Emirates To Reconsider Airbus A350 Order

mffoda · Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:25 pm

FT has the following article regarding the A350 and 787 for Regional use.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7728d...8-faea-11e3-a9cd-00144feab7de.html

They are considering smaller A/C for regional use later this year or early next year.

karadion · Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:37 pm

Title's quite misleading which it implies that they're only considering the A350 again. They're considering both 787 and A350 equally.

KarelXWB · Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:38 pm

I have an account on that website on that website. Key points:

> Tim Clark told the Financial Times the airline would hold discussions with Airbus and Boeing either late this year or next year about the merits of buying the A350 or the 787.
> Emirates is interested in purchasing between 50 and 70 wide-body, twin-engined jets capable of flying on regional routes in the Middle East, plus to cities in Africa.
> Mr Clark said the A380 and 777X will remain the backbone of the fleet, but said there is room for another aircraft carrying between 250 and 300 passengers on regional routes.

Few quotes straight from the horse's mouth:

Quote:
“At the end of this year, beginning of next year, we will re-engage with Airbus on this aeroplane [the A350]. We will also engage with Boeing about the 787.”

“When the aircraft [the A350 and 787] are mature, they will be better defined in terms of performance, fuel burn,” he added.

Mr Clark also rejected some analysts’ suggestions that Emirates had dropped its A350 order because it was having to rein in expansion plans due to the economic slowdown in emerging markets.

[Edited 2014-06-23 12:42:00]

Flying-Tiger · Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:47 pm

Anyone care to expain me why EK first (intends?) to cancel their 70 Frames order just to reconsider to order them again? Would have made more sense to keep the order and pitch Boeing against it... Or is there more than what meets the eye on first sight?

karadion · Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:50 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
Mr Clark said the A380 and 777X will remain the backbone of the fleet, but said there is room for another aircraft carrying between 250 and 300 passengers on regional routes.

That sounds to me that would be the 789 would fit into this category or alternatively the A358? The 787-10 or A359 even A35J seems to me that it would be too big for those kind of routes.

Stitch · Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:50 pm

It doesn't strike me as sensible to drop the A350 order only to reconsider it later. He could have deferred deliveries.

Still thinking we're going to see a top-up 777-300ER order (as they are used regionally).

Quoting Karadion (Reply 4):
That sounds to me that would be the 789 would fit into this category or alternatively the A358? The 787-10 or A359 even A35J seems to me that it would be too big for those kind of routes.

Realistically it would be the 787-10 or A350-1000.

[Edited 2014-06-23 12:51:26]

Someone83 · Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:53 pm

How about the proposed, but not yet launched, A330-neo?

karadion · Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:58 pm

Quoting someone83 (Reply 6):
How about the proposed, but not yet launched, A330-neo?

We'll find out in three weeks.

KarelXWB · Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:59 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 7):
We'll find out in three weeks.

I doubt it. Tim Clark said talks about an A350/787 order would start at the end of the year of early next year. It's way too early to tell.

lightsaber · Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:00 pm

Quoting mffoda (Thread starter):
They are considering smaller A/C for regional use later this year or early next year.

Interesting...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Still thinking we're going to see a top-up 777-300ER order (as they are used regionally).

Possibly.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Realistically it would be the 787-10 or A350-1000.

Agreed. The distribution has changed. EK is upgauging. IMHO, the A35J is just a bit too heavy for EK's 'regional' needs. It is simply optimized for too much range. But... stranger things have happened. I would imagine EK would also look at the A330NEO (right empty weight for the payload).

Lightsaber

karadion · Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:03 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 8):
I doubt it. Tim Clark said talks about an A350/787 order would start at the end of the year of early next year. It's way too early to tell.

Oh no, I was refering to possible announcements by Airbus. Supposedly according to Leeham, Airbus COULD announce the A330neo in 3 weeks.

A388 · Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:12 pm

The cancelled order for the A350 comprised the -900 version (50 frames) and the -1000 version (20 frames), right? So seeing that EK will now be looking at smaller aircraft, I was actually thinking of the 787-8 or the A350-800...?

A388

KarelXWB · Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:18 pm

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 3):
Anyone care to expain me why EK first (intends?) to cancel their 70 Frames order just to reconsider to order them again?

Canceling an order and issue a new RFP to get better prices happened before. Etihad Airways did something similar with the A350-1000 (they canceled two times before announcing a new order).

That said, EK probably had low launch prices because they were an early customer and I doubt they can get a better price taking 7-8 years inflation into account. Maybe they are just re-looking their fleet strategy in this segment.

[Edited 2014-06-23 13:22:51]

phxa340 · Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:20 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):

Agreed. You simply don't cancel an order of 70 frames that you probably got at very favorable terms then reorder at a later date. There is more at play , whether that be a 77W top up order in the works or A330neo order (don't really see the A330 happening however).

Clearly there are some big things happening at EK behind the scenes that we are not aware of that is causing a confusing fleet plan at times for us to follow.

81819 · Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:36 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 12):
That said, EK probably had low launch prices because they were an early customer and I doubt they can get a better price taking 7-8 years inflation into account. Maybe they are just re-looking their fleet strategy in this segment.

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 13):
Agreed. You simply don't cancel an order of 70 frames that you probably got at very favorable terms then reorder at a later date.

I'd suggest, EK being the customer they are, would have separate contracts / agreements for purchase price and delivery slots.

In other words, even though EK cancelled their order (delivery slots) for the A350, they would still have a firm purchase agreement ($$ per frame) to buy the type.

dtw2hyd · Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:44 pm

I guess over next few days there will be news about A350R.

mham001 · Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:56 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Realistically it would be the 787-10 or A350-1000.

250-300 passengers?

KarelXWB · Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:05 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 4):
That sounds to me that would be the 789 would fit into this category or alternatively the A358? The 787-10 or A359 even A35J seems to me that it would be too big for those kind of routes.

Emirates cabin configurations are a bit more spacious than default OEM cabins, the 787-9 would feature around 255 seats while the A359 would have around 290 seats. Both would fit the requirements. Two-class configurations however (not unusual on regional routes) would feature over 300 seats on both 789 and A359.

[Edited 2014-06-23 15:06:52]

zeke · Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:17 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Still thinking we're going to see a top-up 777-300ER order (as they are used regionally).

A 777-300ER is a "dumb" aircraft to use only for regional work, empty they are up around 170t. You could fill a 787/A350 and fly it regionally and still be below the empty weight of a 777-300ER, while saving around 3t an hour in fuel.

nomadd22 · Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:20 pm

If they intended to replace the 350s with 787s for some reason, it would have looked very bad just to change the order over. Saying that changing requirements made them upgrade the 350s to 380s and new requirements made the 787s a better choice for the new order might be a little more palatable.

justloveplanes · Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:24 pm

I am guessing he is highly interested in the regional economics of the 7810 vs the 359. 7810 I would guess has the passenger revenue / cost advantage while the 359 better hot performance with a lot of cargo.

So if EK doesn't fly a lot of regional cargo, I think it's the 7810 for this.

Prost · Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:27 pm

The cancellation of their previous A350 order may have had time parameters included that made cancellation the wisest choice. It doesn't make sense buying something you aren't sure you need, even if you got a good price for it.

Stitch · Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:55 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 9):
I would imagine EK would also look at the A330NEO (right empty weight for the payload).

They never converted their A330-300 MoU into an order, so I wonder if the A330-300 is just too small.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 15):
I guess over next few days there will be news about A350R.

There would be no reason to have cancelled their A350 order if they wanted the A350 Regional / de-rated A350s.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
A 777-300ER is a "dumb" aircraft to use only for regional work, empty they are up around 170t. You could fill a 787/A350 and fly it regionally and still be below the empty weight of a 777-300ER, while saving around 3t an hour in fuel.

Looking at EK's schedule, they are currently using 777-300ERs on "regional" routes, even if that is "dumb" of them. I will hazard a guess that they are seeing high enough passenger and cargo load factors that the revenue at least covers the extra fuel burn, if not exceeds it.

zeke · Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:05 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Looking at EK's schedule, they are currently using 777-300ERs on "regional" routes, even if that is "dumb" of them. I will hazard a guess that they are seeing high enough passenger and cargo load factors that the revenue at least covers the extra fuel burn, if not exceeds it.

Sorry that is just as dumb as suggesting they will purchase 777-300ERs only for regional work.

What you are referring to is using a 777-300ER that is flying 12-16 hrs a day long haul for short haul between long hauls, they are taking advantage of capacity that would otherwise be sitting idle. Those aircraft were not purchased for regional work.

Does not matter how you dress it up, the 777-300ER is a very poor choice for regional only flying.

dtw2hyd · Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:19 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
Does not matter how you dress it up, the 777-300ER is a very poor choice for regional only flying.

I expressed same opinion several times in the past, just to be flamed. With fuel cost about 1.7x in India compared to ME, only benefit I can see is to fill her up at the base for round trip. I was also told ME-India route is premium heavy, hence the need for a WB. I have hard time believe some one will pay for F on a 2 1/2 hr flight.

RayChuang · Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:43 am

My guess: EK will order a lower MTOW 787-9--with the range reduced to around 6,500 nautical miles--specifically for regional routes from DXB, for example flights to Saudi Arabia, other parts of the Persian Gulf and Iran.

Stitch · Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:18 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
What you are referring to is using a 777-300ER that is flying 12-16 hrs a day long haul for short haul between long hauls, they are taking advantage of capacity that would otherwise be sitting idle. Those aircraft were not purchased for regional work.

Fine, then they buy more 777-300ERs and rotate them on ULH, LH and NLH missions as they (evidently per your statement) currently do with their two and three class frames.

seabosdca · Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:25 am

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 25):
My guess: EK will order a lower MTOW 787-9--with the range reduced to around 6,500 nautical miles--specifically for regional routes from DXB, for example flights to Saudi Arabia, other parts of the Persian Gulf and Iran.

If they want to order a regional 787, with the currently available delivery slots, there is no reason to order a 787-9 rather than a 787-10.

I have to confess I find the whole thing baffling. First Tim Clark wants nothing but the biggest aircraft on the market (777-300ER, 777-9X, A380-800), so he cancels his A350s. Then he turns around and says he's looking at A350s and 787s. Personally, I think he should be buying a big batch each of 787-10s and A350-1000s, with fewer A380s, but what do I know?

zeke · Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:50 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Fine, then they buy more 777-300ERs and rotate them on ULH, LH and NLH missions as they (evidently per your statement) currently do with their two and three class frames.

The have an existing regional fleet of around 60+ aircraft, some due for retirement in the next 3 years, purchasing 777-300ERs to replace them is dumb, they will not do it. Those aircraft in their own right are flying 12+ hours a day.

IslandRob · Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:18 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 27):
I have to confess I find the whole thing baffling. First Tim Clark wants nothing but the biggest aircraft on the market (777-300ER, 777-9X, A380-800), so he cancels his A350s.

A lot of members repeat this as though it's a known fact. We don't know that EK only wants the biggest planes - all we know is that they cancelled their A350 order for some as yet undisclosed reason. Personally, I suspect a 787 substitute order is forthcoming. Regards. -ir

[Edited 2014-06-23 19:19:02]

Stitch · Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:32 am

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 29):
A lot of members repeat this as though it's a known fact. We don't know that EK only wants the biggest planes...

Mr. Clark has made quite a number of statements in the aviation and general press noting that he felt 300 seats in an airframe was about the minimum he felt would work for the airline's current and future route structure.

RickNRoll · Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:48 am

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 20):
I am guessing he is highly interested in the regional economics of the 7810 vs the 359. 7810 I would guess has the passenger revenue / cost advantage while the 359 better hot performance with a lot of cargo.

So if EK doesn't fly a lot of regional cargo, I think it's the 7810 for this.

Perhaps something like this is happening. The 777X has yet to be finalised. Could be that Boeing and Emirates are working on some tie in for 787 and 777X for a special deal.

IslandRob · Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:00 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
Quoting IslandRob (Reply 29):
A lot of members repeat this as though it's a known fact. We don't know that EK only wants the biggest planes...

Mr. Clark has made quite a number of statements in the aviation and general press noting that he felt 300 seats in an airframe was about the minimum he felt would work for the airline's current and future route structure.

Which still doesn't explain his decision to cancel the A359 and A351, and would not rule out the 787-10. Regards. -ir

Stitch · Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:16 am

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 32):
Which still doesn't explain his decision to cancel the A359 and A351, and would not rule out the 787-10. Regards. -ir

No it would not.

Of the three frames, the 787-10 would probably be best option as it offers more space than the A350-900 with probably similar OEW. And while a bit smaller than the A350-1000, it should be a fair bit lighter in OEW. So fuel burn should be lower on the 787-10 than either A350.

So RicknRoll might be on to something with EK using next month's air show to both firm the 777X commitment combined with a new 787-10 order/commitment.

seabosdca · Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:20 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 31):
Perhaps something like this is happening. The 777X has yet to be finalised. Could be that Boeing and Emirates are working on some tie in for 787 and 777X for a special deal.

Could be. A big 787-10 order could also be a nice distraction from a shrinkage of the 777X order (which seems possible to me). Perhaps this is a clever way for Mr. Clark to reduce the capacity on order.

Stitch · Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:30 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 34):
Could be. A big 787-10 order could also be a nice distraction from a shrinkage of the 777X order (which seems possible to me). Perhaps this is a clever way for Mr. Clark to reduce the capacity on order.

That would run directly counter to his comments about the 777 being one of the two (along with the A380) principal jets in Emirates' fleet as well as his denial that Airbus cancelled the A350 order to reduce capacity on order (via reigning in planned expansion).

JAAlbert · Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:36 am

How is the dispatch reliability of the 787 these days? I imagine Mssr. Clark is not going to be interested in a finicky plane.

astuteman · Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:42 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
Of the three frames, the 787-10 would probably be best option as it offers more space than the A350-900 with probably similar OEW. And while a bit smaller than the A350-1000, it should be a fair bit lighter in OEW. So fuel burn should be lower on the 787-10 than either A350.

I think that's a fair shout. I have to believe the 787-10 stands a good chance here - it's pretty big and fits the "regional" bill.

And I think this is the nub of his gripes over the A350-1000 changes. He didn't want the extra range

It would be amusing if an A350-1000 "regional" resulted from this given the changes..

Rgds

seahawk · Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:50 am

around 98,5% at the last report.

I think it is will be a 787-1000 order which would turn the whole thing into an epic win for Boeing. From 70 A350 to 777X+787 and probably more of both, that is clear vote of confidence into the Boeing products and slap in the face of the A350.

UAEflyer · Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:53 am

The cancellation process maybe took more than year before they announce it to the press and the public. I think that EK even canceled the A350 deal even before they order the 777X in the airshow last year. To create some pressure on Boeing they agreed with Airbus to announce the cancellation after some time, so EK can Emiratize the 777X program as much as possible by keeping the A350 as a threat.
The second stage of the game now is to pressure Airbus to Emiratize the A350-1000, by keeping the 777X as a threat too.
Aviation is no exception it is indeed politics

KarelXWB · Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:33 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
they are currently using 777-300ERs on "regional" routes, even if that is "dumb" of them

Zekes's point is that A350s and 787s would do the same job much better. That doesn't make the 77W a bad aircraft.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 34):
Could be. A big 787-10 order could also be a nice distraction from a shrinkage of the 777X order (which seems possible to me). Perhaps this is a clever way for Mr. Clark to reduce the capacity on order.

Doubtful. Clark insisted the 777X/A380 combo will remain the backbone of the EK fleet.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 27):
I have to confess I find the whole thing baffling.

I don't think you are the only one.

seahawk · Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:44 am

Well only if A350 is just a place holder for A330NEO, as it has not be launched yet. And if he talks about ordering the NEO he would practically launch it. Then the whole move would start to make sense.

PhilBy · Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:06 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 41):
Well only if A350 is just a place holder for A330NEO, as it has not be launched yet. And if he talks about ordering the NEO he would practically launch it. Then the whole move would start to make sense.

Rumour is that a decision on the 330NEO will be announced end of June but that its >50% likely to go ahead.

MaverickM11 · Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:14 am

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 13):
Agreed. You simply don't cancel an order of 70 frames that you probably got at very favorable terms then reorder at a later date. There is more at play , whether that be a 77W top up order in the works or A330neo order (don't really see the A330 happening however).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
It doesn't strike me as sensible to drop the A350 order only to reconsider it later. He could have deferred deliveries.

I just assumed the whole thing was political to apply pressure on Airbus to do something--380NEO, stretched 380, 330NEO, a more EK/less LH 350, a better mousetrap, who knows.

frigatebird · Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:19 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 40):
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 27):I have to confess I find the whole thing baffling.I don't think you are the only one.

Count me in. The only explanation that makes sense to me is this one:

Quoting Prost (Reply 21):
The cancellation of their previous A350 order may have had time parameters included that made cancellation the wisest choice. It doesn't make sense buying something you aren't sure you need, even if you got a good price for it.

My

on EK's usage of the 77W:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 40):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):they are currently using 777-300ERs on "regional" routes, even if that is "dumb" of themZekes's point is that A350s and 787s would do the same job much better. That doesn't make the 77W a bad aircraft.

Agreed Karel. But I think Stitch' point is that EK does use the 77W on regional routes. Whether this is wise or not is up to EK. And it is also how you define 'regional'. EK's standards are not the same as others... EK flies the A380 also on many routes around 3000NM, and makes quite a bunch of money with it. And there are more airlines using the 77W or A380 on these kind of stage lenghts.

I think there were theories that EK stuffed their 77W's full of cargo on the 'short' routes, and a decent number of pax was just a bonus. Perhaps now that the cargo business has seen a huge price erosion, this may not work out very well any more. Better to consider 78J's or A35K's, which are as Zeke noted a lot lighter but have huge cargo capacity as well.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
Mr Clark also rejected some analysts’ suggestions that Emirates had dropped its A350 order because it was having to rein in expansion plans due to the economic slowdown in emerging markets.

A couple of years ago he said he wanted aircraft not smaller than 300-340 pax capacity. Now he's talking about 250-300 seats. Sounds like passenger demand on emerging markets is not as big as EK thought.

RickNRoll · Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:50 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 38):
I think it is will be a 787-1000 order which would turn the whole thing into an epic win for Boeing. From 70 A350 to 777X+787 and probably more of both, that is clear vote of confidence into the Boeing products and slap in the face of the A350

I doubt anyone lacks confidence in Boeing products. The A350 is still a good aircraft, it looks like it doesn't suit EK with their business model. Just as the A380 does suit their model, but not any other airlines to the same extent.

zeke · Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:40 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 40):
Zekes's point is that A350s and 787s would do the same job much better. That doesn't make the 77W a bad aircraft.

Correct, the 77W is a good ULH aircraft, it just has too much empty weight to lift the fuel and payload. The 787-10 should be able to lift the 77W payload to all of the EK routes 3000 nm around DXB at much lower direct operating cost. The 787-10 should have an empty weight around 40 lighter than a 77W, and a fuel burn of around 2t an hour less.

It would be a very dumb move for EK to purchase 77Ws for this role, the margins in aviation are not that large. This can be thought of basically the same way A330s have replaced 777-200s on regional routes.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 44):
Agreed Karel. But I think Stitch' point is that EK does use the 77W on regional routes. Whether this is wise or not is up to EK. And it is also how you define 'regional'. EK's standards are not the same as others... EK flies the A380 also on many routes around 3000NM, and makes quite a bunch of money with it. And there are more airlines using the 77W or A380 on these kind of stage lenghts.

I think just about every operator who has long haul aircraft will deploy them on shorter routes to use what would otherwise be unproductive down time. You are not going to order those aircraft however specifically for regional routes. The 77W carries around around 40-50t more empty weight than a 787/A350, it needs that weight to carry fuel & payload 10-12 hours. Any routes less than 10 hours it is too much airframe, and routes longer than 12 hours it starts dropping payload off again.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 45):
I doubt anyone lacks confidence in Boeing products. The A350 is still a good aircraft, it looks like it doesn't suit EK with their business model. Just as the A380 does suit their model, but not any other airlines to the same extent.

I think the current A330/A340 pilots in EK would very much welcome a 787 order. Their rosters are hell, time to share the love with the 777 pilots, they can have the joy of a combined 787/777 roster.

dtw2hyd · Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:26 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 46):
You are not going to order those aircraft however specifically for regional routes.

Well there are those with WBs sun bathing while NBs are buzzing around to feed them. They tend to use WBs on short-haul.

WBs on short-haul model puts disproportionately higher numbers of cycles in a short duration, I am guessing that kills the resale value. I think rotating between short-haul and long-haul makes even worst, entire fleet ends up with high cycles.

Do anyone think EK will pickup 11 significantly overweight teen B788s, assuming Boeing offers very good deal.

scbriml · Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:29 am

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 47):
Do anyone think EK will pickup 11 significantly overweight teen B788s, assuming Boeing offers very good deal.

I can't see it.

I think the 788 is way too small for EK.

ZK-NBT · Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:34 am

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 47):
I think rotating between short-haul and long-haul makes even worst, entire fleet ends up with high cycles.

Plenty of airlines do this! NZ, CX, SQ all use their long haul fleets on shorthaul between long haul turns, some more than others!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net