Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not More EK DXB-America Flights?  
User currently offlineAeolus From Mexico, joined Aug 2007, 373 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9140 times:

Hello All.
Seeing the EK flights to GRU, why isn't there anyother South American destination or Canadian destinations from DXB? Isn't there enough traffic to realize those flights? EK has the right equipment to do so.

My suggested routes would be :
MEX
SCL
PTY
BOG
CCS
GIG
YYC*
YUL*

*I heard the Canadian government had some issues in allowing this, can anyone explain?

It seems like EK could open the gates to many connections to the Middle East for a lot of traffic coming from the so-called Americas and Canada. Certainly EK could achieve this... I mean, they've got what?... 40+ more A380s coming right? Could these flights be a reality some day (ignore the fact that some of those airports don't have the A380 facilities YET) in the near future? There are some airports A380-ready and those could help.

Thanks,

-Aeolus


Flying under the clouds above!
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3545 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9106 times:

A few problems that I see.

#1. Those South America routes would be ULH, which is notoriously difficult to turn a profit on, even for EK.

#2. A lot of those routes would be a stretch for a 380 to run profitably, and even then, again, it would be ULH. I suspect filling a 380 to some of those destinations would be quite the challenge. A 777LR would be your best(only?) bet for many of those.

Though, I could certainly see the Canada routes being viable and perhaps some of those South American cities could work as a tag on from points in North America.



PHX based
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8271 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9089 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aeolus (Thread starter):
MEX
SCL
PTY
BOG
CCS
GIG

CCS and BOG to Dubai, you are 30 years to early. MEX would be hard nonstop both ways because of the altitude, all AeroMexico flights to ASia stop in Tijuana. SCL is too far west in South America, Buenos Aires would be better. GIG is too close to GRU, more GRU would be better. PTY and an alliance with COPA would be better Central American destination, Miami would be better.


User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11416 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9070 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Aeolus (Thread starter):
My suggested routes would be :
MEX
SCL
PTY
BOG
CCS
GIG
YYC*
YUL*

I think Canada has restrictions in place. In terms of Americas, i see MEX, EZE, GIG and BOG as potential destinations. MEX because of the huge size of the market, EZE and GIG are not so big as MEX but bring interesting markets both ways, SCL i don't know because of the influence of Australia/New Zealand. CCS... important market, but right now, the political situation imposes a challenge.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5607 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8991 times:

Quoting Aeolus (Thread starter):
*I heard the Canadian government had some issues in allowing this, can anyone explain?

The Canada/UAE bilateral limits each side to 7 services a week to the other country. Another UAE airline(EY?) has 4 of those frequencies, thus EK is limited to 3 frequencies a week to YYZ. This is why EK moved their A380 services from JFK to YYZ when traffic in NYC declined due to the GFC, they could put more B777 into JFK, but couldn't into Canada.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineAeolus From Mexico, joined Aug 2007, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8783 times:

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 4):
The Canada/UAE bilateral limits each side to 7 services a week to the other country. Another UAE airline(EY?) has 4 of those frequencies, thus EK is limited to 3 frequencies a week to YYZ. This is why EK moved their A380 services from JFK to YYZ when traffic in NYC declined due to the GFC, they could put more B777 into JFK, but couldn't into Canada.

Oh I see, I'd heard something like that but couldn't remember correctly. Thanks for the reminder. What problems would there be if say AC would like to start Canada-UAE flights in the near future? I know the demand might not be there but excluding this factor, would that be authorized?

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 2):
CCS and BOG to Dubai, you are 30 years to early. MEX would be hard nonstop both ways because of the altitude, all AeroMexico flights to ASia stop in Tijuana

30 years too early? Why? There was a thread like a year ago suggesting this and it seemed quite possible, but then again the economy and the fuel prices would be a bit of a problem.

MEX, I don't know, I do see a potential as pointed out by LipeGIG because it's a connecting point for South and Central America, and I do think there's people willing to spend around 16 hours in an aircraft, plus the B772LR has been proved successful in such ULH routes (DXB is as hot or even hotter sometimes than MEX) and the A380 would be able to make that trip alright IMHO.

I have never understood the real problem of being so high up. What does altitude do to the aircraft or its engines...? Could someone please shed a light on me?

