UAEflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:29 pm

Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sat May 12, 2007 8:46 pm

I was checking EK flights to JFK, i noticed that all three daily flights to JFK are operated by B777-300ER not the super luxury A340-500.
I think that A345 near its end with EK maybe? the 77L's are coming soon and the huge 77W order too. What would EK do with their 10 A345?
What routes EK flying their A345?
which aircraft cost more on JFK the 77W or A345?
 
OHLHD
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:02 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sat May 12, 2007 8:57 pm

1 EK 203 D DXB 1 JFK 4 0200 0750 0 25MAR07 27OCT07 77W 13:50
2 EK 201 D DXB 1 JFK 4 0830 1440 0 01JUN07 27OCT07 77W 14:10
3 EK 205 D DXB 1 JFK 4 0855 1805 1 01JUN07 27OCT07 345 17:10


Check this,

The A345 will stop in HAM from first of June.

So I think it will stay for some time.  Smile
 
VHVXB
Posts: 5309
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:54 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sat May 12, 2007 10:10 pm

Quoting UAEflyer (Thread starter):
What routes EK flying their A345?

JFK as mentioned
KIX
ZRH
MEL-AKL
SYD-CHC
not sure if LHR is one
 
anstar
Posts: 2868
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sat May 12, 2007 10:52 pm

I think EK start their longer range routes with a A345. Once it picks up pax wise it then changes it to a 77W. This has happened with Sydney also. So I dont think it is the end of the A345 at all.
 
amirs
Posts: 1184
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 7:20 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sat May 12, 2007 11:15 pm

What configuration will the 77L have? Will it have the A345 F and J class seats?

They should reconfigure some of their 77W with those prime seats, not very good to offer such different products on the same route.
A pax would like to know exactly what type of seat and service he gets when he books the flight.
 
ekskycargo370
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:46 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sat May 12, 2007 11:28 pm

The problem with the A345 is EK loose a lot of cargo capacity,no hold 5 due to crew rest area.From what I know JFK is a very busy cargo route,perhaps thats why they now operate the B777-300ER.
 
UAEflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:29 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 12:57 am

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 2):
not sure if LHR is one

AFAIT LHR never saw EK A345, it used to work on LGW route last year

Quoting Amirs (Reply 4):
What configuration will the 77L have? Will it have the A345 F and J class seats?

In my opinion it should have better than the A345 F class because the 77L will fly to S. America more than 16 hours.

Quoting EKSkycargo370 (Reply 5):
The problem with the A345 is EK loose a lot of cargo capacity,no hold 5 due to crew rest area.From what I know JFK is a very busy cargo route,perhaps thats why they now operate the B777-300ER.

100%  checkmark 
 
ekskycargo370
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:46 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 1:02 am

Cargo is more important than pax with EK,quite often flights will be delayed out of DXB to wait for connecting cargo loads.
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 2:04 am

Quoting UAEflyer (Thread starter):
I think that A345 near its end with EK maybe?

I think they are too new to be phased out.

Always those rumors, EK, SQ, TG - is there any airline that has not been rumored to sell its A340NG?
France 1789; Eastern Germany 1989; Tunisia 2011; Egypt 2011
 
amirs
Posts: 1184
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 7:20 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 2:12 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 8):
Always those rumors, EK, SQ, TG - is there any airline that has not been rumored to sell its A340NG?

SA, LH, VS?
Well with all these rumours, maybe something is wrong.
 
UAEflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:29 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 4:07 am

Quoting EKSkycargo370 (Reply 7):
Cargo is more important than pax with EK,quite often flights will be delayed out of DXB to wait for connecting cargo loads.

i totally agree, and you can see the EKskycargo division in DXB is always busy and many freighters are waiting for their loads.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 8):
I think they are too new to be phased out.

what i meant that those A345 are not in their right routes, why they keep flying them to Zurich, Hong-Kong sometimes and so on. Doesn't that mean to you that they are available always and not used on the routes they supposed to work for, 12hours +

Quoting Amirs (Reply 9):
Well with all these rumours, maybe something is wrong.

Airbus is always easy to criticise, especially when it comes to the wide-body section. Narrow body, no doubt about it they are perfect.
 
Flying Belgian
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 12:45 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 4:19 am

Somehow, EK applies the A332' strategy to the A345.
When they launch a new city in Europe they first send the A332 and when the loads are picking up the 777 is taking over and eventually frequencies are increased and the A332 is back for one of them.

Loads are certainly improving on the JFK run and correct me if I'm wrong but the latest EK 77W have the F/J upgraded cabin. Don't they ?

FB.
Life is great at 41.000 feet...
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2086
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 4:32 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 8):
Always those rumors, EK, SQ, TG - is there any airline that has not been rumored to sell its A340NG?

Airlines operating the A340-500:

Qatar
Etihad
Singapore Airlines
Emirates
Air Canada
Thai

Thai is selling theirs, reportedly to South African
Air Canada is selling theirs, reportedly to _________
Singapore Airlines has slatted them for replacement when their 787 / A350 arrives.
Etihad ?
Qatar ? has ordered 777-200LRs.

As for Emirates, there is absolutely NO reason they should keep them in their fleet. If EK was a money conscious airline, they would have dumped the A340-500s already. There is absolutely no route in their system that requires it, and they have not chosen to start any new ultra-long-haul routes with it either. In my opinion, they should not have ordered the A340-500 in the first place.


P.S. Does anyone know the final number of 777-300ERs that will be in their fleet? (purchased and leased)
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 4:48 am

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
Thai is selling theirs

Says who?

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
Singapore Airlines has slatted them for replacement when their 787 / A350 arrives.

Source? See here: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ia-rules-out-a340-replacement.html

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
As for Emirates, there is absolutely NO reason they should keep them in their fleet.

Do you happen to know anything about the current market for widebody aircraft and EK's situation? Because of the A380 delay, EK is looking for interim lift / additional capacity for growth. They would be very foolish to get rid of them right now. And the market for modern widebody aircraft is basically empty. They would have to replace them with Tristars, DC-10s or 747 Classics. But I guess those aircraft are cheaper to operate.  Yeah sure
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
AlitaliaMD11
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:19 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 4:49 am

Here is a thread I started a while back about the recent 777-300ER upgrades:
Emirates Upgrades EK201 DXB-JFK (by AlitaliaMD11 Mar 3 2007 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
Qatar

Qatar Airways does not operate the A340-500, the Qatari Royal Flight does.
No Vueling No Party
 
User avatar
Qatara340
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 2:07 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 4:53 am

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
Thai is selling theirs, reportedly to South African

I know there many threads about his issue, but Thai recently upgraded their US services using the A345's. How could they sell their A345's and serve the US nonstop?

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
As for Emirates, there is absolutely NO reason they should keep them in their fleet. If EK was a money conscious airline, they would have dumped the A340-500s already. There is absolutely no route in their system that requires it, and they have not chosen to start any new ultra-long-haul routes with it either. In my opinion, they should not have ordered the A340-500 in the first place.

EK uses these planes to go to Australia nonstop. The are the only aircraft in EK's fleet capable of flying nonstop from DXB to Australia.
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 5:29 am

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 15):
EK uses these planes to go to Australia nonstop. The are the only aircraft in EK's fleet capable of flying nonstop from DXB to Australia.

Not true, their 777s are capable of DXB-Australia nonstop as well.

Their 772ERs can (but would struggle), their 772As/773As cannot. Their 773ERs could do the job as well.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ekskycargo370
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:46 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 6:00 am

The A345 was due to be operating the EK007/008 to LHR for the summer schedule a couple of times a week,but then went back to a daily A332...again it would have been misuse of the A345.I see EY fly it into LHR now...why? Its a super long range aircraft,why purchase such an aircraft if your not going to be fully utilizing its capabilities???
 
Flying Belgian
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 12:45 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 6:17 am

Quoting EKSkycargo370 (Reply 17):
why purchase such an aircraft if your not going to be fully utilizing its capabilities???

Local competition/legacy  Wink

"Mine is bigger than yours... "

FB.
Life is great at 41.000 feet...
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2086
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 6:21 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 13):
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
Singapore Airlines has slatted them for replacement when their 787 / A350 arrives.

Source? See here: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html

Singapore has said that there will be no immediate A340-500 replacement. (as in, they will not order the 777-200LR) However, they are not very happy with the A340-500s, as they can not take any cargo with them on the nonstop flights. The 787-9 can do SIN-EWR nonstop, with 200 passengers and a large (I don't know exactly how much) amount of cargo.

Quoting A342 (Reply 13):
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
As for Emirates, there is absolutely NO reason they should keep them in their fleet.

Do you happen to know anything about the current market for widebody aircraft and EK's situation? Because of the A380 delay, EK is looking for interim lift / additional capacity for growth. They would be very foolish to get rid of them right now. And the market for modern widebody aircraft is basically empty. They would have to replace them with Tristars, DC-10s or 747 Classics. But I guess those aircraft are cheaper to operate. Yeah sure

They ordered the A340-500s long before A380 delays were announced. And if they were that desperate for wide-body lift, they would have taken the A340-600s.

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 15):

I know there many threads about his issue, but Thai recently upgraded their US services using the A345's. How could they sell their A345's and serve the US nonstop?

According to Thai, (like Singapore) they are unable to carry sufficient amount of cargo on the nonstop flights. Also, given that the A340-500s have mostly premium seats, and BKK-LAX does not have a high premium demand creates problems.

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 15):
EK uses these planes to go to Australia nonstop. The are the only aircraft in EK's fleet capable of flying nonstop from DXB to Australia.

Australia-DXB can be flown nonstop with 777-300ERs.
 
UA 777
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 5:04 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 6:33 am

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
As for Emirates, there is absolutely NO reason they should keep them in their fleet. If EK was a money conscious airline, they would have dumped the A340-500s already. There is absolutely no route in their system that requires it, and they have not chosen to start any new ultra-long-haul routes with it either. In my opinion, they should not have ordered the A340-500 in the first place.

Makes you wonder what they have in mind with their 10 B777-200LR on order...
 
VHVXB
Posts: 5309
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:54 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 8:45 am

Quoting UAEflyer (Reply 6):
AFAIT LHR never saw EK A345, it used to work on LGW route last year

Thanks for that

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 19):
Australia-DXB can be flown nonstop with 777-300ERs.

Though the B77W may have the range its restricted out of DXB therefore it cannot complete the route non-stop
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 9:15 am

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 21):
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 19):
Australia-DXB can be flown nonstop with 777-300ERs.

Though the B77W may have the range its restricted out of DXB therefore it cannot complete the route non-stop

Why? Is that due to the heat?

Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 18):
Quoting EKSkycargo370 (Reply 17):
why purchase such an aircraft if your not going to be fully utilizing its capabilities???

Local competition/legacy

"Mine is bigger than yours... "

Probably more like buying them with long non-stop routes in mind, and I'm thinking AUH-OZ/USA non-stop here, but not getting round to operating the routes yet. Fitting your best most advanced premium class product on your most important route in terms of yield (LHR) in the meantime allows you to improve market share in the meantime. People forget, but EY's A345s are absolutely STUNNING inside and offer the top top top end premium class offering - clearly with JFK etc in mind, but you will do well on these seats out of LHR as well in the meantime. IIRC they A345s have Diamond (F) class fitted whereas the 77Ws just have a huge Pearl (C) class - some of the A332s have Diamond (please correct me if im wrong) and it is no co-incidence to see them on the LHR run as well - why do you think LHR so rarely gets the 77W?

Makes sense really. Granted, you arent using the jet to its full potential but it is still quite effiicient on LHR-AUH (not compared to a 77A, but still more than a DC10 or whatever) and if you are short on capacity as EY is, then it allows you to use your precious 77Ws elsewhere where the yields are not as good, whilst offering much greater capacity on the route than your A332s.

If you operated the LHR route with A332s, the jump in capacity to the A346 when they arrive is quite major - thats probably a factor, as I'd expect EY's A346 to take over the LHR run until the A388 arrives. I would imagine the company would begin using the A346, which will have similar Diamond and slightly larger Pearl class and rather larger Coral installed, to LHR when it arrives - not sure if they've started the USA non-stops but the smart money is to see them start the very long-haul non-stops when the A346s arrive.

[Edited 2007-05-13 02:24:22]
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
Ozair
Posts: 1367
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 9:34 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 22):
Why? Is that due to the heat?

Correct and EK did not go for the engine thrust increase that might have made this possible.

I can see the 77L replacing the A345 on the route though. Both EK 345s into SYD and MEL have large F & J cabins and the 77L would allow this to continue with an good increase in cargo while leaving the mainly Y class passengers for the BKK and SIN 77W one stop routes.
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 10:36 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 22):
Why? Is that due to the heat?

Correct and EK did not go for the engine thrust increase that might have made this possible.

They obviously feel that the A345 is doing a good enough job that they dont need to pay the extra to get the software upgrade. Fair play to them.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3188
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 10:46 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 13):
Do you happen to know anything about the current market for widebody aircraft and EK's situation? Because of the A380 delay, EK is looking for interim lift / additional capacity for growth.



Quoting VHVXB (Reply 21):
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 19):
Australia-DXB can be flown nonstop with 777-300ERs.

Though the B77W may have the range its restricted out of DXB therefore it cannot complete the route non-stop



Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 22):
Why? Is that due to the heat?

Correct and EK did not go for the engine thrust increase that might have made this possible.



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 24):
They obviously feel that the A345 is doing a good enough job that they dont need to pay the extra to get the software upgrade. Fair play to them.

The heat question is both seasonal and time of day dependent. Eight to nine months out of the year, TOW can be high enough to make the flight at any time of day. For the other three to four months, only afternoon departures are restricted.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 10:56 am

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 19):
The 787-9 can do SIN-EWR nonstop, with 200 passengers and a large (I don't know exactly how much) amount of cargo.

...what are you basing this on? As specs currently stand, the 789 has about the same range/payload profile as the A345, and measurably less than the 772LR.

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 21):
Though the B77W may have the range its restricted out of DXB therefore it cannot complete the route non-stop

...the airline chooses to restrict the aircraft moreso than it's restricted by operational mandate.
EK could send their 77Ws to Australia with reasonable profit-potential payload if they so chose.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Correct and EK did not go for the engine thrust increase that might have made this possible.

What thrust increase?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 11:01 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 26):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Correct and EK did not go for the engine thrust increase that might have made this possible.

What thrust increase?

I think he means MTOW certification level/upgrades etc. I suppose they use a small de-rate on their GE90-115b's.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 11:36 am

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
As for Emirates, there is absolutely NO reason they should keep them in their fleet. If EK was a money conscious airline, they would have dumped the A340-500s already. There is absolutely no route in their system that requires it, and they have not chosen to start any new ultra-long-haul routes with it either. In my opinion, they should not have ordered the A340-500 in the first place.

.....Emirates has a contract with some Swiss company (or companies) for their F/J service...only their A345's have the "1st class suite"....even if the plane isn't full, given the relatively short distance (thus potentially adding cargo) and probably a nice contract on their F/J service, EK is probably making money on those runs....

Quoting UA 777 (Reply 20):
Makes you wonder what they have in mind with their 10 B777-200LR on order...

....DXB-IAH and DXB-South America come to mind... Wink
"Up the Irons!"
 
OHLHD
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:02 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 2:15 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
Airlines operating the A340-500:

Qatar

QR is not operating any A345! It is a Amiri A/C.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
Qatar ? has ordered 777-200LRs.

So it is not relevant actually if QR has ordered the 772LR QR is not about to replace their A345. They simply don´t have any.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3188
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 2:24 pm

Quoting UA 777 (Reply 20):
Makes you wonder what they have in mind with their 10 B777-200LR on order...

LAX comes to mind.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Ozair
Posts: 1367
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 3:39 pm

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 26):
What thrust increase?

There was a lot of talk about certifying the GE90-115 to 125 thrust which would have alleviated the DXB restrictions. The issue was finding someone who would pay for the new cert and EK wasn't volunteering.
 
chiad
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 5:18 pm

EK has made a special web site for the A345.
http://www.emirates.com/a340/range.asp?menuSelect=6
Here you can see the destinations, seating and more!
 
UA 777
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 5:04 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 5:36 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 28):
....DXB-IAH and DXB-South America come to mind...



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 30):
LAX comes to mind.

Sure, but they could already do this with their 10 A345s. My point is that is just weird to order ultra-long haul aircraft, not use their range and then even adding more. But I am sure they know what they are doing and are going to use the full potential of their A345s and B777LR at some point.
 
UAEflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:29 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 6:31 pm

Quoting UA 777 (Reply 33):
Sure, but they could already do this with their 10 A345s. My point is that is just weird to order ultra-long haul aircraft, not use their range and then even adding more. But I am sure they know what they are doing and are going to use the full potential of their A345s and B777LR at some point.

This is my point, I believe that they want the latest aircrafts in the market whatever was the range. This morning i heard an interview with Mr. Flanagan EK vice-Chairman on the radio, he said we want a new young fleet.

He also gave a little hint, which i think a bit not clear, he said "the 787 is a fantastic aircraft with new technology....etc, But we don't have enough information about the A350XWB, and we are in a hurry to buy a 3 digit number of aircrafts"
do this statment means that they are close to order the 787??
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 6:44 pm

Quoting UAEflyer (Reply 10):
what i meant that those A345 are not in their right routes, why they keep flying them to Zurich, Hong-Kong sometimes and so on. Doesn't that mean to you that they are available always and not used on the routes they supposed to work for, 12hours +

ZRH is done because some Swiss company bought a lot of tickets in that new first class. HKG or KIX I don't really understand either. SYD or JFK are useful routes, because they are around 12,000 km. Allows to bring pax and cargo, while on routes that are 13,000-15,000km long (to EZE, AKL, LAX) the payload would have to be reduced. There you would better use a 77L.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
Thai is selling theirs, reportedly to South African
Air Canada is selling theirs, reportedly to _________
Singapore Airlines has slatted them for replacement when their 787 / A350 arrives.
Etihad ?
Qatar ? has ordered 777-200LRs.

TG is now using them to fly daily to JFK and LAX, in order to get that business going. There are no signs of them selling those planes, because they couldn't do it with any of their other planes.

AC will use theirs on the route to PVG soon, when a 77L can do HKG. The A345 will go at some point, but not too soon. Rumors are that JJ or US will take them.

SQ might replace theirs at some time with A359R, but that is no earlier than 2015.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
As for Emirates, there is absolutely NO reason they should keep them in their fleet. If EK was a money conscious airline, they would have dumped the A340-500s already. There is absolutely no route in their system that requires it, and they have not chosen to start any new ultra-long-haul routes with it either. In my opinion, they should not have ordered the A340-500 in the first place.

They fit perfectly into their fleet. EK has routes of all lengths. The A345 is ideal for routes to JFK or SYD (11,000-12,000km) where a 772ER or A343 couldn't carry enough load and a 77L would be the overkill. 77L will go on even longer routes, like EZE, IAH, SFO, LAX, and AKL
France 1789; Eastern Germany 1989; Tunisia 2011; Egypt 2011
 
VHVXB
Posts: 5309
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:54 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 8:15 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 35):
and AKL

A direct service I highly doubt it
 
purplebox
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:43 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 8:37 pm

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 36):
A direct service I highly doubt it

Why not!

Remember their plans regarding the AKL mini hub and connecting to the USA. Don't assume that EK are always going to have a single hub in DXB.

PurpleBox.
Next Flights:LHR-BOG,BOG-GYE,MDE-BOG-PTY,PTY-BOG-CTG,SMR-BOG-LHR - all on AV
 
VHVXB
Posts: 5309
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:54 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 9:10 pm

Quoting PurpleBox (Reply 37):
Why not!

well if they were serious about AKL they would bypass Australia and serve it via an Asian city

Quoting PurpleBox (Reply 37):
Remember their plans regarding the AKL mini hub and connecting to the USA.

Maybe sometime away for the mini hub. EK were recently granted additional rights to Australia which seems to be their main focus along with their North and South American expansion
 
purplebox
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:43 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 11:03 pm

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 38):
well if they were serious about AKL they would bypass Australia and serve it via an Asian city

They are serious about New Zealand - the 772LR will allow direct DXB-AKL/CHC services.

Any mini hub would require feed from Australia (as many cities as possible) so the existing routes would be part of the business plan.

PurpleBox.
Next Flights:LHR-BOG,BOG-GYE,MDE-BOG-PTY,PTY-BOG-CTG,SMR-BOG-LHR - all on AV
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3188
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Sun May 13, 2007 11:56 pm

Quoting UA 777 (Reply 33):
Sure, but they could already do this with their 10 A345s.

Are you sure?

Even though SIN-JFK is further than DXB-LAX, remember that:

EK 345's have 258 seats vs SQ's 181
SQ's A345's don't have the same F class suites that EK does (read heavy)
EK likes to have cargo capability.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Mon May 14, 2007 5:55 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 26):
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 19):
The 787-9 can do SIN-EWR nonstop, with 200 passengers and a large (I don't know exactly how much) amount of cargo.

...what are you basing this on? As specs currently stand, the 789 has about the same range/payload profile as the A345, and measurably less than the 772LR.

 checkmark  While the 789 would have substantially lower operating costs than the A345, it would also be payload-restricted, just like the A345.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
a380us
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Mon May 14, 2007 11:03 am

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 15):

I know there many threads about his issue, but Thai recently upgraded their US services using the A345's. How could they sell their A345's and serve the US nonstop?

i thought TG were axing these routs
www.JandACosmetics.com
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2565
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Mon May 14, 2007 12:29 pm

Unless something has changed recently, NGO should be a A345 route too.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 35):
HKG or KIX I don't really understand either.

KIX: Because the premium passengers connect to Tokyo, which EK doesn't fly to.
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Mon May 14, 2007 12:36 pm

Quoting ANstar (Reply 3):
Once it picks up pax wise it then changes it to a 77W. This has happened with Sydney also. So I dont think it is the end of the A345 at all.

Not quite.
EK contunue to use the A345 for non-stop. The B77W is a new service via BKK, not an up gauge of the A345 service.

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 21):
Though the B77W may have the range its restricted out of DXB therefore it cannot complete the route non-stop

I think this is the reason why EK continue to operate A345 non-stop to MEL and SYD, and the B77W via SIN and BKK respectively.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Mon May 14, 2007 2:59 pm

Quoting A380US (Reply 42):
i thought TG were axing these routs

No, both routes continue to be flown daily.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Mon May 14, 2007 7:40 pm

What some of you are forgetting is that EK's 77W's arrived a couple of years after the A345's did. EK was desperate do DXB-SYD/MEL non-stop in order to gouge market share out of QF. At that point, the only aircraft they had that could do it year-round with a decent payload was the A345. As ConcordeBoy mentioned, the 772ER would be really pushing it - add to that the fact that the premium product was not as good as BA, CX, SQ, particularly in J class and EK's use of the 772ER non-stop would have been a poor decision IMHO if they wanted to get passengers from QF/BA et al.

Although traffic was good ex SYD, the non-stop was a bit of a gamble because for the first time, they didn't have the back-up of a SIN stopover to fill up planes. A 777 would have been a big business risk.

As we know, SYD/MEL-DXB has been a great success, particularly with us Aussies who fly to Europe regularly and want to get to such "exotic" destinations as DUS, MUC, HAM, VIE, ZRH, GLA, BHX without having to transit LHR. The advantage of going 1-stop to Europe's smaller cities is a massive incentive to fly on the EK non-stop to DXB.

I think the traffic would warrant a 77L but that's for EK to determine whether it pulls the successful-on-the-route 345 from it in pursuit of higher traffic volume. I suspect the 77W service via BKK might struggle if they put a 77L on the DXB route; they'd effectively be cannabilizing.
M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Tue May 15, 2007 1:22 am

Quoting The Coachman (Reply 46):
I think the traffic would warrant a 77L but that's for EK to determine whether it pulls the successful-on-the-route 345 from it in pursuit of higher traffic volume. I suspect the 77W service via BKK might struggle if they put a 77L on the DXB route; they'd effectively be cannabilizing.

IMO in the future they'll use the A380. It can do the route at or nearly at full payload.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3188
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Tue May 15, 2007 1:33 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 47):
Quoting The Coachman (Reply 46):
I think the traffic would warrant a 77L but that's for EK to determine whether it pulls the successful-on-the-route 345 from it in pursuit of higher traffic volume. I suspect the 77W service via BKK might struggle if they put a 77L on the DXB route; they'd effectively be cannabilizing.

IMO in the future they'll use the A380. It can do the route at or nearly at full payload.

With an airline OEW and westbound, this seems a little optimistic. Full passenger payload would be a better bet.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Why EK Replaced A345 From JFK?

Tue May 15, 2007 3:15 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 48):
With an airline OEW and westbound, this seems a little optimistic. Full passenger payload would be a better bet.

One of their versions will have "only" about 500 seats, plus SYD isn't hot-and-high. If we don't consider the wind, full payload would be possible even westbound. How much range do we have to add to compensate for the wind on the westbound? It can't be that bad, can it? And of course, EK might opt for the 569-tonne MTOW version.

Is there such a big cargo market from Australia to the Gulf region anyway? Yes I know EK carries lots of connecting cargo...
Exceptions confirm the rule.