Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Forgeard: Airbus Expects VS To Order 20 A346  
User currently offlinePANAM_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4165 posts, RR: 90
Posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10064 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

From Bloomberg

By Andrea Rothman and Rebecca Barr
July 22 (Bloomberg) -- Airbus SAS, the largest maker of
commercial aircraft, expects to win a Virgin Atlantic Airways
Ltd. order for about 20 A340-600 planes worth $4 billion as early
as next week, said Airbus Chief Executive, Noel Forgeard.
``Discussions are very advanced but not completely
concluded,'' said Forgeard in an interview at the Farnborough Air
show. The A340-600, Airbus's biggest plane at 380 seats, has a
list price of $207 million, making a 20-plane order worth $4
billion excluding any discounts.

snip

Boeing Co., which had been talking to Virgin Atlantic about
buying 777s, said those talks have ended. ``We are not engaged in
active discussions with Virgin Atlantic,'' said spokesman Todd
Blecher in a telephone interview.

snip

Still open but looks like Boeing best offer is on the table and not changing





Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVulindlela744 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9864 times:

Seems like VS just like the 4 holers. Well for the long haul they definately are the more economical of the 2. Airbus is taking over. Hopefully Boeing will have a hit with their 7E7. Time will tell.

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9635 posts, RR: 68
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9854 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Well for the long haul they definately are the more economical of the 2

Eh? A four-engine plane is more economical than a 2-engine plane?


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9831 times:

Seems like VS just like the 4 holers.

Ha... it's called marketing. Besides, the A346 is established in VS fleet, it makes little sense to integrate an almost identical type, unless the economics are very compelling.

Well for the long haul they definately are the more economical of the 2

Hmm... I think a good number would care to disagree

Airbus is taking over

That couldn't be further from the truth. The 773ER and 772LR beat their competition in all relevant comparisons, but that's for another discussion. Airbus taking over? Hardly! SQ is expected to place an equally large (if not larger) order for Boeing widebodies toward the end of the month.


User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9793 times:

Isn't the A340-600 bigger than the 747-400??? (while at the same time hauling more cargo and burning less fuel)

I know none have been put in a higher density configuration so right now in terms of # of seats, the 747D's and tourist 747-200's still beat the S T R E T C H bus in numbers.



Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9767 times:

Isn't the A340-600 bigger than the 747-400??? (while at the same time hauling more cargo and burning less fuel)

Well, the A346 is longer, but the 744 carries more than 35 passengers (I'd imagine even more if you configured the A346 in a Boeing layout), has a much higher MTOW, ect. I'd imagine the A346 burns less fuel as it is a smaller aircraft, but in terms of seat/mile cost, I'd bet they would be closely matched.


User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9763 times:

Well, I believe a lot of this is due to the fact that they are stuck with their 'outdated' marketing slogan... For them to reverse this would be against what they were preaching for many years and this is in part what built the Virgin brand.

Would be interesting to know the % of passengers feel safer in a 4 engine plane? I bet its real high as most people are ignorant in this subject.

But who knows the validity to this maybe its all for a better deal so I'll believe it when I see it...



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineRick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9737 times:

"Would be interesting to know the % of passengers feel safer in a 4 engine plane? I bet its real high as most people are ignorant in this subject."

I doubt it is a very high proportion at all, most of the travelling public I know don't have a clue what type of aircraft they are flying in, nevermind how many engines it has. Getting them to remember the seating layout is sometimes hard enough, they don't really care!



I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17054 posts, RR: 67
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9725 times:

Well for the long haul they definately are the more economical of the 2

Eh? A four-engine plane is more economical than a 2-engine plane?


It depends on more things than the number of engines.

While fuel burn on the long-haul MAY be lower on the four-holer due to decreased total weight (lower total engine thrust=smaller engines) and lower thrust settings, maintenance costs may be higher due to twice as many engines. Also, there is more that can break on a 4-holer, giving potentially higher risk of delays.

The length of the route, prevailing winds and weather, altitude and temperature at airports can all affect costs greatly.

Then we have fleet commonality. Not only in terms of parts, but in terms of training for maintenance, pilots and cabin crew. Also, the cost maintenance contracts will vary with the number of airframes and any additional maintenance contract is associated with additional fixed costs, not to mention the cost of negotiations.

Finally, the purchase or leasing cost of the plane has a huge impact, which may well lead an airline to choose a plane with higher operating cost. Any investment has to be compared to other investments in it's entirety for the duration of the planned life of the investment. And of course in this calculation you have to consider planned divestment income.


In other words, there are many factors which have a much bigger economic effect than a simple count of the holes.

[Edited 2004-07-22 20:26:26]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9688 times:

Virgin is looking for a very good deal on new aircraft and to lock in very low prices for future aircraft for fleet renewal and expansion. This order is all about price - even if VS concluded that the 773ER was the beter performing aircraft, the better priced aircraft will win the order - its likely that many of the A346 aircraft will end up on transatlantic runs and services from London to South Africa, and for these routes, the A346 is just fine and the marginal advantages that the 773ER may offer are not very important. The four engine thing, in my opinion, is nothing more than silly marketing nonsense put forth by media-happy Branson to counter BA's wide-spread use of big twins on long haul routes.

I really hoped that Boeing would secure a big order from Virgin - while it still can happen, recent information seems to indicate that Airbus will get this order. Boeing, at the last minute, can always cut prices and make a last minute proposal to Virgin, but this kind of behavior has not been typical of Boeing in recent years.

This competition will go down to the last minute, I really dont have much faith in press releases like this one as such items are usually only put out there to put pressure on the manufacturers. Only when there is an offical order from Virgin can we be sure if its the 773 or A346.


User currently offlineAirbus3801 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1089 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9662 times:

YEE HAW!!!!!! VS

The A346 is just fine for VS and I don't see why everyone is so upset that they didn't buy precious Boeings. I don't see why VS would have even boughten any 777's because they already have the A346's making it not econimical to buy a completly new aircraft type when you can just supplement a already substantial aircraft in the fleet.


User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9617 times:

I also believe it's still open. Placing an order for another 20 A346 would almost mean the end of any B777 options in the future at VS...and can Richard Branson, often leader of innovations, really live with running several airlines but NOT operating what is regarded as the best performing long haul type available? I guess he is not enjoying a good sleep in these days...

And forget about the slogan...Richy would change it faster than we can imagine...

I won't be convinced about these 20 A346 until the order will finally be confirmed...no matter what Foregeard says.


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9530 times:

This is very good news for VS and make more orders of A346 aircraft. They are really like with A346 aircraft and will even to make get more long haul flight?

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17054 posts, RR: 67
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9515 times:

The four engine thing, in my opinion, is nothing more than silly marketing nonsense put forth by media-happy Branson to counter BA's wide-spread use of big twins on long haul routes.

It may be silly marketing nonsense but VS is great at using silly marketing nonsense (this slogan being only a small part of the total amount of silly marketing nonsense) and turning silly marketing nonsense into not so silly operating profits.


As Udo says, if it needs changing, it will to be changed.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePANAM_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4165 posts, RR: 90
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9484 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Even though just another media release I thought it relevent to post given who was quoted. I, too, like Udo will see it to believe it no matter what is stated publicly.

As Dutchjet said, it comes down to the last minute. Just look at IB and the A346 order as a great example of that. To me it still isn't a closed deal and Boeing may well win the day or any chance of a split order?

Regards



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineBristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2297 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9444 times:

They couldn't go and buy 2 engine planes otherwise it would be contradictory to their slogans on the planes - "4 engines 4 longhaul".

BF



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9400 times:

Only 20!? What a waste of time. . .20, hmmmfff! *Tiff*Tiff*  Big grin

On the serious side. . . Is VS planning on replacing its entire 744 fleet with these new "concourse-length" a/c?



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineSafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9347 times:

Seems like VS just like the 4 holers.
I would say that VS likes a good deal.

 Smile
-Will



"She Flew For What We Stand For"
User currently offlineTrident2e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9323 times:

I'm sure VS could change their marketing if they ordered 777s. They could argue that in this day and age long haul means 18 hours of flying and anything less than that is medium haul. So, they could have 'four engines for long haul' and 'two engines for transatlantic'! (And if he uses that I'll expect a big fat royalty cheque!)

User currently offlineJeffDCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9146 times:

Well for the long haul they definately are the more economical of the 2

Eh? A four-engine plane is more economical than a 2-engine plane?


It's quite possible that it could be. The 4 Trent 500's used on the A345/A346 are cheaper to maintain than 2 GE90-115B's. Also, due to the increased number of engines, each engine doesn't have to do as much work as on a twin configuration, and that means less fuel usage per engine, and also less maintenance.

Of course, becuase of the 4 engines using less fuel per engine on a 4-engine config, and there only being 2 engines on a twin jet config, i would have thought the fuel usage would work out about the same for each. In other words, i'd have thought the 777 and A340 would cost around the same to operate.

