EK orders 32 more A380's(Merged)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dubai
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shazar...
I'm just so tired of bs like that being spread around the net. I recommend this article in the Economist (one of the world’s best and well reputed magazines) for a balanced and good article about the ME carriers and EK in particular.
The biggest threat to future EK expansion is protectionism from other governments, especially in emerging markets like India. Open skies is essential for the future strategy of EK to make Dubai into a global hub of transportation, and as a result UAE has open skies agreements with many countries.
It's in UAE and EKs interests as a small country with a small home market to be as open and business friendly as possible to attract skilled workers and investments to the region. As the Economist article points out very well EK is in no need of subsidies. The aviation friendly climate and low cost base of Dubai is more than enough to give EK a competitive advantage that allows the company to both have lower costs and higher profits than its main European and Asian competitors.
I'm just so tired of bs like that being spread around the net. I recommend this article in the Economist (one of the world’s best and well reputed magazines) for a balanced and good article about the ME carriers and EK in particular.
The biggest threat to future EK expansion is protectionism from other governments, especially in emerging markets like India. Open skies is essential for the future strategy of EK to make Dubai into a global hub of transportation, and as a result UAE has open skies agreements with many countries.
It's in UAE and EKs interests as a small country with a small home market to be as open and business friendly as possible to attract skilled workers and investments to the region. As the Economist article points out very well EK is in no need of subsidies. The aviation friendly climate and low cost base of Dubai is more than enough to give EK a competitive advantage that allows the company to both have lower costs and higher profits than its main European and Asian competitors.
Mana, possibly the biggest load of rubbish on pprune.
I wish most countries would close open skies. Why should they care about Dubai and EK. open skies in UAE who cares. Maybe QF or SQ should base 15 aircraft here and utilize the skies like EK do, and then whinge about fair treatment ( Canada )
What friendly and cheap Dubai are you talking about. The rudest and most repulsive mish mash of trash and crooks on the planet ( except wall st. )
When has anyone here lived up to contracts or even basic humanity.
And I actually don't mind dubai and EK, but can't deny the reality of this place.
I wish most countries would close open skies. Why should they care about Dubai and EK. open skies in UAE who cares. Maybe QF or SQ should base 15 aircraft here and utilize the skies like EK do, and then whinge about fair treatment ( Canada )
What friendly and cheap Dubai are you talking about. The rudest and most repulsive mish mash of trash and crooks on the planet ( except wall st. )
When has anyone here lived up to contracts or even basic humanity.
And I actually don't mind dubai and EK, but can't deny the reality of this place.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dubai
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sigh...
Open skies = Good for Dubai, good for EK and good for the air travellers as it provides lower fares and a quality product. I do agree it’s not so good for EK competitors that have a cost base that is severely higher than EKs. There is no doubt that many of the traditional legacy carriers will have trouble keeping in the air as a result of this. However I think the interests of the average consumer should be put before the interests of legacy carriers that are not able to adjust to new times.
Business friendly or as I put it aviation friendly = Low taxes, great infrastructure, easy and fast decision making process. This makes it easier for EK to compete, and makes EK a more profitable company that can offer lower fares than most of it competitors.
Cheap =? I never wrote anything about Dubai being cheap, but after the financial crisis good house accommodation has certainly become very affordable. The point and the argument I think you refer to is my point regarding EKs low cost base. That is explained above. EK also have lower wage costs than European and American competitors because of the 0% income tax, or as I put it a business friendly climate. Dubai has done and is doing a lot to attract business and skilful workers, I was just referring to why that is and has been essential for EKs success.
I did not refer to how you might feel it is to live in Dubai whether you have problems with the people, traffic, treating of women or any of the other known complaints about this place. That was not the point of my post. I just pointed out why EK does not get and does not need subsidies, and why EK has become the most successful airline of the 21st century.
Open skies = Good for Dubai, good for EK and good for the air travellers as it provides lower fares and a quality product. I do agree it’s not so good for EK competitors that have a cost base that is severely higher than EKs. There is no doubt that many of the traditional legacy carriers will have trouble keeping in the air as a result of this. However I think the interests of the average consumer should be put before the interests of legacy carriers that are not able to adjust to new times.
Business friendly or as I put it aviation friendly = Low taxes, great infrastructure, easy and fast decision making process. This makes it easier for EK to compete, and makes EK a more profitable company that can offer lower fares than most of it competitors.
Cheap =? I never wrote anything about Dubai being cheap, but after the financial crisis good house accommodation has certainly become very affordable. The point and the argument I think you refer to is my point regarding EKs low cost base. That is explained above. EK also have lower wage costs than European and American competitors because of the 0% income tax, or as I put it a business friendly climate. Dubai has done and is doing a lot to attract business and skilful workers, I was just referring to why that is and has been essential for EKs success.
I did not refer to how you might feel it is to live in Dubai whether you have problems with the people, traffic, treating of women or any of the other known complaints about this place. That was not the point of my post. I just pointed out why EK does not get and does not need subsidies, and why EK has become the most successful airline of the 21st century.
Last edited by ManaDubai; 11th Jun 2010 at 13:15.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hamburg - Germany
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chairman of Jazeera airways made a press statement few months ago published in a local Kuwaiti press demanding all GCC countries to adopt open sky policy. Mutual agreements between certain governments do exist, I agree with you, but still there are no formal legislations in place on large scale. It is still cherry-pick. UAE does not have competition regulating body for organsing competition. Alike all GCC and more, UAE controls many blue chips industries.
I read more about orders of planes for Emirates than products, and more rewards for innovative products to Etihad and Qatar Airways than Emirates. Skytrax has some to offer on this. Award winning products such as sky chief, sky nany , ..etc all did not start at Emirates. Even lately, a lost making airline was the first to resume flights to Iraq.
All regional airlines pay free taxes salaries. Therefore, this is not a unique advantage. However, majority of people working for Emirates are expats and this is truly supportive. If you think about this to far extent, you will find the geo-economic and native population size supports Emirates. I had access to research done by Economist in this regard few months ago and just 3 days ago a magazine article from a reputable and legal UK HR body supporting my argument. for Mr. ManaDubai, I do have access to Economist as well as numerous international publications but it is very important to state an opinion in a polite manner and acknwoledge existance of others.
I am sorry, but I can see big difference between the way I think and you do so Mr Wizofoz. I think about being more professional competitor, demanding for general framework for the basis of competition and sustaining permanent profitability (i.e. capitalist) and you think about employing tribal approach to prop-up your stand (socialist). In this part of the world, the concepts of competition, measurement and performance are truly new to tribal people as much as when it comes to issues like corporate governance which do not exist in Emirates (e.g. Chairman holds conflicting roles). This is not only my opinion, but I worked with top international bankers and businessmen who do hold the same opinion. (again I am sorry but this is my true opinion based on many years of experience).
Thanks Mr Wizofoz for your professional attitude and opinion. I really appreciate talking to people holding proper communication skills like your good-self
ManaDubai .. you are affable and polite communicator
I read more about orders of planes for Emirates than products, and more rewards for innovative products to Etihad and Qatar Airways than Emirates. Skytrax has some to offer on this. Award winning products such as sky chief, sky nany , ..etc all did not start at Emirates. Even lately, a lost making airline was the first to resume flights to Iraq.
All regional airlines pay free taxes salaries. Therefore, this is not a unique advantage. However, majority of people working for Emirates are expats and this is truly supportive. If you think about this to far extent, you will find the geo-economic and native population size supports Emirates. I had access to research done by Economist in this regard few months ago and just 3 days ago a magazine article from a reputable and legal UK HR body supporting my argument. for Mr. ManaDubai, I do have access to Economist as well as numerous international publications but it is very important to state an opinion in a polite manner and acknwoledge existance of others.
I am sorry, but I can see big difference between the way I think and you do so Mr Wizofoz. I think about being more professional competitor, demanding for general framework for the basis of competition and sustaining permanent profitability (i.e. capitalist) and you think about employing tribal approach to prop-up your stand (socialist). In this part of the world, the concepts of competition, measurement and performance are truly new to tribal people as much as when it comes to issues like corporate governance which do not exist in Emirates (e.g. Chairman holds conflicting roles). This is not only my opinion, but I worked with top international bankers and businessmen who do hold the same opinion. (again I am sorry but this is my true opinion based on many years of experience).
Thanks Mr Wizofoz for your professional attitude and opinion. I really appreciate talking to people holding proper communication skills like your good-self
ManaDubai .. you are affable and polite communicator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airports capable of handling A380s...
Can anyone list the airports worldwide that are CAPABLE of handling an A380? Just wondering where EK will put A380s as they deliver more (beyond just adding more frequencies to LHR, CDG, ICN, SYD, etc.)...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: KUL
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iver...Iver...
Do I hear a faint echo from the year 1969? Oh my god! What airport could possibly handle a Boeing 747? Since airports used to be round grassy patches, aircraft technology has always driven airport technology. Not the other way around. Aircraft are just comparably the more expensive piece of kit. Otherwise flying boats would still have a great future. The clipped wings of the Short Stirling and the triple fin of the Connie (both to fit hangars - not runways) are the exceptions from the rule.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ek still sniffing around the 748, as it is needed for SFO / LAX. You just have to watch the number of 'significant' people who fly to SFO then on to Boeing to know something is up and not just another 777 order. For info though, Boeing rubbing EKs nose in it as EK didn't take up the initial offer (longer range, shorter upper deck) when they were given the chance of a lot of input into the design. Typically EK then started wingeing when Boeing went with the design the other carriers wanted (more seats, shorter range)even though they had not shown any interest. Also EK still has a 748 project pilot (though what qualifications he has to be in the job I have no idea, I believe never flown 747, joined on 310 cargo then as Eds best mate got the transfer to 777!!!!). The FOs love him - NOT!
So anyway 748 still a possibility but tied up with politics of A350 / 787-1000 / engine selections and 777 300LR!!! A long complicated story!
Remember its a rumour network, but this is what I heard!!
So anyway 748 still a possibility but tied up with politics of A350 / 787-1000 / engine selections and 777 300LR!!! A long complicated story!
Remember its a rumour network, but this is what I heard!!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
personally don't see the 748, yes it works for LAX/SFO but EK is not going to get a small fleet to do one route. They could send 380 with 400 pax and full cargo until the higher weight version comes at less cost IE set up cost for the 748
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought A380 had problems just getting the bags on board when full passenger load, let alone trying to get any cargo on!! When is this higher weight version due to be available? I'm sure the load factor will have to be substantial to justify the huge fuel burn the A380 has!
Also I think there is a degree of playing one company off against another ie EK has just placed a big order with Airbus so Boeing will not want to miss out, they need the business as well so I think there may be something coming up in the future.
This leaves us with the sticky issue of pilot recruitment and from what I know it is not going well, recently on one of the roadshows hundreds applied, only single numbers accepted for interview. The trainers are keeping up the standards so not that many are getting through Sim ride. Even AAR knows he's in trouble! We all know the summer months will be touch and go as so many are maxing out on the hours - I certainly am!
Keep Discovering
Also I think there is a degree of playing one company off against another ie EK has just placed a big order with Airbus so Boeing will not want to miss out, they need the business as well so I think there may be something coming up in the future.
This leaves us with the sticky issue of pilot recruitment and from what I know it is not going well, recently on one of the roadshows hundreds applied, only single numbers accepted for interview. The trainers are keeping up the standards so not that many are getting through Sim ride. Even AAR knows he's in trouble! We all know the summer months will be touch and go as so many are maxing out on the hours - I certainly am!
Keep Discovering
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just trying to dispel some of the myths
It is very easy to copy flightplans on the same route, the same day for a T7 and a A380, and it will be even easier once the latter picks up the 201 again.
I challenge every one to do so and to judge by themselves about the remaining cargo capacity on a JFK flight and about the fuel-burn vs. pax-number or vs. kg transported.
I am not alone having done so and all came to the same myth busting conclusion.
Up to you to check weather it's the AI spin or the PPRuNe spin.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure thing buddy, I am not contesting that.
What I am simply saying, is that the A380 uses MORE fuel vs. pax or load than a T7. It can therefore NOT be more ecological, what they always brag about.
I did not go into profits, as a bigger one should per definition deliver more yield, as the initial costs (trfc rights, crew needed, handling fees etc.) are smaller in comparison.
On the other hand your math, although correct, can be spinned at wish:
On a JFK route
- 300 to 400 pax are transported cheapest with a T7
- 480 to 600 with a A380
- 800 with two T7's
- 900 with one T7 and one A380
- 950 with two A380's
- and so forth.
Every aircraft handling such a sector has it's perfect passenger number, just have sales bring you this match, and your tube of metal is the best.
The only real comparison comes therefore with the burn per capita or per kg transported. And incontestably the T7 is the winner in this respect, thus the most ecological.
That's what I said.
What I am simply saying, is that the A380 uses MORE fuel vs. pax or load than a T7. It can therefore NOT be more ecological, what they always brag about.
I did not go into profits, as a bigger one should per definition deliver more yield, as the initial costs (trfc rights, crew needed, handling fees etc.) are smaller in comparison.
On the other hand your math, although correct, can be spinned at wish:
On a JFK route
- 300 to 400 pax are transported cheapest with a T7
- 480 to 600 with a A380
- 800 with two T7's
- 900 with one T7 and one A380
- 950 with two A380's
- and so forth.
Every aircraft handling such a sector has it's perfect passenger number, just have sales bring you this match, and your tube of metal is the best.
The only real comparison comes therefore with the burn per capita or per kg transported. And incontestably the T7 is the winner in this respect, thus the most ecological.
That's what I said.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UAE
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly, who could give a flying **** which is good at what?
The pilots on ALL fleets are screwed equally by management. Why do you care what or how many you carry?
Get lives!!
Next topic..............
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find a 2 seater motor glider more efficient, and by your argument-
gasp.... The A330-------- less of a fuel burn than the 777
gasp.... The A330-------- less of a fuel burn than the 777
For the sake of the case, stay focused and compare apples with apples.
Take a 201 and a 203, on the same day, with both full pax load, see what you burn per pax and per kg, check how much extra cargo (in % and in t) you can load, and then come back.
A 330 (especially the -300) is as fantastic aircraft on its specific routes, no doubt.
If you dig a little deeper, you would realise that any twin with only two landing gear struts is a fine machine, as the manufacturers match each other quite nicely.
It is the anachronistic design of four engines and four struts that make the whale too heavy to be able to match the efficiency of twins. As simple as that.
The A380 is quieter, bigger, makes more money due to the hype as long as you fill it, it has a beautiful bar and so forth. I do not deny it, it has its attraction and assets. But neither can any 380-fanatic deny that it is simply too heavy (for the time being) and any quarter pounded self proclaimed professional of the skies might remember lesson number one of aerodynamics: The heavier, the more burn.
The T7 dates back to the early eighties, it simply can't be as sophisticated as a brand new model. The mere fact that it still competes in efficiency with the A380, should point out the latters weakness: It is simply not as efficient as proclaimed.
This is what is bugging me. An aircraft that brings only fractional improvement, that has a very narrowly peaked best performance curve and is ordered in huge numbers, is a potential threat to a company.
Right guys, please take a break from the debate as to whether the 380 or T7 is the best, we can go on ad nauseum and everyone still has the same viewpoint. Any more posts on this facet of the thread gets binned
EGGW
EGGW