Most people agree EK is a great Airline, and i personally flew them(on short haul) once and they seem to be a stand out carrier. However, looking at thier DXB hub and thier fleet choice concerning thier A380 fleet with 109 flying and 53 on order my question is how in the world does EK fill these planes? I understand DXB has great geography and can provide connections to and from numerous continents, but it seems EK pushes a rediculous amount of capacity even into mid tier markets. Are these seats getting filled? Or does EK think they can simply grow markets and stimulate demand simply by offering far more seats than anyone else? Who else flys A380s to BCN, CMN, NCE, BHX, PRG? etc. Does these routes even have to break even or does EK simply want to push other carriers out by dominating capacity? EK is a State backed carrier of a wealthy Emirate country, and they hire mostly younger and Foreign workers and dont have to deal with unions. Does this labor advantage allow EK to do things a normal Airline cant? To me EK does not seem like a real airline, they benefit from circumstances that allow it to provide capacity into markets no other airlines can seem to match, thier A380s are everywhere, its seems to good to be true.

Every EK A380 I’ve ever been on has been full . They’re just such a fantastic airline , with great staff and an amazing hub - I can’t see why they would ever have a problem filling their seats .

Well the question I have is that IF EK can fill their A380's and B77W then why do they need B787-10?

I'd say they'll need the 787-10 to increase frequencies on short & mid-haul routes, freeing up 380's and 77W's used now for longer-haul frequency upgrades. Plus to establish possible new markets and build them up ready for a 77W or A380 service going forward.

TC957 wrote:

I'd say they'll need the 787-10 to increase frequencies on short & mid-haul routes, freeing up 380's and 77W's used now for longer-haul frequency upgrades. Plus to establish possible new markets and build them up ready for a 77W or A380 service going forward.

Yep, that's about the sum of it. Right now their smallest plane is a 77L, and they have very few of those. Having a fleet of smaller aircraft allow them to add thin routes that can't support the larger aircraft (or that they aren't sure can support them). If the routes go well, they can always add capacity. If they stay thin, then their risk of financial loss has been smaller. Honestly, I'm surprised that it took them this long to add the smaller aircraft.

I work at NCE airport (Nice Côte d'Azur, France) , and i can tell you that flights from Nice to Dubai are almost full, better than they were when B777 was in use

Qatar airways, the only serious competitor, is offering Airbus A319 LR from NCE to DOH , with no In Flight Entertainment .... Let's say that EK is alone on this market

Flying PRG-DXB a lot, plane is usually always full. And there is also a T7 flight each day, QR with a 788, FlyDubai and Smartwings with 737 and not to forget TK...

I probably can't quite give a good view as my experience with Emirates A380s tends to be out of LHR which is more of a city bus operation. Both British Airways and Emirates have multiple flights a day out of here and the public tend to prefer one or the other, however it should be noted that the more seats Emirates has on a plane the lower the price gets and the lower the price gets the more passengers you attract.

Every Emirates A380 I've been on out of LHR has been packed to the rafters in economy class at least, given LHR is high yielding I'd imagine Business Class would be quite full as well.

EK is doing no different to what other airlines do at their hubs apart from using 777s and A380s to feed other 777s and A380s. Having EK run A380s to an airport doesn't preclude other airlines from operating a non-stop route to where a passenger transfers to through the DXB hub. MAN has gained non-stop CX to HKG (where EK was the market leader for MAN-HKG) and now 9W to BOM (announced at 4 weekly but gained a frequency prior to the launch date). BHX had AI come in and doing well. What about the numbers of passengers on EK? August saw BHX handle 67.000 passengers on 2 daily A380s and MAN had 95.000 passengers on 3 daily A380s.

For comparison, yesterday, I wanted to see the transfer possibilities at Addis Ababa in light of the recent start up of ET at MAN. I counted 33 unique international destinations within a 5 hour period arriving into ADD. If 3 or 4 passengers go to each destination, that means that we are already talking 100 or so passengers at a minimum on a 787 . For lots of those destinations there is not a hope in hell of MAN ever getting a non-stop link with ET the best placed carrier to make an impact.

EK is just that big. It has the biggest international connecting hub in the world and convenient connections to a very high number of high-volume airports. It uses A380s from its hub the way other single-hub airlines use 777-300ERs, and 777-300ERs the way other airlines use 787s or narrowbodies.

The question for EK is whether the unchanged A380 can continue to be competitive on costs once the other big single-hub airlines are all using 787-10/A350-1000/777-9X. It's no wonder they wanted an A380neo so much.

EK A380 from BCN almost always full.

TheKennady2 wrote:

Most people agree EK is a great Airline, and i personally flew them(on short haul) once and they seem to be a stand out carrier. However, looking at thier DXB hub and thier fleet choice concerning thier A380 fleet with 109 flying and 53 on order my question is how in the world does EK fill these planes? I understand DXB has great geography and can provide connections to and from numerous continents, but it seems EK pushes a rediculous amount of capacity even into mid tier markets. Are these seats getting filled? Or does EK think they can simply grow markets and stimulate demand simply by offering far more seats than anyone else? Who else flys A380s to BCN, CMN, NCE, BHX, PRG? etc. Does these routes even have to break even or does EK simply want to push other carriers out by dominating capacity? EK is a State backed carrier of a wealthy Emirate country, and they hire mostly younger and Foreign workers and dont have to deal with unions. Does this labor advantage allow EK to do things a normal Airline cant? To me EK does not seem like a real airline, they benefit from circumstances that allow it to provide capacity into markets no other airlines can seem to match, thier A380s are everywhere, its seems to good to be true.

Abuse is too strong of a term. If anything EK has become successful enough to transform once 777-served destinations into A380 ones. These aircraft afford it less frequency to some destinations while operating out of a space constrained hub. If anything they are the right tool and I couldn't see EK without them. Imagine the number of flights they have to LHR alone, 6 daily A380s, and imagine what it would be like to operate a 77W fleet into it - they won's get enough slots to be able to do this. For the record, they also have 3 daily A380s to LGW and one 77W to STN.

I had no clue that EK only flew widebodys (and just 777/380s at that). Interesting stuff.

With the FlyDubai partnership, effectively EK's regional/narrowbody arm, why are we worried about 787-10s? More flights is more connecting passengers. Not every route is profitable enough with a 77W or a rare 77L.

In many ways the 787-10E upgauge a FlyDubai flight.

EK is not state funded. It belongs to the UAE Royal family and benefits from its location and tax regime. But it is a business, like most other airlines. This is one of A.nets favourite myths.

Sandyb123

TheKennady2 wrote:

Who else flys A380s to BCN, CMN, NCE, BHX, PRG?

EK send 2 A380s a day to BHX and BCN, there's clearly demand there, otherwise they'd tune down to 1 daily or downside to 77Ws for one or both of the day's flights. For many here in the UK Emirates is the first choice for Dubai, Asia & Australia. Great reputation and well-priced against the competition. QR for comparison operate 1 788 into BHX, while BA don't serve the airport at all. Pretty mind blowing when you think about it

people assume because BHX is a smaller airport they don't fill the a380 having worked at BHX and worked regularly on the A380 each flight of the 2 a day averages between 5 and 600 passengers per flight that's everyday

Another thing to remember is that Dubai is one of the most visited cities in the world so it's not just about connecting passengers.

There's a reason Dubai has hundreds of hotels.

Dubai is also a high yield destination. For example it is nearly always cheaper to fly EK from Australia to Europe than it is to Dubai.

EK had a LF of 77% in FY 2017-18.

77% of their a380 is 20 seats more than a 77W. Losing 20 low yielding pax isn't a big deal and EK can right size several routes to increase their LF. Thats why they want the 787-10

Maintenance on 150 A380's will soon take its toll.

HoboJoe wrote:

Maintenance on 150 A380's will soon take its toll.

I don't think so, they have the critical mass (economies of scale) to make maintenance as cost effective as possible. Furthermore, EK has been known to retire aircraft once it hits 12 years mark or due for heavy maintenance. Hence why the newer A380 and B77W will replace some of their first few A380/B77A/B77A/B77W.

Its the secondary markets connecting to bigger markets that does it. Id love to know the % of pax are connecting vs Direct. Does anyone have any figures for any routes?

Slash787 wrote:

Well the question I have is that IF EK can fill their A380's and B77W then why do they need B787-10?

They had a choice. Operate small WB's themselves, or FZ would.

HoboJoe wrote:

Maintenance on 150 A380's will soon take its toll.

You may be correct in respect to access to manpower, but....

EK A380's have cradle to grave fixed price PBTH engine maintenance contracts with RR & GE, and fixed price parts contracts on all major air frame components. They hold engine and air frame components on consignment. All combined with in-house engineering expertise (for example EKE have completed more A380 undercarriage replacements than all other service providers in the World combined).

TheKennady2 wrote:

I understand DXB has great geography and can provide connections to and from numerous continents, but it seems EK pushes a rediculous amount of capacity even into mid tier markets. Are these seats getting filled? Or does EK think they can simply grow markets and stimulate demand simply by offering far more seats than anyone else? Who else flys A380s to BCN, CMN, NCE, BHX, PRG? etc. Does these routes even have to break even or does EK simply want to push other carriers out by dominating capacity?

Let me introduce you to the concept of a hub

Lets say the number of all people flying out of NCE or MAN to their the following final destinations, per day is: SYD is 10... NRT 20... DXB 15... DEL 20... JNB 12... ICN 7. Individually, none of these flights are able to fill an A320 let alone an A380. But put together, there may be enough demand that if one can fill a large plane such as the 777 or A380 to a hub, re-distribute these people to their final destination flights again on large planes, and make a profit.

The underlying concept is network effects. Adding one flight to a system of flights doesn't just add the value of that one flight, but it also adds value to every other flight in the system.

Just like at a.net, if you and I were the only members discussing, it would get pretty lonely and there wouldn't be enough topics brought up or discussion to be had. With thousands of members, there's always something interesting, even if you and I alone won't comment on more than a tiny fraction of topics.

Samrnpage wrote:

Its the secondary markets connecting to bigger markets that does it. Id love to know the % of pax are connecting vs Direct. Does anyone have any figures for any routes?

It’s about 50 to 50

sandyb123 wrote:

EK is not state funded. It belongs to the UAE Royal family and benefits from its location and tax regime. But it is a business, like most other airlines. This is one of A.nets favourite myths.

Sandyb123

The UAE Royal family IS the STATE! .

BUT, the airline benefits from that....although in reality it does run like a regular non-state airline NOW. 20 years ago, no. But then most European carriers were once upon a time state run. Thatcher gave BA the Concorde for GBP1 each!

Not to mention US carriers have been bailed out sooooo many times, they were practically state airlines...now owned by Wall Street, which is owned by (ok nevermind

samjennings1988 wrote:

people assume because BHX is a smaller airport they don't fill the a380 having worked at BHX and worked regularly on the A380 each flight of the 2 a day averages between 5 and 600 passengers per flight that's everyday

And I fly from BHX on it regularly because of work at various times of the year, lunch time or evening and can also confirm its always been full.

As someone who actually flys the thing, I can tell you that it is most definitely not “always full” in fact the lead up to Christmas this year has been a disaster in terms of loads and yields.
There are far more knowledgeable posters on here who can explain the difference between load and yield, all I can do is explain that the 380 is a PR rather than a profit machine. It continues to be used in many cases as a loss leader to generate or grab market share. For evidence of this, merely review EKs last 6 months trading results and gross margin.

emiratesdriver wrote:

As someone who actually flys the thing, I can tell you that it is most definitely not “always full” in fact the lead up to Christmas this year has been a disaster in terms of loads and yields.
There are far more knowledgeable posters on here who can explain the difference between load and yield, all I can do is explain that the 380 is a PR rather than a profit machine. It continues to be used in many cases as a loss leader to generate or grab market share. For evidence of this, merely review EKs last 6 months trading results and gross margin.

Was just about to say. I've been on some of their flights (to the US, and inter Gulf) where loads have been very very light.

Does EK have many more 615-seat A388s on order? They must have 10-12 of them now... were 615-seaters a "test project" or does EK really need these high-capacity birds on many routes?

seabosdca wrote:

It uses A380s from its hub the way other single-hub airlines use 777-300ERs, and 777-300ERs the way other airlines use 787s or narrowbodies.

Looking closely Emirates has a P(europe) -> H--> H -> P(asia) system.
What is special here is
that their hubs are back to back connected by a selfrouting Addidas network.
that their P to H traffic is longer range.
Each E-destination collects traffic for all A-destinations and vice versa.
That allows much larger "collectors" to each P destination.

CRJ900 wrote:

Does EK have many more 615-seat A388s on order? They must have 10-12 of them now... were 615-seaters a "test project" or does EK really need these high-capacity birds on many routes?

They planned to have 15 of them...

Also they fly them on routes with lower premium demand.

It's what happens when you don't focus on frequency.

Whilst we’re also discussing how full these flight may be, let’s not forget that Emirates has a hue cargo division, so even if these flights were to go at 50% capacity, the likely chance is the belly cargo will be full.

OMAA

My question about the 787-10 is not use ( most likely secondary cities particularly Europe).But where the slots come from for them to operate efficiently.I thought Dubai was essentially 'full' with the present 380/777 numbers as they are.
As for full or not.They publish their load factors.Not the very best but not the worst either.Dropping oil price will help their margins greatly as it has in the past - and every airline really.Bigger question might be whether it's 'ME2' by the end of 2019!

All I can say is that I am a frequent and very happy EK user, and if they are happy to 'abuse' their A380s and fly them half empty, so be it! I don't mind!!! I love their product. It might not be THE BEST in the industry, but it's consistently very good. Their planes are comfortable, the food is tasty, crews are nice and helpful, and a DXB stopover is a nice bonus.
I absolutely LOVE flying the A380 - best aircraft for pax comfort bar none, spacious, whisper quiet, rock solid... Then again I also like their 10-across 777s, they have good legroom, good inflight entertainment and the good service makes up for the rest. I am also looking forward to their 787s - those will be nice too, with their quiet cabin and large windows! Their old A330s were also really nice to fly on, with thickly padded seats and great legroom.

kimimm19 wrote:

It's what happens when you don't focus on frequency.

A hammer is not the solution to put in screws.
i.e. there are solutions beyond "frequency".

Thinking about 20-30 years down the road, with what they will replace A380 while mantaining lower CASM than competitors?

emiratesdriver wrote:

As someone who actually flys the thing, I can tell you that it is most definitely not “always full” in fact the lead up to Christmas this year has been a disaster in terms of loads and yields.
There are far more knowledgeable posters on here who can explain the difference between load and yield, all I can do is explain that the 380 is a PR rather than a profit machine. It continues to be used in many cases as a loss leader to generate or grab market share. For evidence of this, merely review EKs last 6 months trading results and gross margin.

This what i suspected, seems like EK likes to show they are the biggest by flooding markets in ways other airlines just cant compete with. This is the basis why i claimed this is A380 Abuse.

winGl3t wrote:

Thinking about 20-30 years down the road, with what they will replace A380 while mantaining lower CASM than competitors?

With a 77% LF they can fly a a350 or 78J right now with a lower CASM. Fast forward a few years and add the 777X to the list too.

They may need to leave a handful of passengers behind, but losing 10 people on 500 USD round trips is going to help them more than hurt them.

Slash787 wrote:

Well the question I have is that IF EK can fill their A380's and B77W then why do they need B787-10?

Emirates' business model is quite simple - connect secondary cities to primary cities and other secondary cities, of which there are very few that they don't already serve.
A380 and 777s can be filled on the majority of these routes, but the 787-10 opens expansion into tertiary and quaternary cities. Probably a good aircraft to go into Africa or Central Asia for instance.
For true routes where they could only fill a narrowbody, they can leave to FlyDubai without diluting their brand like Qatar & Etihad do with their (comparably) terrible narrow-body service.

In regards to OP, it's because of the business model I've stated. If you want to fly Adelaide to Zagreb or Seoul to Dakar they can enable that - and ALOT of travellers want/need weirdly specific, otherwise low-demand routes.

Interesting to see how most of the posts on this thread focus on EK loads but not on yields.

LAXLHR wrote:

sandyb123 wrote:

EK is not state funded. It belongs to the UAE Royal family and benefits from its location and tax regime. But it is a business, like most other airlines. This is one of A.nets favourite myths.

Sandyb123

The UAE Royal family IS the STATE! .

BUT, the airline benefits from that....although in reality it does run like a regular non-state airline NOW. 20 years ago, no. But then most European carriers were once upon a time state run. Thatcher gave BA the Concorde for GBP1 each!

Not to mention US carriers have been bailed out sooooo many times, they were practically state airlines...now owned by Wall Street, which is owned by (ok nevermind

Yo say it by yourself, state owned airlines used to take non-sense business decision. As many western state owned companies in the old days wanted to fly the Concorde/747 just for prestige reasons, these days EK wants to be the largest A380 operator the same reasons.

A publically trade company is accountable by their shareholders and performance has to be published. A family owned company can be managed anyway the family wants.

JayBCNLON wrote:

EK A380 from BCN almost always full.

Figures shown on this recent thread have EK loads out of BCN averaging around 80% until August. That means 100+ empty seats on a 500+ seats A380

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1405065

Antarius wrote:

EK had a LF of 77% in FY 2017-18.

77% of their a380 is 20 seats more than a 77W. Losing 20 low yielding pax isn't a big deal and EK can right size several routes to increase their LF. Thats why they want the 787-10

Antarius wrote:

winGl3t wrote:

Thinking about 20-30 years down the road, with what they will replace A380 while mantaining lower CASM than competitors?

With a 77% LF they can fly a a350 or 78J right now with a lower CASM. Fast forward a few years and add the 777X to the list too.

They may need to leave a handful of passengers behind, but losing 10 people on 500 USD round trips is going to help them more than hurt them.

It's not that easy of course, since "downgrading" also will mean giving up quite * a lot of * premium seats. The quoted pax delta between 78J/350/777 vs A380 is not made up of 20 times $500 round trips.

One of the reasons EK has (and can afford) lower LF, is because of the sheer size of their premium cabins (not to mention the bonus of a full premium upper deck). Industry wide (not just EK), premium load factors are lower than cattle class LF. Which is perfectly OK, this is one of he reasons there are (much) more expensive in first place.

While they may very well be able to absorb the loss of 20 low yield pax at 500 USD, losing 10 or even 5 high premium customers at 3000 - 8000 US will hurt them. Not to mention that those pax are usually much more loyal than your average 500$ return trip customer, and these valuable customers may now start looking elsewhere for their next trip.

Going back to 787/350 (from A380) will mean a significant reduction in premium seats, en an even heavier reduction in premium income.

EChid wrote:

TC957 wrote:

I'd say they'll need the 787-10 to increase frequencies on short & mid-haul routes, freeing up 380's and 77W's used now for longer-haul frequency upgrades. Plus to establish possible new markets and build them up ready for a 77W or A380 service going forward.

Yep, that's about the sum of it. Right now their smallest plane is a 77L, and they have very few of those. Having a fleet of smaller aircraft allow them to add thin routes that can't support the larger aircraft (or that they aren't sure can support them). If the routes go well, they can always add capacity. If they stay thin, then their risk of financial loss has been smaller. Honestly, I'm surprised that it took them this long to add the smaller aircraft.

Yes, EK used to use the 332 to try out new routes (the last 332 only left the registry in July this year) before upgrading to 340 and/or 77W (they only have 10 77Ls, and these were used for the really long routes rather than 'lesser demand' ones), and finally to 380.

They only have a 0.5% profit margin. I think it's safe to say, even if they're filling thier birds, it's not paying off.

EK doesn't abuse frames it abuses crew, based on which side(A380/777) crew putting in papers at a faster rate, the other side takes the beating, the cycle continues.

LAXLHR wrote:

The UAE Royal family IS the STATE! .

BUT, the airline benefits from that....although in reality it does run like a regular non-state airline NOW. 20 years ago, no.

You do get a certain kind of confidence when your paycheck is signed by the guy whose face is on the money in your pocket.

STC called out other airlines for not being bold and operating more A380s, but his boldness comes from the fact that his boss's face is on his money.

The rest of the industry isn't going to have a job for life like STC has if they show their face at the board meeting with 0.5% profit margins.

emiratesdriver wrote:

As someone who actually flys the thing, I can tell you that it is most definitely not “always full” in fact the lead up to Christmas this year has been a disaster in terms of loads and yields.
There are far more knowledgeable posters on here who can explain the difference between load and yield, all I can do is explain that the 380 is a PR rather than a profit machine. It continues to be used in many cases as a loss leader to generate or grab market share. For evidence of this, merely review EKs last 6 months trading results and gross margin.

I trust the opinion of someone who is flying both on-peak and off-peak flights far more than the a.net anecdotal "plane is always full" or "will only book A380" reports.

Also we can look at the load factors over the last 10 fiscal years and see they range between 75% and 80% with last year right in the middle at 77.5%: https://www.statista.com/statistics/300 ... -airlines/

So, as mentioned above, on average the EK A380 is flying around with ~100 empty seats. Sure they may be full on peak routes at peak times, but to make up for that there are going to be some pretty darn empty planes on off peak routes at off peak times.

We need to keep in mind that EK's mission isn't just making about making money, it is also about creating brand awareness for Dubai.

To do that, you need to make a splash, and thus the A380s with 77.5% load factors.

Their profit margin has been low in the last fiscal but it has been higher for many years.The competition has been intense and fuel prices high.
I would expect their profit margin to increase back over time.Also one major local competitor may dissolve in the near future.