Emirates Sing-Melb
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lost, but often Indonesia
Posts: 653
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates Sing-Melb
Flew in this morning with Emirates from Singapore on B777. Me and 72 others that is (all classes).
Curious to know what load would be approx breakeven point? I guess it would depend on how much freight was carried but 73 passengers on such a large aircraft?
At what point would they cancel a flight if at all due to no customers? Any theories as to why it's so quiet? I wonder if other carriers are experiencing the same...
Curious to know what load would be approx breakeven point? I guess it would depend on how much freight was carried but 73 passengers on such a large aircraft?
At what point would they cancel a flight if at all due to no customers? Any theories as to why it's so quiet? I wonder if other carriers are experiencing the same...
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: gas filled self propelled bag
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is my completely uninformed, and probably nowhere near accurate opinion...
I think Emirates sees the value of having an airline that effectively covers 'everywhere'. As in, if you are a frequent flyer with Emirates, you know that you can get anywhere in the globe on their metal, which may be why they have joined no alliance.
If they receive bilateral or other rights, they'll use them. Perhaps even if the route makes a minor loss (!), just to maintain this model. Seems alien here in Australia, what with the cost cutting mentality, but their aggressive strategy and coverage seems to be winning a few punters over... And profitable despite some nay-sayers.
As I said, I have no concrete info on this, only my garbled thoughts and if anyone can shed more light please do!
I think Emirates sees the value of having an airline that effectively covers 'everywhere'. As in, if you are a frequent flyer with Emirates, you know that you can get anywhere in the globe on their metal, which may be why they have joined no alliance.
If they receive bilateral or other rights, they'll use them. Perhaps even if the route makes a minor loss (!), just to maintain this model. Seems alien here in Australia, what with the cost cutting mentality, but their aggressive strategy and coverage seems to be winning a few punters over... And profitable despite some nay-sayers.
As I said, I have no concrete info on this, only my garbled thoughts and if anyone can shed more light please do!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Plenty of airlines have used the "everywhere, even at a loss" principle in the past. Most of them have died, the rest have cut back their network. Qantas used to do it (with at least 5 different routes to London, both east and west etc) and look what happened to them. History shows it's a poor way of doing business long term.
Modern consumers don't maintain loyalty to a particular airline. They look at whatever fare is cheapest and go with it. An airline that must subsidise unpopular routes with fares from popular routes cannot stay competitive with other airlines that only fly the popular routes. The average consumer wanting to fly a popular route doesn't care what other routes an airline flies - they want the cheapest fare.
Modern consumers don't maintain loyalty to a particular airline. They look at whatever fare is cheapest and go with it. An airline that must subsidise unpopular routes with fares from popular routes cannot stay competitive with other airlines that only fly the popular routes. The average consumer wanting to fly a popular route doesn't care what other routes an airline flies - they want the cheapest fare.
Last edited by ButFli; 24th May 2012 at 12:18.
Its also on the Boeing. Its good at hauling freight they say, but the PAX prefer the 380. 
The Don
The Don
..,Only when it's flying Don, when the Dugong is in the Hangar having it's little "problem" seen too, Pax are quite happy on the Tripler...
Point is you have to look at yearly load factors.
*to/from Australia
Last edited by 600ft-lb; 24th May 2012 at 13:05.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a mate at Emirates who flew this pairing last week:
Dubai - SIN; FULL
SIN - ML; 140 pax
ML - SIN; 170 or so pax
SIN - Dubai; FULL
When all chairs are full on the 777, it can carry about 30 + T of freight.
When all chairs are full on 380, it carries about 3 - 4 t of freight.
Payload per nm is cheaper on the 777 than the 380.
Peoples preferences differ on what they would rather fly on.
Dubai - SIN; FULL
SIN - ML; 140 pax
ML - SIN; 170 or so pax
SIN - Dubai; FULL
When all chairs are full on the 777, it can carry about 30 + T of freight.
When all chairs are full on 380, it carries about 3 - 4 t of freight.
Payload per nm is cheaper on the 777 than the 380.
Peoples preferences differ on what they would rather fly on.
Stop ECAM, your figures re what can be carried by what are wrong. However I will give you that a 3 class 777 will carry 23t of freight with full seats on a short/medium sector. The 380 would carry 150 more pax and 17t of freight on the same short/medium/long haul sector.
But you are right, the B777 is a great freighter.
The Don
But you are right, the B777 is a great freighter.
The Don
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: here and there
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have a look at the figures for EK and compare them to the figures for SIA, something doesn't fit. ie 281 less flights inbound, yet 137,000 more seats available?
I wouldn't have thought their fleets into Aust were too different for such a mismatch in seat numbers?
At a guess I am tipping the flights across the Tasman (which i believe carry a lot of freight on the pax flights) are adversely swaying these figures. Certainly the flights from the Middle East and Asia don't reflect those load factors.
I wouldn't have thought their fleets into Aust were too different for such a mismatch in seat numbers?
At a guess I am tipping the flights across the Tasman (which i believe carry a lot of freight on the pax flights) are adversely swaying these figures. Certainly the flights from the Middle East and Asia don't reflect those load factors.
Last edited by ramius315; 25th May 2012 at 03:56.
Surely by now any astute reader of PPRuNe knows that a completely empty 777 will make billions of dollars on any conceivable sector. While a full A380 will make no money on a on a short sector,
lose $10 million on a long sector
and lose $100 million if it's operated by Qantas.
They are the *facts*.
lose $10 million on a long sector
and lose $100 million if it's operated by Qantas.
They are the *facts*.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is worthwhile considering that EK's planes are extremely densely configured, with 2-3-2 in their 777s in J, and 3-4-3 in Y. As such, their 77Ws have 378 seats, as opposed to SQ's have only have 278 seats in an extremely low density 1-2-1 configuration in J.
As such, a 100% load factor on SQ's 777Ws would translate to just 74% on EK. And a 65% load factor on EK's 77Ws would be akin to 88% on SQ's 77Ws.
As such, a 100% load factor on SQ's 777Ws would translate to just 74% on EK. And a 65% load factor on EK's 77Ws would be akin to 88% on SQ's 77Ws.