I didn't realize the A380, even the 575t MTOW variant, had the range to do DXB-AKL nonstop with a full pax load. Are they going to be flying with seats blocked off, maybe because they want to use the 77L elsewhere?

Very nice. That is gonna be 4 EK A380's on the ground in AKL in the afternoon. That's a lot of ramp space which is already quite congested throughout the afternoon. When I was there in December they had all contact gates at the Intl terminal filled, as well as what seemed the majority of hardstands with NZ widebodys and JQ Q300s. there was so little space JQ had to wait for the EK birds to leave to tow over some A320's for the evening flights to Oz. It was certainly an interesting time period to observe airport operations, very enjoyable.

Wow, I guess the A380 counts as a ULR frame now then? Could a 77W fly the route?

Quoting Armodeen (Reply 3): I guess the A380 counts as a ULR frame now then?

It already flies long legs, like DXB-LAX and SYD-DFW.

Another nail in the coffin of QR's proposed DOH-AKL service ?

Quoting a320fan (Reply 2): It was certainly an interesting time period to observe airport operations, very enjoyable.

Not if you're a passenger. It already is chaos, with bus gates now becoming normal. A slight delay in the nonstop from DXB means it'll arrive close to when SQ's A380 arrives. Yet AKL doesn't seem to care about their passengers when a pier extension would be rather easy to even commence, let alone build.

Quoting HALtheAI (Reply 1): maybe because they want to use the 77L elsewhere?

Or maybe the A380 will make more money with 50-100 seats blocked than the 77L will full. Does anyone know how many seats they blocked on the inaugural flight?

Quoting a320fan (Reply 2): Very nice. That is gonna be 4 EK A380's on the ground in AKL in the afternoon. That's a lot of ramp space which is already quite congested throughout the afternoon. When I was there in December they had all contact gates at the Intl terminal filled, as well as what seemed the majority of hardstands with NZ widebodys and JQ Q300s. there was so little space JQ had to wait for the EK birds to leave to tow over some A320's for the evening flights to Oz. It was certainly an interesting time period to observe airport operations, very enjoyable.

Most of the NZ wide-bodys on the hand-stands during the late afternoon/early evening would have used stairs when they arrived in from the Pacific/Tasman routes. Then would get towed over to the terminal later on in the night when they headed out to North America / Asia.

AIAL seems to have given up on more gates, but deciecied buses are ok.

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 7): Or maybe the A380 will make more money with 50-100 seats blocked than the 77L will full. Does anyone know how many seats they blocked on the inaugural flight?

As fun the article, they;re getting an 85% load factor on the route already and this is off-season for NZ.

By the time our summer comes in December - high season, more pax - the A380 should do well.

mariner

Quoting Armodeen (Reply 3): Wow, I guess the A380 counts as a ULR frame now then? Could a 77W fly the route?

Sure it does when it will operate the worlds longest flight.

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 7): Does anyone know how many seats they blocked on the inaugural flight?

The westbound payload was 40t or about 365- passengers. This suggests something like 120-seats blocked off. It was at MTOW so no slack there.

[Edited 2016-06-03 04:03:53]

Fantastic news! This will put so much extra pressure on Auckland Airport for gate space that it's as good as guaranteed to be a total disaster for the airport. Thus the airport will literally have no other choice than to add a decent number of additional gates. Unfortunately, OTP for NZ, QF and JQ will be severely compromised during this time and the experience for passengers will be chaotic.

For EK passengers (especially those in Y) it is also great news as nonstop DXB-AKL pax will be able to avoid a 17 hour flight in the ghastly 77L.

Personally, I'm particularly excited at the prospect of flying one stop AKL-DXB-NCE aboard A380s the whole way.

 

Quoting zkncj (Reply 8): AIAL seems to have given up on more gates, but deciecied buses are ok.

It's a joke!

Quoting HALtheAI (Reply 1): I didn't realize the A380, even the 575t MTOW variant, had the range to do DXB-AKL nonstop with a full pax load. Are they going to be flying with seats blocked off, maybe because they want to use the 77L elsewhere?

Quoting HALtheAI (Reply 1): Wow, I guess the A380 counts as a ULR frame now then? Could a 77W fly the route?

