Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Middle East
Reload this Page >

EK and the 787

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Middle East Many expats still flying in Knoteetingham. Regional issues can be discussed here.

EK and the 787

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 20th July 2010 | 02:08
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,483
Likes: 0
From: Europe
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?
Iver is offline  
Reply
Old 20th July 2010 | 02:13
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,835
Likes: 85
From: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Too Small,

Next question?
Wizofoz is offline  
Reply
Old 20th July 2010 | 13:27
  #3 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
From: KUL
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...
MrMachfivepointfive is offline  
Reply
Old 20th July 2010 | 18:36
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,880
Likes: 0
From: Dublin, Ireland
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.
akerosid is offline  
Reply
Old 20th July 2010 | 19:25
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
From: Dubai
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.
Townie is offline  
Reply
Old 20th July 2010 | 20:34
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,483
Likes: 0
From: Europe
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.
Iver is offline  
Reply
Old 21st July 2010 | 02:24
  #7 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 56
Likes: 7
From: HK
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?
However, on paper, the A350-1000 economy figures are significantly better than the 777, for same performance (well, not quite, shorter range)

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
Freehills is offline  
Reply
Old 22nd July 2010 | 03:34
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,483
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Looks like a nice flight deck:

Photos: Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner Aircraft Pictures | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Makes even the 777 look a bit outdated...
Iver is offline  
Reply
Old 22nd July 2010 | 06:11
  #9 (permalink)  
a345xxx
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well there is the 777 NG in the pipeline!
 
Reply
Old 22nd July 2010 | 07:01
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
From: Eternal Beach
RR engines? Not wanting!

halas
halas is offline  
Reply
Old 22nd July 2010 | 10:33
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
From: Crawley, Surrey
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
McGreaser is offline  
Reply
Old 22nd July 2010 | 11:17
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
From: Sandpit
What??? No tray table? What a rip off.....
BobDole is offline  
Reply
Old 22nd July 2010 | 18:12
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
From: Dubai
Looks like a nice flight deck:
Makes even the 777 look a bit outdated...
It is outdated, as has every Boeing since the 747-400 been, I mean control columns build a side-stick, get over it
ruserious is offline  
Reply
Old 22nd July 2010 | 19:49
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
From: onboard an A6- enroute to India
It is outdated, as has every Boeing since the 747-400 been, I mean control columns build a side-stick, get over it
Wish pprune had an option like face book where users cud like the reply
IndAir967 is offline  
Reply
Old 23rd July 2010 | 06:33
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
From: OS
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.
Capt Groper is offline  
Reply
Old 24th July 2010 | 10:44
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 0
From: Europe
you want to fly with a sidestick, jump on your flight sim at home and hook up the joystick
Aussie is offline  
Reply
Old 24th July 2010 | 12:11
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
From: Dubai, UAE
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.
singleseater is offline  
Reply
Old 24th July 2010 | 12:32
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
From: You Name It.
there is no engine at the moment that delivers the 92-94 T
The RR Trent XWB is rate frozen at 93000lbs. RR say the engine can go to 95000 but Airbus only require a max rating of 93000. The engine is already running.
jackbauer is offline  
Reply
Old 24th July 2010 | 12:47
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
From: Back home
"The engine is already running"

Bit premature isn't it? They haven't even built the airplane yet. Better to to switch the engine off for now and save fuel!
dustyprops is offline  
Reply
Old 25th July 2010 | 16:24
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Hahaha too funny. No worries bout the fuel.... plenty of that in the Middle east!
Aussie is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.