EK 350 not off the table yet

[flaphandlemover]

Financial Times reports Ek reconsiders A350.


Emirates to reconsider Airbus A350 order - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7728d6c8-faea-11e3-a9cd-00144feab7de,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2F www.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F7728d6c8-faea-11e3-a9cd-00144feab7de.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2Fsearch%3FqueryText%3 DA350%2Bemirates%2B#axzz35XnGxl1M)

Pls no B against A bashing...

[Tight Seat]

What about a 15 or so A330neos to bridge the gap for the 'regional ' flying fleet until a more mature 787 or 350 is around?

[gardenshed]

Probably just as important is this link regarding the fall today of the Dubai stock market.
The bottom half of the first piece has TC denying that the A350 was dropped due to some sort of Financial squeeze.
Others may beg to disagree, bearing in mind that recent 0% pay rise that we all got.
Financial Times - Fast FT (http://on.ft.com/1jbDCv0)

[RoyalEnfield]

Can one of you cut and paste the article? FT won't let one read the article without a subscription. Thanks.

[vfenext]

You can read it for free if you just register.

[RoyalEnfield]

That worked, thanks.

[Dubaian]

The fall in the Dubai Stock Exchange is being attributed to major troubles, resignations and firings in Arabtec - the Gulf's largest construction company (who built the Burj Khalifa - amongst other things). Not directly aviation related - except as a knock-on effect.

http://gulfbusiness.com/2014/06/stock-news-dubais-arabtec-hits-sentiment-across-gulf/

http://www.thenational.ae/business/industry-insights/markets/meltdown-at-arabtec-hits-dubai-markets

[Outatowner]

The poor, poor habibis, they must be OUTRAGED at their share prices taking a hit. It shouldn't be allowed.

Being robbed blind like that, let's find someone to blame. Whose fault is it, Bush? The jews? The locals must find someone to sack. Better yet, put someone in gaol on charges with a trial scheduled for some time in the 2020s.

[Iver]

Which versions of the 787 and A350 would be "ideal" for regional flights? Clark talks below about needing 250-300 seats - so, are we looking at the 787-8 and the A350-800?






Emirates to reconsider Airbus A350 order

By Andrew Parker in London




Airbus (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=fr:AIR) is to get a second chance to sell its new A350 aircraft to Emirates Airline after the fast-growing Gulf carrier revealed it would take a fresh look at the case for buying the long-range passenger jet, in a head-to-head contest with Boeing (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=us:BA)’s 787 Dreamliner.


Airbus suffered a serious blow earlier this month when Emirates cancelled an order (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/85192ea4-f130-11e3-9161-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk) for 70 A350 jets, worth $16bn at catalogue prices when the deal was announced in 2007.


Emirates (http://www.ft.com/intl/topics/organisations/Emirates_Airlines) was supposed to be a launch customer for the A350, due to enter service later this year, and the airline’s decision not to proceed with its order was the Toulouse-based aircraft maker’s largest ever cancellation. Shares in Airbus were hit, as were those of Rolls-Royce (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=uk:RR.), which makes the jet’s engines.


Tim Clark, Emirates’ president, told the Financial Times the airline would hold discussions with Airbus and Boeing either late this year or next year about the merits of buying the A350 or the Dreamliner.


He said the Dubai-based carrier was interested in purchasing between 50 and 70 wide-body, twin-engined jets capable of flying on regional routes in the Middle East, plus to cities in Africa. The order – which could be worth at least $18bn at catalogue prices – looks set to be a fiercely contested battle between Airbus and Boeing.


Emirates’ planned move is a boost for Boeing (http://www.ft.com/topics/organisations/Boeing_Co), because the carrier has never placed an order for the Dreamliner.


Two people familiar with the situation said Emirates decided to drop its A350 order made in 2007 because it had concerns about the jet’s specification and performance.


Mr Clark, who declined to comment on the reasons for the cancellation, said: “At the end of this year, beginning of next year, we will re-engage with Airbus on this aeroplane [the A350]. We will also engage [with Boeing about the Dreamliner].”


He stressed Emirates had not intended to damage Airbus (http://www.ft.com/topics/organisations/Airbus_SAS) or Rolls-Royce with its A350 order cancellation, but said the airline wanted to buy a “mature” aircraft.


The risks associated with being early airline customers for the Dreamliner (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1166ad6e-60b4-11e2-a353-00144feab49a.html), which entered service in 2011, were highlighted last year when the entire fleet was temporarily grounded after batteries burnt on two aircraft. Modifications were subsequently agreed with regulators.


Both the A350 and the Dreamliner have involved step changes in aircraft technology, partly because they are mainly made from lightweight carbon composites rather than traditional aluminium, to reduce fuel burn.


Emirates is the world’s largest operator (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c274e63e-580c-11e3-82fc-00144feabdc0.html) of the Airbus A380 superjumbo, and Boeing’s 777 wide-body jet, which carry about 500 and 400 passengers respectively on long-haul routes.


Mr Clark said these two aircraft would be the principal jets in Emirates’ fleet, but said there was room for another carrying between 250 and 300 passengers on regional routes – hence the carrier’s plan to consider the Dreamliner and re-examine the A350.


“When the aircraft [the A350 and 787] are mature, they will be better defined in terms of performance, fuel burn,” he added.


Mr Clark highlighted how, whatever Emirates’ decision between the A350 and the Dreamliner, the carrier would remain an important Airbus customer because of its purchases of A380s.


It has agreed to buy 140 A380s, and Mr Clark said more could be purchased, partly because Emirates is considering moving to a new airport in Dubai that would enable it to expand its fleet further.


Emirates had 217 aircraft at March 31, and Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum, the carrier’s chairman, said last November the fleet could eventually consist of 450 jets.


Mr Clark rejected some analysts’ suggestions that Emirates had dropped its A350 order made in 2007 because it was having to rein in expansion plans due to the economic slowdown in emerging markets.

[glofish]

It's all smoke and mirrors.

Look at the state of the Emirate and its financial market. After the 2008 shock, they were on a relatively astonishing track back and this made them overconfident in the best middle eastern manner. There seems to be only one way, and it is the one "full forward".

Buy big and kill the rest, even if the yield erodes at a frightening pace. The big toy is said to make money, sure thing, but it makes less than necessary. The total yield declines year per year, but no one dares to correlate it to too big and fast an expansion.
The only remedy seems to be to double the bet and cling to the hope that if it will eventually win, has to win one day, and the reward will certainly cover the over-investment. Greetings from Arabtec!

The announcements of orders, the cancelation of others, the proclaimed interest in new ones, the request for upgrades of existing failures are all a big sign of complete loss of orientation. Not one of our manitous can admit to any retreat to smaller bagels and sings the boring same song of how well we're doing and how many more mammoths we will operate or what new wonders we would deploy if only the silly manufacturers would build them according to our sacred gurus' plans.

The way out would be to decrease the size of the outfit, but that is synonymous to failure in this region. Failure is most certainly the only outcome, but they'd rather have it the hard way and complete, with no way out, than the reasonable way with some kind of future.

____________________________________________________________ _____

The 350-8 might be a good plan for a smaller EK, paired with the 77X-9. There would still be two manufacturers, not exposing you to high risk, there would be a 250+ seater for the less frequented routes and a 360+ seater for the higher density and ULR routes.
But who wants a smaller EK? Certainly not HH blinded by the "mine is bigger" syndrome, certainly not TC who desperately tries to immortalise his monument, and some of our drivers could hardly settle to fly less than 4 engines and a silly 5-ton shower ...

[FLEX/MCT]

Glofish your anti-380 crusade knows no bounds...if only our masters would hear you lone voice of sanity!! :rolleyes:

[The Turtle]

Egos be damnned, why EK doesn't select the "regional" 330, designed exactly for this mission, and select the 330 neo, if built, which by accounts is similar in fuel burn to the 787


EK knows the aircraft, the pilots are typed, and the CC already trained.


Am I missing something

[Payscale]

World domination :)

[clear to land]

787 allows for CCQ with relevant cost savings.....:D

[glofish]

@FLEX

It's not a crusade, it's an attempt of logic.

Why whould EKs big fleet and pax numbers grow that much, and the total company yield decline at almost the same reverse rate? Certainly not due to increasing cost of personnel!!

It mainly happens when strategies are not adapted to economical circumstances. This can happen both ways, too little or too much growth. What i think, having observed three outfits from the inside before, is that EK grows way too aggressively.

In my opinion the 380, especially the huge numbers ordered, is one important piece of that expansive strategy, that it is not adapted to the circumstances in the long run. Therefore the shot at it.

All the wisea$$ voices mouthing that it makes no difference what donkey you ride are somewhat true, but if, imho, one donkey is too high maintenance, i reserve the right to not liking it. It finally affects what falls into my wallet and that is important to me!!!

Arguments for the actual strategy are welcome, some have valid ones, but accept opinions against it as well without simply decrying them as "crusade".

My somewhat sarcastic tone might not suit some of the fanclub, just take it with a pinch of salt, but try to grasp the arguments as well.

[FLEX/MCT]

Glofish, there's no need to be quite so condescending! :) I have no problem with people analysing flight plans, yields etc to try and prove their equipment is best/better looking/more profitable but at the end of the day we do not have the complete picture. Only those at the top have that and they aren't sharing. I know someone in flight ops that spent months crunching the numbers for the 380 to go to LAX, they claim that it makes the company more money any way they looked at it so now the 380 goes to LAX - it really was that simple. I reckon they have probably run similar analysis for all the routes the dugong has/will fly.

Now with regards to future increases in fuel costs then there will probably be a case for a 380neo in the next decade if Airbus are willing to stump up the cash especially with the next gen of 350/777x on the way - we will all have to wait and see how that pans out...

At the end of the day yes we do all get payed to fly and not worry about these things - does it affect our bottom line? Not really! Our lords and masters will pay us based on how much they need us to sign up or stay!

If you really want to improve the operation how about dealing with the horrendous inefficiency, the ridiculous amounts of extra fuel loaded for flimsy reasons, the useless bunch of numpties that are dnata, waiting for pax/cargo on Charlie stands, the endless waiting for VVIPs to finish their duty free shopping etc...That affects all of us - even those if us in the most profitable fleet! (330 that is ;) - just think of all those Indians we feed the network with! And our aeroplanes are payed for!) If you can solve any of these problems then you can have a resounding two thumbs up from me! :ok::ok:

[JAARule]

Glofish maybe it's the booze talking but your post #12 is one of the more lucid, accurate and relevant around here.
Many seem to miss the point though.