Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
B1168
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:00 am

T54A wrote:
MSN 226 & 245

To be operated on the JNB-JFK-JNB where max fuel saving can be achieved. Prelim figures show a fuel saving in excess of 30000kg per sector vs the A346.

30,000kg x 2 =60,000kg
60,000kg x 365= 21 900,000kg per year on JNB-JFK-JNB

Hot and high performance penalty out of JNB has been taken into consideration.


Wow. I know A340s are notoriously fuel-consuming, but data still shocks me.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3575
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:06 am

trees wrote:
As per the Southern African thread. Aircraft are MSN 226 & 245. Both ex-Hainan machines and LATAM ntu's delivered in only January this year.


Are these planes of a higher MTOW than earlier planes from the JJ order book? (JJ still owns the frames, although Airbus may be handling the lease on JJ's behalf.)
 
Chrisba320
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:05 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:18 am

I live in South Africa and I do have a bit of a soft spot for SAA. Yes, their A340 long haul product is terribly out of date, due to all the political meddling their financial situation is dire, etc. But as a passenger, on the right day with the right aircraft an SAA flight can be a great ride. Their domestic flights with the A319/A320 are superb, way, way better than any of the other domestic options. The A330-300’s they use to London and a few other places are really comfortable and the onboard product, including their new Business Class, is very good indeed. So the A350 joining the fleet makes me very excited, it is the right plane for them at the right time. Despite the inferior product on the A340-600 I don’t miss an opportunity to fly on them, mostly because I’ve known for a while they won’t be around much longer but also because, to my eyes, the A340-600 is such a beautiful bird. It is a superbly comfortable, quiet ride, even in Y long haul. SAA has a long way to go before they have a change of being a stable, well managed airline again but I think the A350 is a great step forward. Can’t wait to try it out on the New York route.
 
T54A
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:17 am

MoKa777 wrote:
T54A wrote:
MSN 226 & 245

To be operated on the JNB-JFK-JNB where max fuel saving can be achieved. Prelim figures show a fuel saving in excess of 30000kg per sector vs the A346.

30,000kg x 2 =60,000kg
60,000kg x 365= 21 900,000kg per year on JNB-JFK-JNB

Hot and high performance penalty out of JNB has been taken into consideration.


Wow! That is quite the saving!

Do you know how much total fuel the A346 uses on these sectors? It would be great to see the percentage fuel burn saving of the A359.

Edit: Around 3 years ago we were told here on a.net that CX scheduled the A359 on the HKG-DUS route instead of the 77W and achieved 25t lower fuel burn between the 2 models.

Should the saving achieved by SAA on JNB-JFK, therefore, not be higher than 30t especially considering that the A359 they are receiving is much newer and the comparison is between the A359 and A346 that we know uses (slightly) more fuel than a 77W? JNB-JFK is also approx. 40% longer than HKG-DUS.

Any thoughts?



As a complete thumb suck, I’d say difference will 120000kg for the A346 and 90000kg for the A359
T6, Allouette 3, Oryx, King Air, B1900, B727, B744, A319, A342/3/6 A332/3 A359
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:48 am

T54A wrote:
MoKa777 wrote:
T54A wrote:
MSN 226 & 245

To be operated on the JNB-JFK-JNB where max fuel saving can be achieved. Prelim figures show a fuel saving in excess of 30000kg per sector vs the A346.

30,000kg x 2 =60,000kg
60,000kg x 365= 21 900,000kg per year on JNB-JFK-JNB

Hot and high performance penalty out of JNB has been taken into consideration.


Wow! That is quite the saving!

Do you know how much total fuel the A346 uses on these sectors? It would be great to see the percentage fuel burn saving of the A359.

Edit: Around 3 years ago we were told here on a.net that CX scheduled the A359 on the HKG-DUS route instead of the 77W and achieved 25t lower fuel burn between the 2 models.

Should the saving achieved by SAA on JNB-JFK, therefore, not be higher than 30t especially considering that the A359 they are receiving is much newer and the comparison is between the A359 and A346 that we know uses (slightly) more fuel than a 77W? JNB-JFK is also approx. 40% longer than HKG-DUS.

Any thoughts?



As a complete thumb suck, I’d say difference will 120000kg for the A346 and 90000kg for the A359


Hopefully this will allow SAA to save millions of $ a year on fuel alone on this route.

I wish them the best. SAA may not be the best run or the healthiest airline but they still have many great men and women doing great work.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
travelasia
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun May 19, 2019 10:30 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:27 pm

Keep in mind that the A340-600 is roughly the size of an 77W.
Leham made a comparison using LAX-PVG, that is the only one I know of that uses roughly the same assumptions

to 77W to A35K to A359
77W 97,7 t 100 % 127,7 % 140,0 %
A35K 76,5 t 78,3 % 100 % 109,6 %
A359 69,8 t 71,4 % 91,2 % 100 %


The A359 uses 27,9t less. Which is little wonder, because it is smaller and newer. But still an impressive number. Note how moving the baseline you compare to moves the percentage better or worse.Note also, that the A35K is also slightly smaller than the 77W Next time you see marketing numbers, always good to keep basic math in mind.
 
majano
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:49 pm

travelasia wrote:
Keep in mind that the A340-600 is roughly the size of an 77W.
Leham made a comparison using LAX-PVG, that is the only one I know of that uses roughly the same assumptions

to 77W to A35K to A359
77W 97,7 t 100 % 127,7 % 140,0 %
A35K 76,5 t 78,3 % 100 % 109,6 %
A359 69,8 t 71,4 % 91,2 % 100 %


The A359 uses 27,9t less. Which is little wonder, because it is smaller and newer. But still an impressive number. Note how moving the baseline you compare to moves the percentage better or worse.Note also, that the A35K is also slightly smaller than the 77W Next time you see marketing numbers, always good to keep basic math in mind.

With the above numbers, I can only infer that the 20% saving referred to in the media release is "per available seat". The seating configuration is relatively sparse, even for an A359.
 
solracfunk14
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:10 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:59 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
Another thing is that the A359 cruises at 0.85 compared to 0.82 of the A346. Flight time will be shorter. And with a 30J246Y configuration it’s low density. Also the A350 has quite stellar hot and high performance because of the wing.


Actually it's missing 63 seats of Premium Economy. It's the same config as layout 2 of Hainan Airlines
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:38 pm

solracfunk14 wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Another thing is that the A359 cruises at 0.85 compared to 0.82 of the A346. Flight time will be shorter. And with a 30J246Y configuration it’s low density. Also the A350 has quite stellar hot and high performance because of the wing.


Actually it's missing 63 seats of Premium Economy. It's the same config as layout 2 of Hainan Airlines

Ah ok. I think these are 272 or 277t aircraft. And they won’t need MTOW for a 14.5-15hr route. But there will be a row or maybe even a few blocked.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:43 pm

Should JNB build a new terminal for SA expansion?
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3575
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:16 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
solracfunk14 wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Another thing is that the A359 cruises at 0.85 compared to 0.82 of the A346. Flight time will be shorter. And with a 30J246Y configuration it’s low density. Also the A350 has quite stellar hot and high performance because of the wing.


Actually it's missing 63 seats of Premium Economy. It's the same config as layout 2 of Hainan Airlines

Ah ok. I think these are 272 or 277t aircraft. And they won’t need MTOW for a 14.5-15hr route. But there will be a row or maybe even a few blocked.


What about for a high airport? DL uses the B77L on ATL-JNB specifically because of JNB's elevation. SA would need a configuration of about 300 seats to account for a potential payload hit.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:22 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
solracfunk14 wrote:

Actually it's missing 63 seats of Premium Economy. It's the same config as layout 2 of Hainan Airlines

Ah ok. I think these are 272 or 277t aircraft. And they won’t need MTOW for a 14.5-15hr route. But there will be a row or maybe even a few blocked.


What about for a high airport? DL uses the B77L on ATL-JNB specifically because of JNB's elevation. SA would need a configuration of about 300 seats.

They have special tires equipped on the 77L, because it runs into tire speed limits. IIRC the 77L is limited to ~310t of 3R and ~320t of 3L. The A359 can do it more efficiently, but the 77L is a behemoth in payload terms. The A359 is limited to ~265t on 3L and ~255t off 3R.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:26 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
solracfunk14 wrote:

Actually it's missing 63 seats of Premium Economy. It's the same config as layout 2 of Hainan Airlines

Ah ok. I think these are 272 or 277t aircraft. And they won’t need MTOW for a 14.5-15hr route. But there will be a row or maybe even a few blocked.


What about for a high airport? DL uses the B77L on ATL-JNB specifically because of JNB's elevation. SA would need a configuration of about 300 seats to account for a potential payload hit.

Technically speaking the A350 is a “better” hot and high performer. But the 77L can simply carry more payload and JNB is quite lucrative cargo wise so any extra ton of revenue payload squeezed out helps. JNB is also one the most profitable DL routes.
 
evanb
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:52 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
Technically speaking the A350 is a “better” hot and high performer. But the 77L can simply carry more payload and JNB is quite lucrative cargo wise so any extra ton of revenue payload squeezed out helps. JNB is also one the most profitable DL routes.


Also, DL has 10x B77L and must deploy them somewhere. They will deploy them on the longest or heaviest payload routes, like JNB.

SA don't have the B77L and was using the A340-600 on JNB-JFK for range, rather than capacity. The A350-900 suites their needs in terms of range, capacity and economics.
 
evanb
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:55 am

solracfunk14 wrote:
Actually it's missing 63 seats of Premium Economy. It's the same config as layout 2 of Hainan Airlines


Those 63 seats are not premium economy on Hainan but just extra legroom economy.
 
evanb
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:03 am

Add to the cost equation: SAA's A340-600s are all coming up to their second D-checks (or C4 or C8 or whatever Airbus call them these days). The oldest are 17 years old, so not much point on SAA spending several million USD to D-check aircraft which are unlikely to fly an additional 5 to 10 years.
 
trees
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:36 pm

chunhimlai wrote:
Should JNB build a new terminal for SA expansion?


No because SA have been shrinking.
 
OMAAbound
Topic Author
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:43 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:14 am

I’d be interested too see if the higher fuel saving costs outweigh the higher lease costs of the A350 for the A350.

If you can lease a A340 for, perhaps, 20/30% of the cost of a new A350, does this really give any form of hue saving?

OMAA
 
gloom
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:56 am

Let's assume worst case.
In regular lease price topic, it's been assumed it costs around 1 m USD per month to lease A350. Let's assume A340-600 value is nil (I guess it would be a bit higher, but worst case, A359 would be probably a bit higher than 1m).
Let me assume as well, that it's just the fuel costs that needs to cover all of this. Actually it will not, since for example MX will be lower, but again - worst case.
Let's assume two planes for a daily flight, third one as reserve is your old A340.
So extra cost is 2m. Fuel saves - there and back within 24hrs. 30t saved on single flight. Jet A1 is approx 650USD/mt. We save about 40k USD daily, or 1.2m monthly.

This is rough estimation, but judging by these numbers, and including some extra savings from MX or other efficiency gains (like speed), it could be actually cash positive decision.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1788
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:24 am

OMAAbound wrote:
I’d be interested too see if the higher fuel saving costs outweigh the higher lease costs of the A350 for the A350.

If you can lease a A340 for, perhaps, 20/30% of the cost of a new A350, does this really give any form of hue saving?

OMAA

As this is just a 3 year lease, I think this is just testing the waters whether replacing A346s with A350s really will significantly reduce SA's losses. I wouldn't be surprised if SA has been begging the government for money to buy a a fleet of A350s, but it would be wise to see how this turns out in reality before throwing even more billions of dollars into this massive hole.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
seat64k
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:48 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:03 pm

B747-437B wrote:
x1234 wrote:
GRU-JNB-HKG doesn't even offer a reasonable connection anymore. GRU-JNB arrives at 0725 and JNB-HKG departs at 1735. 10+ hours does not a connection make.


Might still be shorter than flying via the US though.
 
mr02
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:51 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:58 pm

gloom wrote:
Let's assume worst case.
In regular lease price topic, it's been assumed it costs around 1 m USD per month to lease A350. Let's assume A340-600 value is nil (I guess it would be a bit higher, but worst case, A359 would be probably a bit higher than 1m).
Let me assume as well, that it's just the fuel costs that needs to cover all of this. Actually it will not, since for example MX will be lower, but again - worst case.
Let's assume two planes for a daily flight, third one as reserve is your old A340.
So extra cost is 2m. Fuel saves - there and back within 24hrs. 30t saved on single flight. Jet A1 is approx 650USD/mt. We save about 40k USD daily, or 1.2m monthly.

This is rough estimation, but judging by these numbers, and including some extra savings from MX or other efficiency gains (like speed), it could be actually cash positive decision.

Cheers,
Adam

The savings should/could be higher because the leasing rates for the A340s were ridiculously high. They had to renegotiate the lease rates a few years ago but I don't know if they were successful.
 
evanb
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:30 pm

mr02 wrote:
The savings should/could be higher because the leasing rates for the A340s were ridiculously high. They had to renegotiate the lease rates a few years ago but I don't know if they were successful.


I think you're confusing them with other aircraft. 6 of the 9 A340-600s are owned outright by SAA.
 
behramjee
Posts: 5081
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:01 am

The total cost savings per round trip flight is US$110,000 approximately which equals to US$40 million per annum.
 
sabby
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:00 am

seat64k wrote:
B747-437B wrote:
x1234 wrote:
GRU-JNB-HKG doesn't even offer a reasonable connection anymore. GRU-JNB arrives at 0725 and JNB-HKG departs at 1735. 10+ hours does not a connection make.


Might still be shorter than flying via the US though.

Why'd anyone go via US when they can save hours going via EU and without needing a transit visa ?
 
evanb
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:23 am

sabby wrote:
Why'd anyone go via US when they can save hours going via EU and without needing a transit visa ?


Not just needing the visa, but actually having to clear immigration in the US just to transit!
 
User avatar
B747-437B
Posts: 8901
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:12 am

sabby wrote:
seat64k wrote:
B747-437B wrote:

Might still be shorter than flying via the US though.

Why'd anyone go via US when they can save hours going via EU and without needing a transit visa ?


Shortest directional elapsed time online connections between GRU-HKG vv are actually with QR, TK, ET and EK with elapsed time in the sub-28 hour range both ways.
 
aw70
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:20 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:10 am

T54A wrote:
MSN 226 & 245

To be operated on the JNB-JFK-JNB where max fuel saving can be achieved. Prelim figures show a fuel saving in excess of 30000kg per sector vs the A346.

30,000kg x 2 =60,000kg
60,000kg x 365= 21 900,000kg per year on JNB-JFK-JNB

Hot and high performance penalty out of JNB has been taken into consideration.


But isn't that an apples to oranges comparison insofar as the Big Stick is a) bigger and b) can do the trip almost fully loaded, while the A350 takes a considerable load penalty on this route? So that the fuel savings are not as dramatic as they seem up front, because they also come with quite a corresponding reduction in capacity? (capacity which SAA might or might not actually need - no idea what their actual load factors are on that route)
 
Asiaflyer
Posts: 916
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:50 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:21 am

aw70 wrote:
T54A wrote:
MSN 226 & 245

To be operated on the JNB-JFK-JNB where max fuel saving can be achieved. Prelim figures show a fuel saving in excess of 30000kg per sector vs the A346.

30,000kg x 2 =60,000kg
60,000kg x 365= 21 900,000kg per year on JNB-JFK-JNB

Hot and high performance penalty out of JNB has been taken into consideration.


But isn't that an apples to oranges comparison insofar as the Big Stick is a) bigger and b) can do the trip almost fully loaded, while the A350 takes a considerable load penalty on this route? So that the fuel savings are not as dramatic as they seem up front, because they also come with quite a corresponding reduction in capacity? (capacity which SAA might or might not actually need - no idea what their actual load factors are on that route)

That's true and the numbers could be adjusted based on loadfactor and cargo, but the difference is so big that even with the factors you mention, the A359 outperforms an A346 by good margin under most conditions. :smile:
Shouldn't we assume that SAA has crunched the numbers before signing the A359 lease?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10633
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:28 am

mr02 wrote:
gloom wrote:
Let's assume worst case.
In regular lease price topic, it's been assumed it costs around 1 m USD per month to lease A350. Let's assume A340-600 value is nil (I guess it would be a bit higher, but worst case, A359 would be probably a bit higher than 1m).
Let me assume as well, that it's just the fuel costs that needs to cover all of this. Actually it will not, since for example MX will be lower, but again - worst case.
Let's assume two planes for a daily flight, third one as reserve is your old A340.
So extra cost is 2m. Fuel saves - there and back within 24hrs. 30t saved on single flight. Jet A1 is approx 650USD/mt. We save about 40k USD daily, or 1.2m monthly.

This is rough estimation, but judging by these numbers, and including some extra savings from MX or other efficiency gains (like speed), it could be actually cash positive decision.

Cheers,
Adam

The savings should/could be higher because the leasing rates for the A340s were ridiculously high. They had to renegotiate the lease rates a few years ago but I don't know if they were successful.

The lease rates for their A350s are likely also ridiculously high. That is what happens when you are an airline constantly in financial trouble always having to beg the government for help.
 
seat64k
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:48 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:19 pm

sabby wrote:
Why'd anyone go via US when they can save hours going via EU and without needing a transit visa ?


Cost. It's often cheaper to fly AA than via the Middle East or Europe.
 
seat64k
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:48 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:18 pm

Over in the A350 Production thread, there's talk of SAA taking another two A350s - this time two frames originally destined to Air Mauritius:

viewtopic.php?t=1411835&view=unread#p21525601
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2455
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:32 pm

The A359 is going on JFK, it should be a A35K IMO.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys.
 
evanb
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:03 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
The A359 is going on JFK, it should be a A35K IMO.


And what are you basing that opinion on?

The A35K will be limited to between 285t and 290t TOW due to JNB's altitude. That's a 30t reduction in TOW from MTOW. And that's a best case scenario. So no, I don't think JNB-JFK should be a A35K.
 
bsbisland
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:45 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:44 pm

B747-437B wrote:
sabby wrote:
seat64k wrote:
Might still be shorter than flying via the US though.

Why'd anyone go via US when they can save hours going via EU and without needing a transit visa ?


Shortest directional elapsed time online connections between GRU-HKG vv are actually with QR, TK, ET and EK with elapsed time in the sub-28 hour range both ways.


Just a few years ago, when SAA still offered more than daily flights to GRU, they were the leader on GRU-HKG market, offering the most direct routing (I remember someone posting data about this here on a.net). Now, with one daily flight to GRU, connections are long and they lost this market.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2455
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:47 pm

evanb wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
The A359 is going on JFK, it should be a A35K IMO.


And what are you basing that opinion on?

The A35K will be limited to between 285t and 290t TOW due to JNB's altitude. That's a 30t reduction in TOW from MTOW. And that's a best case scenario. So no, I don't think JNB-JFK should be a A35K.


Capacity. I wasn't thinking about elevation, my mistake. JFK-JNB could fill up an A35K. Too bad twins don't work better at altitude.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys.
 
KingOrGod
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:23 pm

Asiaflyer wrote:
Shouldn't we assume that SAA has


I don't think you know SAA very well LOL. Never assume much with them. The only assumption one can really make is they will make a loss even with an aircraft that uses zero fuel.
 
Breathe
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:59 pm

seat64k wrote:
Over in the A350 Production thread, there's talk of SAA taking another two A350s - this time two frames originally destined to Air Mauritius:

viewtopic.php?t=1411835&view=unread#p21525601

MK pushed back their final 2 deliveries from 2020 back to 2023. Are they referring to these frames, or the two that are currently due to be delivered this year?
 
Prost
Posts: 2575
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sat Jul 20, 2019 11:05 pm

bsbisland wrote:
B747-437B wrote:
sabby wrote:
Why'd anyone go via US when they can save hours going via EU and without needing a transit visa ?


Shortest directional elapsed time online connections between GRU-HKG vv are actually with QR, TK, ET and EK with elapsed time in the sub-28 hour range both ways.


Just a few years ago, when SAA still offered more than daily flights to GRU, they were the leader on GRU-HKG market, offering the most direct routing (I remember someone posting data about this here on a.net). Now, with one daily flight to GRU, connections are long and they lost this market.


GRU-HKG 9729 NM
GRU-JNB-HKG 9786 NM
GRU-DXB-HKG 9799 NM

I imagine many people traveling between GRU & HKG have found better accommodations. But how large is this market anyway?
 
evanb
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sat Jul 20, 2019 11:18 pm

bsbisland wrote:
Just a few years ago, when SAA still offered more than daily flights to GRU, they were the leader on GRU-HKG market, offering the most direct routing (I remember someone posting data about this here on a.net). Now, with one daily flight to GRU, connections are long and they lost this market.


Right, the second daily flight was timed to connect to JNB-HKG-JNB, but that was before EK, QR, TK and ET entered the market in a big way and started a price war. SAA's cost based and low density cabins were never going to compete in a price war. They removed the second flight and kept the flight that was timed better for regional connections in JNB rather than connections to Asia.
 
evanb
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sat Jul 20, 2019 11:24 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
Capacity. I wasn't thinking about elevation, my mistake. JFK-JNB could fill up an A35K. Too bad twins don't work better at altitude.


With the modern generation it's not really about twins at altitude anymore, but the A35K is a stretch of the A359 and has the same wing. So while the A359 performs pretty well at altitude the A35K is inferior. The wing is one of the reasons why the B777-300ER was a better than expected performer at altitude. Compared to the B777-200ER it had a bigger wing which meant more lift.

In terms of capacity I'm not sure. SAA used the B747-400 and A340-600 on JNB-JFK not for capacity but for lift and range. With modern generation aircraft they can rightsize capacity. Similar to what we've seen on USA-Australia flights which were dominated by B747-400 back in the day and slowly becoming dominated by B787-9.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:20 am

evanb wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
Capacity. I wasn't thinking about elevation, my mistake. JFK-JNB could fill up an A35K. Too bad twins don't work better at altitude.


With the modern generation it's not really about twins at altitude anymore, but the A35K is a stretch of the A359 and has the same wing. So while the A359 performs pretty well at altitude the A35K is inferior. The wing is one of the reasons why the B777-300ER was a better than expected performer at altitude. Compared to the B777-200ER it had a bigger wing which meant more lift.

In terms of capacity I'm not sure. SAA used the B747-400 and A340-600 on JNB-JFK not for capacity but for lift and range. With modern generation aircraft they can rightsize capacity. Similar to what we've seen on USA-Australia flights which were dominated by B747-400 back in the day and slowly becoming dominated by B787-9.

Actually the 777-300ER is wing limited. Extremely high wing loading. The A35K has almost exactly the SAME cruise profiles as an A359. Both have low wing loading so takeoff performance wise both are better than the 77W. The 77W is not really a "good" performer at altitude.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:22 am

dredgy wrote:
I'm booked with them JNB to PER in October specifically to go on an A340 for the first time, so I'm gonna be peeved if it gets swapped out.

On a business side, can't see this really helping at all. Just another added cost.


I wouldn't worry too much about that. The first routes are likely to be London or prestige reasons and North America where the added operating costs could
save the weight. PER if anything could go change of equipment to A332 but its unlikely to be at the front of the line for A350.
Now if they wanted to start Sydney it may well be, taking on QF on east coast Australia non-stop would require a good product.
 
evanb
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:23 am

evanb wrote:
With the modern generation it's not really about twins at altitude anymore, but the A35K is a stretch of the A359 and has the same wing. So while the A359 performs pretty well at altitude the A35K is inferior. The wing is one of the reasons why the B777-300ER was a better than expected performer at altitude. Compared to the B777-200ER it had a bigger wing which meant more lift.


DylanHarvey wrote:
Actually the 777-300ER is wing limited. Extremely high wing loading. The A35K has almost exactly the SAME cruise profiles as an A359. Both have low wing loading so takeoff performance wise both are better than the 77W. The 77W is not really a "good" performer at altitude.


I think you misread or misunderstood my post. I never said the B77W was a good performer at altitude. I said it was a "better" performer at altitude than the B77E. I was making the point that unlike the A359/A35K which have the same wing, the B77W and B77E have different wings. I was using that as an illustrative example that just increasing thrust isn't sufficient for the A35K to be able to fly the same range as the A359 when departing at higher altitude or temps.
 
evanb
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:26 am

Lufthansa wrote:
I wouldn't worry too much about that. The first routes are likely to be London or prestige reasons and North America where the added operating costs could
save the weight. PER if anything could go change of equipment to A332 but its unlikely to be at the front of the line for A350.
Now if they wanted to start Sydney it may well be, taking on QF on east coast Australia non-stop would require a good product.


First three routes for A350 are JNB-JFK, JNB-HKG and JNB-CAN.

JNB-PER already sees a fair bit of A332, it's operated the route three times in the last week.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:00 am

evanb wrote:
evanb wrote:
With the modern generation it's not really about twins at altitude anymore, but the A35K is a stretch of the A359 and has the same wing. So while the A359 performs pretty well at altitude the A35K is inferior. The wing is one of the reasons why the B777-300ER was a better than expected performer at altitude. Compared to the B777-200ER it had a bigger wing which meant more lift.


