Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27719
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:31 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 149):
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!

I'm guessing the (relatively) small installed base proved somewhat of a disincentive for RR to PiP the Trent 500, especially if they all were not under TotalCare?
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:32 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 149):
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

All the engines you relate to except the T500 and GE90-115 has a competing engine choice and they are widely deployed, this means there are incentives to keep life limited parts prices down (this is where the engine makers profits are AFAIK) as there are competing engines in the market, for simpler parts there might even be alternative suppliers. The hours costs are pressed by multiple MX alternatives even for the no competition GE90-115, it is so widely deployed, but what is the incentive to build up an MX capability for the T500, there is no market?

So IMO the evidence points to capitalism at work more then low overhaul intervals, the incentives to NOT lower overhaul costs are strong (no competition, not a widely spread engine) and we have no evidence of an engine with time between overhaul problems. The T500 cold section comes from the T700 and it shares the hot section design with the T900 so their is plenty of synergies and scale to get know-how from to solve any durability issues. Why would then the T500 stick out, it flies for RR most important customers?
 
billreid
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:43 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 145):

It just doesn't make sense that all of a sudden the A340 becomes popular based on an increase in capacity. The A350 is a much better option and airlines aren't going to be chasing an older aircraft with a reputation of being the Hummer of the skies. If the A340 had a future then lets all head out to Vegas and place bets to when AB is going to re-open two, three or twenty production lines. Perhaps it's time to shut down the A350 and A380 lines in favor of this wonderful A340 economics. While were at it BA is going to re-open the B757 lines. Of course I'm full of it, ain't gonna happen.

What were missing here is pure BS, all this is about is selling economics to existing owners. Perhaps the present owners can delay dumping the A340 to the boneyard if there are margins through increased capacity. But reality is new A350 and B777 options for buyers will be more profitable than older A340's. You have to consider that both manufacturers are working hard to sell the new offerings.

There aren't many charter carriers any more so I fail to see potential buyers?
Can anyone suggest who would take used A340's for leisure purposes.
Perhaps Africa, South America?

But there are too many options for any US airline to go after these for Hawaii flights. The A330 or B764 can handle these routes better.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:10 am

Quoting billreid (Reply 152):

What were missing here is pure BS, all this is about is selling economics to existing owners. Perhaps the present owners can delay dumping the A340 to the boneyard if there are margins through increased capacity. But reality is new A350 and B777 options for buyers will be more profitable than older A340's.

And a hell lot more expensive to acquire, with small airlines having trouble to be approved for an all new plane. The A346 has economic between an B77E and an B77W, it is good enough that LH re-ordered twice when the 77W was already existing. This modification will improve economics for some customers.

Quoting billreid (Reply 152):
Can anyone suggest who would take used A340's for leisure purposes.

Look at the airlines that have B744 for this purpose and you have your potential customer list. Fuel burn down by 20some percent is a lot of money over the year, if the frame offers charter compatible density. Which it now can.

You are not calling to send all the B772/772ER to the boneyard, do you?

best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27719
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:16 am

Quoting billreid (Reply 152):
What were missing here is pure BS, all this is about is selling economics to existing owners.

I expect it's more about re-selling those frames to new customers.

That being said...

Quoting billreid (Reply 152):
There aren't many charter carriers any more so I fail to see potential buyers?
Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 153):
Look at the airlines that have B744 for this purpose and you have your potential customer list. Fuel burn down by 20some percent is a lot of money over the year, if the frame offers charter compatible density. Which it now can.

I am guessing charter operators probably don't do as many turns per day/week/month/year as scheduled airlines, so that is going to impact the advantages of the A340-600's lower trip fuel burn compared to the 747-400. And even at 475 seats, that is 75 seats short of what you can pack into a 747-400 (550) and the revenue of 75 seats will probably help paying the higher fuel bill. Also, as cheap as an A340-600 is second-hand, a 747-400 of the same vintage is millions cheaper (due to greater supply and equally low demand) and the availability of parts, spares, and MROs is greater, which should help offset the higher maintenance burden of the 747-400 compared to the A340-600.

Not saying a second-hand A340-600 will not find any interest on the market, but I do not expect a wholesale shift by charter and leisure 747-400 operators to the type. I believe the more likely customer for these planes are Airbus-operating ULCCs like Air Asia X looking for higher capacity for high-traffic trunk routes and maybe for limited-duration charters (like the Hajj, the Umrah, the Olympics and the World Cup).
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:37 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):

Not saying a second-hand A340-600 will not find any interest on the market, but I do not expect a wholesale shift by charter and leisure 747-400 operators to the type.

Of course not. Good thing there aren´t so many frames to find a spot for. But those 35 extra Pax make it more interesting and that is all Airbus wants.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
I believe the more likely customer for these planes are Airbus-operating ULCCs like Air Asia X looking for higher capacity for high-traffic trunk routes and maybe for limited-duration charters (like the Hajj, the Umrah, the Olympics and the World Cup).

And i can see them to go for 9 abreast seating (yuck), but it offers also the chance of going to 31" for the economy class and have room for a decent Y+.

best regards
Thomas
 
panais
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:03 pm

Would a re-engined A343 with the PW1133G producing 33,000 lbf to replace the CFM56-5C3/4 work instead of paying penalties?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23077
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:33 pm

Quoting panais (Reply 156):
Would a re-engined A343 with the PW1133G producing 33,000 lbf to replace the CFM56-5C3/4 work instead of paying penalties?

Huh? This topic is for the A346.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 151):
but what is the incentive to build up an MX capability for the T500, there is no market?

Since the engines are so related to the T700 and T800 (not the T900 due to that being the first with contra-rotation on the high spool), it wouldn't be building up any major maintenance capability other than spares.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 151):
So IMO the evidence points to capitalism at work more then low overhaul intervals, the incentives to NOT lower overhaul costs are strong

That would only incentivise airlines to develop the maintenance capability. But this isn't an engine line on its own maintenance line, it goes does a line with T700s and T800s just as Pratt services PW4062, PW4168/70As, and PW4090s on the same maintenance line. The only machines that are special are for the fan and since the T500 has the *exact* same fan as the T700, that makes it perfect to put it down the same line. A scaled core isn't much work.

But perhaps it is overhaul costs. In which case airlines should run from the type as the only way to stop 'overhead' from being paid for T500 maintenance is to stop paying it... But that would be missing the forest for the trees. Without a major drop in A346 costs, there will be no resale market and Airbus will have to fork out the guarantees as the time comes.

Pratt did the 'overhead' bit for a while to bring in more maintenance revenue. They stopped after losing many a customer. On other engine lines I haven't seen RR make that mistake, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt on the T500. However, it is possible RR is driving away future customers for short term profit as Pratt did. Do they really want to have to 'rebuild' as Pratt is?   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
I expect it's more about re-selling those frames to new customers.

   Something to prop up the resale market... a few billion dollars in payouts is quite the incentive. Unless more of an aftermarket is built up for the A346 (I have no hope for the A345), the economy of scale will fall apart and RR will find itself committed to maintaining Totalcare at revenue below costs for the T500 very quickly.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 153):
You are not calling to send all the B772/772ER to the boneyard, do you?

Ironic that it is resale values keeping the 772/77E out of the very fleets we are discussing. I expect in 18 months from now, purely due to 788s/789s/A359s entering the fleet that we'll see a step down in 772/77E resale values which will jump start their 2nd hand market.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
Also, as cheap as an A340-600 is second-hand, a 747-400 of the same vintage is millions cheaper (due to greater supply and equally low demand) and the availability of parts, spares, and MROs is greater, which should help offset the higher maintenance burden of the 747-400 compared to the A340-600.

There is an interesting trade study we shall see develop further...

