of foreign ownership. You're putting Singapore Airlines and Air Koryo in the same basket. Said differently, you're also claiming that government owned airlines have superior service because they don't care about profits, which also varies from government owned carrier to government owned carrier.

Maybe more double drops to maximise eastbound capacity, GLA is due an expansion and could have BOS, JFK etc tag ons though perhaps BHX reduction might put paid to that

Rather sensible to (temporarily) reduce capacity to help maintain if not increase unit revenue and load factor.