Hi,
Are there any other disadvantage of using an older plane (one that is 18+ years old)? I notticed that you can get A340-200s really cheap for long flights. I know it burns lot more fuel than 787s, but I think the lower lease rates would balance out the cost of operating and still make a profit. Besides 5 red bars for plane age which results in lower overall image, will passengers still want to fly on this plane over the long run or will they sill prefer newer airplanes?
You also have to anticipate that those planes have higher maintenance costs than newer frames. And yes, you will have a certain impact on the image. It's a matter of try and error.
Hello,
the leasing rates are very low and so i've operated four 18-20 years old A340-200 for some weeks on routes from UK to South America and Asia (without direct competition by other airlines).
They make money, yes, but besides the bad image and a very high fuel burn you will have maintenance cost that might be higher than the leasing rates (in my case i used african maintenance and i have to pay more for maintenance than for leasing!).
At the end, i changed all A340 to younger A330. They are more efficent and don't damage your image and you can stand with them against competitiors on the same route. Feel free to try the older 340s, but i can't recommend it - particulary in times of expensive fuel.
Greetings
Thanks for the comments.
For some reason I'm hesitent to lease new A330s knowing that the 787s would be a better deal operational wise. In addition, the A330s don't have the range for extra long flights from TPE to JFK for instance. The A340-200s seems like an interesting experiment because of lower AGEX and lower passenger demands.
The only old bird worth leasing IMO is the 747-400. Had a good experience with that plane if you can fill it up.
@drpeterchou: Yes, the 787 would be a better deal than the A330. But in my case it was a decision depending on maintenance classes, i didn't want a fourth class only for the 787 (because i already used a dozen 330 when i tried out the A340). On the other side, for my routes the range of the A330 was enough and i got some very cheap and young planes on the market (below 500K per week).
With the 747, i have no experience.
OK. For those interested. I've experimented with A340-300 and A340-300X. Basically, if you're using this for ultra long flights (+12,000km), go with the A340-300X. The extra range and fuel efficiency will give you a possibility of making a profit of maybe 10,000-15,000 under the condition you have a 100% load (including cargo). The A340-300 would not work for long flights because I was only able to get 28 cargo spaces whereas the A340-300X gets you 111. That number is the difference between profit and loss. The two however works fine for shorter (maybe 9,000km) flights.
The cost of fuel is quite high, but if you can find really cheap leases (mine A340-300X was leasing at about 500,000), you can get more flexibility in your fleet including the use of A330s (which has Cargo planes) without adding to your maintance class. And this was also the strategy I was thinking when evaluating my fleet.
By the way, a 4 and 11 year old aircrafts both gave me an overall image rating of 4.
Hi,
I use a fleet of 58 airbus A300/310 all of which make 30-40% profit margin on Nicosia. The passengers have no issue with them and even on very busy routes full of competition I fill the planes. Makes much more sense than paying 10 or 15 time higher leasing rates! The other bonus is that both aircraft families operate on the same maintenance and pilot ratings so you get upwards of 10 different size and range aircraft for one category. I fly upto 8000km with my A310’s.
Boeing 757 are amazing, old and no longer in production but return huge profits. I have 32 757-200IGW’s making me a very healthy profit. A shame they’re so difficult to find now on Nicosia!
Hope that helps.
Phill
UK Express
Nicosia