Lightsaber
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27719
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:44 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 155):
And i can see them to go for 9 abreast seating (yuck), but it offers also the chance of going to 31" for the economy class and have room for a decent Y+.

Fortunately, the A340-600 cabin is long enough that it hit's the 475-seat limit at the standard 2+4+2 row configuration.   

Now an A340-300 or A340-500, on the other hand...   



Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 153):
...(we) are not calling to send all the B772/772ER to the boneyard, do you?
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 157):
Ironic that it is resale values keeping the 772/77E out of the very fleets we are discussing.

Indeed. A 777-200ER of similar vintage has a projected market value around twice as much as an A340-600 and three times as much as an A340-300. And asking prices for available frames are at a significant premium compared to that projected value. Even the 777-200 is seeing asking prices significantly stronger than projected market value.

While still higher than an A340-600, 777-300 values have slipped enough to see them starting to transition to such operators (Transaero is taking four ex-SQ models).

[Edited 2013-12-10 06:55:39]
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2410
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:51 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 137):
So who in heavens name is going to buy a used A340 with a 475 seat configuration

Thomas Cook Airlines would be a good fit. They pack in 405 pax, 8 and 9-abreast 29 inches, on their A330-300. The A340-600 would allow them to offer an 8-abreast 30-31 inch pitch two-class cabin (Y+ and Y) with 450-470 seats and non-stop range to Mexico and Goa, perhaps even Phuket.

Wonder if Airbus has offered this to Thomas Cook yet...?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:19 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 158):
Fortunately, the A340-600 cabin is long enough that it hit's the 475-seat limit at the standard 2+4+2 row configuration.

I know, but you can not shorten pitch indefinably and at some point you end up with 9-abreast for Y if you want to some Y+ and/or J in the Cabin. With 12 or 18 J at 6 abreast and 60" pitch you will need to get creative to still manage 475 seats in total. But with 12 J Y should be able to stay 8 abreast and 30/31" pitch
For the before mentioned AirAsia X, why would they not put 9 seats in a row since they do so on their A333?

best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27719
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:42 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 160):
For the before mentioned AirAsia X, why would they not put 9 seats in a row since they do so on their A333?

I was going with an all-Economy configuration. In a two-class (Business and Economy) configuration they would indeed need to move to 9-abreast in Economy to maximize seat-count.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:48 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 161):

I was going with an all-Economy configuration. In a two-class (Business and Economy) configuration they would indeed need to move to 9-abreast in Economy to maximize seat-count.

depends on the size of the J class and on the flexibility of the main deck. I guess you can do 18 J with 6 [email protected] inch + 457 [email protected]/31" if doors and exits permit. Or go 9 abreast and have room for a real J class and still fit 475 seats.

best regards
Thomas
 
ytz
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:11 pm

Here's what I don't get. Where's the customers? Resale value is entirely a function of demand by secondary customers. And I haven't seen any evidence that there's tons of secondary customers clamouring for this configuration. So I don't see how this will help Airbus weasel out of its billions in liabilities.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27719
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:52 am

Quoting YTZ (Reply 163):
And I haven't seen any evidence that there's tons of secondary customers clamouring for this configuration.

Airbus claims there is interest, so I guess we shall have to wait and see what comes of it.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:00 am

Quoting YTZ (Reply 163):
And I haven't seen any evidence that there's tons of secondary customers clamouring for this configuration. So I don't see how this will help Airbus weasel out of its billions in liabilities.

Airbus has climbed from 20% market share to 50 in the last 30 years but I guess they did that without knowing their customers or the market  Wow! , there must be some magical power that knows the worldwide market for large airplanes better then Boeing and Airbus, is it called Airliner.net perhaps ???  

Get real, these two have sales offices in every major city in the world, they call on all airlines which flies dual aisle airplanes every month and they participate and host conferences every month of the year for said airlines. They are 60k people companies and 10-20% of these are sales, marketing and after sales peopöe who all talk to the customers down to the charter guys and what have you.

They know the market.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 5:42 am

Leeham has made a good summary of the Airbus meeting with a fact filled interview with Airbus A340 VP of Asset management. What I can see there seems to be less then normal marketing fluff fluff in the statements, my fuel count for the 4000nm sector is 11.6% diff vs a 77W close to Airbus 12% , to me the 77E and 343 seems to be equal on fuel however where they claim an advantage. One interesting aspect is that the A343 and 346 does not require an upstart airline to be ETOPS certified. The 345 is destined for VIP use.:

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013...ems-make-the-case-for-a340-future/

''
Andreas Herrmann, VP A340 Asset Management, spoke with us after the Summit. Key points made there:

Airbus says the A340-300, which is lighter than the 777-200ER, uses 5% less fuel per trip with 300 and 312 passengers respectively;

The A340-600 is lighter than a Boeing 747-400 but heavier than a new 777-300ER. Accordingly, Airbus says that it uses 21% less fuel than the 744 but 12% more fuel than the 773ER. Passenger counts assumed are 475, 510 and 475 respectively, the maximum allowed by exit limits. Range assumed is 4,000nm (a typically A346 mission).

The 475 passenger count is the new capacity Airbus will seek to certify for the A346, which will lower cost per available seat mile by 7% and increase revenue potential by 35 seats, or an 8% increase in capacity, for a potential $5.5m/yr in increased revenue.

If an airline wants to replace the 744 or wants to add lift that is available now (vs a long lead time for next generation airplanes) or seeks a lower capital cost solution, and it has other Airbus aircraft in the fleet, commonality in training, parts, maintenance, etc., can save the carrier $1.25m a year per airplane instead of introducing a new fleet type.

ETOPS certification is unnecessary with an A340.

Airbus claims the A346 has a monthly revenue potential advantage over the 744 of $557,000 after all cost factors are considered. This assumes wall-to-wall people of 475 passengers for the A346 and 510 for the 744, $3 fuel and a 4,000nm mission.

Airbus also claims an economic advantage for a “mature” A346 vs a new 777-300ER, largely on a much smaller capital cost. The assumed lease rate for the A346 is $450,000/mo vs $1.3m for the 773ER. This delta provides an economic advantage to the Airbus of $433,000/mo, according to Hermann.

Similar assumptions give the A340-500 an economic advantage over the 777-200LR, Hermann says, amounting to $216,000/mo.

The A340-300′s advantage over the 777-200ER–again, largely but not entirely on capital cost assumptions–is pegged at $356,000/mo.''

[Edited 2013-12-10 22:47:14]
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 5:47 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 165):

I mostly agree with this. Many think that OEM product offering causes the market. However it's more the airlines tell the OEMs where the market is. If there is not a product it is because there is not a large enough market.

That being said Airbus has a vested interest to listen extra hard to those that have similar interests to their own and I feel that is at least contributing to these decisions.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16419
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:38 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
Range assumed is 4,000nm (a typically A346 mission).

Maybe they are looking at Orlando charter flights from Europe as the typical mission.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013...ems-make-the-case-for-a340-future/

Interesting looking at the register with the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading (ISTAT) , Bernstein Research does not have a single member (includes the person who wrote the research note) that holds the professional status of Appraiser, Senior Appraiser, Appraiser Fellow, Appraiser Emeritus in their firm.
http://www.istat.org/p/cm/ld/fid=14
http://www.istat.org/p/cm/ld/fid=15
http://www.istat.org/p/cm/ld/fid=104
http://www.istat.org/p/cm/ld/fid=17

Industry would get an aircraft or fleet appraisal from an ISTAT Certified Appraiser, I would expect that to come from firms like Ascend, BK Associates, Morten Beyer & Agnew etc which have ISTAT Certified Appraisers on staff.

Sometimes I think we have a right to know if the people making claims like this do actually have accredited staff generating the data. I know Boeing had also voiced concern of some of the analysis coming out of Bernstein Research in relation to the 787.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:41 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
Leeham has made a good summary of the Airbus meeting with a fact filled interview with Airbus A340 VP of Asset management. What I can see there seems to be less then normal marketing fluff fluff in the statements, my fuel count for the 4000nm sector is 11.6% diff vs a 77W close to Airbus 12% , to me the 77E and 343 seems to be equal on fuel however where they claim an advantage. One interesting aspect is that the A343 and 346 does not require an upstart airline to be ETOPS certified. The 345 is destined for VIP use.:

Very interesting read. And your model is being proven to be as factually correct as possible.  
 
airbazar
Posts: 10525
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:23 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
Airbus says the A340-300, which is lighter than the 777-200ER, uses 5% less fuel per trip with 300 and 312 passengers respectively;

One more piece of evidence disclaiming the a.net myth that the A340 is a gas guzzler but somehow I don't think this will ever stop   Even if Airbus is incorrect, and I fully expect their numbers to be a little biased towards the A343, I don't expect them to be so far off.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:54 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 170):
Even if Airbus is incorrect, and I fully expect their numbers to be a little biased towards the A343, I don't expect them to be so far off.

I am pretty sure that they did find a mission in which the A343 burns 5% less fuel than the 77E and they probably compare an early 77E incarnation with a A343 with all the PIPs, but i would not expect them to flat our lie. How relevant that mission is in the real world is an entirely different questions.

best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23077
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:08 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
The assumed lease rate for the A346 is $450,000/mo vs $1.3m for the 773ER. This delta provides an economic advantage to the Airbus of $433,000/mo, according to Hermann.

Very interesting read. But the question is, why the lease rate differential for used aircraft? The market is *very* rational. Used A346s are offered for far less than a used 77W in addition to the 744, which is what these A346 are competing against (as well as new 77Ws, A359s, 789s, and eventually 778/9, A35j, and 78Js). Usually lease rates somewhat accurately reflect the cost/profit differential. I hope these added seats are enough to push the numbers to closer to what you just quoted.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
ETOPS certification is unnecessary with an A340.

In the grand scheme of airlines, I see ETOPS certified airlines outgrowing non-ETOPS airlines. While this statement is a fact, I unfortunately think this won't plce many aircraft.

As your link notes, LH depreciates their aircraft in 12 years to 15%. That means few, if any, of the LH A346s might ever see a heavy maintenance. We already know they'll buy 777X to replace the A346s. Airbus must create more of an A346 resale market before LH's frames become available...

Lightsaber
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:28 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 172):
Very interesting read. But the question is, why the lease rate differential for used aircraft? The market is *very* rational.

I would assume the market would also factor in that the availability of B777 is much better in case you need/want more aircraft. Also, like with all used stuff, the value drops when the item is out of production. The A340 is, the B777 ain´t.
I am also not so sure if the market is always so rational, LCCs for a long time did stick to the B737 blindly because they intended to copy southwest and they are flying 737. Considering how many LCCs operate Airbus A32x now i highly doubt that the market was so rational, we should have seen todays relative market shares from the start.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 172):
s your link notes, LH depreciates their aircraft in 12 years to 15%. That means few, if any, of the LH A346s might ever see a heavy maintenance. We already know they'll buy 777X to replace the A346s. Airbus must create more of an A346 resale market before LH's frames become available...

Lufthansa depreciates all its Aircraft within 12 years, yet still sends them into D-Checks. According to LHs fleet planning they will be around for some time, if business grows stronger than the 3% assumed for their current planning they might be around for a very long time, there are 37 A343 to replace at LH & LX first. And 20 B744 with only 14 B748i & A380 outstanding. Depending on growth the 59 A350/B777x on order might not replace a single A346.

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

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:57 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 153):
Look at the airlines that have B744 for this purpose and you have your potential customer list. Fuel burn down by 20some percent is a lot of money over the year, if the frame offers charter compatible density. Which it now can.

You are not calling to send all the B772/772ER to the boneyard, do you?

The question is wether the unit cost is less expensive with a new bird than through buying an older bird. You need to roll in MX costs, depreciation based on useable life, as well as trip cost. In many cases the cost of operating a new aircraft is less per unit than operating an older bird.
That said, if the acquisition cost is low then the airline can get a lower unit cost.
Based on the low residual value issue I am presuming that AB is trying to drive up the value, but that hurts unit cost at the same time.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 153):
And a hell lot more expensive to acquire, with small airlines having trouble to be approved for an all new plane. The A346 has economic between an B77E and an B77W, it is good enough that LH re-ordered twice when the 77W was already existing. This modification will improve economics for some customers.

Small airlines generally do not have alot of interest in an aircraft with the range and cost of a A346. This brigs me back to the question of who would have interest?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
I expect it's more about re-selling those frames to new customers.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
Not saying a second-hand A340-600 will not find any interest on the market, but I do not expect a wholesale shift by charter and leisure 747-400 operators to the type. I believe the more likely customer for these planes are Airbus-operating ULCCs like Air Asia X looking for higher capacity for high-traffic trunk routes and maybe for limited-duration charters (like the Hajj, the Umrah, the Olympics and the World Cup).

OK. I agree they won't sell used birds to replace other used birds. Not much interest in getting rid of one old problem and replacing it with a new old problem. Aren't you better off with the one that you know than the one that you don't?

It is a huge step in the ULCC's to long haul charters. Not saying it can't be done, but will management teams be willing to take that type of risk on?
For the ULCC's, if they are using the A340-600 for trunk routes ...... what is the CPE? I believe the A340 was designed for long haul. Using them for high frequency short haul raises interesting cost questions.
On the flip side, are you suggesting a reverse model where the ULCC's use a ultra long range trunk flights to feed short range ULCC flights? If so isn't this an entirely new venture and model?
 
airbazar
Posts: 10525
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 3:15 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 171):
I am pretty sure that they did find a mission in which the A343 burns 5% less fuel than the 77E and they probably compare an early 77E incarnation with a A343 with all the PIPs, but i would not expect them to flat our lie. How relevant that mission is in the real world is an entirely different questions.

Right, but Ferpe (which i quote below), has reached similar results. Not only that but over the years there have been various statements from different sources claiming that the trip fuel burn between the 77E and the A342 is about the same. So I'm inclined to think that the fuel consumption is pretty close to equal between the 2, but maintenance and fincancing is where the different lies, or used to lie. I should point out than neither has been selling  
Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
Leeham has made a good summary of the Airbus meeting with a fact filled interview with Airbus A340 VP of Asset management. What I can see there seems to be less then normal marketing fluff fluff in the statements, my fuel count for the 4000nm sector is 11.6% diff vs a 77W close to Airbus 12% , to me the 77E and 343 seems to be equal on fuel however where they claim an advantage.

One quote i found very interesting was this:
He [Nico Buchholz, the fleet planner at Lufthansa Airlines] also characterized the A340-600 “as the best aircraft to Mexico City,” beating any 777 “hands down. The CASM (cost per available seat mile) is cheaper to Mexico City than the 777.”

This also contradics another a.net myth that SA would be losing less money if they didn't operate a fleet of A340's. There's an entire thread out there with that discussion  
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27719
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 3:32 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
Passenger counts assumed are 475, 510 and 475 respectively, the maximum allowed by exit limits.

Airbus must not be using the FAA / EASA TCDS as they specify an Exit Limit of 550 for the 777-300ER and 660 for the 747-400. Plug in those passenger numbers and I expect those percentages would respectively shrink and expand a bit.  
Quoting airbazar (Reply 175):
I should point out than neither has been selling.  

Mainly because for the significant majority of missions those airframes are employed on, an A330-300HGW can perform and it burns around 15% less fuel per hour.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:50 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 175):
So I'm inclined to think that the fuel consumption is pretty close to equal between the 2

I didn´t question that  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 176):
Airbus must not be using the FAA / EASA TCDS as they specify an Exit Limit of 550 for the 777-300ER and 660 for the 747-400. Plug in those passenger numbers and I expect those percentages would respectively shrink and expand a bit.

I think Airbus has been misquoted: "Airbus says that the 744 seat count used is based on what is the average seat count of the three to four highest capacity 744 operators."

from the leehamnews source.

best regards
Thomas
 
airbazar
Posts: 10525
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 5:00 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 175):
Right, but Ferpe (which i quote below), has reached similar results. Not only that but over the years there have been various statements from different sources claiming that the trip fuel burn between the 77E and the A342 is about the same.

Oops too late to edit my post but I meant to typ A343, not A342.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27719
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 5:31 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 177):
I think Airbus has been misquoted: "Airbus says that the 744 seat count used is based on what is the average seat count of the three to four highest capacity 744 operators."

Yes, I saw that. But there is the bullet point I quoted that gives figures based on the Exit Limit. *shrug*

However, if Airbus is using the "average seat count of the highest capacity 747-400s (and, by extension, of the 777-300ERs), then it seems a bit unfair to not do the same for the A340-600, which I expect would be a fair bit lower than 475.  

And since we're talking high-density "charter" style configurations, I think it not irrelevant to use JL and NH 777-300s for comparison, giving us seating configs of 500 and 514, respectively. I believe AF has the highest-density 777-300ER at 488, which would be an average of 501 seats.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:36 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 172):
Very interesting read. But the question is, why the lease rate differential for used aircraft? The market is *very* rational. . . . . I hope these added seats are enough to push the numbers to closer to what you just quoted

So do you expect the higher seat count (475) to drive up the lease rate for the 346?

PW100
 
User avatar
cougar15
Posts: 1457
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:10 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:57 pm

Convert them into F´s, UPS, DHL and Fedex would love them and the total fleet size is just right for those 3!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27719
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:59 pm

Quoting cougar15 (Reply 181):
Convert them into F´s, UPS, DHL and Fedex would love them and the total fleet size is just right for those 3!

In all seriousness, I doubt any of the three would be interested in an A340-600P2F at this time.
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 9:30 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 51):
I continue to think one reason is that the 744's are probably closer to being amoritized than the A340's, so it's less critical that their values be dealt with today since they were already closer to retirement than the A340NG's.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 172):
Very interesting read. But the question is, why the lease rate differential for used aircraft? The market is *very* rational.

Could be financing.

744's have an established 2nd life market and I'd suggest strong industry support to keep these things flying at economic rates.

On the other hand the A340-600 has no established 2nd life market, relatively weak industry support and already has high maintenance costs (which could increase as the frames further age).

So if you are trying to finance a A340-600, as opposed to a 744 the banks might be saying, okay, we'll finance the A340-600, but there will be an interest rate penalty and we are only going to finance up to 50% of the current market value.

If this is the case, even when considering there could be real economic advantages for operating a A340-600 over a 744, the business case for doing so (ROI) just doesn't add up.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5752
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:33 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):

Airbus says the A340-300, which is lighter than the 777-200ER, uses 5% less fuel per trip with 300 and 312 passengers respectively;

It this were true in all cases the A343 would have sold much better; it seems to me that the 77E outsold it by a considerable margin, and since the CFM engines on the A343 should have had very reasonable maintenance costs the 77E must have been more profitable for the airlines. And the only reason that makes sense is that it must have burned less fuel on most routes.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):

The A340-600 is lighter than a Boeing 747-400 but heavier than a new 777-300ER. Accordingly, Airbus says that it uses 21% less fuel than the 744 but 12% more fuel than the 773ER. Passenger counts assumed are 475, 510 and 475 respectively, the maximum allowed by exit limits. Range assumed is 4,000nm (a typically A346 mission).

They are saying that they want to certify the A346 for 475 passengers, but the 77W already can carry 475 passengers and it still will have a 12% fuel disadvantage vs. the 77W; so who is going to go for this, or am I missing something? Granted, used 77W's are not easy to come by now, but soon I expect they will start to be available.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12382
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:54 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 184):
It this were true in all cases the A343 would have sold much better; it seems to me that the 77E outsold it by a considerable margin, and since the CFM engines on the A343 should have had very reasonable maintenance costs the 77E must have been more profitable for the airlines. And the only reason that makes sense is that it must have burned less fuel on most routes.

I think it has been established that the A343's fuel burn is generally lower than the 77Es (Zeke has been saying it for years iirc). Note, however, that the A343 in the comparison is also carrying 12 fewer passengers, and nothing is said about the range or payload of the aircraft. The A343 has lower fuel burn, but the 77E is much more capable overall making up for it (just like the 764 vs A332). Conversely the modern A333 is capable enough while having much lower fuel burn that it effectively killed the 77E.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Thu Dec 12, 2013 12:19 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 175):
One quote i found very interesting was this:
He [Nico Buchholz, the fleet planner at Lufthansa Airlines] also characterized the A340-600 “as the best aircraft to Mexico City,” beating any 777 “hands down. The CASM (cost per available seat mile) is cheaper to Mexico City than the 777.”

Yep the 346 is a great aircraft for Europe to MEX, in fact Iberia uses its 346 regularly to MEX. LH is quite happy with the 346 and has very healthy cargo to and fro...so business is good. AF /AM uses 744 and T7 to MEX and they have quite a formidable competition.

Just as the 388 the 34X is an airplane that most Aneters dismiss as a gas guzzler and a terrible business case to have. when in reality all depends on mission and loads.

TRB
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23077
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:19 am

Quoting PW100 (Reply 180):
So do you expect the higher seat count (475) to drive up the lease rate for the 346?

   It improves the revenue side.

But the window to improve the resale market is short. Soon we will have numerous 772/77E on the secondary market being pushed out by new 788/789/A359 deliveries.

With fuel at about half of the cost of long haul flying and profit margins only about 7%, one has to make the most of the small margins. High density travel markets have potential. In particular if current seats could be used, just buying a few more seats (used have to be available as the 8 across cross section is common enough) should allow some airlines to use the A340s.

The downside is this is the leisure (seasonal) market. While this is a lower utilization and thus less sensitive to the fuel burn, it is a market that also demands lower capital purchase prices.

So this is but a race to provide the best value. What commercial aerospace is all about.   

Quoting travelhound (Reply 183):
On the other hand the A340-600 has no established 2nd life market, relatively weak industry support and already has high maintenance costs (which could increase as the frames further age).

The lack of the established secondary market is finding its price points. Something I think more seats will help by improving the revenue.

The weak industry support is an artifact of sales volumes and there is nothing to overcome that now. Its a given and Airbus must just play the hand dealt.

The maintenance costs must be addresses as I noted above.

Lightsaber
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Proposes Up To 475 Seat A340 Versions

Thu Dec 12, 2013 8:11 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 179):
However, if Airbus is using the "average seat count of the highest capacity 747-400s (and, by extension, of the 777-300ERs), then it seems a bit unfair to not do the same for the A340-600, which I expect would be a fair bit lower than 475.

For sure it will  
Those higher density configurations, that won´t be available for the A340-600, have considerable less personal space per Pax. Of course if you just want to haul seat for cheap that might not really matter to you or your calculations.
Its just more "real" with a passenger number than going by "this reduces costs per usable m2 of main deck by 8%", which is what this modification really offers. More main deck space for the same price.

best regards
Thomas

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