Why Bwia Went With Airbus. — Tech Ops Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Why Bwia Went With Airbus.

BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2193 posts, RR: 2
Posted (11 years 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 834 times:

Hi is there anyone in this forum that can tell me why BWIA picked the 340 over the 763er 764 and the 772, I would also like to find out if anyone knows if the airline made a loss as it relates to the refurbishment of the L1011 as I though the refurbishment of those would have made them last up to 2005.

Eagles Soar!

12 replies: All unread, jump to last

LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 798 times:

Since accountants make the final decision at most airlines I would say the price of the A340 vs 777. In other words, who gave the bigger discount.

Rick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 790 times:

I believe they could not meet the stringent maintenance requirements relating to ETOPS operations, and hence required a 4-engined aircraft.

I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...

Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 786 times:

I also wonder why they chose A340 when it is so underpowered, doesn't have a conventional yoke, has a flightcomputer that crashes every second flight, has bad FBW, is made of plastic, has 5 APU's, and landing gear that collapses all the time. Did I forget any? Insane

Well, Airbus probably gave the a/c away and let the European taxpayers pay for all of it. Yeah sure

BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2193 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 762 times:

People in the civil forum said that the aircraft had commonality with the airlines 737 800s which have CFM 56s engines. The 340 has the same core as the 737.

Staffan so in you opinion the 340 is a bad aircraft and can anyone else agrees with this.

Eagles Soar!

Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 765 times:

No, I like it, I was just being sarcastic and giving some of the many bullshit reasons on why the A340 is soooooooo bad, that have been posted here from people who think they know a lot about aviation.

Staffan Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Wilcharl From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1158 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 748 times:

This tech forum has gone so down hill in the last year.... :-(

BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2193 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 735 times:

This is to Wilcharl.
If this tech forum has gone down in the last year why dont you do something to make it better instead of complaining and not helping people like me who are trying to gain knowledge.

Eagles Soar!

Donder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 726 times:

ETOPS is the main reason I would have thought.Did they consider the M11 at all?

BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2193 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 726 times:

I find that the fact the L1011 are being replaced is a waste of money. The airline said that the Tristars were refurbished infact the 3 that they owned were refurbished between 1999 and 2000. I think that the ETOPS is the main reason. Is it cheaper to maintain the quad jet 340 appose to the twin jet 764 and 772

Eagles Soar!

777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 726 times:

I find that the fact the L1011 are being replaced is a waste of money

The Tristars made very little money. They have very high fuel burn.

Wilcharl From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1158 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 709 times:

BWIA 772,

I wasnt refering to your topic, its a great topic, and i was curious my self.. i was refering to Staffan's reply to your topic..

BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2193 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 709 times:

To Wilcharl My bad sorry about that.

To 77236ER.
I made that statment because the airline spent money refurbishing those aircrafts. It therefore seems to me that money was wasted in the improvements of aircrafts which could have been utilised in the percurment of replacement aircrafts. Another reason for my making such a point is based on the fact that the airline only became viable in 98 after over 55 years of operating with out a profit thus they still have long term debts and the refurbishment of the L1011 seemed to be a waste of valuble cash resources.

Eagles Soar!

Top Of Page

Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Bwia Went With Airbus.

Username:	No username? Sign up now!
Password:	Forgot Password? Be reminded. Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)

Tech/Ops related posts only!
Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
No hostile language or criticizing of others.
Do not post copyright protected material.
Use relevant and describing topics.
Check if your post already been discussed.
Check your spelling!
DETAILED RULES

Check Spelling

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics: