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.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 14058 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.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 13495 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.
Connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, RR: 13 Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 13481 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 ?
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?
Jlbmedia From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 604 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 13315 times:
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.
PHXtoDCAtoMSP From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 299 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 13066 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.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 13027 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.
Glareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1284 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 13012 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...
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
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'!
YYZ4RADD From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12918 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.
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.
Vega From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11785 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).
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 11593 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?
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 11485 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.
Andrej From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 812 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10740 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!
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 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