Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates 340-300 And -500  
User currently offlineAT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1049 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11391 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.

Thoughts?

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5620 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11405 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.


User currently offlineAT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1049 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11360 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1):
Also, the A345 plays a unique role because it has the most premium-heavy configuration of any EK aircraft.

even more than the A380?


User currently offlineEK773 From Malta, joined Jul 2004, 237 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11321 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1):
Also, the A345 plays a unique role because it has the most premium-heavy configuration of any EK aircraft.

They have a standard config of 12F 42J which is found across the 332/343 and 777 (ex ULR's) fleet.

A380 raises the bar to 14F 76J.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11247 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1):
Emirates can use every aircraft it can get its hands on right now.

It makes you wonder why they don't order the 748i then and get some early delivery slots.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineQuokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11193 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.


User currently offlineEK773 From Malta, joined Jul 2004, 237 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11107 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


User currently offlinedanfearn77 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 1813 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10329 times:

Aren't the A340's due to be phased out this year, along with some A330's?


Eagles may soar high, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines!
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4401 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10311 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 4):
It makes you wonder why they don't order the 748i then and get some early delivery slots.

The 748I isn't their dream baby. They wanted the shorter version with more range, but the current one is the LH longer baby. Not sure if it was wise from Boeing to go for the LH dreams.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6728 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 10181 times:

Quoting AT (Thread starter):
Everything that they do can be comfortably (some might say superiorly) done by the 777 family

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 !



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5620 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 10172 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.

...with a more premium F and J product than the other "small" Airbuses, and fewer Y seats than the Boeings or A380.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 4):
It makes you wonder why they don't order the 748i then and get some early delivery slots.

LH and 748F customers have already taken those slots... plus, as mentioned above, the 748 as it now exists is not the product EK would want.


User currently offlineyowza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4900 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 10116 times:

For a split second I wanted to say that ETOPS for DXB-PER might be a consideration but I quickly shot down my own theory... http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dxb-per&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=120&E=180

I guess it's just an airframe shortage as has been stated.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10765 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 10052 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.


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2071 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9153 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.


User currently offlineFlyLonghaul From Australia, joined Feb 2010, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8877 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.
  



Flying for Pleasure
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4980 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8247 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...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4401 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8018 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.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7830 times:

Actually they are now dumping A330-243s with the first two currently heading to Virgin Blue with more to follow.

User currently offlineAT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1049 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 7241 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 17):
ctually they are now dumping A330-243s with the first two currently heading to Virgin Blue with more to follow.

oh I did not know that-- which frames are those?


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 7196 times:

A6-EAB and A6-EAC are WFU alas. Must be getting old when A330-243s are getting replaced! Argh!

User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4787 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6923 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 19):
Must be getting old when A330-243s are getting replaced! Argh!

Wasn't the main reason for the withdrawal of the A330s that they just too small for them now.


User currently offlineAT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1049 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6521 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?


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13266 posts, RR: 100
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6318 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?   

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 6262 times:

The A343s are actually former SQ planes that Boeing bought from SQ and sold to EK, who needed the extra capacity.

The A345 as ULH planes will always be a subfleet. They were meant to complement the A346 fleet, which EK unfortunately cancelled.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22):
The issue with the A340s is their higher CASM.

How do you know? Do you know their lease-rates or deprecations? Could a higher lease rate increase costs more than a lower CASM would reduce them?

Even if they needed more fuel, if taking a 777 instead saved one million in fuel (and other expenses) per year (including bigger capacity), but changing the planes cost 25 million - would you do it?

Their A343 are 12-15 years old. Should EK just kick them and buy new 77Es for that? Or new A333s? That would cost a fortune for planes that will be outdated by the 787 and the A350 rather soon.

Who would take their A345s? Should EK sell them for half of their value and buy expensive new 77Ls for that?

It's like with a car. If you spend $200 a month for fuel, would you spend $15,000 for a car that reduces your fuel costs to $100 per month when you'd only get $3,000 for your old car?


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 6194 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!
25 Post contains links and images lightsaber : 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
26 Thorben : 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
27 A342 : 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,
28 Post contains images lightsaber : 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
29 Post contains links and images lightsaber : 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
30 trex8 : 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
31 Post contains links A342 : 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
32 Post contains links and images lightsaber : 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
33 Post contains images astuteman : 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
34 Post contains images lightsaber : 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
35 astuteman : 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
36 Post contains images lightsaber : Astuteman, Economically and strategically, you have a point. The L1011 did not have the impact on corporate profit nor future product development that
37 Post contains links lightsaber : 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
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...
A320 Or 737-300 And -500? posted Wed Jul 19 2000 09:02:16 by I-96
Emirates 340-500 Not To Zurich Anymore? posted Mon Feb 19 2007 09:28:24 by LX001
Emirates 340-500 posted Sat Sep 10 2005 03:56:28 by Goodday
A340-300 And A340-500/600 posted Sat Jan 10 2004 03:36:48 by 9V-SVC
Lufthansa`s New A-340-600 And A-330-300 PTV posted Tue Dec 9 2003 00:48:35 by Delta777Jet
Difference Between 737-300 And 737-500? posted Sun Jul 22 2001 20:06:48 by Timbo
UA And US 737-300,400,500...are They Compatible? posted Thu May 25 2000 19:26:00 by KALB
Air Canada Orders A330-300 And A340's-500 And 600 posted Thu Jun 3 1999 03:57:58 by 220389
KLM Orders A330-300's And ERJ's posted Thu Nov 18 2010 00:25:20 by mauriceb
Curious A330/340/RR And 777/GE Parallels posted Sat Mar 21 2009 01:38:19 by PM