747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10458 times:
I know that we have a ton of large cities here in the States, which make it hard to fill a VLA, since there so many different airports to fly to. But, it make uneasy, to think of all these foreign airlines taxing there giant A380s and 747-8I, while US pilots are taxing these inferior twin jets, on the worlds tarmacs. Do you ever see DL, UA or AA flying VLAs, or will our pilot and F/A fly in shame?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5318 posts, RR: 47 Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10425 times:
I usually don't nit-pick grammar/spelling, but please proofread your post! It was kind of confusing. I don't see US airlines getting A380s or 747-8Is. IIRC correctly, DL was thinking about retiring their 747 fleet early (but decided against it.) 747s, even the newest ones, burn more fuel than 777-300s but only carry a few more passengers. A380s are just too big for the US airlines IMO
What a statement. I think our pilots and F/A's would rather fly in profitability, which is why for US carriers I doubt you'll see the 380 or 748i. The market here doesn't support them. So many on this board like airplanes because they are shiny new objects, but don't take into account factors like how they fit into the business plan or fleet plan. Those are emotional, and not rational, statements. Comments like the one above further that mentality.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9709 times:
Quoting jpax (Reply 6): Please, share with the group what makes our twins......inferior?
Well, thank for asking, twins are boring and not a plane to have pride in. With the exception of the 787 and A350XWB, twin are slower and in no way an icon of travel. Yes, twin are better at burning fuel, but let us tell the truth. Who here on A-net, really want to fly a twin across the Pacific?
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1): I usually don't nit-pick grammar/spelling, but please proofread your post! It was kind of confusing.
I did, but I made the post during my math class and I was rushing though it, when I proofread it.
PS: I am for big quads, and I am going to stay that way hopefully, until I die!
christao17 From Thailand, joined Apr 2005, 890 posts, RR: 9 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9475 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12): Who here on A-net, really want to fly a twin across the Pacific?
I love flying the 777-300ER across the Pacific. It is a fantastic plane from the perspective of crew members, customers, and the bottom-line business. No shame in flying it at all.
There is a "polls and preferences" forum on this website if you want to have a conversation based on likes/dislikes. If you want to have a serious discussion about your original question, then let's have that discussion based on facts. As others have said, the marketplace dynamics in the US plus the costs of flying quad jets versus twins make it unlikely that US airlines will purchase any after the current generation of 747s is retired.
jpax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1016 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9393 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12): Well, thank for asking, twins are boring and not a plane to have pride in. With the exception of the 787 and A350XWB, twin are slower and in no way an icon of travel. Yes, twin are better at burning fuel, but let us tell the truth. Who here on A-net, really want to fly a twin across the Pacific?
I fly an 'inferior' twin transport category aircraft. I have great pride in these planes. Slower? No. An icon of travel? You bet! The 777-200LR, many would say, is iconic for it's world-dominating flight. And boring? Heck, if we lose an engine, that's more exciting when you only have one remaining engine spinning and not three!
United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8792 posts, RR: 17 Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9360 times:
UA aims to be the top US airline and UA's 'top' isn't really top compare to SQ, CX, BA, QF etc which offer top top quality service, products, food etc. SQ, BA, QF have all come up with innovative products on their A380s. So if UA wants to compete with these airlines I think they should look at the A380/B747-8 and come up with something really top.
I believe UA will eventually go for the A380/B747-8 especially now they are a bigger airline. DL=maybe. Others=unlikely
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5318 posts, RR: 47 Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9324 times:
Quoting United Airline (Reply 16): I believe UA will eventually go for the A380/B747-8 especially now they are a bigger airline. DL=maybe. Others=unlikely
What does size have to do with anything? They're only slightly larger than DL. Was DL supposed to have bought A380s/747s when they merged with NW because they were the "bigger airline"?? I mean I don't see it as inconceivable that UA or DL will order 747s or A380s (even if I don't think they will) but your reasons don't make much sense. How is buying an A380 going to magically make UA the top US airline? They could do that with or without A380s. Look at the success WN has, and all they have are 737s. UA will buy VLAs if it makes business sense, not because it's "cool"
ordjoe From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 584 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8674 times:
The united states is one of the few countries with out an official or unofficial flag carriers, so the airlines do not care about prestige. They only care about money which a 748 or A380 probably would not accomplish this goal. Airlines made that mistake in the 60-70 when everyone had to have a 747.
trigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8114 times:
Until you find an airline which places image over profits in the US, you will probably not see a VLA (by your standards) in the US fleets. Airlines are run by these pesky things like CEO's, COO's, Boards of Directors, and stockholders. Without exception, everyone of those entities choose profits over image because an airline is a business. They decide what fleet to utilize based on what is most profitable for them, not what is glitzy or glamorous. It is true that airlines will emphasize the "glamour" of an aircraft and use it to their advantage, but I assure you that the aircraft was purchased/leased because it was the most profitable for their particular route or circumstance.
BTW, not to be a grammar cop, but the proper spelling is "their", not "there."
Also, I would consider a DL 744 that seats 393 people in 3 classes a VLA.
25 AA777223: Dude, are you kidding me, SP? I understand you like the look of certain aircraft, and you think that quads are more attractive, etc., etc. However, ch
26 YULWinterSkies: UA and DL kind of do, via LH and AF in their respective JV. When AF decides to send the A380 to SFO or IAD, DL has a word to say to this as they share
27 rdh3e: Yeah, thank god we no longer measure airplanes based purely on CASM. Then we'd be flying A380's on ORD-MKE. It's all about putting butts in seats. If
28 flipdewaf: CASM is just a nice guide number, like L/D or BPR. We do still measure aircraft purely on CASM but that is purely for a nice comparison between aircr
29 PlaneAdmirer: CASM's evil twin RASM also factors into the equation. Having to give away seats to fill an A380 or 747 or flying it half empty will make a flight unp
30 UPNYGuy: with this mindset I can see it now... B6 will purchase A380 to travel from BUF to JFK just because it is the latest and greatest. After all, they want
31 cmf: That kind of pride is misplaced. Take pride in using the right tool instead. Yet somehow I think we would see plenty of orders if Boeing went ahead w
32 RadicalDudeJOM: I think math class might be the wrong time to be posting something on here that will be read by thousands of people. Take your time and write your pos
33 flyglobal: I doubt that we will see more growth on larger twin jets, lets say a 749i with 2 very big engines. The reason is that they need a very specific engin
34 mayor: I believe this is one reason that got PanAm in trouble. This may be the most absurd thread I've ever read on here. Let me get this straight......the
35 747400sp: Of course this is an opinion, look, I am not pilot, and I do not run an airline. As an American, it sadden me, how my countries airlines will not hav
36 mayor: Yes, your opinion is your own as are the reasons that you want to fly a VLA. However, those reasons do NOT also apply as to why the U.S. legacies sho
37 LordMontenegro: The impression I always got, and please do correct me if I'm wrong here, is that the aviation market in America much prefers to cater to smaller plane
38 United Airline: UA has been doing very well with the B 747s for a long time. Also NW I believe
39 flymia: I will take a 777 over anything. Best aircraft in the sky IMO and the amount of orders for it being a long haul aircraft show this. Also arguably the
40 cargolex: Of course you do. But Airlines don't succeed if they don't fly the types that suit their needs or don't adapt to the times. Orders for new A380s and
41 spchamp1: OT, you may be an American but English has to be your second language. The above was your third post and grammatical errors are still present (despite
42 spchamp1: HaHaHa, I remember the America West 747. Flew on that one time from LAX to PHX.
43 AirlineCritic: This is a weird thread, but here goes: How is it working out for you? (I mean outside JetBlue and Southwest, who are regional airlines with obviously
44 BMIFlyer: If the various airlines in the USA didn't run "bus frequency" flights then maybe VLA's 'would' be a thing to use. Alas that will never happen in the c
45 SEA: So true. Companies like AN, CX, and EK are certainly inferior and shameful of their fleets of twin WBs.
46 AA777223: You are more than welcome to have an opinion, but if you are going to share it (especially if it is not based on any semblence of fact), you better m
47 777STL: I don't give a crap how many engines the aircraft I'm flying on has. I'm more interested in the product, and that has little to do with the aircraft
48 windy95: That is why they merged with CAL. Do not need an overgrown plane for that.
49 ASA: Absolutely ... 77W or 346 anyday over 747 or 388 ...
50 DeltaMD90: This is the second post with the same joke. Have you even looked at the recent earnings of the US airlines? Only AA didn't make money this quarter, a
51 jfk777: United could have A380 in 10 years, they have many ultra long haul routes where it would make sense they operate only once daily or even on some rout
52 SonomaFlyer: UA historically prefers frequency over size. The fact they have hubs spread across the U.S. and the Pacific also weighs against a VLA aircraft. I thi
53 SJC4Me: And here I always thought VLA meant Very Light Aircraft. When did Light become Large?
54 747400sp: Wow, I did mean to insult any pilots or F/A, I was just putting my feeling out there. A twin-engined pilot or any pilot should not be a shame of thei
55 mandala499: Perhaps you and me should go and have a fist fight now! 20 years ago, I was wishing that more twins would fly long haul, because flying quads and tri
56 XFSUgimpLB41X: From an ashamed twin engine pilot, I don't feel insulted. I hope you're paying more attention in your English/grammar classes than math!
57 747400sp: Are you sure about, I am a pretty big guy! Thank you for your reply, it is good to hear from a twin lover point of view.
58 theobcman: I have to say this is all a bit crazy I can't quite believe what your saying here ! Twins are no way boring. The 77W is just about the best looking t
59 DeltaMD90: No, you explained yourself, I was just trying to point out why you got so much criticism, I just hope you learned. I am extra cautious posting on thi
60 something: I know from crew at LH and EK that the A380 is the most prestigious aircraft in the fleet and that crew feel very proud about working it. In the early
61 catiii: Actually pretty good. You must have missed all the earnings calls.
62 United Airline: You mean ANA right? AN=Ansett Australia which operated the B 747-300/400 and went belly up in 2001
63 usairways787: Somebody didn't have their Wheaties this morning. This whole entire thread is ridiculous. Let me see if I am understanding this...Simply because the U
64 DeltaMD90: I'll add that the day engines are powerful enough, you'll have A380 and 747 sized aircraft with 2 engines. Heck, the 777-300ER is basically a 2 engin