Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates Switching To B773ER On Sydney-Auckland  
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4295 times:

Emirates switched equipment on the Sydney-Auckland route from Airbus A340-500 to Boeing 777-300ER.

EK418 DXB-BKK-SYD was upgraded to a daily service on May 3rd and extended to Auckland. EK412 DXB-SYD now terminates at Sydney. Except for Friday (B772ER), EK 418 is operated by new B777-300ER.

http://www.emirates.com/AboutEmirate...esNews/Headlines/bkksydnewrute.asp


Looks like EK was short of capacity once more again...


Regards
Udo

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3423 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4238 times:

An interesting point on the EK schedule is that the airplane is on the ground for 1:35 hr. to 1:40 hr. at all stations.

Decent turn times for a 360+ seat aircraft with significant fueling required.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4154 times:

Thanks, Udo, interesting.

Don't understand your point about being short of capacity, though. I thought the two aeroplanes both carried about the same number of passengers (350-odd)?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4106 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
Don't understand your point about being short of capacity, though. I thought the two aeroplanes both carried about the same number of passengers (350-odd)?

I think you are thinking A340-600 vs 777-300ER. The original post calls for the replacement of the A340-500 with the 7773ER. There is approx. a 100 seat difference between the two.

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

Thanks, N60659 - you're quite right, I was misreading the A/C Data stuff.


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4024 times:

OldAeroGuy:

On this thread we had the following conversation:

Quoting N60659 (Reply 124):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 119):
Emirates will be a key indicator. Since they operate the A345/6 and the 773ER, expansion of the orders for either type should say a lot about whether Airbus or Boeing has a winner.

Historically (and by that, I mean the last 6-7 years), EK has always split their orders between Boeing and Airbus and operate aircraft of competing designs from both manufacturers. As a result, using EK as a bellwether to gauge the success of the 772LR may not be completely accurate. Having said that, I fully expect EK to order 772LRs in the near future (possibly at Le Bourget 2005).

-N60659



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 125):
Quoting N60659 (Reply 124):
As a result, using EK as a bellwether to gauge the success of the 772LR may not be completely accurate.

It might be if they don't re-order the A345.

While I do agree with you that not re-ordering the A345 could speak to the success of the 772LR, to me, replacing the A345 with the 773ER speaks even louder to the success of the 773ER/772LR. Would you agree?

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3999 times:

Quoting N60659 (Reply 5):
While I do agree with you that not re-ordering the A345 could speak to the success of the 772LR, to me, replacing the A345 with the 773ER speaks even louder to the success of the 773ER/772LR. Would you agree?

If the A346 was already in the fleet it would probably be flying the route, but for now sound like they need the capacity increase.

They had originally envisioned the 773ER flying the medium haul routes and the A346/A345 taking the long ones. Whether that will differ due to performance changes is not clear yet. The cabins of the two aircraft are currently fitted for these demends at the minute anyway.


User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3972 times:

Quoting N60659 (Reply 5):
replacing the A345 with the 773ER speaks even louder to the success of the 773ER/772LR. Would you agree?

They only replaced the A345 on the SYD-AKL leg, not on the nonstop DXB-SYD service.


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3423 posts, RR: 67
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3923 times:

Quoting N60659 (Reply 5):
While I do agree with you that not re-ordering the A345 could speak to the success of the 772LR, to me, replacing the A345 with the 773ER speaks even louder to the success of the 773ER/772LR. Would you agree?

-N60659

Yes, I do in part as Emirates is able to use the 773ER on routes they did not envision when initially taking the airplane.

The rest of the story would be to have EK buy the 772LR for non-stop flights between DXB and SFO, a route beyond the capabilites of their current A345s.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3887 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 8):
Yes, I do in part as Emirates is able to use the 773ER on routes they did not envision when initially taking the airplane.

Emirates don't use the B773ER on routes which weren't earmarked for the aircraft - as I said before: the A345 remains on the nonstop DXB-SYD. The B773ER is used on DXB-BKK-SYD and simply got the extension to AKL.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 8):
The rest of the story would be to have EK buy the 772LR for non-stop flights between DXB and SFO, a route beyond the capabilites of their current A345s.

Do you have any numbers on that?


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineKaran69 From India, joined Oct 2004, 2868 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 8):
The rest of the story would be to have EK buy the 772LR for non-stop flights between DXB and SFO, a route beyond the capabilites of their current A345s.

They do have around 20 odd A346 HGW versions on order, and have stated that they plan to launch DXB-LAX and other destinitions like IAH,BOS.
If the A346 HGW can perform DXB-LAX i am sure it can perform DXB-SFO


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3423 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3793 times:

Quoting Udo (Reply 9):
Do you have any numbers on that?

My independent evaluation, unsanctioned by A, B, or EK, indicates that the 365 tonne MTOW A345 (inservice at EK) carries less than full pass from DXB-SFO. This allows for inservice performance and airline type OEW's. The 772LR under the same circumstances would carry near structural limit payload.

The 380 tonne MTOW A345 will have full pass plus cargo, but EK would need to order this higher MTOW version. This is the basis of my comments about EK's choice on the airplane (A345 vs 772LR) they order to service the USA west coast being an important market indication.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently onlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3760 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
I thought the two aeroplanes both carried about the same number of passengers (350-odd)?

Not only is this a switch from the A345 to the 773ER, but also the reason EK's 773ERs hold so many is because they are 10 abreast in Y, as opposed to the typical 9 abreast. The A346 cannot take a configuration other than 8 abreast and its 3-class capacity with them will be something more like 280-300



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3423 posts, RR: 67
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3734 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 11):
My independent evaluation, unsanctioned by A, B, or EK, indicates that the 365 tonne MTOW A345 (inservice at EK) carries less than full pass from DXB-SFO.

Self correction:

While Singapore and Air Canada are operating at 365 tonne MTOW, I over looked the fact that Emirates has the A345 at 372 tonne according to Airclaims. With this MTOW, Emirates A345 are DXB-SFO, full pass. plus some cargo. However, the 772LR still carries more pass (larger cabin) and more cargo.

Pesky facts!!



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3723 times:

SQ have the 372t one too.

User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3423 posts, RR: 67
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3716 times:

Quoting Karan69 (Reply 10):
If the A346 HGW can perform DXB-LAX i am sure it can perform DXB-SFO

The A346 HGW is not a DXB-LAX airplane. The A345 HGW is around full pass. on this route.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently onlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3711 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 14):
SQ have the 372t one too.

Yet it takes major restrictions both routes it flies



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3701 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
Yet it takes major restrictions both routes it flies

What's your point?


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3423 posts, RR: 67
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3686 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 14):
SQ have the 372t one too.

Not according to Airclaims, which shows all A345's except Emirates at 365 tonne MTOW.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently onlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3668 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 17):
What's your point?

My point is, if SQ did have the 372t A345 (which they don't), that aircraft would underperform as compared to the 772LR



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3614 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 18):
Not according to Airclaims, which shows all A345's except Emirates at 365 tonne MTOW.

Fair enough, FWIW, every time i've heard people mention it on his site they've stressed it's the 372t version.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
My point is, if SQ did have the 372t A345 (which they don't), that aircraft would underperform as compared to the 772LR

Well, that's the first time somebody's ever told me that.  Yeah sure


User currently offline6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3314 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3431 times:

Quoting N60659 (Reply 3):
I think you are thinking A340-600 vs 777-300ER. The original post calls for the replacement of the A340-500 with the 7773ER. There is approx. a 100 seat difference between the two.

I think the main reason for the switch is for additional freight uplift rather than pax uplift.
Also, I would assume it would be cheaper to operate the twin on a 3.5 hr sector rather than the A345.
Finally, the market has significant demand for Y class (both leisure and business travellers, as it's only a 3 hr hop), and the B773ER provides additional Y.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 12):
Not only is this a switch from the A345 to the 773ER, but also the reason EK's 773ERs hold so many is because they are 10 abreast in Y, as opposed to the typical 9 abreast

I knew that the old B773 were 10 abreat, but I didn't realise that EK went for 10 abreast on the B773ER as well. Can anyone confirm?


User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1595 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3410 times:

sorry mis-post

filll
fill

[Edited 2005-05-10 01:47:22]

User currently offline777boi From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3398 times:

Yes, that is correct, they are still 10 abreast in economy. Just flew DXB/BKK/SYD the other day on EBB and EBC. Very nice aircraft. The new first class looks great!

User currently offline6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3314 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

Quoting 777boi (Reply 23):
Yes, that is correct, they are still 10 abreast in economy. Just flew DXB/BKK/SYD the other day on EBB and EBC. Very nice aircraft. The new first class looks great!

Is it a comfortable 10 abreast? and what's the seat pitch like?
did you fly Y or J??

I should also point out that the differnt in seats B773ER v A345 is 106.
B773ER = 364 seats
A345 = 258 seats


25 Stirling : I don't understand. If they are using it on medium haul, why not use a standard 777-300...Why the "ER"? It's probably a simple answer, but I don't ge
26 6thfreedom : I suppose it is the sort of aircraft that provides maximum flexibility. Reasonable aircraft to run on 8-10 hr sectors such as DXB-BKK-SYD, but also p
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...
CO Switching To 772ER On IAH-EZE? posted Tue Aug 8 2006 18:18:58 by CODCAIAH
AC Switching To CRJ On YYZ-IAH posted Tue Nov 11 2003 20:15:07 by Triley1057
Emirates 777 To ZRH On 12/5 posted Sat May 11 2002 20:13:39 by Emirates777
Sydney To Beirut On Emirates posted Tue Jul 13 2004 16:19:37 by MEA
Emirates B777-300ER To BHX On 7 May posted Fri May 6 2005 22:55:00 by Emirates777
Emirates A380s To Fly To Auckland From Late 2006 posted Fri Apr 1 2005 11:29:32 by Ants
Emirates Wants To Make Auckland A Hub posted Mon Feb 23 2004 03:50:30 by Behramjee
Emirates Load Factor - SYD To BEY On 02/05/03 posted Tue Apr 22 2003 10:09:59 by MEA
Anyone Want To Comment On The Emirates 747? posted Wed Feb 21 2001 21:41:55 by Mason
Emirates To Op. A6-EMN To LHR On 03-Feb posted Wed Jan 31 2001 21:14:25 by Emirates777