Malaysia Airlines ponder longer range A330, to replace B777

[BC Tam 2]

Don't think it will happen as D7's A350 will be in LCC configuration. Besides, I believe D7's deliveries will commence around 2016-2017. By then, D7 will either be bankrupt or a runaway success. Don't expect things to stand still!

Would they have had to finalize interior configurations already for 2016-17 deliveries ?

But yes, things will not stand still - for all we know MH/AK share swap v2.0 (or later versions) could well have been installed and running by then If so, could well see the current dugongs flying in AK's red and the 350's sporting any combination of MH's current varied liveries

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

MH has been ponderig on this issue for a very long time, I hope they make a decision soon. There are only a few types of aircrafts to choose from, can't be that hard.

 

I'm sure MH's network planners have the information - I've seen snippets of it. All they need now is to convince the other stakeholders that they should choose this way or that way.

[leon t 0]

well if MH's management were really serious abt cutting losses, it should for one thing never have ordered the A380s as already it cant fill in the seats. MH should have just maintain all twin engined planes for efficiency and ordered the 77W and the A333s much earlier and only have Biz and EY classes. And yes do agree with the suggestion that MH shd have the A320s instead of the 738s for easier pilots' transition from the 320 to the 333 with minimal training conversion.

[Hardeep P. 0]

I think MAS should follow Lufthansa and order a few 747-8Is as well as the 747-8F. What do you guys think? They probably can get these model by 2015.

[Nuriman Ahmad 2]

I think MAS should follow Lufthansa and order a few 747-8Is as well as the 747-8F. What do you guys think? They probably can get these model by 2015.

 

 

I definitely agree with your statement, purely because I find the curvaceous 748 is way more sexier than the A380, hence it's just an emotive reasoning on my part..

[Waiping 12]

Hopefully they won't dump the A380 at the remote bays while waiting for the next route to fly them.

[flee 5]

Hopefully they won't dump the A380 at the remote bays while waiting for the next route to fly them.

Well there is a delay in deliveries - MH is getting 4 in 2012 and 2 in 2013 instead of 5 in 2012 and 1 in 2013. So lets see what happens...

 

Maybe we shud to to KUL more often in the next 6 months...

[rayner 0]

AJ wish comes true??...

 

Airbus Said To Market Upgraded A330 To Extend Jet’s Range

By Andrea Rothman - Jul 6, 2012 11:13 PM GMT+0800

 

Airbus SAS will start offering an improved version of its twin-engine A330 wide-body that extends its range or payload, two people familiar with the plan said.

 

Airbus management has signed off on the proposal, which may be unveiled at the Farnborough Air show starting next week, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the plan hasn’t been announced yet. The new version would have a maximum takeoff weight of 240 metric tons, extending the range by about 400 nautical miles, the people said.

 

The company completed a detailed resource study this month and determined it could go ahead with the A330 enhancement, overcoming concerns that it may stretch its engineering capabilities too far. Airbus has already said it’s talking with Rolls-Royce Plc (RR/), General Electric Co. (GE) and Pratt & Whitney about incremental improvements to the engines on the A330.

 

“Airframe makers always believe you can never have enough range, and they’ve largely been proved right,” said Paul Sheridan, the head of consultancy Asia at Ascend Worldwide Ltd., an aviation advisory company in London.

 

Airbus is working to boost production of its A330 to 11 a month from 9.5, as airlines buy more of the aircraft partly because Boeing Co. (BA) was late with its competing 787 Dreamliner. Airbus and Boeing have both announced improved versions of their best-selling single-aisle aircraft to make them more fuel efficient, and Airbus is also extending the range of its A321 jets with so-called sharklets that sit on the end of the wings.Airbus, based in Toulouse in southern France, declined to comment.

 

More Weight

 

Boosting the maximum takeoff weight to 240 tons from 238 would allow airlines to accommodate more fuel or passengers and let them book additional revenue from more seats or new destinations. AirAsia X, the long-haul arm of Malaysian budget carrier AirAsia Bhd. (AIRA), is one airline interested in such a plane, as it would allow direct flights from Kuala Lumpur to Paris, Chief Executive Officer Tony Fernandes said in May.

 

Airbus wants to maintain the momentum of the A330 after the Boeing Dreamliner entered service. The U.S. company is studying plans to extend the 787 family with another version, the 787-10. Airbus has won 1,199 orders for the A330, and delivered 871. The A350-900, seating 300 passengers instead of about 250 on an A330, is scheduled to enter service by mid 2014.

A330 customers include AirAsia X, Korean Air (003490), KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, a unit of Air France (AF) KLM Group, Deutsche Lufthansa (LHA) and Iberia, a unit of IAG International. (IAG)

 

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrea Rothman in Toulouse ataerothman@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Benedikt Kammel at bkammel@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-06/airbus-said-to-market-improved-a330-to-bolster-range-of-aircraft.html

[Josh T 0]

The question then is whether the future A33Es of MH's current order can be converted to this new version or whether MH is considering additional orders of the IGW version to actually replace the B772.

 

The current A33E still can't make it to CDG, AMS or FRA but they can fly to IST, SYD and AKL. That's 3 destinations that the B772s can be replaced with A33Es already, so the only destinations that really need the B772 are LAX, AMS, CDG and FRA.

[Riza 0]

How about AKL? It should get MH's 33E instead of the dilapidated interior of 772

[flee 5]

The current A33E still can't make it to CDG, AMS or FRA but they can fly to IST, SYD and AKL. That's 3 destinations that the B772s can be replaced with A33Es already, so the only destinations that really need the B772 are LAX, AMS, CDG and FRA.

Its not just the range - they are also not configured with crew rest area for the alternate crew. So they will need dedicated aircraft for those longhaul destinations.

[Lock SH 0]

The question then is whether the future A33Es of MH's current order can be converted to this new version or whether MH is considering additional orders of the IGW version to actually replace the B772.

 

The current A33E still can't make it to CDG, AMS or FRA but they can fly to IST, SYD and AKL. That's 3 destinations that the B772s can be replaced with A33Es already, so the only destinations that really need the B772 are LAX, AMS, CDG and FRA.

 

Unfortunately, it is not the RANGE, it is more like the ENDURANCE, i.e, how long that A333 could stay aloft in the sky. Flying from KUL-AKL may not be a problem for an A333 but what about from AKL-KUL with at times more than 150 kts jetstream against the flight path over Tasman Sea/Australia continent?

 

I would not want to go in depth the technical specs of an A333 but suffice to say that anything beyond 10 hrs flight time is a bit of a stretch. An operator has to choose between payload (revenue) or fuel.

 

 

[S V Choong 4]

Unfortunately, it is not the RANGE, it is more like the ENDURANCE, i.e, how long that A333 could stay aloft in the sky. Flying from KUL-AKL may not be a problem for an A333 but what about from AKL-KUL with at times more than 150 kts jetstream against the flight path over Tasman Sea/Australia continent?

 

I would not want to go in depth the technical specs of an A333 but suffice to say that anything beyond 10 hrs flight time is a bit of a stretch. An operator has to choose between payload (revenue) or fuel.

 

 

 

You have solved my mystery as to why KUL-AKL is shorter than AKL-KUL, the difference is as much as 30 mins to an hour.

 

Yes 10 hours is a bit of stretch, more so if you factor in the weather... sometimes AKL will have bad weather and the aircraft will need to divert to Ohakea Air Base in the lower north island or Christchurch in the South. Both are between 1 - 2 hours from AKL.

[nrazmoor 0]

Read earlier comments on MH failed to fill up their plane to FRA. Apparently thats not the case on my recent flight KUL-FRA-KUL. I can say that the Y was 90% while J 70-80% full. While on the return leg 100% for Y as for J didnt take a peek but i did noticed that there are only 2seats empty on the last row for J. Thats must be a good sign. Not sure whether its because for the summer/holiday season or not.

 

For short term plan I think they shld refurbish half(the younger ones) of their B777 to include F and as a complement for their A380 route which have 2x daily like LHR and SYD and even PVG to make sure product consistency on that routes. Even AJ admitted that they lack of F seats.

 

If im not mistaken they still have another 10 option on A330 so maybe they can use that option to have the A33E. While on the long run order some of the 787/777X(if materialize) or even A350 since delivery date will be 2017 and above (i think)

[flee 5]

Yes, with the current A330 deliveries replacing the B777 on many routes, the need for the B777 is reduced. So MH can make do with just the newer aircraft being refurbished while it ponders on what new aircraft to order for the future.