Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Royal Jordanian : 777 Or A332?  
User currently offlineFCKC From France, joined Nov 2004, 2348 posts, RR: 4
Posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9668 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...on-possible-777-or-a330-lease.html

As a gap measure due to 787 delay , RJ will decide in a couple of months which type will replace A310s.Competition between 777 and A332.

Is the 777 not too big to replace A310 ? Probably A332 as well............

Either 777 or A332 , it will be a stunning machine in RJ cs !

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLHR380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9655 times:

I see them more of a A330 airline. As soon as I saw the title I thought Airbus over Boeing. I cant put my finger on why, but it just seems like they are a 330 airline rather then a 777 airline.

User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9440 times:

Well, first, since they already operate A342s, as well as A319/20/21s, the A332 will fit in like a glove, in terms of crew training and fleet commonality.

Second, the B777 is way too much metal for RJ.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2009-10-26 18:27:16 by thenoflyzone]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19953 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9394 times:



Quoting LHR380 (Reply 1):

Second, the B777 is way too much metal for RJ.

 thumbsup  At this point, the 332 seems to be beating out the 77E. And I think the 77L is just too much airplane for an A310 replacement, especially since I can't imagine they need that kind of lift.


User currently offlineN537FX From Switzerland, joined Oct 2009, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9375 times:

I agree with the responses above. An aircraft like the a330 would be perfect, looks similar in size to their A340-200's. At any rate, has demand to AMM ever warranted a craft like the 777?

User currently offlineBehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4802 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9329 times:

Yes the A 332 is ideal for RJ's entire high density route network. It can also easily replace the entire A 342 fleet and fly nonstop with a full payload from AMM to JFK, YUL, DTW and ORD.

The A 332 can fly with a full payload a flight up to 11,500KM and AMM-ORD is 10,035KM.

As the previous post too mentioned, there would be fleet commonality as well since the A 342 and A 332 have the same cockpit crew rating.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12521 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9262 times:

There are a lot of pluses that the A332 has over the 777 at RJ and I do agree that RJ seems more like an A330 airline, BUT ...

- RJ's 787s are going to be seriously delayed and Boeing owes RJ big. Translation: it can get a very good deal on 777s.

- I don't know the answer to this, but I'm thinking the 777 has a big cargo advantage over the A332; it's probably a much better performer out of AMM; assuming the 332 would replace A340s, would RJ want to step backwards?

- Other regional competitors - MS, TK, KU, SV, EY, TK and QR - operate 777s on long haul flights; don't overlook this as a factor (and LY is a 777 operator too, but somehow they're not a competitor as such!)

So, I'll be a devil's advocate and call this for the Triple!


User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9149 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 6):
RJ's 787s are going to be seriously delayed and Boeing owes RJ big. Translation: it can get a very good deal on 777s.

You are correct on this one, but I for one don't believe it is enough to disregard the A332.

Besides, the list price of an A332 is already 30 million cheaper than an B77E. Operating costs, overheads and yields will direct RJ's decision here.

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 6):
assuming the 332 would replace A340s, would RJ want to step backwards?

Well, technically, the A332 will replace the A310, whereas the B787 will replace the A342s.

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3790 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9130 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 6):
RJ's 787s are going to be seriously delayed and Boeing owes RJ big. Translation: it can get a very good deal on 777s



Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 7):
You are correct on this one, but I for one don't believe it is enough to disregard the A332.

Besides, the list price of an A332 is already 30 million cheaper than an B77E.

Boeing does owe RJ for the 787 delay, and RJ only needs those birds for the interim period until the 787s eventually come. Hence Boeing could possibly work out a sweet deal on some leased 777-200ER, or even some -200A, which could be easy to source from several airlines which want to get rid of theirs.

A332 are a possibility, but AFAIK there aren't many frames available from lessors for a short term lease, are there? And since they will be stop-gapping for the Dreamliners, I doubt it would warrant new built frames.

But anyhow, I think the most important piece of news from this article is that RJ is now planning on keeping their pax A310 longer! Long live the 310!
 bigthumbsup 



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineCamiloa380 From Sweden, joined Feb 2008, 486 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8989 times:

I think replacing 3 A310s with 3 777s is a huge difference, would be a big step forward in the fleet, but i think that will maybe make the routes unprofitable

replacing it with A330s sounds more likely.

CamiloA380  Smile



Flying4Ever!
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8930 times:

What about the 767-300ER as a stop gap?


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineFlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8915 times:



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 8):

But anyhow, I think the most important piece of news from this article is that RJ is now planning on keeping their pax A310 longer! Long live the 310!

RJs A310s have had new interiors a couple of years ago. Flew them last year, and they were in rather nice shape. The A310 didn't have the legs to fly BKK-AMM without making an extra fueling stop due to headwinds though...


User currently onlineKingFriday013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1300 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8421 times:

Even though I'm very pro-Boeing, I'd agree with many of the above posters that the 332 makes the most sense for RJ. They already have Airbus in their fleet, including a 330/340 family aircraft (the 342), and the 777 is just too much.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 10):
What about the 767-300ER as a stop gap?

Would that be large enough? Also, I don't think it could cary as much cargo as the 330. That's one of the reasons AA held onto their A300s for so long, they carried a lot of cargo. Perhaps the 764 could work, though? But I just don't see anyone else ordering the 764.

-J.



Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2182 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7925 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 6):
- RJ's 787s are going to be seriously delayed and Boeing owes RJ big. Translation: it can get a very good deal on 777s.

... or any Boeing aircraft, for that matter. So, i would not exclude the 767 yet. The 767-400ER is an excellent aircraft for many of RJ's routes, and the 767-300ER might not be as modern as the 764, it remains efficient overall.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 8):
Hence Boeing could possibly work out a sweet deal on some leased 777-200ER, or even some -200A, which could be easy to source from several airlines which want to get rid of theirs.

The 772A loses by its lack of long-haul range, but can do any A310 mission for sure. If Boeing feeds RJ with second-hand aircraft, these can be anything RJ wants, including A340s and A330s if airlines are trying to get rid of some for more Boeing aircraft (except that the second-hand supply of these two is not very high at the moment).



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineTK787 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4453 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7669 times:

Since RJ has almost 4 of each type, it could be worked out to get 4 x 332s and 4 x 772ERs. Why not? It makes as much sense as operating tiny 319 and E195 fleets side by side.

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11669 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7186 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 6):
- RJ's 787s are going to be seriously delayed and Boeing owes RJ big. Translation: it can get a very good deal on 777s.

Or Airbus can provide cheap interim A332s in return for cancelling the 787 order and chosing the A350 instead.



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7112 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 15):
Or Airbus can provide cheap interim A332s in return for cancelling the 787 order and chosing the A350 instead.

But then again the same problem, only in the other direction. Wouldn't the 350 be to much plane for them, if they now operate 342s and 313s on their l/h network? 358 and 342 have approximately the same length (60.4 and 59.4 m, respectively), but the 350 has one seat more per row. Of course, trip costs, revenue potential, and projected load and yield would need to be compared (788 vs 358), which is beyond my knowledge  .

[Edited 2009-10-27 08:05:01]


WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6366 times:



Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 13):
... or any Boeing aircraft, for that matter. So, i would not exclude the 767 yet. The 767-400ER is an excellent aircraft for many of RJ's routes, and the 767-300ER might not be as modern as the 764, it remains efficient overall.

We're talking interim jets though. 764ER would be out of place in their fleet and logistics support might be an issue. If they're replacing A310, I suspect the right bird would be the A332; even A333 might be too big.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15781 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6265 times:

My answer to this question would be none of the above. Both the A332 and 777 are too much plane to replace the A310. Get more A321s, and maybe bump up the frequency if it's necessary. They would have about 40 fewer seats total, but the A321 actually has more premium seats in RJ configuration. It isn't a perfect replacement, but there just isn't one for the A310 and I would think it wise to go with the A321 over any of the alternatives that might prove to be too much plane.


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineN503JB From Hong Kong, joined May 2000, 303 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6051 times:

Finally something fresh is out official.
There were a lot of rumors internally in RJ over the last several weeks, related to Airbus A330-200 replacement for both A340-200 & A310-300.
We heard about 4 x A330-200 replaced 4 x A340-200, plus 1 x A330-200 deploy for non-stop operation to HKG replacing current AMMBKKHKG 3 weekly flight by A310-300.
In the statement shows “Royal Jordanian Airlines is intending to whether to lease Boeing 777-200 or Airbus A330-200 aircraft as a replacement for its Airbus A310s.” The reason I believe is RJ is easy to fill it up 25% increase of seating capacity from A310 to A332 and with much better improvement on payload for cargo on long haul service to BKK & HKG as RJ A310-300 seating capacity J18 Y179, mainly operating high density medium route such as LHR, DXB and long haul to BKK & HKG.
I don’t know the possibility replaced the A310 by B777, but who’s know? It could say a huge different between these two types or may be Boeing providing a good deal to RJ due to B787 delay.
Anyway, either B777 or A332, the fact is A310 is not a good equipment deploy on long haul service.
The A342 will be keep in the fleet for a while as RJ is already planning to refurbish the interiors on its A340 long-haul fleet from September-October 2010.



HKIA Ramp Spotters
User currently offlineFlylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 817 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5454 times:



Quoting Behramjee (Reply 5):
- RJ's 787s are going to be seriously delayed and Boeing owes RJ big. Translation: it can get a very good deal on 777s.

This may be true, but, a good deal on the price of the hull that is the wrong fit for the airline is a bad deal. I have no idea what aircraft is the best fit for RJ but if I ran the airline my I first priority would be the right airplane for the mission with per aircraft price following second (or third when considering fleet integration). You can quickly eat up the savings on the price of the airplane if it flies half full or full of deeply discounted fares.



...are we there yet?
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15781 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5438 times:



Quoting Flylku (Reply 20):
This may be true, but, a good deal on the price of the hull that is the wrong fit for the airline is a bad deal.

Not necessarily. The savings on the plane can make up for quite a bit of inefficiency, like DL and their DC-9s. And sometimes those sort of deals work out. TK got 777s on short term leases from Jet and they ended up ordering their own.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days ago) and read 5369 times:

the 1-stop AMM-BKK-HKG service sounds rather uncompetitive.

There's already an abundance of flights between BKK-HKG, so it's not like RJ can squeeze much market share out of that 1 single flight. In addition, there's tons of nonstop flight options from HKG to Europe/MiddleEast, plus a jillion connection opportunities via Qatar/Emirates/GulfAir, so who exactly wants to fly a 2-stop service on RJ unless you've already sold your soul to attaining oneworld elite status.  Embarrassment (the Amman-HKG O&D market can't be THAT big)

They should make HKG nonstop in order to be competitive with the rest of the middle east carriers and downsize (or is it "right-size") the equipment if the current plane is too big for BKK alone. Making it 5x-weekly nonstop is still better than daily 1-stop.


User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days ago) and read 5271 times:



Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 11):
The A310 didn't have the legs to fly BKK-AMM without making an extra fueling stop due to headwinds though...

BKK-AMM is 6,848km's, which is well within the range of an A310, which can go 9.600km's.

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1389 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4680 times:

The B777 does seem a bit big for RJ. I'd hazard a guess that Boeing would be keen on offering an interim solution based on the B767, quite possibly on a damp-lease basis so that RJ don't have to spend the dosh on qualifying their drivers to pole the kite. Or they could make an offer of RJ paying to type rate their flyboys (and girls) on the B767, with a free TR on the Screamliner once it becomes available. In any case, while the A332 might be the best solution, taking all things into consideraton I'd be rather surprised if Boeing would allow that to happen.

Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 23):
BKK-AMM is 6,848km's, which is well within the range of an A310, which can go 9.600km's.

You're assuming that an airline is able to fly a true GC track. Hate to break it to you sunshine, but they're not.

When you're routing from WP to WP, the length of a trip is considerably longer than a GC true track. And trust you me, the various ATS' along that particular route are not known for their willingness to offer directs.

Furthermore, the quoted 9.6K range of an A310 is with max. fuel, not max. payload. You can do either max. fuel or max. payload, not both. You also need to take into consideraton that both AMM and BKK tend to sport pretty high temperatures, which can be a real performance kller - especially if you're pushing the boundries of the performance envelope. To put the final nail in the coffin, it's hardly enough planning on AMM-BKK only; that's the easy part. Flying back home, uphill* and against the prevailing winds, is quite a different story.

To make a long story short, operating an A310 non-stop AMM-BKK-AMM doesn't make a lot of commercial sense. Many have tried operating that particular airframe over similar stage lenghts; all have failed.

*That was an attempt of being funny, before those with an undeveloped sense of irony kick their flamethrowers into overdrive mode.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
25 Thenoflyzone : Nowadays with RNAV airways and whatnot, you would be surprised at the inaccuracy of your statement. Max payload range is 8,000km's, still within rang
26 Thenoflyzone : uhumm...Wrong. TS flies from YUL to FCO and back regularly with A310 in summer time, which is listed at 6,600km's, similar to BKK-AMM, without any pr
27 Affirmative : Given that they are mainly a charter company I would assume that there's not a lot of cargo in the belly of that bird thus not taking them even close
28 FlyingAY : When I took that flight on their A310 we did a refueling stop in DOH. This was told to us already before we took off from BKK. Strong headwinds were
29 B777LRF : RNAV doesn't make any difference when you're on the airways, it makes them neither shorter nor longer, and you're still flying from WP to WP. This is
30 Thenoflyzone : yes it does. most RNAV airways have RNAV waypoints,and not VORs and NDBs. Hence they can be adjusted to the demand of airlines in terms of routes flo
31 Directorguy : I'd say the A332s would be better suited for RJ. 777s would be way too big for routes operated by A310s. Perhaps the 777 would allow RJ to have nonsto
32 Dennys : Well the A332 is to replaces 310s . Not the A342s . I doubt the A332 can cover such distances as AMM- CHI . A342 in RJA colours is a maverlous looking
33 JAL : I think they will go for the A330 too but you never know Boeing might offer them a wonderul deal!
34 Behramjee : During the weekend whilst doing some research, I came across an interesting aircraft called the Airbus A 330-200HGW (High Gross Weight) and its perfor
35 Post contains links Thenoflyzone : Not to mention that a retrofit package for post-February 2004 aircraft will be available from November 2010. For the retrofit, upgrading in-service ai
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...
Royal Jordanian- 737-800 Or Airbus posted Tue Feb 3 2004 17:26:25 by ToBEYwithMEA
Royal Jordanian To Order A320/A321 Or B737-800 posted Tue Aug 12 2003 02:13:53 by Teahan
777 Or 747 For LOT In Recompense For 787 posted Thu Jul 16 2009 23:28:07 by Lot767sp-lpa
Royal Jordanian AMMAN-LAX Nonstop posted Sun Jul 5 2009 17:23:03 by AMS
AA996 Tonight (18th) 777 Or 767? EZE-DFW posted Tue Nov 18 2008 06:20:57 by Gulfstream650
Royal Jordanian Emergency Landing In Belgrade posted Sat Nov 15 2008 10:35:59 by JoKeR
Royal Jordanian Family Latin America Trip posted Fri Oct 17 2008 19:01:29 by Tomascubero
Royal Jordanian Back To Brussels posted Wed Sep 24 2008 05:57:17 by LIPZ
Royal Jordanian And Air Arabia Launching Kiev posted Sun Aug 10 2008 09:18:30 by 777way
Royal Jordanian Looks At Fleet Options posted Wed Jun 4 2008 11:41:50 by Kaitak