Fleabyte From Brazil, joined Jan 2010, 76 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 14249 times:
Hi everyone,
This is my first post, so savage me because I have a thick skin.
I was taxiing at MIA looking out the window at some new TAP and TAM A330's and as I looked at those aircraft a thought came into my mind. I have read all the posts on what a great economic aircraft this has turned out to be, and it is a nice looking aircraft.
But then all these posts with rationalizations that it (A330) is an equivalent aircraft to the 787 in terms of economics. This got me thinking, after seeing the first liftoff of ZA01, that beautiful bird flexing it's wings...
All these airlines are like those that were buying 727's in 1982, 1 year before the 757 came out. So in 1982 United or whoever felt like they were buying shiny new aircraft, but within a few years, those birds were considered old technology. So basically, no one was buying 727's in 85, and my prediction is few will be buying A330 in 2013.
The 787 is a fundamental shift forward in technology, Boeing took the risk, bet their own money, and they are two years late, but good for them. Windows 50% larger than the little ones on the A330, cabin humidity, aircraft part count, maintenance, no bleed air, shading system, modular galley, common engine mounts, carbon fiber construction, lower cabin altitude, etc, etc.
Next point is I would think that the resale value of a 727 plummeted within 2-3 years of the 757 introduction. I predict the same will happen for the A330. However, because of the large sales of these aircraft in 2007-2009, and deliveries stretching into 2015, the supply-demand situation will lower the resale value of these birds.
Therefore I conclude that airlines making A330 selection for delivery and usage beyond 2015 are in GENERAL, making a poor business decision. (I understand specific justifications to buy (2) extra 727, I mean A330, to "top up the fleet" or "meet demand opportunity" with "Common systems")
Reggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1169 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 14237 times:
The Airbus A330 and the Boeing 787 have two very different missions. As such, you should expect to see the A330 picking up orders well into the middle of the decade.
Expect to see beautiful scenes like this continuing through the 2020's:
PanAm788 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 274 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 14144 times:
I think buying a 767 in 2009 would be a better comparison. A330s (especially -300s) serve different roles than the 787s and aren't really too comparable. An A332, maybe, but in my opinion, the 763ER is a much closer overlap in terms of route assignment.
Fleabyte From Brazil, joined Jan 2010, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14111 times:
OK, I have heard that many times in posts, that the 787-8 not really an optimal replacement for the A330-200, and like there is no replacement for the A300-600, so the A330-200 can be a A300 type niche player - nice since the A300 production is now finished. And with 1,000 frames ordered, I will be riding those A330 into the 2020's.
But given a choice, all other things equal, I will go with the airline with the 787.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10676 posts, RR: 100 Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14042 times:
Quoting Fleabyte (Thread starter): But then all these posts with rationalizations that it (A330) is an equivalent aircraft to the 787 in terms of economics. This got me thinking, after seeing the first liftoff of ZA01, that beautiful bird flexing it's wings...
The A333 has a CASM that matches the 77W. With the increased weight, the only 787 that will beat the A333 in CASM will be late build 789's. Even then, the margin will not be much. This will not be like the 727 where the new aircraft were opperating with far lower costs. Instead, we see long missions that will go to the 787, but for many other missions the A330, in particular the A333, will have a cost advantage.
The A332 will fade with time once the 789 is optimized. But the 788 is not a direct competitor and we're talking circa 2015+ delivery times.
Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 2): I think buying a 767 in 2009 would be a better comparison.
I 100% agree. The 7 across seating was great in the days, but the A330 forced Boeing to react with the 787.
Quoting Fleabyte (Reply 3): But given a choice, all other things equal, I will go with the airline with the 787.
Fair enough. But most premium passengers book on schedule and frequency first. Aircraft preference has only been seen for the 747 and A380 where the type flown influences yeild. (Note: I'm talking early 747 and obviously early A380 service. Once they are common, the premium goes away.)
I look forward to when Astuteman replies to this thread.
Cerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 647 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13946 times:
Quoting Fleabyte (Reply 3): But given a choice, all other things equal, I will go with the airline with the 787
Sure, but the assumption of "all other things being equal" may not hold. There are still uncertainties in the EIS date of 787-8, which only took to the sky less than a month ago. 787-9 may not be ready until 2014, any future delay notwithstanding. And we haven't started to talk about the some 800 orders the 787 programs received yet. So for an airline to place a new 787 order now, it may have to wait for quite some time. A330 on the other hand, is much more readily available. So for airlines that need the planes now, A330 is an excellent choice.
It is also possible that in the future Airbus may cut the price of A330 to make it even more competitive.
Fleabyte From Brazil, joined Jan 2010, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13800 times:
Hi Cerecl,
Yes that is good point about backlog, doubt on new technology and availability of the A330, but those arguments would have been made about the 727-200 against the new fangled 757 back in 82. But those last purchased 727 were sent to the desert with plenty of miles left on them maybe.
Lightsaber - as with many of your posts I have read, you put black and white facts out that are hard to argue with but always interesting. I was ignorant that the overpowered 757 was so much more economical than the 727
Reggaebird, about different missions: Right now I fly routes like Rio-Miami on A330, why would not that be a great route for a 787-8 or 9 or 10 in future hopefully. Or routes like West Coast USA to Western Europe. Theoretically, the 787 should deliver passengers feeling better with higher humidity and lower cabin altitude. I do not know about you, but I am feeling pretty pasty gettting off those all night flights, whether seated in Business or First. If I am in economy, then I am dazed and confused.
Lightsaber explains that passengers look at time, price frequent flyer... But what if airlines are starting to differentiate themselves enough to attract demand with product, ie aircraft, 1st and biz class seating, turning over the flight crews every 8 years...
I am just saying that in hindsight, maybe all the A330 purchases will look less smart in 2013 than they do in 2009.
Cerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 647 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13687 times:
Quoting Fleabyte (Reply 6): But those last purchased 727 were sent to the desert with plenty of miles left on them maybe.
IMHO this is unlikely to happen to A330s any time soon because:
1. Some leading airlines (SQ, VS, MH, etc.) are still receiving or about to receive new-build A330s.
2. Good potential for P2F conversion and re-sale as many airlines are currently flying less efficient/capable aircrafts.
3. A330 can hold its own against the 787 in some mission profile, plus all the infrastructure/crew considerations.
A330 is the "safe" choice at the moment, and will remain so until more is known about the 787 and confidence can be built up on its production. It is not coincidental that it was the best-selling widebody in 2009 by a long shot.
Quoting Fleabyte (Reply 6): But those last purchased 727 were sent to the desert with plenty of miles left on them maybe.
The last passenger 727 was delivered to US Air in April 1983. Although it was only operated by US for about 4 years, it operated for several other carriers for another 20+ years. It's last operator was charter carrier Champion Air which shut down in May 2008. Photo of that aircraft with its first and last operator below.
The last 15 727s built were freighters for FedEx, the very last one delivered September 1984. I assume it's still with FedEx today. Last A.net photo dated 2008.
Thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2610 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13539 times:
Quoting Fleabyte (Reply 6): Lightsaber - as with many of your posts I have read, you put black and white facts out that are hard to argue with but always interesting. I was ignorant that the overpowered 757 was so much more economical than the 727
There's a few big picture reasons why one might expect this:
1) The 727 had a flight engineer, which was dispensed with in the 757
2) The 727 had an extra engine, meaning more maintenance
3) The 727 had a centre engine, which isn't maintenance friendly
4) The 727 had low bypass engines vs high bypass in the 757
5) The 727 had a complex high lift wing, wouldn't have been required on the 757
Bohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2409 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13429 times:
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 5): A330 on the other hand, is much more readily available. So for airlines that need the planes now, A330 is an excellent choice.
Hawaiian Airlines is the perfect example. They ordered the A330 while waiting for deliveries of the A350's they ordered. AFAIK, they have taken delivery of at least two A330's recently.
To be fair, they hedged, and bet a lot of other people's money too.......
Quoting Fleabyte (Thread starter): Windows 50% larger than the little ones on the A330, cabin humidity, aircraft part count, maintenance, no bleed air, shading system, modular galley, common engine mounts, carbon fiber construction, lower cabin altitude, etc, etc.
Yes. These are all great developments.
I'm curious to see just how much the cabin pressure and humidity actually make a difference in real life, especially as we're regularly told during discussions about the A380's merits, or otherwise, that outside of A-net, passengers don't even know what plane they're flying on.
Quoting Fleabyte (Thread starter): Therefore I conclude that airlines making A330 selection for delivery and usage beyond 2015 are in GENERAL, making a poor business decision
I disagree. Primarily because airlines, in my opinion, make a purchasing decision based on the net present value of that purchase. With the wait for 787's being SO long, it may well be that the NPV of acquiring and operating an A330 which is obtainable in 2 years time beats the NPV of commiting to an aircraft that is not obtainable for 7 years.
An airline can make a LOT of money with an A330 in 5 years.
Might even be enough to have paid for the aircraft, if they're lucky.
I also (carefully) suggest that, whilst undoubtedly a technological tour-de-force that pushes many boundaries, a lot of the advancements don't have as big an impact at overall aircraft level as is sometimes painted here on A-net.
That's as much a comment on the "painting" as on the size of the leap...
It's curious just how like the A330 the 787-8 is in physical size..
There must be something right about the A330..
Quoting Fleabyte (Reply 6): Lightsaber - as with many of your posts I have read, you put black and white facts out that are hard to argue with but always interesting
That's 'cos he's nearly always right..
Quoting Fleabyte (Reply 6): But what if airlines are starting to differentiate themselves enough to attract demand with product, ie aircraft, 1st and biz class seating
Seating configurations aren't necessarily aircraft specific.
I'm confident that 9-abreast in a 787 won't feel like anything particularly special
Quoting Fleabyte (Reply 6): I am just saying that in hindsight, maybe all the A330 purchases will look less smart in 2013 than they do in 2009.
As a check for understanding, this comment was also made back in 2004....
Brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2969 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13325 times:
Quoting Fleabyte (Reply 3): But given a choice, all other things equal, I will go with the airline with the 787.
I dunno. The wing-body join issues make me skittish.
If I were to consciously choose 787, it would not be due to aesthetic or economic issues, it would be due to lower cabin altitude, higher humidity and more fresh air.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10676 posts, RR: 100 Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13228 times:
Quoting Fleabyte (Reply 6): Lightsaber - as with many of your posts I have read, you put black and white facts out that are hard to argue with but always interesting.
Thank you for the kind words. But don't hesitate to debate me. I actually come to a.net to learn!
Oh no! This is going to be like work where I feel like "EF Hutton" where I can mutter something and then wonder why a half million bucks was spent over something that didn't matter (but I didn't like the design...). No... I don't get to authorize those expenditures... So I sequestered myself with the chief scientist to figure out what really matters in our design.
Quoting Brons2 (Reply 13): If I were to consciously choose 787, it would not be due to aesthetic or economic issues, it would be due to lower cabin altitude, higher humidity and more fresh air.
There are reasons I can understand to pick the 787. But I think most of it will be driven by economics and there the A330 does well.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 12): An airline can make a LOT of money with an A330 in 5 years.
Might even be enough to have paid for the aircraft, if they're lucky.
I'm becoming more and more a fan of the A333. With the upcoming improvements, it should be able to make money in the niche it fills for many years. I'm quite impressed with how much the range has been improved. Oh, there are many missions left open to the 789 that the A333 will never fill.
To others. I like to consider an aircraft's economic range. For the A333, I consider that 4,000nm ("Still air miles," leaving plenty of trade for winds, etc.). Plug in your favorite hub and note the routes the A333 can serve:
For example, CDG to most of the US population, mid-east, etc. http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=&...STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=
This isn't like the MD-11 vs. the 77E where the MD-11 just didn't have the economics of the 77E. Nor did the A330 ever leave "a bad taste" by not delivering on promise. It was built as a DC-10-30 replacement and has grown from there. I do think the 789 will squeeze the A330 from the market. But it will be a graceful exit and the 787 just isn't the plane (yet) to kick it out of the market until 789 slots are available.
Thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2610 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13177 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 14): I'm becoming more and more a fan of the A333. With the upcoming improvements, it should be able to make money in the niche it fills for many years. I'm quite impressed with how much the range has been improved. Oh, there are many missions left open to the 789 that the A333 will never fill.
I agree. But it seems that the airlines disagree with us, much prefering the A332 variant in spite of higher CASM and similar trip costs.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9137 posts, RR: 96 Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13035 times:
Quoting Thegeek (Reply 15): I agree. But it seems that the airlines disagree with us, much prefering the A332 variant in spite of higher CASM and similar trip costs.
That said, A330-300 sales have kicked up a lot in the last couple of years, somewhat against the trend towards the A332 in the first half of the last decade..
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12674 times:
An airline opting for an A333 now is a safe choice. If the range is enough, like all Europe - East Coast routes, there is no other relatively small aircraft that is as efficient, the 77W is about the same and only 748 and A380 are more efficient, but much bigger. The 789 will have difficulties to match the A333 in this role. If you need larger range, no doubt...
And it remains to be seen if the 787, compared to the A332, will be able to produce better profits given its lower pay load.
So the decision for the A330 vs. 787 may be the safer option - you risk less and maybe profit less. Ordering 787s still is more of a gamble than A330s.
If you have A330 slots really far down the decade, it is also obvious that neither the type is
fixed by now, nor can we expect it to be not improved, nor should the replacement of the second digit "3" by a "5" be too difficult and cost more than a few phone calls and a few million.
Lutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 697 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12485 times:
The other nice thing about the A333 range (c. 4000 miles, 8-9 hours) is that also co-incides with the time that you DON'T need full-flat separate crew rest. To have a 12 hour aircraft (A340-300, B787-800/900, you lose a few seats and add weight if you want to make use of that range, making them less competitive on the sub 4000 mile routes. Unless you remove the crew rest, in which case the aircraft can't use the range it has got...
The Airbus strategy (of having different designs for long haul & medium haul) that was forced on them by launching before the 777 size engines were available didn't work out for the long haul (A340) but did for the medium (A330)
MEA330 From Lebanon, joined Aug 2002, 268 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12208 times:
Many factors come into play that are not applicable to 727/757 comparision:
Technology: A330 and A320 have similar in technology, and the A330 might be even more advanced in some systems as it was built a few years later. Everybody predicts the "technologically advanced' A320 will remain in production well into the next decade, and so will the A330.
Operating Cost: The 787 will have an economical advantage over the A330.The A330 will remain in production due to military and freighter order so Airbus will be able to offer it for lower prices to offset any economical advantage that the 787 might offer.
Delivery slots: The first 787 is planned for delivery end 2011, so the other airliners that ordered 800 B787 will have to wait a lot to get an aircraft. even with the opening of the North Carolina assembly line Boeing will not be bale to catch up to its original delivery schedule. Some airlines will have to order A330's in order to fulfill their planned expansions/fleet replacement. Those airlines will most probably be existing A330 customers.
A'man is correct, otherwise we could start a when La was wrong, but that seems destined for zero content. Best start making deliberate mistakes so we can pick them up - or not!!
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 14): I'm becoming more and more a fan of the A333. With the upcoming improvements, it should be able to make money in the niche it fills for many years. I'm quite impressed with how much the range has been improved.
