Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will A340-600 Operators Add Additional Ships?  
User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 749 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 13618 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We all know that the A340 series (as a passenger version) are as good as dead. The B777 (-300ER) has proven to be more efficient and Airbus currenly develops the brand new A350XWB. I know that the role of the A340-200/500 is reduced to private customers. The latest versions of the A340-300 will still be operatable for the next decade. However as the A330-300 is able to do most of the jobs that the A340-300 was initially designed, any new orders are unrealistic.

My question is if it would be wise, realistic and feasible for operators like LH, VS and IB (or maybe eve China Eastern) would place a (small) top-up order for the A340-600? I think this is the only A340 version that can still be sold.

I look forward to seeing your comments!  

67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 13564 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I do not expect any additional A340-600 orders.

I have a feeling that LH is planning for the 747-8 at least in part as an A340-600 replacement for those routes they expect sustained growth on and for routes that work best with four-engine performance. The rest will be replaced with the A350-1000, in my opinion.

IB is going to be interesting. They need four engines for optimum performance out of JNB so I wonder if they may effectively be forced into adding the 747-8 to their fleet, as well. I also expect them to become an A350-1000 customer.

As for the rest, either the 777-300ER (or her successor) or the A350-1000 will likely be the replacement model.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1334 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13270 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
IB is going to be interesting. They need four engines for optimum performance out of JNB so I wonder if they may effectively be forced into adding the 747-8 to their fleet, as well. I also expect them to become an A350-1000 customer.

Suspect there may also be reasons why a quad is preferable at certain South American destinations, including tyre speed restrictions and engine failure climb gradients, which may limit a B777 quite considerably.

I rather expect IB to go the way of A380 rather than 747-8 though. Neveer say never, but I don't think they'll order more A346s.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13261 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):

I do not expect any additional A340-600 orders.

Me neither; the 77W has turned out to be a better choice, and the 350-1000 is already on the horizon.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I have a feeling that LH is planning for the 747-8 at least in part as an A340-600 replacement for those routes they expect sustained growth on and for routes that work best with four-engine performance.

Way more likely is that LH will use the 747-8 to replace the ageing 747-400s, which are over 20 years old. Despite the negative opinion on the 340-600 on A.net, the aircraft still beats the 744 on CASM. Next to fuel consumption, maintenance on a 2003-built 346 is way cheaper than on a 1989-built 744.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
IB is going to be interesting. They need four engines for optimum performance out of JNB so I wonder if they may effectively be forced into adding the 747-8 to their fleet

The 777 and 340 don't seem to be too different when it comes to hot & high performance. When comparing the Take-off length charts for the 340-600 and 777-300ER for 6,000ft elevation and Standard day +15 degrees, 4,400m runway length, it shows that the 346 and 77W take an almost identical payload hit of 40,000kg (compared to sea-level take-off).

Several carriers are now flying long-haul routes from JNB using 2-engined aircraft: KL replaced the 744 with the 772, CX flies their 77W on their 5762nm HKG-JNB flight and DL operates JNB-ATL with the 777-200LR.

I expect the A350 to perform well from JNB.


User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13199 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Thread starter):
I know that the role of the A340-200/500 is reduced to private customers

Not if you ask SQ about theirs.

Quoting SASMD82 (Thread starter):
My question is if it would be wise, realistic and feasible for operators like LH, VS and IB (or maybe eve China Eastern) would place a (small) top-up order for the A340-600?

>

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I have a feeling that LH is planning for the 747-8 at least in part as an A340-600 replacement for those routes they expect sustained growth on and for routes that work best with four-engine performance. The rest will be replaced with the A350-1000, in my opinion.

I have a feeling that LH is aiming for the A350 too (in opposition to the 787), however I wouldn't put money on it.
What I do have a very big gut feeling about is that they are not going to order any more A340, neither -300 (keep in mind they still have A330-300s on order) nor -600, which are being replaced by the 748i mainly.

