HB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4505 posts, RR: 72 Posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 23860 times:
Emirates Airlines will reduce frequency on its DXB LAX route from twice daily to just once daily from August 01. The airline will be terminating the earlier EK217/218 roundtrip, which is operating with B77W and keep the daily EK215/216, which is currently operated with the B77L.
The service reduction seems to be driven by aircraft shortages as well as route performance issues. EK has been hampered by A388 problems. The airline has grounded several of its aircraft and is facing delays in upcoming deliveries. Apart from these issues, there may also be capacity issues on the DXB LAX route, which are prompting EK to withdraw one of the flights in order to redeploy the capacity elsewhere in the network.
I would expect the airline to replace the currently scheduled B77L with the B77W for the sole remaining flight.
cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 23689 times:
I don't think the loads and yields were too shabby. Maybe the second aircraft can be used elsewhere more profitably in the short term if EK are actually short of capacity - after all, the flight is 16h each way so a single daily service uses at least two planes - but this route is a performer (so is SFO). Probably the second rotation will return when capacity issues settle down again.
Quoting HB-IWC (Thread starter): I would expect the airline to replace the currently scheduled B77L with the B77W for the sole remaining flight.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3302 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 22857 times:
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 2): I don't think the loads and yields were too shabby. Maybe the second aircraft can be used elsewhere more profitably
So when EK added DFW, they took IAH from 2x to 1x daily. Maybe EK is looking to add another destination with the aircraft taken off the LAX run. I think this has been asked before, so please excuse me if this is beaten to death already, but the EK 380's don't have the legs for LAX n/s right? If they did, I'd even speculate an upgauge from a single 777 to 388.
AA AC AQ AS BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OO OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 21848 times:
DXB-LAX-DXB is a very long flight, so maintaining multiple frequencies becomes negligible as long as seamless connections to the most heavily requested destinations are offered. I would not be surprised if both LAX, SFO and IAH were transformed into daily A388s operations (aircraft's specs permitting) and the freed up 77Ws used to open up new destinations.
But there is probably more to the story. TK offers a vastly superior product especially in economy and first (9 abreast vs. 10 abreast, got a chef onboard vs warmed up galley menus), they offer an economy plus and don't require one to backtrack. They probably fly to more destinations in the region than EK as well. And then there is LH. I know a bunch of Iranians in Orange County and Long Beach, and they all fly LH whenever they visit Europe or 'home'. Their 744s are a bit dated, but that is bound to change with the introduction of the 748 on the route.
Lastly, EK has to carry a lot of fuel on those ULH. Weight that European based airlines can use as cargo revenue.
planejamie From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2011, 576 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 20674 times:
Quoting danfearn77 (Reply 7): The next day, 01AUG, EK upgrade their morning flight at MAN, the EK21/22. It upgrades from an A332 to a 777. Although in fairness I think it's a 773 and not this displaced 77W that takes over.
Oh joy... more traffic for EK to flood MAN with and plaque the surrounding area. Also more poor people that are going to be drawn in to flying on them (everyone I know that's flown on EK said never again).
Still, reducing LAX (as people have said above) is probably due to a shortage of A380s and not poor yields, after all EK do seem to fill their planes (making that 10 abreast on a 777 even worse than it already is)
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13156 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 18644 times:
I'm surprised to see this. This implies worse premium yield than I thought EK was able to maintain. Is this due to TK? A drop in front cabin yield? I suspect a drop in demand of West coast US to India, but that is just a hunch based on where the people I know are traveling. I would say 60% of those that used to frequently fly to India for business are now going to Thailand or Malaysia; but my sample set is too small to mean anything definitive.
Quoting HB-IWC (Thread starter): there may also be capacity issues on the DXB LAX route, which are prompting EK to withdraw one of the flights in order to redeploy the capacity elsewhere in the network.
If that is the case, than the only way to increase capacity is with reduced RASM. (A380)
Quoting g500 (Reply 8): and probably a big reason why yields are hurting
I knew Y had poor yields. This implies the front cabin yields are too low too.
Quoting something (Reply 9): I would not be surprised if both LAX, SFO and IAH were transformed into daily A388s operations (aircraft's specs permitting) and the freed up 77Ws used to open up new destinations.
I would expect that too. The question is, will next year's A388 with the wing twist and MTOW increase have the economical range for DXB-LAX-DXB at EK's very heavy cabin fittings? I would expect JFK to become a daily A388 later too and JFK 2x/day A388. I suspect it will take some time to grow IAD.
Quoting yellowtail (Reply 10): I agree. Probably a similar issue to IAH. Using marginally profitable route/aircraft to open another destination. The second frequency should be back.
One could hope that is the reason. I wonder what the new destination might be? Or is this for capacity to run the A380s through the infamous wing crack repair?
Quoting something (Reply 9): Lastly, EK has to carry a lot of fuel on those ULH. Weight that European based airlines can use as cargo revenue.
Which makes the flight less competitive for backtracking.
Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
laca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4027 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16735 times:
Quoting something (Reply 9): But there is probably more to the story. TK offers a vastly superior product especially in economy and first (9 abreast vs. 10 abreast, got a chef onboard vs warmed up galley menus), they offer an economy plus and don't require one to backtrack. They probably fly to more destinations in the region than EK as well. And then there is LH. I know a bunch of Iranians in Orange County and Long Beach, and they all fly LH whenever they visit Europe or 'home'. Their 744s are a bit dated, but that is bound to change with the introduction of the 748 on the route.
It's well known EK is having issues with their A380 fleet and have been making downgauges on many routes so they can move a/c around to accomodate their flight schedules.
Isn't it true EK wasn't having to discount Y tickets because of the strong demand for their direct service to DXB and fast connections to India and the rest of the middle east? Would the entry of TK into the LA market affect it that much. At the same time, TK has the advantage of being in Star Alliance, so those who are loyal to Star are likely to fly TK over EK.
I think it's widely known TK has more consistent, better service that EK.
I believe the A380s serving SFO & LAX is not possible right now without having to take marked restrictions. I believe they are waiting for the IGW A380s or is it a A380-900?
migair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1748 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15777 times:
Reducing capacity will improve the yields and the performance of the route, not everything is capacity, check that they will leave the route on B77L and not B77W, so they are after the yields, only 4 less seat on First but same in business, less in economy but they will pay higher prices due to the fewer offer.
Quoting laca773 (Reply 14): I believe the A380s serving SFO & LAX is not possible right now without having to take marked restrictions. I believe they are waiting for the IGW A380s or is it a A380-900?
Maybe SFO but I´m not sure if they will upgrade LAX to A380 even if they could make the route. to do that flight daily they need like 2-3 planes and you can see they are reducing to only 1 B77L.
boysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15704 times:
Quoting planejamie (Reply 11): Oh joy... more traffic for EK to flood MAN with and plaque the surrounding area. Also more poor people that are going to be drawn in to flying on them (everyone I know that's flown on EK said never again).
Errr I am not sure why this troubles you so please explain. I have flown EK several times ex-MAN and would gladly do so again, in fact I am in September! Given the choice of heading East on my holidays on an EK A388 or going west on AA metal from MAN then their is simply no comparison, especially in Y! It's EK over AA all the way.
Quoting RWA380 (Reply 5): So when EK added DFW, they took IAH from 2x to 1x daily.
I did read on another thread on here that EK noticed a sizeable number of their pax ex-IAH started their journey at DFW on other carriers, so they just cut out the middle man so to speak.
klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2047 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15422 times:
For ultra long haul markets, having more than one flight a day must be very challenging economically with fuel costs, personnel costs, and then double the seats to fill in the front of the plane. 2 daily LAX-DXB flights is 4 dedicated aircraft? That's incredible. The economics of the route have to be near amazing to warrant to such an intense commitment of resources. And especially in this economic climate I don't think LAX-DXB meets this standard.
More than once daily long haul flying must offer superior economic returns to justify an enormous commitment of resources. I think of CO doing IAH-LHR and EWR-TLV (now UA). These two routes certainly meet a high performance standard.
Plus there are other carriers competing for the same revenue between LAX and middle/far east.
peanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1438 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15420 times:
Quoting migair54 (Reply 15): check that they will leave the route on B77L and not B77W, so they are after the yields, only 4 less seat on First but same in business, less in economy but they will pay higher prices due to the fewer offer.
That's all fine and dandy in theory but you can't discount here what your competition may or may not do...
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
boeingfever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 14884 times:
Quoting HB-IWC (Thread starter): The service reduction seems to be driven by aircraft shortages...The airline has grounded several of its aircraft and is facing delays in upcoming deliveries. Apart from these issues, there may also be capacity issues on the DXB LAX route,
No issues on Boeing's side... EK has taken (3) factory new 77W so far this year and they must like it that much they ordered (50) more back in 11/2011. What are you referring too as far as upcoming delivery delays... A388 wing issues holding them up?
leftyboarder From Turkey, joined Apr 2008, 693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 14005 times:
Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 20): Am I reading this correct, the way the thread is running on this subject.
TK appears to be offering a better First Class experience than EK in the air?
TK does not offer F, rather Y, Y+ and C. Regarding front cabin, EK still has the advantage of F to LAX (as far as I know the a/c they fly there has this right?) but in terms of C TK is slightly better. And EK doesn't have Y+.
Also, overall, EK involves backtracking for some destinations.
But of course to claim TK is the sole reason behind EK's reduction is not something we can back up, as only EK management knows that
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2725 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 13733 times:
Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 19): No issues on Boeing's side... EK has taken (3) factory new 77W so far this year and they must like it that much they ordered (50) more back in 11/2011. What are you referring too as far as upcoming delivery delays... A388 wing issues holding them up?
Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 4): Why have they grounded planes? Are delivery delays from Boeing or Airbus?
I noticed that there is a missunderstanding: EK's next two A 380s are late. One of them has been ferried back to TLS from XFW, most probably to make the temporary modification works. In the past EK sent B 77Ws when having a shortage of A 380s.
: IIRC they have offered F using the Jet Airways product that already existed on their secondhand 77Ws, but have phased that out in favor of Y/Y+/C onl
: It is hard to provide a direct link, but you can check their website. There is no mention of an F product and it is not indicated on the seat maps. h
: TK leased 777s from Jet Airways temporarily and used the First cabin that came with the planes. They've since been returned, and the TK 777 fleet pur
: F class was only offered on the Jet Airways 77W as TK kept the 9W configuration. Those birds are gone now that its own 12 77W's have been delivered. C
: You are correct. However, the 'wing twist' should reduce fuel burn 1.5%. The higher MTOW (IGW) version would also be required. However, in the case o
: Further to my original post, Emirates will also be temporarily reducing frequency on the DXB CPT route from twice daily to daily from September 01 onw
: Not only EK is affected by the wing cracking issue. Recent Aviation Week item: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_05_24_2012_p0-461578.xml&
: Thanks for clearing this up as the o/t poster didn't make it clear.
: I'm sorry, so you're saying you choose where you holiday based on what airline flies there? So, you'd never go west of the UK because EK doesn't fly
: Thank you. Between that and the A380s out of service due to wing crack repairs, I could see why a few 77Ws would be pulled. Interesting. Unfortunatel
: It's a holiday, I do what suits me for what I can afford and being a plane nut that's a big part of it yes. But explaining myself is going off topic
36 eta unknown
: Assuming the bulk of EK LAX traffic is to India, given current yields and fuel prices perhaps with an ULH sector they are at an operational competitiv
: This is a huge point. The combination of TK, plus the entrenched EU carriers - especially LH and KL - doesn't help. Not a good assumption.
: The three largest feed makers for EK's LAX flight are DEL, BOM and BLR. It's a perfectly good assumption.
: Close, but not quite: Top 10 markets. DXB IKA BOM DEL HYD MAA BLR RUH AMD KHI DAC
: The actual top 15 markets for EK on the LAX route over the past 12 months were as follows: DXB 50,000 pax BOM 24,000 pax DEL 23,000 pax IKA 21,000 pax
: I don't believe TK offers First Class anymore. Their Biz product does look outstanding though. It really does seem sometimes that the flight is heade
: Somehow I suspected that when EK pulled the second daily IAH flight, that LAX would follow the same path. I know that I am comparing two different cit
: Again IAH is on its way back, the timeline is over in the Houston Spotters site as the exact month escapes me now. IAH was dropped to start DFW durin
: 101,000 to India v. 50,000 to DXB.
: Officially it is not. EK has said nothing of it and its not on the schedules. Houston Spotters is not a source. It may come back in the future, but u
: No need to apologize mate... guaranteed most people on here do the same thing but wouldn't admit to it. Cheers to you for being the bigger man!
: It almost certainly will, especially if (as I understand it) the 2013 planes get the 1% improvement in SFC that is supposed to be coming through (on
: I hope so. My rumor mill has gone dead quiet on the GP7200. I'm hearing more about the RR PIP on the T900 than the GP7200. If it is a 1% drop in TSFC
: There's no added weight for the 575t as far as I'm aware - it's a paper upgrade. Funnily enough, the 2013 frames (for EK at least) should actually be
: If Jet or Air India are to get the 789, would they be able to fly from LAX nonstop? Or is it too ULH to operate with a profit? Right now, Jet could s
: If I read this right (chances are great I'm not), the 575t A380 requires 3.982t of fuel per ton of payload. The 352t 773ER requires 3.784t of fuel pe
: Emirates can say whatever they want to, but even with all the touting of 22 new widebody deliveries, 80% load factors, and 10% increases in RPKs over
: EK's 777-200LRs can do DXB-LAX at MZFW (209t with some margin for ADFU), which would be a payload of ~47t so that might explain why they're keeping t
: Yeah. I'm up for that. For what it's worth, I'm not sure that it will be anything like as clear-cut as the raw fuel numbers might suggest. In fact, i
: My poor wording. The added take off weight will inhibit takeoff performance at both LAX (required tailwind takeoffs due to noise abatement) and DXB (
: Thanks very much. I'm getting a clearer picture now of why some carriers haven't necessarily been in a rush to buy the A380, or seem to be dragging t
: Although I would suggest that a 575t A388 will outperform a 773ER in field performance anywhere..... no Picky sod. I rounded up.. It's good enough fo
: Si'. Ah, but we're talking a trivial amount of weight to make them equal in fuel burn per ton. You've come about to my opinion. May I upgrade to the
: Picking up on Stitch's point, currently the 77W's go out of LAX (I'm led to understand) limited to 320 pax and 6 or 7 tonnes of cargo. That EK delibe
: For the record, the Los Angeles sales office for Emirates in a note to travel agents termed the reduction as "temporary". I guess time will tell, howe