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.

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.

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???

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.

Xeque, you don't honestly suggest that load factors of the 70's have any meaning regarding today's traffic, do you?

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.

Given the choice I'd rather do a direct 12hr flight than a two-leg one possibly taking up to 16 hours to complete. Even if I'm stuck in the back. Having had experience of rushed connections due to late arrival of the first flight (followed by not all the bags making the connection), getting stuck at the half-way point due to cancellation of the second flight and all of that, it's much easier to get on the aircraft and endure one continuous stretch of discomfort.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Carrier. At my stage in life it is difficult to disagree with anything you said

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?

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.

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 ?

380 versus b777, so what, they're both large aircraft. I'm sure Emirates have found something else to do with their flying pig!

EK operates 2 daily flights to NYC, not just one. Maybe A380 was too large for a twice daily ops (777 and A380). EK goes back to 2x777 and use the A380 to Toronto.

Terribly misleading header, almost mischievous in intent, leading the reader down the Airbus v Boeing debacle yet once more :ugh:

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. :sad:

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.

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