Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should SAA Order The A340-500?  
User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3759 posts, RR: 12
Posted (10 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3532 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

What do you think? I think the A340-500 would suit South African Airways in the long haul sector. They are going in the long run towards an all Airbus fleet and they already have the A340-600 which is their new flagship. The A340-500 has a slight less capacity but has a greater range.

The advantages of the A340-500 are the following:
1. No ETOPS restrictions (That is the reason why they decided not to buy Boeing 777's).
2. Commonality with the 600, that would save costs in flight crew and MX crew training. Exact same flightdeck and a lot of common spare parts. Of course all amenities found in the PAX Business and Coach cabins of the 600 would also be found in the 500.
3. As stated, it has a very long range. Range isn't the only factor to consider when choosing a new aircraft but SAA would need it if they want to expand on long intercontinental routes. The A380 is also considered but it would suit only the LHR-JNB and LHR-CPT routes because those are the ones that are the most profitable for SAA. The A340-500 would be good for SAA on other routes where load factor isn't as high as it is on the LHR-JNB and LHR-CPT routes but distance to cover nonstop is very long.
4. Good climb performance. That's quite an important factor to consider for aircraft flying out of JNB. SAA's home base, JNB, has a high elevation above ground level, over 5000ft MSL I would say.
5. Considering all aircraft SAA purchased from Airbus already, SAA could negociate a good deal with Airbus.

I'm convinced the A340-500 suits South African Airways. It would look terrific in SAA's current livery.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium




Ben Soriano
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3497 times:

No ETOPS restrictions

...yet



That is the reason why they decided not to buy Boeing 777's

Actually, it wasnt... as expressed by the airline when they ordered their 777s.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3482 times:

The A380 fans have argued in numerous threads that the LHR-JNB/CPT routes are perfect candidates for the Big Birds. Seems your suggestion runs against the current trends in conventional wisdom. My thought is that SA should holds its powder for now, fully assimilate and work with what its already got and see what's going to develop.

User currently offlineZSSNC From Germany, joined Feb 2003, 428 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3452 times:

The A380 is also considered but it would suit only the LHR-JNB and LHR-CPT routes because those are the ones that are the most profitable for SAA.

Sorry, but this statement is wrong. I am just mentioning this, because on airliners.net a lot of people make claims about airline route statistics without having ever seen them (same applies, btw, to aircraft performance statistics!). I find this a bit sad as first of all airline performance statistics don't belong in public forums and if something wrong is posted it is misleading the public.

ZSSNC



Airbus A340-600 - the longest temptation in the sky
User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8449 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3442 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As expressed by the airline when they ordered which 777s????


After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3427 times:

I agree with you American767,

SAA should buy the A380 for all their London routes and maybe also FRA and the A345 for all their American routes to make them permanent non-stop.

But as Leelaw pointed out, it could be a little bit of overkill for SAA with so many new planes, maybe they should at first keep what they have and consolidate a little bit.

But it would be awesome to see the bigbus in SAA`s livery.

Btw. Does anybody know how old their 747 are?


User currently offlineSwissgabe From Switzerland, joined Jan 2000, 5266 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

Good point Andz. Maybe he tried to say "... when they ordered their 343 or 346" ...


Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8449 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3405 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

First 744 was delivered on 20 January 1991, there was a good party in hangar 8!




After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

JoFMO - Here's the delivery (hand-over) dates for SAA's 744s:

ZS-SAV: 01/19/91
ZS-SAZ: 11/30/98
ZS-SAK: 06/30/98
ZS-SAY: 10/05/93
ZS-SAX: 10/27/92
ZS-SAW: 06/28/91
*ZS-SBS: 12/30/98
*ZS-SBK: 12/30/98

* = ZS-SBS & ZS-SBK were originally for PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, but were cancelled in Sept '98. SAA eventually took these two.

Note: some of these had their engines modified/upgraded circa 2000.

EDIT: All of their 743s have been parked. There are also 2 747

[Edited 2004-08-17 19:31:25]

User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3380 times:

So SAA is in a similar situation as NZ was with their 744. Replacing them or refurbishing them.
I am not familiar with the premium seats in their 744, but eco is not in the same league the new 346 is in.

So SAA should look if its cheaper to bring their 744 standard-wise to their 346 or if its cheaper in the long run to replace them now with brandnew 380 and also take advantage of their additional seats especially on their LHR-routes.


User currently offlineSafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

No ETOPS restrictions
Check out the ETOPS restrictions on 777s. The 777 can practically fly anywhere.

(That is the reason why they decided not to buy Boeing 777's)
SAA was never looking at the 777. Swissair had orders the 346, and following their bankruptcy, the orders were dropped and SAA picked them up. This was described as a "management SNAFU" because they made their decision too quickly and the 346 - or any plane available at that time - would not have been able to perform fully on the key South Africa-ATL/JFK route, which is why the management at SAA is getting turned out.

The A380 is also considered but it would suit only the LHR-JNB and LHR-CPT routes because those are the ones that are the most profitable for SAA.
I do not know what the profitability is, but I do know that the LHR-South Africa flights are full to capacity and they want to get more slots, but cannot. The 380 would greatly help SAA on that route, but I am not sure about other routes.

The advantages of the 345 (over what?  Big grin) were listed, but that does not mean that an airline will have a need for the 345. Unless SAA wants to compete on the DXB routes, or even Australia or South America, I do not see the 345 joining SAA's fleet - and if SAA did want to compete on those routes, the 345 would be too small in capacity.

 Smile
-Will



"She Flew For What We Stand For"
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3315 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

JoFMO

So SAA is in a similar situation as NZ was with their 744. Replacing them or refurbishing them. I am not familiar with the premium seats in their 744, but eco is not in the same league the new 346 is in.

I'm sorry but I could not disagree with you more. SAA's A346 economy seating is not comfortable at all, in fact it can be sheer torture. I've flown on the 744's to the States and back and did not experience any of the discomfort I experienced from JNB-CPT on the A346.

Just my opinion.

Rgds

SA7700





When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8449 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3290 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SA7700 you're dead right, the 346 is awful in economy, the only plane I've been on where the exit row and bulkhead seats are actually less comfortable than the main seating!


After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

SAA was never looking at the 777. Swissair had orders the 346, and following their bankruptcy, the orders were dropped and SAA picked them up. This was described as a "management SNAFU" because they made their decision too quickly and the 346 - or any plane available at that time - would not have been able to perform fully on the key South Africa-ATL/JFK route, which is why the management at SAA is getting turned out.

None of these statements are true.

SAA was looking at the 777 intently.

The A340-600 was never, ever intended to fly nonstop year round on any of the routes, and everyone there knew that except certain sales executives, who are being turned out.

The A340-600 is exceeding SA's requirements on these routes in terms of uplift and fuel burn. They couldn't be happier with the planes if they had been free.

N


User currently offlineSafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3241 times:

SAA was looking at the 777 intently.
Barely, but my point remains that they jumped when they heard that the Swissair 346 order was dropped.

The A340-600 was never, ever intended to fly nonstop year round on any of the routes, and everyone there knew that except certain sales executives, who are being turned out.
Management knew that, but what they ended up getting was less than what they thought they would (at no fault to Airbus).

The A340-600 is exceeding SA's requirements on these routes in terms of uplift and fuel burn. They couldn't be happier with the planes if they had been free.
Actually, SAA is not happy that they have limited service to JFK and ATL and that they still have to make a fuel stop.

 Smile
-Will



"She Flew For What We Stand For"
User currently onlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5024 posts, RR: 44
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3231 times:

SafetyDude,

Barely, but my point remains that they jumped when they heard that the Swissair 346 order was dropped.

Actually, I seem to remember SAA having at some time signed an MoU for the 777, which didn't materlialize (for financial reasons at the time, I think?). This was a few years before the A340 order was placed.

Actually, SAA is not happy that they have limited service to JFK and ATL and that they still have to make a fuel stop.

Source?


User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8449 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3222 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This goes back to the time when Coleman Andrews was in charge and he got shot of all the A300s and A320s and replaced them with 738s, the 777 was definitely on the cards then, but after he bled the airline dry and left, the pendulum swung back Airbus' way.


After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineSafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

Actually, I seem to remember SAA having at some time signed an MoU for the 777, which didn't materlialize (for financial reasons at the time, I think?). This was a few years before the A340 order was placed.
I never heard about this. If you have information, I would be interested in reading it. (I am serious, and am not being a smart-alec.)

Actually, SAA is not happy that they have limited service to JFK and ATL and that they still have to make a fuel stop.

Source?

Numerous topics here, media reports, and information from SAA workers.

 Smile
-Will



"She Flew For What We Stand For"
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3205 times:

Management knew that, but what they ended up getting was less than what they thought they would (at no fault to Airbus).

That's not true. What they got is actually better than they projected.

Actually, SAA is not happy that they have limited service to JFK and ATL and that they still have to make a fuel stop.

Also not true. SAA is enjoying the fact that the plane goes out with its maximum structural payload and the dollar revenue associated with that, and prefer that to a nonstop service. Even if the plane had 500nm more range, they'd still stop so they could take max payload.


Source?
Numerous topics here, media reports, and information from SAA workers.


Numerous topics here is not a valid source, since most of them are at best misinformed and at worst blatant lies.

I don't know what SAA workers you may know, but unless they're management in SA Technical or Operations, they're probably mistaken.

N


User currently offlineSafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3197 times:

That's not true. What they got is actually better than they projected.
Also not true. SAA is enjoying the fact that the plane goes out with its maximum structural payload and the dollar revenue associated with that, and prefer that to a nonstop service. Even if the plane had 500nm more range, they'd still stop so they could take max payload.

Sure, whatever you say.  Insane

Numerous topics here is not a valid source, since most of them are at best misinformed and at worst blatant lies.
There were numerous topics that consisted of SAA workers, and those aside, there were quite a few articles from respected media establishments.

-Will



"She Flew For What We Stand For"
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3178 times:

Sure, whatever you say.

Glad you agree.


There were numerous topics that consisted of SAA workers, and those aside, there were quite a few articles from respected media establishments.


I read a good number of those too, and found none of them to cite credible information.

N


User currently offlineWhitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3173 times:

This has been done to death.

SAA is loading on extra cargo, which makes them money. That is why the fuel stop is being made.

Repeating the same old tired story about underperformance doesn't make it true. The 'problem' here is with SAA Cargo who are selling space in the hold at a nice premium, which offsets any stop costs.

Arguably a 777 solution might have worked out better, but the A346 is doing its job and more in that it is hauling heavier loads than anticipated. And making SAA money.

Rumours and scuttlebut are worth precisely nothing. It's dollars and rands in the bank that matter, and the 346 is performing on that front.


User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8449 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3168 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think criticising the SAA employees who venture an opinion is a bit rich considering the wild speculation that goes on in this forum every day.



After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineRT514 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3154 times:

I read a good number of those too, and found none of them to cite credible information.

I second that.

The "SAA despises their A346's" threads have become legendary in these parts. Come to think of it, if a.net chatter were always true, there wouldn't be a single satisfied operator of the A346.



User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

I think criticising the SAA employees who venture an opinion is a bit rich considering the wild speculation that goes on in this forum every day.

I was referring to the media articles.

Every SA employee I have spoken with, even here, has agreed with my statements.

I have further opinions from management in SA Operations, so no matter what is said here, I believe those first.

N


25 Post contains links Scorpio : I never heard about this. If you have information, I would be interested in reading it. Did a little search, and came up with this: http://www.highbea
26 Post contains images SafetyDude : The "SAA despises their A346's" threads have become legendary in these parts. Come to think of it, if a.net chatter were always true, there wouldn't b
27 Warren747sp : I feel sorry for the sales executives who got fired at SAA for believing in other Sales Executives from Airbus on range and weight., etc. It is so con
28 SA7700 : Andz I know this is totally of-topic and I do apologise to the other users as well. I'm booking my JNB/JFK/JNB tickets within the next few days. Towar
29 Gigneil : I feel sorry for the sales executives who got fired at SAA for believing in other Sales Executives from Airbus on range and weight., etc. It is so con
30 Post contains images Scorpio : Stop posting this crap. Its baseless, and as I've said before, you're intentionally trying to mislead the conversation. Who? Warren747sp? Nah! He'd ne
31 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : As expressed by the airline when they ordered which 777s???? Maybe he tried to say "... when they ordered their 343 or 346" SAA was never looking at t
32 Andz : An "order" that doesn't result in a delivery means nothing so I stand by what I said....which 777s? "their 777s" implies they own them, which they don
33 Leskova : SAA did look at the 777 - even at the time that the A340-600s were ordered, the B777 was a serious contender... it was fully evaluated by SAA, but SAA
34 Warren747sp : @Scorpio All the materials I read while flying SAA are all crap dreamed up by their sales! I think we should only read materials approved by tech next
35 JGPH1A : And... back to the topic. I think SA could make a go of the A345, to offer more point to point services in Europe - they served 22 cities in Europe at
36 Andz : SA7700 Sorry I missed your post! As I recall the bulkhead and AC/HK emergency exit row seats have the airbag, however I have heard that DEFG on the ex
37 SA7700 : Andz Thanks for the feedback. I think it's time to get moving to my agent. Rgds SA7700
38 Hirnie : JGPH1A, as for the routes to Europe the 340-200/300 have enough range and capacity to open such new routes. For some long and thin routes to North Ame
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Thai A340-500 Premium Economy posted Fri Apr 21 2006 15:29:22 by BHMNONREV
How Should Boeing Name The 737NNG? posted Thu Apr 21 2005 14:49:40 by Vatveng
Poll: Seeking Your Opinion On The A340 posted Sun Dec 19 2004 07:56:25 by ConcordeBoy
Your First Impression Of The A340 When Launched posted Fri Jun 25 2004 17:19:03 by 767-332ER
Qatar Government A340-500 posted Mon Jun 2 2003 14:54:52 by QatarAirways
SAA A340-200 Business Class posted Thu Apr 20 2006 07:29:08 by Ansett767
Should Had Goen With The 707 700 Program? posted Fri Mar 31 2006 20:54:12 by 747400sp
Should The British Pm Have His Own Plane? posted Tue Feb 14 2006 11:02:03 by Tu114
Who Will Order What At The Asian Aerospace Show? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 21:58:03 by NYC777
Should Airbus Make A Jet That Can Carry The A380 posted Sat Jan 14 2006 19:15:22 by JamesJimlb