If SIA were to consider something to replace it, it will have to be significantly better than the A345. Customer loyalty to the A345 far exceeds SIA's expectations

They aren't loyal to the A345... they're loyal to the service. This could theoretically be replicated in any long-haul aircraft. If SQ wants to be sucessful as possible on these routes, the 772LR would give them a further leg-up

aviasian...

i dont think there is "customer loyaly to the A345" i think it is to the flight/service. most customers dont know their dicks from their elbows.

if you put a 777 on the flight, there would be equal loyalty. your point is invalid....goodbye.

777-300ER's advantage over A340-600 is that is uses a lot less fuel to take similar payloads slightly longer distances.

The A340-600 features a longer range.

N

N1120a,

The 772LR and 773ER have the same engines, they are just uprated by 5000 pounds on the 773ER. Are you talking about the lack of a RR engine choice?

With regards to the Trent 800 powerplants used on their current fleet and the GE90-115B that will be used on their upcoming 777-300ERs..

9V-SVA

Even thou the A345s are currently the odd ball in the Boeing SQ fleet, I can't see the point in exchanging the A345s for B772ERs. It would make sense to have both A345s and B772LRs in the fleet. If SQ and their passengers are unhappy about the A345 then SQ must re-consider the A345, if SQ want to keep their customers happy

I can't see the point in exchanging the A345s for B772ERs

They not exhanging the A345s for B772ERs, they are exchanging the A345s for B772LRs

The issue isn't if customers like the 345 or 777, the issue is payload and revenue maximization.

The 345 is extremely payload limited and as a result, the seating capacity is very reduced. If and when the 777LR is ordered you will see a cabin that provides the same amount of room only has a greater payload.

Right now on the 345 there is no F class due to payload limitations. 20/20 hindsight would dictate the installation of a F cabin. Customers want that level of service. The 777 is really the only option.

The other issue is the cost of having a fleet of 5 aircraft. There is the maintenance issue, the restricted scheduling and inefficient use of crews. It all adds up to issues that eat into profits.

SQ is in business to make money and if the economics of the 345 justify it's retention, it will stay. However, the word around the company is the 345 will have a very short life.

The A340-600 features a longer range

The 380t version of A340-600 has a projected longer range with maximum passenger load than the 777-300ER,7,900 nm vs 7,880 for 351.5t MTOW 777-300ER, but the 380t MTOW A340-600 and 351.5t 777-300ER do not yet exist. The figures from the respective manufacturers are: 368t MTOW A340-600 has a range of 7,650nm, and 7,700nm for 345t MTOW 777-300ER. Aircraft of those MTOW ratings are in service with SA and AF at this time.


-widebodyphotog

If they really stuff 777-200LR with 301 seats, I wouldn't even consider flying in one of them. Normal economy seat pitch for 19+ hours? No, thanks.

With the current set up of A345 the comfort level is just right. Even if the aircraft can handle more passengers, the airline may have to limit the number of seats when considering the ergonomics and general comfort of the passengers. It's not only the question on how much the weight the aircraft can lift off the ground.

Don't worry SPK, they WILL NOT stuff em'..that would be suicide..

"Normal Economy seat pitch for 19+h"???? Spk, That's the point!!!! You're right!

Still I don't see any real reason to replace the A345's for B772LR, unless they are happy spending money and humiliating Airbus.
Cargo issue? SIA has many cargo aircrafts.

And for sure, SQ customers on this flights could no accept a 301 pax plane over another one which has only 181.

By the way, Spk ... do you know how many seats will have the Thai's A345?

Nyc777,

My point is, would the incremental revenue that huge? When you first look at the original post some would be inclined to say "wow, 301 seats v.s 181 passengers. SQ must make a whole lot more money by flying 777-200LR. Get rid of the A345 crap now!" The reality is, the reasonable number of seat on the aircraft might be much lower than 301 because SQ must make sure the passengers have reasonable comfort.

How would you think SQ will configure the economy class? On A345 it's 2-3-2 with 38 inches seat pitch. Since B777-200LR is shorter than A345, then the only way they can add the number of seats would be either reducing the seat pitch or go for 2-4-2 seat configuration. IMHO, neither of these solutions will provide enough comfort for the ultra long-haul flights.

They can't touch the Raffles class either because, even B777-200LR is wider than A345, 2-3-2 configuration in ultra long-haul Raffles class would never be acceptable. Hence, SQ would not make a single cent more in Business class by changing to B777-200LR.

Now, some rough calculation for the case of economy class:

The A345 has 17 rows (117 seats) in economy class. As B777-200LR is 4 meters shorter than A345, it would lose up to 4 rows (28 seats). Assume that the seat pitch remains the same and SQ leaves Raffles class cabin as is. If SQ goes for 2-4-2 configuration then the number of seats on B777-200LR would be 117 - 28 + 13 = 102 seats. And even if they reduce the pitch to a bare minimum (remember 19 hours flight) 34 inches, they still can only get 110 seats. Would that make more money for SQ? No?

They can't add revenue without sacrificing passengers comfort and I doubt that's the way SQ would choose. The only reason that they can make more money would be from cargo. That's something that I can't estimate.

My personal guess is that SQ will have flat beds in first, first class type seating for business class and the seats used currently on thier 345's but in eight abreast configuration.

Time will tell.

the running costs of the 772LR may well be less than the A345 but the capital acquisition costs may well be higher, besides which with SQs very short depreciation times,its likely the aircraft will be paid for and already mostly written off in a few years, will it make business sense to acquire the 772LR then? A difficullt question but not unlike the perenniel question everyone comes across regarding their car, get rid of the older one which has higher running costs and is or will be paid off soon or get a spanking new one with lower running costs but may actually cost more due to the purchase costs.
I suspect that unless the A345 is totally unsuitable in SQs eyes to their needs, Boeing would have to almost give them new planes for a song to get them to change.

Look--the information is coming from a credible news organization and has been corroborated by Singapore Airlines pilot (or a very convincing liar) that has posted here. The link in the thread starter is enough evidence to dispel the whole "myth" notion.

Since SQ quite apparently are considering getting rid of the A345 in favor of B777LR, they must have done the math that showed them that they would be coming out ahead even if it means fronting the cash for brand new airplanes to replace very new 345.

So despite the back-of-the-envelope theoretical seating diagrams for the 777LR that show it at a disadvantage, actual in-depth financial and engineering analyses seem to indicate that the 777LR is actually more promising than the A345 for this company. Given that SQ's consistent profitability, they must be pretty good at these calculations.

Finally it is hard to believe some of the silly ideas and angry rants being spouted off here. I can almost see the tears welling up in their eyes as they type out their reasons of why Singapore Airlines is now a 2nd rate carrier besieged by LCC or that this is all just rumor or that the B777LR could not be possibly be comfortable for passengers.

Someone criticized Boeing's conservative performance guarantees as being a clever marketing gimmick. The exact opposite is true. It would be bait-and-switch to promise customers a certain level of performance before the airplane is built and then deliver less than your own guarantee after taking their money.

Flying-Tiger basically called for Airbus to take punitive action against Singapore by refusing to respond to RFPs or offering launch discounts. Why? Singapore did not cancel an order of A345. They paid for them. Further SQ was one of the first companies to take a risk on the A380 when they signed for 10 and put down pretty large cash deposits.

I think Anexbla said that SQ should not "humiliate" Airbus by getting rid of the A345. What does that mean? Sounds like Anexbla feels personally humiliated.

Singapore is a business that intends to and succeeds at making money. Since I have paid attention to them, they have operated B757 and got rid of them, A310 and got rid of them, B747-300 and guess what...they got rid of them. That list is not comprehensive either.

My point is, would the incremental revenue that huge?

The incremental revenues maybe tiny, but what about the cost savings through lower fuel burn?

Let me quote widebodyphotog's reply #102

While not having the same disparity in payload/range performance as 777-200LR vs 340-500, 777-300ER's advantage over A340-600 is that is uses a lot less fuel to take similar payloads slightly longer distances. While the A340-600 has similar range to 747-400/ER it also has similar fuel burn as well coming in at 2-3,000lb/h less than the 747-400 but 4,000lb/h more than 777-300ER.

Now if we look at SIN-EWR, it's about 36hrs return... Now not looking at payload range capabilities of the 744ER, A346, 773ER...

In comparison with the A346...
744ER uses 1500kgs/hr more for 36hrs = 54,000kgs more fuel
773ER uses 2000kgs/hr less for 36hrs = 62,000kgs less fuel

Now with fuel ranging from US$ 0.5 - 1 per liter, (assume a "cheap rate of 75 cents per liter at 0.87 kgs per liter)...
the 744ER will cost $46550 USD more per return trip than the A346.
the 773ER will cost $53450 USD less per return trip than the A346.

