Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United To Go For A340s?  
User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1878 posts, RR: 3
Posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8740 times:

Once United gets back on its feet, which could be a couple of years, I was wondering if it might be eligable for any A340s? SImply because they posses the longer range option, whcih in up coming years they wont much as the 777s improve? The only reason I bring this up is because I've heard that a lot of 744s are leaving there fleet. ANd yes I realize this prabably wont happen (seeing as the 777s are fitting UA's routes great) but i would like to hear what you guys think. If they did go for an A340, what kind do you think it would be?

93 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8690 times:

If UA gets back on its feet....they will not be investing in the less-efficient A340. You can bet on that.

User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8667 times:

UAL has to much invested in the 777 to buy A340's. All it would do is drive up their operating costs. Something they don't need, even when times are good.

User currently offlineFSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8622 times:

If I'm not mistaken, I believe United will be getting 777's to replace the 747's that they will completely do away with in the next 3-4 years (2 engines economically better than 4). It's really sad. I wonder if Boeing will bring up their 747-XXX projects again.


FSP


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8588 times:

The 773 makes the most sense, for 772 growth routes, and for a 744 replacement later this decade.

Assuming UA is still around.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8540 times:

Why on earth would UA want A340s when it already operates more 777s than any other carrier and already has costs out the wazoo?

How could bringing in a [relative] oddball (not to mention less-efficient) fleet type help them in any way  Insane


User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3761 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8427 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

I don't think the A340 would be an oddball in United's fleet since they have operated for almost ten years a large fleet of A319/A320's in it's domestic network but it doesn't look like they are intersted in the A340. They continue being a loyal customer at Boeing as far as widebodies are concerned. Like you say, they invested a lot in the 777 (THEY were the launch customer of the type).
If United ever gets out of Chapter 11 and recovers financially, they would likely order more 777's and retire the 747-400's altough those are not that old. They are already selling 7 of those to Thai, and maybe Northwest will pick up a couple of them.

Let's say United recovers, the future fleet would look as follows in five years from now:
A319/A320
B757
B767-300ER (the 200's will probably be sold to the Air Force)
B777-200/200ER (and maybe 300ER on order if traffic increases drastically, that depends of the global economy and market, but I doubt it)
I don't know if the B737's will still be around, maybe they will be but in smaller numbers, some of those might be sold to other airlines.
They won't order NG737's, that's very unlikely.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium




Ben Soriano
User currently offlineAirbus_A340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1560 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8384 times:

N79969 said 'investing in the less-efficient A340'

Care to show some facts and figures whilst you give this general statement?

Airbus_A340



People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
User currently offlineAndreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8338 times:

NO PLEASE, NO FACTS!!!!!! NOT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just what we needed with all the US-Europe-Bashing going on...another completely useless and stupid A vs. B war, just great!



I know it's only VfB but I like it!
User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8245 times:

Are you sure about rumors with United new Airbus A340 and but, I don't think so either. This is adjusted need something increase orders on the B777-300ER with nonstop from LAX-SYD & AKL flight, too. This will be very unlikely on UA. I do think will figures out on the UA do think get rid of them with the old B744 will be phase out near of the future? Well, catch ya later!

User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8212 times:

Airbus_A340,
It doesn't climb as fast as the 757, thus it must be completely inefficient  Insane

... yes, I was being sarcastic  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1012 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8117 times:

Both manufacturers have enough financial exposure to financially weakened airlines right now. I doubt Airbus needs to get any more exposed to United, even through third party lessors.

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8030 times:

I think it is a well known fact that the 777-200ER is more economical than A340-300. Just as the A330-200 is more economical than the 767-400.

User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8011 times:

they will not be investing in the less-efficient A340

Why would the A340 be less-efficient, I don't really understand. Please give us some more technical explanations on this subject N79969.

As far as I can remember, United is in very bad financial shape, so I don't really see the point of discussing if they might operate some new planes in the future, the question is more... will they continue to fly aircrafts in the future...



Falcon....like a limo but with wings
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8000 times:



User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7955 times:

OO-AOG and others easily offended,

Some aircraft are more efficient than others. For instance, the A346 is more efficient than the 747-classics that it was designed to replace. The A320 and 737NG are more efficient than a 727. You guys can check the lbs per hour fuel burn if you would like.

Judging by the 772ER's higher list price over the 340 but its superior sales numbers, it is hard to conclude anything other than that 772ER is the superior aircraft.


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7935 times:

Just off the top of my head...

While they didn't quote specific numbers overall, the Wall Street Journal's recent breakdown of the Iberia deal stated that while the 777's cost more money per aircraft, they had lower operating costs (thus justifying the higher price).

It was an interesting article in showing how Iberia used Boeing to drive a far better deal with Airbus (of which they had entire intentions of buying from in the first place). It also highlighted some significant off-ledger liabilites that Airbus has right now, specifically with regard to guaranteed resale prices of used aircraft.

Steve


User currently offlineAirbus_A340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1560 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7923 times:

N79969, yes and that concludes why the A340 aircraft are still selling, right?
I'm sure you can approach many airlines (which ofcourse carefully work out the economics to meet their needs) and tell them to change their fleet as the '772ER is the superior aircraft'.

'easily offended'- no, not offended, someone here has been brainwashed to think that a certain aircraft is more effecient than another, even when airlines are buying the "less-efficient' one.

By the way, you have failed to draw up the facts and figures for the 'less efficient' and 'superior' aircraft.

Airbus_A340



People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8002 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7914 times:

It's extremely unlikely that UA would buy anything resembling the A340. Isn't the 777-200ER the equivalent of the A340-300 series anyway?  Insane

More likely if UA does return to profitability they would be looking at getting a good deal to buy the 777-300ER (with full ETOPS 207-minute rating) to replace the older 747-400's--maybe as many as 15-20 planes. UA will then sell their older 744's back to Boeing to be converted to freighters, just like what Boeing did to a number of ex-airline 747-300's. UA's remaining 747-400's will be retained for their busiest transpacific routes such as flights to NRT, SFO-HKG, flights to PVG and PEK, etc.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7873 times:

Airbus_A340,

Let's assume what I am saying is true, the superior performance of the 772ER would not completely shut out sales of the 340-300 since it is comparable in many respects. This is basic economics. Check out the income and substitution effects in an elementary microeconomics textbook. There is a market equilibrium in which the 340-300 will still sell despite its inferior operating economics. As Steve points out, Airbus can overcome the gap by offering lower acquisition costs. If you have a small-long haul fleet, then the 343 is probably the better aircraft because in the long-run, capital costs may have more impact than operating costs for your company. If you have large long-haul fleet, the importance of operating economics may overshadow capital costs in the long term. Further with a large fleet, you are better able to negotiate price and thus reduce capital costs. As you are probably aware, non-economic factors also play a role in aircraft sales. For instance, Cathay Pacific is reluctant to fly ETOPS across the Pacific.

By all accounts, the 330-200 is a better aircraft than the 764. Yet, there are 764s in service and they are not being dumped wholesale like the 340-200 or MD-11.

I will defer to ConcordeBoy, an engineer, for the technical, non-economic data on the point I am making. It is open and notorious that the 772ER outperforms the A340-300 in most performance measures. Airlines have by in large have voted that way and put their money where their mouth is.





User currently offlineLucifer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7841 times:

Well, different ones are going to be more efficient depending on your route profiles etc, so it is hardly a case of one is more efficient than the other full stop.

One is bought over the other depending upon the engineering costs as well as the direct operating costs, and also what the alliance partners operate, to collaborate on some purchasing and engineering.

Otherwise explain why Air France operates both the 777 and the A340.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7820 times:

Lucifer is correct. But generally speaking, the 772ER is more efficient than the 343 on the type of missions they were intended for.

I think AF is a unique case. A340-300E (Alain Mengus) has written a great article on point. I think his website is: It is worth reading.

I also tend to think there is a political element to Air France's decision and I do not fault them for it. Air France and Airbus were until relatively recently owned by the French government. I think the French people would be disappointed to see their flag carrier dump what was until recently Airbus's flagship product. Further, I think Air France is now one of the best-run airlines in the world and they have successfully managed to operate these aircraft side-by-side. I think it is a feat that would be hard to duplicate. AF has an unusually diverse fleet even without these aircraft in the mix.



User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7799 times:

Sorry, the link did not show.

http://www.airtransportbiz.com/


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1863 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7705 times:

Some people simply refuse to accept the fact the 343 is an inferior product to the 772ER. While they don't have any evidence to dispute the claim, yet they keep on asking the other side to produce evidence. What evidence do you need? After the 777 was launched in 1990, Boeing garnered orders for more than 400 772ERs, but Airbus netted orders for about 100 343s. Since the 772ER entered into service in 1996, Airbus gained five new 343 direct-order customers. They were SAS, Lan Chile, China Airlines, SWISS and SAA for about 40 planes. I excluded Air Tahiti Nui in this list because they just picked up two whitetails Airbus had. Airbus got even fewer re-orders from existing 343 customers during that period. Lufthansa has just canceled their remaining 343 orders. The current 343 backlog is 24, excluding the two new customers got on board last year: SWISS and SAA, the 343 backlog would be a dismal single-digit number of 6 which include 2 for Singapore that Singapore will never use. According to some sources, Lan Chile might cancel their remaining orders of 3 343s. China Airlines told the world they got the 343 for less than $90 million apiece in 1997. That's about 40% discount. SWISS also told the world that they got the 343 for about $100 million apiece last year. That's also about 40% discount. Lan Chile did a last-minute u-turn because of pricing. The only reason some 343s are still being sold is because Airbus is willing to lower the price to a point that it is sufficient to overcome the operational deficiencies of the 343 relative to the 772ER. There are ample evidences out there that clearly suggest the problems the 343 is having. You don't need actual numbers to validate this assertion. It is not a myth! If the 343 was so great, there would be no reason why Air France should look at the 772ER in the first place! They operate both types because they have found a more efficient plane but they can't afford to dump the other. Then, the next best thing to do is to try to maximize with what they have. One thing for sure, Air France has not ordered any new 343 since 1996, the year the 772ER was certified. If you still want to believe the 343 is just as great as the 772ER, you can keep on dreaming. I don't want to disturb you in your dream.  Big grin

User currently offlineScottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6745 posts, RR: 32
Reply 24, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7662 times:

Actually, I think the fact that AF operates both the A340 and the 777 in its fleet (and is continuing to buy 777's) does indeed tell us that the 777 is more efficient in most applications. After all, the A340 had been in the fleet at AF first; adding the 777 entailed the additional cost of a new fleet type, as well as the significant political cost of not purchasing the French/European product (assembled IN France; as Alain Mengus puts it, "How did a 94.57%-stated-owned company manage to order US products despite the intense political pressure?"). While AF does successfully operate both the A340-300 and 777-200 in its fleet, carefully tailoring the airliner used to the route, AF *declined* purchasing A340-600's, choosing to order 777-300ER's instead. By the time the first 777-200ER was delivered to AF, they had 14 A340's in the fleet; it would be difficult and costly (as the operator of more than 10% of the in-service A340's), not to mention politically untenable to phase them out of the fleet. There must be a compelling reason for AF to operate 777's, especially given the existence of the competing A340-500 and -600 which it has NOT ordered. I do not believe that AF would have taken on the additional operating cost of an extra fleet type, as well as the political cost of not ordering the French-assembled product, simply for a few more seats' worth of revenue on selected long-haul flights.

The choice of certain airlines to purchase certain aircraft based on initial purchase cost or long-term operating cost varies from carrier to carrier. But the same is true for consumers buying cars. Toyota and Honda don't generally have the lowest prices on cars, but many people are willing to pay extra money at purchase time because they know that the long-term costs associated with those manufacturers' cars will be relatively low.

But to get back on topic, there is NO WAY United will purchase the A340 within the next ten years (if ever). Cockpit commonality benefits them little since an A319/320 pilot is unlikely to move quickly to a large widebody. And the A340-500 doesn't offer much additional range over the 777-200LR (not enough to justify the high cost of another type). And that doesn't even begin to take into account the fact that UAL won't be in any position to be placing large widebody orders for several years, given that they are in bankruptcy.

[Edited 2003-03-20 17:43:12]

25 Bucky707 : Will UAL consider the A-340 in the future? Who knows. But its really an irrelevant topic at this point. I promise you UAL management has not even thou
26 Dynkrisolo : Scottb: Good reasoning and explanation! One minor thing, the 772LR will have more range than the 345.
27 Scottb : I didn't know if the 777-200LR would have more range or not (and I was too lazy to go look it up), but I certainly didn't want the inevitable flames i
28 N79969 : Scottb and Dynkrisolo, Nice job filling in the stuff I did not talk about it and bringing up new points. I was too lazy to gather exact numbers. Anywa
29 JAL : I don't think that United will go for the A340 they seems to be happy with their 777 but then again anything could happen.
30 OO-AOG : OO-AOG and others easily offended, Some aircraft are more efficient than others. For instance, the A346 is more efficient than the 747-classics that i
31 747-451 : UA wont be buying anything for a while, even if they aren't liquidated...
32 N79969 : OO-AOG, Okay, I understand. I am no dispatcher nor am I an engineer. However, I do not think one needs to be either to conclude that the 772ER is the
33 ConcordeBoy : And the A340-500 doesn't offer much additional range over the 777-200LR (not enough to justify the high cost of another type) Actually, the A345 doesn
34 DALelite : i think UAL has things that are more important to worry about these days!!! DALelite
35 Racko : "Actually, the A345 doesnt offer ANY additional range over the 772LR.... the Boeing has nearly 500mi more range and a much higher power-to-weight rati
36 BWIA 772 : First of all why would United want to the 340 anyway. They have the 777 it is working for them well why go with another aircraft type when the one yo
37 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : And what has the power-to-weight ratio to do with this Oh, I dunno.... maybe something about increased takeoff performance and potential payload-penal
38 Sllevin : Just keep in mind that the only power-to-weight ratio that matters for the purposes of payload and required field length is the engine-out power to we
39 Srbmod : Why would United add another fleet type that has no commonality with their other a/c? The only U.S. airlines that could be potential future A340 custo
40 Brons2 : This entire thread is a waste of space started by a 13-15 year old armchair airline CEO. GMAFB. What a joke. United isn't getting the A340 in this lif
41 Gigneil : Yet another ridiculous thread. Statements that the 777 is more "efficient" is ridiculous, of course. A blatant misuse of semantics. The A340 is a very
42 ConcordeBoy : Neil does raise an excellent point. To truly compare how Airbus and Boeing fare against each other in the 250-350 seat market; one must compare the 77
43 N79969 : I disagree Gigneil. How are such statements ridiculous? If the 777 has lower operating costs than the 340 or the 332 has better payload/range capabili
44 Gigneil : The A330-200 wouldn't yield the same efficiency on ATL-MCO as a 767-400ER configured with the same number of pax. The 764 would whoop it handily in te
45 ConcordeBoy : What he's trying to say is that it's relative to the airlines: If you're a carrier that might not be able to pony up the credit for a 772ER purchase,
46 CanadianNorth : Does CanadianNorth smell another Boeing vs. Airbus war? Boeing all the way! CanadianNorth
47 N79969 : Point taken. However holding things equal, for the customers they compete for, the 777 generally beats 340 and the 332 beats the 764. Generally. Of co
48 United Airline : I don't see UAL getting the A 340 at all. They operate a large number of Boeing Widebodies such as the B 767, the B 747-400 as well as the B 777-200ER
49 ConcordeBoy : or even newer B 747 variants (Such as the B 747-400QLR) Assuming Boeing ever decides to make one....
50 ZK-NBT : With UA operating 60+ 772's I can't see anyway that they would ever order the A340 myself, they also operate over 100 767's and about 30 747's still i
51 United Airline : The B 777-300ER is GE powered while most of UA's planes are equipped P&W engines. Anyway, I don't think UA will order anything for a long time.
52 ConcordeBoy : while a bankrupt company should focus on all possible ways to save on costs... dont forget that the benefits of operating a mixed fleet type (be it ai
53 Dynkrisolo : To answer Gigneil's 330/340 point: since the 777 launch in 1990, Boeing received orders for ~500 772/772ERs and Airbus netted ~200+ 333/343s. So, is i
54 ConcordeBoy : then I will tell you I can think of Air France and Sri Lankan as the only two airlines having the 343 and 332 Add Lufty to that soon. Kinda weak (on A
55 Sllevin : The 777 does NOT have lower operating costs than the A340-300. The 340 is a very efficient and cost effective plane. If you have an A340-300 with 250
56 Gigneil : Less opportunity to make money doesn't matter if the opportunity to make money doesn't exist. Excellent analysis on this in the "NW A330 Conversion" t
57 ConcordeBoy : You should add "Atlantic" before "their fleet needs" to make your statement more accurate. There's still quite a good chance we'll see NW777s across t
58 Post contains images Gigneil : "Atlantic their fleet needs". N
59 Post contains images Dynkrisolo : If you want to believe every word an airline PR department says, in this case, NW, then you are simply being gullible. NW had previous contractual obl
60 Scottb : Well, don't forget that NWA had a number of Airbus widebody orders outstanding upon which it stood to lose a significant sum in deposits had it not ch
61 Gigneil : Heh, its amazing that you care enough to get all pissed off about it. Its even further more amazing that you would prefer if every plane on the planet
62 Gigneil : Scottb- Northwest had a 20t cargo + full pax requirement for the A333. The 764 wouldn't have fit the bill quite as well. N
63 N79969 : Gigneil, "Even the 333 could handle West Coast - Japan with little trouble." Are you sure about this one? I think it would take a big payload penalty.
64 Dynkrisolo : Holy smoke. You believe you have a knack for the basic business! You can believe what you want to believe. If you want to believe NW's choice of the 3
65 IndustrialPate : Dynkrisolo, In 1992, NW outright cancelled their outstanding Airbus aircraft orders (50 A320, 11 A342 and 13 A343) but deferred their outstanding Boei
66 Dynkrisolo : In 1992, they canceled most of their outstanding Airbus orders, but the order for 16 333s was never canceled. 12 of the original 16 333s still remain
67 United Airline : Provided that NW has a few B 744s on order (Correct me if I am wrong), and with their strong presence in Asia, I think they will opt for new B 747s to
68 IndustrialPate : United Airline, NW does not have any B744 on order. Their B742 holds 50 less passengers than their B744 and NW isn't interested in increasing capacity
69 IndustrialPate : Dynkrisolo, I wasn't aware NW had placed an A333 order previously... you've piped my curiosity – when did they place the order? Nonetheless, I can a
70 HlywdCatft : The A340 could be a problem in DEN, it couldnt take off to the west unless it made a quick curve, it wouldn't clear the mountains on take off j/k no o
71 United Airline : The B 747-400 will replace 'some' of Northwest's B 747-200s. At least some of them. They might order a few new B747 variants in the future, if Economy
72 IndustrialPate : (Quote) From what I heard, currently there is no replacement for NW's B 742s. Can anyone confirm that? NW's only outstanding orders are for A330, B753
73 Gigneil : N79969- The A333 has a range of 5600nm with full pax and bags, about 200 less than the DC-10-30. I'd think it'd be fine for their SEA-KIX and NRT and
74 Dynkrisolo : Gigneil: Let's see who makes blanket statements: For example, you said: The 777 does NOT have lower operating costs than the A340-300 and I said: ...
75 HlywdCatft : Hey guys! Since we got to our weekly "What is Northwest going to replace their 742s with" how about our weekly NW DC-9 discussion
76 N79969 : Gigneil, Thanks for the data and your estimates. But I think any airplane that cannot fly LAX-NRT with full bags and pax year around is not a viable t
77 Gigneil : N79979 - LAX-NRT is a distance of only 4754nm... N
78 Dynkrisolo : Still-air range is for reference only. SFO-HKG is slightly more than 6,000nm, but it is sometimes payload restricted during winter months on the 744 t
79 Eg777er : I'm an Airbus supporter, as you can probably tell by my previous posts, but some pro-Airbus people on here have to accept that there are some battles
80 ConcordeBoy : Essentially this discussion has about the same merit as the one that suggested AA would order the A340-500 because it had the same engine manufacturer
81 Post contains images IndustrialPate : Dynkrisolo, But I do take the comment "the 777 is an overkill" with a pinch of salt. Richard Anderson has discussed on more than one occassion why NW
82 ConcordeBoy : the B777 is the front runner currently, despite the commonality and lower pricing of the A340 Interesting. I'd assume they'd opt for GE over PW consid
83 Post contains images IndustrialPate : ConcordeBoy, I haven't a clue ! I would've thought that the A340, for reasons stated above, would be the front-runner but the persons I've spoken with
84 Post contains images Gigneil : IP - you shush. I never said Denver was the second most important hub in the world... just in United's world. N
85 N79969 : Gigneil, Dynkrisolo made my point before I could....though NRT lies within 333 still-air range of LAX, I don't think the aircraft could be economicall
86 Dynkrisolo : IndustrialPate: I hate to repeat this one more time. If NW has been using 747s to Europe, there is no reason why they can't get the 777 work for them
87 IndustrialPate : (Quote) …it still does not change the fact that their previous order for 16 333s played a role in the decision I’m not arguing that it played a ro
88 Dynkrisolo : IndustrialPate: I know I won't convince you. But for years when most US Majors used the 767s for their trans Atlantic flights supplemented by the 747s
89 Dynkrisolo : BTW, concerning the 333 range, since NW is using the PW4000 on their 333, I don't believe NW can get the heaviest version of the 333. The 230/233t ver
90 ConcordeBoy : he 230/233t version of the 333 is available with the Trent 700 and CF6 engines only Way off topic, I know: but out of curiousity, who besides AF opera
91 N79969 : I believe Aer Lingus, Qatar, and Qantas also have CF6 for their 330s.
92 Gigneil : This is not accurate. The IGW version of the A330-300 is indeed available with the PW4168A, but not the PW4168. US Airways' A330s are either 230t or 2
93 Dynkrisolo : If they use a 68K engine for the 230/233t aircraft, then the field performance would be pretty bad, especially during summer months, on shorter runway
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Where To Go For Spotting In Asia posted Mon Jul 24 2006 16:57:44 by Joge
United To Charge For IFE? posted Tue Mar 7 2006 08:35:48 by 764
More Information: SQ To Go For 7E7 Over A332? posted Tue Jun 8 2004 17:41:26 by BCAInfoSys
Where To Go For Good Spotting At ATL posted Wed May 19 2004 07:56:37 by Aviationwiz
Rumor: Swiss To Go For More Jumbolinos Or A318s? posted Tue Jan 6 2004 21:54:07 by SwissBrazil
Cheapest Place To Go For The Summer From... posted Tue Apr 30 2002 02:56:34 by Bigo747
Is Qantas Likely To Go For 737NG Or A320? posted Thu Aug 16 2001 19:42:23 by Tupolev154B2
United Double-Your-EQM/EQS Jumps To $499 For '06 posted Wed Nov 1 2006 21:56:35 by FiveMileFinal
United Airlines Turns To Nascar For Efficiency posted Fri Jul 14 2006 14:00:44 by Singapore_Air
United Used To Go To MNL? posted Sun Jun 4 2006 20:51:23 by Boeinglover24