JetBlueGuy2006 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1613 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11249 times:
I would tend to think that they have their fleets of A330, 747, 757, 767 that they need for International Travel. Maybe if they have a major overhall of their fleet they will replace the 757 or the 747 to go towards an all Boeing Fleet.
[Edited 2006-08-10 22:32:45]
Home Airport: Capital Region International Airport (KLAN)
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11205 times:
Continental actually did order the A340, but then later cancelled the order during their times of financial difficulty in the 1990s. Continental was looking to replace DC10s and 747-200s with A340s, but kept them in the fleet until later and eventually removed them after 9/11 and went to an all 757, 767 and 777 long haul fleet, which was ordered after the bankruptcies in the early 90s under Gordon Bethune's direction.
The A340 serves no purpose for US since it doesn't need that much range. The lighter and cheaper A330 is better suited for them since their longest flights are to Europe from the East Coast.
UA chose the 777 to replace DC10s and has kept a 747 fleet. UA was the launch customer for the 777 and had the plane designed heavily to meet their required specifications. There is no way that they would have purchased the A340.
NW waited and didn't jump on the bandwagon and replace the trijets when all the other US airlines did. If NW had purchased a new plane in the 1990s, I am guessing they would have gone for the A343 since the A332 was not around and the A333 does not have enough range for any transpacific flights except SEA-NRT. But NW seems to be a bit of an oddball. They were the first US airline and a very early customer for the A320 back in 1989, yet they are the only one of the big six airlines that does not operate the 767 extensively. The A340 probably would have fit very well into NW's network since it would have worked well for routes from the West Coast to Japan and to other cities where there isn't enough demand for a 744 like JFK-NRT.
The A340 was a great plane in the early 1990s. However a big factor in no US airlines ordering it was the fact that there was a lot of financial turmoil in 1991-1992. Pan Am and Eastern folded and other airlines suffered. The few airlines that could order new planes like AA went with the MD-11, which turned out to be a flop. By the time the airlines were ready to order and expand their long haul fleets in the late 1990s, Boeing had come out with the 777-200ER, which outsold the A343 heavily. Nowadays, the A340 is pretty much dead and won't seem too many more orders unless something happens. The fleets of 250-350 passenger planes have been built up and new widebody orders are going to newer developments such as the 787, A350, 748 and A380.
[Edited 2006-08-10 22:50:29]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11118 times:
Quoting ThePRGuy (Reply 4): Heavy
Burns more fuel than A330
On some routes, capacity is not needed, and if it is, 777 can take care of it
Its just not as economical as some of the other options
That's not really an answer because it's not unique to the US. Nor is the A340-300 heavy.
In general US Airlines at the time of selection had a better relationship with Boeing. Airbus was yet to be as proven and experiences with airlines such as Delta's A310s weren't doing it any favours. Then factor in Bethune's relationship with Boeing, that led to the A340 order cancellation, and the Superfan fiasco stopped NW's order. So that's ruled out DL, CO and NW for starters. Then you've got AA and UA, both have had a strong relationship with Boeing over the years and would have definately favoured Boeing offerings. Not to say that the 777's performance merit's never came into it. And although US Ordered the A330, their east coast hubs and non-existant transpacific market meant they had no demand for such range.
So, it just never happend really. AC took some though and it seemed to work well for them, regardless of recent events.
Re: A345/6. No US airline really desired the capacity or the range of these aircraft to justify it's introduction to the fleet.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10980 times:
Quoting ThePRGuy (Reply 6): Quoting RJ111 (Reply 5):
Nor is the A340-300 heavy.
I was talking in comparison with the A330, which is a lighter airframe.
It depends on what the plane is being used for. Yes the A340 is heavier, but it is heavier because it has more range. The A340-300 is not too heavy. The A340-200 probably is and has a range that no airline really needed or wanted at the time. The A330-300 is lighter, but has less range. It is a tradeoff. Airbus decided that it was best to design two planes while Boeing created a heavy twin in the 777. The 777-200ER didn't come out until 4 years later.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
FWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3172 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10923 times:
IMO, it's sorta sad that we'll probably never see one of those beautiful four-holers in the colors of a US carrier. And here's why (besides high oil prices):
-UA: A 777 launch customer with 2nd largest B777 fleet in the world.
-AA: Initially ordered MD-11, switched to B777 and has 46 of them.
-DL: Rumored to be ordering B772LRs to complement B772ERs.
-CO: Very loyal Boeing customer with a large B777 fleet.
-NW: Post-BK, I see them ordering B773ERs to replace their 744 fleet.
-US: No Asian routes, so no need for A340 or B777.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10899 times:
In the late 1980s, the US airlines were doing very well with their B-767-300ERs, which had all the range they needed. The early 1990s for these airlines was very hard on them finanically. By the mid to late 1990s, AA and DL thought the MD-11 offered more of what they wanted than the A-340-200/-300 did. CO was having finance problems and DL did not like the A-310s they got from PA, so any Airbus order from DL was doubtful. DL was very happy with their L-1011-500s and B-767-200/-300/ER. In fact the bought used B-767-200ERs from overseas based airlines to add to their fleet. AA, however did lease the A-300-600 around this time. As it turned out AA eventually decided they didn't like the A-300. NW and UA still had relitively new B-747-400s, and older B-747-200s and DC-10-10/-30/-40s. So they really were not "looking" for a new wide body. Additionally, UA still had lots of B-767-200/-300/ER
But, the MD-11 also turned into a disappointment for DL and AA. Fortunately, for AA, DL, UA, and CO the B-777-200/ER came along just at the right time to replace the MD-11s, DC-10s, and older B-747s. NW decided on the A-330-200 for their long range fleet, to eventually begin replacing their DC-10-40s. US also began buying A-330-200s to begin replacing their B-767-200ERs.
Other than CO, the US airlines really did not need any version of the A-340. They settled on the B-747-400 as their only 4 engine aircraft, long ranged aircraft (not including the BAe-146 regional jet flown for NW and UA). The B-747-400 carried more people and cargo further than the A-340-300 could. The B-747 worked very well for the NW and UA Pacific routes.
But, what killed any hope for A-340 sales in the US was the B-777.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6358 posts, RR: 34 Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10796 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 5): Then you've got AA and UA, both have had a strong relationship with Boeing over the years
Actually, I would argue that AA and Delta both had a very strong relationship with McDonnell-Douglas as well over the years which led to both airlines ordering and flying the MD-11. When it became clear that the MD-11 was a relative disappointment, the 777 was clearly the superior replacement for both carriers, given that both airlines had an extensive history with ETOPS on their 767's and the maintenance/fuel burn advantage that the large twins had (along with both airlines being satisfied with their existing Boeing fleets).
Northwest's strategy appeared to be to keep its capital costs down by purchasing used DC-10's which, given lower fuel prices, could have held them in good stead until well past 2010. NWA estimated that their DC-10 fleet could fly an average of 20 additional years at the end of 1998! Continental ended up hiring a former Boeing executive, white United had a great deal of input on defining the 777. And USAir(ways) historically never needed long-range aircraft, what with smaller East Coast hubs having very limited demand to Asia and a relatively small transatlantic presence.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10616 times:
As pointed out above, both NW and CO were early A330/A340 customers and TW was a very early A330 customer.......most of the airplanes covered by these orders were never delivered and the reasons have little to do with the A330/A340 itself.
NW was an early (launch?) customer for the A330/A340.....I believe that one or more A340s was even painted in NW colors, the problem was that NW was having major financial problems just when the airplanes were to be delivered....the early build A343s flown by Virgin Atlantic were actually intended for NW. Over the years, NW continued to defer, delay and revise its orders with Airbus......NW never took delivery of an A340 but lots and lots of A320s and then A319s were ordered by and delivered to NW to compensate for those A340s. NW built up its widebody fleet with used DC10-30s which were affordable and availible at the time. And, many years later than planned, NW finally took delivery of its A330s.....of course, the A330s delivered to NW were far more capable airplanes than those ordered way back when, and NW did revise its A330 order one last time to include A332s and A333s.
CO also signed up for the A330/A340....back then, the idea was that the A330 and A340 would replace CO's DC10 and 747 fleet.....A330s would handle the European flights and the A340s would fly the Pacific routes (dont forget that this was when CO flew to the Fiji, New Zealand and Australia)....CO's visit to the bankrupcty court changed those plans and CO's Airbus order was cancelled pursuant to the court procedure. CO also elected to build up its longhaul fleet with used DC10s.....and placed large orders with Boeing for new airliners, but the first focus was on 735s and 752s back then to clean up CO's mismatched and rather troublesome shorthaul fleet. Eventually, CO became an all Boeing airline.
And then there is TWA, TW placed an early order for ten A330-300s as potential L1011 replacements....TW had planned to use the A333s on JFK-Europe routes but it never came to be as TW had all kinds of financial and managment problems. The A330s were delayed countless times and finally, years later, TW covered the A330 order to the A318 order......TW no longer had a need for the big A330s with its shrinking longhaul route system. TW never took delivery of any of its A318s either, as that order was cancelled as part of the pre-packaged bankruptcy proceeding TW went though prior to being merged into AA.
Baron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9 Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10536 times:
Very simple - ETOPS was pushed, invented, proved by Boeing and US Airlines - they bet on it, rather than on smaller 4-engine planes to enable them to serve more point-to-point routes and destinations.
Europeans and some asian airlines were very, very skeptical of ETOPS and twins doing very-long-haul and bet on 747-400 and A340. They also were very skeptical that anyone could produce a viable 115Klbs engine (like the GE115B) and thought that twins would be growth-limited.
Now they are paying the price with the residual value of A340s plunging.
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15 Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9164 times:
None of them really needed it. Most of the US airlines are closer to Boeing, and during the early 90s, US airlines were either in crisis, or hedging their bets on MD-11. By the time the MD-11 proved a dissapointment, 772ER was already out - and A343 was outclassed.
Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 9): -NW: Post-BK, I see them ordering B773ERs to replace their 744 fleet.
Ohh, I don't know. I don't see the 744s going anywhere anytime soon. They still have to buy a lot of aircraft to replace the last DC-9s, they just bought a slew of A330s and 787s, I think it'll be a little while before we see the 744s going anywhere....my guess is they still have to get rid of the 742's first....
Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 9): -US: No Asian routes, so no need for A340 or B777.
Their 767 fleet met all their demands for transatlantic - and then they went right to A330. They really don't fly any real long routes.
Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18): Now they are paying the price with the residual value of A340s plunging.
and the soaring price of fuel.
Quoting RAPCON (Reply 23):
The words "DELTA" & "A310" are just blasmephous words that should never, ever, be uttered in A.Net again!!!
Airbus left a bad taste in AA's mouth with A300 and DL's with A310. That's probably a lot of why we don't see airbus long haul orders of them.
I think most of Panam was a disaster by the time DL bought their remains.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"