Surinam Airways replaces MD82 with 2 733's

[ACman]

First question, when are they expecting the '37-700s? Cause it seems to me it would almost cost less to keep the MD82s in the fleet till the -700s arrive. Simply because your putting in a -300, having to train pilots and mechanics on that aircraft, and then a year or so later you get the -700s and have to start the training process all over again. (Not to mention, scheduling and dispatch ends of the fleet switch) I think it would cost less to keep the MD82s until the -700s arrive and cause less headaches.

[AA 1818]

First question, when are they expecting the '37-700s? Cause it seems to me it would almost cost less to keep the MD82s in the fleet till the -700s arrive. Simply because your putting in a -300, having to train pilots and mechanics on that aircraft, and then a year or so later you get the -700s and have to start the training process all over again. (Not to mention, scheduling and dispatch ends of the fleet switch) I think it would cost less to keep the MD82s until the -700s arrive and cause less headaches.

This morning I spoke to a firend of mine that works for the airline, and he explained that the airline is planning to do something along these lines:

Wet Lease the 733s - with fully operating crews and maintainance to be done at the Leasor's facilities. In the mean while, all applicable crews will be trained to meet the operating standards of the 737-700s.

From what I have been told, if the 737-300s work out well enough for them, they may try to acqurie a few of them cheaply to use on the South American/Reigonal routes, and use the 737-700s as long-haul aircraft to manage the routes to North America/Caribbean.

He could not answer what the plans were for RJs would be. A few ERJ-170s would do the trick very well. Their flights to POS often either go out half full or packed (depending on the time of year). They could easily achieve better route flexibility with an all-year long ERJ-170 and then a seasonal flight on the side.

[AA 1818]

I think that Surinam Airways is also going to do GEO-AMS-GEO. GEO is going to be a secondary-hub so it might be so. I talked to a pilot from PY and said that the new destinations are going to be Jamaica-Kingston, Barabados, Manaus-Brazil, Georgetown-Guyana and JFK. But did not mention GEO-AMS-GEO.

As for takign on GEO - they can stand to benefit from a rather large market. I would like to see them create a new entity that caters to the national identity of Guyana, with the reality of the company (it's finanaces and management) being handeled by Surinamese officials. In reality though, Guyana's economy is in shambles (has been for decades) and Suriname (while being better off than Guyana) is not as economically stable and healthy as other nations in the reigon - so creating an airline for Guyana may be a great idea on paper (and for humanitarian purposes) but in reality - it may not be as successfull as planned.

Anyway - back to the GEO route - GEO-AMS-GEO would only be feesible if they were able to connect passengers onto KLM (from, most notably LHR - as there is a large Guyanaese presence there). What might even be a BIG money maker for them would be (if they got the rights to serve the route) GEO-FLL or GEO-JFK or GEO-MIA. I swear, Caribbean Airlines is itching to get to rights to do those routes. They make it well by shuffling passengers though POS on the way to North America.

[Alessandro]

While I understand that it would be cool to see the A380 on the CDG/AMS to French Guyana/Suriname, I think that it does not make as much sense as you may think.

While both AF and KLM are entities within the same, larger corporation - there is a need to keep both brands separate as they do cater to two different national identities, and serve two distinctly different markets. Simply put - if AF/KLM were to merge operations on these routes, while it may be marginally profitable, I think that it would cause much more of a stir that necessary.

The ideal raison d'ętre of the A380 is to provide services between city pairs where the dramatic capacity in needed and yet landing/airport slots are heavily contested. With those parameters in mind there are many other routes where the A380 would be better used to serve that explicit purpose (with routes such as CDG-JFK, CDG-YYZ, CDG-MIA, CDG-ORD and the like coming to mind first).

Now, I fully understand that the A380 can be used for other high-capacity routes, but then the distinction has to be made that most airlines would rather up frequency where possible in order to achieve an increase in capacity. In both cases of AMS-PMB-AMS and CDG-CAY-CDG the case will present itself to either airline: would AMS-CDG-CAY-PMB-CAY-CDG-AMS be a good move or would CDG-AMS-PMB-CAY-PMB-AMS-CDG be a good move? Would passengers be upset by it? Would it sway passengers to other carriers? Would it be a feasible move? In any event, would passengers opt to fly on Suriname Airways in order to avoid being shuffled through French Guyana?

A more likely move for KLM is to downgrade the 744 on the AMS-PMB-AMS route, and go push the route to 2 daily A330s (if range were sufficient) or move the route to 2 772s. The same can be done for AF with the CDG-CAY-CDG route, and perhaps here there is even more incentive on the part of AF as the move would make the connections (to other parts of the Caribbean offered by AF) even more attractive.

I think ticket- and fuelprice are the main issue, I checked out the prices on SLM homepage and they wanted +1400 €uro for a one way economyticket in september PMB-AMS (a friend asked about ways to get from europe to Guyana).
At every major rocket launch from Kourou base, there´s a peak in demand.
If an extra delay for a 2-3 hours would lead to much lower price I think majority of passengers would opt for the A380 over the B777, B743, B744 if the price is considerably lower on the A380. Sure the routes you mention between europe and north america will see A380 traffic first. I don´t think it got to do with slot restrictions, but if AF can find enough routes for their A380.
I also think the MD-11s KLM got are about to be retired or turned into freighters, so extra
planes are needed to replace those 10 aircrafts.

[Alessandro]

As for takign on GEO - they can stand to benefit from a rather large market. I would like to see them create a new entity that caters to the national identity of Guyana, with the reality of the company (it's finanaces and management) being handeled by Surinamese officials. In reality though, Guyana's economy is in shambles (has been for decades) and Suriname (while being better off than Guyana) is not as economically stable and healthy as other nations in the reigon - so creating an airline for Guyana may be a great idea on paper (and for humanitarian purposes) but in reality - it may not be as successfull as planned.

Anyway - back to the GEO route - GEO-AMS-GEO would only be feesible if they were able to connect passengers onto KLM (from, most notably LHR - as there is a large Guyanaese presence there). What might even be a BIG money maker for them would be (if they got the rights to serve the route) GEO-FLL or GEO-JFK or GEO-MIA. I swear, Caribbean Airlines is itching to get to rights to do those routes. They make it well by shuffling passengers though POS on the way to North America.

Road from Nieuw Nickerie to Par´bo is decent, but still a ferry/canoeride from Guyana to get to Suriname, don´t know how the road is from Georgetown to the border?
Still I think B733 would be an overkill on that route, perhaps a smaller plane like the Embraer would be better, or some F100 from KLM?
Another reason that A380 could become an option, rather than fly to MIA.
If you calculate the average loadfactor on the A380 according to flightglobal,
890 thousand passengers on 2200 flights you get 404 pax, below the max of the KLM
B744 which got 428 seats.

[Surijet737]

This morning I spoke to a firend of mine that works for the airline, and he explained that the airline is planning to do something along these lines:

Wet Lease the 733s - with fully operating crews and maintainance to be done at the Leasor's facilities. In the mean while, all applicable crews will be trained to meet the operating standards of the 737-700s.

From what I have been told, if the 737-300s work out well enough for them, they may try to acqurie a few of them cheaply to use on the South American/Reigonal routes, and use the 737-700s as long-haul aircraft to manage the routes to North America/Caribbean.

He could not answer what the plans were for RJs would be. A few ERJ-170s would do the trick very well. Their flights to POS often either go out half full or packed (depending on the time of year). They could easily achieve better route flexibility with an all-year long ERJ-170 and then a seasonal flight on the side.

ERJ-170's???? What?! I don't think they have any plans for 170's though. Only 737's that's what I've heard not Embraer and read. So if the 737-300's go well they are going to keep the type and add 737-700's.... that means their total fleet size is going to exist out of 4 or 5 regional jets (B737's) and 1 trans-atlantic plane(B772ER or A343) ??? And if they add RJ's the total number is going to add up to 7 or 8 planes minus the B777.

[ACman]

This morning I spoke to a firend of mine that works for the airline, and he explained that the airline is planning to do something along these lines:

Wet Lease the 733s - with fully operating crews and maintainance to be done at the Leasor's facilities. In the mean while, all applicable crews will be trained to meet the operating standards of the 737-700s.

From what I have been told, if the 737-300s work out well enough for them, they may try to acqurie a few of them cheaply to use on the South American/Reigonal routes, and use the 737-700s as long-haul aircraft to manage the routes to North America/Caribbean.

He could not answer what the plans were for RJs would be. A few ERJ-170s would do the trick very well. Their flights to POS often either go out half full or packed (depending on the time of year). They could easily achieve better route flexibility with an all-year long ERJ-170 and then a seasonal flight on the side.

Okay well that makes more sense. To wet-lease with all the trimmings. The dash -300 isn't a bad plane, very versatile in those kinds of routes, and it's proven around the world so it's not a bad idea to have them later on. I just thought if they were buying or dry-leasing the planes it would be a bit of a gong show until the -700s arrived.

I have a hard time seeing them not keeping the -300s after the arrival of the -700s.

[AA 1818]

ERJ-170's???? What?! I don't think they have any plans for 170's though. Only 737's that's what I've heard not Embraer and read. So if the 737-300's go well they are going to keep the type and add 737-700's.... that means their total fleet size is going to exist out of 4 or 5 regional jets (B737's) and 1 trans-atlantic plane(B772ER or A343) ??? And if they add RJ's the total number is going to add up to 7 or 8 planes minus the B777.

Ok, I think that you misread my post. My buddy could not identify what (if any) plans were for a possible RJ fleet would be. What I was trying to get across to you was that - on a lot of their routes, the MD-82 is currently too large, or sometimes too small. If they are to get the rights to fly to the U.S. (or, as planned - they undergo a large expansion) - the entire dynamic of the company will have to change - and so will the fleet.

To be honest, just with the additions to their destinations that they have announced - and with a possible fleet of 2 aircraft (all 737s) and a possible long-hauler (1 777 or A340), that is still going to be a rough play on aircraft for all of those routes (even with great utilization of the 737s), as it will involve flights being run at late hours of the night (which neither PBM nor passengers of the reigon are accustomed to).

Just think of it for a minute:

- 1 737 will directly replace the MD-82 and it's regular day's schedule.
- 1 737 will then do the the other routes (PBM - BGI, PBM - KIN and PBM - MAO), which are time-intensive in themselves (even with a quick turnaround...).

Now, I am not doubting that the planes can do the routes, or even that they can make the time constraints, but I must admit that I very much doubt that a 737-700 could be filled on the PBM - BGI, or PBM - KIN routes (even if done 3X weekly). I do think, though, that an ERJ-170 could work the PBM - BGI and maybe the PBM - KIN route very well, and with such a small load, even allow the airline to build its clientell enough to warrant the possible further expansion to 737-700s in the future.

As for the route to Manaus - the 737-700 daily might just work, but then again - for the most part - why offer one daily non-stop (or worse - 2X weekly) that is filled to capacity when you can offer 2 or 3 daily non-stops with greater flexibility to passengers and overall greater capacity.

The interesting thing is that the same can be said of other destinations such as POS (where they allow other airlines - namely Caribben Airlines - to domainte the POS-PBM market with BW's own 73.

Now, as it has been seid - they currently are in "expansion" mode. Doing that with a 737 (especially considering the airline/reigon and nation) can be very difficult, doubly so when you are working with such a small fleet to begin with (where pulling a 737 off of a route to expand another compromises pre-established profit off of another). A smaller aircraft would allow them to play the field a lot better, experimenting with the market and seeing where they can fit an aircraft. In many ways - if the route grows then up the route to the 737, if it doesn't then keep the ERJ-170, if it's seasonal - then create a mix of the two.

As for the long-hauler - I think that they are going to be set in taking an A340-300. They are not going to be able to get a 777 soon and/or cheap. More importantly - the 777 is going to need to be ETOPs certified (and all things considered - they are not going to get that any time soon). In almost every way, the A340-300 is the complete opposite. While the A343 is in high demand (perhaps the most highly demanded A340 model currently), they could probably get one much more easily, for a lower price and not have to worry about ETOPS.

What I think would be ideal (SPOILER - Me being an Arm-Chair CEO here):

With 3 ERJ-170s:

- Daily routes to Manaus, to Belem, to Port-Of-Spain, Aruba and to Barbados.
- 3X weekly service to KIN with possible expansions 3X expansions to CYE, CCS and maybe - other Brazilian cities.
- Up Bonaire, Curacao and Georgetown to at least 2 times daily.

With the 2 737s:

- Run one on the PBM - AUA - MIA - AUA - PBM.
- Have the airline lobby to get the rights and then do:
- PBM - AUA - JFK - AUA - PBM
- PBM - AUA - YYZ - AUA - PBM
- keep in mind though, that the ultimate move would be to ween the airline off of AUA services as a launchpad for expansions to North America. The utlimate goal is to allow -PBM - MIA, JFK, YYZ routes non-stop. The range will be an issue on 737-700s, but they can deal with range if they get the routes.
- In the mean while, run the other on routes that are too heavy for the ERJ-170s.

With the A340-300:

- 4X weekly - run the PBM - AMS route.
- 3X weekly - petition to, and run the LGW (or any non-heavily slot restricted airport in the U.K. that is close to the Guyanese population) - GEO route.


Avenues for expansion :

- The GEO market. GEO does have the customs/immigration facilities. If they were to get the rights, then they could do GEO - FLL, GEO - JFK, and maybe even GEO - MIA. That in itself will occupy at least 2 737s weekly.

- Other parts of the Caribbean (though I very much doubt that there is much left to expand to unless they tried to use an RJ to tap into the market at SXM).

[Alessandro]

So A343ies are standing idle today due to lack of demand? No, since the B787 is so long delayed those will be in demand, perhaps a MD-11 will replace the B743?
As for E170, how are the going to be able to get hold of them, they´re in demand?
No, SLM will have to go for some Fokker´s, both fits them with cost and KLM surely going to get rid of their Fokker sometime seem like 2008-2010 for the 100s, if they want to expand routes with smaller twin,
either 70 or 100, Avianca is getting rid of their 100´s in 2012. I don´t think there´s a big difference if you fly to Paris (just take the eurostar train to UK) or Amsterdam (large amount of flights to the UK) than a direct flight.
RGDS
Another armchair CEO....

[Surijet737]

So A343ies are standing idle today due to lack of demand? No, since the B787 is so long delayed those will be in demand, perhaps a MD-11 will replace the B743?
As for E170, how are the going to be able to get hold of them, they´re in demand?
No, SLM will have to go for some Fokker´s, both fits them with cost and KLM surely going to get rid of their Fokker sometime seem like 2008-2010 for the 100s, if they want to expand routes with smaller twin,
either 70 or 100, Avianca is getting rid of their 100´s in 2012. I don´t think there´s a big difference if you fly to Paris (just take the eurostar train to UK) or Amsterdam (large amount of flights to the UK) than a direct flight.
RGDS
Another armchair CEO....

Oh God I hope not. I mean airliners are getting rid of them, so I don't think that would be a smart move. As for the MD11.....I hope they stick with the A343 or B772ER, but that is my opinion and you have yours.

[Alessandro]

Sure, but SLM always been going for 2nd hand market AFAIK.
If E170, B772 or A343 availble at a good price and shape go for it, but I doubt there is, especially with bigger airlines looking for these.

[AA 1818]

So A343ies are standing idle today due to lack of demand? No, since the B787 is so long delayed those will be in demand, perhaps a MD-11 will replace the B743?

Ok, so here are a few things that might need to be corrected:

No - there are not many A343s standing 'idle' today, but consider the original context of the statement. Which is more likely to be procured (for less), and more quickly - an A340-300 or a 777 (you can even take your pick at any product model). Simply put - when comparing a 777 and and A340-300, you can get the A343 easier. In my previous statements I even hailed the A343 as perhaps the greatest model of the A340 line that is in demand today, but once again, when compared with a 777, I doubt that one can be more difficultly procured.

Also, as for the belief that a 787 delay will cause A343 demand to rise - I think that the notion needs to be revised. What may happen is that current 787 customers (who happen to operate a fleet of A343s and planned to replace the A343s with 787s) might be stuck into keeping said aircraft longer. Needless to say, many airlines that leased their A343s are going to, rather not extend the leases, but make do with a lighter aircraft load and await their 787s (case in point - Air Canada - the 777s arrived and even with the 787 order set to be delivered soon, they reduced their fleet - removing the entire Airbus long-haul fleet, and returning aircrafts to lessors rather than awaiting the 787 arrivals). Most importantly - if any airline were in the situation where they were pressed for 787 arrivals, I am sure that Boeing would have already been in talks with said airlines to minimize the damages to the airline, with alternate Boeing products (for example, the 767 order for LAN comes to mind).

As for replacing the 747-300 with the MD-11? HUH? Why replace a newer aircraft with an older one? Why replace a more fuel efficient aircraft with a less fuel efficient one? Why replace an aircraft with great cargo capacity with one that has less?

As for E170, how are the going to be able to get hold of them, they´re in demand?
No, SLM will have to go for some Fokker´s, both fits them with cost and KLM surely going to get rid of their Fokker sometime seem like 2008-2010 for the 100s, if they want to expand routes with smaller twin, either 70 or 100, Avianca is getting rid of their 100´s in 2012.

Please understand that the SLM of the past is not going to be the SLM that emerges after this transformation. Subjugating them to second-hand aircraft has also gained them the reputation as a second-class carrier. You made another statement that echoed the sentiment that they are a 'second-hand' carrier, but if this is their only modus-operandi, then why are they not simply taking on 733s? Those would be cheap, and with as many operators as there have been worldwide, then why not just take those? The move to 737-700s is a serious move on two fronts.

The carrier is attempting to rebrand itself, and is finally beginning to see the truth behind the economics (that taking on an aircraft that is newer, while more expensive, pays for itself in that over time the extra costs of acquisition is negated by fuel savings in a matter of years where as taking on an older, cheeper aircraft saves in the short term - costing the airline millions in the long-run). Also, the Surinamese government is sending a strong message - that they are willing to shake the image of it's carrier. With this new equipment, they are sending the message that they are ready to undertake what was previously not possible. I would not doubt that the new aircraft will bring with them, the requests of the Surinamese government to fly non-stop to the U.S.

Now, as for your comment - I am sure that their old MD-82 is going to have a much better fuel economy than the Fokkers that are coming off of KLM and/or Avianca. Simply put - why choose older aircraft? These aircraft will be cheap to acquire, but then again - why even wait for them? AA's old Fokker-100s are all stored. Why take them? Almost all of the Fokker-100/70s that are set to be released are going to have to undergo costly checks and are going to be terrible on fuel. More importantly, it is going to do detrimental damage to the airline, and basicially be a step backward from them taking the 737-700s.

As for how they are going to get the ERJ-170s (again, I think that it is necessary to say that we are PURELY SPECULATING about the nature of these aircraft. We are not even sure that there are any plans to add RJs to the fleet at ALL), but they can get them the same way every other carrier does - order them and wait. They do not need the aircraft tomorrow.

I don´t think there´s a big difference if you fly to Paris (just take the eurostar train to UK) or Amsterdam (large amount of flights to the UK) than a direct flight.

I think that you might be in the minority in thinking that way. Most people would rather fly non-stop and as fares show, they are willing to pay through the teeth for it to be that way.

[Surijet737]

Ok, so here are a few things that might need to be corrected:

No - there are not many A343s standing 'idle' today, but consider the original context of the statement. Which is more likely to be procured (for less), and more quickly - an A340-300 or a 777 (you can even take your pick at any product model). Simply put - when comparing a 777 and and A340-300, you can get the A343 easier. In my previous statements I even hailed the A343 as perhaps the greatest model of the A340 line that is in demand today, but once again, when compared with a 777, I doubt that one can be more difficultly procured.

Also, as for the belief that a 787 delay will cause A343 demand to rise - I think that the notion needs to be revised. What may happen is that current 787 customers (who happen to operate a fleet of A343s and planned to replace the A343s with 787s) might be stuck into keeping said aircraft longer. Needless to say, many airlines that leased their A343s are going to, rather not extend the leases, but make do with a lighter aircraft load and await their 787s (case in point - Air Canada - the 777s arrived and even with the 787 order set to be delivered soon, they reduced their fleet - removing the entire Airbus long-haul fleet, and returning aircrafts to lessors rather than awaiting the 787 arrivals). Most importantly - if any airline were in the situation where they were pressed for 787 arrivals, I am sure that Boeing would have already been in talks with said airlines to minimize the damages to the airline, with alternate Boeing products (for example, the 767 order for LAN comes to mind).

As for replacing the 747-300 with the MD-11? HUH? Why replace a newer aircraft with an older one? Why replace a more fuel efficient aircraft with a less fuel efficient one? Why replace an aircraft with great cargo capacity with one that has less?



Please understand that the SLM of the past is not going to be the SLM that emerges after this transformation. Subjugating them to second-hand aircraft has also gained them the reputation as a second-class carrier. You made another statement that echoed the sentiment that they are a 'second-hand' carrier, but if this is their only modus-operandi, then why are they not simply taking on 733s? Those would be cheap, and with as many operators as there have been worldwide, then why not just take those? The move to 737-700s is a serious move on two fronts.

The carrier is attempting to rebrand itself, and is finally beginning to see the truth behind the economics (that taking on an aircraft that is newer, while more expensive, pays for itself in that over time the extra costs of acquisition is negated by fuel savings in a matter of years where as taking on an older, cheeper aircraft saves in the short term - costing the airline millions in the long-run). Also, the Surinamese government is sending a strong message - that they are willing to shake the image of it's carrier. With this new equipment, they are sending the message that they are ready to undertake what was previously not possible. I would not doubt that the new aircraft will bring with them, the requests of the Surinamese government to fly non-stop to the U.S.

Now, as for your comment - I am sure that their old MD-82 is going to have a much better fuel economy than the Fokkers that are coming off of KLM and/or Avianca. Simply put - why choose older aircraft? These aircraft will be cheap to acquire, but then again - why even wait for them? AA's old Fokker-100s are all stored. Why take them? Almost all of the Fokker-100/70s that are set to be released are going to have to undergo costly checks and are going to be terrible on fuel. More importantly, it is going to do detrimental damage to the airline, and basicially be a step backward from them taking the 737-700s.

As for how they are going to get the ERJ-170s (again, I think that it is necessary to say that we are PURELY SPECULATING about the nature of these aircraft. We are not even sure that there are any plans to add RJs to the fleet at ALL), but they can get them the same way every other carrier does - order them and wait. They do not need the aircraft tomorrow.



I think that you might be in the minority in thinking that way. Most people would rather fly non-stop and as fares show, they are willing to pay through the teeth for it to be that way.

THANK YOU! Thats exactly what I meant, why get airplanes that are old by there standards to be replaced by even older ones. I just don't see any logic in that, even if they are cheaper to get.....you will face problems sooner or later. And I am glad to see PY finally trying to achieve something they could not in the past. And if they could not obtain a B777 or A343 then tey are going for the B763ER. Thats what they also announced.

[Surijet737]

I have been wondering, if they keep the B733's they could retrofit them with Blended winglets to reduce fuel consumption. And the same with the 737-700's. But that would be expensive because each costs around $250,000 and if they have 4 737's that would cost around $2,000,000, I just hope they can afford it.

[AA 1818]

THANK YOU! Thats exactly what I meant, why get airplanes that are old by there standards to be replaced by even older ones. I just don't see any logic in that, even if they are cheaper to get.....you will face problems sooner or later. And I am glad to see PY finally trying to achieve something they could not in the past. And if they could not obtain a B777 or A343 then tey are going for the B763ER. Thats what they also announced.

Ohhhhh! A 763ER would be great. Hell, if they play their cards right, they could probably trade the 743 for a pair of 763ERs. Now,. the 763s they could easily get second-hand becuase with the absorption of Martinair into mainline KLM soon, and with many 763 as KLM they could easily use their pull to get some. I have a question though, would the 763 be too small for them. What are the loads on the 743 normally like? Then again, if they get 2 763s in exchange, they can just up the frequency. Anyway, another thing - if they are to take on the 763s, can they get ETOPS certified?