Despite its long range capabilities, EK A345 has been kept to fly the medium haul flights and sometimes short haul flights for a long time.

Unlike EY which is using the A345 on its JFK and SYD and ORD routes, EK is operating the A345 on its flights to DEL and many other places in Africa that are not economical to operate that type of airplane, which is made especially for very long haul flights.

What are the reason for that switch of operation for that type of aircraft and why IS EK is not bragging about operating the A345 as it used to be in the beginning ? Are there any plans for EK to get rid of that type of birds ?

The A345 from what I know is fairly fuel inefficient and gave carriers a lot of problems. Soon after the 772 LR was introduced which has the same range capabilities but is much more efficient and can carry more people.

Of course EK is stuck with these aircraft and they have to be used until they can be disposed of economically, so they are assigned to medium haul routes, while the 77W and 77L take on the ULH routes.

SQ is using the A345 on the EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN routes and they are very happy with their performance and fuel efficiency ! EY is in the same position too.

Since they'd bought them, they had to use them. EK grew at a pace where they could order enough 77Ls. In the case of SQ, they removed P. Eco (though I'm not entirely sure about the reason for doing so), and the all business layout means the revenues are enough to cover the higher operating costs. As for EY, they operate too few routes to be able to do this.

Also keep in mind that because EK squishes in an extra seat in Y on the 777s, the aircraft type brings in more revenue. They can also carry more pax, so the decision may also have been based on higher loads.

I recall reading about this somewhere, but I'm not entirely sure of what all the reasons were.

Also with their gazillion 777Ws flying about, they have great fleet flexibility and are able to swap them about on their various long haul routes.
As mentioned before, the A345-500 on its own right is an amazing flying machine, however it was the greater than expected performance of the GE90s on the 777W and 777LR that finally killed off sales prospects!
I for 1 luv the 500s, beautifully symmetrical, niced sized engines, and of course the elegance of being a 4-holer. Long may it fly!

The A345 was once hailed as the airline's flagship given its private suites in F, long range and being used on flagship destinations such as JFK and SYD. However with the introduction of the new 77W/77L interior with the new J product and its range capabilities the A345 has now been relegated to a secondary role with very similar characteristics to those of the A343 fleet.

Whilst this aircraft has a range of over 16 hours, the airline remains capable of extracting 13.5 hours of average daily utilization and 6.5 hours of average cycle times. I believe the A345 is being phased out eventually (but probably not as soon as the 332s) and hence has been moved away from segments for which is was designed, and it seems therefore that the airline is merely using this aircraft to fill its schedule rather than assigning it to the role it was designed for.

And on a side note, here's hoping for a quick and painless demise to EK's A330s. Or at least their J product.

This is really no surprise. The 340-500 is widely regarded in the industry as a failure. All operators have reported that it didn't meet performance specs and is expensive to operate.

But the 340-500 is a great plane. It is so quiet and comfortable. SQ, for example, has converted their 340-500s a few years ago to all biz class and now has the range of their planes approaching 11,000 miles, if not more than the operating range of EKs 777LRs (yes, EK planes carry more pax, so therefore lower range). So carriers do what they must do to make their planes work and be competitive in the marketplace. So far SQ, TG and EY make the best use of the 340-500s, in spite of being so called failures.

Let's not forget poor old Kingfisher, who couldn't make the A345 pay on the India - UK routes, so hawked them to carriers such as Arik Air (which uses it from Lagos to London Heathrow, a relatively short hop). Kingfisher happily are using A330s on the London route now.

No not really. TG and EY both have made it clear they would dump the birds if they could get a decent price for them but they cant given the operational performance of the aircraft. TG infact had their aircraft up for resale and best offer was $50 million for scrap per bird so they declined. Says a lot on aircraft that were less then 2 years old at time of offer.

That is a very low price

My company CEO can afford to buy one

SQ seems to have found a niche for the 500s, although they had to dump the premium economy to get the yields. Hopefully more rich companies/individuals will buy them up as private jets when they eventually get disposed off by mainline carriers! Always try and snap a few photos of the EK birds when flying through DXB.

EK are flying the A340-500 on the DXB-SEZ route, a 4hr 30min flight.

No, not really on this side of the discussion. TG used the A340-500s for LAX-BKK and EWR-BKK nonstop flights. They also had a LAX-NRT-BKK route using 747-400s or 777-300ERs on that route. Today, out of these routes, TG only operates the LAX-BKK route. LAX-NRT services are now *A codeshare. TG probably wanted to sell the A340-500 at the time because they no longer operate EWR-BKK and probably want more capacity to serve LAX because they now have only one nonstop route to the US. IMO, that had nothing to do with the aircraft type. Secondly, TG operates 11 different aircraft types, including the A300. How many airlines today are flying A300s? Frankly, TG can pick a flavor of the day with the number of their fleet types and have a fire sale. So happens their flavor of the day was the 345s when they shut down the EWR-BKK route.