UAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 902 posts, RR: 1 Posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8588 times:
I was checking EK flights to JFK, i noticed that all three daily flights to JFK are operated by B777-300ER not the super luxury A340-500.
I think that A345 near its end with EK maybe? the 77L's are coming soon and the huge 77W order too. What would EK do with their 10 A345?
What routes EK flying their A345?
which aircraft cost more on JFK the 77W or A345?
ANstar From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 4844 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8240 times:
I think EK start their longer range routes with a A345. Once it picks up pax wise it then changes it to a 77W. This has happened with Sydney also. So I dont think it is the end of the A345 at all.
Amirs From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 1332 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8167 times:
What configuration will the 77L have? Will it have the A345 F and J class seats?
They should reconfigure some of their 77W with those prime seats, not very good to offer such different products on the same route.
A pax would like to know exactly what type of seat and service he gets when he books the flight.
EKSkycargo370 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 150 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8124 times:
The problem with the A345 is EK loose a lot of cargo capacity,no hold 5 due to crew rest area.From what I know JFK is a very busy cargo route,perhaps thats why they now operate the B777-300ER.
AFAIT LHR never saw EK A345, it used to work on LGW route last year
Quoting Amirs (Reply 4): What configuration will the 77L have? Will it have the A345 F and J class seats?
In my opinion it should have better than the A345 F class because the 77L will fly to S. America more than 16 hours.
Quoting EKSkycargo370 (Reply 5): The problem with the A345 is EK loose a lot of cargo capacity,no hold 5 due to crew rest area.From what I know JFK is a very busy cargo route,perhaps thats why they now operate the B777-300ER.
UAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 902 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7527 times:
Quoting EKSkycargo370 (Reply 7): Cargo is more important than pax with EK,quite often flights will be delayed out of DXB to wait for connecting cargo loads.
i totally agree, and you can see the EKskycargo division in DXB is always busy and many freighters are waiting for their loads.
Quoting Thorben (Reply 8): I think they are too new to be phased out.
what i meant that those A345 are not in their right routes, why they keep flying them to Zurich, Hong-Kong sometimes and so on. Doesn't that mean to you that they are available always and not used on the routes they supposed to work for, 12hours +
Quoting Amirs (Reply 9): Well with all these rumours, maybe something is wrong.
Airbus is always easy to criticise, especially when it comes to the wide-body section. Narrow body, no doubt about it they are perfect.
Flying Belgian From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2357 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7406 times:
Somehow, EK applies the A332' strategy to the A345.
When they launch a new city in Europe they first send the A332 and when the loads are picking up the 777 is taking over and eventually frequencies are increased and the A332 is back for one of them.
Loads are certainly improving on the JFK run and correct me if I'm wrong but the latest EK 77W have the F/J upgraded cabin. Don't they ?
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7273 times:
Quoting Thorben (Reply 8): Always those rumors, EK, SQ, TG - is there any airline that has not been rumored to sell its A340NG?
Airlines operating the A340-500:
Qatar
Etihad
Singapore Airlines
Emirates
Air Canada
Thai
Thai is selling theirs, reportedly to South African
Air Canada is selling theirs, reportedly to _________
Singapore Airlines has slatted them for replacement when their 787 / A350 arrives.
Etihad ?
Qatar ? has ordered 777-200LRs.
As for Emirates, there is absolutely NO reason they should keep them in their fleet. If EK was a money conscious airline, they would have dumped the A340-500s already. There is absolutely no route in their system that requires it, and they have not chosen to start any new ultra-long-haul routes with it either. In my opinion, they should not have ordered the A340-500 in the first place.
P.S. Does anyone know the final number of 777-300ERs that will be in their fleet? (purchased and leased)
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12): As for Emirates, there is absolutely NO reason they should keep them in their fleet.
Do you happen to know anything about the current market for widebody aircraft and EK's situation? Because of the A380 delay, EK is looking for interim lift / additional capacity for growth. They would be very foolish to get rid of them right now. And the market for modern widebody aircraft is basically empty. They would have to replace them with Tristars, DC-10s or 747 Classics. But I guess those aircraft are cheaper to operate.
QatarA340 From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1599 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7074 times:
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12): Thai is selling theirs, reportedly to South African
I know there many threads about his issue, but Thai recently upgraded their US services using the A345's. How could they sell their A345's and serve the US nonstop?
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12): As for Emirates, there is absolutely NO reason they should keep them in their fleet. If EK was a money conscious airline, they would have dumped the A340-500s already. There is absolutely no route in their system that requires it, and they have not chosen to start any new ultra-long-haul routes with it either. In my opinion, they should not have ordered the A340-500 in the first place.
EK uses these planes to go to Australia nonstop. The are the only aircraft in EK's fleet capable of flying nonstop from DXB to Australia.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6756 times:
Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 15): EK uses these planes to go to Australia nonstop. The are the only aircraft in EK's fleet capable of flying nonstop from DXB to Australia.
Not true, their 777s are capable of DXB-Australia nonstop as well.
Their 772ERs can (but would struggle), their 772As/773As cannot. Their 773ERs could do the job as well.
EKSkycargo370 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 150 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6500 times:
The A345 was due to be operating the EK007/008 to LHR for the summer schedule a couple of times a week,but then went back to a daily A332...again it would have been misuse of the A345.I see EY fly it into LHR now...why? Its a super long range aircraft,why purchase such an aircraft if your not going to be fully utilizing its capabilities???
Singapore has said that there will be no immediate A340-500 replacement. (as in, they will not order the 777-200LR) However, they are not very happy with the A340-500s, as they can not take any cargo with them on the nonstop flights. The 787-9 can do SIN-EWR nonstop, with 200 passengers and a large (I don't know exactly how much) amount of cargo.
Quoting A342 (Reply 13): Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
As for Emirates, there is absolutely NO reason they should keep them in their fleet.
Do you happen to know anything about the current market for widebody aircraft and EK's situation? Because of the A380 delay, EK is looking for interim lift / additional capacity for growth. They would be very foolish to get rid of them right now. And the market for modern widebody aircraft is basically empty. They would have to replace them with Tristars, DC-10s or 747 Classics. But I guess those aircraft are cheaper to operate. Yeah sure
They ordered the A340-500s long before A380 delays were announced. And if they were that desperate for wide-body lift, they would have taken the A340-600s.
Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 15):
I know there many threads about his issue, but Thai recently upgraded their US services using the A345's. How could they sell their A345's and serve the US nonstop?
According to Thai, (like Singapore) they are unable to carry sufficient amount of cargo on the nonstop flights. Also, given that the A340-500s have mostly premium seats, and BKK-LAX does not have a high premium demand creates problems.
Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 15): EK uses these planes to go to Australia nonstop. The are the only aircraft in EK's fleet capable of flying nonstop from DXB to Australia.
Australia-DXB can be flown nonstop with 777-300ERs.
UA 777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6247 times:
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12): As for Emirates, there is absolutely NO reason they should keep them in their fleet. If EK was a money conscious airline, they would have dumped the A340-500s already. There is absolutely no route in their system that requires it, and they have not chosen to start any new ultra-long-haul routes with it either. In my opinion, they should not have ordered the A340-500 in the first place.
Makes you wonder what they have in mind with their 10 B777-200LR on order...
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 63 Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5326 times:
Quoting VHVXB (Reply 21): Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 19):
Australia-DXB can be flown nonstop with 777-300ERs.
Though the B77W may have the range its restricted out of DXB therefore it cannot complete the route non-stop
Why? Is that due to the heat?
Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 18): Quoting EKSkycargo370 (Reply 17):
why purchase such an aircraft if your not going to be fully utilizing its capabilities???
Local competition/legacy
"Mine is bigger than yours... "
Probably more like buying them with long non-stop routes in mind, and I'm thinking AUH-OZ/USA non-stop here, but not getting round to operating the routes yet. Fitting your best most advanced premium class product on your most important route in terms of yield (LHR) in the meantime allows you to improve market share in the meantime. People forget, but EY's A345s are absolutely STUNNING inside and offer the top top top end premium class offering - clearly with JFK etc in mind, but you will do well on these seats out of LHR as well in the meantime. IIRC they A345s have Diamond (F) class fitted whereas the 77Ws just have a huge Pearl (C) class - some of the A332s have Diamond (please correct me if im wrong) and it is no co-incidence to see them on the LHR run as well - why do you think LHR so rarely gets the 77W?
Makes sense really. Granted, you arent using the jet to its full potential but it is still quite effiicient on LHR-AUH (not compared to a 77A, but still more than a DC10 or whatever) and if you are short on capacity as EY is, then it allows you to use your precious 77Ws elsewhere where the yields are not as good, whilst offering much greater capacity on the route than your A332s.
If you operated the LHR route with A332s, the jump in capacity to the A346 when they arrive is quite major - thats probably a factor, as I'd expect EY's A346 to take over the LHR run until the A388 arrives. I would imagine the company would begin using the A346, which will have similar Diamond and slightly larger Pearl class and rather larger Coral installed, to LHR when it arrives - not sure if they've started the USA non-stops but the smart money is to see them start the very long-haul non-stops when the A346s arrive.
[Edited 2007-05-13 02:24:22]
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
Correct and EK did not go for the engine thrust increase that might have made this possible.
I can see the 77L replacing the A345 on the route though. Both EK 345s into SYD and MEL have large F & J cabins and the 77L would allow this to continue with an good increase in cargo while leaving the mainly Y class passengers for the BKK and SIN 77W one stop routes.
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 63 Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4923 times:
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23): Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 22):
Why? Is that due to the heat?
Correct and EK did not go for the engine thrust increase that might have made this possible.
They obviously feel that the A345 is doing a good enough job that they dont need to pay the extra to get the software upgrade. Fair play to them.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
25 OldAeroGuy: The heat question is both seasonal and time of day dependent. Eight to nine months out of the year, TOW can be high enough to make the flight at any
26 ConcordeBoy: ...what are you basing this on? As specs currently stand, the 789 has about the same range/payload profile as the A345, and measurably less than the
27 CHRISBA777ER: I think he means MTOW certification level/upgrades etc. I suppose they use a small de-rate on their GE90-115b's.
28 Jacobin777: .....Emirates has a contract with some Swiss company (or companies) for their F/J service...only their A345's have the "1st class suite"....even if t
29 OHLHD: QR is not operating any A345! It is a Amiri A/C. So it is not relevant actually if QR has ordered the 772LR QR is not about to replace their A345. Th
31 Ozair: There was a lot of talk about certifying the GE90-115 to 125 thrust which would have alleviated the DXB restrictions. The issue was finding someone w
32 Chiad: EK has made a special web site for the A345. http://www.emirates.com/a340/range.asp?menuSelect=6 Here you can see the destinations, seating and more!
33 UA 777: Sure, but they could already do this with their 10 A345s. My point is that is just weird to order ultra-long haul aircraft, not use their range and t
34 UAEflyer: This is my point, I believe that they want the latest aircrafts in the market whatever was the range. This morning i heard an interview with Mr. Flan
35 Thorben: ZRH is done because some Swiss company bought a lot of tickets in that new first class. HKG or KIX I don't really understand either. SYD or JFK are u
37 PurpleBox: Why not! Remember their plans regarding the AKL mini hub and connecting to the USA. Don't assume that EK are always going to have a single hub in DXB
38 VHVXB: well if they were serious about AKL they would bypass Australia and serve it via an Asian city Maybe sometime away for the mini hub. EK were recently
39 PurpleBox: They are serious about New Zealand - the 772LR will allow direct DXB-AKL/CHC services. Any mini hub would require feed from Australia (as many cities
40 OldAeroGuy: Are you sure? Even though SIN-JFK is further than DXB-LAX, remember that: EK 345's have 258 seats vs SQ's 181 SQ's A345's don't have the same F class
41 A342: While the 789 would have substantially lower operating costs than the A345, it would also be payload-restricted, just like the A345.
43 Carpethead: Unless something has changed recently, NGO should be a A345 route too. KIX: Because the premium passengers connect to Tokyo, which EK doesn't fly to.
44 6thfreedom: Not quite. EK contunue to use the A345 for non-stop. The B77W is a new service via BKK, not an up gauge of the A345 service. I think this is the reas
45 A342: No, both routes continue to be flown daily.
46 The Coachman: What some of you are forgetting is that EK's 77W's arrived a couple of years after the A345's did. EK was desperate do DXB-SYD/MEL non-stop in order t
47 A342: IMO in the future they'll use the A380. It can do the route at or nearly at full payload.
48 OldAeroGuy: With an airline OEW and westbound, this seems a little optimistic. Full passenger payload would be a better bet.
49 A342: One of their versions will have "only" about 500 seats, plus SYD isn't hot-and-high. If we don't consider the wind, full payload would be possible ev
50 QF175: IIRC, weren't they making changing to JFK services so they could introduce a daily, non-stop DXB-BNE-DXB service with the A340-500? Rgds
51 OldAeroGuy: - Full payload is independent of the number of seats, being equal to MZFW-OEW. - You always need to consider the wind and the airways distance. Witho
Sponsor Message: 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 902 posts, 
From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 5517 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 4844 posts, 
From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 1332 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 150 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2357 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, 
From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, 
From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1599 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
