Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
With some airlines ending the realtionship with the 340 i was thinking, is it possible that the 340 is going to be a replacement for 767 coustomers? Some 767 are very old so second hand 340 will be there, but i have no idea if you can compare...
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
Well ha i can't give you exact data, i think the A340s are way too big to be a true B767 replacement. even the A330-200 are bigger then the 767-300s, so i really don´t think that an A340 can do a real 767 replacement. Other thing you have to consider is that the A340s are used in long range routes, usually longer than the 767-300 capacity. Other issue can be the engines, 4 vs 2. So in my opinion there´s no way an airilne would replace 767s with A340s.
Gus
SKBO
Gus
SKBO
Just put me on any modern airliner and i will be happy, give me more star alliance miles and i will be a lot happier.
-
- AustrianZRH
- Posts: 853
- Joined:
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
| Quoting Tavong (Reply 1): i think the A340s are way too big to be a true B767 replacement |
However, many airlines have replaced their 767s with A330s or favoured the European bird in their RFPs. Seeing as the 332/333 and 342/343 have the same size, this argument not entirely feasible. It really comes down how the trip cost and the average load factor on a certain route and thus the expected revenue compares between the 340 and the 767.
The threadstarter's question is IMHO actually really good, as some 767s get really old, 330s are not really available on relatively short notice while some carriers already start to replace their 340s by 777s, so the availability on the 2nd hand market of 340s will IMHO likely improve, while 330s most certainly will keep sought after.
WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
I don't worry for any A340 to have a longer break. Not until the 900 787 are produced and the A350 is in full production, which is in 10 years now.
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
Just for the operational cost.... if the airline owns the 767 outright... but is buying/leasing a used 340.... for a period of time there is always an extra cost for 340 as you are paying it off or just making lease payments.
No idea if there are any routes where both aircraft fly though to get a fair comparison for other factors.
No idea if there are any routes where both aircraft fly though to get a fair comparison for other factors.
-
- worldtraveler
- Posts: 3417
- Joined:
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
There are many 767s that are well less than 10 years which means they could easily have a dozen or more years of service. New 767s are still being built.
the bottom line is that the 340 is considerable more expensive to operate than the 767. Even the oldest 767s will not be replaced by 767s. 330s might become replacements but not 340s.
the bottom line is that the 340 is considerable more expensive to operate than the 767. Even the oldest 767s will not be replaced by 767s. 330s might become replacements but not 340s.
-
- phatty3374
- Posts: 64
- Joined:
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
| Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 5): There are many 767s that are well less than 10 years which means they could easily have a dozen or more years of service. New 767s are still being built. |
All of CO's 767-200ER's were built during or after 2000. Also, if I'm not mistaken a brand new LAN 763ER just came off the line last week-ish! I vaguely remember seeing it in an a.net pic post that gave a sneak peek of the 787, with the extra treat of a new 767 in the background.
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
What's the betting a few more new 767s will be appearing over the next couple of years.
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
How does the 340's fuel burn compare with the 767?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20470
- Joined:
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
| Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 8): How does the 340's fuel burn compare with the 767? |
That depends on a lot of things. Also, are you talking per seat of per kilometer or...? You have to make the calculation for a specific route with specific loads.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
| Quoting Plairbus (Thread starter): With some airlines ending the realtionship with the 340 i was thinking, is it possible that the 340 is going to be a replacement for 767 coustomers? Some 767 are very old so second hand 340 will be there, but i have no idea if you can compare... |
Doubt it, A340s are hard to come by, for many airlines that already operate them they are are sensible way to add capacity or new city pairs.
Enough 767s are available on the market if people what 767s, hardly any or no A340s available for lease at the moment.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
| Quoting Zeke (Reply 10): Enough 767s are available on the market if people what 767s, hardly any or no A340s available for lease at the moment. |
There are very few 763ERs on the market.
They each have a role. In terms of operation cost, any 767 is cheaper to fly than any A340. Therefore, if you can do the job with a 767, you will save money by doing it. However, the 767 carries fewer passengers and less cargo.
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
| Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 2): However, many airlines have replaced their 767s with A330s |
A330-200 mostly, remember most of the A340s are -300s. There aren´t a lot of A340-200s around.
Plus, the A330 was designed to operate medium to long range routes, just as the 767. The A340´s home is on much longer sectors.
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
| Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9): Also, are you talking per seat of per kilometer or...? You have to make the calculation for a specific route with specific loads. |
I think per-seat on 3000 mile plus routes is probably the most apt comparison.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
| Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): There are very few 763ERs on the market. |
Boeing lists 3 763ERs for lease on their site, speednews lists15 763ERs, 39 767s in total. Zero A340s available.
| Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): They each have a role. In terms of operation cost, any 767 is cheaper to fly than any A340. Therefore, if you can do the job with a 767, you will save money by doing it. However, the 767 carries fewer passengers and less cargo. |
The sectors that the A340 is designed to operate on, the 763ER runs out of fuel a couple of hours from the destination. The A340 is a long range aircraft, the 763ER (or any 767 for that matter) is not, nor are they a true wide body for freight.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20470
- Joined:
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
| Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 13): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9): Also, are you talking per seat of per kilometer or...? You have to make the calculation for a specific route with specific loads. I think per-seat on 3000 mile plus routes is probably the most apt comparison. |
Yeah but 3000-5000 miles or 6000-8000? I would think that the higher the payload and the longer the route, the more the 340 is attractive in comparison and vice-versa. As mentioned, the 767 is a smaller aircraft that carries fewer pax and less cargo. There's a point where the 767 is just not big enough.
If the 767 has enough capacity for you and you're looking at, say, transatlantic to the East Coast, then the 767 might well be the better choice.
If you need to go Europe-Far East the 767 might not have a big enough useful payload.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
Have to take issue with the statement '767 not really a long range aircraft'
It is, by any standard.
Likewise, I would put the A340, and equivalent, or longer range aircraft in the 'Ultra long haul category'
There was a time, not so long ago, that, New York - London was considered the limit !
It is, by any standard.
Likewise, I would put the A340, and equivalent, or longer range aircraft in the 'Ultra long haul category'
There was a time, not so long ago, that, New York - London was considered the limit !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
GGg
GGg
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
| Quoting Max Q (Reply 16): Have to take issue with the statement '767 not really a long range aircraft' It is, by any standard. Likewise, I would put the A340, and equivalent, or longer range aircraft in the 'Ultra long haul category' |
I have to disagree. The 767 (and a333) are medium range airliners. IIRC Airbus markets the a333 for example as a medium range aircraft. A340's/777/747/a380 are long range with the exeption of the a345 and 772LR, which are the ultra long haul aircraft. But it's just a matter of semantics I guess.
| Quoting Max Q (Reply 16): There was a time, not so long ago, that, New York - London was considered the limit ! |
Don't you have to go back to the DC7C/L1049 and early 707 and DC8 times for that? The DC8-50 and 707-320 had Europe-US west coast range IIRC.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
| Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15): If the 767 has enough capacity for you and you're looking at, say, transatlantic to the East Coast, then the 767 might well be the better choice. |
I tend to agree, which makes the 340 a poor replacement for the majority of 763s.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
'Dont you have to go back to the DC7C and early 707'
Yes, you do, they were real you know !
I stand by my assertion, by any standard the 767 is a long range aircraft.
The 757 itself will outrange the early 707's !
I have flown over 12 hour legs on the 767, it will go a long way.
The bar keeps getting raised, but it does not discount older aircraft.
Yes, you do, they were real you know !
I stand by my assertion, by any standard the 767 is a long range aircraft.
The 757 itself will outrange the early 707's !
I have flown over 12 hour legs on the 767, it will go a long way.
The bar keeps getting raised, but it does not discount older aircraft.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
GGg
GGg
-
- planewasted
- Posts: 545
- Joined:
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
I wonder how (in)efficient the 767 is per seat basis. It only has one extra seat per row compared to large narrow bodies, but alot of extra fuselage.
If you consider the amount of 767s sold, it can't be that bad.
If you consider the amount of 767s sold, it can't be that bad.
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20470
- Joined:
RE: Operation Cost!?!? 767 V. 340
| Quoting PlaneWasted (Reply 20): I wonder how (in)efficient the 767 is per seat basis. It only has one extra seat per row compared to large narrow bodies, but alot of extra fuselage. If you consider the amount of 767s sold, it can't be that bad. |
Only one extra seat row, but much more cargo space.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests