RootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4179 posts, RR: 45 Posted (5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18782 times:
Hi folks,
there is a question I've been asking myself for a while. Why did AF take the 777 when they already had the A340. I have understood that those two a/c compete against each other. Does anyone know the reason why they decided to have two competing A/C ?
A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
TK787 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4106 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 18724 times:
Not necessarily competing.
TK also, has both the 340-300 and the 77W.
77W has 100 or so more seats and lot more cargo space also.
But the 340 has almost completed its mission and on its way out.
nrt1011 From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 100 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 18489 times:
TG still flies the 777 as well as the A340-600. Must admit, I always thought one or the other. Cathay always kept their fleet down to a manageable mix I always thought
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6879 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 17907 times:
Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter): there is a question I've been asking myself for a while. Why did AF take the 777 when they already had the A340. I have understood that those two a/c compete against each other. Does anyone know the reason why they decided to have two competing A/C ?
Simple. They had already purchased A340's when the 772 became available. Most airlines don't have the luxury of being able to refresh their fleet on a short cycle. They make their fleet planning for the long term. Also remember that the original 772 wasn't as capable as later model 772's (the 772ER was only available in 1997), and AF needed a plane for those long thin routes, and possibly the take off performance of the quad for some airports (SXM being one example).
At least AF did eventually order the 777 and A330 to hedge their bets against the least efficient A340, unlike some other airlines
Polot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1499 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 17836 times:
Quoting nrt1011 (Reply 3): TG still flies the 777 as well as the A340-600. Must admit, I always thought one or the other. Cathay always kept their fleet down to a manageable mix I always thought
Didn't TG have some issues getting ETOPS approval or something? I thought I read that once which is why they went for the A340NGs. Now that obviously isn't a problem.
g500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 724 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 16553 times:
Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter): there is a question I've been asking myself for a while. Why did AF take the 777 when they already had the A340. I have understood that those two a/c compete against each other. Does anyone know the reason why they decided to have two competing A/C ?
It sounds more like you're asking, why did AF buy American when the French own a piece of Airbus and they already had Airbus.
The 777 is a more economical aircraft, from fuel comsuption to maintenance (2 engines vs 4 engines). Good decision by AF
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 7, posted (5 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 16510 times:
Quoting Polot (Reply 5): Didn't TG have some issues getting ETOPS approval or something? I thought I read that once which is why they went for the A340NGs. Now that obviously isn't a problem.
Did they order the A346's before the 77W had demonstrated that it would beat all expectations, including Boeing's? Most A346 sales (except for top-up orders) were before it was known how good the 77W would be; also, remember that the A346 was available well before the 77W. Airlines that ordered the A346 before knowing how good the 77W would be were stuck in a dilemma; do they order more A346's to avoid having to add another type (like LH), or do they order 77W's and accept the costs of two different types on essentially the same mission; the only other option is dispose of the A346's at a huge loss and go all 77W's. Different airlines have dealt with the situation differently; I suspect that a lot followed the second option, probably including TG. Any airline that has hot-and-high destinations would probably want to hold on to at least a few A346's, as that is the one scenario where it has a clear edge on the 77W.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
MWHCVT From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2008, 573 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15735 times:
I'm going to ask it again, as I don't think I've ever got an answer, but how much fuel does a single engine burn on a 777 compared to 2 engines on a 340??
Must think up a new one soon, slow moving brain trying to get into gear ;)
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6716 posts, RR: 65 Reply 9, posted (5 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15378 times:
In a nutshell and all other things being equal, the 777-200ER is generally a better plane than the A340-300. As a passenger, I'd much prefer to fly on an A340 than a 777 but in terms of economics, the Boeing is the better bet. AF bought the A340 because it was available earlier and - no doubt - for political reasons. But then they went for the 777 and liked it. They then became a very early customer for the 777-300ER and, seemingly, like it too (as does everybody).
So, the simple answer is that the 777 generally outperforms the A340 and that's why AF preferred it.
AirGabon From Switzerland, joined Dec 2003, 852 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (5 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15151 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 9): They then became a very early customer for the 777-300ER and, seemingly, like it too (as does everybody).
AF was the launch customer for the 777-300ER.
Despite political pressure in the early 90s, AF said no to the A346 and decided to focus its long-haul fleet renewal on the 777. To become today one of the largest operator of this type, with 25 777-200ER and 37 777-300ER (+8 in order). And only 13 A343 remaining (+15 A332).
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14802 times:
Quoting AirGabon (Reply 10): AF was the launch customer for the 777-300ER.
Despite political pressure in the early 90s, AF said no to the A346 and decided to focus its long-haul fleet renewal on the 777. To become today one of the largest operator of this type, with 25 777-200ER and 37 777-300ER (+8 in order). And only 13 A343 remaining (+15 A332).
On a side note, AF was also the launch customer for the A340-300 in march 1993.
IMO AF like to have a mixed fleet of A and B aircrafts, as their intention to order both the A350 and the 787 for their long haul fleet renewal may suggest. They probably follow an old french proverb : "do not put all your eggs in one basket". A clever attitude to get the best deals for the most suited aircrafts...
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 14, posted (5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14472 times:
Quoting MWHCVT (Reply 8): I'm going to ask it again, as I don't think I've ever got an answer, but how much fuel does a single engine burn on a 777 compared to 2 engines on a 340??
I believe that the 77W has about a 9-10% fuel burn advantage over the A346. I don't know what the figures are between the A343 and 77E.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11128 posts, RR: 63 Reply 15, posted (5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14475 times:
Quoting MWHCVT (Reply 8): I'm going to ask it again, as I don't think I've ever got an answer, but how much fuel does a single engine burn on a 777 compared to 2 engines on a 340??
On the same mission the A346 would burn around 5% more fuel than a 77W, but take this as a 'soft' figure from an acquaintance's analysis several years ago. Fuel burn isn't everything mind, and being able to shift more payload out of certain airports is where the A346 and A340 family as a whole still have the edge over the 777/330.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, RR: 24 Reply 18, posted (5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12501 times:
Quoting AirGabon (Reply 10): Quoting PM (Reply 9):
They then became a very early customer for the 777-300ER and, seemingly, like it too (as does everybody).
AF was the launch customer for the 777-300ER.
AF was also the first non-US carrier to order and operate the 727-200. They also replaced their French-built Caravelles with 737-200s.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2109 posts, RR: 6 Reply 21, posted (5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11551 times:
They are not exactly identical airplanes, they compete(d) and overlap(ped) a lot, but the A343 is nonetheless a bit smaller. From the A343 to the 772ER there was a small increase in capacity, both freight and cargo. Also a step up in performance, and slightly more range (though the A340 can virtually fly any route that AF operates, current or discontinued). Seat configurations cannot always be compared 1 to 1 due to different seating density and different classes, but AF A340 seats 30J 21W 224Y = 275, AF 77E seats (in comparable 3 class and not 4 class) 34J 24W 250Y = 306. If using 9 abreast instead of 10, these 250 seats would drop by ~ 20, for ~ 285 seats (still slightly more than the A340, but not by much).
Quoting AirGabon (Reply 10):
AF was the launch customer for the 777-300ER.
Despite political pressure in the early 90s, AF said no to the A346 and decided to focus its long-haul fleet renewal on the 777.
This is really where Airbus lost big to AF. Maybe if the A346 had come with GE engines.... but the 77W was going to come out with GE engines.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7348 posts, RR: 7 Reply 24, posted (5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10867 times:
Quoting ADent (Reply 20): AF is a big fan of GE engines. I assume because GE and Snecma are partners on CFM and other projects.
A340-600 doesn't have a GE option. 777-300ER is GE powered.
I am sure that is not the only reason, but since the rest of the fleet is GE powered, it must be one reason.
Ita all about teh engines, France has long been a user of GE engines and partners in the CFM engines and GE90. AF has also had an allergy to RR engines, only when teh Concorde came did they not have a choice. Now they are ordering A350 but RR wants to sell them the maintanence and AF wants to do it themselves, this is the only engine on the plane. The French - British tiff continues.
trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 25, posted (5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10410 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14): I believe that the 77W has about a 9-10% fuel burn advantage over the A346. I don't know what the figures are between the A343 and 77E.
Dont know about the 772ER but for a 772A, CX uses identical fuel burn figures as A343. Would think the 772ER burns more being heavier but it has a higher payload than A343.
FI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1056 posts, RR: 2 Reply 26, posted (5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9737 times:
Quoting ADent (Reply 20): AF is a big fan of GE engines. I assume because GE and Snecma are partners on CFM and other projects.
Speaking to Pilots and Mechanics at my airline, they both prefer GE to any other engine type. Pilots from the standpoint of being able to get max power quickly, Mechanics from ease of repair.
737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
MWHCVT From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2008, 573 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9735 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14): I believe that the 77W has about a 9-10% fuel burn advantage over the A346. I don't know what the figures are between the A343 and 77E.
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 15): On the same mission the A346 would burn around 5% more fuel than a 77W, but take this as a 'soft' figure from an acquaintance's analysis several years ago. Fuel burn isn't everything mind, and being able to shift more payload out of certain airports is where the A346 and A340 family as a whole still have the edge over the 777/330.
Dan
Thanks to you both this is the first time that I've ever managed to get an answer to that question, as the way you get some people go on you'd think that the 340 uses twice the amount of fuel which I was certain would not be the situation
I appreciate however that the maintenance of 4 engines will be vastly more expensive that just 2 on the 777
Must think up a new one soon, slow moving brain trying to get into gear ;)
qantas744er From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1252 posts, RR: 4 Reply 28, posted (5 months 1 day ago) and read 9465 times:
Quoting FI642 (Reply 26): Speaking to Pilots and Mechanics at my airline, they both prefer GE to any other engine type. Pilots from the standpoint of being able to get max power quickly, Mechanics from ease of repair.
On any commercial aircraft where RR and GE are the option: A330, MD11, B747/67/77/87 the three spool design of the RR engines has proven to provide quicker spool ups from idle/flight idle to TO/GA.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 29, posted (5 months 23 hours ago) and read 9308 times:
Quoting g500 (Reply 6): It sounds more like you're asking, why did AF buy American when the French own a piece of Airbus and they already had Airbus.
The 777 is a more economical aircraft, from fuel comsuption to maintenance (2 engines vs 4 engines). Good decision by AF
The AF 777 order was certainly a coup d'etat for Boeing, given how politics can often influence aircraft orders. I'm sure there was gallic outrage throughout France and esp at Airbus HQ at the initial AF 772 order. Kudos to AF for ordering what they thought was the best aircraft for their fleet, despite political pressure (no doubt) to order the 345/346.
AF went on to order the 332 and 388 after the 772 order which no doubt helped mollify Airbus, the French government and perhaps millions of Frenchmen appalled at the Boeing order.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
brindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (5 months 22 hours ago) and read 8925 times:
Quoting MWHCVT (Reply 8): I'm going to ask it again, as I don't think I've ever got an answer, but how much fuel does a single engine burn on a 777 compared to 2 engines on a 340??
Errr, I know what you're asking, but my thoughts stray to an engine-failure on the B777 being compared to a double engine-failure on an A340!
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (5 months 19 hours ago) and read 7643 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 29): The AF 777 order was certainly a coup d'etat for Boeing, given how politics can often influence aircraft orders. I'm sure there was gallic outrage throughout France and esp at Airbus HQ at the initial AF 772 order. Kudos to AF for ordering what they thought was the best aircraft for their fleet, despite political pressure (no doubt) to order the 345/346.
AF went on to order the 332 and 388 after the 772 order which no doubt helped mollify Airbus, the French government and perhaps millions of Frenchmen appalled at the Boeing order.
Sorry dear highly respected member of a.net, but the situation in France is slighlty different from what you are trying to depict. AF have been always very pragmatic with their orders. Politics have had very little to no influence in their fleet composition. In fact, AF have ordered all the civil jets built by Boeing, except the 757 : 707, 727, 737, 747, 767, 777 and will probably order the 787 soon.
Everybody in France is well aware that Airbus, a subsidiary of the EADS corporation, is a very wealthy company : nobody worries for its future, and nobody thinks that Airbus have to rely on old AF for its existence ! My opinion as a Frenchman is that most of my fellow citizens cannot care less about what our legacy carrier orders. As a matter of fact, when AF announced that they will order the 787 for their long haul fleet renewal (along with the A350), only a couple of politicians (from the right wing conservative party) seemed to be chocked but that did not last long and did not have any impact ! So too bad for the gallic outrage that probably exists only in your imagination !
On the other side of the Atlantic however, the situation seems to differ substantially. I fail to find one US airline that have been as faithful to A as AF have been to B ! As a matter of fact again, B depends much more on the US governement orders for military aircrafts than A and EADS depends on the French governement... In the real world everything seems to lead to the conclusion that political pressure might well be more intense on your side of the pond .
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1907 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (5 months 18 hours ago) and read 7563 times:
It's certainly true that Airbus is quite capable of standing on its own feet now without the 'helpful' launch orders from AF. Similarly RR is dependant on orders from BA and friendly countries for RB211 powered 747s. Besides, the orders from the middle eastern carriers for widebodies dwarf what the European carriers are buying now!
Having said that, when Eurostar ordered German Siemens trains, there was a massive stink in France
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (5 months 17 hours ago) and read 7457 times:
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 32): It's certainly true that Airbus is quite capable of standing on its own feet now without the 'helpful' launch orders from AF. Similarly RR is dependant on orders from BA and friendly countries for RB211 powered 747s. Besides, the orders from the middle eastern carriers for widebodies dwarf what the European carriers are buying now!
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 32): Having said that, when Eurostar ordered German Siemens trains, there was a massive stink in France
Agreed, but Eurostar is a subsidiary of the state-owned SNCF (the french railways company) : that did not prevent them from buying german trains. Once again where is this gallic protectionism ?
ushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2888 posts, RR: 18 Reply 34, posted (5 months 17 hours ago) and read 7381 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 33): Agreed, but Eurostar is a subsidiary of the state-owned SNCF (the french railways company) : that did not prevent them from buying german trains. Once again where is this gallic protectionism ?
Especially considering that French trains are actually better than their German counterparts.
But Siemens has quite the reputation for having other convincing arguments other than product quality to obtain orders...
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6716 posts, RR: 65 Reply 35, posted (5 months 16 hours ago) and read 7243 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 31): and will probably order the 787 soon
"Soon"? Try December of last year.
Quoting Azure (Reply 31): but the situation in France is slightly different from what you are trying to depict.
Correct.
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 32): Similarly RR is dependant on orders from BA and friendly countries for RB211 powered 747s.
"is"??? That's ancient history, pal. The last order for RB211-powered 747s was almost seven years ago (28th February 2006) and was from that well-known "friend" of the UK, Luxembourg. Prior to that, you have to go back to December 2003 to find a "friendly" Cathay Pacific ordering ... *one* 747 with RR.
There was a time when former colonies could be expected to do the decent thing and buy British but those days are long gone. (And good thing too.)
LY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2446 posts, RR: 2 Reply 36, posted (5 months 13 hours ago) and read 6989 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 31): On the other side of the Atlantic however, the situation seems to differ substantially. I fail to find one US airline that have been as faithful to A as AF have been to B
I disagree.
While most European Airlines prefer buying Airbus planes (IB, TAP, LX, SN, EZY are all-Airbus for example/ AF, LH, AZ have a vast majority of Airbus planes: AF is all Airbus for short haul), US airlines have a good mix of Airbus and Boeing: AA has tons of A320s on order, UA has tons of A32XS and has A350s on order, US is soon going to be all Airbus, DL uses A320s/A330s, HA is going to be all-Airbus for long haul.
So, I don't get your point when you say that that you " fail to find one US airline that have been as faithful to A as AF have been to B"
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 37, posted (5 months 13 hours ago) and read 6891 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 31): On the other side of the Atlantic however, the situation seems to differ substantially. I fail to find one US airline that have been as faithful to A as AF have been to B ! As a matter of fact again, B depends much more on the US governement orders for military aircrafts than A and EADS depends on the French governement...
Quoting LY777 (Reply 36): US airlines have a good mix of Airbus and Boeing: AA has tons of A320s on order, UA has tons of A32XS and has A350s on order, US is soon going to be all Airbus, DL uses A320s/A330s, HA is going to be all-Airbus for long haul.
So, I don't get your point when you say that that you " fail to find one US airline that have been as faithful to A as AF have been to B"
I guess the fact that the USA as a country is one of or the largest operators of Airbus a/c carries no sway, and this is before the recent AA order. Maybe the basis of the comment is the fact that no USA a/c operates an A340, however, the number of 747's operated tends to say that it is the a/c type and not the OEM.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6180 posts, RR: 74 Reply 38, posted (5 months 13 hours ago) and read 6902 times:
Quoting MWHCVT (Reply 8): I'm going to ask it again, as I don't think I've ever got an answer, but how much fuel does a single engine burn on a 777 compared to 2 engines on a 340??
Total trip fuel burn between 77E & 343 is about 0-5% depending on the conditions, on a same payload tonnage.
Between 77W and 346... all I can say is uurgh... it's about 5-10%... but the exact details of the scenarios I've calculated in the past eludes me at the moment.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 29): The AF 777 order was certainly a coup d'etat for Boeing, given how politics can often influence aircraft orders. I'm sure there was gallic outrage throughout France and esp at Airbus HQ at the initial AF 772 order. Kudos to AF for ordering what they thought was the best aircraft for their fleet, despite political pressure (no doubt) to order the 345/346.
Coup d'etat eh? Let's see... they had the A300s and A310s and AF took.... 767s... and did so when both was available. Why not that as a coup d'etat?
Get this Gallic discrimination out of the bloody way please. Historically Air France does not believe in European long haul products after the demise of the European manufacturers... since the DC-8 and 707s... the coup d'etat has been more on Airbus trying to get a big order from Air France... and BA... which never to date, operated any Airbus widebody (unless my memory eludes me).
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (5 months 12 hours ago) and read 6785 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 38): Coup d'etat eh? Let's see... they had the A300s and A310s and AF took.... 767s... and did so when both was available. Why not that as a coup d'etat?
Get this Gallic discrimination out of the bloody way please. Historically Air France does not believe in European long haul products after the demise of the European manufacturers... since the DC-8 and 707s... the coup d'etat has been more on Airbus trying to get a big order from Air France... and BA... which never to date, operated any Airbus widebody (unless my memory eludes me).
Thanks, I totally agree with you ! But to be fair, BA will operate A380s as from 2013...
Quoting LY777 (Reply 36): don't get your point when you say that that you " fail to find one US airline that have been as faithful to A as AF have been to B"
If you take time to read again my entire post, my point will appear clearly to you, hopefully : I am bored to read thread after thread that french politics interfere in the building of the AF fleet. I do not even see french idiosincrasy there. Facts establish the opposite... And I am not talking of just today's situation, but also of the history of AF which have had in their fleet all the models built by Boeing since the 707, except the 757.
Now please answer my question : is there an airline in the US which have had in their fleet all the models built by Airbus since the A300 ?...
Ok, things are changing in the USA, probably under the pressure of more difficult economics and increased competition. Most major US airlines are now placing orders with Airbus if they are convinced their product is better suited for them. But still :
Quoting LY777 (Reply 36): US airlines have a good mix of Airbus and Boeing: AA has tons of A320s on order, UA has tons of A32XS and has A350s on order, US is soon going to be all Airbus, DL uses A320s/A330s, HA is going to be all-Airbus for long haul.
I have to disagree with you here ! Please let's go back to the facts :
- AA own 605 aircrafts, including 0 Airbus. They have 450 aircrafts in order, including 260 with A.
- UA own 706 aircrafts, including 152 Airbus. 228 in order, 25 with A.
- DL own 721 aircrafts, including 157 Airbus. 210 in order, 0 with A.
(Source : wikipedia. Not the best reference, but please feel free to correct my numbers !).
In my views, the fleets and orders of the "big 3" are not better balanced between the two manufacturers than the AF fleet , as you would like to suggest ! (69 B out of 254 aircrafts, 8 B out of 23 orders).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26718 posts, RR: 83 Reply 40, posted (5 months 12 hours ago) and read 6717 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 31): On the other side of the Atlantic however, the situation seems to differ substantially. I fail to find one US airline that have been as faithful to A as AF have been to B!
JetBlue Airways, US Airways and Frontier Airlines all come to mind in terms of their order history, even if said history is not as long as Air France's.
7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 508 posts, RR: 3 Reply 41, posted (5 months 11 hours ago) and read 6628 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 31): I fail to find one US airline that have been as faithful to A as AF have been to B
AF has been a loyal B customer but let's put this in perspective. When AF bought the 707, 727, 737-200 and 747 they were basically the only game in town (except McD and L--also American). They ordered a minimal number of 737 (New Gen) compared to A32x and all of 3 or 4 767's. Only when it comes to the 777 do they have a plane that they have purchased in greater quantity than similar AB models.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10685 posts, RR: 100 Reply 42, posted (5 months 11 hours ago) and read 6577 times:
Quoting ADent (Reply 20): AF is a big fan of GE engines. I assume because GE and Snecma are partners on CFM and other projects.
Due to that partnership, AF gets their requirements in the initial design.
Quoting FI642 (Reply 26): Speaking to Pilots and Mechanics at my airline, they both prefer GE to any other engine type.
GE has its pluses, but it is airframe dependent. For example, there is a reason the GE is the worst selling engine on the A330 and RR the best. GE does good engines, but not so good no one else has a chance. They must also keep innovating. Pratt became arrogant when they were at the top of the market and paid for it. The GTFs are a radically different design. Let's see what happens. For GE has broken some of their design philosophy with the LEAP-X in order to get the efficiency while Pratt has 'overcorrected' and made the GTFs extremely simple.
As to pilots preferring GE, they have one of the longer times between takeoff attempts. (Nothing is free, there is always a trade off.) So if there is a takeoff abort, GE's have the longest turn time. (The BMR715 has no time restriction, it will purely be the breaks cooling down.)
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6716 posts, RR: 65 Reply 43, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6000 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 42): For example, there is a reason the GE is the worst selling engine on the A330 and RR the best.
Alas, that's no longer true. GE have been scoring important wins and their share of the A330 market is now 2 or 3 percentage points above PW's. They have about 44% between them. RR have the other 56%.
And in terms of deliveries, GE are also #2 with 234 against 213 for PW. Moreover, PW don't have much on the horizon whereas GE have 8 for Iberia and 15 for Turkish to build plus sundry other odds and ends. Then there's the 20 new A330s for Philippine Airlines. GE must be the favourites there.
ADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1179 posts, RR: 1 Reply 44, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5973 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 31): On the other side of the Atlantic however, the situation seems to differ substantially. I fail to find one US airline that have been as faithful to A as AF have been to B !
Pre-merger UA was getting pretty friendly with Airbus, after being a Boeing (and McD) shop for years. Pre-merger NW was a pretty good A customer too.
Ironically the UA dealings with Airbus started for the opposite reason of AF - the dislike of GE engines after UA232. A320s came with a P&W option, 737s were GE/Snecma only. Plus A had better financing that round too, IIRC.
The post-merger UA (with CO management) has a different plan.
raggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 958 posts, RR: 1 Reply 46, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5772 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 42): GE has its pluses, but it is airframe dependent. For example, there is a reason the GE is the worst selling engine on the A330 and RR the best. GE does good engines, but not so good no one else has a chance
I was under the impression that recent modifications on the CF6 have improved its performance, at least now it handles "hot 'n high" conditions better.
Quoting PM (Reply 43): Alas, that's no longer true. GE have been scoring important wins and their share of the A330 market is now 2 or 3 percentage points above PW's. They have about 44% between them. RR have the other 56%.And in terms of deliveries, GE are also #2 with 234 against 213 for PW. Moreover, PW don't have much on the horizon whereas GE have 8 for Iberia and 15 for Turkish to build plus sundry other odds and ends. Then there's the 20 new A330s for Philippine Airlines. GE must be the favourites there.
Thank you for the numbers. I agree with you on PAL. And TK was certainly a big win for GE.
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1907 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5761 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 35): Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 32):
Similarly RR is dependant on orders from BA and friendly countries for RB211 powered 747s.
"is"??? That's ancient history, pal. The last order for RB211-powered 747s was almost seven years ago (28th February 2006) and was from that well-known "friend" of the UK, Luxembourg. Prior to that, you have to go back to December 2003 to find a "friendly" Cathay Pacific ordering ... *one* 747 with RR.
There was a time when former colonies could be expected to do the decent thing and buy British but those days are long gone. (And good thing too.)
Sorry, my comment came out wrong, you need to swap the word 'is' for the word 'was'
What I was trying to say, is that RR (like Airbus in its early days) was back in the late 70s and early 80s dependant on 747 RB211 orders from friendly countries. The RB211-535 on the 757 was the first sign that RR could compete on a equal basis, with the Trents making RR an equal with PW and GE rather than a struggling also ran!
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 48, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5651 times:
Quoting MWHCVT (Reply 27): I appreciate however that the maintenance of 4 engines will be vastly more expensive that just 2 on the 777
As I understand it, the GE90-110/115's maintenance is much more expensive than any other engine, so the advantage is not as much as one might think. But it is still there.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
LY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2446 posts, RR: 2 Reply 49, posted (4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5020 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 39): If you take time to read again my entire post, my point will appear clearly to you, hopefully : I am bored to read thread after thread that french politics interfere in the building of the AF fleet. I do not even see french idiosincrasy there. Facts establish the opposite... And I am not talking of just today's situation, but also of the history of AF which have had in their fleet all the models built by Boeing since the 707, except the 757.
Now please answer my question : is there an airline in the US which have had in their fleet all the models built by Airbus since the A300 ?...
I think we will have to disagree on this one: I was not talking about AF in particular, but about European airlines in general which tend to favor Airbus planes.
I agree that AF is a good Boeing customer and that they have used almost every Boeing types BUT this was because, in the past, there was not equivalent Airbus types:
- the 707 had no European equivalent
- the 727 had no European equivalent
- the 737Classic had no European equivalent, and as soon as the A32X family entered service, AF chose not to buy the 737NG to replace the 737Classic: they chose the A32X family.
- the 747 had no European equivalent
- concerning the 767 family, I still wonder why they bought this a/c since their A300/A310s were in much higher number
I am sure that if Airbus existed from the 60s, AF wouldn't have bought every Boeing models.
And, also, don't forget that they have also used EVERY Airbus models: A300/A310/A318/A319/A320/A321/A330/A340/A380 and soon A350s.
Nevertheless, they chose the 777 as their workhorse for long haul, as well as the 787 to complement the A340/A330/A350 fleet.
Now, AF/KL and BA are exceptions in Europe as more and more major flag carriers are slowly moving to an all-Airbus fleet (if this is not already the case):
- IB, TAP, LX, EI are already all Airbus
- AZ is almost all Airbus (except the 777s)
- LH is going to phase out all of their 737s to replace them with A32Xs. The only Boeing type that will be left in the long term is the 747 (and 77F for Cargo, but there is not really the choice as the A332F is much smaller)
- SK has decided to replace the 737NG with A320NEO
Concerning the European LCC, this is more balanced: FR is all-Boeing, U2 is all-Airbus, Norwegian is currently all-Boeing, but has a mix of A and B on order.
US airlines, on the other don't hesitate to buy Airbus if they feel this is the right choice:
- B6 is all-Airbus (except regional E-jets)
- F9 is all-Airbus (except regional E)
- VX is all-Airbus
- US is going to be all-Airbus soon, once the ageing 734/757/762s are gone
- DL has a mix of A/B for both long haul and short haul (although in higher numbers for B)
- AA has 260 A32Xs on order
- UA has a mix of A/B for both long haul and short haul (although in higher numbers for B)
- the only major US airlines that are all-Boeing that come to my mind are AS and WN
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 849 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4803 times:
Quoting LY777 (Reply 49): concerning the 767 family, I still wonder why they bought this a/c since their A300/A310s were in much higher number
The AF 767 was a legacy of the UTA merger, the latter having purchased several of these. I recall reading that AF thought highly enough of the 767s they had inherited, so that they picked up a few more. Maybe someone closer to the action could provide some details. I also recall that one or more of these 767s was painted in a trial color scheme that took the AF euro-white, with a cheatline added. In the database, I can only see this applied to a -200.
The North Atlantic circa year 2000 seems to have been quite active with AF 767-300s: BOS, ORD, YUL and CVG as well. I would not be surprised if the small size of the fleet eventually made the 767-300 something of an odd man out at AF (I think maintenance was farmed out to DL, which would have added to the cost), and it was probably a matter of 1) Increase the fleet size or 2) sell them off. The 767-300 was hot property at the time, so I bet they got a good price.
One other thing about the AF 767-300 was that First Class was laid out 2-2, with some sort of table taking up the space in the center, so the aisle would have been huge - like the 2-1-2 without that center single seat. This being AF, I'm sure the table was decked out with champagne and flowers
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6180 posts, RR: 74 Reply 52, posted (4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4713 times:
Quoting LY777 (Reply 49): - concerning the 767 family, I still wonder why they bought this a/c since their A300/A310s were in much higher number
After some looking... AF had 767s from 1991 to 2003... The 762s were from UTA's Aeromaritime subsidiary. Aeromaritime had 3 767-300ERs at the time of the merger, and UTA ordered 3 767-300ERs for itself, so the 767s were from Aeromaritime (2x -200 and 3x -300) and UTA's order (which became Air France's order) of 3x -300ERs, and plus 1 was leased in from somewhere... ex TACA bird.
I think it's worth to note that UTA also ordered 6 A343s plus options for 6 more. Not sure if this is correct but those were delivered, and the options were exercised with a mix of 343s and 342s. I wonder if it would be correct to assume the 340-311s, -312, -211s and -212s were from the UTA orders?
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
workhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4682 times:
AFAIK, the 340-300 burns less fuel than the 777-200ER for the same trip. The reason for which some airlines prefer(red) the 772 was not its lesser fuel burn but its greater payload.
As for AF, their 772s were ordered much later than the 343, and were meant for a different purpose (had higher pax load, tended to fly to more premium destinations etc). The decision to order the 77W and not the 346 was mainly a case of AF's loyalty to GE, I believe (no one expected at the time that the 77W's advantage would be so big).
luckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1585 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4600 times:
Quoting LY777 (Reply 36): I disagree.
While most European Airlines prefer buying Airbus planes (IB, TAP, LX, SN, EZY are all-Airbus for example/ AF, LH, AZ have a vast majority of Airbus planes: AF is all Airbus for short haul), US airlines have a good mix of Airbus and Boeing: AA has tons of A320s on order, UA has tons of A32XS and has A350s on order, US is soon going to be all Airbus, DL uses A320s/A330s, HA is going to be all-Airbus for long haul.
So, I don't get your point when you say that that you " fail to find one US airline that have been as faithful to A as AF have been to B"
Quoting Azure (Reply 31): I fail to find one US airline that have been as faithful to A as AF have been to B !
Premerger Northwest Airlines comes to mind. At the time of the merger with Delta their passenger fleet was over 50% Airbus. Air France's Boeing fleet comprises approximately 30% of Air France's total passenger fleet. Rough numbers sure, but you get the general idea.
Quoting Azure (Reply 39): is there an airline in the US which have had in their fleet all the models built by Airbus since the A300 ?...
A moot point considering Air France has not operated every Boeing model since the 707. Keep in mind the Airbus A300 was an unknown, untested entity when compared to (at the time) the only game in town, the American manufacturers. The aircraft's primary customers were (at the time) government-owned European flag carriers.
LY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2446 posts, RR: 2 Reply 55, posted (4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4582 times:
Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 51): One other thing about the AF 767-300 was that First Class was laid out 2-2, with some sort of table taking up the space in the center, so the aisle would have been huge - like the 2-1-2 without that center single seat. This being AF, I'm sure the table was decked out with champagne and flowers
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 849 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4517 times:
Quoting LY777 (Reply 55): I didn't know that! That must have been cool!
My thinking exactly, but I have never seen a picture of it. I noted it in an AF timetable - back in the day when they were actually printed on hard copy and included the seat charts. Perhaps some anetter timeble fanatic can verify this for us. I recall there was 2-2-2 'Classe Affaires' as well.
In the airliners.net database, I only see one AF 767 cabin photo, and it's during maintenance with the seat covers removed, and economy class 2-3-2 for that matter. I see more pictures of the Loch Ness Monster than I do the AF 767 cabin.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, RR: 24 Reply 57, posted (4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4383 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 50): Quoting LY777 (Reply 49):
- concerning the 767 family, I still wonder why they bought this a/c since their A300/A310s were in much higher number
AF bought exactly THREE 767s.
And they would never have operated those if the merger with UTA hadn't occurred. I believe those aircraft were originally ordered by UTA prior to the merger but were delivered to AF after the merger.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 58, posted (4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4312 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 31): On the other side of the Atlantic however, the situation seems to differ substantially. I fail to find one US airline that have been as faithful to A as AF have been to B !
Really? Try Frontier, US Airways, Virgin America, Spirit, JetBlue. All overwhelmingly (or 100%) Airbus customers.
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 38): Coup d'etat eh? Let's see... they had the A300s and A310s and AF took.... 767s... and did so when both was available. Why not that as a coup d'etat?
The 767's were inherited. No 777's were inherited and the order was placed after the 343 was in service. So it's clear the AF 772 order was based on market elements only, which can often be trumped by political interference in much of the world.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6879 posts, RR: 7 Reply 60, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3764 times:
Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 41): AF has been a loyal B customer but let's put this in perspective. When AF bought the 707, 727, 737-200 and 747 they were basically the only game in town (except McD and L--also American). They ordered a minimal number of 737 (New Gen) compared to A32x and all of 3 or 4 767's. Only when it comes to the 777 do they have a plane that they have purchased in greater quantity than similar AB models.
It must piss off a lot of people that AF is one of the most loyal Boeing customers and yet, depite all the evidence some people still insist on trying to find excuses to the contrary. The reason AF and many other carriers including some US carriers, ordered the A320 instead of the 737NG has nothing to do with loyalty and everything to do with the fact that the A320 was available 10 YEARS earlier than the 737NG.
Quoting LY777 (Reply 49): I think we will have to disagree on this one: I was not talking about AF in particular, but about European airlines in general which tend to favor Airbus planes.
I won't disagree there but IMHO, that has more to do with availability and time to market than politics. As I explained above, for nearly 10 years the A320 was a far superior NB model. Most US carrier were not in a good financial situation and couldn't afford to replace their NB fleets. The Europeans did. The story of the A340 vs 777 is somewhat similar. Back when the A340 was launched few could envision a long haul twin. The 777 was not yet even offered let alone available. Many airlines around the world, not just European airlines, commited to the A340. Including CO, which later canceled the order in favor of the 777.
I'm not naive enough to believe that there isn't some politics involved. However I don't believe that politics is all that factors in. In fact, unless we're talking about state owned or partly owned airlines, I don't believe that the role of politics is significant enough to sway an order in either direction.
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3729 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 58): Try Frontier, US Airways, Virgin America, Spirit, JetBlue. All overwhelmingly (or 100%) Airbus customers.
I would not compare AF with LCCs or regional airlines. AF is neither. As for US Airways, they had no interest in Airbus before the 2000s... So my statement is still valid even if taken out of its context : I did not mean there were no Airbus customers in the US (!) but I did mean AF have always been a very loyal customer to Boeing in the course of history. This was a response to comments mentioning politics have constantly interfered in the composition of the AF Fleet. Facts show this is a false statement, as far as B is concerned at least.
Quoting LY777 (Reply 49): the 737Classic had no European equivalent,
Wrong ! Do you remember the Dassault's Mercure ? Only ordered by Air Inter but never by Air France. So again, too bad for intense politics in AF !
Quoting LY777 (Reply 49): I am sure that if Airbus existed from the 60s, AF wouldn't have bought every Boeing models.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 57): And they would never have operated those if the merger with UTA hadn't occurred.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride ! It is always easy to re-write history (especially when you have an agenda !).
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 52): I think it's worth to note that UTA also ordered 6 A343s plus options for 6 more. Not sure if this is correct but those were delivered, and the options were exercised with a mix of 343s and 342s. I wonder if it would be correct to assume the 340-311s, -312, -211s and -212s were from the UTA orders?
I have done some research but have not found much on the web... We need someone from AF or UT for more details !
I assume AF started to order WB twins (A332s / B772s & 773s) after the ETOPS regulations changed in the early 1990s...
HoMsaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 803 posts, RR: 0 Reply 63, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3510 times:
Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 62): Quoting airbazar (Reply 60):
As I explained above, for nearly 10 years the A320 was a far superior NB model.
Your opinion.
If the A320 was that superior Boeing would have shipped the 737 NewGen rigs off to China (as was explored) and let it die a slow death.
Read what he wrote. For 10 years, the A320 was superior to the 737.
That's how Airbus managed to win orders from carriers such as United (who was a very loyal Boeing customer and 737 operator).
Losing order after order to Airbus is the reason Boeing developed the 737NG, which came to market approximately 10 years after the A320. Then they were (for all intents and purposes) equal, and are still more or less equal to this day.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, RR: 24 Reply 64, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3500 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 61): Quoting LY777 (Reply 49):the 737Classic had no European equivalent,Wrong ! Do you remember the Dassault's Mercure ? Only ordered by Air Inter but never by Air France.
The Mercure wasn't a 737 Classic equivalent. It had much shorter range and could never have been a 737 substitute by the majority of 737 customers for that reason.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, RR: 24 Reply 65, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3466 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 61): Quoting LY777 (Reply 49):I am sure that if Airbus existed from the 60s, AF wouldn't have bought every Boeing models.Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 57):And they would never have operated those if the merger with UTA hadn't occurred.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride ! It is always easy to re-write history (especially when you have an agenda !).
What agenda are you referring to? History is very clear that AF only became a 767 operator by default due to their merger with UTA.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6180 posts, RR: 74 Reply 66, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3332 times:
We could play a little here... with UTA. Why did UTA order 767s and not A306s, A313s and A330s? It would suit their African routes well.
I remember back then, the A340 order by UTA was seen as a coup against "discrimination against 'home' products".
If I remember correctly, the new competitive environment made by the French government of not giving exclusive regions of the world split between UTA and AF was being softened. So, the DC-10s needed replacement, light 747 and heavy DC-10 routes were to have the A340s, and the lighter DC-10 routes were for the 767s... these are mainly the African routes if I remember correctly.
Quoting Azure (Reply 61): I have done some research but have not found much on the web... We need someone from AF or UT for more details !
LY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2446 posts, RR: 2 Reply 68, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2327 times:
Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 56): In the airliners.net database, I only see one AF 767 cabin photo, and it's during maintenance with the seat covers removed, and economy class 2-3-2 for that matter. I see more pictures of the Loch Ness Monster than I do the AF 767 cabin.
Quoting Azure (Reply 61): As for US Airways, they had no interest in Airbus before the 2000s.
IIRC, the bad blood between Boeing and US following the USAir 427 crash had a great deal to with that. Even in the face of mounting evidence of 737 rudder problems, Boeing kept blaming crew overreaction to wake turbulence. USAir(ways) never ordered another Boeing plane.
trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 70, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2179 times:
Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 69): IIRC, the bad blood between Boeing and US following the USAir 427 crash had a great deal to with that. Even in the face of mounting evidence of 737 rudder problems, Boeing kept blaming crew overreaction to wake turbulence. USAir(ways) never ordered another Boeing plane.
Airlines which want to survive are not sentimental. Such incidents while causing bad feelings are short lived. Making bad business decisions for sentimental reasons are bad for the bottom line in the long term. You could say the same for AA and Airbus and the A300, CI and Airbus and the A300 also (in fact I think they still have an outstanding court case on the latter- hasn;t stopped CI getting billions in A330 and A350s or AA getting A320s!)
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26718 posts, RR: 83 Reply 72, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2150 times:
Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 71): Not to start an A vs B war, Trex, are you saying that going Airbus was bad move for US?
I believe he is saying that US stopped buying Boeing aircraft not because of US427, but because Airbus was the more compelling choice (for whatever reason[s]). If Boeing had been the more compelling choice, US would have continued to purchase Boeing equipment, regardless of US427.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 72): If Boeing had been the more compelling choice, US would have continued to purchase Boeing equipment, regardless of US427.
Perhaps. But the rancor was pretty bad. A great many folks at US, rank and file as well as upper management, were very bitter at the Boeing "pilot error" attitude. That notwithstanding, I happen to think that the Airbus has been good for US.
(Hey, I like Boeings, too. )
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 74, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1713 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 65): AF only became a 767 operator by default due to their merger with UTA.
We can agree on this formulation : AF was a 767 operator by default. But I had to disagree with your former wording in reply 57 : "And they would never have operated those if the merger with UTA hadn't occurred." In fact you do not know and nobody knows. It is really too easy to rewrite history and I would not expect such an attitude from a serious commentator. Furthermore, if we want to stick to facts, AF "inherited" 6 767s from UTA (or more precisely from Aéromaritime) but ordered another 3 if I am not mistaken. I therefore have to maintain my comment as in reply 31 : "in fact, AF have ordered all the civil jets built by Boeing, except the 757 : 707, 727, 737, 747, 767, 777 and will probably order the 787 soon."
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 64): The Mercure wasn't a 737 Classic equivalent. It had much shorter range and could never have been a 737 substitute by the majority of 737 customers for that reason.
That is correct for the first and ever built version of the Mercure, but the project "Mercure 200" equipped with the CFM-56 would have had a longer range. However AF (which some here suspect to be under the heel of the French Government) never ordered it !
As for US, such a large airline cannot be "sentimental" when it comes to refleet. You cannot base your orders on "feelings" or rancor when you are accountable to shareholders ! This is true for US airways and for the US carriers in general, this is also true for most European carriers.
Now I would like to ask one question : how does the fleet composition of an airline, its choice between competing models of A and B, influence its profitability ? What is the impact on its cost structure ? For instance, the general consensus here is that the B777 is more efficient than the A340. But AF, which operate 52 B77Ws, are loss making while their most direct competitor LH, which operate 46 A340s are profitable...
Polot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1499 posts, RR: 0 Reply 77, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1367 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 76): I believe the order is not finalized yet... If not, my mistake ! But that would make my statement even more valid !
They firmed the 787 order last December. The A350 order is yet to be firm (unless they have have recently done so within the past couple of weeks), apparently due to a dispute with RR regarding engine maintenance.
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 79, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1293 times:
Quoting Polot (Reply 77): They firmed the 787 order last December. The A350 order is yet to be firm (unless they have have recently done so within the past couple of weeks), apparently due to a dispute with RR regarding engine maintenance.
Correct ! I have done some research on my side. AF/KL firmed the 787 earlier this year. They are due to find an agreement with RR in January 2013, which does not mean they will firm the 350 immediately afterwards...
Sponsor Message: 
From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4179 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 220 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 100 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2008, 573 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6716 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Dec 2003, 852 posts, 
From France, joined Dec 2012, 206 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11128 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1254 posts, 
From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1056 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6180 posts, 
For GE has broken some of their design philosophy with the LEAP-X in order to get the efficiency while Pratt has 'overcorrected' and made the GTFs extremely simple. 
From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 958 posts, 
From China, joined Aug 2012, 306 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