The great circle route DXB - AKL is 7,668 nm.
A new 575t A380 does 8,200 nm with pax and luggage and that should be with reserves, according to how Airbus calculates this numbers. The RR birds starting to come end of this year should even improve slightly on this.
The 777-300ER should do 7,370nm and the 777-200LR 8,555 under similar conditions, giving the 777-200LR the advantage in range over the A380 of about 350nm.

Yes I would say that the A380 is an ULR or ULH bird. I would say the 777-300ER would not manage that range, you need the 777-200LR to beat the A380 on range (or the A340-500).

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 12): This will put so much extra pressure on Auckland Airport for gate space that it's as good as guaranteed to be a total disaster for the airport. Thus the airport will literally have no other choice than to add a decent number of additional gates. Unfortunately, OTP for NZ, QF and JQ will be severely compromised during this time and the experience for passengers will be chaotic.

Well put. AIAL needs a reality check and 4 A388s plus the SQ388 and the KE 74H will put a strain on the gate situation at AKL

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 13):

You realise don't you that AKL-DXB is against the prevailing wind the entire way? There is no way that they are going to get close to a full payload. Maybe with no freight other than passenger bags they might fairly close to passenger capacity, but even there there would have to be blocked seats everyday. DXB-AKL on the other hand will of course be a doddle.

And just in case there was any doubt posters are referring to the same Auckland Airport that seems to genuinely believe that it is the best airport in the Australia-Pacific region  

Quoting mariner (Reply 9): As fun the article, they;re getting an 85% load factor on the route already and this is off-season for NZ.

Why can EK do it, repeatedly, but no one else can?

Will EK look to change its Trans-Tasman strategy? Has there been an effect on their existing flights?

I do tend to remember that a condition of the EK-QF partnership approval was to maintain capacity on Trans-Tasman routes which may complicate things if they wanted to make changes.

3 X daily A380 on Australia-AKL and now a 1 X daily A380 on DXB-AKL makes for some interesting viewing.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 13): The great circle route DXB - AKL is 7,668 nm. A new 575t A380 does 8,200 nm with pax and luggage and that should be with reserves, according to how Airbus calculates this numbers

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 15): There is no way that they are going to get close to a full payload. Maybe with no freight other than passenger bags they might fairly close to passenger capacity, but even there there would have to be blocked seats everyday.

see reply 11 for the real life numbers. The ESAD on the day was 8008nm and flight time 16hrs 32 min.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 15): You realise don't you that AKL-DXB is against the prevailing wind the entire way? There is no way that they are going to get close to a full payload. Maybe with no freight other than passenger bags they might fairly close to passenger capacity, but even there there would have to be blocked seats everyday. DXB-AKL on the other hand will of course be a doddle.

You realize that the numbers regarding the range of the A380 have been getting better the last years, mainly due to weight reductions and increased MTOW? And that the big paper difference in range between a 777-200LR and the A380 has been narrowing since Boeing has been calculating range similar to Airbus? The 777-200LR moving down from 9,000 nm to 8,550? Against a range of 8,200nm for the A380?

The inaugural flight AKL-DXB was flown using an A380, so I imagine EK does know what is possible.

Qantas does SYD - DFW - SYD at 7,454nm 214nm shorter on quite a bit older frames than the newest frames from Emirates.

We can expect a slight further increase in range for the A380 with Trent 900EP3 engines and some additional work on the aerodynamics coming to Emirates end of this year.

No need for speculation, just look at the payload/range chart. ESAD range will be well above 8,000nm. That gives ~ 45t payload. Then you have to remove another ~ 5t for stuff like food and drinks. So you are down to 40t payload, that equals 400 seats or so.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 19):

You cannot possibly disagree with real life figures though?
Plus airlines tend to have heavier cabins than manufacturer's use...thus a higher OEW. P.S. EK has showers and a water tank in addition.

The 380 already did the route @ MTOW and had seats blocked off for the flight.

DXB to AKL is well within the capability of the 575t version. Only the 77L and 345 at the moment can fly with little to no payload restrictions for AKL to DXB.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 20):

Could this chart be a little bit old, or for a different MTOW? Here the range at maximum passenger payload is shown as about 7,900nm, but is supposed to be for the current 575t A380 about 8,200nm.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22): Could this chart be a little bit old, or for a different MTOW? Here the range at maximum passenger payload is shown as about 7,900nm, but is supposed to be for the current 575t A380 about 8,200nm.

I found it in the latest ACAP documents.

