EK and the 787

[Iver]

Given the recent 787 visit to Farnborough, I thought this post would be timely. As far as I know, EK has not ordered any version of the 787. Why not? Seems like they have spent most of their money on A380s, A350s and 777-300s.

Why would EK not be interested in the 787? Is it a seating issue (far lower seat count vs. alternatives)? One would think the 787 would be well suited for longer, thinner routes (great feed for the bigger A380s at Dubai hub). Meanwhile, QR, EY and GF have ordered various versions of the 787. What do they know that EK doesn't about the 787? Is EK just focused on a seat volume strategy with the massive A380 order? Any thoughts?

[Wizofoz]

Too Small,

Next question?

[MrMachfivepointfive]

Iver - EK tried very hard and for many years to convince Boeing to launch the 787-10X. Boeing wouldn't commit, because by doing so, they would create an in-house competition to some of their own 777 models.

Instead Airbus is now building the 350-1000 exactly according to the same EK specs. There you go...

[akerosid]

The airline has said that the 787 is too small for its needs, but I can't help thinking that they are making a mistake. It seems that the plan is that the 359 will be the smallest acft in its fleet, once the 332s and 772s are disposed of. Now, with the order book that EK has, it needs to access new markets. Is the 359/773 the best aircraft to do this? It's still a 320-350 seater.

QR will have the 788 (as well as its narrowbody Airbuses); won't it have an advantage over EK in accessing markets where larger aircraft can't operate economically; QR can then develop these markets and add larger aircraft in its own time. Ultimately, in order to develop new markets, EK will need to force its way into new markets where the likes of EY and QR are already established. A 788/789 would allow them to compete more effectively and (as the 332 and the 310/AB6 before it) act as the entry level aircraft, then building it for the 77W and larger aircraft to enter the route.

[Townie]

Although I think there is a point to be made about having a smaller aircraft to ply the new routes, EK will never fly narrow bodies. EY, QR (and others) have failed to realize this integral part of the business model.

Perhaps the A333 will be smaller or more efficient on the thinner routes (or did they cancel those orders)? One other thing EK seems to do well is to play one manufacturer against the other and I'm sure they get good deals because of it. With the number of Airbus orders coming long after the last 777 arrives they may look Stateside again, but it's not like them to be so late to the party.

[Iver]

akerosid,

Thank you for your well-thought-out response. Exactly what I was thinking. Not all routes will support such large aircraft. You could use the 787 to fly the longer, thinner routes that would not support a 777 or A350. As an example, Continental Airlines in the States has announced that their first 787 will be serving Auckland from Houston, Texas - that is a very long route. At the end of the day, you need feed for the major hub and you need to control distribution. Perhaps you could start service with the 787, generate more demand, and then transition to a 777 or A350 down the road. That's the point.

Again, EY and QR use larger aircraft and yet they are also loading up on fuel-efficient 787s. I guess it comes down to different strategies.

[Freehills]

Yes and on paper the A350-1000 performance figures are only marginally better than the 777. As we know when every Airbus appears its actual performance is worse than expected so in reality the A350-1000 will match the 777. I'm sure the A350 will be much better than the A330/340 but that is all!
Also what is going to power the A350-1000, I don't think they have an engine powerful enough yet?

However, on paper, the A350-1000 economy figures are significantly better than the 777, for same performance (well, not quite, shorter range)

It "only" needs 93-94k thrust engines, compared to 110-115k on the 773ER or 772LR, so powering it shouldn't be problem. Think RR have got a Trent in development for it

[Iver]

Looks like a nice flight deck:

Photos: Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/1745312/L/&sid=a1f0c0bcabcd8225dd0141f4a280f105)

Makes even the 777 look a bit outdated...

[a345xxx]

Well there is the 777 NG in the pipeline! :)

[halas]

RR engines? Not wanting!

halas

[McGreaser]

Easy Halas, am sure RR engines quickly brings the 773 and 772 powered by the RR to mind:yuk::yuk:.......am sure the 787 will be powered by appropriately rated RR engines not the donkeys running the 773 or the 772:ok:

The flightdeck looks futuristic.........:ok: inshalla:rolleyes: EK get a few of those. Otherwise, will definately "defect" to N. Korea ........sorry meant QR:O just to fly the 787

[BobDole]

What??? No tray table? What a rip off..... :=

[ruserious]

Looks like a nice flight deck:
Makes even the 777 look a bit outdated...

It is outdated, as has every Boeing since the 747-400 been, I mean control columns :sad: build a side-stick, get over it :}

[IndAir967]

It is outdated, as has every Boeing since the 747-400 been, I mean control columns build a side-stick, get over it

Wish pprune had an option like face book where users cud like the reply :cool:
:ok:

[Capt Groper]

Its size is the obvious choice for a B737 replacement.
Not to be a competitor to the B777.

We'll have to wait a few years to see the expected inservice life expectancy of the compsite plastics.

[Aussie]

you want to fly with a sidestick, jump on your flight sim at home and hook up the joystick :) :ok::E:E:E

[singleseater]

787 just too small.
EK will still have the 200 L's but they can afford to develop new routes with bigger A/C, they did in NZ.
Rumour around here is that the 350 (1000)s on order are about to be turned off ( the latest 380 order was a bit of a sweetner to A/B) because there is no engine at the moment that delivers the 92-94 T and will fit under the wing. Major U/C redesign needed is not going to happen.
Prediction: in 5-6 years, EK will have only 777 and 380's of various models.

[jackbauer]

there is no engine at the moment that delivers the 92-94 T
The RR Trent XWB is rate frozen at 93000lbs. RR say the engine can go to 95000 but Airbus only require a max rating of 93000. The engine is already running.

[dustyprops]

"The engine is already running"

Bit premature isn't it? They haven't even built the airplane yet. Better to to switch the engine off for now and save fuel! :}:}:}

[Aussie]

Hahaha too funny. No worries bout the fuel.... plenty of that in the Middle east!