airliners.net: "More Than 80 A380s For Emirates!"

blackhawk · Post by **blackhawk** » 27 Mar 2005, 19:02

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/ge ... n/2024122/

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 27 Mar 2005, 19:24

This is not impossible at all! I don't find it too much "pretty cool" because Emirates is very competitive already. Knowing Emirates mind, I will go for an A380-900 rather another A380-800 order. There is no plane too big for them...

Regards

Seb.

Post by **luchtzak** » 27 Mar 2005, 19:32

Would be amazing 8O

But it's a wait and see though

x-prise · Post by **x-prise** » 27 Mar 2005, 19:33

Wow god!
that is definetly overkill !
80 A380s????????????????????
theyre gonna own like 25% of the world market if they use a multihub and spoke system it would be best airline on the planet but jeez that too many.

im thinking where would theyll base their hubs and A380s if they do a multihub and spoke system...

Dubai,Singapore?,Frankfurt?,Newark?,Osaka?,Johanesburg?...
give your ideas guys... lets figure out their plans...
oh i bet theyll order a HUGE amount of A350?/B787?s to complement their longrange services...
that surely gonna be a killer airline...

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 27 Mar 2005, 19:35

It remember me a fable de Jean de la Fontaine named La Grenouille qui veut se faire aussi grosse que le Boeuf

Also it remember me the Swissair story

Seb.

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 27 Mar 2005, 20:20

HorsePower wrote:This is not impossible at all! Seb.

I read last week in arab media, that Dubai Airport* was preparing to handle 120.000.000 pax...
120mil/365= 33.000/day = 1400/h
Not clear how they count: in and out the same pax?
1400/h provided the airport is 24/7!

If traffic rights are limited to the word frequency, meaning the number of flights per week, that is allowed between to countries, then the tractor becomes of utmost importance.

In other words, if your number of scoops are limited, then you better use a large spoon.

What can stop these guys? War? The man who said football is war, died this month. So, it's me who said aviation is war.
The only way to stop this kind of competition is to fight the 'aggressor of your home market' by linking airport charges/taxes to a combined weight and volume levy. Its done before**.
"combined weight and volume" meaning also paying for the empty space, seats, something the green*** would like to see happen.

And as I said earlier, aviation is no longer about flying, but about finance.
*It is still not made public how many (10? 20? more? many?) foreign workers died in the building accidents at that airport. As the pressure to go quick is said to be extreme high.
** before it was called royalties, when one designated carrier, had more than a reasonable market share, it had to pay 'royalties' to the other carrier. This was done in a context of 'national carriers' cq 'state owned' airlines. Since this in many cases is no longer a fact, many 'nationals' have vanished, the sovereign states still can 'protect' their private carriers by levying modulated taxes., eg in Europe for non commun(autarian?)-ity carriers as the french word might suggest... In which case Airbus will be an 'indoor' hurdle.. or is the french veto to these levies already integrated in the preliminaries?.
***ecologists

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 27 Mar 2005, 20:37

Road works around Dubai Airport nearly complete

itsdoctorv · Post by **itsdoctorv** » 28 Mar 2005, 10:24

It's amazing how people ignore history. So many American carriers went bankrupt because they just bought planes like money was no object. And like Seb said, look at Swiss. And who's the only airline in the US that's been consistenlty making profits? The one that grew the slowest (by far): Southwest. I agree with Andre, it's all about finances now, not about flying. But it's often all about bad finances!

B744skipper · Post by **B744skipper** » 28 Mar 2005, 12:13

I can see them getting 80 A380's.
I can see them operating 80 A380's.

But I can't see them filling 80 A380's.

Time will tell us if this story is true (which I doubt).

sab319 · Post by **sab319** » 28 Mar 2005, 12:19

80 A380's is a bit too much, even their current order of 40+ is too much...

regi · Post by **regi** » 28 Mar 2005, 15:42

In the time that the regular deliveries of the A380 will be done, and they will fly the next decades, the world population will double.
More people, more passengers.

