Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Does EK Want What It Wants In A A350/787?  
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3200 times:

Emirates' CEO said early this year or late last year that A350 and 787 don't satisfy his company's needs/desires. He has said what he wants is a 787-9 that seats 290 passengers in a three class layout. Presumably he wanted the 787-9's range as well. In other words he wanted a A345 replacement. Looking at range maps for the various A350 and 787 models flying out of DXB, it's readily apparent that the proposed A359's range would not allow EK to fly to every point on the populated continents and wealthy island nations, whereas the A358, 788, and 789 would allow them to do so. Is EK looking for the last plane model they will ever need in 280-300 pax market, one that will allow them to cheaply (due to low acquisition and operation costs) reach any place in the world that has enough paying customers to make the trip worthwhile?

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=&...GE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=&ETOPS=180


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6882 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3148 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Thread starter):
Is EK looking for the last plane model they will ever need in 280-300 pax market, one that will allow them to cheaply (due to low acquisition and operation costs) reach any place in the world that has enough paying customers to make the trip worthwhile?

Very few airlines - least of all, one of EK's size and ambition - can expect one model to suit all its routes. Dubai-Cairo; Dubai-Glasgow; Dubai-New York put quite different demands on airliners. Hence they will operate different types. Even misusing or abusing some types (as airlines admit to doing to reduce fleet types) can only go so far. So the fact that the A359 can't reach every EK destination hardly seems an issue to me. As for the "last model they will EVER need...", that seems pretty unlikely. Is the A350 (or 787) going to be unsurpassable for the next century?!


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3107 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 1):
As for the "last model they will EVER need...", that seems pretty unlikely. Is the A350 (or 787) going to be unsurpassable for the next century?!

Well, I said the last model they ever need in the 280-300 seat market. That doesn't mean that it won't be surpassed in economics and efficiency, but in terms of capability, other than speed, they won't need another aircraft model. But even then they may decide they no longer need new 300 seaters, just as they believe they no longer need new 250 seaters. After all we are talking about an airline that is acquiring a huge number of A388s and wants A389s. They clearly are traffic optimists.

Anyway, why do you think that EK wasn't enthusiastic about the A359 as is? We know they think the 787-9 is too small. The only things that I can think of regarding the A359 is that EK thinks the range is too low, the fuel usage and other operating expenses are too high, and/or the plane's price tag is too high.

[Edited 2005-05-06 12:17:11]


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6882 posts, RR: 63
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3081 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
why do you think that EK wasn't enthusiastic about the A359 as is?

I didn't know they weren't. The rumour at the beginning of this week was of an imminent big EK order for 359s.

So now I see what you're saying. They'll never need another plane of that size because all their routes will demand bigger planes? Well, maybe, but I'd be surprised (unless EK become the only airline left flying - and let's not rule that out!).

An example.

When I moved to Dar es Salaam in 2001 EK flew in here three times a week using 777-200s. Then they went to four times a week. Now they fly daily. Somewhere between the 4 and 7 weekly flights the model changed to the (smaller) A332. All of these flights serve NBO as well as DAR. Now we have 332s on some days and 343s on others.

If the route continues to grow (and most flights are full) EK will have to go through (a) direct DXB-DAR flights (i.e. avoiding NBO), (b) bigger aircraft (the 777-300?) and, I'd assume, (c) more weekly frequencies (up to two a day) before we see an A380 on this route. That'll be a long time in coming. It may never come.

Even with A380s on many trunk routes, EK will still need a 332/772/350/787 or something for their thinner routes into places like, say, Khartoum. Their growth has been phonomenal but it beggars belief that EVERY ROUTE EVERYWHERE will require planes seating 350+.

But I could be wrong. I've never even flown on EK and I'm the only person I know in East Africa who's never been to Dubai...


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 3):
I didn't know they weren't. The rumour at the beginning of this week was of an imminent big EK order for 359s.

They very well may order it, but they've dragged their feet long enough and said enough things in public that indicate a certain lack of enthusiasm about the A359. Presumably it has some shortcoming in their mind.

Quoting PM (Reply 3):
Even with A380s on many trunk routes, EK will still need a 332/772/350/787 or something for their thinner routes into places like, say, Khartoum. Their growth has been phonomenal but it beggars belief that EVERY ROUTE EVERYWHERE will require planes seating 350+.

Well if you move large amounts of passengers into Dubai on an A380, they have to leave some how. It takes more small jets to move those people out then larger jets. If in the future they have congestion at their airport, the most optimal use of their slots in Dubai would be larger planes. And they could let their network partners fly the smaller jets that serve smaller markets or provide incremental frequencies.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineQFA001 From Australia, joined May 2000, 673 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3023 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 3):
The rumour at the beginning of this week was of an imminent big EK order for 359s.

IMO, a couple of things don't add up about EK at the moment.

First, EK keeps verifying that they are heavily interested in a stretched version of the A380. Yet, they also warned that the growth in their region is unsustainable. Those two things don't seem to gel.

Second, EK said that it wants a 290-seat B787-9 in 3-classes. Yet, their A343s (ie same size as the A350-900 unless it is stretched) have 267-seat 3-class seats. So, it does seem that not even A350-900 would meet EK requirements (again, unless it is stretched and Airbus is talking about that). However, it is also said that EK favours the A350.

Help!?


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6882 posts, RR: 63
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2979 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
Well if you move large amounts of passengers into Dubai on an A380, they have to leave some how.

By the same logic, every BA 744 landing at LHR should send transfer passengers out on other 744s. But they don't. Many of them go on A319s (and so on) to places where a 744 isn't needed.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
If in the future they have congestion at their airport, the most optimal use of their slots in Dubai would be larger planes. And they could let their network partners fly the smaller jets that serve smaller markets or provide incremental frequencies.

Maybe but if there's a slot for a "network partner" (who are these airlines?) to fly a smaller plane in, why wouldn't there be one for an EK plane of the same size? And by "smaller jets" and "smaller markets" we aren't talking about CRJs or ERJ-145s delivering a handful of passengers from a remote regional airport. "Smaller" in EK terms still means an A330-200 flying from, say, Damascus to Dubai. EK could subcontract out these services but I can't see why they'd want to.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 5):
Second, EK said that it wants a 290-seat B787-9 in 3-classes. Yet, their A343s (ie same size as the A350-900 unless it is stretched) have 267-seat 3-class seats. So, it does seem that not even A350-900 would meet EK requirements (again, unless it is stretched and Airbus is talking about that). However, it is also said that EK favours the A350.

Might they be considering only a two-class product in the 350? Just a guess.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2922 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 6):
By the same logic, every BA 744 landing at LHR should send transfer passengers out on other 744s. But they don't. Many of them go on A319s (and so on) to places where a 744 isn't needed.


The A320s are short haul aircraft though, distributing traffic to the region at a high frequency. A hub will always have to serve that regional role, otherwise there really is no way for an airport to become a serious international hub. And if they don't maintain that role, they will eventually fail as an international hub.

Quoting PM (Reply 6):
Maybe but if there's a slot for a "network partner" (who are these airlines?) to fly a smaller plane in, why wouldn't there be one for an EK plane of the same size? And by "smaller jets" and "smaller markets" we aren't talking about CRJs or ERJ-145s delivering a handful of passengers from a remote regional airport. "Smaller" in EK terms still means an A330-200 flying from, say, Damascus to Dubai. EK could subcontract out these services but I can't see why they'd want to.

EK may not want to complicate its fleet by having a variety of long haul jets types that would be optimal for a given route. And by partner I was talking about foreign airlines in the same alliance who don't have the same ambitions regarding their home airports. And of course these airlines will have slots at Dubai, because EK won't be getting slots at foreign airports otherwise. The open question is whether they can co-opt these other airlines into filling niche roles that helps EK in its strategy and goals.

I'm not defending EK or advocating its strategy, I'm just trying to figure out why they've been publicly playing hard to get with Boeing and Airbus with regards to the A350 and 787.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineTravellin'man From United States of America, joined May 2001, 530 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2917 times:

Why don't they order more 772's?

How far above their capacity target is it? Is EK splitting hairs at this point?



It is not enough to be rude; one must also be incorrect.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6882 posts, RR: 63
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2894 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 7):
The A320s are short haul aircraft though, distributing traffic to the region at a high frequency. A hub will always have to serve that regional role, otherwise there really is no way for an airport to become a serious international hub. And if they don't maintain that role, they will eventually fail as an international hub.

Yes, but I suppose there are hubs and hubs. Many European hubs (LHR, FRA, AMS...) will indeed necessarily maintain small feeder routes. (I've flown into or out of AMS/BRU/FRA from Bristol, Leeds-Bradford, Edinburgh and Humberside on Dash-8s, F.27s, F.50s, Brasilias and so on.) But do such feeders exist at DXB? I genuinely don't know but I don't think so. "Feeders" at DXB are, I assume, larger planes (the A330-200s again) bringing in traffic from cities (often capital cities) that have very limited international connections. I've mentioned above Dar es Salaam, Damascus and Khartoum as examples. There aren't many international connections from these places but there is a decent demand for them so folks jump on EK to Dubai and change onto the trunk routes to Bangkok, Sydney or wherever.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Does EK Need All These High Capacity Aircraft? posted Mon Nov 21 2005 01:19:32 by Devil505x
Why Does CO Want $1200+ For EWR-BNA posted Sat Jan 8 2005 04:56:34 by Nycfuturepilot
Why Does QF Want The Merger With ANZ? posted Thu Nov 20 2003 05:17:07 by Brutie
Why Does Everyone Want To Work For An Airline posted Thu Jun 12 2003 07:39:16 by Bruce
Why Does The 747 Have It's Abnormal Structure? posted Tue Jan 29 2002 04:16:12 by Legolars
Why Does UA Only Fly To LHR In The UK posted Wed Nov 7 2001 17:27:53 by Arsenal@LHR
Why Does SQ Want LHR-JFK So Badly? posted Mon Jun 18 2001 03:59:44 by Docpepz
Why Does SIA Want AN? posted Fri Jun 15 2001 07:08:56 by RMenon
Why Does Airplane Ice Have Holes In It? posted Wed Jun 12 2002 06:51:05 by ILUV767
Does EK Have Flat Beds IN J On JFK Route? posted Tue Nov 14 2006 02:32:09 by Aerofan