Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Israir Considers A340 Order  
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4166 posts, RR: 36
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5199 times:

Quote:
Israir is in an advanced stage of negotiations with Airbus over the purchase of long-range planes, in addition to the two medium/short-range A-320 jets it has already bought. Israir is interested in the A-340, which could be used on its Israel-U.S. routes.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/848308.html

Wording of the article indicates that they are talking about at least two A340s (I would assume -300s). Earlier information talked about A330s, but I could imagine that A340s are cheaper to have at the moment. If coming true I would expect a similar deal to Finnair´s: now A340s (or 330s), later to be replaced with A350s.

In addition the article indicates that Israir has firmed its order for 2+1 A320s.


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
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5150 times:

Interesting, would be nice if this happens but perhaps the author of the article messed up the information he got and Israir might still be looking for the A330. Afterall, he's writing that the price for 2 A320s and 1 options is US$280 million. That can't be correct either.


SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4911 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Thread starter):
2001, 3924 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted Sun Apr 15 2007 02:53:46 your local time (2 hours 54 minutes 3 secs ago) and read 234 times:


Interesting, would be nice if this happens but perhaps the author of the article messed up the information he got and Israir might still be looking for the A330. Afterall, he's writing that the price for 2 A320s and 1 options is US$280 million. That can't be correct either

This makes no sense. Unless somebody is trying to get rid of the problematic and fuel guzzling A340, it is much
more expensive as the E330 and its long range capabilities are not necessary to fly to the US!


User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4166 posts, RR: 36
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4834 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
Unless somebody is trying to get rid of the problematic and fuel guzzling A340, it is much
more expensive as the E330 and its long range capabilities are not necessary to fly to the US!

Well, try to fly an A330 Tel Aviv - Los Angeles or San Fransico. That´s going to be tight. Anyway, calling the A340 fuel-guzzling is a bit too far away from the truth, it pretty much depends if you as an airline are willing to have higher fuel costs calculated into your biz-plan or not. It is an a.net myth that you can´t earn money with the A340 regardless of the version. If this would be that case a) every operator would by now have switched to a more efficient model and b) nobody would have ordered any new A340 in recent months (there were several business jet orders and the Finnair order plus Air Mauritius last year as well as a Lufthansa repeat order). At least in the case of Finnair it clearly indicates that the airline thinks that overall they will be able to make more money with the A343 than with their current MD-11 fleet.

Plus availability: no B777s are available on short-notice and if they would be damn expensive. Besides, please describe to me why the A340 is supposed to be "problematic"?



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 offlineBasefly From Denmark, joined Apr 2007, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4822 times:

That would be so cool if The 340Could get a few orders this month....  cheerful 

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):

I wouldn't call the A340-300 or the A340-500 Problematic, alot of airlines still seem to be able to make good money using them.



757/777-A340/A380, Love them.
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4778 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 1):
Afterall, he's writing that the price for 2 A320s and 1 options is US$280 million. That can't be correct either.

Perhaps its confusing A320s with A340s

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
This makes no sense. Unless somebody is trying to get rid of the problematic and fuel guzzling A340, it is much
more expensive as the E330 and its long range capabilities are not necessary to fly to the US!

The A343 Problematic? Fuel guzzling? Can you back this up?


User currently offlineLHStarAlliance From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 3):
Well, try to fly an A330 Tel Aviv - Los Angeles or San Fransico. That´s going to be tight. Anyway, calling the A340 fuel-guzzling is a bit too far away from the truth, it pretty much depends if you as an airline are willing to have higher fuel costs calculated into your biz-plan or not. It is an a.net myth that you can´t earn money with the A340 regardless of the version. If this would be that case a) every operator would by now have switched to a more efficient model and b) nobody would have ordered any new A340 in recent months (there were several business jet orders and the Finnair order plus Air Mauritius last year as well as a Lufthansa repeat order). At least in the case of Finnair it clearly indicates that the airline thinks that overall they will be able to make more money with the A343 than with their current MD-11 fleet.

That´s it the A340 is a good A/C and if you´ve fleet commonality it´s far better than order some 777...


User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4533 times:

I know in summer time SK have to think about weight when the plane is 100% full on the A330 ARN-ORD not really a problem but TLV to the US are further away. So an order of A343 makes sense to me.


ARN (59°39'07"N 17°55'07"E) ORD (41°58'43"N 87°54'17"W) 305° (NW) 4272 mi
TLV (32°00'41"N 34°53'12"E) JFK (40°38'23"N 73°46'44"W) 313° (NW) 5677 mi
TLV (32°00'41"N 34°53'12"E) SFO (37°37'08"N 122°22'30"W) 341° (N) 7422 mi
TLV (32°00'41"N 34°53'12"E) LAX (33°56'33"N 118°24'29"W) 336° (NW) 7574 mi
TLV (32°00'41"N 34°53'12"E) MIA (25°47'36"N 80°17'26"W) 305° (NW) 6603 mi


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4467 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
This makes no sense. Unless somebody is trying to get rid of the problematic and fuel guzzling A340, it is much
more expensive as the E330 and its long range capabilities are not necessary to fly to the US!

