Emitates to Canada
 

Hello Chaps;

Does anyone know if Emirates are planning any direct flights to Canada in the near future. And, if so, to which cities?

I wouldn't have asked, but I just found out that they are going Dubai - JFK, so Canada should also be reachable, no?

Thanks

From what I understand the next destinations in Nth America will be LA and San Francisco, with no plans for Canada.

Actually, Toronto is in the near-term works. I heard it may even be as soon as the end of this year. Certainly by next year. Vancouver is on the network map if you look at the website, but I don't think it'll be until 2006.

Interestly, it's about 15 hours to YYZ and only 15.5 to YVR...

Fair enough, I hadn't heard or read that anywhere, I was going on the article from the gulf news.

Emirates aims for other US cities
New York | By Duraid Al Baik, UAE Editor | 04/06/2004 | Print this page


Emirates airline plans to spread its wings quickly in the potential-rich US market by starting non-stop flights to San Francisco, Houston and Washington DC.

The airline has just entered an elite club that flies to five continents after launching non-stop flights to New York this week.

With this, Emirates becomes the first carrier in the region to operate direct flights to the US.

Maurice Flanagan, vice chairman and managing director of the Emirates Group, told a press conference that Dubai's phenomenal development is attracting an increasing number of American travellers and businesses.

"We plan to invest more than $2 billion over the next two years to develop our market share in the States and open more gateways."

He said Dubai has been a magnet for commercial development, tourism and multinational business interests.

"There are already 500 American companies operating in the emirate. The inauguration of non-stop flights to New York is just the start for other destinations in the States and the rest of the continent," he added.

Flanagan said Dubai air traffic is growing at a remarkable 5.4 per cent annually, exceeding the 2.1 per cent global growth average.

Dubai International Airport, which has a current passenger capacity of 25 million per year, will be able to handle 75 million passengers by 2012, following the completion of the expansion project, he added.

"Dubai handles passengers from all over the region and there are no restrictions on the expansion of Emirates airline in the American market.

"The acquisition of the long-haul aircraft A340-500 which is capable of flying up to 17 hours non-stop has enabled the airline to earmark its US service and to expand it further in the near future, to cater to the anticipated growth in demand," Flanagan said.

The airline has equipped its Dubai-New York flight with 12 fully enclosed First Class Suites which are the first of their kind in commercial aviation.

Flanagan said Emirates is expecting significant growth in the number of passengers between Dubai and New York and would consider increasing its daily service to two or even four flights in the future, based on market demand, which is also expected to grow sharply.

He said the launch of the New York service has made Emirates a truly global carrier serving major business and leisure centres on all continents.

But I guess if you say they are flying to Canada soon then I guess they are.

The plan for Toronto is a few years away was the answer received from VP. They have no doubt that they could fill the aircraft but it would be low yield passengers. As per everything else around here, it could however change in a blink. But that is the current situation. Sf is scheduled for January 1st 2005. Rio de Janeiro to follow. :O

As I understand it, Etihad may be off to Canada next year, the first route for the 340-500, but you know its only rumour.
Seems a long way to me!

If you put enough fuel in these planes to make non stop flights, how many passengers do you think you will be able to carry? And from a marketing standpoint, some westerners are a little uneasy about the flight crew of middle eastern airlines-don't flame me, its a fact of life.

Well, the proportion of "Middle Eastern" flight crew at Emirates is probably the same as the proportion at United, AA, BA or any other of the world majors! It really is one of the world's most international airlines.

And what do you mean by "Middle Eastern" anyway - appearance? What about me, a WASP who unfortunately doesn't use SPF enough?

As for performance, I understand the A340-500 can do JFK-DXB year-round non-stop with a full payload. Pretty impressive machine if you ask me.

IJP, I will flame you, because you deserve it. First off, most of the crews on Emirates are Expats, ie. Aussies, Brits, yanks etc. , secondly what does it matter. They are highly trained professionals and the passport they possess is irrellevant. In the terrorist attacks of September 11, it wasn't the flight crew that was middle eastern.

If I was to choose between a Middle Eastern Airline and an American one right now, based on track record I would rest a lot easier in the seat of a Middle Eastern Airliner. Which airlines were used in the attacks ijp????

Finally you obviously know absolutely nothing about aircraft and aircraft performance. The A340-500 does the trip from Dubai direct to New York in about 13 and a half hours with the return trip being about 12 and a half hours, and they do it easy, with a full payload. The same from Dubai to Melbourne, and Dubai to Sydney. It climbs like a dog, but considering it has fuel for about 14 hours flying thats understandable.

Finally, maybe for some insular paranoid americans, the Middle Eastern airlines will struggle with marketing, but travel to Australia, Europe and Sth Africa any time with Emirates and they are absolutely full, and are making money hand over fist. Maybe all those American carriers could take a leaf out of their marketing techniques, since they all seem to be either bankrupt or on the brink of declaring it.

Keep it nice please. If you two want to start shoving please do so by PM or email.

4HP

I will pass this on to a colleague who successfully managed to land his 300 tonne airliner in JFK two weeks ago, he was promptly arrested and placed in LEG IRONS!

His crime, they didnt like his name!

Mutt.

"DXB-JFK with a full payload"....

It is to laugh. What Airbus means by "full payloac" would not embarass your Honda for a week-end camping trip.

Emirates is champing at the bit for the arrival of the 777-300ER which will do the same trip carrying 25 tonnes more, 45 minutes faster, and use less fuel.

"4 engines 4 long haul" indeed. If Airbus spent half the money they do on sloganeering on engineering they might have a chance to rise above "beneath contempt".

The particular lame device mentioned weighs 20,0000 kilograms more when empty than the Boeing. What's the French for "inept"?

Mutt, I did not see any news on this - is there a link to a news source? I'd be interested in more details, if you have them.

:confused:

Lead Zeppelin,

No news thread for that case, but you should be able to find some news about the fact that they have agreed to stop chaining nationals of 27 countries who are allowed to enter on visa waivers. Presently people from these countries were held in chains if they had overstayed their 90 day visa on previous visits! People from countries not on the visa waiver list will still be chained!!!

Mutt.

Ok so let me get this straight, he wasn't led away in chains cos they didn't like his name, or because he was muslim or arab, but because on a previous visit he had overstayed his 90 day visa. Is that correct??? If so your first post was completely misleading.

A lot of countries arrest and deport people who have on a prior stay viloated their visa conditions. How do you think the people from the sub continent, and from the former Russian Republics, get treated in the UAE when it is found they overstayed their welcome last time. Not well I can tell you!

And as far as the A340-500 goes, all I am saying is the aircraft does the Dubai to Nth America flight comfortably, and with a full payload. I am not going to get into the argument over boeing versus Airbus, as that is not what was asked. But just a quick question Dropp the Pilot, where do you get the figure that 777-300ER does the trip 45 minutes faster, when the max Mach for A340-500 is M.86 (but more likely will cruise at M.84), and the typical cruise of the 777-300ER is also M.84. Also the MTOW for 777-300ER is 351,534 kgs, while MTOW for A340-500 is 372,000kgs. Also the range with full payload for A340-500 is 9,000 NM, while the range of the 777-300ER is only 7,880 NM.

Two completely different cases!!

Case 1: Crewmember on a valid "D" visa lead away in chains, held for 12 hours while questioned.
Case 2: USA has changed rules regarding how they will restrain people from visa waiver countries.

Mutt.

Ok well when read one after the other your posts certainly didn't make it clear they were two completely separate cases.

Case 1: If it is as you say it is, then it is a serious breach of the individuals human rights. I have to think though that there must have been other reasons for being detained.

Case 2: I don't see your problem with the way visa waiver country people are handled versus non visa waiver people. All countries throughout the world excercise varying amounts of discrimination in deciding who comes in freely to their country and who does not. It basically comes down to which countries they trust and which they don't. It happens here in the UAE, as an Australian, I can have as many fellow countrymen visit me here, and waltz in with no prior visas, whereas Sth Africans need to pay for a tourist visa. Also when it comes to overstaying your visa here, as an Australian I am escorted politely to a homeward bound plane, whereas as a Pakistani, you are shackled and placed in the back of a truck to the Immigration department, where you are detained until they can ship you off again in chains. The world is full of inequities but in this case and considering recent history, I can understand their differing rules for different nationalities.

Ahhh Airey....

The A340-500 has a higher MTOW to lift all the gas the two extra donks require to keep running for all that extra time in the air.

It's all in the MZFW that counts ;) Extra gas is extra cost. Droppy has a point.

Sure the range is greater. Who uses that? SQ. Who doesn't? EK.

On the current runs EK have, the stock 777-300 will carry the same load over the same distance, but it wouldn't look good having a one third empty aeroplane and showing your load factors reflecting the same.

Me thinks some lovely riviera homes were included in the deal on those doozies :)

halas

>>And from a marketing standpoint, some westerners are a little uneasy about the flight crew of middle eastern airlines-don't flame me, its a fact of life.<<

Absolutely true but you just can't say that publicly in these politically correct times.

Remember, American got in trouble for saying that South Americans trusted gringo pilots more than "Latin" pilots:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/pilotguide2.html

In less politcally correct countries you can still market the perceived superiority of the "western" pilot, e.g. the chinese advertisement featuring CX Captain Chris Hill currently in the TPE airport. The local pilots with CI have a dreadful safety record and the traveling public is keenly aware of it.

I'm sure EK will feature pilots of European ancestry in it's U.S. ad campaigns, while ironically, the U.S. carriers tend to feature pilots of non-western origin in ads to show how they promote "diversity".

ANSA,
No need to really comment on your posts, especially about the "Flight Crews" on 9-11, the implication being they were the ones responsible. In fact I was refering to Egypt Air.
As for a/c performance, It seems that Dropp could educate you, listen to him.

No need to really comment on your posts, especially about the "Flight Crews" on 9-11, the implication being they were the ones responsible.

I didn't imply they were responsible at all. All I said was it wasn't the flight crew that was middle eastern but a few crazy passengers. I was saying that the nationality of the flight crew makes no difference. As an air traffic controller dealing with a lot of pilots here in the Middle East, Egypt Air aren't the best, but certainly not the worst. Some of the worst disciplined and least professional pilots here in the Middle East are in fact US military pilots. They don't listen out on frequency, they don't readback their clearances, and then invariably do not follow their clearance properly.

I am still waiting for Dropp the pilot to "educate" me as to how he comes up with the figure that a 777-ER can do the trip from Dubai to New York 45 minutes faster than an a340-500, when they typically both cruise at M.84, and in fact the a340-500 can increase to M.86 if need be. I asked the pilot yesterday how full he was coming back from New York and he said the flight was almost full, so I am still waiting for you to come up with some figures to support your throw away line that

If you put enough fuel in these planes to make non stop flights, how many passengers do you think you will be able to carry?

How bout you come up with some actual figures mate!

Guys, having flown both the buses n the boeings, they have thier own strong points. With regards to the topic being discussed, Yes ! the -500 takes off about 30 tons heavier. however if you compare the max zero fuel weight, the ER definitely have the edge on the said route. The -500 cruises at typically .83 as compared to .84-.85 for the ER. However, try increasing the speed on the -500 to .86 and see the tremendous penalty on the fuel. And -500 carries almost 100 paxs less than the ER. With max ZFW of 237 tons , the ER is capable of reaching JFK or EWR in the summer months. During winter however, the penalty on the payload due to increased fuel req will not be below that of the -500. Hope this will help.

"Air no services" or "air no math skills"?

As I told you, the 340 weighs 20,000 kilos more than the ER when empty. The ER can do any EK sector which is currenty being done by the 340 Blunderjet. Ergo, on any sector done by the the ER instead of the 340, the first 160 passengers and their baggage ride for free, day in, day out, 365 days a year.

Now how crooked a deal do you have to cut to place a 340 on an airline's balance sheet?

Oh, and as for the .84 cruise proposed for the inept device, I can only tell you that I (in my 300) go by them like they are standing still when I am cruising .84, day in, day out, 365 days a year. Maybe the good, honest folks at Airbus fiddle with Mach-meters as well as balance sheets?

ANSW Please read rainforest comments. I am a Boeing pilot, however many friends comment on the fuel penelities when cranking up speed, and I have many times been a victom of this returning from SW Europe, and middle east. Constantly having to slow down because there is an Airbus in front of us.

And on you 9-11 post, your implication was in fact that it was an American Crew, and Airline, and it had some responsibility.

As for your comments about military pilots, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion.

Maybe ATC is a little over worked in the UAE, but I think you guys should chill out a bit. You all seem very up tight lately. It was always nice and welcome to check in with you all and get the automatic "Clear Direct To". The best clearance I ever recieved was from one of you guys. There was CB's everywhere and the controller said "everyone is cleared where ever they need to go."

A340-300 cruises at 80 usually
A340-500 cruises at 82 maybe 83 on a good day

B772,773 always at .84 if given their requested cruising level.. if stopped at a lower level..speed is less I have worked 777 that gave me 85.5

Airbus can say what they want in the brochure..no 340-500 will ever cruise at 86 on a long haul.

BAH ATC is excellent "CLEARED DIRECT SELEG LET US KNOW WHEN YOU ARE TALKING TO KUWAIT" Saves fuel, time money, and this man (EuroATC) also knows airplanes in the real world!

Ok last time I checked the Emirates A340-500's either flew north through Iranian Airspace to JFK, or East and South East from Dubai, to the Australian destinations, so when was the last time EuroATC,as a Baharaini Controller, actually spoke to an Emirates A340-500. The last 3 I have had I asked what there anticipated cruising Mach Number was and one said M.835, and the other 2 said M.84. I am only going on what the pilots tell me.

You are wrong about me making any implication about the crew or airline being responsible for 9-11. I think the fact that the airlines were american made them more likely to be targets of the terrorists. But what I said was, was that the crew on those flights was not middle eastern and 9-11 happened. The fact that you have a western crew does not make you immune to bad things happening, because in some cases like this the crew has no control over what happens, like this. I would never ever imply that the crew had a hand in what happened, no one could ever imply that and I certainly was not doing that.

By the way we are overworked here. But I guess all controllers say that. I think we give as much direct tracking as we can when it fits in with the traffic situation, but that is becoming more and more difficult with Qatar Airways and Emirates exploding in size, and Ettihad growing quickly.

Sounds like EK operate their A340-500's using Cost Index for speed seclection, therefore the M835/M84 at the start of the flight may be the fastest speed that they use, that speed will decrease as the weight reduces.


Mutt.

Mutt, if you talk Mach then thats not true, because thats why you climb as you get lighter at a constant Mach...but then the TAS is less. You guys argueing whose got the biggest stick, remember M.84 isn't the same TAS at different levels so if the bus or the boeing typically cruise at different levels then they will have a different TAS for the same Mach.

Someone made the point that the EK 773 can do the same routes as the EK345, is the ETOPS route longer to say SYD than the non ETOPS? I don't fly either by the way

airnoserviceaustralia, you should know that emirates does not always fly via teh airspace to JFK. I worked the 340-500 at least 1/2 dozen times before I left Bahrain. I also worked it inbound to Dubai from JFK. Also worked it to Gatwick, remember, that's where they went with the 340-500 for a couple weeks before starting JFK. I am going by what the pilot tells me also, when I asked the crew if they could increase to 84 (to fit in the 777 flow).they could not. They fit in the 330 flow at .82

For those wondering...
I have not changed my "location" yet.. I am no longer in Bahrain.. I just moved back to Canada

Euroatc ...check PM

Maybe because of the ridiculously restrictive nature that aircraft are handled through Bahraini and onto Saudi Airspace, they can't afford to wind up the speed cos they know they won't make it to JFK stuck at FL280 all the way to Europe. Yeh I know the response will be it isn't our fault its all Saudi's fault. Well why is it then that we are having to provide 10 minutes or vertical by BALUS rather than when Bahrain really needs it, over 100 NM later at COPPI. Yeh as ijp put it "Bahrain ATC is excellent":ok:

ANSAUS....