From what I've heard, the 772LR is designed to burn about 2000kgs/hr less than the A345... so, the 772LR will cost $53450 less per return trip... Assuming that's a daily trip all year round... that'll make it about 19.5 MILLION USD per year.

Then you add the fleet numbers. SQ already has a significant numbers of 777 airframes in their fleet, and only the engine will be different, so the maintenance cost increase per 777LR won't be as huge as maintaining SQ's current fleet of A345s...

Then you add crewing costs... at the moment, there's a chance that some pilots have to remain current on take off and landings on the A345s through a simulator instead of through a revenue flight... again, there's an incremental cost savings there... (SQ's short haul A345 ops don't make money, so let's not discuss that as a cost saving measure).

Now, assuming there's no change in actual and potential revenue with the change in config, SQ can save about US$ 15 - 19.5M (adjusting for my bad estimates) a year from fuel burn alone... now that's not bad...

Mandala499

ANEXLBA - I suggest that that you grow up. If you can't handle my opinions (or those of others on this forum) then this probably isn't the place for you.

Obviously if SQ feels the incremental cost of acquiring the 772LR is outweighed by the increase in revenue from more passengers and the ability to transport cargo both ways on a JFK-SIN flight then they will do it. They will get the plane that will add revenue regardless if it's a Boeing or Airbus.

I am neither a Boeing shareholder nor cheerleader but if the right plane for SQ is a Boeing and it means getting rid of 5 airbuses then so be it..THAT IS THE RIGHT CHOICE FROM A REV PERSPECTIVE. You crying about it won't change economics.

[Edited 2004-11-18 17:08:59]

[Edited 2004-11-18 17:10:48]

Mandala499.

I can agree with your analysis. The question is whether the cost saving numbers that we've been using are accurate. The 2,000 kg/hour fuel saving is nice but there is no hard data whatsoever to back that up. That can make the analysis result way off from the correct figure.

Mandala,

Is that $19.5 million per airplane versus the A345?

Spk,

That is a fair point to question.

How is it possible to say that a 772LR burn 2000 kg/hour less fuel?? But ...if the 777LR's never has flown... maybe is it a bit soon to know it, isn't?

N79969 & SPK,
Well, the calculations make it 19.5M USD on SIN-EWR-SIN year round alone... the SIN-LAX-SIN would be about 15M USD... I'm not counting the number of planes, I'm just counting the route savings based on fuel burn differences at the same cruise speed.

But I stress that this IS based on NON-FACTUAL data. It's just to show the possibility of gaining more through lower fuel burn for Ultra Long Haul routes.

I used the numbers based on benchmark figures pilots have given me on LH and ULH routes (stress on the word BENCHMARK figures)... which gives the 772ER at 2.5 tons per hour below A345 at the moment...

In case I was wrong, I gave a 25% leeway on the cost savings...

If I'm completely wrong, here's my escape clause... Even if the 772LR burns only 1ton less than the A345, it would still give give it about 10m USD savings per year on SIN-EWR-SIN daily, and 7m USD savings per year in SIN-LAX-SIN daily... the main problem is, the GE90-115 uses a different fan diameter than the lower rated GE90s, therefore we do not know the fuel burn difference in cruise power.

I would like someone to give a better fuel burn difference figure than what I've come up with...

The reason I'm writing this is because I do not believe for ultra-long haul routes extra revenue potential can be accurately predicted hence I looked at possible cost savings while giving the passenger the same level of comfort as one of the initial reason for justifying equipment change.

Nyc777, for God's sake could you just calm down!

Mandala499

If SQ get's an extra 9-10t of cargo onboard the SIN-EWR flights that equates to an extra $40,000 per flight at current market rates for that route. an extra 22 pax with an average net yield of $750 chips in another $16,500 per segment for a $56,500 per flight of increased revenue or $20.6mil a year. All that with a lower DOC per aircraft. Count in the residual sale value of their current A340-500's ship for ship, and From that quick and dirty analysis the new 777-200LR's will pay for themselves in a short few years with increased revenue and lowered operating costs.

to Spk:

Fortunately your assumptions on space in 777-200LR are wrong. The way to do seating is to scale seating space based on available floor area not cabin length. In point of fact the 777-200LR cabin length is 164'-6" and A340-500 cabin length is 175'-9", but the 777's wider cabin allows for more effective floor space utilization.

I have the 777-200LR cabin on a CAD program I use to model cabin configurations and I came up with a more realistic cabin for SQ:

66 J Class 28" wide SpaceBed seats (A345 seats are 26") at 64" pitch 2-2-2

136 Executive Economy Y Class 20" wide seats at 37" pitch 2-4-2

Total 202 seats preserving the passenger snack and lounge areas.

Being more creative with seating yields a 216 seat if you make a 3-class arrangement with 102 18.5" wide 37" pitch seats in Economy (3-3-3), 48 20" wide 37" pitch seats in Executive Economy (2-3-2), and 66 28" SpaceBed Seats at 64" pitch (2-2-2).

The bottom line is that the 777-200LR has more potential revenue space in the cabin and below deck as well.

-widebodyphotog

Someone asked about the difference in fuel burn?

Right now the 777-200LR has a projected fuel burn from a 347.8t MTOW of 15,800lb/h. (The actual tests will probably show a bit better than this)

The A340-500 has a cruise fuel burn of 19,100lb/h from a 365t MTOW. On average 18,500-19,000lb/h in service.

Right now the only head-to-head segment comparison I have is based on a 5750nm route. It shows the total fuel burn for the 777-200LR would be about 19-20% less than an A340-500. Both aircraft at reduced TOW and MZFW payload. However an 8,300nm segment should show similar differences not only in reduced fuel burn but a much higher allowable payload as well.

-widebodyphotog

OK, WIDEBODY....
But how much more expensive is the 772LR over A345's?
At the moment, and so far I know, PIA and EVA Air are the only ones which have ordered the 772LR's.
And if Boeing product is so economical.... why not all airlines don't be buying the Boeing's planes???

Im glad that SQ can see the forest from the trees... i applaud SQ if this is the direction that operations go.. Probably explains why they ripped the 'Leadership' titles off the sides of em...        

But how much more expensive is the 772LR over A345's?

OK I wanna do a little fun calculation here... I'm not saying this is right, but just for fun...
If a fleet of 5 A345 can serve SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX... therefore a fleet of 5 772LR can do it...

Let's assume for a 1 on 1 replacement at the moment.

If the 2 tons an hour fuel burn difference is correct, then SQ would save 35M USD a year.

Assuming Maintenance cost is the same, and an 8% of aircraft value lease payment per year for 12 years, on the aircraft component only... For the fleet of 5 aircraft, the 777-200LR will still be worth it up to the value of (35m/0.08)*12 = 437.5M*12 = 5250M USD for 5 aircraft... which makes it 1Bn and 50M more expensive per aircraft 

Now we know a 777-200LR won't cost 1050m USD a piece... LOL
Even if we just use 437.5M for a fleet of 5, that would still allow the 777-200LR to be 87.5M USD more expensive a piece to make it worth it to the A345.

Mandala499

But how much more expensive is the 772LR over A345's?

The 5 orders from the two customers you have mentioned are included with other 777's in their respective deals. But the sale prices of the 777-200LR's alone are 196-$202mil each. SIA's A340-500 deal was $2,200mil for 10 aircraft with multiple Trent 500 spare engines. Sale price for the A340-500's alone alone should have been 175-$180mil each.

But again from the simple analysis done by myself and others here the price difference would be covered in a short period of time with the cost savings and increased revenue of 777-200LR. Actually, when looked at as a revenue producing asset the 777-200LR is much cheaper than an A340-500.

Boeing prices are not set arbitrarily high though. A Boeing aircraft retains more of its purchase price value over its lifespan than does the comparable Airbus product. This leaves good resale value for the owner as well as making them attractive aquisitions for service life extension programs like freighter conversions. (There is a freighter conversion program for every Boeing aircraft with the exception of 777, but just wait a couple of years for that one)

Just as an additional side note: To get a better Idea of the cost savings from less fuel burn you should project an increase in fuel cost over a term like 5 years or so. Projecting a continuous fuel savings and a continuous fuel price increase of 6% a year over 5 years saves about $30mil per aircraft. That's a very speculative analysis but it's the kind of things that are being considered in the current climate.

-widebodyphotog

Welcome back Concordeboy, it a way to return.

Widebodyphotog, hasn't the price gap closed further??? Given the 777 has some foreign components, it MUST be very close now to the price f the A345.

Why does having foreign components make the 777-200LR any closer in price?

The 777-200LR is a wildly expensive airframe compared to the 345.

N

I have my money on that SQ get the 772LR for around 140-170 million for each frame.

I'm saying the foreign components maintain the price, the American components reduce it, due to the weakness of the dollar.

Another question that just comes up now. I think it is very certain that B777-200LR will burn less fuel per hour. However, due to ETOPS requirement, will it be required to take longer routes? I read in this forum a while ago that SQ A345 has a very flexible choice of flying paths, which allows them to take the greatest adventage of wind conditions, shorter flying distance, etc.

Is Airbus really selling it's planes in Euro?

Or isn't it same as with fuel, which is everywhere paid in dollor?

"There are afterall only five aircraft which is a small fleet compared to the number of A343's they took in P/exchange for the B777's."

It is unlikely that Boeing will buyback the A340-500s as they did with the -300s. It took Boeing some time to find a buyer for most of those aircraft. With the -500, which is much more of a niche product, the only way I see Boeing buying those aircraft from SQ is if they already have a buyer lined up.


"A play with fire for SQ - Airbus just needs to state if SQ should dump the A345 in a similar deal such as the A343 deal, Airbus won´t bid for the 250-seater aka A350/B7E7."

Flying-Tiger, I have a lot of respect for you, especially your knowledge of the regional airliner industry. However, I would like to ask you to sit back and think about such a scenario. Are you honestly telling me that Airbus, after already being paid in full for the 5 A340-500's delivered to SQ, will let emotions stand in the way of offering the proposed A350 to SQ, possibly risking the launch of the aircraft itself? Where would that put Airbus in the long-term when it comes to the middle of the market? Just to prove my point - did Airbus refuse to offer the A380 to SQ after the original A340 trade-in? Of course not. Your scenario is just not credible.

As to LCC's competing with SQ, I definitely agree with you to some extent. However, until Asia has the international freedoms allowed in Europe or North America, I don't believe you will see the LCC's threaten the Asian legacy carriers nearly as much as elsewhere in the world.


"By the time they recieved a 747ADV, it would be almost 5 years anyway, which is long enough for SQ to dump the A380."

It's possible SQ will order the 747Adv. to supplement the A380, but it will not do so to replace the A380. It simply is not going to happen.


"Hamlet...You are one of the few balanced voices on here. I was wondering if you would say the same about the A346 compared to the 777-300ER?"

As I believe has already been mentioned on this thread, the A345 v. 772LR performance competition is perhaps the most tilted in favor of the twin than any other one-on-one A340/777 battle. The 772LR simply is a much better performing aicraft, assuming it lives up to its promised specs. OTOH, the performance of the A346 v. the 773ER is much closer. Some numbers have already been provided by fellow members, but just to compare: The 772LR carries a 12% greater payload 5% farther using 6%* less fuel than the A345HGW. The 773ER carries a 7% greater payload using 7%* less fuel, but the ranges are nearly identical, with the A346HGW having a very slight (>1%) advantage there.

* - using max. fuel volume as base. Actual fuel usage favors the 777 even more.


"If they really stuff 777-200LR with 301 seats. . ."

Spk, I don't think anyone on this (now very long) thread has suggested SQ will configure a possible 772LR with the full complement of 301 seats. However, with the combination of extra floor space and greater payload capability, a 230-250 seat arrangement is very possible. Compare the revenue increase thus created, combined with the lower operating costs, and you see why the case is compelling for SQ.


"However, due to ETOPS requirement, will it be required to take longer routes? I read in this forum a while ago that SQ A345 has a very flexible choice of flying paths, which allows them to take the greatest adventage of wind conditions, shorter flying distance, etc."

This summer, one of the trade magazines (IIRC, it was Airways, but someone please correct me) published a very thorough article about SQ's SIN-EWR-SIN flight. In the article, both East-bound and West-bound routes were published. Both routes fit into existing ETOPS regulations, let alone the proposed increases.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Is Airbus really selling it's planes in Euro?

AFAIK, they sell in dollars. But a signficant fraction of their costs should be in euros, so when the contract price for the plane is in dollars and the dollar drops in value, the costs of euro priced labor and parts becomes a larger fraction of the sale price, squeezing their profits. This becomes more of a problem if Airbus cut prices to win orders when the dollar was super strong in the 1998-2002 period.

Another question that just comes up now. I think it is very certain that B777-200LR will burn less fuel per hour. However, due to ETOPS requirement, will it be required to take longer routes? I read in this forum a while ago that SQ A345 has a very flexible choice of flying paths, which allows them to take the greatest adventage of wind conditions, shorter flying distance, etc.

ETOPS will not be a restrictive proposition as far as SQ's flight ops are concerned. The 777-200LR will have minimum ETOPS 207 upon service entry which is far beyond what is needed for maximum route flexibility on Trans-Polar and North Pacific routes.

A340-500 list prices are 185-$189mil. 777-200LR list price is 202-$225.5mil. A "wild" price difference this is not. If the SQ 777-200LR order comes through I would expect something like 145-$160mil per aircraft not including spares and spare engines. The current "low price deal" I'm aware of for A340-500 is the $112mil, 12-year finance price EK will pay for one aircraft. Even at a $50mil price difference for a 777-200LR, the savings on fuel alone over that finance term are more than double that, and after 12 years the residual value of a 777-200LR with the same time on the airframe should be worth nearly twice as much on the resale market as the A340-500.

IMO It's a shame really. Airbus destroys the long-term value of their airplanes by cut rate pricing and not offering major service life extension programs for most of their aircraft. In 10 or 15 years a sizeable percentage of the 777's in service now will be converted to freighters for major carriers while passenger carriers have moved on to the next generation of efficient aircraft. I don't think you could say the same about the fate of A340's and A330's when they come to the end of their effective passenger carrying lives.

-widebodyphotog

The residual value of an A330 is huge... and I have absolutely no doubt that every A330-200 flying will be converted into a freighter when their passenger lives are over.

The A330-300, like the 777-200A, probably will die a horrible death.

N

Gigneli, I agree with ya about the A33-200 being a freighter. That aircraft would spank the 767 in the freight market like a bad child in the lap of a parent.

BigB, not that the 767 dominated the freighter market either. "Spanking" the 767 in terms of freighters is easier than you think.

AFAIK, they sell in dollars.
Airbus does, indeed, sell in dollars.

But a signficant fraction of their costs should be in euros,
True.

so when the contract price for the plane is in dollars and the dollar drops in value, the costs of euro priced labor and parts becomes a larger fraction of the sale price
True as well...

squeezing their profits.
Theoretically true...

This becomes more of a problem if Airbus cut prices to win orders when the dollar was super strong in the 1998-2002 period.
Also theoretically true.


There's that nice concept that some airlines are using against the rising fuel costs: hedging.

Airbus uses, and has been doing so for some time, this to minimize it's exchange-rate exposure, so even on those deals from the phase where the exchange-rate was, more or less, the opposite of what it now is, they'll still be making money.

Regards,
Frank

There's that nice concept that some airlines are using against the rising fuel costs: hedging.

Airbus uses, and has been doing so for some time, this to minimize it's exchange-rate exposure, so even on those deals from the phase where the exchange-rate was, more or less, the opposite of what it now is, they'll still be making money.
But you can hedge only so far into the future, unless you want to burn lots of money. If the exchange rate remains where it is (which I believe is closer to the historical average with regards to the former European currencies) then eventually they will have to deal with the profit squeeze.

I wonder how much the falling dollar is weighing on SQ's decision. While I am sure they hedge against currency fluctuation for operational needs, long term capital purchases like airplanes do not fall in the same category.

The falling USD inevitably will squeeze Airbus's ability to compete on price as they ultimately need Euros at the end of the day. (Although the American-made components in every Airbus are getting cheaper).

I don't know in what denomination SQ keeps its piles of cash but if it is substantially non-USD currency, the 772LR is getting cheaper every week. (Although the Japanese and European parts are getting more expensive for Boeing)

Perhaps SQ are waiting for a particular exchange rate before proceeding with any deal.

A word on an A330-200 Freighter from the man himself in August:

To cover the market segment below the A380 freighter, Airbus some years ago, was close to launching the A330-200 freighter version.

Leahy says that despite potential orders for 40 to 50 aircraft, the project was shelved because the market had entered into gone of its down cycles.

gRight now with the A300-600F and the A380-800F, it will be several years out before we would consider re-introducing the A330-200 freighter,h Leahy says.

