Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Delay Making A340s Hard To Come By For US  
User currently offlinePHXtoDCAtoMSP From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 299 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 15166 times:

Article from Flightglobal.com

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-for-a340s-exacerbated-by-787.html
Fair Use

Quote:

US Airways is continuing to source Airbus A340 aircraft for its planned Philadelphia-Beijing service, but says it has been "unable to locate airplanes that suit our needs", as Boeing 787 customers snatch up available capacity to offset that program’s delay, and Asian and Middle Eastern carriers seek to renew their fleets.

The 787 delay "definitely made the problem worse", said senior VP, schedule planning and alliances Andrew Nocella today during US Airways’ annual media day event in Tempe, Arizona.



Quote:
Although US Airways has rights to convert some A330s to A340s, the carrier no longer has "the time to alter" the A330 order for A340s deliveries to support the March 2009 launch of Beijing, reveals Nocella.


The A330 model, he says, would not be an ideal aircraft to launch Beijing.

Asked by ATI if US Airways might pick up some of Air Canada A340s, Nocella says: "Air Canada A340s go on and off the market. Sometimes when they come on the market, it’s very hard to close."

He says US Airways still wants to go forward with the Beijing launch, but notes that it is "a logistical challenge".

Hmmm....Interesting that US wants to blame Boeing for their trouble in aquiring Airbus planes. What to say about the last statement? I don't see how US can not start Beijing when they are supposed to and be able to keep the frequencies form the DOT...so it will be interesting to see how they will work to start Beijing ontime with a suitable aircraft. Can a small subfleet of B763ERs make it PHL-PEK?

Also from the article

Quote:
Growth from Phoenix to Europe and Asia is "being considered but unlikely prior to 2010", says Nocella, adding that the new A330s and A350s will "unlock that door".

From US Airways’ Charlotte hub, an existing destination served from Philly is being studied, as well as service to Latin America.

I would love to see PHX-Asia flights!

82 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32567 posts, RR: 72
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 15161 times:

More excuses as the reality begins to set in about how stupid an idea this route is.


a.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 15100 times:

I really haven't heard of too many airlines trading A340s anyway. The 787 delay may have a part in this, but there are other factors too, like airlines who bought A340s still want to fly them because they are not that old.

Maybe US should look for 2 used 744s instead, and damp lease them with pilots? Would US unions allow that as a temporary solution?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12276 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 14882 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
I really haven't heard of too many airlines trading A340s anyway.

 checkmark 

Despite being much maligned here, there are no spare A340s sitting around looking for customers.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8367 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 14733 times:

Sure there are A340s available. Plenty. All it takes is money. US does not want to pay what they cost.

New-build A340s are also available. US had every opportunity (and more) to purchase some. They declined.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 1):
More excuses

Was he being serious about using an A332 PHL-PEK... that's a hell of a long way.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14537 times:



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 3):
Despite being much maligned here, there are no spare A340s sitting around looking for customers.

Well, for the right price (meaning, enough money so the airline can get 77Ws if they already fly 777s) they can be had, but the real thing about the A340 is it won't earn NEW customers or mass follow on orders with better options available and to come. It doesn't mean airlines will just dump them en masse. Well, AC will, but most won't.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32567 posts, RR: 72
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14523 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
Sure there are A340s available. Plenty. All it takes is money. US does not want to pay what they cost.

New-build A340s are also available. US had every opportunity (and more) to purchase some. They declined.

 checkmark 

Essentially what US is saying is, "we won't pay the market rate."

Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
Was he being serious about using an A332 PHL-PEK... that's a hell of a long way.

I think an A332 can do it, but not without some penalties that will make this route an even bigger money loser than it already will be with A340s.



a.
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14523 times:

This Nocella guy is right: the A330 is not the right a/c for PHL - PEK. It's 5977 n.m. over Russia and China. The Airbus website claims 6750 n.m. with max pax, but says nothing about load in the hold at that range -- I'm assuming very little. The 340-300 is listed as 7400 n.m. As well, would the routing violate ETOPS rules ?


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 14396 times:



Quoting PHXtoDCAtoMSP (Thread starter):
Hmmm....Interesting that US wants to blame Boeing for their trouble in aquiring Airbus planes

Hmmm! no, what is more interesting is your statement. Where does the article claim US is BLAMING Boeing for the inability to aquire A340's? It mentions the 787 delay as a reason for having an effect, and such is pretty obvious to anyone so why are you implying something that's actually not there.....are you trying to start an A v's B debacle for absolutely no reason?


User currently offlineJlbmedia From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 14357 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why wouldn't USAirways have known that time was running out to convert the A332 order, they must have seen that the prospects of getting used A340s were dwindling? I think they are trying to back out of the route, while still saving face.
They already tried to back out of the route by blaming PHL, but they stood up to them. Now they are trying to explain it away by siting Boeing's delay of the 787 for their inability to "preform." what excuse will they find next?

Edit: to exchange the pharse including "blame" to explain.

[Edited 2008-02-28 18:00:17]


JLB54061
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 14343 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jlbmedia (Reply 9):
Now they are trying to blame Boeing for their inability to "preform."

I don't understand how they are "blaming" Boeing?

They are stating a fact, giving an explanation of what is happening.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineBAKJet From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 14276 times:



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 3):
Despite being much maligned here, there are no spare A340s sitting around looking for customers.

What about this one-
http://www.airbearaviation.com/aircraft-sales/airbus/94a340.htm
or this one (even though its in VIP)
http://www.airbearaviation.com/aircraft-sales/airbus/v8ac3.htm
or this one
http://www.aircraftbargains.com/ad/ad1528.asp
or this one
http://www.planemart.com/FAA/Listing...asp?userid=-67580&listid=-81960500
or this one
http://www.speednews.com/EquipmentRe...h=Aircraft&Aircraft=A340&Type=-500
And these are just what I found after 2 searches on the web.

A few of the listings might be repeats, but there are some A340s for sale.



Don't Breed or Buy While Shelter Pets Die
User currently offlineJlbmedia From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 14174 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Mariner (Reply 10):


Quoting Jlbmedia (Reply 9):
Now they are trying to blame Boeing for their inability to "preform."

I don't understand how they are "blaming" Boeing?

They are stating a fact, giving an explanation of what is happening.

mariner

Mariner. I stand corrected. I also edited my post to correct it. Thanks John.



JLB54061
User currently offlinePHXtoDCAtoMSP From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 299 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 14108 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 8):
Where does the article claim US is BLAMING Boeing for the inability to aquire A340's?

It was said more tongue-in-cheek....not that they were BLAMING....but that their excuse had to do with a completely different manufacturer. It was ironic. A great way to pass the blame that they have not found the aircraft yet. Not looking to start an A vs. B war....but it does look like you are really reaching here to start one.....you are the one that took it there.

[Edited 2008-02-28 18:38:08]

User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5085 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 14069 times:

It's simple economics. The presumption is that A340s will hit the used market en masse as quickly as they can be replaced with 787s, and thus that they should be available in quantity (and thus at a reduced purchase price or lease rate) when or near-when US needed them. Same for 767s. Buying a new-build A340 which is guaranteed to decline rapidly in value makes no sense.

If you're buying an asset that you expect to appreciate over time, buy it new. More power to you. Indeed, this is why there are/were periods in which nearly-new used Ferrari's actually cost MORE than new-build Ferraris: the "used" one with 100 miles on it is available TODAY, whereas the one you order today ain't coming for a year or more. (This may not be the case during post-bubble periods when the Biotech-then-HighTech-then-Internet-then-HedgeFund folks are trying to unload the Car That They Can No Longer Afford, but I digress...)

If you need the use of an asset that you expect to depreciate soon and rapidly, you sure as heck don't want a new-build one if nearly-new at a lower price is available, which is the case when you expect a glut of those assets on the used market in the near future. You probably want to lease it from somebody who will give you a break in the price for the first couple of years because you're going to be leasing it into back-end years when the market is expected not to want them. That's how a lot of folks got good long-term lease rates on 757s at one point. Those lessors are now saying, "Ooops." The flip side of this is airlines like Delta that leased new-build MD11s only to park them when times changed and they were withdrawn from service but on which Delta still paid, every month, the high lease charge that was based upon a typical capitalized cost of the asset, and the lessor wouldn't agree to cancel the lease because the income stream from Delta was way higher than it could get on a re-lease, and a sale at a way-lower-than-originally-planned price similarly makes no sense.


User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 14054 times:



Quoting PHXtoDCAtoMSP (Thread starter):
US Airways is continuing to source Airbus A340 aircraft for its planned Philadelphia-Beijing service, but says it has been "unable to locate airplanes that suit our needs", as Boeing 787 customers snatch up available capacity to offset that program's delay

I would knock on Boeing's door for compensation...
 cool 



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineAndrej From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 896 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 14022 times:

BAKJet,

thanks for the list, I did not realized that 4 planes were available for sale.

Quoting BAKJet (Reply 11):
or this one (even though its in VIP)
http://www.airbearaviation.com/aircraft-sales/airbus/v8ac3.htm
or this one
http://www.aircraftbargains.com/ad/a...8.asp

these two are repeats, same plane. Nothing wrong with that.  Smile

Quoting BAKJet (Reply 11):
What about this one-
http://www.airbearaviation.com/aircr...0.htm

It is one of the early A340-300 produced and its listed range as 6700NM so I am not sure if that would be helpful. As Connies4ever states Airbus claims that A332 has 6750NM range. That leaves 1 -300 and 1 - 500 series for US, and the -8000 series as the plane can be retrofitted.

Nevertheless I agree that US missed its multiple opportunities to get necessary airplane (A340) for the intended route. Its nones fault but US'!

Cheers,
Andrej


User currently offlineYYZ4RADD From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 13960 times:

Those a340-500s for sale are being offered for around 600 million ..for all four. The people selling it on these boards (speednews, etc) are not the actual seller, they are brokers, each broker adds his own two cents into the price. I offered it for sale, there are still no takers for it. I know the actual owner quite well, but these are being offered on a one for all sale (either you take all or none). Its not as simple selling an entire fleet of airplanes which are niche aircraft. The airline that owns them has already bought 787 and wants to dump them before they get theirs delivered, other than that, nothing wrong with the aircraft.

User currently offlineBAKJet From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 13779 times:



Quoting Andrej (Reply 16):
BAKJet,

thanks for the list, I did not realized that 4 planes were available for sale.

Are you being sarcastic? I know 4 is not lot but, its still 4.

Quoting YYZ4RADD (Reply 17):
Those a340-500s for sale are being offered for around 600 million ..for all four. The people selling it on these boards (speednews, etc) are not the actual seller, they are brokers, each broker adds his own two cents into the price. I offered it for sale, there are still no takers for it. I know the actual owner quite well, but these are being offered on a one for all sale (either you take all or none). Its not as simple selling an entire fleet of airplanes which are niche aircraft. The airline that owns them has already bought 787 and wants to dump them before they get theirs delivered, other than that, nothing wrong with the aircraft.

Wouldn't they need at least two, so how about they take all four.



Don't Breed or Buy While Shelter Pets Die
User currently offlineAndrej From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 896 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 13533 times:



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 18):
Are you being sarcastic? I know 4 is not lot but, its still 4.

 headache  Not at all! I was under impression that 340-8000 and some of former Air Canada's A345 were not with new operator. I did not know that 2 -300 were also available.

Cheers,
Andrej  wave 


User currently offlineVega From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12827 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 6):
I think an A332 can do it, but not without some penalties that will make this route an even bigger money loser than it already will be with A340s.

As I've said before, which you choose to ignore to support your incessant bashing agenda, US is PLANNING for a loss on this route over the first 3 to 5 years of operation and is seeking the route as an entry into China commerce - just like every other airline. Name at least one (with supporting evidence) U.S. airline, including UA at IAD, which has so far made a 6 month or more stable profit on a China route (excluding HKG).


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5085 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12635 times:

Picking up on a previous poster's query: would it be out of the question for US Airways pilots to give a limited-time scope waiver to get this thing going with a wet-lease? Could, say, a World MD-11ER make it nonstop? Or do the various penalties (weight, fuel consumption per ASM) make an idea like that completely economically unfeasible?

User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2323 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12544 times:



Quoting Vega (Reply 20):
Name at least one (with supporting evidence) U.S. airline, including UA at IAD, which has so far made a 6 month or more stable profit on a China route (excluding HKG).

I'd really hope that some of the routes from SFO and LAX are profitable, especially with cargo coming back to the US.

Quoting YYZ4RADD (Reply 17):
Those a340-500s for sale are being offered for around 600 million ..for all four.

A345s at $150mil a piece? That sounds like a price at which you could get new frames from Airbus directly. Used...if they got $100M/frame they'd be lucky.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12527 times:



Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 14):
The presumption is that A340s will hit the used market en masse as quickly as they can be replaced with 787s

If US was presuming that, they were not paying attention to who ordered them and were taking them for delivery first.

NH, CO, NW, JL, QF, etc. don't have any A340s to replace in the first place. I'm trying to think of those scheduled to take the 787s before US's deadline of 2009, and I can't think of any customer that was going to retire A342/3s in order to take 787s. The delays don't impact this.

So, if US was counting on that, their planning was worse than it seems.

Now, who flies 4 A345s and is getting 787s, which is where the 4 A345s for sale come from. Thai and Etihad each have 4 A345s, neither have officially ordered 787s, but they may be contracted through lessors...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAndrej From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 896 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11782 times:

one more question, can US use their A332 via ANC? Or does this route has to be non-stop? It seems that US really wants to back out from the route. There are ways to go around the problem with existing equipment and not point fingers somewhere else!

