MAH4546 wrote:

Regarding equipment, FLL can't handle the A380 and I don't think a 77W can take off from FLL and make it to Dubai, so no options to upgauge.

FLL's longest runway is 9,000 feet. Looking at the standard day +27F graphs, the 77W can't do it at MTOW, but it can do it at *almost* MTOW. The 77L also can't *quite* hit MTOW on that graph. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... 2lr3er.pdf (Pages 45 and 49). On hotter days in Southern Florida, things might get trickier.

So yeah, 77L is probably the wiser choice and if they need to add capacity a second frequency might do.

DocLightning wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Regarding equipment, FLL can't handle the A380 and I don't think a 77W can take off from FLL and make it to Dubai, so no options to upgauge.

FLL's longest runway is 9,000 feet. Looking at the standard day +27F graphs, the 77W can't do it at MTOW, but it can do it at *almost* MTOW. The 77L also can't *quite* hit MTOW on that graph. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... 2lr3er.pdf (Pages 45 and 49). On hotter days in Southern Florida, things might get trickier.

So yeah, 77L is probably the wiser choice and if they need to add capacity a second frequency might do.

Yeah, looks like EK couldn't let QR have all the short runway fun

This is amazing. I was very surprised to hear this, but also excited. I think there's a large market that will find FLL adequate (and even more convenient than MIA)

MAH4546 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

If you look at what geographiclly logical connections jetBlue's schedule allows with a reasonable amount of time, it's basically PAP, SCU, NAS, CUN, and JAX. That might bring 3-7 passengers a day. Of course there might be people willing to wait out a 10 hour connection from Lima or Mexico City, but doubt it.

Like Orlando, this is about leveraging the partnership more as a brand/synergy/appearance, than for actual feed. EK saw how much traffic FLL would feed into BOS/JFK and is running with it itself.

I don't know if it was an oversight or if you purposefully left them off, but you're missing the two biggest Caribbean markets these flights connect with - SJU and Cuba from FLL. There might be some leakage from FLL to JFK/BOS, but this isn't about giving those passengers non-stops. It's about connecting the Caribbean.

It connect with one Cuba market - SCU.

There are no easy connections to SJU, it requires a 5 hour wait at FLL.

Incorrect -

EK 213 Dep DXB 0300 Arr FLL 1025
B6 1553 Dep FLL 1410 Arr SJU 1744

That's a 3hr 45min connection, closer to 2.5hrs once you factor in customs and immigration. I have no idea where you're getting this 5-hrs from.

Even if it was 5-hours you seem to be unfamiliar with the connections EK regularly sells via DXB where people wait 5-10 hours. This 3.45hr connection is cake compared to some.

Nice expansion by Emirates. While I do think the runway length departing FLL will be a probelm (as arriving from DXB will not be, as planes can land on shorter runways comfortably) there may be quite a payload hit on departure. A question I have is why the runways at FLL too short? The longest runway is 9,000 feet and if it was longer by a few thousands feet perhaps it would be better for long haul aircraft. I know that one runway was extended at FLL, but why was it not extended longer?

NichCage wrote:

I know that one runway was extended at FLL, but why was it not extended longer?

You mean, completely new runway.. And they can't expand any longer because of the highway.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

I don't know if it was an oversight or if you purposefully left them off, but you're missing the two biggest Caribbean markets these flights connect with - SJU and Cuba from FLL. There might be some leakage from FLL to JFK/BOS, but this isn't about giving those passengers non-stops. It's about connecting the Caribbean.

It connect with one Cuba market - SCU.

There are no easy connections to SJU, it requires a 5 hour wait at FLL.

Incorrect -

EK 213 Dep DXB 0300 Arr FLL 1025
B6 1553 Dep FLL 1410 Arr SJU 1744

That's a 3hr 45min connection, closer to 2.5hrs once you factor in customs and immigration. I have no idea where you're getting this 5-hrs from.

Even if it was 5-hours you seem to be unfamiliar with the connections EK regularly sells via DXB where people wait 5-10 hours. This 3.45hr connection is cake compared to some.

Then I stand corrected. If they can grab 50% of the SJU-Middle East/Indian Subcontinent market, they can fill two seats a day on this flight.

Waiting 5-10 hours in Dubai is a fun way to spend time. Waiting 5-10 hours at FLL is torture.

NichCage wrote:

I know that one runway was extended at FLL, but why was it not extended longer?

The 9,000 ft runway has been there for a while. It hasn't been extended in ages. The southern parallel runway was a very short VFR runway. It was completely rebuilt a few years ago. It's length is 8,000 ft.

Obviously, EK feels 9,000 ft is plenty of runway for its B77L.

Makes sense. As DocLightning pointed out, a B77L needs only roughly 9,200 ft of runway for a MTOW departure in ISA conditions. So not that far off from MTOW out of FLL. The late evening departure will mean the temperatures will be lower, helping the big bird get off the ground quicker.

Not trying to hate on FLL or EK but knowing the issues that already exist and after reading some comments of others issues, I see this being a big mess. I hope I'm wrong though.

What I never understood is why didn't they (FLL) ever look into extending the north runway. To the east of it are the FEC tracks and US1 which could of been tunneled under a runway like the south runway, prob 500/1000 feet from the current length of the runway. Obv the west side would be more difficult because of 95 but west of 95 is all warehouses/parking lots and plant nurserys. Would an extra 1000 feet on either end or 500 on each end to make the runway 10,000 feet make a big difference?

Also everyone keeps bashing the facilities at FLL but if Emirates can hold on until concourse G is complete in a year or so I think the facilities should be beyond adaquet for their operation.

Has JetBlue looked into adding some sort of Customs Facilities at their current terminal to make life easier for all?

The 772LR shouldn't have a problem. Going east, the plane won't be at MTOW anyway.

[list=][/list]

b747400erf wrote:

I do not know EK work rules, but what are the chances the 10 hour layover is just enough time to put the crew back on the return flight home at night?

10 hours would not be sufficient. I believe for most US destinations (if not all), EK crew stay for 48 hours due to the flight length.

737max8 wrote:

KTPAFlyer wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

I can not wait for this to inevitably go A380 and this forum freaks out.

You can bet it will, but probably only after MCO is upgauged. Of course, they will have to make the necessary infrastructure improvements, but can you imagine an A380 taking off from FLL!!! That would really be something!

MCO upgauged?

Maybe once they can figure out how to fill more than half of a 77W...

I'm not sure what you're basing your statement on. EK in MCO is over 80% load factor while using the 77W on 27 of the 31 flights in August.

https://www.orlandoairports.net/site/uploads/pshy201608.pdf

I still can't believe this, this is more shocking to me than MCO. Yes, FLL is a B6 hub, but MIA is the International Gateway to South Florida, and Miami (I assume) has a wealthier market to support this flight. What connections are at FLL, that cannot be supported by B6 at MCO, BOS, or JFK ?

iadadd wrote:

What connections are at FLL, that cannot be supported by B6 at MCO, BOS, or JFK ?

You make a good point... JetBlue flies to about the same cities in Latin America from JFK and FLL. Just a few differences but nothing major.

Any chance we will see a MEX or PTY 5th freedom tag on or something like that? 10 hours on the ground is a lot of time and enough to make one of these turns.

I'm a little late to the party, but CONGRATS to FLL and EK (and B6)! I love FLL and was very happy to read about this new route.

MAH4546 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

It connect with one Cuba market - SCU.

There are no easy connections to SJU, it requires a 5 hour wait at FLL.

Incorrect -

EK 213 Dep DXB 0300 Arr FLL 1025
B6 1553 Dep FLL 1410 Arr SJU 1744

That's a 3hr 45min connection, closer to 2.5hrs once you factor in customs and immigration. I have no idea where you're getting this 5-hrs from.

Even if it was 5-hours you seem to be unfamiliar with the connections EK regularly sells via DXB where people wait 5-10 hours. This 3.45hr connection is cake compared to some.

Then I stand corrected. If they can grab 50% of the SJU-Middle East/Indian Subcontinent market, they can fill two seats a day on this flight.

Waiting 5-10 hours in Dubai is a fun way to spend time. Waiting 5-10 hours at FLL is torture.

Perhaps for passengers living in SJU that might be true. But SJU is a popular place for tourists - those visiting PR, those going on cruises in the Caribbean departing from San Juan, and those transiting in San Juan on to smaller airlines like Cape Air, LIAT, Vieques Air Link, etc going to smaller Caribbean islands.

By no means am I suggesting that EK launched FLL because of SJU. But earlier you listed a small group of cities EK can connect passengers onto on B6 when there's actually more.

iadadd wrote:

I still can't believe this, this is more shocking to me than MCO. Yes, FLL is a B6 hub, but MIA is the International Gateway to South Florida, and Miami (I assume) has a wealthier market to support this flight. What connections are at FLL, that cannot be supported by B6 at MCO, BOS, or JFK ?

EK would have never been able to make MIA work. The only chance it has being successful in South Florida is FLL with the help of B6's feed. Just like QR would never be successful at FLL. It needs AA's feed at MIA.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

iadadd wrote:

I still can't believe this, this is more shocking to me than MCO. Yes, FLL is a B6 hub, but MIA is the International Gateway to South Florida, and Miami (I assume) has a wealthier market to support this flight. What connections are at FLL, that cannot be supported by B6 at MCO, BOS, or JFK ?

EK would have never been able to make MIA work. The only chance it has being successful in South Florida is FLL with the help of B6's feed. Just like QR would never be successful at FLL. It needs AA's feed at MIA.

The majority of Qatar's traffic to/from Miami originates/terminates in Miami. Qatar doesn't need AA's feed at MIA, Emirates does not need jetBlue's feed at FLL, and will in fact not be able to get much feed at all, as I already pointed out. It of course really helps to fill out the plane, but you are grossly underestimating the size of the market from South Florida.

Looking at the long layover, does the USA-UAE bilateral allow for EK to operate onward flights to third countries in the region (assuming the third country permits it)?

For example, EK has been operating flights from DXB to SYD and onwards to AKL. Could something similar happen with a destination, say within 2- 2.5 hrs range?

Sorry. My question can be ignored as it has already been discussed.

I got to the bottom of page one and then posted my question. I forgot about there being pages two and three. Call it a senior's moment.

HALtheAI wrote:

And the worthless airports that God knows why anyone would operate from:

BWI

Fightin' words, Pard.....

Can't believe no one has brought this up yet...

The EK flight's going to connect with HAV flights.

migair54 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

This is the 11th U.S. destination for Emirates. Take this for whatever it is worth but the Emirates brass, when we interviewed them at the U.S. Open when they came in with their sponsorship, was looking at "16 cities" for their longterm U.S. goal. That was 3 years ago. Take it for what it's worth.

So, ATL, DTW, DEN, LAS and....

PDX?
Hahahahaha! ....just kidding.

Let's see, actual cities:
ATL, DTW, DEN, LAS, and I'm guessing they'll promote EWR as separate-- so there ya go.

As it's been pointed out, jetBlue doesn't really connect that well to this flight.

Not sure why it keeps coming up over and over again.

As matter of fact, not sure why any airline can't add a flight to the U.S. and the naysayers come on here and give it merits or doubts based on its ability to connect to jetBlue flights.

Call me crazy but I happen to think Emirates, Icelandair, LOT Polish, Aer Lingus, Grandma Express, you name it, can do just fine on their own.

MAH4546 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

iadadd wrote:

I still can't believe this, this is more shocking to me than MCO. Yes, FLL is a B6 hub, but MIA is the International Gateway to South Florida, and Miami (I assume) has a wealthier market to support this flight. What connections are at FLL, that cannot be supported by B6 at MCO, BOS, or JFK ?

EK would have never been able to make MIA work. The only chance it has being successful in South Florida is FLL with the help of B6's feed. Just like QR would never be successful at FLL. It needs AA's feed at MIA.

The majority of Qatar's traffic to/from Miami originates/terminates in Miami. Qatar doesn't need AA's feed at MIA, Emirates does not need jetBlue's feed at FLL, and will in fact not be able to get much feed at all, as I already pointed out. It of course really helps to fill out the plane, but you are grossly underestimating the size of the market from South Florida.

You were incorrect in what you pointed out earlier and I've since corrected you. Please provide a source to your claim that the majority of QR's MIA traffic originates/terminates in MIA as opposed to connecting elsewhere.

Miami wrote:

NichCage wrote:

I know that one runway was extended at FLL, but why was it not extended longer?

You mean, completely new runway.. And they can't expand any longer because of the highway.

It's not like a highway under a runway is that unusual.
The real reason why that was never done is because FLL never intended to be an airport for long range long-haul service in South Florida. That's MIA's role. Their market is domestic and Caribbean, primarily and that's what this entire modernization plan is focused on. A 9,000ft runway is more than enough for TATL service, even. A 10,000ft runway will likely be needed if B6 wants to serve Brazil from FLL with the A321NEO. I suspect that FLL will cross that path when they get there. That would require the same type of elevated extension that was done on the other runway.

mcogator wrote:

737max8 wrote:

KTPAFlyer wrote:

You can bet it will, but probably only after MCO is upgauged. Of course, they will have to make the necessary infrastructure improvements, but can you imagine an A380 taking off from FLL!!! That would really be something!

MCO upgauged?

Maybe once they can figure out how to fill more than half of a 77W...

I'm not sure what you're basing your statement on. EK in MCO is over 80% load factor while using the 77W on 27 of the 31 flights in August.

I was questioning this reply also.

EK MCO Load Factor for Aug 16

Inbound 87.8%
Outbound 80.7%

To be exact.

77W was also used on 24 of 30 flights in Sept.

To understand why no runway exists longer than 9,000 feet at FLL is to understand the pervasive thinking which has always seemed to exist among the Broward County Commission:

Longer runways mean louder aircraft.

While we here understand that 1) modern large widebody aircraft tend to be (sometimes significantly) quieter than their older, smaller counterparts, 2) longer runways can allow for quieter, reduced-thrust takeoffs, and 3) shorter runways may force larger aircraft operating at maximum-allowable takeoff weight to utilize full-thrust power which also causes maximum noise (when full-thrust use may otherwise have not been necessary on a longer surface), the Broward County Commission has continuously kept its collective head in the NIMBY sand against recognizing that any of these phenomena even exist.

To get even another 1,000 feet onto 10L/28R for 10,000 total by simply realigning Perimeter Road and the FEC Railway east against the existing US1/Federal Highway (and probably reducing the length of, or eliminating, the eastern EMAS block) would be another 20-year dispute with the NIMBYs of the western suburbs...and the environmentalists citing the "protected" God-knows-what creatures being bothered in the thin strip of Port Everglades wetlands to the east.

Clipper136 wrote:

mcogator wrote:

737max8 wrote:

MCO upgauged?

Maybe once they can figure out how to fill more than half of a 77W...

I'm not sure what you're basing your statement on. EK in MCO is over 80% load factor while using the 77W on 27 of the 31 flights in August.

I was questioning this reply also.

EK MCO Load Factor for Aug 16

Inbound 87.8%
Outbound 80.7%

To be exact.

77W was also used on 24 of 30 flights in Sept.

That was summer though. I would be more interested to see data for other months of the year. I have flown on the route with 190 people and heard it was even less other days from folks in MCO customs.

Also, load factor is not alone enough to say a route is doing well (and to be fair I didn't come from this angle in my original post) if the fares paid aren't very high especially for a 15 hour flight.

HGL wrote:

Looking at the long layover, does the USA-UAE bilateral allow for EK to operate onward flights to third countries in the region (assuming the third country permits it)?

For example, EK has been operating flights from DXB to SYD and onwards to AKL. Could something similar happen with a destination, say within 2- 2.5 hrs range?

HGL wrote:

Looking at the long layover, does the USA-UAE bilateral allow for EK to operate onward flights to third countries in the region (assuming the third country permits it)?

For example, EK has been operating flights from DXB to SYD and onwards to AKL. Could something similar happen with a destination, say within 2- 2.5 hrs range?

One of the main problems for that is the transit visa requirements, for pax going to central America getting a transit visa is not that easy, so that kills almost any possibility.

Sometimes is better to keep the plane on ground than burn money with an unprofitable tag on.

I think the day EK starts MEX, and it will be soon, they will do with a triangular routing via MTY, that's the most logical way to do.

Miami wrote:

You make a good point... JetBlue flies to about the same cities in Latin America from JFK and FLL. Just a few differences but nothing major.

I think the biggest difference is that JFK are quite full already and pax from New York area to Dubai and beyond are more than enough, so I think FLL could need more the transit than JFK flights, I am not sure about the terminal arrangement in JFK, but I guess transiting FLL could be a bit easier.

Cipango wrote:

10 hours would not be sufficient. I believe for most US destinations (if not all), EK crew stay for 48 hours due to the flight length.

Before, now many of them are 24 hours.

airbazar wrote:

Miami wrote:

NichCage wrote:

I know that one runway was extended at FLL, but why was it not extended longer?

You mean, completely new runway.. And they can't expand any longer because of the highway.

It's not like a highway under a runway is that unusual.

Well, I'm telling you right now. An expansion of runways isn't going to happen anytime soon.

MCOGVADCA wrote:

Can't believe no one has brought this up yet...

The EK flight's going to connect with HAV flights.

Is there really much—if any—traffic between HAV and DXB or points beyond?

Miami wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Miami wrote:

You mean, completely new runway.. And they can't expand any longer because of the highway.

It's not like a highway under a runway is that unusual.

Well, I'm telling you right now. An expansion of runways isn't going to happen anytime soon.

No one said it was. Just pointing out that if they were to consider it, the highway (or the train tracks), is the least of their obstacles. The reply in post #130 sums it up pretty well.

Miami wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Miami wrote:

You mean, completely new runway.. And they can't expand any longer because of the highway.

It's not like a highway under a runway is that unusual.

Well, I'm telling you right now. An expansion of runways isn't going to happen anytime soon.

FLL isn't unique in that it is handicapped by a perimeter road. These days, almost every major airport in the country has run into that nightmare with the notable exception of a few like DEN and airports with runways with water on the end. At this point, it's more of a question of when rather than if. If FLL needs it, they'll get it, but not in the next 2 months of course. ATL, LAX, and even FLL had major highways and they made it work.

KFLLCFII wrote:

To understand why no runway exists longer than 9,000 feet at FLL is to understand the pervasive thinking which has always seemed to exist among the Broward County Commission:

Longer runways mean louder aircraft.

While we here understand that 1) modern large widebody aircraft tend to be (sometimes significantly) quieter than their older, smaller counterparts, 2) longer runways can allow for quieter, reduced-thrust takeoffs, and 3) shorter runways may force larger aircraft operating at maximum-allowable takeoff weight to utilize full-thrust power which also causes maximum noise (when full-thrust use may otherwise have not been necessary on a longer surface), the Broward County Commission has continuously kept its collective head in the NIMBY sand against recognizing that any of these phenomena even exist.

To get even another 1,000 feet onto 10L/28R for 10,000 total by simply realigning Perimeter Road and the FEC Railway east against the existing US1/Federal Highway (and probably reducing the length of, or eliminating, the eastern EMAS block) would be another 20-year dispute with the NIMBYs of the western suburbs...and the environmentalists citing the "protected" God-knows-what creatures being bothered in the thin strip of Port Everglades wetlands to the east.

Runway expansion would not be easy at all, thanks for the information.

I think ATL will happen in another year or so. They are going to give JB time to get their operation up and running next year. When DL had the DXB flight, it did pretty well. Granted, it was a lot of DL ff and contractors who would continue on the DL network. A lot of the pax on DL would connect on EK beyond DXB so from that stand point, i do see it as a strong possibility. They are not in a rush in my opinion and will just wait it out. Also i believe that they are going to retrofit F3 as an A380 gate in ATL and depending on flight times, they can make it work. KE comes in around 930 and leaves by 1220, so if they do send an a380, it would be somewhere before those hours or after those hours. They can make it work and as such there should hopefully not be any of the shenanigans that occured with the QR a380 fiasco.

KFLLCFII wrote:

To understand why no runway exists longer than 9,000 feet at FLL is to understand the pervasive thinking which has always seemed to exist among the Broward County Commission:

Longer runways mean louder aircraft.

While we here understand that 1) modern large widebody aircraft tend to be (sometimes significantly) quieter than their older, smaller counterparts, 2) longer runways can allow for quieter, reduced-thrust takeoffs, and 3) shorter runways may force larger aircraft operating at maximum-allowable takeoff weight to utilize full-thrust power which also causes maximum noise (when full-thrust use may otherwise have not been necessary on a longer surface), the Broward County Commission has continuously kept its collective head in the NIMBY sand against recognizing that any of these phenomena even exist.

To get even another 1,000 feet onto 10L/28R for 10,000 total by simply realigning Perimeter Road and the FEC Railway east against the existing US1/Federal Highway (and probably reducing the length of, or eliminating, the eastern EMAS block) would be another 20-year dispute with the NIMBYs of the western suburbs...and the environmentalists citing the "protected" God-knows-what creatures being bothered in the thin strip of Port Everglades wetlands to the east.

FECs RoW there is 5 tracks wide. That's gonna be a nightmare to move, especially with the NIMBYs who are already up in arms over the passenger trains coming With those passenger trains joining the freight on the line in the next few years and potentially becoming 32x daily (16 each way), I think you're going to have a tough time getting FEC to play nice with moving their tracks since it would be a massive operational disruption and I'm not up on my south florida history, but my guess is they were there first (since the FEC originally reached south florida long before commercial aviation). 28L already goes over the FEC so this would seem to best the solution for 28R as far as the RR tracks go.

GVIIO wrote:

I'm not too sure if anyone clarified it but will this flight be load restricted? Or was it just if they send the 77W it would be load restricted?

Difference in maximum takeoff weight of 77W and 77L is only 9,000 lbs. (775,000 vs. 766,000).

HGL wrote:

Looking at the long layover, does the USA-UAE bilateral allow for EK to operate onward flights to third countries in the region (assuming the third country permits it)?

For example, EK has been operating flights from DXB to SYD and onwards to AKL. Could something similar happen with a destination, say within 2- 2.5 hrs range?

The US-UAE bilateral is open skies. EK/EY have unlimited 5th freedom rights beyond the US subject to having the same rights from the 3rd country.

EK's B77L's have 343,639kgs MTOW.

Maximum Boeing offers is 347,451Kgs and this is what the EK freighters have. There simply is no need for the additional 4t. Not even to and back from AKL on 99% of flights.

The engines are -110B1L1.

Takeoff will be Flaps 20, which is the "short runway, no obstacles" takeoff setting on the B777.

At 30C, with no wind, both 09L and 27R are good for RTOW's (regulated takeoff weights) of just under 321,000kgs. The limiting factor being field length of course. MZFW (maximum zero fuel weight) on the -200LRis 209t, leaving 112t for gas.

Plenty to make it to OMDB. Either way it will be unlikely they load it up to MZFW. It becomes limited in the belly before payload gets that high.

In summary, they will have no issues carrying a full load (I hope they fill it every day!) to and from FLL.

Quite the performer the -200LR!

Qantas744er wrote:

Quite the performer the -200LR!

Guess we know where that 777-200LR from MCO went, FLL will really give it a run for its money! I took a video at MCO on this flight https://youtu.be/Yb2QtyJelJw, and the 200LR gets off the ground just past the parking lot, using up more than 3/4 of the 10k ft runway. It was understandable as this flight was packed to the gills with pax and cargo, fully fueled for a 14 hr flight, but nevertheless, this was at a longer runway in November (yes that's what our FL winters are like), so I have to wonder what kind of performance is needed for a shorter runway on a summer day? Would this become the shortest commercial runway for a 777 to operate from for this long of a flight?

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Qantas744er wrote:

Quite the performer the -200LR!

Guess we know where that 777-200LR from MCO went, FLL will really give it a run for its money! I took a video at MCO on this flight https://youtu.be/Yb2QtyJelJw, and the 200LR gets off the ground just past the parking lot, using up more than 3/4 of the 10k ft runway. It was understandable as this flight was packed to the gills with pax and cargo, fully fueled for a 14 hr flight, but nevertheless, this was at a longer runway in November (yes that's what our FL winters are like), so I have to wonder what kind of performance is needed for a shorter runway on a summer day? Would this become the shortest commercial runway for a 777 to operate from for this long of a flight?

Chances are it wasn't using max thrust and with a 10k runway, it would likely not need to use flap 20.

tjh8402 wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

To understand why no runway exists longer than 9,000 feet at FLL is to understand the pervasive thinking which has always seemed to exist among the Broward County Commission:

Longer runways mean louder aircraft.

While we here understand that 1) modern large widebody aircraft tend to be (sometimes significantly) quieter than their older, smaller counterparts, 2) longer runways can allow for quieter, reduced-thrust takeoffs, and 3) shorter runways may force larger aircraft operating at maximum-allowable takeoff weight to utilize full-thrust power which also causes maximum noise (when full-thrust use may otherwise have not been necessary on a longer surface), the Broward County Commission has continuously kept its collective head in the NIMBY sand against recognizing that any of these phenomena even exist.

To get even another 1,000 feet onto 10L/28R for 10,000 total by simply realigning Perimeter Road and the FEC Railway east against the existing US1/Federal Highway (and probably reducing the length of, or eliminating, the eastern EMAS block) would be another 20-year dispute with the NIMBYs of the western suburbs...and the environmentalists citing the "protected" God-knows-what creatures being bothered in the thin strip of Port Everglades wetlands to the east.

FECs RoW there is 5 tracks wide. That's gonna be a nightmare to move, especially with the NIMBYs who are already up in arms over the passenger trains coming With those passenger trains joining the freight on the line in the next few years and potentially becoming 32x daily (16 each way), I think you're going to have a tough time getting FEC to play nice with moving their tracks since it would be a massive operational disruption and I'm not up on my south florida history, but my guess is they were there first (since the FEC originally reached south florida long before commercial aviation). 28L already goes over the FEC so this would seem to best the solution for 28R as far as the RR tracks go.

The NIMBY issue aside, the relocation of FEC's ROW would most likely cause little disruption of their system other than occasional "slow orders" issued to trains passing through an active work area: Of the 5 tracks, only 2 are mainline, and the rest are storage sidings used at a far lower percentage of total capacity since the opening of their Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) inside Port Everglades in 2014. Going down to 4/5 capacity while relocating one track at a time east (or even 3/5 capacity while ROW machinery operates on an adjacent track) may at worst take up slack that otherwise would probably have gone unused anyway. And at the speed their machinery operates (I've seen them in action), they'd have it done in no time at all. As for the history, they certainly were here first, but they've seemed to have forged a strong working relationship with the county as necessary for all parties...The development of the ICTF on Port Everglades land which aided in reducing truck traffic and grade-crossing blockages near their Fort Lauderdale terminal is a strong indication of such. It wouldn't be the first time they've been asked (and had complied) with a ROW relocation either: The original ROW once laid across roughly where Terminal 1 and the Hibiscus Garage exist today.

On the issue of 10R/28L and a hypothetical bridge for 10L/28R, the former gained nearly 3,000 feet which required some sort of means to cross the railroad and US1 as it would be butting against Port Everglades territory...On the other hand for 10L/28R, if only an additional 1,000 feet is desired, there should be no need to elevate or cross anything: Press everything up against US1 as-is and install a blast fence at the end of the runway. Works just fine for western Perimeter Road, no reason it shouldn't work for eastern Perimeter Road.

Good article regarding the make-up of traffic on the Orlando route, which is over 97% originating in terminating in Orlando. No doubt the case will be very similar for Fort Lauderdale, which is a much larger market to the Middle East and the Subcontinent. Also interested to see how much Dubai market stimulated, which I'm sure will happen at FLL, as well.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/bre ... b-20161014

MAH4546 wrote:

Good article regarding the make-up of traffic on the Orlando route, which is over 97% originating in terminating in Orlando. No doubt the case will be very similar for Fort Lauderdale, which is a much larger market to the Middle East and the Subcontinent. Also interested to see how much Dubai market stimulated, which I'm sure will happen at FLL, as well.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/bre ... b-20161014

I was surprised JNB and BLR were higher than DEL.

[quote="MAH4546"] Regarding equipment, FLL can't handle the A380 and I don't think a 77W can take off from FLL and make it to Dubai]

It can but payload would be restricted to ~ 30t. The 77W would be a non-starter I would say.

adamh8297 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Good article regarding the make-up of traffic on the Orlando route, which is over 97% originating in terminating in Orlando. No doubt the case will be very similar for Fort Lauderdale, which is a much larger market to the Middle East and the Subcontinent. Also interested to see how much Dubai market stimulated, which I'm sure will happen at FLL, as well.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/bre ... b-20161014

I was surprised JNB and BLR were higher than DEL.

Lots of IT traffic to Bangalore from Florida, from Orlando and Fort Lauderdale/Boca. I bet Citrix will be sending a fair amount of FLL-BLR traffic.

One thing to note regarding choosing MIA over FLL: South Florida's Indian community (small but growing quickly) is centered in Broward.

HGL wrote:

For example, EK has been operating flights from DXB to SYD and onwards to AKL. Could something similar happen with a destination, say within 2- 2.5 hrs range?

Its not un usual for EK aircarft to sit on the ground for long periods, from the end of this month AKL will have 4x EK 388s that each will spend about 5-6hours on the ground.