Talk:Emirates Airline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emirates Airline article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Destinations

i removed a lot of talk about the destinations because most of it was idle conjecture. if any of it becomes actual fact, people should update the destinations page and not litter the main page with useless information.

99.245.180.37 16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet Orders

When did Emirates SkyCargo get 3 new orders, because it would have been in the News papers by now if they did?LIL PROTOTN 21:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Emirates have ordered 8 A380 more at Paris today

[edit] Revert

This version of the article [1] seems to be the best candidate for a revert as the current article has a lot of information that looks as if it has been copied straight from the Emirates website and contains a lot of useless pictures. 99.245.179.103 21:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOM/VABB Hub

I know emirates has a lot of traffic to India (especially Bombay) but is VABB really a hub for the airline?

99.245.179.103 22:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The quote below is, in my opinion POV, and possible also libellous, unless you can supply a ref.

Some of these carriers—notably Air France and Qantas—are so concerned about the detrimental effects of Emirates' seemingly unstoppable growth on their future ability to compete with it on a level playing field that they have resorted to openly accusing their Dubai-based rival of receiving hidden state subsidies and of maintaining too cosy a relationship with Dubai's airport authority as well as its aviation authority

[edit] Syrian Airlines

It's written that Emirates will start a route to Sao Paulo Brazil and that it will be the first middle eastern line to fly to South America. That is not true, Syrian Airlines flies to Caracas, Venezuela.

Iran Air fly to Caracas with Syrian Air code sharing on the flights.

According to their websites neither Syrian Air nor Iran Air flies to Caracas (or anywhere in the Americas). Emirates has services to Sao Paulo. Iraqi Airlines used to fly to Rio de Janeiro. And El Al occasionally flew to Buenos Aires (of which Adolf Eichmann travelled on with a one-way ticket) Kransky (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kochi

There are two places called Kochi; Kochi, India and Kochi, Kochi in Japan. Which of these is the one that Emirates flies to? I would assume it's India but I don't want to disambiguate incorrectly. Any help appreciated. Agentsoo 10:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It's the one in India. A lot of people in the UAE come from the southern Indian state of Kerala, of which Kochi (a.k.a. Cochin) is the main commerical hub.

[edit] Alliances?

Is there anything on Emirates' views on joining an alliance?

Most business seek alliances when they are having problems. Emirates is therefore not under pressure to form alliances, but other troubled airline may seek them out. An alliance with an airline operating within a country eg South West can make sense, but I don't think it would work with international airliner
The reason why most airlines have sought alliances has to do with ownership laws in respective countries in regards to airlines. If they didn't exist, I can gurantee you Air France-KLM-NWA would exist right now. In the meantime alliances allow airlines to better access each other routes systems, as well as share the costs of certain backend infrastructure. SiberioS 03:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dubai-based carrier Emirates aims to become the biggest long-haul carrier in the world by the end of the decade.
I'd like to see that happen. For that to happen Lufthansa would have to literally fall asleep at the wheel, as would every other major airline from here to kingdom come One thing that Emirates hasn't figured into its plans in the introduction of more point to point longhaul service, bypassing the need for hubs in the very market that all these A380's they've ordered are supposed to be for. SiberioS 03:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

With an order for 45 giant Airbus A380 planes in the pipeline, and figures suggesting it has the lowest costs per passenger mile of any airline in the industry, analysts believe Emirates could have what it takes to climb to the top of the pack. [2]

I made a page for Skywards. The frequent flyer program for Emirates and Sri Lankan. Somebody thinks it should be merged with this article. I dont feel it should as Skywards is for both Emirates and Sri Lankan. There is a lot of infomation on the Skywards page and to add it to the airlines page would make the pages much bigger in size. Thoughts?

"Marios Bl Greece" The reason Emirates is not joining an alliance is very simple. Emirates want to provide high standards of quality service, one of the big drawbacks for alliances is that a passenger will flight for eg. first with Emirates and then with a partner... what kind of service will be that partner delivering...? Would that stand to the same level offered by EK? You see now what I mean?.

[edit] ICAO Sign 'UAE'

I object to the fact that the ICAO has given the codename 'UAE' to Emirates Airlines because of the fact that Emirates is not the UAE's national airline, which Etihad Airways is.--213.42.2.25 13:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no. You see, Emirates is the national airline of Dubai. Etihad is the national airline of Abu Dhabi. WhisperToMe 21:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just what did Mr. Anonymous expect us Wikipedians to do about it? Petition the ICAO? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


The user writing on the 24th of Jan 06 is actually correct. It is true that Emirates is the airline of Dubai, but the national airline of the entire UAE is infact Etihad. They are based in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE.

"Marios BL Greece": Just to add something to that for accuracy reasons. AUH Abu Dhabi is the Political capital and DXB Dubai is the commercial one.

[edit] History

How much of the information in the history section is about the airline and how much is about the parent company? Reading it makes one think that it is mostly about the parent comany, The Emirates Group. If I'm correct, then there probably is enough information to create an article on the parent company. Vegaswikian 07:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Etihad are the "National Airline of the UAE" and have been operating for two years after the Abu Dhabi government elected to withdraw their connection with Gulf Air after many decades of subsidisation.

Emirates are the "International Airline of the UAE" and have been operating for nearly 21 years, and hence got an early claim on the ICAO label "UAE".

Have reverted the recent change of Emirates' first European destination in 1987 from London-Heathrow to London-Gatwick. Heathrow is wrong. Gatwick is correct. The reason is that as Emirates had never operated scheduled services to London before, the so-called "London Air Traffic Distribution Rules", which were still in force at that time, restricted it to operating all its London-bound/-originating services to/from Gatwick only.

Pimpom123 11.15, 26 March 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Page move

Copied from Requested moves: Emirates (airline) → Emirates Airline - Per the website of the holding company ([3]), this is the airline's proper name. I cannot make the move myself as it will not allow it...an administrator must do it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight numbers list

I would like to add this to the list of pages that need the list of flight numbers pared back or nixed. See Talk:Qantas. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been three days since I raised this question. In 48 hours, I will clip the list to only the most significant routes. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have split this off into a separate article. The main article is considerably shorter, now. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't this page mention, Fly Emirates?

--Greasysteve13 14:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is not biased about Emirates Airlines, rather it is an advertisement for Emirates Airlines. Is there really a need for photos of new cities that Emirates is planning on adding to its route map this year? Also, do we really need to see photos of Emirates various airport lounges at airports like Frankfurt, Germany? These are just a few examples that I found to be excessive. Also, the article could really be trimmed down without losing any critical information.

Njg123 21:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facts of interest

13 out of the 14 "facts of interest" are about sponsorships. Are they really that interesting? Isn't there anything else that we could write there? FlyerBoy 09:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

This article needs serious clean up. Many information has been added without references or quotations. Much of the information is made up and is not true. Like an order for 100 B787s and largest long-haul carrier. This needs to be replaced with more accurate information. DK 01:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

I have managed to change the fleet table style, as well as organization of the page. Picture sizes are now consistant. Unfortuantely, due to the large amount of text, I was unable to edit the article.--Golich17 04:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have started to clean up the article, but due to its size I will have to do it a little bit at a time. Njg123 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To coincide...

To coincide with what others eidtors have mentioned above, some of the stuff in the article is deliciously uncited, and pure speculation (especially the bit about choosing the 787 over the A350...Emirates hasn't confirmed which of the airplanes, if either, it will be ordering). It also bears to point out that the supposed "benefits" that Emirates has over its rivals, namely its "central location" and "lack of restirction on night flying" at its hub are bumpkis. A number of airports, especially large international hubs, run 24 hours a day, and have nor estrictions on night time flying. Much else in the "business model" section is either speculation, or outright untruths. SiberioS 03:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I decided to eliminate the bit about Dubai's central location being an advantage (is any location an "advantage" in an era of jets that can go 9,000 miles?). Moreover, as mentioned above, the 24 hour operation of Dubai is not unusual, and it still does not have the capacity of even some of the larger European airports, let alone a ORD or a ATL. Unless I see someone bring up a citation for that lower CASM in comparison to Ryanair, I'll delete the line as well. SiberioS 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are wrong SiberioS, as far as the "lack of restrictions on night flying" section is concerned. Contrary to your assertion, in Europe at least, many of the big gateway/hub airports do actually have such restrictions. For example, London-Heathrow, London-Gatwick, or for that matter any other airport in the UK as well as Amsterdam-Schiphol. As far as I am aware, Frankfurt Main Airport is the only major hub airport in Europe without night flying restrictions. But this is beside the point. Even where such restrictions are non-existent in the Western world, the cost of employing people to man a 24 hour operation in these countries, i.e. flight crew and supporting staff, far outweighs the additional revenue an airline could expect to earn, especially the Air France-KLMs, Lufthansas and BAs of this world with their bloated cost structures, as a result of their complex, hierarchical organisations and huge legacy costs. Hence, as far as Emirates' ability to operate profitably, on a 24h basis at its hub in Dubai is concerned, this does constitute a significant advantage over most of its longer established rivals.

Bloated cost structures is a heavy accusation to make, especially in regards to both BA, Air France,-KLM, and Lufthansa, since last time I checked all three are profitable. While BA's year has been looking down, both AF and Lufthansa have seen strong gains this past year. AF, in fact, has TRIPLED its profits. So much for "bloatedness". SiberioS 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason this is so is that it increases their fleet's utilisation far beyond the other, aforementioned carriers' fleet utilisation. Also, Emirates tends to have tighter turnarounds between flights, in some cases as little as 75 minutes (e.g. flights to the Indian subcontinent). For example, the reason Emirates decided to fly to New Zealand via Australia was to avoid the high airport charges for keeping an aircraft unproductively on the ground at Australia's major airports, especially Sydney. It is this (superior aircraft utilisation), in addition to a flat organisation that makes internal communications easier (compared with a traditional, hierarchical set-up), high staff productivity and virtually no legacy costs (due to the fact that the airline began its existence only in 1985) that results in Emirates' cash costs per seat as well as its profit per seat being much closer to Ryanair's figures than those of its established peers. (You'll find a more detailed explanation of what I've written just now in the Economist articles cited in the reference section of this article as well as other related articles in Flight International and on the internet.)

While it is true that Emirates has lower labor costs (a fact obscured by the labor hostile laws of the country; no independent trade unions, no independent right to strike, and evidently a rather small pension compared to legacy carriers elsewhere), its harder to asses whether or not they have higher aircraft utilization in comparison, especially since a good chunk of their planes are dedicated to longhaul, as opposed to most legacies having significant domestic operations, which often are fraught with possible hub slowdowns, weak points in the larger network, as well as enduring simply more (ab)use of aircraft. SiberioS 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you had better mind your language before you hit out at sections of this article that were written by other people with whom you happen to disagree. Only because what they have written isn't to your liking doesn't mean that it constitutes "untruths".

May I also suggest that you do some reading up on the issues with which you do not agree, including views that may be contrary to your own, before "eliminating" someone else's contribution? Looking at some of your comments, I cannot help getting the impression that you do not seem to be very familiar with how various airlines are actually run "behind the scenes" (from an organisational as well as financial perspective). Pimpom123 14.55, 14 February 2007 (GMT)

And I can't help but get the impression that you're offended that I would question some of the absurd fawning that has come over Emirates. Much like SQ, Emirates has received too much praise for not doing too much of anything. We will see how they hold up as Air Arabia, Jazeera, and others begin to start up, and as other full service airlines (all located very nearby) such as Ethiad, Gulf Air, and Qatar Airways start to muscle in on much of their long-haul territory. What you're going to see is a bloodbath, one that is not guranteed to go Emirates way. SiberioS 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


A couple things, off the bat. Don't change section titles. Things on the talk page are generally supposed to be left how they were when started, except in cases of egregious comments. Now let's get your points about Emirates operations, which I will respond to above. SiberioS 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to throw out there that those bastions of derision, the US legacy carriers, have almost all managed to turn around and become profitable in the past year (with the exception of Delta, who is on track to be out of bankruptcy in April, and who will be the first American airline to serve Dubai directly). 24.88.79.249 06:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

SiberioS, with regard to your comments on Air France-KLM, BA and Lufthansa all being profitable and Air France-KLM in particular having tripled its profits, just let me add the following thoughts:

The fact that an airline is profitable and/or that it has significantly increased profits does not necessarily mean that it is efficient. Take Air France as an example. According to independent airline analysts and industry observers (those that do not work for the airlines concerned or for financial institutions that have specific targets to "push" the shares of those airlines), the airline still enjoys the indirect protection of the French state in its home market, for instance, as a result of administratively imposed slot restrictions at Paris-Orly airport, the preferred airport for point-to-point traffic in the Paris region. This has made it extremely difficult for low-cost, "no frills" airlines such as easyJet and Ryanair to build up an operation with the critical mass to challenge Air France on its home territory, in terms of flight frequencies as well as route portfolio. And Air France's allegations that Ryanair is receiving "state aid" from French provincial airports that happen to be run by local chambers of commerce, which are local government agencies in France (unlike in most other European countries) is a bit rich for an airline that itself was a major recipient of government aid in the past (i.e. the FFr20b state bale-out that saved Air France from almost certain collapse during 1994-1997 as well as all the huge subsidies it received during its half century of government ownership [for example, I still remember that AF somehow managed to lose £40m during the financial year following the 1973 oil crisis, an absolutely colossal amount of money at the time that exceeded the losses made by any other airline during that period, including the seemingly forever ailing Pan Am]). And, Air France is by no means "unique" in that regard.

It should also be pointed out, that in the economic downturn of 9/11, and the fuel crisis that has occurred in recent years, Air France has maintained its profitability. It should also be pointed out that, with the exception of the American aviation industry, pointing fingers at airlines for receiving state subsidies to start up would implicate a fair chunk of all airlines in the world, including the "5 star" airlines of Skytrax, SQ, QA, and MAS (which despite generous state subsidies and a product on par with other long hauls, can't seem to make a buck). Hell, even most American airlines were dependent on US Postal Service contracts to keep flying during economic downturns.

To counter the statement you have made above, I would like to point out that each of the three big European flag carriers (Air France, BA, Lufthansa) was essentially bankrupt at the time of their privatisation and that each was "rescued" with government money at taxpayers' expense.

As I may have already mentioned before, the few wholly privately, Independent airlines in Europe, such as British Caledonian (BCal) for instance, who were "shining examples" of how to run an efficient airline profitably despite all the aeropolitical and regulatory obstacles they had to face at the time while their respective, often loss-making national carriers were a disgrace, had no recourse to state aid. This in itself constituted unfair competition, which was further compounded by privatising their state-owned competitors at additional taxpayers' expense, without ensuring that the "Independents" could compete with the privatised national carriers on equal terms. (It not only happened to BCal as well as to Virgin Atlantic and bmi in the UK but also to UTA in France, which was taken over by Air France in 1990 in very similar circumstances to BCal's takeover by BA, thus eliminating the only serious, home-grown competitors these airlines had at that time.)

And as far as Air France in particular is concerned, if they really had to open all their books covering the half century while they were in government ownership (1948-1998) - something Air France chairman Jean-Cyril Spinetta has coincidentally demanded from Emirates, I think all of us would be in for a big susrprise. I reckon that all the direct and indirect state aid they got during that time probably amounts to far more than what Emirates ever got from its owners since its inception. It might well be possible that if you add the state aid the US legacy carriers got from their government post 9/11 to what Emirates got from its government throughout its entire existence, Air France still got more.

