B742 From UK - England, joined Mar 2005, 3760 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 6583 times:
Quoting EKSkycargo370 (Reply 2): To be honest,It confuses me,using a super long range aircraft on a 6.5/7 hour flight??
As HB-IWC mentioned in another post; Emirates have a very low utalisation rate compared to other airlines with their aircraft. The A345s are also used to ZRH; another short flight compared to their operational range. The 77Ws are slightly more stretched, but not compared to other airlines with their 777s such as DL.
However I am not complaining, I would rather fly the A345 with a superior product.
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15 Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 6568 times:
Haha, EK has more aircraft than they know what to do with. The A345 might be the nicest to ride on, but for what it costs to buy and run compared to how many seats it has, it's no bargain for the airline. It makes sense on a high yield long range route, like DXB-JFK or DXB-IAH or DXB-GRU, DXB-LAX, something like that, but for this, it's just silly. It just shows they have aircraft laying around and are trying to find something to do with them.
A340 is a great plane to fly on, it's great to see so many serving London from the gulf states.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62 Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 6501 times:
LHR-DXB is a very short flight - you can have a fast turnaround and slot its block time in between two very long sectors such as to KIX, MEL or SYD or wherever - the aircraft may spend something like ten hours on the ground in DXB between very long flights, so with some clever scheduling you can slot in a short return hop in between. CAI, KWI, ISB, JED, RUH etc are all short routes and sometimes squeezed in that way. Odd as a seven hour sector may seem, LHR is also possible to fit in as a "blocker".
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
HB-IWC From Greece, joined Sep 2000, 4450 posts, RR: 73 Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5580 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 4): The A345 might be the nicest to ride on, but for what it costs to buy and run compared to how many seats it has, it's no bargain for the airline. It makes sense on a high yield long range route, like DXB-JFK or DXB-IAH or DXB-GRU, DXB-LAX, something like that, but for this, it's just silly. It just shows they have aircraft laying around and are trying to find something to do with them.
Exactly, DXB ZRH, DXB LHR, DXB HAM and HAM JFK are not exactly routes that fit the kind of mission for which the A345 was designed. It goes to show once more that EK has so much capacity that it apparently can't find optimal use for that capacity. As said in the other thread, only the very rich and very stupid can afford such luxury. Good news for those lucky enough to enjoy the fabulous first class on these aircraft, but very inefficient from an airline managerial point of view.
DZ09 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 490 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 5519 times:
Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 11): only the very rich and very stupid can afford such luxury.
i resent that comment. EK is a great airline run by very smart people. These people are in the business of making money by selling a product which is transportation in this case, and from what I understand they are making money unlike many airlines in the world. I flew a lot with them this year and all their planes were packed with the exception of HAM-JFk flights.
Antskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 887 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 5384 times:
Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 11): It goes to show once more that EK has so much capacity that it apparently can't find optimal use for that capacity.
I suppose every aircraft in every airline is flying the optimum length and number of routes with the optimum number of passengers (i.e. a full load of very thin people with no luggage?) and cargo? Once you have an array of aircraft, you make the best possible use of them. Like war, you are constantly meeting unexpected changes to what one needs, so one likes to have a variety of aircraft with different characteristics that can be mixed and matched for the changing needs. Or planes that are versatile. Buying new planes every time the conditions change is a very big and much more expensive deal. QF uses its old B747-300's on MEL/SYD-PER domestic routes. EK flies its otherwise airport-bound planes onto New Zealand.
Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 11): only the very rich and very stupid can afford such luxury
Repeating such a statement does not make it true. EK is the envy of other airlines wherever it goes. Perhaps it might just be well-managed, and who just might have some idea of aircraft needs, not only at purchase point, but over time. If any of their routes or aircraft become disfunctional for the overall needs of their network, not just for the present but over time, they would remove them in a flash. I think you'll find a lot of adjustment ripples over the whole fleet once the long overdue A380 fleet and the B787's begin entering the service.
HB-IWC From Greece, joined Sep 2000, 4450 posts, RR: 73 Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 5187 times:
Quoting DZ09 (Reply 12): i resent that comment. EK is a great airline run by very smart people.
As I know that EK is run by very smart people, I was merely indicating that EK should be categorized with the very rich. Utilization rates are nowhere near industry standards, and EK could squeeze much more utilization out of their active fleet. They choose not to, and they might have very good reasons for it. But seeing as how their premium rates are really not more expensive than many other players in the industry, there doesn't seem to be a trade off between increased premium traffic and lower utilization rates as can by seen at other industry players. It leads me to believe that EK much be among the very rich.
HB-IWC From Greece, joined Sep 2000, 4450 posts, RR: 73 Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 5043 times:
Quoting Antskip (Reply 13): I suppose every aircraft in every airline is flying the optimum length and number of routes with the optimum number of passengers (i.e. a full load of very thin people with no luggage?) and cargo?
The fact is that the A345 was not designed for missions such as DXB LHR. It is not like EK doesn't have other capacity sitting around. It could easily deploy one of the spare A332s on the route. I am finding it curious that EK has in the past often postponed new route launches because of lack of equipment, when this was never the case. There have been issues pertaining to lack of crews, but as far as I know, these have been largely resolved.
Instead of deploying the A345 to Heathrow and Hamburg, EK could open another nonstop US route, and it would still have the spare capacity to operate the former routes with alternative equipment. It choses not to do so, and keep utilization low, which is undoubtedly good for the overall stability of the operation, yet as such it veers off current airline managerial concepts which call for optimal use of the scarce available resources. I guess EK's resources are not as scarce as those of other airlines.
Quoting Antskip (Reply 13): EK is the envy of other airlines wherever it goes.
That is largely because it seems to be able to afford things which other airlines can only dream of, low utilization rates being just of them. The airline industry, however, is a global industry and EK's cost structure can not be dramatically different from that of other airlines. Sure enough EK's load factors are high, but so are those of many of its competitors. Meanwhile, EK doesn't attract significantly more premium passengers than its main competitors and sells its premium seats in most if not all of its markets at lower prices than its competitors. The only way then to explain such a difference is that EK can avail itself from a seemingly endless flow of financial resources.
Quoting Antskip (Reply 13): I think you'll find a lot of adjustment ripples over the whole fleet once the long overdue A380 fleet and the B787's begin entering the service.
Seeing as how EK has not - yet - ordered, I find this unlikely to be true, but I get your point, otherwise. That still doesn't explain why EK would deploy the A345 on such atypical routes though, as the aircraft has been well incorporated in the EK fleet for quite a while now.
Antskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 887 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4939 times:
Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 15): That still doesn't explain why EK would deploy the A345 on such atypical routes
Although I really like the A345, as a passenger, it does seem that EK have made it clear that are unhappy with the economics of the A340 line too, compared to the B777 as it has developed. However, there are some thin routes on their network that are bound to suit the A345 better than the B777. Once these routes become thicker (the difference is mainly in economy class- the B773 takes around double the number of economy class passengers compared to the A345), then EK would, if a B777 is available, upgrade that route to the much bigger plane. As for routes that possibly the A345 is used on but isn't ideal for (e.g.thin and short), surely that is the case with every airline? If EK had some old B767's in their fleet like QF and NZ, I guess they could be used on those routes more appropriately, but they don't - the absence of such old crocks is also the source of EK's strength. Maybe it is a reflection of the incredible range of abilities of the A345 that it can serve so many roles - even to the extent of it being compared with an airliner in another size category altogether, the B777. EK doesn't want any thin routes - but who does? They would rather not have to use a A345 or the next generation, the B787/A350 - they would rather have all thick routes flown by the B777, and, even more so, the overdue A380. For now, the A345 is a versatile and useful plane for its developing thin routes, or in combination with a B777 - e.g into (MEL.
HB-IWC From Greece, joined Sep 2000, 4450 posts, RR: 73 Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 4811 times:
Quoting Antskip (Reply 17): As for routes that possibly the A345 is used on but isn't ideal for (e.g.thin and short), surely that is the case with every airline?
I agree, but the A345 is still an exception in that it has been developed for a very particular mission. My question is just, given the amount of atypical (medium haul) A345 flying in the EK system next summer, why didn't the airline opt to bring forward the launch of the DXB IAH or the DXB GRU route and use this capacity there? The A345s that will be used on DXB LHR and DXB HAM JFK would surely cover such an expedited launch. As an additional benefit, EK could have opened such new routes with the smaller A345 to build the line, whereas it will later in the year deploy the larger B772LR. The LHR and HAM JFK sectors could easily be taken care of by all the spare capacity in the system.
Quoting Antskip (Reply 17): Although I really like the A345, as a passenger
So do I. The A345 is, comfort-wise, in a class of its own within EK, so those passengers lucky enough to fly the beast on their LHR or HAM sectors will enjoy a more comfortable ride than in some of the other aircraft in the EK fleet.
I wouldn't call a 7-hour flight very short! Yes the A345 can do much, much longer segments, but very few people would call a flight of this length "very short".
Contrary to some of the opinions voiced here, EK does not have vast fleets of planes sitting around at DXB with nothing to do. As has been said many times, they need more planes, and they need them now. Perhaps those that think EK's fleet is underutilised could provide some stats to back up their claims?
A couple of points of interest
- EK still operates a single pax A310 (why would they do that if they have other planes "just sitting around")?
- I flew to India recently with EK. A 2.5 hour flight operated in both directions by their newest 777-300ER!
If you would care to take an in depth look that EK operation and schedule, and actually count the number of A332 departures and arrivals, you would see that, even on the busiest of days EK is not using many more that 20-22 A332 frames, just to name one example. Sure enough, the A332 is currently being put through a cabin retrofit program, yet a total of 29 aircraft are available, and about 5 operational spares are sitting about at most times. A332 utilization stands at a mere 11 hours daily, in stark contrast to what other airlines squeeze out of their A332 fleet (AF with 13+ hours, KLM with almost 14 hours, just to name a few). The situation is similar for the fleet of older B772/B773s and for the A343s. The B77Ws feature a higher utilization rate.
The fact that I am pointing at relatively low utilization rates has nothing to do with EK bashing. I am merely pointing at facts. If EK decides to keep much more operational spare available than what is necessary, than this can only serve to further stabilize the airline's already smooth-running operation. Yet, please stop stating that EK is suffering from capacity restraints because reality is flying in the face of your argument over and over again.
CRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2128 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 4206 times:
I'm sure they'll sell most of the premium seats to rich customers from the Middle East who wish to fly to London to shop and see a musical when Dubai is scorching hot. A 7-hour flight is long enough for pax to want to sleep in a bed. Lots of people do that on BA's JFK-LHR flights which are shorter in duration.
UAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 941 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3810 times:
if EK sent their A345 to LHR that is not a big deal, the fuel that they need will be as same as A332 or 772, they wouldn't sent their aircraft with full tanks. So no much to care about fuel.
The second thing which is more important, is the premium travellers who is being targeted by BA VS, EK A345 is the best first class in the aviation world, many people feel much comfortable when they eat, sleep, read without being watched by someone else.
Furthermore, EK will sent its A345 TEMPORARILY.
As few stated earlier, if i decided to travel to LHR, no doubt A345 will be the first thing to think about.
i would love to know about the premium market between DXB-LHR, if the BA still operates Concorde they will consider DXB very seriously, because DXB is the second after JFK to fly from/to LHR.
25 Ronerone: Maybe they want to compete with EY's A345 service to LHR? Just a guess. Roni
26 Trex8: SQ sends their A345s SIN-CGK ,less than 500nm, according to some here I guess they must be clueless too.
27 Da man: Incidentally, the inaugural BA Concorde route was LHR-BAH which would be very similar to LHR-DXB and well within the range of Concorde.
28 HB-IWC: SQ sends its A345s to CGK for one particular purpose: crew training and minimum landing requirements for its cockpit crew. The 5-strong A345 fleet of
29 757ops: If you think thats crazy EY use the A345 on the AUH-BEY sectors of 2.5hrs!!!