jake3204
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:23 am

Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:02 pm

Personally, I think that AC adding 777s to there fleet was kind of a dumb move. Sure they will have the lie-flat seats in first class and personal T.V.'s in every seat but still, they were doing fine without them. The A340 is doing fine. Getting on a plane is just going from point A to point B.
 
burnsie28
Posts: 5027
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:49 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:04 pm

The A340's are not doing fine they were not meeting the target needs for Air Canada. Thats why the got rid of them, not for some flashy interior upgrade.
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:16 pm

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
The A340's are not doing fine they were not meeting the target needs for Air Canada. Thats why the got rid of them, not for some flashy interior upgrade.

A340s were doing the job fine and I agree with Jake3204 that it makes little sense from fleet point of view to replace them by 777. Should have waited and get XWB.

However AC seems to got a steal deal from Boeing and this taxpayer sponsored export agency who financed the deal (don't remember their name).
 
Oroka
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:22 pm

Apparently they were having some teething problems with the A340. One way or another, fuel costs are a huge concern for any airline, and the A340 just cant match the 777 for fuel efficiency. Look at all those airlines lining up to get the 787... alot of those airlines have decent aircraft, but the cost of procuring new aircraft is out weighed by fuel savings.
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:41 pm

Quoting Jake3204 (Thread starter):
I think that AC adding 777s to there fleet was kind of a dumb move.

Why was it a dumb move? The A340s are some of the worst modern aircraft for fuel. The B777s are one of the best modern aircraft thats currently flys. The B777 has been voted many times previously for having the best aircraft cabin and Boeing was the first airline (and I think still the only airline builder) to be given an award for its signature product which is also now standard on all B737NGs. Those two facts are perfect reasons for why AC made the best choice and ordered B777s

Quoting Jake3204 (Thread starter):
Sure they will have the lie-flat seats in first class and personal T.V.'s in every seat but still, they were doing fine without them

Todays passengers are not like yesterdays passengers. Todays passengers are demanding PTVs and business class and first class passengers are demanding bigger and better products, so airlines are now giving them what they want to keep them as loyal customers. NZ is a fine example of this. Before NZ spent billions on new aircraft and new cabins, NZ were loosing customers by the truck loads each year to competitiors like EK, SQ, QF, CX etc. Now NZ is winning back those customers by the truck loads each year. SQ has event admitted that NZs IFE and cabin products are BETTER then theirs. NZ choose VSs products and won the licence and now AC is going down the same path. The extra weight on those A340s would have made them even more unworthy to keep due to the more fuel usuage

Quoting Jake3204 (Thread starter):
Getting on a plane is just going from point A to point B.

For us passengers it might be the plan, but for the airlines like AC they need to make a nice profit yet at the same time keep us customers flying with them.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18850
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:02 pm

Don't forget that AC has been achieving record load factors almost every month for the past couple of years and several airports to be served by the 777s, for example LHR and NRT, are so congested that it's very difficult to obtain slots to add additional flights. Having 63 more seats to sell on each 773 vs. a 343 is thus an excellent way to increase capacity and generate additional revenue without having to operate another flight, even if they could obtain the slots. And one more flight would probably add too much capacity. And in important high-yield business travel markets that the 777s are going to serve, the additional 12 business class seats (42 vs 30 on the 343) and with a much improved flat-bed product will generate additional high-yield revenue and further improve profitability. The 777 is also faster than the A340. On long sectors like YVR-HKG or YYZ-NRT it probably means a difference of at least 30 minutes vs. an A340.

Following related quote from AC's CEO's message to shareholders in the current AC annual report:

New widebody fleet

Beginning in March, we will begin replacing our 10 A340-300s and some of our oldest Boeing 767s with a combination of Boeing 777-300ER and 777-200LR twin-engine aircraft. The 777s have a lower cost per available seat-mile than both of our four-engine A340 models – up to 26 per cent lower – and can fly further with a full payload. Two engines versus four mean better fuel efficiency and less maintenance expense. When substituting a 349-seat 777-300ER for an A340-300 we gain 63 seats and several tonnes of freight capacity. Our 777s will have the same Executive First suite with a lie-flat bed being installed throughout the widebody fleet. Every passenger in the economy cabin will have the same personal in-seat video system being installed fleet-wide – and we intend to charge for premium content. The 777-300ER is destined for our busiest, most profitable markets like London, Frankfurt and Tokyo where we can sell the extra seats and cargo space and charge top dollar for the suites. The 270-seat 777-200LR will take over very long distance routes like Toronto-Hong Kong and do it at a 12 per cent lower seat-mile cost. And the best is yet to come: the Boeing 787s being delivered from 2010 on will be 30 per cent more cost-effective to operate than the 218-seat 767s they replace.
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:53 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 4):
The A340s are some of the worst modern aircraft for fuel.

The A340 is, despite all of the nonsense that you get to read on this website, an extremely fuel efficient aircraft. The B777 just happens to be even more efficient.

Was it a good move for AC? Seems it was (or at least they're very convinced that it was) - they'll have had a very hard look at the financials. For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls.

