Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5681754/

Topic: SA And The 748i
Username: TWA772LR
Posted 2013-02-05 13:43:11 and read 12745 times.

The 748i seems like it would be SA's perfect plane. It has commonality with the 744, which they used to have, has a great hot and high capabilities, and the cargo capacity as got to kill that of the A346. So my question is, why didn't SA, a long time 747 operator, not go for it? Was it because it's too expensive for them? They thought the A346 was better suited for them? Or any other reason that I have missed? What opportunities would SA have that the 748i gives that the A346 doesn't give and vis-a-vis??

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-02-05 13:50:18 and read 12699 times.

Quoting TWA772LR (Thread starter):
What opportunities would SA have that the 748i gives that the A346 doesn't give and vis-a-vis??

Other then a bigger airplane its hard to pinpoint what a 748 would give SAA an A346 doesn't. SAA flies its A346 all the way nonstop to Peking and JFK from JNB. SAA, rightly or wrongly, made th decision to dump its 744 fleet in favor of an all Airbus fleet, its must provide some savings to SAA.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-02-05 14:12:32 and read 12524 times.

With rapidly increasing competition the 744s were too much aircraft for them, even the 346 is on some routes. Until SA sort several internal issues out this will remain the case, however eventually they will most likely need a new large quad for routes big twins can't handle as efficiently and by default that market starts at the 748i.


Dan  

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: fraapproach
Posted 2013-02-05 14:38:29 and read 12368 times.

SA received its first A346 in 2003 and I believe ordered it in 2000 or 2001. Back then it was not the question of A346 or B748 as the B748 wasnt even on the horizon. The alternative would have been the 777-300 (dunno if the 300ER was already available). The logic was pro A346 as it is a quad with better hot &high performance than the 777 (at least at that time). Also, Airbus had quite an edge above Boeing at SA that time. I remember a powerpoint presentation on the 'about us' section of the SA website that I found coincidentally which showed the logic of ordering Airbus pretty clearly as they got the A346 in a package deal with A319s. It also showed that for the specifics of SA The 346 was the only plane around at that time.

I believe they were wrong in dumping the 744 - they at least dumped them too early as the refleeting with (few) 744s (mainly for Angola services?) showed.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-02-05 16:40:59 and read 11979 times.

Quoting TWA772LR (Thread starter):
and the cargo capacity as got to kill that of the A346.

Doesn't the A346 have more cargo volume in the hold?

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-05 16:50:35 and read 11904 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 4):
Doesn't the A346 have more cargo volume in the hold?

Yes - 42 LD3 positions compared to 36 on the 747-8.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: BreninTW
Posted 2013-02-05 17:35:42 and read 11716 times.

A while back, Zeke posted figures for various aircraft out of JNB (I imagine the figures were for JNB - HKG, but may have been MTOW-based for each type) ... the figures posted showed that the A346 handily trounced both the 744 and the 77W in terms of the number of pax and cargo it could carry.

The 77W figures have probably improved since Zeke's post, but at the time, it was clear that out of JNB the A346 was far and away the superior aircraft in terms of fuel consumption and uplift.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2013-02-05 17:49:05 and read 11670 times.

SA is in dire financial conditions.

They just recently received an emergency loan from the government to pay their fuel bills.
SAA Receives Emergency Bail Out From Government (by LAXintl Jan 13 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Buying a new longhaul fleet cant be a major concern at the moment.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: LH707330
Posted 2013-02-05 23:23:49 and read 10735 times.

There was also the issue of the A340 and 777 flyoff.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: mozart
Posted 2013-02-06 00:15:36 and read 10237 times.

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 6):

A while back, Zeke posted figures for various aircraft out of JNB (I imagine the figures were for JNB - HKG, but may have been MTOW-based for each type) ... the figures posted showed that the A346 handily trounced both the 744 and the 77W in terms of the number of pax and cargo it could carry.

The 77W figures have probably improved since Zeke's post, but at the time, it was clear that out of JNB the A346 was far and away the superior aircraft in terms of fuel consumption and uplift.

Slightly OT: how did the A380 compare?

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: BreninTW
Posted 2013-02-06 00:56:17 and read 9830 times.

Quoting mozart (Reply 9):
Slightly OT: how did the A380 compare?

There were no figures posted for the A380.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-02-06 01:25:44 and read 9530 times.

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 6):
The 77W figures have probably improved since Zeke's post

Not very significantly, engine out performance and tire speed is one of the main issues.


Dan  

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: cv990coronado
Posted 2013-02-06 02:04:12 and read 9119 times.

"Quoting LH707330"

Re article A340 and 777 flyoff

I loved the last paragraph:-

"The impact was almost lost when a Rolls representative reminded the shaken airline executives that the Airbus plane also had Rolls-Royce Trent engines. "I didn't talk to that guy for another year and a half," Leahy says."


"Quoting PlymSpotter"

"Quoting BreninTW (Reply 6):
The 77W figures have probably improved since Zeke's post

Not very significantly, engine out performance and tire speed is one of the main issues."

Do you know how this effects DL with their 77L operation JNBATL ?

I think the way SAA has changed it's market position in the last 10 years with competition from EK in particular the 748 is too much of an aircraft for them. By having the 343/346 combination and now with the 332HGW's they have great flexibility. I noticed on Flightradar that they are using the 332's on JNBGRU route. If they had gone with the 777 they wouldn't have had the flexibility of size and range that the 332/3/343/346 offers.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: swallow
Posted 2013-02-06 02:50:24 and read 8727 times.

Quoting cv990coronado (Reply 12):
they wouldn't have had the flexibility of size and range that the 332/3

On reading this, I briefly thought SA had acquired the 333    . Their website indicates they have six 332's. I don't know how much payload the 333 can lift ex-JNB if it were to replace the 343.

Quoting fraapproach (Reply 3):
I believe they were wrong in dumping the 744 - they at least dumped them too early as the refleeting with (few) 744s (mainly for Angola services?) showed

I believe the high cost of leases burned them. But I tend to agree that the temporary re-fleeting showed that SA planning can sometimes be bewildering.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: cv990coronado
Posted 2013-02-06 03:37:41 and read 8391 times.

" Quoting Swallow"

"On reading this, I briefly thought SA had acquired the 333 . Their website indicates they have six 332's. I don't know how much payload the 333 can lift ex-JNB if it were to replace the 343."

Sorry yes it was misleading you are correct they only have 332's . But, I really meant that their decision to go the 340 way gave them the option to have the 333. I don't know how much payload it would have ex JNB. I can see a use for it on a few routes which might need additional seats at certain times. Overall I think the 332's are a much better choice for them. I haven't flown on SAA 332's but I have on other's and personally I think it is a superb aircraft.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: parapente
Posted 2013-02-06 03:38:11 and read 8369 times.

Is the question not "who is going to buy SAA"? as opposed as to "what (planes) they are (not) going to buy"?

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: BSRadar
Posted 2013-02-06 05:29:27 and read 7230 times.

Probably and sadly this is wishful thinking by a 748i fan. The airline's pride and former glories would probably wish for an A380 or indeed a 748i (over a 777xx?). Boeing themselves won't have overlooked that SAA utilised 747's for many years. Boeing will have looked at SAA, ever hopeful of widening a thin order book. Keen-to-make-sales aircraft manufacturers and leasing companies can be fairly creative if they wish to be. Who knows what they know? Perhaps they remember the exit of the 747-400's as just one part of an ongoing financial and political slapstick management that has befuddled the airline for many years. The airline went cap-in-hand for yet another government bail out in December. Maybe the risk analyses just don't show up too well?

On the other hand, does the non-order of new flagship models possibly represent the beginnings of an outbreak of near sanity at SAA? Bizarrely, you could almost make a case for it. Let's have some fun - here goes. Accepting the received wisdom from this thread's contributors then: 1) The 346's have been serving them well. 2) the A380 & 748i are too much plane. 3) The A346 carries more freight than the B748i 4) The A346 may indeed be still outperforming newer versions of the B777, whereas the A346 meets SAA's JNB needs of a 4-engine plane. 5) Notwithstanding point No.4) SAA has fleet flexibility and commonality with the A332/343. Collectively, this is quite persuasive that SAA doesn't need new flagship models.

Sanity indeed! However, the thread also makes the reasonable suggestion that, in time, SAA will need larger aircraft than the A346. When and which one, A380 or B748i will it be? Will the passenger B748i manufacturing line be closed by then (How long can it stay open? The question has been asked by others). I suggest that sourcing second hand B748i models would be a difficult pastime, unless Lufthansa is offloading like it did with the A342's. So will the A380 be a shoo-in by then?.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: swallow
Posted 2013-02-06 06:40:06 and read 6472 times.

It is generally accepted that JNB at 5,558 ft is high and hot, which is why SA operates quads for better engine out performance. I get that.

How come neither KQ nor ET operate quads and yet NBO (5,327 ft) and ADD (7,656 ft) are also high and hot? Moreover, both operate 777's and yet tire speed limitations don't seem to affect TO performance. I suppose this has to do with stage length. ADD-IAD non-stop is shorter than JNB-JFK or JNB-ATL.

Just asking...

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: SAAFNAV
Posted 2013-02-06 07:31:05 and read 5964 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
SA is in dire financial conditions.

They just recently received an emergency loan from the government to pay their fuel bills.
SAA Receives Emergency Bail Out From Government (by LAXintl Jan 13 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Buying a new longhaul fleet cant be a major concern at the moment.

That's nothing new. Probably one of the few companies in the world that has been continually insolvent for 15 years running.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: fraapproach
Posted 2013-02-06 08:03:17 and read 5607 times.

Quoting SAAFNAV (Reply 18):
Probably one of the few companies in the world that has been continually insolvent for 15 years running.

Put AI on that list.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-02-06 11:13:51 and read 3805 times.

Quoting swallow (Reply 17):
How come neither KQ nor ET operate quads and yet NBO (5,327 ft) and ADD (7,656 ft) are also high and hot? Moreover, both operate 777's and yet tire speed limitations don't seem to affect TO performance. I suppose this has to do with stage length. ADD-IAD non-stop is shorter than JNB-JFK or JNB-ATL

777 performance from ADD and NBO is not such a big issue since the two are much closer to Europe & Asia. Most of Europe and Southeast Asia is 8 hours flying time from Kenya and Ethiopia. Johannesburg is more challenging since its so far south. African flying always interesting, never boring and never predictable.

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: dennys
Posted 2013-02-13 13:39:51 and read 2146 times.

I would love to see SAA fly the 747-8i but i am affraid that only LHR ( and JFK some days) could be rentable for them .

Topic: RE: SA And The 748i
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-02-13 14:04:04 and read 2055 times.

Quoting cv990coronado (Reply 12):
Do you know how this effects DL with their 77L operation JNBATL ?

Being just a single route they are able to time it for an evening departure, when it is cooler. However if JNB is your home base then you don't have this option.

Quoting swallow (Reply 13):
I don't know how much payload the 333 can lift ex-JNB if it were to replace the 343.

Not enough to make it out of Africa with the same load. You'd be lucky if it made it to the Sahara.

Quoting swallow (Reply 17):
How come neither KQ nor ET operate quads and yet NBO (5,327 ft) and ADD (7,656 ft) are also high and hot? Moreover, both operate 777's and yet tire speed limitations don't seem to affect TO performance. I suppose this has to do with stage length. ADD-IAD non-stop is shorter than JNB-JFK or JNB-ATL.

As mentioned KQ's routes are shorter, meaning a lighter take off weight. Also a good part of the air cargo coming out of Kenya is cut flowers, which are bulky but not that heavy. ET can't operate non stop to North America with either the 77L or 788, they make fuel stops in Rome but fly direct on the way back to ADD.


Dan  


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/