DylanHarvey wrote:
Actually the 777-300ER is wing limited. Extremely high wing loading. The A35K has almost exactly the SAME cruise profiles as an A359. Both have low wing loading so takeoff performance wise both are better than the 77W. The 77W is not really a "good" performer at altitude.


I think you misread or misunderstood my post. I never said the B77W was a good performer at altitude. I said it was a "better" performer at altitude than the B77E. I was making the point that unlike the A359/A35K which have the same wing, the B77W and B77E have different wings. I was using that as an illustrative example that just increasing thrust isn't sufficient for the A35K to be able to fly the same range as the A359 when departing at higher altitude or temps.

Yes yes, I think Zeke would be the biggest help here. The A359 wing is HUGE, actually almost too big, and rather appropriately sized for the 35K
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:01 am

evanb wrote:
evanb wrote:
With the modern generation it's not really about twins at altitude anymore, but the A35K is a stretch of the A359 and has the same wing. So while the A359 performs pretty well at altitude the A35K is inferior. The wing is one of the reasons why the B777-300ER was a better than expected performer at altitude. Compared to the B777-200ER it had a bigger wing which meant more lift.


DylanHarvey wrote:
Actually the 777-300ER is wing limited. Extremely high wing loading. The A35K has almost exactly the SAME cruise profiles as an A359. Both have low wing loading so takeoff performance wise both are better than the 77W. The 77W is not really a "good" performer at altitude.


I think you misread or misunderstood my post. I never said the B77W was a good performer at altitude. I said it was a "better" performer at altitude than the B77E. I was making the point that unlike the A359/A35K which have the same wing, the B77W and B77E have different wings. I was using that as an illustrative example that just increasing thrust isn't sufficient for the A35K to be able to fly the same range as the A359 when departing at higher altitude or temps.

And yes my bad on that one. The 77W is significantly better than the 77E at altitude.
 
evanb
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:33 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
Yes yes, I think Zeke would be the biggest help here. The A359 wing is HUGE, actually almost too big, and rather appropriately sized for the 35K


Agreed, in some respects, it's as if the A359 is a shrink of the A359 vis-à-vis the B77L, but because it's not a shrink, it's not carrying the extra structural weight like the B77L is. That's why it's possibly the most perfect twin for high altitude airfields.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:36 am

evanb wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Yes yes, I think Zeke would be the biggest help here. The A359 wing is HUGE, actually almost too big, and rather appropriately sized for the 35K


Agreed, in some respects, it's as if the A359 is a shrink of the A359 vis-à-vis the B77L, but because it's not a shrink, it's not carrying the extra structural weight like the B77L is. That's why it's possibly the most perfect twin for high altitude airfields.

Yes, most definitely. Although the 787-8 works well for KQ. And AM and NH out of MEX.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: SAA Leasing A350

Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:57 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
evanb wrote:
evanb wrote:
With the modern generation it's not really about twins at altitude anymore, but the A35K is a stretch of the A359 and has the same wing. So while the A359 performs pretty well at altitude the A35K is inferior. The wing is one of the reasons why the B777-300ER was a better than expected performer at altitude. Compared to the B777-200ER it had a bigger wing which meant more lift.


DylanHarvey wrote:
Actually the 777-300ER is wing limited. Extremely high wing loading. The A35K has almost exactly the SAME cruise profiles as an A359. Both have low wing loading so takeoff performance wise both are better than the 77W. The 77W is not really a "good" performer at altitude.


I think you misread or misunderstood my post. I never said the B77W was a good performer at altitude. I said it was a "better" performer at altitude than the B77E. I was making the point that unlike the A359/A35K which have the same wing, the B77W and B77E have different wings. I was using that as an illustrative example that just increasing thrust isn't sufficient for the A35K to be able to fly the same range as the A359 when departing at higher altitude or temps.

And yes my bad on that one. The 77W is significantly better than the 77E at altitude.


77W has just bigger wing tips then 77E called raked wingtip extends wing area less then 10m2. A35K wing has extended trailing edge compare to A359 extends wing area about 22m2. MTOW diffrence of A350s is much less then between B777s.

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