Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not A340 For US Carriers?  
User currently offlineEastern023 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 871 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13294 times:

Just wondering why any US carrier has ordered Airbus 340 for their long range fleets. UA, NW even US perhaps?.


AA will Rise Again!
74 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJetBlueGuy2006 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13286 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.

My .02

[Edited 2006-08-10 22:32:45]


Home Airport: Capital Region International Airport (KLAN)
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9580 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13242 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!
User currently offlineThePRGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13242 times:

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


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13155 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.

[Edited 2006-08-10 23:10:02]

User currently offlineThePRGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13155 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 5):
Nor is the A340-300 heavy.

I was talking in comparison with the A330, which is a lighter airframe.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9580 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13017 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!
User currently offlineAirCanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13004 times:

[quote=ThePRGuy,reply=6]I was talking in comparison with the A330, which is a lighter airframe[/quote. I thought the A340 and A330 airframes are the same?

User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12960 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.



Primary Airport: FWA/Alternate Airport: DTW/Not employed by the FWACAA or their partners
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12936 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.


User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12888 times:

U.S airlines haven't ordered the 747 to begin with, what makes you think they would be interested in the a340?

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12851 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 11):
U.S airlines haven't ordered the 747 to begin with, what makes you think they would be interested in the a340?

But, both NW and UA ordered the B-747-400 early in the 1990s.


User currently offlineCharlienorth From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1119 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12847 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 11):
U.S airlines haven't ordered the 747 to begin with, what makes you think they would be interested in the a340?

Say what?


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6741 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12833 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.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12669 times:

To be honest i'm more suprised only one ended up with the A330. It seems tailor made for US East Coast flights to Europe.

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12653 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.


User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12602 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
But, both NW and UA ordered the B-747-400 early in the 1990s.

They were actually ordered in the late 1980's. NW received their first one in 1988 and UA received their first one in 1989. Still, neither carrier had a need for the A340.


User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12573 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.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineLouA340 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12573 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 15):
To be honest i'm more suprised only one ended up with the A330. It seems tailor made for US East Coast flights to Europe

I think the airlines are all satisfied with their 767's which does the job very well. The 767's seem to take the title when it comes to the number of daily flights flown across the Atlantic.



RyEng
User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3503 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12555 times:

Quoting Eastern023 (Thread starter):
Just wondering why any US carrier has ordered Airbus 340 for their long range fleets. UA, NW even US perhaps?.

Because evidently, it's not four engines four the long haul.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 15):
To be honest i'm more suprised only one ended up with the A330. It seems tailor made for US East Coast flights to Europe.

Looks like two to me.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bruce Leibowitz



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Shull




Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineCOSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1619 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12526 times:

CO 2 engines 2 save fuel...........CO is a 2 engine airline

User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12313 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
But, both NW and UA ordered the B-747-400 early in the 1990s.



Quoting Charlienorth (Reply 13):
Say what?

No shit, I'm just saying a lot haven't.


User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 11351 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 5):
Airbus was yet to be as proven and experiences with airlines such as Delta's A310s weren't doing it any favours.

RJ111,

The words "DELTA" & "A310" are just blasmephous words that should never, ever, be uttered in A.Net again!!!




 Silly



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 11201 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"
User currently offlineEastern023 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 11035 times:

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 20):
Quoting Eastern023 (Thread starter):
Just wondering why any US carrier has ordered Airbus 340 for their long range fleets. UA, NW even US perhaps?.

Because evidently, it's not four engines four the long haul.

The A340 has 4 engines my friend. The picture you display is an A330.



AA will Rise Again!
25 Burnsie28 : They were ordered in the early-mid 80's NW recieved the first built 744 in 1989.
26 Mirrodie : it still is a great plane. on the inside, I find it comparable to the 777. You know, while we are discussing it....many here call the MD-11 a failure
27 YULWinterSkies : $$$. CO did order it but cancelled due to financial difficulties. The illustration, if needed, that Airbus does not give its products for free.... The
28 RoseFlyer : The plane only sold 200 frames, was quickly disposed of by airlines that ordered it. The plane did not meet the specifications that were promised at
29 EI321 : Any source for this? Is'nt that just a new version of the Dassault 2000? Anyway, private jets are dirrecent to airliners. A few percentage in fuel bu
30 FlyDreamliner : On the inside, A340 is a great aircraft. While 777 allows slightly wider seats, and is a higher, wider, airier cabin, A340 is slightly quieter, and h
31 Sjot : The United States is a decentralized marketplace ... plenty of airlines operating plenty of flights = smaller aircraft required. This is why most dome
32 Pygmalion : Biggest issue is 4 engines, 4 engines are 2wice as expensive to maintain as two are. When you need to do overhauls, you have to do 4 of them not 2. Th
33 Post contains links Baron95 : Are you serious? It is hard not to stumble across another article mentioning the plunging in A340 residual values. Just google it http://www.google.c
34 Mirrodie : WHile I was not privvy to that arguement, I do understand the point about the access to the 3rd engine. And thanks for the info regarding hte MD-11
35 Baron95 : You will not see any new planes with a legacy tri-jet architecture (with the middle engine stuck in the vertical stabilizer. Fuel efficiency demands v
36 Adria : well the A340s take-off performance is far better in hot and high conditions and also what nobody wrote is that the A343s total fuel consumption is l
37 N160LH : In my experience with the A-340 (AF) in ATL (ATL = HOT+HUMID) is that the T/O performance is not even close to that of the 777... AF afternoon A-340
38 Adria : well in the Airliner World November 99 edition Vellay pinted out that the A340 is better for hot and high than the 777 (that's why the A343 is sent t
39 Molykote : The SXM example you cite is due the the unique terrain at SXM. When the "one engine out" scenario is considered at SXM the A340 is the preferred airp
40 Adria : 4 engines are better for hot and high and this has been discussed many times in the past here on a.net. But what is interesting (and I wasn't aware of
41 RJ111 : The A343 doesn't have very good climb performance and it was never designed to. It's low thrust engines mean it burns less in flight than if it were t
42 F14ATomcat : It's only the relationship with Boeing? Nope. Not even close. Can you say ETOPS? These American Airlines were fragmenting routes and introducing the
43 Cobra27 : Yes and Yes. So is Southwest and Ryanair and Easyjet and Adria airways and a lot of others
44 OldAeroGuy : While the A343 is lighter than the 772ER, the 772ER carries more passengers so it is lighter per passenger than the A343. With regard to range, the 7
45 Adria : I was talking to an aviation engineer and also made a search on a.net a while ago so I suggest that you do it yourself. The 777 is actually larger an
46 JayinKitsap : As any twin has to be able to complete its takeoff on a single engine, the thrust available for takeoff is around 200% of the minimum. On a 4 holer -
47 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : OK, I searched a.net. Here's what the CFO of Air France says. Remember, AF flies both airplanes, so he ought to know. 787 Has $3.5 Million Per Year A
48 Dfwrevolution : Boeing didn't just build the 777-200 arbitarily larger than the A343. Boeing more properly gauged the market than Airbus, not suprising given the unp
49 Adria : I wasn't talking about that... ...and now you finaly got it (but then again you just say what I said before). As I pointed out I meant TOTAL fuel bur
50 OldAeroGuy : Now compare the A332 to the A333. So what? To reach the point where the A343 is burning less fuel, it's passenger load factor might be as low as 75%.
51 Adria : Those two don't play in the same league...its the same if you compare the 737 and 777 I only stated that it has a lower fuel burn. The A343 was meant
