Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Emirates future Fleet

Options
  • 18-02-2019 10:11pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭


    With the demise of the A380, what will Emirates fleet look like in the future? This causes a huge drop in capacity for them


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,851 ✭✭✭Van.Bosch


    Gael23 wrote: »
    With the demise of the A380, what will Emirates fleet look like in the future? This causes a huge drop in capacity for them

    Not if they replace them a larger number of smaller planes. DWC will give them the space but the issue could be at places like LHR.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Well they've another 14 A380s to come so they'll be flying them for a long time yet. They've also ordered 40 A330neos and 30 A350s.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    Van.Bosch wrote: »
    Not if they replace them a larger number of smaller planes. DWC will give them the space but the issue could be at places like LHR.

    DWC and DXB are a good distance apart so that would create logistical challenges that are hard to overcome. Then you have restrictions on slots, particularly at LHR.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    Gael23 wrote: »
    With the demise of the A380, what will Emirates fleet look like in the future? This causes a huge drop in capacity for them

    About 15% I read, if you just phase out the 380s in favour of a 777-787--350-330 fleet on a like for like basis. But the name of the game is to fly planes profitably, not to fly the biggest planes full. I’d say their route optimisation strategy will be pretty on point given the data they must have operating at their scale, and I know folks are obsessing about slot restricted airports, but really how many of those are there vs the total pie? I think it’s a good move. They probably lose on a few select routes but otherwise the per seat economics are phenomenal at their scale.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    Nijmegen wrote: »
    About 15% I read, if you just phase out the 380s in favour of a 777-787--350-330 fleet on a like for like basis. But the name of the game is to fly planes profitably, not to fly the biggest planes full. I’d say their route optimisation strategy will be pretty on point given the data they must have operating at their scale, and I know folks are obsessing about slot restricted airports, but really how many of those are there vs the total pie? I think it’s a good move. They probably lose on a few select routes but otherwise the per seat economics are phenomenal at their scale.

    Will 15% fewer seats mean fare increases? That’s the issue.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    Gael23 wrote: »
    Will 15% fewer seats mean fare increases? That’s the issue.
    Its 15% drop in capacity based on repkaving A380s with B777s/A350s. But having more aircraft counters this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    Gael23 wrote: »
    Will 15% fewer seats mean fare increases? That’s the issue.

    As I said, on a like for like basis they'd lose 15% but are likely to have more capacity overall and within this more flexibility. And the per pax km flown number is a real decider here - this article is looking at transpacific flights but is a pretty good exemplar of the economics on a per passenger km flown basis. The pic also tells a story. Just look where the 777 and 350 sits vs 380.

    Fuel_efficiency_by_aircraft.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    Nijmegen wrote: »
    As I said, on a like for like basis they'd lose 15% but are likely to have more capacity overall and within this more flexibility. And the per pax km flown number is a real decider here - this article is looking at transpacific flights but is a pretty good exemplar of the economics on a per passenger km flown basis. The pic also tells a story. Just look where the 777 and 350 sits vs 380.

    Fuel_efficiency_by_aircraft.png

    Would the increased number of aircraft in the sky not significantly increase operating costs, as in having two planes on a route that was previously serviced by one A380? There’s also the environmental impact


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    Gael23 wrote: »
    Would the increased number of aircraft in the sky not significantly increase operating costs, as in having two planes on a route that was previously serviced by one A380? There’s also the environmental impact

    That's why we're looking at the fuel burn per passenger km flown. It doesn't matter if one plane carries 200 people and another 300, the fuel burn is looked at per pax per km. This is also an average and can vary by route as well as aircraft - A heavier aircraft gets back a lot of gas mileage if its sitting at cruising altitude for 12 hours sipping the fuel (relatively) vs a plane that flies for an hour over to London, and then flies back, and does it twelve times a day - as a % of flying hours, it spends a lot more in the intensive takeoff and climb phase vs cruise.

    Looking at that graph above, what it tells you is that for 1 passenger over 1km on a transpacific route, the 787 is up to 60% more fuel efficient in bringing that bum over that km. That's what I mean by the economics stacking up quite quickly for Emirates and offsetting the capacity bump they get from an A380. Fly 3,600 times per week mostly long haul as they do, with half of those flights being A380s, every % reduction in fuel burn per pax per km adds up super mega quickly on the bottom line and more than makes up for financing a few extra planes and paying a few extra pilots and cabin crew.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭basill


    To really understand what effect it will have on their profitability you would have to know the load factors on the 380s and then the yields.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    Have Emirates shown any interest in the 747-8?


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,834 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Nobody is ever going to buy another 747-8i.

    Freighter and maybe BBJ, but the normal passenger model is dead


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    Gael23 wrote: »
    Have Emirates shown any interest in the 747-8?

    Look at where it sits on that graph. Anything below the line is dead. Only reason the 747 exists is for freight now, they have a backlog that will see another 4 years of production at the rate of 1 every 2 months. They're knocking out 10 777's for the same timeframe (and that will expand rapidly when the 777x comes rolling off the line next year) and 24 787's (with a plan to go to 28) for comparison. The only thing keeping the 747 order book open really is freight, UPS ordered 14 this quarter; which doubled the order book. Otherwise the 747 was going to finish production before even the A380.

    Mass market quads are dead, finished, no more.


  • Registered Users Posts: 113 ✭✭LeakRate


    The a350-9 actually shows pretty poor on that graph vs 787 and even 330


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    The congested airports argument is also nearly dead. Heathrow is supposed to get a third runaway. Dubai World Central will relieve Dubai and places like Beijing have got a new airport. The A380 will still be around for a long time yet and will fill its own niche market, like maximising seats on slot restricted and bi-lateral restricted airports. Smaller, fuel efficient airliners from smaller regional airports point to point will be the future.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,843 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    How would the 737 going toeast coast is or a321 lr sit on those graphs?


  • Subscribers Posts: 1,911 ✭✭✭Draco


    I was talking to someone from Emirates a few months ago and they were saying that the issue around the A380 wasn't the number of pax it could carry but instead that a pair of 777s could carry about the same pax but also carry more cargo. The difference in cargo was making the 777s more profitable for them on top of the added flexibility around routing.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    LeakRate wrote: »
    The a350-9 actually shows pretty poor on that graph vs 787 and even 330
    I found that surprising. Hence the current A350-1000 program. Perhaps the A333 is higher as it has been successively improved as an aircraft. The increased MTOW has made it a more efficient aircraft?

    Draco wrote: »
    I was talking to someone from Emirates a few months ago and they were saying that the issue around the A380 wasn't the number of pax it could carry but instead that a pair of 777s could carry about the same pax but also carry more cargo. The difference in cargo was making the 777s more profitable for them on top of the added flexibility around routing.

    This logic was the reason EI ordered the A330 back in the early 90s. They had 3 B747s, they ordered 4 A33os which had almost half the fuel cost with pretty much equal cargo capacity.
    From a booking engine point of view 2 departures makes the carrier more attractive than a single departure per day. You expand you catchement for passengers.


Advertisement