AsianaAirlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 198 posts, RR: 1 Posted (12 years 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3078 times:
I was thinking about Asiana. I'm sure everybody knows that Asiana's fleet of 747 combis are getting kinda raggety and old. But does anybody know what would be better?... Asiana replacing the whole 747 fleet with 772ER's and the upcoming 773ER's? or Asiana just replacing the 747 fleet with more combi's?
ZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5297 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3022 times:
Ah I don't get it!
All those Combi's are 744's the oldest is around 12-13 years old, last time I heard there are still 30 year old 741's and 742's flying!
A 777 though is cheaper and more economical in nowa days than a 747!
I haven't heard anything about Asiana replacing it's 744M's so they will be in the fleet for a few more years yet! Asiana are an airline that seems to like the extra cargo capacity in it's pax planes!! I spose in the future we may see Asiana replace it's 744M's with 772ER's and 773ER's due to the 777's great cargo capacity.
Mr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2996 times:
The B777s burns relatively less fuel than the B747s but it carries less passengers. I guess it depends on the airline? If the airline uses the B747s on high density longhaul routes I don't think the B777 would be much of a good replacement.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2904 times:
IMHO it's a good idea replacing 747-100/200 with 777-300. The operating costs are 40% cheaper on the 777 when compared to older 747. In those dense Asian markets you can cram a lot of seats onto a 777-300 so it's not like your losing any passengers.
AsianaAirlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 198 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2755 times:
They have 8 747's. 6 of them combi's and 2 of them just PAX. They arent replacing the 747's in the near future, but I'm just supposing what they would do. I would really like to see they're old 747's out of the picture. I think that replacing the 747's with the 777 is a pretty decent idea.
RickB From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2668 times:
In terms of daily economics, the 777 is clearly the winner, however, most of these 747's are paid for, or leased on very low payments, before replacing a fleet because they cost more to fly, you have to consider how long its going to take before they recoup the initial investment in new hardware.
The 30% saving on fuel is relatively small compared to a $130,000,000+ investment in a new aircraft - it will take a while for that 30% to pay back the initial investment - although maintenance costs have to be factored in too.
The other point as already made, is a lot of Asian routes are very high density, in which case, if you lose a substantial number of seats 70+ that's going to hurt, it might even mean the 30% loss is worthwhile at least in the short term.
Airsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2552 times:
no airline is operating a 624 seat all economy 747-400 - and no airline is operating a 550 seat 777-300 either. But keep in mind the 747-400 Domestic JL and NH use (568 seats) are two-class: there are 24 (!) F seats on board - the number of seats in theory in an all economy configuration could be 624.
Now, where did I get this number - hmm, good question. I guess I didn´t bother remembering the source when I first heard it, sorry.
The thing is, when comparing planes´ capacities, I like to calculate with the highest possible number. Because otherwise, you get "standard three class configurations", and then you don´t know what exactly is meant by that.
Marcus From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1781 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (12 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2495 times:
Just flew OZ from LA to Seoul on a 744Combi and came back on full pax 744, they keep those planes in top condition.............from a purely passenger point of view I saw no need to replace them in the short term.
Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2470 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (12 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2459 times:
Boeing must think that it is; they targeted the 777-300 to do just that. Similar in capacity to the 747-100 and 200, it burns about a third less fuel and has 40% lower maintenance costs according to sources I've seen. Then again, Airbus would want you to look at their A340-600 which probably can't produce quite the same cost savings but gives you that 4 engine feel of security on long flights (if, indeed, that matters to you).
Kaitakfan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1588 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (12 years 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2435 times:
777Contrail to answer your question of the 747-100 United used to Hawaii the configuration was 42 in first class with 16 first class seats on the upper deck 26 seats in the nose. Economy was 408 seats. The grand total is 450 seats. Can you say Cattle Cart?!?
747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (12 years 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2410 times:
Asiana started in 1988, so how "old" can their 747-400's be? (since they only use the 400 model). There are still some 747's flying from 1970 (UPS operates a few 747-121SF's). The last Asiana 747 I saw looked beautiful and certainly well maintained.
Many airlines are replacing 747-100/200 with the 777 since they offer more or less the same amount of passengers and operate more economically (and newer planes are easier to maintain that old ones). Asiana uses combi's on some routes and that would be a mitigating factor in determining a replacement.