Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Mohd Azizul Ramli

MAS New 15 A330-300X + 4 A330-200 Freighter

Recommended Posts

Not sure if it is any special deal but when I checked the KUL-SIN-SYD and KUL-SIN-HKG flights yesterday, the A380 flights are not available for booking on the lowest cost tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Choice Of Aircraft Depends On Airlines' Choice & Market Needs

 

By Yong Soo Heong

 

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 9 (Bernama) -- In the world of aircraft sales where megabucks are involved, aircraft builders usually go to great lengths to promote their planes, especially when arguments and comments are made on their suitability.

 

And they go the extra mile to protect their turf or to make counter arguments because the stakes are extremely high.

 

Recently, it was debated in the local media that the operating cost of an Airbus A380 is lower than a Boeing 777-300ER.

 

The report was made against the backdrop of Malaysia Airlines (MAS) having to wait for five agonising years to take delivery of the "double-decker" A380 in the first half of 2012.

 

The report said that the A380's sheer size commanded many advantages: They include that the A380 has the highest structural payload or the sum of the passenger and cargo weight that the aircraft is able to carry and that the aircraft can complete long-haul flights with 345 seats to London or Amsterdam without sacrificing its payload.

 

The report also drew comparisons with the 747-400 and 777-300ER, both long- haul planes manufactured by Boeing, and argued that these planes have to sacrifice valuable payload in order to carry more fuel to complete the flight.

 

Interestingly, the report gave much debate on the B777-300ER, saying that it is a mature aircraft as it came into service in 2004 and whose value could plummet if the rival A350, a long-range, mid-size, wide-body aircraft, enters service in 2015.

 

It said that the 777-300ER, a long-range, wide-body twin-engine aircraft, may still work if cabin passenger comfort is compromised through smaller seats.

 

This will mean very dense seating configuration.

 

Last year, MAS signed a memorandum of understanding with Airbus for 15 A330-300s and acquired purchase options for another 10. The A330-300 is a large-capacity, wide-body, twin-engine, medium-to-long-range commercial passenger airliner which entered into service in 1993.

 

These A330s, to be delivered between 2011 and 2016, are said to complement the airline's incoming fleet of six A380s and 35 B737-800s.

 

Presently, MAS has 13 B747-400s, 17 B777-200s, 11 A330-300s, three A330-200s and 37 B737-400s.

 

According to aviation industry insiders, the choice of aircraft is usually made by an airline after taking into consideration the aircraft's configuration like available seating, range, fuel economy as well as the market it proposes to serve.

 

Those in the know about the B777-300ER revealed that the aircraft has an 11 per cent lower operating cost per seat (�unit cost�) than the A380, and consumes 20 per cent less fuel per seat than the A380.

 

They also claimed that the B777-300ER costs 33 per cent less to operate per flight, equating to nearly RM100 million lower operating costs per airplane, per year. And over a 20-year lifespan, a single B777-300ER saves nearly RM2 billion compared to one A380-800.

 

The industry insiders said that a B777-300ER carries eight tonnes more revenue cargo per flight than the A380, and has 380 nautical miles more range from KLIA than the A380, and this is significant when flying to key long-haul European cities.

 

They also said the B777-300ER has been the choice of many airlines worldwide to replace B747 fleets.

 

Since the launch of the rival A350 in November 2005, the insiders said that B777 aircraft had captured over 55 per cent of the market compared with the A350-900 and A350-1000 variants.

 

-- BERNAMA

 

Ah, so the debate continues :D

Notice that manufacturer B has had an ad at Bernama's front page for a long long time already :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very bad reporting. They made a lot of statements but never disclosed the source. This kind of reporting will get more respect from me (source: Air Transport World http://atwonline.com/news/singapore-airshow-news-0309-0 ):

 

Airbus' Director-Product Marketing-A380 Richard Carcaillet told this website that SIA's A380s are achieving a 20% reduction in fuel burn over the 747-400. He said this supports Airbus figures that show the A380 with 525 seats has an 8% fuel burn advantage over the yet-to-fly 405-seat 747-8. Airbus has adjusted its seating figures to reflect the new business class flat beds, while Boeing claims there is just a 100-seat difference between the two jets.

 

I do not think the A380 should be compared to the B77W if an airline's route is able to support the higher pax loads of the A380. It is silly that the Malaysian media is comparing the A380 with the B77W just because MH says they are considering the B77W as an alternative. B77W has its own mission capabilities and is the best plane for those kinds of missions. Similarly the A380 has its own mission profile.

 

If that is the case, MH should also be considering the C-Series based on a statement from Lufthansa:

 

Lufthansa believes that the 747-8, which will enter service late next year, will have almost the same fuel burn per passenger as the A380 on LH’s typical missions while the CSeries will outperform both.

 

“These are numbers on our load factors, on our network and in our configurations," Senior VP-Corporate Fleet Nico Buchholz told attendees at ATW’s Eco-Aviation Conference in Washington last month. He said the 747-8 will have a fuel burn of 3.51 liters per passenger per 100 km. while the A380 with Rolls-Royce engines, which LH also has ordered, will achieve a burn of 3.4 litersand the CSeries powered by the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G will burn just 3.1 liters on the same basis.

 

The Malaysian media (and Bernama in particular) has much to learn...

Edited by flee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if it is any special deal but when I checked the KUL-SIN-SYD and KUL-SIN-HKG flights yesterday, the A380 flights are not available for booking on the lowest cost tickets.

Doesn't that depended more on the time of the flight, rather than the type of the aircraft? Anyway, we will see more of SQ A380 between SIN-SYD soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't that depended more on the time of the flight, rather than the type of the aircraft? Anyway, we will see more of SQ A380 between SIN-SYD soon.

No, because the minute you select the more expensive fares on the booking page, the A380 flights become available for booking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that MH is not considering the 77W against the A380. They are considering it against the 787 and A350. Tengku Azmil made that quite clear.

 

A fleet of 6 A380, ~10 77W, ~25 A333, ~50 738 and some of the newer 77E's that could perhaps be retrofitted would be pretty nice for MH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that MH is not considering the 77W against the A380. They are considering it against the 787 and A350. Tengku Azmil made that quite clear.

 

A fleet of 6 A380, ~10 77W, ~25 A333, ~50 738 and some of the newer 77E's that could perhaps be retrofitted would be pretty nice for MH.

 

What about 200 to 240 seater? MH has many routes that can’t sustain daily A33E or 77W e.g. BNE, MLE, MNL, FCO, FRA, CDG, LAX, etc.

 

:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that MH is not considering the 77W against the A380. They are considering it against the 787 and A350. Tengku Azmil made that quite clear.

 

A fleet of 6 A380, ~10 77W, ~25 A333, ~50 738 and some of the newer 77E's that could perhaps be retrofitted would be pretty nice for MH.

 

10 77Ws sound too many for MH. My wild guess is around 5 or 6. MH should consider 787-8 and not 787-9 as the former is more optimised than the latter and go for A350-900 for 77E replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 77Ws sound too many for MH. My wild guess is around 5 or 6. MH should consider 787-8 and not 787-9 as the former is more optimised than the latter and go for A350-900 for 77E replacement.

 

Perhaps MH can pick up the 6 77Ws that Air India is trying desperately to lease out? I read on A.net that already one of AI's 77W is in Marana in storage.

 

Planes that MH can get now would be a very nice option to replace some of the 744s or even the 772s!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps MH can pick up the 6 77Ws that Air India is trying desperately to lease out? I read on A.net that already one of AI's 77W is in Marana in storage.

 

Planes that MH can get now would be a very nice option to replace some of the 744s or even the 772s!

 

 

They are still in 'decision making'. No idea how long it will take. But if they don't act now, they will miss these 77Ws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MH has said in the past that it intends to simplyfy the fleet to 3 aircraft types. So their next widebody order will have to replace the B744, B772 and A333. I think that the B787 family might be a bit too small for their needs.

 

The A350 family looks more promising but that will mean that some of the current B744 routes will have to be upgraded to A380 and others will be downgraded (capacity wise) to the A350. MH might decide to get some A350-900s and some A350-1000s for the job.

 

Decision is expected at the end of the year. However, with GLCs, these "deadlines" are immensely flexible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MH has said in the past that it intends to simplyfy the fleet to 3 aircraft types. So their next widebody order will have to replace the B744, B772 and A333. I think that the B787 family might be a bit too small for their needs.

 

In the 90’s, MH purchased 734, A333, 772 and 774 to replace 732, A300, DC-10-30 and 742 respectively. Why MH still need to maintain 1980’s business model?

 

If MH can’t sustain daily 772 service to CDG, FRA, LAX, FCO, etc, why do they need 77W? Why do they need two type rating for 280/320 seater?

 

:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may sound like an old record, but if they didn't buy A380 in the first place, their fleet replacement plan will be less complicated.

 

77W for 747

A350/787 for 77E

A330 for A330

 

With A380s on order, they only one choice to replace 77E and perhaps 747, if they plan to operate only 3 types of aircraft. 77W looks promising because it sits between those two, but it is too big for MH operations. A330, meanwhile doesn't have legs to do European routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about 200 to 240 seater? MH has many routes that can’t sustain daily A33E or 77W e.g. BNE, MLE, MNL, FCO, FRA, CDG, LAX, etc.

 

:drinks:

 

That's a very valid point. What do you suggest MH do then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about 200 to 240 seater? MH has many routes that can’t sustain daily A33E or 77W e.g. BNE, MLE, MNL, FCO, FRA, CDG, LAX, etc.

 

:drinks:

We must not forget that although some routes may be thinner for pax, cargo demand may be high. That is why MH can still make those routes work - because total payload still makes sense for using the aircraft that they are using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and 77W is the best passenger plane for cargo, isn't it? Besides, I think 787 may be a good option, however is still too small for the segment between A330 and A380.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We must not forget that although some routes may be thinner for pax, cargo demand may be high. That is why MH can still make those routes work - because total payload still makes sense for using the aircraft that they are using.

 

Then MH should have daily A333/772 service to BNE, MNL, MLE, FCO, CDG, LAX, FRA, etc.

 

:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and 77W is the best passenger plane for cargo, isn't it? Besides, I think 787 may be a good option, however is still too small for the segment between A330 and A380.

MASKargo also have their B742F/B744F for very high demand cargo routes. And next year, they should also have the A332F cargo carrier. So they have lots of flexibility for their cargo ops.

Edited by flee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the Q2 2010 result announcement today, MH made a strong indication that they might exercise the 2 option they have for the A332F. In fact, MH is currently in negotiation with Airbus regarding this matter for delivery by June 2012. MH also plans to lease 2 more B742F by September 2010 to strengthen MasKargo. Are we seeing more Southern Air freighter jumbos in the pipeline?

 

A3331.jpg

 

During the Q2 2010 result announcement today, MH made a strong indication that they might exercise the 2 option they have for the A332F. In fact, MH is currently in negotiation with Airbus regarding this matter for delivery by June 2012. MH also plans to lease 3 more B742F by September 2010 to strengthen MasKargo. Are we seeing 3 more Southern Air freighter jumbos in the pipeline?

 

A3331.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is good to see MAS Kargo having some sort of strategy.

 

Additional heavy lift is now supplied by more leased planes and it will be easier to adjust capacity when demand fluctuates. This reduces the risk of having their own big B742/744 cargo aircraft parked and/or in storage.

 

The medium lift A332Fs are their own planes and are likely to be workhorses for their Asian services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is good to see MAS Kargo having some sort of strategy.

 

Additional heavy lift is now supplied by more leased planes and it will be easier to adjust capacity when demand fluctuates. This reduces the risk of having their own big B742/744 cargo aircraft parked and/or in storage.

 

The medium lift A332Fs are their own planes and are likely to be workhorses for their Asian services.

 

Maskargo previous lease agreement with Icelandnair didn’t permit early termination. In 2008 and 2009, Maskargo was paying for idling 747F.

 

:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about JFK-AMS, is there any chance for MH to restart New York route again, via AMS perhaps? Considering MH-KL relationship, it may work well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maskargo previous lease agreement with Icelandnair didn’t permit early termination. In 2008 and 2009, Maskargo was paying for idling 747F.

 

:drinks:

 

It was Air Atlanta Icelandic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...