Emirates is profitable. It is not unthinkable they will act as a leasing company for regions that they are not active.

Advisor · Post by **Advisor** » 31 Mar 2005, 11:08

I look at the plane and wonder

I strongly agree with SAB 319 Where will they get the people to fit in them. Even 80 or for that matter even 40

Andries · Post by **Andries** » 31 Mar 2005, 12:17

B744skipper wrote:I can see them getting 80 A380's.
I can see them operating 80 A380's.

But I can't see them filling 80 A380's.

Time will tell us if this story is true (which I doubt).

Well, maybe they don't plan to operate them all.
Checking the current orderbook for the A380 and thinking of a possible 40+ A380's for EK, it 'll take a long time before any new company ordering an A380 will actually get it ... So maybe they plan to use 40 (original order) and lease the other 40 to company's who still have their A380's on order or who can't afford to buy an A380 and want to lease it. There could be a very strange strategy behind this huge order ...

Greetz,

Andries

sn-remember · Post by **sn-remember** » 31 Mar 2005, 12:48

And here at snba a fleet extension of a single longhaul a/c after 3 yrs statuquo is seen as the max that can possibly be imagined... And if people from the business would suggest a bolder expansion , it is barred out as 'too fast/too risky' ...pathetic..

Back to the subject:
Putting 80 A380 in operation in the Emirates will make big waves in the airlines business.(maybe a tsunami on some market areas)
The question is who will it harm the most?
- Emirates themselves ? (a very safe bet ;o)
- other carriers operating from/to the Emirates (safe bet)
- The carriers serving the indian/pakistanese market (safe bet)
- The carriers serving the SEAsia market (not so safe bet because it seems hard to compete with some of them)
- The carriers serving the NEAsia market (not so safe bet because of routing overhead)

Btw wuld'nt they be interested to start a "small" business in bru ?
They are warmely welcome here...any time

chunk · Post by **chunk** » 31 Mar 2005, 17:03

And as I said earlier, aviation is no longer about flying, but about finance.
*It is still not made public how many (10? 20? more? many?) foreign workers died in the building accidents at that airport. As the pressure to go quick is said to be extreme high.
** before it was called royalties, when one designated carrier, had more than a reasonable market share, it had to pay 'royalties' to the other carrier. This was done in a context of 'national carriers' cq 'state owned' airlines. Since this in many cases is no longer a fact, many 'nationals' have vanished, the sovereign states still can 'protect' their private carriers by levying modulated taxes., eg in Europe for non commun(autarian?)-ity carriers as the french word might suggest... In which case Airbus will be an 'indoor' hurdle.. or is the french veto to these levies already integrated in the preliminaries?.
***ecologists[/quote]

I agree about the finance and the pressure to go fast being there but lets not kid ourselves here - you think that just applies to Emirates and Dubai? Lets just remember that a certain high profile building collapsed AFTER it was open with passengers in Europe so perhaps we are all guilty of that? In our rush to fly as many planes as possible or to as many places as possible do we criticise the oil companies that provide the fuel for their practices in getting the stuff out of the ground - endangering thousands of people every year....no....we forget that.

As for royalty payments on half empty aircraft subsidiesed by the home country or state airline - an interesting concept that has zero chance in the current market. Emirates should pay BA royalties for having a monopoly at DXB? I don;t think so - the open skies agreement says that BA can fly to DXB pretty much as often as it likes but it can;t fill their planes like EK because of no onward traffic. Same applies at Heathrow....BA survives as a result of the bogus privatisation and rampant protectionism at that time....what would they say to the idea of giving EK payments as a result? Exactly.

Perhaps EK are just undertaking supply induced demand on a large scale? Works for Ryanair albeit on a smaller scale. WHo knows if they are getting that many aircraft but nothing would surprise me - and very few of their flights go out with many spare seats. Add the fact that Euro cities are PAYING EK to land at their airports (e.g Glasgow and the route dev. fund - legal by EU law b.t.w) to build market share and you can see where they are going......