Finnair has now 8 Airbus A330-300s and 10 Airbus A350s (9 on order). A330s have 263 / 289 seats and A350s have 297 / 336 seats. Finnair has no smaller wide-body jets which could be necessary on routes that currently have lower load factor. For example, if AY operates a route by 289 seated Airbus A330-300 and the route has a passenger load factor of 80%, then there is around 230 passenger on an aircraft that can accommodate 289 seats. Thus there are almost 60 seats not used. If Finnair ordered either A330-200s or A330-800neo aircraft with around 240 seats, the load factor would be over 90% and operations on that route could spend less money and could be more profitable. There might be routes where A330-300s and A350s are too large. In my opinion, Finnair should order 10 Airbus A330-200s or A330-800neos with around 240 seats.

That's how I think.

They could be used on routes that have lower passenger load factor than the AY's main routes.
AY could also launch new routes that could be profitable with smaller aircraft:

Helsinki - Changsha
Helsinki - Chengdu
Helsinki - Denpasar/Bali (main unserved route from HEL by O/D traffic)
Helsinki - Fuzhou (does not have any direct connection to Europe)
Helsinki - Hangzhou
Helsinki - Kuala Lumpur
Helsinki - Los Angeles
Helsinki - Manila
Helsinki - Mumbai
Helsinki - Sapporo

What do you think?

This is so right.

The problem with the A332/A338 (and 788) is that their trip costs are too similar to their larger siblings. So it doesn't matter if there are a lot of empty seats with the bigger plane if the cost of operating the smaller one is near identical. The A332/A338 is really only attractive if you need the range over the A333/A339 (Not sure AY really does) or if you can't afford the bigger plane.

The problem for Finnair then is that they have to keep them on those certain routes because they'll have less capacity for other routes. By having the A333 and A359 then it means they have the aircraft to cover all there routes.

The trouble with the A332/8 is that their trip fuel costs are not that much smaller than their respective larger siblings. I expect AY to order some A339 for replacement of the A333, probably not 1:1 since there are enough A359 on order, some of which will replace a few A333 if I remember correctly. I imagine the A339 cabins to offer Y+, which in AY is just some more leg room, but is other wise a standard Y seat and doesn't cost much more to buy that the regular Y (+€35 if I remember correctly from a finnair advertisement some years ago), rather that what many carriers have which is priced closer to J with similar service.

They should buy bigger planes for future growth like A350-1000. Not many empty seats on those Asian flights.

AY-MD11 wrote:

They should buy bigger planes for future growth like A350-1000. Not many empty seats on those Asian flights.

Finnair has options for A350-1000 aircraft.

The passenger load factor on AY's Asian flights is around 85%. Some flights to destinations such as Hong Kong, Seoul and Tokyo has over 90%. I guess Finnair will have a passenger load factor of 90% on almost all Asian flights in the near future.

I would tend to agree on more A333/A339s, but not smaller wide-bodies (remember, an A332/A333 built now has the same 242t MTOW, to also be used by the A338/A339). There are only eight A333s in the fleet and to serve all the Asian destinations plus New York and Miami (Miami is currently suspended for the summer season), you will need more for secondary destinations, with the A359s and A35Ks sent to the primary ones. The destinations in the OP don't need the range of the A338/A332, as they are all within an A333's range and some are within the range of a narrow body as well (like Urumqi, not mentioned by the OP). Finnair has a particularly strong brand name in China and it is likely that more planes will be needed to serve the Orient. That said, I doubt that Finnair will ever serve Los Angeles because its bread and butter is to the Far East.

It is also a question of fleet commonality. A fleet of around 20 planes probably doesn't support three types.

QuawerAir wrote:

Finnair has now 8 Airbus A330-300s and 10 Airbus A350s (9 on order). A330s have 263 / 289 seats and A350s have 297 / 336 seats. Finnair has no smaller wide-body jets which could be necessary on routes that currently have lower load factor. For example, if AY operates a route by 289 seated Airbus A330-300 and the route has a passenger load factor of 80%, then there is around 230 passenger on an aircraft that can accommodate 289 seats. Thus there are almost 60 seats not used. If Finnair ordered either A330-200s or A330-800neo aircraft with around 240 seats, the load factor would be over 90% and operations on that route could spend less money and could be more profitable. There might be routes where A330-300s and A350s are too large. In my opinion, Finnair should order 10 Airbus A330-200s or A330-800neos with around 240 seats.

That's how I think.

They could be used on routes that have lower passenger load factor than the AY's main routes.
AY could also launch new routes that could be profitable with smaller aircraft:

Helsinki - Changsha
Helsinki - Chengdu
Helsinki - Denpasar/Bali (main unserved route from HEL by O/D traffic)
Helsinki - Fuzhou (does not have any direct connection to Europe)
Helsinki - Hangzhou
Helsinki - Kuala Lumpur
Helsinki - Los Angeles
Helsinki - Manila
Helsinki - Mumbai
Helsinki - Sapporo

What do you think?

As others have said, the A332/338 costs about the same to operate as the 333/339, so those extra seats are essentially free revenue. You'll be better off to fly them around on a few routes that can't fill them than not have the seats for the routes for which there is demand (or if demand increases). There's a reason orders for the 332 dried up once the 333 got its MTOW bumps and the 338 has virtually no sales.

I think a smaller plane for their long haul network would be beneficial. Only having A350s on order is a bit big of a plane. The A333 as the smallest long haul plane is a bit big.

I don't see the A338 or A332 making sense. The operating costs of those planes aren't much lower than the A333/A339 and Finnair doesn't really need the range. A350s are available for long haul and due to geography, there are few routes that would ever need more than 6000sm of range.

The A321LR could open up some routes, but it might be a bit short on range. Finnair has a number of routes to China around 4000-5000sm, which is a bit of a stretch for that plane. The MOM potential 797 may be a good option, but Finnair is pretty loyal to Airbus.

OA940 wrote:

This is so right.

Yes, I agree.

First you have to examine AY's business before making blanket propositions regarding fleet.

AY is a niche carrier. They sit well to the north on the Asian routes out of western Europe, and that is principally where they do well. They tailor their fleet to those routes plus the small number of others that they operate such as Transatlantic. They did have a 757 fleet but found them more or less surplus to requirements as the standard A321 could do what they wanted on medium haul leisure.

Their fleet also had the A340 and before that the MD-11, so the A330 and A350 seem good fits. I can't see them wanting to do anything else such as major expansion into Africa or smaller US cities, and their own catchment area around HEL isn't very large. Their current fleet of widebodies will give them good cargo and seating capacity in their chosen niche.

Can't see the A321LR fitting with them to be honest. The furthest their leisure fleet goes is the Canaries.

Finn350 wrote:

It is also a question of fleet commonality. A fleet of around 20 planes probably doesn't support three types.

You mean they should have bought 787s instead?

Would AY consider the 797/mom should Boeing officially launch it? The plane could open more opportunities for AY to add new markets from HEL. Or would cost of adding a new non airbus plane to their fleet negate any gains of it's operational capabilities?

Channex757 wrote:

Can't see the A321LR fitting with them to be honest. The furthest their leisure fleet goes is the Canaries.

Finnair is expected to announce a narrowbody order in the near future, curious to see how it goes. A321LR would be cool but probably not happening.

They don't have a separate leisure fleet/division anymore (if that's what you meant) and basically all of their numerous leisure market sectors have been converted to scheduled flights. Also the long haul services like Phuket and Krabi, next winter also Goa, Havana, Puerto Plata and Puerto Vallarta. For years these LH leisure destinations were usually served with cramped 757, then with A333/A343 and next winter it will be mostly A350. Nice evolution

MIflyer12 wrote:

Finn350 wrote:

It is also a question of fleet commonality. A fleet of around 20 planes probably doesn't support three types.

You mean they should have bought 787s instead?

Good point... it is also about how to substitute planes, but it is true that id they order A350-1000 they have three different "types".

Polot wrote:

The problem with the A332/A338 (and 788) is that their trip costs are too similar to their larger siblings. So it doesn't matter if there are a lot of empty seats with the bigger plane if the cost of operating the smaller one is near identical. The A332/A338 is really only attractive if you need the range over the A333/A339 (Not sure AY really does) or if you can't afford the bigger plane.

No... THIS is right! When the two sub-types have such similar trip costs and you're an airline like AY (in terms of not really needing the additional range of the -200), having the smaller aircraft in the fleet actually reduces your flexibility / agility to redeploy aircraft during disruptions, etc. Additionally, none of the routes mentioned by the OP are currently on AY's network and it would be wrong to add any or all of those routes just to use up 10 aircraft the airline doesn't otherwise need. I think, on balance, AY has it right.

As a side note, DPS may be the largest unserved O/D route from HEL, but that doesn't necessarily mean a non-stop long-haul flight would work on that route.

georgiabill wrote:

Would AY consider the 797/mom should Boeing officially launch it? The plane could open more opportunities for AY to add new markets from HEL. Or would cost of adding a new non airbus plane to their fleet negate any gains of it's operational capabilities?

I'm sure they will consider the MOM, would be daft not to, but I'm also sure that unless it has a large fuel burn advantage over the Airbus response it will be cheaper for AY to get the Airbus plane because of cockpit commonalities with their whole fleet. Being a small-ish airline crew training costs (cabin and pilots) has a bigger impact on the associated costs that at a large carrier that would see bigger benefits from having the optimum plane by fuel burn for every route.

350helmi

QuawerAir wrote:

There might be routes where A330-300s and A350s are too large. In my opinion, Finnair should order 10 Airbus A330-200s or A330-800neos with around 240 seats.
[.....]
Helsinki - Manila

This.....

Polot wrote:

The A332/A338 is really only attractive if you need the range over the A333/A339 (Not sure AY really does) or if you can't afford the bigger plane.

Arguably, the OP looks good in theory as you'd be optimising the plane for the mission, considering its nominal range quickly decreases once headwinds and available airways are factored in.....



http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=HEL-MNL&MS=wls&DU=nm


However, the acquisition price and landing fees advantage have to be weighed against the bigger revenue potential and flexibility of operating its bigger sibling.

Setting aside for a moment the added complexity of a new subtype, an AY executive had commented (#13 in the other thread) that while they'd love to fly to MNL, the potential yield did not present a viable business case. Assuming AY managed to get good load factors given the lack of direct nonstop competition from Northern Europe, buying or leasing dedicated aircraft for this niche operation would still entail more costs versus "abusing" planes already in the airline's fleet.

But as an airplane enthusiast, I welcome as much variety in the air as possible



https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Ima ... =en&w=2000


I think there are ntu A332s still availabIe. Though I wonder how many piecemeal orders it would take for Airbus to start production of the A338.....

It seems the opening post might have a sporting chance of fulfillment... ...

http://leehamnews.com/2017/07/27/mid-ye ... te-airbus/

Quote:
"Hawaiian has the only six orders for the A330-800. John Leahy, COO-Customers, earlier said Airbus doesn’t want to even proceed with the -800, but has since reversed his position.

American Airlines appears more interested in the -800 than the -900 as replacements for the Boeing 767-300ER. Boeing is offering its own solution. AA selecting the A330-800 would be a way out of the A350-900. Pre-production on the A330-800 is underway."


It would also be a welcome boost for the smaller, longer-ranged NEO variant. Could also be AA's way of saying fuel would stay low for a while and the slight efficiency/CASM/capacity disadvantage is offset by commonality, better range and the cheaper acquisition cost.

Business is strong; load factors are good; geographical location is good; there are a number of major cities left in Asia to fly to. I'd say they know what they are doing, and that Asia - Europe channel clearly has the potential to fill A359s on the main routes.

(I'd ask whether A350-1000s should be ordered instead, or even A380s, but again the guys probably know what they are doing. A small subfleet would complicate things, even if on routes like HKG or PKG there'd probably be more demand.)

Anyway, this whole topic is one of those a.net dilemmas -- should one have more seats or less seats? With the enthusiasts drawing lines, often between the 777 and the A380 where the profitability ends and you have to sell tickets for a bargain. Now, in reality that's an issue that every airline manager needs to deal with, whether they fly E-170s or A380s or something in between. Rightsizing their offering. However, I think the OP took the wrong approach by assuming that "things will stay as they are". There's no natural "AY market" that has a set number of passengers. It is a competitive market, on price, but also on time and availability of flights. I think it is a given that if you fly efficiently between major cities in Asia and are able to connect to most capitals and few other cities in Europe, there's plenty of market to capture there. Not infinite market, but also not limited to 787 or 338 size.

The options really are limited for European passengers. Either there are direct flights, which is true of places like London, or you have to change planes somewhere. But you don't necessarily want to fly to London for instance for several hours and then back several hours, because that's wasteful of the passenger's time. So AY is in a good spot, particularly with SAS being mismanaged like it is. And Berlin's airport woes... you don't need to be brilliant to succeed in this environment DY's longhaul plans will make things very interesting though

(Of course, not everyone likes AY's arrangements. Maybe someday BA will buy AY out of the way, and shut down operations to move more stuff to that horrible disaster-in-transit called LHR. But all this is just my opinion.)

Devilfish wrote:

I think there are ntu A332s still availabIe. Though I wonder how many piecemeal orders it would take for Airbus to start production of the A338.....

I do not know what you mean with not taken up A330-200, but if you order a A330-200 you will get one, Iberia just ordered some. Regarding the A330-800, the test frames are in pre FAL production, so I assume, that that bird will fly.

Polot wrote:

The problem with the A332/A338 (and 788) is that their trip costs are too similar to their larger siblings. So it doesn't matter if there are a lot of empty seats with the bigger plane if the cost of operating the smaller one is near identical. The A332/A338 is really only attractive if you need the range over the A333/A339 (Not sure AY really does) or if you can't afford the bigger plane.

Is that really true?

What is the fuel burn delta, hardly zero? If you buy a A330-200/800 for shorter range you can buy a lower MTOW version, that cuts down on cost, both overflight and landing. The acquisition costs will be a bit lower, the frame itself, but also fewer seats that are not given away. Perhaps a slightly smaller crew. If you do not need the size of the A330-300/900, why not take the smaller bird?

It is often talked about the A330-200 like being dead, but it is still selling, even if only a few, and with 651 sales one of the most sold wide body models. I assume the A330-800 will be build, no problem to just float beside its bigger sibling, and will take over from the A330-200 selling a few frames each year.

If anything, Finnair wants larger aircraft, not smaller.

Finnair considers upgrading part of order to A350-1000

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

The problem with the A332/A338 (and 788) is that their trip costs are too similar to their larger siblings. So it doesn't matter if there are a lot of empty seats with the bigger plane if the cost of operating the smaller one is near identical. The A332/A338 is really only attractive if you need the range over the A333/A339 (Not sure AY really does) or if you can't afford the bigger plane.

Is that really true?

What is the fuel burn delta, hardly zero?

Sure: Fuel consumption table.

For several different sectors it gives:

Airbus A330-200 — 5590 kg/h
Airbus A330-300 — 5700 kg/h

Airbus A330-200 — 5600 kg/h
Airbus A330-300 — 5900 kg/h

The fuel burn delta between the -200 and -300 is pretty small, the main benefit of the -200 is the longer range.

KarelXWB wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

The problem with the A332/A338 (and 788) is that their trip costs are too similar to their larger siblings. So it doesn't matter if there are a lot of empty seats with the bigger plane if the cost of operating the smaller one is near identical. The A332/A338 is really only attractive if you need the range over the A333/A339 (Not sure AY really does) or if you can't afford the bigger plane.

Is that really true?

What is the fuel burn delta, hardly zero?

Sure: Fuel consumption table.

For several different sectors it gives:

Airbus A330-200 — 5590 kg/h
Airbus A330-300 — 5700 kg/h

Airbus A330-200 — 5600 kg/h
Airbus A330-300 — 5900 kg/h

The fuel burn delta between the -200 and -300 is pretty small, the main benefit of the -200 is the longer range.

It is still not zero. Your numbers say from 2 to 5 % on trip fuel burn. Add lower acquisition cost, perhaps one fewer F/A and there is no reason to buy the A330-300, if you do not need the size.
Resale value might be better on the -300.

mjoelnir wrote:

It is still not zero. Your numbers say from 2 to 5 % on trip fuel burn. Add lower acquisition cost, perhaps on fewer F/A and there is no reason to buy the A330-300, if you do not need the size.
Resale value might be better on the -300.

I didn't claim it was zero. The trip cost is slightly higher, but you get 20% more seats. So the -300 offers lower seating costs and more revenue, even when we take acquisition costs intro account. That's why Airbus sold more -300s than -200s lately. Many airlines feel they can fill the seats.

I'd say one thing. They started with A350-900 297 places. They switched later to 336. And now considering going for bigger 1000s, from what I've seen somewhere. So, I'd say they're going for bigger planes rather.

Therefore, question raised above is not whether they need smaller planes. Apparently, they don't.

The question raised is whether they could open new, thinner routes. Don't make it another useless product war. If they do, they'll find a proper equipment.

I don't think new thinner routes quite fit their strategy. Finnair decided some years ago their strategy is based on location, to provide a hub which is basically a "stop in Helsinki" instead of "fly over Helsinki" for Europe-Asia traffic. And based on that, they take thin routes to Helsinki, repack them to large planes to hub on the other side (be it NRT, SIN, BKK, HKG). They still have plenty of Asian cities to choose from, that are not thin. They're also in OneWorld, that gives plenty of space to use from lines like CY. Going twice daily to HKG would probably be good idea capacity wise.

So, I'd say - they picked right plane for their strategy, and right strategy. Going for thin lines is out of their current strategy, and would not work as well for them. Stick to what you're best at.

Cheers,
Adam

Polot wrote:

The problem with the A332/A338 (and 788) is that their trip costs are too similar to their larger siblings. So it doesn't matter if there are a lot of empty seats with the bigger plane if the cost of operating the smaller one is near identical. The A332/A338 is really only attractive if you need the range over the A333/A339 (Not sure AY really does) or if you can't afford the bigger plane.

AY has several existing and potential routes where a fully loaded 333 does not have range. That is why they initially bought the 343. (I would have expected initially a mix of 332 and 333, but they knew it better).
Many Asian routes are not straight isocurvature lines but have significant deviations, sometimes at short notice, due to restrictions in air space. Also, Finnair carries a lot of cargo. They may need to restrict the payload for many 333 routes already and fuel stops in Moscow etc are not uncommon.

Many Chinese tertiary markets could be covered by a long-range narrowbody configured to long hauls. There are even fuel stations on the route to take more fuel and their schedule with 24 h rotation allows an hour for the technical stop.

I would hope them to have a future mix of 321LR (next iteration), 330-800, 350-900 and 350-1000 (even a couple of 380 for high seasons), though do not believe it to happen.

I think AY need something smaller than 350-900 and 350-1000 is not good idea, because it results to too many configurations in quite small fleet. I think main reason AY take 3 350-900 with 336 seat is that they cannot fill J seats in leisure heavy routes. Also AYs LF improve after they cease some routes at winter to secondary Asian cities + Miami at may. AY is going to expand specially at Asia, but problem is that it comes harder and harder fill big planes year around outside biggest cities. 350-900 with 336 seat is already quite big step from 333 with around 260 seats. (AY has 5 333 with >260 seats and 3 with >290 seats, IIRC)

armchairceonr1 wrote:

I think AY need something smaller than 350-900 and 350-1000 is not good idea, because it results to too many configurations in quite small fleet. I think main reason AY take 3 350-900 with 336 seat is that they cannot fill J seats in leisure heavy routes. Also AYs LF improve after they cease some routes at winter to secondary Asian cities + Miami at may. AY is going to expand specially at Asia, but problem is that it comes harder and harder fill big planes year around outside biggest cities. 350-900 with 336 seat is already quite big step from 333 with around 260 seats. (AY has 5 333 with >260 seats and 3 with >290 seats, IIRC)

A330 800neo could be a possibility especially if AA order them.

What about upgauging the European feeds with 788s in short haul config? I've taken the 321 flight from MAD a few times and it's always packed. Seems like from some of the bigger cities, the limit for getting passengers to HEL is the short haul aircraft.

As an aside, IIRC, AY has the longest scheduled Schengen flight from HEL to TFS.

Jerry123 wrote:

A330 800neo could be a possibility especially if AA order them.

In what way would an AA order make any difference to AY?

LupineChemist wrote:

What about upgauging the European feeds with 788s in short haul config? I've taken the 321 flight from MAD a few times and it's always packed. Seems like from some of the bigger cities, the limit for getting passengers to HEL is the short haul aircraft.

As an aside, IIRC, AY has the longest scheduled Schengen flight from HEL to TFS.

AY is all Airbus, at least with widebodies. AY like 24h rotation with widebodies, only HKG and SIN take two planes now. AY send other those planes to LHR, but MAD is too far away from HEL to make daytrip and come back to HEL before mainwave leave to Asia around 5pm. If they ever send widebodies to many places at Europe, its gonna need major changes to their routeplanning allover.

scbriml wrote:

Jerry123 wrote:

A330 800neo could be a possibility especially if AA order them.

In what way would an AA order make any difference to AY?

Because only 6 have ordered so far by HA. An order by AA say converting A350 orders would guarantee the aircraft would get built.

Here is one example about Asian market from other topic:

BestWestern wrote:

I've said this for close to a decade, but there is no gold at the end of the Chinese secondary city rainbow.

UA is dropping Hangzhou end October according to @airlineroute.

China is one of the few markets where US carriers have a perceived product strength, but Competing against totally subsidised and vertically integrated airlines means there are rock bottom yields.

Hangzhou is one of the wealthiest Chinese cities, so if a route is to work, it's here.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1369837
Okay, NA is different market, but even BA have met problems at China. It is not gonna be easy for AY to expand secondary cities at China.

Jerry123 wrote:

Because only 6 have ordered so far by HA. An order by AA say converting A350 orders would guarantee the aircraft would get built.

It's already being built - the first A330-800 is in pre-production. An AA order will make no difference to whether AY might, or might not, order the plane.

Jerry123 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Jerry123 wrote:

A330 800neo could be a possibility especially if AA order them.

In what way would an AA order make any difference to AY?

Because only 6 have ordered so far by HA. An order by AA say converting A350 orders would guarantee the aircraft would get built.

Higher up its been said that parts are already in pre FAL. Certainly if the A338s original predictions that EIS would be the year after the A339, thats very likely, Airbus will probably transition the freighter/tanker A332 to the A338 eventually, Even if HA doesnt take the A338 as originally planned, it will be built, not if but when. The cost to Airbus to certify is likely to be relatively low and still worth it even for the tanker/freighter.

Funny thing is that AY original order was quite near A339. AY was first customer to original A350, and that is the reason that they even have A350XWBs nowadays. AY doesnt need A350 legs, A338 and A339 would work fine for them. I think AY should take couple more A350 with Y-heavy configuration and convert rest to A338. A333s are going away when leases expire.

Smaller than A330? Perhaps wait for MoM.

They have the 321 and the 330. They certainly do not need a paper airplane...smh

armchairceonr1 wrote:

I think main reason AY take 3 350-900 with 336 seat is that they cannot fill J seats in leisure heavy routes.

They are not going to take only three A350s with 336 seats. According to CAPA, Finnair plans to introduce new seating configurations (336 seats) for its remaining A350-900 orders to increase seat capacity.

https://centreforaviation.com/news/finnair-to-introduce-new-seat-configuration-on-remaining-a350-900-694809

If this happens, AY will have 8 A350 aircraft with 297 seats and 11 with 336 seats. They are also going to add seat capacity to the narrow-body fleet.

QuawerAir wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

I think main reason AY take 3 350-900 with 336 seat is that they cannot fill J seats in leisure heavy routes.

They are not going to take only three A350s with 336 seats. According to CAPA, Finnair plans to introduce new seating configurations (336 seats) for its remaining A350-900 orders to increase seat capacity.

https://centreforaviation.com/news/finnair-to-introduce-new-seat-configuration-on-remaining-a350-900-694809

If this happens, AY will have 8 A350 aircraft with 297 seats and 11 with 336 seats. They are also going to add seat capacity to the narrow-body fleet.

I dont know where CAPA got their information, but officially Finnair speak only about 3 frames with 336 seats. Finnair have already 8 with 297seats and 2 with 336 seats. Next frame should arrive august, but after that it take long before next one and those 8 come one/year. I think CAPA not have any exact information about those farmes configuration, because I think even Finnair dont have.

Finnair narrow-bodies seat capacity is going up mainly because they get new leased A321s, but that is another story..