Name and shame
 

From today's Flight:

'Emirates has retired two of its 10 Airbus A340-500s, and is breaking one for spares, as sustained high fuel prices take their toll on operations of the four-engined aircraft.

The Dubai network carrier introduced the ultra-long range airliner in 2003, meaning that its oldest aircraft is only 10 years old. But the high cost of fuel makes the aircraft uneconomic to fly now, says Emirates Airline president Tim Clark.

“We’ve taken a big hit to retire them, but [their poor economics means] there’s no point in flying them,” says Clark. “They were designed in the late 1990s with fuel at $25-30. They fell over at $60 and at $120 they haven’t got a hope in hell.”

Clark says that Emirates is looking to accelerate the phase-out of its remaining eight A340-500s, and if it cannot find any buyers, “they’re going to the knacker’s yard”.

One A340-500 has been ferried to Ras al-Khaimah for parting out, while a second is stored in Dubai, where it may be retained as a back-up aircraft. “I’m thinking about that,” says Clark, who adds that Emirates has “zeroed” the aircraft’s book value.'

If you could substitute any current EK type for 'A340-500' in today's article to make a plausible article for Flight in 2020, which one would it be?

Hint: crap design and hubris engender crap design and hubris...

it was a nice plane to fly

Dropp, pure economics will answer that for you, four engines will never be as efficient as 2 similar ones.
I know where my money is. (and this isn't an AB vs B bashing comment)

Falcon- Its not necessarily about pure economics.

For example, When the BAe 146 was first designed, there wasn't an engine powerful enough for the size to fit on the wing, so they had to go for a four engine design.
Along the same line- if you are going to design an aircraft of around 600Tonnes Max all up weight, then you aint going to get it into the air with a twin.

Why did Boeing develop the 747-8 if they thought it was dead?
(and I see the Airforce 1 contract is for a quad) :)

It still is a nice airplane to fly!

:ok:BOF

I disagree Rex, yeah there will always be a case for 4 holers for specific missions, but the vast majority of aircraft sold and produced for commercial purposes will and continue to be powered by 2 engines.
Regarding a 560-600 tonne airframe, until there is a transformational leap in structural design that allows another 20-40% payload (due to a reduction in the airframe weight) then the fuel burnt from 4 engines to carry the payload/airframe will consign it to go the way of the dodo, unless of course fuel comes back to about 5-600 USD.
Donning tinfoil hat...:E

For me personally, I have flown four engine, three engine and two engine a/c. Without question, IMHO, loved all of three engined the best. Just something nice about one extra power plant to rely on, especially over any large body of water.

Name and shame
 

Here you go Dropp - some more naming and shaming...

Will Boeing's 747 line stay alive long enough to replace Air Force One?

Thats a question being kicked around these days among aerospace observers because Boeings biggest jet seems to be edging closer to stall speed just when the Air Force is looking for a replacement for its presidential jet.

So far this year, the 747-8 has lost as many orders as it won (five), leaving the four-engine model with a backlog of just 53 aircraft.

Even with the slower production rate of 1.75 aircraft per month that Boeing will implement next year, there are only enough 747 orders in the pipeline to keep the Everett production line going until about 2016.

Boeing has said it hopes a rebound in air cargo will boost 747-8 orders, but there's little evidence of that.

In fact on Monday, the International Air Transport Association released a new forecast indicating that air cargo growth this year could be a sickly 0.9 percent. That's half the growth rate that was expected in June.

This low freight growth is partly due to more shippers placing cargo on ocean vessels in a bid for lower rates, and partly because the growing number of aircraft passengers brings with them a lot of belly space in passenger jetliners that can be filled with cargo. To some degree, more freight capacity in passenger jets means less demand for dedicated air freighters. And this isn't good for Boeing's 747-8, which remains one of the best dedicated freighters built.

The Air Force issued a Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization& request earlier this month, saying it doesnt want its new aircraft before 2021, although it wants a four-engine model.

The government is interested in a four-engine wide-body commercial aircraft platform, the request said.

With the pending demise of the Boeing C-17 cargo transport, there's only one four-engine jet being built in the U.S., and that's Boeing's 747-8.

Even with Airbus expanded presence in the United States with its Mobile, Ala. plant, it's hard to imagine that a future Air Force One could be a four-engine Airbus A380 built by a European company. Not to mention that the mammoth double-decker A380 might be considered overkill, even for the needs of a U.S. president and his or her entourage.

But whether or not the Air Force would allow the president to travel in a twin-engine jet is debatable, despite the stellar safety record of large twins, because a two-engine plane offers less redundancy than a four-engine plane.

Meanwhile, another problem facing Boeing's747-8 is that the new larger twin jets, especially the pending 777-9, will offer nearly the same capacity with a lot more efficiency.

Airlines dont need huge long-range aircraft with four engines nearly as much as they need ultra-efficient long-distance aircraft like Boeing's 787, Airbus A350, and Boeing's planned 777-9.
The four-engine airliner segment is moribund, if not dead, said an article posted recently on aerospace site AirInsight. Long live the new king, the wide-body twin.
Since 1990, the two four-engine blue-and-white Air Force Ones, both 747-200s, have been a symbol of American might around the world.

Maybe the world will have to get used to a Boeing 777 twin jet carrying the president.

Emirates possible suicide busineess plan?
 

Clearly Emirates has a suicidal business plan and intends to drive the whole airline into the ground by flying A380s over 777s as the A380 contiunues to take over 777 routes.

Or maybe that is not the case and the business plan which makes continual profit upon profit has a good business plan which includes swapping 777 routes with the A380. Name 1 A380 route which is replaced by the 777 recently?

Just a thought and statement about facts.

Agreed A345 was not the right aircraft.

jack s....:

The profits climbed in sum, but declined in terms of percentage.

This means the yield dropped. Now it was said that the 380 might consume a little more, relative to the T7, but its yield was supposed to be better ..... Since its inauguration however, the overall company yield dropped and our profit share vanished.

Just a coincidence or unfavourable circumstances? Or could it be that there's too much wrong aircraft deployed to the wrong places?
I wonder what would have been bullied out by the then strong Airbus fraction if the same had happened when the many T7ERs arrived ..... but we got some nice bonuses then. :{

To the above article:
Funny how Timmy's statement sounds very similar to what i predict for a long time now. The 60$/120$ analogy for the old 4-legged 345 could translate into a 120$/180$ guillotine for the new 4-legged 748 and 380.

345 was great to fly, who cares how much fuel it or the 380 burns . My pay at the end of the month seems to be the same and without a profit share. Some of you children need to grow up, or you suffer from small dick syndrome .

Nicely said FB. I fly the 345 in VVIP config and it rocks, especially at the weights we operate it. Still looking forward to the 748 though.... :ok:

A lot of talk about the A380 an the newer 777s. What about the A350-900? Is EK still planning to get the A350?

fatbus

What is this forum called again? And what exactly are such forums for?
If it childish to discuss, passionately and even with some humour or sarcasm, then why on earth are you reading such forums, being so grown up?

If you really don't care that much about your environment and just go to work, pocket the money and shut up, then why so many contributions, some of them equally passionate about some other stuff?

Is it only when the topic displeases you that it becomes childish and when it pleases it is a valuable contribution?

Again, if it matters so little to you and is so childish, then why do you contribute?
Are you a pprune moral police police?

I said i love such discussions. I even learn something sometimes. This happens even on kiddie channels, or else i zap silently!

JAA I think he was a bit too subtle as you seem to have missed the fact he was referring to 772LR. It burns 3kg per seat/ per hour more than a ULR 380. Glofish you can not be happy about this Boeing fuel/profit share thief!!!

A 380 on a medium haul flight burns 0.4kg per seat/ per hour more than an EK configured 773ER, but 2.8kg per seat/ per hour less per hour than a CX 773ER (only 300 seats).

The Don

don

The burn per seat comparison is valid if you work on yields. I have already pointed out what this means with them eroding ....

If you want to go into pure aircraft performance, you can only work with burn per kg transported for the same distance. In that respect 4-engine and 4 legged monster can not compete with a twin with two legs.

Concerning the 77L compared to the 380, on ULRs it also matters if you can take the full load or not, and on that I wouldn't line up the whale .... and by the way: On the burn/kg the 77L outperforms the whale by quite a bit on ULRs.

You can twist or turn it whichever way you want. The whale can generate profits on LH and even ULRs, yes, but it needs a stable and low fuel price and customers who pay a fair price for their premium seat. Otherwise its yield erodes much quicker than the more economical Boeings. That's its Achilles heel and its due to its overweight and lower seat/bag-freight ratio.

EKs thrive to implement a combined service to destinations with a 380 and a T7 seems a smart choice.

I see your point.

773 bne to dxb burn 114.4t payload 45t (TOW limited) 13.3 hrs = 191kg/1.0t/hr

380 syd to dxb burn 166.5t payload 67t (still under max tow) 14hrs = 177kg/1.0t/hr.

That help?

The Don

I don't care how much each plane burns, as long as I have enough to do the trip. If the A380 is so bad, why are the 777 boys joining the fleet?? :ugh:

don

If these numbers are correct, they actually surprise me. I have done such calculations multiple times and never did the T7 come up with such bad numbers, the ones for the 380 are what i generally got.
My numbers were however always on the same route, the same day (so i haven't done a lot lately I admit...) but such calculations would reflect reality a little closer. The values for the T7 showed generally 15% better than yours.

Glofish, check ya PMs, check for yaself.

The Don