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...h_data/AC/Airbus-AC-A380-Jan16.pdf

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 23): I found it in the latest ACAP documents. http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...h_data/AC/Airbus-AC-A380-Jan16.pdf

two graphs, but quite a few different MTOW versions and quote:

THESE CURVES ARE GIVEN FOR INFORMATION ONLY.
THE APPROVED VALUES ARE STATED IN THE "OPERATING MANUALS"
SPECIFIC TO THE AIRLINE OPERATING THE AIRCRAFT.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 24): SPECIFIC TO THE AIRLINE OPERATING THE AIRCRAFT.

Most airlines operate their aircraft even heavier as they fit in additional stuff. So the chart above is already optimistic.

There is just no way the A380 can fly DXB-AKL without blocking seats.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 19): We can expect a slight further increase in range for the A380 with Trent 900EP3 engines and some additional work on the aerodynamics coming to Emirates end of this year.

A new engine improvement package will not make up the 100+ blocked off seats.

[Edited 2016-06-03 07:04:42]

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 25): There is just no way the A380 can fly DXB-AKL without blocking seats.

Does Qantas flying the older A380 with a lower MTOW has to block seats on DFW - SYD?

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 26): Does Qantas flying the older A380 with a lower MTOW has to block seats on DFW - SYD?

They do block seats on the westbound trip due to headwind.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 13): A new 575t A380 does 8,200 nm with pax and luggage and that should be with reserves, according to how Airbus calculates this numbers

Here is a suggestion: NEVER rely on the manufacturer quoted figure. It is calculated for ideal conditions of weather, routing, winds and alternates - with aircraft optimally configured without hauling around a bunch of things airlines like to carry. .

When I want to ballpark the effective range of an aircraft, I take that manufacturer quoted range and shave off about 7% for north-south flights, like JNB-LHR, and about 12% for east-west flights.

For more dense cabins, the total passenger weight is higher so the range takes a hit from that too. Plus 10 seats can shave 70 to 120 nm of range on a mid-size wide-body.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 27): They do block seats on the westbound trip due to headwind.

So than of course EK will have the need to block seats, but it could still come out as a lower CASM per seat than the 777-200LR with added capacity.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 21): You cannot possibly disagree with real life figures though? Plus airlines tend to have heavier cabins than manufacturer's use...thus a higher OEW. P.S. EK has showers and a water tank in addition

EK's A380's are still right around 300t DOW. Apparently there has been quite an improvement in fuel burn at cruise in the latest variants which has helped the range.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 17): I do tend to remember that a condition of the EK-QF partnership approval was to maintain capacity on Trans-Tasman routes which may complicate things if they wanted to make changes.

How much slack is there in the Jetconnect fleet at the moment? If EK were hypothetically to back off on Trans-Tasman service, QF's only short-term option would have to be to make up capacity with mainline - perhaps cramming some more use into the A330s.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 28): Here is a suggestion: NEVER rely on the manufacturer quoted figure. It is calculated for ideal conditions of weather, routing, winds and alternates - with aircraft optimally configured without hauling around a bunch of things airlines like to carry. .

It should work for comparison between different frames. The 8.200nm is at full pax, still air, 210nm diversion and 30 minutes reserve, compared to a 777-200LR with 8,550nm range.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 20):

40 toons in ISA conditions, difficult to see in Dubai, most of the days few thousand kilos less because of high temperatures.

Most probably they are upgauging the flights not because the overall load factor but because of the load factors in business and First class.

A 388 14/76/427
B77L 8/42/216

If EK blocks around 120-130 seats in economy they can still carry more economy pax that the ones travelling now with the B77L, around 300 pax in economy, and also 6 more in First, 34 more in Business and that's a lot of money. Having few more flights a day to AKL can accommodate easily any cargo, so that is not a big factor in this route.

Also for the pax in my point of view this is great, the A380 is much more comfortable for Business and Economy, and the bar in the upper floor is great, specially in such a long flight.

Quoting XAM2175 (Reply 31): How much slack is there in the Jetconnect fleet at the moment? If EK were hypothetically to back off on Trans-Tasman service, QF's only short-term option would have to be to make up capacity with mainline - perhaps cramming some more use into the A330s.

An reasonable amount of EK's traffic on the Tasman is local, rather than onto DXB.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 33):

Agreed about the increase in premium seats. On DFW-SYD Qantas always block the seats in economy while business and premium go out full every day, it's pretty much the only way to make money on ULH with the loss of 50-100 revenue generating seats. If there was not much premium demand on AKL-DXB then I don't think EK would have wanted up gauge to the A380.


