TrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 769 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1565 times:
In a recent previous post someone just mentioned hearing TWA will be placing an order for a few more
767-300's and ALSO Airbus A330's. Now im not trying to start any rumors but why is the A330 order supposedly coming back up again after the previous order was finally cancelled?
Any input is appreciated.
TWAneedsNOhelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1269 times:
On Marc's rhumor ordering page it speculates that TW will be ordering A330 equipment. Its is confirmed however that more 767-300ER ships will come on property. The A330 is far from certain. Some points:
1) TW has 9 million dollars tied up with Airbus regarding the old A330 order, so as TW wants utility for its money and AI wants customers, something may happen.
2) The A330/340 is having a difficult time selling in the Americas. Apart from Canada 3000, Air Canada, LAN Chile, and Aerolineas, the craft have made very little inroads. While TW is anything but an industry benchmark, getting some coppies into the hands of a US major carrier may in their opinion, get the 330 some more attention.
3) Also, TW has indicated its willingness to increase Asian flying by adding an STL-NRT route. The A330-300 is capable of completing the mission.
4) A330 line of craft have superb cargo capacity and weight abilities. TW's cargo department is growing in importance with recent codeshare agreements with ANA and SIA. Also, the new Hawaiian and Carribean destinations are large cargo markets.
5) Airbus likes to sell aircraft regardless of how much they cost to manufacture.
All this contribute to the possibility the A330-200/300 may be in double globe livery in the next 5 years.
Given TWA's current financial situation, Airbus must be giving them to TWA for free.
TWA would probably not acquire any widebody aircraft directly from the manufacturer. More likely, the A330-200 would be leased from ILFC. TWA is also considering the B777from the same source. Operating leases require little if any cash payments in advance.
Acvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 921 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1182 times:
Having been in the leasing business.. Some corrections,
TWA will probably do a sale lease back transaction with similtanious closings so they get the 9 million with Airbus back in some form.
Leasing companies require a fairly large initial payment pre-delivery or at delivery to cover maint. spares deposit, delivery and deposit on the plane, taxes, etc.
TWA will likely order the A330-200 on a 2003 or 2004 delivery schedule
The 767-300 fleet will continue to grow and 3 more copies are due in soon.
The A330-300 does not have the range for full load STL-NRT the A330-200 does.
TWA will likely do a combination lease/purchase with the next generation widebody similar to their 717 purchase that was an order for purchase not lease and the MD83s and 757s all of which have been recent new aircraft acquisitions. Used aircraft will likely all be leases.
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1137 times:
It would make much more sense for TWA to order the 764/764ERX. The 767-400ERX definately has the range to make a STL-NRT flight, and it will have commonality with TWA's current 767 fleet. I'm sure they can get a deal from Boeing is they order 763's and 764's at the same time.
HPA318 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 124 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1118 times:
I doubt it, theres too much competition ot there.Noone I know flies TWA anymore. They're getting rid of LIS/MXP.....they have nothing left.Where would they fly An A330/B777 from STL-MCO?lol lol....they dont need the capacity. They should stick to B757, maybe the -300, or the A320family of a/c..
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4402 posts, RR: 37 Reply 9, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1102 times:
I'd love to see the A330 or 777 in TWA colors. Russ, could the $9 million paid towards A330 orders be put towards the A318/ A319 orders should TWA not go with the 330?
Airbus has never let cost of manufacturing stand in the way of selling airplanes, Paris and Bonn (Berlin now, I guess) are more than happy to pick up the tab. Boeing at least has to take the hit when they discount.
I'm not sure why the A330/340 haven't done better in the US. The decisions by UA, AA, DL and CO to go with the 777 of course hurt Airbus, and NW has decided to wring every last possible mile out of their DC-10s (like their DC-9s). The willingness of US carriers to buy Airbus narrowbodies indicates that they don't have political or nationalist objections. The US Airways order may open doors.
KonaB777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1100 times:
Why don't you just give TWA a chance here? They were in a major rut a few years ago, but at least they are trying to turn themselves around, and are doing so. You can't just turn around & buy new planes & start up a long @$$ int'l route such as STL-NRT overnight.
By the way, if you think HP is a good airline, you need help. I read in Airways that America West was ranked as America's Worst Airline. TWA may have lost some of their former glamour, but at least they are trying to get it back, and are getting it back bit by bit.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4402 posts, RR: 37 Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1078 times:
TWA is on the mend and on the move. When they throw off the noxious Karabu albatross in 2003, they will be in a very good position. Something that scarcely seemed possible a few years ago.
US got its narrowbody house in order first (on the order books, anyway, it'll take years for all 400 Airbuses to arrive) before selecting its flagship jumbo (A330). I wonder if TWA is taking a similar approach. TWA has selected its narrowbodies--717 and 318/319--and the 717s have started arriving. Maybe a jumbo order isn't far down the line.
Acvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 921 posts, RR: 13 Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1056 times:
For the record,
The 767-400ERX and 767-400ER as well as the 767-400 do NOT have the range to fly STL-NRT.
Whomever stated that is wrong. The 767-400 family has no aircraft able to mach the range of the 767-300ER and the 767-300ER cannot go as far as the 767-200ER which is the only 767 family member that can fly STL-NRT nonstop (albeit it with significant load restrictions).
The A330-200 does have the range for STL-NRT nonstop.
TWA needs additional widebody lift in several markets including....
Wingman From Spain, joined May 1999, 1856 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1050 times:
I'd like to see Airbus sell 330s to TWA for the STL-NRT route. I assume they'd have to remove the "scare" pages from their website about 2 vs. 4. Otherwise, they might be accused of selling dangerously inadequate equipment for the mission.
TWAneedsNOhelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1018 times:
As Vitale will tell you, TW has had difficulty negotiating with Airbus in securing all 18 million of an early 330 deposit for the narrowbodies. As yet only half of the original deposit went for the 318 and 319. The other hlaf may be forfeited if TW does not A) negotiate somehow B) order the 330. Al, am I correct?
US has ordered what 13 330s and no 340s for their proposed new Airbus fleet. However the future of these new ships is thrown into question should the UAL buyout proceed. If it does, which looks unlikely now, the 330s will be flipped back to Airbus Leasing or ILFC. Again Vitale can comment I think he used to work for the AIG leasing arm or GE. Albert?
Thank you for correctting me. Very much like the 767 family, for the 330, the -200 series has longer range than the -300 series. So, yes it is the A332 that can reach the Japanese capital. Post Karabu TW will have a lot of options on where it wants to go with long range flying. Perhaps, LIS, MAD, BCN, FCO, and MXP will be reopened (but I doubt it, considering the current labor issues), Caracas maybe served from JFK, and if TW joins an alliance and builds Trans Atlantic traffic, JFK-CDG could see a 332.
ACVITALE From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 921 posts, RR: 13 Reply 19, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 953 times:
The 767-400ERX does NOT have the range for STL-NRT.
I stated that before. I suggest you check www.boeing.com for statistics. The 767-400ERX doesn't even have the range of the 767-200ER!
You are just like many who make up statistics and frankly give airliners.net the reputation of the laughingstock of the online aviation community. It is a shame the moderators do not censure incorrect information like yours. Would you cite a source for the supposed range of the 767-400ERX being able to fly STL-NRT? Are they moving STL closer to NRT or is NRT being moved closer to STL or both. My range figures came from the Boeing sales materials provided to GECAS. They included forward looking statement warnings as well. That means that boeing is only predicting the max range of the 767-400ERX and often it can be less then the original sales documents... (ie MD11, A340, 767-300ER were all short of their estimated sales document range!)
I worked for GECAS the largest leasing company in the aviation business. The stats I cited are accurate... Might I suggest some common aviation sources for research in the future.
EWRSpotter From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 921 times:
You just accused a 764 pilot of not knowing what his aircraft is capable of (even if we are talking about a planned version of the 764).
As for your claims about the range of the 764 vs 762, I am unable to verify your claim on Boeing's web site. You may wish to double-check your figures before flaming others with your sarcasm on this board.
Boeing doesn't have range charts on their web site for the 764ERX, so we will have to make due with just range figures. They are as follows:
"Maximum Range" figures:
"767-200/-200ER": 6,602 statute miles
"Longer Range 767-400ER": 7,080 statute miles
Updated information from Boeing shows the 767-400ERX now has the same range as the 767-300ER at 7080 miles.
Still has the 767-200ER with much longer legs then either the 300ER/400ER/400ERX! I think it is time to acknowledge that both of you are mistaken and never checked the facts. You can use the links on this message and my previous to clearly see the correct information is available and you are clearly wrong.