200 A380s is not impossible for EK, only a small percentage of the fleet is on the ground at any stage.

par13del wrote:

So how does this tie in with the numerous thread claims over the years that EK would be operating close to 200 A380's and that new purchases were for replacement as well as expansion.

200 A380's? Sorry I call BS that this was ever "out there". It's physically impossible at DXB, even DWC and maybe even both together! Yet another a.net myth or silly strawman post.

Wow, an airline with ~250 frames has a few stored. Shockerz!

dtw2hyd wrote:

One WB costs $1M/per month for lease/finance+mx contracts+insurance. 10 grounded WBs mean 10MM/per month or $120MM/year wasted assets, not including loss of revenue.

Someone care to explain how this is a well-run business.

Emirates is a big company that has leverage with it's vendors. Even you can surely figure out that they have negotiated lower insurance costs for aircraft in storage vs. aircraft that are flying every day.

I am calling this bs. Airlines with large fleets don't use all their aircraft 24/7.

Please provide proof by posting photos of aircraft that are mothballed.

BHXLOVER wrote:

I am calling this bs. Airlines with large fleets don't use all their aircraft 24/7.

Please provide proof by posting photos of aircraft that are mothballed.

https://imgur.com/uDz7jPU

Copy and paste, currently doing the social media rounds

IPFreely wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

One WB costs $1M/per month for lease/finance+mx contracts+insurance. 10 grounded WBs mean 10MM/per month or $120MM/year wasted assets, not including loss of revenue.

Someone care to explain how this is a well-run business.

Emirates is a big company that has leverage with it's vendors. Even you can surely figure out that they have negotiated lower insurance costs for aircraft in storage vs. aircraft that are flying every day.

Variable use insurance clauses are not uncommon for the largest airlines, with three 'states' - airborne / powered v on ground / not powered v stored.

Sophisticated tracking and timing means some airlines have negotiated PBTH credits when on wing tests are required, as this changes insurance 'state' and premium.

BHXLOVER wrote:

I am calling this bs. Airlines with large fleets don't use all their aircraft 24/7.

Please provide proof by posting photos of aircraft that are mothballed.

Nobody is saying mothballed, just temporarily stored. It’s a quiet time of year, many airlines have cut back on flights and frequencies due to the lower demand. It is not EK specific.

They can use the time productively which the aircraft is on the ground for maintenance. Often it will say 1xaircraft type, but if you dig deep it’s a virtual tail, it might be one of that type/capacity over the month, but 3-4 actual aircraft.

emiratesdriver wrote:

BHXLOVER wrote:

I am calling this bs. Airlines with large fleets don't use all their aircraft 24/7.

Please provide proof by posting photos of aircraft that are mothballed.

https://imgur.com/uDz7jPU

Copy and paste, currently doing the social media rounds

This picture doesn't explain the reason for the aircraft being grounded. They could simply be sending their aircraft for maintenance before the busy summer-season.

dodoma wrote:

emiratesdriver wrote:

BHXLOVER wrote:

I am calling this bs. Airlines with large fleets don't use all their aircraft 24/7.

Please provide proof by posting photos of aircraft that are mothballed.

https://imgur.com/uDz7jPU

Copy and paste, currently doing the social media rounds

This picture doesn't explain the reason for the aircraft being grounded. They could simply be sending their aircraft for maintenance before the busy summer-season.

Exactly! ""The son in law of my stepmothers daughter has a friend, who told me it has issues with EET at GIP (ground idle power) cropping up every so often on No 3! ""
Where do the OP´s always disappear to, rather than provide us with more detail/facts for us as the AvNet community to subjectively discuss ?
Now I am just waiting for the views of a couple of ´skippers´ out there, telling us how bad it all really is. Guess what, EK,QR,CX,US3,EU3, CN carriers and all ´Australasians´ among others are faced with a pilot shortage. That should be great news for our younger members..... opportunity is waiting for all of you, make something of it!
But before we thread drift, even EK (STC) is open on this point and those jockeys supposedly there at present that don´t like their ride, Parcs & Rishworth are waiting for you with a bundle of sign on bonuses to swap your fat bus for a domestic or regio 320 somewhere! These threads are becoming tiering!

Haha cougar15, so very true, little Timmy is renowned for his man management skills, there’s nothing like a little hubris when it comes to running an organisation and ignoring all the advice and input offered by others, reminds me of someone else when they were under attack who merely removed dissenting voices and built bigger walls around their bunker.

emiratesdriver wrote:

Haha cougar15, so very true, little Timmy is renowned for his man management skills, there’s nothing like a little hubris when it comes to running an organisation and ignoring all the advice and input offered by others, reminds me of someone else when they were under attack who merely removed dissenting voices and built bigger walls around their bunker.

Well, I actually feel very sorry for the boys across the road and certainly would not laugh about their fate ! This could be a win-win for all, EK needs them, the poor ´nameless guys´ (at EY) need options! But I will agree with you on one point, local politics prevent a solution that could be beneficial for all! That indeed is sad for the drivers on both sides of ´the river´ and I would have thought the bouncy castle would deal with this differently/smarter . Anyway, thread drift yet again, I am sure EK will/must look at their T&Cs to keep you lot happy! But that is not the reason why a couple of busses are being parked at this time of year, as we both know and that is the purpose of this thread!
PM me if you like, happy to have an exchange with you, rather than hijacking ´questionable´ threads.

cougar15 wrote:

...Guess what, EK,QR,CX,US3,EU3, CN carriers and all ´Australasians´ among others are faced with a pilot shortage. That should be great news for our younger members..... opportunity is waiting for all of you, make something of it!

Somehow the word got out, everyone else is able to attract young and experienced except one airline.

Why waste money on large number of virtually parked planes? Can't it be used to pay crew better salary?

Imagine if UA or DL or AA or WN parks 10% their fleet. It would be ~60 planes each.

A6-EEZ has also positioned from DXB to DWC



https://twitter.com/a380fanclub/status/ ... 6233828352

dtw2hyd wrote:

Why waste money on large number of virtually parked planes? Can't it be used to pay crew better salary?

Imagine if UA or DL or AA or WN parks 10% their fleet. It would be ~60 planes each.

Oh, they aren't parking them? According to what I've read up-thread it's absolutely natural for all airlines to park 10% of the fleet for maintenance "this time of the year". So, all those Delta 747's at Marana aren't just doing normal routine maintenance right now? Bummer...

Too early (just) to call it a shortage crisis - but the preponderance of evidence builds.

STCs comments “150 short”, cancelled flights, frequency increases deferred etc

But the latest news this week is that the dedicated cargo pilots have been told that they will now fly Pax flights on their standby days. Their contract specified that this would only happen in exceptional circumstances and only for training or to recover aircraft back to Dubai.

That is no longer the case and will not go down well with that group. One of the busiest resignation periods for ME pilots is end of May as the three month resignation period coincides with school ending and September new school starting thus causIng the least disruption to families.

The end of summer will provide real clarity on which side of the above posts are on the mark.

Too early to call it but getting closer.

aeropix wrote:

"this time of the year".

This bothers me a little. Fares are at their highest on USA-India route, for June outbound and August return, because of school holidays.

How is June a weakest month for EK?

aeropix wrote:

So, all those Delta 747's at Marana aren't just doing normal routine maintenance right now? Bummer...

Is Delta paying lease, mx and insurance on retired 747s?

worldranger wrote:

Too early (just) to call it a shortage crisis - but the preponderance of evidence builds.

STCs comments “150 short”, cancelled flights, frequency increases deferred etc

But the latest news this week is that the dedicated cargo pilots have been told that they will now fly Pax flights on their standby days. Their contract specified that this would only happen in exceptional circumstances and only for training or to recover aircraft back to Dubai.

That is no longer the case and will not go down well with that group. One of the busiest resignation periods for ME pilots is end of May as the three month resignation period coincides with school ending and September new school starting thus causIng the least disruption to families.

The end of summer will provide real clarity on which side of the above posts are on the mark.

Too early to call it but getting closer.

So how does this tie in with this being the slow time of the year and a/c are typically being "put down" for maintenance etc, would they not have more spare pilots, or are the cargo pilots now being used to give the pax pilots more time off, like the FR fiasco when they changed their rosters?

worldranger wrote:

Too early (just) to call it a shortage crisis - but the preponderance of evidence builds.

STCs comments “150 short”, cancelled flights, frequency increases deferred etc

But the latest news this week is that the dedicated cargo pilots have been told that they will now fly Pax flights on their standby days. Their contract specified that this would only happen in exceptional circumstances and only for training or to recover aircraft back to Dubai.

That is no longer the case and will not go down well with that group. One of the busiest resignation periods for ME pilots is end of May as the three month resignation period coincides with school ending and September new school starting thus causIng the least disruption to families.

The end of summer will provide real clarity on which side of the above posts are on the mark.

Too early to call it but getting closer.

I admire your caution Ranger, and given you know about the freighter issue, I suspect you know a little more than you are letting on. I personally believe based on contacts I have in training, HR, Ops and commercial that this is already at crisis levels and is being exacerbated by the ongoing inaction of those above as it would highlight their incompetence.

scouseflyer wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

The title "Emirates starts storing the A380" is beyond misleading because it also includes 777 etc.

Usual A380 possible bad story glee I'm afraid!

If you follow these doomsday threads, it’s “established” the EK is storing 777s left and right. The news is always that they have STARTED storing A380s. Thus the word START in the title.

So if it’s true, it’s news and it’s accurate. You can’t START storing A380s & 777s if you are already doing the latter.

It’s Alice in Wonderland logic.

scbriml wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

When AI parked its 77Ls because oil was $100+/BBL, no viable ULH routes at that ATF cost and going thru financial crisis (or) when its 787 was grounded because its engines need early overhauls or VT-ANI needed wing box repair, A.Net(including moderators) argued that every parked frame is a wasted asset and loss of revenue.

Now from pilot shortage to maintenance to religious fasting are valid excuses to ground planes.

One WB costs $1M/per month for lease/finance+mx contracts+insurance. 10 grounded WBs mean 10MM/per month or $120MM/year wasted assets, not including loss of revenue.

Someone care to explain how this is a well-run business.

Of course, your default anti-ME3 position carefully ignores the actual realities of leased aircraft where airlines carefully manage their utilisation to avoid increased costs for breaching the terms of the lease. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of our agenda.

+100%

Here is a masterpiece by a blogger on this topic. He just added monthly stored frames for 3 months and came up with 46 total stored frames. Yet another example of airline wasting PR dollars on bloggers.

https://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com ... ew-months/

Planesmart wrote:

Many of the A380's in and around the 10 year mark are going to incur excess hours penalties unless rested.

Can you please explain this? I thought leases had a rate per hour (among other costs). Do extra hours cost more than earlier hours? And why would that make economic sense? I would have thought that "extra hours" would have a lower marginal cost that the initial hours.

EOO, EDB and EEZ are now in storage.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Here is a masterpiece by a blogger on this topic. He just added monthly stored frames for 3 months and came up with 46 total stored frames. Yet another example of airline wasting PR dollars on bloggers.

https://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com ... ew-months/

This is a prime example of what really bothers me about the twice weekly regular "EK is doomed and about to close business propaganda". Yes, there are issues at EK, but they are no where as bad as the these threads and the bloggers make them look. It's fascinating to follow closely and observe the way the develop, but what airline doesn't face such things.
I believe EY is worthy of exponentially more attention. It's the one out of the ME3 that I believe are doomed even with the infinity deep pockets of the "Sheiks."

sadiqutp wrote:

... It's the one out of the ME3 that I believe are doomed even with the infinity deep pockets of the "Sheiks."

Oil is at $75/BBL. As it inches up ME3 financiers will have more cash to burn. Will they give 0%, no repayment schedule loans to Dubai like they used to?

I saw a close friend of mine last week, F.O on the EK A380 fleet. A380 fleet pilots tend to fly much more than they used to the last two months. They clearly lack A380 captains but want to stick to the "35yrs old" rule. The atmosphere is really deteriorating lately... EK welcome (almost) any A320 type rated captains at the moment.

F.B

kitplane01 wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

Many of the A380's in and around the 10 year mark are going to incur excess hours penalties unless rested.

Can you please explain this? I thought leases had a rate per hour (among other costs). Do extra hours cost more than earlier hours? And why would that make economic sense? I would have thought that "extra hours" would have a lower marginal cost that the initial hours.

Not dissimilar to a vehicle lease, where you contract so many miles / km's a year over say a three year period, except there are rather more zeroes involved.

The monthly lease charge is based on the aircraft being returned at the end of the lease with up to x hours, and up to y cycles, as well as being properly maintained, documented, inspected, etc.

In fact there are a series of bands, both above and below the contracted values.

If the leasee returns an aircraft with more hours and/or cycles than agreed, it means that the monthly lease charge needs to be topped up.

For example, if at the end of a 10 year lease, an aircraft is to be returned with a maximum of 50,000 hours, but is returned with 60,000 hours, the leasee has effectively underpaid. There is less value / life in the aircraft.

If the next band is 50,001 to 60,000 hours that's fine. But if the aircraft is returned with 55,000 hours but the leasee is charged for 60,000 hours, not such a good deal for the leasee. Leasee's will always aim to return as close to the upper band as possible, to minimise overpayment.

If you contract for 50,000 hours, and return with 49,995 hours, you don't get a 5 hour refund!

If an aircraft is overused, usually it will be rested, until hours and cycles average out, or if near the agreed band maximum, stored until lease end. Generally, leasors would rather lease an additional new aircraft, than make excess hours and cycles attractive on an existing lease. For leasee's, operating some aircraft with excess hours effectively means giving passengers the experience of flying in an older aircraft, so not desirable.

For blue chip airlines, the topping up occurs at the end of the lease, in the final balloon payment, which in addition to covering use, also includes payments related to exterior painting, interior refurbishment, and pro rata costs of accrued maintenance and inspections.

For less than blue chip airlines, the leasor may require monthly top ups, or annually, to reduce the credit risk at end of lease.

Lease finance raised by or or behalf of the leasor, consists of A and B (different terminology is used in different markets - like primary and secondary), components, with B being the residual (partly true), and A the balance (the greater amount). Once the leasee overuses the aircraft, this affects the ratios, which in turn affects....

Financiers want certainty, because with tax effective lending, there can't be surprises and windfall gains that trigger tax clawbacks.

When aircraft reach end of lease, leasees with significant power can negotiate very attractive deals while leasors seek a new home for their aircraft. EK for example enjoy hourly leases from some leasors on end of lease aircraft, with no minimum hours. EK gain flexibility, and the owner free storage and possible revenue.

Now. Ignore everything written above. With older aircraft, hourly (per hour) leases are not uncommon, often priced the reverse of new aircraft leases. The lease fee will include a minimum number of hours per month, but no stated maximum.

Planesmart wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

Many of the A380's in and around the 10 year mark are going to incur excess hours penalties unless rested.

Can you please explain this? I thought leases had a rate per hour (among other costs). Do extra hours cost more than earlier hours? And why would that make economic sense? I would have thought that "extra hours" would have a lower marginal cost that the initial hours.

Not dissimilar to a vehicle lease, where you contract so many miles / km's a year over say a three year period, except there are rather more zeroes involved.

The monthly lease charge is based on the aircraft being returned at the end of the lease with up to x hours, and up to y cycles, as well as being properly maintained, documented, inspected, etc.

In fact there are a series of bands, both above and below the contracted values.

If the leasee returns an aircraft with more hours and/or cycles than agreed, it means that the monthly lease charge needs to be topped up.

For example, if at the end of a 10 year lease, an aircraft is to be returned with a maximum of 50,000 hours, but is returned with 60,000 hours, the leasee has effectively underpaid. There is less value / life in the aircraft.

If the next band is 50,001 to 60,000 hours that's fine. But if the aircraft is returned with 55,000 hours but the leasee is charged for 60,000 hours, not such a good deal for the leasee. Leasee's will always aim to return as close to the upper band as possible, to minimise overpayment.

If you contract for 50,000 hours, and return with 49,995 hours, you don't get a 5 hour refund!

If an aircraft is overused, usually it will be rested, until hours and cycles average out, or if near the agreed band maximum, stored until lease end. Generally, leasors would rather lease an additional new aircraft, than make excess hours and cycles attractive on an existing lease. For leasee's, operating some aircraft with excess hours effectively means giving passengers the experience of flying in an older aircraft, so not desirable.

For blue chip airlines, the topping up occurs at the end of the lease, in the final balloon payment, which in addition to covering use, also includes payments related to exterior painting, interior refurbishment, and pro rata costs of accrued maintenance and inspections.

For less than blue chip airlines, the leasor may require monthly top ups, or annually, to reduce the credit risk at end of lease.

Lease finance raised by or or behalf of the leasor, consists of A and B (different terminology is used in different markets - like primary and secondary), components, with B being the residual (partly true), and A the balance (the greater amount). Once the leasee overuses the aircraft, this affects the ratios, which in turn affects....

Financiers want certainty, because with tax effective lending, there can't be surprises and windfall gains that trigger tax clawbacks.

When aircraft reach end of lease, leasees with significant power can negotiate very attractive deals while leasors seek a new home for their aircraft. EK for example enjoy hourly leases from some leasors on end of lease aircraft, with no minimum hours. EK gain flexibility, and the owner free storage and possible revenue.

Now. Ignore everything written above. With older aircraft, hourly (per hour) leases are not uncommon, often priced the reverse of new aircraft leases. The lease fee will include a minimum number of hours per month, but no stated maximum.

That's very interesting. But I don't understand why there is such built in economic inefficiency. You would think smart negotiating partners would make a better contract.

Consider your example. The plane has 49,995 hours. The next 4 hours cost very little, but the 5th hour costs so much more. It's an economic irrationality among smart investors. Why would that be?

kitplane01 wrote:

That's very interesting. But I don't understand why there is such built in economic inefficiency. You would think smart negotiating partners would make a better contract.

Consider your example. The plane has 49,995 hours. The next 4 hours cost very little, but the 5th hour costs so much more. It's an economic irrationality among smart investors. Why would that be?

Surely the same arguments can be applied where banding is used to encourage certain behaviour (and discourage other) - for example landing times, emissions, landing weights and passengers per plane.

Financing an aircraft lease is about being certain - no surprises.

The hour and cycle bands, for a major blue chip airline are negotiated. They will use a template, but that still contains 'fill in the gaps' sections.

For example, EK A380 hours were probably higher for early builds, as the airline wanted more units flag flying than could be initially built. As the fleet builds (and residuals have eroded), hours will likely have fallen, to maintain the financing status quo, and that increased fleet size translates to greater flexibility.

Negotiating the lease template is the easy part.

Finance is the challenge, because tax laws (and interpretation), rates and margins change. In most cases, the lease is in two currencies (A & B), and can often be covered by dual tax authorities, because of where the funding is domiciled.

Tax-related issues are so finely balanced, that while often we will read on here a lease has been extended, or includes options to extend, they will never involve precisely the same legal entities or funding syndicates. They may include some of the same participants, but the composition, lease agreement and legal entities will be new, with the intention of 'disconnecting' former participants from future transactions.

Financial participant confidence is a massive part of the leasing industry's ability to raise finance readily at attractive margins.

Financing 12 plus year old aircraft, with significantly smaller dollars involved, attracts very different set of investors.

The used WB market is changing, as aircraft 'life' is reducing (nothing to do with structural or even economic life), and demand is soft. But in more usual times, a leasor will often have signed up a new leasee years before the first end of lease period has been reached. So certainty in hours / cycles is required.

And with both A & B increasingly negotiating buybacks, hours, cycles and condition are very firmly top of mind, and optimised/capped, usually mirroring leasor/leasee banding, but not necessarily.

@Planesmart, all scenarios you explain are 100% valid, but is there any evidence those conditions apply to EK.

All three ferried frames appear to be owned/financed. Only one is 10+ year old,
One 3+ and another 4+, haven't reached heavy mx threshold.
All three are GP7200s to think they need to be PIPed or packaged.

On a different note, folks here saying June is slow time and saying Summer is sold out on DFW traffic data thread.

dtw2hyd wrote:

@Planesmart, all scenarios you explain are 100% valid, but is there any evidence those conditions apply to EK.

All three ferried frames appear to be owned/financed. Only one is 10+ year old,
One 3+ and another 4+, haven't reached heavy mx threshold.
All three are GP7200s to think they need to be PIPed or packaged.

On a different note, folks here saying June is slow time and saying Summer is sold out on DFW traffic data thread.

Not every lease is published, depending on how funding is structured. Every aircraft, whether leased or owned, will be financed, and subject to at least quarterly reporting and inspection. I thought EEZ was a sale/leaseback, and probably the other two as well.

Leasors and financiers are nervous about stored aircraft delivered new, because of Air India and the like. It's the glass half full scenario - on one hand the aircraft isn't ageing from accruing hours and cycles, so positive, but is the aircraft 'whole', where are all the components, and will they return?

If the aircraft are stored, then those parties with a financial interest will know where they are, and the underlying circumstances behind storage.

Could Airbus or sub-contractors have some temporary issues sourcing parts? Could there be an interior upgrade or tweek, though unlikely for the oldest two? Could EDB need to rest because of hours, or close to end of lease? Are they awaiting maintenance while fee paying client aircraft receive priority (like QF)? Are we guilty of micro-managing - 3% of the fleet? Do any other airlines have 3% (or greater) of their fleet types 'stored' at present?

Planesmart wrote:

Not every lease is published, depending on how funding is structured.

I can understand actual lessors may want to remain private, but why would the leased status kept secret.

Planesmart wrote:

Are we guilty of micro-managing - 3% of the fleet? Do any other airlines have 3% (or greater) of their fleet types 'stored' at present?

Maybe and probably.

Apart from stored or visible frames, 8 could be rotated thru DXB mx hangars and there are 3 more outsourced MRO providers outside Dubai.

Because EK is primarily a PR company with flight ops, trust deficit is increasing.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Because EK is primarily a PR company with flight ops, trust deficit is increasing.

That's a twisted biased opinion, not a fact at all.

All in the image

https://imgur.com/a/AwnIH0K

I just wanted to say that EK they are probably the airline with the best fleet plan, they know what they are doing.
We are all speculating on how the second hand market is going to handle the 10-12 year a380 frames, I believe that there is no market for them: still EK is selling the a380 flights as an experience and from my viewpoint they got it right, people love flying EK because of the a380.
This owned frames have already being payed, all they can do know is keep making money for EK: the maintenance isn't cheap, but still keeping such a young fleet isn't an easy job especially if the type is a VLA as the a380.
But we have to understand that if there are not resources (pilots) nor customers, the cheapest thing is to store the aircraft.

PerfectGriffin wrote:

goboeing wrote:

zeke wrote:

11 777s and 1 380 this month, it will be 14 777s and 6 A380s next month, 11 777s and 3 A380s in June.

What route segments are being cut out or cut back as a result of this?

Or are other fleets able to pick up the slack?

The latter option seems tough given they're parking both Boeing and Airbus jets, making me wonder if neither 'side' can pick up much of the other's flying. ?

They have already announced cuts across the network including reduced frequencies to BKG LHR (London (Heathrow) - England), and their Florida flights. Keep in mind next month is Ramadan when demand from their local market and the rest of the middle east drops significantly.

Florida cuts are just day of week cuts, won't "pop" a whole frame. BTW, I don't know if you have noticed, but Delta does day of week reductions like crazy. Do you watch the OAG threads? They have planes sitting around all over the place on off-peak days. Is there a thread on that?

emiratesdriver wrote:

All in the image

https://imgur.com/a/AwnIH0K

Perhaps you could explain the image to us lesser mortals!

Seems to me 6 B777s in a regular line. 4 other aircraft (A330s?) lined behind them, and 3 A380s, irregularly spaced (perhaps one just left?)

What does that all indicate, please?

ib642 wrote:

I just wanted to say that EK they are probably the airline with the best fleet plan,

If they do, they would have had a smaller WB or even NBs in their fleet like other airlines with best fleet plans.

Because they have only two plane types, how are they going to reduce capacity, A380/B77W doesn't shrink their size by 15%, at-least with current technology.

So cancelled routes and parked frames should match.

ib642 wrote:

they know what they are doing.

No one likes a know it all.

dtw2hyd wrote:

ib642 wrote:

I just wanted to say that EK they are probably the airline with the best fleet plan,

If they do, they would have had a smaller WB or even NBs in their fleet like other airlines with best fleet plans.

Because they have only two plane types, how are they going to reduce capacity, A380/B77W doesn't shrink their size by 15%, at-least with current technology.

So cancelled routes and parked frames should match.

ib642 wrote:

they know what they are doing.

No one likes a know it all.

Fleet plans are not about sizes, its about money.
No one can deny that emirates is profitable, they could be making more money but the a380 is a powerful tool in terms of marketing and customer satisfaction.
DBX is becoming one of the main hubs, this is thanks to EK. Aviation is beautiful, but at the end it all comes down to the profit.

ib642 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

ib642 wrote:

I just wanted to say that EK they are probably the airline with the best fleet plan,

If they do, they would have had a smaller WB or even NBs in their fleet like other airlines with best fleet plans.

Because they have only two plane types, how are they going to reduce capacity, A380/B77W doesn't shrink their size by 15%, at-least with current technology.

So cancelled routes and parked frames should match.

ib642 wrote:

they know what they are doing.

No one likes a know it all.

Fleet plans are not about sizes, its about money.
No one can deny that emirates is profitable, they could be making more money but the a380 is a powerful tool in terms of marketing and customer satisfaction.
DBX is becoming one of the main hubs, this is thanks to EK. Aviation is beautiful, but at the end it all comes down to the profit.

I am sure auditors are working hard to generate next annual profit numbers.

sassiciai wrote:

emiratesdriver wrote:

All in the image

https://imgur.com/a/AwnIH0K

Perhaps you could explain the image to us lesser mortals!

Seems to me 6 B777s in a regular line. 4 other aircraft (A330s?) lined behind them, and 3 A380s, irregularly spaced (perhaps one just left?)

What does that all indicate, please?

I think it indicates what this entire discussion has been about: the parking of Emirates jets at DWC airport.

13 B777/A380 out of service for May according to the plan posted previously. They're certainly not making revenue sitting on the ramp!

goboeing wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

emiratesdriver wrote:

All in the image

https://imgur.com/a/AwnIH0K

Perhaps you could explain the image to us lesser mortals!

Seems to me 6 B777s in a regular line. 4 other aircraft (A330s?) lined behind them, and 3 A380s, irregularly spaced (perhaps one just left?)

What does that all indicate, please?

I think it indicates what this entire discussion has been about: the parking of Emirates jets at DWC airport.

13 B777/A380 out of service for May according to the plan posted previously. They're certainly not making revenue sitting on the ramp!

13 aircraft is a 5% of their fleet, Its not that much....
It can easily be explained on the reduction of passengers, and the lack of pilots for this term.
If they are stored at DWC is because it is the cheapest thing it can currently be done with these frames: they are not at the second hand market or anything.
I believe that other topics such as the engine problem @787 is more concerning than "volunteering" parking of aircraft.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

Not every lease is published, depending on how funding is structured.

I can understand actual lessors may want to remain private, but why would the leased status kept secret.

Perhaps I haven't explained well.

Some leases, because of the way they are financed, must be in the public domain, with quarterly returns released to appropriate 'markets'.

And others, for the same reasons, do not need to be in the public domain, usually because the A and B funding syndicates don't require public reporting, or want the associated costs, or the publicity.

Of course financial reporting reflects the proportion of aircraft owned and leased during the financial period covered, and financiers, accountants, auditors, etc will be aware of material asset status on a detailed line by line basis. But those lines are no longer by aircraft (with 2 or 4 engines), but a list of air frames and engines.

Put this in perspective. In round crude figures, 200 aircraft represents less than 0.5% of assets. But those are not the only assets, which reduces to less than 0.25% per unit in Group terms.

If a local company had a fleet of 400 trucks, would we expect to see each truck listed in the published annual accounts, with mileage, age and value? Such a listing would exist, and those that need to see it, would have access. But it wouldn't be published.

The aviation industry is no longer black and white. Decades ago, aircraft were either owned by the airline or the bank (directly or floating charge). Then we introduced leasing of entire aircraft, and introduced grey. Now it's more like a rainbow, with air frames, engines, and even major components owned by different entities (including airlines within airlines). And asset ownership can change within the period of operation by the same airline.

So my question. What would you report? 100 aircraft with 4 engines each? Or 500 air frames and engines, plus spares, loans, etc?

How does this pilot bond work ??

Tucker1 wrote:

zeke wrote:

11 777s and 1 380 this month, it will be 14 777s and 6 A380s next month, 11 777s and 3 A380s in June.

Douche

LOL does that mean something else where you are from??

zeke wrote:

11 777s and 1 380 this month, it will be 14 777s and 6 A380s next month, 11 777s and 3 A380s in June.

Douche

emiratesdriver wrote:

BHXLOVER wrote:

I am calling this bs. Airlines with large fleets don't use all their aircraft 24/7.

Please provide proof by posting photos of aircraft that are mothballed.

https://imgur.com/uDz7jPU

Copy and paste, currently doing the social media rounds

Bloody hell, thats a lot. Seriously? Which routes have they closed. This is not a small number.

Planesmart wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

Not every lease is published, depending on how funding is structured.

I can understand actual lessors may want to remain private, but why would the leased status kept secret.

Perhaps I haven't explained well.

Some leases, because of the way they are financed, must be in the public domain, with quarterly returns released to appropriate 'markets'
....
The aviation industry is no longer black and white. Decades ago, aircraft were either owned by the airline or the bank (directly or floating charge). Then we introduced leasing of entire aircraft, and introduced grey. Now it's more like a rainbow, with air frames, engines, and even major components owned by different entities (including airlines within airlines). And asset ownership can change within the period of operation by the same airline.

So my question. What would you report? 100 aircraft with 4 engines each? Or 500 air frames and engines, plus spares, loans, etc?

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I was aware that there may be multiple interested parties in one frame, but I thought a trust will be set up to service the lease.

TC957 wrote:

Too many people on Anet seem only too pleased when the ME3 have the slightest reduction to their flying programme. And jump to wrong conclusions.

That good ol American exceptionalism.

Tucker1 wrote:

zeke wrote:

11 777s and 1 380 this month, it will be 14 777s and 6 A380s next month, 11 777s and 3 A380s in June.

Douche

Were not in high school here, doubt you will make yourself too many friends with remarks like these! Your constructive argument/reply to add value to the discussion is........?