Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will Emirates Ever Have A Narrowbody A/C Need?  
User currently offlineCatIII From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3031 posts, RR: 4
Posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8375 times:

Flying Emirates to DXB tomorrow (Delta back later in the week), and looking at their website got me thinking: will Emirates ever have a need for narrowbody aircraft? It seems that, as proven by AirArabia, and FlyDubai there are city pairs in the region that can be served successfully by narrowbody aircraft, and I wonder if Emirates is losing business or could be feeding its own flights through DXB to onward destinations with smaller aircraft. I guess my question is, why is the Emirates business model only widebody aircraft driven?

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8202 times:



Quoting CatIII (Thread starter):
Flying Emirates to DXB tomorrow (Delta back later in the week), and looking at their website got me thinking: will Emirates ever have a need for narrowbody aircraft?

FlyDubai was backed by Emirates, and founded by the chairman of Emirates. Emirates doesn't need narrowbody aircraft...they've got FlyDubai.

Tom.


User currently offlineEightball From Saudi Arabia, joined Oct 2007, 281 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8139 times:

Passengers can connect between EK and FlyDubai flights at DXB. It seems to be that the Emirates Group created FlyDubai as a solution to the fact that EK doesn't operate narrowbody aircraft.

Quoting CatIII (Thread starter):
why is the Emirates business model only widebody aircraft driven?

I think one could also ask why airlines like WN and B6 operate only narrowbody aircraft. In my opinion, it's all about specific business models. The distances that an airline's flights would travel and the frequency of those flights are two out of several factors that an airline must consider when planning to purchase a type of aircraft for its fleet.

For example, this past Saturday I flew on EK 225, DXB-SFO, which was operated with a 77W, and there wasn't a single empty seat in Y class on that flight. This is one daily flight that EK operates from DXB to SFO, so one long range widebody aircraft is what they'll need, which in this case is a 77W. After that flight, I boarded UA 955, SFO-SAN, which was operated with an A320, and that flight seemed to be full. Currently, UA operates several daily flights between SFO and SAN, all of which are operated with narrowbody aircraft, which fits the frequency and passenger loads of those flights. It's all about picking the right aircraft types for a specific airline business model.

[Edited 2010-01-25 17:37:18]


Follow your dream.
User currently offlineUAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 1083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7853 times:

Emirates business strategy and especially the aircraft policy is to make the aircraft type as minimum as possible. So buying a narrowbodies is not likley to happen in the near future with this managment that running Emirates group.
In business also, having a similar type of equipment make the maintenance cost cheaper.


User currently offlineAirIndia From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1641 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7725 times:



Quoting UAEflyer (Reply 3):
aving a similar type of equipment make the maintenance cost cheaper.

Besides a strong network usually helps keep the volumes high and thus the need for widebodies on most routes.

Agreed that some routes like MCT may not warrant a widebody but then the loss on a few such routes will be far less than the cost of having narrowbodies (procurring, maintaining) etc.


User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2865 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7708 times:

I must admit, there is just something more luxurious about widebody a/c, even if just for very short sectors such as DXB-DOH/KWI/BAH/MCT etc. Stepping aboard a spacious big plane is more appealing for many pax than a smaller narrowbody. I'm sure most people here would agree, even if its hard to explain exactly why this is the case...


Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlinePewpew320 From New Zealand, joined Mar 2009, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7672 times:

Less Claustriphobic i guess, I also think being able to actually move around and not block people helps.

User currently offlineVeeseeten From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7544 times:

Its only one factor of many, but a simple one nevertheless: big plane = lots of cargo revenue.

User currently offlineJayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1028 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7176 times:



Quoting AirIndia (Reply 4):
Besides a strong network usually helps keep the volumes high and thus the need for widebodies on most routes.

Agreed that some routes like MCT may not warrant a widebody but then the loss on a few such routes will be far less than the cost of having narrowbodies (procurring, maintaining) etc.

Couldn't agree more.
EK earns more than half with O/D traffic.So they always need big planes to fly overseas, big routes.
Also, they manage pretty well.
Eg.Routes which connect to cities like HYD, or VIE, see a A332, which is the smallest plane EK has.Its because there are less seats to fill and A332 is a very versatile aircraft.Can Carry enough cargo.Its not in high demand and suits perfect
Also, high traffic routes, which have more demand, see a 777 or A388, along with A345 in Oz routes.
Planes like A343 did routes like DXB-ICN, where they found that traffic was excellent to replace it to a A388.
They use the A332 or similar on start up routes like DXB-PRG, to test the loads and then gradually increase it.
Whenever they want to start a route which does not have enough demand, the put they A332.
The routes which do excellent, like DXB-JFK/SYD/SFO etc, always see the new product, because the demand is fabulous to fill in the seats.
This was actually told to me by a EK A330 pilot who is flying for them since 2001.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 5):
I must admit, there is just something more luxurious about widebody a/c, even if just for very short sectors such as DXB-DOH/KWI/BAH/MCT etc. Stepping aboard a spacious big plane is more appealing for many pax than a smaller narrowbody. I'm sure most people here would agree, even if its hard to explain exactly why this is the case...