IB is a different issue. If my memory serves me right they have up to now been the last airline to order the A340, which speaks for itself. I bet they'd love to order more, but they know that other, newer and more fuel-efficient, planes can do the job better.

Quoting SASMD82 (Thread starter):
top-up order for the A340-600? I think this is the only A340 version that can still be sold.

I believe that the whole A340 line is officially still open, so if anyone was to order an A340-500, a niche aircraft that nobody can substitue these days, then Airbus is probably not unwilling to build some more.
Wouldn't that be nice.



// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13198 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
IB is going to be interesting. They need four engines for optimum performance out of JNB...

I clearly had SA on the brain when I said this.    But I agree with B777LRF's comments about South America ops.



Quoting B777LRF (Reply 2):
I rather expect IB to go the way of A380 rather than 747-8 though. Neveer say never, but I don't think they'll order more A346s.

Airbus certainly felt IB would be an early A380 customer and with their tie-up with BA, a joint A380 fleet does make a good deal of sense. But I am not sure IB has the traffic to perform a 1:1 A340-A380 replacement.

And I agree the 747-8 would be an odd-duck since I don't expect BA to order it (I believe their VLA RFP was a "winner take all one" and might very well have had IB's fleet in mind, as well). If the 777-300ER / A350-1000 has to take a payload hit, it takes a payload hit and that hit could be acceptable.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1334 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13105 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
If the 777-300ER / A350-1000 has to take a payload hit, it takes a payload hit and that hit could be acceptable.

South American being on of the big growth markets, I suspect an airline might come to regret such a choice sooner than expected. In my opinion it would be a better option to go big from the start, and grow the market. Not good for initial yields, but in my opinion the more prudent long-term strategy.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7572 posts, RR: 43
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13091 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
IB is going to be interesting. They need four engines for optimum performance out of JNB so I wonder if they may effectively be forced into adding the 747-8 to their fleet, as well. I also expect them to become an A350-1000 customer.

And MEX and BOG.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12930 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
If the 777-300ER / A350-1000 has to take a payload hit, it takes a payload hit and that hit could be acceptable.

Every aircraft takes a payload hit in hot & high conditions, no matter if it has 2, 3 or 4 engines. Fascinating enough, when comparing the runway / temperature / elevation / payload-diagrames for the A330 and A340-200/300, it shows that the A340 suffers more from hot & high-conditions than the A330... ( http://www.airbus.com/support/mainte...cal-data/aircraft-characteristics/ )

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 7):
And MEX

Fascinating enough, Aeromexico's long-haul fleet is built around the 767, 777 and 787; Mexicana used the A330-200 for flights to Europe. No 4 engined-aircraft here...


User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 1060 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12924 times:

I doubt you'll see new builds ordered. You might see some second hand units change hands as it gets phased out. For example, I could see Etihad and Gulf Air phasing out their models and having another A340-600 operator picking them up for cheap.

User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12540 times:

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
For example, I could see Etihad and Gulf Air phasing out their models and having another A340-600 operator picking them up for cheap.

Gulf Air doesn't operate the 346. Maybe you're mistaken with Qatar?

Qatar and Etihad have indeed both been ordering quite some 777-300ERs in the last few years, and I expect both to retire the 346 within a few years. AFAIK, Etihad has all their 340-600s on lease, so they might be disposed of when the leases expire.

Maybe IB is interested in these frames to replace older 340-300s?


User currently offlineditzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12071 times:

With LH 346 in such a unique configuration (lower lobe toilets, galley and crew rest area) does anyone think that they will be forced to operate them to the end of their useful pax carrying lives? LH has a reputation for looking after their aircraft (AB6 fleet for example).

Or, do you think LH may be lucky enough to find one or two operators to which to sell the fleet? Operators who either do not have existing 346s or will take on enough of LH's 346 so that the differences are somewhat negated by the scale of units acquired.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1334 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 11942 times:

Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 11):
With LH 346 in such a unique configuration (lower lobe toilets, galley and crew rest area) does anyone think that they will be forced to operate them to the end of their useful pax carrying lives? LH has a reputation for looking after their aircraft (AB6 fleet for example).

Or, do you think LH may be lucky enough to find one or two operators to which to sell the fleet? Operators who either do not have existing 346s or will take on enough of LH's 346 so that the differences are somewhat negated by the scale of units acquired

You mention the Kont. shovel (any excuse to use that expression), and that's very true. A better example would be the 737 though, the beloved Bobbies. LH does indeed run their aircraft to the ground, so to speak, but they keep them in top condition throughout their lives, investing considerable funds on improvements along the way as well. And while a 346 will never be as efficient as a 77W, it's pretty obvious it does excatly the job LH expects it to do, delivering the numbers it's supposed to. So there's really no reason to get rid of them prematurely, but at the same time I doubt they will survive the arrival of the 351 for very long.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5410 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11775 times:

Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 11):
Or, do you think LH may be lucky enough to find one or two operators to which to sell the fleet? Operators who either do not have existing 346s or will take on enough of LH's 346 so that the differences are somewhat negated by the scale of units acquired.

They will keep them. The cost of selling them into a very limited marketplace would be much higher than the cost of continuing with slightly inferior economics to the 77W. I agree with Stitch that some will be replaced by a late tranche of 748s (after the 744s are gone) and others will be replaced by A350-1000, or (a very outside chance) by a substantially updated and improved 77WNG.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21515 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11711 times:

Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 11):
Or, do you think LH may be lucky enough to find one or two operators to which to sell the fleet? Operators who either do not have existing 346s or will take on enough of LH's 346 so that the differences are somewhat negated by the scale of units acquired.

That is likely the answer to the whole thread.

YES, some A346 operators will take additional ships, but NO they will not be new. Other carriers will sell out of their A346 fleet and the ones who want to grow their fleet will take them up. Eventually, the A350-1000/1100 would replace those second hand birds in those fleets once they had 7900nm range, maybe in 10 years or more.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11271 times:

Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 11):
With LH 346 in such a unique configuration (lower lobe toilets, galley and crew rest area) does anyone think that they will be forced to operate them to the end of their useful pax carrying lives? LH has a reputation for looking after their aircraft (AB6 fleet for example).

Or, do you think LH may be lucky enough to find one or two operators to which to sell the fleet? Operators who either do not have existing 346s or will take on enough of LH's 346 so that the differences are somewhat negated by the scale of units acquired.

LH and IB are very happy with their A346, and there are applications where these are the ideal aircraft. So I expect both airlines to operate the existing A346 fleet for another 15 years, and if a good used one shows up for a good price can do the math if it is worth or not. But - they have enough of them for the applications they really need them.

LH just got 8 A380, has another 7 on order, 20 748 on order, will update a part of their 744 to keep them over 2020, that are enough four engine aircraft even for me.
IB has many applications where A333 or in future A359/10 are enough, to replace aging A343 or for growth, and maybe goes for a small number of A380 - then they have enough A346 where these are the best aircraft until 2025.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3602 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8293 times:

I hate to see A340-600s disappear from main line service, so I how they stay around for some time. I do not see any new ship being built for airline service, but some could be built for VIP service.

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8233 times:

With the A350, 787 and 748 coming on line, all of which should offer better economics than the A346 (and the A346 likely costing as much as any of them) I cannot see any operator opting for new-build A346's. I can also see some relatively new A346's being available for reasonable prices on the used market soon.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8129 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 16):
I do not see any new ship being built for airline service, but some could be built for VIP service.

I expect used A340-500s will become the bird of choice for those VIPs who desire a roomy airplane and need deep-intercontinental range.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8040 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
I expect used A340-500s will become the bird of choice for those VIPs who desire a roomy airplane and need deep-intercontinental range.

And if someone wants a new-build ultralong range VIP plane, I suspect the 748 would be more attractive. I do not see the A346 as having a particular niche as a VIP plane; there just are too many other choices, all of which offer something the A346 does not. It is overshadowed by the 77W as far as economy, by the A380 as far as maximum space, by the 748 in terms of economics, space, and curb appeal, and the A350 in terms of just about everything. So why would someone with lots of money to throw around throw it at the A346?



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7950 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Joost (Reply 3):
The 777 and 340 don't seem to be too different when it comes to hot & high performance. When comparing the Take-off length charts for the 340-600 and 777-300ER for 6,000ft elevation and Standard day +15 degrees, 4,400m runway length, it shows that the 346 and 77W take an almost identical payload hit of 40,000kg (compared to sea-level take-off).

After 4400m there isn't much further to go to the destination, a more reasonable runway length is perhaps 2900m.

Fred


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7811 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19):
And if someone wants a new-build ultralong range VIP plane, I suspect the 748 would be more attractive.

   The VIP versions of the 747-8 or 777-200LR would fit the bill. As would the ACJ380-800 Flying Palace.



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19):
So why would someone with lots of money to throw around throw it at the A346?

Values continue a slow and steady slide, so eventually I could see them maybe moving to a charter operation. At 9-abreast, you could pack a good bit of people and their luggage in one and have sufficient range for missions to tropical destinations.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9031 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7681 times:

Quoting Joost (Reply 3):

The 777 and 340 don't seem to be too different when it comes to hot & high performance. When comparing the Take-off length charts for the 340-600 and 777-300ER for 6,000ft elevation and Standard day +15 degrees, 4,400m runway length, it shows that the 346 and 77W take an almost identical payload hit of 40,000kg (compared to sea-level take-off).

Several carriers are now flying long-haul routes from JNB using 2-engined aircraft: KL replaced the 744 with the 772, CX flies their 77W on their 5762nm HKG-JNB flight and DL operates JNB-ATL with the 777-200LR.

This is not correct. The climate in JNB during the summer months (Oct-Mar) will actually normally average above ISA+15, ISA+15 maybe the minimum diurnal temperature with maximum around ISA+25-30. It is common in JNB to experience density altitudes in excess of 9000' during the summer months. This has significant impact on aircraft performance.

The charts in those documents are indicative only, they are for airport planning, not performance planning, they do not include all the thrust bumps, flap settings, CG positions or second/third/fourth segment climb gradients. The actual performance for the 346 at ISA+15, it can take MTOW using a FLEX thrust setting. For a 30 degree day (ISA+27), it only takes around a 2t payload hit with TOGA. On hotter days the 777 get to the tyre speed limit, as it needs to accelerate to a higher speed on the ground to meet the second segment climb gradient.

On a 30 deg day (OAT) out of JNB the 346 will lift around 40t more revenue payload (pax+cargo) than a 77W with a fuel load for JNB-HKG, under these conditions the 77W and 340-300 lift about the same revenue payload. The best way for a twin to regain payload is to move operations to cooler parts of the day closer if ISA+15. CX currently does not operate their 77Ws into JNB during summer, and as I understand it, other operators like DL have their departure times at night when it is cooler.

Quoting Joost (Reply 8):
Fascinating enough, when comparing the runway / temperature / elevation / payload-diagrames for the A330 and A340-200/300, it shows that the A340 suffers more from hot & high-conditions than the A330

The 343 has pretty good performance considering. On a 30 deg day out of JNB, the 333 would lift about 15t of revenue payload, and the 343 around 33t of they were also to have fuel onboard for a 5000 nm flight.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7599 times:

An interesting off topic question, is whether the 748i (i.e. passenger version only) will outsell the A346...

A decent fleet can be made up by scooping up relatively unwanted airplanes, at a bargain price. The freight operators scooped up the MD11s, DL is buying up MD90s, and I'm sure an operator out there will build up a nice fleet of A346s, but they won't be new ones. After all, while comprehensively beaten by the 77W, the A346 is more efficient than the 744, and probably competitive against the 772ER, and with A330s still selling like hot cakes, pilot commonality won't be a problem.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3602 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7257 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
I expect used A340-500s will become the bird of choice for those VIPs who desire a roomy airplane and need deep-intercontinental range.

And if someone wants a new-build ultralong range VIP plane, I suspect the 748 would be more attractive. I do not see the A346 as having a particular niche as a VIP plane; there just are too many other choices, all of which offer something the A346 does not. It is overshadowed by the 77W as far as economy, by the A380 as far as maximum space, by the 748 in terms of economics, space, and curb appeal, and the A350 in terms of just about everything. So why would someone with lots of money to throw around throw it at the A346?

Well, they could always become freighters.


25 Stitch : I expect the A340-600 would make a poor general-purpose freighter. It could work as a package freighter, but it's high payload weight lifting ability
26 Burkhard : There never was a discussion of the A346 as VIP plane, that is the beauty of A345 with its perfect proportions and infinite range on this little ball
27 QFA787380 : If existing 346 operators need a 300 seater for LH ops and can't access 777/787/330/380 lines for many years, I can't see why there wouldn't be a few
28 GBan : Maybe in part, but I doubt LH will open a 747-8 base in Munich.
29 Burkhard : There is no reason LH will fly the A346 for shorter time than the 744. Built around 2005, their replace will be between 2025 and 2030, nothing to worr
30 SEPilot : The question is whether anyone will buy any more NEW A346's. The existing ones will continue to fly as long as it is economically viable to do so-i.e
31 worldliner : Each A340 model, apart from the -500, Did not meet expectations when it came to effiency. This is why not many airlines ordered them. The -600 did not
32 DullesFlyer : Add UIO to that list. 9,228 AMSL.
33 parapente : Reply 14 is the answer I think (sadly). This aircraft excells for overwater missions and perhaps hot n high. So we see airlines that plough the length
34 SEPilot : Zeke makes a convincing case (and has first-hand experience to back it up) that the A346 does indeed have a decided advantage with hot and high opera
35 na : There are still a few airlines who order small numbers of the old and soon obsolete 767 at rockbottom prices, so, if the price is right why shouldnt t
36 Stitch : The 767 line, even at a glacial production rate, still has the entire supply chain working consistently on producing parts. If suppliers for things li
37 YULWinterSkies : I think it is likely that any existing A340-600 for sale or lease will easily find a new home among the current A340-600 operators (say, if VS gets ri
38 seabosdca : The -300, especially in HGW form, very much met expectations. The 77E was marginally better on average, but the advantage was very slim and varied fr
39 SchorschNG : The fleets are small, and the lessor will probably probe potential customers several years in advance. The aircraft will probably go into a heavy che
40 SASMD82 : What about SAA? They currently have 9 ships. Will they consider to buy second hand aircraft?
41 ikramerica : Very similar to the convincing case re: the 77W and A346 at CX, his own airline, citing information we just weren't allowed to have access. Since the
42 Post contains links and images zeke : The 346 is the best aircraft in its category by far for JNB, if you have some public of private source to suggest otherwise, out with it. If you don
43 kenjaychen : I heard from someone that China Eastern are looking for more A346 to fly North American route due to shortage of long haul aircraft. They will introdu
44 Stitch : So why not swap their 787-8 positions for 787-9s? Unless MU's deliveries were prior to the 787-9's EIS, they could get the 787-9 at the same time as
45 kenjaychen : The another reason swapping 787-8 for A350-900 is most of pilots who based on the Shanghai headquarters is only able to fly Airbus Series (A333,A332,
46 QFA787380 : BTW, what do you think the market price of the 330 is these days? And I wouldn't take that SCMP article as gospel.
47 Stitch : Latest data I have is for 2H 2010 and a 233t MTOW model had an average value of $96 million on delivery (assuming the owner wanted to immediately try
48 QFA787380 : So, that includes engines and cabin fitout or not?
49 zeke : The list price today of the A333 is 238 million, the 77W is 284.1 million. The percentage of the A333/77W minus engines/APU as a fraction of the list
50 Stitch : Yes, that is a complete airframe. A 2009 delivery 777-300ER would be worth around $141 million.
51 AirbusA6 : The fuselage would still have been too heavy though, the A346 was a stretch too far for the old A300 cross section. The other problem for the A346, i
52 jfk777 : Since the A330/A340 are built on the same assembly line the hot selling A330 makes the wait for new A340-600 as long as the wait for A330's. Virgin A
53 328JET : First of all, i could see a top-up of an existing A346 operator. But only, IF this operator is going to order the A350-1000 AND its delivery will be d
54 SEPilot : But the problem is that #2 is the same size and cost, has equal or better range, and decisively beats it in almost all missions except for hot and hi
55 Burkhard : Two or three years ago I still though add on orders to be likely. Especially when there was a discussion if the 748I would be skipped there was one cl
56 Joost : The 767s that have been ordered during the last 2 years, are all because of B787 has been delayed, and the airlines simply need aircraft quickly. B76
57 na : Would be interesting to know if those planes then are temporary leases from Boeing itself, planes that will be returned once the 787 are being delive
58 Stitch : I expect not, since it would have been reported as such (like Airbus' leases to SQ for their A330-300 fleet).
59 Joost : Not necessarily. The delays of the 787 are that long, that the complete fleet plan will be re-adjusted. These birds might easily stay a while, but co
60 zeke : From what I understand that is inaccurate, they are placed with 3 different commercial lease companies (AWAS, Leasecorp, and LCI Aviation).
61 Stitch : I would expect if Boeing was "holding the paper" on the leases, they would be required to list them as such. I'd also think the actual customer in Bo
62 Joost : Not necessarily. Many aircraft that are technically / legally ordered by lease companies, but which are immediately placed at the airline, are listed
63 zeke : Both sets of orders were reported to be leased by Airbus Asset Management, however I think they are just a placeholder until such time the lease can
64 328JET : You did not understand me correctly. I said in my reply 53, that the A346 is not as good as the B77W, but it is still better in CASM than other longr
65 SEPilot : But the problem for the A346 is that it did not have a long enough time being available before the 77W came out for a substantial number of them to b
66 Post contains links sxb : Sounds like there will soon be 6 used A346 (starting in 2015) and 4 used A345 (starting in 2012) available on the market (all ex TG). http://www.fligh
67 328JET : No, the problem of the A346 versus B77W was the better than expected fuel burn of the B77W. No, i expect orders only from A350-1000 customers as dela
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...
Emirates Will Maintain A340-600 Order posted Wed Nov 23 2005 16:23:49 by WINGS
When Will The QR A340-600's Be Ready? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 15:35:10 by B742
TG Will Start A340-600 Service To Moscow/Domodedov posted Sun Jul 24 2005 17:48:52 by DABVF
Will Iberia Use Heathrow As Training For A340-600 posted Mon Jun 30 2003 11:38:31 by Funny
I Will Be Flying On A340-600 posted Sat Nov 30 2002 10:30:03 by United777
I Will Be On The First A340-600 Flight With VS posted Wed May 15 2002 22:31:51 by Skippy777
CX-A340-600 Will Operate LHR & LAX Services posted Fri Apr 12 2002 06:30:14 by Bkkair
Where Will SAA Use It 1st A340-600's? posted Wed Apr 10 2002 14:04:09 by SAA201
Which Routes Will AC Use Their A340-600's? posted Wed Feb 6 2002 11:40:17 by VonRichtofen
When Will The A340-600..... posted Mon Jan 14 2002 07:13:03 by Dre777300x