PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6841 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2190 times:
I think it's a very fair question. For all Boeing's hype about the arrival of the 200LR, they have a derisory number of orders for the plane. Airbus can claim a few more customers and sales but it does seem that the airline world has failed to get excited about either.
The 300ER will sell as a 747 replacement. The A346 also has a respectable number of serious customers already. But their longer range little brothers?
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 42
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1969 times:
The other thing which you should think about with these aircraft is that they don't just allow you to operate longer routes, but they also allow you to operate existing routes without payload restrictions. For instance, the Sydney Dubai route could be operated by a B market aircraft (777-200ER), however there would be fairly strict payload limitations (more so on SYD-DXB, where you are travelling into the prevailing wind I believe). With a C market aircraft (A340-500) Emirates can operate on the route with passengers, and more importantly, cargo.
On the subject of cargo, Boeing projects a market for 200 777 Freighters (which will use the 777-200LR airframe). If the 777 Freighter performs up to expectations (and Boeing seem to have a good track record with just that), it should be as desirable a freight aircraft as the MD-11, so there is no doubt that they could sell 200 of them. I'd feel comfortable in saying that the number will be somewhat more than that. From what I have gathered, the A340-500 will not make nearly as good a freight aircraft as the 777-200LR, but there could still be a market for a freight version of it too...
I think it is clear that even though the A340-500 and the 777-200LR will not sell as well as other members of their family, there is a market for these aircraft, even if initial sales may seem sluggish.
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1951 times:
If it is viable for Singapore Airlines to operate to JFK and LAX with 181 seats, there should be many markets that can be profitable with ~250 seats.
How do you propose SQ will stuff in 250 pax in a 772 using a similar density configuration it has with the A345? The A345 has a longer fuselage that pretty much compensates for the added cabin width of the 772, so even if SQ operated the 772 in a 2-4-2 Premium Y class configuration, any extra seats per row would be compensated for by the A345's longer cabin.
Aseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2045 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1884 times:
it is expected that AI and IC together will order 50+ aircraft. The possible choices being discussed are A345/346 and B772/773. The decision is long delayed but will eventually go through. Moreover private Indian carriers too are looking for similar aircrafts for their international routes starting soon. Currently they are planning to lease, but will buy their own sooner or later.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12444 posts, RR: 100
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1781 times:
Quoting Incitatus (reply 2):
US-India is another large, growing C-market.
Actually, it's technically overwhelmingly B-market... though C-market aircraft would increase capability and flexibility
Maybe its being here on the west coast with its large Indian communities, but it seems that a HUGE C-market exits to India. Also, India-US east coast takes a huge payload hit with winds, so this goes with the "B-market with more payload" replies of this thread.
Oz-DFW is a huge opportunity waiting to happen. ORD... not yet.
Lutfi, I get a lower cost per seat per flight... but not a huge difference: these will never be cheap flights! Hey, LHR-Oz... That would be one profitable C-market. (In my humble opinion.)
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3965 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1749 times:
>>> Actually, it's technically overwhelmingly B-market... though C-market aircraft would increase capability and flexibility
Is it really? If you look at the great circle distances, some can be covered by the 777-200ERs. But then throw in a couple of wars, honorary memberships to the axis of evil and the Himalayas. The actual distances covered and flying times are at best up to -ER ranges with payload restrictions.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1647 times:
Why does SQ necessarily need the 772LR's additional cargo hauling capabilities on its C-Market Routes when this seems to largely duplicate capacity they already have with their large dedicated cargo fleet?