PIA Jumbo Fleet

Discuss issues and news related to PIA, Pakistani airlines and Pakistan's civil & military aviation.
Post Reply
Amaad Lone
Registered Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Lahore

PIA Jumbo Fleet

Post by Amaad Lone »

The PIA 747-300/200 fleet is now considered gas guzzlers, something the 707 and DC-8 were called in the 1980s.

PIA 747-300/200 consume around 10,500 to 11,000 kilos of fuel per hour of cruise flight versus 6,500 kilos per hour for the 777-240ER.

So while the 777-240ER carries 24% less passengers (433 versus 329) the fuel consumption is a good 41% less. Plus lower cost of maintenance and one flight engineer less. I would imagine that in total the operational cost of the 777 is a good 50% less then the 747-300.

Just imagine if PIA load factor on the 747 routes falls to an average of 70% for the year, the economics versus the smaller 777?? That is the reason PIA wants to dump the 747 in favor of the 777, and nothing else.

With fuel bill running at 40% of total PIA expenditure versus 30% for carriers like Emirates, PIA must induct better technology aircraft to reduce its fuel bill, and become more competitive.

Just like the 707 was a prime aircraft in the 1960s and the 747 in the 1970s and 1980s, the 1990s and this decade is for the twin engine aircraft.

Maybe if by some miracle oil drops to $30 per barrel, then PIA can retain the 747 fleet till 2011, at which point fena will have not any more active members.

The chairman of Nippon Cargo Airline thinks that the ideal time to convert to freighter is when the aircraft is around 15 years old, giving it another 12-15 years to recover the cost of cargo conversion.

If we are to believe the chairman of NCA then the PIA 747 fleet has crossed the age of conversion.

PIA 747 fleet is not fit for cargo conversion or re-engining. These planes are too old for such expensive modifications, and there will be no time to re-coup the investment made on them.

The best option is to sell them to a charter airline like Atlas Air or Orient Thai, and occasionally lease them for umra and hadj season.

These airlines usually operate their planes in high density layouts on charter flights, so the economics of flying an aircraft consuming 11,000 kilos per hour would make sense.

PIA could make money with its existing 747s, but who would fly them on an 8 hour journey to London with Hadj layout of over 500 passengers.
P.I.A

God's International Airline
User avatar
mohammed younis
Registered Member
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: Peterborough UK

Post by mohammed younis »

Yes i agree,


but for us fans, there is nothing like the PIA 747!!!

I cant see it go!!!
Mohammed Younis
PIA - Great People To Fly With
F.K
Registered Member
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:51 pm

Post by F.K »

no i do not agree. operational costs are not just limited to the fuel bill. given the extra capacity, the extra fuel bill is considerably neutralized. yet again your analysis is incomplete. the 747 cost of operation is lesser because it carries the bulk of passengers within tight frequency allotments for which the airline would have to pay alot more if it uses a 327 seater . busy airports increase their cost of landing and take off more then propotionately every time an extra slot is taken up. and you again forgot to factor in the extra cargo that a 743 can carry and does carry. i am not saying that the 743 is a more efficient aircraft but its surely more suited to our passenger profile on the routes that its used making it indespensible for another 4-5 years. i see passengers disgruntled when they are refused seats to london because of the load factor. how do u propose to accomodate the backlog of passengers that will accrue when the 777 replaces the jumbo on these routes. losing valuable customer base and extra cargo is surely not a viable solution. the 747 still remains very popular with passengers and enthusiasts. as for cargo operation , aviators worldover are unanimous to the fact that a 74fs useful life as a freigher is comfortably in excess of 100k hours where as our oldest 743s have barely gone past the 60 k mark, allowing them to be used for another 10 years as freighters. just remember pia retired 707f at 95-100k. i dont know where you get your ideas from. selling our 747 fleet for peanuts and paying the same amount every year to lease them back for 4-6 months is by no means a sensible thing to do.
F.K
Boeing 787
Registered Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:34 am
Location: Karachi

Post by Boeing 787 »

My dear friends the best solution to this problem is Boeing 777-300ER.

Seating Capacity= 420 in two class
Fuel consumtion= Same as Boeing 777-200ER
User avatar
smarties
Deactivated
Posts: 581
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:25 pm
Location: Where the wild roses grow

Post by smarties »

Boeing 787 wrote:My dear friends the best solution to this problem is Boeing 777-300ER.

Seating Capacity= 420 in two class
Fuel consumtion= Same as Boeing 777-200ER
i agree, thats the best solution. Most people voted that the best replacement was the 777-300ER in a previous poll. However, i feel that maybe a mix of 773ER's and 744's is also a good replacement.

viewtopic.php?t=5426&start=15

However, i have a feeling that PIA will induct some 747-400's in their fleets in the future.
Last edited by smarties on Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Now we're going round in circles, tell me will this deja vu never end?"
User avatar
B777240ER
Registered Member
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 8:10 am
Location: E.London

Post by B777240ER »

F.K wrote:no i do not agree. operational costs are not just limited to the fuel bill. given the extra capacity, the extra fuel bill is considerably neutralized.
But that is assuming that all seats are occupied with full fare paying passengers.
F.K wrote:busy airports increase their cost of landing and take off more then propotionately every time an extra slot is taken up.
Smaller aircraft have lower landing fees.
F.K wrote:how do u propose to accomodate the backlog of passengers that will accrue when the 777 replaces the jumbo on these routes.
Increase the frequency. Instead of reducing the number of seats offered, it is increased helping PIA to gain more customers because they have a choice.
User avatar
Adnan Anwar
Registered Member
Posts: 967
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Contact:

Post by Adnan Anwar »

F.K wrote:no i do not agree. operational costs are not just limited to the fuel bill. given the extra capacity, the extra fuel bill is considerably neutralized. yet again your analysis is incomplete. the 747 cost of operation is lesser because it carries the bulk of passengers within tight frequency allotments for which the airline would have to pay alot more if it uses a 327 seater . busy airports increase their cost of landing and take off more then propotionately every time an extra slot is taken up. and you again forgot to factor in the extra cargo that a 743 can carry and does carry. i am not saying that the 743 is a more efficient aircraft but its surely more suited to our passenger profile on the routes that its used making it indespensible for another 4-5 years. i see passengers disgruntled when they are refused seats to london because of the load factor. how do u propose to accomodate the backlog of passengers that will accrue when the 777 replaces the jumbo on these routes. losing valuable customer base and extra cargo is surely not a viable solution. the 747 still remains very popular with passengers and enthusiasts. as for cargo operation , aviators worldover are unanimous to the fact that a 74fs useful life as a freigher is comfortably in excess of 100k hours where as our oldest 743s have barely gone past the 60 k mark, allowing them to be used for another 10 years as freighters. just remember pia retired 707f at 95-100k. i dont know where you get your ideas from. selling our 747 fleet for peanuts and paying the same amount every year to lease them back for 4-6 months is by no means a sensible thing to do.
Old 747 maybe popular with enthusiast or airline people who do not want to loose their jobs becasue they 747 flight engineer or old pilots.

Faiza we are talking about economics aspects of operating a profitable airlines which 747 cannot offer when compared to 777-200ER and 777-300ER in terms of fuel burns.

PIA cannot sustain the huge fuel bills like other airlines in the middle east can. Even now Singapore, Cathay opted to replace the 747-400's with 777-300ER's or 777-200ER. I willing bet very soon airlines will realize the value of the 777-200F when compared to 747-200 as freighters.
Adnan Anwar
Moin
Registered Member
Posts: 3165
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 11:17 am

Post by Moin »

An airline doesn't retain an a/c based on pax and enthusiast preference nor the opinions of 'aviators' worldwide. It retains the a/c based on its age and fuel consumption. If the cost of maintaining it and fuelling it exceeds the revenue its earning for the airline, its out. And not all airlines that have operated (or could easily have opted for) the 747 necessarily replaced them with new ones. A few examples below.

IB is phasing out its 747's (if it already hasn't done so) in favour of A343's and A346's.

AZ initially ordered 744's then cancelled the order in favour of 777's.

AA and CO phased out their 747's in favour of 777's.

AC phased out their 742's and 744's in favour of A343's and A345's and now 777's.

OY phased out their 747's for A343's.

SU will soon be phasing out its 743M's as they have 777's.

Air Mauritius phased out its 74L's for A343's.

SR phased out its 742's and 743's in favour of A346's (which it never got as it went bust but now operates A343's under a new name and indentity).

If I'm not mistaken, TWA phased out its 741's and 742's before going belly up.

Varig phased out its 74M's for 743M's and now has M11's and 777's.

RJ phased out their 747's and made do with L-1011's till they got A342's.

QR at one time operated 2 ex-ANA 747-100SR but quickly phased them out and replaced them with AB6's, followed by A333's and soon to be 777's and A380's.

EK, one of the most rapidly expanding airlines around, never opted for the 747 but rather the 777 as its largest a/c till the advent of the A380.

EY, same as EK.

Syrian Air is going to replace its 74L's with A330's.

SAS phased out its 747's and utilised DC-10's and 767's till it ordered the A333 and A343.

Aer Lingus phased out their 747's in favour of A332's and A333's.

KU phased out their 747's in favour of A343's and now 777's. Only one 744 is used for VIP flights.

I'll admit that the number of airlines that operated the 742, 743 and who now fly the 744 exceeds the number of airlines listed above, but there are airlines that felt operating the 747 wasn't, isn't and won't be feasible for them and PIA could very well end up being one of those airlines.
Moin Abbasi
zerbaer
Registered Member
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:56 pm

B743 & B777

Post by zerbaer »

Comparisons being given are misapplied. Block hour operating cost is one essential, among others, without which any comparison is worthless and suspect of being a sponsored malafide activity.

NW is still operating DC9s and refuses to phase them out - According to their CEO the a/c are paid off and no other replacement type has lower block hour costs including the B737-xxx.
F.K
Registered Member
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:51 pm

Post by F.K »

just another correction. saudia ,iberia,syrian and a few others you ve mentiones intend on indefinitely retaining their 747 fleet, both the classic variants and the -400s. for the last time, emirates and other world class carrers have immesne flexibility on frequencys which pia does not. the a380 is an example of how airlines are trying to curtail operating costs by reducing frequencys at busy airports which charge in huge amounts. changing frequency is not like switching off a light.
F.K
User avatar
Jacobin777
Registered Member
Posts: 1285
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:34 am
Location: Northern California Bay Area

Re: B743 & B777

Post by Jacobin777 »

zerbaer wrote:Comparisons being given are misapplied. Block hour operating cost is one essential, among others, without which any comparison is worthless and suspect of being a sponsored malafide activity.

NW is still operating DC9s and refuses to phase them out - According to their CEO the a/c are paid off and no other replacement type has lower block hour costs including the B737-xxx.
maybe that is one of the many reasons why they are in BK...;-)
Post Reply