I just noticed that Emirates doesn't fly to Kathmandu. I always assumed that it would be served, considering how many cities it serves in India and Pakistan, as well as the rest of Southern Asia. Kathmandu seems to be successful for Etihad, Qatar, Oman and Flydubai as well. So why doesn't Emirates serve it?

Aircraft size I believe. Kathmandu is pretty small IIRC, difficult to get a 777-300 or even a 77L in and out which is the smallest aircraft EK has

MiddleEastMike wrote:

Aircraft size I believe. Kathmandu is pretty small IIRC, difficult to get a 777-300 or even a 77L in and out which is the smallest aircraft EK has

Thai flies the 777-300 to Kathmandu and the runway is about 10,000 feet. I doubt it has anything to do with aircraft size.

kotoka wrote:

MiddleEastMike wrote:

Aircraft size I believe. Kathmandu is pretty small IIRC, difficult to get a 777-300 or even a 77L in and out which is the smallest aircraft EK has

Thai flies the 777-300 to Kathmandu and the runway is about 10,000 feet. I doubt it has anything to do with aircraft size.

Actually size (weight) is an issue. Kathmandu has quite a weak bitumen runway and EK's blingy 777s are heavy. An A330 would be better suited but then they're off to the knacker's yard.

On another note, I'm glad KTM finally got an RNAV approach procedure published. The VOR-DME approach to rwy 02 over the mountains with crappy weather would be interesting.

Im due to fly into Kathmandu this week on Qatar. Anyone know what side of the aircraft to sit on for the best mountain views? I'm due in at 1100am.

I flew in recently on the Nepal 757, left side was good for me

by188b wrote:

Im due to fly into Kathmandu this week on Qatar. Anyone know what side of the aircraft to sit on for the best mountain views? I'm due in at 1100am.

I flew quite a few times into KTM (three times on QR actually), and would indeed advise the left side. Before the descent, I got some quite nice views on the Himalayas from the left side.

I believe Ethiad flies A320's and A330's to KTM, which are much more suitable. Same thing with Qatar, operating A320's and A330's.

Chaostheory wrote:

kotoka wrote:

MiddleEastMike wrote:

Aircraft size I believe. Kathmandu is pretty small IIRC, difficult to get a 777-300 or even a 77L in and out which is the smallest aircraft EK has

Thai flies the 777-300 to Kathmandu and the runway is about 10,000 feet. I doubt it has anything to do with aircraft size.

Actually size (weight) is an issue. Kathmandu has quite a weak bitumen runway and EK's blingy 777s are heavy. An A330 would be better suited but then they're off to the knacker's yard.

Thai actually flies the Boeing 777-200, not the -300 into KTM. So does Korean Air. So the size of the Boeing 777-200 does not seem to be an issue for the runway at least. In addition, we have Cathay Dragon, Turkish Airlines, and Air Asia X all flying A330-300s, which are of similar capacity, but lighter.

I've read about the weak bitumen runway issue too. We've had Boeing 747-200s (-300s?) from Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) in the past (maybe till the mid 2000s), so it wasn't an issue then, but could be that it started to become an issue with increasing age of the runway or after the 2015 earthquake.

Another point: Flydubai has flights KTM - DXB, so that could be the reason why Emirates doesn't fly there. When I've tried to book flights to KTM, I have seen options on a mixed EK-FZ ticket, so I feel likw EK routes its KTM-bound pax through FZ.

NeBaNi wrote:

Another point: Flydubai has flights KTM - DXB, so that could be the reason why Emirates doesn't fly there. When I've tried to book flights to KTM, I have seen options on a mixed EK-FZ ticket, so I feel likw EK routes its KTM-bound pax through FZ.

They share the same ultimate ownership. FZ and EK co-operate, and work closely together.

If there were no physical airport limitations, and the market and demand existed, EK would operate the route.

If there were no airport restrictions in Dubai, both EK and FZ would have larger fleets and operate more routes.

NeBaNi wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

kotoka wrote:

Thai flies the 777-300 to Kathmandu and the runway is about 10,000 feet. I doubt it has anything to do with aircraft size.

Actually size (weight) is an issue. Kathmandu has quite a weak bitumen runway and EK's blingy 777s are heavy. An A330 would be better suited but then they're off to the knacker's yard.

Thai actually flies the Boeing 777-200, not the -300 into KTM. So does Korean Air. So the size of the Boeing 777-200 does not seem to be an issue for the runway at least. In addition, we have Cathay Dragon, Turkish Airlines, and Air Asia X all flying A330-300s, which are of similar capacity, but lighter.

I've read about the weak bitumen runway issue too. We've had Boeing 747-200s (-300s?) from Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) in the past (maybe till the mid 2000s), so it wasn't an issue then, but could be that it started to become an issue with increasing age of the runway or after the 2015 earthquake.

Another point: Flydubai has flights KTM - DXB, so that could be the reason why Emirates doesn't fly there. When I've tried to book flights to KTM, I have seen options on a mixed EK-FZ ticket, so I feel likw EK routes its KTM-bound pax through FZ.

What you need to think about is how the weight of the aircraft is spread on the pavement.

The aircraft you listed are operated at lower weights and/or have more tyres to spread the weight.

MiddleEastMike wrote:

Aircraft size I believe. Kathmandu is pretty small IIRC, difficult to get a 777-300 or even a 77L in and out which is the smallest aircraft EK has

Yeah. During Nepal Earthquake relief operations, Nepalese authorities complained that relief C-17s are damaging their runway.

Chaostheory wrote:

What you need to think about is how the weight of the aircraft is spread on the pavement.

The aircraft you listed are operated at lower weights and/or have more tyres to spread the weight.

Yes, I agree. What I mean is, and I should have made it clearer above, is that I don't think KTM has had an airline regularly operate the Boeing 777-300/300ER there, so we don't have a valid comparison in TG and KE, both of which use the -200.

I also think the decision by EK not to fly to KTM hinges on more factors than one, including:
- Existing service by FZ.
- Lack of suitable aircraft to serve KTM.
- Low yields, which could be why EK is content to have FZ on the route instead of taking over. I've seen flights out of KTM with basically empty/ half-empty business class cabins every single time I fly in/out.
- Difficulty in getting slots - this has been an issue since the early 2010s. Apart from slots, the lack of apron space really hurts. If KTM gets widebodies like the A330/ 777, they usually park at the leftmost position (Gate 5) of the international terminal, whereas narrowbodies can use the rest of the parking positions. I haven't seen a widebody park regularly anywhere else. The widebody flights are also staggered so that at any time there is only one/ two widebodies at the apron: TK in the morning, TG, then KE in the afternoon and KA late at night. I don't know if this is a coincidence or planned that way, but I believe it's the latter.

NeBaNi wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

What you need to think about is how the weight of the aircraft is spread on the pavement.

The aircraft you listed are operated at lower weights and/or have more tyres to spread the weight.

Yes, I agree. What I mean is, and I should have made it clearer above, is that I don't think KTM has had an airline regularly operate the Boeing 777-300/300ER there, so we don't have a valid comparison in TG and KE, both of which use the -200.

I also think the decision by EK not to fly to KTM hinges on more factors than one, including:
- Existing service by FZ.
- Lack of suitable aircraft to serve KTM.
- Low yields, which could be why EK is content to have FZ on the route instead of taking over. I've seen flights out of KTM with basically empty/ half-empty business class cabins every single time I fly in/out.
- Difficulty in getting slots - this has been an issue since the early 2010s. Apart from slots, the lack of apron space really hurts. If KTM gets widebodies like the A330/ 777, they usually park at the leftmost position (Gate 5) of the international terminal, whereas narrowbodies can use the rest of the parking positions. I haven't seen a widebody park regularly anywhere else. The widebody flights are also staggered so that at any time there is only one/ two widebodies at the apron: TK in the morning, TG, then KE in the afternoon and KA late at night. I don't know if this is a coincidence or planned that way, but I believe it's the latter.

You have summed it up right,

Low yielding, lack of suitable aircraft and that FZ flies there 3 times a day and feeds into EK is good enough for EK to stay away from KTM for the time being. Having said that, EK does have a GSA in Nepal and they funnel a good amount of traffic via DEL on AI and RA.

As far as I know, EK is not allowed to fly to KTM because runway issue, the runways is in bad condition and the Nepalese government does not allow any new widebody operation beyond the ones already operating.
I am quite sure that EK could do a daily B777 flight easily. And I won't be surprise if EK starts soon because I know it was evaluated and consulted with operations department about it also. A B77L would be a great choice for the route.

FZ operating the route will never stop EK to start a route, it's not the same airline, right now EK announced Zagreb and FZ BKK and I think slowly EK will expand in Eastern Europe.

ojas wrote:

Low yielding, lack of suitable aircraft and that FZ flies there 3 times a day and feeds into EK is good enough for EK to stay away from KTM for the time being. Having said that, EK does have a GSA in Nepal and they funnel a good amount of traffic via DEL on AI and RA.

Hmm I didn't know about the traffic through DEL, thanks for the info. I have done an interline ticket through 9W via DEL to KTM (with xxx-DXB-DEL on EK) but that was before EY bought a stake in 9W. 9W still had codeshare agreements with EK then.

How do the airlines manage alternates at Kathmandu? Looking at the maps and terrain there doesn't seem to be any suitable airport nearby to a divert a heavy within hundreds of miles (DEL, CCU, DAC??)

Adipocere wrote:

How do the airlines manage alternates at Kathmandu? Looking at the maps and terrain there doesn't seem to be any suitable airport nearby to a divert a heavy within hundreds of miles (DEL, CCU, DAC??)

The last time I flew TK, they couldn't land at KTM in the winter fog (this was about a month before the A330 landing incident at KTM) and we diverted to DEL. I've heard friends and family say QR has diverted a couple of times to Lucknow.

Adipocere wrote:

How do the airlines manage alternates at Kathmandu? Looking at the maps and terrain there doesn't seem to be any suitable airport nearby to a divert a heavy within hundreds of miles (DEL, CCU, DAC??)

LKO is a nearby option.

---

As for EK, a logical question to ask is why they didn't launch KTM with the A330 / B772 when they were flying them in the 2000s? FlyDubai weren't around back then either.

Adipocere wrote:

How do the airlines manage alternates at Kathmandu? Looking at the maps and terrain there doesn't seem to be any suitable airport nearby to a divert a heavy within hundreds of miles (DEL, CCU, DAC??)

I know that Calcutta (CCU) is Thai's alternate, I was on one of their 772s trying to land in a monsoon storm last summer, and after our first two aborted attempts the captain came on and said we would go in for a third try, and if this wasn't successful we'd be diverting to CCU. Thankfully he slammed that 777 down on a wet, dreary runway (probably the roughest landing I've ever had) with full reverse thrust on the third attempt and when we turned off I realized we had pretty much no runway left, we were exiting off the last exit into the sole taxiway!