Emirates Cancels A340-600
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates Cancels A340-600
From the Independent Online:
"......Mr Clark confirmed Emirates is cancelling an order for 18 long-range Airbus A340-600 aircraft as it had decided they were no longer suitable for its route expansion plans. This is likely to form part of the compensation negotiations with Airbus."
and from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15449014/
".....The airline has already had difficult experiences as an early launch customer for a previous Airbus aircraft, the ultra-long range A340-500, where the wings were too heavy on the early versions.
In a very unusual move Mr Clark said that the airline had also cancelled previously placed firm orders for 12 of the large capacity, long range A340-600 (high gross weight) aircraft.
Maurice Flanagan, Emirates deputy chairman, said that the A340-600 HGW could not meet the performance needs of the airline for services from Dubai to Los Angeles, and Airbus had already agreed to refund $160m of pre-delivery payments in a deal that was "ring-fenced" from the negotiations still to be held on the A380."
"......Mr Clark confirmed Emirates is cancelling an order for 18 long-range Airbus A340-600 aircraft as it had decided they were no longer suitable for its route expansion plans. This is likely to form part of the compensation negotiations with Airbus."
and from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15449014/
".....The airline has already had difficult experiences as an early launch customer for a previous Airbus aircraft, the ultra-long range A340-500, where the wings were too heavy on the early versions.
In a very unusual move Mr Clark said that the airline had also cancelled previously placed firm orders for 12 of the large capacity, long range A340-600 (high gross weight) aircraft.
Maurice Flanagan, Emirates deputy chairman, said that the A340-600 HGW could not meet the performance needs of the airline for services from Dubai to Los Angeles, and Airbus had already agreed to refund $160m of pre-delivery payments in a deal that was "ring-fenced" from the negotiations still to be held on the A380."
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dubai
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boilermaker, while it may be hard to dispute that the company makes orders to grab headlines, the commercial boys are pretty good at crunching numbers. When they put in this order it was planned to use them on the LAX and South American routes. At that time oil was around 25-30 bucks a barrel, this of course has changed dramatically as you are well aware and has changed completely the economics of this aircraft. Also since the order the -600 has not really met its performance promises, while the 777 ER has exceeded its projections. Simple economics really. While I am not happy about a lot of things here, I try not to criticise what I don't fully understand, airline macro-economics being one of them. There is nothing dumber than sticking to a plan when the environment has completely changed around you. As long as the commercial boys don't tell me how to fly a plane (and they try to), I won't tell them how to sort out the airlines assets.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: charleroi
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the old problem, Airbus always says great things about the aircraft it makes but when they turn up they never quite live up to expectations whereas Boeing aircraft tend to over perform.
More to the point, by cancelling the A340-600 and having the A380 delayed will EK yet again come out of it smelling of roses? It will give them time to get some more crew hired!! Also will they get a good deal from Boeing for the 747-8?
More to the point, by cancelling the A340-600 and having the A380 delayed will EK yet again come out of it smelling of roses? It will give them time to get some more crew hired!! Also will they get a good deal from Boeing for the 747-8?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's now been acknowledged that EK is talking to Boeing about the 747-8I, although EK wants the "original" version of the aircraft, rather than the full length aircraft Boeing is now talking about. EK wants an aircraft that will fly DXB-LAX nonstop.
The "new" 747-8I has a range of 14,800kms (8,200nm/9,200mi) , which should be able to handle this? Airlines, particularly in Asia, have been pushing Boeing to develop a longer -8, similar in length to the -8F, which for some reason was originally longer than the pax model. It's difficult to see Boeing making two - one for EK and one for everyone else, so I guess EK will want to make a choice. That said, if EK ends up being the only airline to commit to the 747-8 (pax model), things might be different.
Here's the route display for DXB-LAX, showing as 13,420kms (7,426nm/8,339mi), so theoretically, it should be within the range of the "new" -8I, although Clark says this "cannot be done with a meaningful payload".
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=D...OR=&MAP-STYLE=
The design freeze for the -8I won't be until the middle of next year, so I guess there's plenty of time for horse-trading ...
The "new" 747-8I has a range of 14,800kms (8,200nm/9,200mi) , which should be able to handle this? Airlines, particularly in Asia, have been pushing Boeing to develop a longer -8, similar in length to the -8F, which for some reason was originally longer than the pax model. It's difficult to see Boeing making two - one for EK and one for everyone else, so I guess EK will want to make a choice. That said, if EK ends up being the only airline to commit to the 747-8 (pax model), things might be different.
Here's the route display for DXB-LAX, showing as 13,420kms (7,426nm/8,339mi), so theoretically, it should be within the range of the "new" -8I, although Clark says this "cannot be done with a meaningful payload".
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=D...OR=&MAP-STYLE=
The design freeze for the -8I won't be until the middle of next year, so I guess there's plenty of time for horse-trading ...
Last edited by akerosid; 28th Oct 2006 at 13:47. Reason: Addition of range details
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere nice and warm
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the 14,800 km range with a full load (pax + cargo)? If it is just using a full pax load, then this will explain the statements by Clark. It seems EK will depend on a lot of cargo to make this a profitable route, and the range of a fully loaded aircraft is well below the one needed to have direct services.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere nice and warm
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As they do with every route, what exactly is your point
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dubai
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you answer my question first?
It comes under the category of "knowing what you don't know" pilots have many talents
sorting out airline economics is not one of them 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Palm
Posts: 702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has to be more to it. EK are indirectly suffering the pinch from the Southerly brethren. More unrestricted cash in rough times...
No cheap acft anymore (A380s) UFN and the alternative (A346s, A345s B772s and B773s) do not replace it. No capacity = no growth. No (other) cheap alternative to be competitive due to probably no ca$h. probably, never thought things would get this bad (Airbus).
They have got to reinvent themselves and I think they may now a golden opportunity to instead themselves instead of trying to match EY's and QR's continued but unsustainable growth.
EK have to shore up their foundations now and here is the opportunity. 2 to 3 years will be enough to gain speed again and be more commercially rational instead of trying to match EY's or QR's unrealistic growth.
No cheap acft anymore (A380s) UFN and the alternative (A346s, A345s B772s and B773s) do not replace it. No capacity = no growth. No (other) cheap alternative to be competitive due to probably no ca$h. probably, never thought things would get this bad (Airbus).
They have got to reinvent themselves and I think they may now a golden opportunity to instead themselves instead of trying to match EY's and QR's continued but unsustainable growth.
EK have to shore up their foundations now and here is the opportunity. 2 to 3 years will be enough to gain speed again and be more commercially rational instead of trying to match EY's or QR's unrealistic growth.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Is the 14,800 km range with a full load (pax + cargo)? If it is just using a full pax load, then this will explain the statements by Clark. It seems EK will depend on a lot of cargo to make this a profitable route, and the range of a fully loaded aircraft is well below the one needed to have direct services.
EK yesterday publically announced that they will start non-stop DXB-GRU in October 2007, using the 772LR. QR will also ply the same route with a 346HGW.
Samba lessons, anyone?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because you read speculation in the aviation press doesn't mean it will come to pass! I never believe anything here until it actually happens.........and even then I'm not always convinced!
