DC10Tony
Topic Author
Posts: 991
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 9:51 am

Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 6:08 am

Yesterday, I saw an A330-300 for the first time. It was operated by SkyService and its reg. was C-FBUS.

Just before we were about to push it back, I noticed something that said, "First A330 in North America" on its left side, but the lettering was gone, you could barely notice the writing.

Was this really the first A330 in N. America?

C-FBUS = Canada-First Airbus ? ?

It had Pratt and Whitney's too.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23346
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 6:21 am

Operating for AIH from MAN I take it.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
skyservice_330
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 6:50 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 7:00 am

It sure was!! It had the titles on the side for some time and have subsequently been removed, do a search on the photo's database and you can see it with the titles on it. Also, just a little tid bit of information for ya, defunct Canada 3000 was the first to operate the A330-200 in North America, or was it just Canada? I think it was North America.

From Canada,
SKYSERVICE_330
 
David_itl
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 7:12 am

In which airport (I can deduce the flight number from the destination)?

David/MAN
Http://fly.to/northwest-spotters
 
slawko
Posts: 3742
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 7:40 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 7:45 am

Canada 3000 was teh first airline in the world to operate the 330-200 ans SSV was the first to operate any type of 330 in North America.
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 8:39 am

Minor tangent here: ironically, the 332 was probably the wrong aircraft for C3. They could have procured used 763's instead of new 332s (for about 1/2 the lease rate) and saved M$ since 1997. Perhaps enough to survive to now. C3 had trouble filling the 332's....it was probably too big a jump in capacity over the 752.

We all talk about the 2001 events (911, Royal purchase, CJ purchase, sked services, recession) that killed C3. I would add the 332 was a MAJOR contributing factor as well. A charter airline such as C3 should not have been 'launching' new models in service such as the 332.

IMHO
Neil
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:29 am

True.....C3 could have gone for 8-10yo used 763's though, not necessarily new ones.


I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
slawko
Posts: 3742
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 7:40 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:50 am

Yeah they could have but C3 was too good for used airplanes...They were ELITE after all

I agree with YYZ717 that the 332 was a major mistake for C3, and one that even angus admitted. It was those particular airplanes that were the biggest problem, they did what not many people in their right mind would do, they bought a brand new (as yet un-tested) airplane with brand new (yet un-tested) engines...those engines were a major problem for CMM in the begining and the problem was never really solved. But by being the first to get this new plane and new engine design they got a really good deal on the airplane, which I guess won out over the 767 offer in the end. Too bad, we have enough plastic in Canada, should have got some real airplanes, right grant?  Smile
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
 
DC10Tony
Topic Author
Posts: 991
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 9:51 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 11:11 am

"Operating for AIH from MAN I take it."

Yep.
 
gmonney
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:59 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:43 pm

This is turning into a CMM post but here are my two cents.....If CMM did get the 767, which now seems like a good choice, they could still be in business. Then that would better lead to a 777 maybe?? Probably a better choice in Slawko's mind over that F'n 340 that didn't really do any good anyway??. I guess when they got the A320, it started turning into an Airbus Fleet!!!!

They should have planned better and I bet we (yyz folk) could put together a fleet that would rock and be cost effficient!!! But thats after leaning from CMM's mistakes!!!!

Hmmm, this all boeing fleet sounds a little like the makings of a little American....hmmmmm???

I am Grant and I am Canadian!!!
Drive it like you stole it!
 
AWspicious
Posts: 2780
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 7:47 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 2:08 pm

C3's first 332 (wiskey alpha) was, in my opinion, a jinked plane. And heck, I'm not even superstitious! But, if ever there was a black sheep of the fleet, that honour would go to C-GGWA
Nevermind political correctness - Envision using your turn signals!
 
gmonney
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:59 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 2:19 pm

Sorry for the language....I got carried away...

Grant
Drive it like you stole it!
 
slawko
Posts: 3742
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 7:40 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 2:20 pm

Wasnt really a test plane, it was just a brand new airplane, with a brand new engine, airlines dont usually put the two together when they buy or lease new planes, Angus did, because they gave him a good deal on the airplanes.
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
 
AWspicious
Posts: 2780
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 7:47 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 2:23 pm

Easy now.
It's actually an impressive piece of machinery when you're up close and personal with it.... as I've been, on many occasions.
I know there are many people who have their preferences, but, somehow, you learn to appreciate the "other side" when you have a close working relationship with them. I have fond (and interesting) memories of wiskey alpha.

aw
Nevermind political correctness - Envision using your turn signals!
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 3:17 pm

Actually it was a test plane. Airbus used it in the 332 cert program.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 9:41 pm

Not sure if I agree that the A330-200 was the wrong aircraft for Canada 3000. While it did have some early problems, especially with the GE-CF6 engines, these will have been warranty claims and fixed at the expense of the manufacturer responsible for that component.

While the 767 would have provided commonality with the 757 fleet, the A320 fleet, provided very similar commonality with the A330. If Canada 3000 were making the decision to head to an all-Airbus/single-flightdeck fleet then the A330 would have undoubtedly made sense.

The A330-200 is the aircraft of choice for the long-haul needs of charter airlines, Canada 3000 was the first, but their decision to take the A330-200 was validated by the many airlines that followed;

Airtours International
Monarch
JMC Airlines
Premiair
Corsair
Novair
Edelweiss
LTU
Air Transat
Air Luxor

Ironically the only major holiday airline that has openly rejected the A330-200 is Canada 3000's one time sister airline Air 2000. They chose the 767-300 for their longhaul fleet, then a few months later inherited an A330-200 order when they took over Leisure International. This order was soon cancelled in favour of more 767-300s.

I don't really think you can place much of the blame for what happened to Canada 3000 on the A330, they fell into a trap that several airlines have fallen into before;
Successful and profitable charter airline, makes major expansion into the scheduled market and goes out of business. A very similar story to Air Europe in the UK in 1991 after the Gulf war...

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:25 pm

Well said Crosswind. I think the 332 was a contributor, albeit a minor one, in the C3 demise.

Neil
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
gmonney
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:59 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 1:32 am

I can't agree with you more Yyz717....I think that C3 would have been better with say the 733 instead of a the A320.....then keep the 757 and add the 767...kind of a boeing fleet, but a better choice for the fleet. If they wanted to stay with Airbus??? I don't know why, but the A310 would have been a better choice for price reasons, but I know its not compatible with anything!!! SO, C3 was spending millions of dollars per month on an aircraft that didn't make much money

Grant
Drive it like you stole it!
 
Gate Keeper
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2000 11:53 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 1:50 am

It is truely astounding how many arm chair CEO's there are on this site. I appreciate that you are penning your opinion but let's be realistic. Did C3 fail because they opted for Airbus not Boeing? No. The failure had to do with ill conceived, poorly executed expansion with the catch all 911 as the final straw. It sounds as though some here think that if C3 was 737,757,767 they wouldn't have failed? Ridiculous. The 330's had become(in the President's own words) the most profitable aircraft in the fleet. Slawko your "Elite" comment shows yet again that you have to get over what happened and move on.
 
tygue
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 1999 4:42 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 1:55 am

Here here, Gatekeeper.

It's time you folks moved on. Stop fighting over a corpse.

 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 1:56 am

Gmonney,
The B737-300 would never have been a great aircraft for Trans-Canada services. The 757/A320 combination is a good one, there's a list of airlines as long as your arm using it!

About the A310, Canada 3000 were seriously looking into taking some ex-Delta A310s in the early 1990s, the plan being to use them in place of the B757 on Trans-Atlantic routes, giving increased passenger and freight capacity and cutting out the Keflavik stops on longer routes. Like many things, it never went ahead for whatever reason...

Would have been interesting to see what use they made of the A310/757 combination once Royal had been fully integrated.

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 4:37 am

going back to the Skyservice A330-300, I flew on it MAN > SFB > MAN a few of weeks ago and I have to say the interior of that aircraft has seen some serious abuse - it desperately needs a little TLC.

Window blinds missing, seats falling apart etc. and it rattles like you wouldn't believe on takeoff (seriously - use earplugs - every remaining window blind rattles loudly) - still it got me to Orlando and back with only a 1 hour technical delay on the return flight. Relatively spacious too for a charter flight.
 
DC10Tony
Topic Author
Posts: 991
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 9:51 am

RickB

Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:02 am

Hey, I work on the ramp at SFB.

Be honest, what do you think of SFB, overall? Some have said it's a real pit.

Yeah, Airtours uses that 333 to go to Manchester from SFB. I didn't get to see the inside of it, but I'll bet it was 9-abreast.

