Updated: Emirates firms up order for up to 36 additional A380s

blrsea · Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:06 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Tim's imagination of moving 800 pax on A380-ULH missions is not happening. Hence the high-maintenance T972B-84 itself is an unnecessary headache for RR, let alone any other option to reduce weight or increase thrust which is not required.

Er, DXB-SFO and DXB-LAX are ULH missions currently happening on A380, and DXB-Australia routes are also longer than 12 hours on A380. So not sure what you mean.

mdavies06 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:06 pm

blrsea wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Lack of growth potential
The US, China, and India are some major markets where growth is plateaued or curtailed.
UK market is not growing either, post BREXIT premium market may godown even further. Sending more planes for ID travel is not good for business.
Australia is a wildcard at present. QR using almost all its A380s to one market. QF is venturing out.
.

I don't know where you got the info that India's growth has plateaued or curtailed. Please provide some links about growth plateauing out. For growth however, you can go through links below from DGCA which show around 8-9% growth in international traffic, and almost double of that in domestic

http://dgca.nic.in/pub/international/QU ... 202017.pdf

...

[/quote]

Whilst I concur with what you say, when I read the OPS message for the first time my initial reaction was this was written specific for EK in that EK is maxed out on due to bilateral constraint. Is this still true about the bilateral cap?

My understanding is EK is also maxed out in China as well at least for the top cities there. EK is free to launch flights to Tier 3 city like Yinchuan, which has hardly any sizable international demand and virtually no non-domestic airlines fly to it (not even KE or KA). China is remarkably tight in terms of imposing cap on bilateral and I do not see this situation changing soon. Has been this way for decades and it works for China.

Slug71 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:11 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Egerton wrote:
My suggestion is for a plug compatible CTi fan which will not offer more thrust, which the T900 has in abundance. But it will save weight to benefit EK, and get the technology well proven for the benefit of RR. The T900 is much lighter than either T XWB.

Is there any benefit for RR? Can RR recover the development cost?

EK should learn to use right planes for right missions. A380 best suits DXB-Europe routes, 6-8hr missions with reasonable premium demand and floor space requirement.

Tim's imagination of moving 800 pax on A380-ULH missions is not happening. Hence the high-maintenance T972B-84 itself is an unnecessary headache for RR, let alone any other option to reduce weight or increase thrust which is not required.

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/ ... 24-01.aspx

You really should apply for the CEO position when Tim decides to retire. You clearly know way more than EK's management does. I'm sure any other airline would probably jump at the chance to hire you too.

Eyad89 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:25 pm

Revelation wrote:
The relationship is that the EK order cements the future of a less than optimal VLA, instead of allowing for an earlier replacement. It's kind of disappointing that the company that is said to always be incrementally improving its products is apparently not doing any improvements for this order.

The image of EK as an airline that is always trying to improve its product is actually focused on customer comfort and satisfaction, a lower CASM or a more optimized wing does not fall under that category. I mean just look at their ads everywhere. It's always the bar and the A380, it has sort of become their identity. We never saw an EK ad where they say :"come fly with us, we fly the most efficient planes and most optimal wings". EK and many travellers believe that A380 offers the best travelling experience, and I guess they wouldn't mind giving away some CASM to maintain that image.

It is simple, each company has a vision and a mission, and I am pretty sure EK's vision is not to make the most profit for its shareholders, but rather create an airline that attracts people to Dubai, and they made some profit while doing it.

blrsea · Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:30 pm

mdavies06 wrote:
what you say, when I read the OPS message for the first time my initial reaction was this was written specific for EK in that EK is maxed out on due to bilateral constraint. Is this still true about the bilateral cap?

My understanding is EK is also maxed out in China as well at least for the top cities there. EK is free to launch flights to places like Yinchuan, which is Tier 3 city with hardly any non-domestic airlines.

There is still a bilateral cap. The current policy of the present govt is to not increase bilaterals till 80% of existing capacities is used up from both sides. In the last two years, very few bilateral increases have taken place, with Qatar a handful of smaller European countries.

In case of Dubai, its almost fully utilized by both countries, and negotiations are going on. The Indian carriers are facing issues getting right slots at Dubai airport, and thats one of the points of contention. Now apparently DXB has agreed for more slots for Indian carriers. Its a matter of when, not if. And many secondary cities in India are demanding easing of bilaterals to get more international carriers and the capacity has been reached. I wouldn't be surprised if more cities are added for Dubai, increasing from the present 12.

dtw2hyd · Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:33 pm

mdavies06 wrote:
Whilst I concur with what you say, when I read the OPS message for the first time my initial reaction was this was written specific for EK in that EK is maxed out on due to bilateral constraint. Is this still true about the bilateral cap?

