Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates Urges Boeing To Move Fast On 777  
User currently offlineSkippy777 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2001, 816 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 24703 times:

http://www.btmagazine.nl/?p=6905

They are making less money and still want more aircrafts
The money must run out one day also in Dubai

[Edited 2012-05-14 07:10:05]

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3480 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 24682 times:

Quoting Skippy777 (Thread starter):
They are losing money

They are making money and just released the financial for last year which again showed a surplus. Although smaller than last year


User currently offlineSkippy777 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2001, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 24548 times:

Your Correct Someone83 but they are making less money and there must be a point that you don't grow anymore

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 24385 times:

Quoting Skippy777 (Thread starter):
Emirates Urges Boeing To Move Fast On 777

...or else we'll keep buying more of the current model!

And that is why I think Boeing should be looking harder at the Y3 than 777X.

Quoting Skippy777 (Thread starter):
The money must run out one day also in Dubai

...because all the people on Emirates flights don't pay to be there?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinesu184 From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 239 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 24344 times:

Ummm, smell of another A3510 cancellation.  

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 24030 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting su184 (Reply 4):
Ummm, smell of another A3510 cancellation.   

Very unlikely, IMO.

EK needs the A350-1000. They have plenty of missions to Europe, Africa and the Indian Subcontinent where an A350-1000 has the range to carry a full payload and where the lower fuel-burn will have very direct and significant benefits due to more daily / weekly / monthly turns then the long-haul missions to the Americas and Asia / Australia (which is where the 777-300ER and the 777X may have the edge using EK mission rules).


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11689 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 23327 times:

Quoting Skippy777 (Reply 2):

Your Correct Someone83 but they are making less money and there must be a point that you don't grow anymore

So this must automatically mean they lose money and that the 'money must run out one day'...  

Dubai and the rest of the Middle East is not going to slip away back into obscurity and nor are their airlines. There is still potential for huge amounts of air travel growth in the region and nothing to indicate it's not achievable. Growth will eventually slow, but stop altogether - well I very much doubt it in the foreseeable future.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 23325 times:

I'm curious, with all the attention its getting (777x that it is) why cant Boeing approach the board sooner to get the approval they need to start??

User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12565 posts, RR: 35
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 22881 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 7):
I'm curious, with all the attention its getting (777x that it is) why cant Boeing approach the board sooner to get the approval they need to start??

They're probably still at the stage of consulting with potential customers and refining the design. They also want to be sure that it's better than anything Airbus can produce with the A350-1000 and then, on top of that, they need to decide what powerplant(s) it should have. Plenty of work left.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5796 posts, RR: 47
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 22824 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 7):
I'm curious, with all the attention its getting (777x that it is) why cant Boeing approach the board sooner to get the approval they need to start??

They're trying to workout costs associated with the program as well as production methods.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9701 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 22683 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 7):
I'm curious, with all the attention its getting (777x that it is) why cant Boeing approach the board sooner to get the approval they need to start??

It really comes down to engineering takes time. At this point in the process, high level trade studies are being done. The configuration has not been set and is still in the planning phase. Offering the airplane for sale to customers requires a price. That means all the engineering work has to be accounted for and estimates need to be made for the cost of all components. For example, the board does not want to formally offer for sale an airplane, and then have engineering realize that the entire vertical fin needs to be redesigned and a new rudder is necessary. Things like that drive up cost and if the airplane is launched too early, the estimates will be too far off and the schedule will not work. Integrating 2 million parts is a large scale effort. It makes sense that the customers want the airplanes sooner, but with the level of technical detail required, going too fast will end up in either cost or schedule overruns or both.

The board could prematurely offer the program for sale like they did on the 737MAX, but there does not appear to be the same motivation to do so since there is not an imminent competitor taking customers away like the A320NEO was.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1856 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 22203 times:

It´s EK standard to "complain or talk" about every single plane and try to get them faster and faster... they have done with the A380, with the A350 and now with the B777X... then in a while they will say that the performance and fuel burn and weight is worse than promised by the manufacturers.

User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 21761 times:

Quoting migair54 (Reply 11):

Maybe, but this is EK. I don't think that Airbus or Boeing view customers as one being higher or greater than another but I think they would listen to what Tim Clark has to say sooner than n they would, say Aeroflot. They have 777's rolling in almost every two weeks, that says something.


User currently offlinemy235 From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 21570 times:

If/when Emirates stumbles, the effects will reverberate through out aviation.

User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5738 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 20305 times:

Quoting Skippy777 (Thread starter):
Emirates Urges Boeing To Move Fast On 777

Doesn't everyone want Santa Claus arrive early? But that doesn't mean he will....


Quoting rotating14 (Reply 7):
I'm curious, with all the attention its getting (777x that it is) why cant Boeing approach the board sooner to get the approval they need to start??

Others here have offered excellent reasons for not doing so but I will offer this:
I'm sure the Boeing sales people are pushing to get it to them as fast as possible but I suspect (hope  ) that Boeing has learned from the issues with the 787 not to run more quickly than the engineering and fact finding.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineua76heavy From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 20305 times:

The name of the game is not making the 77X just as good as the A350-1000, but significantly and uniquely better. It takes time, especially when Boeing is looking at a new wing, power plants, material, etc. It's hard to compete on price alone, and easier on value.

[Edited 2012-05-14 14:35:19]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13440 posts, RR: 100
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 19175 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Nothing surprises me in that article, it is just fact. If the A350 runs up 787 levels of delays, EK will buy more Boeings, perhaps even the 789.    If Boeing doesn't produce the 777X, EK will naturally bias their fleet expansion towards the A380 and A350. EK has made the A380 work where many said it wouldn't. Now imagine what happens once A380 production hits its stride (stop laughing. It will one day.)

EK is in expansion mode.

Quoting Skippy777 (Reply 2):
and there must be a point that you don't grow anymore

Why? There is a tremendous amount of business waiting for growth. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand will have a stunning number of individuals enter the middle class over the next 20 years and for flights to Europe, EK is well positioned. The same is true of China, India, and Russia. I also expect some significant progress in Africa. (I've been reading some good news on vaccines that should give them a quick 'leg up.')

I didn't even mention mid-east growth. We could discuss how the 'arab-spring' could be predicted by prior political unrest when the population crosses certain prosperity thresholds without sufficient political influence. The mid-east is a fast growing market. TK and EK will duke it out for a long time.    Oh, QR and EY will also be competitors, I'm just of the opinion TK and EK are the two strongest in this fight.

Instead of being boxed in with non-expansion, DWC will be built with 5 runways. (Are the rumors true that rail to the port is part of the reason for the loss of the 6th runway?) That will allow EK to grow to about 150 million passengers per year.

From a demand side, I see EK could about quadruple their size in 20 years. From a facilities side... maybe a little less (it all depends on the consequences of Dubai's high debt and ability to build out DWC). From a fuel side, I'm not a Malthusian. If oil hits $200/bbl, the flood gates of alternate fuels, nuclear (to reduce non-aviation demand), and exploration will ratchet up.

Also, EK's major competitors seem to like handicapping themselves. (Curfews, lack of airport expansion, etc.) If an airport isn't expanded, that means that the new flights are less likely to happen or an old destination is dropped. Either way, a potential market for a fast adapting hubbing carrier then opens up.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 6):
Dubai and the rest of the Middle East is not going to slip away back into obscurity and nor are their airlines. There is still potential for huge amounts of air travel growth in the region and nothing to indicate it's not achievable. Growth will eventually slow, but stop altogether - well I very much doubt it in the foreseeable future.

I consider it more likely one of the competitors (or more) will fade away. While QR and EY have funds to compete with EK, their host governments do not seem to want to open up rules (work visas, booze laws, etc.) to compete fully with "Dubai inc."

Dubai needs to fix a few things (e.g., provide more low cost housing at lower population density), they are a preferred location (for the region) for many reasons.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 11):
It´s EK standard to "complain or talk" about every single plane and try to get them faster and faster...

You forgot to mention order in program economics changing quantities.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 12):
I think they would listen to what Tim Clark has to say sooner than n they would, say Aeroflot. They have 777's rolling in almost every two weeks, that says something.

And Time Clark could order a few dozen more pretty quickly. Or TC could make another program. EK has options due to their ability to sell bonds at reasonable interest rates. (Mostly due to their profits.)

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 880 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 17172 times:

Europe (continental and island) and North America (continental, latin and island nations) represent about 18% of the world population.

There is another 82% of the world's population ready to fly and EK is readily poised! Well it would be a stretch to say they are poised for South America, but that only represents 6%. So lets say that EK is well positioned for the remaining 78% of the world's population.

Sometimes as Europeans and NorthAmericans, we can become a little myopic about global possibilities. EK is not. The number of A380s and 777s they are going to have in 10 years boggles the imagination.



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 16938 times:

Quoting ua76heavy (Reply 15):
Quote:
The name of the game is not making the 77X just as good as the A350-1000, but significantly and uniquely better. It takes time, especially when Boeing is looking at a new wing, power plants, material, etc. It's hard to compete on price alone, and easier on value.

  

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-damps-sales-as-airlines-shun-wait

Looks like they are trying to pump them out faster than they can take the orders but the public doesn't want to wait that long. But what else is there beyond the 777 in its respective market??


User currently offlinenomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 524 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 16412 times:

If the demand is so strong for the 777X from loyal 777 customers like EK (add BA, SQ, CX, etc.) it is only a matter of time for Boeing to launch this. I'm sure the boys and girls in Chicago are talking to the airlines regarding this product and will make a decision in due time. Boeing dropped the ball on the NEO and Airbus killed them in initial sales. I think Boeing is more focused on widebody aircraft and will go forward with the 777X after talking to key suppliers (especially engine makers). Also, Boeing will need to evaluate this with regards to the 787 program and see if there is any potential canibalization of this aircraft.

User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15706 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 18):

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-damps-sales-as-airlines-shun-wait

Looks like they are trying to pump them out faster than they can take the orders but the public doesn't want to wait that long. But what else is there beyond the 777 in its respective market??

Stitch posted a similar article in another thread. With the wide body 777 and A330/380 sold out for the next few years? I wonder if we will indeed see some 748 sales soon? The only other choice would be to take more 767's if you need a WB right now...



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12875 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 20):

But doesn't that open up another can of worms?? Wouldn't carriers need to have close to every seat filled in order to make it work as far as CASM goes? I'm just going on a limb here...


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11461 times:

Quoting ua76heavy (Reply 15):
The name of the game is not making the 77X just as good as the A350-1000, but significantly and uniquely better.

Seems to me the name of the game is DXB-LAX. The whole 77X thing is being driven by EK's desire for more effcient metal on that and simlar (South America?) routes. Practically any 77X literature in the media comes with some form of reference to EK's DXB-LAX. Funny how much influence one airline -if not one route- can have...


Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinenethkt From Thailand, joined Apr 2001, 1090 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10604 times:

And the romance of having petroleum under your feet lives on.....

Only if there is no need for petrochemical products....



Let's just blame it on yields.
User currently offlineSkippy777 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2001, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10419 times:

But Dubai is running out of oil so they focus on tourism

User currently offlineZKOKQ From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 479 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10740 times:

Quoting nethkt (Reply 23):
Only if there is no need for petrochemical products....

Just wondering if you have been to Dubai? If you have you would know the UAE is more about tourism than anything else.

The amount of great things in Dubai boggles the mind. I could stay there a week and not even touch the sides on the stuff there is to do.


Plus, Emirates gets their petroleum products from the same place and refineries as everyone else. So Emirates getting fuel discounts is a crock.


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19245 posts, RR: 52
Reply 26, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10554 times:

Is this thread going to be this week's inevitable instalment of the same anti-Emirates stuff?


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offline4tet From Spain, joined Sep 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10602 times:

Quoting Skippy777 (Thread starter):
They are making less money and still want more aircrafts
The money must run out one day also in Dubai

I smell a bit of anger in these words... We should stay by the facts...

That being said, I think that they post 3 digit million profits to date, so probably the money doesn't run out from Dubai, instead they have collected this money from the rest of the world, so the money flows TO Dubai, not OUT.

Apart from that, is widely known that EK's strategy on buying planes is very aggressive (thus they have a good discount), as probably is their selling strategy, before the plane gets inefficient or has too much MX. Probably before they get the last A380 on order, they will already sold the first one they got.

Cheers,
R.

[Edited 2012-05-15 02:44:43]

User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4987 posts, RR: 4
Reply 28, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10598 times:

Quoting ZKOKQ (Reply 25):

And not to mention the "oil reserves" are running out... The long term plan for DXB survival was tourism to fall back on when reserves run dry...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9660 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 28):
The long term plan for DXB survival was tourism to fall back on when reserves run dry...

Dubai does not wish to put all its eggs in the one basket of tourism. Tourism is certainly a major part of the mix but not the complete story by a longshot.

Dubai has set itself the goal of becoming a major trading entrepôt, trans-shipment centre, financial centre and a hub for regional offices of international corporations, including IT companies like Oracle, Microsoft and media companies like CNN, AP, etc. Dubai is also fostering pharmaceutical companies, medical and genetic research companies, among others.

Emirates plays a vital role in that diversification of the Dubai economy so it is not surprising that TC is constantly urging improvements in aircraft and speedy deliveries.


User currently offlineSkippy777 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2001, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6109 times:

But Emirates is already having the latest aircrafts, it looks to me that they want to be the first customer in everything.
I think that Emirates want things before they are even invented  


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 31, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6116 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Skippy777 (Reply 30):
I think that Emirates want things before they are even invented.  

What they want is something that will do what they need. If that thing does not currently exist, then they want someone to invent it.


User currently offlineliftsifter From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 317 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6026 times:

I think the whole goal is EK doesn't want Boeing to be late on it. They want a 77X by 201X and their not going to budge on it. That's how it should be when you buy almost 100 wide bodies on a single order.


A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B738 B744 B763 B772 B77W B787 Q400 E190
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 33, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5945 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Things would be much easier for Boeing if they could just raise the MTOW by 10 tons, but as the 777-300ER is already at the limit for a number of reasons (tire loading, tire speed, wing loading, etc.). Closing in on a decade since first flight, I imagine Boeing has pulled out what weight they can without making significant materials changes.

Now if GE could make the GE90-115B burn 10% less fuel at cruise, Boeing arguably would not need to do anything, as that would allow EK to lower their fuel load by 13+ tons for DXB-LAX, which should recover the payload they want.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7498 posts, RR: 8
Reply 34, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5859 times:

So the 748i is definately not an option, hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmm, I recall something similar when that a/c was being developed and Boeing resisted all efforts to re-do the design.
Does sort of put a crimp in the line up if the 748i is supposed to be above the 777 but we are still upsizing the 777 to eventually render the 748i obsolete - in Boeing line up not public line up -.
If they develop the 777 closer to the 748i so soon will they have given the 748i sufficient time to "prove herself" as an efficient 4 holer?


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12565 posts, RR: 35
Reply 35, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5759 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 34):
So the 748i is definately not an option

I don't see this as surprising; clearly, with over 90 (possibly 100 by now?) 777s in service, they like the type. Why jump ship when there is the prospect of squeezing more out of a design which has served them so well; EK has built (most of) its success on widebody twins - from the A310/A310, through the A332, 772, to the current latest - the 77W (and of course, the A359, but that's another thread!).

Now, if you were EK, what would you want to do? You know a two engine long hauler can handle virtually every/any conceivable route you could possibly operate, but on some ULR routes - such as LAX, there are some capacity constraints and of course, you want to be able to carry more pax and more freight, further and more economically. Now, with that in mind, why would you possibly want to look at the 748i, when the possibility exists of pushing the 777 further? EK has issued its spec and has no doubt discussed it with Boeing, which is no doubt looking into it very carefully and discussing it with others, like BA, CX, SQ etc etc., to get the critical mass to launch it.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7498 posts, RR: 8
Reply 36, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5647 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 35):
Now, if you were EK, what would you want to do?
Quoting kaitak (Reply 35):
Now, with that in mind, why would you possibly want to look at the 748i, when the possibility exists of pushing the 777 further?

The basis of this thread is time, as in the A350 long running thread time is of the essence, A350-1000 are not being ordered and some cancelled because the production line is already sold out to something like 7 years.

So EK can get additional A380's or 748i when as compared to an as yet undefined 777X.

Time is the issue.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5213 times:

Would the 748i be able to do Emirates LAX route as they want? Or is it too heavy and has 4 engines? If Boeing can get 2-3t out of the frame and GE PIPs the engines to spec or better, it should be a very decent long range hauler?

User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5196 times:

Isn't there a problem for A and B, if the likes of EK turn over their vast fleet very quickly. 50 fairly new 77Ws on the market would be healthy competition for sales of new 777s and A350s?


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 39, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5115 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 37):
Would the 748i be able to do Emirates LAX route as they want?

The original range at MZFW was 6250nm (500nm more than the 777-300ER) with about 10% more payload. Range is now down to 5900nm (due to the extra empty weight and SFC miss), but payload is up 6t and is now 12t more than a 777-300ER at MZFW.

With the payload EK wants for the 777-300ER, a 747-8 would actually end up being fuel volume limited - it could fill it's tanks and not reach the certified MTOW.



Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 38):
Isn't there a problem for A and B, if the likes of EK turn over their vast fleet very quickly. 50 fairly new 77Ws on the market would be healthy competition for sales of new 777s and A350s?

Perhaps. EK's oldest frame is just over 6 years. Their lease rates are 12 years, so assuming the same for ownership, that would put the following up for re-sale:

2018 - 04
2019 - 01
2020 - 06
2021 - 08
2022 - 03
2023 - 11


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1712 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4336 times:

Some related news about the 777NG in this article . Decision (about formal launch? or authority to offer?) could be Q4 2012, for both 777NG and 787-10X. Development parallel for both models, but will not start after it has completed the 787-9.

Not really surprising timeline for the 777NG, but I had expected a formal launch of the 787-10 earlier (Farnborough!). Guess Boeing wants firm orders at launch.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 39):
EK's oldest frame is just over 6 years. Their lease rates are 12 years, so assuming the same for ownership, that would put the following up for re-sale:

2018 - 04
2019 - 01
2020 - 06
2021 - 08
2022 - 03
2023 - 11

OK, that explains why EK wants the 777NG to EIS 2018. Now, I think they can't really expect them as early as that, but extending their leases by about 2 years for the oldest 4-5 frames shouldn't be a show stopper. But I also think EK wants guaranteed delivery by 2020. Should be realistic.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineSkippy777 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2001, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3752 times:

What is more important for EK ? the number of Pax or the range of the aircrafts

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13440 posts, RR: 100
Reply 42, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3608 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 39):
2018 - 04
2019 - 01
2020 - 06
2021 - 08
2022 - 03
2023 - 11

EK was talking about rotating 77W's out of their fleet earlier. I though they had frames on shorter lease terms too?

Quoting Skippy777 (Reply 41):

What is more important for EK ? the number of Pax or the range of the aircrafts

Both, depending on the missions.

EK is going to eventually consolidate to three aircraft types:
A380
777
A350

They will buy among them based on CASM and performance. DXB-North America and Australia takes range. Most of their missions do not require an aircraft with the range of the A380 or 77W. At that point it is payload.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
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...
Boeing To Move To China? posted Mon Aug 31 2009 19:14:43 by Clickhappy
Asked To Move Seats On A WN 737 posted Thu May 31 2007 21:49:22 by SkyHarborsHome
Virgin, GE & Boeing To Test Biofuel On 747 In 2008 posted Tue Apr 24 2007 13:58:48 by Concorde001
Boeing To Unveil 787 On The 7/8/07 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 20:02:51 by UAL777UK
Airliner World: AZ To Accept Option On 5 777-200. posted Mon Dec 4 2006 20:12:03 by Nycfly75
Boeing To Step Up 737/777 Production posted Wed May 11 2005 15:02:07 by DAYflyer
FAA Orders Boeing To Replace Insulation On 800 A/c posted Fri Apr 1 2005 18:55:02 by Aa777jr
PIA To Install EFB On 777 posted Tue May 13 2003 08:30:37 by Airmale
Lufthansa Urges Boeing To Stretch 747 posted Tue Feb 25 2003 16:35:56 by N79969
Boeing To Give Up On Making New Planes... posted Sun Apr 1 2001 10:44:57 by 747-600X
Virgin, GE & Boeing To Test Biofuel On 747 In 2008 posted Tue Apr 24 2007 13:58:48 by Concorde001
Boeing To Unveil 787 On The 7/8/07 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 20:02:51 by UAL777UK
Airliner World: AZ To Accept Option On 5 777-200. posted Mon Dec 4 2006 20:12:03 by Nycfly75
Boeing To Step Up 737/777 Production posted Wed May 11 2005 15:02:07 by DAYflyer
FAA Orders Boeing To Replace Insulation On 800 A/c posted Fri Apr 1 2005 18:55:02 by Aa777jr
PIA To Install EFB On 777 posted Tue May 13 2003 08:30:37 by Airmale
Lufthansa Urges Boeing To Stretch 747 posted Tue Feb 25 2003 16:35:56 by N79969
Boeing To Give Up On Making New Planes... posted Sun Apr 1 2001 10:44:57 by 747-600X