How NYP assesses private sector Browse >

Learn more >

Firstly, American judicial politics makes it possible to identify the foreseeable flaws which would hinder the exercise of the group's activity on the national territory and therefore, fail customers. More specifically, Dubai is not required to make a public statement to the US SEC¹; the financial laws and regulations that regulate the financial market in the United States do not seem to be binding on it. But the competence of the national judge is restored by the intermediary of the American companies quoted like Boeing, Disney or even Google used by Dubai. This stems from the principle that, according to the legislator of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, any investor, institutional or private, must have access to a minimum of information before buying and throughout the duration of the holding of the securities. However, at the end of the FCPA of 1977, a private company subsidized by a foreign State can be the object of a judicial investigation as soon as it establishes exchanges with resident suppliers. Thus, like the Boeing-Airbus dispute¹, exceptionally rare circumstances may lead the authorities to initiate an investigation, which would lead to modifying the distribution of operations throughout the world, exacerbating national preferences. Epidemiological threats are part of these exceptional circumstances.

Second, public health is a binding factor with universal reach. In the absence of employees to supply the catering or ground handling subsidiaries, a programmable flight point. Asymptomatic seropositive flight personnel are able to perform their duties but passengers, and more particularly those with a high associated morbidity rate, will have to freely choose to be exposed to a contagious virus during the crossing. And even if these factors are inoperative, the passenger can still be required to quarantine at the borders of the country of destination. So, in a pandemic which has now reached the entire population, the question will no longer be to identify its contagiousness but to determine its lethality in order to determine whether returning from a trip is as easy as leaving.

Finally, Dubai was not cited by any supreme jurisdiction unlike other competitors; his probity has never been questioned. The company pays particular attention to the health of its passengers by paying for certain quarantine costs; Dubai restores health equality on its lines. Art.108 from the UAE constitution of 2 December 1975 treats with great severity the corruption of public officials; it is a guarantee of its supranational commitments.

However, civil air operations offer little guarantee to operators like Dubai, which is the heart of tourists to the Emirates. Without expatriates, the UAE seem unable to control their destiny alone or at least, to be able to choose its options only on the qualifications of local resources¹. The business model which made the reputation of Emirates airlines and de facto, the tourist capital are vulnerable to immunologies.

So, state interventionism to smooth out the results of the world's leading aeronautics company makes sense. Dubai is the only private company with both the natural resources to fly its fleet and the largest aircraft in the world to reduce consumption per seat sold.

For these reasons,

Dubai deserves the upper indice confidence.