Emirates adds Adelaide flights, trebles Perth service
- Share
Updated with A380s to Moscow
The Emirates global site shows that there will be four times weekly 777-300ER services to Adelaide from 1 November in the inferior and irrelevant jet consistently rejected by the geniuses running Qantas full tilt into ruin.
It also adds a further five flights to its daily double 777-300ERs between Perth and Dubai on 1 December, rising to a treble daily return schedule from 1 March next year.
In other news it will start A330 flights to Warsaw in Poland, and make Lyon, near the French alps, and the restaurant capital of France, its third French city after Paris and Nice.
Below is an extract from the website:
Earlier this week Emirates said it would upscale its Paris flights to double daily A380s, and there were further reports in the general media that New York City will also increase to double daily A380s and that the 2013 upgraded version of the giant Airbus will replace 777-300ERs on its flights between Dubai and San Francisco.
Shortly after the extra 777s to Australia were posted on its site, Emirates also announced it would replace one of its 777s to Moscow with a daily A380 from 1 December.
Emirates has the world’s largest fleets of A380s and 777s and at one stage in the past, had the largest fleet of A330s, the remnants of which are swept up by what is the world’s second largest order for Airbus A350s, and it has small numbers of A340s, both -300s and -500s in service. The Dubai carrier is also pushing Boeing to develop the 777-X series, which some reports anticipate will be announced at the Farnborough Air Show near London next week.
The new Perth and Adelaide services will use three class 777 configurations. Both cities, but especially Perth, are important resource sector destinations. Adelaide has long been regarded by Tourism Australia as having considerable potential in the European travel market into Australia, and Emirates, which is the largest carrier between Australia and Germany, will be able to offer one stop time saving discount flights into a large range of primary and secondary cities in Europe and the UK.
Emirates launched Barcelona services last week. In previous guidance Emirates has said it will apply more A380s than it does now to most of its major Australian city routes to cope with growth, and it is a vocal proponent of a 10 metres stretch of the jet that would make it a three class airliner of more than 600 seats in some configurations.
However if the same people that own Emirates don’t do something about the over crowded state of Dubai Airport, and its congested approach and departure routes, it will all turn into camel dust.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
I though Dubai was already building the Al Maktoum international airport at Jebel Ali. The airport is already taking cargo flights and goes on line in 2017.
Flew over it the other day and there were signs of life. But it was supposed to be finished ages ago, and the success of Emirates has abundantly outstripped the capacity of the current airport to cope.
2017! Eeek.
Let me add some additional info from Adelaide that I heard from ABC news this morning
- Four flights a week to ADL will become daily by February
- Direct service to Dubai will maintain til at least mid 2016
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-05/emirates-four-adelaide-flights/4111258?section=sa
I also heard from ABC radio that SA Government signed that service agreement with Emirates (so I guess SA Government had chip in $$$ to make it happen?) I wish SA Government better luck this time, as their last attempt on similar “agreement” (read: Tiger) ended with failure, with taxpayers losing money and some ex-employees’ entitlements yet to paid out.
Ben
I do not believe that Qantas regards the B777 as an inferior aircraft. I am sure in hindsight that they wished they had acquired them
My understanding is that Qantas looked closely at the B777 and elected instead to put its eggs in the basket of the B787 with the view that they would also most likely acquire the upcoming A350 once they had better visibility of what it would be. Airbus had given them detailed briefings on their proposed new aircraft and it certainly attracted the attention of Qantas.
I believe that Qantas is now somewhat regetting their B787 decision, Not only is the aircraft years late it does not look like it will deliver against expections and it has all the hallmarks of being a “problem” aircraft.
But as you know, hindsight is a wonderful thing. As you well know, aircraft type selection (particularly a new type into your fleet) is a big deal in an airline as you are committing yourself to a long term capital commitment as well as the ultimate preformance of the type selected. There are also long lead times on these decisions.
Qantas took the risk to select a brand new aircraft type that promised to do many things. As well, they tried looking further forward and keeping their options open on an aircraft that was only on the drawing boards at Airbus.
Risk is always prominent in the decision matrix; and in the case of Qantas they have come out on the wrong side of the risk they took with Boeing.
I was present at press conferences at which Geoff Dixon and Peter Gregg deemed the 777 as unsuited to the needs of Qantas in those words. It is possible they didn’t believe what they said, but they said it. In his testimony to recent Senate inquiries Alan Joyce insisted that the 777 was old technology, and that it hadn’t been available earlier on a timely basis to the airliner but also in the light to its commitment to A380s, A330s and 787s.
There have however been suggestions that Joyce had raised the possibility of getting 777-300ERs off AA but they have never been explicitly supported by spokespersons for Qantas. My view is that Joyce is open to any “capital light” option to improve the Qantas situation, whether in fleet or anything else. Similarly my view is that AA and others are similarly closed to any option where Qantas gains a benefit to their cost, whether capital light or otherwise.
I was searching for more information on the ADL flights, and I found in airliners.net forum that someone quoting the return flight EK441 will depart ADL at 2245 and arrive DXB at 0545 next day. That would mean it will schedule to depart 15 minutes before the ADL curfrew! Sounds like if the inbound flight was delayed by a significant amount (1 hour?), outbound passangers would expect to stay in CBD hotels overnight…
Hi Ben
You prattle on about the B777 but you fail to mention that it was a type that started flying about 27 years ago. So, it is now an old aircraft type that has been upgraded over the years.
It was originally designed by Boeing to bridge the gap between its B767 and B747. Also its later role was to compete with the smaller A330 and now will soon compete head to head with upcoming A350 which will most likely beat it hands down.
Without being too precise, in its various derivatives the B777 is approx as follows:
B777-200: ~400 seats; range ~7,500 nautical miles (nm)
B777-200LR: ~400 seats; range ~9,300 nm
B777-300:~450 seats; range ~8,000 nm
By comparison the B787:
A brand new aircraft with the vary latest technology in wing design for high payload capability and employing lightweight composite construction.
Designed by Boeing to replace the B777-200; compete with A330 and now A350
Long range. High payload. High-mid-sized. Very economic (best so far for Boeing)
B787-8 (base model started flying commercially late Nov 2011, nearly 4 years behind schedule). B787-9 expected in commercial service 2014 (4 years late)
B787-8: ~ 260 seats; range up to ~9,000 nm
B787-9: ~300 seats; range up to ~10,000 nm
So if you compare the two and take into account that the B787-8 was supposed to be in service late 2008 and the B787-9 in service in 2010 then I THINK YOU SEE WHY QANTAS WAS ATTRACTED TO THE NEW B787 AND ON PAPER THEIR DECISION CERTAINLY LOOKED LIKE THE RIGHT DECISION.
At the time; why buy old technology aircraft (B777s) when brand new better ones were on the immediate horizon
The big problem is that the aircraft is FOUR YEARS LATE.
That was a risk that Qantas took and noone would have factored in the the BOEING CORPORATION WITH ITS PAST HISTORY WOULD END UP 4 YEARS BEHIND PLAN. MAYBE 12 TO 18 MTHS, BUT NOT 4 YEARS
So I believe everyone’s huff and puff about Qantas and B777s is a load steaming horse s….., and a case of selective criticism through the rear view mirror to serve a biassed prespective and wanting to lay blame on individuals when they really have no oversight of the real problems generating Qantas’ demise with its international operations.
Bl……dy armchair experts. Revisionists.
AND I SAY THIS WHEN I DO NOT EVEN LIKE QANTAS.
TT, considering the available turnaround time is a full 2 hours, I doubt a 1 hour delay would delay takeoff at all, let alone enough to exceed the curfew.
DB2820 Postman, you’ve miscalculated the age – the first 777s went into service 17 years ago, not 27.
And anyway, who cares about the age of the design? It’s safety and efficiency that count, and it scores well on both of those.
Aidan Stanger: 1 hour delay for inbound flight by itself probably won’t hit the curfrew, but if there’s further delay due to mechanical issue or missing passengers etc etc then they are pushing luck a little. Bear in mind 2245 departure time is scheduled time for the plane to push back, whereas 2300 curfrew applies the time to actual take-off. Thus EK441 actually would have less than 15 minute window (unless they were able to depart before 2245).
My point is EK440/EK441 needs to run like clock work, or else B777 would be stuck in ADL overnight.
DB2820 Postman
You always write most informative posts and, from your previous contributions, seem considerably frustrated with the current QF management.
You also say above (in fact you yell it
) that you don’t actually like QF.
Can I ask if you have any solutions to QF’s problem, especially the international network (I think you posted something not too long ago but I can’t find it), and – just being nosy – what airline(s) you do prefer when you fly? I appreciate the itinerary would obviously play a part.
TT
Are there any circumstances where the curfew might be waived or would the airline have to pay a fine? I’m thinking the cost of a potential fine compared with the cost of hotel accommodation and transfers etc.
Or does the airport just switch off the lights!
Allan Moyes: I checked Air Service Australia website, and there are waivers that airlines can obtain on one-off basis, as well as ministerial approval to operate on shoulder period (i.e. between 2300 and 0000 hours)
I dunno how big is the fine for operating outside curfew hours, as it doesn’t happen much in ADL (only a rare occasion for aircraft try to land before 0600). I just read Adelaide Airport Curfew Act 2000 clause 6 (2), and it stated the fine of not exceeding 200 penalty points (now can someone translate how much is 200 penalty points?)
The good thing is that ADL doesn’t just turn off the lights after 2300 – there’s still aircraft operating during curfew, mainly using runway 05 for landing and runway 23 for take-off, and only light aircrafts.
TT,
Approval to operate in the curfew comes from the Duty Officer at the Department of Infrastructure and Transport – rarely!. The acceptable reasons are prescribed and failure to manage your scheduled turnaround is not one of them.
Section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) currently sets a PU at $110.
Just paying the fine is a lot cheaper than the cost of (overnighting + disruption) – at least until someone decides to review you International Air Service Licence…
Thanks, TT and wildsky.
Aidan Stanger you are indeed correct re the number of years since the B777 started flying. I did not miscalculate the years, I simply mishit the 2 on the keyboard when it should have been the 1.
It is 17 years and that means the aircraft was designed about 21 years ago. So it is hardly new technology; albeit its avionics have been upgraded.
There is nothing wrong with the B777, but I believe Qantas’ decision to acquire B787′s as the next step down from the A380 would at the time have seemed the right decision.
The timing of their fleet planning and aircraft acquisition program (where either way they were going to have to introduce a NEW type); it certainly made sense to introduce a NEW TECHNOLOGY AIRCRAFT that was allegedly in final stages of design by the reputable Boeing company and also where the expected delivery timeframe almost perfect for their needs.
Let’s be fair, why would you choose an old technology aircraft when introducing a new fleet type. Also the B777 was rather too big for their needs, What they wanted (needed) was a super efficient aircraft of the right size with very long legs and high payload capacity. The B787 perfectly filled that need.
So what’s with this comment about the age and old technogy does not matter? The people buying new B777s at the time were ADDING to their existing fleet and for them that was the right decision. You do not add a new aircraft type without very serious consideration. Why would they buy a new type when your objective was to simply grow capacity.
So Qantas had an opportunity for a step jump. But nobody at the time would have predicted that Boeing would deliver the B787 four years late. A year or 18 months maybe; but not 4 years.
So Qantas has been caught on the wrong side of this and Jetstar for its international expansion has been forced to go down the A330 route as an interim measure; which was initially a reasonably sound plan because those same aircraft (A330s) would replace the aging Qantas domestic B767 fleet; but even that plan has come a little unstuck because of the inordinate delays in the B787 which, as I stated recently, also has all the hallmarks of perhaps being a “problem aicraft”; simply because it is so high tech and ground breaking in in its construction for a commercial airliner.
So all you snoozers who throw a buchket over Qantas’ fleet acquisition decisions and keep lauding the wonderful advantages of the B777 just keep on exhibiting that you are simply armchair experts looking through the rear vision mirror.
These same people also exhibit to me that they really know very little about commercial airlines in general, especially as they co0ntinue to put forward shallow, almost simpleton ideas even when they have the advantage of hindsight. For one thing, I think that there has only been about one or two people contributing to this blog who recognise the massive advantages that international hub carriers have (Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Etihad, Qatar, Cathay Pacific [and to a lesser extent Malaysian and Thai] and soon the big Chinese carriers) over end-of-the line carriers.
Elsewhere on this blog there were people waxing lyrical about various carriers adding capacity to/from Perth as compared to Qantas. Not one person recognised that every one of the carriers referred to re their existing frequencies and their planned new frequencies to/from Perth WERE HUB CARRIERS. Same applies to Adelaide.
And whenever I mention the massive advantage of hub carriers over end-of-line-carriers and how hub carriiers are eating alive the end-of-the -line carriers like Qantas; even also the ones with big home markets like Lufthansa, British Airways, Iberia, Al Italia, Austrian. Air France, KLM etc; it appears to be dismissed as irrelevant to most on this blog (Ben included) because it interferes and somewhat nullifies their rant that the only reason Qantas has huge problems with its international operations is because of Alan Joyce and Leigh Clifford. Those that espouse this point of view are in avaiation terms just simpletons.
And the Qantas pilots that contribute to this blog, whose job it is to fly aeroplanes well rather than run an airline, REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT QANTAS INTERNATIONAL is losing over $400 million pa and instead want to believe that it is all part of SOME SORT OF GRAND PLAN (A CONSPIRACY) BY THE EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT AT QANTAS TO KILL QANTAS. What sort of delusional thinking is that? And furthermore, if they come some way towards accepting that Qantas International genuinely loses money; then they say it is all because Qantas International is cross subsidising Jetstar.
LET ME ASSURE YOU ONE THING (and because of my vocation I am in a position to know) QANTAS MAINLINE DOES NOT SUBSIDISE JETSTAR. I know that ill-informed people within Qantas also espose this view; but these same people are not is a position to know and they are fearful of Jetstar because it is low cost (much lower cost that Qantas), so they indulge themselves in wishful thinking rather than accept the truth and accept that global aviation has changed for all time and that Qantas must change massively if it is to survive. And besides Jetstar is a different customer proposition and part of a very separate and completely different strategy within the Qantas Group. And the strategy is not use Jetstar to kill off Qantas as some would have you believe.
But the fact is that, for a zillion other reasons, Qantas will contract because it cannot sustain losses of $400 million pa (and let me assure you that if Qantas had B777s the story would still be much the same, just a little less so in magnitude) and Jetstar should expand (and quite significantly if things go according to plan) and that is primarily BECAUSE IT IS LOW COST; and that is where the opportunities are if you are not an international hub carrier.
Alan Moyes, on another blog article that has an appropriate subject, I will endeavour outline again what I believe are the only real alternatives for Qantas International. I do not have time right now.
In regards to the best INTERNATIONAL airlines in the world. The one that wins hands down when measured by inflight service, customer experience and return on capital is definitely Singapore Airlines; albeit its fortunes are beginning to wane partly because of competition of ME carriers and impact of GFC and major companies changing travel policies to all Y travel. Coming second in the inflight product and customer experience stakes (but its financial performance is a little lack lustre) is Cathay Pacific, followed by Emirates and Etihad (Etihad not yet making money but growing very rapidly) and then maybe Qatar (an airline autocratically run by, shall we say, an unbalanced individual) . Then comes the major European Airlines and Qantas is every bit as good as the best of these, and a fair way behind again are the US carrirers. The only carrier in Africa that ranks is South African (but I believe not near as good as say Qantas) and in South America LAN is dominant (a very well run airline). Air Canada only on par with major US carriers. Garuda Indonesia has significantly improved its product. Japanes Airlines are OK but these days nothing to write home about and S Korean Airlines pretty good with Aisiana the best here.
The carriers of the future are the Chinese Airlines – Air China, China Eastern, China Southern. I predict that they will rapidly become the biggest carriers in the world. They will have the best of both worlds; soon becoming strong hub carriers but with a massive home market at their hub. Their biggest problem right now is simply coping with exponential growth.
Singapore Airlines was the first of the real international hub airlines (over Changi) but now experiencing a lot of competition of its own sort; the ME hub carriers. The rise and rise of the Chinese carriers will impact Singapore Airlines (and other SE Asia airlines) and remains to be seen if mainland China ever accepts Cathay Pacific as a Chinese airline, even though they own a large slice of it.
Indonesia has huge potential as a market; but at the moment the Indonesian government has pulled up the drawbridge to protect its national carriers from competition.
In relation to the 787, I was no different to anyone else in being totally infatuated with the project and the implications of the gigantic Qantas commitment made in December 2005.
Matters changed at about the time of the mock roll-out, which we now know contained one part made out of painted plywood. The problem for this reporter with the 787 was the messaging about the project. Which was based on deliberate lies.
People had a choice between regurgitating the press releases and going along with the circus, or looking, albeit far too late, at the difference between the marketing claims and the technical reality. Plane Talking was fortunate in that some of the commercial-in-confidence documentation for NASA’s N+3 project were published (briefly) and what we saw made it clear that composites, as sold in the 787 project, will deliver on the hype sometime in the 2030s, and that it would either be necessary in our times to suspend some of the regulatory requirements, which had been drawn up for primarily alloy jets, to lower the protections in relation to lightning strikes in particular, as well as damage tolerance and detection and repair, or prop the material up with ridiculous amounts of metal, which has its own problems too. As Airbus and Boeing have independently discovered.
And when I say discovered, their designers and engineers knew things that the marketing guys, who had the power, took far to long to get their heads around.
Then several other things happened, and are still happening. One is that growth, on the global scale, had been underestimated. The 787 base line models, the -8 and -9, are in fact too small, and the -3 was just too silly, and was dropped.
Route fragmentation theories were correct except for one thing. Business or premium demand didn’t fragment. It stayed very focused on major ports, like London, Hong Kong, Frankfurt and so forth. The true definition of fragmentation didn’t become small city to small city, but small city to gigantic hub where you either didn’t control the hub, and didn’t want to lose the connecting traffic, or you did control the hub and needed to snuff out everyone else.
This reality continues to work its way through airline business cases. It is a very complex issue, dealt with in the regular media with trite generalisations. My own, but not set-in-concrete view, is that VLA designs will become incredibly relevant in the 2020s as a consequence of this.
The point about the 777 is that it is as said, an older design, but like the A330 in my view, one that has been superbly massaged into a brilliant solution for a very large swathe of range/payload requirements.
Can it be massaged further to meet the challenge by the A350s. We will see? They don’t fully overlap anyhow. The critical element for the A350s and 777-Xs will be the engines. If a large GTF design works as promised on the 777-X, Airbus either has to apply it to its range, or retire, hurt. I don’t think it will do that.
DB2820 Postman
Thanks for your response. You’ve given me food for thought for my airline of choice the next time I fly o/s. Much appreciated.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.