[Edited 2007-04-01 11:00:30]
Smile - it confuses people!
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:04 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
Don't forget that AC has been achieving record load factors almost every month for the past couple of years and several airports to be served by the 777s, for example LHR and NRT, are so congested that it's very difficult to obtain slots to add additional flights. Having 63 more seats to sell on each 773 vs. a 343 is thus an excellent way to increase capacity and generate additional revenue without having to operate another flight, even if they could obtain the slots.

Don't forget that Air Canada also had ordered the A340-600 ( and still listed) on the Airbus orders sheet.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
Beginning in March, we will begin replacing our 10 A340-300s and some of our oldest Boeing 767s with a combination of Boeing 777-300ER and 777-200LR twin-engine aircraft. The 777s have a lower cost per available seat-mile than both of our four-engine A340 models -- up to 26 per cent lower -- and can fly further with a full payload.

This statement was rather silly. Why did he compare the A343E with the B77W. We all know that the A343E competes directly with the B772ER, while the B77W competes directly with the A346.

Had he done so his figures would have been completely different.

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
The A340 is, despite all of the nonsense that you get to read on this website, an extremely fuel efficient aircraft. The B777 just happens to be even more efficient.

Exactly Leskova.

Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
PEET7G
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:00 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:20 pm

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
The A340 is, despite all of the nonsense that you get to read on this website, an extremely fuel efficient aircraft. The B777 just happens to be even more efficient.

I agree, so I don't get all this nonsense of fuel efficient or not remarks... Yes the 777 is more fuel efficient than the 340NGs ,but there are far more cost savings in operating a well maintained ETOPS certified 2 engined plane than a 4 engined one. And let's not talk about the 777 outperforming the 340NGs in just about every data. Boeing made a good bet with going for the 2 engines concept and they clearly won, now hopefully Airbus learned it's part and come back on the back of it's own 2 engined families of airplanes. Everyone deal with it! Boeing has the upper hand and will do so for some time, but don't write down Airbus either, they will come back and we will see the cycle of aviation continue... this is life and all you cheerleaders deal with it. Air Canada made a good decision with going for the 777s, they should have done so in the first place. Fleet commonality has proven to be such a minor issue, that with such operating efficiency gains it is not even an argument point. AC longhaul operations will do best with the Boeing products and the shorthaul operations will make use of the A32S (and RJ aircrafts).

And before anyone comes up with Lufthansa making money with it's A340s, yes I know, but also consider that they went with large numbers of the type and that as Leskova said the A340 is not exactly an inefficient plane either, it is just that the 777 is even more efficient and LH would perhaps have made even more money if they went with them in the first place... LH is an efficient company in it's self, hell they are not even rushing to get rid of their 733s, 744s, etc.

The only issue that I see with AC is the out-phasing of the A330s that are also perfectly efficient planes and a 777/330 combo is a proven mix for airlines.
Peet7G
 
accargo
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:19 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:56 pm

Quoting Jake3204 (Thread starter):
Personally, I think that AC adding 777s to there fleet was kind of a dumb move. Sure they will have the lie-flat seats in first class and personal T.V.'s in every seat but still, they were doing fine without them. The A340 is doing fine. Getting on a plane is just going from point A to point B.

First off, AC does not have first class. The lie flats are for business class. Second, AC may have been doing fine with the 340's but will do even better with the 777. As already explained it will add more pax revenue when operating into slot controlled airports without the need to add additional frequencies. It will allow AC to operate routes without the need to weight restrict which is a current problem with the 340's on certain routes. It can take more freight meaning more revenue.
There are a whole multitude of issues about getting from Point A to Point B that you really should research.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:06 pm

Quoting Danny (Reply 2):
Should have waited and get XWB.

There was no XWB when the order was placed. Airbus could only offer the 'old' A350. AC has a lot of 767s and the 787 will make the perfect replacement. Boeing likely offered an incredibly good price to AC on the aircraft.

[Edited 2007-04-01 14:18:03]
 
SAOAP
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:29 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:36 pm

The A340 is as many around here stated, fuel efficient (not like the T7, but still...). But, the A340 (mainly the -300 series) is a handicapped aircraft: it has serious payload problems on selected routes (most notably on flights longer than 8 hours).

Take a GRU-ZRH for instance. This route used to be served by SR/LX's MD-11 and is now being served by the 343. While the 343 might be 'newer' than a MD-11, the route costs/revenue are about the same if I'm not mistaken. How?! Isn't the 343 supposed to be more fuel-efficient?? Yes, the 343 is indeed more fuel efficient, but, as I stated, it's handicapped: during our hot summer days the 343 has payload problems and cargo is left behind (there have been passenger restrictions too). This means considerably less revenue. The MD-11 never had such problems (if it did, on a much smaller scale). Consequently you have the 343's lower costs, but also lower revenue during a considerable part of the year. The MD-11 on the other hand had higher costs, but was also able to generate more revenue (pax, but mainly cargo).

Note: pax/cargo revenue can be increased considerably by correct steering and aggressive sales tactics.
"When it's dark enough, you can see the stars" - Charles A. Beard
 
jfk777
Posts: 5828
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:49 pm

Yes, with all the flights to LHR from all of Canada, YES it is. Tokyo and FRA are two important destinations for AC and the 777 bring in more gravy. Also Vancouver to Sydney would have been unthinkable with no 772LR.
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:01 pm

Good move or not can not be answered today as AC has no "real" data to compare.......

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
Don't forget that AC has been achieving record load factors almost every month for the past couple of years and several airports to be served by the 777s, for example LHR and NRT, are so congested that it's very difficult to obtain slots to add additional flights. Having 63 more seats to sell on each 773 vs. a 343 is thus an excellent way to increase capacity and generate additional revenue without having to operate another flight, even if they could obtain the slots.

In general I agree, however even a load factor of 90% (340) does not mean having 63 "extra" seats (T7) you actually will fill these seats or you will keep the 90% load factor......

The T7 is for sure not the "only & holly" answer for an airline to be more efficient and as ACCargo said there is more to it buying a particular aircraft then "just fuel, pax comfort".....

Quoting SAOAP (Reply 11):
Take a GRU-ZRH for instance.

The MD11 is an good example, it did not work for many airlines and for some the 11 did very well but even SR had its issue with "left behind" cargo because of the routing or problems in the beginning......

Time will tell and lets see how AC is doing in the next little while with their new metal  Smile


Cheers,
 
Cruiser
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:08 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:32 pm

I have also heard rumours that during bankruptcy, AC managed to refinance the A340s, and as a result, they will be making money when they sell them. So, they are selling the airplanes for more than they are worth, buying new ones which will help their bottom line, and thrilling the spotters...what could be better????

James
Leahy on Per Seat Costs: "Have you seen the B-2 fly-by at almost US$1bn a copy? It has only 2 seats!"
 
ual747-600
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 1999 12:57 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:33 pm

Come on folks pull your heads out of the sand. Air Canada ordered the 777's and 787's on April 25th, 2005. Airbus hadn't even firmed up A350MK1 and the A350-1000WXB (here we are in April 2007 and the airlines still don't have the numbers on that plane) didn't exist. Couple this with the early experiences of other carriers with the A340-600 and I'd think you'd have to agree that it was a great move by Milton and Air Canada

UAL747-600
 
aa1818
Posts: 1515
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:03 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:17 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
Was it a good move for AC? Seems it was (or at least they're very convinced that it was) - they'll have had a very hard look at the financials. For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls.

So let me understand this, you are not flying AC because they are upgrading their fleet to more modern and efficient planes and are also upgrading their cabin service and improving premium offerings??

If that is not your reason for not flying them then please tell me what is!!
You states that their fleet upgrade has "moves(d) AC very far down on my(your) list..."
To me that just demonstrates a narrow-minded, eurocentric view- if they don' fly Airbus', I am not going!!!

Totally Tropical
AA1818
“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:36 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 7):
This statement was rather silly. Why did he compare the A343E with the B77W. We all know that the A343E competes directly with the B772ER, while the B77W competes directly with the A346.

Uh, no... yours is.

Read what's actually written, instead of what you want to see-- he said the aircraft are were replaced by those models, which is a fact; at no point did he state or even insinuate that they were designed to compete directly.

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 16):
You states that their fleet upgrade has "moves(d) AC very far down on my(your) list..."
To me that just demonstrates a narrow-minded, eurocentric view- if they don' fly Airbus', I am not going!!!

'Eh, I can feel what he's saying. I would've avoided AC in the past, as I do LH, for the lack of twinjets on the majority of their primary routes.

The justification, you ask? I simply would prefer to spend money patronizing a carrier that most closely suits my desires than one which does not, and unlike many, fleet type is for me an essential component.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
sebring
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:42 am

Quoting UAL747-600 (Reply 15):
Come on folks pull your heads out of the sand. Air Canada ordered the 777's and 787's on April 25th, 2005. Airbus hadn't even firmed up A350MK1 and the A350-1000WXB (here we are in April 2007 and the airlines still don't have the numbers on that plane) didn't exist. Couple this with the early experiences of other carriers with the A340-600 and I'd think you'd have to agree that it was a great move by Milton and Air Canada

UAL747-600

That point bears repeating over and over again. In desiring to renew its ENTIRE widebody fleet over the next decade, AC wanted to go all Boeing or all Airbus, and probably with the same engine maker (which has happened). But in negotiations, the only firm plane Airbus had was the A340-600 which AC didn't think was that bad for the price, but it raised the issue of what replaces 40-odd 767-300s. Since the 350 was just a paper plane, and had neither been firmed up or launched, and was right at the top end of the size range AC was willing to contemplate to replace a 220-seat 763, the table tilted heavily in Boeing's favor. I believe AC would have split the order between Airbus and Boeing (A346/787) had Boeing not made a fantastic overall offer because it apparently believed that getting AC away from Airbus would make a very strong statement to other airlines. AC not being American or European didn't have any political pressure to choose A over B or B over A, and it was already flying equipment from both manufacturers so it wasn't in anyone's pocket. The deal AC got from B includes not only price breaks but a variety of sweeters and rich performance guarantees which I am to believe extend to maintenance costs as well as operating costs/fuel consumption.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:47 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls.