My understanding is EK is also maxed out in China as well at least for the top cities there. EK is free to launch flights to places like Yinchuan, which is Tier 3 city with hardly any non-domestic airlines.

Glad, someone understood the context.

Slug71 wrote:
You really should apply for the CEO position when Tim decides to retire. You clearly know way more than EK's management does. I'm sure any other airline would probably jump at the chance to hire you too.

All I saying Tim should not put everything he dreamt in specs and send manufacturers on a wild goose chase. Today it is RR's headache to fix turbine blades generating unnecessary(planes are note full) thrust, tomorrow it will be Boeing's problem dealing with folding wingtip issues.

Revelation · Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:45 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
All I saying Tim should not put everything he dreamt in specs and send manufacturers on a wild goose chase. Today it is RR's headache to fix turbine blades generating unnecessary(planes are note full) thrust, tomorrow it will be Boeing's problem dealing with folding wingtip issues.

Senseless to compare turbine blades exposed to intense physical and chemical actions vs a folding wingtip which is a simple hinge with a locking mechanism. I'm not sure why the notion that the folding wingtip will be a problem is so prevalent, or why it's being raised here.

KarelXWB · Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:47 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
speedbored wrote:
You should study the EK business model. It really is very clever.

You mean, those glossy pdfs with "fact" watermarks??

Unfortunately, those are based on neither IFRS nor GAAP, those are based on CALP(Creative Accounting and Language Parsing) standards).

In case you missed the recent news, the Crown Auditor is banned from certifying financial statements for two years by a third world country.

If I may ask, where are the watermarked PDFs that prove EK is a loss making company?

speedbored · Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:50 pm

Slug71 wrote:
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2017-10-24-01.aspx

You know you are getting old when .....

You click on a link, read the headline, and your first thought is: "I wonder if I'll still be alive to see how accurate this forecast is"

WIederling · Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:59 pm

speedbored wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2017-10-24-01.aspx

You know you are getting old when .....

You click on a link, read the headline, and your first thought is: "I wonder if I'll still be alive to see how accurate this forecast is"

you can tell the WayBackMachine https://archive.org/ to add that page to its stash of history. :-)

9w748capt · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:08 pm

Can we edit the thread title please?

scbriml · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:27 pm

9w748capt wrote:
Can we edit the thread title please?

Yes, we can. What do you suggest we change it to?

Bricktop · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:36 pm

gunnerman wrote:
EK has a policy of replacing its aircraft every 12-15 years. As its first A380 was delivered in 2006, we are about to enter the window of replacement of the earliest A380s. This aircraft is crucial to EK, hence its insistence that Airbus commit to keep it in production for a long time.

If Emirates does keep to that replacement schedule, then 6/year ain't gonna cut it. Increased production rate and consequently a shorter length of backlog time. I am sure the parties have done the math on what that means for the next version's timeline.

mxaxai · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:42 pm

Revelation wrote:
Uhm, no. If A380 was the only answer, then why is BA replacing 52 747s with 12 A380s and lots of aircraft smaller than 747? Why is Air Canada flying A319s across the Atlantic to LHR?

It's weird, isn't it? On the one end airlines are getting rid of the sub-150 seat flying (737-300 & -700, MD-80, A319,... largely without direct replacement) but they're also shrinking the upper end. BA have 7 767-300 in service on their shorthaul network. I don't see a large shorthaul aircraft being built to replace them. Similarly, airlines are moving from the old widebody fleets ranging from the 767 to the 747 towards the medium sized A350 & 787. If point-to-point & frequency was the ultimate answer, the 787-8 should be selling far better than the -9. If CASM was all that matters the -10 should by far be the most popular model.

The overall average size is increasing but both ends of the size range are selling less.

crimsonchin · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:44 pm

An aircraft order equivalent or a defibrillator.

Slug71 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:46 pm

speedbored wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2017-10-24-01.aspx

You know you are getting old when .....

You click on a link, read the headline, and your first thought is: "I wonder if I'll still be alive to see how accurate this forecast is"

Ughh...no kidding. And time just seems to speed up the older you get.