52 Post contains images RJ111 : Ohh don't be naive OAG. I trust he'll choose the set of parameters which will make whatever decision (which i'm not saying is wrong) he's made seem m
53 OldAeroGuy : Ohhh, don't be so cynical, RJ111. At the end of the day, the CFO and the CEO tenures are dependent on the bottom line. If it goes south, so do they.
54 Gunsontheroof : Read my reply again. The A330 pictures weren't a response to anything you posted.
55 ZKNBX : Take-off performance is not just about rate of climb (often considered the winner factor in the B777) but fuel burn which is a major factor for airli
56 BHMNONREV : My feeble mind is not what it used to be, but when TW placed this order in the early 90's did it not include the option for both the 340-300 as well?
57 RJ111 : Looking at the specs my intuition would say that it's the 12t payload advantage which really appealed to the airlines. Profitability not necessarily
58 DeltaDC9 : I think he has 'got' a lot more than you based on content and attitude. It is a fact, and in any case such as this if you look hard enough you will f
59 Dutchjet : My recollection is that the TW order was exclusively for ten A333s with no reference to the A340 and no mix and match provision.........but I am part
60 Pygmalion : There is no more than a very small niche market opportunity for any improvements to the A340 series. Its a lame duck with no future... sales are almo
61 Post contains images Airbazar : Sometimes I wonder why I even read these [A vs. B] threads   It doesn't matter what the fuel burn and operating costs between the 777 and A340 are, n
62 DAYflyer : Simple: Gas hog. at least by todays standards.
63 Eastern023 : Are these airplanes real gas hogs?.
64 Wah64d : A slightly misleading and somewhat ill-informed comment. The A340 series are anything but gas hogs if you look at them in the context of the mission
65 OldAeroGuy : Consider this though. The A346 burns about 20% more fuel per seat than the 773ER. The 773ER is expected to burn about 25% more fuel per seat that the
66 Doug_Or : The 343 burns more than newer aircraft and less than older ones on its mission profile (long haul). The 342 burns almost as much and the 345/6 do not
67 Jfk777 : In Asia Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines both operate or former operated the A340-300. Cathay recently ordered 773ER's. SIA is one of the biggest
68 Carpethead : Because capacity is need in Asia not frequency. There are more highly concentrated big cities in Asian than US cities which tend to be a lot of cities
69 Columba : This might be Finnair also Kingfisher has ordered A345s if I remember correctly. Regarding the A340 with US carriers: As it was already said some air
70 WAH64D : You're comparing apples with oranges here. Thats like saying the B732 burns more fuel than the A319. These aircraft are almost a generation apart in
71 Gunsontheroof : I'm pretty sure the A346 and B773 hit the market right about the same time...
72 RJ111 : Good to see this thread is still ongoing and brimming with ignorance. So i'll just pick one post at random to correct. The A342/3 burn nowhere near as
73 OldAeroGuy : He didn't say that the A342/3 burned as much fuel as the A345/6, only that the A342 burned almost as much as the A343. I don't think that you can arg
74 Jfk777 : I realize many Asian airline fly A330 around the region. This is about the A340 and the 777. The A330 is NOT RELEVENT.
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...
Why No 747-300's For US Carriers posted Mon Jan 12 2004 16:19:38 by CRJ'sRule
Why New Reg's For US A330s? posted Fri Aug 18 2006 21:34:44 by SK736
RWY 27 At Juliana - Why Not Used For TOs? posted Tue May 23 2006 17:52:27 by Sunandan
Longest Range 777s And 787s For US Carriers posted Tue Mar 7 2006 06:34:37 by AA777223
Winglet Status For US Carriers posted Thu Oct 6 2005 15:55:51 by RL757PVD
Latin America - Highest Yields For US Carriers posted Tue Jul 5 2005 02:39:38 by YUL332LX
Not Good For US posted Thu Sep 9 2004 17:16:35 by Luv2fly
Why No 773s For US Airlines? posted Mon Jun 28 2004 20:06:59 by BCAInfoSys
LatAm To Be Hot In 2003 For US Carriers (article) posted Mon Feb 2 2004 09:14:43 by MAH4546
3rd Qtr Results For US Carriers.....predictions? posted Wed Oct 15 2003 20:08:08 by 727LOVER