You are right, it is restrictive in Bahrain sometimes. The saudis want 10 minutes at the same level/speed and 20 minutes if the second is faster. They don't and won't negotiate ever on that. What do you expect the Bahrain controller to do?? Take 10 miles in trail from the UAE (you guys) and screw ourselves for 50 minutes trying to make a plan work.

Some of the guys in the UAE are good but some are terrible. Even with the 10 min we require some still manage to give us a bad of crap at BALUS.. how?? by slowing down 747's to 83 and speeding up A330's to 83. What does the pilot say when he calls us?? "Bahrain..we want to reduce to 82 (330) and Bahrain, we want to increase to 85-86 again (747)" You talk about Bahrain being restrictive???? Come on, have a look at yourselves before you start throwing stones.

Also don't forget, when the westbound rush is happening, you send BAH all your Dubai, Abu Dhabi departures along with the overflights all set up. Well guess what??? There are just as many aircraft departing DOHA and Bahrain that have to be fit in. This is why BAH asks for 10 minutes.

Go ahead flame away, I really don't care as I don't work there anymore. I just couldn't sit here and read people posting about A340-500's cruising at 86 without posting a reply.

Firstly, I never said the A340-500 cruises at M.86, all I said was the published maximum speed of an A340-500 is M.86.

Secondly, I have no problem with providing Bahrain with 10 minutes by COPPI. It is when you get a guy in Bahrain who knocks back a 747 in front of a 767 with 8 minutes at BALUS, but going to have almost 15 minutes at COPPI that drives us up the wall. I know you don't work there anymore and I know it is off topic, but just one thing. Most (yes I know not all) of us try not to set you guys up by putting the Bahrain lander on top of an over flyer and generally try and parallel the BAH lander south of BALUS. Why is it then that in 2 years in the UAE, I have seen only twice a BAH guy offer to help us out with our DXB lander rather than just transfer them over stuck on top of the overflyer. I know different topic, and you don't work in BAH anymore, but maybe other guys still in Bahrain can answer that one.

Well that one or two guys who would help you out with dubai landers is me. Where I've worked before, you would be shot if you set up the next guy with landers above overflights. Why don't any others do it.. because they are not trained to. Get your management to put it in the agreements

Funny how most EK threads turn into a mud-slinging exercise. And surprise, surprise, it doesn't even concern EK anymore.
Perhaps the moderator would consider changing the title on this one... or moving it to the ATC section.

Yes Picu, I'm sorry it has got off topic. But your comment about moving it to the ATC section isn't appreciated. ATC is part of Middle Eastern Aviation along with all the pilots, hosties, ground staff etc. Anyway I think this topic is about done to death anyway.

I disagree that this should be moved. I have been flying thru the area (UAE-BAH) for 25 years, and I am picking up a whole new dimention to ATC. Now if we could only get someone in here from Muscat!

WOW! My simple question about Emirates flying to Canada sure resulted in a multi -topic discussion.

So, back to my original thread issue, Toronto possibly by late 2004/early 2005, maybe Vancouver later.

By the way, for Dubai-Vancouver, any idea what route would be flown?

:D

I am surprised that they figure there would be enough traffic. I guess most airlines want to carry the flag evertwhere. We heard all that at Air Lanka and at Saudia in the early eighties. I dont think Saudia ever had success with the Houston run. I don't think that they ever tried LAX or DFW and they put it in employees contracts(Saudi Arabian companies and Govt.) requiring people to fly Saudia. And Saudia's pockets are much deeper than Emerates.
Delta,Northwest, United, Singapore and BA could do it, a middle east airline, could not