He adds that Airbus ghas other things to do at the moment, such as the production programme of the A380.
"There are only so many engineering hours in a year and apart from the A380 passenger plane, wefve got the A380F and a possible A380 stretch.

"At some point in time, possibly around 2014, we will need a replacement for the A300-600R and a fly-by-wire aircraft in the A330/A340 family of aircraft. All these developments take engineering time and potentially have bigger markets than just the A330-200 freighter.h

Leahy says that with the A330-200 freighter shelved, he is not afraid of losing market share in this specific market segment.

gReally, in the A330 segment, the only competition could come from conversions of the B767-300 or the MD-11, because I donft think there will any more DC-10 conversions.h

He says that, if launched the A330-200 freighter would not directly compete with the MD-11F. gIt would be more an intermediate step up from the A300-600R,h he says

The possibility of a freighter conversion program for A330 is still nearly ten years away while Boeing is going ahead with a "new build" 777 freighter program now and it is my firm belief, based on information I have received, that a conversion program for A and B market 777's will follow within the next two or three years. The A market conversion would cover capacity from 65-75t with More volume and fuel efficiency than DC-10-30F, and the B market conversion would cover capacity from 80-90t with more range than MD-11F.

In point of fact the remarkeing pospects of the 777 family are very strong with the exception of 777-300.

The residual value of an A330 is huge... and I have absolutely no doubt that every A330-200 flying will be converted into a freighter when their passenger lives are over.

According to the latest edition of The Aircraft Value Reference, the value of 1995 vintage A330-300's lag about $18mil behind their 777-200A counterparts and the gap, in terms of percentage, will continue to widen. Values for A330-200 were considered a "watch" two years ago and with the advent of 7E7 may be headed for a sharper decline. With the prospect of an A330-200 freighter conversion program so far off, aircraft that are retired between now and then are more likely to end up in permanent retirement than are 777's

But all this really is an aside to the topic of the tread, is it not?

-widebodyphotog

I don't know in what denomination SQ keeps its piles of cash but if it is substantially non-USD currency, the 772LR is getting cheaper every week. (Although the Japanese and European parts are getting more expensive for Boeing)

Perhaps SQ are waiting for a particular exchange rate before proceeding with any deal.
SQ wouldn't be paying for the entire cost of the planes up front, so the exchange rate now wouldn't matter except for whatever deposit they pay. And Airbus charges in dollars as well, so the question becomes how much will Airbus change their prices in response to currency fluctuations. As for Boeing's cost, I imagine that at least some parts sourced from foreign sources are contracted for in dollars so Boeing is insulated from cost pressures for those parts, at least in the short term.

Even if Airbus may not be interested in providing a P to F conversion,someone else may, which is not exactly unknown!

Getting sl back to A345 vs 772LR topic, how are Air Canada and Emirates finding their A345s in service? And where does PIA think they are going to use their 772LRs?? To N America??? EVA clearly will be going to the US east coast. Can't see them doing Taiwan to Europe flights and trying to overfly China!

Shouldn't we wait and see untill the 777-200LR is launched for tests in order to get the correct and accurates figures ??

But so far, if we look at the figures and comments about A & B's latest machines:

* Huge satisfaction @ AF with the the 773ER.
* Disapointment at CX and SQ for the 346 & 345.

Is this a good sign for the versatile twin-engined such as the A33O & 777 ?

FB.

Flying Belgian,

I think your point is fair. Maybe they ought to wait until they flight test. But given Boeing's general conservatism, they must be highly confident in these revised numbers or else they would not be putting them out there. Boeing is pretty good about meeting or exceeding its promises. But like I said, I think you make a fair point.

Atmx2000,

I realize that they pay for the airplane in installments basically. But if they are going to buy 18 or so airplanes, that will require a big deposit up front. With amounts that large, even a 1% or 2% fluctuation can mean 100s of thousands (or even millions?) of dollars. If waiting a while can save that kind of cash (with no downside), they may as well wait.

Boeing's foreign suppliers are not going to be happy if they are paid in USD because they are getting nailed or will be imminently. The USD is falling a little too fast for comfort for manufacturers to make adjustments. If they are paid in dollars, they are going to be asking Boeing for more of them soon.

EVA clearly will be going to the US east coast

....what makes this so "clear"?