Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AngMoh
Posts: 1136
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:27 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 82):
Part of the reason I'm fascinated by the A346 vs. 744 threads is I had predicted a few years ago here on a.net that the 744 would do worse in terms of being retained in service than the A346s. I'm trying to figure out why my prediction seems to be in error.

Wouldn't these residual value guarantees not be the driver for this? If both the 744 and the 346 are on the way out, but the 346 has a residual value guarantee even though it is more efficient, why not take the easy way out and return the 346 to Airbus and collect your residual value rather than sell your 744 at the rate the market can bear (which is very low).
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:14 am

Quoting angmoh (Reply 100):
why not take the easy way out and return the 346

I think this is one of the reasons this re shaping the residual market ploy will likely fail.

The term residual value is thrown around here a lot but do we all appreciate just how important residual value is to selling new aircraft.

Finding finance for new aircraft, especially ones not selling like hot cakes, is highly dependent upon the likely residual value. If the residual value is low, or likely to be low then money will cost a lot more.

Airbus find themselves with low 340 residuals, and concerns about the 380 residual value, and they certainly want to avoid
the possibility of being seen to have a problem in the residual value area.

Ruscoe
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:18 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 82):
Were there seat capacities increased?

The certified capacity? I don't know.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 85):
If Iran gets its oil in the market
Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 85):
if there is a surplus of oil in the market
Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 85):
If barrel price gets to 60 to 80 Us

That's a lot of "if's", but ***IF*** that happens, it won't change things much for the 744 because it is already on the way out.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 86):

As I pointed out above, I don't think there is enough conclusive evidence to prove that. From where I'm sitting, it appears that the 744 is going away faster but could be just my perception because I still see 3 airlines flying A346's into my home airport (LH, VS, IB), but only 1 flying the 744 (BA). It wasn't too long ago when airlines like SQ, CX, JL, AF, LH were flying 744's all over the world as their flagship type. Today they're either gone or "demoted" to high density leisure destinations. At the end of the day they are both on the way out.

I would guess that the 744 fleet is roughly 10 years older on average than the 346 fleet. They're simply at different places in their lifecycle.

-Dave
 
raggi
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:10 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 97):
As far I know, CX was very pleased with the A346 performance but i could be wrong.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 97):
Correct. No one is disputing that but you would know that if you bothered to read the thread. At the time the A346 could carry more load than any other plane in existence, especially on HKG-JFK. As pointed out if you bothered to read the thred, the A346 was the best until the 77W came along. As far I know, CX was very pleased with the A346 performance but i could be wrong.

If CX was so pleased with the A346 surely they would've kept them in their fleet, and even aquired more don't you think?


I have in fact "bothered to read the thread", it is a very good one!

Also the tables show 380 seats on the A346. That seems high in my opinion. But I won't get on your back ferpe, your posts are very informative and posts that truly bring "meat" to the discussion. But for instance the 77E comes out better than the 346 per m2, if I'm reading right.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 93):
The tables are calculated with the aircrafts nominal weights and payloads ie max pax + bags, it shows the latest 242t 333 which just does 6000nm in a nominal config. The primary purpose of the table is compare the 346 with it's competitors, the 333 is more there as a reference.

Anything practically usable would have other values for range, payloads and fuel burns but the relationships would not change.

Thank you. In the end, 6000nm in real life requires a very capable airframe if you're to carry a substantial payload. And payload is what makes a flight profitable.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10541
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:24 pm

Quoting raggi (Reply 103):
If CX was so pleased with the A346 surely they would've kept them in their fleet, and even aquired more don't you think?

No for 1 very simple reason: The 77W is better.
 
Aither
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:23 pm

Interesting configuration. Not only for charter but on a toute basis this would be quite good for very long markets with low yields such as the philippines. Low acquisition costs, big potential revenues with direct flights. I would consider it in the shopping list. It's quite incredible to see how many different widebody aircraft types are offered these days.

[Edited 2013-12-07 07:26:56]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23109
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:59 am

Quoting angmoh (Reply 100):
ouldn't these residual value guarantees not be the driver for this? If both the 744 and the 346 are on the way out, but the 346 has a residual value guarantee even though it is more efficient, why not take the easy way out and return the 346 to Airbus and collect your residual value rather than sell your 744 at the rate the market can bear (which is very low).

I'm sure that has an influence. But with 744s being so depreciated, It is a secondary impact.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 86):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 82):
Again, thank you. I'm going nuts trying to figure out why 744s aren't being replaced faster than A346s. Is it the maintenance costs of the T500s? (Known issue.)

