Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:28 am

Swiss may keep some A340s a little bit longer because the 77W is a huge capacity increase.

Quote:
Klühr also said several Airbus A340-300s could remain for a longer time in the fleet. “We haven’t decided yet, but the Boeing 777-300ER has 100 seats more and is a huge capacity increase [compared to the A340-300].

Perhaps time to order some smaller aircraft to replace the A340-300?

Source
http://atwonline.com/airframes/swiss...-10-bombardier-cseries-100s-cs300s
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10000
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:33 am

LH group will surely do so.
 
hkcanadaexpat
Posts: 4086
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:33 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:37 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 1):
LH group will surely do so.

And we've all been waiting in anticipation of the LH Group order for mid size wide bodies for years... Starting with the replacement of Austrian's ancient 763s!
A
 
planewasted
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:47 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:40 am

Flew their A340 to NRT in January. The plane was in good condition interior wise.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:43 am

What routes are they used on?

Is the cheap option of leasing used A330ceo practical?
Is the slightly less cheap option of buying A330-900 practical?
Or is it a job for 787-9?
 
User avatar
GE9X
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:13 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:06 am

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 4):

What routes are they used on?

Is the cheap option of leasing used A330ceo practical?
Is the slightly less cheap option of buying A330-900 practical?
Or is it a job for 787-9?

I may be wrong but for the 343, the longest trip is SIN at 5,600 nautical miles, followed by NRT, GRU, and HKG all above 5000 nmi. JNB is "only" 4,500 nautical miles but it is hot and high so it's something to consider. A330ceo published range "fully loaded" (247-277 pax and luggage, no cargo) is 7,260 nmi for the -200 and 6,350 nmi for the -300. But Swiss already owns most of the A340s, so it's much cheaper to keep flying them than it is to lease A330s in the short-term.
 
LSZH34
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:33 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:13 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
Perhaps time to order some smaller aircraft to replace the A340-300?

I always thought they overestimated themselves with configuring the B77W with a whopping 340 seats. I still believe the A350-1000 with ~300 seats would have been the ideal replacement. IMHO, a fail investment.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:45 am

What was Swissair's reasoning for ordering the A340-300 as opposed to the 777-200ER?
 
DALCE
Posts: 1994
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:45 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:46 am

Loads are quite good on the long haul 77W operated flights. I have no clue about the yields though.
LX has been shifting their operations with the 77W around a little bit to optimize the capacity.
GRU clearly does not need the 77W with the weak BRA economy.
The 77W is by no means too big for LX, but from my point of view they should inprove their European Network in order to offer more connections.
I see plenty of options in Europe where LX is not active, or could increase flights/seats.
Anyway, the 340 suits LX very well for specific markets and some of them have still quite some years in them and indeed are owned  
flown: F50,F70,CR1,CR2,CR9,223,E75,E90,143,AR8,AR1,733,735,736,73G,738,
753,763,744,77W,788,319,320,321,333,AB6.
 
s5daw
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 8:15 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:58 am

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 2):
tarting with the replacement of Austrian's ancient 763s

I recently flew one of those. Ancient or not, they look awesome. And the cabin seemed to be brand new.
 
LSZH34
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:33 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:11 am

Quoting DALCE (Reply 8):
The 77W is by no means too big for LX, but from my point of view they should inprove their European Network in order to offer more connections.
I see plenty of options in Europe where LX is not active, or could increase flights/seats.

That sounds interesting. Where do you see potential for LX in Europe?

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 7):
What was Swissair's reasoning for ordering the A340-300 as opposed to the 777-200ER?

SR ordered the A346 and they were even launch customer.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:14 am

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 7):
What was Swissair's reasoning for ordering the A340-300 as opposed to the 777-200ER?

Swissair or Swiss? The former ordered A340-600s but collapsed before the first was even built while the latter ordered the A340-300s to replace MD-11s from its fleet of largely made of A32X and A332s.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 9):
Ancient or not, they look awesome.

That's because it's Austrian.
 
DALCE
Posts: 1994
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:45 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:20 am

Quoting LSZH34 (Reply 10):
That sounds interesting. Where do you see potential for LX in Europe?

I could see more coverage in the Nordics, Poland, France, the UK and in general a 5th wave in ZRH with all big hubs like LHR,AMS,FRA, CDG & MAD being covered.
Perhaps a need for smaller aircraft would be an idea for the increase. For example a double daily route ZRH-GDN-ZRH would do perfectly fine with a 50-70 seater.
This would create extra feed for the longhaul network and with increased frequencies also higher yield biz-end pax.

Quoting LSZH34 (Reply 10):
SR ordered the A346 and they were even launch customer.

These went to SA if I'm not mistaken. LH seems to have some spare 346's at the moment. They are younger than the 343's LX owns.
flown: F50,F70,CR1,CR2,CR9,223,E75,E90,143,AR8,AR1,733,735,736,73G,738,
753,763,744,77W,788,319,320,321,333,AB6.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10000
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:37 am

The A346 is not really competitive to the 777W, the A343 does not do too badly against early 777 though. The A343 are quite solid performers in the LH group and make money at current fuel prices. A replacement order will come in the next 12 months.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10487
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:48 am

So they have loads of space on the 777W to configure it to be quite comfortable for their pax yet they chose to go over 300+. In a low density config the a/c may still operate with competitive figures compared to the A340-600 and probably pretty close to the 300 as well, makes you go hhhmmmmm.........Pax can't get a break, yes, its the plane that's the problem 
 
LY777
Posts: 2579
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:41 am

I think the 787 could be perfect for LX  
Flown:717,727,732,733,734,735,738,73H,742/744/748,752,753,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W, 788, 789, DC8,DC10,E190,E195,MD83,MD88, L1011, A3B2,A319,A320-100/200,A321,A332/A333,A343,A388
 
jfk777
Posts: 7442
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:21 pm

The 77W also helps with freight since so LONG, it can carry a hell of a lot more then an A340-300. Currently the USA, Hong Kong and Singapore should be ready for the Swiss 77W.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5025
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:22 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
Swiss may keep some A340s a little bit longer

Edelweiss are buying 2-3 of LX A343  

Cheers 
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:45 pm

Quoting LSZH34 (Reply 6):
I still believe the A350-1000 with ~300 seats would have been the ideal replacement. IMHO, a fail investment.

I posted this some time ago, i mention it again: This buy was solely a political one(as always in Switzerland), period.

It had very little to do with the qualities of 777.

Agreed, the A350 would have been the perfect plane. (it is still possible LX will order it sometime)
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
runway23
Posts: 2368
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:12 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:55 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 11):

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 7):
What was Swissair's reasoning for ordering the A340-300 as opposed to the 777-200ER?

Swissair or Swiss? The former ordered A340-600s but collapsed before the first was even built while the latter ordered the A340-300s to replace MD-11s from its fleet of largely made of A32X and A332s.

Well if you look back at when they were ordered, May 2002, Swiss had just been founded and was very short of liquidities. It was widely feared Swiss would be gone within 18 months.

Back then the 77W had not flown yet nor had airlines really appreciated its value yet and the 772 while selling better was more expensive and had a greater lead in time.

Swiss was also trying to keep costs down and having a commonality between A330/340 was seen as of great importance.

It's also worth remembering that Swiss, Finnair and SAA were the only airlines ordering A340-300s in any numbers then so they may have been able to negotiate a sweeter deal with Airbus than Boeing.

Swiss also had a greater capacity discipline back then - the A330s were still A330-200s and there was a belief that anything larger than 343/772 size couldn't be filled profitably or at all. It's also worth considering that back then LX (SR) was flying gas guzzling MD-11s and that the 343 was seen as huge progress instead of being seen as the dog it was/is.

I'd say at the time of each order, the 343 made more sense than the 77W order.
 
runway23
Posts: 2368
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:12 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:01 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 18):
I posted this some time ago, i mention it again: This buy was solely a political one(as always in Switzerland), period.

I fail to see the reasoning of it being political and Switzerland. Swiss is part of Lufthansa and all fleet decisions are made from Frankfurt not Zurich and even less Bern.
 
User avatar
Flying Belgian
Posts: 1958
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 12:45 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:42 pm

During the "golden" period of Swissair, it's a combination of A345/A346 that were ordered to replace the MD11...

Then SR collapsed.

It's only when Crossair took the operations over that the A340 "classic" was considered.
Life is great at 41.000 feet...
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3172
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:57 pm

Quoting DALCE (Reply 8):
Loads are quite good on the long haul 77W operated flights. I
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 16):
The 77W also helps with freight

I have been following the 3 (now 4) 77W's from Swiss and using their cruise altitudes, calculated around what their zero fuel weights have been. And they are very light. If filling up a 77W with 30.000 kgs less than max weight is successful, even on what should be a big route for pax and cargo to HKG, then the 77W is too much plane for you. Little cargo loads on all of their flights.

[Edited 2016-06-07 09:58:29]
 
LSZH34
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:33 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:43 pm

Quoting b747400erf (Reply 22):

Is cruise altitude really such a good measuring tool for ZFW? I've never seen them going over FL380 and that was on a flight back from ATH...

OTOH, if the CEO (and previous CEO) say 10 Triple Sevens would be ideal, this pretty much paves the way for either B787-9 or A359/351 as a replacement for the remaining A340. I just don't see the B777-8 nor -9 at LX. Too capable, too big.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:59 pm

Quoting LSZH34 (Reply 23):

OTOH, if the CEO (and previous CEO) say 10 Triple Sevens would be ideal, this pretty much paves the way for either B787-9 or A359/351 as a replacement for the remaining A340. I just don't see the B777-8 nor -9 at LX. Too capable, too big.

Keep the 787-10 in mind too. LX's network only has a handful of destinations that require the range of a 77W. At least on paper, it seems that the 787-10 would be the CASM killer on missions 6800mi or shorter. If I'm reading it correctly, 6800mi is sufficient to cover LX's entire network (at various payloads of course).
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:17 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 24):
Keep the 787-10 in mind too.

  

It seems to me like every airline in the LH Group could make good use of 787-9s, 787-10s, or (in most cases) both. I think the group as a whole would be well positioned to operate the 787 and A350 right next to each other. A350 at the LH mothership, 787 at all the other airlines.
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:27 pm

Quoting b747400erf (Reply 22):
I have been following the 3 (now 4) 77W's from Swiss and using their cruise altitudes, calculated around what their zero fuel weights have been. And they are very light. If filling up a 77W with 30.000 kgs less than max weight is successful, even on what should be a big route for pax and cargo to HKG, then the 77W is too much plane for you. Little cargo loads on all of their flights.

I just gave LX138 ZRH-HKG a look, and the final step climb on most days is FL350. On the days where they do reach FL370, it is typically for 1h-1h30m. Doing some backwards calculations you are looking at ZFW ranges of 215-230t.

Nowhere near 30t below MZFW. MZFW of course being 237t on the -300ER

In addition, you do not consider the vast DOW range between different operators aircraft. A certain Taiwan based B77W operator has DOW's (Crew + bags + water + pantry TPE-USA) averaging ~173t. The worlds largest B77W operator, with a configuration seating only 4 seats less (in its ULR configuration), has a DOW range between ~177t and ~179t.

At a constant ZFW of 230t, the Taiwan based B77W operator would be carrying 4-7t additional payload.

Going back to the LX138 ZRH-HKG example, using 11h30m as the average flight time (wheels up, wheels down) you are looking at 110t-112t of Release fuel (including: trip, alternate, contingency, final reserve, taxi). As far back at FR24 allows, they are all going to FL310 initial. Based on the latest Boeing B777-300ER FPPM, at 340t, MAX is FL316 (1.30 margin). Hence their initial FL310.

Assuming: 340t ATOW, 112t release fuel, you get 228t ZFW. Which explains FL350 as the final step climb on most days. On days where they load 7-8t less payload, they manage FL370.

If indeed they were departing 30t below MZFW (using this route as a example), they would be going to FL330 initial, every single day.

In summary, numbers dont lie, and your assessment of the payloads carried on LX138 ZRH-HKG, is way off!

I would also like to point out something else. The LH group has never been known to waste money on purchasing MTOW options that they do not make use of. This is precisely why their B744s were never purchased with the highest MTOW option offered by Boeing. There is no point in having overflight and landing fees assed on a higher weight if you'll never be making use of it. After Boeing increased the B748 MTOW and the first few LH frames were delivered with the slightly lower initial MTOW, LH still decided to take the remaining ones at the same and lower MTOW.

LX's B77Ws are 351,543kgs MTOW for a reason. The highest MTOW offered by Boeing, and of course the most expensive of the various MTOW's you can purchase on the B77W.

In comparison: SU operate their fleet at 317t MTOW. The lowest MTOW anyone has purchased on the B77W. Little demand for belly freight and hence also the small aft cargo door option.

ZFW: (Zero Fuel Weight)
MZFW: (Maximum Zero Fuel Weight)
ATOW: (Actual Takeoff Weight)
FPPM: (Flight Planning and Performance Manual)
DOW: (Dry Operating Weight)

[Edited 2016-06-07 11:36:54]
You live and you die, by the FMA
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:35 pm

Quoting Qantas744er (Reply 26):

LX's B77Ws are 351,543kgs MTOW for a reason. The highest MTOW offered by Boeing, and of course the most expensive of the various MTOW's you can purchase on the B77W.

In comparison: SU operate their fleet at 317t MTOW. The lowest MTOW anyone has purchased on the B77W. Little demand for belly freight and hence also the small aft cargo door option.

As someone who knows basically nothing about payload calculations, can you help me understand this :

1. are the OEW of the same PIP-generation the same regardless of how high you want the MTOW to be ? i.e. is LX penalized for flying little cargo and not being able to take advantage of the plane's full potential ?

2. if all things being equal, does a higher MTOW variant allow higher re-sale prices down the road and/or slower 2nd-hand depreciation ?
 
LSZH34
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:33 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:39 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 24):
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 25):

Very true. 2 years ago they labeled the B787 as "too small", but things can change. I'm awaiting this order eagerly!  
Quoting Qantas744er (Reply 26):

Nice analysis! Exactly my thoughts based on my observations.
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:45 pm

Quoting runway23 (Reply 20):
I fail to see the reasoning of it being political and Switzerland. Swiss is part of Lufthansa and all fleet decisions are made from Frankfurt not Zurich and even less Bern.

That's not correct. Lufthansa did not buy the 777 without agreement of pilots and management of LX.

It was LX related political.

I can't tell more as this is confidential, however look at the Gripen buy, it was highly political. The virtues of the fighter jets were mostly irrelevant, they(Swiss Air Force) even made influenced evaluation reports.

The wannabe perfect Switzerland is not so professional or honest as it would like us to believe when it comes to procurements.
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:54 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 29):

So THAT was the reason why they were operated by its regional arm, strangely named Swiss *Global* Air Lines ? Kinda like the way OS dumped their stuff onto Tyrolean for a while ?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27450
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:17 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 27):
are the OEW of the same PIP-generation the same regardless of how high you want the MTOW to be ?

In terms of the weight of the basic airframe before cabins are installed (seats, lavatories, galleys), yes the weight will be similar (there will be variances based on the weight of other Buyer Furnished Equipment options).



Quoting a380787 (Reply 27):
if all things being equal, does a higher MTOW variant allow higher re-sale prices down the road and/or slower 2nd-hand depreciation ?

It makes the airframe more capable so it can make it more desirable to future purchasers/operators if they need that capability.

[Edited 2016-06-07 12:18:36]
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22026
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:36 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 27):

1. are the OEW of the same PIP-generation the same regardless of how high you want the MTOW to be ? i.e. is LX penalized for flying little cargo and not being able to take advantage of the plane's full potential ?

Yes. In many cases, the MTOW can be increased just by purchasing more MTOW from Boeing. A new certification is issued on the airframe and now it has a higher MTOW. This allows Boeing to simplify manufacturing while offering their customers "tailored" MTOW options. SU can buy a cheaper 77W that is "less capable" and so that helps Boeing make the sale by not forcing a customer to purchase capacity it doesn't need. But if SU later changes their mind and want higher MTOW, it's just a matter of paperwork. In theory, it can be done in a day or two.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:39 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 27):
are the OEW of the same PIP-generation the same regardless of how high you want the MTOW to be ? i.e. is LX penalized for flying little cargo and not being able to take advantage of the plane's full potential ?

Yes, OEW will be the same regardless of MTOW option selected by the operator. The MTOW differences are paper only. You pay the most for the highest MTOW option, and of course save money selecting lower options.

Note: Even within the same PIP-generation there will be a few hundred kgs difference in OEW (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) due to the tiny variation of weights over each of the million of parts making up the aircraft, which of course add up. But as you assumed correctly, MTOW plays no role in this.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 27):
2. if all things being equal, does a higher MTOW variant allow higher re-sale prices down the road and/or slower 2nd-hand depreciation ?

A high MTOW -300ER is certainly more attractive on the used market than a lower MTOW one, as it will appeal to the full range of operators looking to source one.

Lessors such as GECAS often order their aircraft with the highest MTOW option, regardless of what the operator who the aircraft is being delivered to actually needs.

BA's B77Ws are a good example of this. All the GECAS -36N(ER) aircraft are 351,543kgs MTOW. The BA owned -336(ER) aircraft are 340,194kgs MTOW.

Ultimately, you can always send a check to Boeing ($$$). They will be happy to send you revised FCOM's and FPPM's to reflect the increased or decreased MTOW.

Many operators nowadays operate at variable MTOWs. This depending on if the local aviation authority allows the practice and typically involves a engineer replacing a cockpit MTOW placard with the lower one. In this case the operator also purchased a lower MTOW option from Boeing, hence allowing them to operate both.

One Asia based B77W customer dispatches it regional flights at 281t .8 MTOW instead of its usual 351.5t MTOW. This saves them substantial money on overflight and facility fees. I know KE and BR do the same on the B744 and B74F fleet. FR operates 3 different MTOWs on their B738s (depending on route).

[Edited 2016-06-07 12:41:35]
You live and you die, by the FMA
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:39 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):

Thanks a lot. Can the reverse be done via paperwork too ? - i.e. de-rate a frame once you realize you're flying shorter haul missions, and save on landing fees ?
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:43 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 34):
Thanks a lot. Can the reverse be done via paperwork too ? - i.e. de-rate a frame once you realize you're flying shorter haul missions, and save on landing fees ?

Stich, and DocLightning beat me to it. Both are absolutely correct (as always). And yes, the reverse can and is regularly done. In some countries and with certain operators between flights even. (see my reply above).

[Edited 2016-06-07 12:44:28]
You live and you die, by the FMA
 
zkncj
Posts: 4032
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:47 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
Swiss may keep some A340s a little bit longer because the 77W is a huge capacity increase.

If they do they desperately need new IFE, after-recently flying on an LX 343 the IFE was better to have not be turned on!
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3172
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:01 pm

Quoting Qantas744er (Reply 26):

I just gave LX138 ZRH-HKG a look, and the final step climb on most days is FL350. On the days where they do reach FL370, it is typically for 1h-1h30m. Doing some backwards calculations you are looking at ZFW ranges of 215-230t.

Unfortunately your analysis misses the most obvious point. Step climbs are dependent on your surrounding traffic.

Not to mention you failed to point out that SWR138 climbed to 350 over Afghanistan, a long distance from their destination.

What I look at is during a flight what the max weight available would be for an airplane to be cruising at a certain altitude. Stopping the climb at FL350 as SWR138 recently did, only shows that traffic in the area was too high to allow them any higher altitudes.

As an example, SWR138 climbing quickly to FL330 out of ZRH puts their ZFW in the range of 205-215 max. Otherwise they would be too heavy for that climb so quickly after take off. I have done similar analysis with the flight from Montreal. A climb to 350 puts the ZFW again in the same range, around 205-215.

I said earlier it wasn't scientific just guesstimates, but shows that LX is not packing their 77W's. They may be making a profit from ticket and small amount of cargo contracts they could have, but they are not using the 77W and could have gone with another airplane.
 
PH-TVH
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 1:07 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:41 pm

Can somebody please tell Swiss to stop operate the a343 from ZRH?
That airplane needs the whole ZRH TMA just to clear to mountains after t/o, in order to proceed enroute.
Very annoying when you're being vectored around, just because one of these dinosaurs can't climb...
 
Beatyair
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:09 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:47 pm

They could change there order to 777-200's instead.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:12 pm

Quoting Beatyair (Reply 39):
They could change there order to 777-200's instead.

There's absolutely nothing a new-build 777-200 could do for them that a 787-9 wouldn't do better.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:25 am

I think he was referring to the 777-200ER variant. That model has much longer range than the basic 777-200.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 40):
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:30 am

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 41):
I think he was referring to the 777-200ER variant.

For LX, my comment applies equally no matter what kind of 777-200 he's talking about. LX doesn't need the range of the LR, and the 787-9 can do everything the ER or A can do with less weight and less fuel consumption.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:38 am

I think he was referring to the 777-200ER variant. That model has much longer range than the basic 777-200.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 40):
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:01 am

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 43):
I think he was referring to the 777-200ER variant. That model has much longer range than the basic 777-200.

Boeing no longer sells the 772ER. The only ones they sell now are the 77W, the 77L, and the 77F. All of them use the new wing, landing gear and the GE90-110/115 engine, and are part of the 777NG family. I think it was DL a few years ago who inquired about a top-up order for 772ERs, and the price was higher than the 77Ls. That may be why they bought the 77L. As far as LX is concerned, if the 77W is too big they should go for the 788 or 789.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:13 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 44):
Boeing no longer sells the 772ER.

It still appears on the price list, although it had its last order in 2009 and last delivery in 2013.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13550
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:27 am

Quoting DALCE (Reply 12):
H seems to have some spare 346's at the moment. They are younger than the 343's LX owns.

But defeats the overall purpose, as they're essentially the same size as the 77W.


Quoting par13del (Reply 14):
So they have loads of space on the 777W to configure it to be quite comfortable for their pax yet they chose to go over 300+

Because the latter delivers competitive revenue, whereas the former does not.
Plain and simple.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
earlynff
Posts: 126
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:53 am

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:55 am

Quoting b747400erf (Reply 37):
Unfortunately your analysis misses the most obvious point. Step climbs are dependent on your surrounding traffic.

all you guys do wonderful assessments on that matter (from a perspective behind half a dozen screens of your office computers). Did any of you talk to the flight crew? There are many more considerations for (or against) a step climb from the crew´s perspective.
e.g., your planned level is 310, you´are riding the top of clouds. So go 330, if available, or even 350. Or your dispatcher found out, winds are more favorable at higher levels, and he plans you above the optimum level that your onboard computer suggests. Other considerations: anticipation of traffic and/or atc situation ahead, difficulties in communication (HF in Africa). Sometimes it´s at the pilots gusto, oh, I had my fair share of radiation this year, stay low. There are more...
 
747400sp
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:36 am

To me, this is good news, and I hope this means, that LX will keep the A343's on their LAX route, because I am tired of so many 77Ws, at LAX. As a quad lover, I rather see more A340s, than 777s.

I wished, that Swiss did take the A346s, that Swiss Air ordered.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 24):
Keep the 787-10 in mind too. LX's network only has a handful of destinations that require the range of a 77W. At least on paper, it seems that the 787-10 would be the CASM killer on missions 6800mi or shorter. If I'm reading it correctly, 6800mi is sufficient to cover LX's entire network (at various payloads of course).

I think this is a great ideal. The 787-10 would be the prefect replacement for the A343, and it would be better suited, for long flights to LAX, than the 77W.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13550
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: Swiss Could Keep A340 A Little Bit Longer

Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:19 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 48):
and it would be better suited, for long flights to LAX, than the 77W.

.....can u show us the objective numbers you used in such an assessment?

[Edited 2016-06-07 20:24:34]
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil

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