Emirates Has Invested $500M to Build a 'Fort Knox' of Wine | Hacker News Reader

Emirates Has Invested $500M to Build a 'Fort Knox' of Wine

bloomberg.com

96 pointsJumpCrisscross102 comments

> Most airlines employ a wine consultant who will use a number calculated by the finance team to put together a list of 20 wines that are available both in the market and in the volume required. Tim Clark, the president of Emirates, wanted its wine list to be a differentiator. So the airline made the decision to partner with MMI and buy as directly as possible from merchants and vineyards and in smaller quantities, if necessary—10,000-bottle parcels instead of the typical 24,000 or 48,000.

Reminds me of Delta Air Lines' 2012 purchase of an East Coast oil refinery [1], a more refined :) take on Southwest's profitable fuel-price hedge last decade [2]. Both Emirates' and Delta's plays echo a comment I read yesterday about "identifying supply-chain components that can be [more] economically produced in-house" [3].

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/business/delta-air-lines-t...

[2] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2008-...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13323081

I always found the Delta arrangement very interesting. The refinery took a $10 million loss which saved DL $100 million. [1] But it also saved rivals money. When they make cheaper jet fuel it doesn't just go to Delta. They have to sell the fuel into the Jet-A for the region. That means they subsidize all the other airlines too.

So DL says, if we give each airline $90 million (# made up), our use and deployment of capital will be (is?) more efficient and therefore it's a net win for us.

Or possibly in another thought-experiment, it's better that each airline has the money to invest in their businesses and products, such that the entire Aviation industry benefits, rather than giving that profit to an O&G company.

[1] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-deltas-refinery-sacr...

From the Bloomberg article: "And if you're really lucky, you might be able to order a 2005 Sauterne from Château d'Yquem, the superior first-growth winery that was a favorite of Thomas Jefferson and is now owned by LVMH."

My God. Drinking a 2005 d'Yquem is infanticide. Those wines are meant to mature for decades.

When you talk about the "best vintage" of d'Yquem that's still drinkable, you have to specify which century!

For example, 1811: http://sip-bali.com/yquem-1811/

"ridgeguy" - yep, username checks out!

Call it what you want, but yesterday at 38,000 feet it was absolutely delightful.

I hear it's great over the Indian Ocean with Rogue:One on the small screen using complimentary headphones.

Probably still tastes like spoiled grapes.

I had an 1878 Yquem at a birthday party in Paris a few years ago. It was an amazing experience even without the drink. The sommelier had personally driven to the Châteaux, the winemaster had written a letter about that bottle, his thoughts about it over the years, a discussion of the year's reputation, etc. I think it might have been the last bottle at the Château. I just tasted it but didn't dare drink it -- I just had a taste and gave the birthday boy the rest. It was quite syrupy and delicious

A few days later I happened to be served a 1929 Yquem at dinner, seemingly a completely different wine.

A company based in a Muslim country and owned and managed by Muslims investing in a secure complex to store alcohol is like a government of a fiat currency-using country investing in a secure complex to store gold bullion, I suppose.

that seems like a strange analogy. they serve many markets (India is a major one for example). there is nothing which forbids them from serving alcohol to non-Muslim travelers.

I actually didn't know that. I had assumed that alcohol was haram and thus considered unclean, or at least that it would be sinful to participate in the production or distribution of it, even to nonbelievers.

Well Islam is not only what extremists make us think of it. When it comes to actual muslims, there's a gradient from totally-by-the-book to muslim-merely-in-the-name. Many muslims consume alcoholic drinks.

True, though even "totally-by-the-book", Islam allows the consumption of alcohol for non-Muslims. This is why alcohol is usually available at hotels, even in Saudi Arabia.

> True, though even "totally-by-the-book", Islam allows the consumption of alcohol for non-Muslims

And, depending on who you ask, for Muslims too. The prohibition is against rice wine, which most Muslims generalize to include all alcohol, but some interpret that to mean only rice wine, or only wine.

Well, when you say by-the-book, at the end of the day, it's possible to make the book say anything. For example wrt homosexuality, it's possible to generate valid arguments pro and contro based on each of three major abrahamitic canons. My father occasionally went to friday midday prayers, and fasted every ramadan. But then again, he drunk unfathomable amounts of vodka and beer and he smoked. So for some he was a sinner destined to go to hell, but for others he was a zealot. I guess that's why religious canons are fun reads but not the books to build an outlook and a philosophy upon.

Not quite- hotels don't serve alcohol in Saudi or in Kuwait. But you are right that the religion itself doesn't say anything about non-Muslims consuming alcohol.

> they serve many markets (India is a major one for example)

Yup. By passenger volume, Emirates serves more Indians than any other group.

That's not that surprising when you realize that Dubai, their headquarters, is 90% Asian (which is itself mostly South Asian).

I'm admittedly not a wine person but I really wonder how many people can actually recognise a $10 bottle of wine from a $30 bottle of wine - or similar.

Probably not, unless you tell them it costs 3x as much. (Given two glasses of the same wine and told one costs more, people will say the more expensive one is better.)

I remember a documentary about some american fine wine forger where even though he's been arrested for the crime there were "fine wine people" that bought the wine that were fooling themselves that just this batch, which they've bought for too much money, was legitimate and obviously delicious.

I'm sure some people can tell, but I highly recommend watching sour grapes, there really are some emperor's new clothes moments.

http://www.sourgrapesfilm.com/about/

Ah, yeah, that's the one I was referring to in another reply. Thanks. It's a good watch.

It is available on Netflix streaming https://www.netflix.com/watch/80029708

Alternatively, Somm is about students trying to pass the brutally difficult Master Sommelier exam. Worth a look IMO: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2204371/

I gradually went from "This main guy is a tool" to "Holy crap, he studies incredibly hard. I hope he succeeds."

It depends. To some people beer is what the macro breweries put out and that is it. They haven't experienced all the varieties and options the micro breweries put out. Even if they do try it initially they generally don't like it. It takes a while to develop not only a taste for the stuff but also to be able to distinguish all the different flavors and varieties.

Wine is very similar. Price does not equate quality. That said, a very good $10 bottle of wine will be less quality than a very good $30 bottle. It's confused by the fact that there are some pretty outstanding $10 bottles and some pretty horrible $30 bottles.

I used to have a $10 favorite that is really solid but started venturing into $15-20 territory and there is a definite quality difference you might not notice if you are new to wine.

But wine is far more pretentious than beer and it's best not to get wrapped up in that world. Just drink what you feel tastes good. You'll notice that as you drink more, your tastes change and it's good to try new things.

It's pointless to drink a bunch of expensive wine if you haven't experienced much. It takes time to develop an understanding of the varieties and flavors to look for in order to really appreciate what a more expensive wine may offer (or an outstanding cheaper wine!)

> It's confused by the fact that there are some pretty outstanding $10 bottles and some pretty horrible $30 bottles.

The intermittent reinforcement factor at work which lends to 'found one' and makes it interesting (I am guessing..)

would love to hear your recommendations at the $10, $15, $20, $25, and $30 price points if you have any!

I love the Ravenswood Old Vin Zinfandel. When I can find it here in the Bay Area, it's about $6 a bottle. One of the best bargains I know of.

Find a wine shop or bar that does tasting events. Typically a tasting will concentrate on a particular region or grape, and go through 6 to 9 small glasses. Sometimes they'll be done blind, but more often you'll be talked through what to look for.

Typically you'll also have some cheese and cold meats to eat - useful to see how the wine reacts to other flavours. For example, malolactic fermentation in a wine brings out a unctuous creamy taste from a good cheese, while other wines make meat more savoury. Pâté is another interesting pairing: different wines can bring out different flavours from the same substance.

Wine shops will typically be doing tastings from bottles that they can sell, so they won't be super expensive (but probably more than $10). But rank your own preferences, and notice how your preferences change as you taste different wines - it can happen that a wine that seemed tasty to begin with pales after you've had a different wine.

It's a personal journey, IMO, and it's a long enjoyable road.

Or even if they could, how can you say something tastes objectively better?

You can't obviously. But when it comes to wines there are certain flavour characteristics that are desirable for that particular type of wine. So a 'good' wine is a wine that shows more of those characteristics and a 'bad' wine is a wine that has less of those characteristics and more 'undesirable' characteristics. Whether or not you think those characteristics taste good or not is a separate discussion.

Can't find the study, but it was statistical analysis of results of different wine competition. The result was something that bad wines was always viewed as bad, but on the good part of spectrum the good wines ranked kind of randomly.

So it is more like we know what we do not like, but there is very little agreement on what is considered to be good wine.

Price is only weakly correlated with taste and quality and there are lots of $10 bottle of wines that are superior to lots of $30 bottles of wines. That being said, if I was offered pairs of randomly selected wines from the same grape and region, one costing $10 and the other $30, I'd like to think I'd pick out the $30 wine with a better random success rate. That being said again there is no reason to assume that one would necessarily always prefer the $30 bottle to the $10.

However at the price ranges we're talking about here you're not simply paying for taste. You're paying to drink something that is rare and in some way unique and/or interesting.

It's the same with fashion. Gucci and Saks Fifth Ave don't have an increase in quality that can be attributed to the high price over say kohls. But because they charge a high price they seem more valuable, give higher utility to owners and are hence actually become "worth" the higher price

The clothing found in a luxury department store is of noticeably higher quality than that found in a Kohls. There are definitely diminishing returns in how much quality you get for your money though.

On the other hand, the quality differential between markedly more expensive clothing at the Kohls of the world and bargain-basement places like Wal-Mart is neglible.

> It's the same with fashion. Gucci and Saks Fifth Ave don't have an increase in quality that can be attributed to the high price over say kohls.

I'm going to disagree a bit. As in many things, the first order of magnitude is a huge jump in quality. After that, the curve drops away.

In clothing the jump from say $5 to $50 is huge. The jump from $50 to $500 is generally quite noticeable, but the marginal increase in utility probably may not be as significant (sometimes it is, though). A jump from $500 to $5000 is generally subtle and is generally signalling behavior except in rare circumstances (men's suits spring to mind--the jump from $500 to about $3-4K feels quite astonishing).

Other goods have a similar curve at different points. The jump in quality from a Stratocaster-type guitar from about $100 or so to $500 is generally an astonishing jump in quality. The jump from $500 to $1000 is generally quite noticeable even to amateur guitar players. The jump from $1000 to $2000 is generally nice, but quite a bit more subtle and you probably have to be somewhat decent at guitar to notice. Above that, and we're back into signalling behavior territory with very marginal increases in actual utility.

> But because they charge a high price they seem more valuable, give higher utility to owners and are hence actually become "worth" the higher price

I feel like you've never owned nice clothing before then.

In every conceivable way, my $500 jacket is nicer than my $50 one. It's noticeably better quality of build, has lasted far longer, looks much better, and is absolutely much nicer.

That being said, it is absolutely possible to spend $500 on clothing which is identical to $50 or $5 variants. That's why you need to do some research before buying.

Luxury goods are not intrinsically bad deals. Probably my favorite purchase ever is a Briggs & Riley suitcase. I've been using it and abusing it for a decade and it still works perfectly.

It really is nothing like fashion.

As mentioned already the quality of the construction and materials is markedly different when you go up the price range. But also the fit and style changes. Mass market clothing targets those with an average body shape whereas in the upmarket stores it will target those with a more model style shape i.e. thinner and taller. For example 99.99% of Americans would simply never fit in the Hedi Slimane era of Saint Laurent clothes. Also the styles such as those from Alexander McQueen are more adventurous which most people would feel uncomfortable wearing.

Wine is experienced the same regardless of age, gender, social class, body shape etc. And you don't feel like an idiot when you are drinking an expensive bottle.

I'd disagree... the price curve gets steeper because higher quality is scarce and valued much higher.

There's nothing intrinsically scarce about higher quality when we are talking about a manufactured product.

Sure there is.

Even small marginal price increases affect sales volume and costs, which has a huge impact on p&l.

Niche high quality brands need high style to justify the cost. Once in awhile you'll find super high quality product at a low price point, but that's almost always an aberration that will be "fixed" in time.

I think the point being made is that this isn't "scarcity", it's just where supply and demand intersect for high quality products.

That is true about some, but not all, luxury brands. Some brands are about social signalling. But quality luxury brands are altogether a different story.

Let me give you a comparative example. I have a few Bally sweathers that I picked up in Geneve in 2000, and they are practically in the same condition as the day I bought them. (And I should add that I have been wearing them every winter season.) Ditto for a couple from Agnès B. circa 2004ish before their men's line went down the drain (imo). In contrast practically every "practical" sweather that I have ever purchased balls up after just a few wearings and turned out to be a waste of money.

Nothing beats quality clothing. You pay more but you get "utility" & style for years.

>In contrast practically every "practical" sweather that I have ever purchased balls up after just a few wearings

Really? I have some ~£20 sweaters that I've been wearing at least once a week for a few years, and yes they're starting to get holes in them now, but it's still a lot more than "a few wearings".

> I'd like to think I'd pick out the $30 wine with a better random success rate

In my experience, wine bars are happy to serve flights blind. I usually taste blind, do a reveal and then ask an expert how to describe what I liked (and didn't).

For some regions, e.g. Bourgogne or Châteauneuf-du-Pape, my tastes are expensive. For others, e.g. Italy, I prefer some lower-priced varietals (e.g. Valpolicella) over some higher-priced ones (e.g. Amarone).

On the latter, neither of those are varietals. Valpolicella is a viticultural region, which produces both of those wines.

Amarone's are made of dried grapes, which have a different flavor. Typical "valpolicella" can be made of the same grapes (several are used) and the "superiors" use some of the remnants of Amarone production.

You'll get different Valpolicella's with different varietals - you are most likely just picking up on the dried/ not dried as your preference.

FWIW as was custom many old-world wines don't label by varietal, that was more of a new world custom that has somewhat been adopted in Europe. Which can cause confusion with some varietal wines being inconsistently labeled e.g. Tempranillo (grape) and Rioja (region). In some cases it doesn't make much sense to label by varietal, e.g Châteauneuf-du-Pape which uses mixtures of many grapes (out of a dozen plus allowed).

You mean variety. A varietal is a wine made from a single variety of grape and labeled as such.

where was I inconsistent? Neither Amarone nor Valpolicella is a varietal wine. Rioja (Tempranillo) is, but is inconsistently labeled.

Edit: Ah, I see, third paragraph. My typo.

I'm sure you could spend a fortune and get a great French wine. But if you find yourself in Italy with just 5€ you can drink something really good.

I honestly believe there's the past and the present when it comes to wine. In the past, there were greater differences because better wineries had better knowledge, better craft, and better land.

However, the macro-wineries really upped their game in the last twenty years. Today, the bigger difference is that the macro-wineries are able to create at scale. More wine with lower per-bottle margins is a profitable strategy.

That said, there are some truly great wines out there at higher price points, but the real differentiation is how much has been produced.

Totally, Bordeaux decided in 1855 which the best wineries were and the list is largely exactly the same now, a bottle from a first growth is naturally valued more than one from a lesser growth. Interestingly the critique of Robert Parker had so much weight to a wines price in recent years that negociants would wait to price their wines until the final score had been revealed by Parker.

$10 bottle from one area is not comparable to $10 bottle from different area. There are regions where you can get good quality for $10 (a lot of Hungarian regions) and where $30 is just entry level bottle (say, Burgundy).

I am sure a lot of people will be able to say difference between $10 and $100 bottle given you are tasting wine from same area and the wine is in same style.

> I really wonder how many people can actually recognise a $10 bottle of wine from a $30 bottle of wine - or similar.

The problem is even asking that question. Just because a wine is $3000 does not mean you will like it. Just because a wine is $10 does not mean you will dislike it.

The proper question to ask is: "Do I like this wine enough to spend what they are charging?"

Personally, if I'm eating rather bold food, a simple, nice, straightforward wine is the ticket--and that's probably less expensive. If I'm being a gourmand and having subtle and delicate food, I'm going to want something with a bit more complexity and probably be willing to pay a touch more.

HOWEVER, if you have a wine dealer you can talk to and he figures out you aren't into flexing your "wine penis" but just like good wine, you're going to find your price bands all over the map. Many of those dealers take it as a personal challenge to find things that are cheaper that you will still like. And sometimes they will recommend something expensive saying: "Yes, this one is everything you've heard and then some."

As always in these sorts of things, be friendly, talk to people and be genuinely interested even if you are an amateur. You will find that good things happen.

This article on Vox is worth reading - "Why amateur wine scores are every bit as good as professionals’"

http://www.vox.com/2016/12/15/13892364/amateur-wine-scores-c...

The same amount of people who can recognize a $10000 abstract painting and a painting by a 3 year old :)

Just because value is not inherent does not mean that things can't be valuable.

The point is the perception of value.

Wine is definitely closer to art than anything.

e.g. "Damien Hirst Spot" or "Jackson Pollock Blue Poles".

I think people are only considering part of the story with wine, food, coffee or any of these luxuries. The price does not reflect only the intrinsic value of the good. I may pay 30 dollars for a bottle of wine because I like the label or I like the wineries story.

If you ask someone who bought the 30 dollar bottle of Vodka that cost 10 dollars to produce and paid 400 dollars you will get a million answers of what they think it is 'worth'. Having wine at 30,000 ft traveling 700kph in my mind is way cooler than your living room, regardless if its a Petrus 05 or 2 buck chuck

A $10000 bottle of wine is more valuable than a $1000 bottle for the same reason a $100 bill is more valuable than a $10 bill: enough people believe it to be.

$10-$30 is about the same "class" of wine. Going to $100+ $500+ or more you might notice a difference. Probably not so much that you'd be willing to pay for it unless that were a trivial amount of money for you.

How do you tell the difference between a $1 steak and a $10 steak?

I'm not a huge wine drinker, but I drink a bit. I feel that price is more about consistency. If you get a $30 bottle of wine, >90% of the bottles are going to be good.

If you get a $5 bottle of wine, there are some good bottles, but most of them are not good wines. I've had some very good bargain priced wines, but I've also had my share of $5 wines that taste like vinegar.

There's also diminishing returns. Generally a $30 bottle of wine is going to be a lot better than a $5 bottle of wine, but a $100 bottle of wine isn't going to be proportionately better than a $30 bottle.

Where are you buying $1 steaks?

Dollar tree has $1 steaks

It's like with art. The artists name and/or the story is what you pay for.

Another factor is the music you are listening to when you drink wine: http://www.wsj.com/articles/can-music-change-the-way-your-wi...

Mostly I can't but sometime difference is huge that anyone can appreciate. For example, once I got this Georgian wine which I thought was absolutely the best wine I ever tasted:

https://www.vivino.com/wineries/dugladze/wines/lazi-gpyzihck...

I had given to many people who were mostly casual people and all of them were blown away by amazing play that this wine put out in their mouths. How much was it? Just under $10 for a bottle (after converting from rubbles)! I have wines that were twice that cost for a small glass which didn't even came close. Unfortunately this wine is practically unknown because for some reason Gergeon wines have no presence in US. If anyone knows where to get Georgian wines, I'm all ears :).

If you're not into wine, a lot of this kind of stuff seems like it is probably bullshit, but it's not (necessarily).

Something I can't recommend enough even if you only have a passing curiosity is to find a wine tasting or event where most variables are held constant within the selection. One of my favourite wineries in Western Australia holds an annual Cabernet tasting with 20 Cabernets of the same vintage from around the world. When you hold the varietal and year constant and you still experience a remarkable range of different tastes, it really helps you to understand how wine experts can do what they do. It's very easy to differentiate wines when tasted one after the other like this, and wine experts/enthusiasts (in addition to their more refined palates) are simply able to make the same kinds of discriminations based on their experience rather than having all the options in front of them.

    > but I really wonder how many
    > people can actually recognise
    > a $10 bottle of wine from a
    > $30 bottle of win

You'd be surprised how hard it is to distinguish red from white in a truly blind tasting.

If you mean a random mediocre white wine and a random mediocre red wine... sure. Blanc de Noir is a thing and there are some high acid low tannin reds with minimal fruit and some minerality... I'm sure I could be fooled, they're not expensive, though.

If you mean a dyed (red) white whine versus a fruity Pinot, a peppery Syrah, or a leathery Cabernet... not so much. Varietal and the procedures that go into expressing them (oak, tannins) are so different that people with a nose would notice. The same is true in reverse of a buttery oaked Chardonnay that nobody bothers making as a red wine. That's completely ignoring the unique honey flavor of late harvest Butrytus that is unique to Sauternes and some Riesling, which you will never find in a red.

Similarly, the taste of age (oxidation) is fairly unique so you would notice the difference between a 3 year old and a 13 year old properly stored wine, unless someone went to amazing lengths (there's money in those hills!).

I like port. Often I keep a bottle around to have a glass after dinner. Usually it's something lower priced -- say, $50 or so -- but for special occasions I'll splurge and get something nicer.

And often I'll share a bottle with people I happen to be spending time with, who usually don't know much about port beyond having had a glass once in a while in a restaurant or bar that happened to serve it. They can rarely tell the difference between an average and a slightly-better port (I usually can, but only because I've had enough of it to know what I'm "looking" for when drinking it). But compared to something like a glass of the typical Taylor Fladgate or Graham that they'd get in a restaurant, they can almost always immediately taste the difference in a good vintage, or even a decent LBV.

Though one nice thing about port is it's still niche enough that you can often find decent port for not a lot of money, compared to what people get away with in other types of wine, and the expensive stuff is expensive because it really is distinctly better.

According to this frequently cited study, most don't[0]. It states that "unless they are experts, individuals who are unaware of the price enjoy more expensive wines slightly less". Which means it goes like this: an expert tastes the wine, detects elements which they know are found in expensive wines, then judges the wine favorably because they know it's expensive. Grossly stated, the accolade is a consequence of becoming aware of the price.

This is similar to this great Penn and Teller "Water Bottle Survey"[sic] video [4:04]:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFKT4jvN4OE

[0]: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6534611.pdf

Emirates may have the best wine selection for those who want to spend thousands getting from A to B, but I find the longer Ukraine International Airlines flights have the best drinks for the average person. I've taken several in the past few months, and the flights are not only inexpensive but the drinks on board are very cheap or free. Of course, some of this is owing to the depressed hryvnia.

For those that wish to spend a little more, but not anywhere near Emirates levels (and for those who are scared by flying over Iraq, which was definitely an experience) KLM often has inexpensive flights with fantastic service, even in economy. Not as good as Emirates of course, but still somewhat inexpensive.

All of my KLM flights have been a great experience. Very friendly staff, awesome service, and free drinks.

After doing a lot of flying the last two years I've realized what a difference a friendly crew makes.

which flights are over Iraq?

I flew Kyiv Borispol (Ukraine, KBP) to Tehran (Iran, IKA) recently, and our flight went over the northeast tip of Iraq. Normally the flight (Ukraine 751) flies close, but not over, Iraq - around 33 miles from the border [0]. In my case, however, because of harsh weather we went over Iraq for a bit, which was definitely interesting. I know Iraqi airspace isn't the same as Syrian airspace, but it's definitely pretty damn scary being a few minutes' flying time from ISIS strongholds.

[0] https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AUI751/history/20170104/...

I flew London -> Dubai with Emirates flew years back and I was pretty pleased to see that we over pretty much the length of Iraq. You're a few dozen thousand feet up on a route that's followed many times per day - I don't think it's particularly dangerous.

Unfortunately Iraq's situation tends to go from bad (but acceptable to fly over) to very bad (when you don't want to fly over it.)

Currently, Emirates does not fly over Iraq for Emirates 30 (LHR-DXB), instead choosing to pay the higher fees of the Iranian government and fly over Iranian airspace. The vast majority of airlines have stopped flying over Iran, and nobody is crazy enough to fly over Mosul, which is ISIS controlled, which was a few minutes' flight time from where I was.

Interestingly, Emirates delayed switching most flights from flying over Iraq to flying over Iran until 2015 because of the higher costs for flying over Iran, which is why you get a lot of people (like you) that flew over Iraq.

Flying is a lot more complex than most people realize.

Ah yes - my flight would be definitely have been pre-ISIS. I distinctly remember seeing Mosul, Baghdad and Basra "nearby" on the in-flight map

Among European airlines it's hard to beat Air France in terms of food and wine quality. They are head and shoulders above anyone else when it comes to catering, even in the economy class. Although, my experience with Ukrainian Airlines and KLM is similar to yours -- meals and wine are surprisingly good.

My understanding is that they currently deliberately avoid Iraq (my dc-dubai flight in sept did), in favor of flying over Iran for many western flights. Airlines do this often (look up tel aviv to mumbai on flightaware for a fun flight path... or any flights from azeribaijan enclave to capital, or dubai-yerevan, these routes are loaded with geopolitics)

Yep - even Eastern carriers are doing that now. My comment downthread has more on my personal experience [0].

El Al 73, 50% longer than it "should" be because of a detour around Saudi Arabia: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ELY73/history/20161230/0...

Azerbaijan Airlines J2261 doesn't seem to be that much longer, even though it has to avoid the Karabakh region. (At first I thought you were referencing the Ստեփանակերտի Օդանավակայան/Stepanakert Airport, which interestingly has no IATA code.)

Dubai to Yerevan doesn't seem that geopolitically complicated though - seems to fly just over Iran mostly. I guess the end of the flight could get tricky though, with Armenia saying that Azerbaijan would shoot down Armenian planes that go over Azerbaijan. The flight I found is FDB715, https://flightaware.com/live/flight/FDB715/history/20170103/...

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13331458

I'm surprised you can fly into Stepanakert! If I had to go there, I'd take a car

Thanks for the data here, these are really interesting concepts because of how abstracted they are. I would think many passengers don't realize these types of choices are made by airlines on a daily basis.

Hah, you actually can't. The airport is closed, since the chance of any flight there being shot down is very high (although the director of the airport said there would be flights in a matter of months... in 2011)

And you're very welcome! I love looking at these maps. I fly a bunch and it's only in the past three months or so that I've really been considering the strange routes that people fly.

Flew over Iran on a Dubai - LAX flight many years ago. And kept going north, over Russia, over the Arctic, and down across Alaska. Was pretty amazing to watch out the window. Beautiful endless nothing.

Economy class with emirates is quite cheap. I've flown with them several times from Europe to Asia on account of it being the cheapest ticket available. They offer free drinks and staff is very friendly. It is quite a detour though.

And yet they are cutting back costs on services and have hired cheap third party concierge service providers who are not as good as Emirates original staff used to be and are very discriminatory with passengers coming from certain regions. My uncle was denied a wheel chair when his flight landed in Dubai because apparently 78 years old forgot to register "special request" online at the time of check-in. Their reason, Dubai International Airport, a world class facility, ran out of wheel chairs! I have heard/read similar stories about how Emirates is loosing its grip when it comes to services (especially inside the economy class)

Why I posted this rant here? Because I don't agree it is justifiable enough for a business to hide its short-comings behind an expensive PR campaign.

Can't speak for economy, but IME Emirates still tends to be the best choice by far for any super long-haul flights.

The wheel chair thing isn't a huge shock though, DXB staff only seems to be on point on the upper floors.

I can't speak about business or first, but in coach class this has been my experience as well. Emirates is on a different level from Cathay, Turkish, Singapore, etc.

I have never traveled coach in Emirates but have Singapore, ANA, Asiana multiple times. Are you saying Emirates coach class is significantly better than these leading airlines ? Have to try it then

Interesting that they'd tie so much cash up in the stock and storage. I expect chateaus were falling over themselves to offer wines to a buyer like this. Immediate cash and a natural scarcity created to the rest of the market.

Kind of hoped there'd be some kind of discussion regarding what consuming at altitude does to the flavor profiles of wine, if anything. If anybody has experience that they could share I'd take a look for sure.

In my experience (flying long-haul, economy flights), it makes cheap reds taste far more potable. Wines I'd never choose on the ground are greedily poured down my gullet in the air.

In general, your ability to taste and smell is much diminished at higher altitudes. It's why both airline food and high-end backpacking food is more heavily spiced or consists of dishes with stronger profiles, to make up for that lack.

What's interesting is senses are generally diminished in altitude (the dry cabin air doesn't help either). Apparently some wines (especially ones that are more acidic) are especially prone to having flavors muted. If you're going to enjoy premium wine a flight might not be the most ideal environment to do it in...

Relevant: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150112-why-in-flight-food-...

As long as I am in a lie flat bed with turn down service on a longhaul intl flight I don't care if the bubbly I'm drinking costs 40 bucks a bottle or 400.

TL;DR: If you take the price information out, the wine doesn't taste so special

http://www.wine-economics.org/aawe/wp-content/uploads/2012/1...

There is a great documentary on Netflix called sour grapes. It is about wine fraud and how in the end most can't tell if the wine is real or not.

Cost does not = value. Value is created in the mind through branding. Products are made in the factory. Brands are created in the mind. Marketing is psychology. Been this way for years. What about all the knock off wine out there, how "does" one authenticate a wine bottle or the content of a wine bottle. Why would someone pay $2k-$150K for a bottle of wine without being brainwashed through marketing psychology AND "believe" it is worth the price. First world problems. Last time i checked Emirates is a muslim country and in islam alcohol is forbidden. (haram) Good Lucky! they just make shit up as they go.

Doesn't the in-flight turbulence of the aircraft shake the wines? I was always told never to shake a bottle of wine. Doesn't this defeat the whole point?

Is $500M enough to build anything that can be called the 'Fort Knox' of anything?

The best wine experts and master somm's can't tell the difference between cheap and expensive wine, red and white etc.

Wine is almost completely marketing and psychology.

Wine snobs are experts at feeling superior just for being good at faking their reactions to fermented grape juice.

Most snobs here couldn't pass a blind test.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com