Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A340-500 For Other Asian Carriers?  
User currently offlineAsianguy767 From Singapore, joined Oct 2003, 263 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4740 times:

Both CX and PR are huge operators of A340 family so...

I wonder will CX order the A340-500 for its JFK operations? I know it currently flies HKG-YVR-JFK-YVR-HKG daily using its B744.

Also, will PR order the A340-500 for its LAX and SFO operations and up the frequency to daily and finally do away with the HNL stopover on the way back?



30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSabena332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4689 times:

I asked the same a few days ago, someone told me that TG will get three 345's.

Patrick


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4563 times:

CX ordered the A346 for HKG-JFK, a route it is perfectly suited to handle, and has yet to offer the service.

The SARS crisis didn't do wonders for it.

N


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4477 times:

someone told me that TG will get three 345's.

They already got them.


MH is a hot candidate for either the A345 or 772LR, and has expressed past interest in both.

The Japanese and Koreans really dont have much need for C-Class aircraft (probably the only realistic route they'd be needed on would be NRT/ICN-JNB)... but they're more likely to go 772LR in such an event.

MU may someday have the market for PVG-JNB, they'd be likely to choose A345.

And of course, there's GF in Middle East Asia.


User currently offlineBistro1200 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 337 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4267 times:

What cities will be served by TG A345's? Guessing LAX-BKK, maybe JFK or ORD thrown in there?



Measure to the millimeter, mark with a crayon, cut with an axe.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4239 times:

LAX, as it's TG's only N.American destination.


The buzz from the bees is that TG plans to open BKK-FRA-JFK with a 744, but nothing is in stone.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4218 times:

The buzz has been that TG wants to offer BKK-JFK as a priority. We'll see what happens.

N


User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4164 times:

TG has an edge over SQ for nonstop flights to JFK as the flight from BKK would be shorter in distance and thus less flying time which all equates to less weight penalty?

I think MH is the next best candidate for either the A345 or B772LR.

Both has commonality and so it will be interesting to see their decision. If they want it fast to compete with TG and SQ for nonstop North America flights then I think they can get the A345s way before the B772LR which hasn't even started test flights yet.

Either one would suit them well I believe, although personally I would like to see it be the A345.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4119 times:

MH was one of the most fervent proponents for Boeing to create a C-market 772..... but they, along with AA, werent thrilled in the least that RR didnt have what it takes to get on the 777NG bandwagon.

So could really go either way: the 772LR having [expected] weight and range advantage; the A345 having availability and engine advantage.


User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4102 times:

Well, expected? Maybe too early to say. but time will tell considering the B773ER has met expectations and slighly better than expected.

But I think later production models of A345s with the new lighter wings might have the A346HGW's improvements incorporated? If Airbus actually does that then it might further increase the range of the A345s.

But IIRC, the B772LR actually has longer published legs than the A345 by about 500km I think.

It is interesting to see how it all turns out.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4056 times:

If Airbus actually does that then it might further increase the range of the A345s.

either that, or catch up to the expectations promised at launch  Laugh out loud



But IIRC, the B772LR actually has longer published legs than the A345 by about 500km I think.

Nope, nearly double that actually:


772LR's expected range: 10,553mi/16,983km
A345's published range: 9,954mi/16,020kn

....the 777NG is expected to have a 963km great range.


User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4025 times:

If the ETOPS330 does not succeed, then will ETOPS 180 be sufficient for the 18 hr transpac LAX-KUL?

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4017 times:

LAX-KUL is an extremely southern route by the great circle. No ETOPS concerns with 180.

N


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3997 times:

Even if ETOPS330 clearance doesnt come (would be interesting to see why not, as all such test flights thus far have been tremendous successes).... Boeing can always shoot for 240 (rather worthless, but still better than no increase  Big grin)

User currently offlineKL808 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1584 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3995 times:

With regards to PR, it would be nice to see the A345/A346 in their fleet, however this will not happen. The carrier is just having financial difficulties, therefore not any time soon. They are recieving their 5th 744 to complement on the LAX route as well as the Narita route, which will be a dedicated 744 service route.

Now, my question is can the A346 make MNL-LAX-MNL non stop in both ways with full load?

would a 744ER make MNL-LAX non stop in both ways with full load?

if the later can do both ways then i think it would be more suitable to PR than the A346 because of its commonality with the rest of the B744 (ie GE engines).

Also, can the A346 make MNL-EWR with full load both ways?

so which aircraft would be more suitable to PR if they where going to get either the A345 or A346?

drew




AMS-LAX-MNL
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3954 times:

MNL-LAX should be no problem at all for either the 346 or the 744ER.

MNL-EWR isn't quite so realistic for either... the 345 could do it eyes shut, as could the 772LR.

N


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3894 times:

would a 744ER make MNL-LAX non stop in both ways with full load?

As could the lower MTOW 744 itself. The offset in price vs. payload may be worth it to an airline of PR's means.


User currently offlineMarara From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 678 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3781 times:

very strong rumour that BI may get a few 345s and 343s possible delivery in april.


I like work: it fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for hours. Jerome K Jerome
User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3754 times:

However rumour on BI has died and changed its course in opposite direction

All plans on A343s and A345s have been cancelled and new destinations or non stop flights to Europe using the A345s have been put off reason being the lack of crew.

Don't know how true this is. And it seems that those 2 supposedly-AC A345s have now been allocated to EK instead of going to BI as mentioned... I am not sure if EK is to pick up those 2 birds.

All in all they are just rumours.


User currently offlineLyzzard From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 404 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3749 times:

TG will start operations with the A345 in 2005. A346 operations will commence next year. Their A345s will fly BKK-JFK, not sure where the A346s will go, probably europe.

Don't know of any other asian airlines expressing interest in either the A345 or 346 but Iran Air has been looking at the Air Canada A345s parked at Chateauroux. We were supposed to have used those airplanes for aircraft training (as part of the initial SIA A345 crew) but the deal fell through because the Iranians were looking the airplanes over at that time.


User currently offlineChgoflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3696 times:

TG does not operate A340 and has no plans too


Will someone please wake me up in 4 years
User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2735 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3687 times:

Yes, they do.

As already mentioned, TG ordered 3 A340-500s and 5 A340-600s earlier this year.

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3495 times:

but Iran Air has been looking at the Air Canada A345s parked at Chateauroux

How could they aquire them? Would even a wet-lease be "allowed"?


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6761 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3444 times:

Well, Garuda should get the A345 or 772LR... allow for Bali to Europe non stop... Currently, there's no advantage for pax to fly to Bali from Europe on GA instead of SQ/MH/TG as GA has stop somewhere... in some circumstances, 2 stops.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

Well, Garuda should get the A345 or 772LR...

Considering that they already have GE90-powered 772ERs on order for 2006 delivery, switching them to 772LR wouldnt be a difficult task if they felt they needed C-market capacity.


25 Post contains images Mandala499 : Yes, that is true indeed. I'm saying SHOULD... not saying they will... The 772ER order is still in Limbo, there's talk here that it may even be furthe
26 Kl808 : How would Iran Air benefit on the A345? wouldnt they be better off with the A346? And how in the world would they be able to get clearance to get that
27 Lyzzard : The folks from Iran Air were just there to give the airplanes a once over. With the number of sanctions against that country, I'm sure any opportunity
28 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...yet another reason to question just how long SQ plans to hold on to those A340s
29 Lyzzard : >...yet another reason to question just how long SQ plans to hold on to those >A340s Until Boeing comes up with a trade in deal for spanking new B777-
30 ConcordeBoy : Throw in a few 772LRs of course... they werent candid about the pumping up of that aircraft's expected specs being mostly aimed at SIA.
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...
American Looks At A340-500 For Asian Expansion posted Tue Feb 8 2000 14:11:46 by Jet Setter
2 A340-500's For Sale, Who's Selling? posted Thu Jun 8 2006 14:31:40 by Gordonsmall
5 A340-500 For Kingfisher posted Mon Apr 24 2006 11:31:05 by Jonathan-l
First A340-500 For Etihad Airways (EY) posted Wed Mar 29 2006 18:14:32 by B742
Why No A340-500 For VS? posted Wed Mar 8 2006 00:30:20 by AirCanada014
1st A340-500 For Thai Airways/delivery Flight posted Wed Apr 6 2005 17:23:11 by JBOND
8 X A340-500 For Qatar Airways? posted Wed Dec 11 2002 13:22:48 by Dennys
A340-500/600 , A380 For JET Airways? posted Wed Jun 15 2005 20:23:36 by FCKC
Male FA's Working For Asian Carriers posted Wed Jul 7 2004 05:32:31 by Flybyguy
Asian Carriers With Western Uniforms For Females posted Fri Apr 30 2004 19:20:46 by Airmale