Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Canada Airbus 340-500 Sold Or Leased?  
User currently offlinesm625614 From Canada, joined Sep 2010, 23 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13287 times:

Hello
This is my first post, i searched this topic up but could not find anything so sorry in advance if this has already been discussed.
Air Canada had 2 Airbus 340-500's used on HKG-YYZ
I no tam ended up with them but i was wondering where they leased or simply sold.
If leased will we ever see this aircraft return to the fleet?
Cheers
Scott

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirCanada787 From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 285 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13200 times:

Air Canada owned the planes, it was reported that they only paid $87 Million each for them, I'm not sure if that it true however. I believe that they were leased to TAM, but someone else on here should have more information to back that up.


Welcome to Airliners.net, I'm pretty new here myself.



The mind, like a parachute, functions only when open.
User currently offlineMattRB From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1624 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12846 times:

Both were, indeed, leased to TAM in 2007 and are still in service with them.


Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11451 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12808 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting MattRB (Reply 2):
Both were, indeed, leased to TAM in 2007 and are still in service with them.

Scheduled to be returned in 2012 as per TAM fleet plan.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlinesm625614 From Canada, joined Sep 2010, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11845 times:

wow thanks for the quick response so do any of you think we could see the aircraft return to the fleet?

User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 11241 times:

Quoting sm625614 (Reply 4):
wow thanks for the quick response so do any of you think we could see the aircraft return to the fleet?

Anything is possible. It's more likely that you would see them sub-leased to another operator or preferably sold if a buyer could be found that's willing to make a reasonable offer.


User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4791 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 11061 times:

Quoting sm625614 (Reply 4):
wow thanks for the quick response so do any of you think we could see the aircraft return to the fleet?

I would love them to return, but in reality there is just no use in such a small fleet when AC already has 77Ls. I don't see a need for AC to launch any additional ULH routes. The 77L could easily handle YYZ-SYD, however AC has decided to forego the non-stop, presumably because it wouldn't generate as much revenue as YYZ-YVR-SYD (and uplift more cargo that way too). They could do YYZ-SIN but I really doubt there is any justification for such a route. If there was any demand, AC would first try YYZ-YVR-SIN. AC used to run YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN but those kind of routes are long extinct.

However, on the other hand, I imagine that the resale value of the aircraft would be quite low, as they are only economical on a very limited number of routes. The A340-500 OEW is only about 7000kg less than the 747-400, which is quite incredible really. It will only make sense to operate on 14+ hour sectors, or from extreme hot/high airports. So I'm not sure it would be very easy to find a new home for these birds.


User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6233 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10993 times:

Maybe SAA or LAN would want them....LAN could use them transpac to SYD and SAA could use them to N. America.


When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10931 times:

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 6):
YVR-SIN.

agreed. YVR-SIN makes a lot of sense : StarAlliance hub-to-hub, tons of Asian VFR + business traffic

and since SQ no longer fly that route themselves, and that was only a 1-stop via ICN.

And with Indonesia lacking meaningful national carrier, SQ is the de facto flag carrier for Jakarta, and therefore YVR-SIN is also YVR-Indonesia and possibly Malaysia


User currently offlinesm625614 From Canada, joined Sep 2010, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10757 times:

What about qantas? I have heard that the Sydney LAX route is not profitable with the Airbus 380.

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5073 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10620 times:

Quoting sm625614 (Reply 9):
What about qantas? I have heard that the Sydney LAX route is not profitable with the Airbus 380.

That cannot be true ! Are you sure that you did not pick up the bit about the A380 being load restricted out of LAX during the period of the reduced power that followed the Singapore incident. That apparently has been lifted and QF expect to operate again at 72000lbs of thrust starting about Jan 16th.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4815 posts, RR: 40
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10594 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sm625614 (Reply 9):
What about qantas? I have heard that the Sydney LAX route is not profitable with the Airbus 380.


You heard only half of the story. The A380 route Sydney - Los Angeles is very, very profitable for QF. Until RR limited the maximum thrust on the Trent-900 engines until the problem with them was solved.

As of next week or a bit later on QF is resuming the very profitable A380 flights to and from LAX since for most of the engines the problems are fixed. If I am correctly informed 2 more QF-A380's need to be upgraded, one of them needs of course also repairs after the uncontained engine failure.

On the topic this is noteworthy:

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 6):
when AC already has 77Ls
AC replaced the big Airbus jets with the B77L and B77W. A choice very rarely made. No doubt if you have to purchase a plane to begin with, the B77W & B77L are in by far the most cases the better, or at least more economical choice. But to replace them is even something SQ has not done with their A340-500's. And Boeing has really been trying to sell the B77L to SQ, one of the worlds largest B777 customers.

Too bad (in my opinion) that AC replaced the best looking airliner ever (A340-500), but maybe (probably  ) Boeing gave them a deal they could not resist?  . If TAM returns these beautiful birds I guess AC will try to get rid of it. In their current fleet their is no real use for them anymore, how sad that may be.  .



[Edited 2011-01-07 11:17:32]

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5073 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10464 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 11):
If TAM returns these beautiful birds I guess AC will try to get rid of it. In their current fleet their is no real use for them anymore, how sad that may be. .

Why wouldn't TAM fly them across the Pacific to AKL or SYD.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4815 posts, RR: 40
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10337 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 12):
Why wouldn't TAM fly them across the Pacific to AKL or SYD.



I was referring to this statement:

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 3):
Scheduled to be returned in 2012 as per TAM fleet plan.



     .


User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9953 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 7):
Maybe SAA or LAN would want them....LAN could use them transpac to SYD and SAA could use them to N. America.

SAA could be a potential lessor for this type of aircraft to operate non-stop to the USA out of JNB which most know as a hot and high airport. It really depends on how much they feel they need to compete against DL non-stop B77L JNB-ATL. They must be at some disadvantage with DL getting the premium on passengers,but possibly compensating for it with being able to carry more cargo on the A34E via DKR.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5647 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9599 times:

These aircraft are in a weird position -- only two of them, of a type that is profitable but less so than any other modern widebody type, and that is common to only a few operators. I see one of just a few things happening:

1) Lease to SA. This seems to me like the most effective possible outcome. SA can start a nonstop route to the US both ways (probably IAD), and they get commonality with their A346.

2) Lease to a second-tier or rapidly growing operator needing any widebody lift possible (as was arguably the situation for JJ when they leased the birds). Not sure who this would be at this point... Arik? Some Indonesian carrier?

I don't see it as possible that they will return to service with AC, or go to any other established A345 or A346 operator. EK is phasing their existing A345 out once the A359 start arriving. SQ is using theirs on very specific missions and doesn't need more. TG has been trying to unload its A345 for a long time. It's hard to imagine the likes of LH, IB, or VS wanting to add a couple of used oddballs to their fleets.


User currently offlinebeechnut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 726 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9199 times:

Well the A340-500 is basically the same airframe as the A330-300; both also use RR Trent engines though different variants. Believe they also share a common type rating. So if AC can't get a good price for them, as long as they can work them profitably it doesn't seem so "out there" as some say to hang on to them when they are returned. After all AC milked their DC-9s for 30+ years even though they weren't the most fuel-efficient birds at the end of their lives.

Beech


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8437 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9062 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 11):
AC replaced the big Airbus jets with the B77L and B77W. A choice very rarely made. No doubt if you have to purchase a plane to begin with, the B77W & B77L are in by far the most cases the better, or at least more economical choice. But to replace them is even something SQ has not done with their A340-500's. And Boeing has really been trying to sell the B77L to SQ, one of the worlds largest B777 customers.

Several airlines have replaced their A340's with 777 or expanded their 777 fleets while operating A340's too. Singapore Air, Air Canada, Cathay Pacific, Emirates & Air France. Some of this is just the later versions of the 777 are better then the A340's, early 1990's A340 are ready to be replaced by 2008.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25700 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8898 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 8):
Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 6):
YVR-SIN.

agreed. YVR-SIN makes a lot of sense : StarAlliance hub-to-hub, tons of Asian VFR + business traffic

Very little O&D traffic to/from Canada and SIN is not a good connecting hub for Canada except for a few nearby countries like Indonesia and Malaysia which also are very small markets to/from Canada. SIN is too far south to be a competitive hub for major markets like India, China, HKG, MNL etc.

The only way SQ could make YVR work was thanks to 5th freedom traffic YVR-ICN-YVR, and even that operation was obviously unprofitable considering that SQ suspended service to Canada a couple of years ago. I can't see a nonstop YVR-SIN making any economic sense for the foreseeable future.


User currently offlineazncsa4qf744er From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8395 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 15):
These aircraft are in a weird position -- only two of them, of a type that is profitable but less so than any other modern widebody type, and that is common to only a few operators. I see one of just a few things happening:

They are indeed! TG tried getting rid of theirs but had no luck.


User currently onlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4791 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8271 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting azncsa4qf744er (Reply 19):
They are indeed! TG tried getting rid of theirs but had no luck.

This was discussed on other threads, part of TGs problem is that they have so many J seats on their A345 (60 with total capacity of only 220) and many of the potential customers are smaller airlines who have little premium traffic and don't have the deep pockets to redo the cabin.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4815 posts, RR: 40
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7215 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 17):
Several airlines have replaced their A340's with 777 or expanded their 777 fleets while operating A340's too


Yes, but not many replaced A340-500's and A340-600's (which are pretty new aircraft) with B77W and/or B77L that early. That was what I was referring to. For the rest you are right.  .


User currently offlineManekS From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6800 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
Very little O&D traffic to/from Canada and SIN is not a good connecting hub for Canada except for a few nearby countries like Indonesia and Malaysia which also are very small markets to/from Canada. SIN is too far south to be a competitive hub for major markets like India, China, HKG, MNL etc.

The only way SQ could make YVR work was thanks to 5th freedom traffic YVR-ICN-YVR, and even that operation was obviously unprofitable considering that SQ suspended service to Canada a couple of years ago. I can't see a nonstop YVR-SIN making any economic sense for the foreseeable future.

Do you have any source or official numbers? SQ served YVR for 20 years prior to discontinuing service due to the recession, it wouldn't have lasted so long if there wasn't any traffic.


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...
Air Canada's A330/340 Airbus Fleet : Buyer posted Thu May 19 2005 11:38:09 by Keesje
Two Air Canada Airbus Flights To Kcrw? posted Tue May 15 2007 04:37:14 by CRWDude
Airbus 340-500 Loads On Tuesday 22 Aug posted Tue Aug 22 2006 00:21:23 by Ag92
Air Canada Airbus @ AMS posted Mon Aug 14 2006 23:41:50 by TheSunseeker
Air Canada Airbus Orders posted Fri Jun 2 2006 03:16:58 by Aeroplan73
Where Are Air Canada's Airbus Widebodies Heading? posted Wed Apr 27 2005 00:20:38 by Cruiser
Mexicana To Get The Airbus 340-500 posted Tue Apr 26 2005 06:18:00 by Ghost77
Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757? posted Sun Aug 8 2004 23:52:21 by Fiedman
777LR And The Airbus 340-500 posted Sun Apr 18 2004 03:38:17 by 777d
Air Canada Flying A340-500? posted Thu Dec 11 2003 03:57:48 by Awschucksflyer