Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Recession - Last Straw For Some Types.  
User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9143 times:

I was just thinking what effect the World Recession will have on those airliners that either didn't make it very big or are getting near the end of their production run.

Most of the airliners I am thinking of will end up out of production sooner than they would have due to the recession causing airlines to reduce orders and in some cases deffer or even cancel orders. When the economy picks up again for the first year or two airlines will take up capacity from the pool of excess capacity that is starting to build up, after that they will be looking for new aircraft, this may not be a few years yet.

For example, the A340-300 is pretty well already out of production, the A345 and A346 have backlogs of 7 and 16 respectively so as a type A340 production is reaching the end, by the time the economy picks up the A350 will be in production, maybe a handful more will be ordered by existing operators.

The A318 has only 1 airline customer, BA and that is for 2 plus 14 more for Private/Executive use. The E-Jet has practically killed off airline orders and things will only get worse as the C-Series comes into service, perhaps a few more orders for executive use. Similarly the 736 has died a death for the same reasons. Both were ill conceived, especially the A318.

The 767 has done well to stay in production mainly due to the 787 fiasco but will also not see much more in production, a few more orders that could have come to take up slack due to the 787 delays will not be happening.

Some close calls are still out there, I think the 748 will certainly stay due to bouyant cargo carrier orders but the passenger variant...... The C-Series may not make the light of day, a great plane but due to the recession maybe at the wrong time.

The 777 is certainly going to stay, a great aircraft, the old -200 and -300s are out of production but the latest models proove this aircraft is a classic and I'm sure will be here for a good few years yet to challenge the early A350s at least.

The small 50-70 seater jets suffered from the high fuel costs only be hit again when fuel costs dropped by the recession. Goodbye E-135/145?

In 5 years time it will be interesting to see what is still in production, 2014 isn't that long away.

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDTWTOLBase From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9066 times:



Quoting KennyK (Thread starter):
The C-Series may not make the light of day, a great plane but due to the recession maybe at the wrong time.

The 50 plane order from LH should be enough to get it started and I think we may see DL order some to fill the gap between the E175 and the A319/737 as they phase out the MD-88s and the DC-9s. There is still a need for a 100-140 passenger aircraft and the CS100 and CS300 are currently the best aircraft to fill that gap.


User currently offlineCXA330300 From South Africa, joined May 2004, 1561 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9058 times:

I can't exactly see certain types being used for much longer-I expect this recession will bring a great reduction in the number of flying MD80s.


The sky is the limit as long as you can stay there
User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8919 times:



Quoting KennyK (Thread starter):
I was just thinking what effect the World Recession will have on those airliners that either didn't make it very big or are getting near the end of their production run.

Yes, this happens every recession for scheduled carriers. Charter carriers with their lower utilization do not seem as affected. In the west we saw:

1973-74 saw the end of the Convair 880 and 990
1979-1982 saw the end of the 707, DC-8 shorty and DC-8-60s at AC for PAX
1990-91 The DC-8 stretch at DL and UA and within a few years the 727-100
2001-2002 a lot, the 727-200, 737-200 L1011 and DC-10
2009 will probably see the end not of the MD-80, but a reduction but probably the end of the A310, DC-9 etc. There are too many MD-80s to park them all right now. A lot of CRJs might get parked too and the end of the 767-200 non ER should be coming.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13078 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8873 times:

Like after 9/11, the current decline in demand will see a shift by many airlines to retire those with the least fuel efficency, mx hogs, decreasing dispatch rates, odd types in their fleets and a/c due for costly major checks. Already AA is phasing out the A300's they have faster than originally planned for such reasons, and older MD-80's will be retired as well.

As to new a/c of older model lines, indeed they could be phased out to reduce overhead costs, shifting customers to more efficient models, with currently marginal or below profitable levels. The A340 series would most likely be a victim in the next few years as would be others mentioned in the 1st post.

Many of the older used a/c as retired won't have new homes as the number of start up airlnes decline and the few that being done or expanding are doing so with new or relativly newer and more effieient models. That may affect some airlines plans as to when they may retire some a/c they have.


User currently onlineAirxliban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4511 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8832 times:



Quoting KennyK (Thread starter):
For example, the A340-300 is pretty well already out of production,

the A345 and A346 have backlogs of 7 and 16 respectively so as a type A340 production is

reaching the end, by the time the economy picks up the A350 will be in production, maybe a

handful more will be ordered by existing operators.

The A340-300 doesn't have it own production line - it is part of the A330/A340 production

line. A330 orders extend well into the next several years so I doubt we'll

Quoting KennyK (Thread starter):
The A318 has only 1 airline customer, BA and that is for 2 plus 14

more for Private/Executive use.

There are several others...Mexicana, Air France and TAROM come to mind. I bet there are

others as well. It isn't just BA.

Quoting KennyK (Thread starter):
The 767 has done well to stay in production mainly due to the 787

fiasco but will also not see much more in production, a few more orders that could have

come to take up slack due to the 787 delays will not be happening

767 staying open has more to do with the tanker deal than the 787 fiasco I'd say. Look

for the 767 line to close if the tanker deal doesn't happen.

Quoting KennyK (Thread starter):
Similarly the 736 has died a death for the same reasons. Both were

ill conceived, especially the A318.

They've made 69 737-600s and 66 A318s not including the recent BA order. So I don't know

how fair of a statement that is.



PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13012 posts, RR: 100
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8669 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 3):
2001-2002 a lot, the 727-200, 737-200 L1011 and DC-10

Nice summary. Sadly, I think this recession will be even more brutal on marginal types.

For example, I think we'll see the majority of A300's go to freight duty.

While the 757 will persist in passenger duty, I see much downsizing ahead in the markets that can be served by 738's, A319's, etc.

The airframe I see taking the hardest hit is the 747. In particular, any older models in daily passenger service (743's and any remnant 742's. Heck, some airlines removed 742F's from their fleet, partially due to the maintenance costs.)

What I do not know is the fate of the 744's. The 77W's and A380's economics dictate that some be removed from passenger service (e.g., SQ, AF).

Quoting KennyK (Thread starter):
Goodbye E-135/145?

I see the E135's going to be retired (business jet conversions?). But the E145 has better economics than the CRJ-200. So while I expect RJ retirements, its going to fall harder on the Bombardier product. (Excluding the CR7/9/10).

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 3):
2009 will probably see the end not of the MD-80, but a reduction but probably the end of the A310, DC-9 etc. There are too many MD-80s to park them all right now.

The fate of the MD-80 practically rests with AA. If AA soldiers on with their fleet, it provides an economy of scale to keep them in service worldwide. But if AA downsizes or replaces the MD-80's... You'll see 'copy cat' retirements. Note: I expect them to still fly for a bit. But under lower utilization conditions where the fuel burn isn't such a penalty.

Lightsaber

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8503 times:



Quoting DTWTOLBase (Reply 1):
The 50 plane order from LH should be enough to get it started

Let's not forget about the last plane to be launched with little more than an order from LH. That plane is now the best selling jetliner of all time.

Airlines will try to move to more efficient types, but I think that this recession and the accompanying drop in fuel prices will give many older types a new lease on life. The lower fuel costs reduce the penalty for flying older planes. Plus, this is a bad time for airlines to be taking on payments on new planes even if they can get financing. Those that can and are willing to take the risks will emerge from the recession in the best shape, with new modern fleets and protection from the fuel cost increase. The others will probably once again be in an all out scramble to modernize their fleets.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAtlanta From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 473 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8132 times:



Quoting Airxliban (Reply 5):
for the 767 line to close if the tanker deal doesn't happen.

I thought the USAF tanker deal was done, is it not?

Atlanta



Welcome To The New Delta- The World's Largest Airline
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8088 times:



Quoting Atlanta (Reply 8):
I thought the USAF tanker deal was done, is it not?

It was years ago. Then McCain torpedoed it. Then they reopened the competition where Airbus forced the USAF to rewrite the rules in their favor and won. Boeing rightfully complained and Bush decided to call it all off and make it Obama's problem. Now Obama has decided that he would rather spend a trillion dollars on anything that isn't defense and not deal with it and that it is perfectly fine for the USAF to continue flying planes older than he is.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8488 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7446 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
It was years ago. Then McCain torpedoed it. Then they reopened the competition where Airbus forced the USAF to rewrite the rules in their favor and won. Boeing rightfully complained and Bush decided to call it all off

Gee thanks for the one-sided explanation of that..  Wink

Safe to say, there is another equally one-sided opinion that says that Airbus was robbed by a slanted Boeing - biased playing field, including crimes for which people from the USAF and Boeing have already gone to jail.

Boeing CFO sent to jail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_M._Sears

USAF procurement officer sent to jail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Then McCain torpedoed it.

Correct, McCain was the main reason why those people were brought to justice.


User currently offlineAtlanta From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 473 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7344 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
Gee thanks for the one-sided explanation of that..

I like both sides of the story, as I am a republican and did vote/support the McCain-Palin campaign.  Smile

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):

As I understand it, the tanker deal is off due to Obama's defense spending plan or lack there of-correct? If I am not mistaken the 767 originally won. However thanks to the Maverick  Smile Airbus got a fair shot and Boeing's CEO went to jail.

Thanks for the clarification.
Atlanta



Welcome To The New Delta- The World's Largest Airline
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25170 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7280 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Quoting Atlanta (Reply 8):
I thought the USAF tanker deal was done, is it not?

It was years ago. Then McCain torpedoed it. Then they reopened the competition where Airbus forced the USAF to rewrite the rules in their favor and won. Boeing rightfully complained and Bush decided to call it all off and make it Obama's problem. Now Obama has decided that he would rather spend a trillion dollars on anything that isn't defense and not deal with it and that it is perfectly fine for the USAF to continue flying planes older than he is.

A recent Aviation Week article said the USAF will have to start a major re-skinning program to keep the KC-135s flying if a new tanker isn't selected soon. That would apparently keep the KC-135s flying until 2040 when the oldest ones would be 80 years old.


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 45
Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6829 times:



Quoting Airxliban (Reply 5):
767 staying open has more to do with the tanker deal than the 787 fiasco I'd say. Look

for the 767 line to close if the tanker deal doesn't happen.

I agree with you. Not a moment too soon, if you ask me.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
It was years ago. Then McCain torpedoed it. Then they reopened the competition where Airbus forced the USAF to rewrite the rules in their favor and won. Boeing rightfully complained and Bush decided to call it all off and make it Obama's problem. Now Obama has decided that he would rather spend a trillion dollars on anything that isn't defense and not deal with it and that it is perfectly fine for the USAF to continue flying planes older than he is.

Oh there's an unbiased explanation.  Yeah sure Give me a break.

McCain was absolutely right to oppose the first deal which involved felonious activity and resulted in both a Boeing executive (Sears) and an officer of the US government (Druyun) going to jail. Yeah, clearly Boeing is the good guy here.  Yeah sure

In reality, after the first bad deal for 767's failed, new RFP's with new mission requirements went out. Airbus won, and the protectionists howled, none more so than Boeing and Patty Murray, who hates defense, unless it happens to be built in Washington, of course. Airbus at no time had the authority or power to "force" anyone to "rewrite the rules in their favor." Most people expected a Boeing win, and Boeing was fairly smug about it, right up until they lost.

I would have personally preferred them to award the contract and be done with it, but enough concern was raised by Boeing about irregularities in the award (at least nobody from Airbus went to jail) that the entire purchase was scuttled. Now the trendy position in Congress is to split the deal, which has numerous long-term economic consequences for the USAF, virtually all of them bad.

Like all defense programs I actually think they should award the contract to the best system at the best price they can negotiate and be done with it. In this case, and after years flying both Airbus FBW aircraft and the 767, I think the A-330 is a better choice. Perhaps next time around Boeing will present a product better than the A-330 and the contract should go to Boeing; the 767 is a tough sell here. Whatever the case Obama seems to want to put the program on the back burner. If he does so for more than a couple of years I expect that 767 production will end and that Boeing's next entry into the competition will be a more competitive product. Perhaps then the contract award will unequivocally go to Boeing with no sleight-of-hand required.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6334 times:



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 14):
Airbus at no time had the authority or power to "force" anyone to "rewrite the rules in their favor."

Airbus got the Air Force to consider size in the competition despite the fact that the USAF had no need for larger planes, just newer ones since they have fairly young KC-10s. Furthermore, Boeing offers AWACS, the E-10, and the KC-767 using the same basic airframe but the USAF has turned down all three in favor of letting the elderly 707s soldier on.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 14):
Perhaps next time around Boeing will present a product better than the A-330

There seems to be an excellent chance of that happening.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 14):
Whatever the case Obama seems to want to put the program on the back burner.

Along with everything else that flies, drives, or shoots. Also, no one should EVER listen to anything any representative or senator has to say about acquisitions or public projects. Their job is to represent the people of their area and nothing more. If screwing the Air Force is what it takes to get jobs in their state or district, so be it. They have zero loyalty to the Air Force or anyone else who doesn't punch their name in November.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePH-TVH From Netherlands, joined May 2001, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5316 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 12):

A recent Aviation Week article said the USAF will have to start a major re-skinning program to keep the KC-135s flying if a new tanker isn't selected soon. That would apparently keep the KC-135s flying until 2040 when the oldest ones would be 80 years old.

Don't you just love the idea of seeing the 707 flying waaaay into the 21th century?
I do...


User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5162 times:

Regarding A318 and airline customers, I should have made my point clearer, there are only 2 outstanding airline orders, both for BA. As for it being a success, the A318 total order book of 83 makes up only 1.3% of the 6311 A320 family orders so far recorded by Airbus, hardly a massive success.

I know the A340 shares the production line with the A330 and the production process is designed to produce either model as required, but, according to the latest Airbus figures there are 416 outstanding orders for the A332/3/2F, only 23 for the A345/6 and none for the A342/3. The A330 order book stands at 1012 and the A340 385. The A340 accounts for only 5.24% of the outstanding A330/340 order book, the days of seeing an A340 on the production line are getting few.

I agree that if the tanker gets the go-ahead in the next couple of years the 767 will almost certainly continue in production but I very much doubt you will many if any more orders from airlines for it.


User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3920 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5021 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
Let's not forget about the last plane to be launched with little more than an order from LH. That plane is now the best selling jetliner of all time.

Rhe 748i?  Wink

Quoting KennyK (Reply 16):
I know the A340 shares the production line with the A330 and the production process is designed to produce either model as required, but, according to the latest Airbus figures there are 416 outstanding orders for the A332/3/2F, only 23 for the A345/6 and none for the A342/3. The A330 order book stands at 1012 and the A340 385. The A340 accounts for only 5.24% of the outstanding A330/340 order book, the days of seeing an A340 on the production line are getting few.

Same could be said of the 762ER until CO ordered two dozen of them in the late 1990s. I think airbus will keep the capability to offer the 340, they have all the tools, jigs, etc.

Brian.



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4593 times:

The A340 was killed by the fuel prices. Even before the recession it was suffering. Now fuel prices are down, but the recession is here.

User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3364 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4520 times:



Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 17):


Quoting BMI727,reply=7:
Let's not forget about the last plane to be launched with little more than an order from LH. That plane is now the best selling jetliner of all time.

Rhe 748i?

No, I think he meant the Dornier 728.  Silly



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineTiktokJAKE From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2009, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4496 times:

I hate to say it but my fav plane the A346 IS DOOMED!

User currently offlineBAC111 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4469 times:

from WSJ, 3/12/09:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681193115901329.html

Excerpts:

Split Is Sought for Tanker Deal
Lawmakers Try to Divide $40 Billion Effort Between Boeing and Northrop

By AUGUST COLE
WASHINGTON -- House lawmakers are working to split a politically charged, $40 billion effort to replace the U.S. Air Force's fleet of flying gas stations between Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D., Hawaii), who chairs the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces, said Wednesday he will insist that the Pentagon replace its nearly 50-year-old jets by turning to both companies.

The effort to replace the Air Force tanker fleet was a political albatross throughout the Bush administration and risks becoming the same during the Obama administration. A team comprising Northrop and European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. won the contract in February 2008 to provide 179 new planes, which were based on an Airbus A330. Boeing offered a smaller 767 design, which lost, but the company successfully protested the defeat with the Government Accountability Office.

The Pentagon had planned to hold a new competition, but a move to split the work would likely remove the threat of another delay from future protests.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4373 times:



Quoting RJ111 (Reply 18):
The A340 was killed by the fuel prices. Even before the recession it was suffering. Now fuel prices are down, but the recession is here.

I think that the A340 is suffering from the same sort of fate that the MD-11 had. They had the bad fortune of being awkwardly timed, in this case arriving just before equally or more capable twins. If either of those planes had arrived in the mid 80s instead of the early/mid 90s, they would be forming the backbone of the world's fleet today. After the advent of the 777 and A330, there just wasn't much reason to buy either. Airbus briefly had something going with the A346/345 but the twins again caught up.

Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 19):

Real funny guys. You know what I meant.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13012 posts, RR: 100
Reply 23, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4327 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

More on planes being parked:
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-bo...r15,0,4518343.story?track=ntothtml

It looks like 737 classics and 747's are being hit hard.

Quoting BAC111 (Reply 21):
Split Is Sought for Tanker Deal
Lawmakers Try to Divide $40 Billion Effort Between Boeing and Northrop

Considering the economy, the extra $400M to $1B for a split doesn't seem like a bad option. I'm sure Mobile and Seattle could both use the job security.

But let's face it, the 767's should have started the retirement process in earnest for the 762ER's! While there are some 763ER's at a good point to retire, its not as critical. If you wonder why I'm not mentioning the already retired in numbers 762's... no need, the 757, 739ER, and A321 pretty much have taken over their role (with many exceptions, of course).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25170 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4047 times:



Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 17):
Same could be said of the 762ER until CO ordered two dozen of them in the late 1990s.

Only 10, not two dozen.


25 RJ111 : Well the A340-5/6 was always a going to be a compromise just to cover the spectrum of sizes. It was unlikely that they were going to beat any 777 off
26 Alessandro : Depends on the fuelprice, if they have hedgefunded or not? I suspect that DC-9/MD-80 are so common that they´ll soldier on in the third world for a l
27 Shankly : Except the A340, in all its guises, is a real enigma. Airlines that have ordered it, have tended to keep it, and lessors seem to pass them on quickly
28 Enginebird : Very well spoken, welcome to my respected users list. Let's not get into a good-old A340 vs. 777 war, but what you are saying here seems to be a gros
29 RJ111 : I don't think it's a gross overgeneralisation. A generalisation perhaps, but i'm not going to list every cost and every airline circumstance here, so
30 BMI727 : The A340 is good at what it does. Where it runs into trouble is with the fact that the A330 and 777 can do more. They are starting to age quickly now
31 Shankly : Great minds, Enginebird! If the world was a blank piece of paper I would tend to agree. But it isn't, it has curves in it and of course altitude!; th
32 BMI727 : Exactly, the A340 has found a nice niche. However, the 777 and A330 have bigger niches that at least partially overlap the A340's. The 744 is losing
33 Enginebird : Why would you want to triple the fuel factor? Total cost is what it is all about. If the economics of the A346 was as bad as you say, it would have d
34 BuyantUkhaa : Indeed, financing is more expensive now, while fuel prices have collapsed, at least for the time being. That makes new aircraft an unattractive, even
35 RJ111 : Do you not even read what you have quoted? Of course total costs is what is about. The increase in fuel prices changed those total costs (overall pic
36 SEPilot : And as long as they keep the A330 line open, it costs them nothing extra to produce the occasional A340. So I can't see Airbus refusing to sell it if
37 Shankly : An even cheaper shot. The "problem" as you've called it was actually a situation that neither Boeing, RR or the aircraft and engine certifiers could
38 Viscount724 : Unlike the A318, I believe Boeing has stopped offering the 736. The last order was almost 4 years ago.
39 Post contains links Rwessel : Hard to say. It seems to be current on their web site: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/ngback/back2.html "The Boeing Next-Generation 737 F
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...
Last A330 For QR Is Ready For Delievery posted Sun Apr 20 2008 12:07:22 by QatarA340
The Last Week For Skyway Airlines posted Sun Mar 30 2008 12:38:55 by JBo
The Last Day For Big Sky Airlines posted Sat Mar 8 2008 04:41:05 by SpencerII
Looking For Some Good 777 Video Clips posted Fri Feb 15 2008 08:58:15 by FighterPilot
Airlines Who Placed The Official Last Order For: posted Tue Feb 12 2008 06:58:54 by DIA
Santa Barbara,CA (SBA) Will Lose ILS For Some Time posted Wed Dec 5 2007 15:52:11 by Boston92
LGA ATC & Preferential Treatment For Some Flights? posted Sun Aug 19 2007 05:10:48 by SFOQQAA
SAT, The Last Hub For Operational, Non-mil 707's? posted Sat Apr 28 2007 05:50:52 by Jetjack74
AA To Charge $15 For Some Seat Changes posted Fri Apr 13 2007 19:11:23 by DeltaFFinDFW
United Goes For Some Disney Talent posted Thu Jan 4 2007 00:07:36 by UAORD2000