San Francisco Marks Second Westcoast Gateway For Emirates

[qatarairways]

09th Apr 2008 SAN FRANCISCO MARKS SECOND WESTCOAST GATEWAY FOR EMIRATES
http://www.emirates.com/newsimages/SFLI-1_tcm133-318830.jpg

San Francisco’s Golden Gate bridge links the city across the mouth of the Pacific Ocean. http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/0.gif http://www.emirates.com/newsimages/SF-2_tcm133-318831.jpg

Emirates will fly into San Francisco’s International Airport (SFO). SFO's international terminal was opened in December 2000 and is the largest international terminal in North America. http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/0.gif http://www.emirates.com/newsimages/SF-3_tcm133-318832.jpg

Emirates will fly its brand new Boeing 777-200LR offering eight luxurious private suites in First class, 42 of its latest lie-flat seats in Business class, and generous space for 216 passengers in Economy. http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/0.gif DUBAI, U.A.E., 9th April 2008 – Following news of only four weeks ago that it would start services to Los Angeles, Emirates, one of the world's fastest growing, international airlines today announced plans to launch an additional service to the U.S. West Coast. The award-winning airline will fly non-stop from Dubai to San Francisco starting 26th October 2008, taking its total number of U.S. destinations to four.

In pioneering spirit, Emirates will be the first to connect the two cities using its newest, technologically advanced Boeing 777-200LR on the route. The aircraft offers 266 seats in a three class configuration. The service will additionally offer 10 tonnes of cargo capacity in both directions.

HH Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Maktoum, Chairman and Chief Executive, Emirates Airline and Group said: “Providing fast, comfortable service to both U.S. coasts and points in between has been an important goal for us. There is a strong demand for connections between the San Francisco Bay Area and both Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent. We see San Francisco as an integral part of our network development. The new service will additionally offer Americans better access to Dubai, the leading tourism centre of the Middle East.”

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom expressed his enthusiasm for the announcement: "It's my pleasure to welcome Emirates to San Francisco. We know this will be a long and advantageous relationship between two of the leading tourism centres of the world. We are honoured to have been selected as a U.S. gateway for one of the world's fastest growing international airlines."

The distance between the two cities is 8,103 miles, which is about a 16 hour journey to San Francisco. The return flight will be 15 hours 40 minutes.

The new service will operate out of the International Terminal at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), one of the world’s 30 busiest airports.

John L. Martin, SFO Airport Director said: "San Francisco Airport strives to be the airport of choice for both airlines and passengers with a strong emphasis on customer service. Emirates Airline is known throughout the world for its detailed attention to passenger service, and we welcome the airline to SFO."

San Francisco is the fourth-largest city in California with a population of 800,000 and part of the greater San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland combined area with a population of over seven million. The county’s economy is based on commercial industries such as technology, aerospace, agriculture, international trade and entertainment. It is also one of the top ten tourist destinations in the U.S.

Built on a foundation of legendary economic booms and historic cultural movements, San Francisco is best known for its relaxed lifestyle, natural beauty and cosmopolitan culture and has created its place in the American vernacular as both progressive and thriving.

Emirates passengers enjoy an array of cutting edge product offerings such as the airline’s award-winning ice Digital Widescreen product (information, communication, entertainment) which offers over 1000 channels of entertainment in all classes and nearly 1,700 hours of video and audio entertainment, outstanding service from Emirates' international cabin crew recruited from over 100 countries around the world and meals prepared by gourmet chefs.

San Francisco is the fifth new destination that Emirates has announced it will be introducing this year. The airline launched its Cape Town service on 30th March and will start services to Calicut, India and Guangzhou, China, both on 1st July, as well as to Los Angeles on 1st September. San Francisco augments the airline’s American expansion which now includes two gateways in California, the U.S. southwest with Houston, and the eastern seaboard with two daily services to New York’s JFK International Airport.

Emirates' global route network spans 99 cities in 62 countries across the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, Europe, the Far East, and North America. For flight information and bookings, visit: www.emirates.com (http://www.emirates.com/).

EK225 Departs Dubai (DXB) at 08:45 hrs daily and arrives in San Francisco (SFO) at 13:45hrs (arrives in SFO at 13:00 from 2nd November 2008-7th March, 2009)

EK226 Departs San Francisco at 16:45 hrs daily (departs SFO at 15:45 from 2nd November 2008-7th March, 2009) and arrives in Dubai at 19:25 hrs the next day

*All times indicated are local

[Leito]

WOW, there you go, keep discovering !!! :ok::ok::ok:

[puff m'call]

You won't be discovering much in your 24 HRS off. :ugh:

[Leito]

you are right, let me change that, KEEP RECOVERING !! :}

[White Sausage]

Just came back from IAH, my first one at all...what a f:mad:k! My arse is still hurting and the bloody hotel is in the f:=ng middle of nowhere! And the flight seems to never end...SFO/LAX/IAH? Not wanting, no no!

[White Knight]

With the current payload restrictions that I believe the 200LR is suffering from out of IAH, then why put them on even longer flights? Should be 345 to carry the load and go the distance.....

[GMDS]

just have LIDO produce two simultaneous flightplans, one for a 777-200LR and the other for a 345, then compare payload and burnoff .... you'll be in for a hefty surprise.

[helen-damnation]

White Knight,
You're one of many asking the same question but with less that 48 hours in town :=
Take it away Boeing :E

[nolimitholdem]

It's pretty sad when an airline announces a new destination to a great city and the overwhelming reaction from operational crew is simply one of dread. Makes me tired just thinking about it.

"Press 2", and keep working on the exit strategy.

[White Knight]

I don't see the FAA going for this 24 hour nonsense for too much longer.. It's time ops woke up and smelt the coffee.

GMDS - I'm interested to know the difference in payload and burnoff, please tell!!

[Gillegan]

Houston is a longer flight than either LAX or SFO will be. What will be the killer is the increased time zone changes. In the winter, the time difference between Dubai and California will be 12 hours!

[Bypass ratio]

LAX is about 150nm longer than Houston! I checked it in the FMC the other day:ugh:

[whatzmyname]

WhiteKnight,As long as the 'right palms' are greased, 24hr layover will stay the norm in EK. Money talks....

[azamat69]

Hey guys,

just was viewing the fun you guys are having in EK, its almost as good as CX!!!

We have been operating to the west coast for a while and for cockpit crew the patterns are all 24hour jobs. Flight times are about the same as dubai-west coast, but our 744's get to stop off in taipei or seoul because they cant make it during winter!!!

In San Fran, the place to go is the Stinking Rose restaurant and a great aircrew bar is O'Reileys on Columbus..tell Myles the owner that his friendly CX mate sent you guys..

cheers

[Three Wire]

:confused:

Nobody has answered the question, so here goes.

DXB-LAX 8339 nm 15.02 at M.84
DXB-IAH 8168 nm 14.43 at M.84

Figures for a B777, .84 cruise, nil wind, 207 min ETOPS and great circle tracks.

http://gc.kls2.com/ try this link and see for yourself.

The A340 being an obviously superior aircraft can fly direct.


:8

[Kamelchaser]

I may be wrong but the obvious issue regarding leg lengths would no doubt be the fact that the LAX/SFO flights go over the poles, meaning avoiding most of the headwinds that the IAH flights experience. Hence DXB-IAH 17hrs (at least that was the only one I ever did). IAH-DXB maybe 14hrs. Whereas times quoted in the article above 16hrs DXB-SFO, SFO-DXB 15hrs 40mins.

So distances a bit irrelevant if the winds are so different?

[GMDS]

WK and 3 wire

The A340-500 might supposedly be the superior aircraft. The only time I have seen a comparable flight plan was on the DXB-JFK route, allthough this was with the B777-300ER. Faster time, less burn, more pax - and so came the annulation of A340 orders. Maybe on the ULR a A340-500 would prove to carry more load, compared to a B777-200LR, but this raises the question as to why EK wants to fly these routes with the LR??
With HR issues, treating employees decently, recruiting with honest facts, retaining employees in fulfilling promises and respecting contracts, EK displayes one of the poorer performances in the industry. When it comes down to the doe however, the commercial departement has a very good performance, unbelievable greed beeing the driving force. I can't prove any comparable figures regarding these aircraft, I just think that if the A340-500 would perform better, EK would most certainly send it to these ULR destinations.

