Sort of a comprehensive report on Emirates before the Chairman flies to Seattle on the weekend of 12MAY07.
► On the shopping list - more 777s, A350-900/-1000, 787, 747-8I
► Airline focused on fuel efficiency even if it means slight capacity drop
► Operation of Jebel Ali Airport could impact order. All 6 runway to be operational by 2014, but any delay will force the airline goes bigger aircraft
► Still eyeing 787-10X and 747-8I. Talks with Boeing will be on definition.
► The "champion" of its fleet, 777-300ER, according to Emirates' wish, to go lighter to encounter A350-1000 if Airbus lived up to the promise
► Not interested in 777-400ER, only even more better fuel burn for lighter 777-300ER
► Enthusiasm for 787 still exist, but will see any progress on 787-10X performance
► order for 787-9 still not ruled out, but depends on when Jebel Ali opens
► 747-8I range issue remains on the DXB - LAX, which the airline still sees a niche
► Denies the impending order of 100 A350 and 60 A330, No decisions made
► Unconvinced about Airbus's intention to stick with composite panels on an aluminum frame for the A350.
► A380 add-on order not part of compensation package
Phishphan70 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 260 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18594 times:
how many 77W's does EK have? would be interesting to see Boeing jump on this and try to put the 77W on a diet, but with sales like they have been, i see the aircraft staying the way it is, atleast until the 787 line is fully churning. unlike EK however, i would Love to see a 774ER!
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23 Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18436 times:
Interesting comments from Mr. Clark.
He also reiterated that the four A380s ordered last week were not part of the compensation package for delayed deliveries (ATWOnline, May 8). "This is a new order for aircraft we need and we were able to take some delivery slots that opened up," he said. EK is confident that Airbus has sorted out its A380 problems and he said that once it is in service, airlines will clamor to get onboard: "The seat-mile costs are stellar."
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 851 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18278 times:
Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter): The "champion" of its fleet, 777-300ER, according to Emirates' wish, to go lighter to encounter A350-1000 if Airbus lived up to the promise
I find this an interesting comment. In one sense, Boeing has the distinct advantage (in 2007) that the A350-1000 is likely a decade away and the 773ER has almost no competition until that point. Emirates may want "more" (when do they not?) performance, but what other choice do they have when it comes to fuel efficiency? Are they not going to buy more 773ER if Boeing doesn't knock-off another 2-3% of SFC? Doubtful. Would slightly reducing fuel burn win orders that would otherwise go to the A346? Again, probably not as the 773ER has already demonstrated superior SFC.
At this point, Boeing doesn't have an incentive to offer anything more than the exotic trim materials they pitched QF when they were evaluating non-stop SYD-LHR with the 772LR.
2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18278 times:
Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter): ► order for 787-9 still not ruled out, but depends on when Jebel Ali opens
Mmmm, that may surprise a few, thinking the main models for consideration were 787-10/A350-1000. Looks like they may consider using the smaller -9 if Jebel Ali opens on time and runway development goes to plan.
Can Boeing get -9s to EK a bit earlier than anticipated.
Clearly, the mega 330/350 order is not as certain as many of the Airbus diehards will have us believe.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3276 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 18117 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7): At this point, Boeing doesn't have an incentive to offer anything more than the exotic trim materials they pitched QF when they were evaluating non-stop SYD-LHR with the 772LR.
I would imagine that Boeing makes a fairly decent sum on all the upgrade kits they make available so that owners of older planes can get the latest and greatest fuel burn reducing developments on their 777.
So if they arrive at upgrades that are easy enough and cheap enough to retrofit the next time the 777 is in for a new interior and/or D check. well its money in the bank.
Most importantly IF GE does an engine for the A350XWB-1000, I would almost put money on that engine being the little brother of the engine going on the 777"NG". Thus leaving Boeing plenty of time to ALSO do all the nifty stuff they want to for the KC767 and 767LRF, AND start work on a 787NG... w/o bothering to spend money on Y3 till 2016 or later.
If GE bails on the GE90 replacement engine, then I can only see a quick and dirty "NG" program for the 777 that only uses whats on the shelf or easy to CAD up and throw on.
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 18035 times:
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 8): Clearly, the mega 330/350 order is not as certain as many of the Airbus diehards will have us believe.
At present, the A330/A350 mega order is one well defined option open to EK, which they have clearly accepted as a possible way forward for them.
However, they still want to hear what Boeing can do for them, so that's why EK currently is maintaining the line they haven't 'decided' yet and why they are giving Boeing a sort of last chance next week when Mr. Clark goes to Seatlle to hear Boeing's answer to their demands. Clearly EK does NOT want to hear Boeing offer them anything from their present catalogue, but expect the manufacturer to magically pull out some sort of 777NG as well as early delivery slots on both the 787-10 (which isn't even launched yet) and 787-9 all at once...
Given the unlikeliness of all that together, my view is Tim Clark will go back to Dubai to weigh off both propositions and will sign for extra planes from Airbus at Farnborough....
N1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 558 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 17834 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9): Assuming that no major 787 orders are canceled and that Boeing doesn't ramp-up production rates faster than what is currently planned, EK could start getting 787-9 slots by 2013.
Air et Cosmos ran a story saying Emirates is putting the pressure on Boeing to open a second line and to launch and accelerate the 787-10 development schedule. As they know they can't push AB on the A350 schedule, they are putting pressure on B.
LifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1897 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 17750 times:
Once again more public negotiating throughout the media from mister Clark. I find it fascinating to see, but every time he really doesn't say anything at all, leaving everyone spinning his words one way or the other.
Really, Mr. Clark, put a and just do your business in quiet. He is loosing credibility buy saying a lot, but not acting. Ah well, maybe it's just me.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 17712 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 14): Quoting Slz396 (Reply 11):
and will sign for extra planes from Airbus at Farnborough....
That's a long time for us to wait! Paris, on the other hand, would be much more exciting.
A collective noun is needed to prevent this type of (totally understandable) error, how about Parnborough? It is better than Farnis I think, although Faris might be possible?
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10): Most importantly IF GE does an engine for the A350XWB-1000, I would almost put money on that engine being the little brother of the engine going on the 777"NG". Thus leaving Boeing plenty of time to ALSO do all the nifty stuff they want to for the KC767 and 767LRF, AND start work on a 787NG... w/o bothering to spend money on Y3 till 2016 or later.
That might depend on the thrust needed for a 777NG. If it is = or > than the 115s, it might be difficult to make it cover the range down to the XWB-1000, if I remember La's comments correctly.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3276 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 17650 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 16): That might depend on the thrust needed for a 777NG. If it is = or > than the 115s, it might be difficult to make it cover the range down to the XWB-1000, if I remember La's comments correctly.
I'm assuming that it would be a 90K/115K thrust "range" like the current GE90 if they did it. I can't possibly imagine a MTOW weight growth above the current 777LR family as being needed. Weight reductions and efficiency gains could knock out huge gains in range and payload depending on how far they go. Increase MZFW and MLW would be nice to see as it would help the 777F and shorter ranged missions with the 773ER pack on the payload.
AutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1518 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17277 times:
Quoting Manni (Reply 5): EK is confident that Airbus has sorted out its A380 problems and he said that once it is in service, airlines will clamor to get onboard: "The seat-mile costs are stellar."
Good news, but could this be a hint that the 748 will not be able to match the A380 efficiency or that the A380 is behaving better then promised?
Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 15): Once again more public negotiating throughout the media from mister Clark. I find it fascinating to see, but every time he really doesn't say anything at all, leaving everyone spinning his words one way or the other.
Couldnt agree more, really tiresome. Wasnt it Routers which claimerd EK would order the A350?
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4072 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16865 times:
Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter): Airline focused on fuel efficiency even if it means slight capacity drop
This almost sounds like EK has dropped their "make the 747-8 bigger" push and might be considering it?
Anyway, I'm sick of EK putzing in to Airbus and Boeing and demanding that they get the exact airplane that is perfect for them. Everytime either manufacturer does something to improve the product, EK just wants a little more. I'm sure Boeing can offer a very attractive 777/787 package to EK, but if they want a little more efficiency or range, Boeing should seriously just walk away. This is getting freakin ridiculous...
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28568 posts, RR: 84 Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16767 times:
Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 18): Good news, but could this be a hint that the 748 will not be able to match the A380 efficiency or that the A380 is behaving better then promised?
Well one can safely assume EK will be going for high-density seating on at least part of the fleet, so that's going to help, but even then, one would expect the A388 to perform very well in this category.
Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 20): This almost sounds like EK has dropped their "make the 747-8 bigger" push and might be considering it?
EK actually wants a smaller (well, shorter) 747-8I with better range. However, since EK prefers higher seating densities, I imagine that Clark probably prefers the current 747-8I's length, he just wants to be able to get 8300+nm out of her when actually carrying closer to 467 passengers then 400.
As to the 777-300ER, I am sure Boeing continues to try and make it even better for many reasons, including to keep EK buying them by the flock.
"Clark will be working with Boeing to define where the 787-10X and 747-8I sit on range/payload while his wish list contains a lighter 777-300ER"
Translation: 747-8I can't do DXB-LAX and 787-10 doesn't exist. Without a 787-10 we can't get as good a deal on A350-1000.
Quote: "He did not rule out a buy of the smaller 787-9"
Translation: We want a better deal from Airbus
Quote: ""Sure, if we go the A350 route we will need some interim lift, and the A330 would fit that bill, but no decisions have been made,""
Translation: We need Boeing to do something so we can get a better deal from Airbus.
I think Mr. Clark understands as well as any one that in order to get the best possible deal there must be competing offers. Without a 787-10 the A350-1000 has no competition. And without delivery slots for the 787-9, he can't get a good deal on his interim solution, the A330. So he's going to Seattle to see if Boeing will do something that will make Airbus give him a better deal on existing plan to get A350/330's.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4072 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16639 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 22): From an order that might run to 160 widebody planes? Are you serious?
If it was just a regular order, of course not! But EK seems to think they can just ask for whatever they want and the manufacturers will happily oblige. I'm sure Boeing continues to improve their products, like any good company would. I just don't think they will or should go out of their way just to please ONE airline.
25 Stitch: Yet making their products better for one airline will probably make them better for all airlines. It is possible EK is trying to use Boeing to knock
26 Jfk777: Whatever EK's grand plans are the A380, 773ER, 787 or A350 will make up the fleet in 5 years. Expansion will take place in the USA and to a few more d
27 Baroque: Probably, but it might be that there is a temptation to widen the 777 as they lighten it to acquire another run of seats - seems to be all the go the
28 Qantas744ER: Actually the 77W after a certain ln already had improvements of a couple of thousand Lbs and the first aircraft to recieve these improvements was a AF
29 2wingtips: and Mr Clark is confident the 350-1000 will enter service in 8 years time(yep 2015) ? I imagine the 787-10 is as close to reality(or more likely clos
30 DeltaDC9: Maybe neither, maybe it is simply performing as advertised, which does match the description of stellar. A second line is not the issue, Boeings 'lin
31 DIA: How many landings and takeoffs per day does this airport expect? DIA has six operational runways ,and still has plenty of room to add on many frequen
32 JAAlbert: What is the 777-400? I've not heard of this before. Is this actually being proposed by Boeing? What are its proposed specs? Is there any rumors that t
33 NASCARAirforce: Have I been sleeping, but what is a 777-400ER? I didn't think you can make it any longer than it is - man the tail scrapes
34 Slz396: Thanks for translating the somewhat fluffy words of Mr Clark into easy to understand plain language. I think you are hitting the nail on the head, BT
35 Kaitak744: WHAT??? They are actually building that? That is nothing but crazy. They basically said that they will not be interested in any potential larger vers
36 Stitch: Airbus is indeed offering EK more suitable planes, the problem is the time-frame they are offering them for is upwards of a decade out, and EK is gro
37 DeltaDC9: They have considered the possiblity since before the 773 came out and once the 747 was in question, but there is no program AKAIK. It would require m
38 Scbriml: Why wouldn't they build it? Why is it crazy? DXB really struggles to cope at peak times and with EK's massive fleet expansion, it won't last much lon
39 Oykie: How would they now if that airport will be delayed prior to it's opening. They have to order planes some years before 2014, and then they still risk
40 Justloveplanes: This is where protracted negotations can backfire. Clark could have had all the 787's he needed years earlier than he will get what he wants, but he
41 Jacobin777: I don't think EK is going to nor wants to play "IB" and just go to Boeing to drive down the price and pick Airbus in the end (or do the converse eith
42 Lumberton: The 787 isn't exactly begging for orders at this point. It is not inconceivable that Clark may be presented with a very gentle ultimatum that he may
43 AA1818: I see a huge possibility for the 748i in EK's fleet. After all they have purchased the freighter. Also, Boeing has kept the proposed specs of the pro
44 FriendlySkies: Sure...you might want different options available, but I don't ask Toyota to go back and redesign the car because I want it to be 1 mi/gal more effic
45 Justloveplanes: This is a more direct expression of my previous point. Mr. Clark can expect very little help from Boeing in driving down A's price. They can sell eve
46 EI321: Sorry if its been mentioned already, but what exactly will Boeing be doing on the 777 to lighten it enough to compete with the A350? Airbus proposed t
47 JoeCanuck: As far as I remember, the 8 across limitation was one of the things that killed the original 350. It wasn't just the old tech composition. The 777 may
48 Stitch: In what way? (Genuine interest, not trying to be snide). I imagine trying new lighter internal structures and fittings, but they're going to be limit
49 Morvious: Why can't EK just buy planes that are availible or will be in a few years time. They always want something different. They really think they are THAT
