Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?  
User currently offlineLordHowe From Finland, joined Jan 2003, 728 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5639 times:

I just read a press release by MK on their website. Here are some parts of it:

Quote:
"PRESS RELEASE - Air Mauritius orders two Airbus A330-200
Port Louis, 11 September 2006
Air Mauritius announces that it has amended a purchase agreement signed with Airbus in June 2005 substituting an A340-300E which it had on firm order for delivery in the last quarter of 2007 by a twinengined A330-200.
It has also firmed up an option for a further A330-200 to be delivered in October 2009.
..............

In addition, since 2004 when exhaustive studies leading to the selection of the A340-300E were conducted, and during which the A330-200 was also examined, the price of fuel has dramatically increased from 0.85 cents per USG to a price in excess of $2 dollars. In this context the twin-engined A330-200 will enable Air Mauritius to make significant savings, principally in fuel cost, whilst taking full benefits of the engineering and operational commonality between the two aircraft types.
...........

Configured in a two-class layout, the A330-200s ordered will accommodate about 280 passengers and carry its full payload of over 38 tons on such 10-hour flights like Hong Kong to Mauritius."

This makes me wonder why airliners like Finnair who have a lot of as long - or actually short - routes like this mentioned MRU-HKG ie. 10 hour flight, are byuing A340s instead of A330s. It would make sense for Finnair too to purchase twin engined aircrafts and thus save a lot of money in fuel consumption.

Or is this so?

Regards,
LordHowe


Lord Howe Island - The Last Paradise
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineB742 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 3768 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5574 times:

Quoting LordHowe (Thread starter):
This makes me wonder why airliners like Finnair who have a lot of as long - or actually short - routes like this mentioned MRU-HKG ie. 10 hour flight, are byuing A340s instead of A330s. It would make sense for Finnair too to purchase twin engined aircrafts and thus save a lot of money in fuel consumption.

Yes it would, but remember the A330-200 is smaller than the A340-300 which AY have purchased. If they wanted a twin-engine Airbus aircraft which is similar to the A340/MD11 size then they would of purchased the A330-300, which would perhaps struggle on longer sectors to Asia, thus the interm purchase of the A340-300. The A340's may have also been available on a good deal to AY as sales are struggling on the A340 compared to the A330  Smile

The A330-200 will replace the two 762's in the MK fleet, which will be of a slightly larger capacity compared to the large increase in size of the A340-300. It makes sense to replace the 767's, there will be a increase in size, but not as big as the jump between the 762 and 343 would have been  Smile

Rob!  wave 


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25330 posts, RR: 49
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5558 times:

I've done a fair amount of analysis of the A330 vs A340.
The A330 has a definite advantage up to about 8 hour stage lengths. Above 8 hours the economics start to favor the A340 over its twin cousin. Off course specific issues such as ETOPS, hot/high airport issues can also significantly effect the preference and need of the two types.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30974 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5540 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LordHowe (Thread starter):
This makes me wonder why airliners like Finnair who have a lot of as long - or actually short - routes like this mentioned MRU-HKG ie. 10 hour flight, are byuing A340s instead of A330s.

As B742 noted, the A343 has a range advantage over the same-sized A330 because it can carry more fuel weight thanks to the extra two engines (even though those two engines increase fuel-burn).

So by taking the A332, MK is saving money on fuel, but they cannot carry as many people and payload as they could with the A343. On the plus side, a smaller plane - even with higher CASM - offers higher RASM since you can "leave behind" the lowest-yield customers.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5336 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

the A332 is a 5000nm plane, the A343 a 6000nm one, flying similar length routes a A333 (which is a 4000nm plane) may burn 10%+less than a A343. I would think a A332 will be even more frugal on fuel but it will also have less capacity.
http://www.sasems.port.se


User currently offlineVarig md-11 From France, joined Jul 2000, 1597 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5262 times:

Quoting LordHowe (Thread starter):
This makes me wonder why airliners like Finnair who have a lot of as long - or actually short - routes like this mentioned MRU-HKG ie. 10 hour flight, are byuing A340s instead of A330s

I am not an expart in AY strategy but I believed they prefered 3 or 4 engined metal because their routes to Asia are mostly over Northern Siberia = ETOPS problems



AF TW AA NW DL UA CO BA U2 TP UX LH SK AZ MP KL SN VY HV LS SS TK SQ PC RG IW SE
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5224 times:

Quoting LordHowe (Thread starter):
Air Mauritius announces that it has amended a purchase agreement signed with Airbus in June 2005 substituting an A340-300E which it had on firm order for delivery in the last quarter of 2007 by a twinengined A330-200.
It has also firmed up an option for a further A330-200 to be delivered in October 2009.

Good news. Now how about a new livery.

Quoting Varig md-11 (Reply 5):
I am not an expart in AY strategy but I believed they prefered 3 or 4 engined metal because their routes to Asia are mostly over Northern Siberia = ETOPS problems

If that was the case they wouldn't have ordered the a350. My guess is they needed the higher payload capacity, and perhaps longer range of the a343, and the a332 was too small for them. It's certainly smaller than the MD11 which the a343's (and a350's) are going to replace.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4053 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4863 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
The A330 has a definite advantage up to about 8 hour stage lengths. Above 8 hours the economics start to favor the A340 over its twin cousin. Off course specific issues such as ETOPS, hot/high airport issues can also significantly effect the preference and need of the two types.

This is why TN (Tahiti Nui) is using A343s for their flights over the A330s or the Boeing 777. Since they fly so much over wide open ocean, ETOPS also comes into play.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1246 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4850 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
hot/high airport issues can also significantly effect the preference and need of the two types.

I always thought in a hot and high situation the A330 is actually the preferred aircraft as it actually has a higher thrust to weight ratio, thanks to the blow dryers on the A343/2. Is this true?



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineOHLHD From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4592 times:

OK, I tell you the trough about AY!!!!


Long time ago, there were heavy fights within AY whether they want a 4 engine aircraft or a 2 engine aircraft. After long dicussions and heavy fights they finally came to a decison!

The : ...............
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mika B Virolainen - FAP

..... DC-10


Guys, I wish you a nice weekend!  Big grin


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4474 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 8):
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
hot/high airport issues can also significantly effect the preference and need of the two types.

I always thought in a hot and high situation the A330 is actually the preferred aircraft as it actually has a higher thrust to weight ratio, thanks

I believe the issue is single engine out takeoff performance. with a quad you are down only 25% of installed power, with a twin you are down 50% so the margins are tighter. when all engines are working then yes the twin has the advantage


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4447 times:

I think the 777 would fit the bill better because it has the pax capacity, range and economics.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8358 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 8):
I always thought in a hot and high situation the A330 is actually the preferred aircraft as it actually has a higher thrust to weight ratio, thanks to the blow dryers on the A343/2. Is this true?

The higher trust also means they burn more fuel on take-off. Just ask PK how their 772LR's are doing  Smile


User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1246 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4242 times:

What is the word on those? Are they doing full Karachi- YYZ flights yet? What has been the issue there?


Sic 'em bears
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...
Why Are Taxes Not Included For LatAm Airports? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 19:36:55 by RootsAir
Why Is Gatwick Not On The Skyservice Website? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 11:25:41 by 8herveg
Why GA Is Not A Threat posted Sun Oct 15 2006 22:13:16 by Flyingbronco05
Why Are We Still Paying The Recent Fuel Surcharges posted Tue Oct 10 2006 09:54:22 by Skyhigh
Why More QF A330 C-Checks At ZRH? posted Sat Oct 29 2005 11:23:14 by Swissairtaz
Why Did Not Eastern Airlines Fly MD80? posted Thu Sep 15 2005 01:36:23 by September11
Why KLM Not In EZE And/or 'Cono Sur' In General? posted Wed Jan 5 2005 21:17:11 by Checo77
Why GE Not RR posted Sat Nov 13 2004 15:52:38 by Cathay744
Why Ryanair Not Interested In New EU Countries? posted Sat Aug 14 2004 03:50:43 by L410Turbolet
Why QF Choose A330 Instead Of 777? posted Mon Dec 29 2003 22:03:39 by EZYAirbus