Jetpixx From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 857 posts, RR: 2 Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3566 times:
How many of the world's major airlines operate mixed fleets of Airbus and Boeing aircraft and why? Wouldn't it be much easier to consolidate to one brand of aircraft rather than operating such a diverse fleet as let's say NW does?
Also, I know US operates A330s and 767s. Do they have plans to retire or sell off their 767s? It seems that these aircraft are at least similar in performance, so why have airplanes of similar use. US seems to be the strangest fleet, with 737s, 319s, 320s, 757s, 321s, 767s and 330s.
What other airlines in the world have such diversity and are there plans for the airlines I've mentioned above, as well as any others, to retire these rather new planes? Are they headed somewhere else and what are you ideas on where....
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3556 times:
Why? Why is it "strange" to not put all your eggs in one basket and buy all your planes from one company?
Was it strange to own DC-10s, MD80s, A300s, 747SPs, 757s and 767s like AA did? That was three companies.
Just because A or B try to claim that "commonality and family synergies" are all important, the truth is that it isn't the top priority for many carriers.
Lease terms, operating efficiencies, favorable pricing, availability of planes when they need them, etc. can contribute to a mixed fleet.
US/HP plans to go all A, but partly due to their exit strategy being aided by A. Same has been true for other airlines when they had financial trouble (CO, for example).
Would you be suggesting that every carrier who ordered A380s should instantly dump all their 747s, 777s and other B planes? Or that a carrier that only had B should not buy the A380 because it is from A?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4387 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3538 times:
Quoting Jetpixx (Thread starter): Wouldn't it be much easier to consolidate to one brand of aircraft rather than operating such a diverse fleet as let's say NW does?
Not at all. More important is ensuring that the airline selects the aircraft best suited to the desired mission profiles. And truth be told, there is more commonality BETWEEN most Airbus and Boeing models than many a.nutters realize, so commonality WITHIN A/B isn't as big of a deterministic selling point as it might have been in earlier times.
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3323 times:
If you were to look at the US Air example, the answer is somewhat easy. US Air operated the Boeing airplanes before they took the decision to go Airbus for new purchases.
The A330s are relatively new, and with the additional A330 and soon to be A350s, they will probably start to get rid of the 767 fleet.
The 737 fleet is a little more difficult for them to sell off, due mainly to the flight decks they selected at the time of purchase. US Airs 737 use the old analog / mechanical instruments, instead of the electronic type (CRTs). With this in mind, it would much harder for them to sell then an EFIS equipped 737-300, as there wouldn't much commonality with 737s in other operators fleets.
The 757 offers something that neither the 737 or A320 family can. Therefore, I think this airplane might be the last to go at US Air.
So in this instance, US Air will ultimately be Airbus, but you do need to use what you have until it isn't economically viable.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5664 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3301 times:
Until recent years Qantas was Boeing only and has been since the L188s were retired in the 60s (the DC4s do not count). Then they ordered the A380, because they think they need it & Boeing does not have a competing product. The A330 were part of the deal, why? Nobody really knows, but there is lots of speculation!
FlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7412 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3256 times:
Most of the biggest Majors have a mixed Boeing & Airbus fleet ... even sometimes Boeing / Airbus / MD-Douglas (now Boeing, I know).
The first reason I think is that big Majors don't want to be dependent fron only one manufacturer.
Then the bigger you get, the more diversified becomes your business, your network, your customers and I don't think that Boeing or Airbus alone can provide any airline with all the a/c it may need, in terms of capacity, range, engines, etc...
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3244 times:
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 2): Not at all. More important is ensuring that the airline selects the aircraft best suited to the desired mission profiles. And truth be told, there is more commonality BETWEEN most Airbus and Boeing models than many a.nutters realize, so commonality WITHIN A/B isn't as big of a deterministic selling point as it might have been in earlier times.
I could not agree with you more. An Aircraft has to be chosen specifically for its missions let it be Airbus or Boeing. In many cases its wise to have a dual fleet as to keep acquisition costs down.