Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EK To Switch A/c On New Flights To IAH And LAX  
User currently offlineojas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2980 posts, RR: 25
Posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12813 times:

EK will operate a double daily B777-200LR to IAH as opposed to the earlier reported B77L + B77W. Whereas the new flight to LAX will be operated with a B77W.

The capacity increase to LAX with penalties, should be marginal.

Source: http://airlineroute.net/2010/09/11/ek-w10-update4/


A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKissK From Malaysia, joined Aug 2007, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12633 times:

Quoting ojas (Thread starter):
The capacity increase to LAX with penalties, should be marginal.

It cannot be marginal.. its a complete new flight with daily frequency so it's more than a 100% increase with penalties


User currently offlineojas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2980 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12622 times:

Quoting KissK (Reply 1):
It cannot be marginal.. its a complete new flight with daily frequency so it's more than a 100% increase with penalties

I should have been more specific.

I meant the capacity increase from a proposed B777-200LR to a load restricted B777-300ER is marginal for the new flight. Like the SFO carriers something like 328 pax out of 354 available seats on their B77Ws to SFO, LAX might carry something lesser than 328, which is a marginal increase from the capacity of a B777-200LR (278 for EK).



A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep
User currently offlineUnited_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7520 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11991 times:

I enjoyed seeing the EK -LR when I was at LAX in May,looking forward to seeing the 77W when I'm out there in November. Still amazing,to me, the range of the 777's.


'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
User currently offlineSV777KiloAlpha From Saudi Arabia, joined Dec 2003, 267 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11246 times:

Why EK don't consider two daily flights to LAX? To my knowledge all flights to lax are almost full.
In addition, will the A380 be feasible on that route?



PPL since 2006
User currently offlineff22DXB From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2008, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11164 times:

Quoting SV777KiloAlpha (Reply 4):

They are adding a 2nd flight, with a 77W as stated above.


User currently offlinebeyauty From Lebanon, joined Aug 2005, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10142 times:

Are the fares expected to decrease somewhat? The first time I flew DXB-LAX-DXB in Summer 2009 I paid around $1500 in economy. This past summer, there were very limited seats for the Summer even when I tried to book as early as April, and the cheapest fare was around $2000. I realize there is no other competition on this non stop route, but with the increased capacity, I wonder if the fares would be a bit lower.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13411 posts, RR: 100
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9992 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ojas (Thread starter):
Whereas the new flight to LAX will be operated with a B77W.

That surprises me. My calculations have a lower payload (too low for LAX) with the 77W vs. the 77L. So I see the increase in capacity, but the (usable seat) CASM would be poor. I'm guessing yields are improving!

Heck... it might be just to get 'front cabin' there.

Quoting SV777KiloAlpha (Reply 4):
will the A380 be feasible on that route?

Per my estimate, EK's heavy cabin outfitting reduces the range of the A380 to below that of the 77W.   It should be the opposite... but a heavy cabin outfitting seems to overcome that.

I estimate that as soon as the GP7200 engine upgrade kit comes out, SFO could go A388. LAX after a few more airframe tweaks.   

RR will have an engine upgrade kit by 2013:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...?channel=mro&id=news/rolls9289.xml

For some reason I am unable to find the link quoting EA stating they would offer an upgrade kit to keep 0.7% ahead of the T900.

In summary, the A388 will be ready for DXB-LAX, but not yet. Or... EK could buy lighter outfittings (in my opinion past due) to make this happen earlier. It isn't the A380 that is limiting EK today, it is EK's cabin.  

Does anyone have a link to the status of the A380 weight reduction program?
Seriously, the links I find are old and stale:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-endurance-for-a380-from-2012.html

But look at that goal, 2 hours more endurance.   

Note that the GP7200 has started a weight reduction program:
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...eight-to-woo-a380-customers-25577/

Personally, why haven't they gone to an integrated b'ade/rotor Low Pressure compressor? That saves weight and a small improvement in fuel burn (more fuel burn reduction when utilized on a proper mach number compressor such as the high pressure compressor or the 'booster compressor' on a triple spool).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineEK345 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8959 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7):
I estimate that as soon as the GP7200 engine upgrade kit comes out, SFO could go A388. LAX after a few more airframe tweaks

Would also LOVE to see the EK380 on a daily service into SFO. However, from what I understand and have heard, the premium cabins on the SFO route fly about half the loads of LAX. Unless EK can get a slightly higher fare premium in the back (errr downstairs!) then I don't think it will be financially feasable to fly the 380 to SFO since the extra seats in the premium cabins will not be full.

Thoughts?

EK345



"and miles to go before I sleep..."
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13411 posts, RR: 100
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8603 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EK345 (Reply 8):
from what I understand and have heard, the premium cabins on the SFO route fly about half the loads of LAX.

I've heard that too. I think the CASM improvement of the A388 would still justify it. Perhaps on 3X week? A 14% lower CASM than the 77W allows for quite a few empty seats...

But those empty premium seats are why I believe the efficiency improvements (or cabin weight reduction) are required. Every available Y seat must be for sale to make the mission work. (Let's face it, a business class passenger and a Y passenger are about the same weight both body and luggage.) There is a reason I'm keeping the A388 in future tense for SFO. But not forever. LAX would do better, but the added bit of range really cuts into payload...

Now we haven't mentioned IAH. That destination, in my opinion, should see the A388 before my home airport of LAX.   Which is a very on topic discussion... I could see EK easily filling 2X A388's DXB-IAH and vice versa. Well... actually I believe DXB-IAH has higher loads (others do IAH-IAD/JFK and then DXB... But that is a long discussion.).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6292 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8018 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 9):
Now we haven't mentioned IAH. That destination, in my opinion, should see the A388 before my home airport of LAX.   Which is a very on topic discussion... I could see EK easily filling 2X A388's DXB-IAH and vice versa. Well... actually I believe DXB-IAH has higher loads (others do IAH-IAD/JFK and then DXB... But that is a long discussion.)

IAH is also very cargo heavy, which is why they probably need the 77L there vs the weight restricted 77W. The 380 wouls also have cargo carrying issues.

LAX is probably less cargo heavy and can afford the weight penalty.


I would suspect that IAh is a better revenue earner overall vs LAX due to the Cargo loads.



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13411 posts, RR: 100
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 10):
IAH is also very cargo heavy,

But also does well on the premium cabin. One each 77L and A380?

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 10):
I would suspect that IAh is a better revenue earner overall vs LAX due to the Cargo loads.

I suspect the premium cabin pays better. However, IAH probably has much better revenue.



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5131 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7772 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7):
It isn't the A380 that is limiting EK today, it is EK's cabin.  

EK's A380's are pushing 300t DOW. Mind you the DOW spread for the type is fairly tight ranging from about 292t to just under 300t. Plot these numbers against the payload/range table , allow a bit for somewhat better fuel burn , adjust the chart for 569t MTOW. At the low end of the spread leaves about a ~ 50t payload at 7000nm. Good reason why QF have limited their seating to 455 passengers. This is about max payload on LAX-MEL on a 7100nm ESAD day. With these sort of numbers you will not see the EK version on the SFO/LAX 7200/ 7300nm ESAD anytime soon. This baby needs to go on a diet! Be interesting to see what the post 2012 versions will bring.


User currently offlinePilot21 From Ireland, joined Oct 1999, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5647 times:

Quoting SV777KiloAlpha (Reply 4):
Why EK don't consider two daily flights to LAX? To my knowledge all flights to lax are almost full.
In addition, will the A380 be feasible on that route?



There was an interesting article in Flight International that had a chat with the (then) 3 operators of the A380 (EK, SQ, QF) late last yr. The article was overall positive to the A380 from all 3 carriers. In it, LAX and SFO were discussed for EK's routes - and EK have acknowledged that post 2012 birds will be able to do SFO from DXB, but LAX is a no, no for the moment. EK also stated in the article - 'that route was not what the A380 was designed for', so they unless we see a major A380 diet, DXB-LAX with EK is not on the cards for quite a while yet.

Pilot21



Aircraft I've flown: A300/A310/A320/A321/A330/A340/B727/B732/B733/B734/B735/B738/B741/B742/B744/DC10/MD80/IL62/Bae146/AR
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10159 posts, RR: 97
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5405 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SV777KiloAlpha (Reply 4):
Why EK don't consider two daily flights to LAX? To my knowledge all flights to lax are almost full.
In addition, will the A380 be feasible on that route?

I suspect the limited supply of A380's EK have are currently better served on routes where they're not restricted.
By my estimation, they'll be about as restricted as the 773ER's, in "percentage" terms on DXB-SFO and DXB-LAX

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7):
Per my estimate, EK's heavy cabin outfitting reduces the range of the A380 to below that of the 77W

I make it just about the same - economically. See below

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7):
I estimate that as soon as the GP7200 engine upgrade kit comes out, SFO could go A388. LAX after a few more airframe tweaks.

The extra 4t MTOW of the 573 tonne version coming in a year or two will help too.   

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 10):
IAH is also very cargo heavy, which is why they probably need the 77L there vs the weight restricted 77W. The 380 wouls also have cargo carrying issues.

Tim Clark is on record as saying that the A380 would have "better economics" to IAH than the 77L, even if it is payload limited.

An extra 3 or 4 years will see both more capable A380's in EK's hands, and more numerous A380's in EK's hands.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 12):
Mind you the DOW spread for the type is fairly tight ranging from about 292t to just under 300t.

It's interesting how heavy these configurations are - for sure Air Austral's 840 seaters won't be much more than about 285 tonnes, given the MZFW of 366 tonnes, and the need to lift 840 pax plus luggage. These are heavy configurations  
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 12):
Plot these numbers against the payload/range table , allow a bit for somewhat better fuel burn , adjust the chart for 569t MTOW. At the low end of the spread leaves about a ~ 50t payload at 7000nm

The latest R/P chart shows a payload of 75 tonnes at 7 000Nm for the "nominal" GP7000 plane.
If the "nominal" plane is the 569 tonne aircraft with the 366 tonne OEW, then the "nominal" empty weight is 282 tonnes (366-282 giving the 84 tonnes payload). Therefore EK's c. 300 tonne frames should be good for about 75 minus 18 tonnes payload, or 57 tonnes, at 7 000Nm.
7 tonnes more than the 50 tonne you quote

The forthcoming 573 tonne airframe should add about 3 tonnes to that (allowing for a tad more fuel burn), and EA's improvement package should add 2 tonnes per 1% improvement -
i.e. a 573 tonne plane with just 1% improvement in SFC should make about 62 tonnes payload, even with a 300 tonne empty weight - within 4 tonnes of MZFW.

According to the latest charts, the 773ER will go 480 000lb ZFW at 7 000Nm, or 218 tonnes. Ergo a 773ER with an empty weight of about 175 tonnes should go about 43 tonnes payload at 7 000Nm.

So by my calcs,
EK's 773ER's can lift full 365 pax plus about 6.5 tonne of cargo at 7 000Nm ESAD
EK's current A388's can lift full 489 pax plus about 8 tonne of cargo at 7 000Nm ESAD

I would have thought that would put both frames economically there or therabouts.

EK's later A388's, even at 300 tonnes dry operating weight should be able to lift the full 489 pax plus about 13 tonne of cargo at 7 000Nm ESAD.
This makes no allowance for further lightening or the greater than 1% SFC gain EA expect to get by 2012.

Of course if EK got rid of the showers and all the teak inlay, and went for a c.290 tonne empty weight, a different picture would be painted  

Rgds


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13411 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5072 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 12):
With these sort of numbers you will not see the EK version on the SFO/LAX 7200/ 7300nm ESAD anytime soon. This baby needs to go on a diet! Be interesting to see what the post 2012 versions will bring.

I'll agree with that!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
The extra 4t MTOW of the 573 tonne version coming in a year or two will help too.

Are the first ones that close to service? I've just lost track of the production time frame.

Isn't that about when the next 2T reduction in weight is due anyway?   (2012)

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
An extra 3 or 4 years will see both more capable A380's in EK's hands, and more numerous A380's in EK's hands.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
It's interesting how heavy these configurations are

   I would be surprised if EK didn't figure out how to pull 4T to 6T of weight out for the ULH routes. Combine that with a 2T airframe weight reduction and a 1% (or so) GP7200 fuel burn reduction and we would see excellent payload to LAX.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
or 57 tonnes, at 7 000Nm.

Getting there.  
Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
773ER with an empty weight of about 175 tonnes should go about 43 tonnes payload at 7 000Nm.

What surprises me is that would have been considered un-economical just a few years ago. Am I missing something, or is the PAX yield that good?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
EK's later A388's, even at 300 tonnes dry operating weight should be able to lift the full 489 pax plus about 13 tonne of cargo at 7 000Nm ESAD.
This makes no allowance for further lightening or the greater than 1% SFC gain EA expect to get by 2012.

Of course if EK got rid of the showers and all the teak inlay, and went for a c.290 tonne empty weight, a different picture would be painted

I think getting towards that 290 tonne mark is required. Overall, a nice informative post.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4987 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5057 times:

Quoting SV777KiloAlpha (Reply 4):
To my knowledge all flights to lax are almost full.
In addition, will the A380 be feasible on that route?

With 90 frames ordered and "EK Order For 90 A380 Not Enough"says Clark... This would indicate more than likely every route EK serve today will become A380 equipment...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10159 posts, RR: 97
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4904 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
The extra 4t MTOW of the 573 tonne version coming in a year or two will help too.

Are the first ones that close to service? I've just lost track of the production time frame.

I understand that all of BA's A380's will be in the 573 tonne MTOW configuration. If so, that should at least inform some sort of time bound.....

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
I think getting towards that 290 tonne mark is required

Yeah.
We know that there are c. 290 tonne airframes out there..
Those should be hitting 67 tonnes payload at 7 000Nm ESAD today.

So anyone able to run that 290 tonne Dry Operating Weight with the 573 tonne version with 1% better SFC, in that 2012-2013 timeframe should be able to achieve:-
72 tonne payload at 7 000Nm ESAD
61 tonne payload at 7 500Nm ESAD
and
50 tonne payload at 8 000Nm ESAD

If I've read the R/P chart properly.
Should give some idea of what is doable..  
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
Overall, a nice informative post.

There to be shot at, as always.  

Rgds


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13411 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4823 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 17):
I understand that all of BA's A380's will be in the 573 tonne MTOW configuration.

That is an interesting tidbit I had missed. So that gives a timeline.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 17):
50 tonne payload at 8 000Nm ESAD

Impressive.
That would put DXB-LAX into economic range...  

2012 A388, here we come!

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10159 posts, RR: 97
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4572 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18):
Impressive.
That would put DXB-LAX into economic range...

That IS with a 290 tonne DOW though.
EK's planes are currently 10t heavier than this, so if that doesn't change, you'd be looking at only 40 tonnes payload on an 8 000Nm ESAD, and 51 tonnes at a 7 500Nm ESAD

Rgds


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...
Britain And India To Agree On More Flights! posted Tue Sep 6 2005 16:30:28 by Concorde001
Alitalia To Launch Shanghai And LAX posted Fri Oct 1 2004 08:19:09 by Behramjee
Charter Service To Link IAH And Russia posted Fri Jul 9 2004 15:07:17 by Drerx7
CO Adds Widebodies To EWR-SFO And LAX Runs! posted Thu Feb 15 2001 05:47:58 by COexERJ
1960's Flights Between MT And LAX posted Thu Aug 16 2007 19:49:45 by SeattleFlyer
CO: Flights Between IAH And TLV Not Before 2008 posted Thu Dec 14 2006 12:59:28 by El Al 001
AA Flights Between IAH And ORD IN 1987 posted Sat Jul 15 2006 18:10:27 by Airlinebuff77
Additional Southwest Flights From MDW And LAX posted Tue Aug 31 2004 17:14:13 by BigOrange
Thai Reducing Flights Between BKK And LAX! posted Sat Mar 27 2004 07:14:37 by Fuffla
Info On DL Flights Tomorrow 3/15 And 3/17 posted Sun Mar 14 2004 20:25:09 by Ushermittwoch