Thanks,

-Aeolus



Flying under the clouds above!
User currently offlineIcelandairMSP From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7493 times:

Quoting Aeolus (Reply 5):

I have never understood the real problem of being so high up. What does altitude do to the aircraft or its engines...? Could someone please shed a light on me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_and_high

Basically, air density goes down as altitude and temperature go up. At a hot airport in a higher altitude, aircraft need a longer runway/smaller load in order to take off at all. This means hot/high take-off long haul routes often depart with less fuel and must make a stop en route to refuel. With short haul, the issue is less important because most affected airports have lengthened runways and aircraft have become efficient enough to handle the performance handicaps. But for long haul, the economics are examined closely to ensure that the airline can carry enough of a load to turn a profit and still be able to take off and fly without having to make a fuel stop.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7440 times:

You might want to have the title changed to read "Why NOT More EK DXB-America Flights?" Before opening the thread, I thought they had ceased all routes to America!

But maybe that's just me, who knows.  



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinePurpleBox From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7250 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 7):
But maybe that's just me, who knows.

It's not just you  



Next Flights:STH-ATH-STN (A3), BHX-INV-BHX(BE), LCY-FRA-BOG(LH), EZE-FRA-LHR(LH)
User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7224 times:

Quoting Aeolus (Reply 5):
I have never understood the real problem of being so high up. What does altitude do to the aircraft or its engines...? Could someone please shed a light on me?

There are two main factors. First of all, the thin air is one thing. There is quite a difference in the density comparing the air at 500m to 2300meters. So the aircraft needs more speed (longer runway) to get off the ground (so the wings produce enough lift)
The second thing most people are not aware of is the fact that the higher up you are the less power do the engines have. It's the same with humans. The higher up you are the less power one has. Both do need oxygen to function and the further up you go the less oxygen there is. Engines do burn cerosine and if there is less air the available power is decreased (think about the candle under a glass, as more oxygen is used the flame gets smaller and smaller and in the end..., well). That's why the 757 is great for those things as it is "overpowered" and therefore the reduction in power doesn't make a big difference, as there is "too-much" anyway.
Now, obviously it's not like there isn't enough oxygen for the engines to function (after all they do function at 36000 feet)... but for takeoff the acceleration is crucial and usually the engines need all their power, especially on a 10+ or even 16 hrs flight and if they lose up to 10% of it the runway with full payload might turn out, not to be long enough.
It's the same with cars as well. Driving your car in Mexico City will make some difference compared to driving it at Acapulco (if you were on a race track and would take the time).
So in the end (if my calculations are correct). With a TURBO-fanengine you will lose up to 10% of the power at MEX's altitude.

GlobeEx

[Edited 2010-02-07 08:32:44]


As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11416 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5029 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting A342 (Reply 7):
You might want to have the title changed to read "Why NOT More EK DXB-America Flights?" Before opening the thread, I thought they had ceased all routes to America!

Thanks for the comment, i will change it now.

Quoting Aeolus (Reply 5):
MEX, I don't know, I do see a potential as pointed out by LipeGIG because it's a connecting point for South and Central America, and I do think there's people willing to spend around 16 hours in an aircraft, plus the B772LR has been proved successful in such ULH routes (DXB is as hot or even hotter sometimes than MEX) and the A380 would be able to make that trip alright IMHO.

I believe MEX or GIG will be their next destinations in Latin America. In the USA, all depends on how SFO, LAX and IAH develops being the three introduced too close one to the other.
MEX is a very big market and as you also pointed out, is the best place to connect Central America.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1606 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

Quoting Aeolus (Reply 5):
Oh I see, I'd heard something like that but couldn't remember correctly. Thanks for the reminder. What problems would there be if say AC would like to start Canada-UAE flights in the near future? I know the demand might not be there but excluding this factor, would that be authorized?

As noted by Gemuser, the current Canada-UAE bilateral allows 7 weekly frequencies between the countries to carriers based in the UAE and 7 weekly frequencies to carriers based in Canada. With EY using 4x and EK using 3x, all of the UAE-based frequencies are allocated.

However, the 7 Canada-based frequencies are still free - so AC could start 7 weekly flights to the UAE without any negotiations being needed. Presumably, if such a route would happen, it would be YYZ-DXB and they could run daily service against EK's 3x weekly service. The best EK could do at this point is stick with 3x A380, but they have no ability to increase frequency.


User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2370 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4549 times:

Quoting Aeolus (Thread starter):
YUL*

EK would serve YVR before YUL. Huge Indian community in Vancouver that EK would want to tap into.


Quoting steex (Reply 11):
The best EK could do at this point is stick with 3x A380, but they have no ability to increase frequency.

And that bilateral will not change anytime soon.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2010-02-07 14:00:15]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineGlobalCabotage From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 602 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4493 times:

No one has mentioned IAD, ORD, DFW, MIA or other US cities on this thread. I would expect one or two of them to be added before some of the cities mentioned above. Regarding Canada, there is a very restrictive bilateral in place. The US has Open Skies with the UAE and will get more flights when the economy recovers.

User currently offlinedirectorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1650 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4338 times:

Quoting GlobalCabotage (Reply 13):
No one has mentioned IAD, ORD, DFW, MIA or other US cities on this thread. I would expect one or two of them to be added before some of the cities mentioned above. Regarding Canada, there is a very restrictive bilateral in place. The US has Open Skies with the UAE and will get more flights when the economy recovers.

In the US, I think we're most likely to see ORD start soon. EY is doing well with AUH-ORD so far in terms of loads. IAD however is served well by UA and QR through DOH. An EK nonstop might be overkill. DFW would be too close to IAH, but then again LAX/SFO co-exist so I guess anything is possible.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8271 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4216 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Emirates flies to Houston, JFK, LAX and SFO, more then some small European airlines with additions coming soon. Miami, Chicago, Boston or Seattle could all be EK cities.

User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11416 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4187 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting GlobalCabotage (Reply 13):
No one has mentioned IAD, ORD, DFW, MIA or other US cities on this thread. I would expect one or two of them to be added before some of the cities mentioned above. Regarding Canada, there is a very restrictive bilateral in place. The US has Open Skies with the UAE and will get more flights when the economy recovers.



I agree and i previously mentioned that is all about how SFO, LAX and IAH performs. I agree with you about the 4 markets, and i see MIA and ORD ahead of DFW and ORD.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineaddd From United States of America, joined May 2007, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4153 times:

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 10):
MEX is a very big market and as you also pointed out, is the best place to connect Central America

Guys - MEX-DXB would be the best flight to connect Central America to WHAT? What would drive traffic on this route?


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4114 times:

Quoting Aeolus (Reply 5):
I have never understood the real problem of being so high up. What does altitude do to the aircraft or its engines...? Could someone please shed a light on me?

Due to the aforementioned lower air density takeoff speed is higher for a given takeoff weight. Eventually runway length, or quite often maximum tire speed will dictate the speed you are able to attain on the the runway which in turn will restrict the weight the aircraft can takeoff with. Consequently weight in the form of fuel and/or payload will have to be sacrificed and in the case of fuel, logically, this will restrict your range.

The affects of altitude can be quite drastic.


User currently offlineCODCAIAH From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4038 times:

Quoting addd (Reply 18):
Guys - MEX-DXB would be the best flight to connect Central America to WHAT? What would drive traffic on this route?

Not that EK could depend on this to fill a 777 or A380, but there are lots of families all over Central America who originate from Lebanon & the rest of the Middle East, plus China and other countries in Asia. Lots of Palestinians in Honduras, for example. A MEX-DXB flight would make it easier for these folks to VFR.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24786 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4015 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 11):
Quoting Aeolus (Reply 5):
Oh I see, I'd heard something like that but couldn't remember correctly. Thanks for the reminder. What problems would there be if say AC would like to start Canada-UAE flights in the near future? I know the demand might not be there but excluding this factor, would that be authorized?

As noted by Gemuser, the current Canada-UAE bilateral allows 7 weekly frequencies between the countries to carriers based in the UAE and 7 weekly frequencies to carriers based in Canada. With EY using 4x and EK using 3x, all of the UAE-based frequencies are allocated.

Where are you finding the 7 per week provision? It is 6 per week according to Canadian government website summarizing their air service agreements. And EK and EY each operate 3 per week to YYZ. Where do you see that EY has 4 per week? If a Canadian carrier was to start service to the UAE, they are also limited to 6 per week.


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1606 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3999 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 21):

Where are you finding the 7 per week provision? It is 6 per week according to Canadian government website summarizing their air service agreements. And EK and EY each operate 3 per week to YYZ. Where do you see that EY has 4 per week? If a Canadian carrier was to start service to the UAE, they are also limited to 6 per week.

You're correct, my mistake. Just off by one - I knew the 4/3 split between EY and EK didn't seem right. Regardless, the point remains the same; all UAE-based frequencies are used while all 6 from Canada are free. AC could indeed start 6x weekly YYZ-DXB and still trump EK on frequency.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24786 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3953 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 22):
. AC could indeed start 6x weekly YYZ-DXB and still trump EK on frequency

Actually, AC could only operate 6 per week if the UAE government approved, and they probably wouldn't due to the current restrictions on UAE carriers. The bilateral has a provision that requires the approval of both governments if any one carrier (from either country) wants to operate more than 3 flights per week. Excerpt from the bilateral as follows:

The operation of a frequency beyond three flights per week by any one designated airline shall be subject to the approval of the aeronautical authorities of both Contracting Parties.


User currently offlineaddd From United States of America, joined May 2007, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3784 times:

Quoting CODCAIAH (Reply 20):
Not that EK could depend on this to fill a 777 or A380, but there are lots of families all over Central America who originate from Lebanon & the rest of the Middle East, plus China and other countries in Asia. Lots of Palestinians in Honduras, for example. A MEX-DXB flight would make it easier for these folks to VFR.

I am quite aware of Lebanese community in Mexico (Carlos Slim and Selma Hayek have done enough to make it very visible ), but it is hardly convenient to fly to Lebanon (or Palestine, for that matter) through Dubai - connections in Europe are going to beat them. As for China, does not it make more sense to fly the other way around (through Japan/Korea)?


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1606 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3784 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):
Actually, AC could only operate 6 per week if the UAE government approved, and they probably wouldn't due to the current restrictions on UAE carriers. The bilateral has a provision that requires the approval of both governments if any one carrier (from either country) wants to operate more than 3 flights per week. Excerpt from the bilateral as follows:

The operation of a frequency beyond three flights per week by any one designated airline shall be subject to the approval of the aeronautical authorities of both Contracting Parties.

Fair enough, I was unaware of that clause. I'm clearly way off base on this subject, so I defer to your knowledge!   


25 Aeolus : Actually I intended to avoid the USA cities for a reason: they already fly to the US and it's likely for them to start new routes there, so as no one
26 Post contains links FlyingSicilian : Lipe, the Houston IAH route is doing just fine. You can see the load numbers for pax and cargo at www.fly2houston.com (click to the stats page) As oth
27 RJ111 : DXB-LAX is roughly 200nm further.
28 LipeGIG : The big generator of traffic for a potential MEX-DXB will be Mexico but you can also see some passengers from Central America. Thanks for the informa
29 jayeshrulz : The reason i think Canada is putting heavy restrictions is because they think EK might be a potential danger to them which can create holes in their
30 yellowtail : I hardly think so....SAL, SJO and PTY are so much better Palestinians in honduras, BZE etc yes....but no service from TGU, BZE etc to MEX.....there 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...
Why Not More A.M. Flights To Europe From U.S. posted Fri Jun 5 2009 08:45:44 by Richiemo
Why Not More Smaller Aircraft On Long Flights? posted Sun May 25 2003 15:57:01 by Airmale
Why Not More Middle East Flights At DTW? posted Mon Apr 7 2003 20:55:13 by Dtw/ord fan!
Aircraft, Why Not More Manufacturers? posted Wed Feb 7 2007 17:10:49 by RootsAir
Why Not More Detroit - Europe posted Tue Jan 16 2007 05:03:47 by Detroitflyer
Why Not More Winglets? posted Wed Dec 13 2006 07:57:28 by JetSet777
Coloured Wings, Why Not More? posted Wed Nov 29 2006 22:00:21 by DHHornet
US-Russia; Why Not More US Airlines? posted Tue Nov 28 2006 13:49:15 by Ualcsr
Why Not Many BA To S. America posted Thu Nov 23 2006 14:29:14 by Amirs
Why Not More Widebodies @ EWR? posted Sat Jul 29 2006 02:27:44 by B727fan