The A343 Problematic? Fuel guzzling? Can you back this up?

How about John Leahy, himself:

FI: Airbus To Offer Customers Cash Back On A340s (by Leelaw Jan 23 2006 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4429 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 8):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
This makes no sense. Unless somebody is trying to get rid of the problematic and fuel guzzling A340, it is much
more expensive as the E330 and its long range capabilities are not necessary to fly to the US!

The A343 Problematic? Fuel guzzling? Can you back this up?


How about John Leahy, himself:

Yes the A340-500 & -600 have higher fuel burn than the 772LR & 773ER. None of which are related to my question, or are being considered by Arkia by the looks of things.

Im asked Aminobwana to back up this claim of the A340-300 being:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
problematic and fuel guzzling


User currently offlineA380US From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4281 times:

i think what israir has beeen doing for the past few months is very intresting
im not how sure how well their doing but their not that big of an airline but have done special things in the aviation industrie in the past few months such as:
Sky Torah- a torah skroll in the Sky
RE: Flying Torah (by B707Stu Jan 4 2007 in Civil Aviation)
Airbus for Israel- Israir is the first Israeli airline to sign with Airbus
Israir Buys A320 (by Flying-Tiger Dec 20 2006 in Civil Aviation)
The First Israeli Airbus (by EL-AL Feb 16 2007 in Civil Aviation)
and now this
so for a small airline they seem to be making news and lots of publicity



www.JandACosmetics.com
User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 914 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4216 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 9):
Yes the A340-500 & -600 have higher fuel burn than the 772LR & 773ER. None of which are related to my question, or are being considered by Arkia by the looks of things.

Not to mention that while they aren't as fuel efficient as the 772LR and 773ER, respectively, they aren't completely awful in the fuel economy department.

cheers.


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4145 times:

Isn't it so that in particular the A340-300 can very well stand the test to its most direct competitor the 772, because it is much lighter, especially on stretches where the bigger capacity of the 772 isn't really needed?

User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4099 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 12):
Isn't it so that in particular the A340-300 can very well stand the test to its most direct competitor the 772, because it is much lighter, especially on stretches where the bigger capacity of the 772 isn't really needed?

All aircraft will inevitably have unique characteristics that make them better on one mission than another. The A340-300 does not have the same weight disadvantage that the A340-500 does, as its basically an A330-300 with four engines and more fuel tank-age. So for example, on a short flight of around 3000 miles, I presume that the difference in fuel burn between an A340-300 and an A330-300 is very small. The larger wings and other structural reinforcement on the -500 means that it has an OEW some 40 tonnes greater than the -300, despite being only 4.3m longer.

In Israirs, case it would be interesting to work out what the difference in CASM would be between the A340-300E and 777-200ER. I dont have the relevant data at hand to do this though.

[Edited 2007-04-15 20:48:59]

User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3818 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 13):
So for example, on a short flight of around 3000 miles, I presume that the difference in fuel burn between an A340-300 and an A330-300 is very small

Not really. SAS used to have an online emissions calculator available to Joe Public which suggest the A333 burned about 10% less than the A343. However, it probably wasn't the most accurate tool.


User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2184 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3667 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 13):
So for example, on a short flight of around 3000 miles, I presume that the difference in fuel burn between an A340-300 and an A330-300 is very small.

I'm more thinking of a longer flight where the medium-to-long-ranged A330-300 is reaching its limits (FULL load of fuel, MAX t/o weight...). Then, such a flight is still completely within the A340-300 mission, and where its mission is actually optimized. At least, this is how they have been developed, and the more recent development of the 330-300X did not match the 340-300's range.

Who operates both? AC. 333X is more focused on Europe while 343 more on Asia. CX. 333 is regional, 333X is flying to Australia, and 343 mostly to Europe. SK. the 343 flies where the 333X can't. The 333X would not be more efficient, they would not have bothered getting both types and would only fly the 343. LH. They got a few 333X recently and fly short Transatlantic flights with them. Again, because as this is well within the 333X range, it probably makes more sense here than the longer-hauler 343.

Besides the engines, what is actually the main difference between a 333X and a 343? How come the 343 can carry more fuel within the same volume? Loss of freight? Re-inforced structures leading to additional weight and making the 333X lighter and more efficient?



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1603 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3625 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
Unless somebody is trying to get rid of the problematic and fuel guzzling A340,

Funny how myths never end at A.net.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 13):
case it would be interesting to work out what the difference in CASM would be between the A340-300E and 777-200ER.

It has been discussed already and the A343 is more fuel efficient then the 772ER, though it offer less payload and range efficiency.

There are some links Keesje, Zeke posted where accurate CASM Numbers for comparison can be found.


RE: Why So Few 340's Across The Pacific? (by AutoThrust Jan 11 2007 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2007-04-15 22:53:52]


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26016 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3606 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 14):
SAS used to have an online emissions calculator available

Still do
http://sasems.port.se/



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 1):
Israir might still be looking for the A330. Afterall, he's writing that the price for 2 A320s and 1 options is US$280

So much for the "Airbus giving away..." mantra of Boeingland.  Smile  Smile


User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

to Flying Tiger

1) You cannot resell a A340 without huge losses, therefore some airlines does it, other are restrained
2) The problems are, as you know very ell, overfuelconsumption, overmaintenance due to 4 engines,
nose overweight (by the way, i must check my correspondence, to see if Airlines are able to equip
cabin without consulting manufacturer, as many airlines have not the knowledge, and if such problems
do not require a re-certification)
3) The reason that AIRBUS sells the A340 cheap and with short delivery are precisely the stated above
4) If ISRAER cannot wait for a B777, they can lease one with purchase option. As I hear,they plan for
now only to fly to NYC, so they coud lease also a A330 or B767.
5) As you are in Germany, you must have heard that LH bought the the A340-600 (together with the
B747-8i), they had already decided for the B777, but as the purchase of the B747-8i was
ubcomfortable for the German government (due to the A380 problem) , the "suggested" LH to buy
the A340. This was not what LH wanted, but not too bad,as they had the advantage of same-type
with their existing aircrafts, so they accepted said "suggestion"

aminobwaba


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4833 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
5) As you are in Germany, you must have heard that LH bought the the A340-600 (together with the
B747-8i), they had already decided for the B777, but as the purchase of the B747-8i was
ubcomfortable for the German government (due to the A380 problem) , the "suggested" LH to buy
the A340. This was not what LH wanted, but not too bad,as they had the advantage of same-type
with their existing aircrafts, so they accepted said "suggestion"

and pray tell where did you get this gem from??
LH initially bought the A346 years before there was a 748 planned and they topped up their order recently because it probably just makes more sense than buying a whole new subtype, 77W, regardless of whether they were getting 748s or waiting for A380s.


User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 914 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2845 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
1) You cannot resell a A340 without huge losses, therefore some airlines does it, other are restrained
2) The problems are, as you know very ell, overfuelconsumption, overmaintenance due to 4 engines,
nose overweight (by the way, i must check my correspondence, to see if Airlines are able to equip
cabin without consulting manufacturer, as many airlines have not the knowledge, and if such problems
do not require a re-certification)
3) The reason that AIRBUS sells the A340 cheap and with short delivery are precisely the stated above
4) If ISRAER cannot wait for a B777, they can lease one with purchase option. As I hear,they plan for
now only to fly to NYC, so they coud lease also a A330 or B767.
5) As you are in Germany, you must have heard that LH bought the the A340-600 (together with the
B747-8i), they had already decided for the B777, but as the purchase of the B747-8i was
ubcomfortable for the German government (due to the A380 problem) , the "suggested" LH to buy
the A340. This was not what LH wanted, but not too bad,as they had the advantage of same-type
with their existing aircrafts, so they accepted said "suggestion"

aminobwaba

You seem to neglect that there are substantial differences between the second generation 340s (345/346) and the 343. The center of gravity issue is a new generation issue (and I'm not sure how much it is an issue with the airlines vs. the manufacturer). The 343 fares well against the 772ER for most applications. It isn't as fuel efficient as the 333 on shorter legs, but when you need more range... Even the 345/346 are not awful fuel consumers compared to other planes (e.g. the 346 is useful as a 747 classic replacement). They aren't as efficient as the current Boeing competition, but that doesn't make them complete dogs. I honestly don't know what the 343 resale values are like, but the 345 has a tough time on the market. Although, a contributing factor is the small number of them (what am i going to do with a couple of 345s?) and nobody sleecting new ones. There's also the fact that ultra long haul is not so profitable for the likes of SQ regardless of whether they switched to the 772LR (I mean, if the profits would be that spectacular with the 772LR vs. the 345, they would dump the 345s even at a bad price and buy 772LRs).

cheers.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2728 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
1) You cannot resell a A340 without huge losses, therefore some airlines does it, other are restrained

This is grade A nonsense, unless perhaps you can provide a source? And yes Israirs case concerns A340-300.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
2) The problems are, as you know very ell, overfuelconsumption, overmaintenance due to 4 engines,
nose overweight (by the way, i must check my correspondence, to see if Airlines are able to equip
cabin without consulting manufacturer, as many airlines have not the knowledge, and if such problems
do not require a re-certification)

What exactly is over maintanance? Over fuelcomsumption (its stated above that the A340-300 actually consumes less than the 777)? and the nose issue you refer to is exclusive to the -600, so irrelelant in Israirs case.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
3) The reason that AIRBUS sells the A340 cheap and with short delivery are precisely the stated above

........ nothing to back up these?

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
4) If ISRAER cannot wait for a B777, they can lease one with purchase option. As I hear,they plan for
now only to fly to NYC, so they coud lease also a A330 or B767.

Current A330/A340 line backlog is 352 @ 8 per month (firm orders only)
Current 777 line backlog is 326 approx @ 7 per month (firm orders only)

So thats 44 months production in the A330/340 back log, and 46 months production in the 777 backlog.


User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
1) You cannot resell a A340 without huge losses, therefore some airlines does it, other are restrained

 liar  A340, 777, A330 and even 767 every secondhand aircraft on the market manages to find almost immidiately a new airline. The demand is greater then the offer. Remember the reports on the Austrian A330 sale? 35 interested parties! Guess what that does to prices...

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
2) The problems are, as you know very ell, overfuelconsumption, overmaintenance due to 4 engines,
nose overweight (by the way, i must check my correspondence, to see if Airlines are able to equip
cabin without consulting manufacturer, as many airlines have not the knowledge, and if such problems
do not require a re-certification)

 rotfl  Nose overweight! That's a new one. I suppose you are reffering to that article that appeared the other day. As for the other 'problems', if true, how could proffesionals such as AY overlook these and order a bunch of A340s in 2007?

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
3) The reason that AIRBUS sells the A340 cheap and with short delivery are precisely the stated above

That the A340 is cheaper to purchase then the 777 is probably true, but that does not mean the A340 is cheap. Airbus has nothing to win by building an A340 and losing money on it or building them for a margin significantly less then the margin they get on an A330 . Keep in mind that the much more wanted A330 can be build on the same line. About the delivery, Virgin Blue said availability of the aircraft (A346 or 773) would be very important in their decision. They chose the 777 and will start flying with them next year. Not bad. Air Asia somehow said the same thing (A333/2 or 772), it remains to be confirmed what they've ordered. How long do you think it would take to take delivery of an A340 if you ordered it today?

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
5) As you are in Germany, you must have heard that LH bought the the A340-600 (together with the
B747-8i), they had already decided for the B777, but as the purchase of the B747-8i was
ubcomfortable for the German government (due to the A380 problem) , the "suggested" LH to buy
the A340. This was not what LH wanted, but not too bad,as they had the advantage of same-type
with their existing aircrafts, so they accepted said "suggestion"

 liar 



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2157 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 23):
How long do you think it would take to take delivery of an A340 if you ordered it today?

As I pointed out:

Current A330/A340 line backlog is 352 @ 8 per month (firm orders only)
Current 777 line backlog is 326 approx @ 7 per month (firm orders only)

A330/340 backlog: 44 month approx
777 backlog: 46 months approx

........So theres roughly 2 months (14 aircraft) more in the 777 backlog at the moment.

[Edited 2007-04-16 13:54:14]

25 Slz396 : In fact that is fully correct in my view. The A340(classic) must be seen as the A330ER, but rather than getting the needed increase in thrust from an
26 EI321 : The difficulty in finding used A340-300s is perhaps also an issue for them.
27 Post contains images Basefly : You are kidding right.......??
28 Slz396 : that's true... As Manni has pointed out, the A340 is built on the SAME line as the A330, and Airbus currently can't keep pace with demand for this pl
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...
Will Air India Reconsider The A340 Order? posted Mon Feb 9 2004 11:37:54 by Sm777
A330/A340 Order Book Question? posted Wed Mar 15 2000 19:20:38 by Hamlet69
Finnair Order 11 A350-XWB Commit to 7 x A330/A340 posted Thu Mar 8 2007 07:11:23 by UpperDeck79
TG Considers Doubling A380 Order. posted Tue Dec 19 2006 17:23:22 by Manni
Emirates Considers Cancelling A346 Order! posted Mon May 22 2006 14:38:17 by EK413
How Many A340-600 Currently On Order? posted Tue Apr 11 2006 21:43:31 by Lazyshaun
Emirates Will Maintain A340-600 Order posted Wed Nov 23 2005 16:23:49 by WINGS
China Airlines To Order A340-600? posted Sat Dec 25 2004 01:15:02 by MauriceB
CX A340-600 Anymore On Order? posted Thu Nov 11 2004 01:33:33 by Ktachiya
Air India To Cancel A340 Proposal Order posted Sun Aug 29 2004 22:47:56 by Runway23