AT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1161 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11631 times:
I just posted another Emirates related topic but since this is sufficiently different I thought it warranted a separate thread.
I've been flying Emirates extensively this month and what struck me at Dubai airport was the apparent anomaly of the A340 sub-fleets (both the -300 and the -500). Are these aircraft really warranted? Everything that they do can be comfortably (some might say superiorly) done by the 777 family- so i unless they have a shortage of airframe availabilities, I see no inherent advantage in maintaining small sub-fleets of the 340.
And the 340-300s (please correct me if I am wrong) still have the old configurations with no First Suites or Lie-flat Business Class.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6665 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11645 times:
Emirates can use every aircraft it can get its hands on right now. It hasn't gotten rid of an aircraft since it disposed of its A310s several years ago. The A340s are reasonably modern aircraft that can get the job done -- no reason to get rid of them for the moment. Also, the A345 plays a unique role because it has the most premium-heavy configuration of any EK aircraft.
In the long run, the A340s and the non-LR 772s will be replaced by the A350-900.
Quokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11433 times:
Quoting EK773 (Reply 3): They have a standard config of 12F 42J which is found across the 332/343 and 777 (ex ULR's) fleet.
The 345 has 3 rows of private suites in a 1-2-1 configuration in F, 7 rows of angled lie-flat in 2-2-2 in J while the 343s have 2 rows of lie-flat seats in a 2-2-2 configuration in F and six rows of rather old-fashioned seats in a 2-3-2 configuration in J. The 345s were the first aircraft in the EK fleet that offered private suites.
EK773 From Malta, joined Jul 2004, 239 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11347 times:
Thanks Quokka, i'm well aware of the different layouts of the EK fleet. I was just stating that there is no increase in the number of premium seats on this aircraft as opposed to others which was being suggested.
Quoting Quokka (Reply 5): 7 rows of angled lie-flat in 2-2-2 in J
Those seats have to be some of the most uncomfortable J seats in the industry for a ULR leg. No thanks
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 11148 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10292 times:
Quoting AT (Thread starter): Everything that they do can be comfortably (some might say superiorly) done by the 777 family
As a passenger I prefer the quieter A340, thank you.
Quoting danfearn77 (Reply 7): Aren't the A340's due to be phased out this year, along with some A330's?
They are changing their mind from time to time. Three years ago they said to me the non-ER 772 would go very soon, from all types they didnt even feature in their future fleet plan I saw - but they are still there. Recently they said that 77W retirement would begin in 2017. The A330s are the oldest type in the fleet together with the 772 and 343, naturally these types will go first, especially as the 772 ad A343 subfleets are small.
ytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 3144 posts, RR: 31
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9393 times:
I am curious what they'll do with these fleets too.
Does anybody know what the plans are for the 49 77Ws they have on order? AFAIK they're supposed to replace the the 343, 345, 772 and 772ER fleets. Any idea which fleets and in what order?
I would think they would gain a lot by ditching the A340s soon (reduce CASM?) and then move on to 777 replacements. But their comments, that I've read, seem to suggest they are going to target the 773 and 772 fleets first.
FlyLonghaul From Australia, joined Feb 2010, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9117 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 9): What do you mean by comfortably ? As an Y passenger I would take the airbus 2-4-2 any day rather than the 777 3-4-3. And the 4 quiet engines, too !
I agree with you about the quiet engines, but the seating in Y on the 345 was very uncomfortable for a 15 hour Sector DXB-BNE (18 hours in the seat after delays so any seat would probably be a nightmare after that) after 4-5 hours I was struggling. I much prefer the seating on the 77W which I tried more recently.
EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5307 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8487 times:
From my understanding the sub fleet of A343 / A345 was due to the short fall of frames during EK's aggressive expansion stages... The A343 aircraft are ex-SQ frames if I'm not mistaken and the A345 was purchased so that EK could commence ultra long range routes SYD-DXB for example and also EK was offered early delivery slots as the B77L wasn't available...
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4506 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8258 times:
There is a drastic shortage of long range plane world wide currently - since there is little delivery currently.
A330 come out at max rate, part A332 long range, part A333 mid range.
A340 non in production, and the line is full with A330s
A380 still low production numbers
B767 very low numbers for a few 787 delay compensations
B747 744 production stopped, 748I delayed by 3 years approx
B777 the 77W is delivered as much as they can.
B787 many hundreds should fly now according to fleet planning schedules
A380, B748 and B787 delays hit the growing markets hard - so very airworthy frame is needed.
AT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6761 times:
Quoting trex8 (Reply 20): asn't the main reason for the withdrawal of the A330s that they just too small for them now.
wow - that's pretty impressive when the A330 is your smallest aircraft in the fleet and it's still considered too small.
But if the A330s were to leave, the 777s would be the smallest aircraft in the fleet-- and aren't there some destinations (particularly in the middle east and indian subcontinent) that can't handle a 777 sized aircraft? Some years ago, didn't Emirates have to keep some of their A310s for similar reasons?
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 14280 posts, RR: 100
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6558 times:
Quoting danfearn77 (Reply 7):
Aren't the A340's due to be phased out this year, along with some A330's?
IIRC, the A343 leases expire this year. But they will have the A345s until they can find a buyer. I have a feeling EK will have them until they scrap the A345s.
Quoting na (Reply 12): As a passenger I prefer the quieter A340, thank you.
How much of a premium are you or your employer willing to pay? The issue with the A340s is their higher CASM. On shorter (10 hour) routes, the A333 has far better economics. On longer routes, the 77L has longer legs and lower CASM. A345 vs. 77W isn't even close economically.
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16): A380, B748 and B787 delays hit the growing markets hard - so very airworthy frame is needed.
I agree. I expect that if the 748I had met initial delivery schedule that EK would have ordered the type. Now it will be interesting to see what they expand with. Eventually, the A388 delivery rate will be more than the 'noise' of today. The 788 will also have a very ineresting impact.
How long have we been waiting to see the 788 and the A388 duke it out in the world's fleets?
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 10416 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6434 times:
The A340-500s definitely had a purpose when they were purchased. They allowed nonstop DXB-Australia flights. However in the last 8 years more planes with the range capable of making it on the long haul routes have made the original purchase reason redundant. The 772LRs are now the longest range planes, but since they are already in the fleet, the A340s are useful. The A340 is still an efficient aircraft. It might have been eclipsed by the 777 in performance, but it is still a plane that can earn a profit.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
: I know, for widebodies, lease costs are typically 15% of the cost and fuel 35% (if oil were $70/bbl). The 777 burns ~10% less fuel than an A345. I al
: Lightsaber, thanks for that long post. I don't have the time to answer every detail, so just a few general things. Wasn't there some "guarantee" from
: Well, now I don't which check exactly you're referring to, but the heaviest check on A330s/A340s is only due every 12 (yes, that's twelve) years. Oh,
: I recall that guarantee. However, it was to match GE's guarantee. Due to the large number of 77W sold, the GE-90-115 exceeds promise. Pratt studied t
: I should note my opinion of EK and their use of the A343/A345 has been helped by HB-IWC's incredible analysis. Emirates At DXB - Ultimate Operational
: IIRC there was a thread where EKs use of A345s on routes to central Europe were due to a corporate contract they had requiring a significant number of
: No idea about the required man-hours, but here we go. Intermediate check every 6 and heavy check every 12 years: http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/news
: Why? Right now the A345s are flying routes that can have a 77W substituted. If the 77W can fly the same mission, the cost per flight is barely more t
: Perhaps. But those planes might have had benchmark CASM when they were bought. And when they're paid for.... At the end of the day, an airline will d
: They're leased my friend. Unless the A345s are part of the 6 aircraft (end FY 2010) that EK actually owns... All of the A343Xs are leased and should
: Thanks for all those responses my friend. But I'd like to pick you up on this one. The A340 was an integral part of a journey that Airbus went on, st
: Astuteman, Economically and strategically, you have a point. The L1011 did not have the impact on corporate profit nor future product development that
: Another link on A340-300/500 rotation out of EK's fleet: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-strategy-for-measured-growth.html "He also points out