Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 80
Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4676 times:
This is an absolutely outstanding article. Finally, some analysis about the A340-600's performance as well, in actual tangible numbers.
SAA201, I have a list of questions...
Is SAA actually growing as fast as the article makes it sound?
Are you flying 744s on each of your slots to LHR?
Are your JFK and Atlanta flights huge money makers for you? Filling up the 744s seat wise?
I was just fascinated that the article implies that not only are the 744s aging, but that SAA was outgrowing them anyway. I know the 744 isn't a 21st century plane, but it does seem to be effective. The FAA fuel tank directive obviously hurts you guys... and the A380 would solve that. The A380 could also do the ATL trip nonstop in both directions no problem.
I'd also imagine RR powerplants being chosen - which RR needs don't they? Isn't the GP7200 whooping up the Trent 900 pretty well in Sales?
Jmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3342 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4612 times:
SA takes severe payload penalties (in the form of pax) for it's N. American 744 ops...... shouldnt be tough to fill them at all.
That is very true. Last month, I flew SA - Georgia">ATL-CPT on a 747-400 (ZS-SAY), which is configured 11F/56J/285Y. I noticed that Y-class was booked to 216 pax, and restricted to 271. Also, the temperature at departure time was 31 degrees Fahrenheit and it still used up almost all 11889' of Runway 27R. Just imagine how severe the restriction would be during the summer.
Gerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4559 times:
(quote from the above mentioned article): "The aircraft needed 28 ton s of fuel less than the B747 Classic which usually services the route - a saving of some R77 000. It also carried an extra 30 ton s in weight, increasing revenue further. And it needed only three cockpit crew rather than five.
SAA estimates that over a year the A340 will carry four times the payload of a B747 Classic on the Hong Kong route. And studies have shown that to New York, the A340 will use around 22 ton s of fuel less than the B747-400 . "
It compares the A346 with the B747 classic on the HKG route and with the B744 to New York.
Just a question: does the B744 have to do a fuel stop on the route to New York and will the A346 do the same stop as well? This could also play a role in the consumption.
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4486 times:
Of couese from an engineering point-of-view it is not very prudent to compare a one-stop flight to a non-stop flight and saying: Hey, the A346 needs 22% less fuel. However, from an operational point of view things are different.
-needs 22% less fuel
-gets there faster.
It doesnt matter HOW this she achieves this, it just matter THAT she does. The A346 flies there nonstop, the B744 does not. So it is conceivable that the A346 might be the better plane to fly there.
Both are fine aircraft. There are other routes where the B744 would be cheaper / better to operate.
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4579 posts, RR: 38
Reply 18, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4469 times:
Artsyman - it was refering to the 747 Classic needing 5 cockpit crew, not the 747-400. Don't forget that longhaul flights carry relief crew, not just the 2/3 required at any one time to fly the aircraft.
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 10458 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4382 times:
How many A380's have been ordered until now? According to the Airbus website there were 95 orders by the end of 2002 (?) from Qatar Airways, Emirates, Air France, Lufthansa, Qantas, FedEx, ILFC and Singapore Airlines. Malaysian Airlines ordered the A380 this year.
Here's my summary of the current status of (potential) A380 customers. Please correct if I got this wrong.
Qatar Airways and Emirates
Qatar Airways is expected to order two more A380's at this year's Paris Air Show. Emirates is also evaluating the need for more A380's.
A while ago I read Iberia was interested in the A380 as well, even though I don't see that happen anytime soon. I think the A340-600 is large enough for Iberia's long-haul operations for the coming 5-8 years (?).
Cathay Pacific Airways
It still surprises me this airline hasn't selected the A380 yet, but rumours are they will lease a few from ILFC (according to an article published in Flight International). I've read on a post here that it's typical of Cathay Pacific Airways to look at the performance of a newly introduced aircraft before they place an order themselves. Is this true?
Now that the US will introduce fuel restrictions on all 744 operators to the US, can we expect more A380 orders from Qantas or will they go for more B747-400ER's?
There have been quite some articles discussing the need for larger aircraft on the Japanese market with Japan Airlines and ANA being eyed by Airbus. What's the status on this?
It has been a long time that I haven't heard from Atlas Air regarding the A380-800F. About a year ago I read an article in Flight International in which the CEO of Atlas Air was expressing interest in the A380-800F if modifications were implemented as the A380-800F at the time was configured for cargo express operations. IIRC the A380-800F needed some strengthening in the aircraft's structure and more powerful engines to allow it to carry heavier cargo which Atlas Air transports. What's the current status on Atlas Air and the A380-800F?
South African Airways
We now know South African Airways is the latest potential customer for the A380.