If you are as fickle as not selecting an airline based upon which brand of plane they fly, you are not the type of customer that AC, or any other airline, really wants. Both the 777 and the 340 are excellent planes on which to fly...it's splitting some pretty fine hairs when you deconstruct the experiences between the two. Is this petulence because AC selected the 'wrong' manufacturer?

Quoting WINGS (Reply 7):
Why did he compare the A343E with the B77W.

Because the 343 is what AC currently flies. They don't have a 346, so those comparison numbers are irrelevant. He's not comparing costs between aircraft in the same class - he's comparing 'costs we pay now' now vs 'costs we'll pay with this new type' on given routes.

Quoting Swissy (Reply 13):
In general I agree, however even a load factor of 90% (340) does not mean having 63 "extra" seats (T7) you actually will fill these seats or you will keep the 90% load factor......

I'm pretty certain the fleet planners see numbers that make financial sense. Hint: the routes on which the 777 will be introduced likely enjoy more than 90% load factor; if not, a few empty economy seats will cause little lost sleep at an airline, but a dozen more (filled) executive seats makes a great deal of difference. The extra cargo earns the airline a nice sum as well, regardless of how many people are above.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
airtran737
Posts: 3218
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:47 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:56 am

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 19):
If you are as fickle as not selecting an airline based upon which brand of plane they fly, you are not the type of customer that AC, or any other airline, really wants.

I don't think that statement is necessarily true. Continental loves taking my money, as well as Delta, and I fly them because they are Boeing airlines, and they have good service. I use UA a lot for long-haul, but when I book them I schedule 737's, 757's or RJ's on the domestic legs. I am a Boeing guy, and I prefer Boeing airlines. I will ride on the Bus if I have to, but it's not my preferred method of travel.
Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
 
manu
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:22 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:57 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls

I am the target for these new aircraft. I frequently fly other carriers when doing long haul and only take AC for North American flights. I recently flew LAX-AKL on NZ and was very impressed by the brand new 777-200ER on that route. I have been on board a LHR-YYZ route serviced by the A340-300 and if I had to pick an aircraft for interior and comfort I would select the 777 over the 340.

I am usually pretty "vanilla" as a Canadian consumer. What I like usually is what the mainstream likes, for the most part. So I would say their selection for equipment is a good one based on a consumer's point of view, never mind the benefits of fuel and 2 less engines to maintain.
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:04 am

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 16):
So let me understand this, you are not flying AC because they are upgrading their fleet to more modern and efficient planes and are also upgrading their cabin service and improving premium offerings??

To play devil's advocate:

1) I've heard the 340 is quieter inside- Could that be the reason?

2) Also - the 777 has 3-3-3 or 2-5-2 seating in many (most?) economy configurations, but is the 340 is 2-4-2? (Is that correct? I have never flown on a 340.)

3) Or is he more comfortable with 4 engines on long haul?

4) Or is it nationalistic loyaty (for which I don't BLAME him; I have some of that, too)

However, from an economic standpoint, Air Canada has stated their reasons, and made their decision.

We can speculate, opine, and cheerlead all we want, but "money talks," Air Canada did their homework, and made their choice based on facts:

More fuel efficiant
cheaper maintenance
more pax and freight capacity
Less range restriction

In the highly competitive world of aviation, and with fuel prices at record highs, perhaps "doing just fine" is not good enough. Many here simply can't accept that the 340 is not the A/C they wish it was, from an economic standpoint.

I'm very happy to see A/C's in-flight product improving, by the way. About time.

Quoting PEET7G (Reply 8):
And before anyone comes up with Lufthansa making money with it's A340s, yes I know

I believe there is also the issue of Lufthasa being the German national airline, and Airbus being at least half a German company. It would be a PR nightmare for both if LH did not fly a lot of AIrbus equipment. That's one of the reasons why they will fly the 747-8 AND the 380, in my opinion. I wonder if Lufthansa sometimes gets amazing deals from Airbus because Airbus NEEDS it's metal in LH colors.

Quoting PEET7G (Reply 8):
The only issue that I see with AC is the out-phasing of the A330s that are also perfectly efficient planes and a 777/330 combo is a proven mix for airlines.

I agree. These two A/C serve different missions and are quite compatable within the same airline with routes of different length and demand. The 330 is a great success story. Perhaps Air Canada is anticipating the 787, which will replace the 330?
I come in peace
 
BOE773
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:02 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:08 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls.

Would you please be more specific for your reason.
This sounds like sour grapes to me.

AC's triple 7s will make me want to fly Air Canada
even more as this will be the best product in the sky to LHR bar none.
 
kearney
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:46 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:11 am

Air Canada did not need the 777, I have heard this might be part of their plan for 2009. With no money in the bank they can offer lower wage to ACGHS and knock off a few managers. Then come 2009 ACGHS will be no more. Its one idea I have heard from some guys in the airline industry.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:16 am

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 20):
I don't think that statement is necessarily true. Continental loves taking my money, as well as Delta, and I fly them because they are Boeing airlines, and they have good service.

Fair enough. I too have my preferences, and I suppose I underestimate the degree to which many people will extend their loyalty towards a particular airplane type or brand. Having flown in both extensively, and considering myself better-informed than the average flier (you know, those who aren't members here), my choices boil down to route/schedule convenience and onboard amenties. Which are essentially identical between the two brands as these are airline-driven items.
I'd select an airline offering great service on a less-preferable plane over my favourite plane in which I receive mediocre service.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:26 am

Questions: AC has announced the initial route for the 777's. How many new airplanes are required to service these routes at the planned frequencies?
I imagine one each for YVR-NRT, YYZ-LHR, YYZ-FRA and two each for YVR-SYD, YYZ-HKG and YYZ-NRT, assuming these are once-dailes, bringing the total to nine frames.
After these are delivered I imagine subsequent 777's will replace older planes on other existing routes or maybe some new routes may be offerred.
Finally, is there time in the day for some of the Europe-bound planes to do a domestic run between transatlantic crossings?
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
airtran737
Posts: 3218
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:47 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:28 am

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 25):
Fair enough. I too have my preferences, and I suppose I underestimate the degree to which many people will extend their loyalty towards a particular airplane type or brand. Having flown in both extensively, and considering myself better-informed than the average flier (you know, those who aren't members here), my choices boil down to route/schedule convenience and onboard amenties. Which are essentially identical between the two brands as these are airline-driven items.
I'd select an airline offering great service on a less-preferable plane over my favourite plane in which I receive mediocre service.

Completely agree with you, and that's why I said that if I have to ride the Bus I will. I am just like everyone, I want to get there as quickly and cheaply as possible. If I can save a hundred bucks by riding the Bus then I will. We all have out loyalty, but as the Million Dollar Man famously said "every man has his price."
Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:36 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls.

Because they bought Boeings? Oh brother.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
multimark
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:53 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:37 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 17):
I would've avoided AC in the past, as I do LH, for the lack of twinjets on the majority of their primary routes.

These kind of statements are just ridiculous.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
Don't forget that AC has been achieving record load factors almost every month for the past couple of years and several airports to be served by the 777s, for example LHR and NRT, are so congested that it's very difficult to obtain slots to add additional flights. Having 63 more seats to sell on each 773 vs. a 343 is thus an excellent way to increase capacity and generate additional revenue without having to operate another flight..

In peak season this holds true, in the off-peak I'm not sure about filling all those seats. I'd be surprised if the T7 was full YVR-SYD except over the busy Christmas season.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 3):
Apparently they were having some teething problems with the A340

The 343's have been flying just fine with AC for over a decade. The 345's are a 2 ship fleet, and any time one has a problem folks like to magnify it into some big deal.
 
sebring
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:41 am

Quoting Kearney (Reply 24):
Air Canada did not need the 777, I have heard this might be part of their plan for 2009. With no money in the bank they can offer lower wage to ACGHS and knock off a few managers. Then come 2009 ACGHS will be no more. Its one idea I have heard from some guys in the airline industry.

I think you have been told rubbish. I don't see the 777s impact 2009 labor negotiations considering that the planes are financed, and they are replacing aircraft that are financed so that the net impact on the airline's cash (currently about C$2.1 billion) is negligible.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:43 am

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 16):
To me that just demonstrates a narrow-minded, eurocentric view- if they don' fly Airbus', I am not going!!!

Or perhaps he prefers the quieter cabin and 8-abreast seating?

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 19):
If you are as fickle as not selecting an airline based upon which brand of plane they fly, you are not the type of customer that AC, or any other airline, really wants.

Airlines seek one kind of passenger only: Those whose checks don't bounce.
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:56 am

Quoting Multimark (Reply 29):
The 343's have been flying just fine with AC for over a decade.

Are these early model 343s? ie, not the 343-E? Maybe that's why AC wanted to replace them.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
cityguy
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 3:12 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:19 am

Quoting BOE773 (Reply 23):
For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls.

Lets see....you dont want to fly a brand new airliner with state of the art everything.....and the reason is...????

I am not a fan of Airbus, but ya know, when US got them and I was going PHL- LGW every month-I was happier then on the I older 767's....I would have loved to fly BA's T7 service from PHL, but I was not allowed to book BA....

So, a new plane is always a good thing....my own preferences aside. I will say that the A333's were always late and usually broken. PHL ( PHL and US ) is a lousy hub for anything, but that is another story...

Sounds like sour grapes to me...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:24 am

Quoting Danny (Reply 2):
A340s were doing the job fine and I agree with Jake3204 that it makes little sense from fleet point of view to replace them by 777. Should have waited and get XWB.

The A-340-300s AC flies cannot do the job they need them to do. The B-777-300ERs can, and use less fuel at the same time. Why wait for the A-350XWB? Does anyone even know what the XWB is?

Quoting WINGS (Reply 7):
Don't forget that Air Canada also had ordered the A340-600 ( and still listed) on the Airbus orders sheet.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
Beginning in March, we will begin replacing our 10 A340-300s and some of our oldest Boeing 767s with a combination of Boeing 777-300ER and 777-200LR twin-engine aircraft. The 777s have a lower cost per available seat-mile than both of our four-engine A340 models -- up to 26 per cent lower -- and can fly further with a full payload.

This statement was rather silly. Why did he compare the A343E with the B77W. We all know that the A343E competes directly with the B772ER, while the B77W competes directly with the A346.

Airbus does not show cancels on their order sheets on the web, that is why is is so hard to determine actual numbers. Yes, the B-777-300ER does compete directly with the A-340-600. IIRC, AC has anounced back in 2005 they cancelled the A-340-600 order. The B-777-200LRs will compete against the A-340-300, as well as the -500, with more range, and higher revenue payloads.

Quoting Kearney (Reply 24):
Air Canada did not need the 777, I have heard this might be part of their plan for 2009. With no money in the bank they can offer lower wage to ACGHS and knock off a few managers. Then come 2009 ACGHS will be no more. Its one idea I have heard from some guys in the airline industry.

That sounds like union BS to me.

For any airline flying, or considering buying the A-340-200/-300/-500/-600, the B-777-200ER/-LR/-300ER is almost always a better choice.
 
MattRB
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:59 am

Quoting Kearney (Reply 24):
Air Canada did not need the 777, I have heard this might be part of their plan for 2009. With no money in the bank they can offer lower wage to ACGHS and knock off a few managers. Then come 2009 ACGHS will be no more. Its one idea I have heard from some guys in the airline industry.

Have to agree with Sebring on this. Sounds like sabre rattling and people spoiling for a fight come 2009 (which I don't want to see).

AC needed the 777s. Especially in this time of higher fuel prices, we need aircraft that are more fuel efficient and better (overall) for the bottom line. More freight capacity + more passenger capacity + longer range + better fuel efficiency =  bigthumbsup 

Now, if we can get that OTP under control and start meeting targets...  Wink
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
accargo
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:19 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:19 am

Quoting Kearney (Reply 24):
Air Canada did not need the 777, I have heard this might be part of their plan for 2009. With no money in the bank they can offer lower wage to ACGHS and knock off a few managers. Then come 2009 ACGHS will be no more. Its one idea I have heard from some guys in the airline industry.

Newsflash.

Don't believe everything the shop committee and the 2009 committee tell you, they have their own agenda and it may not include your best interests.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:20 am

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 31):
Airlines seek one kind of passenger only: Those whose checks don't bounce.

Who pays for airline tickets with a check?

If you don't use a credit card, you're likely to be suspected of being a terrorist.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
sebring
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:25 am

Quoting Accargo (Reply 36):

Newsflash.

Don't believe everything the shop committee and the 2009 committee tell you, they have their own agenda and it may not include your best interests.

Now there's a first!  Silly A union committee spreading misinformation.
 
MattRB
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:33 am

Quoting Accargo (Reply 36):
Newsflash.

Don't believe everything the shop committee and the 2009 committee tell you, they have their own agenda and it may not include your best interests.

 thumbsup 

Don't believe everything you're told/read. Investigate for yourself.
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:36 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
The A340 is, despite all of the nonsense that you get to read on this website, an extremely fuel efficient aircraft. The B777 just happens to be even more efficient.

Well, yes A340 is a fuel efficient aircraft, but at this point, there are only 2 aircraft in its class, A340 and 777, and it is the less fuel efficient of the two. 4 engines is more mx.. I remember Airbus saying 4 RR Trent 500s needed less mx than 2 GE90's, but then those Trent 500s started having issues... like with fans wearing through and what not, and so you don't hear things like that anymore.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 7):

Don't forget that Air Canada also had ordered the A340-600 ( and still listed) on the Airbus orders sheet.

The A340-600 carries less payload, fewer passengers, weighs more, and burns more fuel than a 773ER.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 10):
Quoting Danny (Reply 2):
Should have waited and get XWB.

There was no XWB when the order was placed. Airbus could only offer the 'old' A350. AC has a lot of 767s and the 787 will make the perfect replacement. Boeing likely offered an incredibly good price to AC on the aircraft.

Not every airline wants to wait 8 years to start receiving a plane which hasn't really been designed yet... esp. not when they want new planes today.

Quoting SAOAP (Reply 11):
Take a GRU-ZRH for instance. This route used to be served by SR/LX's MD-11 and is now being served by the 343. While the 343 might be 'newer' than a MD-11, the route costs/revenue are about the same if I'm not mistaken. How?! Isn't the 343 supposed to be more fuel-efficient?? Yes, the 343 is indeed more fuel efficient, but, as I stated, it's handicapped: during our hot summer days the 343 has payload problems and cargo is left behind (there have been passenger restrictions too). This means considerably less revenue. The MD-11 never had such problems (if it did, on a much smaller scale). Consequently you have the 343's lower costs, but also lower revenue during a considerable part of the year. The MD-11 on the other hand had higher costs, but was also able to generate more revenue (pax, but mainly cargo).

AC's ceo was quoted in saying the A340 is very long ranged, but also underpowered, I think this is what he meant. Its takeoff and climb performance, esp in hot conditions, fully loaded is just not impressive.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
ACDC8
Posts: 7175
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:57 am

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 22):
but is the 340 is 2-4-2? (Is that correct? I have never flown on a 340.)

All the A340's I have been (AC and LH) have had that seating arrangement.

As much as I am looking forward to trying this aircraft out for the first time, this reason ....

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 22):
Also - the 777 has 3-3-3 or 2-5-2 seating in many (most?) economy configurations

.... is incentive enough for me to fly another type of aircraft/airline.
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
 
sebring
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:05 am

I would say, as my final word on this thread as it will just go on and on over ground already covered a hundred times, is that AC is thrilled with its choice. I had a chance to speak to Robert Milton at the delivery ceremony, and he was quietly ecstatic. In AC's collective thinking, the deal justifies itself on its financial merits. However, in the two years since, the problems at Airbus juxtaposed with Boeing strong sales of both the 773 and 787 mean AC is getting its new widebody fleet over the next 5-7 years, instead of waiting for the bulk of it to arrive in a 7-10 year timeframe. AC has found good customers for its 343s, so it is actually getting premium sublet rates - another function of the tight market for widebodies - and it has lots of options for 787s that are date specific and can be converted to firm orders by AC or flipped for profit (though I am told they will take the aircraft). AC has more new aircraft in service or on order than any other North American international carrier, and by refitting its 767-300s and eventually the A330-300s, and with the deliveries of 787s scheduled to start in 2010, AC is destined to have modern interiors in every single aircraft it flies. This has been a long time coming, but AC is going to move up the ranks of carriers from a cabin quality perspective. As far as airlines with a two-class international product go, it will be one of the best. And I think that's where it aspires to be, not SQ or QR or other carriers with a large First Class demand, but a very good two-class carrier.

[Edited 2007-04-01 21:09:24]
 
cftoa
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:00 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:10 am

This thread is pretty stupid. I really do not like taking sides on neither Airbus or Boeing, as I respect both of them as aircraft manufacturers. Air Canada most certainly did not get the 777 because of the 'lie flat seats' as you put it, there are several practical reasons which caused them to do this. The main one being that the A340-300's and the A340-500's are not cutting it for them, as some of you guys already mentioned. The 777 has greater fuel efficiency than the 340, it also has lower operational costs, not to mention lower maintenance costs as well.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 18):
Airbus had was the A340-600 which AC didn't think was that bad for the price, but it raised the issue of what replaces 40-odd 767-300s.

As Sebring has mentioned, this was another factor that caused AC to order the T7. The 767's that AC are currently operating have served them very well, but the 767 fleet is aging very quickly.

Quoting SAOAP (Reply 11):
The A340 is as many around here stated, fuel efficient (not like the T7, but still...). But, the A340 (mainly the -300 series) is a handicapped aircraft: it has serious payload problems on selected routes (most notably on flights longer than 8 hours).

   I am not insulting the 340 for its fuel efficiency - it is efficient, but the T7 has even better fuel consumption. It is not practical to have more than two powerplants on flight equipment these days (A380 excluded) with engines like the GE-90, there is absolutely no need. As for these payload issues, AC was having problems related to this.

Quoting BOE773 (Reply 23):
Would you please be more specific for your reason.
This sounds like sour grapes to me.

AC's triple 7s will make me want to fly Air Canada
even more as this will be the best product in the sky to LHR bar none.

I completely agree with you my friend. Not only for the comfort aspect, but also for the economics. The T7 has a much larger payload than the 340, which will defiantly save AC money in the long run.

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 16):
So let me understand this, you are not flying AC because they are upgrading their fleet to more modern and efficient planes and are also upgrading their cabin service and improving premium offerings??

Thats what it seems like from my perspective - which does not make any sense

Quoting Danny (Reply 2):
A340s were doing the job fine and I agree with Jake3204 that it makes little sense from fleet point of view to replace them by 777. Should have waited and get XWB.

What exactly do you mean 'fleet point of view' if AC ordered equipment based on something like that, they might as well start YUL-LHR routes with A319's, or put 'lie flat' seats on their Jazz CRJ's - because that would make more sense than keeping the A340, or ordering the XWB, which might I add, didn't even exist when they placed these orders.


Cheers.

[Edited 2007-04-01 21:12:35]
 
sebring
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:18 am

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 41):
.... is incentive enough for me to fly another type of aircraft/airline.

