Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
cpd
Posts: 6547
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Emirates CEO says no new widebodies will launch in years

Mon Jul 27, 2020 9:28 pm

lightsaber wrote:
cpd wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
I'm going to disagree. In the industry, we look for step changes in efficiency. That would be the Blended Wing Body (BwB). It has huge structural efficiency advantages and some aerodynamic advantages. I participated in studies that I believe have cleared the evacuation issues. The BwB efficiency grows with scale more than a cigar with wings.

The VLA requires a significant efficiency advantage due to the risk of not filling seats (likely to be realized).

Eventually we will have another VLA. (Never say never) Certainly not in the near term.

Basically, we already know the NMA is delayed. But development won't stop. Only half of new technology can be retrofitted to an existing design. So eventually we will develop new widebodies. But not in the near term.

Lightsaber


A blended wing body aircraft has about as much chance of occurring in the next 20 years as the Handley Page skewed wing SST did of becoming reality.

With only two major aircraft makers, they can just put on the brakes for development and do as little as possible. Minor improvements and changes, little more. Nothing risky.

That will be safest. I suspect an SST might be a possibility down the track with variable cycle engines, but it’s surely a long way off and it probably won’t be in the remainder of my lifetime.

This pandemic still isn’t defeated yet either.

SST is so costly, it will only be for limited passenger payloads. We'll have to see how those go in this downturn.

I don't expect a BwB soon, but the basic efficiency is there. Everyone is trying to bring that efficiency. As you note, there are only two vendors who will, like all near monopolies, restrain development. There is always development of those thinking of re-entering the civil market. Businesses are always looking for opportunities.

But with the Boeing BwB x-48, Northrop UCAS, B-21 Raider, and Airbus MAVERIC (I know, small), research continues.
The reality is supersonic transport requires 1st class and higher pricing to move people that quickly.

If you want to cut the cost of air travel, the BwB is a fairly mature technology. The issue, is the efficiency is a *huge* function of scale. The gains really only start for a 250 seater. As environmental concerns grow, there will be a need for a step function reduction in fuel burn. The BwB is one of the few step functions waiting to be implemented now that GTFs are flying, variable cycle in engines has started (just started), and the first bit of CMCs will on the 779.

I worked a little consulting on the Sonic Cruiser very early in my carrier. I was appalled at the sharp increase in fuel burn. For Supersonic flight, that is far worse.

But for the next few years, this is idle discussion.

Lightsaber


At the risk of going to technical discussion, was the Sonic Cruiser going fast enough to take advantage of the benefits of high speed flight? I think not, it was just below Mach 1.0 wasn’t it, and with more conventional engines? So no variable inlets, etc. it just seemed like a poor idea. The actual proper SST aircraft gain benefits from going M2.0 versus going at below subsonic speed.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Emirates CEO says no new widebodies will launch in years

Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:55 pm

AlanG1302 wrote:
Airbus already sold about 600 XLRs. Do you still consider this too niche?

smithbs wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

Surely a 200-250 seater with range around ~6,000nmi would be useful since Both Airbus and Boeing doesn't offer one.

B797 is too small and compete with A321XLR and it doesn't have enough range and capability to replace B767-300ER. It's a lose-lose design.


Conversely, the fact that Airbus and Boeing have not made a 200-250 seater with 6000 nm range may indicate that they don't think the market is there. Something like the 762ER has been out of production for a long long time and is rarely seen in commercial service anymore - the market had a need for it but it wasn't a particularly large need. Certainly it wasn't a market large enough to justify its own purpose-designed aircraft (particularly at today's R&D costs).

It's why the 737 isn't a good long range aircraft (and will likely never be) - to give it that capability would screw up its performance on the missions it earns its bread and butter on. That's also why A321XLR might be too niche for its own good - it adds cost and weight to a mission that is kind of rare.


I'm having a hard time sorting the Airbus orders. If I see things correctly, A321ceo/neo backlog is at 2,020 units, but it doesn't split out A321XLR, so if your number is correct (source please), then that's about 30% of A321s. For the entire family backlog, XLR is 11%. Maybe it's a bigger niche than I thought, but still a subset of the A321 family alone and a niche in the whole family.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4652
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Emirates CEO says no new widebodies will launch in years

Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:41 am

AlanG1302 wrote:
Airbus already sold about 600 XLRs. Do you still consider this too niche?

smithbs wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

Surely a 200-250 seater with range around ~6,000nmi would be useful since Both Airbus and Boeing doesn't offer one.

B797 is too small and compete with A321XLR and it doesn't have enough range and capability to replace B767-300ER. It's a lose-lose design.


Conversely, the fact that Airbus and Boeing have not made a 200-250 seater with 6000 nm range may indicate that they don't think the market is there. Something like the 762ER has been out of production for a long long time and is rarely seen in commercial service anymore - the market had a need for it but it wasn't a particularly large need. Certainly it wasn't a market large enough to justify its own purpose-designed aircraft (particularly at today's R&D costs).

It's why the 737 isn't a good long range aircraft (and will likely never be) - to give it that capability would screw up its performance on the missions it earns its bread and butter on. That's also why A321XLR might be too niche for its own good - it adds cost and weight to a mission that is kind of rare.

The XLR is not widebody.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
ewt340
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Emirates CEO says no new widebodies will launch in years

Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:00 am

smithbs wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
I don't think there are enough room between A321 and A359 to support a new widebody design, just as 797 couldn't be launched as a widebody


Surely a 200-250 seater with range around ~6,000nmi would be useful since Both Airbus and Boeing doesn't offer one.

B797 is too small and compete with A321XLR and it doesn't have enough range and capability to replace B767-300ER. It's a lose-lose design.


Conversely, the fact that Airbus and Boeing have not made a 200-250 seater with 6000 nm range may indicate that they don't think the market is there. Something like the 762ER has been out of production for a long long time and is rarely seen in commercial service anymore - the market had a need for it but it wasn't a particularly large need. Certainly it wasn't a market large enough to justify its own purpose-designed aircraft (particularly at today's R&D costs).

It's why the 737 isn't a good long range aircraft (and will likely never be) - to give it that capability would screw up its performance on the missions it earns its bread and butter on. That's also why A321XLR might be too niche for its own good - it adds cost and weight to a mission that is kind of rare.


Well they actually have A330-200 and A330-800neo which seats 240-260 seats. But it got too much range and capability that aircraft this size doesn't actually need.

So far we know B767-300ER is extremely successful with some airlines still operating it today. There is a proven market for such aircraft.

Airbus also have a big gap between A321XLR and A350-900. Unless they want to give all the market to Boeing, they have to counter with something.
Obviously designing a new aircraft to go head to head with B787 would be a suicide. So they have to focus on medium-haul market instead.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4652
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Emirates CEO says no new widebodies will launch in years

Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:11 am

ewt340 wrote:
smithbs wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

Surely a 200-250 seater with range around ~6,000nmi would be useful since Both Airbus and Boeing doesn't offer one.

B797 is too small and compete with A321XLR and it doesn't have enough range and capability to replace B767-300ER. It's a lose-lose design.


Conversely, the fact that Airbus and Boeing have not made a 200-250 seater with 6000 nm range may indicate that they don't think the market is there. Something like the 762ER has been out of production for a long long time and is rarely seen in commercial service anymore - the market had a need for it but it wasn't a particularly large need. Certainly it wasn't a market large enough to justify its own purpose-designed aircraft (particularly at today's R&D costs).

It's why the 737 isn't a good long range aircraft (and will likely never be) - to give it that capability would screw up its performance on the missions it earns its bread and butter on. That's also why A321XLR might be too niche for its own good - it adds cost and weight to a mission that is kind of rare.


Well they actually have A330-200 and A330-800neo which seats 240-260 seats. But it got too much range and capability that aircraft this size doesn't actually need.

So far we know B767-300ER is extremely successful with some airlines still operating it today. There is a proven market for such aircraft.

Airbus also have a big gap between A321XLR and A350-900. Unless they want to give all the market to Boeing, they have to counter with something.
Obviously designing a new aircraft to go head to head with B787 would be a suicide. So they have to focus on medium-haul market instead.

I guess it would cost them considerably less to develop A322 instead of a whole new aircraft family
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
xwb777
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:13 pm

Re: Rumour: Emirates to decommission 40% of A380 fleet

Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:30 pm

Emirates is offering unpaid leave till November to avoid further layoffs.

https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2020 ... undancies/
 
chonetsao
Posts: 714
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:55 pm

Re: Rumour: Emirates to decommission 40% of A380 fleet

Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:16 pm

Following the new requirement of Covid-19 PCR test within 96 hours of arriving of transiting in UAE, it is for sure Emirates would suffer even further in passenger loads. I can see how Emirates would end up retire 40% of their A380 by end of 2020. The recovery is not anywhere in sight.
 
KingOrGod
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Rumour: Emirates to decommission 40% of A380 fleet

Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:15 am

zeke wrote:

Even after being terminated don’t they go into 25% basic pay, free health care and accommodation until they leave the country ?

That’s the UAE sponsorship visa conditions isn’t it ?.


I worked in a rich neighbouring emirate, and some time ago (before corona) when my contract was summarily terminated, they didn't even give me the agreed notice period. They terminated my visa and I had 8 days to sell up and leave otherwise face arrest. They play their own game there and one should realise they have no conscience with a lot of stuff. Play with fire, get burned. It's the ME all over. No ethics.
 
Western727
Posts: 1795
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

Re: Rumour: Emirates to decommission 40% of A380 fleet

Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:18 pm

Having had my family's trip to DXB (nonstop from IAH on a 380) postponed from mid-March, literally days prior to the trip, to 20-29 November I find myself doubting that we'll be able to visit my expat sister and her family who live in AUH. The way things look, it looks more and more likely that we'll have to postpone again to spring break in March 2021...not to mention lamenting the fact that my likely only chance of flying on the 380 may evaporate.

Love to entertain an educated guess from you folks on that.

KingOrGod wrote:
zeke wrote:

Even after being terminated don’t they go into 25% basic pay, free health care and accommodation until they leave the country ?

That’s the UAE sponsorship visa conditions isn’t it ?.


I worked in a rich neighbouring emirate, and some time ago (before corona) when my contract was summarily terminated, they didn't even give me the agreed notice period. They terminated my visa and I had 8 days to sell up and leave otherwise face arrest. They play their own game there and one should realise they have no conscience with a lot of stuff. Play with fire, get burned. It's the ME all over. No ethics.


My brother-in-law got a high-paying administrative job at the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant and has since gotten reorganized to the utility's HQ in AUH. I do wonder what might happen to him should the utility decide to terminate his contract. 8 days is quite a short notice to move a family of 6.

EDIT: clarification.
Jack @ AUS
 
lalib
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:48 am

Re: Rumour: Emirates to decommission 40% of A380 fleet

Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:05 pm

KingOrGod wrote:
zeke wrote:

Even after being terminated don’t they go into 25% basic pay, free health care and accommodation until they leave the country ?

That’s the UAE sponsorship visa conditions isn’t it ?.


I worked in a rich neighbouring emirate, and some time ago (before corona) when my contract was summarily terminated, they didn't even give me the agreed notice period. They terminated my visa and I had 8 days to sell up and leave otherwise face arrest. They play their own game there and one should realise they have no conscience with a lot of stuff. Play with fire, get burned. It's the ME all over. No ethics.


Doesn't happen with all companies and they are not that unreasonable. I worked for EY for 2 years plus. I got made redundant in 2017. They were lenient before canceling my visa as I was scrambling to find another job. Once I found something after 3 - 4 months I asked them to cancel it and it was done.
 
User avatar
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Emirates: 777X further delayed until 2022, considering to convert more orders to 787

Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:24 pm

Revelation wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I agree. 77X is right about where its business plan suggested it should be. 309 orders before EIS from blue chip customers around the world, many of whom are A350 customers, some of whom are A350-1000 customers. It found as good a degree of acceptance as I think could have been expected.

Hmm, 309 orders doesn't say much. If I may add some nuance: Emirates already trimmed its order backlog from 150 to 115 aircraft. Cathay Pacific is looking to defer deliveries, Lufthansa believes they have too many 777X on order and Etihad Airways is not in a position to take the aircraft but cannot get out of the contract. This "degree of acceptance" is lower then you might think.

Really, 309 orders are not a good degree of acceptance before EIS? For a point of comparison, A380 had 177 pax orders at EIS ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... deliveries ) and that included the dubious Kingfisher and Virgin orders. It was also a clean sheet with a much bigger spend than 777x has, and where Airbus had the freedom to target any market segment they wanted since they had a blank check. Therefore I feel my statement is quite justified.


My point was that the real backlog is much smaller than 309 aircraft when you remove the shaky orders. The A380 got nothing to do with it.

I think my comment should be read in the full context which I included above. If you were expecting 777x to have order books the size of 787 or A350 before EIS, then IMO you have unrealistic expectations.


You should read the 777x threads on a.net from 2013, when the jet was launched. Many people predicted 600+ orders before EIS.
Good moaning!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20562
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Emirates: 777X further delayed until 2022, considering to convert more orders to 787

Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:36 pm

PepeTheFrog wrote:
Revelation wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
Hmm, 309 orders doesn't say much. If I may add some nuance: Emirates already trimmed its order backlog from 150 to 115 aircraft. Cathay Pacific is looking to defer deliveries, Lufthansa believes they have too many 777X on order and Etihad Airways is not in a position to take the aircraft but cannot get out of the contract. This "degree of acceptance" is lower then you might think.

Really, 309 orders are not a good degree of acceptance before EIS? For a point of comparison, A380 had 177 pax orders at EIS ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... deliveries ) and that included the dubious Kingfisher and Virgin orders. It was also a clean sheet with a much bigger spend than 777x has, and where Airbus had the freedom to target any market segment they wanted since they had a blank check. Therefore I feel my statement is quite justified.


My point was that the real backlog is much smaller than 309 aircraft when you remove the shaky orders. The A380 got nothing to do with it.

I think my comment should be read in the full context which I included above. If you were expecting 777x to have order books the size of 787 or A350 before EIS, then IMO you have unrealistic expectations.


You should read the 777x threads on a.net from 2013, when the jet was launched. Many people predicted 600+ orders before EIS.

We can agree the 777x needs more orders. In the mid-term, I expect Boeing to try to sell 777xFs. I'm starting to get scared on freight demand due to economic concerns.

Fans predicting orders has nothing to do with a business case.

EK must down size. That means fewer 779. The 778 business case is extra precarious.

But this is an EK thread, not 779 vs. A388.

Due to far more technology advance in the 779, I see a good future at EK. The trick is getting to say 2025.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Emirates: 777X further delayed until 2022, considering to convert more orders to 787

Wed Jul 29, 2020 10:36 pm

lightsaber wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Really, 309 orders are not a good degree of acceptance before EIS? For a point of comparison, A380 had 177 pax orders at EIS ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... deliveries ) and that included the dubious Kingfisher and Virgin orders. It was also a clean sheet with a much bigger spend than 777x has, and where Airbus had the freedom to target any market segment they wanted since they had a blank check. Therefore I feel my statement is quite justified.


My point was that the real backlog is much smaller than 309 aircraft when you remove the shaky orders. The A380 got nothing to do with it.

I think my comment should be read in the full context which I included above. If you were expecting 777x to have order books the size of 787 or A350 before EIS, then IMO you have unrealistic expectations.


You should read the 777x threads on a.net from 2013, when the jet was launched. Many people predicted 600+ orders before EIS.

We can agree the 777x needs more orders. In the mid-term, I expect Boeing to try to sell 777xFs. I'm starting to get scared on freight demand due to economic concerns.

Fans predicting orders has nothing to do with a business case.

EK must down size. That means fewer 779. The 778 business case is extra precarious.

But this is an EK thread, not 779 vs. A388.

Due to far more technology advance in the 779, I see a good future at EK. The trick is getting to say 2025.

Lightsaber


I don't think they would push for B777XF. Their original B777F program are still pretty young. they also recently have conversion program for other B777 model.

Interestingly enough, I just found out that they still have 18 B777-300ER on backlog. Which is mind blowing.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19285
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Emirates: 777X further delayed until 2022, considering to convert more orders to 787

Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:25 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Interestingly enough, I just found out that they still have 18 B777-300ER on backlog. Which is mind blowing.


Where did you find that? I believe it's incorrect. They have 115 x 777X and 30 x 787 outstanding with Boeing. Their last few 77Ws were cancelled as part of their order switch from 777s to 787s.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Emirates: 777X further delayed until 2022, considering to convert more orders to 787

Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:54 am

scbriml wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Interestingly enough, I just found out that they still have 18 B777-300ER on backlog. Which is mind blowing.


Where did you find that? I believe it's incorrect. They have 115 x 777X and 30 x 787 outstanding with Boeing. Their last few 77Ws were cancelled as part of their order switch from 777s to 787s.


Sorry, not Emirates per say. There are still 18 B777-300ER on order on Boeing's backlog.

Which is pretty interesting how many B777-300ER are extremely young.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: Emirates: 777X further delayed until 2022, considering to convert more orders to 787

Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:42 pm

At this point I am thinking that Boeing would make more money selling 787s instead of 777X to the same airlines but as they have already bet on this horse its a bit late.
 
StTim
Posts: 3754
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Emirates: 777X further delayed until 2022, considering to convert more orders to 787

Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:03 pm

I agree the 777x is looking increasingly the wrong plane at the wrong time.

It will continue to burn money for years to come, if it is ever profitable.

Boeing is in a world of hurt at the moment with 737Max and Covid. The only really profitable plane they currently have is the 767 - who would have thought that.

It is also certainly not rosy at Airbus but I think they are in a better place and will also support their suppliers better.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1152
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Emirates: 777X further delayed until 2022, considering to convert more orders to 787

Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:14 pm

StTim wrote:
I agree the 777x is looking increasingly the wrong plane at the wrong time.

It will continue to burn money for years to come, if it is ever profitable.

Boeing is in a world of hurt at the moment with 737Max and Covid. The only really profitable plane they currently have is the 767 - who would have thought that.

It is also certainly not rosy at Airbus but I think they are in a better place and will also support their suppliers better.

767? I think you mean 787!
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2796
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: Emirates: 777X further delayed until 2022, considering to convert more orders to 787

Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:23 pm

Opus99 wrote:
StTim wrote:
I agree the 777x is looking increasingly the wrong plane at the wrong time.

It will continue to burn money for years to come, if it is ever profitable.

Boeing is in a world of hurt at the moment with 737Max and Covid. The only really profitable plane they currently have is the 767 - who would have thought that.

It is also certainly not rosy at Airbus but I think they are in a better place and will also support their suppliers better.

767? I think you mean 787!


I think he is referring to the deferred costs issue the 787 has. The 787 does generate cash however, which will be important for Boeing. They really need to get the MAX back and flying, if only to deliver what they have already built.
 
StTim
Posts: 3754
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Emirates: 777X further delayed until 2022, considering to convert more orders to 787

Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:32 pm

I doubt the 787 is making money at current production rates.
 
xwb777
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:13 pm

Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:17 pm

In the airline’s latest schedule updates, it has been revealed that FLL will be permenantly dropped. The route was previously set to resume on 02SEP2020 with 4 weekly flights served by the B777-200LR

Source: https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-04aug20/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Blerg
Posts: 4259
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:18 pm

I think I read on here that this was one of their weaker routes. Anyone know more on this?
 
TropicalSky
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:21 pm

this is not surprising as it never went daily.
 
x1234
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:46 pm

They should have switched to MIA as QR is successful there. I know FLL was chosen due to JetBlue connections to Latin America.
 
USAirALB
Posts: 2342
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:59 pm

Not surprising. I do think this goes to show how the strength of MIA and how it is the preferred airport for intercontinental traffic. Outside of DY (and it's possible that they might not even resume service), all foreign long-haul carriers (SA/BA/EK) have all discontinued their FLL service.

It's interesting as I overwhelmingly prefer FLL to MIA, and FLL appears to be relatively popular amongst US leisure travelers thanks to the plethora of WN/B6/NK/G4 flights, but I wonder if FLL is simply more popular because of the US LCCs and because it is right next to Port Everglades, and I doubt international travelers were coming by the busload to take a cruise out of FLL.
RJ85, F70, E135, E140, E145, E70, E75, E90, CR2, CR7, CR9, 717, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 744ER, 752, 753, 762, 772, 77E, 77W, 789, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343, 359, 388
 
myki
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:43 am

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:02 pm

Legitimate question as I don't know ... what makes this airline dropping this one route important enough for its own thread, when hundreds are being dropped at the moment? I presume there is some back story that I am not aware of yet - but please get me up to speed :)
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 2141
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:06 pm

Not at all surprising. Think they cut back the frequency a while back, long before COVID19 and that's telling that it wasn't performing.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2238
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:12 pm

x1234 wrote:
They should have switched to MIA as QR is successful there. I know FLL was chosen due to JetBlue connections to Latin America.


QR is successful in MIA because it's a major OW/AA hub.

I still think EK is a better fit for AA than QR, but that's a different topic.
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3673
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:37 pm

The only surprising thing here is that it took this long...
“They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.”
 
User avatar
klm617
Posts: 5246
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:42 pm

EK only flew to FLL because of their agreement with Jetblue.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
Brickell305
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:58 pm

USAirALB wrote:
Not surprising. I do think this goes to show how the strength of MIA and how it is the preferred airport for intercontinental traffic. Outside of DY (and it's possible that they might not even resume service), all foreign long-haul carriers (SA/BA/EK) have all discontinued their FLL service.

It's interesting as I overwhelmingly prefer FLL to MIA, and FLL appears to be relatively popular amongst US leisure travelers thanks to the plethora of WN/B6/NK/G4 flights, but I wonder if FLL is simply more popular because of the US LCCs and because it is right next to Port Everglades, and I doubt international travelers were coming by the busload to take a cruise out of FLL.

I think the LCC/ULCC operations are a major part of why FLL is so successful domestically. I think it speaks to the fact that FLL is overwhelmingly a leisure airport while MIA, while still heavily leisure, is the preferred business airport in the So. Fla region. For domestic carriers, you have the LCCs whose primary target is leisure and can therefore concentrate solely on FLL. You have the legacies who will serve both with FLL being more heavily leisure and MIA being more business oriented though still primarily leisure. For the international carriers who have less flights into So. Fla than domestic carriers, flying into MIA more makes sense as whatever business demand exists between international city X and South Florida can have its needs met while being able to serve leisure demand. Essentially, it makes more sense for the international carriers to prioritize the demands of their business segment than that of their leisure segment. Domestic carriers with much more traffic (and ergo, flights) can segregate the demand accordingly.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1504
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:22 pm

USAirALB wrote:
Not surprising. I do think this goes to show how the strength of MIA and how it is the preferred airport for intercontinental traffic. Outside of DY (and it's possible that they might not even resume service), all foreign long-haul carriers (SA/BA/EK) have all discontinued their FLL service.

Off the top of my head, the other only international longhaul I can think of is Azul, probably because of B6 as well. Air Canada and Bahamasair also go there, but for this discussion I wouldn't count them.
 
MIAFLLPBIFlyer
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:39 pm

Bricktop wrote:
USAirALB wrote:
Not surprising. I do think this goes to show how the strength of MIA and how it is the preferred airport for intercontinental traffic. Outside of DY (and it's possible that they might not even resume service), all foreign long-haul carriers (SA/BA/EK) have all discontinued their FLL service.

Off the top of my head, the other only international longhaul I can think of is Azul, probably because of B6 as well. Air Canada and Bahamasair also go there, but for this discussion I wouldn't count them.


Avianca also. Azul is a unique case because they've become super-popular with the Brazilian VFR crowd based in Deerfield, Boca and Delray, so since that seems to have become Azul's base flier. FLL geographically makes more sense than MIA. Maybe the only case for an airline foreign or domestic that it makes more sense to fly to FLL than MIA geographically (The Canadian airlines are 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Maybe FLL slightly better for them but MIA not too cumbersome either).

Caribbean Airlines flies to both - the Trini & Jamaican community is more Central Broward than Dade, but not in Palm Beach. Central Broward to Miami drives are fine. It's the specific Brazilian pocket well north of FLL that Azul caters to.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:40 pm

EK also announced that Adelaide is discontinued, and that Dubai-Milan Malpensa-New York JFK will revert permanently to the B77W. As for South America, that could probably be done via JetBlue from JFK or Azul or American (next year) from there too.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26286
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:50 pm

Never made sense to fly to FLL. When they return to South Florida it will certainly be to MIA.
a.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8493
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:55 pm

What makes FLL inferior to MIA for O&D? It's not like ONT vs. LAX.
 
Ishrion
Posts: 3052
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:57 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
American (next year) from there too.


Huh? I don’t think the AA/B6 partnership extends to Emirates?
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26286
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:59 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
What makes FLL inferior to MIA for O&D? It's not like ONT vs. LAX.


No, more like IAD vs BWI or SFO vs OAK.

MIA is far more centrally located and there's also simple name recognition.When Norwegian relocated from OAK/FLL to SFO/MIA they admitted passengers are simply willing to pay more to fly from the main airport and they lose out on passengers due to lack of name recognition/awareness of the secondary airport from foreign passengers.

Not to mention FLL complete lack of premium facilities.
a.
 
Brickell305
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:00 pm

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
USAirALB wrote:
Not surprising. I do think this goes to show how the strength of MIA and how it is the preferred airport for intercontinental traffic. Outside of DY (and it's possible that they might not even resume service), all foreign long-haul carriers (SA/BA/EK) have all discontinued their FLL service.

Off the top of my head, the other only international longhaul I can think of is Azul, probably because of B6 as well. Air Canada and Bahamasair also go there, but for this discussion I wouldn't count them.


Avianca also. Azul is a unique case because they've become super-popular with the Brazilian VFR crowd based in Deerfield, Boca and Delray, so since that seems to have become Azul's base flier. FLL geographically makes more sense than MIA. Maybe the only case for an airline foreign or domestic that it makes more sense to fly to FLL than MIA geographically (The Canadian airlines are 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Maybe FLL slightly better for them but MIA not too cumbersome either).

Caribbean Airlines flies to both - the Trini & Jamaican community is more Central Broward than Dade, but not in Palm Beach. Central Broward to Miami drives are fine. It's the specific Brazilian pocket well north of FLL that Azul caters to.


CM also flew to both pre-COVID, though MIA got significantly more flights than FLL. BW has (I'm assuming temporarily as no announcement has been made) consolidated ops at MIA for the time being.

MAH4546 wrote:
Never made sense to fly to FLL. When they return to South Florida it will certainly be to MIA.


Agreed. I know some will say that's where the B6 connections are but those had to be marginal at best, especially when you look at the arrival time of the flight from DXB.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10197
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:01 pm

klm617 wrote:
EK only flew to FLL because of their agreement with Jetblue.

EK was getting nothing out of JetBlue at FLL. They went to FLL because hardly anyone else was there. DY only had a couple of routes IIRC, and BA joined later. I know this is "permanent" but there's no such thing in this industry. I can see them return in a few years. Only question is whether it will be FLL or MIA.
 
MIAFLLPBIFlyer
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:17 pm

Brickell305 wrote:
MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
Off the top of my head, the other only international longhaul I can think of is Azul, probably because of B6 as well. Air Canada and Bahamasair also go there, but for this discussion I wouldn't count them.


Avianca also. Azul is a unique case because they've become super-popular with the Brazilian VFR crowd based in Deerfield, Boca and Delray, so since that seems to have become Azul's base flier. FLL geographically makes more sense than MIA. Maybe the only case for an airline foreign or domestic that it makes more sense to fly to FLL than MIA geographically (The Canadian airlines are 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Maybe FLL slightly better for them but MIA not too cumbersome either).

Caribbean Airlines flies to both - the Trini & Jamaican community is more Central Broward than Dade, but not in Palm Beach. Central Broward to Miami drives are fine. It's the specific Brazilian pocket well north of FLL that Azul caters to.


CM also flew to both pre-COVID, though MIA got significantly more flights than FLL. BW has (I'm assuming temporarily as no announcement has been made) consolidated ops at MIA for the time being.

MAH4546 wrote:
Never made sense to fly to FLL. When they return to South Florida it will certainly be to MIA.


Agreed. I know some will say that's where the B6 connections are but those had to be marginal at best, especially when you look at the arrival time of the flight from DXB.



The only scenario I see CM returning to FLL is if the connection to UA flights are that much better at FLL than MIA. I don't believe they are. Caribbean might be done with FLL for good also. Makes no sense to fly to FLL - the community they target is an easy drive from MIA (though granted they are closer to FLL). I also do not expect WN to resume FLL int'l OPS, leaving Broward County with a bunch of empty gates in Concourse A. FLL may be in even bigger trouble if B6 or NK goes belly up.

For the time being all non-Canadian int'l and most longer-haul domestic ops will consolidate at MIA. FLL's value won't rebound until Florida's leisure-driven economy does which is probably YEARS not months away. Not sure FLL will maintain regular west coast service either beyond B6 to LAX long-term. As the industry shrinks, the MIA v FLL dynamic likely returns to where it was in the 1990's, not 2010's (though at the time FLL did for many years have seasonal European flights, something that is unlikely to return anytime soon).
 
dcajet
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:31 am

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:25 pm

Buenos Aires EZE and Rio de Janeiro GIG have been dropped too. Santiago SCL was already announced a few weeks ago.
Keep calm and wash your hands.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:42 pm

I was honestly shocked to see EK try service to FLL. "Fort Lauderdale" might be well known to Americans and Canadians, but probably far less so to Indians and Saudi Arabians. Sure, the airport is centrally located in the South Florida metropolitan area, but wouldn't many O&D pax - especially those at the front of the plane - want to be arriving as close to ritzy South Beach as possible (that is, at MIA)?

Sure, the B6 partnership was a consideration, but what does FLL offer that JFK does not? LIM and UIO? I highly doubt many EK pax were connecting onwards to Lima and Quito, let alone other B6 destinations like Aguadilla, Cartagena, Kingston and Port of Spain. I know that if I were connecting, I would much rather do so via JFK than FLL!

This cut isn't surprising at all. If B6 still doesn't want to serve MIA (with all their foreign partners you would think at the very least BOS/JFK-MIA would be a no-brainer, although I guess doing so now could jeopardize their partnership with AA) perhaps EK could fly there itself in the future. An airline as premium as EK does not belong at an airport as awful as FLL!
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
a350lover
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:21 am

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:42 pm

So just GRU in South America?
Wonder if ever we see back the MEX tag on the BCN route.
 
User avatar
klm617
Posts: 5246
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:47 pm

airbazar wrote:
klm617 wrote:
EK only flew to FLL because of their agreement with Jetblue.

EK was getting nothing out of JetBlue at FLL. They went to FLL because hardly anyone else was there. DY only had a couple of routes IIRC, and BA joined later. I know this is "permanent" but there's no such thing in this industry. I can see them return in a few years. Only question is whether it will be FLL or MIA.


That's not true when B6 was flying DTW-FLL EK was getting a decent amount of connections for that flight and that's just on market I know of no to mention all the Caribbean to Southeast Asia connections.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20562
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:49 pm

dcajet wrote:
Buenos Aires EZE and Rio de Janeiro GIG have been dropped too. Santiago SCL was already announced a few weeks ago.

ULH economics must be horrible during these times.

I expect only JFK and maybe LAX to hold out. Everything else has little value in keeping as the markets aren't premium heavy enough. Although when oil prices recover, IAH.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
MIAFLLPBIFlyer
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:57 pm

SurfandSnow wrote:
I was honestly shocked to see EK try service to FLL. "Fort Lauderdale" might be well known to Americans and Canadians, but probably far less so to Indians and Saudi Arabians. Sure, the airport is centrally located in the South Florida metropolitan area, but wouldn't many O&D pax - especially those at the front of the plane - want to be arriving as close to ritzy South Beach as possible (that is, at MIA)?

Sure, the B6 partnership was a consideration, but what does FLL offer that JFK does not? LIM and UIO? I highly doubt many EK pax were connecting onwards to Lima and Quito, let alone other B6 destinations like Aguadilla, Cartagena, Kingston and Port of Spain. I know that if I were connecting, I would much rather do so via JFK than FLL!

This cut isn't surprising at all. If B6 still doesn't want to serve MIA (with all their foreign partners you would think at the very least BOS/JFK-MIA would be a no-brainer, although I guess doing so now could jeopardize their partnership with AA) perhaps EK could fly there itself in the future. An airline as premium as EK does not belong at an airport as awful as FLL!


Actually since you mention Indians, that was maybe a target of the flight - the areas closer to FLL and to the north have more South Asians than areas closer to MIA. One of the few ethnic ex-pat communities where that is the case. I know FLL-DXB-BLR or FLL-DXB-COK or FLL-DXB-MAA was flown by folks I know. They'll miss the flight, maybe the only community who notices it's gone. Many don't like going to MIA for various reasons and may opt now just to fly via EWR on UA from either FLL or PBI and then connect in India to an onward destination. The dislike of MIA is that great among some of them.
 
luckyone
Posts: 3278
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:02 pm

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
USAirALB wrote:
Not surprising. I do think this goes to show how the strength of MIA and how it is the preferred airport for intercontinental traffic. Outside of DY (and it's possible that they might not even resume service), all foreign long-haul carriers (SA/BA/EK) have all discontinued their FLL service.

Off the top of my head, the other only international longhaul I can think of is Azul, probably because of B6 as well. Air Canada and Bahamasair also go there, but for this discussion I wouldn't count them.


Avianca also. Azul is a unique case because they've become super-popular with the Brazilian VFR crowd based in Deerfield, Boca and Delray, so since that seems to have become Azul's base flier. FLL geographically makes more sense than MIA. Maybe the only case for an airline foreign or domestic that it makes more sense to fly to FLL than MIA geographically (The Canadian airlines are 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Maybe FLL slightly better for them but MIA not too cumbersome either).

It's also worth mentioning that Azul and B6 share some corporate LCC heritage and cooperate with connections.
 
MIAFLLPBIFlyer
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:06 pm

Also by my count this make five transatlantic network carriers who have at various times have tried FLL service and eventually dropped it. EK, BA, SA, AY, FI. Any I am missing? Obviously discount carriers like Laker, Condor, Monarch etc on the list.
 
User avatar
LH748
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:44 am

Re: Emirates drops FLL

Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:08 pm

Internationally people know Miami but not Fort Lauderdale
No matter how geographically close they are, it just can't be advertised with the same effect although I would pick FLL over MIA any day
306 310 318 319 320 321 333 343 388 ATR72 733 737 738 739 743 744 748 752 753 763 764 772 77W 788 CRJ7 CRJ9 E170 F100 MD11 RJ1H
AA AB AC AF AK AZ BA DE DL EW FD FR HF HG IB IR MF KU LH LT LX OD TG TK TP UA VJ VN WN W6 YP YW

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos