Surinam Airways thinking of Fleet Replacement

A388 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:22 pm

I got this article today and it's interesting. Surinam Airways is looking at replacing their fleet of 733's and A340. They say they are close to a decision about the 737-300 which would be the E190 if not than the 73G. Regarding their A340 they are looking at either the 787 or 777. The article doesn't give me the impression they are looking at brand new aircraft but if they chose the 787 than it will be brand new I would assume or one of the early heavier models if there are still some available.

This is an interesting development as I don't know where they would get the money from to do this seeing the economical crisis the country now has and if they want to operate twin engine long haul flights it means they have to get ETOPS certification which I understand isn't easy to obtain and keep.

Even so I'm anxiously looking forward to this and I look forward to welcoming their new aircraft here in CUR too

Link to the article:

http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/c ... 1-69085145

A388

keesje · Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:27 pm

maybe they can find a younger, better A343?

rotating14 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:40 pm

keesje wrote:
maybe they can find a younger, better A343?

Where could you get a "young" A343? My guess is that it'll be a mix of the 737 NG/E-Jet with maybe 1 787-8.

KarelXWB · Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:41 pm

Finnair's A340s are just 8 years old.

rotating14 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:44 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Finnair's A340s are just 8 years old.

They also belong to Finnair.

KarelXWB · Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:47 pm

Finnair just ended A340 operations.

Polot · Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:53 pm

Isn't the Air Belgium startup trying to grab the exFinnair A340s?

AMS18C36C · Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:05 pm

The current age of the fleet is 20.3 years old. The last fleet they had also consisted of older aircraft (Boeing 747-300 and MD 82’s). So I question how much money Surinam Airways has for some brand new aircraft.

When it comes to the short-haul fleet, I doubt they’d go for two types. The fleet is too small for that in my opinion. If the E190 can make PBM-MIA, they could get some older models or obtain a good lease rate on some end-of-the-line models before the E2 is produced.

The single 340-300 is used on the PBM-AMS route, but isn’t used seven days a week as far as I’m aware (you can see it parked at AMS). Utilization will be increased this Summer when Surinam Airways starts its cooperation with TUIfly (I think it’s going to be used from AMS to the Canary Islands). If they really want a 777 or 787, best chance would be a second-hand 777-200.

LewisNEO · Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:11 pm

Well there is a difference between ambitions and realism.

Surinam Airways asks also its government for help for funding the 733 replacements, and besides that, the airline isn't ETOPS certificated. The question is wether the Surinamese government is able to come at aide. So before they go towards a 777 or 787 or any new plane, they need funding and certification in the case they choose a two holer.

They also want to become the flag carrier of Guyana, but they need 7th freedom traffic rights for that. They also have plans to start flights from Suriname via Cuba to the USA, and they need 5th freedom traffic rights for that. Quite some ambitions.

I find the idea of getting an A340 of Finnair, if available, a very sensible idea for Surinam Airways.

A388 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:59 pm

All good points what I also mentioned. The ETOPS certification is a lengthy process and costly I think and where will the government get the funding? Surinam Airways is government owned as far as I know so I don't know. I don't know how well their MIA flights are doing but my gut feeling always said it isn't a big success but maybe I'm wrong on this. Not sure if the E190 can make GEO-MIA nonstop without a payload hit. Cargo wise the E190 doesn't have much space though. The 73G in my opinion is the best choice.

Now if Insel Air would also go for the 73G they might be able to do the maintenance together in an attempt to lower maintenance costs. Again the question here: Where will Insel Air get the funds? Their future doesn't look too bride in my opinion when I see what they're going through now.

A388

FSDan · Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:08 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Finnair just ended A340 operations.

Are you sure? I just did a dummy booking for MIA-HEL on 6/29/2017 and it's still showing as a 343...

Edit: I see that Wikipedia shows all 343s out of the fleet. They must not have updated their schedules or something...

KarelXWB · Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:12 pm

FSDan wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Finnair just ended A340 operations.

Are you sure? I just did a dummy booking for MIA-HEL on 6/29/2017 and it's still showing as a 343...

Edit: I see that Wikipedia shows all 343s out of the fleet. They must not have updated their schedules or something...

Finnair ends A340 operations

raylee67 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:26 pm

I think they can probably get second hand 777-200ER quite cheaply now, no? The question is do they need that kind of capacity? If not, second hand 767-300ER may be a better choice?

For short range, 737-700 should be easy and cheap to get too. They may even be able to get new ones from Boeing at very attractive price. Alternatively, would Bombardier be inclined to give them good price on CS100 or CS300?

lesfalls · Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:30 pm

FSDan wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Finnair just ended A340 operations.

Are you sure? I just did a dummy booking for MIA-HEL on 6/29/2017 and it's still showing as a 343...

Edit: I see that Wikipedia shows all 343s out of the fleet. They must not have updated their schedules or something...

They are leasing an A340 for some of their U.S flights(Not sure if it's Hifly).

TWA772LR · Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:36 pm

There's gotta be some used 77Es laying around.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but any chance of a CSeries order?

A388 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:48 pm

CSeries sounds good too. I don't know how desperate Bombardier is with the pricing to get new orders. I don't think Surinam Airways has that much money to buy or lease brand new aircraft. Of course I hope I'm wrong.

A388

AMS18C36C · Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:24 pm

If Surinam Airways really wants a twin-engine aircraft for the transatlantic route, why not just let it be operated by another airline which does have ETOPS-certification and paint it in Surinam Airways livery?

With regard to the CSeries order: what are the lease rates of a CS100 or CS300 versus a 73G (either brand new or second hand)?

kjeld0d · Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:13 pm

AMS18C36C wrote:
If Surinam Airways really wants a twin-engine aircraft for the transatlantic route, why not just let it be operated by another airline which does have ETOPS-certification and paint it in Surinam Airways livery?

Exactly. They should just pay a larger airline to run the route, like NZ at RAR. Is this another case of pride getting in the way of common sense?

A388 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:44 am

Having another airline do the flying for you I assume is always more expensive because you outsource practically everything of the flying part. I don't think such a thing is sustainable for a small airline like Surinam Airways.

A388

TheLion · Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:04 am

The A343 is fine for their near term long haul needs. However if they really go have the need to change their long range model then A330 might be better due to common type rating for crew, pilots and maintenance, with resultant cost advantage over moving to Boeing.

A388 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:00 am

I can see your point TheLion but the problem with the A330 is that they won't be able to get there hands on them because to my knowledge there are no A330's in the desert or they are too expensive to lease or buy. Leasing them brand new will also be too expensive I think for Surinam Airways.

A388

Flaps · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:23 am

They could wet lease a long haul twin and flight deck crew but use their own cabin crew. The certification process for ETOPS for such a small carrier would be quite burdensome. A newer A340 should be pretty cheap to acquire or lease which would offset at least to a degree the higher fuel consumption. How does an A340-600 compare to an A340-300 on fuel burn?

Dutchy · Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:10 am

Flaps wrote:
They could wet lease a long haul twin and flight deck crew but use their own cabin crew. The certification process for ETOPS for such a small carrier would be quite burdensome. A newer A340 should be pretty cheap to acquire or lease which would offset at least to a degree the higher fuel consumption. How does an A340-600 compare to an A340-300 on fuel burn?

Yes, so Surinam airways is in quite a tide spot. With only one route to put a long haul aircraft on, why indeed not outsource it and just put your cabin crew on it? Much be cheaper then maintaining and operating a single lang haul, especially if you can't meet or it will be to expensive to meet ETOPS requirements.

AMS18C36C · Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:21 am

If you look at the lease rates for some long-haul aircraft (Autumn 2016):
A330-300: $220.000-$890.000
A340-300: $100.000-$185.000
B777-200ER: $200.000-$405.000
B787-9: $950.000-$1.100.000

Source: viewtopic.php?t=1345101

So if Surinam Airways wants a new/bigger long-haul aircraft, is there a business case? The costs with a new aircraft will increase (with the biggest difference being with the 787-9). Can the airline manage that? The CEO states the 777 and 787 are the preferred replacements, but I’d think you want to prevent having to retrain your vrew on an entirely different aircraft type every so many years.

LJ · Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:34 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Flaps wrote:
They could wet lease a long haul twin and flight deck crew but use their own cabin crew. The certification process for ETOPS for such a small carrier would be quite burdensome. A newer A340 should be pretty cheap to acquire or lease which would offset at least to a degree the higher fuel consumption. How does an A340-600 compare to an A340-300 on fuel burn?

Yes, so Surinam airways is in quite a tide spot. With only one route to put a long haul aircraft on, why indeed not outsource it and just put your cabin crew on it? Much be cheaper then maintaining and operating a single lang haul, especially if you can't meet or it will be to expensive to meet ETOPS requirements.

They fly the route 5 times weekly in peak Summer, otherwise 4 weekly.

AMS18C36C wrote:
If you look at the lease rates for some long-haul aircraft (Autumn 2016):
A330-300: $220.000-$890.000
A340-300: $100.000-$185.000
B777-200ER: $200.000-$405.000
B787-9: $950.000-$1.100.000

Source: viewtopic.php?t=1345101

And those are when you lease the aircraft nly. If you lease it from an airline you can add some costs to it (hence why the current solution is much cheaper). Anyway I would assume they made this analysis when they decided to go for the A340 (the B767 was also a contender). However, which airline with ETOPS certification which has a 777-200ER on lease available (and you're not going to hire companies like HiFly for this purpose as they're very expensive)?

jfk777 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:41 pm

a 767-300ER could be the best compromise for Surinam Air. A 777 is too big but an A330 -200 might be just right.

A388 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:18 pm

Yes I agree too that it's a tough business case for Surinam Airways because they're a small airline. Brand new aircraft I think are out of the question. If you want to replace an aircraft I assume you want to do that for at least the coming 10 years. In that case a newer A340-300 is just a temporary solution. Second hand or 767-300's or 777's are indeed the cheapest option I think. I don't see Surinam Airways can avoid the extra costs of switching to another aircraft type because there really isn't another way in the case of Surinam Airways.

The question than is what is cheaper: operating the aircraft yourself or outsourcing it to another airline with your own cabin crew on board? I still think outsourcing is more expensive for a long term period like 10 years or so. Doing this for a shorter period might work but doing that for so long in my opinion would be irresponsible/inefficient.

A388

aemoreira1981 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:24 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Finnair's A340s are just 8 years old.

IINM, Finnair has sold them back to Airbus and all are earmarked for lease to Air Belgium if it gets off the ground. (Airbus also owns the current A340-300 Surinam Airways flies.) (The older 3 were scrapped.) As for the right-sized plane, either an Airbus A330-200 or a Boeing 767-300ER would be ideal, but Surinam Airways needs to earn its ETOPS certification first. IMO, Surinam should be watching the Arik Air situation and see if they end up returning their A330-200s to Standard Chartered, the lessor. One of those frames could then be acquired on lease.

Surinam Airways's A340-300 is currently configured C12Y303 (I would guess 30"/17" or 31"/17" in economy)...do they get the load factors to fill that plane? If not, a Boeing 767-300ER would be more ideal. The straight-line distance is 4047 nautical miles. If only the range is needed, then a Boeing 767-300ER would be more ideal configured for about 230-240 seats...the question is finding one that hasn't been snatched up by a cargo airline or close to out of hours.

Another option might be to damp-lease from the Air France KLM group a newer A340-300 when they're all replaced by Dreamliners. (Pilots from the Air France division would be flying this plane.)

JerseyFlyer · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:24 pm

Deleted my post, duplicates discussion

VSMUT · Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:07 pm

How about an ex-KLM A330-200?

CrimsonNL · Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:25 pm

I thought the whole problem with acquiring a twin when the last 343 was retired, is that the CAA of Suriname doesn't have ETOPS regulations to begin with?

Martijn

LJ · Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:18 pm

CrimsonNL wrote:
I thought the whole problem with acquiring a twin when the last 343 was retired, is that the CAA of Suriname doesn't have ETOPS regulations to begin with?

Martijn

Indeed, hence why anything with 2 engines is not possible. Yes, they can hire another company from another coutry, but I doubt this would be viable.

Jetty · Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:03 pm

The Surinamese president uses the aircraft of Surinam Air sometimes. He is is a convicted felon who still has to serve his time, I doubt KL would be willing to facilitate his trips abroad so a deal with KL (or any other European airline) seems unlikely.

guyanam · Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:14 pm

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, so Surinam airways is in quite a tide spot. With only one route to put a long haul aircraft on, why indeed not outsource it and just put your cabin crew on it? Much be cheaper then maintaining and operating a single lang haul, especially if you can't meet or it will be to expensive to meet ETOPS requirements.

They are developing a now connection with TUI. Maybe the ultimate goal will be just that. A TUI flight with PY cabin crews to offer the Suriname environment that many of the Surinamers living in the Netherlands might want.

Dutchy · Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:36 pm

guyanam wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Yes, so Surinam airways is in quite a tide spot. With only one route to put a long haul aircraft on, why indeed not outsource it and just put your cabin crew on it? Much be cheaper then maintaining and operating a single lang haul, especially if you can't meet or it will be to expensive to meet ETOPS requirements.

They are developing a now connection with TUI. Maybe the ultimate goal will be just that. A TUI flight with PY cabin crews to offer the Suriname environment that many of the Surinamers living in the Netherlands might want.

That's what I was thinking. The current A340 will be flying hops for TUI this summer, between flight to PMB. Flying on a TUI ticket might be the best thing for them, extra sales channel, and don't have the operating cost of operating a single long haul aircraft.

kjeld0d · Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:17 pm

Jetty wrote:
The Surinamese president uses the aircraft of Surinam Air sometimes. He is is a convicted felon who still has to serve his time, I doubt KL would be willing to facilitate his trips abroad so a deal with KL (or any other European airline) seems unlikely.

Interesting! Didn't realize the country was headed by a drug lord. One might have thought the Netherlands would have cleaned out any corruption. No wonder they want their own plane.

Edit: Oops, thought they were still a part of the Netherlands. What a mess. The president's son is also involved in large scale drug trafficking. Maybe they need a 744F instead of a 787?

AMS18C36C · Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:31 pm

Eventually, PY is going to have to move forward with twin-engined aircraft. The second-hand 343's aren't getting any younger. If you want to stick with an airplane with more than two engines, your best options would be the 346 or 748 (and I doubt there are second-hand planes available of the latter model), which may just be too big and too expensive for them.
If the decision is going to be made to switch to a twin for the 343 replacement, my bet is on it being operated by another carrier with PY livery/crew/service.

LJ · Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:39 pm

Jetty wrote:
The Surinamese president uses the aircraft of Surinam Air sometimes. He is is a convicted felon who still has to serve his time, I doubt KL would be willing to facilitate his trips abroad so a deal with KL (or any other European airline) seems unlikely.

I'm sure the Dutch government would be pleased as they could arrest the Surinam president once in the air (AFAIK Dutch law applies onboard an KL aircraft). However, almost 0% chance he'll board a KLM aircraft voluntary.

Dutchy wrote:
That's what I was thinking. The current A340 will be flying hops for TUI this summer, between flight to PMB. Flying on a TUI ticket might be the best thing for them, extra sales channel, and don't have the operating cost of operating a single long haul aircraft.

And who will transport the Surinam president on his trips? Moreover, anything Dutch is certainly a no-no for the Surinam politicians.

Dutchy · Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:51 pm

Is Surinam Airways owned by the state?

airbazar · Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:01 pm

A388 wrote:
I can see your point TheLion but the problem with the A330 is that they won't be able to get there hands on them because to my knowledge there are no A330's in the desert or they are too expensive to lease or buy. Leasing them brand new will also be too expensive I think for Surinam Airways.

There are A330's available and even more will become available as more 787/A350 are delivered. SQ, AV, and Azul are just some of the airlines off the top of my head that have A330's coming off lease or parked and looking to lease. As people mentioned, the problem is ETOPS. A twin is a non-starter.

johnwest · Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:12 pm

The 787 is to expensive for a small third world country like Surinam.

s.p.a.s. · Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:58 pm

Any passenger MD11s available?

That would be something....

Spacepope · Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:01 pm

s.p.a.s. wrote:
Any passenger MD11s available?

That would be something....

Nope. Heck, DL just recently bought 6 MD-11s just for their engines.

MalevTU134 · Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:13 am

Just give TK or EK traffic rights and they will operate IST/DXB-AMS-PMB in a heartbeat... :duck:

aviationfreak · Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:15 pm

Aren't there any A345's available which nobody want's...4 holes that can do the job without ETOPS. Fuel economics should be quite good as well. will be a saver in the long term.

The load/unload system is more powerfull and of better quality than those on the 343s which is a necessity for there overweight bag-containers.

I know they don't have a bulk hold/cpt 5 but I know a few guys who don't mind at all...

A.freak

PHBVF · Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:15 pm

MalevTU134 wrote:
Just give TK or EK traffic rights and they will operate IST/DXB-AMS-PMB in a heartbeat...

TK on AMS-PMB with recent events :duck:

Though wouldn't EY be a better fit given their cooperation with KL?

Polot · Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:16 pm

aviationfreak wrote:
Aren't there any A345's available which nobody want's...4 holes that can do the job without ETOPS. Fuel economics should be quite good as well. will be a saver in the long term.

Fuel economy probably wouldn't be much better than with the A343.

A388 · Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:51 pm

The A340-500 might indeed be a slight improvement over the older A340-300 but don't know how much better that would be like Polot said. Talking about the A340-500, where have they all gone now? I only remember that the ones that did find a second life, got them as private jets or government aircraft like the Thai Air Force...?

EDIT: I now see that 4 of the 5 A340-500's of TG are stored and all but one A340-500 of EK are owned by Airbus Financial Services but I don't know if they are (still) parked...? One JJ A340-500 is also still parked or owned by LH Technik?

A388

baje427 · Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:20 pm

The Surinamese government would be better off letting KLM and ARke take over the AMS-PBM route and offer AA incentives to take over the PBM-MIA sectors.

EddieDude · Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:34 pm

Hifly or however it is spelled has an A345 in operation, no? Perhaps it has been leased out to someone else who needed extra frames.

Back on the subject of the A343 replacement for Surinam, I wonder whether Boeing could help them find some second-hand but relatively young 77Es for Surinam to lease as part of a 737 order. Is this something that could work out or is the order/customer too small for Boeing to make something like this happen.

I wonder why they don't look at second hand A332s too.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net