>I am totally amazed how rediculous some of you guys are here.<
You are amazed at this?
>Firstly an A340 could easily make SYD
>Infact an A340 can fly MEL
, which was extremely weight restricted when UAL used to do it with the 744.<
Again, which A340? Extremely is not the word. Slightly would be, and not on all days.
>Infact the A340 as significantly longer range than the 744.<
Same question, third time, which A340? I would not call less than 500 nm (A346) significant, especially on a plane that has not performed well on the shorter LAX
>If, the key word being IF
was to go down this road, it would no doubt be with the A340-600.<
Right, a plane that would hold about 270-285 in UA
's configuration, replacing one with 347. And at a higher cost per passenger
>This by far makes the most sense as 777 flights to Sydney, would be ETOPS restricted. This doesnt mean that they can't do it, but it does mean that they have to fly a significantly longer route, and couldn't take the most direct routing they currently do with the 744.
This means longer flight times, higher fuel burn and in turn greater weight restritions so less cargo.<
If you look at the great circle mapper, even with 180 ETOPS (207 is currently allowed as an extension and Boeing almost has fully approval for 330 ETOPS) the 777 does not run into problems on the way to SYD
>The real advantage to replacing 744s with A340-600s would lie in the ability for UA
to Sell its 744s and raise much needed cash, whilest most likely having backloaded lease payments the way Jetblue would with their A320s.<
own most of their planes and the main issue is with supposedly back-loaded financing payment. Also, even though they could do it, it takes a while to move that many 747s. If UA
ended up with this kind of backloaded scheme, with a much more expensive plane, they would likely end up in a second bankruptcy.