piedmontf284000 wrote:

ben7x wrote:

Someone is running out of money I guess…

Yup. This is more about EK and their finances then airplanes getting to them on time. This is Tim Clark using certification and defects to cover for the fact that as of right now they don't need these airplanes anytime soon (they barely are using the ones they have) and it will put an even bigger hole in their bottom line. Air travel is recovering but not fast enough for a world hub like Dubai. They can't fill their airplanes and the last two years have been very unkind to them.

I suspect there might well be something to this. There does seem to be a distinct tactic by both EK and Qatar to look for ways to defer, cancel or get compensation at the OEMs' expense, rather than put their hands up and say they need to negotiate for deferrals, etc, due to the state of their business. Is it face saving? Is it toys out of the pram? Who knows. But all this threatening through the media is pretty poor and is likely to, ultimately, rebound badly on them, as Qatar has just found out (having been binned by Airbus).

EKs Tim Clark threatens to cancel B777X orders if not certified by July 2023. Will not accept A350s if paint issue not resolved.

Easy, just buy IL-96-400 instead.

Noshow wrote:

EKs Tim Clark threatens to cancel B777X orders if not certified by July 2023. Will not accept A350s if paint issue not resolved.

Easy, just buy IL-96-400 instead.

How much Western/American technology is needed to have an operational IL 96?

At this point I think the 777X is dead. The FAA seems not to want to approve anything. Maybe Boeing should work directly with EASA instead.

Boeing can’t get the 737-7 signed off or a 787 built or 777X Type Inspection Authorization.

It’s not just Boeing - the FAA has gone against the DOD over Link-16 and the FCC/cell phone industry over 5G.

Francoflier wrote:

Even Al Baker isn't dumb enough to threaten his only 2 suppliers at the same time...

Exactly what I was thinking.
More likely he is just getting broke and cannot afford any new aircraft for quite some time...

JerseyFlyer wrote:

The interesting news for me is the possible life extension for 80 of their A380s to 25,000 or 30,000 cycles.

This is a change from the 12 or so years' tenure for airframes at EK that we have been used to seeing. Makes me wonder if they might pick up redundant A380s from the likes of AF or LH should they actually cancel 779s.

I'm far from an expert, but EK's A380s are not that high cycle aircraft? If I look at some of the 747-400s which were retired the past years, many had barely 20000 cycles with over 20 years of service and over 100000 hours of flying

piedmontf284000 wrote:

ben7x wrote:

Someone is running out of money I guess…

Yup. This is more about EK and their finances then airplanes getting to them on time. This is Tim Clark using certification and defects to cover for the fact that as of right now they don't need these airplanes anytime soon (they barely are using the ones they have) and it will put an even bigger hole in their bottom line. Air travel is recovering but not fast enough for a world hub like Dubai. They can't fill their airplanes and the last two years have been very unkind to them.

I do actually think EK needs 787s and A359s. Find it difficult to believe they are selling out all the seats on their 77W and A380 flights.

It's not good that he is so concerned about the 777-9 timeline and deliveries.

ADent wrote:

At this point I think the 777X is dead. The FAA seems not to want to approve anything. Maybe Boeing should work directly with EASA instead.

Boeing can’t get the 737-7 signed off or a 787 built or 777X Type Inspection Authorization.

It’s not just Boeing - the FAA has gone against the DOD over Link-16 and the FCC/cell phone industry over 5G.

The FAA is mess right now. I'm not sure STC isn't directing his frustrations at the FAA as much as at Boeing over the 777x
certification delays.

I don’t think there is much Boeing can do right now, the FAA is a disaster.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

The interesting news for me is the possible life extension for 80 of their A380s to 25,000 or 30,000 cycles.

This is a change from the 12 or so years' tenure for airframes at EK that we have been used to seeing. Makes me wonder if they might pick up redundant A380s from the likes of AF or LH should they actually cancel 779s.

Agreed fully.

Tim Clarke spoke of 120 - 150 million passengers in the near future, up from 90 million today. He also spoke of a shortage of seats in and around 2024. He also spoke of Emirates' desperate need for the 779 because there's nothing close to it in capacity. I actually found the interview very informative. His comments are clearly not just a threat to the OEMs. It seems to me Clark is still planning for a very large domineering EK. 787 and A359 are peripheral in such a world. There was actually some doubt EK taking the 787s because of the delays and the backlog.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

willfinn wrote:

As a non-English speaker, I must have misunderstood what is being said... My understanding was as follows:

"Our current financial standing does not permit us to tie billions of dollards of capital into new WB aircraft, which are not needed from an operational standpoint at this stage, anyway. Therefore we use the widely reported problems both programmes are facing as an excuse to demand further concessions from both manufacturers. We would like to open negotiations to amend the terms of the contracts to better suit our current needs."

I am impressed by your comprehension and ability to read between the lines, despite English not being your mother tongue.

I'd say you summarized it quite well.

I'm sure Airbus and Boeing are motivated to develop ultra efficient ULR machines that will effectively allow the bypassing of the ME3 hubs and therefore end all this nonsense from EK and Qatar. Roll on that day!

I would say Airbus has a bigger issue here in comparison to Boeing.
EIS for 777X should work and as long as there are no technical issues Boeing will do just fine even if they have to make some small financial adjustments.
Airbus on the other hand needs to figure out the issue instead of fighting in courts about it other wise they will lose another big one B.

They know it's not going to be ready and they know their cash is drying up. Until long haul international tourist destinations open up they are still be bleeding.

That’s some tremendous pressure.

They can’t skimp on quality or they’ll get another MAX fiasco. They can’t take too long or they won’t make the buck they need.

GlobalAirways wrote:

They know it's not going to be ready and they know their cash is drying up. Until long haul international tourist destinations open up they are still be bleeding.

The general consensus is that these are state funded companies, cash drying up is not an issue, in the case of EK, they are / were an essential part of the development of the country and its economy, odds of a government shutdown and slim to none.
The FAA has Boeing in a vice, like sharks circling in the water, everyone who has an order in with Boeing is looking for the same thing, economic compensation, EK is no different.
The pandemic has simply made it easier for the FAA and Boeing to take time to get things right, without a pandemic, the US Congress would have been on the FAA's case to ensure that they work faster so they are not a reason for Boeing to start laying off staff. Note that with the delay in 787 deliveries no one is talking about jobs, how many staff are being paid to do nothing? Trying to remember if Boeing took any government money to keep workers employed.

chiad wrote:

I have no doubt that the Airbus' paint issue will be resolved.
I am more concerned about EIS of the B777x program.

How so?

The paint issue seems very hard to solve to me, if it was easy Airbus wouldnt make such a huge issue out of it.

The 777X issues don't seem very fundamental, they just need to redo some work according to regulations.

checklist350 wrote:

chiad wrote:

I have no doubt that the Airbus' paint issue will be resolved.
I am more concerned about EIS of the B777x program.

How so?

The paint issue seems very hard to solve to me, if it was easy Airbus wouldnt make such a huge issue out of it.

The 777X issues don't seem very fundamental, they just need to redo some work according to regulations.

Given more emphasis in the article is given to the 777x problems than the 350 issues, I'd probably say the reverse. Airbus is only not happy because planes were being grounded and being called out in the media - all in all its better for them to have this pressure now rather than having both an angry QR AND EK.

Scotron12 wrote:

EKs Tim Clark threatens to cancel B777X orders if not certified by July 2023. Will not accept A350s if paint issue not resolved.


https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emi ... -of-777-9/

That's not what he said. He expects 2024 if they are lucky:

"Don’t forget – the aircraft was originally designed for delivery in April 2020, it’s now 2024 if we are lucky."

What he actually said: "Honestly, if it goes beyond 2023 and it goes on for another year, we probably cancel the program."

That means he gives Boeing until end of 2024 (beyond 2023=start of 2024) to certify (and deliver) the plane, not mid 2023. Since 2024 means they'd be lucky he actually seems to expect the 777X not to be delivered before 2025. By proxy he also expects to cancel the order.

ADent wrote:

At this point I think the 777X is dead. The FAA seems not to want to approve anything. Maybe Boeing should work directly with EASA instead.

Boeing can’t get the 737-7 signed off or a 787 built or 777X Type Inspection Authorization.

It’s not just Boeing - the FAA has gone against the DOD over Link-16 and the FCC/cell phone industry over 5G.

You should let Boeing know immediately because the three active test frames have all been flying this week including the one that was just at the Singapore air show.

What Clark says now doesn't mean a thing considering he will be retiring soon!

FluidFlow wrote:

From the article linked in the OP:

The total of 30 787s in there look very marginal now as they are so far behind in production. They were supposed to come in May 2023. But it’s not going to happen, how can they deliver? Look at the huge backlog, they haven’t produced any aircraft lately, that’ll take them two or three years to go over that.

Wow, just crazy. Is it true that they haven't produced any aircraft lately? A delay of up to 3 years is crazy. Luckily there is COVID and airlines deferred but that must hurt also Boeing.

:

They have produced plenty of 787s, but can't get production certification and therefore deliver them. That is why the ramps at Everett, Charleston, Victorville and Kelly Field are full of shiny new 787s going nowhere.

Does anyone know the total of B787s parked awaiting FAA approval? And how long it takes the FAA to approve each one once they start??

Rgds

Gar1G wrote:

checklist350 wrote:

chiad wrote:

I have no doubt that the Airbus' paint issue will be resolved.
I am more concerned about EIS of the B777x program.

How so?

The paint issue seems very hard to solve to me, if it was easy Airbus wouldnt make such a huge issue out of it.

The 777X issues don't seem very fundamental, they just need to redo some work according to regulations.

Given more emphasis in the article is given to the 777x problems than the 350 issues, I'd probably say the reverse. Airbus is only not happy because planes were being grounded and being called out in the media - all in all its better for them to have this pressure now rather than having both an angry QR AND EK.

Missing Emirates as a buyer for the A350 would be a problem for Airbus. Missing the 777X sales to Emirates would be catastrophic for the 777X program.

majano wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

The interesting news for me is the possible life extension for 80 of their A380s to 25,000 or 30,000 cycles.

This is a change from the 12 or so years' tenure for airframes at EK that we have been used to seeing. Makes me wonder if they might pick up redundant A380s from the likes of AF or LH should they actually cancel 779s.

Agreed fully.

Tim Clarke spoke of 120 - 150 million passengers in the near future, up from 90 million today. He also spoke of a shortage of seats in and around 2024. He also spoke of Emirates' desperate need for the 779 because there's nothing close to it in capacity. I actually found the interview very informative. His comments are clearly not just a threat to the OEMs. It seems to me Clark is still planning for a very large domineering EK. 787 and A359 are peripheral in such a world. There was actually some doubt EK taking the 787s because of the delays and the backlog.

Even some of the most heavily used 747’s took 25-30 years of service to break 20K cycles, I have a hard time seeing EK being able to sustain operating such an expensive quad-jet competitively up against twins for that long. Unless they’re going to use a full 80 planes as high frequency regional commuters a la CRJ’s in the U.S. I don’t see how they see the need for that many cycles on an A380 fleet before they lose money hand over fist.

JohanTally wrote:

ADent wrote:

At this point I think the 777X is dead. The FAA seems not to want to approve anything. Maybe Boeing should work directly with EASA instead.

Boeing can’t get the 737-7 signed off or a 787 built or 777X Type Inspection Authorization.

It’s not just Boeing - the FAA has gone against the DOD over Link-16 and the FCC/cell phone industry over 5G.

You should let Boeing know immediately because the three active test frames have all been flying this week including the one that was just at the Singapore air show.

Not dead but it could go the way of the a380; less than a few hundred orders.

Too many carriers right now have relatively new 77Ws. They’re going to want the 779 once those become middle aged. Boeing needs to make it that far at least. UA and AA likely will purchase them eventually.

majano wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

The interesting news for me is the possible life extension for 80 of their A380s to 25,000 or 30,000 cycles.

This is a change from the 12 or so years' tenure for airframes at EK that we have been used to seeing. Makes me wonder if they might pick up redundant A380s from the likes of AF or LH should they actually cancel 779s.

Agreed fully.

Tim Clarke spoke of 120 - 150 million passengers in the near future, up from 90 million today. He also spoke of a shortage of seats in and around 2024. He also spoke of Emirates' desperate need for the 779 because there's nothing close to it in capacity. I actually found the interview very informative. His comments are clearly not just a threat to the OEMs. It seems to me Clark is still planning for a very large domineering EK. 787 and A359 are peripheral in such a world. There was actually some doubt EK taking the 787s because of the delays and the backlog.

I was surprised how EK served 120M+ pax in the future with smaller B779 in congested DXB

Even DWC has expanded and it is unlikely to serve another 30mpax, and dont forget other airlines

par13del wrote:

The pandemic has simply made it easier for the FAA and Boeing to take time to get things right, without a pandemic, the US Congress would have been on the FAA's case to ensure that they work faster so they are not a reason for Boeing to start laying off staff. Note that with the delay in 787 deliveries no one is talking about jobs, how many staff are being paid to do nothing? Trying to remember if Boeing took any government money to keep workers employed.

That's not the way Congress works. The FAA is full of career technicians and bureacrats. Congress does not set technical standards. It does not tell the FAA to skirt standards. The total contribution of Boeing's commercial plane business to U.S. GDP or employment is miniscule: $60 Billion in 2018 in a $20 Trillion economy. This isn't some banana republic - or France protecting its 'strategic' yogurt business.

https://www.forbes.com/2005/07/25/danon ... 963054114f

I'd prefer not to repeat the (alleged!) dissembling or lying on the MAX. Boeing is done on the 787 and 777X when the FAA says it's done

CarlosSi wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

ADent wrote:

At this point I think the 777X is dead. The FAA seems not to want to approve anything. Maybe Boeing should work directly with EASA instead.

Boeing can’t get the 737-7 signed off or a 787 built or 777X Type Inspection Authorization.

It’s not just Boeing - the FAA has gone against the DOD over Link-16 and the FCC/cell phone industry over 5G.

You should let Boeing know immediately because the three active test frames have all been flying this week including the one that was just at the Singapore air show.

Not dead but it could go the way of the a380; less than a few hundred orders.

Too many carriers right now have relatively new 77Ws. They’re going to want the 779 once those become middle aged. Boeing needs to make it that far at least. UA and AA likely will purchase them eventually.

I agree the most prohibitive part of selling the 779 is the glut of young 77W that won't need to be replaced until next decade when the A350 will likely have a new engine option and a possible stretch. This is what makes these initial orders so important and why they need to get the certification done regardless of how many test frames it takes.

MIflyer12 wrote:

par13del wrote:

The pandemic has simply made it easier for the FAA and Boeing to take time to get things right, without a pandemic, the US Congress would have been on the FAA's case to ensure that they work faster so they are not a reason for Boeing to start laying off staff. Note that with the delay in 787 deliveries no one is talking about jobs, how many staff are being paid to do nothing? Trying to remember if Boeing took any government money to keep workers employed.

That's not the way Congress works. The FAA is full of career technicians and bureacrats. Congress does not set technical standards. It does not tell the FAA to skirt standards. The total contribution of Boeing's commercial plane business to U.S. GDP or employment is miniscule: $60 Billion in 2018 in a $20 Trillion economy. This isn't some banana republic - or France protecting its 'strategic' yogurt business.

https://www.forbes.com/2005/07/25/danon ... 963054114f

I'd prefer not to repeat the (alleged!) dissembling or lying on the MAX. Boeing is done on the 787 and 777X when the FAA says it's done

While safety is the mission of the FAA, Congress has given them other considerations: “The legislation also streamlines the FAA certification process to ensure that U.S. aviation manufacturers can compete globally and get their products to market on time, and fosters collaboration with industry stakeholders to streamline certification and regulatory processes and establish clear FAA performance objectives and metrics.”

https://www.faa.gov/about/reauthorization

At some point, the FAA will need to better balance competing priorities.

MIflyer12 wrote:

par13del wrote:

The pandemic has simply made it easier for the FAA and Boeing to take time to get things right, without a pandemic, the US Congress would have been on the FAA's case to ensure that they work faster so they are not a reason for Boeing to start laying off staff. Note that with the delay in 787 deliveries no one is talking about jobs, how many staff are being paid to do nothing? Trying to remember if Boeing took any government money to keep workers employed.

That's not the way Congress works. The FAA is full of career technicians and bureacrats. Congress does not set technical standards. It does not tell the FAA to skirt standards. The total contribution of Boeing's commercial plane business to U.S. GDP or employment is miniscule: $60 Billion in 2018 in a $20 Trillion economy. This isn't some banana republic - or France protecting its 'strategic' yogurt business.

https://www.forbes.com/2005/07/25/danon ... 963054114f

I'd prefer not to repeat the (alleged!) dissembling or lying on the MAX. Boeing is done on the 787 and 777X when the FAA says it's done

So in your book the congress is not responsible for all the out-sourcing and delegation that they had the FAA implement which in some quarters contributed to the situation at Boeing? We agree to disagree or have a difference of opinion.
Now that the FAA is getting a new head, let's see if there is any change in the next few months. Unlike the NTSB whose sole mandate is safety, the FAA is also tasked with the health of the industry, billions tied up in inventory at Boeing is not healthy for the industry.

sassiciai wrote:

Noshow wrote:

EKs Tim Clark threatens to cancel B777X orders if not certified by July 2023. Will not accept A350s if paint issue not resolved.

Easy, just buy IL-96-400 instead.

How much Western/American technology is needed to have an operational IL 96?

Are you kidding?

par13del wrote:

billions tied up in inventory at Boeing is not healthy for the industry.

Neither is more smoking holes in the ground. The key is for the FAA to be reasonable, not punitive.

Why is everyone over reading this as EK is broke and playing games?

why can't we just accept that EK needs the 777X very soon to take over outgoing 77W and A380s?

I mean they must have the numbers from Boeing by now. The perfect replacement for both really.

piedmontf284000 wrote:

ben7x wrote:

Someone is running out of money I guess…

Yup. This is more about EK and their finances then airplanes getting to them on time. This is Tim Clark using certification and defects to cover for the fact that as of right now they don't need these airplanes anytime soon (they barely are using the ones they have) and it will put an even bigger hole in their bottom line. Air travel is recovering but not fast enough for a world hub like Dubai. They can't fill their airplanes and the last two years have been very unkind to them.

Tell that to Tim Clark who just paid out 4 week bonuses in January to a large number of operational staff...

In all seriousness, financing for aircraft hasn't been too much of an issue for EK in the past. A lot of financing comes from Islamic banks and wealthy businessmen in the region. Not only are any meaningful payments for these aircraft at least 2 years away, I wouldn't underestimate EK's ability to raise funds in a hurry if they needed to finance them.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

The interesting news for me is the possible life extension for 80 of their A380s to 25,000 or 30,000 cycles.

This makes me chuckle. At the beginning of Covid I predicted an ultimate return of between 80-90 A380s and was laughed at for my crazy prediction because everyone else thought only 20-40 would return... Hmm.

accentra wrote:

I suspect there might well be something to this. There does seem to be a distinct tactic by both EK and Qatar to look for ways to defer, cancel or get compensation at the OEMs' expense, rather than put their hands up and say they need to negotiate for deferrals, etc, due to the state of their business. Is it face saving? Is it toys out of the pram? Who knows. But all this threatening through the media is pretty poor and is likely to, ultimately, rebound badly on them, as Qatar has just found out (having been binned by Airbus).

There's a lot of public discourse thrown around here that I don't believe necessarily accurately reflects EK's private relationships with both manufacturers.

EK has been very instrumental in the development of the 777X. For at least the past 5 years (but likely even longer than that) they've had a dedicated team of people working with Boeing on a daily basis on various items related to the 777X and its eventual adoption into the fleet. There's a lot of cooperation from both parties in that relationship.

On the Airbus side, EK was very mute about all the technical snags with the A380. The big ones in the public domain being the wing rib issues and the door seal issues which were mentioned by Tim Clark, but never became more than that. EK continually took delivery of A380s during that period and it never soured their relationship.

aaexecplat wrote:

par13del wrote:

billions tied up in inventory at Boeing is not healthy for the industry.

Neither is more smoking holes in the ground. The key is for the FAA to be reasonable, not punitive.

If the FAA can certify each individual a/c in a reasonable period of time who would complain?

Does anyone know how much FAA certification flying Boeing needs to fly once they are allowed to start?

The 787-8 got TIA late April 2010 and finished test flights early April 2011. Type Certification was completed in August 2011.

ADent wrote:

Does anyone know how much FAA certification flying Boeing needs to fly once they are allowed to start?

The 787-8 got TIA late April 2010 and finished test flights early April 2011. Type Certification was completed in August 2011.

That's the $64000 question. How long will it take the FAA to individually certify each B787 that is parked??

If it takes one week per frame...that is a long long time!!

Scotron12 wrote:

ADent wrote:

Does anyone know how much FAA certification flying Boeing needs to fly once they are allowed to start?

The 787-8 got TIA late April 2010 and finished test flights early April 2011. Type Certification was completed in August 2011.

That's the $64000 question. How long will it take the FAA to individually certify each B787 that is parked??

If it takes one week per frame...that is a long long time!!

The FAA individually certify each 737 MAX, and the delivery rate is now probably as high as covid-infected airlines are able to except them. So I guess this will not be a problem for the 787. The problem is the manufacturing flaws, and how to detect and correct them, and doing so in a cost efficient way.

It won't take a long time to certify the 777X once Boeing have solved all the issues. If Boeing need (or is betting on) exceptions from current standards, it will of course take longer, and I have a feeling that's what's taking so long.

Nobody is reporting that the reason the 777X TIA is taking longer, is due to shortage of manpower at the FAA. The FAA is waiting for Boeing to design, manufacture and perform the necessary tests that proves the 777X is fit for commercial service.

randomdude83 wrote:

Why is everyone over reading this as EK is broke and playing games?

why can't we just accept that EK needs the 777X very soon to take over outgoing 77W and A380s?

I mean they must have the numbers from Boeing by now. The perfect replacement for both really.

Outgoing 777-300ER I would say. Why this obsession with the 777-9 replacing the A380?
Is it so unbearable that Boeing is not the Premium frame in the fleet?
The 777-9 was ordered to replace 777-300ER, the drawdown of the 777-300ER has started.
It is on average an older fleet than the A380..
The A380 will be used for quite a while yet and Emirates is considering life cycle extensions.
The A380 will not leave Emirates at a 15 year mark, but the oldest frames that have actually are being replaced by new A380.
The replacement of the A380 could be a new frame that is not designed yet.

I think that EK is being forcced into right-sizing.
In an all-out market EK had a fair chance with a volume strategy. Now no longer, it has to reposition as a high value carrier, offering amazing service at regular prices. There isn't much room for B777X in that strategy, I see them going towards a A380/A350 fleet with remaining B77W's kept as long as they can and B787's for the thin routes.
One also has to consider how inflation is affecting aircraft prices. If aircraft prices are tied to inflation, those aircraft are becoming expensive very fast.

The timing just isn't right for the B777X.
Boeing is practically bankrupt and struggling with engineering issues, Covid is still strangling airlines and supply chain issues will make it impossible to ramp up production soon enough.
The market will recover and grow eventually, but it may be 2025 or later and that is just bad timing for Boeing.

piedmontf284000 wrote:

ben7x wrote:

Someone is running out of money I guess…

Yup. This is more about EK and their finances then airplanes getting to them on time. This is Tim Clark using certification and defects to cover for the fact that as of right now they don't need these airplanes anytime soon (they barely are using the ones they have) and it will put an even bigger hole in their bottom line. Air travel is recovering but not fast enough for a world hub like Dubai. They can't fill their airplanes and the last two years have been very unkind to them.

Nope. It is not. These are real concerns; not some feeble excuse MOL's style. The A350 does has painting issues and I believe that, now EK's chipped in, nobody can deny (as many here were...) that it is not an issue. The B777X is late and Boeing seems to have several issues in delays even for the B787.

EK can fend themselves by prolonging the life of their A380s without going to market and their leverage will hit Airbus hard on the A350 program since we have now 2 (and maybe three when Etihad comes in) raising concerns. It is actually good because it will make Airbus actually do something and solve this issue rather than live in denial. As for Boeing, it will have also to do something since it cannot even offer alternatives given the B787 woes.

Theseus wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Even Al Baker isn't dumb enough to threaten his only 2 suppliers at the same time...

Exactly what I was thinking.
More likely he is just getting broke and cannot afford any new aircraft for quite some time...

That's still not good for Boeing.

WkndWanderer wrote:

Even some of the most heavily used 747’s took 25-30 years of service to break 20K cycles, I have a hard time seeing EK being able to sustain operating such an expensive quad-jet competitively up against twins for that long. Unless they’re going to use a full 80 planes as high frequency regional commuters a la CRJ’s in the U.S. I don’t see how they see the need for that many cycles on an A380 fleet before they lose money hand over fist.

You have to put it into perspective of where Dubai is located and how Emirates are using its A380. Most of the EK's A380 destinations (Asia and Europe) is within 4-7 hours flight time each way. EK even use it on 2-3 hours Gulf region run. This is vastly different from how B747 was used by other airlines in the past. When B747 was in demand, airlines used it mostly on 8-12 hours mission. There was no airlines like EK using A380s on short to medium mission so frequently in a hot and humid airport. If we use a simply term to understand the issue, EK's A380 is likely to have average 2.5 to 3 flights a day whereas conventionally B747 only have 1 to 1.5 flights a day. So hypothetically if you believe it would take 25 years for B747 to reach 20K cycle, it MAY only take an EK A380 to reach the same cycle in 13 years.

Seems some airlines are likely trying to consider their options in terms of fleet mix, and the delays may well be a good opportunity to do so.

The challenge is that there aren’t exactly many options, so if he cancels the 779, it only really leaves the A350-1000 in that higher capacity segment, but as he points out he wants the issues sorted with that aircraft, his fleet plans will be very limited.

Keeping aircraft for longer may well be an option, taking on more 787’s or reducing the EK fleet and using FlyDubai to take on more sectors with their 737’s could also be an opportunity to right size.

ikolkyo wrote:

I don’t think there is much Boeing can do right now, the FAA is a disaster.

Because of Congress (but as a result of the Max fiasco)

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/con ... ility-act/

Isn’t a substantial amount of the issue that EASA is now going to certify the 77x only as a new aircraft type also, not just as a derivative?

IndianicWorld wrote:

Seems some airlines are likely trying to consider their options in terms of fleet mix, and the delays may well be a good opportunity to do so.

The challenge is that there aren’t exactly many options, so if he cancels the 779, it only really leaves the A350-1000 in that higher capacity segment, but as he points out he wants the issues sorted with that aircraft, his fleet plans will be very limited.

Keeping aircraft for longer may well be an option, taking on more 787’s or reducing the EK fleet and using FlyDubai to take on more sectors with their 737’s could also be an opportunity to right size.

Emirates could live with keeping to use their current A380 and 777-300ER for quite a while. Used A380 should be cheaply available on the market, as Emirates use both the RR and GE engines, they could buy any frame.
It seems that the already high 25,000 life cycles can be in creased to 30,000.

For the 777X program it should be devastating to loose Emirates and with them slightly more than a third of the current orders.

mjoelnir wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

Why is everyone over reading this as EK is broke and playing games?

why can't we just accept that EK needs the 777X very soon to take over outgoing 77W and A380s?

I mean they must have the numbers from Boeing by now. The perfect replacement for both really.

Outgoing 777-300ER I would say. Why this obsession with the 777-9 replacing the A380?
Is it so unbearable that Boeing is not the Premium frame in the fleet?
The 777-9 was ordered to replace 777-300ER, the drawdown of the 777-300ER has started.
It is on average an older fleet than the A380..
The A380 will be used for quite a while yet and Emirates is considering life cycle extensions.
The A380 will not leave Emirates at a 15 year mark, but the oldest frames that have actually are being replaced by new A380.
The replacement of the A380 could be a new frame that is not designed yet.

One of the biggest problems with the A380 is the number of operators that are going to be left tp operate it. When you get down to a couple operators the costs go up quite a bit and the support is harder to come by. I think with all the retirements announced it will be down to Emirates (120 RR/GP), Singapore (17 RR), Qantas (12 RR), British Air (12 RR) and ANA (3 RR). The costs to operate are going to keep skyrocketing for these operators.

NLINK wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

Why is everyone over reading this as EK is broke and playing games?

why can't we just accept that EK needs the 777X very soon to take over outgoing 77W and A380s?

I mean they must have the numbers from Boeing by now. The perfect replacement for both really.

Outgoing 777-300ER I would say. Why this obsession with the 777-9 replacing the A380?
Is it so unbearable that Boeing is not the Premium frame in the fleet?
The 777-9 was ordered to replace 777-300ER, the drawdown of the 777-300ER has started.
It is on average an older fleet than the A380..
The A380 will be used for quite a while yet and Emirates is considering life cycle extensions.
The A380 will not leave Emirates at a 15 year mark, but the oldest frames that have actually are being replaced by new A380.
The replacement of the A380 could be a new frame that is not designed yet.

One of the biggest problems with the A380 is the number of operators that are going to be left tp operate it. When you get down to a couple operators the costs go up quite a bit and the support is harder to come by. I think with all the retirements announced it will be down to Emirates (120 RR/GP), Singapore (17 RR), Qantas (12 RR), British Air (12 RR) and ANA (3 RR). The costs to operate are going to keep skyrocketing for these operators.

The point is not how many operators, but how many frames are in use. Emirates have enough frames so that the cost do not need to skyrock.

There are quite a few frames out there that never sold more frames than Emirates operates A380.