I agree Big grin.
I always like to go in Big Planes..even if i gotta pay more.
Like AI flies BOM-DXB with A32x, their price being the lowest.
But i prefer to fly EK/CX where i get the widebody!!  cloudnine 

Quoting Veeseeten (Reply 7):
Its only one factor of many, but a simple one nevertheless: big plane = lots of cargo revenue.

May be true, but not always  Smile.

Cheers!
-JK



Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7111 times:



Quoting Jayeshrulz (Reply 8):
Routes which connect to cities like HYD, or VIE, see a A332

VIE is a Boeing 777-300ER route, so there seems to be enough traffic (either pax or cargo).

Big version: Width: 965 Height: 800 File size: 51kb



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlineOjas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2975 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7062 times:



Quoting Jayeshrulz (Reply 8):
EK earns more than half with O/D traffic.So they always need big planes to fly overseas, big routes.

What kind of logic is that? How do you know their 50%+ revenue is generated from O-D traffic

Quoting Jayeshrulz (Reply 8):
The routes which do excellent, like DXB-JFK/SYD/SFO etc, always see the new product, because the demand is fabulous to fill in the seats.

They have no other option than to deploy B77W/B77L/A380 to these destinations which are new and it is exclusive of the "fabulous" demand on those routes.



A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6725 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7062 times:

They did, very many moons ago. You've got to start somewhere.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank Schaefer




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ger Buskermolen




wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineDirectorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1681 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6789 times:

There's no disputing that there are cities within A320/737 range of DXB that would no doubt come online if EK had a narrowbody. But as almost everyone's mentioned, they have a lucrative cargo division, plus the costs of having fewer fleet types, and having increased versatility offsets any increased costs.
I should mention that flydubai and EK have no plans to interline at any point-and eventually flydubai will become fully independent. Unless of course, they conveniently change their mind Big grin


User currently offlineCYSAFAN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6769 times:



Quoting Eightball (Reply 2):
Passengers can connect between EK and FlyDubai flights at DXB. It seems to be that the Emirates Group created FlyDubai as a solution to the fact that EK doesn't operate narrowbody aircraft.

They used the Singapore Airlines solution. Singapore Airlines solution is...
All narrow body aircraft bought by them is directly transferred to Silkair
Besides,why does Emirates need a narrow body for their own Airline when they got 60 Airbus A380-841 on order? Isn't that quite enough??


User currently offlineCatIII From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3031 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6706 times:



Quoting UAEflyer (Reply 3):
In business also, having a similar type of equipment make the maintenance cost cheaper.

True, but it isn't like they are all Boeing, or only flying 777's. There's little commonality between Airbus and Boeing.

Quoting Directorguy (Reply 12):
There's no disputing that there are cities within A320/737 range of DXB that would no doubt come online if EK had a narrowbody.

I guess that is my point. And the FlyDubai product is so different than the Emirates product, that I am not sure that a premium traveler would necessarily want to connect to FlyDubai.

Quoting CYSAFAN (Reply 13):
Besides,why does Emirates need a narrow body for their own Airline when they got 60 Airbus A380-841 on order? Isn't that quite enough??

That's irrelevant. Narrowbody aircraft fill a need and serve a mission that the 380 can't.


User currently offlineOjas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2975 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6680 times:



Quoting Directorguy (Reply 12):
I should mention that flydubai and EK have no plans to interline at any point-and eventually flydubai will become fully independent. Unless of course, they conveniently change their mind 

http://www.emirates.com/in/English/p...ubai/connecting_with_flydubai.aspx



A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6598 times:



Quoting UAEflyer (Reply 3):
Emirates business strategy and especially the aircraft policy is to make the aircraft type as minimum as possible.

A minimum number of types?

They operate no less than four models of widebodies (A330/A340/A380/777), and nine variants of those models, with one more type (two variants - A350-900/-1000) on order, and are intent upon ordering at least one more variant of an existing model (A380--900) and possibly the 787, too.

And that's not even counting their cargo fleet, which adds one more model and four more types to the mix.

They're definitely not operating with a minimum of types here.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineGT4EZY From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 1784 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6434 times:

I thought it was due to the fact that middle east carriers tend not to offer as much frequency as perhaps city pairs in Europe and North America.


Proud to fly from Manchester!
User currently offlineDirectorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1681 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5914 times:



Quoting Ojas (Reply 15):

Ah...well, that makes sense. Can't say I wasn't expecting it, but do wonder why they didn't introduce this from day one. Now, it goes to see how much the intergration will be the same way Silkair acts as a regional arm for SQ.

Quoting GT4EZY (Reply 17):
I thought it was due to the fact that middle east carriers tend not to offer as much frequency as perhaps city pairs in Europe and North America.

I suppose that's part of it. Early on, intra-Gulf city pairs didn't have that much frequency, although admittedly it's now at least daily on every single route.

Quoting CatIII (Reply 14):
I guess that is my point. And the FlyDubai product is so different than the Emirates product, that I am not sure that a premium traveler would necessarily want to connect to FlyDubai.

FlyDubai has selected routes that tend to be generally low-yielding flown by price elastic passengers. Premium demand would be very, very marginal. The fact that regional blips on the radar are now available through a painless and interlined one-stop transit hop would appeal to a great deal of people.


User currently offlineJayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1028 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5734 times:



Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 9):
VIE is a Boeing 777-300ER route, so there seems to be enough traffic (either pax or cargo).

Ah, my bad.Did they change it to 77W?
EKA332, Pisa.



Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
User currently offlineDenklug From Germany, joined Dec 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5655 times:

Their cargo operation definately benefits from the fact that they only use wiedebody a/c. They can accept every (non main-deck / CAO) shipment and do not need to worry about the a/c operating on any of the flt segments. When a mixed-type carrier (operating wide and narrowbody) is asked to accept a shipment with let's say a height of 150cms they must ensure that widebody aircraft operate on all segments of that shipments routing. Even more difficult when equipmet on a route is switched between wide- and narrowbody on short notice...


denklug
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2179 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5098 times:



Quoting Pewpew320 (Reply 6):
Less Claustriphobic i guess, I also think being able to actually move around and not block people helps.

Do you think airlines really care about whether pax can move around and are not blocked? Because, in the specific case of EK 777, there are quite a few people which can't really move due to the narrowness and tightness of the seats, and the terrible narrowness of the aisles: the 2 per row on window seats, and the 4 per row on middle seats = 60% of the pax.
Any A320 for instance is way roomier, with standard-size seats and standard-width aisle.



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4869 times:

Did the 727s have PTVs?

User currently offlineEmirates773er From Pakistan, joined Jun 2005, 1449 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4784 times:



Quoting 777way (Reply 22):
Did the 727s have PTVs?

No they did not. I specifically remember this because I used to hate the 727's on our flight to karachi due to them not having PTV's. From my recolication the aA310's which emirates was operating did have the PTV's but don't quote me on it. Gold old times they were..



The Truth is Out There ---- Face It!!!!!
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8363 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4607 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 1):
FlyDubai was backed by Emirates, and founded by the chairman of Emirates. Emirates doesn't need narrowbody aircraft...they've got FlyDubai.

 checkmark 
It has little to do with fleet types, or cargo, as someone posted about. Creating a seperate "company" to handle short-haul flying is a lot more cost effective than putting is all under the same unbrela. A lot of people forget that SilkAir is the regional/short-haul arm of Singapore Airlines for example.


25 777way : A310s did have PTVs for sure.
26 Viscount724 : Many A320s have aisles a few inches wider than usual on 737s. With the A320's approximately 6-inch wider cabin, you can choose wider seats or a wider
27 Cobra27 : Its the economics of scale. When every almost every airline (except Singapore, JAL, ANA, Cathay) use their theory narrow body =short haul and widebody
28 CatIII : Appreciate that response. That actually clarifies a lot.
29 Post contains links and images AustrianZRH : I'm not sure, I have to admit. However, at least last March, it was already a 777. But looking at the photo database, it seems like they did change i
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...
Will D7 Ever Have Low Cost Competition? posted Thu Jan 29 2009 00:05:53 by Ben175
Will Emirates Ever Join An Alliance? posted Mon Aug 7 2006 14:31:39 by PurpleBox
Will SAN Ever Have Nonstop Service To Asia? posted Tue Apr 27 2004 15:27:47 by Thawit76
Will BA Ever Have A Special Livery? posted Mon Dec 29 2003 23:23:29 by EZYAirbus
Will We Ever Have To Say Goodbye To The 737-XXXs? posted Sat Jul 31 1999 03:37:38 by JWM AirTrans
Will The US Ever Have A True LCC? posted Thu Aug 7 2003 17:30:08 by AngelAirways
Will Air Canada Ever Have PTV's In Economy? posted Thu Jun 28 2001 16:05:34 by SafeFlyer
Will Lockheed Ever Re-enter The Pax Aircraft Mkt? posted Mon Jan 25 2010 02:02:46 by United airline
Will U.S. Domestic Ever Get IFE? posted Thu Jan 7 2010 21:23:31 by Rolypolyman
Did DCA Ever Have Wide Body Service? posted Mon Nov 30 2009 13:59:00 by 747400sp
Will We Ever Have To Say Goodbye To The 737-XXXs? posted Sat Jul 31 1999 03:37:38 by JWM AirTrans
Will The US Ever Have A True LCC? posted Thu Aug 7 2003 17:30:08 by AngelAirways
Will Air Canada Ever Have PTV's In Economy? posted Thu Jun 28 2001 16:05:34 by SafeFlyer
Will Lockheed Ever Re-enter The Pax Aircraft Mkt? posted Mon Jan 25 2010 02:02:46 by United airline
Will U.S. Domestic Ever Get IFE? posted Thu Jan 7 2010 21:23:31 by Rolypolyman
Did DCA Ever Have Wide Body Service? posted Mon Nov 30 2009 13:59:00 by 747400sp