As for British Airways and US major airlines, there financial situation and future outlook doesn't support A380 operations. US major airlines strategies are based on frequency rather than capacity. But what about slot restrictions at major airports? There will come a time when these airlines will also need larger aircraft to cope with increasing demand (even though this may still be far away). Are US A380 operations a possibility in about 10-15 years from now?
Rojo From Spain, joined Sep 2000, 2508 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4291 times:
If I remember correctly, the A340-600 will perform better with the new wing it will get that will be 1 ton less heavy!!!
The A346 is a little bit more heavy of what Airbus promised when airlines made their purchase orders, so a new wing was developed, but the first batch of 20 A346's will have the heavy wing. This should hurt a lot on the performance of the airplane. I know Iberia's first three A346 will have the heavy wing which will be a problem after they get all the frames.
I will guess SAA will retrofit the A346 with the new wing????
Hkg82 From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2002, 1328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4286 times:
This is great news for the A380 program, yet another potential customer. I think it's more likely than not that they will order the A380.
"He said SAA had asked Airbus to study the performance data of the mega-jet to see if it was also suitable for service to New York and Hong Kong, the airline's other long-haul routes. " (a portion of the article copied & pasted)
Well this is unexpected to say the least! Even by 2006 I would very much doubt SAA would be able to fill an A380 on the HKG service, cargo certainly, but passengers, it’s very unlikely. This route is well suited to the A346/747-size aircraft & Cathay already operates flights to JNB from HKG but hey, it’s not like I don’t want them to operate the A380 to Hong Kong, of course I do, but I just don’t see it happening.
I'm not sure, but is there going to be an A380C? If so, then an A380C on JNB-HKG could certainly be viable.
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8434 posts, RR: 54
Reply 24, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4252 times:
This is why the A380 is going to be a massive success. Every airline who operate 747s right now will need to replace those aircraft eventually. Why would they do it with more 747s, and all the limitations of old technology? Not to say that the 747 is a dog, far from it - but it's a little long in the tooth these days. Eventually every operator of the 747 will fly the A380, or get out of the widebody long haul flying business (unless Boeing build a new VLA from scratch, like they should have from the outset).
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
: Cedarjet, I must agree, unless Boeing revises the 744 massively (or the A380 suffers serious problems) its days as a bestseller are over forever. Sad
: A look at SAA's (and codeshare partner DL's) websites show that eastbound JFK-JNB and ATL-JNB/CPT are again operating nonstop (with the exception of t
: A388, You can add another to your list. A recent article on the A380 said that Airbus will soon get an order for 10 A380's from a Middle Eastern carri
: Notice that airlines are increasingly replacing their fleets earlier than planned. SAA plans to get rid of the 744's in 5 to 6 years time, and even by
: Artsyman - it was refering to the 747 Classic needing 5 cockpit crew, not the 747-400. Don't forget that longhaul flights carry relief crew, not just
: SailorOrion You are of course right: for SAA it's 22t less of fuel from JNB to JFK. Period! It would be just a bit false to say now, that an A346 uses
: I wouldn't be surprised that SA orders about 10-12 A380-800's. People forget that the LHR-CPT/JNB route is a very popular route, and there are multipl
: Frostbite, a 744 is designed to haul roughly 400 people. The fact that SA fits their N. American longhaulers with mid-to-moderate 300s is a payload re
: Artsyman wrote: What is the point of mentioning the classic ? it is not relevent at all, and then to mention the 5 man cockpit, it is also not releven
: I understand that, but it is misleading. the article is very airbus vs boeing and therefore to be accurate needs to compare like for like. I understoo
: I don't think, it was a pro Airbus article, but more an article pointing out the importance of the investments placed by ordering all those A343 and A
: Gerardo says... "It would be just a bit false to say now, that an A346 uses x% less fuel than the B744 on any route, just based on this comparison. Ad
: I do think that the article was definately pro-Airbus. Obviously, the A340-600 is going to have better operating economics than a 747-200. Also, the 7
: Maybe just maybe we may see an A340-600 in ZRH or an A380 ... I won't get my hopes up
: "What is the point of mentioning the classic ? it is not relevent at all, and then to mention the 5 man cockpit, it is also not relevent." Artsyman,
: Greetings, how have you been. We've gone a few rounds on this one. I have no reason to lie, and I don't paste false information. Boeing is indeed goin
: The 744 repair is substantially more expansive than many carriers will choose to make. We'll just have to wait and see on the 747-800. N
: The problem with the centre fuel tank is twofold. One is to find ways to prevent electrical arcing from wiring and components in the fuel tank, which