NYC777 From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4301 posts, RR: 46 Posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 10050 times:
Interesting that they are not happy with the A350 situation. I think they are going to drop it and pick up the 787-8. That airplane would be more suited for their size then either the A350-800 or the A350-900.
Fair Use Excerpt:
US Airways Group Inc., restarting a
push to retire aging jets from its fleet, will order 60 aircraft
valued at almost $5 billion by the end of April.
The airline is evaluating proposals from Boeing Co. and
Airbus SAS for narrow-body, single-aisle planes, Chief Financial
Officer Derek Kerr said in an interview. Tempe, Arizona-based US
Airways also will decide by April 30 on the future of a pending
2005 order for 20 Airbus A350 wide-body jets, Kerr said.
''The A350 today is not the plane we ordered,'' Kerr said
yesterday, referring to delays and redesigns for the plane. ''We
need to know what the plane is going to cost and when it will be
ready.''
Lumberton From United States, joined Jul 2005, 4124 posts, RR: 25 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 10038 times:
Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter): ''The A350 today is not the plane we ordered,'' Kerr said
yesterday, referring to delays and redesigns for the plane. ''We
need to know what the plane is going to cost and when it will be
ready.''
In other words, "we want some of that USD$650 million that Mr. Leahy was flashing about at the conference the other day" to keep existing A350 customers in the fold.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7808 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9867 times:
I think this article is the jumping off point for a split order of 32x's (with a lot of 321s) and 787s. This is the graceful exit from the 350 program US Airways wants, and it's leverage for good prices on 32x's. Also, good faith negotiation with Boeing for 737s will give them favor on buying 787s because when Boeing inevitably loses the 737 replacement race, they will be quick to say "at least grab some 787s."
NYC777 From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4301 posts, RR: 46 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9866 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 3): I think this article is the jumping off point for a split order of 32x's (with a lot of 321s) and 787s. This is the graceful exit from the 350 program US Airways wants, and it's leverage for good prices on 32x's. Also, good faith negotiation with Boeing for 737s will give them favor on buying 787s because when Boeing inevitably loses the 737 replacement race, they will be quick to say "at least grab some 787s."
If Boeing wins the 787 vs A350 race but losses the 737 vs A320 race at Us I think they will happily live with that.
Lumberton From United States, joined Jul 2005, 4124 posts, RR: 25 Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9781 times:
Boeing and the Delta creditors committee didn't play ball with Doug during his takeover attempt. Why should he "reward" Boeing with any kind of order? Airbus has been a good partner for U.S. Airways--even opening up the checkbook in times of need, i.e., US' exiting of Chapter 11. I see this as Airbus all the way.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7808 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9653 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6): Boeing and the Delta creditors committee didn't play ball with Doug during his takeover attempt. Why should he "reward" Boeing with any kind of order?
Because good business has a short memory. It's a "what have you done (to) me lately" world. Especially when there are only two options.
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8936 posts, RR: 51 Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9602 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter): Interesting that they are not happy with the A350 situation.
Where in the article does Kerr say he is not happy?
I think they'd be very happy to get A350XWBs for the same price as the old A350.
Manni From Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4220 posts, RR: 25 Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9551 times:
This topic comes back every ones in a while (what's the status of the US A350 order?). It would be good if they decide and announce what they're going to do with that order, even if it was to stop the topic being redone over and over again.
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6): Airbus has been a good partner for U.S. Airways--even opening up the checkbook in times of need, i.e., US' exiting of Chapter 11. I see this as Airbus all the way.
ATCGOD From United States, joined Aug 2006, 617 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9530 times:
Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter): 'The A350 today is not the plane we ordered,'' Kerr said
yesterday, referring to delays and redesigns for the plane. ''We
need to know what the plane is going to cost and when it will be
ready.''
I don't take that statement as Kerr saying they are unhappy. I take it that he is dis-satisfied with Airbus' lack of any specifications. He's basically saying we're ready to make a decision for the future and we need the specs, like real soon. I also see this as Airbus all the way unless they decide to completely alienate US with lack of specifications.
BDL2DCA From United States, joined Jan 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9155 times:
Quoting Rpaillard (Reply 2): Correct me if I'm wrong, but the price should not be a concern as Airbus seems to agree to give the last (so far) version at the same price.
Don't forget cost is not just about the capital cost of acquiring the aircraft, but the operational cost of running it. US could also be concerned about what the plane is going to cost operationally.
Lokey123 From Barbados, joined May 2006, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9106 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6): Airbus has been a good partner for U.S. Airways--even opening up the checkbook in times of need, i.e., US' exiting of Chapter 11. I see this as Airbus all the way.
That was a quid pro quo scenario with the bankruptcy financing. US has stated clearly that they have repayed that debt and are free to walk away from the 350 if they so desire. This is now simply a case of business, who offers me the better deal in the time frame that I want it. If Airbus can't deliver, why should US stand by the order simply because Airbus loaned them money in exchange for the purchase?
Airbus3801 From United States, joined Apr 2004, 1078 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9049 times:
Boeing is very unlikely to receive this order IMO. Airbus has been there for US when they needed it, not Boeing and looking at their fleet, Airbus has a much larger majority than the Boeing A/C that are aging and being phases out. The old HP was always going to eventually get to an all Airbus fleet, and I think the idea was the same for the original US as well so therefore a new large Boeing order is very unlikely. But we will have to see
Time passes, no matter how slowly and painfully it seems, it passes
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7808 posts, RR: 55 Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9019 times:
Quoting Airbus3801 (Reply 15): Airbus has been there for US when they needed it,
US needs planes now, and Airbus keeps pushing back the 350. I don't think you can say with respect to the 350 that Airbus has remotely been there when US needed it.
Again, this is business, not family and friends, or charity. If Boeing gives US a better deal, US will go Boeing. Besides that, it is much more advantageous to a company to have strong relationships with multiple suppliers, no matter what industry you are in.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 16084 posts, RR: 64 Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8980 times:
I agree the narrowbody order should go to Airbus just because HP and US were moving in that direction separately, anyway.
The original A350 was a natural successor to their A330 fleet and gave them range and capacity their A330s did not. However, it may be scaling too large for them in XWB specification and/or the delay in firming those specifications may push them to the 787, which would better cover their current 767 and A330 fleets in terms of capacity while offering better performance and efficiency (especially vis-a-vis the 767).
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8974 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 1): Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter):
''The A350 today is not the plane we ordered,'' Kerr said
yesterday, referring to delays and redesigns for the plane. ''We
need to know what the plane is going to cost and when it will be
ready.''
In other words, "we want some of that USD$650 million that Mr. Leahy was flashing about at the conference the other day" to keep existing A350 customers in the fold.
Any airline that had firm orders before the XWB launch should be entitled to the old contract prices, but what makes this one interesting is where the $200m loan from Airbus comes into the equation.
NYC777 From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4301 posts, RR: 46 Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8841 times:
Quoting EI321 (Reply 20): Thats what Im wondering, what were the conditions of the loan.
I don't think there were any except paying back the loan. I think the A350 contract is separate purchase contract that was part of the deal but not tied the loan (i.e. we're giving you $250mm and you must buy the A350 whether the loan is paid back or not).
Even then the delayed EIS of the A350 gives US an out of the A350 if they decide that it is not the plane for them.
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7808 posts, RR: 55 Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8798 times:
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 22): Even then the delayed EIS of the A350 gives US an out of the A350 if they decide that it is not the plane for them.
In fact, if the 350XWB is too much plane for US, Airbus would prefer them not getting them. Otherwise, Airbus would be competing with US for plane sales. If US got the 350XWB at 350-"US" price, they would simply turn around and sell them, and could probably undercut Airbus's price. That's not good for Airbus. Airbus will likely prevent this by offering a suh-weeeet deal on 32x's in return for not taking the 350s.
DAYflyer From United States, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 8 Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8761 times:
Quoting Airbus3801 (Reply 15): The old HP was always going to eventually get to an all Airbus fleet, and I think the idea was the same for the original US as well so therefore a new large Boeing order is very unlikely.
This is also my thinking. US was headed for an all Airbus fleet long before the merger. I think they will go for the smallest of the A-350's for widebody and more A-320/321.
Timboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 685 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8763 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 23): If US got the 350XWB at 350-"US" price, they would simply turn around and sell them, and could probably undercut Airbus's price
That's exactly what I thought US might do. Personally, I hope US get the A350, if only to break the monotony of 787s which will abound at US Airports in a few years time!!