Bricktop wrote:
gunnerman wrote:
EK has a policy of replacing its aircraft every 12-15 years. As its first A380 was delivered in 2006, we are about to enter the window of replacement of the earliest A380s. This aircraft is crucial to EK, hence its insistence that Airbus commit to keep it in production for a long time.

If Emirates does keep to that replacement schedule, then 6/year ain't gonna cut it. Increased production rate and consequently a shorter length of backlog time. I am sure the parties have done the math on what that means for the next version's timeline.

As mentioned earlier, I think it's likely the production rate will stay at 8 or even 10. I expect the NEO decision will come around the middle of next decade or a little sooner.

CFRPwingALbody · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:56 pm

gunnerman wrote:
EK has a policy of replacing its aircraft every 12-15 years. As its first A380 was delivered in 2006, we are about to enter the window of replacement of the earliest A380s. This aircraft is crucial to EK, hence its insistence that Airbus commit to keep it in production for a long time.

Sorry I have to correct you. SIA got it's first A380 in 2007. EK got it's first in 2008. All WWTTs were delivered between 2007 and 2009. So from 2009 + 10-12 years = 2019 - 2021 the secondary A380 market could start.

The MA planes would/could have been the first A380's for the second hand market.

Lets also add the numbers to your 12-15 year replacement cycle.
EK has received 101 A380s. AFAIK they plan to operate up to 150 A380s,
but lets assume 120 will be their total A380 fleet number.
120/12years = 10/year | 120/15years = 8/year.
With 6/year and your replacement cycle their total fleet could reach: 6*12=72 | 6*15=90
For full plane live of 20 | 25 | 30 years EK fleet becomes: 120 | 150 | 180
It's the 8 WWTTs Emirates received they will be going to replace in the 2020-2022 period (2008-2009 + 12years).

To me It's also odd; that the press releases state that deliveries will start from 2020.
While Airbus will deliver 12 in 2018 and 8/9 in 2019.
This combined is 20-21, of those 3x ANA, 3x SIA, 1x Qatar & 13-14x EK.
EK's current backlog is 41. Minus the 2018 & 2019 deliveries is 27-28 still to deliver A380 with RR engines while the deliveries of the new order (that's still a MoU) start.
So 47 - 64 could be delivered in another specification from 2020.

BREECH · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:09 pm

What did you people write on those six pages!? It was clear Emirates will sign it. Clark just wanted to show off a bit and maybe get the price a bit lower. A380, the best aircraft ever built, lives on. And this is only the beginning. As Emirates A380 fleet ages, they'll add more replacements. The bad news for all of you frequent flyers, Clark is already thinking about 11-abreast. Oh, well...

Route66 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:03 pm

Just passing by and noticed the title. As I understand, this is only a "commitment" for 20 frames, with an option to commit to 16 more later. The title is a bit misleading. Or it could be said, Airbus has committed itself to selling 36 planes under certain terms.

Buffalomatt1027 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:09 pm

BREECH wrote:
What did you people write on those six pages!? It was clear Emirates will sign it. Clark just wanted to show off a bit and maybe get the price a bit lower. A380, the best aircraft ever built, lives on. And this is only the beginning. As Emirates A380 fleet ages, they'll add more replacements. The bad news for all of you frequent flyers, Clark is already thinking about 11-abreast. Oh, well...

The "A380, the best aircraft ever built"

This actually made me laugh! Thanks for making my day! The 380 honestly didnt do much to the aviation world. If anything, it showed that Boeing projected the right model with the 787. Point to point is the future... and not the hub / spoke model. Also, passengers like frequency of flights vs 1 big flight from point A to point B. Time flexibility is HUGE.

The 747 based on what it did to the aviation industry and how it connected the world for a reasonable airfare. THAT you could say is the best aircraft ever and did above and beyond what it was supposed to do for air travel.

As for Emirates ..... they will use those 36 as replacement craft for years down the line for older 380s. Not like they will actually expand their fleet. Its like the 777x and the current 777s they have. Once the 777X comes out, the old ones will get replaced.

Revelation · Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:12 pm

Route66 wrote:
Just passing by and noticed the title. As I understand, this is only a "commitment" for 20 frames, with an option to commit to 16 more later. The title is a bit misleading. Or it could be said, Airbus has committed itself to selling 36 planes under certain terms.

The language comes from the press release. Not sure if it's worth the effort to come up with "better" wording.

dtw2hyd · Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:53 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
speedbored wrote:
You should study the EK business model. It really is very clever.

You mean, those glossy pdfs with "fact" watermarks??.

If I may ask, where are the watermarked PDFs that prove EK is a loss making company?

Every published financial report claims it is a profitable airline, every brand image management/data analysis company claims it is the best-run airline, but where is the corroborating evidence?

Is there any airline in the world with 87 Billion non-rev ASKMs and 276 planes on order? The goal should be to fill existing seats, not to buy more planes from Boeing or Airbus.

yycdel · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:02 pm

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
BREECH wrote:
What did you people write on those six pages!? It was clear Emirates will sign it. Clark just wanted to show off a bit and maybe get the price a bit lower. A380, the best aircraft ever built, lives on. And this is only the beginning. As Emirates A380 fleet ages, they'll add more replacements. The bad news for all of you frequent flyers, Clark is already thinking about 11-abreast. Oh, well...

The "A380, the best aircraft ever built"

This actually made me laugh! Thanks for making my day! The 380 honestly didnt do much to the aviation world. If anything, it showed that Boeing projected the right model with the 787. Point to point is the future... and not the hub / spoke model. Also, passengers like frequency of flights vs 1 big flight from point A to point B. Time flexibility is HUGE.

The 747 based on what it did to the aviation industry and how it connected the world for a reasonable airfare. THAT you could say is the best aircraft ever and did above and beyond what it was supposed to do for air travel.

As for Emirates ..... they will use those 36 as replacement craft for years down the line for older 380s. Not like they will actually expand their fleet. Its like the 777x and the current 777s they have. Once the 777X comes out, the old ones will get replaced.

From a passenger perspective it is the most comfortable aircraft by far. I know lots of people who aren't aviation savvy but still try to look out for A380 flights if possible.

mariner · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:03 pm

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
This actually made me laugh! Thanks for making my day! The 380 honestly didnt do much to the aviation world.

It did something for my world. It is the only long haul aircraft on which I don't claustrophobia after about seven hours flying. Consequently, I seek it out and - living in Zealand - I'm lucky, A380's are reasonably well available to me.

So certainly - for me - it's one of the best aircraft ever built.

mariner

speedbored · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:09 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Every published financial report claims it is a profitable airline, every brand image management/data analysis company claims it is the best-run airline, but where is the corroborating evidence?

If you don't think that audited accounts are sufficient evidence then you should ask the same question of just about every airline in the world.

But, if you believe that EK is faking their accounts, and fooling their auditors, I would ask the question why would EK do this? Who are they trying to fool, and why? They are a privately owned company and do not need to fake things to prop up their share price. They can't be fooling their owners, as they will know exactly how much cash EK actually pays them.

dtw2hyd wrote:
Is there any airline in the world with 87 Billion non-rev ASKMs and 276 planes on order? The goal should be to fill existing seats, not to buy more planes from Boeing or Airbus.

You really should spend some time researching and trying to understand EK's business model. Filling aircraft is not the most important factor for EK. Nor, incidentally, is achieving best CASM.

BAorNoWay · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:20 pm

I know a number of people think IAG will place a top up order for the A380 but I cannot see this happening myself. They might exercise their existing options but I think IAG is currently sitting it out waiting for Emirates to retire a few aircraft and then pick them up cheaply in the second hand market. BA certainly could do with more of them, and I think Iberia could certainly utilise a few too. Not convinced with Aer Lingus needing any though as one previous poster suggested. Just my opinion.

FW200 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:30 pm

BAorNoWay wrote:
...I think IAG is currently sitting it out waiting for Emirates to retire a few aircraft and then pick them up cheaply in the second hand market.

Wrong engines for BA. If I recall correctly, the first A380 with RR engines had been delivered to EK in Dec 2016. So, BA would have to wait until 2028.

BAorNoWay · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:40 pm

FW200 wrote:
BAorNoWay wrote:
...I think IAG is currently sitting it out waiting for Emirates to retire a few aircraft and then pick them up cheaply in the second hand market.

Wrong engines for BA. If I recall correctly, the first A380 with RR engines had been delivered to EK in Dec 2016. So, BA would have to wait until 2028.

Yeah I know the engines are different but I thought perhaps BA would rather get the frames cheap and just outsource the engine maintenance or develop a team to service these engines.

I imagine this would be a cheaper option than buying new aircraft.

Not sure, just a thought.

FW200 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:43 pm

That's why the 6 MH A380 would fit perfectly for BA: right engines and no »early birds« (delivered 2012/13). I wonder if they still are after them?

Egerton · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:45 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Egerton wrote:
My suggestion is for a plug compatible CTi fan which will not offer more thrust, which the T900 has in abundance. But it will save weight to benefit EK, and get the technology well proven for the benefit of RR. The T900 is much lighter than either T XWB.

Is there any benefit for RR? Can RR recover the development cost?

EK should learn to use right planes for right missions. A380 best suits DXB-Europe routes, 6-8hr missions with reasonable premium demand and floor space requirement.

Tim's imagination of moving 800 pax on A380-ULH missions is not happening. Hence the high-maintenance T972B-84 itself is an unnecessary headache for RR, let alone any other option to reduce weight or increase thrust which is not required.

Thanks. On development cost, I seems to me that RR need to do a CTi fan etc anyway for the step-change Advance/Ultrafan concepts. I suspect that it will be better all round to do the first on a 4 engine aeroplane. If it is plug compatible then it might get retro-fitted to previous deliveries. As I said, no more thrust is required, so no messing about with any part of the T900 except for the fan and containment, so costs will be limited. I am not competent to judge if a fuel saving effect may result, or if cooler running at take off might reduce costs. I leave that to others with competence. If the CTi fan does not work out, then best establish that before before the step-change risks arrive. De-risking new stuff seems a wise move. RR already have a proven and currently competitive fan design.

scbriml · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:54 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
87 Billion non-rev ASKMs

I'll bite. What's your source for this number?

Chaostheory · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:56 pm

BAorNoWay wrote:
FW200 wrote:
BAorNoWay wrote:
...I think IAG is currently sitting it out waiting for Emirates to retire a few aircraft and then pick them up cheaply in the second hand market.

Wrong engines for BA. If I recall correctly, the first A380 with RR engines had been delivered to EK in Dec 2016. So, BA would have to wait until 2028.

Yeah I know the engines are different but I thought perhaps BA would rather get the frames cheap and just outsource the engine maintenance or develop a team to service these engines.

I imagine this would be a cheaper option than buying new aircraft.

Not sure, just a thought.

The days of airlines maintaining/servicing their own engines are over.

The engine OEMS realised long ago that their margins are a lot higher on the maintenance and support side. There are just a handful of places in the world where you can get a T900 or GE90 repaired or overhauled: they're all airline OEM joint ventures. Compare that to the countless cfm56 workshops, most of which are independent from the OEM.

Boeing and Airbus are drifting the same way too with aircraft maintenance. Boeing is a little further ahead of Airbus in this regard.

dtw2hyd · Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:01 pm

speedbored wrote:
...
You really should spend some time researching and trying to understand EK's business model. Filling aircraft is not the most important factor for EK. Nor, incidentally, is achieving best CASM.

Ok if it is not filling seats, what else is behind this success.
1) Is it the revenue from the economy cabin. Can't be. STC is on record saying the economy cabin is heavily discounted.
2) Is it the yields? - Can't be, STC on record saying yields are bad.
3) Is it premium cabin loads? Can't be, STC is on record claiming corporate travel is down
4) Is it premium cabin yields? Can't be. STC is on record claiming premium yields are shot.
5) Are those frames in "long-term" mx adding to the bottom line?
6) Is the bloated 100K workforce?
7) Is it the competition from LH-LCCs? Again according to STC they are eating his lunch.

If PR wants to manage news, at least they should not send STC to those aviation summits, where he gets really chatty.

It is like scoring C grade on every individual subject but overall A+????

scbriml · Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:04 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Ok if it is not filling seats, what else is behind this success.
1) Is it the revenue from the economy cabin. Can't be. STC is on record saying the economy cabin is heavily discounted.
2) Is it the yields? - Can't be, STC on record saying yields are bad.
3) Is it premium cabin loads? Can't be, STC is on record claiming corporate travel is down
4) Is it premium cabin yields? Can't be. STC is on record claiming premium yields are shot.
5) Are those frames in "long-term" mx adding to the bottom line?
6) Is the bloated 100K workforce?
7) Is it the competition from LH-LCCs? Again according to STC they are eating his lunch.

All of those things may have been true at precisely one point in time. Doesn't mean any or all of them still are.

It's hilarious how you accept EK's word when it fits your agenda but deride it whenever it doesn't. Make your mind up.

PW100 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:41 pm

scbriml wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Ok if it is not filling seats, what else is behind this success.
1) Is it the revenue from the economy cabin. Can't be. STC is on record saying the economy cabin is heavily discounted.
2) Is it the yields? - Can't be, STC on record saying yields are bad.
3) Is it premium cabin loads? Can't be, STC is on record claiming corporate travel is down
4) Is it premium cabin yields? Can't be. STC is on record claiming premium yields are shot.
5) Are those frames in "long-term" mx adding to the bottom line?
6) Is the bloated 100K workforce?
7) Is it the competition from LH-LCCs? Again according to STC they are eating his lunch.

All of those things may have been true at precisely one point in time. Doesn't mean any or all of them still are.

It's hilarious how you accept EK's word when it fits your agenda but deride it whenever it doesn't. Make your mind up.

This!

Bricktop · Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:58 pm

speedbored wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2017-10-24-01.aspx

You know you are getting old when .....

You click on a link, read the headline, and your first thought is: "I wonder if I'll still be alive to see how accurate this forecast is"

I had that same thought when reading the thread about Norway, electric planes and 2040. :old:

BaconButty · Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:47 pm

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
If anything, it showed that Boeing projected the right model with the 787. Point to point is the future... and not the hub / spoke model.

Why do people keep saying this? It completely ignores the fact that Airbus had the A330 in its product portfolio, which along with the 767 and A300 was instrumental in fragmenting the market, at the point the A380 was launched. Not to mention Boeing had the 747 line which they would later recapitalise at no small expense. It's anthrpomorphisation of corporations and then projecting our biases onto them.

dtw2hyd · Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:47 pm

scbriml wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
87 Billion non-rev ASKMs

I'll bite. What's your source for this number?

Simple math. 380 Billion total ASKMs at 77% passenger seat factor otherwise 23% wasted seat factor.

scbriml wrote:
All of those things may have been true at precisely one point in time. Doesn't mean any or all of them still are.

It's hilarious how you accept EK's word when it fits your agenda but deride it whenever it doesn't. Make your mind up.

All these conditions are recent and current. So many negative conditions by own admission, but an excellent business model and profitable airline.

Just a couple of those conditions would put an airline out of business.

gunnerman · Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:26 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
scbriml wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
87 Billion non-rev ASKMs

I'll bite. What's your source for this number?

Simple math. 380 Billion total ASKMs at 77% passenger seat factor otherwise 23% wasted seat factor.

If you think that unfilled seats are wasted, then you have a lot to learn about the airline industry. Hint: try and get a basic understanding of revenue management.

PW100 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:32 pm

^^
Of course a poor EK load factor must be caused by those 150+ 77W.

Apart from a handfull 77L, the 77W is their smallest metal. So most of the thin routes are flown by 77W. That must hurt overall load factor since they don't have anything smaller like vanilla 330s or 787s . . .

Do you have evidence that he 77W fleet loadfactor is significantly better than the A380 fleet?

Is that perhaps one of the reasons that they went smaller with the 787 order?

speedbored · Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:44 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Simple math. 380 Billion total ASKMs at 77% passenger seat factor otherwise 23% wasted seat factor.

Regardless of how you arrived at your number, you have still not explained why it is a problem. Every airline flies many empty seats every day. It really should not be of any surprise that a huge airline flies a huge number of empty seats. AA, for example, flew almost 80bn empty ASKMs in 2016 and still made a huge profit.

While it is true that EK have had the occasional year when passenger load factors have dipped slightly below industry average, taking a longer-term view shows that EK, on average, beat the industry averages on load factors, both for passengers and for freight.

dtw2hyd wrote:
All these conditions are recent and current.

Then you should have no difficulty whatsoever in showing us the evidence.

dtw2hyd wrote:
Just a couple of those conditions would put an airline out of business, but an excellent business model and profitable airline.

Well if, as you claim, all of these factors happened at the same time, and only a couple would put an airline out of business, EK's business model must be extraordinarily brilliant as they have consistently made a profit every year for 30 years now.

Or maybe you think all those audited accounts are faked so that EK's owners can secretly give away money that they don't have to finance companies?

scbriml · Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:57 pm

speedbored wrote:
Even a quick look at any recent IATA annual report would debunk the "point to point is the future" myth.

The numbers of unique city pairs with airline service has shown a pretty constant increase in numbers year on year for at least 10 years, and the rate of increase has been outstripped by the general increase in passenger seat-miles. If anything, the rate of increase of unique city pairs has fallen slightly since 787 EIS. The data suggests that point-to-point is actually decreasing slightly as a percentage of the total market.

Please stop using facts to try and dispel accepted a.net folklore.

You'll be telling me next that AA bought a bunch of Airbus planes. Wait, what? Oh.... :wink2:

speedbored · Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:58 pm

BaconButty wrote:
Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
If anything, it showed that Boeing projected the right model with the 787. Point to point is the future... and not the hub / spoke model.

Why do people keep saying this? It completely ignores the fact that Airbus had the A330 in its product portfolio, which along with the 767 and A300 was instrumental in fragmenting the market, at the point the A380 was launched. Not to mention Boeing had the 747 line which they would later recapitalise at no small expense. It's anthrpomorphisation of corporations and then projecting our biases onto them.

Even a quick look at any recent IATA annual report would debunk the "point to point is the future" myth.

The numbers of unique city pairs with airline service has shown a pretty constant increase in numbers year on year for at least 10 years, and the rate of increase has been outstripped by the general increase in passenger seat-miles. If anything, the rate of increase of unique city pairs has fallen slightly since 787 EIS. The data suggests that point-to-point is actually decreasing slightly as a percentage of the total market.

Arion640 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:04 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

You mean, those glossy pdfs with "fact" watermarks??.

If I may ask, where are the watermarked PDFs that prove EK is a loss making company?

Every published financial report claims it is a profitable airline, every brand image management/data analysis company claims it is the best-run airline, but where is the corroborating evidence?

Is there any airline in the world with 87 Billion non-rev ASKMs and 276 planes on order? The goal should be to fill existing seats, not to buy more planes from Boeing or Airbus.

No one cares if EK is capable of making a profit apart from the anti A380/anti EK brigade on airliners.net. It’s an economic catalyst for Dubai and provides a lot of employment. All part of a bigger picture.

81819 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:49 pm

Just to add persepctive.

https://blueswandaily.com/emirates-conf ... -the-deal/

This article has been written by CAPA, a well respected consultancy within the industry.

DWC · Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:56 pm

tigerotor77w wrote:
I have a lot of questions about Boeing's path forward, and frankly I don't see exactly where their priorities lie.

The 78K cannibalizes 77E sales despite not quite having the same legs, so Boeing doesn't want to over-engineer it. The 748 risks 77W sales and the bridge to the 77X, so Boeing doesn't want to sell it as aggressively. The 737 is a sixty year-old platform -- kudos to its engineering team for squeezing out every last penny in its airframe while still selling at a 45% market share. But is it the right platform for the next 60 years? Or even the next 20 years? Was the 737 MAX10 going to be developed at all if the A321NEO didn't hit 1000 orders?

And perhaps most relevant to this community: is Boeing designing planes for its passengers or purely for its shareholders? I can't answer whether Boeing's direction is the right one, so I'd like to learn more. What I'm seeing is a company that's settling back into its ways and content with its position in the market rather than one hungry for conquest sales.

For those rolling their eyes -- I think Airbus has a terrific product range right now. The A380 staying alive is huge, and I think it's a plane that was ahead of its time.

Maybe I'll eat my words and Boeing will continue to sell on a hot streak. I chimed in with a certain disappointed tone because I want Boeing to be better, but I'm certainly not downplaying how impressed I am with Airbus' performance in the last ten years. Coming out of a program that could have bankrupted the company twice and continuing to fire off two terrific launches (in the A350 and neo) is admirable to say the least.

I actually fully agree with you : Airbus have the sexiest, most modern & diversed line-up ( not even counting the probable CSeries ).
I even explained those very long term worries I had on Boeing in another thread.

But... Boeing are doing extremely well, both in orders and deliveries.
While Boeing think in shorter-terms than Airbus ( Leahy just underlined that again with his ram-up slides ), they maximize on very sensible criteria : barring the 748i, fact is all their civilian models have been remarkably successful. I expect the 777X to garner more orders when airlines place orders to rejuvenate parts of their current 777 fleets & am sure Boeing will come up with a suitable 737 replacement once they decide on their strategy - whether linked to a MoM or not. Even if they are losing NB market share in relative terms, they are actually expanding it well in absolute terms ( % can be very deceiving ) : with still a handsome 40% MS for comparatively little investment in all these past decades, that is an excellent strategy. So all in all, Boeing are garnering & producing more airframes combined than ever before, they have time to develop further both their current & future aircraft families.

anfromme · Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:21 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Ok if it is not filling seats, what else is behind this success.
1) Is it the revenue from the economy cabin. Can't be. STC is on record saying the economy cabin is heavily discounted.
2) Is it the yields? - Can't be, STC on record saying yields are bad.
3) Is it premium cabin loads? Can't be, STC is on record claiming corporate travel is down
4) Is it premium cabin yields? Can't be. STC is on record claiming premium yields are shot.
5) Are those frames in "long-term" mx adding to the bottom line?
6) Is the bloated 100K workforce?
7) Is it the competition from LH-LCCs? Again according to STC they are eating his lunch.

Not a single one of the attributed statements (for which there may or may not be a credible source with some proper context) says or even implies that EK is loss-making.
They're all saying that EK is operating in a changing and tough environment. Which they are.
Any airline CEO in the world will tell you the same thing. In fact, that's usually the way to sell an airline's results to its owners (and the public).
"[...] reports good nine-month results in a challenging market environment", "[...] flies calmly through a challenging year", "[...] remains on track despite a challenging market environment"
That's just the results a quick search turns up for a single airline group.
That group being Lufthansa, of course, not EK. That first quote was the introduction to the best Q1-Q3 results LH has ever reported. That profit being more than three times the profit EK reported for all of 2016.
And yet, LH won't stop talking about how tough the environment is for them.
It's the oldest trick in the book - play up the challenge so your achievements look even brighter.

dtw2hyd wrote:
If PR wants to manage news, at least they should not send STC to those aviation summits, where he gets really chatty.

Yeah, those same events where he reports how profitable the airline is and how wonderfully the A380 is performing for them.

Which brings us back to

scbriml wrote:
It's hilarious how you accept EK's word when it fits your agenda but deride it whenever it doesn't. Make your mind up.

mariner · Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:23 am

travelhound wrote:
Just to add persepctive.

https://blueswandaily.com/emirates-conf ... -the-deal/

This article has been written by CAPA, a well respected consultancy within the industry.

I am astonished at how a lot of otherwise quite sensible journalists are bending over backwards to find the negatives in this deal - to give the A380 only back-handed compliments.

Blue Swan Daily's subheading is:

https://blueswandaily.com/emirates-conf ... -the-deal/

"Emirates confirms new A380 order, but does anyone actually win from the deal?"

I've read the article three times and I don't know what that actually means, what the writer is trying to say - nobody lost from the deal.

mariner

DWC · Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:45 am

mariner wrote:
travelhound wrote:
Just to add persepctive.
https://blueswandaily.com/emirates-conf ... -the-deal/
This article has been written by CAPA, a well respected consultancy within the industry.

I am astonished at how a lot of otherwise quite sensible journalists are bending over backwards to find the negatives in this deal - to give the A380 only back-handed compliments.
Blue Swan Daily's subheading is:
https://blueswandaily.com/emirates-conf ... -the-deal/
"Emirates confirms new A380 order, but does anyone actually win from the deal?"
I've read the article three times and I don't know what that actually means, what the writer is trying to say - nobody lost from the deal.

To Travelhound : article is not from CAPA, which I read so I can assure you they never published that article, plus it is not the least in their style.
The article just quotes some data from them - period. And please, never quote them again, a-netters here are way more competent.

Article is shallow with the standard patchwork of conventional ideas that do not add up, reason why journalist cannot even come to a proper conclusion himself. In fact, he shows poor knowledge of what is actually understood in the commercial aircraft world, quote :

Many believe the aircraft arrived around 20 years to late and should have been competing against the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet in its prime.

1. As if that ever was the goal. One was to replace it - not to compete against it.
Another was to pressure Boeing VLA prices down. Another was to a have a full line-up to cement Airbus as the world first OEM.
2. "20 years too late" would have meant a launch in 1980 & an introduction in 1987, as if Airbus or technology were in the position to.
3. Fact is the industry & Brégier say it was introduced 10 years too early, not 20 years too late.
4. If EK & Airbus signed the contract, it is common sense that they know what they are doing. I detailed elsewhere here why on strategic terms alone that was the only possible outcome regardless of standard commercial costs & profits, which is a very poor Flat Earth way to look at business

anfromme · Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:58 am

DWC wrote:
mariner wrote:
To Travelhound : article is not from CAPA, which I read so I can assure you they never published that article, plus it is not the least in their style.

That's what I thought as well - but the "About" section on the Blue Swan website says
"Blue Swan Daily is published by CAPA – Centre for Aviation and covers aviation and travel industry developments around the world."

I concur in your general assessment of the article, which poses a question it then proceeds to not actually answer.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net