Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Vladex
Topic Author
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:27 pm

DXB is centrally located within Europe-Asia-Africa landmass and almost of it can be reached within 8 hours. So are other places but it's besides the point. Furthermore DXB is a legit 24 hour airport and thus time zones are much less of an issue for scheduling and parking. I know DXB built A380 specific gates Actually EK for one could run their schedules the way lcc's run theirs because of that except for Australia and America. With that said. more frequency would create more risks in choosing non profitable destinations which is what doomed Etihad and Qatar, it would create more traffic and delays and they wouldn't be anywhere close to a brand. With that said it seemed to me like A380 was more for time zone challenging places on the land edge.
 
ZazuPIT
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:32 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:32 pm

Huh? Not sure what you are saying here.
 
SA280
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:18 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:29 pm

Until 6 months ago, EK has run a very successful and profitable business model enterely based on the A380 and the B77W. Apparently, the absence of a smaller size aircraft was not an issue for them. Yet, they have identified routes that could be more suitable for the B787, and ordered the -10 version.

The contestation of the A380 within EK network just started making sense with the pandemic. But who on Earth could predict such a catastrophic even for airlines?
 
airzona11
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:33 pm

DXB/EK/A380 are all 3 perfect matches. High capacity, 1-hub, maximum connections. CASM maximization. Bigger is better for the economies scale model.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8240
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:42 pm

SA280 wrote:
Until 6 months ago, EK has run a very successful and profitable business model enterely based on the A380 and the B77W. Apparently, the absence of a smaller size aircraft was not an issue for them. Yet, they have identified routes that could be more suitable for the B787, and ordered the -10 version.


More types means more complexity in staffing, parts and scheduling, but the idea that they were profitable doesn't prove it was profit-optimal. Some carriers vary aircraft size (significantly, not just between 380 and 77W) as well as frequency to smaller markets. Some carriers like it simple - or just haven't developed the expertise to do it another way.
 
x1234
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:47 pm

EK increasingly is NOT the cheapest option for Europe-Asia-Africa-Middle East traffic. Etihad with their B787 is cheaper and so is Qatar with their A350's.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2711
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:55 pm

Why run 3 787s side-by-side when 1 A380 can get the job done? It's hardly as if slots at e.g. LHR are or, rather were, the lowest hanging of fruits.

Besides the obvious reasons stated above by previous posters, when EK ordered the A380 the 787 was but a glimmer in Phil Condit's eyes. EK got their first A380 in 2008, the first 787-8 was delivered in 2011. The only 787 version that makes sense for EK is the -10, which entered service in 2018.

All of the above took less than 2 minutes to Google.
Signature. You just read one.
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 1210
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:57 pm

SA280 wrote:
Until 6 months ago, EK has run a very successful and profitable business


That, my friend, is very much up to debate. Yes, I know EK publish financial reports that show they are profitable, but I would like to see those numbers run on US-GAAP, published to US listed company rules. I daresay the results would be vastly different.
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
mmo
Posts: 2059
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:12 pm

B777LRF wrote:
Why run 3 787s side-by-side when 1 A380 can get the job done? It's hardly as if slots at e.g. LHR are or, rather were, the lowest hanging of fruits.



The problem with the 380 is it can't carry the belly cargo like the 787 and 777W. While EK does have some dedicated freighters, most of the vanilla cargo is shipped in the belly of pax aircraft. So, while it might appear to the uninformed that running 3 787s is not efficient, it most likely is. The DOC for 3 is probably lower than 1 380 or very close, the belly cargo available is significantly more than a single 380 can carry. Plus, where else is EK going to use the slots fly to?
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Airlinerdude
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:07 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:21 pm

vhtje wrote:
SA280 wrote:
Until 6 months ago, EK has run a very successful and profitable business


That, my friend, is very much up to debate. Yes, I know EK publish financial reports that show they are profitable, but I would like to see those numbers run on US-GAAP, published to US listed company rules. I daresay the results would be vastly different.


Luckily EK reports under IFRS which by all accounts is better than archaic U.S. GAAP. Also, they’re audited by PwC Dubai which I’m sure follows auditing standards that are of the same standard as you’d find in any ‘Western’ country.
 
Airlinerdude
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:07 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:28 pm

mmo wrote:
The problem with the 380 is it can't carry the belly cargo like the 787 and 777W. While EK does have some dedicated freighters, most of the vanilla cargo is shipped in the belly of pax aircraft. So, while it might appear to the uninformed that running 3 787s is not efficient, it most likely is. The DOC for 3 is probably lower than 1 380 or very close, the belly cargo available is significantly more than a single 380 can carry. Plus, where else is EK going to use the slots fly to?


In a pre-covid world, belly cargo being EK’s golden egg is merely a myth here on airliners.net. As I’ve stated in other threads, EK has a significant excess of cargo capacity in the fleet. Not only is this exemplified by the fact EK disposed of two 77Fs over the last two years, but take a listen to one of STC’s interviews where he admits that cargo yields were pretty terrible.

https://youtu.be/k8LYxQOcVuA
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20257
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:34 pm

airzona11 wrote:
DXB/EK/A380 are all 3 perfect matches. High capacity, 1-hub, maximum connections. CASM maximization. Bigger is better for the economies scale model.

Until 6 months ago, EK lacked airport capacity at DXB when people wanted to fly.

We can debate on our preferences, but STC was broadcasting how one day slots would be precious at DXB. They were rare for 3 years.

Until there last order, partially cancelled, EK was ordering wisely. I disagreed with the last order as EK's yields were dropping.

To order the 787 instead of A380s, EK needed another runway and another concourse. I'm not seeing the land at DXB nor the budget for DWC.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1905
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:36 pm

x1234 wrote:
EK increasingly is NOT the cheapest option for Europe-Asia-Africa-Middle East traffic. Etihad with their B787 is cheaper and so is Qatar with their A350's.


Etihad also bleeds money every year, even with their 789s. They have lost $4.6b the last 3 years, it is easy to offer the cheapest fares when profit is seemingly not a issue for the airline.

vhtje wrote:
That, my friend, is very much up to debate. Yes, I know EK publish financial reports that show they are profitable, but I would like to see those numbers run on US-GAAP, published to US listed company rules. I daresay the results would be vastly different.


Do you want to expand why you think the results will be different if they had to report to the US-GAAP rules?
 
AlanG1302
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:58 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:46 pm

EK wouldnt be what they are today without the 380. When people think about EK they think about the 380. Its their flagship. The thread title is weird btw
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2711
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:51 pm

mmo wrote:
The problem with the 380 is it can't carry the belly cargo like the 787 and 777W. While EK does have some dedicated freighters, most of the vanilla cargo is shipped in the belly of pax aircraft. So, while it might appear to the uninformed that running 3 787s is not efficient, it most likely is. The DOC for 3 is probably lower than 1 380 or very close, the belly cargo available is significantly more than a single 380 can carry. Plus, where else is EK going to use the slots fly to?


The A380's lack of belly cargo has neven been an issue for EK; they are a significant player in the field owing to their fleet of 77F, 77W and (previously) 74F. As for the DOC, think you might like to revisit that claim. The 787 burns around 5 tons an hour, where the A380 burns around 12. One A380 on a LHR-DXB rotation needs 2 pilots and 22 cabin crew; 3 787s need 6 pilots and 27 cabin crew. You can buy an A380 for less than the cost of 3 787s, and it's far cheaper to maintain one aircraft than 3 (mx costs are roughly equal to MTOW; one A380 at 575 tons is quite a bit lighter than 3 787s at 250 tons each). Then there are en-route, landing and handling costs, all of which are quite a bit more for 3 aircraft than 1. So, no, the DOC for 3 787s is "probably" no where near what it costs to run a single A380.

Going back to Cargo, in 2018 the revenue from EK Cargo was around USD 3,6BN. The overall revenue for the EK Group in the same year was almost 30BN.
Signature. You just read one.
 
B787oftheworld
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2020 7:17 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:58 pm

SA280 wrote:
Until 6 months ago, EK has run a very successful and profitable business model enterely based on the A380 and the B77W. Apparently, the absence of a smaller size aircraft was not an issue for them. Yet, they have identified routes that could be more suitable for the B787, and ordered the -10 version.

The contestation of the A380 within EK network just started making sense with the pandemic. But who on Earth could predict such a catastrophic even for airlines?

As far as I remember EK ordered 787-9 not 787-10. They had originally ordered 787-10 then cancelled it.
 
Antarius
Posts: 2492
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:14 pm

A better question, IMO is why did EK keep ordering a380s instead of 787s (or a330s or a350s).

There is no doubt that the a380 was a home run for EK. Between the marketing and PR benefits they got (EK is associated with opulent luxury despite having a fairly mediocre hard product in J) as well as capitalizing on their location by moving a huge number of people through a at-constraint DXB. For a time, standardizing on a380s and 777s was a good decision. However, they did not react to the changes and evolution in the industry as well and is now having to change fleet strategies by ordering the a339 and 78J.

An argument could be made that they over ordered the a380 and then doubled down repeatedly despite less than stellar load factors. In summary, the a380 helped make EK what it is and build its brand, but being chained to it are like golden handcuffs - eventually it becomes a noose.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4567
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:20 pm

SA280 wrote:
Yet, they have identified routes that could be more suitable for the B787, and ordered the -10 version.


Almost. They eventually ordered the 787-9, not the -10. They weren't satisfied the 787-10 could carry enough payload over a meaningful distance for their network.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24585
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:29 pm

Antarius wrote:
A better question, IMO is why did EK keep ordering a380s instead of 787s (or a330s or a350s).

There is no doubt that the a380 was a home run for EK. Between the marketing and PR benefits they got (EK is associated with opulent luxury despite having a fairly mediocre hard product in J) as well as capitalizing on their location by moving a huge number of people through a at-constraint DXB. For a time, standardizing on a380s and 777s was a good decision. However, they did not react to the changes and evolution in the industry as well and is now having to change fleet strategies by ordering the a339 and 78J.

An argument could be made that they over ordered the a380 and then doubled down repeatedly despite less than stellar load factors. In summary, the a380 helped make EK what it is and build its brand, but being chained to it are like golden handcuffs - eventually it becomes a noose.

I agree and will add that A380 had economics on par with 77W when full, which was good enough till A359/789 showed up.

EK seemed to have no exit strategy for A380, which is strange seeing how so many say they are such a well run airline.

EK kept ordering A380 even after they failed to convince Airbus and RR to launch an A380neo.

They created market saturation with A380 and their competitors never ordered more A380s.

This lack of diversity is one reason why they never got an A380neo, ironically enough.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
SA280
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:18 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:59 pm

One irony regarding the A380 program is that back to the 1990s, Airbus' market strategy team had established that long-haul traffic would continue to be funned through large hubs, requiring large amounts of super-sized aircraft such as the B747 and the A380. So, they targeted huge potential sales at large incumbent airlines, flying out of big hubs back then. Meanwhile, Dubai was a small city compared to what it is nowadays and Emirates was just another small middle eass state-owned airline flying a very thin network to key destinations.

It ended up that most of the customers that Airbus had aimed at did not show interest in the "Super Jumbo", preferring increasing frequencies rather than upgauging (American carriers, for instance). The ones that did (large European and APEC carriers) ordered few frames, compared to what Airbus had expected.

The program only got a certain scale, yet much smaller than planned, thanks to a customer that was irrelevant 20 years ago, hubbed at a city that were far beyond from being one of the large aviation cities nowadays.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20257
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:40 pm

SA280 wrote:
One irony regarding the A380 program is that back to the 1990s, Airbus' market strategy team had established that long-haul traffic would continue to be funned through large hubs, requiring large amounts of super-sized aircraft such as the B747 and the A380. So, they targeted huge potential sales at large incumbent airlines, flying out of big hubs back then. Meanwhile, Dubai was a small city compared to what it is nowadays and Emirates was just another small middle eass state-owned airline flying a very thin network to key destinations.

It ended up that most of the customers that Airbus had aimed at did not show interest in the "Super Jumbo", preferring increasing frequencies rather than upgauging (American carriers, for instance). The ones that did (large European and APEC carriers) ordered few frames, compared to what Airbus had expected.

The program only got a certain scale, yet much smaller than planned, thanks to a customer that was irrelevant 20 years ago, hubbed at a city that were far beyond from being one of the large aviation cities nowadays.

Dubai was so far off the map prior to 2005, they we always trying for attention. "World's longest flight" DXB to JFK. The A380 certainly helped get attention and since they were filling it, it grew.

But the last order made no sense. The plane was losing economic advantage.

EK made the A380. Now the A380 is too much.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
Vicenza
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:53 pm

vhtje wrote:
SA280 wrote:
Until 6 months ago, EK has run a very successful and profitable business


That, my friend, is very much up to debate. Yes, I know EK publish financial reports that show they are profitable, but I would like to see those numbers run on US-GAAP, published to US listed company rules. I daresay the results would be vastly different.


Would they, or are you just guessing? Remember, and with respect, the world does not revolve around US rules, or for the benefit of what US citizens may like or not like.
 
Jetty
Posts: 1304
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 1:27 am

airzona11 wrote:
DXB/EK/A380 are all 3 perfect matches. High capacity, 1-hub, maximum connections. CASM maximization. Bigger is better for the economies scale model.

Bigger is only better when there isn’t enough capacity. This is the case with Dubai where the government unwisely invested in 2 airports so EK can’t hub from an airport with more than 2 runways. If EK would have a 4+ runway airport available maximum connections and CASM optimization would have been achieved with a smaller aircraft.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3606
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 1:38 am

EY was created in response to EK really (EK itself was a response to GF de-emphasizing DXB). QR's growth really coincided with EK's growth...and another factor may be that no one really paid attention to TK, which has a large narrow-body fleet, and ultimately outgrew Ataturk Airport.

Now, going forward, I can see the B789 and B78X being a major workhorse on many routes requiring a wide-body but not the size of the A380, with exceptions like LHR and CDG. To Australasia, the B77L/B77W/B789 would be ideal, with smaller destinations (within the range of the B738 and B38M/B39M) shifting to FZ while bigger ones go to the B789/B78X in Europe, Africa, and Asia, with North America getting the B77W (fifth-freedom to NYC from ATH and MXP, plus BCN to MEX, could get the Dreamliner).
 
sibibom
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 2:20 am

And where would they fly the 2x or 3x B787s? DXB was a slot restricted airport and slots except in the dead middle of night were unavailable for a while. Yes EK could have ordered and flown B 787s or A350s but the airline would have been carrying half the number of passengers it did until covid19. And EK's business model would have made no sense. They were to be their biggest to coincide with Expo2020.

However the Dubai bubble was bursting and they did order smaller birds to transition to smaller and leaner airline over the next decade. However, covid19 has changed the landscape overnight. To be fair, I don't think any airline was prepared for it. Yes there are cyclical downturns in various markets, however, no one was prepared for all markets collapsing at the same time with no end in sight.
 
mmo
Posts: 2059
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:31 am

B777LRF wrote:
mmo wrote:
The problem with the 380 is it can't carry the belly cargo like the 787 and 777W. While EK does have some dedicated freighters, most of the vanilla cargo is shipped in the belly of pax aircraft. So, while it might appear to the uninformed that running 3 787s is not efficient, it most likely is. The DOC for 3 is probably lower than 1 380 or very close, the belly cargo available is significantly more than a single 380 can carry. Plus, where else is EK going to use the slots fly to?


The A380's lack of belly cargo has neven been an issue for EK; they are a significant player in the field owing to their fleet of 77F, 77W and (previously) 74F. As for the DOC, think you might like to revisit that claim. The 787 burns around 5 tons an hour, where the A380 burns around 12. One A380 on a LHR-DXB rotation needs 2 pilots and 22 cabin crew; 3 787s need 6 pilots and 27 cabin crew. You can buy an A380 for less than the cost of 3 787s, and it's far cheaper to maintain one aircraft than 3 (mx costs are roughly equal to MTOW; one A380 at 575 tons is quite a bit lighter than 3 787s at 250 tons each). Then there are en-route, landing and handling costs, all of which are quite a bit more for 3 aircraft than 1. So, no, the DOC for 3 787s is "probably" no where near what it costs to run a single A380.

Going back to Cargo, in 2018 the revenue from EK Cargo was around USD 3,6BN. The overall revenue for the EK Group in the same year was almost 30BN.


Interesting comments. But I think you're being very over-optimistic in the 380's capabilities. You comment on belly cargo and the 380 and then go on to talk about the fleet of " 77F, 77W and (previously) 74F". Why didn't you put the 380 in there? How much belly cargo can the 380 take to AKL, SYD, MEL? I think if you look at it, you will find that is where the 380 falls flat. When I worked for SQ, on the 744, the 380 would routinely leave pallets behind which we would carry. On a 7 hour flight, like LHR-DXB, the 380 can take some belly cargo but on the SIN-LHR flight, which will be 13+ in the wintertime, it can't.

You do the same thing on your cost example. Look at the long haul flights and then look at the staffing. But, you are also not looking at the revenue side either. The additional belly cargo more than offsets the increased staffing.

You also forgot that en route, landing/takeoff and handling costs are mostly driven by MGW.

With respect to your cargo revenue, I am not sure if EK tosses belly freight into the cargo revenue or not. I don't think so and I really wasn't talking about freighters but about belly cargo and the ability of the WB fleet and the drawbacks of the 380.

Finally, I would take a look at your revenue figures. I can't find that number, as the number I find is over half of that and it is for the group. But, that isn't part of my discussion.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
mmo
Posts: 2059
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:40 am

Airlinerdude wrote:
mmo wrote:
The problem with the 380 is it can't carry the belly cargo like the 787 and 777W. While EK does have some dedicated freighters, most of the vanilla cargo is shipped in the belly of pax aircraft. So, while it might appear to the uninformed that running 3 787s is not efficient, it most likely is. The DOC for 3 is probably lower than 1 380 or very close, the belly cargo available is significantly more than a single 380 can carry. Plus, where else is EK going to use the slots fly to?


In a pre-covid world, belly cargo being EK’s golden egg is merely a myth here on airliners.net. As I’ve stated in other threads, EK has a significant excess of cargo capacity in the fleet. Not only is this exemplified by the fact EK disposed of two 77Fs over the last two years, but take a listen to one of STC’s interviews where he admits that cargo yields were pretty terrible.

https://youtu.be/k8LYxQOcVuA


And the myth also exists that the 380 can do a 15-hour flight and carry cargo. IT ISN'T TRUE. That was my point. The 380 can't carry the belly cargo other widebodies do. It has to be sent on the widebodies. I wasn't talking about the freighter fleet as that is another discussion.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 608
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:45 am

If DWC was built and EU-UAE open sky was signed EK did not need so many A380
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2711
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 6:20 am

mmo wrote:
Interesting comments. But I think you're being very over-optimistic in the 380's capabilities. You comment on belly cargo and the 380 and then go on to talk about the fleet of " 77F, 77W and (previously) 74F". Why didn't you put the 380 in there? How much belly cargo can the 380 take to AKL, SYD, MEL? I think if you look at it, you will find that is where the 380 falls flat. When I worked for SQ, on the 744, the 380 would routinely leave pallets behind which we would carry. On a 7 hour flight, like LHR-DXB, the 380 can take some belly cargo but on the SIN-LHR flight, which will be 13+ in the wintertime, it can't.

You do the same thing on your cost example. Look at the long haul flights and then look at the staffing. But, you are also not looking at the revenue side either. The additional belly cargo more than offsets the increased staffing.

You also forgot that en route, landing/takeoff and handling costs are mostly driven by MGW.

With respect to your cargo revenue, I am not sure if EK tosses belly freight into the cargo revenue or not. I don't think so and I really wasn't talking about freighters but about belly cargo and the ability of the WB fleet and the drawbacks of the 380.

Finally, I would take a look at your revenue figures. I can't find that number, as the number I find is over half of that and it is for the group. But, that isn't part of my discussion.


1: I specifically said the A380s lack of belly-cargo carrying ability was not an issue for EK, thereby clearly implying that carrying cargo is not what the A380 is built for, nor what EK bought it for. I said that shortfall is outweighed by their fleet of 77W and 77F, can't see how anyone could possibly misinterpret that.

2: EK tallies all the cargo they carry under the umbrella of EK Cargo, including what is carried in the bellies of passenger aircraft.

3: You said the DOC of running a single A380 was "probably" the same or higher than running 3 787s side-by-side. Now you're bringing revenue into the picture; please make up your mind what your argument is.

4: En-route and landing charges are indeed driven by MTOW, and since 3 x 787 has a combined MTOW higher than a single A380 your argument falls flat on the floor. As for handling charges, that's driven by aircraft type and number of rotations. A single A380 will obviously be more expensive than a single 787, but 3 787s parked side-by-side will cost far more than a single A380.

5: There are numerous ways you can "take a look" at the revenue figures, Google is your friend and EK's annual reports are free for all to see.

One final thing you're overlooking, is that DXB simply does not have the space to fit 360 787s instead of 120 A380s, and nor would they have been able to secure e.g. 18 slots at LHR rather than the 6 they have. EK is primarily a transfer airline, and for that to work arrivals and departures have to be banked; you cannot spread them evenly throughout a 24-hour period. Furthermore, a large number of airports EK are serving are not only slot constrained, they are also subject to curfews. Which means that you can't run 3 aircraft side-by-side instead of one, as you can't get the slots nor have the space, and you can't spread the flights out over a 24H period as that would wreck havoc on their bread-and-butter transfer market, as well as violate curfew rules.

The A380 is far from perfect, and will certainly not work for the vast majority of airlines. But for EK it was the right size aircraft for the operation they were running.
Signature. You just read one.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2664
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:35 am

mmo wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
mmo wrote:
The problem with the 380 is it can't carry the belly cargo like the 787 and 777W. While EK does have some dedicated freighters, most of the vanilla cargo is shipped in the belly of pax aircraft. So, while it might appear to the uninformed that running 3 787s is not efficient, it most likely is. The DOC for 3 is probably lower than 1 380 or very close, the belly cargo available is significantly more than a single 380 can carry. Plus, where else is EK going to use the slots fly to?


The A380's lack of belly cargo has neven been an issue for EK; they are a significant player in the field owing to their fleet of 77F, 77W and (previously) 74F. As for the DOC, think you might like to revisit that claim. The 787 burns around 5 tons an hour, where the A380 burns around 12. One A380 on a LHR-DXB rotation needs 2 pilots and 22 cabin crew; 3 787s need 6 pilots and 27 cabin crew. You can buy an A380 for less than the cost of 3 787s, and it's far cheaper to maintain one aircraft than 3 (mx costs are roughly equal to MTOW; one A380 at 575 tons is quite a bit lighter than 3 787s at 250 tons each). Then there are en-route, landing and handling costs, all of which are quite a bit more for 3 aircraft than 1. So, no, the DOC for 3 787s is "probably" no where near what it costs to run a single A380.

Going back to Cargo, in 2018 the revenue from EK Cargo was around USD 3,6BN. The overall revenue for the EK Group in the same year was almost 30BN.


Interesting comments. But I think you're being very over-optimistic in the 380's capabilities. You comment on belly cargo and the 380 and then go on to talk about the fleet of " 77F, 77W and (previously) 74F". Why didn't you put the 380 in there? How much belly cargo can the 380 take to AKL, SYD, MEL? I think if you look at it, you will find that is where the 380 falls flat. When I worked for SQ, on the 744, the 380 would routinely leave pallets behind which we would carry. On a 7 hour flight, like LHR-DXB, the 380 can take some belly cargo but on the SIN-LHR flight, which will be 13+ in the wintertime, it can't.

You do the same thing on your cost example. Look at the long haul flights and then look at the staffing. But, you are also not looking at the revenue side either. The additional belly cargo more than offsets the increased staffing.

You also forgot that en route, landing/takeoff and handling costs are mostly driven by MGW.

With respect to your cargo revenue, I am not sure if EK tosses belly freight into the cargo revenue or not. I don't think so and I really wasn't talking about freighters but about belly cargo and the ability of the WB fleet and the drawbacks of the 380.

Finally, I would take a look at your revenue figures. I can't find that number, as the number I find is over half of that and it is for the group. But, that isn't part of my discussion.


I thought the A380's cargo problem was space, not weight? Would an A380 on SIN-LHR take less cargo than an A380 on DXB-LHR, passenger loads and baggage being the same? Given that the A380 has flown the likes of DXB-AKL, SYD-DFW and LAX-DXB I don't see why SIN-LHR would struggle so much with weight of cargo.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8412
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:49 am

A380 can dump capacity and drive out competition, 787 cannot.
A380 can squeeze productivity out of flight crew, 787 cannot. Same crew set can haul more people.

A380 absolutely has its place at the right quantity, EK messed up by over doing it.

If one thinks beyond a handful of slot restricted airports, many countries would happily allow more stations and/or frequencies. Countries love to have more options for their citizens and bigger international network, but once EK proved itself as a capacity dumper who drives out competition, countries started closing doors on them.

Cost has always been a hypothetical issue for EK. Remember they were thriving when oil was $100+/bbl and all other airlines were living on bread crumbs.

EK can address the affordability issue of international travel, but cannot fix the individuals' willingness to travel and nations willingness to allow foreigners.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 12:14 pm

They have the 787-9 on order, and they dropped the 787-10 recently. There is still a GeminiJet of an EK 787-10. One thing here I think is better for the A380, is that the 787 can't deal with the hot Dubai climate, hence why they switched variants.
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:49 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
They have the 787-9 on order, and they dropped the 787-10 recently. There is still a GeminiJet of an EK 787-10. One thing here I think is better for the A380, is that the 787 can't deal with the hot Dubai climate, hence why they switched variants.


