Dubai Announces World's Largest Airport

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.

In article .com,
Bucky 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.

Excellent analogy, except that I don't recall any Vegas-based airlines
buying white elephants^H^H^H^H A380s by the dozen. Other than that,
Dubai indeed seems to be going after the same clientele: folks for whom
vacation means shopping, gambling and boozing in some tawdry fake-marble
``palazzo.''

Of course, Las Vegas became what it is thanks to being located within
an easy driving distance from the 6th largest economy in the world
(I think even now something like 1/3 of all visitors to Vegas come
from California). Dubai is located in the middle of nowhere.

VS wrote:

Of course, Las Vegas became what it is thanks to being located within
an easy driving distance from the 6th largest economy in the world
(I think even now something like 1/3 of all visitors to Vegas come
from California). Dubai is located in the middle of nowhere.


You can even go skiing in Dubai. I don't think LV has this feature yet.
http://www.skidubai.ae/

The facts:

http://www.skidubai.ae/facts_eng.htm?mid=1&sid=2

In article ,
wrote:

You can even go skiing in Dubai. I don't think LV has this feature yet.
http://www.skidubai.ae/

http://www.skilasvegas.com/

VS wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


You can even go skiing in Dubai. I don't think LV has this feature yet.
http://www.skidubai.ae/


http://www.skilasvegas.com/


Apparently, they in the process of snowmaking and not currently open.
Additionally, it is not in LV, but 80 KM away.

(VS) wrote:
Riaz 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. 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.

Emirates flies a lot of routes that would never be viable as nonstops
unless they went very infrequently. Who's going to fly nonstop from Nice
to Dar Es Salaam?

Of course, there will always be a market for cut-rate fares for poor
vacationers who are willing to endure stopovers and connections just to
save a couple hundred bucks. But the real market - long-haul business
travelers - will prefer nonstop flights.

Not all business travelers are flying from London to Sydney. And to be
honest, on a really long flight, give me a choice between a nonstop on
Lufthansa and a 4-hour layover on Emirates, and I'll be going via Dubai
every time. I will gladly trade a little time to avoid misery, and I'm
sure I'm not the only one.

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)

Actually Dubai has nice beaches, pleasant weather during the European
winter, all sorts of desert activities, and exotic things like camel
races. It's completely safe and English is widely spoken. It has
excellent food, very low prices, and is a cultural crossroads for Asia,
Africa, and the Middle East. It's a fascinating place to walk around if
you just avoid the malls and gold-plated-toilet zones.

No US carrier even flies those routes. But if US airlines decided
to fly from the US to Dubai, they'd own these routes, Emirates or
no Emirates. Not because their service is better (it isn't), but
because they provide better connections within the US, more convenient
schedules for US-originating flights, and frequent flyer programs that
are more useful for US-based travelers.

I don't see how US carriers would provide more convenient connections
from obscure US airports unless they refused to be on the same ticket
with Emirates.

And I earn United miles when flying Emirates, including bonuses for
first/business class.

miguel
--
Photos from 38 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Burma; Hong Kong; Macau; Amsterdam; Grand Canyon; Amman
Airports of the world: http://airport.u.nu

In article usenet-F155F4.16311501122005@localhost,
Miguel Cruz wrote:

Emirates flies a lot of routes that would never be viable as nonstops
unless they went very infrequently. Who's going to fly nonstop from Nice
to Dar Es Salaam?

Nobody. No demand. The real money for the airlines is in long-haul
business-class travel between major business centers: Frankfurt
to Shanghai, that sort of thing. And that's where nonstops will
always win.

Not all business travelers are flying from London to Sydney. And to be
honest, on a really long flight, give me a choice between a nonstop on
Lufthansa and a 4-hour layover on Emirates, and I'll be going via Dubai
every time. I will gladly trade a little time to avoid misery, and I'm
sure I'm not the only one.

Let's face it - *you* are not a typical business traveler. You've never
seen a turd-world hole that you did not consider worthy of a little
exploration.

For real business travelers, however, time is money, and a 4-hour
stopover in a second-rate shopping mall is not an appealing proposition.
Vacationers, maybe. But someone who needs to be in Singapore for the
9am meeting tomorrow to close the deal? He'll be flying nonstop.

Actually Dubai has nice beaches, pleasant weather during the European
winter, all sorts of desert activities, and exotic things like camel
races. It's completely safe and English is widely spoken. It has
excellent food, very low prices

This describes, I dunno, a couple hundred places in the tropics?

and is a cultural crossroads for Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

We have very different concepts of culture, I am afraid. Someone who
is interested in culture will go to Vienna or Florence or some such.
The typical yob vacationing in Dubai goes there for the malls and the
gold-plated toilets.

I don't see how US carriers would provide more convenient connections
from obscure US airports unless they refused to be on the same ticket
with Emirates.

This was a hypothetical. It's pointless to compare Emirates with the US
carriers on the routes that the latter don't fly. There is relatively
little demand for travel between Dubai and the US. Had there been any,
the US airlines would have been successfully flying there, no matter
how bad their service is. Your favorite United directly competes with
Cathay on several routes between the US and Asia, and holds a decent
market share. Do you think this is because their service is better?

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:56:15 -0800 (PST),
(VS) wrote:

In article . com,
Riaz 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. You've
been fooled, no doubt, by propaganda exercises such as Boeing's recent
22+ hour flight from Hong Kong to London with a few journalists on
board. A totally meaningless thing to do of course, no different from
Airbus flying the 340 non-stop from Paris to Auckland all those years
ago.

There is speculation that Boeing may have come up with a proposal that
might be acceptable to Qantas whereby a specially adapted version of
the 777LR could just about do the SYD-LHR non-stop, year-round, in
both directions, with a very limited payload consisting of premium
passengers and little freight. Depending on the routings the
twin-engined 777 could take it might take +/- 3 hours off the journey.
The demand would be very limited, it would be a very expensive
operation, and would necessitate very high-yield sales to justify the
extra costs involved. There could well be a very limited market,
between a handful of select city-pairs, but to suggest that that would
be the solution in all but a fraction of the markets in which Emirates
operates is ludicrous.



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. Not everyone is heading to SYD or AKL, many are going
to PER or CHC. The selection of non-stops will never be anything like
the choice of services available through the major hubs. It sounds as
if you don't really understand the traffic patterns, volumes, the
predicted growth, and existing congestion on these routes.



Of course, there will always be a market for cut-rate fares for poor
vacationers who are willing to endure stopovers and connections just to
save a couple hundred bucks. But the real market - long-haul business
travelers - will prefer nonstop flights.


Endure stopovers? Have you ever made ultra-long-haul journeys? For
many, most even, a stopover is a desirable part of the journey. Be it
a break of journey in a quality airport for a walk, a shower, a swim,
or for a longer stop.



Dubai is the most cosmopolitan and
vibrant commercial hub of the Middle East.

If you measure vibrancy by shopping per capita...
Then the Mall of America is even more vibrant than Dubai.

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),
and low taxes for expats who would live on the Moon as long as they
have satellite TV and can avoid paying their fair share.


You haven't been there lately have you?
--==++AJC++==--

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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), 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.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 01:13:34 -0800 (PST), (VS)
wrote:

Nobody. No demand. 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.

For real business travelers, however, time is money, and a 4-hour
stopover in a second-rate shopping mall is not an appealing proposition.
Vacationers, maybe. But someone who needs to be in Singapore for the
9am meeting tomorrow to close the deal? He'll be flying nonstop.

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.

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, if they were Concorde sucessors would be on the
production board to knock a couple hours of the Europe/US legs.

There is relatively little demand for travel between Dubai and the US,
the US airlines would have been successfully flying there, no matter
how bad their service is.

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 obviously think 18 hours on a non-stop flight is the way
the businessmen wants to get to his meeting, despite that then needing
another 18 hours to recover before he's reading for any serious
meeting, whereas I'm much happier with the idea of 12, overnight rest
and be ready to function after only a 6 hour flight. The total time
before you're ready to work is the same, you're in contact with the
world just the same, if you've saved money, people will do it.

Jim.