26 NYC777: The problem for Airbus is then Boeing has a virtual lock on the 787 sized aircraft market amongst all the US majors, let's face it even though they h
27 ERJ170: The 350 is too much plane for US... they don't need what the 350 is offering.. The 787 has the range and the capacity that suits very well with US. Re
28 NYC777: Additional comments from CFO Kerr: US Airways must make a decision on the 787 soon or risk losing slots in Boeing's production line. ''We have deliver
29 ATCGOD: Check and mate, IMO. That pretty much says they're going for the 787 if this is true. This may very well become a sleeper "all Boeing" order. We'll s
30 NYC777: Agreed, at this point I don't think Airbus has finalized the specs for the A350 and htey said themselves they don't expect to have them finalized unt
31 Atmx2000: That may not be enough to overcome potentially higher operating costs. I expect the A350XWB will be a heavier platform due to increased width and the
32 NYC777: It was added later on. Bloomberg does that...they resend teh same article amended with new information.
33 Flysherwood: That has got to be one of the funnier posts that I have read on A.net! Time will tell, but I believe that you are right on this one. The number of 78
34 Columba: I agree with that. I really hope that they will keep the A350 order. With all the other likely 787 customers in North America (AA, DL, UA as well as
35 EvilForce: This is an all Airbus order. US may get some interim lift capacity via some short term lease 330's.
37 Vega: Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): The original A350 was a natural successor to their A330 fleet and gave them range and capacity their A330s did not. However
38 787engineer: Maybe you should double check your numbers . The original A350XWB-800 had about 20 seats more than the 787-8, the XWB has 30-40 more seats. According
39 JAL: What's for them to think about? Everyone knows they are going for Airbus.
40 Vega: Based on the specifications at each manufacturers (Boeing and Airbus) site, the MAXIMUM seating capacity of the 787-8 is 250 and of the 350-XWB 270 -
41 D L X: Clearly that is not true. "Everyone knows US doesn't want 350XWB's."
42 Atmx2000: Philadelphia, Charlotte, and Phoenix aren't the biggest of international O&D markets. Why use the maximum number when the A358XWB number is a typical
43 MCOflyer: It's where they have international service from. I don't see them opening a new hub overnight. MCOflyer
44 RafflesKing: I'd guess substantially more O&D international traffic than the NW hubs given major businesses based in these cities, yet the latter manages with A33
45 Atmx2000: I know. I'm saying their current hubs won't support a whole lot of large planes. CLT is more of a domestic hub. NW has a hub in NRT that easily suppo
46 Mah584jr: I don't think airbus even knows what the A350 will look like. Boeing seems a lot more solid on its 787. We will more than likely see Airbus narrowbodi
47 ERAUgrad02: im hoping/wishing the order ng 737s to replace the 100 classics and -900ER to replace domestic 757 flying. plzzzzz US.
48 EvilForce: USAirways A333 seat 293 passengers. Saying the A358 is too big? Not really. As I said before this is Airbus' order to lose. Obviously, US is still int
49 FXramper: Too little too late. 30 April will surprise Mr. Leahy and EADS.
50 Dutchjet: This will be interesting. And I think that we will be surprised by this order.......this is the NEW US Airways that is not necessairly committed to an
51 Clipper136: The B737-900ER was developed because the 737-900 did not match well against the A321, in capacity (because of door configuration) nor range. The 737-
52 Dank: doesn't say much more than the fact that they were hedging their bets to me. cheers.
53 PM: If it's an order for the A320 family, will they have CFM (as US of old) or IAE (as America West of old)? I assume it could go either way.
54 Wjcandee: Uh...baggage? Biggest bane of A321 operators beyond a certain stage length. It's why Air Jamaica is gonna replace the 321s with 757s. Also, performan
55 HPRamper: All new deliveries will be CFM powered.
56 Dutchjet: So many people are going to be so surprised in the coming months.
57 JAL: But doesn't Airbus have a stake at US Airways?
58 Atmx2000: And without a large home market, those hubs won't be as competitive against other hubs.
59 Steeler83: But why would they consider a new type of aircraft when US already has a handful of A321s in its fleet? Then again, US really doesn't owe Airbus anyt
60 Lumberton: Rueters' spin on this makes it sound rather ominous for Airbus. I stand by my previous posts: Airbus all the way here! Petty though it may sound, Boei
61 EI321: The size of the A350 is what may be the big issue with airlines that operate 767 fleets. US has 762s and they are considerably smaller than the A358X
62 Scbriml: But isn't the 787 also considerably larger than a 762?
63 Stitch: Yes it is, by roughly 30% in terms of raw (not necessarily usable) cabin floor area.
64 Scbriml: Pretty much what I thought. It is interesting to see how some use Airbus's quoted capacity when it works in their favour, but accuse Airbus of overst
65 HPRamper: Philadelphia is the fourth largest market in the country. I consider that a large home market.
66 Clipper136: I agree that the 757 is a better performer than the 321, but that is not what we were comparing. The 739ER is NOT the performer that the 757 is. You
67 Dank: One would actually assume that the 332s on order are to replace the 762s. Therefore, the 350s (or 787s should they bail) would replace the 333s first
68 Lumberton: Why is that? According to Boeing's web site the 737-900ER is lighter than the A321, has more range, and carries at least as many pax. Am I reading it
69 Clipper136: Try going to both manufacturers web site and then compare the information for their OWN respective aircraft. Its call marketing.... using stats to yo
71 Steeler83: Well, I didn't say that the 739 would do better: I pretty much said that US does not have to select all Airbus aircraft even though they already have
72 Dutchjet: While the stats sited are very interesting.......who gets the US order will depend largely upon price, delivery dates, and other terms: US is looking
73 Steeler83: Quite interesting. Regarding what I have seen in the beginning of the thread up to now, it looks like US is getting a little fed up with Airbus, espe
74 Dutchjet: A couple of things to think about: 1. The merged US/HP is far more open to Boeing than the old US.....as I mentioned, back in the America West days,
75 D L X: I'll go one step further. Those delivery positions likely did not come for free!
76 Steeler83: I admit I know very little about HP and HP management. I never even heard of HP until just before US and HP announced a merger with each other, but t
77 ATCGOD: Well, apparantly they don't seeing as how several high-ranking airline officials have been quoted as saying they want to know what the specs are and
78 Vega: I expect a lot of information could come out of the J.P Morgan conference on March 21st. Look for it.
79 JAAlbert: Don't forget the US Airways of the old Airbus loan days is no more -- the airline is actually now America West and its headquarters is in good ole Pho
80 Mah584jr: I'm not disagreeing with you but at this point Airbus doesn't have the best idea of what its plane will look like, what it will cost, or a known time
81 Columba: But only the loan made the merger possible......I think Airbus and US are in intensiv talks right now about the A350. Airbus can not afford to loose
82 Atmx2000: Not for international traffic apparently. It ranks 14th based on my tabulation of DOT data for the first 8 months of last year. As I mentioned before
83 Jacobin777: ..and Airlines have been known to make multi-billion dollar errors also.... also.... we see carriers complaining about the first 5 versions of the A3
84 DTWAGENT: Why could'nt they just buy more A330's??? They are flying them now, and seem to be happy with them. Plus it would allow more overseas cities to be add
85 Molykote: In short form, the A330 is not likely to be economically competitive with either the A350 or 787. Although the acquisition of A330s for interim use u
87 Steeler83: Man, on a side note, I am shocked that PIT even made the list... Ok, now back to the topic... Are they still in talks with AC for A340s, or has that
88 Vega: What does international O&D have to do with an airport's capacity to accept the 350XWB?? If PHL gates can accept 23 747-400s, they surely can accept
89 Glareskin: There have been numerous discussions about LGA as an international airport. Claims are there is no customs clearance. How come they still have this a
90 Atmx2000: I don't know if PIT is actually 34, as I didn't make an exhaustive list of airports. It could be lower It's almost all to Canada, except for irregula
91 EVA777SEA: SEA does not have a large dependency on connecting traffic for it's intl flights, especially nothing compared with CLT.
92 Dutchjet: International flights that arrive at LGA pre-clear US customs and immigration at the departure airport.....the international flights fly from limited
93 Steeler83: Which would make PIT look even worse than it already does. I hope this does not become the norm. I keep saying over and over. If traffic will not pic
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4301 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8936 posts, 
From Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4220 posts, 
From Barbados, joined May 2006, 137 posts, 
From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 685 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