EK can only drop their Tasman routes is QF replace them seat for seat ... so EK won't be dropping them. QF don't have enough capacity to replace those seats, and the routes are utilisation flying for EK when the aircraft would otherwise be idle for 14 hours. A big proportion (and no doubt one that is growing all the time) of the passengers on the Tasman flights are O&D and not continuing to DXB. With the direct flight now I'm sure the majority of passengers are local.

When EK upgauged LAX to the 77W they had a subfleet for the route with an extra 2-3t of TOW, what are the chances of them getting 3-4 388's with extra TOW?

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 16): Why can EK do it, repeatedly, but no one else can?

I don't know.

If it was just this one flight to/from Dubai maybe I could understand it, but then we have all those flights from AKL through Australia to DXB.

Those flights have been on object lesson in building loads. Originally, Emirates poured a lot of money into name recognition in New Zealand - sponsoring an NZ America's Cup challenge, for example - and it has surely paid off. Local loads on the trans-Tasman flights are very good.

They are my favourite way to get to Australia from New Zealand because of the A380 - for me it's the most comfortable aircraft - but I only fly 'em if the price is right and often it isn't. Sometimes there are great fares in business class, I've been on a few flights with poor loads in business but equally, business is often quite full with prices that reflect that.

The greater puzzle is first class. NZ has a good economy but it isn't a "rich" country in the way that Australia is. There are some very wealthy people here, but Air New Zealand got rid of first class some years ago.

I've seen Emirates first class AKL-MEL or AKL-BNE with only one or two pax in it, but I know well-to-do chums who ONLY fly Emirates first class to Australia, and sometimes in groups of seven of eight, especially for opera season in Sydney which gets a big bunch of first class pax. Which doesn't quite make sense either - no one really associates many Kiwis with opera - LOL.

So when Emirates announced the non-stop, I raised several eyebrows because I didn't see how it could work, and I thought it was just a kick in the nuts to Qatar for announcing their non-stop AUH-AKL, and maybe it was, but it seems to have paid off for Emirates.

Of course, it isn't just NZ that's filling the aircraft, it;s a two way street - traffic coming to NZ from DXB. But since I doubt there's that much local traffic DXB-AKL, I guess much of it is coming from the UK/Europe, reinforcing the value of the DXB hub.

 

mariner

[Edited 2016-06-03 14:21:26]

Quoting mariner (Reply 37): I've seen Emirates first class AKL-MEL or AKL-BNE with only one or two pax in it, but I know well-to-do chums who ONLY fly Emirates first class to Australia,

Sometimes you can get AKL-MEL/SYD/BNE for around $899ow in First, which is pretty good with NZ sometimes is $1199 for J.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 38): Sometimes you can get AKL-MEL/SYD/BNE for around $899ow in First, which is pretty good with NZ sometimes is $1199 for J.

Yes I paid $800 for a ow F fare AKL-BNE in August. I'll probably eat/drink a quarter of that fare in the lounge and onboard...

Great value i rekon

[Edited 2016-06-03 15:02:10]

To put some of the speculation to rest.

Sunrisevalley already provided the payload from the first EK448/449 A380 flight. Here is the exact breakdown of the 02FEB16 EK449 AKL-DXB return, operated by A6-EON


AZFW: 340.9t MZFW: 369t
ATOW: 575t MTOW: 575t
RAMP FUEL: 235.5t

ESAD: 8008NM. TRIP time 16h32m

Note: All EK arrivals between 1900z and 0359z at DXB
are planned with additional fuel for anticipated holding
due to that being peak arrival time. On that day that day ~4300kgs (included in ramp fuel).

AZFW: Actual Zero Fuel Weight
MZFW: Maximum Zero Fuel Weight
ATOW: Actual Takeoff Weight
MTOW: Maximum Takeoff Weight

The upgauge is taking place because of the addition premium seats on the A380 vs. the B77L.

EK does not even bother operating their 10 -200LRs at the highest available MTOW of 347,452kgs. 343,369kgs, is plenty for them and on most days the EK449 return is a good ~7-10t under MTOW.

The latest 575t A380s have DOW's in the 297-298t range.

DOW: Dry Operating weight (crew +crew bags bags + pantry + water).

