LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 4891 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7013 times:
I agree with Mr. Hininrichsen on one point. UAL will recover from chapter 11 and turn a profit one day. However I'm not so sure about them ordering the A380. United is parking and/or selling off some of it's 747-400 while keeping their 777. I have a feeling when UAL does recover they will be a much lighter version of it's current self.
Just because an airline has 747-400 doesn't mean it will order the A380. Look at all the airlines that had 747-100/200 that never went on to order the 747-400. American, Delta, Sabena, Swiss Air, Continental, SAS, TWA, Braniff, America West and Pan Am to name a few.
Boeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6991 times:
UA A380s. Uh-huh. Contact the "Senator from PanAm", cuz the only way that's gonna happen is if UAL is nationalized right now. This is the airline that's thinking of shedding 744s for 777s (emphasis on the 777s for my next sentence). Does this crackpit honestly think that this means UAL would be interested for A380!? Well, UAL will return from Chap. 11, he's right about that, but his brain may be getting away from him.
Jimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 669 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6817 times:
I think this is mostly ridiculous as well...especially since UA almost seems on the verge of dumping their 747's.
However, I did think that perhaps he knows something that we don't. For instance, I could entirely see the possibility of Airbus being *real* nice to UA during this time of crisis, helping them out whatever way they can, with the understood concept that later UA would buy a few token A380's. That doesn't seem very far fetched.
The Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1437 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6696 times:
Without sounding melodramatic, this has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements to come out of Airbus. The statement comes from the design director, not the marketing department. He should worry about the A380 rather than who's buying it, that will be done by the marketing and finance department etc.
UA is in dire straits. Only reasonably well off airlines can afford to take a gamble on such an aircraft. Even if UA recovers, it must safeguard itself against such happenings occurring again, as much as possible, and being the only operator of a behemothic aircraft is not a way of doing that.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6608 times:
Airbus seems to love to give good deals to hard luck cases.
Swissair, Sabena, UsAir, United, America West.... all have the Buss's as a major part of their fleet. We havnt seen to many sizeable all or mostly Boeing carriers get into that much trouble.
My guess is that Boeing saw the writting on the wall and refused to give these guys truly competitive deals. Instead, they save their muscle in order to compete for orders from the likes of Ryanair and other healthy carriers.
Both Boeing and Airbus will make "loss-leader" (or almost "loss-leader') sales. Its just that Airbus seems to do it more often and it seems to offer these deals to less financially stable carriers under questionable management. The only killer deal that I can remember Boeing has offered to a carrier in major trouble is the 717 deal with Airtran/Valuejet. And they are a very rare and special case. They were launch customers and also the sole customer of a slow selling line. Yet they were small enough that Boeing's investment could make a difference.
When these carriers shrink or fail - the used planes will go on the market and depress the prices Airbus can receive from those who DO pay them real money for aircraft. While the more healthy carriers Boeing sells to pick up the slack.
Methinks this practice will eventually come back to bite Airbus . There is a good chance that if Airbus gives A-380s to United for the price of an A-330 as they are apparantly doing with Emirates - the ships will eventually end up in the desert and Airbus will end up competing with its own products. And any money Airbus put in the company in the form of discounts, financing, etc. goes down the drain. This may happen with UsAir, America West and/or United's A320's. In fact, their are only two "safe" airbus fleets in the US that I can think of - JetBlue and Northwest. For Airbus's sake I hope this is enough to keep them profitable in the US market.
MSY-MSP From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6598 times:
I have to agree this is really a far fetched idea to come from Airbus. But this did get me thinking about a couple of things that might be going on.
Airbus says to UA, we won't come collecting on the money you owe us for the 319/320, until times are better. (I know that this is through a German Bank I cannot remember the name of). in exchange for our generousity you agree to buy another type of aircraft in the future. Airbus realizes that the 777 is going to stay in UA's fleet, but that the 747 is probably gone. However, UA has routes that could, in the future, support the 380, so UA agrees on the side, that when they recover they will order a token couple of 380's.
Is the above possible, yes. Do I believe it? not really. But who knows what is going on behind the closed doors. As BA said anything is possible look at EasyJet.
In summarry UA isn't ordering any new planes anytime soon. But maybe in 2005 they might for delivery in 2009. That would make them a launch customer right? Just a thought. Only time will tell. MSY-MSP
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6573 times:
Remember, some Airbus A380 marketing genius actually thought lower level shopping, entertainment or exercise areas would actually be utilized by the airlines. Could there have been a bigger liability? Those ads were hilarious; complete with plate glass windows to fall through...
Eg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1844 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6522 times:
People would do well to remember that even though United (and other carriers, such as BA) are dumping some 747s for 777s, they still retain several route combinations that would require a larger airport - mainly out of LHR and NRT, in BA's case - I would imagine this is the same for UA.
Comparisons with early US domestic 741 operators are pointless.....these aircraft were mainly bought for range, or prestige, with predictable results.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6460 times:
United has always been one of the airlines that have voiced their need for larger airliners. They may be shedding 747s now, I don't see how that connects to possible 380 purchases when the airline is better off. The 380 will have substantially better economics than the 747, not to mention higher capacity. It would indeed be logical for UAL to shed the loss-making 747s and buy more modern and efficient planes to replace them with in the future.
I don't see why this idea would create so much steam here.
: Are you sure this is an accurate story or the guys at Airbus so sold on their A380 that they have lost touch with reality. I hope United returns to pr
: I seriously doubt that this is going to happen at all. 1. How does United going to fill 500+ seat on long international route? Does anyone think that
: United doesn't want to compete with SQ, for example, they're partners. And CX's service to North America pales in comparison to UA's power to serve HK
28 The Coachman
: Gigneil, I think you've forgotten about CX's partner who happens to be AA...
: Chiawei, The whole point in A380 is that it _is_ considerably cheaper to run than 744. One of the reasons for the trend toward smaller planes is that
: Your speculations are point less. This thing was writen by somebody without any aviation knowledge. Just read this "the airline is still a potential A
: lindy, I would hardly say the guy has no aviation experience, he is a salesmen. This is a guy from airbus trying to sell his product, give the guy a b
: No one knows how the 380 will perform in actual service yet. It has the potential to be more efficient than a 744 but that is still uncertain.
: To all: I think the speculative nature of this entire topic is completely pointless. UA first and foremost has to survive. If they do, they will most
: I also read that piece and don't see why all the fuss, I agree the guy is just talking about possibilities. Certainly the most troublesome comment he
: $3 billion of the development costs do not have to be repaid if the aircraft is not profitable. Source: June (maybe July) 29, 2002 Time Magazine artic
: That can't be right. The loans are guaranteed to the US to be "on a commercial basis". Banks don't give a flying fart if a project is profitable or no
: G'day In Henry Ford's wording, the model "T" will be available in any color desired, provided it is black. Black no longer seems the preferred color s
: Wingman, That $3 billion is from the EU and not banks. It is a 'repayable' loan. That Time article was in a reprinted excerpt put out by Airbus.
: The Coachman- AA's power to connect people to Cathay's service without multiple stops first is minute compared to UA's to connect to their own flights
: I doubt UA will want anything bigger than the 747. I also found the following article interesting. http://www.aviationcareer.net/theplane/tp_102002_01
: To every genius talking about 744s and UA: UA can't sell the seats they have. Low seat mile costs on a 500 pax airliner are great, ASSUMING those seat
: I find that to be completely unbelievable. It only has about a 200,000-300,000 lb greater MTOW than the 744, and between 30-50,000lbs more thrust. N
: Wingman, >>So Fedex may be the only US-based airline to order the 380 for many years to come. The french newspaper "La Tribune" has published an artic
: I predict that either UA or NW will fly the A380. All this nonsense about how UA will never order it is nonsense - they're already the biggest Airbus
: A380 has ~280k lbs of Thurst, moving a GTW of 1,235,000 744 has ~240k of lbs Thurst, moving a GTW of 875,000 That means the A380 has 15% more power th
: In other news, Disney Cruise Lines is currently negotiating with the Russian government to buy a couple of Typhoon- class submarines. These subs will
: Don't tell me boys, I'm just relating what the Airbus guy said in the article..."there are no other potential customers for the 380 in the US for the
: The Time article is: July 29, 2002 America Helps build the 'Bus I can't link it unfortunately since it is archived...but you can see for yourself.
: Dazeflight: In a recent statement about earnings, Atlas denied that it has any intention of ordering A380 anytime in the near future. The story was on
: C'mon, do you really take an article serious which claims that the A380 would need 20.000+ ft runways? There's no space for these runways at most of t
: I'm sure a 380 would need 20K+Feet @MTOW in 50 degrees heat ,humid ,high etc etc.I suspect 1% of flights take off at MTOW.
: I'm absolutely positive it wouldn't take 20k feet even in those circumstances. I'm sure the new 16k ft runway at Denver will be able to accomodate it.
: x°C x 1,8 +32 = y° F Therefore, 50° C = 122° F
: Any of you prognosticators ever hear of the Antonov An-225? The Mriya has a MTOW of 1,322,275 lb (600000 kg). It landed at Paris...AND taxied across t
: Why do you say an unprofitable token? The gambling and whatnot aside... technology CAN predict how things will operate once complete (duh, people, its
56 Commander Data
: For all we know the A380 could crash on a test flight! I own 3 aircraft, a Beechcraft 1900D, two Dornier 238 JETS, and a Fokker 70 operating as a very