flyboy80
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 2:41 pm

Once United gets back on its feet, which could be a couple of years, I was wondering if it might be eligable for any A340s? SImply because they posses the longer range option, whcih in up coming years they wont much as the 777s improve? The only reason I bring this up is because I've heard that a lot of 744s are leaving there fleet. ANd yes I realize this prabably wont happen (seeing as the 777s are fitting UA's routes great) but i would like to hear what you guys think. If they did go for an A340, what kind do you think it would be?
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 2:48 pm

If UA gets back on its feet....they will not be investing in the less-efficient A340. You can bet on that.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 2:52 pm

UAL has to much invested in the 777 to buy A340's. All it would do is drive up their operating costs. Something they don't need, even when times are good.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 3:16 pm

If I'm not mistaken, I believe United will be getting 777's to replace the 747's that they will completely do away with in the next 3-4 years (2 engines economically better than 4). It's really sad. I wonder if Boeing will bring up their 747-XXX projects again.


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

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 3:44 pm

The 773 makes the most sense, for 772 growth routes, and for a 744 replacement later this decade.

Assuming UA is still around.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 4:05 pm

Why on earth would UA want A340s when it already operates more 777s than any other carrier and already has costs out the wazoo?

How could bringing in a [relative] oddball (not to mention less-efficient) fleet type help them in any way  Insane
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
American 767
Posts: 3927
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 7:13 pm

I don't think the A340 would be an oddball in United's fleet since they have operated for almost ten years a large fleet of A319/A320's in it's domestic network but it doesn't look like they are intersted in the A340. They continue being a loyal customer at Boeing as far as widebodies are concerned. Like you say, they invested a lot in the 777 (THEY were the launch customer of the type).
If United ever gets out of Chapter 11 and recovers financially, they would likely order more 777's and retire the 747-400's altough those are not that old. They are already selling 7 of those to Thai, and maybe Northwest will pick up a couple of them.

Let's say United recovers, the future fleet would look as follows in five years from now:
A319/A320
B757
B767-300ER (the 200's will probably be sold to the Air Force)
B777-200/200ER (and maybe 300ER on order if traffic increases drastically, that depends of the global economy and market, but I doubt it)
I don't know if the B737's will still be around, maybe they will be but in smaller numbers, some of those might be sold to other airlines.
They won't order NG737's, that's very unlikely.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium

Ben Soriano
 
Airbus_A340
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2000 8:41 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 7:31 pm

N79969 said 'investing in the less-efficient A340'

Care to show some facts and figures whilst you give this general statement?

Airbus_A340
People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
 
Andreas
Posts: 5880
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 7:56 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 7:49 pm

NO PLEASE, NO FACTS!!!!!! NOT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just what we needed with all the US-Europe-Bashing going on...another completely useless and stupid A vs. B war, just great!
I know it's only VfB but I like it!
 
scottysair
Posts: 6442
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:07 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 9:03 pm

Are you sure about rumors with United new Airbus A340 and but, I don't think so either. This is adjusted need something increase orders on the B777-300ER with nonstop from LAX-SYD & AKL flight, too. This will be very unlikely on UA. I do think will figures out on the UA do think get rid of them with the old B744 will be phase out near of the future? Well, catch ya later!
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6059
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 9:15 pm

Airbus_A340,
It doesn't climb as fast as the 757, thus it must be completely inefficient  Insane

... yes, I was being sarcastic  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
Navion
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

Airbus Doesn't Need More Worries

Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:15 pm

Both manufacturers have enough financial exposure to financially weakened airlines right now. I doubt Airbus needs to get any more exposed to United, even through third party lessors.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:01 pm

I think it is a well known fact that the 777-200ER is more economical than A340-300. Just as the A330-200 is more economical than the 767-400.
 
OO-AOG
Posts: 1395
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 1:24 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:05 pm

they will not be investing in the less-efficient A340

Why would the A340 be less-efficient, I don't really understand. Please give us some more technical explanations on this subject N79969.

As far as I can remember, United is in very bad financial shape, so I don't really see the point of discussing if they might operate some new planes in the future, the question is more... will they continue to fly aircrafts in the future...
Falcon....like a limo but with wings
 
keesje
Posts: 8856
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:10 pm

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:34 pm

OO-AOG and others easily offended,

Some aircraft are more efficient than others. For instance, the A346 is more efficient than the 747-classics that it was designed to replace. The A320 and 737NG are more efficient than a 727. You guys can check the lbs per hour fuel burn if you would like.

Judging by the 772ER's higher list price over the 340 but its superior sales numbers, it is hard to conclude anything other than that 772ER is the superior aircraft.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:41 pm

Just off the top of my head...

While they didn't quote specific numbers overall, the Wall Street Journal's recent breakdown of the Iberia deal stated that while the 777's cost more money per aircraft, they had lower operating costs (thus justifying the higher price).

It was an interesting article in showing how Iberia used Boeing to drive a far better deal with Airbus (of which they had entire intentions of buying from in the first place). It also highlighted some significant off-ledger liabilites that Airbus has right now, specifically with regard to guaranteed resale prices of used aircraft.

Steve
 
Airbus_A340
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2000 8:41 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:47 pm

N79969, yes and that concludes why the A340 aircraft are still selling, right?
I'm sure you can approach many airlines (which ofcourse carefully work out the economics to meet their needs) and tell them to change their fleet as the '772ER is the superior aircraft'.

'easily offended'- no, not offended, someone here has been brainwashed to think that a certain aircraft is more effecient than another, even when airlines are buying the "less-efficient' one.

By the way, you have failed to draw up the facts and figures for the 'less efficient' and 'superior' aircraft.

Airbus_A340
People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:49 pm

It's extremely unlikely that UA would buy anything resembling the A340. Isn't the 777-200ER the equivalent of the A340-300 series anyway?  Insane

More likely if UA does return to profitability they would be looking at getting a good deal to buy the 777-300ER (with full ETOPS 207-minute rating) to replace the older 747-400's--maybe as many as 15-20 planes. UA will then sell their older 744's back to Boeing to be converted to freighters, just like what Boeing did to a number of ex-airline 747-300's. UA's remaining 747-400's will be retained for their busiest transpacific routes such as flights to NRT, SFO-HKG, flights to PVG and PEK, etc.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 12:07 am

Airbus_A340,

Let's assume what I am saying is true, the superior performance of the 772ER would not completely shut out sales of the 340-300 since it is comparable in many respects. This is basic economics. Check out the income and substitution effects in an elementary microeconomics textbook. There is a market equilibrium in which the 340-300 will still sell despite its inferior operating economics. As Steve points out, Airbus can overcome the gap by offering lower acquisition costs. If you have a small-long haul fleet, then the 343 is probably the better aircraft because in the long-run, capital costs may have more impact than operating costs for your company. If you have large long-haul fleet, the importance of operating economics may overshadow capital costs in the long term. Further with a large fleet, you are better able to negotiate price and thus reduce capital costs. As you are probably aware, non-economic factors also play a role in aircraft sales. For instance, Cathay Pacific is reluctant to fly ETOPS across the Pacific.

By all accounts, the 330-200 is a better aircraft than the 764. Yet, there are 764s in service and they are not being dumped wholesale like the 340-200 or MD-11.

I will defer to ConcordeBoy, an engineer, for the technical, non-economic data on the point I am making. It is open and notorious that the 772ER outperforms the A340-300 in most performance measures. Airlines have by in large have voted that way and put their money where their mouth is.



 
Lucifer
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2001 7:22 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 12:22 am

Well, different ones are going to be more efficient depending on your route profiles etc, so it is hardly a case of one is more efficient than the other full stop.

One is bought over the other depending upon the engineering costs as well as the direct operating costs, and also what the alliance partners operate, to collaborate on some purchasing and engineering.

Otherwise explain why Air France operates both the 777 and the A340.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 12:32 am

Lucifer is correct. But generally speaking, the 772ER is more efficient than the 343 on the type of missions they were intended for.

I think AF is a unique case. A340-300E (Alain Mengus) has written a great article on point. I think his website is: It is worth reading.

I also tend to think there is a political element to Air France's decision and I do not fault them for it. Air France and Airbus were until relatively recently owned by the French government. I think the French people would be disappointed to see their flag carrier dump what was until recently Airbus's flagship product. Further, I think Air France is now one of the best-run airlines in the world and they have successfully managed to operate these aircraft side-by-side. I think it is a feat that would be hard to duplicate. AF has an unusually diverse fleet even without these aircraft in the mix.

 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 12:38 am

Sorry, the link did not show.

http://www.airtransportbiz.com/
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:29 am

Some people simply refuse to accept the fact the 343 is an inferior product to the 772ER. While they don't have any evidence to dispute the claim, yet they keep on asking the other side to produce evidence. What evidence do you need? After the 777 was launched in 1990, Boeing garnered orders for more than 400 772ERs, but Airbus netted orders for about 100 343s. Since the 772ER entered into service in 1996, Airbus gained five new 343 direct-order customers. They were SAS, Lan Chile, China Airlines, SWISS and SAA for about 40 planes. I excluded Air Tahiti Nui in this list because they just picked up two whitetails Airbus had. Airbus got even fewer re-orders from existing 343 customers during that period. Lufthansa has just canceled their remaining 343 orders. The current 343 backlog is 24, excluding the two new customers got on board last year: SWISS and SAA, the 343 backlog would be a dismal single-digit number of 6 which include 2 for Singapore that Singapore will never use. According to some sources, Lan Chile might cancel their remaining orders of 3 343s. China Airlines told the world they got the 343 for less than $90 million apiece in 1997. That's about 40% discount. SWISS also told the world that they got the 343 for about $100 million apiece last year. That's also about 40% discount. Lan Chile did a last-minute u-turn because of pricing. The only reason some 343s are still being sold is because Airbus is willing to lower the price to a point that it is sufficient to overcome the operational deficiencies of the 343 relative to the 772ER. There are ample evidences out there that clearly suggest the problems the 343 is having. You don't need actual numbers to validate this assertion. It is not a myth! If the 343 was so great, there would be no reason why Air France should look at the 772ER in the first place! They operate both types because they have found a more efficient plane but they can't afford to dump the other. Then, the next best thing to do is to try to maximize with what they have. One thing for sure, Air France has not ordered any new 343 since 1996, the year the 772ER was certified. If you still want to believe the 343 is just as great as the 772ER, you can keep on dreaming. I don't want to disturb you in your dream.  Big grin
 
ScottB
Posts: 5450
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:41 am

Actually, I think the fact that AF operates both the A340 and the 777 in its fleet (and is continuing to buy 777's) does indeed tell us that the 777 is more efficient in most applications. After all, the A340 had been in the fleet at AF first; adding the 777 entailed the additional cost of a new fleet type, as well as the significant political cost of not purchasing the French/European product (assembled IN France; as Alain Mengus puts it, "How did a 94.57%-stated-owned company manage to order US products despite the intense political pressure?"). While AF does successfully operate both the A340-300 and 777-200 in its fleet, carefully tailoring the airliner used to the route, AF *declined* purchasing A340-600's, choosing to order 777-300ER's instead. By the time the first 777-200ER was delivered to AF, they had 14 A340's in the fleet; it would be difficult and costly (as the operator of more than 10% of the in-service A340's), not to mention politically untenable to phase them out of the fleet. There must be a compelling reason for AF to operate 777's, especially given the existence of the competing A340-500 and -600 which it has NOT ordered. I do not believe that AF would have taken on the additional operating cost of an extra fleet type, as well as the political cost of not ordering the French-assembled product, simply for a few more seats' worth of revenue on selected long-haul flights.

The choice of certain airlines to purchase certain aircraft based on initial purchase cost or long-term operating cost varies from carrier to carrier. But the same is true for consumers buying cars. Toyota and Honda don't generally have the lowest prices on cars, but many people are willing to pay extra money at purchase time because they know that the long-term costs associated with those manufacturers' cars will be relatively low.

But to get back on topic, there is NO WAY United will purchase the A340 within the next ten years (if ever). Cockpit commonality benefits them little since an A319/320 pilot is unlikely to move quickly to a large widebody. And the A340-500 doesn't offer much additional range over the 777-200LR (not enough to justify the high cost of another type). And that doesn't even begin to take into account the fact that UAL won't be in any position to be placing large widebody orders for several years, given that they are in bankruptcy.

[Edited 2003-03-20 17:43:12]
 
bucky707
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 2:01 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:43 am

Will UAL consider the A-340 in the future? Who knows. But its really an irrelevant topic at this point. I promise you UAL management has not even thought about new aircraft. They are trying to figure out how to get through the month. New aircraft are the last things on their minds. When/if UAL turns around, lets talk about this. I am sure no one at UAL has even considered it at this point.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:45 am

Scottb:

Good reasoning and explanation! One minor thing, the 772LR will have more range than the 345.
 
ScottB
Posts: 5450
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:49 am

I didn't know if the 777-200LR would have more range or not (and I was too lazy to go look it up), but I certainly didn't want the inevitable flames if I were wrong... But I was going to say that you made an excellent point: "If the 343 was so great, there would be no reason why Air France should look at the 772ER in the first place!"
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:04 am

Scottb and Dynkrisolo,

Nice job filling in the stuff I did not talk about it and bringing up new points. I was too lazy to gather exact numbers. Anyway, I think the case has been made that the 772ER is the superior aircraft compared to the A343.
 
JAL
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 12:37 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:57 am

I don't think that United will go for the A340 they seems to be happy with their 777 but then again anything could happen.
Work Hard But Play Harder
 
OO-AOG
Posts: 1395
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 1:24 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:01 am

OO-AOG and others easily offended,
Some aircraft are more efficient than others. For instance, the A346 is more efficient than the 747-classics that it was designed to replace. The A320 and 737NG are more efficient than a 727. You guys can check the lbs per hour fuel burn if you would like.


Not easily offended N79969, but you were stating that the 777 was more efficient than the A340, without specifying that you were referring to older generations A340s. Could you give me more info on your lbs per hour fuel burn data as an example, to be honest those are not the aircrafts I am dispatching myself so my knowledge is quite limited...

Thanks
OO-AOG


Falcon....like a limo but with wings
 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:07 am

UA wont be buying anything for a while, even if they aren't liquidated...
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:18 am

OO-AOG,

Okay, I understand. I am no dispatcher nor am I an engineer. However, I do not think one needs to be either to conclude that the 772ER is the better airplane. It costs more than the 343 and has sold more airframes. Airlines are willing to pay a premium for the 772ER for what could only be superior operating economics. See reply 19 for my economic reasoning. Replies 23 and 24 contain very compelling explanations. Although none of them contain lbs per hour fuel burn, I think they answer the big picture question of which is the better airplane between the 343 and 772ER.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:39 am

And the A340-500 doesn't offer much additional range over the 777-200LR (not enough to justify the high cost of another type)

Actually, the A345 doesnt offer ANY additional range over the 772LR.... the Boeing has nearly 500mi more range and a much higher power-to-weight ratio (as most twins do)
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
DALelite
Posts: 1318
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 7:00 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:28 am

i think UAL has things that are more important to worry about these days!!!

DALelite
They loved to fly and it showed..
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:45 am

"Actually, the A345 doesnt offer ANY additional range over the 772LR.... the Boeing has nearly 500mi more range and a much higher power-to-weight ratio (as most twins do)"

And what has the power-to-weight ratio to do with this? About the range, until now none of the 2 aircraft is in service, let's wait and see.
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:48 am


First of all why would United want to the 340 anyway. They have the 777 it is working for them well why go with another aircraft type when the one you have (which are modern and efficent) doing the job well.

The evidence is in the orders and delivery report of airbus and boeing and right now the latter seems to be winning. Reply 23 shows Airbus maketing tactic. It is only obvious that airlines will still by the 340 if it is cheaper and is better suited to some long haul routes than the 777.

Airbus and Boeing seem to be neck and neck in the 320 737 market
Airbus is beating Boeing in the 330 767 market
Boeing is beating Airbus in the 777 340 market
Boeing remains ahead for now in the 747-400 market




Eagles Soar!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 6:55 am

And what has the power-to-weight ratio to do with this

Oh, I dunno.... maybe something about increased takeoff performance and potential payload-penalty-freedom?  Insane
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 7:32 am

Just keep in mind that the only power-to-weight ratio that matters for the purposes of payload and required field length is the engine-out power to weight ratio.

A 343, for example, still has something like 102,000 pounds of thrust in an engine out (3x34,000lb) configuration -- with the advantage that the asymmetry (and thus drag created by created by control surfaces deployed against it) is only 34,000 lb.

Steve
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 9:02 am

Why would United add another fleet type that has no commonality with their other a/c? The only U.S. airlines that could be potential future A340 customers would be US Airways and Northwest since they are current or soon to be operators of the A330, which shares commonality with the A340. Of course, stranger things have happened; but the chances of ever seeing an Airbus widebody in UAL colors is about as much as seeing an A320 in Southwest's colors.
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 9:07 am

This entire thread is a waste of space started by a 13-15 year old armchair airline CEO. GMAFB. What a joke. United isn't getting the A340 in this lifetime, they'll be lucky just to survive and buy --any--- new plane.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:04 pm

Yet another ridiculous thread.

Statements that the 777 is more "efficient" is ridiculous, of course. A blatant misuse of semantics. The A340 is a very efficient aircraft.

Equally, an argument that an A330-200 is more efficient than a 767-400 is misguided. The 767-400 is a very efficient plane as well.

They're all great planes. The 777 has a larger capacity. Therefore, each plane excels at missions best suited for its capability. Duh.

Comparisons of just the 343s numbers vs. the 777 are flawed. Many customers have purchased A330-300s to operate in a similar market space as the 777... an advantage of a family of aircraft. You can use the less capable A330-300 on certain routes and the more capable A340-300 on certain routes, increasing "efficiency".

N
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:22 pm

Neil does raise an excellent point.

To truly compare how Airbus and Boeing fare against each other in the 250-350 seat market; one must compare the 772A, 772ER, 772LR, 773A, and 773ER versus the A333, A342(X/E), A343(X/E), A345, and A346. It really comes out to about even.

Airbus often throws in the A332 along with the rest because of its family orientation... though that's anecdotal and does not truly reflect the market as the A332 is more a competitor with the 767 family.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:22 pm

I disagree Gigneil. How are such statements ridiculous? If the 777 has lower operating costs than the 340 or the 332 has better payload/range capability than the 764, I would say you have more than a semantic basis for an argument.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:28 pm

The A330-200 wouldn't yield the same efficiency on ATL-MCO as a 767-400ER configured with the same number of pax. The 764 would whoop it handily in terms of operating costs.

You could get some efficiency on the route by packing MANY more seats in the 332... but if you don't have a high enough load factor, you'd lose that advantage.

The 777 does NOT have lower operating costs than the A340-300. The 340 is a very efficient and cost effective plane. If you have an A340-300 with 250 seats and a 777-200ER with 250 seats on LHR-CPT, for example, I assure you the A340 will yield a lower actual CASM. Its lighter, and would burn less fuel.

Now, if you had 320 people on your 777-200ER LHR-CPT, the 777 would turn out a much better cost would be my guess...

Its all about capability. If you don't need to fly 320 people on a 5500 mile segment, then the 777 isn't necessarily the optimum choice in terms of trip costs.

N
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:29 pm

What he's trying to say is that it's relative to the airlines:

If you're a carrier that might not be able to pony up the credit for a 772ER purchase, an A343 would probably right up your alley in the short-run.

Also, if you're an airline that wants to fly a ton of pax on relatively short/medium hops (e.g.., Delta) then the 764ER would be a much better aircraft than the A332.

It's all relative.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:41 pm

Does CanadianNorth smell another Boeing vs. Airbus war? Boeing all the way!

CanadianNorth
What could possibly go wrong?
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:41 pm

Point taken. However holding things equal, for the customers they compete for, the 777 generally beats 340 and the 332 beats the 764. Generally. Of course if you mess with stage lengths, seating configurations, and so forth the results will naturally change and can flip. Airbus and Boeing pitched their respective designs for fairly specialized missions. But the numbers don't lie. If

Let's take a 10-14 hour flight in which you need less than 744 capacity. Boeing's solution is the 772ER and Airbus offers the 343.... For that kind of flying with a typical international layout, the product from Everett wins hands down. Customers are paying the premium for the 772ER. The same logic applies for the 332 v 764. In that niche, the 332 is the winner usually.
 
United Airline
Posts: 8771
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:37 pm

I don't see UAL getting the A 340 at all. They operate a large number of Boeing Widebodies such as the B 767, the B 747-400 as well as the B 777-200ER.

IF UAL pulls through, I do see them ordering the B 7E7 to replace their aging B 767 fleet. And you will see more B 777-200ER orders, definitely. As for the B 747-400 replacement, they might go for the B 777-300ER or even newer B 747 variants (Such as the B 747-400QLR) if Capacity picks up again.

Just my 2 cents.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: United To Go For A340s?

Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:52 pm

or even newer B 747 variants (Such as the B 747-400QLR)

Assuming Boeing ever decides to make one....
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!