Pimpom123 10.05, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

Let's look at BA. I am old enough to remember that the late John King (subsequently knighted by the British Government as Sir and, eventually, Lord King of Wartnaby) presided over what was then the world's biggest loss by any airline when BA lost a staggering £544m in 1982. Had market forces been allowed to decide the airline's fate at the time, BA would have gone bust (it actually was technically bankrupt as a result of that loss as its liabilities exceeded its assets). What did the British Government of the day do? They decided to cancel BA's enormous debts, at taxpayers' expense. Ostensibly, this was done to "clean up" BA's balance sheet in preparation for its flotattion on the London Stock Exchange. According to some industry estimates, this "clean-up" of the airline's balance sheet cost the UK taxpayer a "cool" US$7b (you can verify this figure by reading through one of the recent interviews Qatar Airways chairman Akbar al Baker gave to Airline Business, a sister publication of Flight International). This was not only unfair on the UK taxpayer and other international competitors but also on the UK's contemporary wholly privately owned, so-called "Independent" airlines, in particular British Caledonian (BCal), which got a very raw deal from its own Government when it decided against a major route transfer from BA to BCal as well as the removal of regulatory restrictions imposed on some of the routes operated by both airlines in competition with each other (as proposed by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority in a Government-commissioned White Paper). Had the proposed route transfer gone ahead and had the UK Government agreed to remove all regulatory restrictions governing those routes where BA and BCal were already competing with each other, it would have permitted the latter to acquire the economies of scale and scope to compete with a much larger, privatised BA as well as the then emerging US "mega" (legacy) carriers on a level playing field by building up its Gatwick-based scheduled services into a proper hub-and-spoke operation. Instead, the token route exchange between BA and BCal still left the latter in an operationally and financially much weaker position than most of its global competitors, as a result of which BCal ended up being taken over by BA, soon after its erstwhile competitor's privatisation. The UK Government's short-sighted decision to privatise BA at any cost two decades ago, has made it much more difficult for other, home-grown UK carriers, such as Virgin Atlantic or bmi, to challenge BA's dominance in the UK market. It has taken these airlines years to establish themselves as serious competitors to BA at the latter's Heathrow base. Even then, BA is still dominant enough to take the UK's travelling public for a "ride" with its regular, recurring "unofficial" strikes at Heathrow at the peak of each year's summer holiday season.

BA's status is an example of state monopoly gone horribly wrong. And, oddly enough, it still hasn't managed to clean up its act, as I mentioned that its results this past year were dour.

Similarly, Lufthansa needed to be baled out by its government in the early 1990s to save it from collapse. Like BA a decade earlier, the airline had become technically insolvent in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. This was achieved by transferring its pension liabilities to the German federal government's pension fund, thereby assisting the airline to "dump" these liabilities on the German taxpayer.

If Germany's pension guaranty corporation works anything like America's (and I am not sure it does), that statement is bullshit. In America atleast, the PGBC funds terminated defined pension plans by collecting taxes on other pension plans, and also by acquiring and selling assets it has taken in bankruptcy proceedings of the liquidated companies. When most American majors canceled their pension plans, the US taxpayer didn't pick up a dime. I can't imagine Germany's system working and differently.

For your information, SiberioS, the German Federal Pension Insurance scheme, especially the one covering civil servants to which Lufthansa staff belonged while their employer was in government ownership really works completely different from the one you described in the US. It is normally funded through joint employer and employee contributions. However, civil servants or people enjoying "civil service like" status as all of Lufthansa's German-based employees did, do not contribute anything from their pocket. It is therefore entirely funded by the taxpayer.

Pimpom123 10.10, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

Even Qantas, the only established long-haul, full-service scheduled airline I personally consider a worthy peer of the likes of Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Virgin Atlantic and Jet Airways, India's emerging global scheduled force, needed to be recapitalised at the Australian taxpayer's expense before it could be successfully floated on Sydney's stock exchange.

One thing all of the aforementioned carriers (Air France-KLM, BA, Lufthansa and, indeed, Qantas) seem to have in common is that they tend to make most of their money on routes where even in this day and age bilateral restrictions continue to keep the competition out or keep it weak. In other words, most of these airlines' much celebrated profits seem to be nothing but old-fashioned monopoly or oligopoly profits. Do you honestly think that any of these airlines would be able to launch an economically viable long-haul service from/to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, as Emirates is going to do from September, given their high costs? For example, the main reason BA has been unable to operate profitably out of Gatwick or the UK regions are its high costs. (At least the UK "Independent" airlines of yesteryear - BCal, Dan-Air, Laker, Air Europe - managed to be profitable most of the time during their existence because of their low cost base [compared with the likes of BA], despite being kept out of Heathrow, the UK's main market place.) It is also noteworthy in this context that most of the established European "flag" carriers' short-haul spokes are either wholly unprofitable or only marginally profitable (before allocating overheads).

There is a reason why I excluded Qantas, and that is because of its monopolistic status on Australia routes. The other carriers, with the exception of BA and its Heathrow slot domination, are pretty much facing the same market that Emirates is long-haul. On the short-haul network, most of the old-guard have introduced low cost carriers or service to fend off LCC's, and despite some route protection, seem to mostly be doing the fighting on a free-market basis. And they're STILL making money. People said Ryan air would doom the old guard, and the simple truth is they haven't, for a variety of reasons. 24.88.79.249 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

SiberioS, as I already stated earlier on, almost all of the money the European flag carriers make is accounted for by their profitable long-haul operations. If you analyse their figures, you will come to the conclusion that the majority of their short-haul "mainline" feeder flights are not profitable in their own right. They are either wholly loss-making or only "marginally profitable", which means they are still losing money once the overheads have been allocated. This not only applies to BA but to Lufthansa and Air France-KLM as well. In this context, you also have to remember that all of these airlines inherited the best (i.e. most profitable) slots at the most popular airport as a result of their "grandfather rights". This means that their respective national governments gave them these slots for free at the time they were wholly or partially privatised. (Though slots are bought and sold on the so-called "grey market" for several million dollars/euros/pounds at Europe's major hub airports, such as London-Heathrow, the airport slot trade in Europe is still not fully legalised as in the US.) Having inherited the best slots at the most attractive airports definitely constitutes a major competitive advantage and is one of the reasons the "no frills" carriers did not succeed in completely "wiping out" the European flag carriers' short-haul presence. For example, easyJet, despite being able to take advantage of BA's retrenchment at London-Gatwick has still found it difficult to match BA in terms of flight frequencies and route portfolio from London's second airport because BA has mainly released less attractively-timed slots at that airport.

In the context of Air France's short-haul operation in the Paris region this means that the administrative ceiling on the number of slots at Paris-Orly as well as the fact that under French slot distribution rules half of the slots that become available for redistribution are ususally awarded to Air France and its allies makes it extremely difficult for an outsider or newcomer to challenge Air France in terms of frequencies on its busiest domestic and European routes.

Finally, with regard to BA's slot domination at Heathrow. If you look at the relevant stats, you will find that both Lufthansa and Air France-KLM actually control a greater share of slots at their hub airports than BA does at Heathrow (according to the figures I have come across, over 60% for LH at FRA and ca. 80% at MUC, 55% for AF at CDG and 45% at ORY as opposed to 42% for BA at LHR and about 25% at LGW).

Pimpom123 10.15, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

And, by the way, despite unions and all forms of strikes being absolutely illegal in the UAE, Emirates is compelled to pay internationally competitive wages to attract the best and the brightest (e.g. its pilots earn at least as much as BA's long-haul flightdeck crews), a point often missed by the airline's detractors.

No it doesn't. Due to recent downturns in the airline world, Emirates (and many other carriers in Asia and the Middle East) had a bumper crop of pilots to choose from, and has generally been allowed to pay less than comparative airlines, atleast over the long run (for instance, for a FO, Emirates initial pay is comparable, but over the long run trails other airlines). One must also take into account the rate of inflation that is eating their flight crews alive in the area as well. The so called tax free status of UAE is an advantage depending on your home country's income tax laws, because you may, in fact, still get taxed (in America they require 330 days in a foreign country in a calender year, which may be easily fulfilled, but I am not sure about other countries).

As far as Dubai's high rate of inlation is concerned, you are right on that one. (I think it is driven by the enormous, speculative asset price inflation in that place.)

Regarding Emirates' lower remuneration for experienced FOs and captains, you have to remember that Emirates makes a financial contribution to its flight deck crews' and senior management's accommodation and their children's school fees, which is common in many developing countries but, as far as I know, not normally the case in the West. So, that may, to some extent, compensate for the pay differential.

SiberioS, you may also perhaps be unaware of an independent study conducted a few years ago when KLM was still an independent airline, which compared the operations of that airline with Emirates as both of them were roughly the same size at that time against some industry analyst's claim that Emirates' costs per seat were 40% lower than KLM's. This study specifically examined the question as to whether Dubai's tax-free status constituted an unfair competitve advantage for Emirates. It came to the conclusion that even if Emirates had been taxed in the same way as KLM, its costs per seat would still have been up to 25% lower. (You can read about this in more detail in one of the back-dated editions of The Economist.)

Also, keep in mind that no business pays tax in Dubai, which means that even if you or me were to establish a company there we would not be liable for corporation tax.

Pimpom123 10.20, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

Also, remember that they (the established airlines) used to say the same things as they say about Emirates these days about Cathay Pacific in the 1980s when that airline aggressively expanded beyond its traditional Austral-Asian "sphere of influence". (Most of the then wholly or majority state-owned, established "flag" carriers struggled to compete with Cathay's lower costs and higher standard of service.)

Furthermore, in my opinion, a good test of an airline's "value-for-money" always is how they treat their long-haul economy class passengers, who invariably pay with their own money unlike most corporate business travellers. Some of these airlines (e.g. Lufthansa) still do not deem their economy passengers "worthy" enough to give them their own PTVs. One also gets the impression that that every upgrade of these airlines' premium cabins seems to go along with a "downgrade" of what they prefer to call euphemistically their "main cabin". We have now reached a point where even charter airlines (e.g. First Choice Airways in the UK on their B767-300s), who traditionally had an image of cramped and uncomfortable seating, have begun refurbishing their widebodied long-haul fleets with a more generous seat pitch, wider seats and PTVs, which puts the economy "cattle class" conditions of many established, "well-reputed" global scheduled carriers (Lufthansa, Air France-KLM, BA et al.) to shame. Another important test of an airline's "worth" from my point of view is the way they treat families with young children and people from a non-White (Caucasian) background, especially when travelling in economy. In my personal experience, this is an area where Lufthansa in particular scores very poorly compared with Emirates or Singapore Airlines or Virgin.

The quality of long-haul product is mostly a result of fleet-renewal plans. It's no wonder Emirates, with one of the newest fleets in the world, has all PTV's in every class. It's also no wonder that Singapore, which operates almost exclusively long haul (as one can see by comparing their RPM to the amount of destinations and pax flown) has the ability to recapitalize their fleet every couple years, since they don't have to worry about renewing a smaller domestic fleet. I should also point out that by 2008, Delta will have PTV's in all classes, on all long haul service. Comparable plans are underway for most majors.
The accusation of racism is also absurd, and frankly, unsubstantiated. While individual acts of racism can and have occured across all airlines, to insinuate that Lufthansa fosters some sort of corporate racism is libelous. You have no proof on a wide scale to assert that claim. There was an incident years back in regards to Lufthansa's agreement with the German government to carry deportees back to their country of origin, that resulted in security overkill and an easily preventable death, but Lufthansa responded to the incident in an appropriate way, and has since changed its corporate policies in regard to deportees.

SiberioS, if you interprete my account of having personally experienced Lufthansa staff's attitude to their non-White long-haul economy class travellers as discriminatory as an "insinuation of a corporate policy of fostering racism" and you consider this libellous than that's entirely your own problem. Don't try to distort the meaning of other people's comments and to suggest things they never meant to say in the first place.

Pimpom123 11.25, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

Therefore, I am still of the opinion that far from being over-rated, the operational as well as financial performance of the likes of Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Jet Airways, Qantas, Singapore Airlines or Virgin Atlantic is far superior to that of the Air France-KLMs, BAs and Lufthansas of this world. Pimpom123 12.40, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

You also forget to mention the biggest state subsidy of all that Emirates receives, namely Dubai itself. There is no reason to believe that Dubai would be in anyways shape or form able to attract O&D without the significant investment, if not wholesale propping up, by various oil money investments, made in a defacto sense by the state, even if they're claimed to be "private companies". The grandiose and ridiculous expansion plans, including the worlds largest airport, themeparks, stadiums, etc, are not only built mostly from said oil money, but probably won't succeed other than to be another grand project gone wrong. 24.88.79.249 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are absolutely wrong on that one. For a start, unlike the other state[lets] in the region, Dubai does not have any oil wealth to speak of. So, your assertion that Emirates along with the rest of Dubai is "propped up" by oil/energy wealth is a non-starter (although this is true for the other government-backed flag carriers in the region, notably Etihad [backed by Abu Dhabi's immense oil wealth] and Qatar Airways [backed by Qatar's gas-derived wealth], both of which - unlike Emirates - are actually losing money on an operational as well as stand-alone basis).

Secondly, one shouldn't speculate and anticipate the outcome of future events, with regard to your comments on Dubai's grandiose infrastructure projects becoming "another grand project gone wrong". Only time will tell.

And history informs us how things will likely end up. Do you not remember Paris Disney? It bled money for years, and its on the European land mass. Hong Kong Disneyland, while doing well, does not suggest that the Chinese middle class is falling over itself for American styled themeparks. While Dubai's tourist plans (including, essentially, the biggest of everything) is on a far larger scale, it is also at a far larger cost. I must admit, there is something of a novelty factor in seeing the biggest of everything in one centrally located place, but having the biggest of everything in the world must mean you the biggest of crowds to keep the place humming and profitable. And I just don't realistically see how any place, let alone a brand new leisure destination, can do such a thing. The inflation problem, and the risk of a real estate bubble, has also made the area unstable, with the possibility of people pulling out just as quickly as they came in. I don't see why the same multinationals who hopscotch across the world will have anymore loyalty to Dubai then they have had to any other country they've moved to in the pursuit of tax haven laws, cheap labor, and a favorable political climate.

Finally, one thing that really struck me when I read all your comments is that you seem to be one of those people who still think that if European/North American carriers happened to be recipients of major government hand-outs in the past than that's all right. But if others, especially those domiciled in so-called "developing" countries do the same, even though at a much lower level, than that's "unethical" or "not playing by the rules". Who has made these absurd rules in the first place? The established Western airlines, i.e. West European and North American flag carriers and their predecessors, in collusion with their governments (who, quite coincidentally happened to be the sole or majority owners of many of these airlines) in the long-gone days when IATA was still a cosy producer cartel. So, when they built their global presence and created a Euro/America-centric transport infrastructure for the entire world with massive direct and indirect support from their national governments that somehow seemed to be OK. When others - those in places like the Middle East, India and China - try to do the same by redrawing the global aviation map with their national interests in mind than in the West this is somehow construed as representing "unfair" (for which read "undesired") competition. Have you failed to notice that we are now living in the 21st century where the "old certainties" of the 20th century, namely Western - and especially West European - dominance of the world, both in a cultural as well as in an economic sense, become less and less relevant? To me, it seems to be a repetition of the argument about globalisation. The West and the US in particular extolled the virtues of globalisation to the rest of the world as long as it was entirely controlled by Western interests and worked in its favour because, apart from Japan, there was nobody else who could challenge them. Once this began to change and both China and India started emerging as serious competitors who demanded their share the West began to backtrack.

One, you don't know anything about me, so I would not say I "seem" to be anything. In fact I don't have a problem with developing countries protecting their aviation and other markets. In fact, it is essential that many do, lest they end up like Africa and South America, whose aviation markets have been mostly plundered by larger developed country carriers. Emirates, however, is not a carrier from a struggling nation trying to make it in the world. It's the carrier of a country with a rich, wealthy citizenship, an equally wealthy leader, and mostly running off of cheap labor from the South Pacific and other less fortunate Middle-Eastern countries. Forgive me if I do not shed a tear for Dubai. SiberioS 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What we are now seeing in the air transport industry, i.e the established Western carriers' backlash against emerging global carriers in the Middle East and the rest of Asia as documented, for instance by Air France's public outbursts against Emirates and, occasionally, Singapore Airlines as well, is the manifestation of this backlash by incumbent airlines in the West against those from other parts of the world who dare to challenge them. It is also a replay of how, during the early 1970s, the established transatlantic airlines - BOAC/BA, BCal (which, by the way, as a wholly privately owned, UK "Independent" airline had come from the same background as Laker but considered itself "part of the establishment"), Pan Am, and TWA were trying everything in their power to stop the late Sir Freddie Laker from launching his daily Skytrain service between London and New York.

One final question. If for example Air France is really as efficient as they claim, why do they have to go on and on, not only about Emirates and Singapore Airlines, but even about low-cost, "no frills" carriers' (read easyJet and Ryanair) supposedly "unfair competition" in their own backyard? Doesn't it strike you as very odd that France is the only major country in Europe where "no frills" airlines have failed to establish themselves as a major counterweight to the full-service, national flag carrier and where the flag carrier faces no competiton from a home-grown rival?

SiberioS, please also read my comments on the points you had made above. (Sorry for not keeping this in the right format; I was doing this in a hurry.)

Pimpom123 10.30, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

Siberio, you may want to take a look at and, perhaps, have a read throug the following source material I recently came across while browsing the internet:

The article, which appeared on CNN's Money.com site on 01-10-2005, is titled Rise of the Emirates Empire and has been authored by Matthew Maier.

One thing in particular stuck in my mind when I looked at it:

  • Air France-KLM vice president Leo van Wijk's statement to the effect that Emirates was somehow going to use its huge outstanding widebodied aircraft orders to "invade" their markets.

Who on earth told him that the markets in which Emirates was competing with its established rivals, such as AF-KL, were theirs?! In my opinion, this completely exposes his (and presumably his organisation's) disregard for the individuals that actually constitute those markets. Maybe, he has failed to realise that these individuals are human beings over which no airline, or for that matter any other commercial organisation, has rights of "ownership" (as if all of us were some kind of objects that could be acquired and disposed of at will and as if we were still living in the slave trade era)!

Pimpom123 15:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are reading WAY too much into that comment. It's a pretty stock comment that any executive would make about new competition in an area they dominate. It's like GM saying that Honda is going "after it's market" or something similar. Or NWA talking about Memphis, or Jet Blue about JFK. I doubt it reveals anything else, let alone some insinuation that it views people as slaves (though one could argue, the way many airlines treat their employees is rather comparable). 24.88.79.249 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And also complaining about how Air France's CEO talks about people ,and how Dubai (and other Middle Eastern countries) treat their workers is very appropo. As I mentioned before there is a lack of clear, transparent labor law in Dubai and many other places in the middle-east. Construction workers and other imported low end labor treated poorly and in back breaking conditions, some never getting paid, or seeing huge deductions taken out for service that are never rendered. Hell, even pilots (as anyone who read the forums of any airline pilot site) are not especially happy with management, as they keep pushing the limits of rest time as well as passing over FO's for newly contracted Captains (something that would never occur anywhere else due to seniority rules).
While Dubai officials complain that "Western" human rights organizations unfairly criticize them the reality on the streets is a little bit different, as indicated by labor unrest and strikes in a country where they are not even legal. Dubai may benefit, at the moment, by the relatively weak labor market in India that gives them so much of their labor force, but it will not forever, and eventually the chicken will come home to roost. 24.88.79.249 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emirates A380 - NPOV

I've added the tag to the top of this section becuase it is clearly advertising. DavidB601 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hubs

How are SYD, LHR and JFK hubs for Emirates? Sure, you can fly non-stop to AKL, CHC, BKK and DXB from Sydney - but following that reasoning wouldn't SIN be a 'hub' or BKK maybe? Isn't DXB meant to be Emirates' ONLY hub?? Sorry misread. SIN, BKK and BOM(!) are under hubs, SYD, JFK and LHR under focus cities. I really don't know if I agree still though. DXB is their only hub. BOM, JFK (except for HAM) and LHR have flights to DXB only. SIN, BKK, SYD actually funnel passengers through to different destinations (although not THAT many), SIN-MEL/BNE/KUL/CGK/CMB, BKK-SYD/HKG SYD-AKL/CHC/BKK, and could perhaps be considered as focus cities.

Ditto.

I don't think that Singapore or Sydney or London are hubs or focus cities. It just happens that they're focal points for the airline. But they're not hubs or focus cities. So they should be deleted.

[edit] The first article

The first article in this page makes you want to switch pages as quickly as possible. Why do we need such a LONG statement on how Emirates is looking toward the future, and all about Emirates? I didn't erase it because I want someone to tell me the reason for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Einsteinboricua (talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually i think the first article is one of the best changes this article has ever had. I don't see what's wrong with it. Its informative, has lots of pictures and is quite a good article even though its really long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.241.180 (talk • contribs) 13:20, April 22, 2007 (UTC)

A whole whack of unencyclopedic information has recently been added. Big pictures and minute detail about Emirates Airlines aren't needed. I haven't had the time to go through and condense it yet, but the article needs it badly. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that. The article need to be rewritten from scratch. It look like a advertisement and a copy from somewhere. The article lack encyclopedic looks. --SkyWalker 17:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a copyvio, but I couldn't find anything. Flyguy649talkcontribs 18:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
What about reverting this article to the end of March version. This older version was much better than the current version, which sounds more like marketing blurb. Dassiebtekreuz 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Perhaps solicit some others' comments? Flyguy649talkcontribs 02:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

I have cleaned up the advertising, as you can probably see it was a huge cleanup, it should be all ok, as most of it was just talking about how great Emirates is as an airline.

Some wording may be wrong and non-concise due to heavy editing, but the page is a much better reading experiance, I hope.

Cheers, Ben

Benpaul12 06:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for what you have done, but the problem is is that whenever we do a cleanup, advertising and off topic sections still come back. Large parts of the article read like an advert, with some sections reading like a newspaper. Also, the article seems to focus (as mentioned below) on the Emirates group and its "business model," and not on the actual airline itself. DavidB601 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'VE ADDED A TABLE ON WHERE eMIRATES LOUNGES WERE BECAUSE MOST AIRLINE ARTICLES TALKED ABOUT IT SO I ADDED IT ON TO THE eMIRATES lounges. I also added a few pictures. [[User: Mo the Genius|Mo the Genius 16.37, 28, April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is an airline article

...and as such, it is supposed to be based solely on Emirates, not the Emirates group. This article needs hefty clean up. I think the overview is off-topic, and so is the advertisement for each of the class(maybe by instead of wrtiing you, omit the you part).Einsteinboricua 21:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you have a look and change what you think should be removed, and dont worry about removing it.

Alot of it needs to be in seperate articles, the main thing about this article is that alot of it is irrelevant.

Benpaul12 04:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and just deleted some of the sections which are adverts and some which were written like newspapers that seemed to have copied text from news websites - no doubt some will reappear though! DavidB601 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. My bad. Sorry. Look before you leap. Er, revert. I don't know if we should just delete the sections - perhaps some can be rewritten - but they do harm the article as a whole. The random images of destinations need to be cut from the article as well, I think.--AgentCDE / Talk / 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed some of the images that seemed randomly thrown in. Common locations, such as Times Square, with an advert-ish sounding caption about how Emirates has or will soon have service to the associated city. All of them were out of place, as well, having little or nothing to do with the text nearby. I'm still wondering what to do about the newspaper sections, but maybe those should just be deleted again... --AgentCDE / Talk / 20:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting rid of some of those pictures; they were just blatant adverts. With regard to the newspaper articles, I still feel they should be deleted because some of them are advertising, and after all, somebody could just put something into the article every time Emirates was in the news. DavidB601 06:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is going on?

Why has alot of the deleted stuff come back again?

This article needs to be cleaned-up and locked.

Benpaul12 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I second that motion. This article has gotten way out of hand. Einsteinboricua 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've taken the liberty...

I've taken the liberty of cleaning up this article. Anything that didn't have to do with Emirates Airlines was deleted. This article is not about the Emirates group, but rather the airline. There is still some major editing that needs to be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Einsteinboricua (talk • contribs) 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Locking this article

After many time consuming changes, the advertising has come back.

This article needs to be locked, then cleaned up following discussion.

Please can we lock this?

Benpaul12 06:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - there's no point working on it if adverts are going to come back so it needs to be locked and properly cleaned up. DavidB601 14:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What needs to be done is ban those members that vandalize these articles. I've been checking the history, and everytime someone deletes something, a member comes to restore it all.Einsteinboricua 13:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking through the history and it seems that one of the people spamming is Mo the Genius as proved here: [4]. You can clearly see that after my edit, adverts about the Aviation College, Destination and Leisure Management, Mercator etc came about as a result of Mo the Genius. DavidB601 18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I indefinately blocked Mo The Genius earlier today, but he wasn't the first, wasn't the only, and I fear won't be the last sock of this particular miscreant. I propose to sprotect the page (initially for 2 weeks) to limit his capacity to return with new accounts and to edit from IPs. I don't know anything about this subject, and I confess to being entirely flumoxed by the volume of edits it's had recently, so I can't be much help in actually beating the thing back into shape. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've sprotected it. I'd much rather it not be protected, particularly on account of that is probably just one individual. If we can get the article back to some semblance of respectability I'd prefer to unprotect it and instead block any returning spammers as they arise. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Since he's been blocked, then this article should be safe since its semi-protected. I will be working on this article over the next few weeks. Needs a total cleanup. This article has lots of advertising and weasel words. Oh come on, we are not paid to advertise for Emirates, so there's a real need to cleanup this article and make it neutral and sourced. Terence 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Also...regarding who's responsible, I've noticed that PCPirate16 has also been vandalizing the article. Right after I deleted something, PCPirate16 restored it.Einsteinboricua 11:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you're talking about. PCPirate reverted several of Mo the Genius's edits and added some sources for material. Those are the only edits I can see in the history; all are legit. DB (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
After looking at the history, I haven't reverted any of your edits Einsteinboricua.

Pcpirate16 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I cut some of the sentences out of the overview section. I think it sounds a lot more neutral now, but if you disagree, just revert it back.(this has been a monkeying around studios inc. edit 05:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
That's much better. Finally it seems we are getting somewhere with this article. DavidB601 06:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. Sorry there, Pcpirate16. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Einsteinboricua (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I've had to revert the page because Saiyeda brought back all the advertising, newspaper type sections etc that we had gotten rid of after Mo the Genius was blocked. Perhaps Saiyeda could be blocked or be warned for vandalising. DavidB601 16:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emirates Fleet

Emirates have ordered 100 787 and its not showing on the Fleet size Emirates have ordered 48 A380's not 47

I am a Airline nut so I will know even tough im a new member and how come Wikipedia isn't allowing New members to Edit the Emirates page

Captain 777 Emirates 06:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Emirates has not ordered the B787. There have been many sources saying that they will go with the A350XWB instead. Show me a link proving me wrong about the B787. Pcpirate16 15:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

According to this BBC page, Emirates has only ordered 47, not 48 A380s, so the article is correct. New members are not allowed to edit at present due to huge problems we have had with vandalism with this article. DavidB601 08:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


http://pages.infinit.net/camsim/ags7810_600ek.jpg this is a website which shows the B787 in Emirates colours next time get your facts right before posting

Captain Kuddus 01:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You call that a source? I could do that on Photoshop and slap it on a web page. Does that make it offical nope. My facts are correct while yours are not. And why the need to create a new account to post this? I have the feeling that you are Mo The Genius. Pcpirate16 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

get your facts right idiot I have heard this from a Emirates member

Captain Kuddus 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


I agree with Pcpirate. Just because there is a picture of a plane in Emirates colours, it doesn't mean that they have ordered any of the aircradt. If you want to prove your point, find us a reliable source. DavidB601 19:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You heard this from an Emirate member? Is that a frequent flyer member, or maybe a employee? Either way the rumors that employees spread around are rarely if ever ture. Pcpirate16 19:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey idiot when I mean emirates member I mean a bloody employee.

And he received fax from Dubai Headquarters saying they have ordered it so what have you got to say to that eh???

Captain Kuddus 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Read this they want the 787-10X www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1506455/posts

Captain Kuddus 00:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Me saying that I got an email from Airbus saying that Emirates has ordered the A350 carries the same wait as what you say. Just becuase you say it makes it true? Rumors get spread around regularly among airline employees. I remeber not that long ago a rumor at United saying that they would be announcing a order for the B787 the next week, didn't happen. Key word WANT, Boeing hasn't even launched the B787-10. Emirates also wants a longer ranger 747-8I. That dosen't mean they will get it. Pcpirate16 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Where in that link does it say that Emirates has ordered the 787? All the article states is that they MAY buy the plane, and that they want its length extended, not that they HAVE ordered the plane. DavidB601 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

On April 20, 2007, The Times newspaper published an article suggesting that Emirates Airlines has chosen to order 100 Airbus A350XWB aircraft over the aircraft's main rival, the Boeing 787. [1] TB115 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Can someone please put these pictures into the article. I think that this article would alot better if there was more pictues Image:Emirates SkyCargo A310F A6-EFC.jpg

Image:emirates.b777-300.a6-emv.arp.jpg

Image:Airbus A330-200 Emirates A6-EAL.jpg

Image:Emirates_777.JPG

TB115 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

The statistics section of course needs citations, and the best I could find are these:

http://www.iata.org/ps/publications/wats-passenger-carried.htm - Passengers carried (EK listed 9th with 16.7 million) http://www.iata.org/ps/publications/wats-passenger-km.htm - Passenger-km flown (EK listed 7th with 73.9 million) http://www.iata.org/ps/publications/wats-freight-km.htm 0 Cargo tonne-km flows (EK listed 10th with 5 million)

These numbers are from 2006, and look to me consistent with the airline's growth (the numbers in the article are apparently from 2005). I'll be damned if I spend the £450 to buy the full report, but is that citation enough? Binand 10:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've updated all the statistics from a very reliable source TB115 10:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airline info box

Have removed the hyperlink from Tim Clark as this link pointed to an article about a different Tim Clark from South Africa who a) has no connections with the airline industry whatsoever and b) is far too young as he was born only in 1975. (The Emirates Tim Clark hails from the UK and is one of the industry veterans who started his career with British Caledonian, the UK's erstwhile leading wholly privately owned, Independent "Second Force" international scheduled airline, in the early 1970s, when he was working at that airline's London Gatwick Airport headquarters. [Refer to relevant details in British Caledonian wiki article.]) Have also corrected some minor spelling and formatting mistakes as well as added several sources at the end of the 'Controversy' section. Pimpom123 14.02, 25 June 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Odd link

I found the sentence "...the UAE's Royal Flight." Royal Flight is a redirect to No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF. Is that a correct link? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Destination São Paulo

In the destinations section it says São Paulo is a six week debut, does that mean it's oly for six weeks.

[edit] Rumours

Please stop adding rumours about possible destinations and such. They have and will be reverted. Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] New Layout of the Page

I've moved around some of the stuff on the page, and created a gallery. It would be much better like this. The reason i ordered the text out this way is because loads of airlines like Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways, American Airlines etc. had all been laying out the information in the same way. Tell me what you think. (45HG23 15:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC));

[edit] Last edits

I merged the two sections on ICE into one. I also removed "...at a rate of 80 per week, due to rise to 160 per week..." from the opening as it was covered later on with different figures. In the Business Class section it says "...with a 60" pitch..." is that 60 inches or 60 degrees? I also noticed that a couple of sections had fact tags at the beginning which I replaced with Refimprovesect. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More cleanup

I found that all 4 gallery images were also in the article and the Manchester Ringway was in 3 times. I merged the "Partnerships and Alliances" and the "Codeshare agreements" into one section as they are the same thing. Changed bullet points into prose (badly). Most of the "Destinations" is now at Emirates destinations as this article is getting too large. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


I've sort of changed the page by moving some infromation around. Another main thing i did was i removed the fleet orders from the current fleet tables (both passenger and cargo fleets) and added another two tables to diiferentiate the current fleet with the fleet orders, please tell me what you think. [[User_talk:Mohammed Hasanie |(Talk)]] 20:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Emirates.jpg

Image:Emirates.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates: Which style?

Some dates are written like this...October 27, 2007. Others are written like this....27 October 2007. WP:DATE states that both are acceptable but that only one style should be used in a particular article. I can't see a need for discussion of this point but simply a vote (unless one style is predominately used in Dubai). Usually a discussion is more appropriate and not a vote.Archtransit 23:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For October 27, 2007:

For 27 October 2007:

  • I believe that this style is the best. I personally think the date should come before the month. I find it easier to read, and also I believe it is used more than the former style. --Leitmanp 23:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Just change your preferences to see what you want. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Section

I just read this section for the first time and it sounds very one-sided to me. It's called a "Controversy" section yet it reads more like a section attacking European legacy carriers for foul play. In fact there's nothing "controversial" about Emirates Airline in the section, which is what it's supposed to be used for. The information that's there now is more relevant in the other airlines' pages not this one. Anyone else have an opinion? NcSchu(Talk) 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe all that the section needs is a change in the title. I cannot think of what the title should be, but maybe someone else can. -- Leitmanp 05:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agreed, but don't know how exactly it will best be fixed. I will mark this section with the Neutral macro until this is cleared up? JoshFarron 09:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the name of the section to 'rivlary'....sounds fair, non? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.24.29 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Passenger versus Cargo

I believe that this article should only be about the passenger airline. Anything dealing with SkyCargo should be removed and put on the Emirates SkyCargo page. This would include the removal of the cargo fleet and an adjustment to the number of destinations. In the article is states that Emirates flies "to 94 cities in 60 countries on six continents." This number includes the passenger and cargo services. In reality, Emirates (the passenger airline) only flies to 87 different destinations, in 86 different cities (London is counted twice due to flights to both Heathrow and Gatwick), in 55 countries (I went to the Emirates Route Map and counted to be sure). I would be interested to hear what people have to say about this proposal. If there is no opposition to this change by 03:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC), I will go ahead to change it myself. Thank you. --Leitmanp 05:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Customer for 747-8

Should the link below be put into the paragraph about Emirates ordering the 747-8 if Boeing provides a shrink version?. According to this article, http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/AQTU09706112007-1.htm Boeing has frozen the 747-8 design and nothing is mentioned about the short- shrink version(which would allow for DXB-LAX, 365 days a year with good cargo capabilities) that Tim Clark has been pushing for because that was the only condition a 747-8 order would be signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melrosepark (talk • contribs) 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I'd wait and see what EK says. WhisperToMe 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

At some point tonight I am going to start cleaning up Emirates Airline page. It has become cluttered, and has alot of facts that are just facts and do not add to the overall experience or have any significance. Any comments please respond.--Jab843 (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Remove Clean Up template

i think the Emirates Airline page looks really good and most information has been placed into other pages. But i think it is time we removed the clean up template, since the page does't need it anymore. Thanks.(mini mo 12:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Routes

This article is about Emirates Airline and not Emirates SkyCargo. Therfore, Emirates flies to 88 destinations in 55 countries (once service to Cape Town begins in March 2008 it will be 89 destinations in 55 countries), NOT 99 cities in 69 countries. I have changed it to the former. Also, Emirates flies to 88 destinations, but 87 cities. The reason is because Emirates flies to two airports in London (London Heathrow Airport and London Gatwick Airport). This counts as two destinations, but as one city. I have changed the information so it takes this into account. If you want to contest any part of what I have just mentioned, please leave a comment here so we can discuss it. Please do not revert my edit. I do not want to start an edit war, and it would be better to keep it the same until we reach a consensus. Thank you. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I perfectly agree. I had actually changed it a couple of days ago, but someone decided to inflate the number of destinations! With regards to the destinations/cities difference, I do apologise, it was my mistake: I was, in fact, counting destinations, not cities, but didn't realise that I had left the word "cities" as opposed to "destinations" in the text. Cheers!
--Radarino (talk | contributions) 08:37 GMT, 13 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radarino (talk • contribs) 08:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a change to the number of cities and countries that Emirates serves. I will restate my reason: Emirates' passenger service flies to 88 destinations in 55 countries. When you included Emirates SkyCargo into these statistics, it becomes 97 destinations in 60 countries. But, this article is about the Emirates that does passenger services; so cargo information should not be included. Also, I went to the Emirates Route Map, and counted all the destinations and countries myself to be sure that I was right. If you disagree, please discuss it here before you revert it. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It has happened again. Now that flights to Cape Town have begun, Emirates flies to 89 destinations in 55 countries. This number will change to 91 destinations in 55 countries when Emirates begins flights to Kozhikode and to Guangzhou on 1 July 2008. Some people may say that after Emirates began flights to Cape Town, Emirates hit the 100 mark. This is only true when including Emirates passenger flights and Emirates SkyCargo. For the purposes of this article, we are only including passenger service. Therefore, the number of flights is 89. Please, do not change any information on the article without consensus here on the talk page. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

To the various IP's that are changing the two dates. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dates) which is quite clear on the matter, "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes or articles, or put a comma between month and year." I note too that it's only the two dates in the box that are being changed yet there are multiple others throughout the article that don't include the ordinal suffixes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] name of airline

What's the name of this airline? I thought it was "Emirates". Sometimes "Emirate Airline" (not "Airlines") is used. Is this a grammatical error that the company started? Does this deserve mention or is there a history about the terminology used? Archtransit (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In terms of common names, clearly Emirates should be the preferred name. I am still wondering why there is a page move to its current name.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Emirates can mean anything. It can mean the company (not the airline), the country, the stadium. So thats why, we gave it Emirates Ailine. 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klop09 (talk • contribs)

[edit] destinations: incorrect number

(to 88 destinations in 55 countries all over the world) this needs to be changed, Emirates now flies to 100 destinations around the world. can someone do this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.208.42.22 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 March 2008

Please see the message a few sections up titled "Routes" for information on this. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Destination countries

The article needs to be consistant. If the two destination boxes are going to use the redirect "United States of America" then every time "United States" is used in the article needs to be changed as well. At the same time if the full formal name of one country is being used then the same applies to other countries, Republic of South Africa, Republic of India, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Turkey, Commonwealth of Australia and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the common names. United States, China, South Africa, etc. are the most common names of these countries. People seldom refer to countries with "Republic of ...", "Federation of ...", "Commonwealth of ...". Therfore, we should only do what is common and not what is perfect and precise. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I'm not sure that merging four articles into here would be a good idea. This article is already rather large and could do with reducing in size which is why some of them were created. The only advantage is that it would make it easier to see when advertising material is added. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla

I agree that it is not a good idea to merge all of those articles. This article already contains a lot of information and several "main articles" helps keep this page precise and not so long. Actually, back in October 2007 several articles relating to Emirates were created to take weight off of this article. Merging everything back would undo those exact edits. There is really no point to merge everything into one article. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emirates SkyCargo article merger related

I think its a good idea to merge the article into Emirates Airline, infact I say all airlines having seperate articles for them like Singapore Airlines Cargo, Air China Cargo, MAS Kargo, Lufthansa Cargo should be merged into teh main airlines article and destinations list, Cathay Pcific Cargo and El Al Cargo articles were merged into the main airlines articles.(203.81.237.164 (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Not quite. The reason that Emirates SkyCargo should be merged into this article, is because Emirates SkyCargo is not an airline. It doesn't hold an air operator's certificate, it doesn't have any aircraft registered in its name, it is not a stand-alone company (it's a division of Emirates Airline), and doesn't operate service utilising its own call-sign. There are entities such as Aeroflot-Cargo, Singapore Airlines Cargo, Lufthansa Cargo, etc which do have their own AOC, do have aircraft registered in their name, and are separated legally from their name sake by way of being a separate company. The very basic requirement to call an entity an airline is holding a valid AOC - if these cargo entities don't have that AOC, they need to be merged into the main article. --Россавиа Диалог 19:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose; Whether or not Emirates SkyCargo is a different company is not the issue. SkyCargo does have an identity and does form a large part of Emirates. Emirates (the passenger airline) and SkyCargo operate separately although they are under the same umbrella. I oppose merging the articles together for that reason. Also, merging more things into this article is a bad idea; see my comment in the section above. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I say the article should be merged, if you look at Emirates SkyCargo article all it will take is one paragraph and only the all freighter destinations (the ones taht are exclusivly served through freighters only) to add to the main Emirates article and destination list.(203.81.239.79 (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
I strongly disagree that this article should be merged. Emirates SkyCargo and Emirates Airline are both subsidiary companies of Emirates Group. My company works with both SkyCargo and Airline, but we had to establish those arrangements seperately at Group level. By the same rationale as is being proposed, you should merge both Emirates Airlines and Emirates SkyCargo into Emirates Group. I'm sure we can see how silly that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.22.119 (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Only those cargo carriers with independant AOC's should have their own articles, these are China Cargo Airlines, Lufthansa Cargo and Singapore Airlines Cargo, the rest should be merged.(116.71.52.157 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Then every airline with a seprate Cargo divison should have a seprate article for the Cargo wing at wikipedia, but then again El Al and Cathay Pacific Cargo articles were deleted from here and now redirect to the main airline articles.(203.81.239.188 (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Twice daily

Anon 58.179.64.21 continually changes “daily” to “Daily” in the article, as in the extract below:

Destination Frequency (per week) Aircraft Commencing
London, United Kingdom 7 (Daily) Airbus A380 1 December 2008
Guangzhou, China 7 (Daily) Boeing 777-200ER (all same aircraft) 1 December 2008

In my opinion there is no reason to capitalise “daily” since it is inside the phrase “7 (daily)". If I imagine that the 7 had been written in full like this - Seven (Daily) - (which doesn't change the argument) it seems clear to me that a capital is wrong. Also the anon changes “twice daily” to “double daily”, which sounds odd. What is people's opinion on these two points, please? - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The daily is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. The Manual of Style states this too. Double daily seems less clear to me. Sounds more like going double or nothing on a bet. I adjusted the table coding above to look like the one in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree, daily is not a proper noun. As to double daily, the anon did once, I think claim, that it was seen that way in trade magazines, which may be possible, but would not be common. It makes me think of coffee, look at the disambiguation wording. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • As per usual I left a note to the IP to respond here but I suspect they won't. They never have before and only comment in the edit summaries. They may never even see the note as they chnage IP's daily. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Double daily is not standard english usage although the travel business use it sometimes. Nothing wrong with twice daily. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I am for keeping "daily" without the capital letter. I see no point to capitalizing a word that is all by itself, especially if it is not a proper noun. As for the amount of flights per day, I am for "twice daily." I believe it sounds better and is more natural to English, and because "double daily" almost sounds like Daily Double in the game show Jeopardy!. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments, much appreciated - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] all same aircraft

What does that mean? Does it mean that they are going to use the same aircraft, with the same tail letters, day after day? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It means that this destination will only be served by one type of aircraft and not different types throughout the week. As you can see by this edit, someone does not think that Guangzhou will be served by multiple types of aircraft. By adding "all same aircraft," they were justifying their edit. According to this article in a Dubai newspaper, it says that Emirates will use an Airbus A330-200 from 1 July to 30 November. Beginning 1 December, Emirates will use an A340-300 for six days and an Airbus A330-200 on the seventh day. But, this article was from 4 March 2008, and I know that Emirates changed the aircraft used for Cape Town a short while after they announced flights to that city. I am not sure if they did the same for Guangzhou; User:Jay zrules2 could be right. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I removed it. None of the others use it and they appear to be the same. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USA

Could Emirates - in theory - open a base in the United States. So would they be able to serve for example Amsterdam from Chicago or New York? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.216.232 (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table of flight changes

What is the point for the table in the Destinations section that shows changes in frequencies or aircraft for different destinations that Emirates serves? I personally do not think Wikipedia should provide such detailed information that does not provide any encyclopedic content. It is also difficult to maintain or to ensure the accuracy. I believe the only table we should include is that of the new destinations. If someone truly wants to find which type of plane Emirates uses for a certain destination or how many times a week that destination is served, they can use Emirates' website. Wikipedia is only meant to provide information and not flight schedules and specifics about different routes. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you totally on the subject. By the way why are you so adamant in listing country next to city in the new destinations table? its unecessary and looks crowded too, I have removed it and even improvised it many times which made more sense, but you have always reverted my edits to your own prefernces, you do not own the Emirates article.(203.81.239.188 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC))
It should probably go and would then mean that the second box, "Aircraft Changes/Increased Flight Frequency", would no longer be needed either. The country names should stay as there is no way to tell if every reader knows what country the cities are in. At the same time I also wonder about the two boxes in the "Performance" section, are they really required? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
CambridgeBayWeather, I was only referring to the removal of "Aircraft Changes/Increased Flight Frequency," not "New Destinations from Dubai." I am also opposed to the removal of the two tables in the "Performance" section. I believe they provide good information, but I think they are either poorly placed or too big. Maybe a reorganization is needed for that section? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I misunderstood which box you were talking about. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Okay, I removed it. What should be done with the performance tables? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] City, country

An anonymous editor has changed the format of the city and country for the destinations in the New Destinations table. This user believes that the original version was crowded and was harder to view. The original version's format was CITY, COUNTRY. The anonymous editor changed it to CITY - (COUNTRY), then subsequently changed it to CITY <br/> (COUNTRY). I believe we should use the original version (CITY, COUNTRY). This is the usual format for writing the city and country. This format also, contrary to what the anonymous editor says, does not make the table crowded or difficult to read. I would like to see what the views of other editors are so we can reach consensus. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it on a 15" monitor at work. The standard CITY, COUNTRY looks fine. What might help is to use Frequency<br>(per week). That box is rather wide for the small amount of data in it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with "Frequency <br> (per week)" for the column title. I will wait a few more days before I change anything to allow for the opposition to voice their opinion. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Done I have just changed it. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)