CF-CPI
Topic Author
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:54 am

Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:08 pm

The role of the A340-500 as a long haul niche aircraft paled a bit with the rise in fuel prices in the mid-2000s, leading to the 777LR's rise in prominence for this market.

My question is specifically directed at the 5 A340 airframes that Kingfisher intended to deploy on Mumbai - SFO nonstops circa 2007-2008. It seems that even within the A340-500 niche, these birds were special high gross weight ships equipped with the high-rated engines that are normally fitted to the A340-600.

My question is this: is this the only airframe/powerplant configuration capable of filling a US west coast - India market nonstop? If the 777LR can fill this role, why did Kingfisher select the less efficient A340-500 in the mid-2000s, after fuel costs had risen, and the -500 was really becoming marginal in terms of economics. Was it simply a case of an offer from Airbus they couldn't refuse?

I am happy to see these beautiful airframes serving some purpose with Arik Air, but at this time I am scratching my head wondering how they make money with them.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 5285
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:34 pm

Quoting CF-CPI (Thread starter):
My question is this: is this the only airframe/powerplant configuration capable of filling a US west coast - India market nonstop? If the 777LR can fill this role, why did Kingfisher select the less efficient A340-500 in the mid-2000s, after fuel costs had risen, and the -500 was really becoming marginal in terms of economics. Was it simply a case of an offer from Airbus they couldn't refuse?

The 777LR can fly the route if needed. As for why Kingfisher ordered the A345 instead, they are/were a loyal Airbus customer and probably got a great deal from Airbus, something I'm sure someone deep within Airbus kinda regrets now. Remember around the same time Kingfisher ordered 5 A330s (they eventually ordered more), 5 A350s, and 5 A380s in addition to the 5 A340s (opening them up to some ridicule here on A.net over the fact they were ordering 5 of basically everything Airbus had to offer).

This was at the height of Kingfisher/Indian Aviation mania, and many people thought they were going to become the next big thing.

[Edited 2012-07-29 09:35:08]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23507
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:41 pm

Quoting CF-CPI (Thread starter):
My question is this: is this the only airframe/powerplant configuration capable of filling a US west coast - India market nonstop?

No. The 777-200LR and 747-400ER can both do the mission.



Quoting CF-CPI (Thread starter):
If the 777LR can fill this role, why did Kingfisher select the less efficient A340-500 in the mid-2000s, after fuel costs had risen, and the -500 was really becoming marginal in terms of economics.

As Polot noted, Kingfisher ordered the "Airbus Sampler Pack", which allows a customer to choose five frames from each of their widebody family (A330 / A340 / A350 / A380) offerings. So they took five A330-200s, five A340-500s, five A350-800s and five A380-800s.

Seriously, going all-Airbus for their long-haul fleet did offer advantages and I am sure Airbus did make them a solid offer for choosing frames from their entire catalog (they also operated the A319-100 and A320-200).
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:48 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Quoting CF-CPI (Thread starter):
My question is this: is this the only airframe/powerplant configuration capable of filling a US west coast - India market nonstop?

No. The 777-200LR and 747-400ER can both do the mission.

US west coast-India is shorter than many other longhaul nonstops. DEL is closer than BKK. A few examples (great circle):

SFO-DEL 6697 nm
SFO-BKK 6894 nm
SFO-DXB 7041 nm

When AC announced new nonstop service YVR-DEL (6026 nm) in 2001 they were planning on using the A340-300. The route was dropped before it started due to 9/11. YVR-DEL is shorter than YYZ-DEL (6297 nm) which they did operate for a while with the A343.
 
CF-CPI
Topic Author
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:54 am

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:28 pm

Thanks for all the responses. I see the routes to India are all less than 7000nm, which by today's standards, is a proverbial piece of cake. By all accounts, Kingfisher's owner should have stuck to beer, and let a real professional do the fleet planning.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:45 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Quoting CF-CPI (Thread starter):My question is this: is this the only airframe/powerplant configuration capable of filling a US west coast - India market nonstop?
No. The 777-200LR and 747-400ER can both do the mission.

As can the B-747-8I and A-380. The GC distance BOM-SFO is 8400 nm.

As far as Ultra Long Ranged airplanes go, the A-340-500IGW has a range of 9000 nm, the B-777-200LR a range of 9400 nm.

The A-350-500IGW has a MTOW 840,000 lbs but needs 59,000 USG of fuel (including reserves) to fly to its maximum range. The B-777-200LR has a MTOW of 766,000 lbs on less than 48,000 USG of fuel to fly to its maximum range. The B-77L also carries more pax in a 2 class configueration, 400 compared to 360 on the A-345. In a 3 class configueration the A-345 has a slight advantage of 313 compared to the B-77L at 301 pax.

The B-77L is slightly faster with a typical cruise airspeed of .85M and a max airspeed of .89M, the A-345 typical cruise is .83M and max airspeed of .86M.
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:46 pm

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 4):
Thanks for all the responses. I see the routes to India are all less than 7000nm, which by today's standards, is a proverbial piece of cake. By all accounts, Kingfisher's owner should have stuck to beer, and let a real professional do the fleet planning.

IIRC, the 345s were originally planned to do SFO-BLR runs non-stop which are at 7560 nmi via GC. SFO-BOM is also at 7300 nmi. SFO-BLR GC routes goes directly over the highest mountain range in the world, and I remember there were some additional concerns back when people were discussing the order that had to be taken into account. Both the 346 and 77W don't have much margin for the for the flight. And there is certainly enough traffic flowing SFO-BLR to justify a plane, esp at the time with the traffic into BLR more than doubling every year and cheapest economy tickets from SFO approaching 3K.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:32 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
The GC distance BOM-SFO is 8400 nm.

BOM-SFO is only 7305 nm. (8400 is statute miles).
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:01 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
No. The 777-200LR and 747-400ER can both do the mission.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
US west coast-India is shorter than many other longhaul nonstops. DEL is closer than BKK. A few examples (great circle):

The interesting routes from the west coast are LAX-BOM and SFO-BLR both of which are ~7500 nmi and both of which cross the himalayas. both are roughly the same range as LAX-SIN which can't really be done without a 345 or 77L. Pretty sure the 744ER doesn't have the range.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23507
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:54 am

Quoting spink (Reply 8):
Pretty sure the 744ER doesn't have the range.

Using the OEM ACAPS for a 7500nm mission, payload would be about 93,000 pounds compared to 141,000 for a 777-200LR and 99,000 pounds for an A340-500.
 
outbackair
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:01 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:21 am

FYI, The A340s retained their Kingfisher interiors. Lay flat beds in business, stand up bar. All for the long flight from India's Silicon Valley to US Silicon Valley, originally. Go to the Arik Air website for info.

BTW, the crew bunks are at the back, below the main deck.
Just Planes Videos have released a DVD including cockpit and cabin on this aircraft and their fleet. There is a YouTube video too.
 
phxa340
Posts: 987
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:33 am

Quoting CF-CPI (Thread starter):
I am happy to see these beautiful airframes serving some purpose with Arik Air

Aren't the A345s operated by Hi-Fly ? Or is it an Arik Air aircraft with Hi-Fly crews ?
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2430
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:40 am

Quoting CF-CPI (Thread starter):
My question is this: is this the only airframe/powerplant configuration capable of filling a US west coast - India market nonstop? If the 777LR can fill this role, why did Kingfisher select the less efficient A340-500 in the mid-2000s, after fuel costs had risen, and the -500 was really becoming marginal in terms of economics. Was it simply a case of an offer from Airbus they couldn't refuse?

Probably because of the commonality with the Airbus A330s they had ordered. Additionally, they likely got a large discount from Airbus since they also ordered A330s and A380s at the same time.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Seriously, going all-Airbus for their long-haul fleet did offer advantages and I am sure Airbus did make them a solid offer for choosing frames from their entire catalog (they also operated the A319-100 and A320-200).

  

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 11):
Aren't the A345s operated by Hi-Fly ? Or is it an Arik Air aircraft with Hi-Fly crews ?

Owned by HIFly, wet leased to Arik Air. Both aircraft have Portuguese registrations (CS-).
First to fly the 787-9 (ZK-NZE, NZ103, 2014-10-09)
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:56 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):

Using the OEM ACAPS for a 7500nm mission, payload would be about 93,000 pounds compared to 141,000 for a 777-200LR and 99,000 pounds for an A340-500.

Part of the issue is that the 744er is ~100nm from max range on both lax-bom and sfo-blr with a gc route which means even minor diversions from GC would make it require a technical stop. Then you have to factor in the flight path corrections to basically go around the worst parts of the Himalayas. A plane realistically is going to need north of 8K nmi in order to do those routes.
 
tjcab
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:14 am

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:17 am

 
cricket
Posts: 2085
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:23 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:50 am

Quoting outbackair (Reply 10):
FYI, The A340s retained their Kingfisher interiors. Lay flat beds in business, stand up bar. All for the long flight from India's Silicon Valley to US Silicon Valley, originally.

Yup, the initial plan was a BLR-SFO flight - 8700 nm - then a few months before delivery there was talk of BLR-DXB-SFO - the DXB stop to pick up 'cheap' fuel was Kingfisher's spin - even though Aviation Fuel foe International flights is duty free in India and comparable to most other major airports - that was Kingfisher trying to find an excuse.

BLR never worked out for IT - the first ever long-haul international route BLR-LHR on IT001 was canned a few months into service (no onward connectivity, something OW could have solved but they also saw the light - rather CX saw the light), the flight shifting to DEL which is a much larger O&D market.
A300B2/B4/6R, A313, A319/320/321, A333, A343, A388, 737-2/3/4/7/8/9, 747-3/4, 772/2E/2L/3, E170/190, F70, CR2/7, 146-3,
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 866
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:03 am

I think Kingfisher even confirmed options on a second batch of 5 x A345, but these were not built but delivered as 330s.
 
User avatar
sturmovik
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 12:05 am

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:43 am

Quoting Cricket (Reply 15):
Yup, the initial plan was a BLR-SFO flight - 8700 nm - then a few months before delivery there was talk of BLR-DXB-SFO - the DXB stop to pick up 'cheap' fuel was Kingfisher's spin - even though Aviation Fuel foe International flights is duty free in India and comparable to most other major airports - that was Kingfisher trying to find an excuse.

In this context, in the months approaching delivery for the A345s, I heard from an IT A330 Captain that the first class seats installed on the A345s turned out to be a bit heavier than expected, shortening range by 'a coupla hundred nautical miles' according to him. He said the DXB talk was partly because of this shortfall. I realize that pilots may not be the best source for rumours. Anyone else heard anything of this sort?

Edited to add a/c type.

[Edited 2012-07-30 00:47:08]
'What's it doing now?'
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:46 am

Quoting Cricket (Reply 15):
Yup, the initial plan was a BLR-SFO flight - 8700 nm - then a few months before delivery there was talk of BLR-DXB-SFO - the DXB stop to pick up 'cheap' fuel was Kingfisher's spin - even though Aviation Fuel foe International flights is duty free in India and comparable to most other major airports - that was Kingfisher trying to find an excuse.

BLR-SFO is 7600 nmi great circle. And honestly, if they ever got the BLR-SFO flight off the ground they would of likely made a decent amount of money on it, for the simple reasons that all the other fares on that routing had gotten so ridiculous and were so capacity constrained. I once needed to fly over there with 6 weeks notice and there literally weren't any seats available for over a 3 day window, had to end up flying out 4 (wed arrival vs preferred sat/sunday) days early in order to find a seat.

But yeah, Kingfisher kinda imploded. Though when they were actually flying they were a decent airline. I do wonder how much money Airbus ended up having to eat on those heavily customized 345s.
 
cricket
Posts: 2085
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:23 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:47 am

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 17):
In this context, in the months approaching delivery for the A345s, I heard from an IT A330 Captain that the first class seats installed on the A345s turned out to be a bit heavier than expected, shortening range by 'a coupla hundred nautical miles' according to him.

Could be, BLR-SFO would have been on the edge of the aircraft's range, but the spin from Mallya's office was 'fuel'; I would trust a pilot over Mallya
A300B2/B4/6R, A313, A319/320/321, A333, A343, A388, 737-2/3/4/7/8/9, 747-3/4, 772/2E/2L/3, E170/190, F70, CR2/7, 146-3,
 
airbazar
Posts: 7136
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:33 pm

IIRC the biggest problem that Kingfisher faced was not being able to fly international routes. At the time India had a rule that airlines needed to operate domestically so so many years before being granted permission to fly international routes. Kingfisher was essentially created to be an international carrier much like Virgin Atlantic is to the UK and they were counting on being able to circumvent that rule. It didn't happen and they were stuck with a huge order of long haul planes that they couldn't fly anywhere.
 
Impacto
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:31 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:55 pm

Quoting zkojq (Reply 12):
Owned by HIFly, wet leased to Arik Air. Both aircraft have Portuguese registrations (CS-).

In actual fact, the A340s were bought by and belong to Arik Air International, who dry leased them to Hi Fly and who in turn wet leased back to and operate them for Arik Air in order to operate flights to the US. Nigeria had not attained category 1 status at that time, meaning that Nigerian registered planes were not allowed to operate direct flights to the US.

http://www.arikair.com/ng/ABOUT-US/Arik-International.aspx

Both Aircraft to be re-registered 5N-JIA and 5N-JIB.

http://www.ch-aviation.ch/portal/aircraft.php?search=set&airline=AIK
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: Arik Air - Kingfisher A340-500s

Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:22 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 20):
IIRC the biggest problem that Kingfisher faced was not being able to fly international routes. At the time India had a rule that airlines needed to operate domestically so so many years before being granted permission to fly international routes. Kingfisher was essentially created to be an international carrier much like Virgin Atlantic is to the UK and they were counting on being able to circumvent that rule. It didn't happen and they were stuck with a huge order of long haul planes that they couldn't fly anywhere.

If I remember correctly, they needed to fly domestically for 5 years before they could fly international. They began intl ops in 2008 when they acquired air deccan about 3 years after they began operations.
Please let me know... If you know this is the end of the world, Let me know... If you know the truth...

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