User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12837
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 3:53 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 150):
To get real feed in the West, they'd need a codeshare agreement

Codeshare is wayyyyyy too overrated on this site. What matters is butts-in-seat.

Nice to have a codeshare for that, but you don't need one for such.



Quoting seabosdca (Reply 150):
with AS.

EK interlines extensively with AS, and its FFP members can both earn and spend on EK, even for elite qualification.
What difference would it make to them (pax) whether it's a codeshare or not?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 6:05 am

The fact that EK goes twice daily to SEA before LAX makes me think that the AS relationship is a solid positive.

tortugamon
 
29erUSA187
Posts: 1277
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:34 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 6:15 am

You have to wonder, with 150 77W's coming into he second hand market, with a lot of life left, will they...

A) Become Freighters?

B) Become Charter Aircraft for Airlines like Corsair?

C) End up with Airlines like DL? (Best outcome)

D) End up scrapped? (Saddest possible outcome)
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 6:30 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 135):
The other fleet is the 77W so the question becomes, why not lower the use of the 77W fleet?
Almost double could go down to less than 50% on some 77W routes switched to an A380 and still make money.
If he was just not "schilling" and his numbers are accurate, they should be using more A380's and less 777W's.

That would be true if the demand was there to fill both frames. But EK deploy a lot of their aircraft on routes where they need to grow demand first before they can justify putting on the larger aircraft.

If a route only has the demand initially to half-fill a 77W, then EK are definitely not going to make money by putting an A380 onto that route. Ek are very sensible with their route planning and switch to the larger aircraft only as and when demand justifies it and they have the aircraft available - there is a limit to how quickly EK can get A380s from Airbus and I can not see Airbus being willing to up the production rate, even if EK request it.

It also seems to me to make good business sense to keep your options open by retaining two fleets, of different sized aircraft, preferably from different manufacturers.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 6:32 am

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 154):
with 150 77W's coming into he second hand market, with a lot of life left,

One has to bear in mind that, on present plans, and allowing for the time needed to bring the new 777X models to maturity, delivery of the new models won't begin until 2020 at the earliest. It could well be that those deliveries may very possibly only 'keep pace' with older, 'well-used' models being retired at the end of their service lives?

[Edited 2015-05-21 23:36:10]
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12837
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 7:45 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 153):
The fact that EK goes twice daily to SEA before LAX makes me think that the AS relationship is a solid positive.

EK has done LAX double-daily before, back when the route was 777s. They decided to consolidate on a single A380.

That's not likely to happen in SEA, as the route does exceptional cargo (from what I've heard, they have a contract with Boeing to transport spares to the UAE region)... and a 77W is generally a better cargo hauler than the A388.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 7:59 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 157):
That's not likely to happen in SEA, as the route does exceptional cargo (from what I've heard, they have a contract with Boeing to transport spares to the UAE region)... and a 77W is generally a better cargo hauler than the A388.

True but I could see a certain combination of passenger and cargo demand justifying putting an A380 (to DXB) and a 77F (to DWC) onto the route instead of 2x77W, thus providing more cargo capacity, less passenger capacity, significant cost savings, and freeing up a DXB slot.
 
AABB777
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 2:11 pm

Quoting bluesky1976 (Reply 83):

With QR being second in line for A380neo, Tim Clark might get what he wishes for after all. And there are also Singapore and Lufthansa.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 150):

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 149):
That's not true at all. EK interlines with DL, AS, AM, AC, TA, UA, and VX.... all of whom can, and do, connect pax to/from EK's flights on the west coast and elsewhere.

How many passengers really buy a single ticket with airlines that interline, but do not share codes? That's not really an easy thing for Joe Public to do.

To get real feed in the West, they'd need a codeshare agreement with AS. I'm not sure AS is quite willing yet to poison its relationship with AA or even with DL to that extent.

At EK, Joe Public doesn't make most bookings. EK relies heavily on consolidators who overwhelmingly book travel for EK's Economy passengers. An agent can do an EK/AS ticket for a customer without blinking an eye and the customer has no idea if their AS flight is a codeshare or a simple interline partner. All the customer knows is when they land at LAX from an EK flight they are connecting to AS.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9300
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 2:30 pm

There is the website www.dohop.com they try to find for you the cheapest way to fly from point A to point B.
There are a heaps of users using this site. You do not book through them but are told were to book the flights they found for you. Most often you would buy different parts of the trip at different airlines or booking agents.

I think here on A.net the interlining, code sharing, mile collection, alliances and so on is vastly overrated. There are heaps of persons out there doing the flying different from the "professional" traveler.
They are for example not interested in collecting miles because they never can collect enough to do something useful with it. Or they fly on to many different airlines.

There is a wholly different world out there, where the people travel who would never look in on a.net.
 
na
Posts: 9728
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 2:32 pm

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 154):

You have to wonder, with 150 77W's coming into he second hand market, with a lot of life left, will they...

A) Become Freighters?

B) Become Charter Aircraft for Airlines like Corsair?

C) End up with Airlines like DL? (Best outcome)

D) End up scrapped? (Saddest possible outcome)

They´ll come into the market over a 12 to 15 year period. A lot will happen in that time. Before ca. 2022 most chances are with B and C. After 2025 it will D, unless A happens, which I doubt. Look at what happens now with 772s and 77Es older than 15 years, and even the first 773s. Most are being scrapped, as 787s, new A333s and A350s make them obsolete quickly. The same will happen with many if not the most 77Ws by 2025 the latest once the A350-1000 and 777X are flying in numbers.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 2:42 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 153):
The fact that EK goes twice daily to SEA before LAX makes me think that the AS relationship is a solid positive.

I think that has more to do with 1) the fact that 2 777s can carry more airplane parts than an A380 and 2) the fact that SEA isn't A380 ready.
 
ThReaTeN
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:52 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 5:54 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 59):
My observations is simply you cannot believe anything that points to an excessive advantage for one airframe over another of the same vintage, they are built with very similar performace. The 737 example I described Boeing claims to have an 8 % advantage over the A320 neo, the market does not seem to agree with that.

You're right, but you're not arguing against the point they're making. No one is saying that the 787-10 is a better machine across the board, and that every airline that invested heavily in the A350-900 (for example SK, LH, AY, CX) should have looked into the 787-10 instead. So when you're pointing to the A350-900 and how many orders it has received so far and how 787-10 has received so few, you're missing the point completely. (Add to that all the other possible reasons for why 787-10 orders haven't really taken off yet - the strange ratio between airline orders and lessor orders for the 787-10 is a sign that the order book hasn't really started to mature in my eyes).

The 787-10 will be a double stretch of what is already a highly optimized machine (structural weight, engines etc.). Boeing will be sacrificing range as they won't be doing any of the kind of fuselage strengthening that Airbus did for the A340-600 or increase MTOW, but that leaves it with a lighter frame than other airliners with a comparable passenger count, both the A350-900 but even more so the 777-200LR and 777-8X. That in turn of course translates into an operating cost advantage, and the effect of lower structural weight - in contrast with other possible measures such as lower engine fuel burn or larger wing span - is disproportionally greater on shorter hops).

The fact that it's a double stretch also gives it a large cargo volume (40 LD3) relative to its passenger count and also in relation to its weight (compare it with the 777-8 which will also have 40 LD3 positions, but which is a completely different animal). To really make use of all that cargo volume in the 787-10, you will be cutting even further into range as a (pretty much rock) solid guess is that it will run into mass limitations more quickly than the 777-8 even with its lower advertised range.

All these trade-offs could present unacceptable drawbacks to many airlines and their intended applications but they're probably also the reason why EK is tilting toward the 787-10 for the shorter routes in their network. If it's a short enough hop, they can carry almost as many passengers and as much cargo in a 787-10 as they could in a 777-8, in a much lighter frame. The interest shown by BA, UA and now possibly by DL likely stems from the same unique properties of the 787-10 (but probably with less emphasis on cargo).
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12837
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 22, 2015 11:50 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 158):
True but I could see a certain combination of passenger and cargo demand justifying putting an A380 (to DXB) and a 77F (to DWC) onto the route instead of 2x77W, thus providing more cargo capacity, less passenger capacity, significant cost savings, and freeing up a DXB slot.

Perhaps, but then the question becomes does 14 weekly 77W bellies meet their cargo needs better than 1 or 2 weekly freighters.... thus far, the answer is "yes"


Quoting AABB777 (Reply 159):
the customer has no idea if their AS flight is a codeshare or a simple interline partner. All the customer knows is when they land at LAX from an EK flight they are connecting to AS.

  


Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 160):
I think here on A.net the interlining, code sharing, mile collection, alliances and so on is vastly overrated.

      
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14611
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sat May 23, 2015 12:45 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 146):

As the Airbus document also states, the A346 has a 12t differance in MZFW, The number you presented is not the maximum, it actually represents the early airframes. Two of which we used to operate.

The Boeing ACAPS states max structural payload of 154,000 lb for the 77W.

I would also direct you to look at page 25 of this article from the same journal where they have run the performance numbers comparing the A346 to the 77W. The A346 carried 15 more passengers, and around 10,000 lb more cargo over every city pair. That additional payload capability comes at a cost, that being the additional fuel burn. As I have stated on average airlines are not running around at 100%, so they do not see the additional revenue but do still see the additional fuel burn.

http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sam...icles/flight_operations_sample.pdf

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 163):

I do not belive I had pointed to the number of orders other airlines had made of various 350/787 types, order numbers can be skewed with large fleets in one airline, e.g. EK with the A380. My only point on orders related to the advantage Boeing claim to have on the 737, when I see the market as being very even between the 737/A320. I also see the A350/787 performance being closer than many are willing to admit.

I still think the DXB hub warrants more than one size, the reason I linked the network planning slides before to illustrate how their hub us different to many others. EK also in my view are being challenged in the regional area where the other local carriers are opening up far more city pairs with narrow bodies. If their smallest aircraft is a 787-10, there would be a lot of city pairs their local competitors could open up and build starting with narrow bodies. EK had previously ordered two different capacities of the same type, and I have not seen a structural change to the airline to changes the original business case.

One of the points I recall from the previous order cancellation related to the changes to the A350-1000 having a different power plant to the A350-900, this could also point to another advantage for a 787-9/787-10 combo.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sat May 23, 2015 2:14 am

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 163):
To really make use of all that cargo volume in the 787-10, you will be cutting even further into range as a (pretty much rock) solid guess

EK use a 180kg/m3 factor for air freight . This helps to make the 787-10 (for them ) MZFW limited at a payload of ~ 54t. whereas there is volume for about 60t. At 54t they would be good for about 9hrs which takes in Africa, Europe and Asia. At 80% load ( passengers and freight) the range stretches out to ~ 11hrs. I can see the 78J( or X in IATA nomenclature) and the 777-8x being set up similarly with the -8x starting in at about 13hr sectors to do eastern Australia and the USA. EK appear to be quite aggressive in the air freight market opening up new stations quite frequently. Thus this is likely to lead to increasing volumes as time goes on.
 
Cerecl
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sat May 23, 2015 12:23 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 131):
the 787-10 has an advantage on fuel on shorter missions as it is the lighter aircraft despite more seat potential.

Hmmm wondering if anyone has a reasonable idea how much the advantage is. I did a search on A.net, can only find an analysis by LAXDESI in 2011. Additionally, how much better a 2018 A359 is likely to be compared to its 2015 version?
Fokker-100 SAAB 340 Q400 E190 717 737 738 763ER 787-8 772 77E 773 77W 747-400 747-400ER A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A359 A380
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14611
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sun May 24, 2015 8:09 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 166):

Does the 54t figure include 80-100kg for an LD3, (times 40), and around 4t for catering ?

Quoting cerecl (Reply 167):

On another thread quoted fepe as calculating the A359 block fuel and fuel/sq.m to be less than the 787-10, another poster stated this was not valid for shorter trips as it was for a 6000 nm mission. I belive they also stated that the 787-10 had the same fuel burn/sq.m as the A350-1000.

I don't presonally remember the original thread where the data was presented, or the context.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sun May 24, 2015 12:26 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 168):
another thread quoted fepe as calculating the A359 block fuel and fuel/sq.m to be less than the 787-10

Zeke, as far as I can tell the A350 is likely to be highly-competitive, well able to compete effectively in the area between the B787 and the B777. It certainly LOOKS terrific.

Being in the industry, can you tell us why the A350 is entering service so slowly? 780 orders already, but only two aircraft flying in service so far, after some months in production?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10021
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sun May 24, 2015 12:54 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 169):
Being in the industry, can you tell us why the A350 is entering service so slowly? 780 orders already, but only two aircraft flying in service so far, after some months in production?

From discussion in the A350 production thread it appears that the A350 is not really ramping up any slower than expected, it just does not have a large production backlog of frames waiting to be delivered like the 787 had. It wouldn't surprise me if Airbus pushed through the first one a little quicker at a slight expense of the other A350s to meet their 2014 delivery goal though.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14611
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sun May 24, 2015 12:56 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 169):

I thought you had raised that question before in another thread, and someone with more detail on both programs indicated they were at a very close rate at the same period of time.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2492
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sun May 24, 2015 2:32 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 169):
Being in the industry, can you tell us why the A350 is entering service so slowly? 780 orders already, but only two aircraft flying in service so far, after some months in production?

Because Airbus want to sort out problems before the plane gets delivered. The 787s may have been delivered, but they needed a lot of work to make them reliable, a fight that is ongoing in some places. Airbus will ramp up when they are ready.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sun May 24, 2015 6:03 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 165):
If their smallest aircraft is a 787-10, there would be a lot of city pairs their local competitors could open up and build starting with narrow bodies.

I don't see room for EK narrow bodies at DXB. I think Air Dubai will handle those and they have the same owner. But with so much traffic for EK I don't see a need for anything less than a 781, personally.

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 163):
To really make use of all that cargo volume in the 787-10, you will be cutting even further into range as a (pretty much rock) solid guess is that it will run into mass limitations more quickly than the 777-8 even with its lower advertised range.

The 781 should take its MTOW all the way out to 4knm.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4000nm%40dxb

That covers nearly everything except Australia and the Americas. I personally think they will limit it to less than 10 hours partly because then they could use one crew without the weight of crew rest areas as has been speculated by lightsaber.
That is still ~75% of the World's population.

Quoting cerecl (Reply 167):
Hmmm wondering if anyone has a reasonable idea how much the advantage is. I did a search on A.net, can only find an analysis by LAXDESI in 2011.

The 781 should be ~4t lighter than the A359. That is a lot of weight to carry around while carrying fewer seats.

Quoting zeke (Reply 168):
I believe they also stated that the 787-10 had the same fuel burn/sq.m as the A350-1000.

Yes, that is what I posted but it was ferpe's figures who I greatly respect. I don't have any figures for anything other than a 5,500nm+ mission.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 169):
but only two aircraft flying in service so far, after some months in production?

I believe there are three that are in service.

Below is post by hkcanadaexpat from the A350 thread which looks at production by year:
.....................begin quote
Looking at actual production figures (based on load dates), we get:

787
Y1 - 2007: 1 (test plane #1) -> first in May
Y2 - 2008: 3 (test planes #2-4)
Y3 - 2009: 10 (test planes #5-6 + 8x production aircraft)
Y4 - 2010: 17
Y5 - 2011: 22
Y6 - 2012: 44
Y7 - 2013: 63
Y8 - 2014: 118
Y9 - 2015E: 120

350
Y1 - 2012: 1 (test plane #1) -> first in September
Y2 - 2013: 4 (test plane #2-5)
Y3 - 2014: 14
Y4 - 2015E: 22
...............................end quote

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10021
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sun May 24, 2015 7:33 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 173):
I don't see room for EK narrow bodies at DXB. I think Air Dubai will handle those and they have the same owner. But with so much traffic for EK I don't see a need for anything less than a 781, personally.

Yes Flydubai is basically EK's shorthaul wing. While not part of the Emirates Group, FlyDubai together with Emirates are both owned by the Government of Dubai so obviously it is going to be ensured that FZ and EK compliment, and not compete, with each other. So EK doesn't need to operate narrowbodies under their brand like QR and EY do.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sun May 24, 2015 8:16 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 168):
Does the 54t figure include 80-100kg for an LD3, (times 40), and around 4t for catering ?

I include LD3 tare at 80 and pallets at 110 and catering at 4600kg a mid-point in the EK range of ~4000 to 5100 kg depending on the distance of the haul.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sun May 24, 2015 8:51 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 173):
The 781 should be ~4t lighter than the A359. That is a lot of weight to carry around while carrying fewer seats.

The MTOW of the 78X is 253t and the 359 ( lightest version) is 268t. a spread of 15t. The max fuel load is ~99.2t and 108.3t respectively., a spread of 9.1t For the A359 to put the same fuel load as the 78X in the air it would need a TOW of about 259t. or a spread of 6t. The MZFW of both is very close. 78X at 192.777t and A359 at 192t. My deduction is that the payload of the A359 is ~ 6.7t less ( 6t plus .7t) than the 78X. Now the A359 can reduce this spread by a lower fuel consumption , that is by loading less fuel.
The burn of the 78X with a 54t payload for 10hrs is 53.243t . To be equal the A359 would need to burn 6.7t or ~12.5 % less.
E&OE and in the FWIW department......
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3905
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Mon May 25, 2015 11:53 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 163):
As the Airbus document also states, the A346 has a 12t differance in MZFW, The number you presented is not the maximum, it actually represents the early airframes. Two of which we used to operate.

No Zeke, the A340-600 ACAPS document, updated on 1 Jan 2014, on page 2-1-1, shows that MZFW weights of 245t and 251t were available for final versions of airplane, a difference of 6t not 12t.

It appears that you've confused MTOW with MZFW. MTOW's of 365t, 368t, and 380t were available. There is a 12t delta in that collection (368t to 380t).

[quote=zeke,reply=163]I would also direct you to look at page 25 of this article from the same journal where they have run the performance numbers comparing the A346 to the 77W. The A346 carried 15 more passengers, and around 10,000 lb more cargo over every city pair. That additional payload capability comes at a cost, that being the additional fuel burn. As I have stated on average airlines are not running around at 100%, so they do not see the additional revenue but do still see the additional fuel burn.

http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sam...light_operations_sample.pdf[/quote

I'm rather surprised you would quote this article as it was published in Feb/Mar 2001, over two years before 773ER first flight. It contains some rather serious errors. For instance it shows the 773ER as having a 11.3t max structural payload advantage. But its most serious error is showing the 773ER range with 365 pax as 7200nm vs 7500nm for the A346 with 380 pax. At the time of the article, the correct 773ER range was 7600nm. Today it's closer to 7900nm.

This serious error in 773ER payload-range creates the inaccurate mission payloads shown in the article. If the correct payload-range had been used, the 773ER would be shown with a payload advantage on these routes, with the exception of flights out of JNB where the A346 would carry more payload.

Zeke, your employer is an extensive 773ER operator so correct payload data on these missions is readily available to you. Why bring up a dated, inaccurate article as proof of anything?
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
ThReaTeN
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:52 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Wed May 27, 2015 10:48 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 175):
Zeke, your employer is an extensive 773ER operator so correct payload data on these missions is readily available to you. Why bring up a dated, inaccurate article as proof of anything?

Am I correct in assuming that's a rhetorical question? Because if not, I think even I can answer it.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Thu May 28, 2015 3:41 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 163):
I would also direct you to look at page 25 of this article from the same journal where they have run the performance numbers comparing the A346 to the 77W. The A346 carried 15 more passengers, and around 10,000 lb more cargo over every city pair. That additional payload capability comes at a cost, that being the additional fuel burn. As I have stated on average airlines are not running around at 100%, so they do not see the additional revenue but do still see the additional fuel burn.

The idea that the number of seats an airline sells does not depend on the number of seats available to sell would make sense if and only if airline yield management systems were not programmed to take into account the number of seats available to sell. The fact that load factors are generally below 100% does not mean that airlines doesn't pick up additional revenue by switching to a larger aircraft (not counting 11th hour substitutions).
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3905
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Thu May 28, 2015 12:29 pm

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 176):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 175):Zeke, your employer is an extensive 773ER operator so correct payload data on these missions is readily available to you. Why bring up a dated, inaccurate article as proof of anything?
Am I correct in assuming that's a rhetorical question? Because if not, I think even I can answer it.

I'm glad you can answer it if it isn't a rhetorical question.

[Edited 2015-05-28 05:35:01]
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
boeing767-300
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Thu May 28, 2015 12:38 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 163):
The A346 carried 15 more passengers, and around 10,000 lb more cargo over every city pair.

Maybe someone can explain how the A346 carries 15 more passengers than the 77W when they are similar lengths but 8 across versus 10 across. Really who are you kidding a 764 does not have more capacity than A332 and that is 7 across versus 8. Anyhow manufacturers are always a little creative in passenger numbers but I fail to see how A346 has move seats than a 77W in a comparative layout.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 175):
Zeke, your employer is an extensive 773ER operator so correct payload data on these missions is readily available to you. Why bring up a dated, inaccurate article as proof of anything?

I don't even know why we discuss A346 v 77W. As OldAeroGuy has pointed out his (Zeke) employer worked out pretty quick has much better 77W was over A346. One is out of production having sold nearly a hundred and the other is 700 plus with a big backlog.

Zeke the 77W is an amazing aircraft and the A346 was pretty ordinary. The market agrees and so does your employer get over it.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10021
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Thu May 28, 2015 12:58 pm

Quoting boeing767-300 (Reply 179):
Maybe someone can explain how the A346 carries 15 more passengers than the 77W when they are similar lengths but 8 across versus 10 across. Really who are you kidding a 764 does not have more capacity than A332 and that is 7 across versus 8. Anyhow manufacturers are always a little creative in passenger numbers but I fail to see how A346 has move seats than a 77W in a comparative layout.

Well in 2001 they were likely comparing 8 vs. 9 abreast. But it is still a terrible article to use because it relies entirely on Boeing and Airbus's marketing data, which is odd to refer to considering these planes have long since stopped being paper planes. Even the A346 had yet to make its first flight when that article was written.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26700
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Thu May 28, 2015 1:51 pm

Quoting boeing767-300 (Reply 179):
Maybe someone can explain how the A346 carries 15 more passengers than the 77W when they are similar lengths but 8 across versus 10 across.
Quoting polot (Reply 180):
Well in 2001 they were likely comparing 8 vs. 9 abreast.

And Airbus's OEM configurations at the time were more Economy-heavy (as a percentage of total seats) than Boeing's, so even for the exact same cabin area, a Boeing plane would have less total seats than an Airbus one.

And since the 777-300ER would have more First and Business seats, the trip passenger revenue of the 777-300ER would be higher than the A340-600.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14611
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 29, 2015 2:18 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 175):
No Zeke, the A340-600 ACAPS document, updated on 1 Jan 2014, on page 2-1-1, shows that MZFW weights of 245t and 251t were available for final versions of airplane, a difference of 6t not 12t.

6t range (245-251) for the HGW (A340-600WV1xx), and 6t (239-245) range for the non HGW (A340-600WV0xx). Original MZFW was 240t ( 529,100 lb), a few of the early build aircraft which CX operated 2 of were a little different.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 175):
I'm rather surprised you would quote this article as it was published in Feb/Mar 2001, over two years before 773ER first flight. It contains some rather serious errors. For instance it shows the 773ER as having a 11.3t max structural payload advantage. But its most serious error is showing the 773ER range with 365 pax as 7200nm vs 7500nm for the A346 with 380 pax. At the time of the article, the correct 773ER range was 7600nm. Today it's closer to 7900nm.

There is no serious errors in the article that I can see, it is comparing a early build A346 with a mature 77W. The 77W weights in that article reflect what we have in service, the A346 numbers also were close to the ones CX operated, they are the non HGW numbers, with a MZFW of 240t.

The range differences worked out by 3rd part flight planning systems would rarely meet the manufacturers, they are not using the OEM marketing department numbers. They have made their own takeoff and range calculations, including the 77W being take-off weight is limited by tyre speed at JNB and by field length at MAN.

It does not say the 77W has a 11.3t payload advantage, if you look at the city pair calculations they have calculated payload and fuel burn on each city pair. It does show there is an increased fuel burn for each city pair, the additional payload capability is not free.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 175):
Zeke, your employer is an extensive 773ER operator so correct payload data on these missions is readily available to you. Why bring up a dated, inaccurate article as proof of anything?

CX never operated the HGW 346, you know that.

CX is also not buying 77Ws any more, they are yesterdays product, that last one arrives this year. There are already plans in place to retire the early 77Ws. The 77W is a has been product, like the A346, technology moves on, everyone is now looking at the 787, 77X, A350.

Quoting zvezda (Reply 177):
The idea that the number of seats an airline sells does not depend on the number of seats available to sell would make sense if and only if airline yield management systems were not programmed to take into account the number of seats available to sell. The fact that load factors are generally below 100% does not mean that airlines doesn't pick up additional revenue by switching to a larger aircraft (not counting 11th hour substitutions).

I heard you were locked up for a while, good to see you are released.

What you are describing is done when aircraft are in service, by the airlines revenue management department in response to customer demand. What we are taking here about is an aircraft purchase, which is done by network planning and purchasing, they do not use such systems, or aircraft subs. The do run seasonal models, which may change the aircraft type on a summer/winter schedule for example.

No airline works on purchasing an airliner with 100% LF, where an airline will try an operate an airliner with 100% LF. However trying to fill excess capacity often reduces the yield.

Quoting boeing767-300 (Reply 179):
Maybe someone can explain how the A346 carries 15 more passengers than the 77W when they are similar lengths but 8 across versus 10 across. Really who are you kidding a 764 does not have more capacity than A332 and that is 7 across versus 8. Anyhow manufacturers are always a little creative in passenger numbers but I fail to see how A346 has move seats than a 77W in a comparative layout.

The 380/365 pax were the marketing configurations offered at the time, they will drive the empty weight for the calculation of the performance.

Quoting boeing767-300 (Reply 179):
I don't even know why we discuss A346 v 77W. As OldAeroGuy has pointed out his (Zeke) employer worked out pretty quick has much better 77W was over A346. One is out of production having sold nearly a hundred and the other is 700 plus with a big backlog.

OAG has presented misleading information, CX never operated the HGW 346, we operated the early build, and two of the very early airframes. They did exactly what CX wanted them to do.

The 77W time is coming to an end, last one arrives this year, the countdown timer has already started on when they will retire. Nothing lasts forever.

Quoting boeing767-300 (Reply 179):
Zeke the 77W is an amazing aircraft and the A346 was pretty ordinary. The market agrees and so does your employer get over it.

The 77W is just another aircraft towards the end of its commercial shelf life. With around 2 years worth of production booked, there is a big production hole between the 77W and 77X.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 181):
And since the 777-300ER would have more First and Business seats, the trip passenger revenue of the 777-300ER would be higher than the A340-600.

Assuming again, everything is sold. No airline will make that assumption.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12837
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 29, 2015 2:54 am

Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it be so much easier to just admit:
"I used old information to paint a picture that's not reflected in today's performance stats. We had a lively discussion about it, so let's move on"
...than trying to double-down on information from a decade and a half ago, whose results are not (even remotely) reflected in the market's reaction thereto?

Just putting it out there.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18815
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 29, 2015 4:59 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 133):
they should be using more A380's and less 777W's.

There should be. But it might come down to capital costs and what fraction of the routes are ready for the upgauge. There is less risk in smaller aircraft. While the profit might be less, there is less investment. It is a decision that makes sense to me. In particular when the low production rates of the A380 are considered.
I'm amused at the 77W vs. A346 discussion. That ship has sailed, the market has spoken. Yes, the 77W's time is about over, but it isn't done. But it is time to consider the replacement. EK will up-gauge some to the A388, but most to the 779.

Quoting zeke (Reply 163):
I still think the DXB hub warrants more than one size, the reason I linked the network planning slides before to illustrate how their hub us different to many others. EK also in my view are being challenged in the regional area where the other local carriers are opening up far more city pairs with narrow bodies. If their smallest aircraft is a 787-10, there would be a lot of city pairs their local competitors could open up and build starting with narrow bodies. EK had previously ordered two different capacities of the same type, and I have not seen a structural change to the airline to changes the original business case.

I 100% agree the DXB hub needs several sizes:
A380, 777, and regional. The narrowbody demand is met by the sister airline FlyDubai. Now that FlyDubai has a business class seat that isn't lie flat, it allows product differentiation without diluting the Emirates brand. For everything else, EK hauls the cargo.

There will be regional growth and the gauge will be:
738 (FlyDubai)
78J
779 (778 for a tiny number of routes)
A388 (fading away if there is no A380NEO).

With great connections via their massive hub waves, that is enough gauge variation.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 171):
That covers nearly everything except Australia and the Americas. I personally think they will limit it to less than 10 hours partly because then they could use one crew without the weight of crew rest areas as has been speculated by lightsaber.

A very accurate quote. I believe that since these are 'regional' aircraft there will be no crew rests to cut costs (and weight). For those missions, the 78J makes a lot of sense. For longer missions, there will be 779s and 778s. I do expect a number of 777s to be replaced by A380s. Ironically, I think EK would buy more A380 if there was an A389 (which would be a NEO at this juncture).
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10021
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 29, 2015 1:09 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 182):
There is no serious errors in the article that I can see, it is comparing a early build A346 with a mature 77W. The 77W weights in that article reflect what we have in service, the A346 numbers also were close to the ones CX operated, they are the non HGW numbers, with a MZFW of 240t.

No the article doesn't. It compares early build A346 with preliminary 773ER numbers. Don't try and spin that as a "mature 77W". The 77W today, for example, has a MTOW of 775,000 lbs (25,000 lb more than in the article) and an OEW of 370,000 lbs (4,000 lb less than in the article). Same MZFW. The mature 77W also has much better fuel burn than what was expected in 2001- according to Boeing it is about 3.6% better now than at EIS in 2004 (where I believe fuel burn actually was better than what was expected to begin with).

Saying that the 2001 77W numbers are indicative of a mature 77W are about as valid as me saying the 787 vs A350 numbers brought up are earlier are meaningless because you are comparing an early build 787 to a mature A350.

Quoting zeke (Reply 182):
OAG has presented misleading information, CX never operated the HGW 346, we operated the early build, and two of the very early airframes. They did exactly what CX wanted them to do.

Then they compared the A346 and 77W to replace and expand upon their 2 early build A346s and decided that the 77W does exactly what they wanted to better than the no longer early build A346. I note that the first ordered the 77W in December 2005, a month after the HGW A346 had its first flight. Airbus had to be pitching that frame against the 77W during the competition.

Quoting zeke (Reply 182):
The 77W time is coming to an end, last one arrives this year, the countdown timer has already started on when they will retire. Nothing lasts forever.
Quoting zeke (Reply 182):
The 77W is just another aircraft towards the end of its commercial shelf life. With around 2 years worth of production booked, there is a big production hole between the 77W and 77X.

Nobody is disputing that, and frankly that is a red herring that does not counter the points you are quoting. Why is the 77W's shelf life ~15 years, 750+ planes while the A346's shelf life was 10 years and 97 planes?

[Edited 2015-05-29 06:59:49]
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1540
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 29, 2015 4:16 pm

What I read in Zeke's posting is that, essentially, the early 77W did to the A346 about the same thing as what the A346 did to the 744, what the A333 did to the early 772, and what the A321Neo will soon do to the 757. Neither the 772 nor the A346, nor the 757, nor the 744 were bad planes, they were just overtaken by planes having, at the beginning, smaller capacities but also clearly smaller costs. And, conversely, the 77W, A333 and A321Neo are not flying panacea; they will be overtaken in time.
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14611
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 29, 2015 5:41 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 184):
There will be regional growth and the gauge will be:
738 (FlyDubai)
78J
779 (778 for a tiny number of routes)
A388 (fading away if there is no A380NEO).

I respectfully disagree. Flydubai network would not picture in the EK fleet planning, nor more than say CX and KA.

Quoting polot (Reply 185):
No the article doesn't. It compares early build A346 with preliminary 773ER numbers. Don't try and spin that as a "mature 77W". The 77W today, for example, has a MTOW of 775,000 lbs (25,000 lb more than in the article) and an OEW of 370,000 lbs (4,000 lb less than in the article). Same MZFW. The mature 77W also has much better fuel burn than what was expected in 2001- according to Boeing it is about 3.6% better now than at EIS in 2004 (where I believe fuel burn actually was better than what was expected to begin with).

All of the 77W numbers accurately reflect the MTOW, MZFW, OEW of the 77W at CX. Likewise the numbers for the A346 were very similar to the early CX A346.

FYI our 77W MTOW is 351t, OEW (with fewer seats) around 169t, with 4-5t of catering, I think the first delivery to CX was at least 3 years after the first delivery of a 77W to AF.

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 186):
And, conversely, the 77W, A333 and A321Neo are not flying panacea; they will be overtaken in time.

Exactly, I should add CX will also take its last A330 this year as well.

The whole point of raising the A346 to the 77W was many years ago when we were discussing it, I was suggesting that A346 has a greater payload capability, and thus greater revenue capability than the 77W. The additional revenue would counter the fuel burn.

I was wrong looking at maximum payload, airlines do not plan on 100% LFs.

Now we are looking at a 7878-10 vs the A350-900. The A350-900 is planned at less fuel than the 787-10, and would carry an average 787-10 payload. I am being told I am wrong again at considering the A350-900 as the 787-10 somehow exists in ether.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26700
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 187):
I respectfully disagree. Flydubai network would not picture in the EK fleet planning, nor more than say CX and KA.

So CX doesn't presume that any of the traffic they carry to/from HKG originated/terminated on a KA flight?



Quoting zeke (Reply 187):
The A350-900 is planned at less fuel than the 787-10, and would carry an average 787-10 payload.

Which makes one wonder why EK cancelled their outstanding A350-900 order, as well as wonder why they never consummated their earlier A330-300 MoU (which would carry an average A350-900 payload at less fuel).
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10021
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Fri May 29, 2015 6:35 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 187):
All of the 77W numbers accurately reflect the MTOW, MZFW, OEW of the 77W at CX. Likewise the numbers for the A346 were very similar to the early CX A346.

FYI our 77W MTOW is 351t, OEW (with fewer seats) around 169t, with 4-5t of catering, I think the first delivery to CX was at least 3 years after the first delivery of a 77W to AF.

Well the CX 77W MTOW is still almost 11t higher than what is the article, with MZFW and OEW being about the same (CX OEW ~1500 lbs lower), and that is not taking into account any fuel burn differences.

I don't think anyone was arguing about the 77W vs A346 at CX specifically though, but in general. And I would echo what someone else said eariler: you work at CX. Why would you use the numbers from the article and just say they are similar to CX versus just using the numbers from CX?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14611
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sat May 30, 2015 6:56 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 188):
So CX doesn't presume that any of the traffic they carry to/from HKG originated/terminated on a KA flight?

When looking at the 777 or A350 RFPs, we did not look at the KA fleet, we had passenger demands over the proposed CX routes, and KA passengers are included in the HKG O&D.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 188):
Which makes one wonder why EK cancelled their outstanding A350-900 order, as well as wonder why they never consummated their earlier A330-300 MoU (which would carry an average A350-900 payload at less fuel).

As I mentioned above,I think the engine change between A350-900/1000 that was made after their order was placed played a role there. No reason why a 787-9/787-10 combo could not be used with a common engine.

Quoting polot (Reply 189):
Well the CX 77W MTOW is still almost 11t higher than what is the article, with MZFW and OEW being about the same (CX OEW ~1500 lbs lower), and that is not taking into account any fuel burn differences.

It is common knowledge that the standard MTOW is 750,000 lb, and customers like CX can purchase an optional MTOW increase of 775,000 kg. CX also purchased the additional thrust bump.

Quoting polot (Reply 189):
Why would you use the numbers from the article and just say they are similar to CX versus just using the numbers from CX?

I am not going to publish the OEWs of any of our aircraft, airlines generally do not publish that. I did not say our OEW is 169t, I said it is around that number, there is over a 6000 lb difference in OEWs across the 77W fleet, many of them are heavier than the number in the article of 374,000 lb.

Many years ago I did present various numbers, it made no difference back then as everything I wrote people dismissed. When we have a 3rd party making a comparison, all of a sudden it is full of errors, when in reality it is not. The A346 is not in the flight planning model any more as far as I know.

What no one can deny is the A346 opened up the direct daily JFK/YYZ markets from HKG, and did the job it was employed to do.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26700
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sat May 30, 2015 1:34 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 190):
As I mentioned above,I think the engine change between A350-900/1000 that was made after their order was placed played a role there.

I can agree with that, especially as Tim Clark also didn't seem to like Airbus improving the long-range performance of the A350-1000 via operating weights (and their associated empty weight) increases as I believe he wanted to employ them regionally (with the 777X / A380 handling long-haul missions).
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3905
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sun May 31, 2015 12:13 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 184):
I'm amused at the 77W vs. A346 discussion. That ship has sailed, the market has spoken.

I only brought up the comparison because of this generalization by Zeke.

Quoting zeke (Reply 59):
My observations is simply you cannot believe anything that points to an excessive advantage for one airframe over another of the same vintage, they are built with very similar performace.

The A346 vs 773ER history illustrates this statement is not a universal truth. Airplanes of the same vintage can differ in performance due the details and execution of their designs.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1540
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sun May 31, 2015 3:18 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 192):
Airplanes of the same vintage can differ in performance due the details and execution of their designs.

That may be the nicest tautology I've seen so far on this site. Thank you, sir.  
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
GavinSharp
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:23 am

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Sun May 31, 2015 8:08 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 192):

Quoting zeke (Reply 59):
My observations is simply you cannot believe anything that points to an excessive advantage for one airframe over another of the same vintage, they are built with very similar performace.

The A346 vs 773ER history illustrates this statement is not a universal truth.


I don't think it does - an "excessive advantage" is not required for the market to heavily favor one frame over another. No doubt the 77W turned out to be the better plane, but the degree to which it was better (in terms of performance/efficiency/etc.) is not necessarily proportional to the degree to which it sold better, which I think it zeke's point.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14611
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK To Replace Entire B777 Fleet With B777X

Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:37 am

Quoting GavinSharp (Reply 194):
I don't think it does - an "excessive advantage" is not required for the market to heavily favor one frame over another. No doubt the 77W turned out to be the better plane, but the degree to which it was better (in terms of performance/efficiency/etc.) is not necessarily proportional to the degree to which it sold better, which I think it zeke's point.

Exactly, I also mentioned the same applied to the 747-8i and the 77W, however as that is not an Airbus is does not get the attention.

The whole point of me raising it was everyone is pointing to the 787-10 as the only option for EK, and they are basing that upon 787-10 maximum values, I pointed out in real life airlines do not fly around at maximum values. Airlines fly around with what they can get from the market.

What else is available that will carry their realistic loads, the answer is more than just a 787-10.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos