LordHowe
Topic Author
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:52 pm

Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:50 am

I just read a press release by MK on their website. Here are some parts of it:

Quote:
"PRESS RELEASE - Air Mauritius orders two Airbus A330-200
Port Louis, 11 September 2006
Air Mauritius announces that it has amended a purchase agreement signed with Airbus in June 2005 substituting an A340-300E which it had on firm order for delivery in the last quarter of 2007 by a twinengined A330-200.
It has also firmed up an option for a further A330-200 to be delivered in October 2009.
..............

In addition, since 2004 when exhaustive studies leading to the selection of the A340-300E were conducted, and during which the A330-200 was also examined, the price of fuel has dramatically increased from 0.85 cents per USG to a price in excess of $2 dollars. In this context the twin-engined A330-200 will enable Air Mauritius to make significant savings, principally in fuel cost, whilst taking full benefits of the engineering and operational commonality between the two aircraft types.
...........

Configured in a two-class layout, the A330-200s ordered will accommodate about 280 passengers and carry its full payload of over 38 tons on such 10-hour flights like Hong Kong to Mauritius."

This makes me wonder why airliners like Finnair who have a lot of as long - or actually short - routes like this mentioned MRU-HKG ie. 10 hour flight, are byuing A340s instead of A330s. It would make sense for Finnair too to purchase twin engined aircrafts and thus save a lot of money in fuel consumption.

Or is this so?

Regards,
LordHowe
Lord Howe Island - The Last Paradise
 
B742
Posts: 3566
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:48 am

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:27 am

Quoting LordHowe (Thread starter):
This makes me wonder why airliners like Finnair who have a lot of as long - or actually short - routes like this mentioned MRU-HKG ie. 10 hour flight, are byuing A340s instead of A330s. It would make sense for Finnair too to purchase twin engined aircrafts and thus save a lot of money in fuel consumption.

Yes it would, but remember the A330-200 is smaller than the A340-300 which AY have purchased. If they wanted a twin-engine Airbus aircraft which is similar to the A340/MD11 size then they would of purchased the A330-300, which would perhaps struggle on longer sectors to Asia, thus the interm purchase of the A340-300. The A340's may have also been available on a good deal to AY as sales are struggling on the A340 compared to the A330  Smile

The A330-200 will replace the two 762's in the MK fleet, which will be of a slightly larger capacity compared to the large increase in size of the A340-300. It makes sense to replace the 767's, there will be a increase in size, but not as big as the jump between the 762 and 343 would have been  Smile

Rob!  wave 
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 20484
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:31 am

I've done a fair amount of analysis of the A330 vs A340.
The A330 has a definite advantage up to about 8 hour stage lengths. Above 8 hours the economics start to favor the A340 over its twin cousin. Off course specific issues such as ETOPS, hot/high airport issues can also significantly effect the preference and need of the two types.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23485
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:34 am

Quoting LordHowe (Thread starter):
This makes me wonder why airliners like Finnair who have a lot of as long - or actually short - routes like this mentioned MRU-HKG ie. 10 hour flight, are byuing A340s instead of A330s.

As B742 noted, the A343 has a range advantage over the same-sized A330 because it can carry more fuel weight thanks to the extra two engines (even though those two engines increase fuel-burn).

So by taking the A332, MK is saving money on fuel, but they cannot carry as many people and payload as they could with the A343. On the plus side, a smaller plane - even with higher CASM - offers higher RASM since you can "leave behind" the lowest-yield customers.
 
trex8
Posts: 4662
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:57 am

the A332 is a 5000nm plane, the A343 a 6000nm one, flying similar length routes a A333 (which is a 4000nm plane) may burn 10%+less than a A343. I would think a A332 will be even more frugal on fuel but it will also have less capacity.
http://www.sasems.port.se
 
varig md-11
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 7:17 pm

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:19 am

Quoting LordHowe (Thread starter):
This makes me wonder why airliners like Finnair who have a lot of as long - or actually short - routes like this mentioned MRU-HKG ie. 10 hour flight, are byuing A340s instead of A330s

I am not an expart in AY strategy but I believed they prefered 3 or 4 engined metal because their routes to Asia are mostly over Northern Siberia = ETOPS problems
AF TW AA NW DL UA CO BA U2 TP UX LH SK AZ MP KL SN VY HV LS SS TK SQ PC RG IW SE LI TN
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:35 am

Quoting LordHowe (Thread starter):
Air Mauritius announces that it has amended a purchase agreement signed with Airbus in June 2005 substituting an A340-300E which it had on firm order for delivery in the last quarter of 2007 by a twinengined A330-200.
It has also firmed up an option for a further A330-200 to be delivered in October 2009.

Good news. Now how about a new livery.

Quoting Varig md-11 (Reply 5):
I am not an expart in AY strategy but I believed they prefered 3 or 4 engined metal because their routes to Asia are mostly over Northern Siberia = ETOPS problems

If that was the case they wouldn't have ordered the a350. My guess is they needed the higher payload capacity, and perhaps longer range of the a343, and the a332 was too small for them. It's certainly smaller than the MD11 which the a343's (and a350's) are going to replace.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3411
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:22 pm

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
The A330 has a definite advantage up to about 8 hour stage lengths. Above 8 hours the economics start to favor the A340 over its twin cousin. Off course specific issues such as ETOPS, hot/high airport issues can also significantly effect the preference and need of the two types.

This is why TN (Tahiti Nui) is using A343s for their flights over the A330s or the Boeing 777. Since they fly so much over wide open ocean, ETOPS also comes into play.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:29 pm

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
hot/high airport issues can also significantly effect the preference and need of the two types.

I always thought in a hot and high situation the A330 is actually the preferred aircraft as it actually has a higher thrust to weight ratio, thanks to the blow dryers on the A343/2. Is this true?
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
OHLHD
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:02 am

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:37 pm

OK, I tell you the trough about AY!!!!


Long time ago, there were heavy fights within AY whether they want a 4 engine aircraft or a 2 engine aircraft. After long dicussions and heavy fights they finally came to a decison!

The : ...............
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mika B Virolainen - FAP

..... DC-10


Guys, I wish you a nice weekend!  Big grin
 
trex8
Posts: 4662
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:56 pm

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 8):
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
hot/high airport issues can also significantly effect the preference and need of the two types.

I always thought in a hot and high situation the A330 is actually the preferred aircraft as it actually has a higher thrust to weight ratio, thanks

I believe the issue is single engine out takeoff performance. with a quad you are down only 25% of installed power, with a twin you are down 50% so the margins are tighter. when all engines are working then yes the twin has the advantage
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:03 pm

I think the 777 would fit the bill better because it has the pax capacity, range and economics.
One Nation Under God
 
airbazar
Posts: 7127
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:07 pm

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 8):
I always thought in a hot and high situation the A330 is actually the preferred aircraft as it actually has a higher thrust to weight ratio, thanks to the blow dryers on the A343/2. Is this true?

The higher trust also means they burn more fuel on take-off. Just ask PK how their 772LR's are doing  Smile
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption?

Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:29 am

What is the word on those? Are they doing full Karachi- YYZ flights yet? What has been the issue there?
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos