CatIII From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 2790 posts, RR: 3 Posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8105 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?
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.
UAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 961 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7583 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.
SurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2797 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7438 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!
Jayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1027 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6906 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 .
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!!
Quoting Veeseeten (Reply 7): Its only one factor of many, but a simple one nevertheless: big plane = lots of cargo revenue.
Directorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1639 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6519 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
CYSAFAN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6499 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??
Ojas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2919 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6410 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
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6328 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
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.
Denklug From Germany, joined Dec 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5385 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...
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2169 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4828 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.
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..
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7870 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4337 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.
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.