40-42t payload will be perfectly achievable year around!

As for EK 2-3 B77W's with higher MTOW, this fleet is now 36 strong, The increased MTOW was merely EK purchasing the highest MTOW Boeing has always offered. 351,543kgs. The majority of the B77W fleet (without overhead crew rest), is 340t MTOW.

Until Airbus offers MTOW's greater than 575t, EK will have to do with just that. IAH/LAX/SFO go out comfortably below on a daily basis. Considering the A380 has a fuel capacity of ~285t, you can see that EK449 will be MTOW restricted, and not fuel volume limited.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 34): An reasonable amount of EK's traffic on the Tasman is local, rather than onto DXB.

Thst true, but the flights did rely on through traffic.

Spoke to a friend yesterday who suggested there has been a hit on pax numbers flying across the Tasman on the EK flights, which may only get worse when the A380 is deployed on the route.

A number of pax apparently still preferred the option via MEL/SYD/BNE as they were operated by the A380, but when that changes on the non-stop it will make things even more interesting.

I guess we will wait and see.

Quoting mariner (Reply 37): Qatar for announcing their non-stop AUH-AKL

I think you will find that's DOH-AKL.

Not sure EY would be too happy with QR operating that route from its home base 

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 41): I think you will find that's DOH-AKL.

Yes indeed, thanks. Brain fart.  

mariner

With the close to 12hours that the aircraft will spent in AKL, allot of down time for an expensive asset.

Would it make sense for them to run it to NAN and back in the downtime? while making the most of the December/January Hoilday period?

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 16): Why can EK do it, repeatedly, but no one else can?

This flight for the past month has had loads which have been consistently in the 130-150 bracket inbound overall - that is in the 45-55% bracket, but Premium class loads have been better at least. The loads started off wit a hiss and a roar due to EK offering free rebookings to those who had already booked via Oz. Part of EK's strategy is like Trump's. Tell everyone how great he is/they are, and eventually when it is said so much and the fact checking isn't being done, then people actually start to believe them.

Loads are still patchy down the back, with individually full flights but this is a pre-emptive strike to nail QR and little else. They will be able to offer more business seats, but the operating costs will increase a lot too, ust fuel will go from 140t of av gas to 230t so they will have to fill J/F .

Quoting Qantas744er (Reply 40):

So on a new A380 payload would have been 43 to 44t. Pretty near to 45t max pax.

MSN 225 first RR Emirates frame comes with the T900EP3 and some additional aerodynamic tweaks are on the way.
1% fuel burn reduction should give about 2t additional payload on this route.

So if the A380 will be leaving AKL at MTOW, what kind of throttle setting would that require on take off on an average day?

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 45):

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 45): So on a new A380 payload would have been 43 to 44t. Pretty near to 45t max pax.

I think your weight per passenger incl. bags is too low. Typically for long haul 110 to 112kg is the norm. At 45t max passenger this is nearer ~ 410 occupied and with 75 blocked.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 11): The westbound payload was 40t or about 365- passengers. This suggests something like 120-seats blocked off. It was at MTOW so no slack there.

I just can't see 120 seats being blocked off as being better than operating a 77L. I know that is just westbound and eastbound would be better but that is a big number.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 20): So you are down to 40t payload, that equals 400 seats or so.

Which would be 89 blocked off seats in the old A388 configuration. Could be reasonable.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 21): DXB to AKL is well within the capability of the 575t version.

I wonder if they would use the new A388s. Yes they would be more capable but they are also lugging around 28 more Y seats that they will have no hope in filling. That is a decent amount of weight.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 29): So than of course EK will have the need to block seats, but it could still come out as a lower CASM per seat than the 777-200LR with added capacity.

If it is ~120 seats I don't see how in the World that could be possible. What does the A380 weigh, 130t more than a 77L and if they are indeed blocking off 120 seats that leaves the A380 flying only about 100 more seats than the 77L. 1.3t per additional person. Aren't we including aircraft finance charges and higher landing fees in there as well.
Certainly the A388 will bring higher revenue especially with the higher premium seats but lower CASM is practically impossible.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):

IMHO, this direct service will syphon off the higher paying PAX from the other NZ services that EK sends via SYD, MEL & BNE. I would bet the premium seats will have a good load factor, and the available Y seats would sell well, and at a premium due to the 388 effect and the increased comfort for the long sector. The CASM may be high, but so will the RASM.