KingFisher to Sell A340-500's
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Auckland NZ
Age: 65
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KingFisher to Sell A340-500's
Kingfisher to sell two A340s to other carriers
Manisha Singhal / Mumbai July 26, 2008, 0:29 IST
To defer deliveries of 29 narrow-bodied aircraft.
Weighed down by rising crude prices, Vijay Mallya-promoted Kingfisher Airlines is in negotiations with international carriers to sell two of the five A340-500 aircraft it had committed to buy from Airbus last year. The airline may also defer taking deliveries of 29 narrow-bodied A320s, airline sources said.
The list price for A340 aircraft is $160 million, but insiders said Kingfisher might have negotiated the price at $90 million. "We might think of selling more A340s if fuel prices stay this way," sources in Kingfisher said.
When contacted, Kingfisher Chairman Vijay Mallya did not comment on the delivery schedule of the narrow bodied aircraft but said the delivery of 10 wide-bodied aircraft will be taken this year.
According to a Kingfisher executive, the airline has almost 20 deliveries scheduled per year till 2012, but that schedule will be revised.
According to Kingfisher’s original international launch schedule, the A340s were to fly New York-Mumbai and San Francisco-Bangalore non-stop in August. The New York launch may now be kept in abeyance.
According to aviation experts, the move makes sense as A340 consumes one and a half times more fuel than the 330s and the airline has no option but to think of deployment of alternate aircraft and opt for a stop-over route rather than a direct flight.
Mallya did not comment on the issue of scrapping flights to New York, but said “We have several route options which we are evaluating. We will announce our international schedule in two weeks.”
Kingfisher currently has 84 aircraft, next only to the fleet strength of Naresh Goyal-promoted Jet Airways, which has 87 aircraft.
Manisha Singhal / Mumbai July 26, 2008, 0:29 IST
To defer deliveries of 29 narrow-bodied aircraft.
Weighed down by rising crude prices, Vijay Mallya-promoted Kingfisher Airlines is in negotiations with international carriers to sell two of the five A340-500 aircraft it had committed to buy from Airbus last year. The airline may also defer taking deliveries of 29 narrow-bodied A320s, airline sources said.
The list price for A340 aircraft is $160 million, but insiders said Kingfisher might have negotiated the price at $90 million. "We might think of selling more A340s if fuel prices stay this way," sources in Kingfisher said.
When contacted, Kingfisher Chairman Vijay Mallya did not comment on the delivery schedule of the narrow bodied aircraft but said the delivery of 10 wide-bodied aircraft will be taken this year.
According to a Kingfisher executive, the airline has almost 20 deliveries scheduled per year till 2012, but that schedule will be revised.
According to Kingfisher’s original international launch schedule, the A340s were to fly New York-Mumbai and San Francisco-Bangalore non-stop in August. The New York launch may now be kept in abeyance.
According to aviation experts, the move makes sense as A340 consumes one and a half times more fuel than the 330s and the airline has no option but to think of deployment of alternate aircraft and opt for a stop-over route rather than a direct flight.
Mallya did not comment on the issue of scrapping flights to New York, but said “We have several route options which we are evaluating. We will announce our international schedule in two weeks.”
Kingfisher currently has 84 aircraft, next only to the fleet strength of Naresh Goyal-promoted Jet Airways, which has 87 aircraft.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: EU World
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the future of widebodies
Yes, I heard this. And I heard that nobody wants to buy those A340s because they are very heavy - very specifically furnished as per chairmans wishes. So the company just pays day by day and 340s just wait and wait in France.
N4790P
..and who will purchase them? There are a few laid up in Thailand to since TG abandoned the LAX and JFT no stoppers. Nobody in their right mind wants to spend 18 hrs in any airframe, crew or SLF.
Rumours too that some of the KFA/Deccan ATR orders are being deferred.
Rumours too that some of the KFA/Deccan ATR orders are being deferred.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Good From Far, Far From Good
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This announcement makes full sense in the current climate. If these 340's cost 90 million USD each... then they will sell at a right price even if their cabins have been custom furbished.
Speaking of the cabin: are KFA's 345s similarly equipped to their 332s ?
Airbus' marketing department must be working hard to find them new buyers.
Mutt:
Can you please elaborate on "potential routes" ?
Thanks
Speaking of the cabin: are KFA's 345s similarly equipped to their 332s ?
Airbus' marketing department must be working hard to find them new buyers.
Mutt:
Can you please elaborate on "potential routes" ?
Thanks
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Singaporelah not any more
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZFT. You have just sprouted a load of bull. Pax love it and crews [ flt deck] also. I know, Iam one, your not.
Would make a great private jet. Anywhere in the world nonstop. I'm avail
Would make a great private jet. Anywhere in the world nonstop. I'm avail
N4790P
Pax love it? I've yet to meet anyone who has been couped up for 18+ hours within it to agree with you. I will never subject myself to another ultra long haul and this nothing to do with a/c type, just the concept.
I can't comment on flight crew but the cc certainly do not like it.
I can't comment on flight crew but the cc certainly do not like it.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like the 777-200LR, the A345 is a niche market airplane with little demand.
One has to question why IT even considered the A345 knowing full well it has inferior fuel burn to the 777-200LR...its not a surprise that TG are disposing of their machines and that orders in general for the A340 are unlikely ever to recover given the current price of fuel/oil.
One has to question why IT even considered the A345 knowing full well it has inferior fuel burn to the 777-200LR...its not a surprise that TG are disposing of their machines and that orders in general for the A340 are unlikely ever to recover given the current price of fuel/oil.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 1°21'10.20"N - 103°56'36.21"E
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A345
Was following the progress of 345, and if it is such a fuel guzzler, wonder why EK and SQ are flying them (though the latter has switched to C Class only)
It is all about fitting the right aircraft to the right schedule. Or making the route profitable enough to cover costs and make money.
TG supposedly struggled as their schedules and connections didn't fit properly.
SQ got the formula right, and this is an airline that dumps aircraft if they don't make money. And I dont remember SQ flying routes for prestige sake, unlike some state owned carriers, which fly to Sahara due to political reasons ..
It is all about fitting the right aircraft to the right schedule. Or making the route profitable enough to cover costs and make money.
TG supposedly struggled as their schedules and connections didn't fit properly.
SQ got the formula right, and this is an airline that dumps aircraft if they don't make money. And I dont remember SQ flying routes for prestige sake, unlike some state owned carriers, which fly to Sahara due to political reasons ..
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly,
The SQ 340 First Class was the only way to fly when it was inaugurated. Super Quiet and comfortable, I scheduled longer duty days just to get on it. It had acres of wonderful space around each seat when they first brought it out.
Now I'm poor and retired and ride in hell in the back....
But twin engine mtc has gotta be cheaper/more reliable. Jet A is never going to be dirt cheap again, so...... what kind of future can a four-holer have when it gets older and twin eng mtc is cheaper?
It's a shame, great bird to commute on from a pax perspective. But I never took it over four hour legs.
The SQ 340 First Class was the only way to fly when it was inaugurated. Super Quiet and comfortable, I scheduled longer duty days just to get on it. It had acres of wonderful space around each seat when they first brought it out.
Now I'm poor and retired and ride in hell in the back....
But twin engine mtc has gotta be cheaper/more reliable. Jet A is never going to be dirt cheap again, so...... what kind of future can a four-holer have when it gets older and twin eng mtc is cheaper?
It's a shame, great bird to commute on from a pax perspective. But I never took it over four hour legs.
