Flybynight From Norway, joined Jul 2003, 992 posts, RR: 3 Posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5925 times:
I can't think of an aircraft better matched to SK's longhaul fleet than the 767 was in the 1990's. Of course SK bought the A340's around the time that 9/11 and other economic situations turned the air industry upside down. Yet, I can't help think that SK would have faired better with their ol' work horse 767's.
Since the 787 is a spiritual replacement for the 767 (and 757), I would think SK would be hungry to replace the fuel inefficient A340's with the economical 787 (assuming Boeing's promises hold true).
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5852 times:
I find it weird how you imply that the A340 are less fuel efficient than the 767s. The A340s are larger planes, but I don't think they burn more fuel per passenger. SAS also has A330s, and those planes better compete with the 767s on range and payload. The A340s are useful on the longer routes. You can't really compare an A340-300 operating EWR-CPH with a 767 operating the same route. The A340 is better on the longer routes where its additional range is needed. The 767 can face weight restrictions on 10+ hour flights. I have heard that CPH-SEA for example was weight restricted at times when operated by the 767.
I'm thinking this is just an A versus B debate and that you are a fan of B. The 767, A340 and A330 are all good enough aircraft for airlines to earn profits while using. You make it sound like SK replaced 767s with IL-96s.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2880 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5843 times:
Cummon lets put our CEO and airliner expert hats away!!!
The A340-300 maybe less fuel efficent than some other long haul aircraft, but we are still talking about a very modern fuel efficent long haul aircraft. Just because Branson has said it is not that fuel efficent compared to the 787 he has ordered to replace them. It is no gas guzzler compared to the likes of the 707, DC-8, DC-10, Tristars or MD-11's they have replaced over the years!
Don't ask me to quote figures...
But I would assume SAS are making some cost savings flying the A340 over the 767, or it would have been unlikely they would have replaced them.
Even if its not fuel costs, they are probably making savings with the A32X, A330 and A340 all having a certain level of commonality.
I do question if the A340's are really necessary in the fleet? I would have thought destinations like SEA are within the reach of the A330-300, if not the A330-200 could be a better option and only have a marginal difference sizewise to the A340-300.
B742 From UK - England, joined Mar 2005, 3760 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5811 times:
Quoting Flybynight (Thread starter): Since the 787 is a spiritual replacement for the 767 (and 757), I would think SK would be hungry to replace the fuel inefficient A340's with the economical 787 (assuming Boeing's promises hold true).
The A340s are very efficent, in fact alot so than many people on this forum make out. However they are no way as efficent as Boeing's match; the 777.
Quoting Solnabo (Reply 1): No surprise, but I´m hoping SK order the A350 series and that they´ll go for 32X when phasing out the Mad Dogs (46 of them) and older 737´s
I have to agree with this statement, I also hope the same happens. (Not that I am anti-Boeing.)
Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 3): I do question if the A340's are really necessary in the fleet? I would have thought destinations like SEA are within the reach of the A330-300, if not the A330-200 could be a better option and only have a marginal difference sizewise to the A340-300.
The A332 could fit into SK's fleet, however the A340s are more suited for routes such as BKK. SK did once study the A332 for OSL-USA flights, however this did not materalize.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3725 posts, RR: 31 Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5708 times:
Has SAS at any time given serious consideration to adding A330-200s to their longhaul fleet? A330-200s would seem to be the ideal type to complement their A340/A330-300 types on routes for which their 767-300ERs had been well-suited in terms of pax capacity and range. Although the A330-200 and 767-300ER have similar pax capacity, all the performance numbers indicate that everything a 767-300ER can do, an A330-200 can do even better, and at lower cost, which would seem to have made it an ideal replacement for SAS's 767 fleet. When choosing the A340/A330-300 types to replace their 767s, SAS apparently saw a need for longhaul types of greater capacity and had/has no plans for expanding its longhaul network to points calling for a type in the 225 pax capacity range.
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5667 times:
Quoting B742 (Reply 4): The A340s are very efficent, in fact alot so than many people on this forum make out. However they are no way as efficent as Boeing's match; the 777.
Actually, the general and often repeated idea the A340 is always inferior to the 777 is based on a comparison of the 2 top-models from both planes: the A340-600 vs 777-300ER as well as on the long range niche versions of both models: the A340-500 vs the 777LR.
The A340-300E however can very well match the 777-200ER within the latter's complete payload range envelope.
SK has the A343, so they actually have a plane which is just as good (just with less payload range, which they probably don't need anyway) as a 7772ER, but lighter and cheaper AND with fleet commonality with the A330, the undoubted bench mark in its class, so I'd say they that on first sight, have a very efficient fleet composition.
Whether they actually need the A343, I can't comment on...
Kevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1154 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5425 times:
Quoting Flybynight (Thread starter): Since the 787 is a spiritual replacement for the 767 (and 757), I would think SK would be hungry to replace the fuel inefficient A340's with the economical 787 (assuming Boeing's promises hold true).
Depends.... The 343 might be slightly less fuel efficient on not-too-long intercon routes than, say, the 777; however, for longer long-hauls, such as CPH-BKK and NRT, the 343 does the job well fuel economy-wise. But that's also why SK has the 333s for the shorter hops across the Atlantic.
Quoting B742 (Reply 4): The A332 could fit into SK's fleet, however the A340s are more suited for routes such as BKK. SK did once study the A332 for OSL-USA flights, however this did not materalize.
Well, OSL-EWR (as it would be) could not work economically for SK regardless of aircraft.... Too expensive to have a single widebody placed in OSL; too little demand. CO can do this job better.
I think a major reason behind SK's choice of the 343 vs the 767-300 is the size; both in terms of pax and cargo. Their 763 held a little short of 200 pax; their 343s hold 261 pax, in addition to more cargo space (and SK make the $$$$$ on belly traffic from Asia to Europe). I guess SK figured they could fill up the additional capacity. And they can, albeit at some disappointing yields sometimes, but still.
Kevin777
"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH...
Someone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2778 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5377 times:
Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 3): But I would assume SAS are making some cost savings flying the A340 over the 767, or it would have been unlikely they would have replaced them.
The main reason for getting 330/340 was not to save cost, but to increase the income. 340 in SKs configuration are able to take about 25% more pax and 40% more cargo than their 767.
Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 5): Although the A330-200 and 767-300ER have similar pax capacity
A 332 in SK long-haul config would be between their 343/333 and 767 in pax capacity. If I remember correct the 767 had about 190-200 seat, while a 332 probably would have about 220-230 seats depending on their config
After installing the new sleeper seats and adjusting the number og Y+ seats is this the seat capacity on their 333/343
330-300: 264 (C:34, Y+:35, Y/M: 195)
340:300: 245 (C:46, Y+:28, Y/M: 171)
Until recently (the last 333 was done with its re-config this week) the config was identical on the two types with 261 seats (C:54, Y+:24, Y/M:185)
FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5181 times:
The 767-300 was not a great success with SAS.It had range/payload restrictions that severely limited cargo from CPH-SEA-CPH,CPH-LAX-CPH,CPH-HKG-CPH,CPH-NRT-CPH and OSL-EWR-OSL.And as has been mentioned,we (SAS) make a lot of $$$ on the extra cargo capacity that our 333/340 are able to carry.I remember occasions when flying the 763,we had to offload up to 10-12 tonnes of cargo due to a change of runways at OSL or HKG.The HKG flights often had to land in PEK to refuel on the HKG-CPH sector.Not good for economy!
We,A330/340 pilots,had a meeting with our Intercont. dept. some two weeks ago.Future plans were aired and the present economical situation was described.For the time no new A340's will be acquired.If possible,i.e. when economy allowes us,A330-200's will be bought or leased.But they are rare as hen's teeth and basically have to be bought new from Airbus.
The -200 has the centre fuel tank of the A340,something which our 333 lacks,making the -300 rather unsuitable for any flights longer than ARN-ORD.The 333 has been used occasionally on the CPH-SEA route but with practically no cargo.
Fuelwise,the two types are fairly equal with 0.039 litres of fuel consumed pr. seat kilometer for the 245-seat A340 and 0.036 litres for the 264-seat 330.The A321 has 0.035 for comparison,while 73Ng's have consumtion in the range of 0.042-0.046.
The Airbuses were bought at a time when everything was pointing upwards for SAS.The only other contender for the contract was the 777 which was found to be far too big for SAS needs.Then came a general downturn in worldwide economics followed by 9/11.SAS' Longhaul economics are positive with a first quarter result way above what was expected,leading to a possible expansion starting sometime next year.One of the options being looked at is seasonal routes like OSL-BKK in the winter and some North American destination in the summer.Possible destinations mentioned at the meeting was OSL-BOS and OSL-MIA.
Kevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1154 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5126 times:
Quoting FBU 4EVER! (Reply 9): We,A330/340 pilots,had a meeting with our Intercont. dept. some two weeks ago.Future plans were aired and the present economical situation was described.For the time no new A340's will be acquired.If possible,i.e. when economy allowes us,A330-200's will be bought or leased.But they are rare as hen's teeth and basically have to be bought new from Airbus.
So.... guess no 346s for SK either... heard rumours that they were looking at some for the NRT route that indeed could use the capacity, 346 for SK would be so cool! Maybe they could get some from VS...
Quoting FBU 4EVER! (Reply 9): Fuelwise,the two types are fairly equal with 0.039 litres of fuel consumed pr. seat kilometer for the 245-seat A340 and 0.036 litres for the 264-seat 330.The A321 has 0.035 for comparison,while 73Ng's have consumtion in the range of 0.042-0.046.
I'm no pilot, but I'd guess these numbers are significantly impacted by the stage length; for the longest ones, say, BKK-CPH, fuel consumption per ASM would be significantly higher than, for instance, CPH-EWR as they are doing with the 343 this summer (right?).
Quoting FBU 4EVER! (Reply 9): Possible destinations mentioned at the meeting was OSL-BOS and OSL-MIA.
This would make for a good seasonal couple; BOS in summer, MIA in winter. However, I can hardly see a daily 332 being filled to capacity on either of these routes. However, doing some V flights; say, CPH-MIA-OSL-MIA-CPH might be an option.
Kevin777
"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH...
Someone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2778 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5082 times:
Quoting FBU+4EVER%21" class=quote target=_blank>FBU 4EVER! (Reply 9): The 767-300 was not a great success with SAS.It had range/payload restrictions that severely limited cargo from CPH-SEA-CPH,CPH-LAX-CPH,CPH-HKG-CPH,CPH-NRT-CPH and OSL-EWR-OSL.And as has been mentioned,we (SAS) make a lot of $$$ on the extra cargo capacity that our 333/340 are able to carry.I remember occasions when flying the 763,we had to offload up to 10-12 tonnes of cargo due to a change of runways at OSL or HKG.The HKG flights often had to land in PEK to refuel on the HKG-CPH sector.Not good for economy!
With OSL, do you mean FBU? Because OSL should have long enough runways to get a full 763 in the air
FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3546 times:
Anything more than 3-4 hours will basically have the same fuel consumption.And yes,someone83,FBU is correct.OSL did not exist at that time as it was GEN.OSL was/is the city designator as in LON and MIL.
Flybynight From Norway, joined Jul 2003, 992 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3250 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 2): I'm thinking this is just an A versus B debate and that you are a fan of B. The 767, A340 and A330 are all good enough aircraft for airlines to earn profits while using. You make it sound like SK replaced 767s with IL-96s.
Thanks for the assumption...Not! I am fan of flying and aircraft, not B over A or otherwise.
I do know the 777 is supposed to be more efficient than the A340.
However, I didn't even mention the 777 in my post.
Since the A340 has a reputation of not being as fuel efficient as the 777, and the 787 is supposed to be very fuel efficient, it seems the 787 would be a good fit for SK. Of course, at this time, SK couldn't get 787's until, what about 2013 if they ordered now.
I love flying on the A343. I've done several flights over the last few years on them.
I also thought part of the reason why SK didn't order the 777 is because they were a little PO'ed at Boeing for delays on the 736's that SK had ordered a few years prior to replacing the 767's with A340's.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3190 times:
Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 3): I would have thought destinations like SEA are within the reach of the A330-300,
CPH-SEA may technically be within reach of the A333, but the problem is that it would probably require a heavy payload penalty to make the route work, especially in the winter. The A343 is, range wise, much better suited for CPH-SEA than the A333.
Kevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1154 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3108 times:
Quoting FBU 4EVER! (Reply 13): Anything more than 3-4 hours will basically have the same fuel consumption
You're the pilot, guess you'd know! But I'm just wondering, thought the longer trips, say, above 10 hours, would consume more fuel per ASM because of the carrying of extra fuel for the last hours (that again requires carrying of more fuel etc..) - but I guess this does not have a significant impact at the end of the day? Or?
Kevin777
"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH...
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2994 times:
Quoting Flybynight (Reply 15): Since the A340 has a reputation of not being as fuel efficient as the 777, and the 787 is supposed to be very fuel efficient, it seems the 787 would be a good fit for SK. Of course, at this time, SK couldn't get 787's until, what about 2013 if they ordered now
Well I personally think that replacing relatively new A340s with 787s would be the same mistake that replacing relatively new 767s with A340s was. Yes each plane is more efficient than the older, but it might not be worth the acquisition costs. There tons of costs with switching planes, and I think that the A340s have a lot of life left in them. The A340 might not be as good as the 777, but it is still better than the 767 on a per passenger basis. You have to retrain everyone, replace all of your maintenance, and redo many other things in order to switch fleets. That's an expensive proposition. Is the 787 that much more fuel efficient? I think SAS would do fine keeping their A340s for at least 10 more years. Airbus and Boeing will have an option to replace the plane in due time.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Jul 2003, 992 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 785 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2880 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2005, 3760 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1154 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
