Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SK And The 787-8 Or 787-9  
User currently offlineEuroBonus From Denmark, joined Nov 2004, 96 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

I just had an eye on the SK long haul fleet and tried to compare with a eventual 787-8 or 787-9 fleet.

Their 11 Airbuses, both 343 and 333 seats 261 passengers in a 3-class config (Business, Economy Extra and Economy). But according the Airbus website the 343 and 333 can seat 295 passengers in 3-class config and 335 in 2-class config, it's a big difference between SK's config and the suggested config from Airbus.

If we imagine SK should order 11 new Dreamliners, which model would they choose? The 787-8 or 787-9?

The 788 would seat 200-225 pax, and the 789 240-270 pax in SK config, as in the Airbuses. I guess they would order both 788 and 789 to their Asian and US operations.

Comments, anyone?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCheco77 From Peru, joined Oct 2004, 1345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4312 times:

I really dont think that SK will ever order any Boeing long-haul aircraft. If they already have A330s and A340s, it would be very costly to change their fleet to B787s. They will eventually order A350 which will definitely suit their needs better.

Adam



Czech Boeing lover living in Lima
User currently offlineWorldXplorer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4238 times:

Quoting Checo77 (Reply 1):
They will eventually order A350 which will definitely suit their needs better.

I thought that SK had made comments that the Airbuses were a bit too big for them. They have been struggling ever since they upped capacity from their 767-300ER's. With the change in management that has been discussed, perhaps there will be a change in philosophy. It seems to see they could benefit from a smaller aircraft.

Quoting Checo77 (Reply 1):
If they already have A330s and A340s, it would be very costly to change their fleet to B787s.

Many people said the same things about NW, KE, AC, and QF. They all ended up order the 787. However if the A350 gets revamped at Farnborogh, they may well follow the lead of TP, TAM, Eurofly, etc who stuck with Airbus. But my point is there is strong evidence that an existing A330 fleet does not automatically translate into an A350 order.

WorldXplorer


User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 1005 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4221 times:

Honestly, I think it`s more a question of IF the 343s and 333s will be replaced, than WITH WHAT.

First SK must decide what kind of carrier it wants to be, and if that carrier should include the rather limited long haul division they have now, should they try to expand it, or axe it all together. SK is losing money and must do something about it.

I for one hope the future will include SK long haul, and the 788,-9 and -10 should be fine for SK, as well as the 350/370, whatever that turns into. As of now their relatively new 340s and 330s are good aicraft for SK, and a replacement for them is not exactly the most pressing issue.


raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4166 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4221 times:

Consider how old SK´s A330/340 are, and you have the answer what will be ordered: nothing...


Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1725 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4221 times:

Quoting Checo77 (Reply 1):
If they already have A330s and A340s, it would be very costly to change their fleet to B787s. They will eventually order A350 which will definitely suit their needs better.

It will be equally costly for them to change to the A350. The new A350 will have almost zero commonality with the existing A330/A340 fleet.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineEuroBonus From Denmark, joined Nov 2004, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4186 times:

Quoting WorldXplorer (Reply 2):
I thought that SK had made comments that the Airbuses were a bit too big for them. They have been struggling ever since they upped capacity from their 767-300ER's.

I also read about it somewhere, then I thought the 788 would be a better choice for SK. They of course can't order any new planes within the next few years. But if they had to or could order a whole new fleet now, what would they order? The 787 would be the best option for them, i think.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5792 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4065 times:

Quoting Checo77 (Reply 1):
They will eventually order A350 which will definitely suit their needs better.

I love the mid-afternoon arrival and early evening departure of the SK A340 over my house near Seattle, so I hope they don't change for a long time.

I must say, though, that it seems difficult to state out-of-hand that the A350 will "definitely suit their needs better" when we don't even know for certain what the A350 is going to be. I understand that you might be referring to commonality, but again, they have ordered from Airbus, Boeing, MD, Fokker, etc. - no reason to believe that a switch between longhaul widebody airframe builders wouldn't happen.

Having said all that, I agree - it should, and likely will, be a long time before they really need to make a switch to a new fleet. Unless fuel takes another catastrophic rise, of course.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineCheco77 From Peru, joined Oct 2004, 1345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3964 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 7):
I understand that you might be referring to commonality,

I was talking about commonality!! Who knows, maybe they will order the 787, SK knows what they want and they will decide what will eventually suit their needs better in reality.

Adam

[Edited 2006-05-26 22:39:54]


Czech Boeing lover living in Lima
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31406 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3903 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Checo77 (Reply 1):
(SK) will eventually order A350 which will definitely suit their needs better.

I have heard many reports of SK experiencing low loads and revenues on many of their international routes, so I am not sure adding even more seats to them is prudent...

That being said, I believe they will stay with their A330 and A340 fleet until, as Raggi noted, they have a better feel on what types of missions they want to fly and what types of aircraft best fit those missions.


User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3831 times:

I thought that SK were still in financial doo-doo. If they then it is hardly the time to be renewing the long haul fleet again, especially since the current fleet isn't even five years old yet.

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

Quoting Raggi (Reply 3):
Honestly, I think it`s more a question of IF the 343s and 333s will be replaced, than WITH WHAT.

This is the key question - SAS seems to have trouble making its longhaul routes work and has claimed that its intercotinental services lose money. Thus, I dont think that we will be seeing a 787 order from SAS at any time in the near future to either expand their longhaul fleet or to replace their rather new A333/343 fleet.

Was the A333/343 fleet the right aircraft for SAS? Who knows......first they said the 763s were too small and now the A333/343s are too big, so I dont know what to think. What is certain is that operating the A333 as your smallest longhaul airliner is problematic when you operate a multiple hub system such as SAS....and the Scandic capitals cannot be compared with CDG or LHR as far as traffic. The EWR-OSL service was scrapped since the A333 made no sense on this route, longhaul services out of ARN are almost non-existant for this reason, etc. SAS has always had difficulty with its fleet planning and aircraft size.....747s and DC10s were too big, 763s were too small, A300 were too big, 736s are too small, A321s are too big....its almost funny.

A mix of 787-8s and 787-9s would probably be ideal for SAS - but dont look for it to happen.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3807 times:

Quoting EuroBonus (Thread starter):
I guess they would order both 788 and 789 to their Asian and US operations.

For some routes a 787-8 would be the preferred option for SAS. The A330-300 was to big for the OSL-EWR run and now Continental flies this route without competition. There are other routes that does not require the capacity of the large wide-body airplanes they have today.

Quoting Checo77 (Reply 1):
If they already have A330s and A340s, it would be very costly to change their fleet to B787s. They will eventually order A350 which will definitely suit their needs better.

SAS has so few wide-body airplanes that they are using only one type. SAS is very disappointed with their long-haul fleet. They have sold all of them and leased them back in order to get a good price for the airplanes. IF SAS gets the pilot productivity up, they can continue to fly long-haul, and if the Pilots agrees with increased productivity then the airline will be in position to buy new planes.

Quoting WorldXplorer (Reply 2):
I thought that SK had made comments that the Airbuses were a bit too big for them. They have been struggling ever since they upped capacity from their 767-300ER's. With the change in management that has been discussed, perhaps there will be a change in philosophy. It seems to see they could benefit from a smaller aircraft.

The Airbus is not optimized for the Scandinavian network. The 787-8 along with perhaps a few 787-9 would be an ideal plane for SAS.

Quoting Raggi (Reply 3):
Honestly, I think it`s more a question of IF the 343s and 333s will be replaced, than WITH WHAT.

Bingo. The main issue is to get the productivity up. SAS has cut 30% of their cost, and still that is not enough to get the airline profitable. The pilots should see their responsibility and contribute to making SAS a profitable airline.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
That being said, I believe they will stay with their A330 and A340 fleet until, as Raggi noted, they have a better feel on what types of missions they want to fly and what types of aircraft best fit those missions.

I think you are correct in this reasoning. The next new plane order for SAS will be what kind of RJ they would like.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineZander From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 610 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3791 times:

I really doubt that the loads are that low on the international services,
all the flights at least to USA always seem to be full and overbooked.
I have been offered money and a hotelnight several times when going to the States. I don't know how the loads are on the Asia-flights but I really don't think the loads are low there either.

What I have heard SAS isn't making any money on the routes even though they are full and there you got the big questionmark, I guess.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3762 times:

Quoting Zander (Reply 13):
I really doubt that the loads are that low on the international services,
all the flights at least to USA always seem to be full and overbooked.
I have been offered money and a hotelnight several times when going to the States. I don't know how the loads are on the Asia-flights but I really don't think the loads are low there either.

What I have heard SAS isn't making any money on the routes even though they are full and there you got the big questionmark, I guess.

Rule number one: full airplanes do not mean profits. SAS's yeilds are not good enough on their long haul routes to support their above-average costs. This is more a yeild issue than a load issue.......back when SAS flew LAX-CPN, the flight went out packed to capacity every day in each direction (with overbookings as well) - SAS cancelled that service saying that it lost money on each and every flight flown on the route since the fares collected did not cover costs. Ironic, isnt it?


User currently offlineWorldXplorer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3735 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 14):
back when SAS flew LAX-CPN, the flight went out packed to capacity every day in each direction (with overbookings as well) - SAS cancelled that service saying that it lost money on each and every flight flown on the route since the fares collected did not cover costs. Ironic, isnt it?

Perhaps I am taking an over-simplistic view, but how hard can it be to set fares so that they cover your costs. Especially on routes that you have a monopoly on. Did SK have any non-stop competition on the LAX-CPN route back then? I cannot recall.

But the same holds true for the US legacy carriers. Good loads, no profits. In my business we analyze the profitibiliy of products all of the time. That includes expenses not directly related to the product (similar to how US legacy would need to account for pensions) and determine if a product line (similar to an airlines route) is worth keeping on or not. Where is my thinking off? What variable is missing in my simplistic analogy?

WorldXPlorer


User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7564 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3618 times:

Quoting Checo77 (Reply 8):
I was talking about commonality!!

AH, one of the big reasons NW went with the 787, Airbus had apparently told NW that it wouldn't likely have the commonality with the A330. Thus, the A350 had zero advantages over the 787.



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
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...
Qantas And The 787 posted Tue Aug 29 2006 04:52:07 by Boston92
Air Tran And The 787 Dreamliner posted Tue Apr 18 2006 07:17:20 by Vulindlela744
LH And The 787? posted Tue Mar 28 2006 04:52:43 by CX747
Ryanair And The 787? posted Sat Mar 11 2006 00:59:52 by Qantas744ER
HA And The 787? posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:57:51 by Byrdluvs747
NWA And The 787 posted Sun Oct 23 2005 23:13:49 by Patches
BA And The 787? posted Thu May 19 2005 07:28:55 by VirginFSM
Latin America And The 787/A350 posted Tue May 10 2005 16:13:29 by AM744
AS And The 787 posted Mon Apr 11 2005 23:35:54 by Blackhawk144
Thomsonfly And The 787 posted Sun Mar 6 2005 16:47:52 by By738