As I pointed out above, I don't think there is enough conclusive evidence to prove that.

Normally I would be defending RR engines, but between links in this thread pointing out T500 maintenance costs and my rumor mill, the T500 has an overhaul frequency/overhaul cost mismatch. The A346 has problem with engine maintenance costs:
Airbus acknowledges that the A340-600 burns 12% more fuel than the similarly sized Boeing 777-300ER, but it claims the four-engined aircraft can be competitive thanks to its lower ownership costs, which it claims averages $850,000 per month, and by tackling engine maintenance costs.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...to-restore-a340-600-appeal-393844/

This isn't the RB211 on the 757, T700, or T800. The three triple spools with excellent maintenance histories. This is the 'problem child' of the family. Just as the BMR 715 has too few cycles between overhauls (8,000 vs. the competitions 20,000). I respect RR's ability to do engines well.

I do not believe the costs are high enough to influence the desirability of the A346.

I wonder if the airlines doing well with the A340-600 didn't have a contract with RR capping their engine maintenance costs? LH has been known in the past to negotiate such clauses. I do not know with the T500 if LH signed such a deal, but I suspect so which tilts the costs in their favor (if true).

Lightsaber
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:21 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 106):
This isn't the RB211 on the 757, T700, or T800. The three triple spools with excellent maintenance histories. This is the 'problem child' of the family.

It does not have to be an engine problem, RR must have seen that the business case for the T500 turned south compared to plans based on sold engines. Further, you plan to cover a lot of that business case through maintenance on a certain number of engines over a certain expected life, once again both those numbers turned south. So what does RR do? Any sensible company then is more conservative with the maintenance cost depreciation over time.

RR now have some big scale programs to thank Airbus for, most notably A350. Airbus thus have quite some leverage with RR and can now say "forget about recovering a complete business case on the T500, it just kills the frame in the market vs 77W and GE90-115, we must now jointly do the following...."
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:05 pm

Per AIN Online and FlightGlobal, Rolls-Royce will be introducing a PiP for the Trent 500 (Trent 500EP+) that adds elliptical leading-edge blades to the high- and intermediate-pressure compressors to reduce SFC by 0.5%, which RR states could save around USD 200,000 in fuel per year. This is above and beyond the 1% SFC reduction introduced with the Trent 500EP PiP.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:15 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 108):
This is above and beyond the 1% SFC reduction introduced with the Trent 500EP PiP.

When was that T500EP PIP introduced?
 
fleabyte
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:40 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:35 pm

if a dreamlifter were fitted with three decks of seats, how many persons could it hold? for high density short haul. like you could make a dream person lifter with the 747-8, that would be any extra row wide on two decks, so like 3 3 3 3 on top and middle deck and 3 4 3 on bottom deck where it mates with existing baseline. Can someone find a photoshop of that?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sun Dec 08, 2013 8:06 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 109):
When was that T500EP PIP introduced?

They appear to have started work in 2001 as part of a "get well" program initiated by Airbus to address issues with the A340-500/A340-600 being overweight (in part due to the wing coming in some 1t over plan) and an SFC shortfall in the baseline Trent 500.

The Trent 500EP appears to incorporate changes to the FADEC, reduced clearances in the IPT and increases in the turbine exit temperature.

Plans were to hopefully have it in place by 2003 for SQ's first A340-500, which was at risk of missing payload-range on the SIN-LAX mission. Like the Trent 500EP+, the PiP was retrofittable to a baseline engine.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2001/2001%20-%203215.html



Quoting fleabyte (Reply 110):
if a dreamlifter were fitted with three decks of seats, how many persons could it hold?

It's academic because the main body of the DreamLifter is unpressurized.  

Seriously, you'd never be able to certify such a configuration even as a lark so it really is academic.

[Edited 2013-12-08 12:07:03]
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1187
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:03 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 106):
This is the 'problem child' of the family.

You're barking up the wrong tree. 'Overhaul frequency' or maintenance intervals, in this instance has nothing to with the T500s relatively high overhaul cost.

As has been hinted at, the high T500 overhaul cost stems from the structure of the RR TotalCare support.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23109
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:44 pm

Late edit:
We should keep in mind that lease pricing often shows the monthly cost difference or at least a good fraction.
Aircraft Values, And Lease Pricing - Fall 2013 (by LAXintl Oct 1 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Aircraft, resale value (range), monthly lease costs.
A340-600 – $35.0 -80.0M, $400-750,000
B777-300ER – $88.0 – 162.0M, $800-1,550,000


There is at least a $300k per month difference when normalize by age. Not all of that


Let's look at an old performance estimate which the 777-300ER beat and the A340-600 was overweight. :
http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sam...icles/flight_operations_sample.pdf

Those fuel burn differences require a high payload to pay for. The increase will help, but its all about Revenue to Costs. Since Boeing keeps improving the 777, Airbus must do the same with the A340-600 or watch them be retired. Due the guarantees, Airbus cares more than just about ancillary revenue.

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 112):
You're barking up the wrong tree. 'Overhaul frequency' or maintenance intervals, in this instance has nothing to with the T500s relatively high overhaul cost.

As has been hinted at, the high T500 overhaul cost stems from the structure of the RR TotalCare support.

Please provide a link. RR prices 'total care' at a certain profit margin. If your theory was correct, the T700 wouldn't be selling as well.

Engine cost are a function of the purchase price, day to day maintenance (e.g., oil care) and the overhaul costs. The 'total care' simply amortizes in the hours of the work times the rate and adds in part costs and then multiplies it by a volume discount (or not).

The T500 should have a similar overhaul interval to the T700 (they are related). If the overhaul interval is worse, then the millions put into the overhaul mean a higher 'total care' maintenance cost on a 'power by the hour' basis.

There are over 400 engines in the fleet, so the minimum 'economy of scale' is met. This has to be something fundamental with the engine.

My rumor mill insists the T500 overhaul intervals are below initial estimates (but above promise). But part of the problem, is the competition is *far* better than it was at A345 EIS. What was competitive in 1998 is not in 2013.

The T700 and T800 have improved quite a bit over that time. But not so the T500...

Lightsaber

[Edited 2013-12-08 14:02:40]
 
na
Posts: 9877
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:46 pm

Why the uproar, isnt this what Boeing does with their sardine can version of the 77W since some time?
 
ytz
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:08 pm

Quoting na (Reply 114):
Why the uproar, isnt this what Boeing does with their sardine can version of the 77W since some time?

Boeing's sardine can version doesn't have seats narrower than 17".
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:50 pm

Quoting na (Reply 114):
Why the uproar, isnt this what Boeing does with their sardine can version of the 77W since some time?

In an all-Economy configuration with 18" seats (2+5+2), the 777-300 family seats 500.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1187
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:27 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 113):
The T700 and T800 have improved quite a bit over that time.

Firstly, there are many more aircraft operating with T700s and T800 than there are T500s. This fact, coupled with the later development of the T500 means there is greater customer appeal for PiPs for the older engines. Also, it is worth noting that due to the often expensive nature of the PiPs, many airlines forgo them. British Airways only upgraded around half of their RB211-524 engine pool with the upgraded HPT section from the T700 due to high costs.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 113):
My rumor mill

Of course, having made the original claim that the T500 was the "dog" of the Trent family, the onus is on you to back it up with something a little more substantive.

My deduction from the recent airbus and RR ramblings is that apart from LH, customers are not happy with the unflexible nature of the TotalCare agreement (Lufthansa Technic and N3 are the only winners here). If airbus and RR are to give the A340-500/600 a new lease of life and a second chance with other carriers, this arrangement with LH (N3) has to change. Quoting directly from the horse's mouth, this is what a RR bigwig had to say:

"I accept fully that some of you may feel that we have been inflexible with our service solutions… We understand that we have to adapt."

Going into greater detail, Peter Johnston, Head of Customer Marketing, and James Barry, VP Customer Strategy & Marketing at Rolls-Royce, set out at a high level what these new options are. They include continuing with traditional TotalCare under a new agreement with the new operator, which RR’s recognises may not be the most suitable option for the secondary market, which is why the engine manufacturer is adapting its TotalCare portfolio. In addition Fixed Price overhauls and time and materials support will continue to be available through Rolls-Royce, its network partners such as N3 or other third parties acknowledging the latter may be less likely in the smaller Trent 500 market.


http://www.aviationnews-online.com/m...ce/exclusive-a340-briefing-report/

Couldn't be more clear cut for me ie. that the first tier TotalCare package provided by N3 is too much for many carriers. It is worth mentioning at this point that TotalCare has also had a negative impact on the lease and rental values of A330 and 777 aircraft on the second hand market with many airlines preferring GE and PW models to RR due to the more flexible nature of the MRO option available.

Furthermore, a google search doesn't reveal anything about the T500s less than stellar maintenance requirements, nor is there anything in my aviation week or flightglobal collection going back to 2005.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:34 am

Wonder what RR did different with the Trent 900, as the entire installed fleet is covered under TotalCare.
 
trex8
Posts: 5721
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:17 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
Wonder what RR did different with the Trent 900, as the entire installed fleet is covered under TotalCare.

Make less profit!!!
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:38 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
Wonder what RR did different with the Trent 900, as the entire installed fleet is covered under TotalCare.

The customers might all have to use TotalCare, but there is competition in the form of an alternative engine if the TotalCare price is too high. RR are probably just doing what business normally does, charging what the market will bear. Most of the A345 and A346 are still flying, Airbus is probably trying to get them to back off a bit on the profit taking, which in this case is also cost shifting.
 
dennys
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 11:19 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:29 am

Hello . May be i missed a step .
Which airline is interested ?
 
raggi
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:57 am

Would not a second-hand 77E in a single-class layout with 440 seats be just as interesting as the A346 with 475 seats for operators with such needs?

I'm not sure if this is going to be a home run Airbus.


raggi
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:26 am

Maybe it will be hard to go to 440 PAX on HD 777-200 maybe more something like 420 PAX

Interestingly Boeing shows High density single class layout in 9 abreast 2+5+2 layout at 418PAX on 777-200 (and 500 on 777-300)
Maybe there's some structural reasons...

What's said is that in an all airbus fleet, A340 can still make sense, even A340-600 

Let's see
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:38 am

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
So much for Airbus idea of 18-inch seats
Quoting phxa340 (Reply 2):
Lol, shows you that you need to be careful what you say and carefully think about unintended consequences.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 6):
Except for the fact that the A340 isn't mentioned when talking about 18" seats.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
But... I won't be their fault.

Seat width will remain 18" in this high-density configuration, no 9-abreast cabin.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...to-restore-a340-600-appeal-393844/
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14691
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:42 am

Quoting raggi (Reply 122):
Would not a second-hand 77E in a single-class layout with 440 seats be just as interesting as the A346 with 475 seats for operators with such needs?

If you are looking for capacity to haul cheaply an A343 gives you the same fuel burn in a much cheaper aircraft, although more cramped. If you are looking for comfort you have to compare a 400 Seat 77E with the 475 Seat A346 and you end up with pretty much the same fuel burn/seat, but again the 346 should be cheaper plus 10x LD3s more Cargo space to sell.

The A340-Series can compete with the 777 Family, if the mission profile is right. Unfortunately there don´t seem to be many airlines with those profiles. These extended capabilities will make those niches a little wider and hence increase the value of the frames.

To get back to your question, a 777 will still be the better choice most of the time, but there will be some additional scenarios in which it ain´t.

best regards
Thomas
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:04 am

Yes
With a much lower galley count (27 full trolley et 5 half size),
9 WC and all the crew rest stuffs (pilot et cabin crew) it takes more than 4 places for the access stair.

To compare with 777-300 JAL 500 PAX : http://www.jal.co.jp/en/aircraft/conf/773.html
Galley count :
WC : 7 WC
Galley : 28 full trolley, 6 half size (seems that there's a lot of closets)


So not so bad at all, maybe a little on the small side for the galley
And staying with 8 abreast.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1795
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:21 pm

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 123):
Maybe it will be hard to go to 440 PAX on HD 777-200 maybe more something like 420 PAX

How are Scoot fitting out their ex-SQ 772's? Any comparison with this A346 proposal?
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:31 pm

Sorry my answer was not good

Scoot is 2 class
I made the assumption that 1 class will be around 420 PAX (10 abreast)

[Edited 2013-12-09 06:13:17]
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14691
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:07 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 127):
How are Scoot fitting out their ex-SQ 772's? Any comparison with this A346 proposal?

402 total with 370Y at 10 abreast 17 inch seat at 31" Y and 35" Y+ and 30 J with 8 abreast at 38" with a 22" wide seat. If all Y with 31" i would assume ~430 seats with that density.


Edit: For 9 abreast at 32" the 772 would hold ~380 seats for comparable comfort. So based on Ferpes data the A346 should be even marginally better in fuel burn per Pax. And probably a A346 is even cheaper to buy than a 772 right now. Including 25% more Pax and 31% more cargo room.

best regards
Thomas

[Edited 2013-12-09 06:24:05]
 
billreid
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:22 pm

Its a hugely interesting trade-off.
Smaller seats to lower the residual value penalty, all being paid for in terms of passenger discomfort that AB vehemently argues against.

As I have said AB is reactive and rarely if ever proactive.
I love their product from a passenger perspective, but hate how they present product from a marketing perspective. The end result may be a huge loss of respect from the airlines from their flip-flopping politics.

They are now arguing with themselves, not a good sign.
 
User avatar
vfw614
Posts: 4068
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:27 pm

By the logic of many posts in this thread, every time a new type of aircraft comes onto the market, all older aircraft in the same size category must be turned into soda cans immediately as they are less economical to operate. Surprisingly though, this never happens in real life...
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:36 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 130):
Smaller seats to lower the residual value penalty, all being paid for in terms of passenger discomfort that AB vehemently argues against.
Quoting billreid (Reply 130):
They are now arguing with themselves, not a good sign.

As mentioned in reply #124, seat width will remain 18".

[Edited 2013-12-09 06:37:09]
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14691
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:56 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 132):
As mentioned in reply #124, seat width will remain 18".

...plus 32" pitch, far from sardine can.

best regards
Thomas
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:07 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 130):
Its a hugely interesting trade-off.
Smaller seats to lower the residual value penalty, all being paid for in terms of passenger discomfort that AB vehemently argues against.

As I have said AB is reactive and rarely if ever proactive.
I love their product from a passenger perspective, but hate how they present product from a marketing perspective. The end result may be a huge loss of respect from the airlines from their flip-flopping politics.

They are now arguing with themselves, not a good sign.

Already pointed out that seat width REMAINS at 18" with 32" pitch.

So, apart from your usual anti-airbus bashing, what value does your post bring to the thread?

Rgds
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5753
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:17 pm

Will it cost less to certify this then it would to pay up on the residual value guarantees? Even if this does work, will enough carriers opt for it to raise the residual values over the penalty value? It just seems like a desperation move to me.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14691
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:36 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 135):
Will it cost less to certify this then it would to pay up on the residual value guarantees?

A320 -> A320neo is on Billion.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 135):
Even if this does work, will enough carriers opt for it to raise the residual values over the penalty value?

Not necessarily, but its a fairly cheap attempt. Even if Airbus had to pay up, they would hardly feel a pinch. Shareholders would still not like it though and demand to know what has been tried to avoid it.

best regards
Thomas
 
billreid
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:30 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 132):
As mentioned in reply #124, seat width will remain 18".

Thanks I see that now. It appears that the additional seats have been gained through removal of the centre galley?

Interesting. I suppose a 10 hour flight with reduced food is doable if you charge 30$ per meal. After all we are talking airline high density meals, less people will eat if they have to pay.
I think the attempt to raise the residual value of the A340 through throwing away food service is perhaps a sign of the times.
The rule of thumb has been not to tell airlines how to run their business. But it seams AB is going down a slippery slope of offering a bare-bones product that I really see no demand for because the A340 is a long range aircraft, not a one hour bird.

So who in heavens name is going to buy a used A340 with a 475 seat configuration. I would think the market is pretty thin. Seams like a marketing gimmick, as residual value only applies when you try to sell the goods. I just don't see the point of trying to sell something they know has limited to no demand. And I do not think you can convince any airline to keep the A340 in service with a 475 configuration given the present owner list. LH or AF use this config I doubt it. Does VS still have the A340?

Having removed the galley, you aren't serving much food thereby lav use will also go down.
Perhaps AB could go to Micheal O'Leary and suggest removing the odd lav as well.
Perhaps, If they serve little food and charge for lav use the end result will also be a reduction in passenger weight.
Sounds disgusting but in the name of profitability are there any lines we won't cross?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14691
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:04 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 137):
Interesting. I suppose a 10 hour flight with reduced food is doable if you charge 30$ per meal. After all we are talking airline high density meals, less people will eat if they have to pay.
I think the attempt to raise the residual value of the A340 through throwing away food service is perhaps a sign of the times.

You can place the galley in the hold on an A346 if you want iirc, in a leisure market, where you probably don´t need all the cargo space, that might be an option with no negative effect.
Or food service will take longer.

Quoting billreid (Reply 137):
So who in heavens name is going to buy a used A340 with a 475 seat configuration. I would think the market is pretty thin. Seams like a marketing gimmick, as residual value only applies when you try to sell the goods. I just don't see the point of trying to sell something they know has limited to no demand. And I do not think you can convince any airline to keep the A340 in service with a 475 configuration given the present owner list.

Every Airline that flies B744 on leisure duty should find it interesting. Especially considering that vacation spots might be hot, high and not have 12k+ feet of runway, so a 77W might just not work everywhere as a 744 replacement..
Can a B773ER do JNB-JFK with a full passenger load today? Iirc correctly (a few PIPs ago) it could only do it basically as a ferry flight (~100 pax) and the A346 can even carry some cargo along. And JNB is not really an extreme Airport....

best regards
Thomas
 
airbazar
Posts: 10541
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:23 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 138):
Can a B773ER do JNB-JFK with a full passenger load today? Iirc correctly (a few PIPs ago) it could only do it basically as a ferry flight (~100 pax) and the A346 can even carry some cargo along. And JNB is not really an extreme Airport....

Nearly 6,000ft alt and temps reaching into the 30s (C) in Summer, it's pretty extreme, but I'm pretty sure that neither the 77W nor A346 can do the route in a high density config. As it is the A346 just barely makes it to JFK in a low density config.
 
billreid
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:26 pm

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 134):
So, apart from your usual anti-airbus bashing, what value does your post bring to the thread?

Interesting? What value, this is a thread full of opinions and ideas, nothing more or less. There is bashing all over the board. If you don't agree with another, does this mean he/she is wrong?

I happen to feel there is no market for a A340 with 475 seats.
Why?
So lets pull a galley and all of a sudden "presto magic" highly profitable frame.
If the airlines wanted that they would have already considered this option years ago.

Lets be honest, What technology is there on pulling a galley and putting in more seats?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:37 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 138):
Every Airline that flies B744 on leisure duty should find it interesting.

I am sure they will look into it, but if their 747-400s are already paid for, adding in the additional revenue the platform brings thanks to it's higher seating capacity I think would see them keeping their 747-400s. And as cheap as an A340-600 is, a 747-400 of similar vintage is even cheaper. So for new entrants, I think the market still favors the 747-400.

That being said, maybe Air Asia X might be interested in them. They'd offer about another 100 seats above the A340-300s they used to fly and would be a fair bit more comfortable than their A330-300s.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14691
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:51 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 139):
As it is the A346 just barely makes it to JFK in a low density config.

And that changes the underlaying statement how?

Take BOG-FRA if you like that better as an example of a route where a A346 works quite well (and a 77W does basically only a ferry flight). I would assume there are Airlines that keep 2nd hand B744 around for their performance in hot and high conditions because a 773ER or A333 doesn´t work for them. They can just replace them with another 744 or an A346. A more leisure oriented config should make the aircraft more attractive to some of them. And even some demand gives much better residual value than no demand. One should also note that if say half the birds are sold and half is harvested for spare parts, it should make the flying birds cheaper to maintain too, also adding to the residual value.

best regards
Thomas
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:53 pm

I wonder what SAA will do when they replace these A340s. They certainly work well from JNB but most assume they are too big. The 777-8 would help with performance and could give them higher density seating but lower overall capacity while opening up longer routes like ORD and NRT as well. The A350s have to be the logical choice for them but the 778 could make the decision interesting.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:18 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
I wonder what SAA will do when they replace these A340s.

The plan was to order A350-1000s and take the performance hit when operating out of hot and/or high fields, but the Government appears to want a real RFP between Airbus and Boeing and ordered a re-evaluation.

I would think the 777-8 would be a solid performer thanks to the frame's monster capabilities and choosing the 787 family would provide cockpit commonality. However, I expect the A350-900(R) and A350-800 will have better hot and/or high performance than the 787-10 / 787-9 / 787-8 thanks to it's greater wing area and more powerful engines.

As such, I expect SA will eventually get their original wish and they will chose the A350 family to replace their A330/A340 families.
 
trex8
Posts: 5721
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:58 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 140):
I happen to feel there is no market for a A340 with 475 seats.
Why?
So lets pull a galley and all of a sudden "presto magic" highly profitable frame.
If the airlines wanted that they would have already considered this option years ago.

A legacy main carrier doing this will upset their now hungry customers so its not viable for them, a charter outfit or LCC couldnt care less.
I just thought of something maybe the US legacies could use these on routes east coast to Hawaii!!  
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23109
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:13 pm

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 117):
Of course, having made the original claim that the T500 was the "dog" of the Trent family, the onus is on you to back it up with something a little more substantive.

When Airbus and RR get infront of customers and start off stating engine maintenance costs are too high, the onus is off me. I don't have anything more substantive as this is something RR would naturally keep 'close to the chest' unless it was best in class. Instead, I propose that the lack of information, which is readily available for many other engines other than the T500, indicates a problem in cycle life.

Tell me the T500 cycle life and I'll shut up (unless its really low).

What I can show you is PIPs for the other engines. For the T700, from Wikipedia:
In 2009 Rolls-Royce introduced an upgraded version of the engine dubbed the Trent 700EP (enhanced performance) which incorporated a package of improvements derived from later members of the Trent engine family (especially the Trent 1000). These included elliptical leading edges and optimised fan and high pressure turbine tip clearances.[1] Together the improvements provided a 1.2% improvement to the Trent 700's specific fuel consumption. Some of the improvements were also made available as a retro-fit kit to existing airlines.[2]

That package was, per my rumor mill, also to enhance overhaul intervals.

Let's take a step back. Airlines always want their greatest cost concerns addressed in a PIP. Thus, they will be. That T700 PIP was for fuel burn (mostly), but everything I heard also had it extending cycle life and possible hour life.

I can find PIPs for the T700, T800, T900, T1000, and scheduled ones for the TXWB. But not the T500. Why?

I know this was during a decade where wide body engine service lives were extended dramatically. Thus no-POP=low relative overhaul interval. The exception is the RB211 on the 757... RR messed up and delivered a 15,000 cycle overhaul interval engine with over 30,000 of on wing life. Ooops (fuel burn could have been lower, but once airlines had that service interval, they weren't going to give it up).

Oh, if I go to RR, I find that was the 2nd PIP for the T700, with them bragging engines are breaking 34,000 hours on wing:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/products/largeaircraft/trent_700/

Where is the bragging for the T500?:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/pro.../largeaircraft/trent_500/index.jsp

Now the engine is claimed to be reliable and fuel efficient and that is true. But notice no durability claims?

The A340-600 has less of a resale market than it should. If there is any 'onus,' it is to explain the lack of said resale market and the 440 pax configuration. In all the numbers, the resale value of this aircraft it down much lower than it should be for the stated costs. So... there is a HIGH cost that must be explained. While airframe maintenance will be a little higher due to higher part costs (due to lower production rates), that wouldn't explain it...

You're perfectly allowed to dismiss my rumor mill. But over 85% of the time they are right. If Airbus/RR is speaking in public about addressing high T500 maintenance costs, that is an issue. But it isn't Totalcare. That is a management umbrella for maintenance RR has made HUGE profits off of by managing engine maintenance *very* well. The Total care cost is but a small multiple of the average engine maintenance costs (to pay for risk and profit). Thus the Totalcare package costs are a function of the engine overhaul interval and overhaul costs. Since the T500 is related to the T700 and T800, I have no reason to suspect, other than low 'economy of scale effects', a high overhaul cost.

Thus by simple engine maintenance cost logic, that means a short overhaul interval. Or do you know something about the overhaul costs I don't? Its simple math. GE, PW, and RR all over similar packages. They all charge about 20% above the anticipated maintenance costs for their packages similar to TotalCare. Yet, since they service engines in bulk, this is lower engine service costs than a small airline doing it on their own (large airlines should have similar costs to GE, PW, and RR).

Since the expected A346 resale market is these small airlines, TotalCare should be an advantage to selling used airframes, not an impedance.

Everything but overhaul interval I should be able to find on the web (day to day maintenance, vendors, etc.). I also work for a vendor on the T500. We're not hearing issues about ourselves or our competitors on short component lives... Which puts the issue into RR built parts or the core of the overhaul.

I could point out engine after engine on parts that had to be fixed. I see no danger to the T500, just something that is going in for overhaul early. That wouldn't make the news. RR would deal with it quietly on totalcare.

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 117):
Couldn't be more clear cut for me ie. that the first tier TotalCare package provided by N3 is too much for many carriers. It is worth mentioning at this point that TotalCare has also had a negative impact on the lease and rental values of A330 and 777 aircraft on the second hand market with many airlines preferring GE and PW models to RR due to the more flexible nature of the MRO option available.

Since the T700 resale market is healthy, the onus is back on you with the T500.

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 117):
Furthermore, a google search doesn't reveal anything about the T500s less than stellar maintenance requirements, nor is there anything in my aviation week or flightglobal collection going back to 2005.

Day to day its fine. It just requires more overhauls. Normally, airlines will drop off totalcare to cheaper options when able. The fact the T500 hasn't shows the costs are high and staying on 'Total care' is the cheapest option.

Reliability makes the news. Both the T500 and BMR715 have great reliability. But the BMR715 has an 8,000 cycle life vs. 20,000 for its competitors. I know the complains on 'TotalCare' on the BMR715 are purely cycle life related. Something RR has promised to fix (or SA)">DL would not have excepted the ex-WN/FL airframes without a sharp drop in Totalcare costs).

RR must drop their total care costs, which probably means a PIP for the T500. Or is there a business case?

e.g., GE brags how longer time on wing directly reduces maintenance costs:
Additionally, the -115B allows 10 percent longer time-on-wing, which translates to 10 percent less in maintenance costs.
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/commercial/ge90/ge90-115b.html

And PIPs since then are rumored to extend time on wing. Heck, the GE-90-115B must be disassembled for shipment back for overhaul on most aircraft which increases the transit costs by about $15,000 (my estimate, thumb in the wind) each way. While only adding a percent or so to the overhaul costs, it overcomes that.

I cannot provide proof. But circumstantial evidence has pointed to a maintenance cost issue on the T500 since 2005. The lease cost discount for the A346 vs. the 77W is greater than the fuel burn difference. Thus, we *know* that cost difference is in maintenance or ATC fees. The market is rational.

Or do you have proof of higher costs somewhere else?

The T500 will receive an improvement and the first of the new 'elliptical leading edge blades' are going into T500s:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-out-legacy-trent-upgrades-386958/

At a technology level already in the T900EP (circa 2009). Cutting 0.5% in fuel burn, pretty much all from cold section leading edge or hot section tip clearences, should extend engine overhaul intervals 25% to 33%. (Juts using 'rules of thumb.') This should cut Total care power by the hour by 20% to 25%!   

T700 has a new build standard in 2015 (T700EP2).

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
I wonder what SAA will do when they replace these A340s. They certainly work well from JNB but most assume they are too big.

The A359 will have excellent hot/high performance and is the best choice IMHO. Otherwise, the 788. But I think economics would go with the A359 for SA.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 142):
A more leisure oriented config should make the aircraft more attractive to some of them. And even some demand gives much better residual value than no demand.

   Alas, after researching, I think the T700EP2 package, with its further $250k in fuel burn reduction per year (see last link). For all but hot/high, the 787, A330 with T700EP2, or A359 will be the frames to beat and any used frame will compete with them.

Sigh... My beloved PW4170A (s/b PW4175) is in deep trouble with the T700EP2.


Lightsaber
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:03 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 146):
I can find PIPs for the T700, T800, T900, T1000, and scheduled ones for the TXWB. But not the T500. Why?

Best I can tell, RR pushed through a PiP (Trent 500EP) in the mid-2000s that was hoped to reduce cruise SFC by 1% through changes to the FADEC, reduced clearances in the IPT and increases in the turbine exit temperature. The goal was to get it into service by the time SQ took delivery of their A340-500s.

I believe the latest PiP is the Trent 500EP+ and is good for around another 0.5% reduction in cruise SFC from moving to elliptical leading-edge improvements to the HP and IP compressor blades.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:26 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 146):
Let's take a step back.

Just read the fantastic post of Airmagnac in the topic Study Says Too Much Reliance On Automation (by hivue Nov 18 2013 in Civil Aviation) which really is awesome. But this post is at least on par with the one from Airmagnac.

Also this post is fantastic to read for non-insiders like me. Well done and many thanks for your effort!  
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23109
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:53 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 147):
I believe the latest PiP is the Trent 500EP+ and is good for around another 0.5% reduction in cruise SFC from moving to elliptical leading-edge improvements to the HP and IP compressor blades.

Yea, I found that PIP and didn't rewrite the sentence you quoted. Mea Culpa. But that is still far fewer PIPs than normal over that life. Then again, I compare to the T700 and GE-90-115 which are PIP machines!

The efficiency gains in the compressors means cooler air into the hot sections and also less fuel... which should nicely extend service intervals. The problem is this is the 'deep end of the pool' where the competition is the T800, T700, PW4170 (not a bad engine, it will knocked down another notch by the T700EP2 though..., and GE-90-115). Its not good to be only 'ok' when the competition is that good.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 148):
Just read the fantastic post of Airmagnac in the topic Study Says Too Much Reliance On Automation (by hivue Nov 18 2013 in Civil Aviation) which really is awesome. But this post is at least on par with the one from Airmagnac.

Thank you. I do not claim to have 'perfect insight,' but lease costs on the A340-600 show a cost I am not aware of. Since half of aircraft maintenance costs are the engines and the bulk of that is the overhaul... I suspect short overhaul intervals on the T500 as I have no reason to suspect extreme per overhaul costs. Oh, parts will be 10% or so more than a T700 due to economies of scale, but that's it... The hours per engine and such should be quite similar.

Lightsaber

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AdamCSmith, Antoli0794, AU795, Dalavia, Eso91, FromCDGtoSYD, Google Adsense [Bot], hk144, ikolkyo, intotheair, jjbiv, joeycapps, jrfspa320, majano, n2dru, N743AS, ROSSIGNOL, Someone83, steex, traindoc, x1234 and 166 guests

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