VS confirms A330 order

http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNLDE6 ... 111?rpc=44

Wonder what they are going to do with all these new planes [}:)]

David

http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pr ... antic.html

Interesting enought, this Airbus article still mentions the 6 A380 that are on order. So maybe all these rumours of cancellations are just that, rumours.

David

They will replace the A340-300s and some of the A340-600s

As far as im aware the a330s are going to LGW for leaner routes and better yields. The A380 orders cannot be canceled without penalties they are still on order for 2014 unless they are converted to another airbus order. I believe the 787s are for heathrow to replace the 340 300s. Time will tell however it could all change!

When are the A330s anticipated to be arriving?

2011

[Darren Wheeler]

The boxes of crumbs for the seat pockets are due in 2012

quote:Originally posted by David
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNLDE6 ... 111?rpc=44

Wonder what they are going to do with all these new planes [}:)]

David


Pee off their customers, dont forget that customers still travel with them because they fly '4 Engines'[V]

If they were going for '2 engines' they should have selected the better plane the 777[oo]

[Darren Wheeler]

quote:Originally posted by 747340
quote:Originally posted by David
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNLDE6 ... 111?rpc=44

Wonder what they are going to do with all these new planes [}:)]

David


Pee off their customers, dont forget that customers still travel with them because they fly '4 Engines'[V]

If they were going for '2 engines' they should have selected the better plane the 777[oo]


Why?

4 engines doesn't rate high on my list of priorities. 2 working engines is just fine. Do they demand a different flight if a 2-engine aircraft is substituted at short notice?

The 787 is on order, and should be a much better aircraft than the 777. Plus they would have to get all the flight crew trained and certified for 777.

quote:Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
quote:Originally posted by 747340
quote:Originally posted by David
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNLDE6 ... 111?rpc=44

Wonder what they are going to do with all these new planes [}:)]

David


Pee off their customers, dont forget that customers still travel with them because they fly '4 Engines'[V]

If they were going for '2 engines' they should have selected the better plane the 777[oo]


Why?

4 engines doesn't rate high on my list of priorities. 2 working engines is just fine. Do they demand a different flight if a 2-engine aircraft is substituted at short notice?

The 787 is on order, and should be a much better aircraft than the 777. Plus they would have to get all the flight crew trained and certified for 777.


I think 747340 was referring to the fact SRB should have ordered the 777 when he made a big song and dance about 4 engines 4 long haul when ordering the A340-600 and not the 787. It was only a few years back Airbus issued an advisory to not carry as much cargo at the front of the A346 and VS along with a few others considered suing them.

As for 4 engines for long haul making a difference to customers, I agree with Darren, 99% of pax wont care, as long as it gets them there.

I think it's pretty common knowledge that the 777-300er is the most cost effective aircraft to run, however the A346's lower purchase price probably swung it VS's way.

quote:Originally posted by clarkeysntfc
I think it's pretty common knowledge that the 777-300er is the most cost effective aircraft to run, however the A346's lower purchase price probably swung it VS's way.


But how much money are they losing by not being able to carry as much cargo as first thought? It's all swings and round abouts!

[Scrooge]

quote:Originally posted by Darren Wheeler

The 787 is on order, and should be a much better aircraft than the 777. Plus they would have to get all the flight crew trained and certified for 777.


The 787 and the 777 are two totally different aircraft designed for 2 different missions.

With that said I can see the 789's replacing a lot of the early T7's.

quote:Originally posted by Aaron

I think 747340 was referring to the fact SRB should have ordered the 777 when he made a big song and dance about 4 engines 4 long haul when ordering the A340-600 and not the 787. It was only a few years back Airbus issued an advisory to not carry as much cargo at the front of the A346 and VS along with a few others considered suing them.

As for 4 engines for long haul making a difference to customers, I agree with Darren, 99% of pax wont care, as long as it gets them there.


You have to remember that when SRB said that, ETOPS was something very new, in some ways taking the 346 over the T7 was a good gamble, but it proved to be wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Aaron
quote:Originally posted by clarkeysntfc
I think it's pretty common knowledge that the 777-300er is the most cost effective aircraft to run, however the A346's lower purchase price probably swung it VS's way.


But how much money are they losing by not being able to carry as much cargo as first thought? It's all swings and round abouts!


quote:Originally posted by clarkeysntfc
I think it's pretty common knowledge that the 777-300er is the most cost effective aircraft to run, however the A346's lower purchase price probably swung it VS's way.


You need to remember, when the 346's were ordered there was no such thing as the 773er's so the economics were a little different.

Also to the likes of JNB the 346 kills the T7 just because of the engine out scenario.

Looking 5 years ahead, VS will have a very young fleet of twins to run a lot of routes and the 346's to run the high demand and hot and high routes. Where they stand with the 388's, who knows.

The fwd cargo weight penalty on the VS A346 was because of the weight of the UCS, not AI's fault. AI reduced the price due to the extra running costs over the B773ER, but that did nothing for the aircrafts resale price. There are plenty of broken promises on the A346, hence CX didn't keep theirs (couldn't operate HKG-JFK at max payload even after 'hyper fuelling')

Much has been written in the past about VS & the A330, it was 'nearly' a done deal a few years ago & the idea then was to use them for regional airports (GLA-MCO/GLA-BGI). With the demise of GSM it could be good timing. I'm sure the two parked A346 are part of the deal now though.

As for the A380, i'm sure a carrier that can manage the aircraft will pick up the 2014 delivery slots & allow VS some more breathing time.

quote:Originally posted by Denzil


Much has been written in the past about VS & the A330, it was 'nearly' a done deal a few years ago & the idea then was to use them for regional airports (GLA-MCO/GLA-BGI). With the demise of GSM it could be good timing.

[y]Please - would be great [:D]

David

quote:Originally posted by Scrooge
You have to remember that when SRB said that, ETOPS was something very new, in some ways taking the 346 over the T7 was a good gamble, but it proved to be wrong.


Very true - and now isn't ETOPS being replaced soon by EROPS - as in extended range operating procedures - and this will apply to quads and two engined planes. So the question about different flights (routes, ops etc.) will change to something more common.

This of course still does not mean that a twin will work everywhere - as in the JNB route where, currently, quads meet requirements. For a twin there an engine flame out would mean even bigger engines and hugely more thrust requirements.

[Decker]

LROPS surely?

quote:Originally posted by Decker
LROPS surely?


Poo!

Or LROMs???????

[Decker]

Oooh yes Long Range Operational Manuals...

[Scrooge]

A twin can do the routes out of place like JNB, however they take a payload penalty to cover the engine out on take off situation.

As I see it, out of LHR 346/744's needed for west coast USA, HKG/SYD, JNB and SYD flights, everything else can be covered by 333/789's

So roughly looking at it, VS needs 9 346's (assuming 1 flight a day to LAX and HKG) everything else could fall to the twins.

Now the big question is what they will do with the MCO routes, they could move some of the 346's over to LGW, but then run head long into the problem that the majority of the gates can't take a 346 from what I have been told. The 744's could hang around until the 388's come in, but do VS really want to run 388's into MCO ? certainly it would allow for a larger UC and PE cabin, but is there enough demand to make the flight profitable ?

quote:Originally posted by Scrooge

Now the big question is what they will do with the MCO routes, they could move some of the 346's over to LGW, but then run head long into the problem that the majority of the gates can't take a 346 from what I have been told. The 744's could hang around until the 388's come in, but do VS really want to run 388's into MCO ? certainly it would allow for a larger UC and PE cabin, but is there enough demand to make the flight profitable ?


Surely MCO is a must for the A380 (if it arrives) 2 747's from LGW and 2 747's from MAN for probably more than half of the year at the moment could easily be replaced by 2 A380 from both giving room for a little growth. Peek season, when there are 3 747's from LGW could handle 2 A280's + an A330.

The timing of the current flights is probably irrelevent to most of the leasure travellers (assuming they arrive in daylight hours)

However they replace the jumbo's, as long as its with new planes, they will probably cut most of the current complaints by 3/4's.

This could be all 'up in the air' [:w] if Denzil is correct and they think about expanding this service from GLA etc. Would be interesting to know how much of the LGW/MAN traffic originates north of the border. (I know the July flights out of GLA are pretty much jammed at the moment)

David

David

[Scrooge]

Does anyone have a current list of what is leased and what is owned in the current fleet ?

Have a search for G-INFO gives you a good idea.

I must say I thought it was a bit odd when I read VS ordering A330's. I know they're decent planes, but they've been around for 18 years now. If they must get some smaller planes, could they not wait another couple of years and order A350's which will be much more fuel efficient?

[Scrooge]

The 350 is not a 'small' plane, well neither is the 330, but the 350 is the next size up.

In the sub 5000nm routes it's pretty hard to beat a 330 for costs and revenue.