Dellatorre From Brazil, joined May 2000, 1084 posts, RR: 2 Posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1658 times:
I don´t think so. Ual have a extense agreement with Boeing on the purchasing of the B777. I think the US government would probably interfere in this kind of situation.
The American carriers aren´t really interested in the Extended version of the B777, the B777-300, neither in the A3XX. What makes them not go for this kind of aircraft. Maybe these planes aren´t profitable for most of the routes through out the country.
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7702 posts, RR: 55 Reply 1, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
If UAL buy USAirways, of course they'll end up with A330s. And they'll probably keep them, at least for a while - they're perfect for Atlantic crossings and USAirways have spend a vast amount of money to handle the type. I bet they're cheaper to buy than 777s and probably cheaper to operate. I doubt the US government would intervene, not overtly anyway. If UA had a huge Airbus fleet (more than 50% of total, say), it would give the US gov't tremendous leverage in selling other US products to Europe to balance up payments. (Or not.)
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2657 posts, RR: 59 Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1503 times:
I highly doubt the US gov't would interfere if UA decided to buy the A330/340. Otherwise they would have done so with the A320 purchase years ago, or the US A330 purchase. OTOH, the likelihood of UA actually ordering Airbus widebodies is also rather small. With a 60+ fleet of 777's, as well as the more than likely purchase of new 777-200LRs in the next year, the possibility of a A330/340 purchase is pretty much non-existant. (Kinda like Lufthansa ordering the 777 ) Assuming the merger goes through, look for UA to quickly dispose of the US A330's, either leases to Star partners Air Canada or Thai, or completely sold, maybe back to Airbus in exchange for more A32Xs.
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 24 Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1446 times:
United would probably never buy more A330s, no matter what Lufthansa or Air Canada do, or whether or not they buy USAirways. The only reason they would is if the A330 were SUBSTANTIALLY more cost-effective on the transatlantic routes. Besides, more A330s would mean yet another type across the Atlantic and that would mean more costs. It would be better for UA to just lease the A330s to one of their mainly airbus Star partners and keep the more compatible A32X's.
Dellatorre: What do you mean? SIA flies both transatlantic and transpacific flights from the United States. Do you mean cross-country?
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1409 times:
My theory is that United will go for the A330 especially if this merger with US Airways goes through they will inherit their batch of new P&W 4000 powered A330-300s. If they are happy with their current fleet of Airbus A319s & A320s they will continue to purchase more Airbus aircraft like the A330. Also they can order them with the same P&W 4000 series engine that powers their fleet of 747s & 767s.
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 981 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1404 times:
I think the question was, "is it possible." The answer is yes. This begs the follow up question "is it likely"? I would say less likely than UA buying the 764 (if they want more capacity than a 763 but less weight than a 772). This changes each day though with all of the subtle factors affecting the airlines and their decisions.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1376 times:
I think the 767-400 like the 757-300 will be a failure, it is a late 70s early 80s design that was just lengthened to hold more passengers and is not like the 777 and Airbus A330/A340 family with new century high-tech systems and FBW.
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1011 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1374 times:
United would be smart to select the A330 as it gives flight deck comonality with the A-319/320 as well as any and all other future Airbus aircraft. The 767-400 doesnt share that much with the older 767s and has little commonality with the narrowbody Boeing twins. The 764 does seem to be a strange variant of a design that is by now over 20 years old, not to say that you cant improve on a 20 year old design but it duplicates the capacity and range of other Boeing products. The 757-300 does the same thing, albiet a less expensive aircraft than a 767-300.
If the merger happens then the A-330 will be the obvious choice. Boeing is having a difficult time meeting deliver schedules and has had rough going as of late. Airbus is really giving them a run for their money and the US customers of the Airbus narrowbody fleet seem to be very happy with those aircraft.
777x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1368 times:
The cockpit commonality argument just doenst fly in the US - the pilots unions do not (and would not) allow pilots flying the A319/320 to fly the A330 or A340.
Saying the 757-300 and 767-300 (or 400) do the same job is ridiculous - they are designed for different routes and different loads - check your facts. I don't think you'll find any duplication in the current boeing line if you take the time to look.
They delays boeing has encountered (due to the engineers strike) would most likely not affect United's decision, unless they got much worse. Don't forget that (as others have said) United is very much for the 777, and operates a number of 767's - giving the 767/777 deriviatives a distinct advantage
Avion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1363 times:
What is the number of non-ER 777s in UAs fleet? I say the A330 has a chance on replacing those because on flights less than 8 hours it is less expensive to operate and has substantially lower seat/mile costs. The kind of Airbus commonality and Boeing commonality is not the same. Airbus narrowbodies and widebodies share more commonality than Boeings. And given UAs large fleet of the Airbus Narrowbodies the A330 would not be and odd sight?
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10557 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1356 times:
But Avion, wouldn't you say that the 764 has a lot more in common with UA's current equipment than the 330? UA already has pilots that are rated to fly the 764. UA has mechs that can operate on the 764. The 330 is a new type altogether. I think the only way that UA will get 330s is if they buy them from US AIrways first.
Avion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
I agree D L X. But i do think the A330 has a slight chance because of its better range and economics and A320 mechs can also work on the A330 with minimal training. I think its 60% for the 767 ann 40% for the A330.
The A330 is not entirely out of the question.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1333 times:
United will go for the A330, because they can order the P&W 4000 engine on them, they will blend in with the P&W 4000 powered 747-400s & 767-200/300s that are in their fleet. They won't go for the 777X if it has only the GE90. All of their Boeing aircraft from the 727-200 (except 737-300 & 500), to the 777-200 are all P&W powered.
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1011 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1330 times:
Engine commonality may even be the most important factor since the engines are a substantial cost in relation to the entire aircraft. With an entirely PW equipped fleet (except the 737s) UA can really strike a good deal for spares, maintenance and future PW purchases.
I dont care what anybody says, flight deck commonality just HAS to play a role. Would any airline purposfully not make use of the common Airbus flight deck and cross training opportunities if they were going to have a significant part of the fleet be Airbus? Seems to be totally ridiculous to not make use of this very convenient aspect of Airbus aircraft.
PresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 628 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1318 times:
Remember that United quickly disposed of the L-1011s it acquired from Pan Am when it bought that carrier's specific routes. Operating oo many a/c types cost too much money and is inefficent. As such, United will not operate them for long if at all. It just doesn't make much sense.
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 24 Reply 18, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1306 times:
I hate to say this, but IMHO if the merger w/UsAir goes through then the A330s will be the odd man out and will be the first planes to go. Although they may be somewhat useful at first, what is really the use of having a small number of A330s, which are for the most part related only to the domestic A320s (excluding the engines) flying international routes? Airbus-trained crews would have to be put overseas for work on UA's A330s when they would be most useful maintaining the A32X's back in N. America? The routes that the A330 would operate if it was integrated into UA's fleet system would probably be in Europe and South America. I suppose UA's Star Partners (i.e. British Midland, Lufthansa, Austrian Air Group) could overtake the maintenance in Europe, but what about South America? Varig does not have any Airbus products and the two main Airbus operators in South America, Aerolineas Argentinas and TAM, are all leaning towards American and Oneworld as their alliance partners.
Pilots may also be an issue. I am not an expert (and anyone who is please clarify me), but I think it would not fly with the unions if A320 pilots suddenly were told to fly internationally on A330s. Isn't there a scope clause or something? Unless United trained pilots that were meant to fly Airbus products internationally, which would not happen unless United wanted to base all their future aircraft orders around Airbus, the A330s will have a hard time getting people to fly them.
That is my opinion on the future of the A330 in United's fleet if the merger goes through. I realize it may not be that well-informed, but I am only a 14-year old and would need some experience working at an actual airline if I wanted to get a full grasp of this issue.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1293 times:
As I said in the previous message, P&W is a partner of IAE, so United's V2500 A319s & A320s can be considered P&W & Rolls Royce powered. Plus I said BOEING aircraft, not McDonnell Douglas, I know their DC-10s are GE CF6 powered.
Flaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1115 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1291 times:
I believe that the A330 could play a significant role in United's fleet but only if United is looking for a 767 replacement. The A332 would be outstanding in this role but I doubt that United is ready to start replacing the 767's. More likely The A330-300's would be leased out or sold and the options converted to the A319/320.
Equally intriquing is the fate of the US A321 order. The 757 has a much better payload/range and hot/high performance. The A321 would really struggle in Denver although it is well suited to the north-south networks on both coasts. Quite frankly I was very surprised that US ordered it for transcon routes. Even the high gross weight version reminds me an awful lot of the DC-9-50. If you have ever flown one of those off of a 7500 foot runway with a heavy load on a 95 degree day you'll know what I mean.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1267 times:
If this merger goes through with United & US Airways, will United keep the order for the A321? They will blend in with the A319s & A320s that United already has, so there will be no problem training flight crews already flying the A319/A320. If the engine has been selected, it will probably be the IAE V2500 that powers United's A319s & A320s.
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 24 Reply 24, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1260 times:
IHMO that will be the second type to go after the A330s. I think they would just want to order more 757s if UA wanted a plane near that size. And I bet Boeing would give them a hell of a deal as well. (A la Singapore Airlines, perhaps?)
25 Avion: I think A321 could be useful for UA. The new A321 is perfect to do high-density short hops and some shorter trans-cons while the 757s could be kept fo
26 D L X: TEDSKI, there you go again, man! No airline will pick a new type because it shares engines. Engines are significant, but the airframe itself is much m
27 TEDSKI: The A321 would be great on United's ALB to O'Hare route to replace the 727 & 737 where the 757 is not suited for.
28 TEDSKI: United won't select the 767-400 either! This is an old design that was just made longer to hold more passengers. It doesn't have the state of the art
29 Avion: D L X: I totally agree with you. The A330 has only a small chance with UA. But i do believe the A321 could do well with UA. Avion
30 Hamlet69: I'm surprised no one has brought up the possibility of the 777-100X. The rumors I keep hearing is that if this plan does make it past Boeing's board,
31 Trvlr: TEDSKI: IT DOES!! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!!!!! Ok maybe too harsh but the 764 has all new technology which is as good as, if not better than the 777
32 Sammyk: As a Boeing board member, I would have to look at my customer base and see what airframe makes the most sense to them. If the interested parties are m
33 Cedarjet: Trvlr, I don't know how much you know about the 767-400 cockpit, but the facts may come as something of a disappointment. The 767-400 is designed to b
34 Trvlr: I guess I am talking about the how recent the electronics that went into it were; they certainly aren't vacuum tubes! But the point is, the earliest 7
35 TEDSKI: If the 767-400 is such a terrific plane, then why isn't it selling in large numbers like the A330/A340 & 777? Why did 767 customers like US Airways, L
36 D L X: TEDSKI, the 767-400 is a derivative of the shorter 300, correct. But, by that argument, who in their right mind would order the 330 or 340? They're ju