Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5832424/

Topic: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-07-30 15:53:16 and read 32322 times.

I know the A340/A330 are popular amongst foreign carriers but why
didnt they sell well and be a success with US carriers?

Aside from the DL/NW merger and US no other US airline invested
in the A330. Why is that?

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-07-30 16:17:05 and read 32259 times.

The U.S. carriers were almost all in financial trouble. If memory correct TWA had ordered the A330 or A340 (forget which) but the orders lapsed with TWA's bankruptcy.

You're also overlooking US Airways. They operate 18 A330s, 9 -200s and 9 -300s.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: azjubilee
Posted 2013-07-30 16:26:00 and read 32141 times.

Ummm... Hawaiian Airlines, a US carrier operates 13 330s with 9 more on order.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2013-07-30 16:28:15 and read 32095 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
Aside from the DL/NW merger and US
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
You're also overlooking US Airways.

You're overlooking that he didn't overlook it.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: MIflyer12
Posted 2013-07-30 16:29:18 and read 32090 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
Aside from the DL/NW merger and US no other US airline invested
in the A330. Why is that?

To how many U.S. carriers would you have expected Airbus to sell A330s? What would you define as success?

Or, change up the question: why did some European carriers buy 777s?

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-07-30 16:30:51 and read 32044 times.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 3):
Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
Aside from the DL/NW merger and US
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
You're also overlooking US Airways.

You're overlooking that he didn't overlook it.

Yes I missed that.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: steex
Posted 2013-07-30 16:37:04 and read 31990 times.

Once US/AA merge, there will be four carriers based in the USA offering significant scheduled passenger service on widebody aircraft (AA, DL, HA, UA). Of those four carriers, three will operate the 330.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: boeing773ER
Posted 2013-07-30 16:39:45 and read 31979 times.

At the end of Lorenzo's term he ordered 20 A330s and 20 A340s. Obviously they got canceled, probably got a better offer from Boeing. But I'm not sure if that's the entire reason the order was canceled.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Independence76
Posted 2013-07-30 16:42:09 and read 31923 times.

It took a while for the A330 to gain traction in the US. US Airways ordered their A330-300's in the late 1990's and the A330-200's in the mid-2000's. Northwest ordered their A330-200's and -300's in 2001.

The A340 never garnered much attention in the US due to mostly the same factors it didn't reach to the same successes as the A330 (4-engines, range beyond requirements). Continental Airlines ordered a number of A340's (whether it was the -200's or -300's is up for debate), but cancelled the orders due to finding out more information about the 777 (as many other carriers did).

Airbus tried to talk to AA about replacing their MD-11's with A340-300's, but the deal and talks never went beyond a very rare wood model of an A340 in AA's colors given as a gift to the airline's management. AA, like UA and CO, went on to buy the 777.

The lack of success for the program in the US initially was not only due to the product not being the best fit, but the focus on US manufacturers McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing providing the MD-11 and 777 around the same time. The A330 being marketed as a regional widebody didn't do well for it initially. The A340 was of course disregarded in favor of the twin-engine 777 by many.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
If memory correct TWA had ordered the A330 or A340 (forget which) but the orders lapsed with TWA's bankruptcy.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.as...s_to_buy_40_jets_from_Airbus/18115

20 A330-300's with 20 options. Half of those orders and options were available for the A340-300 if desired.

A shame they never saw service. Icahn's reign of complete incompetency ensured they would never be apart of a bankruptcy restructuring plan, especially with rising fuel prices. An interesting piece in that article is the mentioning of "West Germany."

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-07-30 16:44:05 and read 31888 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
why didnt they sell well and be a success with US carriers?

The 330 did sell well to US carriers. The 340 was mostly a victim of poor market timing; when it was the market leader, US airlines were in no shape to buy airframes, and by the time they were buying again the superior 777-200ER was in the market.

But those carriers that didn't buy A330s mostly didn't buy because they had large and relatively new (at the time the 330 was being considered) 767 fleets.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-07-30 16:44:31 and read 31890 times.

I know there are a few US carriers that have the 330s.

But why didn't AA DL (pre merger) UA (pre merger) or CO (pre merger)
invest in those aircraft types and for those that did why wasn't it a bigger
seller? Didn't those type aircraft have the range and pax that the airlines
were looking for?

I had a feeling boeing beat them to it with the 777. But at the time the 340s and 330s
came around weren't the airlines in a better shape to invest in aircraft better than what
they are today.

[Edited 2013-07-30 16:48:58]

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: IADCA
Posted 2013-07-30 16:47:19 and read 31848 times.

The A340 didn't sell to US carriers for a variety of reasons, among them the carriers' financial troubles over the relatively narrow time window in which the 340 was a major player in the market, the general lack of need for US carriers to have 4-engine aircraft in light of more ETOPS-capable planes in the same time period, the lack of runway performance needs that played role in some carriers' orders, and then just competition from other aircraft, ironically including the A330. In short, the same reasons it wasn't a big success elsewhere, plus a few. Seeing AC not love the type probably didn't help either.

As for the 330, when NW merged with DL it was the type's largest operator. DL's still tied for 3rd. US has the same number of 330s, 18, as the largest operator in the EU (LH, which, yes, does operate 340s as well). HA has a sizeable fleet too, with more on the way. I'd call that a decent success.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-30 16:50:21 and read 31805 times.

A couple reasons: UA, AA, and DL were largely Boeing outfits at that time and they needed something to cross the Pacific which was not as easily done on the first versions of the A330 as it is with today's much improved versions.

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 4):
why did some European carriers buy 777s?

Why does a European airline buying a 777 have any relevance on why a US company would not buy an A330?

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-07-30 16:52:02 and read 31796 times.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 11):

I ment why didn't it sell pre merger with the airlines post merger.

I know that NW, US & HA had the 330s.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-07-30 16:55:24 and read 31753 times.

Quoting steex (Reply 6):
Once US/AA merge, there will be four carriers based in the USA offering significant scheduled passenger service on widebody aircraft (AA, DL, HA, UA). Of those four carriers, three will operate the 330.

Should also keep in mind that 3 U.S.-based leasing companies have ordered 145 A330s (per current Airbus orders/deliveries data), so while they don't operate the aircraft, they're still U.S.-based owners of the A330. LAX-based ILFC is by far the largest A330 customer with 98.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2013-07-30 16:57:53 and read 31734 times.

Note that had Boeing said no to the 764ER, we likely would have seen DL and CO order A330s to replace their L-1011s and DC-10s, respectively. Both wanted a near exact replacement for their aging widebody trijets, and neither the 763ER nor the 772(ER) were considered appropriate for that role in the eyes of DL and CO, so the only option was the A332 unless Boeing came up with a more similarly-sized aircraft, which Boeing gave them in the form of the 764ER.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: luckyone
Posted 2013-07-30 17:02:12 and read 31654 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
Aside from the DL/NW merger and US no other US airline invested

Delta is the third largest operator of A330s in the world.

Quoting Independence76 (Reply 8):
The A330 being marketed as a regional widebody didn't do well for it initially.

At the time of the A330 the US majors were still flying DC-10s and L1011s by the boatload, and had already invested in the 767 program. Most of them still had plenty of service life left in them, too. The economy in the early 1990's wasn't much to write home about, so by time it was necessary and feasible to replace the trijets, market demands in the States were pushing regional routes to narrowbodies like the 757 and A320/737NG, Delta/CO wanted the 764, and the 777 was blowing the A340/330 combo out of the water on long haul. Early A330s weren't as capable either, with the 767-300ER bettering the early versions of the A330 in range, with a much lighter airframe.

[Edited 2013-07-30 17:03:21]

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: RayChuang
Posted 2013-07-30 17:04:37 and read 31645 times.

In short, what hurt A330 sales in the USA was the arrival of the 777, especially the 777-200ER, which had the range to fly the long routes AA and UA wanted but without excess capacity.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-07-30 17:11:27 and read 31566 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
A couple reasons: UA, AA, and DL were largely Boeing outfits at that time and they needed something to cross the Pacific which was not as easily done on the first versions of the A330 as it is with today's much improved versions

In 1990 AA and Delta were MD-11 airlines, UA had placed an order for 777 so there was no room for A330's. Northwest, Continetal and TWA did order A330 and A340's but with Bankruptcy all those orders were cancelled or in NW case postponed. More recently with USairways and Hawaiian A330's have sold well in the USA since the 767 is too small and old, the 777 is just too big.

AS the MD-11 proved to be a dog, the 777 found a home at AA and Delta plus Continental. By the late 1990 the A340 had a checkered history and the A330-300 of that time s not the one of today in capabilty.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: opethfan
Posted 2013-07-30 17:11:27 and read 31560 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
Why does a European airline buying a 777 have any relevance on why a US company would not buy an A330?

I think MIflyer12 was taking the protectionist train of thought. Or was at least mentioning that train of thought.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Flighty
Posted 2013-07-30 17:26:44 and read 31452 times.

I would say in particular, the competitor for A330 was B767. US airlines were flush with cash in the 1990s, before the A330 was a leader. At that time, 767 was king.

A332 finally arrived in significant numbers in 99-2000.

The only 2 customers in the market between 2000 and 2010 were NW (having DC-10-30s and missed the 767 boat entirely, by some madness) and US. US lacked a longhaul fleet and was if anything 2 steps behind peers. This led to the A330 being a contender for them.

NW accepted a very nice A330 fleet, and US and HA continue to take A332 deliveries today. So the A330 hasn't been snubbed by the USA. The USA had a (huge) glut of 777 and 767 capacity. What little capacity was needed 2000-2010 did go to the A330, quite often.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: koruman
Posted 2013-07-30 17:47:06 and read 31342 times.

My take is considerably less charitable.

The absurd decision to go with antiquated and inefficient 767 tankers rather than 330s basically eloquently summarises how in the USA self-harming decisions can sometimes be made for reasons which shouldn't even be factored into the equation.

Worse still, US civil aviation exists in a horribly distorted anti-competitve bubble. Bankruptcy laws in most advanced countries see failed companies liquidated, but in the USA their weird bankruptcy laws not only encourage airline executives to believe in reincarnation, but they also permit the executives who preside over corporate failure not only to stay out of jail but to be able to steal their employees' earned entitlements and to continue to lead the airline they drove into bankruptcy.

And there is no real competition. DFW = AA. ATL = DL. EWR = UA.

This anti-competitive model promotes bad decision making, indeed rewards bad decision making.

So you end up with a market where legacy airline service standards on flights 2-9 hours are the worst in the advanced world, where in spite of a vast market there is a "one-size fits all" crappy coach product regardless of your "choice" of legacy carrier. American aviation is like a 21st century USSR. Every economy cabin on a legacy carrier looks the same, and the product is the same. They even have surly and inattentive flight attendants, because US service industry service standards appear to be dependent upon tipping.

So in 2013 in the USA, 757 and 767 antiques do the work that more efficient A332 and A321 aircraft do in countries which promote genuine competition, and where failure does not equate to reincarnation.

There are simply not enough consequences for bad management, and there is not enough incentive to retire dinosaurs like the 747, 757 and 767. Hawaiian Airlines is probably the only airline recognisable to those of us in the rest of the advanced world as a properly-run airline, and, surprise, they are replacing their 763s with A330s. Plus, of course, they have a CEO with airline experience outside the USA, whereas I cannot name a single other US airline executive who would be employable outside North America.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-07-30 17:55:11 and read 31268 times.

Didn't someone tell me a while ago that NW had 340s on order but soon cancelled them in favor of more 330s?

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: B757forever
Posted 2013-07-30 18:03:11 and read 31205 times.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 16):
Delta is the third largest operator of A330s in the world.

Don't be shocked if the DL A330 fleet gets larger...

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-07-30 18:15:07 and read 31101 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
My take is considerably less charitable.

And makes even less sense.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
So you end up with a market where legacy airline service standards on flights 2-9 hours are the worst in the advanced world

What, specifically, is worse about a US domestic flight than a European domestic flight? You have more food service options in the US. You have better IFE on most long flights in the US. In F, you generally have better seats in the US.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Every economy cabin on a legacy carrier looks the same, and the product is the same.

Yep. That's exactly right. A new DL 739ER cabin is exactly the same as a pre-refurb AA 752 cabin.   

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
They even have surly and inattentive flight attendants

Better that than rampant and widely accepted discrimination in hiring and retention which occurs at every one of the Asian airlines I suspect you are holding up as models.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
there is not enough incentive to retire dinosaurs like the 747, 757 and 767

Have you noticed that every US major is currently in the process of replacing the portion of its 757 fleet that does domestic work, or are you just not paying attention?

As for the 767, with winglets and interior upgrades it is fully competitive with the A330-200 on the routes it is flying. There is nothing "dinosaur" about it whatsoever from either the passenger or the economic perspective.

The picture you paint is laughable because the US domestic market is one of the most difficult in the world to compete in. Stage lengths are long, average ticket prices are staggeringly low, and labor costs are high (even for LCCs and post-bankruptcy legacies). Asian carriers who rely on a premium image and high numbers of upper-class travelers wouldn't have a hope of competing. The only Asian carriers that could possibly have the chops to compete in the US market are South and Southeast Asian LCCs.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: hOmSAr
Posted 2013-07-30 18:17:18 and read 32286 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 22):
Didn't someone tell me a while ago that NW had 340s on order but soon cancelled them in favor of more 330s?

I don't know what anyone told you, but NW had orders for both the A330 and A340 way back in the 1980s (see article here).

Those wound up being cancelled, and the A330s perpetually deferred. Evenutally, NW took new A330s as a replacement for their deferred A330 order from 1987.

Had the economy not tanked around 1990/1991, lots of A330s and A340s would have been flying in the US throughout the decade. Instead, the airlines wound up fighting for their own survival. Other than UA, the only airlines in a position to order new widebodies were also airlines that had signed single-supplier agreements with Boeing for new planes.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: koruman
Posted 2013-07-30 18:26:58 and read 32496 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 24):
What, specifically, is worse about a US domestic flight than a European domestic flight? You have more food service options in the US. You have better IFE on most long flights in the US. In F, you generally have better seats in the US.

Except in Russia, all European domestic flights are less than 90 minutes long.

But sectors like ORD-HNL, and all flights to Alaska and Hawaii are many, many hours long, yet Economy passengers don't even get fed or IFE.

Here in Australia, which is the same size as the continental USA, the full-service carrier (Qantas) includes meals and IFE on all jet services, but even the "less" full-service carrier Virgin is now moving to that on all flights over 2 hours.

Because of geographical size, the only valid comparisons for US domestic aviation are to Australia and South Africa. And the service standards (and fleets) of Qantas, Virgin, SAA and BA/Comair make every American carrier look ridiculous.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Flighty
Posted 2013-07-30 18:33:30 and read 32613 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
So in 2013 in the USA, 757 and 767 antiques do the work that more efficient A332 and A321 aircraft do in countries which promote genuine competition, and where failure does not equate to reincarnation.

The USA needed such capacity before the A332 or A321 first flew. They were literally born too late.

A notion that other places are more competitive is colorful, and debate is good, but that's a little hard to follow. Europe is (predictably) 10-15 years behind the US in its competitive landscape, nothing less, or more. Having deregulated 25 years later than the US.

China... that's the market to rival or surpass the competitiveness of the US.

Australia is too small to compare, in terms of viable airlines (you have.. 2 or so?) It's a very impressive country but... really. And South Africa has an economy the size of Vermont(edit: Massachusetts).

[Edited 2013-07-30 18:40:04]

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 4holer
Posted 2013-07-30 18:36:03 and read 32686 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):

You forgot to insult the US educational system in there somewhere, but other than that, quite the anti-US rant.
If you look again above, there are several posts that very clearly discuss and accurately convey the actual issues of economics and timing that worked against the A330 over here. That won't change your bias, but there it is anyway.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: luckyone
Posted 2013-07-30 18:37:05 and read 32615 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 26):
Except in Russia, all European domestic flights are less than 90 minutes long.

That is simply not correct. All intra EU flights are considered domestic, and are serviced as such. Having traveled through European airports I'm sure you're well aware of the Schengen zone.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-30 18:46:10 and read 32471 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
The absurd decision to go with antiquated and inefficient 767 tankers rather than 330s

As a tax payer I am glad they chose the cheaper product that met the job requirements that also supported US jobs at the same time.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Bankruptcy laws in most advanced countries see failed companies liquidated

You are right that BK props up companies at the expense of shareholders. It does preserve value though and in an industry like airlines with steep barriers to entry, it does protect consumers in some way. I agree though that it is not a perfect system.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
And there is no real competition. DFW = AA. ATL = DL. EWR = UA.

B6, WN, and AS (#7, #3, and #8 in US in terms of traffic) do help to break it up. If you don't like UA at EWR then you can do AA, DL and B6 at JFK or DL in LGA. ATL has a small amount of O&D.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
So in 2013 in the USA, 757 and 767 antiques do the work that more efficient A332 and A321 aircraft

Airlines are not making significant profit preventing fleet renewal. Also, maintenance standards are of the highest in the world meaning that the aircraft can be utilized longer.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Hawaiian Airlines is probably the only airline recognisable to those of us in the rest of the advanced world as a properly-run airline

HA has been having their lunch eaten for years.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-30 18:51:23 and read 32383 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
I know the A340/A330 are popular amongst foreign carriers but why
didnt they sell well and be a success with US carriers?

There are some good answers in this old thread:

Why Do No U.S. Carriers Have A340's? (by thomfly757 Jun 25 2011 in Civil Aviation)

I wonder if UA still owns the A330s they leased to AC?

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: opethfan
Posted 2013-07-30 19:16:28 and read 32167 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 26):
Because of geographical size, the only valid comparisons for US domestic aviation are to Australia and South Africa.

Eh?

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: steeler83
Posted 2013-07-30 19:20:16 and read 32160 times.

I hope I'm okay with asking this here, but why did US purchase the A330s? I know they were taking A320 airframes around the same time -- the reasons for those vs 737s were already discussed to excessive length. Was the A330 purchase in a similar fashion?

I am not at all suggesting they should've bought 777s or larger 767s; I'm just asking...

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-30 19:24:36 and read 32064 times.

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 33):
I hope I'm okay with asking this here, but why did US purchase the A330s?

They felt it was the right plane for their east coast to Europe routes.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-07-30 19:44:40 and read 31994 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 26):
Because of geographical size, the only valid comparisons for US domestic aviation are to Australia and South Africa.

It appears you have never heard of Canada.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: tristan7977
Posted 2013-07-30 19:54:04 and read 31881 times.

Quoting Independence76 (Reply 8):

Imagine if AA had both A340's and A330's, although there will be A330's once the AA/US merger is complete.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: koruman
Posted 2013-07-30 19:54:14 and read 31972 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 26):
Because of geographical size, the only valid comparisons for US domestic aviation are to Australia and South Africa
Quoting opethfan (Reply 32):
Eh?

Simple really.

I exempted Canada because in terms of aviation it is so close to the USA that the norms have largely translated over.

But Australia and South Africa are markets with comparable distances to the US domestic market and a number of routes ( e.g. MEL-SYD, CPT-JNB) with similar traffic volumes to major US domestic sectors.

In terms of Australia, the flights between the main markets (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Cairns, Adelaide and Perth) are similar in length and volume to many US mainline flights, and the smaller airports like Canberra, Gold Coast, Newcastle et al are like secondary US stations.

The same is true in South Africa, where the Cape Town/Johannesburg/Durban triangle is similar in length and volume to many US markets.

But there the similarity ends.

In the USA, every legacy carrier basically delivers a cloned copy of its "competitors'" (sic) service standards. And those standards are conspicuously lower than those of Qantas, Virgin Australia, SAA and BA/Comair.

It's a funny "market" in a huge economy which produces identical products from every vendor. All of which have gone bankrupt within little more than a decade, which suggests that the clones are working to a very, very flawed model.

And returning to the issue of 330 and 340 aircraft, if the US aviation market was a competitve one we would obviously see more variety in what was on offer.

The Audi end of the market would fly 738/320 and 777/330 aircraft domestically with full-service, including meals, IFE and bags, just as Qantas and SAA do.

The Volkswagen end of the market would also fly 738/330 aircraft, but with some passengers on the cheapest Economy Saver fares able to opt out of meals and baggage on flights shorter than 2 hours, just as Virgin Australia does.

And the second-hand General Motors/Ford end of the market would operate narrowbody aircraft, and possibly 767s, with food and baggage charged separately and no IFE, just as Ryanair does.

The weird thing in America is that in spite of having the world's biggest market, the anti-competitive model forces every domestic economy passenger to endure the second-hand Ford model. Even the airlines which own the equivalent of Audis and BMWs effectively take out the seats and the stereo and make everyone sit on the floor of the car.

When you're doing that to every passenger, and when there are no consequences for economic failure other than corporate reincarnation by deleting your employees' pensions, there is no real incentive to replace the 744s with A380 and 77W aircraft or to replace domestic 757s with 321s or domestic 767s with 330s.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: tristan7977
Posted 2013-07-30 19:58:30 and read 32060 times.

American Airlines A330 in new livery! Little off topic but just thought I'd share.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: opethfan
Posted 2013-07-30 20:13:11 and read 31751 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 37):
I exempted Canada because in terms of aviation it is so close to the USA that the norms have largely translated over.

You say that, then you list things that US carriers do that Canadian ones don't.

WS and AC both have IFE on all mainline narrowbodies.
WS offer a free checked bag; AC do not on some North American ones, but do on others, plus all transcon.
Both offer free soft drinks and buy-on-board food on NA route, and a meal on transcon AC.

I don't see how these are close. If I fly WS to YYZ, I get a free checked bag, satellite TV and enough free cola to keep me satisfied. All on a pretty new 737. With AC I get the same, except it's an older A320 (sometimes an A330 or 777 on YVR-YYZ) with VOD instead of satellite.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: koruman
Posted 2013-07-30 21:03:23 and read 31521 times.

Quoting opethfan (Reply 39):
You say that, then you list things that US carriers do that Canadian ones don't.

WS and AC both have IFE on all mainline narrowbodies.
WS offer a free checked bag; AC do not on some North American ones, but do on others, plus all transcon.
Both offer free soft drinks and buy-on-board food on NA route, and a meal on transcon AC.

I don't see how these are close. If I fly WS to YYZ, I get a free checked bag, satellite TV and enough free cola to keep me satisfied. All on a pretty new 737. With AC I get the same, except it's an older A320 (sometimes an A330 or 777 on YVR-YYZ) with VOD instead of satellite.

That being the case, my original thesis seems to be reinforced.

We can now say "the three countries whose domestic routes bear the strongest similarity to the USA - Australia, Canada and South Africa - each have both higher levels of service on legacy carriers and a wider range of economy class products than is the case in the USA".

Ultimately, the US aviation market is conspicuously different from other advanced countries in that the fleet workhorses are significantly older and less efficient and the product delivered by legacy carriers to the vast majority of paying customers is inferior and has fewer inclusions than is the case in other similar markets.

I fly a lot in the USA: in the last month I have taken 2 Economy and 4 First Class flights. And what is most obvious is that First Class delivers what the America's peers consider to be Economy Class service to people in big but obsolete seats while Economy class delivers an LCC product plus soda.

And it's mainly done in narrowbody aircraft and a few obsolete and inefficient 767s.

Here in Australia, Virgin Australia has only been able to compete with Qantas for yields on transcontinental services by upping its service standards, including hot meals, personal IFE and drinks, in A330s. Passengers won't tolerate 737 or A320 aircraft on flights longer than 2 hours. Whereas in the USA, that is often all that any airline offers on some major routes.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-30 21:06:25 and read 31482 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 26):
Because of geographical size, the only valid comparisons for US domestic aviation are to Australia and South Africa.

Really? If you add up all of the aircraft in Oceania you don't get the size of the fifth largest airline in the US.

30 of the 50 busiest airports (movements) in the world are in the US; 1 of 50 is in Australia (Sydney #40).

There are 16 cities in Australia with greater than 100,000 people; The US has at least 289.

Not sure if geographical size should be a metric for comparison.


tortugamon

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: hOmSAr
Posted 2013-07-30 21:30:00 and read 31297 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 37):
The same is true in South Africa, where the Cape Town/Johannesburg/Durban triangle is similar in length and volume to many US markets.

Okay, so you have a couple of routes the length of Chicago to New York, and a route the length of, basically, New York to Boston. And that makes South Africa comparable to the USA for aviation markets?

Quoting koruman (Reply 37):
But there the similarity ends.

Got that right. The US has a far more developed, far busier, high-demand airline network than South Africa or Australia.

Quoting koruman (Reply 37):
It's a funny "market" in a huge economy which produces identical products from every vendor.

Actually, that's how most commodity markets work. When's the last time you bought gasoline (or is it called petrol)?

In the end, the market decided that air travel was going to be a commodity.

Quoting koruman (Reply 37):
And returning to the issue of 330 and 340 aircraft, if the US aviation market was a competitve one we would obviously see more variety in what was on offer.

The Audi end of the market would fly 738/320 and 777/330 aircraft domestically with full-service, including meals, IFE and bags, just as Qantas and SAA do.

The Volkswagen end of the market would also fly 738/330 aircraft, but with some passengers on the cheapest Economy Saver fares able to opt out of meals and baggage on flights shorter than 2 hours, just as Virgin Australia does.

And the second-hand General Motors/Ford end of the market would operate narrowbody aircraft, and possibly 767s, with food and baggage charged separately and no IFE, just as Ryanair does.

Actually, the reason you don't see A340s cris-crossing the US domestic market is specifically because the US aviation market is a competitive one. Plenty of airlines have tried to gain an advantage by "being different," and every one of them lost money. Midwest Express tried offering a premium coach product a step above everyone else. They lasted as long as they could, but in the end cheap fares won out, and they died. AA tried offering more legroom with their "More Room Throughout Coach" promotion, but in the end cheap fares won out, and they had to go back. Virgin America is trying to offer a premium experience, and as far as anyone can tell, they're losing their shirts. They probably won't last long either.

If airlines could constantly fill widebody jets at profitable fares on domestic routes, they'd offer them. But with very few exceptions, they can't. Most business travelers prefer frequency, and a route that sustains hourly 737 service probably wouldn't sustain hourly A330 service. If it could, then that means the route would be large enough that other airlines would want to get in on it, and they'd start offering their own service, taking passengers away from the airline offering widebody service until it was no longer profitable for that airline to fly widebodies.

And that's only covering competition on nonstop flights. If you bring connections into play, you could wind up with seven or eight different choices between city pairs (UA, AA, DL, US, WN, B6, F9, VX, etc.). Name one domestic Australian or South African route with that much competition. I'd say the reason things are different in the US vs. Australia isn't because of the lack of competition in the US, it's because there's a lot more competition in the US.

As for your different "levels" of airline service (Audi, Volkswagen, GM), in a way, you already have that in the US, but it's differentiated by frequent flyer elite status and/or fare class rather than different airlines. If you want a meal included in your ticket, you can buy a domestic F ticket. Otherwise, you can buy something from the buy-on-board offering. Don't want to pay for a checked bag? Elite status gives free checked bags for travelers, or get the airline credit card (or maybe buying full-fare Y tickets might do that as well), or fly Southwest. Want more legroom? Buy economy plus. Want the cheapest, bottom-of-the-barrel fares, fly Spirit or Allegiant, or even one of the majors if you get a good sale. Want IFE? Fly one of the airlines that offers IFE.

Want super-extreme luxury and top-notch service? Fly a private jet (or one of the premium services on the NYC-California routes discussed in other threads on here), as there isn't quite enough demand (except for NYC-LAX and NYC-SFO) to offer that kind of service on a regular basis on any other route.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: koruman
Posted 2013-07-30 21:43:40 and read 31183 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 41):
Not sure if geographical size should be a metric for comparison

Perth-Sydney, 2000 miles, 2 million pax
Cape Town-Johannesburg, 800 miles, 4.4 million pax
Sydney-Melbourne, 440 miles, 8 million pax

Los Angeles - New York, 2500 miles, 4 million pax
New York- Miami, 1000 miles, 8 million pax
Los Angeles - San Francisco, 400 miles, 6 million pax

My point is that these are comparable city pairs in terms of distance and in terms of large passenger volumes.

But the service standards are so different in the USA that it takes the breath away.

Fly 2 hours Cape Town to Johannesburg on a legacy carrier in Economy class and you get fed and watered and your baggage flies free.
Fly 2 hours New York to Miami and you get a soda, period.

Fly 5 hours Perth-Sydney and you fly on an A330, your baggage is included on one major airline, and in Economy Class both legacy carriers have AVOD, serve a hot meal to every passenger and then a couple of hours later give every passenger an ice cream.
Fly 5 hours LAX-NYC in Economy and you won't get any of that.

Yes, I'm emphasising the entire product. But the metal is a major part of that: Virgin Australia commanded junk yields in their 738s on Transcontinental flights, and had to buy a fleet of A330s to compete with Qantas for higher-yielding customers.

And so, returning to the original subject, there aren't that many A330s flying in the USA because passengers can and will settle for much, much less.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: GRUIAD
Posted 2013-07-30 21:51:04 and read 30991 times.

Koruman

If you look closer the US market has very little in common with Australia due to the sheer size and multitude of cities with scheduled airline service. I would argue that Australia's market resembles more Canada. So while you extol the virtues of QANTAS and their high service standards, you ignore the fact that QANTAS competes with usually only one or two carriers in domestic city pair markets, where the US two competitors and oftentimes 3 or 4 competitors are on most sizable city pairs. Quite simply this gives QANTAS more pricing power and that pricing power still permits them to serve meals and offer entertainment. The US industry realized tat while you can spend a lot of money offering these perks in the end it comes down to price.

If I use Chicago - Los Angeles and Adelaide - Perth examples:

CHI-LAX (8 competitors price)

UA
WN
AA
NK
VX
F9 Conx
DL Conx
US Conx

ADL-PER

QF
JQ
VA
TT

My question is would QANTAS service be the same with 2-3 additional competitors on ADL-PER?

I think Brazil is a more apt comparison to the US with similar geographic size and population. The service standards of flights there are largely similar to US. Employment regulations also influence US service levels. We don't hire on temporary contracts and don't terminate staff based on age.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: USAirALB
Posted 2013-07-30 21:54:06 and read 30926 times.

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 33):


I hope I'm okay with asking this here, but why did US purchase the A330s? I know they were taking A320 airframes around the same time -- the reasons for those vs 737s were already discussed to excessive length. Was the A330 purchase in a similar fashion?

I am not at all suggesting they should've bought 777s or larger 767s; I'm just asking...

Multiple reasons.

1. US Airways wasn't on very good terms with Boeing at the time, and they still are not on good terms today. (Not going to go in depth with this one, there are plenty of threads on this subject. But basically US blamed for flight 429 and Boeing blamed US, I think US and Boeing went to court, and US also cancelled a number of 757 orders at this time.)
2. A 777 would have been too much for CLT/PIT/PHL-Europe at the time. It was too large of an aircraft. US had no plans to expand into Asia at the time, doing so would have been suicide.
3. The company already had a large order for Airbus, and Airbus had a product to fit US's needs that Boeing didn't have. Airbus was particularly "friendly" with US's first Airbus orders, I've heard accounts that Airbus practically gave US their first batch of A321s for almost free just to get a US operator.

Anyway, US came very close back before the economy turned sour to receiving A343s.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: koruman
Posted 2013-07-30 22:19:14 and read 30490 times.

Quoting hOmSAr (Reply 43):
As for your different "levels" of airline service (Audi, Volkswagen, GM), in a way, you already have that in the US, but it's differentiated by frequent flyer elite status and/or fare class rather than different airlines. If you want a meal included in your ticket, you can buy a domestic F ticket. Otherwise, you can buy something from the buy-on-board offering. Don't want to pay for a checked bag? Elite status gives free checked bags for travelers, or get the airline credit card (or maybe buying full-fare Y tickets might do that as well), or fly Southwest. Want more legroom? Buy economy plus. Want the cheapest, bottom-of-the-barrel fares, fly Spirit or Allegiant, or even one of the majors if you get a good sale. Want IFE? Fly one of the airlines that offers IFE.

Thanks for that, but I actually have elite status with two of the alliances.

Here in Australia, if I want to fly 2000 miles Perth-Sydney return these are my choices:

jetstar: A320, LCC product, $460 return
Virgin Economy: A330, IFE, food, drinks but baggage for purchase, $530 return,
Qantas Economy: A330, IFE, food, drinks and baggage included, $550 return
Virgin Business Class: as economy but better food, bigger seat, $2000 return
Qantas Business Class: as per Virgin, $2500 return.

For the similar US market, you are telling me that the "choice" is:

Legacy Economy class: LCC product plus soda, US$480=A$531
Legacy First Class: $3086.

So you are effectively saying:

'Yes, there's lots of choice in the USA. You can have an LCC+soda experience or else you can pay an extra $2000+ to have a meal included."

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: hOmSAr
Posted 2013-07-30 22:19:37 and read 30418 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 44):

Fly 2 hours Cape Town to Johannesburg on a legacy carrier in Economy class and you get fed and watered and your baggage flies free.
Fly 2 hours New York to Miami and you get a soda, period.

Fly 5 hours Perth-Sydney and you fly on an A330, your baggage is included on one major airline, and in Economy Class both legacy carriers have AVOD, serve a hot meal to every passenger and then a couple of hours later give every passenger an ice cream.
Fly 5 hours LAX-NYC in Economy and you won't get any of that.

All of that was found in the US several decades ago (with the exception of AVOD, which didn't exist back then), but then deregulation resulted in lots more competition, and, over the years, the services declined with price being the main driver.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: koruman
Posted 2013-07-30 22:30:09 and read 30284 times.

Quoting hOmSAr (Reply 48):
All of that was found in the US several decades ago (with the exception of AVOD, which didn't exist back then), but then deregulation resulted in lots more competition, and, over the years, the services declined with price being the main driver.

We have REAL competition in Australia: 100% foreign-owned airlines can and do enter the market.

Virgin is currently roughly 80% foreign-owned, as is Tiger.

Deregulation without competition is just the starting pistol for a race to the bottom.

As the US aviation market proves.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2013-07-30 22:40:42 and read 30093 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 47):
Thanks for that, but I actually have elite status with two of the alliances.

Who cares. Stop your prejudicial over generalisations of US Domestic Travel and Go Back Down Under.

You insistance on arguing a point that has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's title is dragging the entire thread under.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-30 23:06:57 and read 29598 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
My point is that these are comparable city pairs in terms of distance and in terms of large passenger volumes.

There are some considerable routes but when you have to manage 4 popular routes in your entire country/system its a very different story then when you have 15 of those same routes in the same network.

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
Fly 2 hours Cape Town to Johannesburg on a legacy carrier in Economy class and you get fed and watered and your baggage flies free.

Bags are free on WN and B6 and for FF on legacy carriers. I dont think I have ever paid for bags. I don't need a meal on a two hour flight especially if that means the airline's cost structure is higher and therefore my ticket is more expensive. I will brown bag it if I am hungry.

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
there aren't that many A330s flying in the USA because passengers can and will settle for much, much less.

No, because price is that much more important and US travelers don't care about the airline. First is price, second, second is departure time, third is total travel time. It costs more to fly wide body aircraft on domestic routes and so the tickets are more expensive.

Quoting koruman (Reply 46):

I can't find the rates that you quote. When I search one way NYC-LAX vs SYD-PER for any dates beyond three weeks from now I cannot find an instance where the NYC-LAX fare is not half of the price of the Qantas SYD-PER fare. I used kayak.com and I plugged in a random day each month for the next four months. Check out the number of hits when you try it. There are 5x as many flights between NYC-LAX then there is from SYD-PER and the price is usually a third compared to Qantas.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: RayChuang
Posted 2013-07-30 23:39:00 and read 29033 times.

By the way, it should be noted that Airbus was initially highly reluctant to build the A330-200 because they feared it would cut into A340 sales. It was only airline insistance on an A330 model that used the shorter fuselage of the A340-200 that finally got Airbus to build the A332--a model that has proved to be a huge best-seller because its range was highly desired by many airlines. Indeed, the reason why Hawaiian Airlines chose the A332 was that its very long range with ETOPS 180 certification made it possible to fly to most destinations around the Pacific rim from HNL easily--and the plane was the exact size HA wanted for such a long-range plane that will supplement HA's 767-300(ER) fleet.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-30 23:55:25 and read 28472 times.

Europe had more routes in A333 range. Heck, *early* A333 range. In the USA, the A333 has worse economics than the 757; yes that was the competition to the early A333s. For frequency and fragmentation meant there wasn't a few flights per day to fill. There is a reason the 757 is concentrated in the USA. With few curfews and few slot limitations, the USA didn't need a widebody to do the job of a large narrowbody and when the 738 came out, that eliminated the short haul options, with very few exceptions, for the A330 family.

The A340-300 had the misfortune of being introduced when the USA was recovering from the 'Asian flu' economic crisis for longhaul travel. Two years later, the 777 was on the market. At the time, the US airlines had notably higher aircraft utilization than the competition and that led to a drive for very high efficiency (777-200ER). Now everyone has high utilization, so that regional variation has been lost.

I thought the A330 had more potential. But with Pratt blowing the PW4175 er... PW4170A, that pushed UA to look elsewhere. US had financial issues, which limited their A330 purchases. I personally think internal issues with the US airlines kept them from buying new aircraft, including the A330, for a few years. But now that all of the 'big three' have been through BK, they're growing but at a time when the 787/A350 look attractive.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: ogre727
Posted 2013-07-31 00:13:36 and read 28052 times.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 49):

I disagree, although we might or might not like what he says, he is arguing on why us carriers stuck with other (older?) types. I find it interesting reading, if a little bit over the top. I find your post slightly rude (go back down under? Really?) when all he is doing is expressing his opinion. I too find the service in US carriers to be subpar (both in Y and in J) and this is related to aircraft choice, so dont stop the debate.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-07-31 01:09:59 and read 27188 times.

I assume that the biggest reason for the A 330 to be less successful in the USA market was that in the past USA airlines bought USA made airplanes, that it is that simple.

The tanker competition between the B 767 and the A 330 just shows that if a foreign product wins a big military contract in the USA, the rules for the offer are changed in favor of the local product until the local product wins.

That the domestic USA air transport market is the biggest domestic market in the world is without doubt. That it is the most competitive is very much in doubt. If you need to keep out foreign competition, that alone speaks the tale in the country of " free markets".
You can compare as much as you want, let foreign competition in your market, at least foreign ownership, and than have a look what happens. Until than talk about a "competitive market" is just that, talk.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: spink
Posted 2013-07-31 02:01:29 and read 26305 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
The absurd decision to go with antiquated and inefficient 767 tankers rather than 330s basically eloquently summarises how in the USA self-harming decisions can sometimes be made for reasons which shouldn't even be factored into the equation.

The contract was awarded on economic costs and based on the requirements. The 330s both cost more and had higher operating costs while the 767s met all the contract requirements.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Worse still, US civil aviation exists in a horribly distorted anti-competitve bubble.

The US civil aviation market is the most competitive civil aviation market in the world. There are a staggering amount of competitors and would be competitors. If you think the US civil aviation market is anti-competitive, I would wonder what you think is a competitive civil aviation market.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Bankruptcy laws in most advanced countries see failed companies liquidated, but in the USA their weird bankruptcy laws not only encourage airline executives to believe in reincarnation, but they also permit the executives who preside over corporate failure not only to stay out of jail but to be able to steal their employees' earned entitlements and to continue to lead the airline they drove into bankruptcy.

The US bankruptcy system is quite widely considered the best bankruptcy system in the world. It actually preserves greater wealth for not only the creditors but also the employees and shareholders. In addition, US bankruptcy laws encourage innovation, entrepreneurs, and investment. US bankruptcy laws were largely created in direct objection to UK bankruptcy laws which were historically the most draconian and regressive in the world. The fact is that most of the world has been moving to much more US like bankruptcy laws because of the significant economic advantages of the US bankruptcy system.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
So in 2013 in the USA, 757 and 767 antiques do the work that more efficient A332 and A321 aircraft do in countries which promote genuine competition, and where failure does not equate to reincarnation.

Most of the US airlines operating 757s and 767s are doing so because it is more economical to do so. The vast majority of these frames are fully paid for and the actual operating costs are in many cases less than buying new planes. In the case of the 757s, the primary reason they have continued to be operated is because there wasn't until recently an adequate replacement, esp for many of the route that they are used on. Now that the 321 and 739er are able to operate the routes that the 757s were used on, you are seeing a move to replace many of them for domestic use (it wasn't until later model 321s that they could even reliably do US transcons). Still a paid for 767 is generally much cheaper to operate than a leased or mortgaged 332.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
There are simply not enough consequences for bad management, and there is not enough incentive to retire dinosaurs like the 747, 757 and 767. Hawaiian Airlines is probably the only airline recognisable to those of us in the rest of the advanced world as a properly-run airline, and, surprise, they are replacing their 763s with A330s. Plus, of course, they have a CEO with airline experience outside the USA, whereas I cannot name a single other US airline executive who would be employable outside North America.

Oh man, you must think that Delta management is insane them for scooping up all the DC9s that they can then. As far as consequences for bad management in the US airline industry, there are plenty of consequences. I think you simply do not understand much if anything about the largest aviation market in the world.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-31 02:03:13 and read 26284 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 54):

The five largest fleets in the world are in the US. The market is open skies with many countries with nearly no slot restrictions. Many airports give large incentives to get foreign carriers in. Check out Boston and Denver. Some carriers are 25% foreign owned. Find a significant route that does not have at least three large carriers on that route. Very competitive. Very very low (no) profit.

I agree with the rule for the lack of foreign ownership. Many military deployments are carried out on commercial carriers. Critical to national security for the forseable future.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: spink
Posted 2013-07-31 02:53:40 and read 25388 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 46):
jetstar: A320, LCC product, $460 return
Virgin Economy: A330, IFE, food, drinks but baggage for purchase, $530 return,
Qantas Economy: A330, IFE, food, drinks and baggage included, $550 return
Virgin Business Class: as economy but better food, bigger seat, $2000 return
Qantas Business Class: as per Virgin, $2500 return.

For the similar US market, you are telling me that the "choice" is:

Legacy Economy class: LCC product plus soda, US$480=A$531
Legacy First Class: $3086.

I don't know where you are getting your prices but those are very much not the prices I see on SFO based transcons. I can almost always snag a first class ticket for 1K or less. SFO-NYC return can be had for $1400 in first class on VA pretty much anytime. 1 stop flight first class flights can be had for ~1K. If you have money to burn for a NYC to LAX/SFO flight you can always op for the varies premium services on these routes with the equiv of full international business hard product with full lie flat seating at ~4K a pop.

You are also forgetting a major dynamic of US travel and that is the multitude of routes available. SFO-NYC can be done direct, via DEN, via SLC, via ORD, etc. Pricing will vary widely based on direct or not, level of service, airports, and time of day. SFO/LAX to/from JFK in first has some of the highest pricing in the world for the stage lengths, just an FYI which is driven by both the entertainment and financial sectors that are willing to spend big $ for international biz class configuration on these routes.

Also if you know what you are doing in booking you can get some pretty great domestic flights, I've been on many 777 international config 777s in first class with full lay flat seats for under 1K for transcons.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: BrianDromey
Posted 2013-07-31 03:19:30 and read 24974 times.

The problem the a330/340 family had was timing.
When launched in the late 80s/early 90s the 333 barely had the range for ORD-DUB (EI used to take weight restrictions on certain days) and the 332 didn't yet exist. The A340 was pretty good but the carriers who hadn't already ordered 767s, or had large fleets of 747s had serious financial problems which prevented them from doing so. Once stabilised these airlines (TW, NW, US, CO) did place orders but most were cancelled or deferred because the airline couldn't pay for them, or were otherwise bankrupt.
When airlines came to replace their 747 fleets the A340 (even in 345 and 346) guise were not competitive with the 777 family which had itself improved in range and operating costs since introduction. Airbus won very little of this business globally.
Where airbus has had success is with growing carriers, or carries who were later in the replacement cycle. Airlines like NW, Hawaiian. The A333. Was not more than capable of transatlantic and some transpacific missions, but was lighter than the 777. Unless you really need the range of the 777, or already had them in our fleet the 330 was probably a better choice.

We see a similar situation at BA. Their fleet of 744s offered range and capacity in the 80s and 90s but when it came to replacing TriStars and DC-10s the chose the 767 and 777 to replace 742s, because the 333/343 of the time just was not as good.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Speedbored
Posted 2013-07-31 03:25:17 and read 24876 times.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The contract was awarded on economic costs and based on the requirements.

Yes, both times through.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The 330s both cost more and had higher operating costs while the 767s met all the contract requirements.

Correct, after the requirements were changed to favour the 'home team'. First time through, it was the other way around. But don't get me wrong - I don't necessarily disapprove of this sort of support for the 'home team'. I wish we could be a little more supportive of our own industries over here sometimes, instead of spending our hard-earned taxes overseas.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The US civil aviation market is the most competitive civil aviation market in the world.

It probably is but, unfortunately, the competitiveness has mostly been on price, especially in recent years. It would be better for passengers if there could be more competitiveness on product quality. But there are signs that this might be beginning to change - the introduction of flat beds on transcons is one example.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
If you think the US civil aviation market is anti-competitive

Well it's definitely still anti foreign-owned competition, despite the fact that the US agreed to have relaxed foreign ownership rules long before now as part of the Open Skies agreement.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The US bankruptcy system is quite widely considered the best bankruptcy system in the world.

In the US, maybe. Not sure I agree that that's how much of the rest of the world sees it. There have been many many complaints from other countries that the US system skews competition in favour of US companies that can write-off debt by going Chapter 11 and then just continuing trading as if nothing happened.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
In addition, US bankruptcy laws encourage innovation, entrepreneurs, and investment.

Correct. But it also encourages excessive risk taking.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
I agree with the rule for the lack of foreign ownership. Many military deployments are carried out on commercial carriers. Critical to national security for the forseable future.

Even if 90% of the current US domestic fleet ended up under foreign ownership, there would probably still be enough capacity to carry the entire US armed forces, if required. You've got an awful lot of aircraft over there, you know.  

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-07-31 03:28:47 and read 24817 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 54):
I assume that the biggest reason for the A 330 to be less successful in the USA market was that in the past USA airlines bought USA made airplanes, that it is that simple.

The tanker competition between the B 767 and the A 330 just shows that if a foreign product wins a big military contract in the USA, the rules for the offer are changed in favor of the local product until the local product wins.

I will not derail this thread, but this question came up in the tanker threads and I'm not sure that those with opinions like yours ever fully answered the question, but here goes.
At the time of the tanker debate, the USA as a country was the largest user of Airbus a/c in the world, have not checked recently but they still may be - UA, DL, B6, US and a few LCC's - and this does not count AA who are getting back in the game, so where exactly is the USA protectionism in purchasing a/c from an OEM other than Boeing?
Is there anyway that you can say that Europe the home of Airbus is the largest operator of Boeing a/c?

Eastern was the first major USA carrier to purchase Airbus a/c, since then the USA has been one of the largest consumers of Airbus products, no need to take anyone's word on it, simply go and check the facts.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Speedbored
Posted 2013-07-31 03:46:56 and read 24501 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 60):
At the time of the tanker debate, the USA as a country was the largest user of Airbus a/c in the world, have not checked recently but they still may be

To be fair, you're abusing statistics here to prove your point. Given that the US aviation market has, historically, been so much larger than other aviation markets, you can't make any meaningful comparison on absolute numbers of aircraft. You need to look at the ratios for each manufacturer. I'm sure that you'll find that in the EU, the split of A:B isn't that far off 50:50. Whereas in the US ...

But who cares, really? Given that significant chunks of Boeing aircraft are now made outside the US, and significant chunks of Airbus aircraft are made in the US, everyone is benefitting from sales of both manufactures product. It's bragging rights, nothing more.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: koruman
Posted 2013-07-31 03:57:17 and read 24399 times.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The contract was awarded on economic costs and based on the requirements. The 330s both cost more and had higher operating costs while the 767s met all the contract requirements.

Obviously.

That would explain why 767s are being built for airlines at a record pace, but airlines don't order A330s any more..............

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 59):
It probably is but, unfortunately, the competitiveness has mostly been on price, especially in recent years. It would be better for passengers if there could be more competitiveness on product quality.

There are important cultural differences here between US consumers and consumers everywhere else in the developed world.

In Australia or the UK or France the price on a price tag is the price you pay for the item, and if the vendor doesn't include the tax in the price he is prosecuted. But in the USA, from the first time people ever buy their first candy they learn that the price on the tag is not the final price. It is therefore easier for airlines to pull stunts like "unbundled pricing" or for hotels to introduce "resort fees".

The end result seems to have been that American aviation consumers are far more price-sensitive than their peers elsewhere and don't care that they are riding in an antique aircraft which lacks the IFE and other comforts which are standard in similar markets overseas on identical sector lengths.

We have seen in this thread the contributions of people who really do think that it is not absurd to be taking delivery of brand-new 767-200ERs for the USAF from 2017 when no self-respecting airline has actually ordered a 767-200ER since the early 1990s!

It is that ability to ignore logic and to go against what is standard practice in every peer market elsewhere which creates a situation in which DC-9s and 757s continue to wheeze their way across the skies.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: wdleiser
Posted 2013-07-31 04:05:56 and read 24170 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 46):

I do believe you mean an extra 8$ for a meal to be included.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: koruman
Posted 2013-07-31 04:15:50 and read 24023 times.

Quoting wdleiser (Reply 63):
I do believe you mean an extra 8$ for a meal to be included.

Actually, no, I mean what he wrote in Reply 42.

Time after time I find myself with tight connections through a hub in the USA and no chance to purchase food between flights. And as was written in Reply 42, the prevailing argument is "if you are taking a 2 hour flight into a hub at 3pm, followed by a four hour flight from 6pm to your destination, if you really want a hot meal buy a First Class ticket".

It's extraordinary how expensive it is to try to obtain decent full-service standards in the USA. And, returning to the original topic, whereas in my country (Australia) the airlines can only compete on Transcontinental flights with widebody aircraft, in the USA consumers seem to tolerate 737 and 757 aircraft on really long sectors. In fact, next January United are flying me on a 891 mile sector on an Embraer!

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 04:30:26 and read 23699 times.

Quoting opethfan (Reply 19):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
Why does a European airline buying a 777 have any relevance on why a US company would not buy an A330?

I think MIflyer12 was taking the protectionist train of thought. Or was at least mentioning that train of thought.

I think protectionism is less of a factor in US airline aircraft purchases than it is across the pond. I personally wish it were not, but here the U.S. government does not have majority ownership/stakes in UA/DL/HA/US, so they are free to purchase from whom they want.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Speedbored
Posted 2013-07-31 04:38:43 and read 23558 times.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 65):
but here the U.S. government does not have majority ownership/stakes in UA/DL/HA/US, so they are free to purchase from whom they want.

Care to enlighten us as to how that is any different from the EU? I can't think of any major EU airlines which are still under government majority ownership.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-07-31 04:40:14 and read 23510 times.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 61):
To be fair, you're abusing statistics here to prove your point. Given that the US aviation market has, historically, been so much larger than other aviation markets, you can't make any meaningful comparison on absolute numbers of aircraft.

Ahh no, the size of the USA aviation market does not change the fact that they are the largest user of Airbus a/c.
The claim is made that the USA will not purchase foreign a/c because they are protectionist, when those claims are made, do you see anyone saying that based on the size of the USA market they can serve and provide a stable market for multiple OEM's?
Quoting Speedbored (Reply 61):
But who cares, really? Given that significant chunks of Boeing aircraft are now made outside the US, and significant chunks of Airbus aircraft are made in the US, everyone is benefitting from sales of both manufactures product. It's bragging rights, nothing more.

Ok, now you say the above, then you have the comment below.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 61):
You need to look at the ratios for each manufacturer. I'm sure that you'll find that in the EU, the split of A:B isn't that far off 50:50. Whereas in the US ...

So is this about bragging rights, AA split their order between Airbus and Boeing to get a/c in a reasonable length of time, do you see Airbus committing to increasing production to 100 plus A32X per month to be able to satisfy USA airlines?
Increase production is the only way for Airbus to affect the ratio of units within USA carriers, you already have posters claiming that the USA service is poor because they are using older a/c, so if WN decides to change its fleet to the latest Airbus product, how long is that supposed to take, we are talking roughly 500 a/c.

The protectionist mantra on commercial aviation in the USA lost traction after Eastern purchased A300's, even with "gentlemens agreements" and other legal wrangles, the USA still managed to become one of the larger users of Airbus a/c, soaking up a lot of their production capacity, I truly do not see the protectionist facts but like in the tanker threads, I'll let it go and move on.
My understanding of protectionism is that you prevent the product from being deployed in the protected market.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Speedbored
Posted 2013-07-31 04:49:57 and read 23329 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 67):
My understanding of protectionism is that you prevent the product from being deployed in the protected market.

Then you'd be misunderstanding.

Protectionism isn't just about completely shutting someone/something out of a market, it's most often about applying bias to favour one side. That is why it's more important to look at ratios rather than absolute numbers.

For what it's worth, I do think that things are beginning to even up now as new aircraft sales ratios in the US are getting closer to global sales ratios.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 05:06:34 and read 22985 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
The absurd decision to go with antiquated and inefficient 767 tankers rather than 330s basically eloquently summarises how in the USA self-harming decisions can sometimes be made for reasons which shouldn't even be factored into the equation.

Better to go with something you know, and something you know which actually works correctly on day 1. The USAF has no time to wait for troubleshooting on issues on, say, a .......... bug in the fuel-boom. Not going to go over well with the F-15 or F-16 pilot who needs to be refueled yet is told, "uhhh, sorry, our fuel boom doesn't work right now."

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Worse still, US civil aviation exists in a horribly distorted anti-competitve bubble. Bankruptcy laws in most advanced countries see failed companies liquidated, but in the USA their weird bankruptcy laws not only encourage airline executives to believe in reincarnation, but they also permit the executives who preside over corporate failure not only to stay out of jail but to be able to steal their employees' earned entitlements and to continue to lead the airline they drove into bankruptcy.

Just to be sure, you're talking about U.S. airlines, and NOT the U.S. Government? Could of fooled me.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
So you end up with a market where legacy airline service standards on flights 2-9 hours are the worst in the advanced world, where in spite of a vast market there is a "one-size fits all" crappy coach product regardless of your "choice" of legacy carrier.

I find U.S. carriers coach product rather nice. I'll take a UA, DL or WN flight in coach over a Ryanair or sleazyJet flight any day.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
They even have surly and inattentive flight attendants, because US service industry service standards appear to be dependent upon tipping.

Not all U.S. flight attendants are surly and inattentive. The vast majority of them are very professional. I fly on a regular basis and have never experienced a flight attendant similar to what you describe. Tipping? Where did you pull that one out of?

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
So in 2013 in the USA, 757 and 767 antiques do the work that more efficient A332 and A321 aircraft do in countries which promote genuine competition, and where failure does not equate to reincarnation.

Which is why UA, DL, and AA are holding onto their 767's, and upgrading them because doing so is a better investment than adding a whole new type to the fleet. Glad to see those antique 757's and 767's doing so well and in large numbers in fleets from FedEx, UPS, etc., when they clearly could have ordered the A330F and the phantom A321 frieghter. Didn't FedEx recently place a significant order for the aforementioned "antique" 767?" Carriers like DL and UA are opting for the 739ER and UA the MAX to replace their 757's. They could have easily gone the A321 route, but they didn't.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
There are simply not enough consequences for bad management, and there is not enough incentive to retire dinosaurs like the 747, 757 and 767.

That same 31 year old 767 which keeps getting orders? That same 757 which is still in service by many airlines? That same 747 that is still in demand in cargo or pax versions, which for many missions has no competition?

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Hawaiian Airlines is probably the only airline recognisable to those of us in the rest of the advanced world as a properly-run airline, and, surprise, they are replacing their 763s with A330s. ......... they have a CEO with airline experience outside the USA, whereas I cannot name a single other US airline executive who would be employable outside North America.

How is this relevant to running an airline? Those of us in the real world recognize a properly-run airline as one that is properly managed financially, not headed by someone who held a job in another country.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 05:08:35 and read 22960 times.

Quoting hOmSAr (Reply 25):
Other than UA, the only airlines in a position to order new widebodies were also airlines that had signed single-supplier agreements with Boeing for new planes.

And I am sure it had nothing to do with the 777 being a vastly superior product to the A340, right?

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: MIflyer12
Posted 2013-07-31 05:10:59 and read 22909 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
Why does a European airline buying a 777 have any relevance on why a US company would not buy an A330?

Airlines pick aircraft, and aircraft families, to support specific missions. That some European* carriers bought 777s suggests that the A330/340 family wasn't the only economically viable aircraft in the 250-300 passenger range.

* and South American, and African, and Mexican, and Japanese, and Chinese, and Russian...

It gets back to the OP's premise that the A330/A340 wasn't successful. Based on a lot of factors cited in this thread - AA and DL as MD-11 customers in the early 90s, financial constraints in the early 2000s once the A330 had established itself, the 764s bought by DL and CO since they had other 76x types in the fleet - I'll say the A330 didn't do too badly in the U.S.

I'm not implying protectionism - I'm pointing to evidence that refutes it. U.S. government military bidding is a whole different matter and the multi-bid tanker acquisition exposed some of the worst features of military contracting.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 05:22:52 and read 22630 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 37):
Simple really.

I exempted Canada because in terms of aviation it is so close to the USA that the norms have largely translated over.

But Australia and South Africa are markets with comparable distances to the US domestic market and a number of routes ( e.g. MEL-SYD, CPT-JNB) with similar traffic volumes to major US domestic sectors.

In terms of Australia, the flights between the main markets (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Cairns, Adelaide and Perth) are similar in length and volume to many US mainline flights, and the smaller airports like Canberra, Gold Coast, Newcastle et al are like secondary US stations.

The same is true in South Africa, where the Cape Town/Johannesburg/Durban triangle is similar in length and volume to many US markets.

But there the similarity ends.

In the USA, every legacy carrier basically delivers a cloned copy of its "competitors'" (sic) service standards. And those standards are conspicuously lower than those of Qantas, Virgin Australia, SAA and BA/Comair.

It's a funny "market" in a huge economy which produces identical products from every vendor. All of which have gone bankrupt within little more than a decade, which suggests that the clones are working to a very, very flawed model.

And returning to the issue of 330 and 340 aircraft, if the US aviation market was a competitve one we would obviously see more variety in what was on offer.

The Audi end of the market would fly 738/320 and 777/330 aircraft domestically with full-service, including meals, IFE and bags, just as Qantas and SAA do.

The Volkswagen end of the market would also fly 738/330 aircraft, but with some passengers on the cheapest Economy Saver fares able to opt out of meals and baggage on flights shorter than 2 hours, just as Virgin Australia does.

And the second-hand General Motors/Ford end of the market would operate narrowbody aircraft, and possibly 767s, with food and baggage charged separately and no IFE, just as Ryanair does.

The weird thing in America is that in spite of having the world's biggest market, the anti-competitive model forces every domestic economy passenger to endure the second-hand Ford model. Even the airlines which own the equivalent of Audis and BMWs effectively take out the seats and the stereo and make everyone sit on the floor of the car.

When you're doing that to every passenger, and when there are no consequences for economic failure other than corporate reincarnation by deleting your employees' pensions, there is no real incentive to replace the 744s with A380 and 77W aircraft or to replace domestic 757s with 321s or domestic 767s with 330s.

Eh?

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Speedbored
Posted 2013-07-31 05:29:25 and read 22501 times.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
I find U.S. carriers coach product rather nice.

Not sure that I'd go as far as calling any carrier's 'cattle class' offering 'nice' these days, anywhere in the world. But maybe I'm just getting too picky in my old age.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
I'll take a UA, DL or WN flight in coach over a Ryanair or sleazyJet flight any day.

I'd agree with that but I most definitely would not hold up Ryanair or Easyjet as a standard to aim for. Ryanair is at the top of my 'never again' list. There are, however, a number of airlines outside the US that have far more pleasant economy class offerings than any US carrier I've flown with (and I have flown a lot of them).

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
Not all U.S. flight attendants are surly and inattentive. The vast majority of them are very professional.

I find that flight attendants tend to give as good as they get wherever in the world you are. If you are polite and respectful towards them, they'll be pleasant to you in return. Simple hellos, pleases and thank-yous go a very long way. I also find that at least pretending to pay attention during the pre-flight safety briefing can often make a big difference to how attentive they'll be to you. It's my experience that flight attendants mostly only become 'surly and inattentive' when they have too many rude and obnoxious passengers to deal with.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: koruman
Posted 2013-07-31 05:43:52 and read 22239 times.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
Better to go with something you know, and something you know which actually works correctly on day 1. The USAF has no time to wait for troubleshooting on issues on, say, a .......... bug in the fuel-boom.

Yet they have bought the F-35 instead of the Typhoon or Rafale, even though it has failed to deliver on its claimed performance and the "Lightning II" can't even fly in....storms.

Not too many people would buy a newly manufactured car which was a 30 year old design. Yet the USAF is going to get 179 new 767-200ERs after 2017! The 767-200ER was last delivered to an airline in 1994, until Continental for some reason ordered a few more in 1998. So this aircraft which was already obsolete and unwanted in 1994 is now getting a whole new run of 179 more to be built, after the parameters were twisted to ensure its success in the bidding process. You couldn't make it up. And the poor US taxpayers have to pay $5 billion to build this obsolete junk - remember, no airline has spent a single dollar buying new 767-200ERs for the last 15 years - and then more again to fly these inefficient gas-guzzlers.

And again, this goes right to the heart of the thread. The USA is a place where 767-200ERs which have been obsolete and unsellable for 19 years already are considered more than a match for the A330 which is still being delivered to class-leading airlines overseas.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
I find U.S. carriers coach product rather nice. I'll take a UA, DL or WN flight in coach over a Ryanair or sleazyJet flight any day.

I said legacy carriers, yet your reply was Ryanair or Easyjet. Have American standards fallen so far that legacy carriers need to compare themselves to LCCs?

Would you fly a 1000 mile or 2000 mile domestic flight to UA/DL coach standards in preference to SAA or Qantas standards? So you wouldn't miss the cooked meal and AVOD and included baggage, or the ice cream service? And please don't say that people don't like airline food. Qantas' economy class curries and casseroles are so popular that the people in Business Class often request them.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The US bankruptcy system is quite widely considered the best bankruptcy system in the world

First I've heard of it. I have British, Australian and New Zealand nationality and my spouse is French, and US bankruptcy laws are a figure of contempt and disdain in all four of those countries.

I find it fascinating that some of my comments are construed as "anti-American". Rather like Speedbored's views, I'm actually the one sticking up for American consumers, who are currently being dumped upon with a pseudo-monopoly situation in which the various legacy carriers gang up against them to prevent genuine choice and to enforce universally awful standards onboard antique and obsolete aircraft:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 59):
It probably is but, unfortunately, the competitiveness has mostly been on price, especially in recent years. It would be better for passengers if there could be more competitiveness on product quality


[Edited 2013-07-31 05:53:33]

[Edited 2013-07-31 05:56:16]

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-07-31 05:44:27 and read 22160 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 64):
whereas in my country (Australia) the airlines can only compete on Transcontinental flights with widebody aircraft, in the USA consumers seem to tolerate 737 and 757 aircraft on really long sectors. In fact, next January United are flying me on a 891 mile sector on an Embraer!

Well AA was one of the last holdouts offering dedicated widebody service transcon - 767-200 - and guess what, they are getting rid of those a/c and replacing them with Airbus A319 / A321. while more efficient widebody a/c are available.
DL used to run a lot of widebody a/c between New York and Florida as those a/c did turns on international runs, those have been diminished and more narrow body a/c are in play.
Frequency offered by competitors is one of the reasons why the legacy carriers could not maintain service in markets by attempting to maintain high utilization rates on their wide body a/c with domestic turns.
Add in the fact that most of the domestic pax were in Y whose space was roughly the same as the narrow body competitors and you have a loosing situation in terms of market share.
The few business pax who do not care about the fares look even fewer on a larger a/c than a smaller one whose operation cost is much lower.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: evomutant
Posted 2013-07-31 05:46:58 and read 22130 times.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
I find U.S. carriers coach product rather nice. I'll take a UA, DL or WN flight in coach over a Ryanair or sleazyJet flight any day.

Sleazyjet? Really?  

Struggling to see how U2 are in any way inferior when it comes to onboard service to WN. In fact with U2 now having assigned seating I'd say the opposite. And I've flown both a lot.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: bobnwa
Posted 2013-07-31 05:57:32 and read 21814 times.

I suggest we change the heading on this thread to "Why was the A330 so successful in the US."

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-07-31 06:07:17 and read 21600 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 74):
after the parameters were twisted to ensure its success in the bidding process.

Suggest you leave the tanker bit alone, as the question may be asked, which one are you talking about, the US AirForce generals and politicians who fudged the process to give Airbus a win resulting in a re-bid of the entire process or those who fudged it to give Boeing a win?
If you have a point to put over on the USA not purchasing modern day a/c there are many more items you can use to justify which have much less baggage and contradictory points, like poor management resulting in carriers going bankrupt, or the Chpt.11 process, etc etc etc.

Quoting koruman (Reply 74):
The USA is a place where 767-200ERs which have been obsolete and unsellable for 19 years already are considered more than a match for the A330 which is still being delivered to class-leading airlines overseas.

Is the USA a large user of Airbus A330's NW now DL and US use them, other carriers UA and AA had selected the 777. In relation to 4 engine frames, they got rid of 747's years ago and replaced them with large twins, the bulk of 767 purchases especially the -300 was done during that time frame.
Is the issue them not using widebody a/c on their domestic market?

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: AA777223
Posted 2013-07-31 06:07:31 and read 21610 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 24):
What, specifically, is worse about a US domestic flight than a European domestic flight? You have more food service options in the US. You have better IFE on most long flights in the US. In F, you generally have better seats in the US.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 24):
Quoting koruman (Reply 46):
So you are effectively saying:

'Yes, there's lots of choice in the USA. You can have an LCC+soda experience or else you can pay an extra $2000+ to have a meal included."

I think one of the biggest problems here, that I see, is despite the class system. In the US, you get the "bells and whistles" by flying F instead Y. You consider domestic F in the US far inferior to similar products in Australia (which I will address momentarily). I have flown on many major global airlines, and there is nothing that will convinve me that a coach seat with the middle blocked out (a la most foreign carriers) is comparable to a large F seat in the US. You say they are the same, and they aren't. The reason most people buy up is for more room, and having greater pitch and width is why people buy F seats. The other services that you extol (IFE, Food and bags) are also given to these passengers. I refuse to fly F on foreign domestic flights (unless it is part of a longer itinerary) to be crammed into a regular coach seat with 31"-32" pitch. Therefore, we do differentiate based upon what people want are willing to pay for. I think the argument for the role of elite status and airline credit cards is also valid to include in the discussion - thanks for bringing it up, hOmsAr. That is another major way to get your services included. Before you attempt to force another American stereotype (which if you look at many Europeans really doesn't make sense), I am 6'0" tall and 160 pounds - I am NOT fat.

At the end of the day, the US air market is like none other in the world, for better or worse. As such, it operates completely differently. Any comparison to Australia, SA, Canada or China is simply apples to oranges and specious. While I love listening to the pedantic US bashing, empirically, there is simply no reason in continuing down that road. There are way more people, flying on way more carriers, with way more frequency, to way larger cities, for way lower fares and with way more factors to consider (FF programs, Credit cards, LCC vs. legacy, regulatory environment, etc.) than anywhere else in the world. So, let's get back to the relatively calm waters (I can't believe I'm saying this) of Airbus vs. Boeing! (That last bit was sarcasm for those who will miss it, invariably).

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Carpethead
Posted 2013-07-31 06:14:41 and read 21437 times.

With the exception of HA, US carriers generally no longer operate widebodies on domestic flights.
I would love to see the UA of the 1990s back with gaggle of DC-10, 767 & 777 domestic flights, but fat chance of that happening.
Despite this, the A330 has done well enough in the US/North American market. The A330 has been a big hit in Asia wit the exception in Japan over the 763, so I doubt Airbus is complaining. (not to mention both the 777 is also hit in this market)

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: PDPsol
Posted 2013-07-31 06:23:06 and read 21255 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 30):
Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Bankruptcy laws in most advanced countries see failed companies liquidated

You are right that BK props up companies at the expense of shareholders. It does preserve value though and in an industry like airlines with steep barriers to entry, it does protect consumers in some way. I agree though that it is not a perfect system.

This is so far off-topic from the A330/340 issue this thread is dedicated to, but, whatever...

US bankruptcy laws do not "prop up companies at the expense of shareholders." Perhaps you should do a bit of research into the US bankruptcy system before offering opinions on the topic.

Our bankruptcy laws do not embrace the concept of "failed companies" willy-nilly. Rather, our laws are designed to maximize total firm value/enterprise value for the benefit of a all claim holders in descending order along a company's capital structure. The system is designed to protect continued operations and associated cash flows from immediate creditor claims, allowing maximum value for all creditors [and even shareholders if enough value exists].

Our bankruptcy system puts creditors "in the drivers seat", allowing them to guide corporate restructuring and negotiations with commercial creditors and vendors.

If creditors and the assigned Federal bankruptcy judge determine claim holder interests are best served with an asset liquidation, then assets are, indeed liquidated.

Several carriers in the United States have had assets sold via a "363 sale" in bankruptcy, including PA assets, TW assets, etc., etc.

If anything, the current AA bankruptcy process illustrates how creditors, not the old pre-bankruptcy management, make restructuring decisions in bankruptcy. Think of the management team are mere "chauffeurs", operating as instructed and accountable to the creditors' committee and the Federal bankruptcy judge. As everyone appreciates, the AA creditors will convert into the controlling shareholders of the combined AA/US...

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-07-31 06:27:26 and read 21159 times.

Sorry I am joining the party late in this discussion, but what would you consider a success? I just think that the airlines did not have a need for that type of airliner at that time. I would broaden you look at the Asian market at that time as well. Why was the A340 not bought in numbers by Japan or at the time Hong Kong at that time as well. I think it has more to do with the timing of the need for such aircraft. By the time the need has arisen, there were alternatives in the B777 and 787 and the A350.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 06:51:37 and read 20666 times.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 59):
There have been many many complaints from other countries that the US system skews competition in favour of US companies that can write-off debt by going Chapter 11 and then just continuing trading as if nothing happened.

You obviously have no clue about US Bankruptcy law. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is very structured, and often has someone appointed by the court to oversee it. Ex. AA didn't go on as if "nothing happened.".

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 2122M
Posted 2013-07-31 06:54:29 and read 20574 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 74):
And again, this goes right to the heart of the thread. The USA is a place where 767-200ERs which have been obsolete and unsellable for 19 years already are considered more than a match for the A330 which is still being delivered to class-leading airlines overseas.

So I've been a long time reader of the message boards here on A.net, but this thread actually convinced me to go ahead and buy in so I could offer my 2 cents.

By my quick research, there have been 446 new orders for various versions of the 767 since 1994. Granted, this is less then the A330, but hardly makes it "unsellable" despite being 10 years or so older. The new 767-300 freighters are very popular with the consolidators right now and I imgaine it will continue to sell well for a few more years at least.

As for the rest of your anti-US tirade, I think it just boils down to the US being a far more complex and competitive market, and US consumers do not want to pay more for premium service.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 07:05:40 and read 20352 times.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 73):
Not sure that I'd go as far as calling any carrier's 'cattle class' offering 'nice' these days, anywhere in the world. But maybe I'm just getting too picky in my old age.

Yes, you're getting to picky. What do you expect in economy class? You get what you pay for. If you buy a cheap ticket, you get the bare minimum. Even with the bare minimum on newer UA, DL and WN a/c is pretty good.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 73):
I'd agree with that but I most definitely would not hold up Ryanair or Easyjet as a standard to aim for. Ryanair is at the top of my 'never again' list. There are, however, a number of airlines outside the US that have far more pleasant economy class offerings than any US carrier I've flown with (and I have flown a lot of them).

I recently flew several flights on QR and LH. Coach in QR was as comfortable as coach in UA, DL, AA or WN. The only difference I noticed was I got a USB port on QR in which i could charge my phone. Big deal. I flew business class on 2 LH flights (FRA-NAP, NAP-FRA), both on A321's, and any US carriers coach class was comparable if not better than LH business class. Same seats, etc. The only difference is that LH does not use the middle seat in business.

[Edited 2013-07-31 07:29:33]

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 07:14:27 and read 20150 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 74):
Would you fly a 1000 mile or 2000 mile domestic flight to UA/DL coach standards in preference to SAA or Qantas standards? So you wouldn't miss the cooked meal and AVOD and included baggage, or the ice cream service?

Would I? Absolutely! I have done it many times and will if the need arises. If I need to fly IAD-LAX or IAD-SFO or IAD-SEA, I can choose UA, VX, or AA. Honestly, I couldn't care less about getting a cooked meal that was made several hours before, and shoved in a warmer and dropped on the tray table in front of me. On transcon or shorter domestic routes, I'll bypass the Qantas kangaroo burger in coach and bring on a meal from Chipotle, Five Guys or any other restaurant in the airport.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 07:22:55 and read 19980 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 74):
The USA is a place where 767-200ERs which have been obsolete and unsellable for 19 years already are considered more than a match for the A330 which is still being delivered to class-leading airlines overseas.

Yes, true, the 767-200ER's are now obsolete, but those obsolete aircraft were built 10-15+ years ago, and the KC-767 shares only one similarity with those old a/c, the 767-200 airframe. Everything else about the aircraft, flight deck, engines, etc, are all modern, and ther are no bugs in the fuel-boom. It actually works. It says quite a bit about a 30+ year old aircraft that keeps on going and still remains very popular and highly reliable.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: sovietjet
Posted 2013-07-31 07:23:55 and read 19959 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 24):
What, specifically, is worse about a US domestic flight than a European domestic flight? You have more food service options in the US. You have better IFE on most long flights in the US. In F, you generally have better seats in the US.

Two weeks ago I flew IST-SIP on Turkish and we got a meal (sandwich + salad + dessert) and drinks during this short (~1 hour) flight and free checked baggage. Last year I flew United on ORD-HNL and I got a bag of peanuts and a can of piggly wiggly soda during the whole 9 hour flight. Need I say more?

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 24):
Better that than rampant and widely accepted discrimination in hiring and retention which occurs at every one of the Asian airlines I suspect you are holding up as models.

So? You don't like some good looking FAs? Discrimination or not, a lot of the USA based carriers have FAs that are just lazy. They sit in the back and socialize with each other for a good portion of the flight. I don't blame them either, since the free food and liquor is no longer offered they really don't have much to do.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
I find U.S. carriers coach product rather nice. I'll take a UA, DL or WN flight in coach over a Ryanair or sleazyJet flight any day.

Except you should compare Spirit to those two.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Speedbored
Posted 2013-07-31 07:26:02 and read 19862 times.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 83):
You obviously have no clue about US Bankruptcy law. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is very structured, and often has someone appointed by the court to oversee it. Ex. AA didn't go on as if "nothing happened.".

I'm sure that I know a lot more about Chapter 11 than you think, having been involved with a number of Chapter 11 business change projects. Or do you really think that big businesses would pay thousands of dollars a day for assistance from someone with 'no clue'.

Chapter 11 allows companies to dispose of debt at far below its real cost, to dispose of costly or under performing assets, and to impose reductions in operating costs (such as rents, lease costs, wages etc.). Yes, I agree that it all requires the approval of the courts and creditors but it does allow the company to continue to trade, often with little or no difference as far as the outside world is concerned. As far as competitors are concerned, for example, the Ch. 11 company continues to trade and compete with them but now with a significant advantage due to the reduced cost base.

In the case of AA, it continues to fly and carry passengers on pretty much the same routes and frequencies as it did before. From the customers and competitors perspective, it's carrying on as though nothing has happened except that it now has a vastly reduced cost base and will be better placed to compete, unfairly so in my opinion. But that's what the law allows.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-07-31 07:31:28 and read 19759 times.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 87):
Yes, true, the 767-200ER's are now obsolete, but those obsolete aircraft were built 10-15+ years ago

It's not an issue of the airframe being obsolete. If you look at the areas of the world where the 767 was popular--places like the US and Japan--the 330/340 did not sell well. That's not because the 330 isn't a better airplane. It is.

That said, a 5 year old 767 is/was a better deal than a new 330, just like for a lot of carriers in Europe 10 years later a 5 year old 330 was a better deal than a new 777. The story of the 330/340 not being "successful" in the US is really a story of big 767 operators not needing the aircraft, which has nothing to do with its merits and everything to do with the timing of fleet renewal at various US carriers.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: einsteinboricua
Posted 2013-07-31 07:34:53 and read 19665 times.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 16):
Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
Aside from the DL/NW merger and US no other US airline invested

Delta is the third largest operator of A330s in the world.

Yeah, but DL never ordered them, so the point still stands that at the time in the 1990s, out of the 7 airlines, only 3 decided to order the A330 and when TWA merged, the number dropped to 2.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 18):
More recently with USairways and Hawaiian A330's have sold well in the USA since the 767 is too small and old, the 777 is just too big.

And that both airlines have recently been trending to Airbus. HA bought the A330s as interim capacity while the A350s arrive. As for US, self explanatory.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 34):
Quoting steeler83 (Reply 33):
I hope I'm okay with asking this here, but why did US purchase the A330s?

They felt it was the right plane for their east coast to Europe routes.

And part of their Airbus buying spree.

Quoting tristan7977 (Reply 38):
American Airlines A330 in new livery! Little off topic but just thought I'd share.

That looks sweet. I wonder how it would look with the chrome paint instead.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 07:43:16 and read 19458 times.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 89):
Or do you really think that big businesses would pay thousands of dollars a day for assistance from someone with 'no clue'.

not all businesses make sound decisions.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 89):
will be better placed to compete, unfairly so in my opinion.

Unfairly? Really? So, you think Chapter 7 would be better. Interesting.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: jns13
Posted 2013-07-31 07:46:53 and read 19373 times.

Quote:
The end result seems to have been that American aviation consumers are far more price-sensitive than their peers elsewhere and don't care that they are riding in an antique aircraft which lacks the IFE and other comforts which are standard in similar markets overseas on identical sector lengths.

This sort of counters your own argument, and is precisely the point everyone is trying to make. Yes there's a cultural difference, ergo, U.S. consumers, for the most part, will pay the least possible, regardless of airline or product. Why do you think Southwest has been so successful? And why do you think Virgin America hasn't?

Also, I don't know if it's necessarily relevant that US carriers operate older 757s etc. over newer Airbuses (even though that isn't really the case); it's just as economically viable to keep older aircraft maintained and refurbish them rather then trashing the fleet every few years and spending billions on unnecessary upgrades.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: CF-CPI
Posted 2013-07-31 07:56:39 and read 19173 times.

Quoting Independence76 (Reply 8):
Airbus tried to talk to AA about replacing their MD-11's with A340-300's, but the deal and talks never went beyond a very rare wood model of an A340 in AA's colors given as a gift to the airline's management. AA, like UA and CO, went on to buy the 777.

At the time, AA had decided that new orders would consist of only twinjet aircraft, since two engines vs four cut in half the probability that a flight would be delayed or cancelled due to an engine issue. That left it as 777 vs A330, and I do believe that the 777 was perceived as more robust on AA's routes: DFW-NRT was a must. This being said, I sure would like to get a hold of one of those A340 models!

CO did order the A330/A340 back in the Lorenzo era (artist impressions of the aircraft in the red meatball were circulating). The A340 was perceived as an IAH-NRT ship, for example. This was before the 777 was even announced. Lorenzo was eventually gone, CO was in bankruptcy (again), and Bethune arrived on the scene in the early 90s. He wiped the order sheet clean as part of the reorg, and being a former Boeing man, got CO hooked up with the 777.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-07-31 08:02:17 and read 19106 times.

Northwest had ordered A340's in the late 1980's and cancelled them at the very last minute before delivery. We already had the door mockups in the training center and the ORD f/a base had been trained on them when the deal fell through. Those airframes later migrated to Virgin Atlantic. I have often wondered if any of them were actually photographed painted in NW colors. I have never seen any such pictures.

This was all occurring just about the time that the Checci/Wilson rape of Northwest's assets began. They stripped all of the equity out of the company and left it nearly a bankrupt shell. I blame Steve Rothmeier and the Board of Directors for that whole debacle as they could easily have placed a poison pill defense to protect the company from such a raid and they did not. It was only thorough the efforts of the NW employees taking massive pay cuts and striking new deals with our creditors that we brought the airline back from the brink...at least for a few years.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: doulasc
Posted 2013-07-31 08:17:17 and read 18773 times.

The Airbus A340,its just a A330 with two extra engines,thats the only difference I see.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: DTW2HYD
Posted 2013-07-31 08:32:23 and read 18423 times.

Airlines buy planes fit for market they serve. Not because of national interest. Aren't bulk of planes in USA are RJs(please correct me if I am wrong) made by Canadian/Brazilian companies. One cannot design and build a plane(A350) just suitable for ME3 and ask every other airline to live with it.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: MD-90
Posted 2013-07-31 08:45:39 and read 18192 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 62):
The end result seems to have been that American aviation consumers are far more price-sensitive than their peers elsewhere and don't care that they are riding in an antique aircraft which lacks the IFE and other comforts which are standard in similar markets overseas on identical sector lengths.

This seems to bother you for some reason. I enjoy flying longhaul on Qantas and over the Pacific I prefer it to United or Delta but it's funny how both of those airlines make money internationally while Qantas can't seem to stop the bleeding--even if they did switch LAX-AKL from a 744 to an A332 (the route I usually fly).

Quoting koruman (Reply 62):
We have seen in this thread the contributions of people who really do think that it is not absurd to be taking delivery of brand-new 767-200ERs for the USAF from 2017 when no self-respecting airline has actually ordered a 767-200ER since the early 1990s!

The military doesn't care about per passenger fuel burn because that's not important to the mission. The tanker fleet flies much less in any given year than an equivalent airline fleet so fuel efficiency is less important anyway.

---

Airline bean counters in the US love what the A330 has become, I'm sure, but timing and the economy played a big role in which airlines had the money to buy A330s and which didn't. Certainly the 764 and 772 also played roles in preventing A330/A340 sales to certain carriers.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: msp747
Posted 2013-07-31 08:57:44 and read 17932 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Hawaiian Airlines is probably the only airline recognisable to those of us in the rest of the advanced world as a properly-run airline, and, surprise, they are replacing their 763s with A330s

The fact that Hawaiian is purchasing A330's must be the only factor you are considering in calling them a "properly run airline" while trashing on the rest of the US carriers. You bash on all the other American legacy carriers for going through bankruptcy, but then overlook that Hawaiian too went through bankruptcy just a few years ago. And Hawaiian will nickel and dime you just like the other carriers. I had to pay bag fees on my flight from OGG to HNL, even though I was traveling on a first class DL ticket. And Hawaiian is even moving away from their widebody only service between the islands and the mainland with their purchase of the A321. I don't see you criticizing that move. Or is it because they bought modern Airbus planes to do it, instead of antique Boeing aircraft?

I don't know what airline you are flying when you do all this domestic travel in the US, but you are taking the worst possible outcome and making it sound like every flight is that way. On DL flights, I get IFE on almost every flight over a couple of hours. I also have the choice to buy food on board, if I want. However, like many other posters have said, I'd much rather grab Chipotle or Five Guys or something from an actual restaurant than pay extra for my plane ticket so a sub-standard meal is included on my flight. Even when airlines provided food, their meals were never anything to write home about. Half the time I would pass on them altogether. Also, I avoid paying bag fees on DL because I have their credit card. The only time I have to pay those is if I fly a different airline.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-07-31 09:07:30 and read 17688 times.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 86):
Would I? Absolutely! I have done it many times and will if the need arises. If I need to fly IAD-LAX or IAD-SFO or IAD-SEA, I can choose UA, VX, or AA. Honestly, I couldn't care less about getting a cooked meal that was made several hours before, and shoved in a warmer and dropped on the tray table in front of me. On transcon or shorter domestic routes, I'll bypass the Qantas kangaroo burger in coach and bring on a meal from Chipotle, Five Guys or any other restaurant in the airport.

I don't even like the offerings in First or as I call it economy with more room because the food is just awful and I for one prefer to eat my meals at a table and not in an airplane seat where in domestic first there is still not alot of room to properly consume a meal and then I can't get up and walk for my 1/2 hour post meal digestion stroll.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-07-31 09:08:55 and read 17653 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
My take is considerably less charitable.

I agree with your post ..

Quoting koruman (Reply 37):
It's a funny "market" in a huge economy which produces identical products from every vendor. All of which have gone bankrupt within little more than a decade, which suggests that the clones are working to a very, very flawed model.

Yes and some years from now other will follow the "bankrupt route" its just matter of time.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 49):
Who cares. Stop your prejudicial over generalisations of US Domestic Travel and Go Back Down Under.

You insistance on arguing a point that has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's title is dragging the entire thread under.

Its on Topic Compadre, the main reason the US haven ordered 330 and a340 on the 90 was the economy and the weird market they are in.. so It bears on the subject...

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The US civil aviation market is the most competitive civil aviation market in the world. There are a staggering amount of competitors and would be competitors. If you think the US civil aviation market is anti-competitive, I would wonder what you think is a competitive civil aviation market.

It cant be competitive when the Government gives billions (9/11) to save the airlines and their flawed model.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
Very competitive. Very very low (no) profit.

No profit means something is wrong, who starts a business to have no profits..Oh wait, teh auto industry, the Airline Industry...and so forth... The USA is forgetting capitalism 101...

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 59):
It probably is but, unfortunately, the competitiveness has mostly been on price, especially in recent years. It would be better for passengers if there could be more competitiveness on product quality. But there are signs that this might be beginning to change - the introduction of flat beds on transcons is one example.

Thankfully yes, but pax are still voting with their dollars and they are driving the market to cattle transport nd the airlines are going that imposible route... result will be a weird market and more bankruptcies.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
Which is why SA)">UA, SA)">DL, and SA)">AA are holding onto their 767's, and upgrading them because doing so is a better investment than adding a whole new type to the fleet. Glad to see those antique 757's and 767's doing so well and in large numbers in fleets from FedEx, UPS, etc., when they clearly could have ordered the A330F and the phantom A321 frieghter. Didn't FedEx recently place a significant order for the aforementioned "antique" 767?" Carriers like SA)">DL and SA)">UA are opting for the 739ER and SA)">UA the MAX to replace their 757's. They could have easily gone the A321 route, but they didn't.

Carriers have not going to renew their fleet because they are surviving, just look at SA)">DL and their HUGE Md fleet. they do it because they can, the pax WILL and nobody will care as long as its cheap...

Quoting koruman (Reply 74):
The USA is a place where 767-200ERs which have been obsolete and unsellable for 19 years already are considered more than a match for the A330 which is still being delivered to class-leading airlines overseas.

True, but tax dollars are tax dollars. Even if it doesnt make sense.

Quoting 2122M (Reply 84):
As for the rest of your anti-US tirade, I think it just boils down to the US being a far more complex and competitive market, and US consumers do not want to pay more for premium service.



I dont think it not anti US, its more like, ignorance is bliss, the consumer at large will endure whatever the carrier will offer as long as its cheap.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 88):
Two weeks ago I flew IST-SIP on Turkish and we got a meal (sandwich + salad + dessert) and drinks during this short (~1 hour) flight and free checked baggage. Last year I flew United on ORD-HNL and I got a bag of peanuts and a can of piggly wiggly soda during the whole 9 hour flight. Need I say more?

Benn there, experienced that... even Mexican Airlines and LCC here have better service than their US counterparts...

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 89):
In the case of SA)">AA, it continues to fly and carry passengers on pretty much the same routes and frequencies as it did before. From the customers and competitors perspective, it's carrying on as though nothing has happened except that it now has a vastly reduced cost base and will be better placed to compete, unfairly so in my opinion. But that's what the law allows.

Spot on! and down the line the employees will pay dearly.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 95):
This was all occurring just about the time that the Checci/Wilson rape of Northwest's assets began. They stripped all of the equity out of the company and left it nearly a bankrupt shell. I blame Steve Rothmeier and the Board of Directors for that whole debacle as they could easily have placed a poison pill defense to protect the company from such a raid and they did not. It was only thorough the efforts of the SA)">NW employees taking massive pay cuts and striking new deals with our creditors that we brought the airline back from the brink...at least for a few years.

I rest my case... great example...

So back to topic, the weird market in the USA, makes that there are no wide bodies of newer make flying all the time , instead they have a huge traffic with lots of small SA aircraft killing themselves on the dollar and having minuscule profits... how long will this last? I wonder if and Airline like Scoot would survive in the USA...

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: mayor
Posted 2013-07-31 09:19:55 and read 17408 times.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 59):
It probably is but, unfortunately, the competitiveness has mostly been on price, especially in recent years. It would be better for passengers if there could be more competitiveness on product quality.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the consumer, because it is their wish for fares to be low.

Quoting koruman (Reply 62):
We have seen in this thread the contributions of people who really do think that it is not absurd to be taking delivery of brand-new 767-200ERs for the USAF from 2017 when no self-respecting airline has actually ordered a 767-200ER since the early 1990s!

Except, we're not talking about the 767 replacing a passenger a/c, but replacing a tanker, the KC-135, which has been in service about 57 years, now. Not even an apples and oranges argument.......more like apples and a lump of coal (for comparison purposes).


For someone that like to bash the U.S. so much, you certainly do alot of business, here.  

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: mayor
Posted 2013-07-31 09:29:54 and read 17211 times.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 101):

It cant be competitive when the Government gives billions (9/11) to save the airlines and their flawed model.

Seems like the only thing flawed is this statement. HOW does 9/11 relate to the "flawed" model to which you refer? I could see if you were talking about BK, but you're not. Anyway, as I understand it, it wasn't just the airlines that benefitted from those payments, but the travel industry as a whole, even if the business wasn't directly (or indirectly) impacted by 9/11.



NOW, can we get back to the subject at hand and away from the U.S. bashing that seems to be so popular on here?

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: cschleic
Posted 2013-07-31 09:33:28 and read 17158 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 62):
We have seen in this thread the contributions of people who really do think that it is not absurd to be taking delivery of brand-new 767-200ERs for the USAF from 2017 when no self-respecting airline has actually ordered a 767-200ER since the early 1990s!

It is that ability to ignore logic and to go against what is standard practice in every peer market elsewhere which creates a situation in which DC-9s and 757s continue to wheeze their way across the skies.

What this has to do with U.S. carriers buying A-330's is beyond me. As for DC-9's, for DL anyway, there is economic logic to keeping them. It may not work for everyone else, or make a whole lot of sense, but it seems to work for them given their definition of success. Therefore, it's logical for them. There are plenty of 757's flying around the world, not just the U.S. Just like there are plenty of older A-320's out there.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-31 09:44:19 and read 16926 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 62):
That would explain why 767s are being built for airlines at a record pace, but airlines don't order A330s any more..............

In the freighter category its quite the opposite. The 767 has sold many 4 times more freighters than the A330 has (not including the military versions).

Quoting koruman (Reply 62):
We have seen in this thread the contributions of people who really do think that it is not absurd to be taking delivery of brand-new 767-200ERs for the USAF from 2017 when no self-respecting airline has actually ordered a 767-200ER since the early 1990s!

This is a 300er wing and gear with a 787 cockpit and a slightly longer than 200 fuse I believe. They chose the smaller fuse so they could have more range. This is not just a 200er with a boom.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 66):
I can't think of any major EU airlines which are still under government majority ownership.

Czech Airlines, LOT, Air Malta, Air Cyprus, JAT Airways come to mind. I think Serbia is in the EU now but I am not up on the recent additions. Regardless, you used the word 'major' and none of these can be confused as that.  
Quoting evomutant (Reply 76):
Struggling to see how U2 are in any way inferior when it comes to onboard service to WN.

3" of pitch in coach and free bags. I love U2 for the prices though but it is night and day in my opinion.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Flighty
Posted 2013-07-31 09:52:53 and read 16768 times.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 101):
True, but tax dollars are tax dollars. Even if it doesnt make sense.

Almost no industry pays the unique high tax rates airlines pay.

The bailout of 9/11 was very small and simply fixed some (but not all) of the damages directly inflicted by Osama Bin Laden.. not by capitalism. There's a difference between capitalism and Osama Bin Laden.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2013-07-31 09:55:47 and read 16705 times.

Quoting ogre727 (Reply 53):
I find your post slightly rude (go back down under? Really?) when all he is doing is expressing his opinion.

Indeed I was rude and I owe Koruman an apology for it. Upon closer examination, I should have said something like Enjoy your flights down under. In my haste, I typed something that I now regret. However, I've made my bed and must lie in it.

Back on topic, I too am surprised the A330-300 was not a run-away success in the USA as well.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-31 10:14:33 and read 16353 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 74):
And the poor US taxpayers have to pay $5 billion to build this obsolete junk

The A330 tanker does not seem to be working out in Australia..

"Airbus SAS (EAD) has yet to resolve performance issues with its military refueling plane, more than two years after the first examples were delivered"

“We still have got a quite a few issues with the tanker to work through,” Brown said. “Everybody thought that since we’ve been building refueling planes for 50-odd years, how hard can it be? But there are more complications.”

"Australia ordered five tankers based on the A330 passenger plane in 2004 to act as airborne gas stations for combat and surveillance planes. Airbus delivered the first in 2011, around four years behind plan, and problems persist with gear including an electronically controlled boom that passes fuel far faster than the standard hose-based system"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...onfounds-australian-air-force.html

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 10:16:50 and read 16286 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 108):

They've been dealing with a bug in the fuel-boom. Kinda important to successful operation of the a/c.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: BHMNONREV
Posted 2013-07-31 10:23:07 and read 16181 times.

At the risk of getting sucked into Koruman's argument regarding the state of US civil aviation and how they are all turds for not flying widebodies across all corners of the US I will try to keep on topic here.

As has been stated here previously, the A330 was the wrong aircraft at the wrong time in the US. Most of the majors were operating the 767 well before the 330 came onto the scene, and I'm sure most took one look and saw too many seats to fill with the Airbus. And I bet some of the old-timer management were having 747 flashbacks and said thanks, but no thanks..

But make no mistake, the A330 is one of my favorite airplanes to fly. Quiet, comfortable 8-abreast in Economy, but potentially a disaster for US domestic use. And the 340 never had a chance.

And not to pick on Koruman, as his insight into the Australian aviation posts is invaluable and I for one am grateful. But he has not a clue about the US air market and the US consumer. They want price and frequency, and nothing else matters. If there was a segment of the population who wanted all the frills and service and was willing to pay for the experience then one of the majors or a new entrant would have jumped at the chance and would be flying 330's between STL and IND. Wait, I believe TWA did that back in the day albeit with the L10 but at the end of the day we see where TW now sits. This business is not as easy as some a.net armchair folks would like to believe..

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: PSU.DTW.SCE
Posted 2013-07-31 10:24:37 and read 16147 times.

Wow, so much craziness in this thread:

The success of A330/A340 in the US:

One could argue that the A330 has been rather successful in the United States. DL, US, HA all have fleets of A330s. The only ones of note that do not are AA and UA, and there are multiple reasons why each airline does or does not have the fleet type. The largest operator in the world has less than 40 A330s and DL has 32. The A330 is not a fleet type that any airline is going to order by the 100s.

The biggest issue was timing:
-The A330 was launched after the 767. US airlines placed large orders for the 767s which were primarily used for expansion and deployment across the Atlantic. By the time the A330 was around, UA, AA, DL all had large commitments to the 767 fleet

- US economy was in a recession, which ultimately led to financial difficulty for the airlines in the early 90s.

- AA & DL ordering the MD-11 & 777 as their DC-10 L1011 replacement.

NW was in a unique situation, as instead of going with the initial A330/A340 order placed in the late 1980s, ending up acquiring second-hand DC-10-30s to deploy on their rapidly expanding TATL network. NW was in very poor financial shape in the early 90s and could not afford to take delivery of the A330/A340s they had initially ordered. The A330/A340 was ultimately deffered, then eventually converted partially in an order for A319/A320s and the eventual A330 order for the deliveries that started in 2003. NW was the first to pioneer the Trans-Atlantic JV with KLM and rapidly needed to expand flights to Europe and AMS. They hand-picked good second-hand DC-10-30s and used those across the Atlantic on what was essentially feeding the AMS hub. Some were used on West Coast-Asia too.

NW studied the 767, 777, and A330 for the DC-10-30 replacement and ultimately went with the A330 when they placed the order in 2001. The 767-300 was deemed too small and a reduction in capacity for their route structure to Europe. The 777 was deemed too much airplane for the TATL network. NW though the A330-300 was the right airplane, and for the fact they had the ability to adjust a portion of the order to the -200 as necessary.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-07-31 10:55:55 and read 15629 times.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 97):
Airlines buy planes fit for market they serve. Not because of national interest.

You have got to be kidding  
Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 101):
It cant be competitive when the Government gives billions (9/11) to save the airlines and their flawed model.

And here I was thinking that 9/11 was a one time thing when the entire US flight industry was shut down.
Even loans were provided and paid back, UA could not qualify, but hey, its makes for a good story.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 101):
Benn there, experienced that... even Mexican Airlines and LCC here have better service than their US counterparts...

So how exactly would service be improved if they flew A330's?

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 110):
And not to pick on Koruman, as his insight into the Australian aviation posts is invaluable and I for one am grateful. But he has not a clue about the US air market and the US consumer. They want price and frequency, and nothing else matters.

It is possible that you have identified the problem, which is the consumer demanding and receiving a certain service.
In the airline industry, the airlines are the experts and should be running the show setting rates and levels of service that the pax must pay for and cannot avoid.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-07-31 11:18:45 and read 15171 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 112):
So how exactly would service be improved if they flew A330's?

Nothing, because the market would make it 10 abreast at 30 pitch for a measly 149 coast to coast, and the product would be as bad as a 738 or A320 doing the same in a 3-3 seating.

The point is not bashing (in my case) the USA, but seeing for 40 years how the market has created a very low common ground to fly within the USA.

For example I Will FLy UA MEX to SEA with a Stop at PHXand wil return Alaska Airlines from SEA - LAX - MEX, I would have gone AM if possible because service is better and basically its the same planes, the pitch in AM is Fixed and not the mumbo jumbo of UA with Economy and Economy +.... I ended using the USA carriers because it was not possible to get a decent time to fly, and in the end the return leg would be on Alaska.
When Mexicana was flying the same Alaska Routes ( MEX LAX) Alaska would have great service because the competition with MX, now MX is gone and Alaska will give you Peanuts and a small drink....

So the A330 would be a great Aircraft in transcons on a 8 abreast with lets say 31 inch pitch, but WILL THEY PAY IT? or will a Carrier risk using a more expensive and larger AC on a flight on these market? I doubt it.... hence DL will fly their Maddogs as long as they can.

TRB

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2013-07-31 11:20:06 and read 15059 times.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 111):
- AA & DL ordering the MD-11 & 777 as their DC-10 L1011 replacement.

DL's L-1011 replacement was the 764ER, not the 777. The 777 was ordered as a replacement for the cancellation of the remaining MD-11 orders.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: sccutler
Posted 2013-07-31 11:26:19 and read 14627 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):

The 330 did sell well to US carriers. The 340 was mostly a victim of poor market timing; when it was the market leader, US airlines were in no shape to buy airframes, and by the time they were buying again the superior 777-200ER was in the market.

But those carriers that didn't buy A330s mostly didn't buy because they had large and relatively new (at the time the 330 was being considered) 767 fleets.

The story in a nutshell. Well-said.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):

So in 2013 in the USA, 757 and 767 antiques do the work that more efficient A332 and A321 aircraft do in countries which promote genuine competition, and where failure does not equate to reincarnation.

"Antiques?"

---

Meh.

My Dad sweltered in the south Pacific sun for four years so you could spout off this blather in English, rather than Japanese. Still, what you write reminds me of the conversations I have with my Australian sister - everything in Australia is clothed in flawlessness, all things American are crap. I find things are not nearly as clear-cut as all that.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: PSU.DTW.SCE
Posted 2013-07-31 11:30:56 and read 14340 times.

US Airlines must operate aircraft on a 25-30 year replacement cycle. It is the only way to generate a sufficient return on invested capital.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: awacsooner
Posted 2013-07-31 11:37:48 and read 13929 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
The absurd decision to go with antiquated and inefficient 767 tankers rather than 330s basically eloquently summarises how in the USA self-harming decisions can sometimes be made for reasons which shouldn't even be factored into the equation.

Are you kidding me? Why are you still bitter that the USAF went for an American product that suited their needs? Get over it...Boeing won.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: bobnwa
Posted 2013-07-31 11:53:24 and read 12778 times.

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 117):
Are you kidding me? Why are you still bitter that the USAF went for an American product that suited their needs? Get over it...Boeing won.


The USAF went for the A330 rather than the B767. politics changed the order to Boeing.Believe me the USAF did not want the Boeing

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-07-31 12:10:54 and read 11469 times.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The US civil aviation market is the most competitive civil aviation market in the world. There are a staggering amount of competitors and would be competitors. If you think the US civil aviation market is anti-competitive, I would wonder what you think is a competitive civil aviation market.

A market not closed to foreign competition and/or ownership.
Opening the local club.
Do not tell me foreign airlines would not add to the competition.

Think about the competition in passenger cars in the USA if Toyota and all the other foreign car manufacturers would have been banned, would that situation have made the USA the most competitive car market in the world between GM, Chrysler and Ford?
The USA car makers had all about the same product, the foreign cars really mixed up the market.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: mpdpilot
Posted 2013-07-31 12:34:12 and read 9807 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 119):
A market not closed to foreign competition and/or ownership.

Do you really think that if the US and the EU got rid of their ownership laws that Lufthansa and Air France and British Airways would come in and start operating flights? I doubt it, what would happen is another round of mergers, British Airways and American would merge, Lufthansa and United would merge and Delta and Air France would merge and we would have more Air France KLM style companies in the world. Now Ryanair might start flying in the US, but looking at the success of Spirit in the US I don't think they would make a significant inroad in to a very developed airline industry.

Another thing to remember is that the laws are not just the US but other countries as well. The US wont get rid of its ownership laws until other countries do as well. Most notably the EU.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-31 12:36:58 and read 9675 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 62):
That would explain why 767s are being built for airlines at a record pace, but airlines don't order A330s any more..............

The AF contract had cost per mission. Not cost per gallon of fuel transferred on the tanker. The contract didn't include the value of added time on station nor the added fuel an A330 could transfer. That is due to the Air Force's inherent bias towards numbers to cover downed aircraft due to battle damage.

The contract had very specific terms.

Let's turn this around. Why is the 763F selling very well vs. the A332F?    The tanker is much more analogous to the freight market than the passenger market....

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 118):
The USAF went for the A330 rather than the B767. politics changed the order to Boeing.Believe me the USAF did not want the Boeing

I wish that was the case (I would be working the Northrop tanker today), but it was a political boondoogle where the Air Force was constrained on funding and was forced to pick the more economical airframe versus the more capable.

The AirForces weighting system was too ambiguous when Northrop won and that violated procurement rules. No Ambiguity as allowed for the 3rd bidding... That put out a bid that favored the cheaper purchase price.

Each tanker will fly 400 to 500 hours per year. It doesn't matter if that is a 767 or an A330. Each tanker will typically transfer half the available fuel, so the A330 based tanker would just have been returning to base with more fuel. But an A330 costs more per mission.

Look at it this way. Fly an A330 vs. a 767 TATL, but limit the payload to 15 tons each flight and only fly once per week. For that scenario, the 767 cost far less to fly. That is my closest analogy to what the Air Force asked for quotes.

Everyone should remember that Boeing is trying to just *break even* on the first batch of tankers. They are taking a hit on the R&D costs. That was an allowed business decision on Boeing's part that reduced the price of each tanker about $8 million each.

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 118):
The USAF went for the A330 rather than the B767.

They first went with Boeing, but the 'lease fiasco' scuttled that deal (as well as hiring the lady who bought the tankers...)
Then Northrop won, but on a basis where the Air Force got to pick the neatest toy without really considering costs, which is forbidden by procurement rules.
Boeing won the final bid which was structured to minimize the 40 year operating costs of the tanker fleet. Partially Boeing won but 'sucking up' about a billion dollars of the tanker development costs. Cest la vie, all was legal.

No airline would fly their widebody as little as the Air Force flies their tankers. So it is a very different market.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 119):
Do not tell me foreign airlines would not add to the competition.

They would be more competitive. But at what wage rates? How would the foreign airliners be available for military transport? Few countries allow domestic transport of passengers. China doesn't. Russia doesn't. Japan doesn't. European nations do not, but there are *old* rights to allow intra-Europe transport. Australia? Tiny market.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 115):
everything in Australia is clothed in flawlessness, all things American are crap. I find things are not nearly as clear-cut as all that.

The world loves to criticize the USA. Every international trip I've ever taken I've had at least two people mouth off to me about the USA's 'flaws.' Some of those 'flaws' enabled our large economy...




Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-07-31 12:40:50 and read 9417 times.

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 117):
Are you kidding me? Why are you still bitter that the USAF went for an American product that suited their needs? Get over it...Boeing won.
Quoting bobnwa (Reply 118):
The USAF went for the A330 rather than the B767. politics changed the order to Boeing.Believe me the USAF did not want the Boeing

The EADS tanker was to be built in Alabama using American workers and American products. Politics (and a little underhanded action by certain Boeing executives) got the order switched to an antiquated design with less range, less lift and a whole lot less technology. I agree--the USAF still says they preferred the EADS aircraft based on the A330.

There are still former Boeing executives in prison over that contract.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2013-07-31 13:20:42 and read 7506 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 26):
Except in Russia, all European domestic flights are less than 90 minutes long.

And Norway. Some Norwegian domestics are more.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: spink
Posted 2013-07-31 14:06:32 and read 6838 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 119):
A market not closed to foreign competition and/or ownership.
Opening the local club.
Do not tell me foreign airlines would not add to the competition.

They certainly would and when other countries are willing to remove their foreign ownership rules, I'm sure the US will as well. But right now it makes no sense to allow foreign domestic travel within the US without anything in return. For the international market, the US is very open being a large proponent of Open Skies treaties. In addition the US has been a large proponent of reciprocal immigration and customs systems to ease the movement of people.

The US has also had deregulated and open civil aviation much longer than any other country.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 122):
The EADS tanker was to be built in Alabama using American workers and American products. Politics (and a little underhanded action by certain Boeing executives) got the order switched to an antiquated design with less range, less lift and a whole lot less technology. I agree--the USAF still says they preferred the EADS aircraft based on the A330.

The only awarded contract that complies with all laws was the third. The problem that airbus faced is that their costs were significantly higher with no effective benefit for the missions. The additional volume of the 330 would be unused resulting in just higher costs. It is important to note that the aircraft and mission profile being replaced were flow by 707s for the past 57 years without any real operational constraints. Both the 762 and 332 are larger planes than the 707 but the 332 is larger still than the 762. For the mission and aircraft being replaced, the 762 is able to do the mission for lower cost.

The 330 MRTT is actually much closer to the size and mission profile of the KC10 than the KC135. The issue that airbus ran into, is that the USAF already had a fleet with significant life left in the KC10.

So the reality is that the 330 MRTT is theoretically a more capable plane than the 767 tanker but also more costly and actually not needed to fulfill the mission requirements.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-07-31 14:39:39 and read 6384 times.

Quoting B757forever (Reply 23):
Don't be shocked if the DL A330 fleet gets larger...

I would be. Shocked that is. With the 787 order on the books for DL, they may be looking for the future and don't need anymore older aircraft on the books.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-07-31 14:41:28 and read 6366 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 40):
We can now say "the three countries whose domestic routes bear the strongest similarity to the USA - Australia, Canada and South Africa - each have both higher levels of service on legacy carriers and a wider range of economy class products than is the case in the USA".

Curious why you say that Canada has "higher levels of service on legacy carriers" (of which AC is the only carrier in that category) than in the USA?

I don't see much difference. AC has seatback IFE on their mainline jet fleet (and Jazz CRJ-705s) but meal service is buy-on-board in Y and seat pitch is comparable to US carriers. And most AC destinations in Canada aren't served by mainline jets but by contract carriers operating Dash 8s and CRJs, and some small points with 18-seat Beech 1900Ds.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: PSU.DTW.SCE
Posted 2013-07-31 14:58:16 and read 6160 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 125):
I would be. Shocked that is. With the 787 order on the books for DL, they may be looking for the future and don't need anymore older aircraft on the books.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...or-4-3-billion-in-wide-bodies.html

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: travelin man
Posted 2013-07-31 15:17:20 and read 5909 times.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 101):
instead they have a huge traffic with lots of small SA aircraft killing themselves on the dollar and having minuscule profits...

You may want to read the quarterly earnings results for the US carriers again. "Miniscule" is not the way I would describe most of their profits. And their profits are better than most any other region's carriers these days.

Quoting koruman (Reply 37):
In the USA, every legacy carrier basically delivers a cloned copy of its "competitors'" (sic) service standards. And those standards are conspicuously lower than those of Qantas, Virgin Australia, SAA and BA/Comair.

That's funny, I flew Virgin Australia PPP-BNE-SYD a couple of months ago, and I'm pretty sure I was offered a can of coke, and that was about it.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: cschleic
Posted 2013-07-31 15:18:41 and read 5877 times.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 127):
Quoting brilondon (Reply 125):
I would be. Shocked that is. With the 787 order on the books for DL, they may be looking for the future and don't need anymore older aircraft on the books.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0....html

The quotes imply it could be used widebodies, which fits Delta's current MO. Like the article says, you can get there with lower fuel burn, or higher fuel burn but lower capital costs. Either way, both can get to the same place in terms of trip and/or seat costs.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-07-31 15:22:40 and read 5821 times.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 127):

Quoting brilondon (Reply 125):
I would be. Shocked that is. With the 787 order on the books for DL, they may be looking for the future and don't need anymore older aircraft on the books.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0....html

Yes, but that does not change my mind. I don't see any more used aircraft on the horizon for DL though.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: awacsooner
Posted 2013-07-31 15:48:31 and read 5513 times.

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 118):
The USAF went for the A330 rather than the B767. politics changed the order to Boeing.Believe me the USAF did not want the Boeing

Ummm...wrong. No we did not...we had that plane forced down our throat. Luckily, politics and protests worked the correct way.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-07-31 16:07:08 and read 5352 times.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 87):
Yes, true, the 767-200ER's are now obsolete, but those obsolete aircraft were built 10-15+ years ago, and the KC-767 shares only one similarity with those old a/c, the 767-200 airframe. Everything else about the aircraft, flight deck, engines, etc, are all modern, and ther are no bugs in the fuel-boom. It actually works. It says quite a bit about a 30+ year old aircraft that keeps on going and still remains very popular and highly reliable.

So there is a flying functional KC-46 in use? Oh must have misunderstood, I thought the first KC-46 with a new not jet tested fuel
boom was still to fly or rather not jet build.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-07-31 16:30:46 and read 5268 times.

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 120):
Do you really think that if the US and the EU got rid of their ownership laws that Lufthansa and Air France and British Airways would come in and start operating flights? I doubt it, what would happen is another round of mergers, British Airways and American would merge, Lufthansa and United would merge and Delta and Air France would merge and we would have more Air France KLM style companies in the world. Now Ryanair might start flying in the US, but looking at the success of Spirit in the US I don't think they would make a significant inroad in to a very developed airline industry.

Another thing to remember is that the laws are not just the US but other countries as well. The US wont get rid of its ownership laws until other countries do as well. Most notably the EU.

An US airline can fly inside the EU, an EU airline can not fly inside the US.

An US airline can own an European airline, an EU airline can not own an airline in the US.

All that above is not the main point, a market with a restricted entrance to competition is not the most competitive market.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-07-31 16:51:16 and read 5204 times.

Quoting spink (Reply 124):
They certainly would and when other countries are willing to remove their foreign ownership rules, I'm sure the US will as well. But right now it makes no sense to allow foreign domestic travel within the US without anything in return. For the international market, the US is very open being a large proponent of Open Skies treaties. In addition the US has been a large proponent of reciprocal immigration and customs systems to ease the movement of people.

The US has also had deregulated and open civil aviation much longer than any other country.

What restrictions are in the EU on foreign ownership of airlines?
I had a better look an US airline would be limited to 49% in Europe and an European airline to 25% in the US, still a big difference.

In what form is the market in the EU less deregulated?

The EU has a common market, US airlines are allowed inside this common market.
If an US airline wants to fly not only between countries in the EU but also inside for example Germany, all they have to do is buy an European airline or start a European daughter company.

Again my main point how can anyone call a market with limited competition the most competitive market?

[Edited 2013-07-31 17:10:58]

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: spink
Posted 2013-07-31 17:18:41 and read 5111 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
An US airline can own an European airline, an EU airline can not own an airline in the US.

All that above is not the main point, a market with a restricted entrance to competition is not the most competitive market.

A US airline actually cannot currently own a EU airline. EU airline ownership is still restricted to EU member countries.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
What restrictions are in the EU on foreign ownership of airlines?

EU airlines cannot be majority foreign owned (foreign being defined as outside of the EU). Maximal ownership and control for foreign entities is 49%. For the US maximal control is 25%-33% and maximal ownership is 49%.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):

In what form is the market in the EU less deregulated?

Still many vestiges of state control exist.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
The EU has a common market, US airlines are allowed inside this common market.
If an US airline wants to fly not only between countries in the EU but also inside for example Germany, all they have to do is buy an European airline or start a European daughter company.

The Intra-EU traffic right for US airlines dates from before the EU actually existed.

And a US airline cannot buy a European airline nor start a European airline. They are prevented from doing so by EU ownership restrictions.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
Again my main point how can anyone call a market with limited competition the most competitive market?

Because the US market is the most competitive in the world for air travel with higher numbers of competitors on average per route than any other market in the world.

And there isn't a country in the world that allows unrestricted airline ownership and yes, that even includes Australia. There are actually significant real geo-political implications of unrestricted foreign ownership, the most significant of which is the resulting lack for flag protection (which is very much significant!).

[Edited 2013-07-31 17:22:45]

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: Polot
Posted 2013-07-31 17:26:27 and read 5085 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 134):
The EU has a common market, US airlines are allowed inside this common market.
If an US airline wants to fly not only between countries in the EU but also inside for example Germany, all they have to do is buy an European airline or start a European daughter company.

US airlines have 5th freedoms rights with the EU, and European airlines have the same with the US. A US airline can not carry local FRA-HAM traffic for example, as that is a domestic route. It is not the airlines' fault that European countries are smaller than the US so 5th freedom rights are more akin to US domestic rights. Want to change that? Make the EU a country, until then you have to live with things like this.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-07-31 17:29:49 and read 5069 times.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 113):
For example I Will FLy UA MEX to SEA with a Stop at PHXand wil return Alaska Airlines from SEA - LAX - MEX, I would have gone AM if possible because service is better and basically its the same planes, the pitch in AM is Fixed and not the mumbo jumbo of UA with Economy and Economy +.... I ended using the USA carriers because it was not possible to get a decent time to fly, and in the end the return leg would be on Alaska.

If it were that simple, AM should offer flights to all major USA cities and they would be the most profitable carrier in North America, attempt a Dubai type operation for travel in the USA, its worth a shot.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
All that above is not the main point, a market with a restricted entrance to competition is not the most competitive market.

So in other words it is irrelevant whether there are 20 American carriers operating routes in the USA, as long as none of them are non-American there is no competition?

Quoting spink (Reply 124):
So the reality is that the 330 MRTT is theoretically a more capable plane than the 767 tanker but also more costly and actually not needed to fulfill the mission requirements.

The bigger problem here is that all those construction jobs - foreign and domestic - that would have been created to upgrade airbases and hangers for the larger a/c have now been delayed until the replacement for the KC-10 comes along.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: travelin man
Posted 2013-07-31 17:31:48 and read 5070 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
An US airline can fly inside the EU, an EU airline can not fly inside the US.

An US airline can own an European airline, an EU airline can not own an airline in the US.

I believe you need to look up the word "country", and if that doesn't work, try "nation" or "sovereign state".

Quoting Polot (Reply 136):
US airlines have 5th freedoms rights with the EU, and European airlines have the same with the US. A US airline can not carry local FRA-HAM traffic for example, as that is a domestic route.

This.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-31 17:35:05 and read 5060 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 132):
I thought the first KC-46 with a new not jet tested fuel
boom was still to fly or rather not jet build.

The KC-767 is nearly identical to the KC-46 (including the boom) and that program is in service with the Japanese and Italians.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-07-31 18:02:35 and read 4985 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 137):
If it were that simple, AM should offer flights to all major USA cities and they would be the most profitable carrier in North America, attempt a Dubai type operation for travel in the USA, its worth a shot.

Its not that simple but AM has had very good results, they are expanding as Interjet. heck AM even bought those "plastic jets" and will use them to JFK and probably to ORD... weird that we are using big jets..while AA, UA AS and such use smaller metal.

If Mexicana had not gone the way of the Dodo, they had a plan for up to 8 A330 for Europe and North America.... then again fares are higher here, but service is also better.

TRB

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: solarflyer22
Posted 2013-07-31 18:08:37 and read 4983 times.

Great thread and I have long pondered this question. I love the A340 and its a shame more of them did not sell. Here is my take on several issues with it.

1) One of the main selling points was commonality with the A330. It avoids the overhead of a second fleet type introduction IF, IF you have the A330 or ordered it along with the A340. See TWA and Swiss. If you didn't, its just another plane.
2) I think it was a big, big mistake to introduce the smaller version first, 343 instead of the A345/6. The CASM wasn't great from the git go but I think the 500 and 600 models narrowed the gap significantly. This is uncommon however in terms of airplane development but doable imo.
3) I think US airlines focus alot on TATL flights to Europe. The A340 is not great on that route because its carrying too much fuel and too few passengers. If you look at the 777, one of the routes they designed it around so to speak was DC to London. It crushes the A340 on that route economically.
4) It's just a little too small passenger wise. This is because of its commonality with the A330 (too narrow). It needed another 30 seats.
5) ETOPS - I think the Trans Pacific routes where it might have done well were undermined by ETOPS making twins more feasible. US airlines could have used the A340's legs on the west coast.
6) The 777 was on the horizon when the A340 came out and carries more people and freight.
7) There is a slight, but not huge bias toward Boeing in the USA. Its our homegrown company. Communication is easier and closer.
8) Gas prices did increase dramatically after 2000
9) Airbus is usually slightly more expensive than Boeing in the same class.
10) Customers that already invested in the 757 and 767 just couldn't poney up the cash to transition to the A330/A340 and the savings were too marginale if they existed at all.

I think the A340 is a lot like the 757. Great at certain routes (hot and high airports for example) but just like the 757 didn't really make it in Europe, it was hard for the A340 to make it here. Still a great plane with nearly 400 ordered and a bargain at $10 mill used. No fatalities on it to date despite some hull losses. Cheers to the A340!

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-07-31 18:33:51 and read 4930 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 40):
Passengers won't tolerate 737 or A320 aircraft on flights longer than 2 hours. Whereas in the USA, that is often all that any airline offers on some major routes.

Just more proof that you don't understand the US airline passenger, who is very different from the Aussie passenger. The US passenger does not care about aircraft type, only about price and (a distant second) schedule. Airlines that have used widebody products on domestic service have consistently had their hats handed to them by airlines that use narrowbody products with increased frequency. AA is getting rid of its domestic three-class 762s (as well as a bunch of domestic 757s) in favor of brand-new two- and three-class A321s, after being pummeled for years by UA's narrowbody product. DL is getting rid of its domestic 763s (which have an updated product including in-seat IFE) in favor of 739ERs. While the A330 has been popular with US airlines for their international fleets, there is a very good reason no US airline has ever tried to use a domestic A330 fleet: they would be massacred economically.

[Edited 2013-07-31 18:34:28]

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-07-31 18:43:09 and read 4912 times.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 141):
I think US airlines focus alot on TATL flights to Europe.

Well at the time the majority of USA carriers could not serve LHR, so they used smaller 757 and 767 a/c into smaller markets, Bermuda II was still in force. The A330 would have been too much a/c to fill from the US side.
It should be noted that the A330 just took over the bulk ot TATL flying in the last year or so, finally dethroning the 767.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 141):
Airbus is usually slightly more expensive than Boeing in the same class.

Not sure that is accurate, for many years Boeing chose to focus on its wide body market where they achieved higher margins, to some degree one can say they got complacent in the narrow body market.
The 777W was selling like gangbusters and it commanded a premium in price.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/