Cheers,

Jeff


User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9142 times:

"Isn't the A340-600 bigger than the 747-400??? (while at the same time hauling more cargo and burning less fuel)"

The 744 can carry more passengers due to it being wider, but the A346 can carry way more cargo than the 744, it can hold almost as much as a 744 just in the forward hold alone. Cargo also makes more money than passengers too.

 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8296 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9100 times:

Interesting that an "expected order" was announced instead of a MoU. Bit of Airbus flash during the air show? While it may be a rocket up B's @ss it may also be an invitation for B to push the price down even more. That might not get the deal for B, but it would cut A's gross margin even more.

Personally I think VS might be sitting back, waiting for another bum fight between A & B in order to get the price down even more. I can see Sir Richard telling A, "Let's hold off on the MoU for a while, there has been some price movement on the 777 . . ."


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6201 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9089 times:

Compromise -- VS could use 777 on overland routes (S. Africa, etc) and use the A346s on the transoceanic/polar routes.  Wink/being sarcastic


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9074 times:

I'd imagine the A346 burns less fuel as it is a smaller aircraft, but in terms of seat/mile cost, I'd bet they would be closely matched.

They aren't. The 346 offers an extremely superior fuel burn, and, across longer stages, the 346 can carry significantly more payload.

The 744 at SAA is a prime example. Their 346 can carry a great deal more payload out of JNB across their longer stages.

N


User currently offlineAjet From France, joined Jan 2004, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9016 times:

JeffDCA,

the engines' power has to be high enough to let the aircraft take off safely in case of an engine failure. This means a twin jet must be able to fly with 50% of its max thrust, while a 4-holer has to fly safely with 75% of its max thrust. Hence the max thrust on a twin jet must be much higher, and the 2 engines of a twin are heavier than the 4 engines of a 4-holer. Being heavier, the aircraft needs more fuel.