Cheers,
Andrej


25 MAH4546 : Bashing agenda? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm bashing. I'm expressing my opinion that this will be a huge money losing route f
26 Post contains images Scbriml : But of those, AFAIK, only the ex-Brunei A340-8000 (which I can't ever see an airline taking given the model and cost to convert) is "sitting around",
27 PM : I'm guessing that VS will. AC are disposing of A340s and receiving 777s and 787s so you could argue that they are too. Some of LAN's 787s could repla
28 CHRISBA777ER : TG cannot use their A346s on their LAX or JFK routes as they dont have the range, but EY could use their A346s to JFK and SYD, which are the main A34
29 Scbriml : I'd always considered that AC was using the 777 to replace A340s, and 787s to replace 767s and A330s. VS is interesting because they only have 6 A343
30 CHRISBA777ER : I dont see any reason why they wouldnt keep the A346s on - there's nothing wrong with them. Many of them are brand new. Getting rid of the A343s I ca
31 DashTrash : No way US pilots are going to give the company anything right now. The troubles over there between management and pilots has been pretty well publici
32 Mariner : It it wasn't for the "Tempe management", it's likely there wouldn't be a US Airways. I'd call that fairly proactive. mariner
33 AirNZ : I can see where you're coming from yes, and thanks for the claification. As a point, I am catagorically not "....reaching here to start one....." (I
34 RJ111 : Nor do i, they still have 2 to be delivered.
35 CHRISBA777ER : Indeed! It is this "them and us" unionised attitude that causes so many problems for airlines. US is their employer - I've always felt that employees
36 Scbriml : Interestingly, both GF and RJ have ordered the -8.
37 Alessandro : So has any A340ies yet been scrapped due to old age or more valuable as spareparts?
38 Airbazar : Unlike some people here I think US knows what they're doing. They're simply taking a calculated risk and it just so happens that due to current market
39 CHRISBA777ER : I believe one has yes - parted out last year - a A340-311.
40 XT6Wagon : This just in A400 delays are making it difficult for WN to find 737-700's on the used market. Seriously, as far as I've read virtually all the 787s on
41 Bobnwa : If the A332 isn't suitable, why would a 767-300 be used when it has even less range? He said the A332 was NOT suitable. When has US ever said that?
42 Revelation : Yes, it seems the memory of the "east" folks is amazingly short. IMHO, the "Tempe management" overestimated how grateful the "east" folks would be to
43 MCOflyer : Well lets see how many: The two AC 345 that went to TAM The AC 340-300(X) that are going to several operators The Cathay early build A346 that went t
44 CX747 : US is not "blaming" Boeing for their current situation. What they are saying is that due to the delays within the 787 program, certain widebody capaci
45 Airbazar : Correct me if I'm wrong but this "big penalty" would be a refueling stop in ANC on the westbound leg only, right?
46 EMB170 : What about the old CX A346s that they [CX] will stop leasing for JFK-HKG now that they have the 77W to do it?
47 EMB170 : Not to bash US here (I have dear friends who work for the company) but they do seem to be full of excuses, amongst other things. First they squabble
48 MSYtristar : Of course they could. Like others have said, they don't want to spend the $$$ to do so. It's pretty obvious. I think this is an underlying issue here
49 EA772LR : Yah but US has PW on their 333 while LH has Trents. LH does have prior experience tho with PW powered 330's...remember those 332 they had for a littl
50 Cubsrule : It'll be interesting to see what happens if they get CLT-BOG, which is perhaps an equally silly route (O&D is some 2 passengers/day). It'll be tough
51 CHRISBA777ER : Do you mind me asking why?
52 Jlbmedia : I have a close relative who worked for USAirways at PHL for close to 20 years. After "sucking down" many sizable pay cuts, (or "tough pills") he and
53 OldAeroGuy : At this price, there better be a lot of spares included or something other than 600M USD as the currency.
54 A330323X : You might want to check your facts before you talk. The US pilots don't have to give the company anything. The US ALPA contract already provides for
55 Post contains images Ikramerica : Never. Why do you only quote 1/2 of what I write and ignore that it was in response to someone else making the nonsensical claim? If you paid attenti
56 EA772LR : Sure. This is from 13 March 2007: From today's Bangkokpost: THAI could unload four new Airbus jets Thai Airways International's commerce department h
57 Coa747 : This is exactly why DOT shouldn't have wasted China route authorities on US Airways. I would think that before you applied for route authority and dec
58 Ikramerica : Me too. I could also see TG being contracted with a leasing company to take 787s but just not announcing it until they find homes for the A345s. But
59 Post contains images EA772LR : I hope not It makes perfect sense. TG already operates 77A/77E/773. Maybe they could replace the 345/6 with 77L/W Anyway back on topic, if those UFO
60 Aerosol : Have I missed something?
61 Post contains images Ikramerica : I believe it's a translation error. What is meant is that a route of this length can now be served with the 77L where in the past the A345 was the on
62 EA772LR : Yah I thought the same thing when I read it...Obviously this is what TG had planned but never came to fruition because they never ordered the 77L???
63 Glareskin : The 77L is more economical, no question about that. But if SQ don't think it is worth replacing the A345 why would TG come to another conclusion? SQ
64 StoutAirLines : Essentially what US is saying is, "we won't pay the market rate."[/quote] Alas, that is the approach taken for everything US does... It's over here in
65 Post contains images Ikramerica : Because they are different companies? Because SQ has a shorter depreciation period and has had the planes longer? Because SQ says a lot of stuff to s
66 Post contains images Ikramerica : Oh, and maybe because they talked to AC for a second opinion?
67 Post contains images Glareskin : Yeah, LH is a stupid company. That is probably why they don't make profit. How long are the 345's in TG 's fleet?
68 MCOflyer : I can only say if US can come up with a 332, they must be doing something wrong or they refuse to spend money on a route they wanted so badly. If you
69 Ikramerica : The last one arrived about this time last year.
70 RJ111 : TG has the A346 too, and they have 777 with rollers, so there is even less incentive than SQ. However i wouldn't be suprised if they simply dropped t
71 MAH4546 : The route is going to lose money for a long time as is. Put an A330, and the losses might not be bearable.
72 MCOflyer : Explain please. I do not understand. Kinghunter
73 DashTrash : Sorry pal.... The "us and them" attitude at the current US Airways was sparked by Tempe. Everyone I know at the company had good attitudes about thin
74 Bobnwa : Did the ramp employees at PHL have a good attitude when the merger happened? As far back as I can remember the US Airways employees in PHL have a cus
75 DashTrash : I'll give you that one...
76 Cruiser : Except that we currently have a $100 barrel of oil, and AC already has 11 x 777's in service flying their ultra long haul flights and have allowed th
77 MCOflyer : When is US going to stop making excuses. Do not get me wrong, I am a die hard US fan, but this one makes me furious. Kinghunter
78 Flighty : Dash, what specifically are you mad about? US has fixed a lot of problems. Not all but a lot. I think it was dumb that US will not offer glassware in
79 DashTrash : In a nutshell, the overall treatment of its employees and customers. Add to it their ability to step over a dollar to pick up a dime.
80 MCOflyer : I could not agree more. I think I will take my business to CO or DL where they do care. I love the company but the decisions they are making towards
81 ConcordeBoy : Keep in mind to that those range quotes are for the highest MTOW with the highest thrust ratings... neither of which PW-powered A330s can offer. Why
82 Bobnwa : Come on ConcordeBoy, hardly comparable..
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...
US Willing To Raise Bid For DL To $10.8B posted Mon Jan 29 2007 04:51:42 by BigGSFO
Air Wisconsin To Begin Ops For US Airways posted Sat Jul 2 2005 17:03:23 by Checkraiser
The Worst Yet To Come For Regionals posted Tue Oct 17 2006 05:00:37 by TinPusher007
Countdown To RES Migration for US and HP posted Sun Mar 4 2007 00:58:55 by Gift4tbone
Countdown To RES Migration for US and HP posted Sun Mar 4 2007 00:58:55 by Gift4tbone
The Worst Yet To Come For Regionals posted Tue Oct 17 2006 05:00:37 by TinPusher007
Republic To Fly E170s For US, Buys Assets posted Sat Jun 25 2005 07:47:58 by PPVRA
A Big Airbus Order To Come By The End Of The Year? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 19:01:07 by RootsAir
A Big Airbus Order To Come By The End Of The Year? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 19:01:07 by RootsAir
US Airways To Charge $25 For 2nd Checked Bag posted Tue Feb 26 2008 12:49:59 by RW170
Air Wisconsin To Begin Ops For US Airways posted Sat Jul 2 2005 17:03:23 by Checkraiser
Air Wisconsin To Begin Ops For US Airways posted Sat Jul 2 2005 17:03:23 by Checkraiser
Air India To Seek 787 Delay Compensation posted Fri Jan 4 2008 15:31:09 by EI321
Republic To Fly E170s For US, Buys Assets posted Sat Jun 25 2005 07:47:58 by PPVRA
Republic To Fly E170s For US, Buys Assets posted Sat Jun 25 2005 07:47:58 by PPVRA
US Airways To Charge $25 For 2nd Checked Bag posted Tue Feb 26 2008 12:49:59 by RW170
US Airways To Charge $25 For 2nd Checked Bag posted Tue Feb 26 2008 12:49:59 by RW170
How Hard Will It Be For Airbus To Reconfigure A380 posted Thu Oct 18 2007 06:20:51 by B777A340Fan
Air India To Seek 787 Delay Compensation posted Fri Jan 4 2008 15:31:09 by EI321
How Hard Will It Be For Airbus To Reconfigure A380 posted Thu Oct 18 2007 06:20:51 by B777A340Fan
NWA Unfazed By 787 Delay posted Sat Oct 13 2007 16:05:24 by DL767captain
Air India To Seek 787 Delay Compensation posted Fri Jan 4 2008 15:31:09 by EI321
NWA Unfazed By 787 Delay posted Sat Oct 13 2007 16:05:24 by DL767captain
US Willing To Raise Bid For DL To $10.8B posted Mon Jan 29 2007 04:51:42 by BigGSFO
US Willing To Raise Bid For DL To $10.8B posted Mon Jan 29 2007 04:51:42 by BigGSFO
How Hard Will It Be For Airbus To Reconfigure A380 posted Thu Oct 18 2007 06:20:51 by B777A340Fan
The Worst Yet To Come For Regionals posted Tue Oct 17 2006 05:00:37 by TinPusher007
The Worst Yet To Come For Regionals posted Tue Oct 17 2006 05:00:37 by TinPusher007
NWA Unfazed By 787 Delay posted Sat Oct 13 2007 16:05:24 by DL767captain
US Willing To Raise Bid For DL To $10.8B posted Mon Jan 29 2007 04:51:42 by BigGSFO
The Worst Yet To Come For Regionals posted Tue Oct 17 2006 05:00:37 by TinPusher007