[dooner]

Last summer I heard the 201 flight guys having a conversation with ops, the jist was if thetemp hit 37c they were going to have to unload 1.7 t of cargo.

I remeber TC very distinctly telling me (in one of his moments when the crew actually mattered to him) that they went with the 300ER because it would not be payload limited "anywhere." If this is the case then whay would they be having to off-load some payload on the ER?

Curious more than anything as I haven't got a clue other than it has 2 engines and goes too damn far. I do remember being able to use max flex temps out of Dubai to JFK in the summer on the 345, so hence my curiosity about the "no payload limit" statement by TC.

Dooner:ok:

[Gillegan]

I stand corrected about the distance though DXB to LAX is a polar route and at this time, EK doesn't have approval for flights above a certain latitude (not sure exactly what latitude or if they intend to seek approval). I do stand by my statement that the time zone change is going to be the real killer.

As far as airplanes being payload limited or not - it is a bit of a simplistic statement since fuel taken is also a function of required alternates, some of which might be quite a distance away. If we could always flight plan with EWR as an alternate, I'm sure that payload generally wouldn't be a problem. My understanding of the difference between the 777-300ER/200LR and the A340-500 is not necessarily how much payload they can lift, but what they can lift profitably. I may worry about a lot of things but I don't worry about our commercial department getting their numbers right. If the A340-500 could do DXB-LAX more profitably over the course of a year than the B777-200LR, then I'm sure it would be flying it.

[White Knight]

GMDS - the ULR is my point precisely, although these days I wouldn't now call JFK a ULR flight. I do know that I've never seen a payload restriction (personally) on a JFK,MEL or SYD with 345 - either direction. The 777 I don't know about:p
And indeed using nearly max flex in high summer on the way to SYD is common.

[Billy Madrid]

Gents,
Comparing a 345 to a 300ulr is like comparing a 200LR to a 346.

However For your info.

10th of April

300-ULR DXB-JFK flt time 13.30 / trip 109.1 / zfw 225t (max 237t) Pax 264

200-LR GRU-DXB flt time 13.45 / trip 101.8 / zfw 202.6 (Max 209) Pax 231

345 DXB-SYD flt time 13.16 / trip 112.5 / zfw 219 (Max 229) Pax 196

(Cargo unknown!)

So the 300ULR carries more pax for less burn than a 345 and 200LR flies longer for less burn. I'm sure the 345 is a good airplane (4 eng's and all that) but the B777 makes more fuel (money) sense!

I think it's argreed by all that Ek push the limit's on FTL's and ULR layover times.

Now I must get out more!

Ta

Billy

[MrMachfivepointfive]

See below. 772LR is 20mins faster, burns 17 tons less and can carry MZFW (with some margin for ADFU) while 345 takes a 9t payload hit. The problem is that the empty 345 is 20tons heavier than the 772LR and on top of that is betrayed by those antiquated 1967 RR RB211 (sorry marketing now calls them 'Trent') three spoolers.


A345

TRIP KLAX 138615 1547
CONT 20MINS 2929 0020
ALTN KLAS 6366 0044
FINL 3405 0030
T/O FUEL 151315
TAXI 912 0019
MIN FUEL 152.3 17:21
EZFW 220685 MZFW 229000 AZFW
ETOW 372000 MTOW 372000 RTOW
ELWT 233385 MLWT 243000 RLWT

772LR

TRIP KLAX 121517 1529
CONT CONTMAX 2600 0020
ALTN KLAS 5622
FINL 2839 0030
T/O FUEL 132578
TAXI 506 0016
MIN FUEL 133.1 17:03

EZFW 209106 MZFW 209106 AZFW
ETOW 341684 MTOW 343369 ATOW
ELWT 220167 MLWT 223167 ALWT

[Nuuk]

Ed man, chill out

[kingoftheslipstream]

... interestin' to me that this prune post is time coded 02:19 but the EK bulletin post is coded 3:39 pm. This 'd indicate thet the pprune poster... well, let's see how the dots connect... :eek:

[FlyingCroc]

It seems to me that SFO or LAX is a polar flight. Are there no restrictions for us due to cosmic radiation? :eek:

[Panama Jack]

Seems to me that the heart of the problem is this somewhat unique situation found in the Emirates where the airline owner is also the Regulator . . . and the maintenance organization and the airport handlers. The analogy of the fox guarding the hen house comes to mind. Sure, in many countries airlines have working relationships that are a little too close for comfort with the Regulator (airline mousepad at the Inspector's computer, stuff like that . . . and that is just the beginning), however, there is a degree of separation simply lacking in the UAE.

The future will be interesting.

[Thylakoid]

Puff, make that 18 to 20 in the hotel, once the immigration folks start pulling all the habibis aside for interview:E

[Thylakoid]

Flying croc, do you really believe EK would factor "cosmic radiation" in their plans?
They probably don't even know what that means. Some of them would think that it is a name of a new Indian dish:E

[616200]

Look at the copy of the O.M. part A that was given last year.
Chapter 6 section 2.
Assessment of cosmic radiation,Working schedules and Records keeping...
Hope it helps..

[trimotor]

Just dipping back to the discussion regarding A345/B772LR ZFW, etc, payload is surely going to be a relationship between DOW and ZFW, and then whether the payload available can be lifted of the available runway and remain under MTOW? Just considering ZFW alone is nugatory.

I see the DOW range on the A345 is 180-187T. The bottom end of that range is greater than the top end of the 300ER range. i,e, the A345 is heavier than the 773ER. At MZFW, the 345 can load about 142T fuel, to MTOW, though the 300ER is only about 112T fuel for MTOW at MZFW.

Clearly not the ideal comparison -no 200LR figures to hand. Anyone got them handy?

[brabazon1]

There are no restrictions on the 200LR on the Houston route. I have done 2 of these trips and left at max ZFW on all 4 legs with around a 42 degree reduced thrust, packs on.

[FlyingCroc]

Flying polar route gives you a significant more radiation. This is a serious problem, and yes I kon EK does not not care or might not even know about it. I think it is scary and reason to avoid that bid :eek:

[Nuuk]

I understand that major carriers will limit their crew to one polar route flight a month. Any one can confirm, comment?

[onglide]

just calculated cosmic radiation from OMDB-KLAX = 130μSv each way !!!
If you do just one North US per months = 2.6-2.8 mSv/annum
(6mSv is not to be exceeded).
:\

[White Knight]

So Brabazon - why the helpful warning from KP regarding staff travel difficulties out of IAH if no payload restriction:ugh::ugh: Guess you had good wind on your trip - so to speak!!

[Nuuk]

onglide,

What numbers you used for your calculation (alt, trop, ...), with your results within limits, why Continental limits their crew to one polar flight a month?
Just curious.

[onglide]

Nuuk

http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/epcard/eng_fluginput.php

we need to watch out ...
... one polar trip per month will get you half the annual dose of rays.
But if you get a couple per month, you will exceed.

[White Knight]

And whilst EK gave us some 'lovely' anti-DVT socks and blue pyjamas (so far only used for a pyjama party a couple of years back) I doubt we'll get lead-lined underpants for polar flying!!!!!!

[Billy Madrid]

White Knight,

My understanding of the Payload limit message for IAH, was that although the pax loads may look light on the trip predictor that the cargo would push the flight to be payload limited.
So don't plan your travel though IAH if you see 50 spare seats because you probably won't get on. Maxed out on zfw.

I Probably miss read it though.

[brabazon1]

It does seem as though Emirates is running a freighter operation on this route. Only adding passengers when there is not enough cargo to get up to max ZFW.