EK and the 787
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK and the 787
Given the recent 787 visit to Farnborough, I thought this post would be timely. As far as I know, EK has not ordered any version of the 787. Why not? Seems like they have spent most of their money on A380s, A350s and 777-300s.
Why would EK not be interested in the 787? Is it a seating issue (far lower seat count vs. alternatives)? One would think the 787 would be well suited for longer, thinner routes (great feed for the bigger A380s at Dubai hub). Meanwhile, QR, EY and GF have ordered various versions of the 787. What do they know that EK doesn't about the 787? Is EK just focused on a seat volume strategy with the massive A380 order? Any thoughts?
Why would EK not be interested in the 787? Is it a seating issue (far lower seat count vs. alternatives)? One would think the 787 would be well suited for longer, thinner routes (great feed for the bigger A380s at Dubai hub). Meanwhile, QR, EY and GF have ordered various versions of the 787. What do they know that EK doesn't about the 787? Is EK just focused on a seat volume strategy with the massive A380 order? Any thoughts?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: KUL
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787
Iver - EK tried very hard and for many years to convince Boeing to launch the 787-10X. Boeing wouldn't commit, because by doing so, they would create an in-house competition to some of their own 777 models.
Instead Airbus is now building the 350-1000 exactly according to the same EK specs. There you go...
Instead Airbus is now building the 350-1000 exactly according to the same EK specs. There you go...
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline has said that the 787 is too small for its needs, but I can't help thinking that they are making a mistake. It seems that the plan is that the 359 will be the smallest acft in its fleet, once the 332s and 772s are disposed of. Now, with the order book that EK has, it needs to access new markets. Is the 359/773 the best aircraft to do this? It's still a 320-350 seater.
QR will have the 788 (as well as its narrowbody Airbuses); won't it have an advantage over EK in accessing markets where larger aircraft can't operate economically; QR can then develop these markets and add larger aircraft in its own time. Ultimately, in order to develop new markets, EK will need to force its way into new markets where the likes of EY and QR are already established. A 788/789 would allow them to compete more effectively and (as the 332 and the 310/AB6 before it) act as the entry level aircraft, then building it for the 77W and larger aircraft to enter the route.
QR will have the 788 (as well as its narrowbody Airbuses); won't it have an advantage over EK in accessing markets where larger aircraft can't operate economically; QR can then develop these markets and add larger aircraft in its own time. Ultimately, in order to develop new markets, EK will need to force its way into new markets where the likes of EY and QR are already established. A 788/789 would allow them to compete more effectively and (as the 332 and the 310/AB6 before it) act as the entry level aircraft, then building it for the 77W and larger aircraft to enter the route.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dubai
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I think there is a point to be made about having a smaller aircraft to ply the new routes, EK will never fly narrow bodies. EY, QR (and others) have failed to realize this integral part of the business model.
Perhaps the A333 will be smaller or more efficient on the thinner routes (or did they cancel those orders)? One other thing EK seems to do well is to play one manufacturer against the other and I'm sure they get good deals because of it. With the number of Airbus orders coming long after the last 777 arrives they may look Stateside again, but it's not like them to be so late to the party.
Perhaps the A333 will be smaller or more efficient on the thinner routes (or did they cancel those orders)? One other thing EK seems to do well is to play one manufacturer against the other and I'm sure they get good deals because of it. With the number of Airbus orders coming long after the last 777 arrives they may look Stateside again, but it's not like them to be so late to the party.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
akerosid,
Thank you for your well-thought-out response. Exactly what I was thinking. Not all routes will support such large aircraft. You could use the 787 to fly the longer, thinner routes that would not support a 777 or A350. As an example, Continental Airlines in the States has announced that their first 787 will be serving Auckland from Houston, Texas - that is a very long route. At the end of the day, you need feed for the major hub and you need to control distribution. Perhaps you could start service with the 787, generate more demand, and then transition to a 777 or A350 down the road. That's the point.
Again, EY and QR use larger aircraft and yet they are also loading up on fuel-efficient 787s. I guess it comes down to different strategies.
Thank you for your well-thought-out response. Exactly what I was thinking. Not all routes will support such large aircraft. You could use the 787 to fly the longer, thinner routes that would not support a 777 or A350. As an example, Continental Airlines in the States has announced that their first 787 will be serving Auckland from Houston, Texas - that is a very long route. At the end of the day, you need feed for the major hub and you need to control distribution. Perhaps you could start service with the 787, generate more demand, and then transition to a 777 or A350 down the road. That's the point.
Again, EY and QR use larger aircraft and yet they are also loading up on fuel-efficient 787s. I guess it comes down to different strategies.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes and on paper the A350-1000 performance figures are only marginally better than the 777. As we know when every Airbus appears its actual performance is worse than expected so in reality the A350-1000 will match the 777. I'm sure the A350 will be much better than the A330/340 but that is all!
Also what is going to power the A350-1000, I don't think they have an engine powerful enough yet?
Also what is going to power the A350-1000, I don't think they have an engine powerful enough yet?
It "only" needs 93-94k thrust engines, compared to 110-115k on the 773ER or 772LR, so powering it shouldn't be problem. Think RR have got a Trent in development for it
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like a nice flight deck:
Photos: Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Makes even the 777 look a bit outdated...
Photos: Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Makes even the 777 look a bit outdated...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Crawley, Surrey
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Halas, am sure RR engines quickly brings the 773 and 772 powered by the RR to mind
.......am sure the 787 will be powered by appropriately rated RR engines not the donkeys running the 773 or the 772
The flightdeck looks futuristic......... inshalla
EK get a few of those. Otherwise, will definately "defect" to N. Korea ........sorry meant QR
just to fly the 787
.......am sure the 787 will be powered by appropriately rated RR engines not the donkeys running the 773 or the 772The flightdeck looks futuristic.........
inshalla EK get a few of those. Otherwise, will definately "defect" to N. Korea ........sorry meant QR just to fly the 787
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dubai
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like a nice flight deck:
Makes even the 777 look a bit outdated...
Makes even the 777 look a bit outdated...
build a side-stick, get over it 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: onboard an A6- enroute to India
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is outdated, as has every Boeing since the 747-400 been, I mean control columns build a side-stick, get over it
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: OS
Age: 65
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good B737- 800 replacement
Its size is the obvious choice for a B737 replacement.
Not to be a competitor to the B777.
We'll have to wait a few years to see the expected inservice life expectancy of the compsite plastics.
Not to be a competitor to the B777.
We'll have to wait a few years to see the expected inservice life expectancy of the compsite plastics.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787 just too small.
EK will still have the 200 L's but they can afford to develop new routes with bigger A/C, they did in NZ.
Rumour around here is that the 350 (1000)s on order are about to be turned off ( the latest 380 order was a bit of a sweetner to A/B) because there is no engine at the moment that delivers the 92-94 T and will fit under the wing. Major U/C redesign needed is not going to happen.
Prediction: in 5-6 years, EK will have only 777 and 380's of various models.
EK will still have the 200 L's but they can afford to develop new routes with bigger A/C, they did in NZ.
Rumour around here is that the 350 (1000)s on order are about to be turned off ( the latest 380 order was a bit of a sweetner to A/B) because there is no engine at the moment that delivers the 92-94 T and will fit under the wing. Major U/C redesign needed is not going to happen.
Prediction: in 5-6 years, EK will have only 777 and 380's of various models.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: You Name It.
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is no engine at the moment that delivers the 92-94 T
