Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates Delays LAX And SFO....AGAIN!  
User currently offlineFly2CHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9265 times:

Just noticed on their website that LAX will now start at the end of October, and SFO will start in December. Are they still sticking to the aircraft delay theory, or is it the fuel costs concerns which Tim Clark aluded to?

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13744 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9261 times:

I'd be surprised if Emirates had any genuine concerns regarding fuel.

No, this is probably due to the galley supplier problems that were reported by Flight Global and other sources and the backlog / ripple effects are obviously still being felt.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineAznMadSci From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 3679 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9240 times:

So this will probably delay QR receiving their 77L to start IAH if it's the same galley delay.


The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9240 times:



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 1):
I'd be surprised if Emirates had any genuine concerns regarding fuel.

Why surprised.....they still have to pay for it like everyone else?


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24947 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9052 times:



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 1):
I'd be surprised if Emirates had any genuine concerns regarding fuel.



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
Why surprised.....they still have to pay for it like everyone else?

Exactly...Etihad, based in Abu Dhabi where all the oil is, may be different. Who knows? EK does pay for oil the same as BA, AA etc etc



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8807 times:



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 1):
I'd be surprised if Emirates had any genuine concerns regarding fuel.

They have hedges, but they pay for fuel like (most) everyone else does.


User currently offlineGARUDAROD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1518 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8441 times:



Quoting AznMadSci (Reply 2):
So this will probably delay QR receiving their 77L to start IAH if it's the same galley delay.

Already been announced. Service now due to start Dec 8th, 2008 3x weekly, will go
daily in January 2009



Cargo doesn't whine, moan, or complain
User currently offlineFlyjetstar From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 956 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8314 times:



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 1):
I'd be surprised if Emirates had any genuine concerns regarding fuel.

Be prepared to be surprised then.

"Emirates says it has been caught out by soaring fuel prices and is warning against complacency within the airline."

Quoting ElmoTheHobo (Reply 5):

They have hedges, but they pay for fuel like (most) everyone else does.

"Emirates does not run a rigid fuel hedging programme - locking into fixed prices - to the same extent as other airlines."

Source here.


User currently offlineFly2CHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8294 times:



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 1):
I'd be surprised if Emirates had any genuine concerns regarding fuel.

If you listen to Tim Clark, their President, the fuel situation seems pretty grim at Emirates. Hence the delay of Durban launch. They never thought it would go beyond $100 per barrel. Fuel cost has essentially meant they are goingto be very happy if they make a "few hundred million dollars in profit" (budget was $1.5 billion).

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 4):
Exactly...Etihad, based in Abu Dhabi where all the oil is, may be different

Nope. They pay more for fuel than many Western carriers in their homebases.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8294 times:

Funny how they failed to point this out during the press orgy earlier this week in Los Angeles. According to the press on Tuesday, EK would be starting non-stop A380 flights from LAX to Dubai on October 1.  Wink


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLambert747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8169 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):



Funny how they failed to point this out during the press orgy earlier this week in Los Angeles. According to the press on Tuesday, EK would be starting non-stop A380 flights from LAX to Dubai on October 1.

Hmmm... Perhaps of 2009?

It was indeed a "Press Orgy" of sorts.. A lot of la di da, and then a few days later, a "oops another delay". I am starting to wonder if these routes will revert back to if instead of when. I think that Emirates pushing the start backs back again proves that they are have many more problems than were already thought of. Sad, very sad, this is the second time that a friend of mine who was booked from California via DXB to JNB will have to reschedule. She is on the phone as we speak with EK and will request a refund of her full fare Business Class refund and take her business back to BA.


User currently offlineElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7389 times:



Quoting Flyjetstar (Reply 7):
to the same extent as other airlines."

Key point in that sentence. They have hedges (not much it seems), but they pay market price.


User currently offlineBirdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7389 times:



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 10):
Sad, very sad, this is the second time that a friend of mine who was booked from California via DXB to JNB will have to reschedule. She is on the phone as we speak with EK and will request a refund of her full fare Business Class refund and take her business back to BA.

That's very interesting. She must really like EK. Going through DXB is A LOT longer to SA. Having done SFO-LHR-CPT on BA, it's easily the fastest and most convenient. I'm sure JNB is the same.

To CPT, BA43's early departure makes the wait in LHR only about 4 hours, which is good for cushion. Of course, that's assuming everything is ok in LHR.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
User currently offlineYellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6217 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6350 times:



Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 12):
That's very interesting. She must really like EK. Going through DXB is A LOT longer to SA. Having done SFO-LHR-CPT on BA, it's easily the fastest and most convenient. I'm sure JNB is the same.

DL- LAX-ATL-JNB (via Dakar) might even be faster.



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlineLACA773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4049 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5017 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
Funny how they failed to point this out during the press orgy earlier this week in Los Angeles. According to the press on Tuesday, EK would be starting non-stop A380 flights from LAX to Dubai on October 1.

I thought this route was going to be flown wtih a 77W?


User currently offlineFlyLKU From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5000 times:

Take a look at Friday's Wall Street Journal. There is an article that outlines how both A and B are suffering delays due to supplier problems. It specifically identifies seats, galleys and lavs as problematic. Emerates is quoted as saying that delays related to galleys have caused it to repeatedly postpone new destinations.


...are we there yet?
User currently offlineRobffm2 From Germany, joined Dec 2006, 1117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4786 times:



Quoting FlyLKU (Reply 15):
Take a look at Friday's Wall Street Journal.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/4099790/


User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6161 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4743 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):

They said the A380? The intention has been a 77L from my understanding. If they said the A380, thats news to me. Also, Sabre is showing a 777.

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineJalapeno From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4745 times:



Quoting Fly2CHC (Thread starter):
Emirates Delays LAX And SFO....AGAIN!

This just in, EK had delayed all A380 flights to DFW.....oh wait, is that my alarm clock i hear?

TIME TO WAKE UP!!


User currently offlineBirdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2767 times:



Quoting Yellowtail (Reply 13):
DL- LAX-ATL-JNB (via Dakar) might even be faster.

It's possible, but I really doubt it. You lose about 2-3 hrs doing the fuel stop vs a non-stop, not to mention being rousted at 2 am for the landing in DKR. Fumigation, while not a big deal, really isn't so much fun.

The really weird thing is that LHR isn't more than about 1000 miles out of the way, which is hard to believe unless you check it on a globe.

LAX-IAD-JNB might not be too bad, though.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
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...
Air China Service To JFK, LAX And SFO In The '90s posted Tue Apr 22 2008 21:42:31 by Tracks
Emirates To LAX Or SFO? posted Wed May 12 2004 23:33:32 by UALDUDE
LAX And SFO Airport Arrivals Trauma? posted Sun Aug 3 2003 19:35:49 by Singapore_Air
UA To Drastically Cut Schedule Between LAX And SFO posted Wed Oct 17 2001 16:10:10 by Trvlr
LAX And SFO posted Thu Oct 26 2000 22:57:01 by COA 737-900
Questions On ELP-PHX-LAS-SFO And SFO-LAX-GDL posted Tue Jun 19 2007 21:10:46 by Pe@rson
UA P.S. Drops A JFK-LAX And Adds A JFK-SFO posted Fri Jul 28 2006 06:12:15 by Swank300
BDL-LAX And BOS-LAX/SFO Loads On Song posted Wed Sep 28 2005 23:43:00 by DeltaGuy767
Any News On Emirates And SFO? posted Sat Aug 14 2004 19:02:42 by Aeroflot777
Questions About Security @ SFO (Again) And Baggage posted Sat Aug 23 2003 00:32:59 by Singapore_Air