Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, RR: 39 Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 752 times:
As far as I know the L1011-1/100/200 will be replaced by B757-300s, the -500s will remain for the next few years. The replacement choice will likely be between the B767-300/400 and A330-200/300, I assume the A330 will be the better option for them.
Anyone knowing what ATA Connection´s fleet plans are? Will they stick with the Saabs?
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 735 times:
I don't want to get into this Airbus vs Boeing argument nor do I want to make assumptions on what guys are payed several hundred thousand $$$$ to decide, but I am just wondering why you think they will go with an Airbus when the rest of their fleet besides the L1011 is Boeing and that the 767 and 757 have the same cockpit?
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, RR: 39 Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 724 times:
The A330-200 and -300 offer a higher flexibility than the B767-300/400 do, that´s at least my opinion. The A330 is slightly larger the the B764, as it seems at the same or even lower costs.
ATA´s markets are comparable to the European charter markets (low-yield), here most airlines which had to choose a DC-10/L-1011 replacement have opted in favour of the A330-200/300, only a very limited number has taken the B767-300ER.
For many airlines cargo is a good extra business and we all know that the B767 isn´t exactly a good plane for carring belly cargo due to the different container size, here the A330 has the advantage.
Besides one has to ask: is a single-manufaturer fleet really the best thing you can have? I honestly don´t know it but I don´t think so, it makes you too depended on another company.
CcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2203 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 720 times:
ATA connection/Chicago Express is getting more Saab S340s from American Eagle. I don't know about the CRJ though. They said they were getting the CRJ but they stopped talking about it.
"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
Flashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2863 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 691 times:
My understanding with the ATA 737NG and 753 order was that Boeing actually took an equity stake in them as part of the deal... so that could tip the scales of the 767/330 debate in Boeing's favor...
KFRG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 662 times:
"The A330-200 and -300 offer a higher flexibility than the B767-300/400 do, that´s at least my opinion. The A330 is slightly larger the the B764, as it seems at the same or even lower costs."
You can't say that the A330 offers higher "flexibility" than the B767. Both aircraft operate at their best in different markets. Try operating an A330 JFK-SJU, an old L1011 route. My point is, the B767 is better suited for a carrier who needs long-range, but will require an aircraft which will be able to operate on some shorter-range routes most efficiently, which the B767 does perfectly. And I have seen operating cost numbers in favor of the B767.
ATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1361 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 1 hour ago) and read 590 times:
Yes the 753 is replacing the Tristars on some rte's and we are lossing alot of capacity on those rtes. Especially the upcoming LA and SFO Hawaii were those tristars were quite full often. The 767 just doesnt offer the capacity of the Tristars, the 333 or 332 would be a better replacement on some rtes and the Military Contract. our 500's will be around for a while yet and the 1/100's will solder on for a couple years.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 428 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
