The cargo business fell due to "reduced availability of cargo space on the African network."
That's a pity.
My company is setting up a hub in Belgium for African customers a.o..
We would love to see plenty of freight capacity to Africa out of Belgium.(at competitive rates please)
If freight is 'suffering' from more passengers, then SN should consider full cargo flights to some African destinations. Time to start thinking of the A330F ? Or are the 'new' A330-RR's bringing enough extra capacity for PAX AND cargo?
Or bigger aircraft because even for the passenger there are way to small. My last flight to Dakar, we had 305 pax booked, the A330-300 of Brussels Airlines have 284 seat, point less to say that we left many pallet on the ground.
Or bigger aircraft because even for the passenger there are way to small. My last flight to Dakar, we had 305 pax booked, the A330-300 of Brussels Airlines have 284 seat, point less to say that we left many pallet on the ground.
That's a pity. When we book freight we would like to have it 'flown as booked'.Especially when perishables are involved. BTW,305 pax booked and 284 seats... no passengers left behind? or just normal 'overbooking'?
For the freight I guess there is a kind of priority list. And perishables items goes first, this part of the "fresh to shelf" product. For the pax there are of course some priority for example what we call the "free ticket" are low in priority. But of course there are always no show etc.
crew1990 wrote:Or bigger aircraft because even for the passenger there are way to small. My last flight to Dakar, we had 305 pax booked, the A330-300 of Brussels Airlines have 284 seat, point less to say that we left many pallet on the ground.
There is no economically viable bigger aircraft than the 330-300. Only a config change with a higher MTOW would be a better option. Bigger aircraft do not have bigger cargo carrying abilities (at least not at a good price)
The cargo business fell due to "reduced availability of cargo space on the African network."
That's a pity.
My company is setting up a hub in Belgium for African customers a.o..
We would love to see plenty of freight capacity to Africa out of Belgium.(at competitive rates please)
If freight is 'suffering' from more passengers, then SN should consider full cargo flights to some African destinations. Time to start thinking of the A330F ? Or are the 'new' A330-RR's bringing enough extra capacity for PAX AND cargo?
The problem isn't a lack of space, it's that the planes are maxed out on weight. Sn's A330-300 are the older ones, with a lower MTOW than newer planes. The new A330 that's coming in soon has a much higher MTOW. That means you can either put more fuel in for more range (but SN doesn't need that) or you can load more stuff. In this case: you'll be able to load considerably more cargo when the passenger cabin is full. SN have already said that the new plane will be deployed on African routes with high cargo demand for precisely this reason.
crew1990 wrote:Of course there are bigger aircraft which can be "economically viable", it would just need some investments!
And on top of that: as long as a destination isn't served twice daily non-stop, stay away from the bigger plane and increase the frequency! Traffic rights permitting of course!
Higher MTOW also comes with higher navigation charges, airport charges and in theory, fuel flow for equivalent TOW and also higher lease charges/capital cost.
So it only makes sense if the cargo with the lowest yield exceeds these charges, including such times when the additional MTOW is not used. SN probably did the math and some destinations/periods benefit from having an aircraft with additional weight capacity.
crew1990 wrote:Of course there are bigger aircraft which can be "economically viable", it would just need some investments!
Like which one? The A340 is about the worst aircraft ever build from an economical point of view.
A380? (and even there, cargo carrying capability is not what it should be)
Deutsche Lufthansa (LHA:GR), which flies 48 A340s—more than any carrier—says the plane’s latest variant uses about 30 percent more fuel per passenger-mile flown than the two newer twin-engine widebodies that it has on order, Boeing’s (BA) 777X and Airbus’s A350. That’s why, after spending an average $120 million for an A340 a few years ago, airlines and leasing companies today are reselling the same plane for about $20 million—“and only that if they’re lucky,” says Phil Seymour, president of IBA Group, a British aviation consulting firm. In September, International Lease Finance (AIG) took a $1.1 billion writedown on its fleet of four-engine planes, which consists mainly of A340s.
Not a useless article, just one that doesn't back up your claim. All it backs up is that the A340, especially the -500/600 is less economical than a 777 or A350. YOUR claim is that it is "about the worst aircraft ever build (sic) from an economical point of view."
Which is certifiable nonsense. When launched, the A340 was one of the most economical aircraft in the skies. Its only problem was that Boeing absolutely knocked it out of the park with the 777, especially the -300ER/200LR vs. the A340-500/600.
teach wrote:
When launched, the A340 was one of the most economical aircraft in the skies. Its only problem was that Boeing absolutely knocked it out of the park with the 777, especially the -300ER/200LR vs. the A340-500/600.
Indeed, the B777 did that .... 2 years after the A340 came into service Silly me
teach wrote:
When launched, the A340 was one of the most economical aircraft in the skies. Its only problem was that Boeing absolutely knocked it out of the park with the 777, especially the -300ER/200LR vs. the A340-500/600.
Indeed, the B777 did that .... 2 years after the A340 came into service Silly me
Why are you insisting on being an absolute jerk about this? Your claim was it was one of the worst aircraft ever from an economical point of view, and that was false. The original A340-300 and 777-200Er were pretty close, BTW. The 77W vs A346 is where the A340 ran into trouble, because the former turned out to be much better than even Boeing thought it would be, thanks to the superb performance of the GE90.
Now, as this is nothing to do with the thread, and we're getting way off topic, I suggest we either let it rest, or you start a new thread.
Cut it out, guys. Snarky remarks will get you nowhere.
I have to say that I supports both Sean's point of view, and his way of bringing it across. There was nothing silly or "jerk-like" about his comment.
The A340 may have been one of the most economical aircraft in the sky, but that's quite a few years ago. The only reason it's still flying today is because fuel is cheap, and the aircraft is cheap. Maintenance on these birds is not cheap, though. They do still fill a niche gap for some airlines, but I honestly don't think they would be a worthwhile investment for SN. If it wasn't so inexpensive compared to some other aircraft, all of them would long have been parked in the desert.
However, that I expensiveness won't last. The maintenance bills will start to catch up, and the fuel price will most likely rise again as well. By that time, the only operators who will still operate the A340 are this for whom it would be more expensive not to.
(and even there, cargo carrying capability is not what it should be)
