Emirates launches DXB - SFO

In October EK will fly direct to SFO following an announcement that it will fly to LAX in September - really ramping up here and, I think will take some traffic away from other airlines noticeably BA and VS who do well on connections to destinations EK serve from Dubai, like India.

Mind you, the easterly return is slated at more than 16 hrs flying time. Ouch [B)].

And this is yet another reason why VS are finding it tough at the moment.

With carriers such as EK, EY, QR and even 9W (via HKG for the time being) all ramping up north american routes times are becoming very tough.

TBH I think I would prefre 16 hours on a brand spanking new 777 instead of layover at LHR.

I really do think this is only the start of Middle Eastern airline world dominance, with more large orders still to arrive, open skies and the 380 effect yet to kick in, it is certainly true to say that worse is yet to come.

[Darren Wheeler]

What are they going to use?

Boeing give the 777-200ER a range of 7700 Nm. The distance between DXB and SFO is about 7100 Nm. All it takes is a strong headwind and I can see the pax seeing more of West coast USA than they thought. The blue marble mapper shows the likely route as being up through Siberia, over the pole and down through Canada. Not much in the way of alternates in the North West Territories.

Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
What are they going to use?

Darren,

EK will be using their B777-200LR's for the west coast - More than enough range to cover LAX and SFO. [:D]

Originally posted by tallprawn

Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
What are they going to use?

Darren,

EK will be using their B777-200LR's for the west coast - More than enough range to cover LAX and SFO. [:D]

And apparently they wil be 'specially configured' which I read to mean fewer seats (268 apparently) and maybe less cargo space / additional fuel capacity?

The later EK LR's have the aux fuel tanks fitted & standard config for the aircraft is 266 seats.

The a/c is already operating to IAH for EK.

And Sao Paulo & will also be used for LAX.

3-4-3 config down the back though... ouch.

Originally posted by clarkeysntfc
3-4-3 config down the back though... ouch.

Yes - apparently the leg room is OK but almost every other carrier has 9 seats across in Y ...

Wasn't there some complaining from crew somewhere about the layovers on these segments being either bare minimum, poor, or just downright crap?

Either on Prune or cabincrew.com?

Mike

[Darren Wheeler]

Not a flight I would ever want to be on. There is obviously a business case for it or are EK showing off a bit.

Y on this would make Easyjet or Ryanair look desirable [:w]

Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
Not a flight I would ever want to be on. There is obviously a business case for it or are EK showing off a bit.

I think there is a business case for it really. Lets be honest there is clear demand for IAH-DXB, after all even SQ have got in on the act by offering IAH-DME-DXB-SIN.

One must remember that when EK start a route it is not because there is demand from DXB it is because there is demand for a one stop service via DXB. The day of LHR being top dog for transfers is well and truly over. If your sat in the Maldives and want to get to SFO, rather than connect at LHR or have a multi stop routing via India and China say, why not just hop up to DXB and onto the next direct flight.

There is an excellent thread on a.net about how EK opeates it fleet, it is a very interesting read.

Originally posted by willd

Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
Not a flight I would ever want to be on. There is obviously a business case for it or are EK showing off a bit.

I think there is a business case for it really. Lets be honest there is clear demand for IAH-DXB, after all even SQ have got in on the act by offering IAH-DME-DXB-SIN.

One must remember that when EK start a route it is not because there is demand from DXB it is because there is demand for a one stop service via DXB. The day of LHR being top dog for transfers is well and truly over. If your sat in the Maldives and want to get to SFO, rather than connect at LHR or have a multi stop routing via India and China say, why not just hop up to DXB and onto the next direct flight.

There is an excellent thread on a.net about how EK opeates it fleet, it is a very interesting read.

And the other thing to remember here: the UAE are hardly short of a few quid with the current oil price. I am sure that this is supporting an awful lot of UAE investment, including aitlines such as Emirates and Etihad.

The amount of money sloshing about from the UAE recently was in-your-face over last summer when most of West London was swarming with brand new bright white Range Rovers, Bentleys, Lambos and Bugattis sporting UAE plates flown in for the August hols. You couldn't hire an S Class with driver for love nor money, so the wealthy flew their own vehicles in. Shove that in your carbon offseting. I can only imagine it'll be even more intense this year.

H

Originally posted by willd
One must remember that when EK start a route it is not because there is demand from DXB it is because there is demand for a one stop service via DXB. The day of LHR being top dog for transfers is well and truly over. If your sat in the Maldives and want to get to SFO, rather than connect at LHR or have a multi stop routing via India and China say, why not just hop up to DXB and onto the next direct flight.

Excellent comment - I've had the pleasure of chatting to many interesting people at the bar on transatlantic VS flights who are connecting via LHR to India and other countries. EK are muscling in on this lucrative trade with great effect, traffic to India and China is growing quickly as their economies still grow at 8-10% p.a. - even before the Olympics effect.

That said, if it were me I think I'd still prefer 6-10 hrs from the USA to London, then 8/9 hrs from London to India, rather 16hrs to DXB then 3 hrs to India.

Originally posted by slinky09

That said, if it were me I think I'd still prefer 6-10 hrs from the USA to London, then 8/9 hrs from London to India, rather 16hrs to DXB then 3 hrs to India.

I can understand that.

I think the problem for VS in this market is that soon EK will be flying to more destinations in the US than VS does.

Currently EK operate to:
YYZ
JFK (direct and via HAM)
IAH
SFO (Oct)

EK is well and truly eating into VS's market. On a.net future possible destinations (ie: already hiring crew/showing on the crew bidding system) include ORD, BOS, FLL, SEA, LAX
and EWR.

As to is EY (NYC, YYZ) and QR (NYC,IAD). And what is worse...this is only the start. Kingfisher are starting Bangalore-SFO later in the year with their new 345's and 9W have just been given the green light for routes to SFO via PVG. HEck EK is even managing to get into GRU, a destination that for years VS was slated to be interested in.

So as we can see the Middle Eastern/Indian carriers are really beginning to flex their muscle. VS will find this tough (as will SQ and LH and AF/KLM), the way in which EK has made Australia and NZ its own clearly highlights that they are aggressive and will not take any prisoners. It is no surprise VS is cutting back, QF faced real challenges when EK arrived on their lucrative routes.

Dubai is not as oil rich as other states/places in the Middle East & EK is run like any other company (it has to make a profit). It never ceases to amaze me how they always get their new route choices spot on every time. Look at the UK, 14 flights a day to DXB & they are all busy (in particular 'J' class).

The GRU flight as mentioned is apparently a red hot seller & rumours on the net is double daily ASAP. I think the JFK via HAM has been or is soon to be made direct. LAX starts 1st Sep (also direct from DXB).