EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

SCAT15F · Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:43 pm

Many people on Anet are saying that EK will not make an order this year for the 748i as they are still pushing for more range. This would imply that firm configuration for the 748i will not be presented until the specifications match EK's requirement. However, Randy Tinseth is currently maintaining that firm configuration will be released BEFORE the end of this year (2007)

It seems that there would be no point in releasing firm configuration before January 2008 (unless the range goal has been met), only to change it again once EK specs are met- especially as the release date seems dependent on meeting EK's requirement.

Either way, Boeing can't put this off much longer...

Can anyone clear this up for me? boggled

Stitch · Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:44 pm

I do not believe EK wants the 747-8I and their comments about it are just a way to get nicer pricing on their A388s and A350-1000s out of Airbus.

SEPilot · Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:01 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I do not believe EK wants the 747-8I and their comments about it are just a way to get nicer pricing on their A388s and A350-1000s out of Airbus.

I think you are right. EK makes a lot of noise about buying all kinds of planes but they seem pretty well in Airbus's camp for the most part. They only seem to buy Boeing's when they offer very clear performance advantages over the competing Airbus; if all is close to equal they buy Airbus. But that doesn't stop them from playing games.

Stitch · Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:37 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 2):
I think you are right. EK makes a lot of noise about buying all kinds of planes but they seem pretty well in Airbus's camp for the most part. They only seem to buy Boeing's when they offer very clear performance advantages over the competing Airbus; if all is close to equal they buy Airbus.

I believe EK would buy Boeing if it was the right product mix but at the moment, it isn't.

If the majority of those A330s rumored to being placed are A332s, then I will agree that EK is an "Airbus only" carrier unless they have no choice (747-8F) because the 787-8 would have been the better choice.

But if they are A333s, then I can understand why they bought them because it is a logical choice to replace their 772As and A343s and is the better solution then either if EK wishes to expand their medium-haul traffic in the near-term and for the short-term.

sparkingwave · Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:47 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I do not believe EK wants the 747-8I and their comments about it are just a way to get nicer pricing on their A388s and A350-1000s out of Airbus.

I've heard that one many times, but surely EK has gotten the best net pricing with the 2-year A380 delays. Even EK must know that if Airbus makes a loss with each future airliner they deliver then the A380 and A350 will inevitably be canceled. The A380-900 will never get built. This would be like strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Stitch · Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:46 pm

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 4):
I've heard that one many times, but surely EK has gotten the best net pricing with the 2-year A380 delays. Even EK must know that if Airbus makes a loss with each future airliner they deliver then the A380 and A350 will inevitably be canceled. The A380-900 will never get built. This would be like strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Airbus needs every order they can land for the A380-800 as long as it is above the actual cost to produce the frame. Boeing seems to only want to discount to a certain threshold (roughly 45-50% off list) on the 747-8I, so all Airbus has to do is beat that by $10 million or so and they get the deal. And even then, I expect Airbus is still clearing the actual production cost by a minimum of 20-30%, if not close to 50%, based on what I am hearing it costs to actually build an A380.

Now, that is still a relative pittance (Airbus really needs to be signing deals clearing production costs by at least 100%), so it isn't doing any great wonders for the program break-even and program RoI, but it is still whittling the former down and adding to the latter, which is a positive.

Flighty · Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:37 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Now, that is still a relative pittance (Airbus really needs to be signing deals clearing production costs by at least 100%), so it isn't doing any great wonders for the program break-even and program RoI, but it is still whittling the former down and adding to the latter, which is a positive.

In the future, more value can be wrung out of the A380 by reducing weight of the A388 and eventually stretching it. Weight reductions at the very least - the A388 v1.1 - will allow Airbus to charge higher prices. Or at least, sell some more jets. The hard work is now done. Just some easy fix-ups and the A380's revenue potential will increase. The revenue potential of A380 v1.0 is not the be-all and end-all for judgment of A380 success/failure. No one should expect v1.0 to make profits.

Consider the Boeing 777. It had 2 rounds of development: initial and revision. The A380 will also see a revision about 8 years after it enters service. And only then, will the program be in full bloom.

dl767captain · Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:53 pm

I thought the reason they wanted the 748i was for routes to the US west coast, but i thought there was a range problem which was why they were waiting. The 748 seems like a good plane for them (especially since they order every plane anyways) but they may want too much out of boeing. If EK ordered the 748 i think it would definately be a shot in the arm for the 748 program after BA not ordering it. It seems like a good fit for them if they could get it (enough range) to somewhere like LAX. But does anyone know the range (or any other improvements) needed to allow the 748 to make it from Dubai to the US west coast.

Rbgso · Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:09 am

I agree EK will not buy the 748i. Clark spews all kinds of oral flatulence, but at the end of the day they are mostly an Airbus shop, except for some 777s.

ikramerica · Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:27 am

Quoting Rbgso (Reply 8):
except for some 777s.

Some? Try scores of 777s. They've got more 777s than any other type right now, more Boeings than Airbus. Sure, they have Airbus on order, but EK is actually a split company, right down the middle.

55 Boeing 777s with 30 more coming quickly.
47 Airbus, with 55 A380s coming.

As for cargo, it's 3 A310s, otherwise all Boeing, with 5 in the fleet and 20 on order.

Now, of course, a huge A350/A330 order would tip the scales greatly.

Stitch · Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:48 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 6):
In the future, more value can be wrung out of the A380 by reducing weight of the A388 and eventually stretching it. Weight reductions at the very least - the A388 v1.1 - will allow Airbus to charge higher prices. Or at least, sell some more jets.

Agreed. And down the road, as the 747-8I becomes more and more irrelevant, Airbus will not need to fight as hard on each order - especially to airlines like EK, SQ, and QF with a score of more of active birds. It won't be list, of course, but each sale should not only pay for the cost of building it, but also of building the next one following.

EI321 · Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:59 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
If the majority of those A330s rumored to being placed are A332s, then I will agree that EK is an "Airbus only" carrier unless they have no choice (747-8F) because the 787-8 would have been the better choice.

But they dont really have a choice per se as those A330s are roumered to be short term leases, and probably on favourable pricing terms. Theres no disputing that the 787 is a better plane than the A330.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7):
I thought the reason they wanted the 748i was for routes to the US west coast

Can easily be done 777LRs they have on order.

Quoting Rbgso (Reply 8):
at the end of the day they are mostly an Airbus shop, except for some 777s.

Some? They are the biggest 777 customer in the world! Its the backbone of their fleet.

jacobin777 · Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:55 am

Quoting Rbgso (Reply 8):
but at the end of the day they are mostly an Airbus shop, except for some 777s.

from Emirates.com

"The Boeing 777-200/300
One of the largest aircraft in our fleet, the B777-200 comfortably accommodates 12 First Class, 42 Business Class and 236 Economy Class passengers, carrying a total of 290 passengers. A second configuration offers 42 Business Class seats and 304 Economy Class passengers, allowing for a total of 346 passengers. These aircraft are currently being updated to provide greater comfort and a new 600 channel entertainment system. The B777-300, the largest member of the Emirates fleet, can carry a total of 434 passengers, with 49 Business Class seats and 385 Economy seats."

Quoting EI321 (Reply 11):

Some? They are the biggest 777 customer in the world! Its the backbone of their fleet.

SQ might say something about that if they take options on their B77W's... Wink

WingedMigrator · Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:23 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7):
But does anyone know the range (or any other improvements) needed to allow the 748 to make it from Dubai to the US west coast.

None, zero, zip, zilch. I think the 748 is just fine the way it is.

Whereas:
(a) at spec OEW of 212 metric tons, the 748 can fly 467 passengers (and no cargo) for 8000 nm, with appropriate fuel reserves
(b) DXB - LAX is 7250 nm by great circle
(c) DXB - LAX is a polar route, not particularly vulnerable to winds (compared to transpac routes out of LAX, for example)

Therefore, the 748 can easily do DXB - LAX. If you allow 5% over the still air range, you can still toss in six metric tons of belly freight.

If EK has any problem with the 748, it isn't range, strictly speaking. It may be overall performance, since payload and range can be traded against each other. For example, the 772LR can carry more payload on that route, although more of it is freight and less of it passengers (albeit with a higher fuel burn).

In short, "range" is probably EK's buzzword for "payload", kind of like "thrust" is their buzzword for "range" on the 787-10 Wink

swallow · Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:16 am

According to Flight, Tim Clark is looking for tight performance guarantees although it does not specify exactly what he wants. TC plays hardball and often gets what he wants. That said, sometimes he may come across as 'lots of froth and no beer!' Smile

Or as the native Americans say, "High wind, Big thunder, No rain'. duck

Quote: "We are not ready to sign a contract," says Clark. "We've got to be sure that they would deliver the aircraft on the table at the moment, which will require some copper-bottomed guarantees."

source: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...happy-with-747-8i-performance.html

jbernie · Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:45 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Agreed. And down the road, as the 747-8I becomes more and more irrelevant, Airbus will not need to fight as hard on each order - especially to airlines like EK, SQ, and QF with a score of more of active birds. It won't be list, of course, but each sale should not only pay for the cost of building it, but also of building the next one following.

I wouldn't rule out QF for 748s just yet, I don't know if they can use the 787s for route to/from Sth America and Sth Africa... i'm not an etops expert but i believe they would need to run 4 engine jets on these routes. Yes you can use an A380, but they may need to cut services to get the traffic.

Though this being said, if QF & JQ can get the 380 & 787 in service quick enough then they may be able to run their 744s on these routes for a few more years and not have to worry about it for quite a while.

A somewhat unique situation given the lay out of the continents.

davescj · Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:16 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7):
thought the reason they wanted the 748i was for routes to the US west coast, but i thought there was a range problem which was why they were waiting.

I would think this plane would also make sense for airports that aren't going to be A380 compatable. For example, I'm sure IAH is currently going to get 777 service, but can clearly handle 747s. As far as I have heard, nothing about building on to be A380 able.

I would think the same problem would extend to other airports, particularly in the States, or am incorrect?

Dave

Rbgso · Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:06 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
Some? Try scores of 777s.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 11):
Some? They are the biggest 777 customer in the world!

I'm man enough to admit I was mistaken.

I still don't think they will order the 748i, but I could be wrong there, too.

EI321 · Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:08 pm

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 15):
I wouldn't rule out QF for 748s just yet

They have already ruled out a 747-8 order, according to the CEO.

scbriml · Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:51 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 18):
They have already ruled out a 747-8 order, according to the CEO.

Yep. To describe the 747 as a "has been" at the A380 hand-over would seem to indicate that SQ are not interested in it.

RayChuang · Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:07 pm

I don't think Emirates wants the 747-8I, since I don't think there is enough pax/cargo traffic to justify such a big plane flying the route from DXB to the US West Coast non-stop. EK will likely assign the 777-200LR to this route instead.

Stitch · Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:22 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 11):
But they dont really have a choice per se as those A330s are roumered to be short term leases, and probably on favourable pricing terms. Theres no disputing that the 787 is a better plane than the A330.

That would be a ridiculously short-term lease, however, since the A332 fleet is rumored to be exiting by 2013 to be replaced (evidently) by the A350-900. As such, I would think EK would want A330-300s just to start driving up traffic numbers on A330-200 routes to support the substantially larger A350-900 since they only have three 777-200As and 12 777-300s, with the former rumored to exit in 2011 and the latter in 2014. EK could shed the 777-200A and 777-300A planes earlier, if they wished, since 20 A333s would be enough, leaving 10 extra to replace the 10 oldest A332s or allowing them to toss their 8 A343s if those planes fly ~5000nm missions.

Question, what is the general ranges EK A332's fly? Do they use the 7000nm or are they mostly tooling around on lower-traffic ~5000nm missions?

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 15):
I wouldn't rule out QF for 748s just yet, I don't know if they can use the 787s for route to/from Sth America and Sth Africa...

Both continents will have airports that can take the A380-800 or could support multiple 787-9 / 787-HGW frequencies.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 20):
I don't think Emirates wants the 747-8I, since I don't think there is enough pax/cargo traffic to justify such a big plane flying the route from DXB to the US West Coast non-stop. EK will likely assign the 777-200LR to this route instead.

I agree the 77L will be the start (maybe even the A345). I also expect EK will build traffic enough to support a 747-8I, but if they can do that, they can push a bit farther and support an A380-800, which makes the 747-8I irrelevant.

JAAlbert · Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:54 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 12):
The B777-300, the largest member of the Emirates fleet, can carry a total of 434 passengers, with 49 Business Class seats and 385 Economy seats."

434 pax in a 777? Holy mackerel! How many hundreds will be shoved into their 388s??

Also, how do they think they can wring additional range out of a plane that, from all I've heard so far, has no more to give?

scbriml · Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:19 pm

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 22):
434 pax in a 777? Holy mackerel!

A 2-class 77W with 10Y will do that for you. See how many some of the Japanese airlines fit in their -300s for domestic routes.

jacobin777 · Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:02 pm

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 22):
434 pax in a 777? Holy mackerel!

...talk about an amazing CASM...of course, that's probably why the only "complaint" EK's Clark has of the B77W is "the price of the plane"... Wink

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 22):
How many hundreds will be shoved into their 388s??

IIRC..they will have 3 different configurations..from the upper 400's (three-class) to the lower 600's (two-class)

SCAT15F · Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:53 pm

Quoting Swallow (Reply 14):
According to Flight, Tim Clark is looking for tight performance guarantees although it does not specify exactly what he wants. TC plays hardball and often gets what he wants. That said, sometimes he may come across as 'lots of froth and no beer!'

Or as the native Americans say, "High wind, Big thunder, No rain'.