Yes, it is curious, both the airlines and a.netters seemed to pick up on the effects of improvements more for the 332, but maybe the 333 is going to be the bigger long term winner.
And I still wonder if airlines are not going to draw a much thicker line between medium and loooong range equipment. Now if Airbus could thin the walls on the 33x to allow 9 abreast.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9137 posts, RR: 96 Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10313 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 20): Now if Airbus could thin the walls on the 33x to allow 9 abreast.
Point of order - allow better (or more competitive) 9-abreast - there are plenty of 9-abreast A330's flying around..
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10188 times:
Quoting Lutfi (Reply 18): The other nice thing about the A333 range (c. 4000 miles, 8-9 hours) is that also co-incides with the time that you DON'T need full-flat separate crew rest.
And you can operate such round-trips in 24 hours with just one aircraft. The A333 indeed shines in that role.
Hodja From Singapore, joined Apr 2004, 91 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9336 times:
Quoting Fleabyte (Reply 6): Theoretically, the 787 should deliver passengers feeling better with higher humidity and lower cabin altitude. I do not know about you, but I am feeling pretty pasty gettting off those all night flights, whether seated in Business or First. If I am in economy, then I am dazed and confused.
I'm looking forward to the higher humidity + lower cabin altitude thing as well.
However, realistically I predict that any flight experience that may wear you out in a 330/777/... will be just as grueling in a 787.
You'll still be sitting immobile in a seat for 12 hrs (cruise speed is the same), cramped into a sardine can with 250 other people (capacity is the same), eating airline food (catering is the same) and enduring airport security + associated stress. (airports are the same)
SolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 395 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9229 times:
Quoting MEA330 (Reply 19): Delivery slots: The first 787 is planned for delivery end 2011, so the other airliners that ordered 800 B787 will have to wait a lot to get an aircraft. even with the opening of the North Carolina assembly line Boeing will not be bale to catch up to its original delivery schedule. Some airlines will have to order A330's in order to fulfill their planned expansions/fleet replacement. Those airlines will most probably be existing A330 customers.
I think this is a key for a lot of airlines. You can get a A330 tomorrow but if you want a 787 its 5 years away. Plus, based on past experience, the best case delivery schedule that Boeing puts forward is probably not realistic. Recall that the A380 has not reached max production capacity as quickly as planned and the 787 will likely be the same way even with two production lines (SC). The other issue is that if you are an Airbus shop there is some commonality with other frames in your fleet. I also doubt the 787 will be beat A330 economics as soundly as the 757 beat the 727. Even if it does, if you can get a discount up front, it will offset operational savings down the road. It will be 5 years at least before the 787-9 is available and performing up to specs. Then orders will slow to a trickle for A330. By then the A350 will be selling too.
25 Baroque: Point of order accepted. A number of these excellent methods of making moolah have been ordered by John Clarke's airline. This is the well-known: "Sh
27 Fleabyte: ok, what can I say, Airbus has hit a home run with the A330 program, and the 727 analogy does not fit well. But you all have not convinced me that the
28 Joost: Two very different missions? The 747 and the ATR-42 have very different missions. The 787 and A330 (especially the -200s) are very much the same, and
29 Lightsaber: Excellent point. But as Astuteman notes: As much as I am excited about the A332, it competes in the market that I believe the 787 will shut down new
30 SEPilot: The fact is that airlines have to meet present needs, and nobody knows for sure when they can get their hands on a 787, or whether it will actually me
31 Phxpaul: Is this even a valid comparison since the 787 is still unproven? 2 years in delays because of unforeseen problems. There will be more problems as well
32 Alwaysontherun: I don´t think people are denying that the 787 will have greater appeal, after all it´s the most modern airliner out there for the time being. But a
33 Joost: Eventually it will undoubtly be a fine plane. A bit later, heavier and more expensive than planned, but well, that's not really unexpected. And the d
34 Mariner: 2017? Gosh, that's fair. It's a much better run than many thought. I took a trip through the archives - 2004/2005 - to remind myself that many were s
35 SEPilot: It might have if it had appeared on the original schedule. The delays have given the A330 a considerable life extension; as it will be MUCH longer th
36 Lightsaber: Hey, I'm an enthusiast! Nothing wrong with rooting on both planes in a competition. But by 2017, the inevetible improvements to the 787 will make it
37 Mariner: I always try to be fair. I may not always succeed, but I do try. I'm one of the few who thought that Airbus should have stayed with the original A350
38 Lightsaber: You and Astuteman both. I liked the original A350 too. But I admit to a CFRP bias. That woudl be an interesting discussion as to which engine the ori
39 Viscount724: What airlines operate 9-abreast A330s? I don't think there are enough to qualify as "plenty". It's mainly a handful of charter/leisure carriers, and
40 Mariner: I think that's a key to it. I think the major use of CFRP in the 787 was a big component of the "drug like rush." It was always surprising to me that
41 SEPilot: The still unresolved question is whether the "drug like rush of the 787" will in fact be justified. The promise of lower maintenance costs and other
42 Lightsaber: The point with the A330X is that it would have been a quick stopgap until what we now call the A350 was ready. The delay to EIS would have been only
43 Mariner: But would they? If the original A350 was "a clearly inferior product" then the A330 is an even more inferior product. Yet it is still selling rather
44 Flaps: Having read all of the above with interest, I can only wonder what the 333 could have been if Airbus had been able to offer its current capabilities m
45 Cerecl: I think most of the posters were pointing out the merit of A330, and how 727/757 analogy is not applicable to it and 787. There is no denial that 787
47 Av757: Avianca has 5 A332's now, will receive 2 more in 2011 as an interim fleet for the replacement of the B762's and B763's until the B788's arrive. The le
48 Thegeek: Ok, but it's just the A332 reducing it's lead rather than the A333 overtaking in 2008 & 2009 at least. 23 net A332 orders 18 net A333 orders 4 A33F o
49 Baroque: Other things being equal (which they never are and almost certainly will not be in this case) it does look more difficult for GE to get the improveme
50 WesternA318: There werent that many still ordering 727 by 1982. Because the 727 line ended in 1984. Hence why you'll NEVER see me get on one of these deathtraps.
51 Burkhard: I am very sure that at EIS the wing-body join issues will be solved and the 788 will have no know issues. If this is really end of 2010 remains to be
52 Fleabyte: Hi AV757 I always wondered why Avianca kept about 17 mad dogs - lightsaber said above there is some minimal fleet justification point here, are there
53 AV757: Avianca has almost finished phasing out the MD83's, only three will be in service by june of this year and will be totally gone by mid next year. They
54 Alwaysontherun: Both, if you care to read the original thread. Are you serious? So for future reference when you book a long itinerary (let´s say with 3 connecting
55 Astuteman: Have you any idea how many A330's have been ordered since the A380 delays were announced? 104 in 2006 198 in 2007 140 in 2008 45 in 2009, when it was
56 Viscount724: Only 12 727s were ordered after the end of 1981 -- 11 in 1982 and just 1 in 1983 (January) -- and 3 of those were for government/VIP use. The only ai
57 EPA001: Quoting Astuteman (Reply 55): Leahy may indeed be a great salesman Yes, he is. And it would be foolish too since this airplane (after the A320) bri
Sponsor Message: 
From Brazil, joined Jan 2010, 76 posts, 
From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1169 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 274 posts, 
I 100% agree. The 7 across seating was great in the days, but the A330 forced Boeing to react with the 787.
From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 647 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21481 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2005, 811 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9137 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, 
From China, joined Sep 2000, 697 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Aug 2002, 268 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Apr 2004, 91 posts, 
From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 395 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
