kflyer2:
Not to get into any argument about twin-vs-quad, but ..
Somebody somewhere has done the mathematics, to find the 345 not exhorbitantly bad as painted .. it may be a gas guzzler, but, not so bad enough to make every flight a loss ..
Statistics are statistics, but, it is beyond comprehension that EK continues to fly their A345 on DUB/SYD sectors, as well as EY, and SQ find some money to be made, and that money is still profit, compared to parking the plane in VCV or elsewhere .. And SQ, at 65% load factor in the ULH flights are still smiling enough to incur the high cost of extended crew and extended night stop for the crew (as dead heading ULH crew is still not acceptable, and the crew rotate back after approx 3 days of rest) ...
And, coming back to 330/343/772, well, there aren't many in the market anyway, and, compared to the relatively young 345s, most of the 332/343/772 in the market are old hacked birds, due for the C check ..
Oh, I did forget something about not going the "Boeing Way" - crew training. Airbus wide-bodies have a common cockpit rating .. Introduction to service will be much faster. And, who knows, our good neighbor would have brokered a deal to off-load their 345s are more than preferential terms ..
And, as for profitability, though common sense says you dont fly ULH aircraft on short sectors, SQ was rotating their 345s to CGK - flying time around 1 hour, and I once flew a 747 SIN-KUL - flying time less than 45 mins ..