Quote: "We are not ready to sign a contract," says Clark. "We've got to be sure that they would deliver the aircraft on the table at the moment, which will require some copper-bottomed guarantees."

source: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html

Thie article is interesting, (I had not seen it). However, it indicates that Boeing is still trying to meet EK's wishes for range, hence the delay on firm configuration. But according to Randy Tinseth, firm configuration will be released this December whether Boeing meets the EK requirement or not. Even if they can't meet it, it is still good for the 748i, as performance will still be better than originally promised. I would guess B can get the range with 467 pax back up to the original 8300nm at least. Either way, we should know before January 1, 2008.

Personally, I think they should offer a 744 length 748i. It would be somewhat niche, but no aircraft could compete with it as it could theoretically carry 416 pax in the 9000nm range bracket. QF maybe?

Stitch · Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:55 pm

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 25):
But according to Randy Tinseth, firm configuration will be released this December whether Boeing meets the EK requirement or not.

Which could be a sign that the 747-8 program is, in fact, tracking to the Critical Path and is not running late as some have rumored.

LTU932 · Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:02 pm

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7):
I thought the reason they wanted the 748i was for routes to the US west coast, but i thought there was a range problem which was why they were waiting.

I believe whatever range problems Clark mentions comes from the stretch. The current 747-8I, which was launched with LH's 20+20 order was stretched to the same size of the 747-8F. The 747-8I v1 was a bit shorter.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 22):
434 pax in a 777?

I believe NH and JL cram in over 500 people into a single 773A (which is only used for domestic routes though).

dl767captain · Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:14 am

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 27):
I believe whatever range problems Clark mentions comes from the stretch. The current 747-8I, which was launched with LH's 20+20 order was stretched to the same size of the 747-8F. The 747-8I v1 was a bit shorter.

isn't it pretty easy (maybe even cheap) to offer the original 748 (shorter) as well? Make it like the 748LR or something

ikramerica · Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:46 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 28):
isn't it pretty easy (maybe even cheap) to offer the original 748 (shorter) as well? Make it like the 748LR or something

It would be even easier to offer the current 744 length with the new wing work and new engines and interior. Think of it like a 748SP... Wink

FWI747 · Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:06 am

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 27):
I believe NH and JL cram in over 500 people into a single 773A (which is only used for domestic routes though).

And AF is packing 472 people in its Caribbean 773 for at least 8H...

Stitch · Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:14 pm

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 28):
isn't it pretty easy (maybe even cheap) to offer the original 748 (shorter) as well? Make it like the 748LR or something

Easy, probably.

Cheap, not so much.

Boeing would still need to engineer the shorter version, which would require at least some changes in internal fittings and systems to reflect the shorter length (wiring and control cable runs, reinforcement of both floors, etc.) and then also test and certify it.

Now, if LH signs a hard order for 50 of them, I am sure Boeing would be willing to do the work. But as long as EK continues to "chat it up" while sending checks to Airbus for additional A388s, I don't see Boeing expending any serious dollars or man-hours. Smile

eraugrad02 · Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:38 pm

I think when the 1st 747-8i takes to the skys, it will get a boost in orders. Just as the A380 has once it took flight. I can not wait to see it take to the skys or even during building process just like the 787. I'm betting that on the rollout day they will post new orders just like the 787 did. Now of course i don't know this for sure but i am indeed hoping for it.

Flighty · Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:46 pm

Quoting FWI747 (Reply 30):
And AF is packing 472 people in its Caribbean 773 for at least 8H...

Yeah, but Emirates actually is known as a pleasant airline. Are these 434-pax 777s nice to ride on? I have always thought clever packaging could push pax capacities up without destroying the pax experience. Emirates is well qualified to push the boundaries on packaging while keeping their product intact.

scbriml · Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:13 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 33):
Are these 434-pax 777s nice to ride on?

The same as all EK's other 777s. They have a smallish business section and over 40 rows of 10Y seats.

I flew on one to BOM from DXB. It was full, not an empty seat to be seen. You can bet that EK will operate their high capacity A380s on these routes.

SCAT15F · Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:06 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 29):
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 28):
isn't it pretty easy (maybe even cheap) to offer the original 748 (shorter) as well? Make it like the 748LR or something

It would be even easier to offer the current 744 length with the new wing work and new engines and interior. Think of it like a 748SP...

That would be one SWEET 747! bigthumbsup

cloudy · Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:03 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Which could be a sign that the 747-8 program is, in fact, tracking to the Critical Path and is not running late as some have rumored.

I thought the rumors of it being late were based on some tentative timeline Boeing announced early. But no program can really be said to be late until one at least has firm specifications. We have firm specs on the freight version, but not the passenger version. So in some sense the 747-8 is late now, but it is not late in the same sense that the A380 and the 787 are late. A firm, committed schedule cannot be put in place until one at least has the target specs - or so I thought.

EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

RE: EK 748i Announcement At Dubai Airshow?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net