What rattles when you're taking off, the seats, or the actual airframe?
 
sunbird
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 12:10 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:17 am

yes it was here is as good as a view as I could find


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Marlo Plate

 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:48 am

Actually, C-FBUS is 2-4-2 (8 abreast) in "Y-class" and 2-3-2 in Premier Class.

LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
slawko
Posts: 3742
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 7:40 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 8:06 am

GateKeeper, when I made my ELITE comment, it was because it was something that the prided themselves on, C3 saw themselves as the best of the best, and with the ultramodern fleet too.....The same ultramodern fleet had engines flame out, and cowlings come apart in the air. It was more of comment of the poor choice of aircraft engine combination, rather then a shot at CMM.

I dont think, nor did I say that C3 would have survived if they had bought boeing, thats stupid. Angus did sa that the 300 turned out to be a good plane int he long run, but I also recall him saying in one of the early phone conferances, that They learned their lesson re. mixing new planes and new engines with the 330 and all the trouble it caused in the begining, so they were not really interested in using the new PW engines for the 319.

I know that you have no interest in anything I say, and you probably think that I'm just some idiot from royal who doesnt know anything about anything, and that is your own right, but how about posting something other then just arguing with other people on the website. If you dissagree with anything I or anyone else has to say then post your reasons for your position, rather then just telling me, and others how little we know, without posting your own opinion on the topic.....Enough said, I'm not going to get into a mud slinging match.....I have no time for that, If I wanted that I would go post on the former C3 employee website where I understand my name is being slagged left and right.....
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 9:23 am

Gatekeeper,
I think C3 could have saved $M by leasing used 763's instead of new 332's. C3 was largely a low-yielding charter carrier. New derivatives (such as the 332) are high-cost and generally are launched by sked carriers with high yield business traffic, not by charter carriers flying YYZ-CUN, MAN, LGW etc.

A new 332 leases for about $1.0 to $1.2M/month. Am 8 year old 763 (with lower operating costs and about 50 fewer seats) can be leased for only about $600k/month. So, C3 could have saved about C$25M by leasing used 763's instead of new 332's on leasing costs alone, not to mention slightly lower operating costs. The avg 332 load factor was around 75-80%...easily carried in a 763. Hence minimal moss of revenue.

I would not venture that C3 failed due to its 332 fleet but it was a contributing factor...the 332 was a very high cost aircraft for a charter carrier with thin margins embarking on a massive expansion into sked service.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
sunbird
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 12:10 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 10:31 am

just my 2 cents worth

No matter what is said and has happend I think it is just bad luck when airlines collapse. I dont think it has anything to do with the aircraft! My personal belife is C3 may (not the word may and it is not the word did) have over step there service area, at no fault of there own. You see C3 was starting grow by leaps & bounds (good for them), but as a reasult of what happend on 9/11/01 people are starting to go with the lower cost lower profile airlines for just that reason lower profile look at Westjet and Jetblue and some of the other smaller charter airlines they are acutaly turning a profit and not going to goverment for handouts. It is just the luck of the draw as far as I am concerind when it comes to who lives and who dies in air travel.......if I am wrong please let me know, but this is how I see it...call it rude or 1 sighted, but I am open to new segestions and reason

sunbird
 
Gate Keeper
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2000 11:53 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 10:45 am

"GateKeeper, when I made my ELITE comment, it was because it was something that the prided themselves on, C3 saw themselves as the best of the best, and with the ultramodern fleet too.....The same ultramodern fleet had engines flame out, and cowlings come apart in the air. It was more of comment of the poor choice of aircraft engine combination, rather then a shot at CMM."


Slawko...Most airlines have had engines flame out and cowl separations infrequently. C3 was no different in this regard. We did however have an enviable safety record and in the final analysis that is what counts. Your comment on engine combination is 20/20 hindsight.


"I dont think, nor did I say that C3 would have survived if they had bought boeing, thats stupid. Angus did sa that the 300 turned out to be a good plane int he long run, but I also recall him saying in one of the early phone conferances, that They learned their lesson re. mixing new planes and new engines with the 330 and all the trouble it caused in the begining, so they were not really interested in using the new PW engines for the 319."

Also the fact that they had economies of scale in their favor with the CFM so it was a logical choice.


"I know that you have no interest in anything I say, and you probably think that I'm just some idiot from royal who doesnt know anything about anything, and that is your own right, but how about posting something other then just arguing with other people on the website. If you dissagree with anything I or anyone else has to say then post your reasons for your position, rather then just telling me, and others how little we know, without posting your own opinion on the topic.....Enough said, I'm not going to get into a mud slinging match.....I have no time for that, If I wanted that I would go post on the former C3 employee website where I understand my name is being slagged left and right....."

Your stance has and always will be prejudiced against Royal. I try to remain objective. However, I have never slagged your CEO or aircraft or personnel nor have I ever suggested any one employee group was above another. I correct facts. I value everyone's right to an opinion(yours included) on this board but I will correct half truths where I feel it necessary. A quick search will find me more than opinionated rather than the belittling short insults that you suggest.

Gatekeeper,
"I think C3 could have saved $M by leasing used 763's instead of new 332's." Are you saying you knew how to run the airline better than AJK. Kinnear had 7 yrs. to think about his entry into the widebody market.

"C3 was largely a low-yielding charter carrier. New derivatives (such as the 332) are high-cost and generally are launched by sked carriers with high yield business traffic, not by charter carriers flying YYZ-CUN, MAN, LGW etc." Yes, which is exactly what Airbus was leaning towards when they developed the 330-200. As a matter of fact, C3 (as the launch customer) was very involved in the configuration and interior make-up(galley, lavs etc...) of the aircraft.

"A new 332 leases for about $1.0 to $1.2M/month. Am 8 year old 763 (with lower operating costs and about 50 fewer seats) can be leased for only about $600k/month."
I would hazzard a guess that the figures you have given are today's numbers. The 767-300 was not available at those prices 5 yrs ago when the widebody aircraft was being considered. Being the launch customer for both airframe and engine(free advertising if you will) and the attractive lease costs all were part of the decision.



"I would not venture that C3 failed due to its 332 fleet but it was a contributing factor...the 332 was a very high cost aircraft for a charter carrier with thin margins embarking on a massive expansion into sked service."

The 330 was not the problem as I have stated in earlier posts. The 340, now that's a whole other ball game. Until next time........


 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 10:46 am

You are correct Sunbird.

But when an airline such as C3 decides to take a leap of faith and expand rapidly.....they should have substantial resources set aside for contingencies, such as one-time costs of consolidation, fleet rationalization, a substantial cash balance in case of an economic slowdown during expansion. C3 didn't seem to have this.

As GK said, we're all arm-chair CEO's, but hey....that's what an av-forum is for!

Neil
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

DC10Tony

Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:42 am

I was quite impressed with SFB actually - okay its not exactly local to Orlando but its only a 35 minute drive away. Although the single lane road out of the airport can be irritating if your behind a load of people who have never driven in the US before driving at 5 mph looking for a sign to I4 !!!

Three flights landed in quick succession when we arrived - the Skyservice A333 I was on, an Airtours A332 and a Britannia 767 - so around 1000 people I would guess within a few minutes. I was convinced it would take hours to get through immigration but it took 10 - 15 minutes - and then straight into the rental car office and out on the road within 10 minutes.

When you land SFB looks tiny - its amazing how large it is inside in comparison - my only complaint would be there isn't a lot to do once in the departure area. The one duty free shop is quite small as is the bar area so I could imagine it getting crowded during the summer months.

I wouldn't agree its a real pit - just a lack of shops and entertainment for departing passengers brings it down.
 
gmonney
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:59 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Tue Mar 05, 2002 2:18 pm

Here Here Slawko and Yyz717.....well said guys....Ok the all boeing fleet may have been a little off, but I'm sure that as we seem to be agreeing, the fleet helped them go out of business. As Yyz717 said a 75-80% full with 200 passengers A330 is a waste of money....a 100% full 767 with 200 or so passengers is a good choice.....so really what we are saying is that C3 EXPANDED TO FAST!!! Kind of what you hinted in the long run....

If I could find my post a while ago about having Royal and C3 merge but still run as a seperate air carrier i would post it but i can't so....her is the bulk of what I said :
OK C3 runs like the major charter and does over sea's stuff, Royal continues to fly the really good margin flights and pass the oversea marginal traffic to C3 so you buy a ticket on royal YYZ-LGW and C3 flys it...example only, while at the same time, Royal focuses on beefing up their Domestic after the two companies TOGETHER take over the useless CanJet. They would be donminating the East and threaten WJ or alteast give them healthy competition....with a meal!!!

So the bulk of it is yes they expanded too fast and with the IMPROPER aircraft....its all a part of expansion....heck they could have done well with more 752!!!! Look at WJ, they are expanding when they more or less have to......C3 did it just to do it...and maybe be Angus thought his head could be as big as Miltons.....in like 5 years!!!!

That is my take on things....again.... so Gatekeeper, feel free to comment....and ya the A340...???? enough said!!!

Grant
Drive it like you stole it!
 
DC10Tony
Topic Author
Posts: 991
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 9:51 am

RE:DC10Tony

Wed Mar 06, 2002 12:46 am

RickB-

If you ever come to SFB again and need to get to Orlando quickly, take The Greeneway (417) instead of I-4, it's much faster and it's not a crowded highway. From SFB to the metro/attractions part of Orlando, it will cost about $2.00, and is worth it. Bring quarters too.

As you're leaving SFB on Red Cleveland Blvd, stay on it and it will curve to your right as you're leaving the airport premises, then it straightens out again, and the road's name changes to Lake Mary Blvd. The on-ramp for the Greeneway (417) will be about 5 miles from the curve, then just hop on the highway and you're all set. The speed limit is 65, but you can get away with 70.

Don't forget the Greeneway is a toll road.
 
captaingomes
Posts: 6251
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Wed Mar 06, 2002 1:31 am

no no no no no no no no NO!

If I may step in to C3's defense (cherish the moment, it will be rare!!!), let me try to rationalize C3's choice for the A330.

1. They already operated the A320, so that commonality is an issue.
2. At the time of them making a decision, the acquisition costs of a new A330 and a new 767 would probably be very close.
3. The operating costs are not that different from an A330 to a 767-300ER. However, with more seats, the revenue earning potential is greater, and even more so when you consider the cargo capacity as well.
4. New aircraft, and therefore launch customer discounts.
5. It fits with the C3 "elite" moto, as they have a brand new aircraft, while the competition (Transat, Royal) were operating "old" aircraft. Passengers surely appreciate sitting in a quiet, clean and new airplane. They are also very roomy aircraft compared to other charter aircraft.



So ... costs not much different compared to a 767, both to acquire and to operate, greater revenue potential, and customer preference.

I am also very sure that they often operated the thing completely full, on Lisbon and London flights in the summer, and I wouldn't be surprised on Cancun and Vegas flights in the winter. So all in all, going back to their time, and sitting in the board room with them, and given the information they had, it probably wasn't such a bad choice.

Oh, and another thing, C3 was a charter at the time. The tour operators wanted available seats, and C3 made their money regardless of 50% or 100% loads. It was not their responsibility to sell the seats. And remember as well, there were very strong rumours that when C3 was going sched, they wanted 767's. So then they surely knew that the 767 was more in tune with what they needed for their sched services, as opposed to the A330's. Some food for thought for all of you, sorry for the length of this post!
"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

DC10Tony

Wed Mar 06, 2002 2:23 am

Thanks for that - last time I just headed down Lake Mary Blvd until I hit I4 north of Altamonte !! It didnt take too long but after a long flight its worth a couple of dollars to shorten it !!

The only other problem I can think of at SFB was that we landed very, very long, coming to a stop right at the end of the runway - there is no taxiway there so we ended up having to U-turn on the runway and head back on ourselves - all the time I can see an AIH A332 coming in to land - maybe extending the taxiway to the end of the runway would be an idea?
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Skyservice A330-300

Wed Mar 06, 2002 2:32 am

Nuno,
I disagree on one point: costs of 332 vs 763. 763 much lower.

A used 763 can be leased for about 1/2 the cost of a 332. The average charter (indeed, even business traveller) cannot tell the diff betw a well maintained new aircraft and a well maintained used aircraft. The op costs of the 763 are also lower since its a smaller aircraft than the 332.



I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerolimani, babastud, BaconButty, Braniff747SP, BreninTW, CV990A, ek17, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], HALtheAI, intotheair, IPFreely, jfk777, jmc1975, LAX772LR, loranfair, milemaster, RogerMurdock, SInGAPORE_AIR, SJOtoLIR, TZTriStar500, ushermittwoch, Yahoo [Bot] and 308 guests