What nonsense

Etihad operate 789 and 10 in exact same climate in abbu Dhabi with no issue.

Unless you have evidence proofing otherwise????
 
xwb777
Posts: 903
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:13 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:53 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Boeing757100 wrote:
They have the 787-9 on order, and they dropped the 787-10 recently. There is still a GeminiJet of an EK 787-10. One thing here I think is better for the A380, is that the 787 can't deal with the hot Dubai climate, hence why they switched variants.


What nonsense

Etihad operate 789 and 10 in exact same climate in abbu Dhabi with no issue.

Unless you have evidence proofing otherwise????

Sir Tim Clark has stated the climate issue himself. Maybe Etihad is operating their B7810s with load restrictions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4567
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:06 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Boeing757100 wrote:
They have the 787-9 on order, and they dropped the 787-10 recently. There is still a GeminiJet of an EK 787-10. One thing here I think is better for the A380, is that the 787 can't deal with the hot Dubai climate, hence why they switched variants.


What nonsense

Etihad operate 789 and 10 in exact same climate in abbu Dhabi with no issue.

Unless you have evidence proofing otherwise????


Sure, they operate out of similar conditions, but that doesn't mean they intend to use them for the same job. If Emirates wants to fly longer distances with them than Etihad does, or consistently carry more cargo and passengers, then it won't work for Emirates.
Last edited by VSMUT on Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:06 pm

Sir Tim says a lot of things.

Most which perform u-turns. Etihad, far I know, have no restrictions on 787-10 jets.

Climate issue is faux, AD has exact climates of. The dubai too.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:11 pm

Imagine how many 787s they would have needed and the number of gates and landing slots, maintenance facilities, crew to have moved the same number of people and grow so fast.

How many 787s would they have on the ground now, and unpaid crew.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4567
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:22 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Sir Tim says a lot of things.

Most which perform u-turns. Etihad, far I know, have no restrictions on 787-10 jets.

Climate issue is faux, AD has exact climates of. The dubai too.


Climate = Hot and humid weather. That is very much a real thing that affects aircraft performance. It means a reduced takeoff mass. Not a problem if you only want to fly the 787-10 as a regional workhorse, very much an issue if you want to go far while still carrying payload.
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:42 pm

VSMUT wrote:
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Sir Tim says a lot of things.

Most which perform u-turns. Etihad, far I know, have no restrictions on 787-10 jets.

Climate issue is faux, AD has exact climates of. The dubai too.


Climate = Hot and humid weather. That is very much a real thing that affects aircraft performance. It means a reduced takeoff mass. Not a problem if you only want to fly the 787-10 as a regional workhorse, very much an issue if you want to go far while still carrying payload.


I agree.

Main ek issue was that 7810 was too close to 77-300er in capacity, not range.

789 address that as the ek needs smaller airplane than 777. For the now and for the future.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24585
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:53 pm

We also have:

The Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner versus the Airbus A380:

"One of the big advantages of the Dreamliner is that it gives us a range of destinations we couldn't have done before," Joyce said. ... "If we were to fly two 787s tail-to-tail, the per-seat cost would be less than the A380," the Qantas CEO said.Oct 28, 2017

Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=+alan+j ... er+vs+a380

So 787 is offering better per-seat cost with better flexibility than A380.

Note per-seat cost includes all the costs discussed above such as crew, ATC and landing fees, etc and does not include other things that could also benefit 789 such as cargo revenue. Joyce cited the 789's 20% lower fuel burn and lower maintenance costs due to new technology.

Then we go back to the old capacity discipline vs market share arguments. The market share strategy worked well when EK was the smallest Gulf carrier but it doesn't work forever because you end up fighting for the lowest yielding passengers rather than the highest.

The fact that EK dropped orders for 36 A380s and ordered A359 (not A35K) and 789 (not 78J) before CV19 struck in force should tell you EK decided it wasn't going to gain market share any longer and needed to change their strategy.

The real question is why they stayed wedded to the market share strategy for so long.
Last edited by Revelation on Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
ptcflyer
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 12:03 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:59 pm

SA280 wrote:
Until 6 months ago, EK has run a very successful and profitable business model enterely based on the A380 and the B77W. Apparently, the absence of a smaller size aircraft was not an issue for them. Yet, they have identified routes that could be more suitable for the B787, and ordered the -10 version.

The contestation of the A380 within EK network just started making sense with the pandemic. But who on Earth could predict such a catastrophic even for airlines?



Many people on this Earth.... and I am not expert, but here is an. exerp from my post 14 years ago.... On why the A380 was a bad investment.

"Risk to Airlines to operate. Many global markets have seasonal spikes in traffic. In the summer season, Europe to US turns has positive yields and demand. In winter, it is just the opposite. An airline has to fly the plane unecononomically for 1/2 the year and hope to make it up the other half.
With two mid-sized aircraft, an airline can increase or decrease frequency by season and redeploy lift to other markets. The inability to fragment the A-380 greatly limits the routes in which it can be deployed. The infrastructure investments / support limits the routes in which it can be deployed. With bird flu, geopolitical risks... airlines may find themselves in situations where the A380 can not be flown economically. Its huge capital cost will make such disruptions particularly painful. Inflexibilty to airlines = risk!"
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4567
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:00 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
I agree.

Main ek issue was that 7810 was too close to 77-300er in capacity, not range.

789 address that as the ek needs smaller airplane than 777. For the now and for the future.


Huh? :|

The 787-10 is a full step below the 777-300ER, both in range and capacity. They are nowhere near each other. It is the same size as the A350-900, of which they ordered 50. At full payload, the 787-10 is roughly equal in range and capacity to a 777-200A.
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:12 pm

Some of EKs 777s have just over 354 seats.

Close to 787-10, no?

A350900 is a great payload lifter with range compare to 787 10
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10699
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:19 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Some of EKs 777s have just over 354 seats.

Close to 787-10, no?

A350900 is a great payload lifter with range compare to 787 10

That’s not close to a 787-10, no. Those ~350 seat 77W are 3 class (F, J, Y) planes. Stick 3 classes in a 787-10 and no, you won’t get near 350 seats.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8412
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:33 pm

zeke wrote:
Imagine how many 787s they would have needed and the number of gates and landing slots, maintenance facilities, crew to have moved the same number of people and grow so fast.

How many 787s would they have on the ground now, and unpaid crew.


If you factor in PLF, heavily discounted sales and free upgrades(relatively less in the recent past) fleet number wouldn't be much bigger, just they will be generating more revenue and raking in profits. Showing off is the root cause of EK's problems.

For its network size, Emirates with several capacity planes could better use every frame by putting right size aircraft where needed. One size fits all is a failed concept.
All posts are just opinions.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4567
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:38 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
A350900 is a great payload lifter with range compare to 787 10


Bingo. And there you have the exact reason why Emirates decided against ordering 40 787-10s and went for 30 787-9s and 20 additional A350-900s instead. The 787-10 didn't carry enough payload over a sufficient range for Emirates demands.


FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Some of EKs 777s have just over 354 seats.

Close to 787-10, no?


British Airways seats 256 in its 787-10. Pretty close to a Wizz Air A321, no? ;)
Last edited by VSMUT on Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:39 pm

Jetty wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
DXB/EK/A380 are all 3 perfect matches. High capacity, 1-hub, maximum connections. CASM maximization. Bigger is better for the economies scale model.

Bigger is only better when there isn’t enough capacity. This is the case with Dubai where the government unwisely invested in 2 airports so EK can’t hub from an airport with more than 2 runways. If EK would have a 4+ runway airport available maximum connections and CASM optimization would have been achieved with a smaller aircraft.


Exactly and that's why EK and A380 are the story they are.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Why didn't EK order 787 instead of A380?

Fri Aug 07, 2020 6:53 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
zeke wrote:
Imagine how many 787s they would have needed and the number of gates and landing slots, maintenance facilities, crew to have moved the same number of people and grow so fast.

How many 787s would they have on the ground now, and unpaid crew.


If you factor in PLF, heavily discounted sales and free upgrades(relatively less in the recent past) fleet number wouldn't be much bigger, just they will be generating more revenue and raking in profits. Showing off is the root cause of EK's problems.

For its network size, Emirates with several capacity planes could better use every frame by putting right size aircraft where needed. One size fits all is a failed concept.


Sorry to bust your bubble, no.

EK is more than an airline, it is the feeder to Dubai Inc, its purpose is to bring people into Dubai and spend money at all those hotels and shopping malls.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Impacto and 12 guests

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