Cheers,

Nicolas


25 Hamlet69 : "Being heavier, the aircraft needs more fuel." Yes, if the engines were flying themselves. Unfortunately, they are not. If we are simply talking about
26 Richard28 : I understand that their some airports (I believe ones which require a plane to do a 180 degree turn to taxi back down the runway) that cannot facilita
27 NWA742 : Well for the long haul they definately are the more economical of the 2. Wrong. For basic terms of fuel burn per mile, twins are usually more efficien
28 Starlionblue : No matter what, there are so many other economic factors involved. Fuel burn is only one of many considerations.
29 Btblue : I bet they go with the 777.
30 Whitehatter : I have a feeling they could go with both. He's done it in the past, when VS ordered the 747 and A340 at roughly the same time.
31 Gigneil : Hamlet69 provided some simple data that'll prove that in the case of the 773ER vs. A346. Not because its a quad, but because the A340 is very heavy. I
32 Greg : I enjoy both aircraft....it's pointless to pick apart which one is better---they are actually quite comparable. Further, the -300er has had less than
33 Post contains images SafetyDude : Compromise -- VS could use 777 on overland routes (S. Africa, etc) and use the A346s on the transoceanic/polar routes. Seeing that the 777s having ETO
34 BlueSky1976 : Personally I'm under impression, that Virgin is trying to avoid any ETOPS-related trouble, hence it's exercising it's option to get more A340-600. On
35 Horus : though it's probably not going to be an issue once 330-minute ETOPS are proven safe and certified by the authorities. when is that happening? Horus
36 BlueSky1976 : Theoretically, it could happen now, as Boeing proven on its 777-300ER that 330-minute ETOPS flight with one engine shut down is possible and doable. P
37 Post contains images VS11 : If I were Boeing or Airbus CEO, I would have approached the other in an attempt to establish collusion. Really, they do not need to compete. You have
38 Starlionblue : Seriously, do you think fuel burn and ETOPS makes that much of a difference? I'm speculating, but I would say the diff is too small to make an impact
39 Post contains images Scbriml : I'm afraid those of you hoping for a last second switch to 777s are not reading the situation correctly. Just look at the facts: Airbus says (when ask
40 RayChuang : Here's the big question: has Virgin Atlantic (VS) ordered the "regular" A340-600 or the upcoming A340-600HGW version with the lighter wing and higher
41 PANAM_DC10 : Hello This story has been updated by Bloomberg with a comment from a Virgin Spokesperson which says..... Paul Moore, a Virgin Atlantic spokesman said
42 Hamlet69 : "NF would have loved to announce this order at Farnborough, but it looks as though they didn't quite make it." I wouldn't be so sure he'd want the ful
43 MD-11 forever : @BlueSky1976 "Theoretically, it could happen now, as Boeing proven on its 777-300ER that 330-minute ETOPS flight with one engine shut down is possible
44 Post contains images Planemaker : Seeing that the 777s having ETOPS, I do not see VS ordering the 777s for that reason. My post was a joke re. the "4 engines for longhaul" marketing co
45 Kalakaua : What now?! We're bringing in the "4 engines..." crap? What next? "Yoke is a joke" crap?!
46 Planemaker : What now?! We're bringing in the "4 engines..." crap? Obviously, you haven't bothered to read the thread -- it started in Reply 3.
47 Na : 1. the A340-600 is a lot cheaper than the 773ER (which is the most costly airliner in existence). For the price of 20 A340-600s I bet Boeing delivers
48 Post contains links and images Kalakaua : "Obviously, you haven't bothered to read the thread -- it started in Reply 3." Because I knew this thread was going to become a fruitless A v. B battl
49 Gearup : BlueSky1976, You may be right but I am sure of this: I would not want to find myself 300 minutes from the nearest suitable airport in a twin over an o
50 Dutchjet : "NF would have loved to announce this order at Farnborough, but it looks as though they didn't quite make it." I wouldn't be so sure he'd want the ful
51 Rwylie77 : VS11 - collusion is illegal! They will go for the A340 - people on this site massively underestimate the cargo revenue!!
52 Crewrest : I disagree about the A380, I think VS will still be getting it, it's not just airport issues that are delaying it, it's the whole business of a little
53 Post contains images JeffDCA : Ajet, That brought back way too many memories of the Performance ATPL! Cheers, Jeff
54 Gigneil : similar fuel burn to a 744 This statement couldn't be more wrong. On many long sectors, the 346 burns as much as 20 tons less than a 744 with even a s
55 Hirnie : It is very interesting to read all the posts about the 777-300ER being so superior over the A340-600 in terms of economics. But why should airlines li
56 Post contains images Leezyjet : "Basically, VS are trying to back out of the A380." First I've heard and I don't believe it for one second. VS can't wait to get the A380, the problem
57 Jtdieffen : It is very interesting to read all the posts about the 777-300ER being so superior over the A340-600 in terms of economics. But why should airlines li
58 Post contains links and images SafetyDude : But why should airlines like SAA, Lufthansa, Thai, Air Canada etc. choose the 340-600 and not the 777-300ER? SAA-Got a good deal as Swiss did not want
59 Post contains links B2707SST : Hence the max thrust on a twin jet must be much higher, and the 2 engines of a twin are heavier than the 4 engines of a 4-holer. Being heavier, the ai
60 VS11 : Rwylie77 - Of course, collusion is illegal - if proven. Just because it is illegal, it does not mean it is not done. Although I made the suggestion as
61 NWDC10 : You need to understand something. Taking the A346/777. 4 engines can be more fuel efficeient than 2 or the 2 can be more fuel efficient than 4. If the
62 Boysteve : As for 2 vs 4 engines, many potential customers (usually older generations) take this issue seriously. I have a Canadian uncle who "won't cross the At
63 Airchabum : According to the company intranet site an announcement is expected next week, but it doesn't say which type. Cheers
64 Gearup : Boysteve, There are probably more people out there like your uncle than we think. They may not refuse to travel but they do so with a great deal of ne
65 Teahan : Anyone know what is really going at VS? A spokesperson today said: "We still think it is going to be sometime during the later part of the summer" (so
66 Post contains images SafetyDude : Is there any inside information/updates from the VS staff? -Will
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...
Air China To Order 20 Airbus A330-200 posted Thu Jul 21 2005 18:15:25 by Beaucaire
EK Ready To Order 20 747-8? posted Wed Oct 4 2006 20:35:51 by DAYflyer
AVolar From Mexico To Order 20 Boeing's! posted Mon Sep 11 2006 02:58:03 by Ghost77
BA Is Ready To Order 20 B777s? posted Wed Jan 25 2006 17:17:42 by Concorde001
TAM To Order 20 A320s posted Wed May 25 2005 19:30:22 by PPVRA
ILFC To Order 20 7E7 And 20 A350 posted Tue Jan 18 2005 15:43:56 by PANAM_DC10
China Southern To Order 20 B7E7s? posted Wed Jan 5 2005 04:58:19 by Planemannyc
Northwest Possible To Order A345,A346? posted Wed Jun 20 2001 04:39:49 by TOMASKEMPNER
Crossair To Order 20 737NGs Or A 320s posted Sun Feb 20 2000 10:03:05 by Avion
VS Finalizes Order Of 13 A346 With Airbus posted Tue Dec 21 2004 00:41:43 by Sjoerd