Emirates
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and just two days ago:
The spokeswoman said that Emirates' remained confident in the A380, adding that it was an "excellent" aircraft and that feedback from its customers had been "very positive". She said the company had no plans to cancel any orders.
Don't believe everything you read on PPrune.
The spokeswoman said that Emirates' remained confident in the A380, adding that it was an "excellent" aircraft and that feedback from its customers had been "very positive". She said the company had no plans to cancel any orders.
Don't believe everything you read on PPrune.
By no means a materials engineer but, all other things being equal, the oxide layer will rapidly reform but, if the metals are in close contact then no O2 will penetrate therefore no oxide.
If there is an electrolite present then all bets are off EXCEPT that Al superstructures and fittings are mixed with steel on ships. They are attached using either insulated ferrules or explosive welded Al/Steel spacers.
Problems arise when, years after manufacture, someone, unaware of the problem, comes along and carries out some unauthorised modification.
Have to say I do feel uncomfortable with mixing Al and other metals.
I'd be astonished to hear that Airbus were using Al cable inappropriately bearing in mind the high profile of the Kapton problems.
If there is an electrolite present then all bets are off EXCEPT that Al superstructures and fittings are mixed with steel on ships. They are attached using either insulated ferrules or explosive welded Al/Steel spacers.
Problems arise when, years after manufacture, someone, unaware of the problem, comes along and carries out some unauthorised modification.
Have to say I do feel uncomfortable with mixing Al and other metals.
I'd be astonished to hear that Airbus were using Al cable inappropriately bearing in mind the high profile of the Kapton problems.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates replace an A380 with a B777
This from the Sydney Morning Herald:
Emirates drops A380 superjumbo service to US
I wondered whether Emirates were setting their sights too high with a twice daily service to New York, one with the A380 and the other with a B777. Saudia/PanAm tried it with a 747SP during the 70's and it was quite quickly discontinued for lack of passengers.
Is it really the recession or is it that the bulk of passengers are finding a 12 plus hour direct flight just too much to bear? OK if your employer pays for First or Business (or you are just plain rich
) I guess but for all others???
Emirates drops A380 superjumbo service to US
I wondered whether Emirates were setting their sights too high with a twice daily service to New York, one with the A380 and the other with a B777. Saudia/PanAm tried it with a 747SP during the 70's and it was quite quickly discontinued for lack of passengers.
Is it really the recession or is it that the bulk of passengers are finding a 12 plus hour direct flight just too much to bear? OK if your employer pays for First or Business (or you are just plain rich
) I guess but for all others???
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SSE of smoki
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
dont think the flight time is the issue with pax. Global downturn is the major player here and EK are making a decision to utilise the aircraft on other sectors where pax figures are still very high, Bangkok for one.
Flagship to a major international city after intial launch for sure played a part, but they have always changed aircraft type depending on market force in the past.
Rgds.
dont think the flight time is the issue with pax. Global downturn is the major player here and EK are making a decision to utilise the aircraft on other sectors where pax figures are still very high, Bangkok for one.
Flagship to a major international city after intial launch for sure played a part, but they have always changed aircraft type depending on market force in the past.
Rgds.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the lack of pax. Even down the back one very long sector is better than two just long sectors. If you've ever done any long haul flying, the last thing you feel like doing after a 7 hour flight is getting airborne for another 7 hours. 14 hours may go on a bit, but it is infinitely preferable.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it really the recession or is it that the bulk of passengers are finding a 12 plus hour direct flight just too much to bear?
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Even down the back one very long sector is better than two just long sectors.“
Strongly disagree! Over more than three decades Mrs C and I have been travelling between North America, usually from Canada, and South Africa. In 1996 we tried the non-stop New York - Johannesburg flight of SAA, over 16 hours. Way too long to be cooped up in a tin tube with inadequate leg room and disgusting bogs after about halfway! We much prefer to break our journey in Europe. This gives us a day room or an opportunity to do some shopping or have a meal with some friends or relatives. We normally route via the UK but the last trip deliberately avoided both the UK and USA because of the security nazis. Also in the USA bags have to be collected and rechecked, sometimes even having to be taken between airports as in Kennedy/La Guardia, but travelling via Europe they are checked right through from start to finish. Also we prefer daylight flights rather than overnighters.
As an add-on to the above, in North America, Africa and the UK we now drive wherever possible, or use the train in the UK, because the whole air transport experience has become so anti-passenger. Air travel now takes considerably longer than it used to because of increased check in times (when I started in the 1950s it was always 30 minutes domestic and one hour international), increased waiting times to check in because usually less than half the check-ins are open, and additional waiting for security. Bags are now more likely to be lost or damaged, even deliberately ripped open by American security goons, and contents stolen. On top of this is the often bullying behaviour of the security nazis and the obnoxious air transport industry attitude that anyone who complains of bad or no service is a terrorist. It’s no surprise that large numbers of pax have quit air travel where possible in favour of rail, coach, car or ferry.
Until the whole air transport industry, including security, restores the basics of customer service it does not deserve any sympathy. Do those in air transport want jobs or not?
Strongly disagree! Over more than three decades Mrs C and I have been travelling between North America, usually from Canada, and South Africa. In 1996 we tried the non-stop New York - Johannesburg flight of SAA, over 16 hours. Way too long to be cooped up in a tin tube with inadequate leg room and disgusting bogs after about halfway! We much prefer to break our journey in Europe. This gives us a day room or an opportunity to do some shopping or have a meal with some friends or relatives. We normally route via the UK but the last trip deliberately avoided both the UK and USA because of the security nazis. Also in the USA bags have to be collected and rechecked, sometimes even having to be taken between airports as in Kennedy/La Guardia, but travelling via Europe they are checked right through from start to finish. Also we prefer daylight flights rather than overnighters.
As an add-on to the above, in North America, Africa and the UK we now drive wherever possible, or use the train in the UK, because the whole air transport experience has become so anti-passenger. Air travel now takes considerably longer than it used to because of increased check in times (when I started in the 1950s it was always 30 minutes domestic and one hour international), increased waiting times to check in because usually less than half the check-ins are open, and additional waiting for security. Bags are now more likely to be lost or damaged, even deliberately ripped open by American security goons, and contents stolen. On top of this is the often bullying behaviour of the security nazis and the obnoxious air transport industry attitude that anyone who complains of bad or no service is a terrorist. It’s no surprise that large numbers of pax have quit air travel where possible in favour of rail, coach, car or ferry.
Until the whole air transport industry, including security, restores the basics of customer service it does not deserve any sympathy. Do those in air transport want jobs or not?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carrier "had we but world enough and time" I'd agree with you, but generally I'm on a deadline to reach my final destination. In such cases, I agree with llondel - better 12 hours straight than 2 x 7 hour sectors with a 2 hour stop over.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd also agree it is about the downturn. Everyone I know prefers one long agony rather than a medium agony, a daunting wait then a brief misery. Carrier's approach with time off between legs is the scenario we dream of, but for me it is about as realistic as doing London-New York by ship.
Last edited by deltayankee; 19th Mar 2009 at 19:40. Reason: typo! je m'excuse
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on where you are going to and from I guess for example next Saturday I am flying Manchester to Hong Kong, I prefer to fly Manchester to Doha, have a break then fly Doha to HK rather than the shuttle to Heathrow and a driect flight from there. But we all prefer different things so I guess you will get agreement/disagreement on both sides.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Doncaster
Age: 63
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
777 v 380
The thread seems to have changed tack to being a discussion about long flights v short flights.
To get back to the original, will a 777 be non-stop like the 380? Will it take longer? Are the flight facilities/seats etc different?
To get back to the original, will a 777 be non-stop like the 380? Will it take longer? Are the flight facilities/seats etc different?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the original question was "Is it really the recession or is it that the bulk of passengers are finding a 12 plus hour direct flight just too much to bear?" so we are not really OT.
Answer: it really is the recession. Not so many customers.
Answer: it really is the recession. Not so many customers.
London - Sydney not yet done direct, but would you rather have a 20 hour non stop or 14 hours to Singapore then stay in the transit hotel airside for 12 hours before connecting. Decent sleep in a proper bed, bath, clean clothes, nice meal. Do some shopping, go for a swim, workout in the gym then catch a connecting flight with a decent arrival hour at your destination ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terribly misleading header, almost mischievous in intent, leading the reader down the Airbus v Boeing debacle yet once more 
What is conveniently circumvented is the facts of the story, to which a more suitable header would have been "US economy in the crapper; Emirates pulls A380 off JFK whilst opening 2 new A380 routes to Toronto and Seoul."
'Nuff said. Next please.
WRT sector lengths, KLM have operated AMS-MNL successfully for donkey's years. Winter westbounds can often be 14+ hours. Always been a pleasure, but I can't imagine the hell it must be on their 77Ws with 10 abreast in Unwashed.
What is conveniently circumvented is the facts of the story, to which a more suitable header would have been "US economy in the crapper; Emirates pulls A380 off JFK whilst opening 2 new A380 routes to Toronto and Seoul."
'Nuff said. Next please.
WRT sector lengths, KLM have operated AMS-MNL successfully for donkey's years. Winter westbounds can often be 14+ hours. Always been a pleasure, but I can't imagine the hell it must be on their 77Ws with 10 abreast in Unwashed.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stoney Bridge (post 184):
I am not attempting to re-open the B v A argument. Not something I'm particularly interested in. Given the departure points (i.e. oil rich UAE and KSA) there are (and were) plenty of potential passengers for the direct Gulf/USA routes. Trouble was for Saudia/PanAm that no-one liked the time in flight. I think it's the same now.
Metroman's post (181) says it all and echo's what has been my attitude to long distance journeys for many years. The maximum I can take is BKK/LHR direct at 11/12 hours and now I've cut that back a little by flying into Schiphol and taking the train into London so as to avoid the sheer horror of Heathrow. Anything longer than that and I break the journey and do exactly what Metroman says. Hot bath/shower, pleasant dinner, good night's sleep in a proper bed, and a hearty breakfast before I go off to the airport to start again on the next leg. The airports that have established Airside Hotels have recognised the need. Singapore has one of the best in the world but there are others just as good at Dubai, Bahrain etc. London Airports should provide such facilities also. Then transiting passengers who are not prepared to 'camp out' in the departure lounges could enjoy some real comfort whilst avoiding the trauma and degradation of (so-called) 'security' checks were they to have gone 'landside' and into local hotels (assuming, of course, that they were allowed to).
It's up to the airlines to provide passengers with the ability to do this without swingeing fare penalties. Perhaps, now that passenger figures are dropping, the airlines' beancounters might recognise this.
Trouble with doing it all in one go is that, although you have reached your destination in the shortest time, you arrive totally wrecked and unable to do anything significant for at least 24 hours after that. Much better to spread the load and look after your health.
I am not attempting to re-open the B v A argument. Not something I'm particularly interested in. Given the departure points (i.e. oil rich UAE and KSA) there are (and were) plenty of potential passengers for the direct Gulf/USA routes. Trouble was for Saudia/PanAm that no-one liked the time in flight. I think it's the same now.
Metroman's post (181) says it all and echo's what has been my attitude to long distance journeys for many years. The maximum I can take is BKK/LHR direct at 11/12 hours and now I've cut that back a little by flying into Schiphol and taking the train into London so as to avoid the sheer horror of Heathrow. Anything longer than that and I break the journey and do exactly what Metroman says. Hot bath/shower, pleasant dinner, good night's sleep in a proper bed, and a hearty breakfast before I go off to the airport to start again on the next leg. The airports that have established Airside Hotels have recognised the need. Singapore has one of the best in the world but there are others just as good at Dubai, Bahrain etc. London Airports should provide such facilities also. Then transiting passengers who are not prepared to 'camp out' in the departure lounges could enjoy some real comfort whilst avoiding the trauma and degradation of (so-called) 'security' checks were they to have gone 'landside' and into local hotels (assuming, of course, that they were allowed to).
It's up to the airlines to provide passengers with the ability to do this without swingeing fare penalties. Perhaps, now that passenger figures are dropping, the airlines' beancounters might recognise this.
Trouble with doing it all in one go is that, although you have reached your destination in the shortest time, you arrive totally wrecked and unable to do anything significant for at least 24 hours after that. Much better to spread the load and look after your health.
Last edited by Xeque; 23rd Mar 2009 at 06:41. Reason: Grammar - always grammar!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom
Age: 38
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates Vice President UK and Ireland
Just noticed on the EK careers website that Emirates are recruiting for a Vice President UK and Ireland. Does anybody know what has happened to Vic Sheppard, I thought he was the VP UK and Ireland