Wow, what a wise philosophy...CX showed us his latest theory.
CX, have you ever spent only an hour in a statistics class? That would have taught you that few examples (to say it precise: three) for a certain development do not justify a general conclusion.
And, come on, the three examples which you chose are just ridiculous. US Airways was already doing bad before the Airbus order. And some of their disastrous adventures (such as Metrojet) can not be related to the Airbus fleet. And if they can still find the straw to survive, then it will be at a certain extent be caused by the new and economic Airbus fleet.
Swissair's fault was not its fleet (which by the way has done a great job regarding economics, except for the MD-11) but its policy of buying financially troubled or almost dead airlines like Sabena, Air Liberte, Air Littoral, TAP, LTU or whatever broke their neck.
Sabena would have crashed even earlier without SR’s, at a time when they didn’t have any Airbusses yet.
Ok, tell us more examples! We want to see you feeding your theory…I fear you cannot. But I can name some airlines which are doing very well after large Airbus orders…Lufthansa, Iberia, Air France, Northwest, JetBlue, Emirates, TAM Brasil, America West, Frontier, TACA, bmi, Qatar, Cathay Pacific, Korean Air, Thai and so on…
Do you really think a fleet mix of F28, F100, MD-81/82, B732, B733, B734, B727, B757 and B762 can be operated more economically than a mix of A319/A320/A321/A330? Have you ever thought about the possibility that US might have bought to much of something in a situation when buying to much of ANYTHING is a fault?
Maybe you have the chance to visit a statistics class one day…if you present your theory there expect a loud laughter following immediately…
Maybe the time for a new theory? What about “Flying Airbus creates headache”, “Airlines ordering Airbus offer worse meals”, or “Relation between A318 orders and damages on bikes in Antananarivo” ???
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...