50 Stitch: They're taking a good chunk of 773ERs and A388s...
51 Dank: I don't think that this is the case. I am just as convinced now that EK isn't impressed with the original Boeing specs for the 787-10 and Boeing hasn
52 RJ111: I personally thought the 4 additional A380s outlined their intentions here. Though like you say the as they already have the frieghter in the fleet a
53 EI321: Its impossible to draw anything from it I guess.
54 Kaneporta1: I tend to think along the same lines. Also, I really don't see EK ordering the 787-9 if they also order the A350, as the 787-9 is closer to the size
55 Albird87: I beleive that the 777-400ER is one of these mysterious myth creatures that you hear about!! lol Boeing wont make a 777-400ER as the 773 is already c
56 Yyz717: Seems that EK is not interested in markets smaller than the 332. Surely, a fleet of 321/738 could be used to the (many?) smaller markets from DXB not
57 Astuteman: There are a number of people on here, me included, who suspect that Clark's view may well be borne out...... IMO they will discover an alarming large
58 Jacobin777: you are comparing apples to oranges......the vehicle market is much different than the aviation market...where routes, destinations, locations, etc.
59 Stitch: I don't think the cost is the major hold-up on the 787-10, but the time-frame. Boeing is limited in how far they can push the 787-10 MTOW without upg
60 BoomBoom: He seems to be saying the A350XWB, as currently proposed, is unsuitable.
61 Socaljoeyb: Will the current Dubai airport be closed when this new airport opens?
62 Dank: I don't read it that way. I read it as he doesn't believe that it will end up with composite panels. That doesn't mean that either way the plane is u
63 BoomBoom: Since Boeing is going the all-composite route, they're already doing better, sooner. If Airbus does decide to go the all-composite route, the way Mr
64 F4N: Astuteman: An excellent observation. As much as the various cheerleaders do not want to read such things, they can't or won't recognize the fact that
65 Dank: Nope, they're not. If they were, EK would have jumped on the -10. WIth a composite panel fueslage the 350 can do better than the 787-10 that Boeing h
66 Bringiton: And which model are we talking of here ? Are you talking of the A350-900 doing better then the 787-10 or the A350-1000 doing better ? The -10 will pr
67 Dank: It doesn't matter which version of the 350 you want to compare it to. The 787-10 in either form that Boeing has proposed, does not have the range tha
68 BoomBoom: If true, then why is the 787 still on the shopping list? The fact is that neither the 787-10 or the A350 is defined at this time. http://online.wsj.c
69 Astuteman: To me, a composite fuselage made from "shells" is as near as dammit as "all-composite" as a composite fuselage made from "barrels". The composite con
70 BoomBoom: So why do you feel that Why would Airbus ever incur the additional time and expense of going with barrels if it gets them very little gain?
71 DeltaDC9: Too bad, cause us Tahoe drivers did just that and we got FIVE more miles to the gallon out of them with the new model! I cant agree, the composite ba
72 Dank: Because they want planes sooner. Reading the comments from above. They would be interested in a -10, only if Boeing can give them better range. My gu
73 Astuteman: Personally, because........ And its my preferred solution. Although I suspect the advantages (over all-composite shells) are in most cases of an incr
74 AVinutso: Are we all tired of Mr. Clark and his statements? Yes, I believe so. On the other hand, this point in history has to be one of the most difficult time