Not I. Would you rather have 2-4-2 and 31 inch pitch or 3-3-3 and 32 inch pitch with a wider seat and the latest AVOD system. I have sat in the AC 777s, love the seat comfort and legroom and really enjoy the AVOD, which, being the latest generation, has functionality I have not seen on the older systems of carriers which installed IFE 2-5 years ago. In the end, a flight experience is a lot more than 2-4-2 vs 3-3-3. You could be in two abreast seating and your seat-mate is a nonstop talker, a big drinker, a religious zealot, or simply somebody who should have taken a shower before travelling. You have the same odds of getting a window or aisle seat in a 2-4-2 as you do in a 3-3-3. The 777 is faster than the 340, which can shave 15-30 minutes off your trip. And even on an aircraft with a 3-3-3 config, you can usually grab a seat in a bulkhead raow of 2-3-2 if you book early enough. In AC's 777, the golden bulkhead row with the most legroom is the one immediately behind J-class.

[Edited 2007-04-01 21:19:07]
 
ACDC8
Posts: 7175
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:28 am

Quoting Sebring (Reply 44):
Would you rather have 2-4-2 and 31 inch pitch or 3-3-3 and 32 inch pitch with a wider seat and the latest AVOD system.

I would rather have the 2-4-2 seating simply for the reason that I like to have my window seat and it's a pain to have to ask 2 other people (instead of just 1) to move so I can go to the lav, then ask them again when you get back. Never mind trying to get out when they are sleeping or watching their AVOD. This is the same reason why I try to avoid the B747 or TS's A330's. I only like to have one person sitting beside me.

As far as the AVOD goes, this has nothing to do with what type of aircraft it is, if AC were to keep the A340's, they would eventually be equipped with it, as well as the lie flat seats up in Ex First. These features are not aircraft specific, they are airline specific. Also, as nice as AVOD is, I still prefer to read a book and look out the window.
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
 
ac7e7
Posts: 655
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:27 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:31 am

I think you people are crazy. This is not a video game, or a fantasy airline. This is an airline trying to make money. It chose the 777 over the A340 for economic reasons. Cheaper to fly, cheaper to maintain, no weight restrictions, and more passengers. Some of you are saying that AC cannot compare the 777 to the A346 because they don't fly either. I'm sorry, but how narrow minded are you people? These aircraft already fly with numerous airlines, and the manufacturers are well aware of their performance numbers.

Milton and Brewer don't sit in their offices dreaming up fantasy fleets. They are accountable to the shareholders. They are required to make the airline as efficient as possible. If that means ordering the T7 to replace the A340s, you people are just going to have to get over it. Face the facts: the 777 is more efficient then the A340. This happens, you know. They are competing manufacturers, and like our friends Milton and Brewer, have to make their products more efficient then the competition. Airbus is now required to develop a product more efficient then Boeing's. Whoever comes out on top wins the orders. Deal with it.

I've also read a poster in this thread that stated he would not fly AC because of this decision. My god..... You likely don't fly at all.... And somehow I doubt you contribute to AC's (or any other airline's) revenue. I doubt AC cares what you have to say.

Here is a news flash people - passengers are looking for more bang for their buck. They don't care what aircraft type they are on. When they leave the plane saying, "man, those in-seat TVs are cool!" AC has made an impression and this passenger will consider this airline again. On the corporate side, they were able to stuff more asses in their seats.


Time to look at the bigger picture, guys.
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:32 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls.

Now that is childish, but hey its your wish
 
jutes85
Posts: 1854
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:50 pm

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:38 am

Quoting Jake3204 (Thread starter):
Getting on a plane is just going from point A to point B.

HAHA, don't tell the members of this forum, they'll tear your heart out and eat it raw.
nothing
 
cftoa
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:00 am

RE: Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?

Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:38 am

Quoting AC7E7 (Reply 46):
I think you people are crazy. This is not a video game, or a fantasy airline. This is an airline trying to make money. It chose the 777 over the A340 for economic reasons. Cheaper to fly, cheaper to maintain, no weight restrictions, and more passengers. Some of you are saying that AC cannot compare the 777 to the A346 because they don't fly either. I'm sorry, but how narrow minded are you people? These aircraft already fly with numerous airlines, and the manufacturers are well aware of their performance numbers.

Milton and Brewer don't sit in their offices dreaming up fantasy fleets. They are accountable to the shareholders. They are required to make the airline as efficient as possible. If that means ordering the T7 to replace the A340s, you people are just going to have to get over it. Face the facts: the 777 is more efficient then the A340. This happens, you know. They are competing manufacturers, and like our friends Milton and Brewer, have to make their products more efficient then the competition. Airbus is now required to develop a product more efficient then Boeing's. Whoever comes out on top wins the orders. Deal with it.

I've also read a poster in this thread that stated he would not fly AC because of this decision. My god..... You likely don't fly at all.... And somehow I doubt you contribute to AC's (or any other airline's) revenue. I doubt AC cares what you have to say.

Here is a news flash people - passengers are looking for more bang for their buck. They don't care what aircraft type they are on. When they leave the plane saying, "man, those in-seat TVs are cool!" AC has made an impression and this passenger will consider this airline again. On the corporate side, they were able to stuff more asses in their seats.

Yeah, it's unfortunate. I laughed when I seen that people are still posting in this thread.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 47):
Now that is childish, but hey its your wish

It is very childish. It is like saying I don't like LH because they bought the A380 - comments like that are not of any real value.

Cheers.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests