Quoting Stitch (Reply 101): The United States of America has a population of around 300 million. Just because 535 of them act like idiots, doesn't mean the other 299,998,435 are idiots, as well...

Well said... I don't see the relevance of the Dubai Ports controversy and EK buying over 100 A380s, which some here feel is sort of nuts, frankly. I personally couldn't care less how many A380s they have. But if EK runs into space problems and wants to donate one of those new 777LRs to me, I would gladly help them out.  

It will be interesting to see what happens to the future of aviation from here. I would not be surprised to see more and more open skies agreements being signed around the world. Maybe someday EK will fly from NRT to MSP, and from DFW to HAM, etc...

Possibly EK knows more about what is happening politically than many here on a.net.

I hope this does not go against some Forum rules here and/or is not a repost:

Just read this quoted article from the Chicago Tribune in a thread about the ridiculously-named but still obviously impressive "Dubai World Central" (formerly known as Jebel Ali) airport.

Dubai is a truly crazy place; 110 or whatever A380s are, somehow, only fitting for the city where a 1020 metres high 220 odd floors tower is being planned.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101): The United States of America has a population of around 300 million. Just because 535 of them act like idiots, doesn't mean the other 299,998,435 are idiots, as well...

Isn't that 299,999,465?   

//Alex

Quoting CityAirline (Reply 105): Isn't that 299,999,465? boggled

These are the mathematics of extraordinary rendition 

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 99): According to the official UAE government website, the national oil and gas companies account for 33% of the country's GDP. While onshore reserves are drying up, offshore rigs provide the majority of the nation's output.

33% may be the current figure for the UAE - but that includes Abu Dhabi with its massive oil and gas reserves. In Dubai, oil and gas account for some 6% of the emirate's GDP.


PH

Quoting CityAirline (Reply 105): Isn't that 299,999,465?

Yes it is. It's what I get for not using all nine figures on my calculator and just using the last four and erroneously then knocking down the 1000s digit by one.

So make it 536 idiots, and 299,999,464. 

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 107): 33% may be the current figure for the UAE - but that includes Abu Dhabi with its massive oil and gas reserves. In Dubai, oil and gas account for some 6% of the emirate's GDP.

Semantics again... Dubai is an emirate yes, but like Abu Dhabi, is a part of the same nation. My point remains...
Your comparison is like saying New York City derives 6% of it's revenue from oil, while Houston gets 84%. But both political entities are included in the United States GDP figure, since both cities are in the same nation. Nice try.   

[Edited 2007-09-08 22:02:59]

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 3): Tim Clarke is a megalomaniac at the helm of an airline which is just as egotistical

I also agree that clark has lost the plot if this is true.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 108): Quoting CityAirline (Reply 105): Isn't that 299,999,465? boggled Yes it is. It's what I get for not using all nine figures on my calculator and just using the last four and erroneously then knocking down the 1000s digit by one. So make it 536 idiots, and 299,999,464. Big grin

Well, you did say around 300 million, therefore 20 or so people shouldn't be statitistically significant  

Quoting GDB (Reply 100): The denial of prejudice would be more convincing without that whole paranoia/xenophobia fest with the Dubai Ports issue not long ago, never mind they also provide port facilities for US Navy warships in the Gulf itself!

Do they allow a US Company full control of there ports, or just some ships to drop anchor? Whilst Dubai may be more free then some of their neighbors, I doubt they would allow vital parts of their economy to be ran/operated by a foreign entity (disclaimer... could be completely wrong   ) if they have the expertise to run it themsleves.

Cheers

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 77): Writing off a plane before its EIS, based on 1 or 2 slow years of sales is just ridiculous.

Sales have been slow for the last five years.
To make matters worse, all the freighter orders were canceled.

Quoting GDB (Reply 99): The denial of prejudice would be more convincing without that whole paranoia/xenophobia fest with the Dubai Ports issue not long ago, never mind they also provide port facilities for US Navy warships in the Gulf itself!

You seem to believe that you, by virtue of not having a US flag next to your username, are exempt from the accusation of prejudice. I did not see that PM was singling out Americans...he seems to feel that A.Net in general is guilty. That means you too, doesn't it?

Take a quick tally of the posts above that question EK's growth etc. Are they ALL Americans? Time saver: NO they are not. Being so quick to assume who the accusation is directed at is a bit of prejudice in itself.

J'accuse!   

Emirates ambition is remarkable. They want to become what Pan Am once was to the United States, but they seem to envision a more global airline. I would think that Open Skies agreements will lead to the birth of real giants of commercial aviation such as Emirates intends to be, and maybe that's a possibility they're expecting to exploit in the future. If this is true, Clark and the Sheik will indeed need a large, and diverse fleet, to cover specific markets all over the world.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 87): Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 84): how the hell Emirates is going to operate 100 A380s and a fleet of B773, A346, A350/B787--all of which are generally the largest aircraft in most airline's fleets--profitably. One would or should presume that they will be retiring their A346s and older 773s over the protracted delivery of that many A380s.

Now remind me - how many A340-600s does EK operate right now, and how many are they currently planning on operating? Somehow, the number 0 comes to my mind... not much to retire there...  

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 110): To make matters worse, all the freighter orders were canceled.

... with some being cancelled only because Airbus effectively cancelled (though as far as I remember, it's still being called a deferral) the development of the freighter...

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 109): Do they allow a US Company full control of there ports, or just some ships to drop anchor? Whilst Dubai may be more free then some of their neighbors, I doubt they would allow vital parts of their economy to be ran/operated by a foreign entity (disclaimer... could be completely wrong Smile ) if they have the expertise to run it themsleves.

The US allowed a foreign company to control these ports. This turned into a problem only when that British company was sold Dubai.

In the meantime that same suspicious Dubai company operates a port that "welcomes more U.S. Navy port calls than any other place outside the continental United States". (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2599)

I don't think it can get more hypocritical than that.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 43): The Middle East may have alot of money but it still is money of the smaller regions of the world in terms of population - there is only so much siphoning of passengers they can do from other regions of the world.

Not to mention the fact that the wealth in the region is concentrated in a very small portion of the population.

This thread has turned interesting and there are some very strong opinions.

I'm glad Dutch checked in but I disagree on several points.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 89):
Go back thirty or so years, who would have thought that airlines like SQ and CX would evolve into two of the world's leading carriers?

Again, how many widebodies is SQ or CX ordering in comparison to EK?

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 89):
EK will play ""the Arab card"" in key markets and why shouldn't they? Airlines worldwide, from BA to LH to SQ, have capitalized on their unique strengths and cultures to succeed.

The Arab card isn't terribly popular outside of the Middle East. Look at France most recently as an example of what is being felt throughout Eastern Europe and the US.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 89):
Finally, although EK does have lots of airplanes on order......they will soon be considering returning the leased A343 fleet, retiring some early build 777s and at some point in the near future, replacement of the A332 fleet will commence. The fleet will balance out to some extent, its not all about expansion.

As has been said, the replacement capacity is a fraction of the total amount on order.

Quoting Hloutweg (Reply 112):
Emirates ambition is remarkable. They want to become what Pan Am once was to the United States, but they seem to envision a more global airline.

Pan Am did it in a time when there was a pretty small market compared to today and they had no domestic feed to speak of. Pan Am's demise came when other US carriers started int'l services but had large domestic systems to feed them. PA thought of itself as the chosen instrument for too long.

The relevance to EK is that global aviation IS growing astronomically.... and there is a place for a large airline in the Middle East (which is between alot of countries) but what EK is proposing is completely beyond what they can do without sucking alot of traffic off of a lot of other carriers and depressing fares dramatically in order to fill EK's planes. The economic reality is that other countries will react when their carriers are as threatened as they will be based on what EK is proposing for its fleet.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 111): Being so quick to assume who the accusation is directed at is a bit of prejudice in itself.

So please don't do it. You know very well that the legitimate concern I expressed in post #41 did not explicitly or implicitly include all A.Net posters and nor was I pointing a finger at any one nationality or flag. And that the best proof it it (so far) came after my post simply confirms that I was right to believe that the prejudice was there.

Change of subject: Am I the only person here never to have flown on EK?!   

Quoting PM (Reply 117): Change of subject: Am I the only person here never to have flown on EK?!

I have yet to have the pleasure, though I'd like to try F on their A345s very much.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118): I'd like to try F on their A345s very much.

Wouldn't we all?! It won't be in F but I have a small chance of taking an A345 from KIX to DXB next year. Fingers crossed.

Quoting PM (Reply 117): Am I the only person here never to have flown on EK?!

You may be.  

I've flown them a few times, and have never been disappointed. So it follows that I've been to Dubai a few times, and what I see there is remarkable - and somewhat inspirational.

A very small country in a geographic area many consider to be dangerous is developing along first world principles. It isn't perfect - there may be some way to go in human rights (but some say that of Singapore - or China) and wealth distribution (but that may be true of many others).

But extraordinary things are happening.

I've no idea what they intend to do with 100 x A380's - if they ever order that extra number - and I don't really care. So far, at least, they seem to have made very few mis-steps.

Would I prefer they'd stop negotiating in public? Yes. But I wish that of Mr. Dixon and Mr. Udvar-Hazy, and others, too, and it is tough to argue with their profits.

Basically, I wish 'em well.

mariner

[Edited 2007-09-09 04:12:57]

Quoting PM (Reply 117): Change of subject: Am I the only person here never to have flown on EK?! eek

Been to Dubai a few times, but never on EK. This might change if they start flights from TXL...

Quoting PM (Reply 117): Change of subject: Am I the only person here never to have flown on EK?!

Alas, until they fly to LAX, its not practical. However, EK's expansion in the USA looks like its about to get into high gear.

Quoting Wsp (Reply 121): This might change if they start flights from TXL...

Is there a rumor on this?   It seems like Berlin, Madrid, Lisbon (?), and a few other European destinations are "holes" in EK's network. Hey, Where the A380's can go!   

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 74): You wish!!!!!! Smile So do I...

Well yea...   Seriously, as I've noted before, the A389 is the model that makes the most sense to me.   

Lightsaber

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 107): Dubai is an emirate yes, but like Abu Dhabi, is a part of the same nation. My point remains... Your comparison is like saying New York City derives 6% of it's revenue from oil, while Houston gets 84%. But both political entities are included in the United States GDP figure, since both cities are in the same nation. Nice try

The comparison is flawed. The UAE is a federation of seven emirates, each with its own ruler. Under the UAE’s constitution, each emirate owns its resources and controls oil and gas production and development. Thus, each emirate maintains a high degree of regional autonomy from the central government.

Quoting Silentbob (Reply 115): Not to mention the fact that the wealth in the region is concentrated in a very small portion of the population.

Though, there are significant differences between certain countries - e.g. between the UAE and Saudi Arabia.


PH

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 80): Contrary to the A380, there is still some margin of improvement left on the 748i, but so far Boeing hasn't been willing to make use of it, because it would cost them a fortune to turn it into their use, but to Tim Clark, such an 'enhanced' 748i is his back-up plane for DBX - West Coast routes should the A380 not offer what he needs after all.

A margin of improvement for the 748i? How? Extending the upper deck would mean re-designing the whole aircraft.
Boeing knows that and is not ready to do it, knowing that the A380 can be stretched easily. The production line in Toulouse is already sized up for that, so making the A380 longer is as easy as making an A346 out of an A343.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 122): Well yea...    Seriously, as I've noted before, the A389 is the model that makes the most sense to me.

Definitely, although the only business model I can think of to fill up such an aircraft is a low-cost model that sounds too much like cattle transport.

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 124): A margin of improvement for the 748i? How?

I understood SLZ396 to mean "a margin of improvement left that has to be made to the 748i before EK are satisfied with it - whether the margin of improvement is actually there is a matter for Boeing to decide.

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 124): so making the A380 longer is as easy as making an A346 out of an A343.

Dramatically easier than that, I would imagine - apart from the stretch, nothing else on the aircraft changes......  

Regards

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 122): Is there a rumor on this? Wink It seems like Berlin, Madrid, Lisbon (?), and a few other European destinations are "holes" in EK's network. Hey, Where the A380's can go! duck

There were threads here earlier that the federal ministry in Berlin is stalling the expansion to Berlin with some mildly ridiculous arguments. I think that is a delay tactic from some bureaucrats that are plugged a little bit too deep into the LH-verse. But I think they will eventually get permission.
A380 in TXL? I think a few passengers in the last rows would die of starvation or old age before they reach customs...

Quoting Leskova (Reply 113): Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 110): To make matters worse, all the freighter orders were canceled. ... with some being cancelled only because Airbus effectively cancelled (though as far as I remember, it's still being called a deferral) the development of the freighter...

Which customers canceled after Airbus "deferred" the A380F?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 125): Dramatically easier than that, I would imagine - apart from the stretch, nothing else on the aircraft changes......

Even if it were technically easy we should not expect the A389 for a long while. That's at least what you can hear from Airbus.

Quoting Wsp (Reply 126): There were threads here earlier that the federal ministry in Berlin is stalling the expansion to Berlin with some mildly ridiculous arguments. I think that is a delay tactic from some bureaucrats that are plugged a little bit too deep into the LH-verse. But I think they will eventually get permission.

Afaik Mr. Mayrhuber has expressed concerns in a conversation with Chancellor Merkel. But it seems that the government hasn't decided yet in favour of LH.

Quoting Wsp (Reply 126): A380 in TXL? I think a few passengers in the last rows would die of starvation or old age before they reach customs...

Right, but Idon't think EK would envisage to send an A380 to TXL. They might wait for the new airport; besides they could send smaller a/c to Berlin.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 127): Which customers canceled after Airbus "deferred" the A380F?

IIRC UPS canceled after Airbus announced that the A380F development was being delayed. After the Airbus announcement, UPS stated that at the earliest opportunity it would cancel the order in accordance with their negotiated agreement with Airbus, which they did about a month later. It appeared that UPS did not lose the deposit that they had originally put down on A300's which had been changed to A380's.

Quoting Gbfra (Reply 128): Afaik Mr. Mayrhuber has expressed concerns in a conversation with Chancellor Merkel. But it seems that the government hasn't decided yet in favour of LH.

This is LH vs. Berlin. For a politician that should be an easy choice. With 10m passengers for QR so far it is clear that a lot of passenger (=voters) will see right through the strange fairy tales that the ministry has been publishing. Claiming that EK is drawing traffic from traditional direct flights is comical given that direct flights is exactly what LH isn't offering in Berlin.

Steter Tropfen höhlt den Stein... Even if they decide against EK now, EK will just bring the topic up 6 month later and so on. It will be really hard to argue again and again and again why customers need to be protected from competition and why Berlin is running around advertising its airport while airlines that want to operate here are rejected by the federal government.

Quoting Wsp (Reply 126): But I think they will eventually get permission. A380 in TXL?

Ok, you made your point. But when BBI finally is completed, it should easily be able to accommodate a few A380's.  

Lightsaber

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 127): Which customers canceled after Airbus "deferred" the A380F?

UPS did. They basically said that they didn't agree with the new schedule from Airbus because they deferred to A380F to give priority to the A380.

Cheers!   

Quoting Wsp (Reply 130): This is LH vs. Berlin. For a politician that should be an easy choice. With 10m passengers for QR so far it is clear that a lot of passenger (=voters) will see right through the strange fairy tales that the ministry has been publishing. Claiming that EK is drawing traffic from traditional direct flights is comical given that direct flights is exactly what LH isn't offering in Berlin. Steter Tropfen h�hlt den Stein... Even if they decide against EK now, EK will just bring the topic up 6 month later and so on. It will be really hard to argue again and again and again why customers need to be protected from competition and why Berlin is running around advertising its airport while airlines that want to operate here are rejected by the federal government.

The federal government doesn't want EK in Berlin in order to protect LH, the Berlin government is too silly to see the chances that a good aviation connection would bring to the city.

EK should have come to TXL a long time ago. But at least we have QR and LT here, starting some transcon business.

If EK ever comes to Berlin, I sincerely doubt it will be with an A380, since no airport here can handle it pax-wise. A332, A343, 772 or anything else in that size would be fine enough.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 125): Dramatically easier than that, I would imagine - apart from the stretch, nothing else on the aircraft changes....

Would you care to add engines to that, pretty please, the 389 might even win engines that are two generations later than the T900s??

Quoting Baroque (Reply 134): Would you care to add engines to that, pretty please, the 389 might even win engines that are two generations later than the T900s??

That's a large "might". The question is how many A389's could be sold as the simple stretch that is planned, vs. how many more might be sold with a newer engine? If I'm Airbus (and RR) I have to realize that customer X* may demand the newer engine, but lacking that he likely will order the lesser A389 anyway. There is either demand for the larger aircraft or there isn't, and lacking a competitor I don't see why Airbus would need to sink money into enhancing the product. Given the relatively small number of airframes likely to be sold, the ROI just won't justify it.

*It's EK...I was just adding suspense.  

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 135): If I'm Airbus (and RR) I have to realize that customer X* may demand the newer engine, but lacking that he likely will order the lesser A389 anyway. There is either demand for the larger aircraft or there isn't, and lacking a competitor I don't see why Airbus would need to sink money into enhancing the product. Given the relatively small number of airframes likely to be sold, the ROI just won't justify it.

However, while picking an engine of a suitable thrust in, say 2010, why pick one from the Trent 900 range when you could pick for a similar thrust, and presumably price, one from the T XWB (stupid name!) range?

But you are probably right that they would order the lesser 389 anyway, the question is why would Airbus offer it if there was a superior option at marginal or no extra cost?

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 135): The question is how many A389's could be sold as the simple stretch that is planned, vs. how many more might be sold with a newer engine?

If you assume that the Trent XWB is being designed to be reverse-compatible with the A388 (let alone the A389), which I believe is likely for reasons of future fleet commonality (talk about low hanging fruit!), then the costs of re-engining the A380 would be limited to certification of that (pre-certified) engine on that airframe. The costs of that certification program are likely to be on the order of tens of millions, certainly far less than the cost of a single airframe.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 135): There is either demand for the larger aircraft or there isn't, and lacking a competitor I don't see why Airbus would need to sink money into enhancing the product.

Airlines don't blindly go for capacity. They always care about costs. It is likely that Airbus could charge more for the product if it was a more efficient product, and the incremental ROI is likely to dwarf the incremental investment.

It has been argued elsewhere that the A380-900 will be the salvation of the whole programme. Certainly, Airbus will have over-engineered the A380-800 for nothing if it doesn't eventually happen. And with larger capacity and better engines, might it find a level of market appeal that the A380-800 seems to lack? In other words, might the economics become so compelling that airlines who are currently lukewarm about the A380 start to find it rather attractive?

The inevitable comparisons with the 747 only go so far (and that isn't very far!) but compare sales of the 747-400 to the -100. If Airbus can make a comparable leap (but in ten years rather than twenty) we could see sales that might even put the programme back into the black.

Anyway, I want to believe that the A380-900 is a 'when' and not an 'if'. Fingers crossed.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 137): If you assume that the Trent XWB is being designed to be reverse-compatible with the A388 (let alone the A389), which I believe is likely for reasons of future fleet commonality (talk about low hanging fruit!), then the costs of re-engining the A380 would be limited to certification of that (pre-certified) engine on that airframe. The costs of that certification program are likely to be on the order of tens of millions, certainly far less than the cost of a single airframe.

Of course, that IS an assumption - one I love making, but....  

I have been led to believe (but cannot substantiate) that the T XWB will be "at worst", no heavier than the T900 (the inference being that newer technologies will offset the weight of the 2" bigger fan dia.)

edit - to support this, the RR website states that the "blisk" modules for the Trent XWB will offer a 15% weight saving (doesn't say how much, or over which baseline engine - you're left to assume...  

That being true, I can see very little reason why the T-XWB couldn't/wouldn't be designed to be virtually interchangeable with the T900 (unless such a constraint limits a particular new technology - but I can't think of one just now..).

If our wishes ever do materialise, (and of course they may not) I would presume that the additional certification costs will be virtually lost in the certification charges for a new A380 derivative (why do the flight testing twice? )

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 137): It is likely that Airbus could charge more for the product if it was a more efficient product

  
Not just more efficient, but by definition, more capable, which will definitely attract a premium.

2nd edit - of course this engine won't be certified until 2011 at the earliest, and won't fly in the A350 until 2013

Regards

[Edited 2007-09-11 07:52:19]

[Edited 2007-09-11 08:08:07]

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 139): of course this engine won't be certified until 2011 at the earliest, and won't fly in the A350 until 2013

Which may be no bad thing. If a substantially better engine was available now, Airbus might have a hard time persuading current customers to take delivery of what they ordered. By the time a Mk.2 is available most (?) of the current orders will have been delivered.

En passant (pretentious - moi?!), we're merrily discussing the TXWB as a replacement for the T900. What will EK hung under the wings of their bigger and better A380 Mk.2s?   

Quoting PM (Reply 140): we're merrily discussing the TXWB as a replacement for the T900. What will EK hung under the wings of their bigger and better A380 Mk.2s?

Wouldn't have a clue.......   

Regards

Quoting PM (Reply 138): In other words, might the economics become so compelling that airlines who are currently lukewarm about the A380 start to find it rather attractive?

It all depends... the fuel burn would likely be on a par with the 787-10 (in whatever form it materializes) and the A350-1000. So an A389 'XWB' would not undercut the CASM of the smaller and newer mid-size airplanes by any decisive margin, which would suggest that it would have trouble gaining significant market traction on the basis of sheer efficiency.

On the other hand, if airport landing slots evolve towards being priced according to market forces, it is possible (if not quite likely) that this factor alone would distort the CASM sufficiently in favor of the A380 to give it a leg up on smaller aircraft. As of today, this is not a factor-- landing fees for the most expensive airports in the world cost the equivalent of a couple of first class fares, and the prices are 'fixed' in various creative ways that (a) do not reflect their true value and (b) prevent the optimizing action of market forces.

I happen to believe the future sales potential of the A380 will hinge largely on this factor. Supposing the status quo (artificial pricing) is continued, Airbus would do better to build an A350-1100 than an A380-900.

(as an aside, I find it ironic how we admire the competitive model of airlines while turning a blind eye towards the price fixing and taxpayer subsidies provided for their benefit by airports.... of course the IATA claims, not incorrectly, that there wouldn't be airports without airlines, but still, there is room for improvement of the economic model IMHO...)

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 139): Of course, that IS an assumption

   thanks for pulling me down from my cloud  

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 139): of course this engine won't be certified until 2011 at the earliest, and won't fly in the A350 until 2013

   I wouldn't expect any of this to happen until a decade from now.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 142): It all depends... the fuel burn would likely be on a par with the 787-10 (in whatever form it materializes) and the A350-1000. So an A389 'XWB' would not undercut the CASM of the smaller and newer mid-size airplanes by any decisive margin

If fuel burn is on a par, the single large aircraft might have a quite substantial CASM advantage........

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 142): I wouldn't expect any of this to happen until a decade from now

Certainly post- A350 EIS

Regards