San Francisco Marks Second Westcoast Gateway For Emirates
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dubai
Age: 46
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
San Francisco Marks Second Westcoast Gateway For Emirates
09th Apr 2008 SAN FRANCISCO MARKS SECOND WESTCOAST GATEWAY FOR EMIRATES
San Francisco’s Golden Gate bridge links the city across the mouth of the Pacific Ocean.
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. 
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. 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.
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
San Francisco’s Golden Gate bridge links the city across the mouth of the Pacific Ocean.
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.
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: 1st world country
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just came back from IAH, my first one at all...what a f
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!
k! My arse is still hurting and the bloody hotel is in the fng middle of nowhere! And the flight seems to never end...SFO/LAX/IAH? Not wanting, no no!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"Press 2", and keep working on the exit strategy.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
GMDS - I'm interested to know the difference in payload and burnoff, please tell!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In the State of Perpetual Confusion
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: earth
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Longer Leg?
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.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
So distances a bit irrelevant if the winds are so different?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dubai,UAE
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In the State of Perpetual Confusion
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
And indeed using nearly max flex in high summer on the way to SYD is common.
And indeed using nearly max flex in high summer on the way to SYD is common.