Jdwfloyd From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 837 posts, RR: 4 Posted (7 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3962 times:
With the talk of US entering into the Asia market and AC going with the 777 over their 340's, would US be interested in the Airbuses leaving AC fleet. From the research I have done it looks like all but two of AC's 340s are owned, that would leave 7 A340-300s and a pair of 340-500's. I am not sure if AC plans on giving up all eleven of them, or if their eight A330-300s will be going as well. Does anyone know the time frame for the change over from Airbus long haul to Boeing for AC? Would it be in time for the 2008 bid for China?
Those A/C would go far to expand into Asia, or the west coast to Europe. With the delays on the A350 program and US in desperate need to expand their long haul fleet now, the AC planes would be a good hold over.
Some other routes that could be served with the 340's could include IST, TLV, and even a few into India. I know Parker said that South America was not in the plans for the near future, a influx of that many widebodies may change that. The addition of the 340's could free the 762s for Hawaii and South and Central America.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3934 times:
Quoting Jdwfloyd (Thread starter): With the talk of US entering into the Asia market and AC going with the 777 over their 340's, would US be interested in the Airbuses leaving AC fleet.
If they do want to enter the Asia market, the A340 would make sense for US, given that as an A330 operator, there'd be lots of commonality between them. However, I think if US goes for some of AC's A340s, they'll go for the A343 and not the A345. That being said, I believe US still has a few A332s on order, but whether they'll take delivery of them or not, is another question.
Quoting Jdwfloyd (Thread starter): I am not sure if AC plans on giving up all eleven of them, or if their eight A330-300s will be going as well.
AC's A333s would not make sense for US because of the engines. AC uses the Trent 700 and US uses the PW4168.
Quoting Jdwfloyd (Thread starter): The addition of the 340's could free the 762s for Hawaii and South and Central America.
Central America and Carribean should be doing just fine with the current equipment used (A32x and 757s). I doubt sending a 762 to Central America would make any sense.
Vega From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3748 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 1): However, I think if US goes for some of AC's A340s, they'll go for the A343 and not the A345.
As I mentioned in another thread, I believe there are only 3 340s currently available before January 2008, the 2 AC 340-500s for Purchase or Long Term Lease from several leasing firms, and 1 340-300 available for lease from a German Bank. That's not saying Airbus couldn't pull a 340 rabbit out of a hat for a 350XWB firm contract. Remembering that whichever aircraft US acquires for extra Long Haul, it will need at least 2 of the same type (for backup). The -500 would be an overkill - a heavier aircraft and only about an 1000nm range advantage. Also, the -500s have RR Engines raising a maintenance ? for US. The -300 could be used to most anywhere in Asia from PHL, except SIN.
If US seriously wants a chance at China, I think they will need to acquire something almost immediately and start two or more 6000nm range non-stop routes to Asia to show relevant experience. PHL-SEL, PHL-KIX, or even a 2nd tier city in China might work, with PHL-SEL probably the better choice from an economic standpoint and PHL-2nd Tier China from a "I have already done it" standpoint - albeit at surely a financial cost. One thing is almost certain, if US does acquire any Long Haul aircraft in the next few months, a NW merger is surely not on Parker's agenda.
A330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3604 times:
Quoting Vega (Reply 4): PHL-SEL, PHL-KIX, or even a 2nd tier city in China might work, with PHL-SEL probably the better choice from an economic standpoint and PHL-2nd Tier China from a "I have already done it" standpoint - albeit at surely a financial cost.
US could not currently fly to a Group 2 city in China. While there are Group 2 frequencies available, there are no carrier designations available, so only the four existing combination carriers could use the available frequencies.
I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
Jdwfloyd From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 837 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3379 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 5): He can't fly to china without authority. He could do phl-kix or phl-icn, if he had planes that could make it, but that's iffy. Also iffy, if either of his proofing routes would make much money.
He's grasping at straws, I think.
I think that US would stand a better chance to get any bids for Asia routes in the future if they already had a long haul program in use. It would be tough to start up China or such while also trying to get a new fleet type up and running. It's in US's best interest to keep the cart ahead of the horse. The timing for the AC planes could not have come at a better time, well it could have come sooner I guess.