Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21893
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

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

Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:55 pm

JoergAtADN wrote:
cougar15 wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
Plenty of 380`s parked up to deal with that, if it happens, not just at EK but for all X customers! And 77W´s to soldier on a little longer. Starting to wonder about this X, things are not looking good....Great plane in a very different world!


And fuel prices are low as never - no reason to invest in an expensive new 777x for a slightly better efficiency.


It's not just about fuel. The market space for 779-sized aircraft is pretty small. In addition to the 779 is the 744 and the A35J. I'd argue that the A380 is above the 7779 space. Yes, fuel is cheap, but the 744 is getting expensive and difficult to maintain. The A35J is a bit smaller than the 779.

I think the bigger question for an airline like EK is whether they can currently fill anything bigger than a 787 on their vast route network. A very large chunk of the population is staying put right now. The last time I was aboard an airplane was in November of 2019. I don't expect to board one until the summer of 2021 at the soonest.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Brickell305
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Re: Emirates axes MEX

Sat Aug 22, 2020 9:50 pm

abrelosojos wrote:
slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
IMHO MEX is just a terrible market for premium cabins and last minute purchasers. Its vast majority booked far ahead and super price based. IE why even aero mexico cant even make cities in america work consistently. Not a good market for Emirates cabin configuration. This route needed MEX-BCN to really hit it out of the park, guessing it didnt.


= What are you talking about? MEX is one of the most premium heavy markets out there. It is like BOM. AM can't make cities in NAM work because AM has lost a sense of strategy in the post-Anko DL owned era. If MEX did not have premium traffic, an airline like AM with a 35-50% cost disadvantage wouldn't consistently be break even pre-COVID.

Saludos,
Alex


Exactly, even from the US, it’s the US LCCs that have had trouble there. The US legacies all seemingly do well there.
 
dcajet
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:31 am

Re: Emirates axes MEX

Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:19 pm

Irehdna wrote:
dcajet wrote:
Irehdna wrote:
I had a gut feeling this was going to happen, after they cut the GIG flights. Not surprised GRU is still going, but I am surprised they cannot maintain at least a GIG terminator (like when that route originally started).


Why are you surprised? Rio's long haul demand has been pretty much wiped out over the last 2 decades. It can barely support 1 daily flight to Miami year round.


Pre-COVID it supported flights to LHR, LGW, CDG, OPO, LIS, MAD, FCO, AMS, FRA, ZRH. GIG skews more Europe than the US. Out of those 10 flights there should be a critical mass continuing on to Asia.


For the most part those were flights that depended on leisure demand from other places traveling to GIG, which is not what I was alluding to. Oil industry-traffic also played a part, (AF/BA/LH and UA from IAH). Other than that, there is very little corporate demand ex-GIG. Again, the fact that Brazilian airlines gave up on long haul flying from GIG tells you all you need to know. Rio has been in a steady decline since the 90s for reasons discussed ad nauseaum on this board many times. There is no way a stand alone ME3 flight from GIG would work. Even Ethiopian tried it and gave up.

Sao Paulo concentrates most (if not all) of Brazil's high yielding & corporate traffic. And even with that in mind, in this pandemic world, EK has seriously slashed its presence there: 3x w with a 77W, down from a height of 12x w in 2019, 7 of them with the A380.
Keep calm and wash your hands.
 
mig17
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:03 am

So how many 777-X will be converted in how many 787-9 this time?
Last time it was 35 777-X (and 6 77W) into 30 787-9. So the same in order to cancel all initialy ordered 777-8? More? Less?

The least we can say is EK like to change it's mind very often. A350 converted in A380, then A380 converted in A350. MoU for 781, then talk of A330neo, then conversion of 777-X in 787-9, not once but twice. They have also tried to get out of last A380 ...
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
jmmadrid
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 4:00 pm

Re: Emirates cancels SCL

Sun Aug 23, 2020 6:40 am

Flights are not bookable one week before. Doesn´t look good.
 
VV
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 6:53 am

TropicalSky wrote:
The only way the 78X can truly challenge the 350 (any model) is through a massive PIP (aero clean-ups,weight reduction,engine enchancement,mtow increase)
...


What are the reasons the 787-9/-10 would need such a massive change to challenge the A350-900?
 
VV
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 6:55 am

DLHAM wrote:
...
The airplane competing with the 787 is the A330neo, unless you want to fly ~12 hours+, then the A350 is your plane.


I think the 787-10 can fly routes up to 13-14 hours.

Qantas flies Perth to London with the 787-9. I think the flight is well beyond 14 hours.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4680
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 8:01 am

VV wrote:
DLHAM wrote:
...
The airplane competing with the 787 is the A330neo, unless you want to fly ~12 hours+, then the A350 is your plane.


I think the 787-10 can fly routes up to 13-14 hours.

Qantas flies Perth to London with the 787-9. I think the flight is well beyond 14 hours.


The 787-10 can fly long routes with significantly reduced payload. Out of Dubai on a hot day, probably not even that. Empty seats and cargo bays don't make money. With full payload, the 787-10 is a regional aircraft. If you plan on consistently reducing your payload, the 787-9 is a better, cheaper and more economical solution. I suspect the Qantas Perth-Heathrow service doesn't carry a lot of belly-cargo either.

Emirates' CEO already stated that the 787-10 can't perform the job Emirates needs it for out of Dubai on a warm day, hence why the original order was converted from 40x 787-10 to 30x 787-9 and 20 additional A350-900. He clearly wants to fill his aircraft on a consistent basis.

VV wrote:
TropicalSky wrote:
The only way the 78X can truly challenge the 350 (any model) is through a massive PIP (aero clean-ups,weight reduction,engine enchancement,mtow increase)
...


What are the reasons the 787-9/-10 would need such a massive change to challenge the A350-900?


The 787-9 is a step below the A350 in size, not really a direct comparison.

The 787-10 is heavy, about as heavy as an A350-900, slightly heavier according to some members who have access to real world information on the two. The 787-10 suffers against the A350 for two reasons: A relatively small wing and heavy tarmac-loading. The loading issue means any MTOW increase would risk damaging the tarmac (or limiting which airports it could use). It could be solved by giving it an A340 style center gear or a 777-style 6-wheel bogey, but those will all increase the weight of the aircraft vs the A350, so not really a solution.

But it is an excellent aircraft for shorter missions, probably holds a slight advantage over the A350 on those.
 
dcajet
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:31 am

Re: Emirates cancels SCL

Sun Aug 23, 2020 9:05 am

The above info is not correct. Emirates has laid off its staff at SCL, while the company line at EZE and GIG is that they will return once the market and operational conditions warrant it, but no lay offs have happened there.
Keep calm and wash your hands.
 
SCQ83
Posts: 5811
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:32 pm

Re: Emirates axes MEX

Sun Aug 23, 2020 11:12 am

I remember visiting Rio de Janeiro in 2013 and the city was full of Emirates adds everywhere; at that time the route was starting.

Those were the days; the Brazilian economy was booming and Rio was due to host the 2016 Olympics.

It seems a few years later everything went downhill from that time and COVID was just the nail in the coffin.
 
marcoantona
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Emirates cancels SCL

Sun Aug 23, 2020 11:49 am

dcajet wrote:
The above info is not correct. Emirates has laid off its staff at SCL, while the company line at EZE and GIG is that they will return once the market and operational conditions warrant it, but no lay offs have happened there.


I add info on dcajet’s post, staff in EZE are being offered voluntary termination (retiro voluntario) as in Argentina nowadays laying off employees is not legal.
 
Toinou
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:21 am

Re: Emirates cancels SCL

Sun Aug 23, 2020 11:51 am

marcoantona wrote:
dcajet wrote:
The above info is not correct. Emirates has laid off its staff at SCL, while the company line at EZE and GIG is that they will return once the market and operational conditions warrant it, but no lay offs have happened there.


I add info on dcajet’s post, staff in EZE are being offered voluntary termination (retiro voluntario) as in Argentina nowadays laying off employees is not legal.

Are they offered something worth accepting renouncing voluntary their job?
 
VV
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:01 pm

VSMUT wrote:
...
The 787-10 is heavy, about as heavy as an A350-900, slightly heavier according to some members who have access to real world information on the two. The 787-10 suffers against the A350 for two reasons: A relatively small wing and heavy tarmac-loading. The loading issue means any MTOW increase would risk damaging the tarmac (or limiting which airports it could use). It could be solved by giving it an A340 style center gear or a 777-style 6-wheel bogey, but those will all increase the weight of the aircraft vs the A350, so not really a solution.

But it is an excellent aircraft for shorter missions, probably holds a slight advantage over the A350 on those.


I do not want to comment on the 787-10 empty operating weight vs the A350-900 since I have seen the actual real world weight of both aircraft. I leave you with whatever you want to believe.

As for "shorter missions", I think the 787-10 can carry reasonable payload over 14 hour flight. I think it is the reason why Air New Zealand ordered it for their network that includes US West Coast to Auckland. It is not a short mission..
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-05-26 ... ure-Growth
 
EK7777
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:59 am

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:06 pm

While it doesn't contain any new information, it's a great article that sums up the recent changes to EKs upcoming fleet.

https://airinsight.com/emirates-has-app ... ig-777-9s/
 
Strato2
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:10 pm

VV wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
...
The 787-10 is heavy, about as heavy as an A350-900, slightly heavier according to some members who have access to real world information on the two. The 787-10 suffers against the A350 for two reasons: A relatively small wing and heavy tarmac-loading. The loading issue means any MTOW increase would risk damaging the tarmac (or limiting which airports it could use). It could be solved by giving it an A340 style center gear or a 777-style 6-wheel bogey, but those will all increase the weight of the aircraft vs the A350, so not really a solution.

But it is an excellent aircraft for shorter missions, probably holds a slight advantage over the A350 on those.


I do not want to comment on the 787-10 empty operating weight vs the A350-900 since I have seen the actual real world weight of both aircraft. I leave you with whatever you want to believe.

As for "shorter missions", I think the 787-10 can carry reasonable payload over 14 hour flight. I think it is the reason why Air New Zealand ordered it for their network that includes US West Coast to Auckland. It is not a short mission..
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-05-26 ... ure-Growth


Obviously airlines have missed your info and the orderbook is not

A359: 0 781: 800

but

A359: 760 781: 211
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 552
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:25 pm

Strato2 wrote:
VV wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
...
The 787-10 is heavy, about as heavy as an A350-900, slightly heavier according to some members who have access to real world information on the two. The 787-10 suffers against the A350 for two reasons: A relatively small wing and heavy tarmac-loading. The loading issue means any MTOW increase would risk damaging the tarmac (or limiting which airports it could use). It could be solved by giving it an A340 style center gear or a 777-style 6-wheel bogey, but those will all increase the weight of the aircraft vs the A350, so not really a solution.

But it is an excellent aircraft for shorter missions, probably holds a slight advantage over the A350 on those.


I do not want to comment on the 787-10 empty operating weight vs the A350-900 since I have seen the actual real world weight of both aircraft. I leave you with whatever you want to believe.

As for "shorter missions", I think the 787-10 can carry reasonable payload over 14 hour flight. I think it is the reason why Air New Zealand ordered it for their network that includes US West Coast to Auckland. It is not a short mission..
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-05-26 ... ure-Growth


Obviously airlines have missed your info and the orderbook is not

A359: 0 781: 800

but

A359: 760 781: 211


This is not a fair comparison. The A350-900 is the "best" A350 as it seems to be the "sweet spot" of the A350 design (just like the 787-9 is for the 787). The 787-10 however is a stretch that comes with some penalties from the stretch. That of course is because the 787 and A350 are completely different sized aircraft when comparing the base models.
On the other hand I am sure that at the end the 787-10 will have been much more sucessful as it is by now.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4680
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:01 pm

VV wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
...
The 787-10 is heavy, about as heavy as an A350-900, slightly heavier according to some members who have access to real world information on the two. The 787-10 suffers against the A350 for two reasons: A relatively small wing and heavy tarmac-loading. The loading issue means any MTOW increase would risk damaging the tarmac (or limiting which airports it could use). It could be solved by giving it an A340 style center gear or a 777-style 6-wheel bogey, but those will all increase the weight of the aircraft vs the A350, so not really a solution.

But it is an excellent aircraft for shorter missions, probably holds a slight advantage over the A350 on those.


I do not want to comment on the 787-10 empty operating weight vs the A350-900 since I have seen the actual real world weight of both aircraft. I leave you with whatever you want to believe.

As for "shorter missions", I think the 787-10 can carry reasonable payload over 14 hour flight. I think it is the reason why Air New Zealand ordered it for their network that includes US West Coast to Auckland. It is not a short mission..
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-05-26 ... ure-Growth


Reasonable is up to the individual airline, but insiders have shared the payload carried by the United 787-10s on those long 14 hour flights. It was significantly restricted.

Air New Zealand never said they would use it on flights to the US west coast. Obviously it can do it with a reduced payload, but then the 787-9 and whatever 777s they have left will be the far more logical aircraft to use on those flights.

It should be added that San Francisco, Newark and Auckland are much colder places than Dubai.

Strato2 wrote:
VV wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
...
The 787-10 is heavy, about as heavy as an A350-900, slightly heavier according to some members who have access to real world information on the two. The 787-10 suffers against the A350 for two reasons: A relatively small wing and heavy tarmac-loading. The loading issue means any MTOW increase would risk damaging the tarmac (or limiting which airports it could use). It could be solved by giving it an A340 style center gear or a 777-style 6-wheel bogey, but those will all increase the weight of the aircraft vs the A350, so not really a solution.

But it is an excellent aircraft for shorter missions, probably holds a slight advantage over the A350 on those.


I do not want to comment on the 787-10 empty operating weight vs the A350-900 since I have seen the actual real world weight of both aircraft. I leave you with whatever you want to believe.

As for "shorter missions", I think the 787-10 can carry reasonable payload over 14 hour flight. I think it is the reason why Air New Zealand ordered it for their network that includes US West Coast to Auckland. It is not a short mission..
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-05-26 ... ure-Growth


Obviously airlines have missed your info and the orderbook is not

A359: 0 781: 800

but

A359: 760 781: 211


It is also worth noting that almost all 787-10 operators use it almost exclusively as a regional workhorse. Really says what the aircraft is and is not good at.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:07 pm

VV wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
...
The 787-10 is heavy, about as heavy as an A350-900, slightly heavier according to some members who have access to real world information on the two. The 787-10 suffers against the A350 for two reasons: A relatively small wing and heavy tarmac-loading. The loading issue means any MTOW increase would risk damaging the tarmac (or limiting which airports it could use). It could be solved by giving it an A340 style center gear or a 777-style 6-wheel bogey, but those will all increase the weight of the aircraft vs the A350, so not really a solution.

But it is an excellent aircraft for shorter missions, probably holds a slight advantage over the A350 on those.


I do not want to comment on the 787-10 empty operating weight vs the A350-900 since I have seen the actual real world weight of both aircraft. I leave you with whatever you want to believe.

As for "shorter missions", I think the 787-10 can carry reasonable payload over 14 hour flight. I think it is the reason why Air New Zealand ordered it for their network that includes US West Coast to Auckland. It is not a short mission..
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-05-26 ... ure-Growth


AKL-US West Coast is roughly 12 hours, I think 14 hours is a bit of a stretch for the 78X, it can do them, but on flights that long the A359 and 789 will do a fair bit better in terms of lifting. Information from a UA worker (can't remember on which thread though) is that the 78X has to leave a bit of payload behind when operating on 12-13 hour trips. I can't see a scenario where an airline would use a 78X on flights above 11-12 hours instead of just using the 789. A 789 vs A359 thread in Tech Ops suggested the A359 really has the lifting power on 15+ hour flights, with a minimal disadvantage for fuel consumption, the 78X will burn more fuel than the 789 for any trip with full passenger payload, so I can't see it beating the A359 on flights above 11-12 hours. Below that however, a definite winner.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1285
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:55 pm

VV wrote:
I have a question about the 787-9 order.

Why did Emirates order the 787-9 when they already have the A350-900?
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to keep the fleet as simple as possible by increasing the orders for A350-900 instead of ordering 787-9?
Why would they add an extra aircraft type to the fleet?

Are they playing some kind of game here?


That's because they don't want to pay for penalty for the canceled B777X order.
They don't need anymore MAXes for Flydubai cause they already ordered 236 of those plane.
And they don't need B747-8i either. So their only options is to converted their B777X to B787.

I do believe if they could reduce their B777X order without heavy penalty, they would. But I don't think Boeing would be happy about it.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1285
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 3:00 pm

VV wrote:
TropicalSky wrote:
The only way the 78X can truly challenge the 350 (any model) is through a massive PIP (aero clean-ups,weight reduction,engine enchancement,mtow increase)
...


What are the reasons the 787-9/-10 would need such a massive change to challenge the A350-900?


B787-9 is around ~40 seats smaller than A350-900.
B787-10 range is around 1,670nmi less than A350-900.

So there are some big change that Boeing need to do to B787-10 to compete with A350-900 capability.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19282
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 3:34 pm

Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
I have a question about the 787-9 order.

Why did Emirates order the 787-9 when they already have the A350-900?
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to keep the fleet as simple as possible by increasing the orders for A350-900 instead of ordering 787-9?
Why would they add an extra aircraft type to the fleet?

Are they playing some kind of game here?

If so, it's the same game AF, MU, CZ, JL, LH, QR, and maybe even UA are playing.


CA, TK and VN are also playing the game. It must be fun!
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.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 552
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 3:42 pm

I think the 787-10 works best for flights up to like 10 hours, this is what the airplane is designed for. So short to Medium transatlantic flights, flights from Europe to India or China, US to South America and stuff like this. Also it should work a bit better on these segments than the A350-900 because the A350-900 is designed to fly much longer.

So the 787-10 is perfect for 777-200 route replacement and also shorter 777-200ER routes and the A350-900 is perfect for the rest of the 777-200ER territory and also most of 777-200LR routes.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
Sokes
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 4:49 pm

VSMUT wrote:
It is also worth noting that almost all 787-10 operators use it almost exclusively as a regional workhorse. Really says what the aircraft is and is not good at.

That sounds like six hours flights to me.
What about nine hours transatlantic? Would it be payload restricted or cruise too low?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 4:53 pm

Sokes wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
It is also worth noting that almost all 787-10 operators use it almost exclusively as a regional workhorse. Really says what the aircraft is and is not good at.

That sounds like six hours flights to me.
What about nine hours transatlantic? Would it be payload restricted or cruise too low?


I believe the 78X can carry its full load to about 4000nm, which should cover most TATL routes with full payload, but any USA-Europe flight with either full or minimal restrictions.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 4:56 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
I believe the 78X can carry its full load to about 4000nm, which should cover most TATL routes with full payload, but any USA-Europe flight with either full or minimal restrictions.

I don't understand the last part of your sentence.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Airlinerdude
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:07 am

Re: Emirates axes MEX

Sun Aug 23, 2020 5:42 pm

I'm not sure what the source is behind this thread, but COO Al Redha has come out and said that Emirates will return to all 143 destinations served prior to the impact of Covid19. For what it's worth, MEX is still available for booking in the EK booking system.

See post #511 in the following thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1446355&start=500
 
airlinefreak1
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2000 5:13 pm

MCO

Sun Aug 23, 2020 5:53 pm

Does anyone know if and when MCO might restart? According to the updates from Routes online, it should restart in September but it remains unbookable .....

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38...as-of-19aug20/

Cheers
 
airlinefreak1
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2000 5:13 pm

MCO

Sun Aug 23, 2020 5:54 pm

Does anyone know if and when MCO might restart? According to the updates from Routes online, it should restart in September but it remains unbookable .....

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38...as-of-19aug20/

Cheers
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24793
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Emirates axes MEX

Sun Aug 23, 2020 6:01 pm

SCQ83 wrote:
... and COVID was just the nail in the coffin.

Probably not the best choice of words...
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
VV
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 6:04 pm

Strato2 wrote:
...
Obviously airlines have missed your info and the orderbook is not

A359: 0 781: 800

but

A359: 760 781: 211


I think the A350-900 was launched in 2006 and the 787-10 was launched only in 2013.
 
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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:12 pm

Sokes wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
I believe the 78X can carry its full load to about 4000nm, which should cover most TATL routes with full payload, but any USA-Europe flight with either full or minimal restrictions.

I don't understand the last part of your sentence.

I suspect he means either no or minimal restrictions.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4680
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:43 pm

Sokes wrote:
What about nine hours transatlantic? Would it be payload restricted or cruise too low?


Transatlantic (at least to the US east coast) and similar hits right in the sweet-spot for the 787-10, those flights should not be a challenge at all. Can't say if it can do the same out of Dubai though, 45 degree warm days really eat into the performance.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1147
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:52 pm

[twoid][/twoid]
VSMUT wrote:
Sokes wrote:
What about nine hours transatlantic? Would it be payload restricted or cruise too low?


Transatlantic (at least to the US east coast) and similar hits right in the sweet-spot for the 787-10, those flights should not be a challenge at all. Can't say if it can do the same out of Dubai though, 45 degree warm days really eat into the performance.

BA is able to do a full load to Seattle. Which is about 9 hours. Then again. It seats 256 in BAs config
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13336
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Emirates axes MEX

Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:57 pm

Revelation wrote:
SCQ83 wrote:
... and COVID was just the nail in the coffin.

Probably not the best choice of words...

Why? Seems pretty accurate in its description.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:00 pm

78X MZFW range is abound 4500nm IIRC, which is around 9.5hrs with 53-57t of payload depending on DOW. We've seen from what jayunited has posted around 10.5-11hrs is the limit with a 300+ pax full cabin and a hefty load of cargo. 12.5-13 your risking not being able to take any cargo, past that you're gonna struggle with even taking full pax. Around 8-10hrs is the sweet spot for the efficiency of the 78X, you can stretch it to 11-12 if you minimize the cargo. If you want a 8-10hr, 40-45t payload plane, which is 300 or more pax and 12-17t of cargo, this is the plane. Past that you're better off with a 359, or a 789 with less pax.
 
AF086
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Emirates axes MEX

Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:51 pm

Very unfair review of the GIG market. It is true that the market declined a lot over the past decades but it can sustain its share of longhaul services including MIA, more than barely.

JJ chose to drop GIG longhauls to protect its GRU hub, AA was about to add a second flight to MIA in January/21. In the end it’s all about connections. GRU offers tons of those, GIG does not.

GIG still sustains healthy traffic to destinations in Europe and the US albeit lower yielding. However os also has its relevant business traffic. True that not as much as GRU (and connections).

And ET just flew to GIG because it could not secure the slots they wanted at GRU so the aircraft landed at GIG first allowing its arrival at Guarulhos to be later. Once ET got the slots they wanted they dropped GIG. AT for instance sustained its flight to GIG until COVID changed everything.

Anyways, this subject warrants it’s own topic and this is about EK’s departure from MEX.
Please insert a "smart" joke here.
 
marcoantona
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Emirates cancels SCL

Mon Aug 24, 2020 11:42 am

Toinou wrote:
marcoantona wrote:
dcajet wrote:
The above info is not correct. Emirates has laid off its staff at SCL, while the company line at EZE and GIG is that they will return once the market and operational conditions warrant it, but no lay offs have happened there.


I add info on dcajet’s post, staff in EZE are being offered voluntary termination (retiro voluntario) as in Argentina nowadays laying off employees is not legal.

Are they offered something worth accepting renouncing voluntary their job?

I’m not aware of they exact package they are being offered, but these days it’s usually the same that if they were fired and may be an extra. With the constant devaluation here in Argentina, it’s not stupid to grab the compensation now and change it to dollars before waiting to be fired and losing value of your payment everyday.
 
User avatar
Mistral1
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:15 pm

Re: Emirates cancels SCL

Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:59 pm

It's getting really confusing to understand Emirates plans for South America beyond GRU... time will tell, but as for now it seems they cancelled SCL, EZE and GIG for good.
 
a350lover
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:21 am

Re: Emirates axes MEX

Mon Aug 24, 2020 3:34 pm

Is there any public statement from EK regarding the drop of services to MEX?

I can only see the route has been (again) postponed until December, but not officially canceled?
 
SCQ83
Posts: 5811
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:32 pm

Re: Emirates axes MEX

Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:37 pm

a350lover wrote:
Is there any public statement from EK regarding the drop of services to MEX?

I can only see the route has been (again) postponed until December, but not officially canceled?


Carriers rarely make public statements about routes being dropped (unless it is Ryanair and wants to make an statement). Specially Emirates which is all about face saving.
 
a350lover
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:21 am

Re: Emirates axes MEX

Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:44 pm

SCQ83 wrote:
a350lover wrote:
Is there any public statement from EK regarding the drop of services to MEX?

I can only see the route has been (again) postponed until December, but not officially canceled?


Carriers rarely make public statements about routes being dropped (unless it is Ryanair and wants to make an statement). Specially Emirates which is all about face saving.


Correct. But still I don't see any fact regarding EK's operation in MEX other than the route being put off again. Could this mean they will never be back? Indeed.

Normally a.net requires a link or some sort of "proof" for statements like "Emirates axes XXX".
 
marcoantona
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Emirates cancels SCL

Mon Aug 24, 2020 8:29 pm

News have just hit, Qatar will also cancel EZE return.
 
User avatar
Mistral1
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:15 pm

Re: Emirates cancels SCL

Mon Aug 24, 2020 9:32 pm

Haven't found anything yet, do you have a link?
 
marcoantona
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Emirates cancels SCL

Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:06 am

Only social media. Official announcement will be done tomorrow.
 
OGLOBAL
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:29 pm

Re: Emirates cancels SCL

Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:52 am

Most of South America is closed either way . only Brasil is open . most probably they will keep GRU for now and restart the rest by 2021
 
Opus99
Posts: 1147
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

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

Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:27 am

https://youtu.be/1Cmwm481nkc

Interesting video from 6 years back.

How times have changed
 
Gbass21
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:01 pm

Re: Emirates axes MEX

Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:57 am

Couldn´t in a pre-pandemic world, ek fly this route nonstop with an a380 four times a week with night departure at MEX just to avoid some hot conditions? I think that a quad as the a380 should not have to many problems taking off at MEX altitude at possible 8-12°C degrees. In gcmap, it shows 7,746 nm, just 100nm further than DXB-AKL. Im stating this just because the current stop in BCN kiled this route. On another hand, could a 778, 779 or A359 make this flight nonstop possible?
 
ewt340
Posts: 1285
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Fri Aug 28, 2020 10:03 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
78X MZFW range is abound 4500nm IIRC, which is around 9.5hrs with 53-57t of payload depending on DOW. We've seen from what jayunited has posted around 10.5-11hrs is the limit with a 300+ pax full cabin and a hefty load of cargo. 12.5-13 your risking not being able to take any cargo, past that you're gonna struggle with even taking full pax. Around 8-10hrs is the sweet spot for the efficiency of the 78X, you can stretch it to 11-12 if you minimize the cargo. If you want a 8-10hr, 40-45t payload plane, which is 300 or more pax and 12-17t of cargo, this is the plane. Past that you're better off with a 359, or a 789 with less pax.


I guess Emirates biggest problem is their performance on Dubai. With temperature hovering between 30-40 degrees almost all year round, this would became problematic if their aircraft is underpower.
Also, Dubai import lots of their resources from other countries, so cargo might be a factor for them.

I think that's the other reason why they choose B787-9.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

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

Fri Aug 28, 2020 10:24 am

EK has apparently decided the mix of 77X and 78X that it wants, but is not publicly announcing that until agreement with Boeing is reached.

"Emirates (EK, Dubai Int'l) has made a decision on the final composition of its Boeing (BOE, Chicago O'Hare) order backlog, which includes B777X and B787 Family jets, but will not reveal any details at this time"

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ake-up-coo
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:38 pm

ewt340 wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
78X MZFW range is abound 4500nm IIRC, which is around 9.5hrs with 53-57t of payload depending on DOW. We've seen from what jayunited has posted around 10.5-11hrs is the limit with a 300+ pax full cabin and a hefty load of cargo. 12.5-13 your risking not being able to take any cargo, past that you're gonna struggle with even taking full pax. Around 8-10hrs is the sweet spot for the efficiency of the 78X, you can stretch it to 11-12 if you minimize the cargo. If you want a 8-10hr, 40-45t payload plane, which is 300 or more pax and 12-17t of cargo, this is the plane. Past that you're better off with a 359, or a 789 with less pax.


I guess Emirates biggest problem is their performance on Dubai. With temperature hovering between 30-40 degrees almost all year round, this would became problematic if their aircraft is underpower.
Also, Dubai import lots of their resources from other countries, so cargo might be a factor for them.

I think that's the other reason why they choose B787-9.

Exactly, the 789 and 359 are gonna fair A LOT better. If they want more passengers and a little more payload 359 is gonna be better. Fuel burn the 789 is a bit lighter so it has an edge on shorter routes.

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