UPS To Cancel A380F Order - French Press

Shenzhen · Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:21 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 121):
UPS ordered 90 A300-600R frames, and accepted 53, so there are 37 deposits. Random googling brought up this link which suggests retail price for a 2002 A300-600R is $38M-$42M so for round numbers let's say $40M. And since I have absolutely no clue, but have been told the bulk of the cost is paid at delivery time, let's presume a deposit is 10% of retail cost. If so, we are talking about 37 * 40 * 0.10 = $148M.

Highly unlikely that UPS transfered 4 hundred million dollars to Airbus for deposits on 100 A300 freighters.

Can you imagine all these new start up airlines that buy 100 A320s out of the gate putting down 400 million USD, and one would expect them to a much higher risk then UPS, which would mean a higher deposit.

I think that we should remember that UPS has a legal department, just like Airbus, and there should be plenty of stipulations within the contract, like X number of Customers by X date, delivery by X date and so on and so forth

Cheers

ScottB · Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:41 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 32):
Well I wouldn't like to be UPS, having the only A380F's on order. 10 is an order book nobody likes, Airbus included.

It's bizarre that I'm agreeing with Keesje, but I suspect that UPS cancelling its A380F order is probably best for both UPS and Airbus at this moment in time. UPS probably was never especially enthusiastic about the A380F, but they likely found that taking 10 of those was a better fit for their business plan than taking the balance of their A300F order. And for Airbus, the cost of completing and certifying the development of the A380F -- for a single customer who has only ordered ten frames -- is not especially appealing, either. They'd also be able to offer some earlier production slots to existing and/or new customers, as well as free up development resources for other upcoming projects.

What I believe to be happening now is some hard-nosed negotiation between UPS and Airbus. Airbus knows that UPS would probably be just as happy not having to take the A380F's, while UPS knows that Airbus would be just as happy not having to develop and manufacture the A380F. The question is which party will blink first.

leelaw · Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:12 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 150):
I think that we should remember that UPS has a legal department, just like Airbus, and there should be plenty of stipulations within the contract, like X number of Customers by X date, delivery by X date and so on and so forth

True, though a stipulation/cancellation clause like X number of Customers by X date is much more common in the contracts of "launch customers" for new aircraft programs. Was 5X considered to be a launch customer for the A380F by the time they committed to the program in January 2005? IIRC they were the fourth customer to sign-up behind FX, ILFC, and EK.

[Edited 2007-01-20 01:15:38]

Revelation · Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:19 am

Quoting Columba (Reply 146):

You may have not noticed that UPS has not canceled the A380F yet also I think it is to early to call a twenty year aviation program a flop until not the first aircraft entered commerical service. LetÂ´s wait see and see who the program develops over the next 5-10 years.

It seems you are saying we shouldn't even speculate for at least another five to ten years. Is that reasonable? This would be like watching a female friend marry an unemployed drug adicted wife beating gambling cheating alcoholic, and asking us to wait 5-10 years to see how the kids turn out! Smile

zeke · Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:28 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 148):

It depends on the mission. Very broadly speaking the 777-200ER/LR has lower CASM for longer routes and heavier loads while the A330 has lower CASM for shorter routes and lighter loads. The numbers are generally biased in favor of the A330 because seat densities are typically higher.

Do you have data to back yourself up ?

This is the actual stats for US airlines for Q1 2006

Airline	Aircraft	CASM	CASM(no crew)	Av. Stage Lgth	Cost per aircraft mile	gal/hr	total cost/hr	total cost - crew/hr
NW	A330	$4.02	$3.20	3721	$11	1823	$5250	$4178
CO	B777	$5.05	$4.57	5563	$14	2178	$7097	$6432
DL	B777	$5.70	$4.76	4492	$15	2204	$7573	$6329
US	A330	$5.82	$4.60	3694	$15	1615	$7216	$5651
AA	B777	$6.03	$5.00	4175	$15	2094	$7170	$5948
UA	B777	$6.17	$5.39	3356	$16	2150	$7938	$6939

Revelation · Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:32 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 150):
Highly unlikely that UPS transfered 4 hundred million dollars to Airbus for deposits on 100 A300 freighters.

I see your point, but in this example we are talking about buying $4B of aircraft. 10% is $400M which does sound high, but what would be reasonable? You are asking the manufacturer to kick off orders for long-lead-time items, and you are reserving positions in the production line which cannot be sold to others. If you order 100 aircraft, should the deposit be equivalent to the cost of 2 aircraft? 5? 10? 20?

I realize there are time factors involved too, delivery over a longer period of time would delay those long-lead-time orders and make it easier for the manufacturer to sell the slots or close down the line, but I'm just looking for a ballpark figure.

Why does this matter? Again, it'd be interesting to know the magnitude of money involved, so we could speculate aboht the tradeoffs UPS may be making when either cancelling the order or converting it to another type.

jacobin777 · Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:52 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 153):

It seems you are saying we shouldn't even speculate for at least another five to ten years. Is that reasonable? This would be like watching a female friend marry an unemployed drug adicted wife beating gambling cheating alcoholic, and asking us to wait 5-10 years to see how the kids turn out! Smile

We're into year 7 (certainly year 6) of Airbus offering the A380...in 2-3 more years, the will be basically 1/2 way into the program....

osiris30 · Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:35 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 154):

This is the actual stats for US airlines for Q1 2006

Source? If you are going to quote facts cite a source. Also the numbers look more than a tad sketchy given the huge difference between NW and US for non-crew CASM.

zvezda · Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:12 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 154):
This is the actual stats for US airlines for Q1 2006

Thank you for providing (incomplete and unsourced) data which support my assertion. Had seating density been provided as well, those data would be even more clear.

Rheinbote · Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:15 pm

Let's put the report by Les Echos into another prespective.

There's a lawsuit going on here in Hamburg. In a nutshell, former proprietors of land filed another complaint recently against having been dispossessed by the federal state of Hamburg. Their estate was pivotal in the extension of XFW's sole runway. That extension in turn was crucial for Airbus Germany in clinching a significant role in the A380 program. To get the disputed estate, Airbus had argued that an extension would be a prerequisite, as the current runway couldn't cope with the highest gross weight versions of the A380 anticipated then - the A380F cargo plane. Does this ring a bell with you?
If the "interested party" behind the Les Echos report could succeed in making the runway extension fail, Hamburg would inevitably loose any prospects of a role in the A380 program. So you may consider the report by Les Echos as an attempt to interfere with the ongoing lawsuit.
This isn't the first such instance, by the way. Before the original repossessions, an analysis made by French lawyers - initiated by Airbus Toulouse to identify potential risks for A380 industrialization stemming from local Nimby and land proprietor resistance to an extension of the runway - was miracoulously leaked to just the lawyers of the land proprietors!

The anaylsis allegedly plotted all the opportunities for lawsuits that are now being exploited by the local Airbus antagonists.
No A380F, no runway extension, no role in A380 at all. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but there's too much 'coincidences' in all this.

[Edited 2007-01-20 11:17:25]

zvezda · Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:36 pm

Rheinbote, thank you for providing such a clear demonstration of how the political organization of EADS motivates Airbus to work toward the failure of Airbus.

Dougloid · Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:44 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 160):
Rheinbote, thank you for providing such a clear demonstration of how the political organization of EADS motivates Airbus to work toward the failure of Airbus.

And who said politics ends at the voting booth or at city hall? Very insightful, Rheinbote!

Revelation · Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:16 pm

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 159):
No A380F, no runway extension, no role in A380 at all.

Interesting analysis. It also gives negotiating leverage to UPS: we'll agree to hold off on formaly cancelling our order untill some point in time where the runway is under construction and/or finished, if you let us have our deposits back now.

Of course, if Airbus's plan really is to move all WB production to France, there probably is no true need for the runway extension.

Rheinbote · Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:56 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 162):
Of course, if Airbus's plan really is to move all WB production to France, there probably is no true need for the runway extension.

The proposal is, as far as I understand, to consolidate [i]future(/i] WB production in France. Production of current single-aisle and WB types can't get much more cost-efficient than it already is. The cost penalty for dispersed production as a percentage of unit cost is a low one-digit figure. Ths penalty is outweighed by the benefits by far.
Construction of the RWY extension at XFW is in full gear.

leelaw · Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:08 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 159):
No A380F, no runway extension, no role in A380 at all. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but there's too much 'coincidences' in all this.

Aren't all "production" A380 Pax already being fitted-out and painted at XFW using the existing runway?

RichardPrice · Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:10 am

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 164):
Aren't all "production" A380 Pax already being fitted-out and painted at XFW using the existing runway?

Yes, the extension is only required for the freighter.

leelaw · Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:26 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 165):
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 164):
Aren't all "production" A380 Pax already being fitted-out and painted at XFW using the existing runway?

Yes, the extension is only required for the freighter.

Interesting that "empty" A380Fs shuttling into/out of XFW for interior installations and painting can't operate from the existing runway. How long is the runway extension?

Lumberton · Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:26 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 163):
Production of current single-aisle and WB types can't get much more cost-efficient than it already is.

Are you certain about this statement? I'm sure Airbus' production practices are very efficient, but it seems "Power 8" is after even greater efficiencies. None of us here know for certain, of course, but from what I've read in the press, they want to sell off some of the 16 (?) plants in Europe. Once these plants are no longer part of EADS, they can start squeezing them like any other supplier. Also, I believe that some of the information in the press clearly referred to current A320 production being consolidated in Hamburg. Why would this be on the table if not to drive costs down, given the likely political pain ahead?

RichardPrice · Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:37 am

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 166):

Interesting that "empty" A380Fs shuttling into/out of XFW for interior installations and painting can't operate from the existing runway. How long is the runway extension?

Yes, thinking about it it doesnt make sense - the A380F OEW is over 24,000kg less than the A380.

Rheinbote · Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:42 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 167):
Are you certain about this statement? I'm sure Airbus' production practices are very efficient, but it seems "Power 8" is after even greater efficiencies. None of us here know for certain, of course, but from what I've read in the press, they want to sell off some of the 16 (?) plants in Europe.

My comment referred to the alleged inefficiencies of dispersed production. I agree with you that selling off plants and hiring them back for 20% less, like Boeing did with Wichita, is one of the more likely scenarios. I don't see (m)any plant closures in the near term, as this would disrupt the output of current types.

Revelation · Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:43 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 163):
Construction of the RWY extension at XFW is in full gear.

Okay, but:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 159):
If the "interested party" behind the Les Echos report could succeed in making the runway extension fail, Hamburg would inevitably loose any prospects of a role in the A380 program. So you may consider the report by Les Echos as an attempt to interfere with the ongoing lawsuit.

If the extension is in full gear (i.e. under construction), could the "interested party" cause the extension effort to fail?

From what I've seen in the US, once something is being built, it's very hard for an outside party to stop its construction. Maybe it's different in DL?

KarlB737 · Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:52 am

Courtesy: Bloomberg News - Chicago Tribune

Airbus To Stick With Freighter Version Of A380

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...279938.story?coll=chi-business-hed

zvezda · Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:56 am

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 171):
Airbus To Stick With Freighter Version Of A380

It seems Airbus really want that runway extension.

Rheinbote · Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:59 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 170):
If the extension is in full gear (i.e. under construction), could the "interested party" cause the extension effort to fail?

Yes

Quoting Revelation (Reply 170):
From what I've seen in the US, once something is being built, it's very hard for an outside party to stop its construction. Maybe it's different in DL?

On this side of the pond, you could even file a claim to have the estate put back into its original state. Welcome to b(euro)cracy.

TeamAmerica · Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:21 am

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 171):
Airbus To Stick With Freighter Version Of A380

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 159):
No A380F, no runway extension, no role in A380 at all

Thanks for this insight Rheinbote. I did not realize there was such a major political consideration in the fate of the A380F. This will be interesting to watch.

Boeing4ever · Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:17 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 34):
Would more likely go for the 777F

I still tend to disagree, granted this topic has too many replies to wade through now, so it may have already been covered, but IIRC, UPS rolled its unwanted A300F orders to the A380F. Rather than lose the deposits, I suspect UPS will roll the 10 A380Fs over to the A330F. Again, if this reasoning has been shot down already, I apologize, but that's what my instinct is telling me. I could still see 777F in UPS colors though.

airplane

B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane

zvezda · Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:28 am

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 175):
I still tend to disagree, granted this topic has too many replies to wade through now, so it may have already been covered, but IIRC, UPS rolled its unwanted A300F orders to the A380F. Rather than lose the deposits, I suspect UPS will roll the 10 A380Fs over to the A330F. Again, if this reasoning has been shot down already, I apologize, but that's what my instinct is telling me.

There has been a lot of speculation on this and some interesting nuances have been suggested, but it hasn't been shot down. You might enjoy reading the thread. I agree with you that the A330F is more likely than the 777F.

zeke · Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:58 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 157):

Source? If you are going to quote facts cite a source.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 158):

Thank you for providing (incomplete and unsourced) data which support my assertion.

The actual source is the airlines, the data provided is not incomplete, all airlines are equally portrayed. The data is collected by the US government (DOT Form 41 data).

Zvezda, it does not support your assertion at all, it just says the 330 has a lower CASM when crew costs are taken out, i.e. when comparing the actual cost of running the aircraft not including local industrial issues which manufacturers have no control over.

In short, the 330 has a lower CASM than the 777, when looking at the cost of running the aircraft, and even the DL 767-400ER, you have no source to back you comments up.

Likewise many airlines in the USA report that airbus aircraft have a lower CASM than the equivilate boeing aircraft, you routinely spook AvB CASM comments without anything to back yourself up.

If you believe you are correct, and the airlines are supplying incorrect information to the FAA, please file a complaint to the FAA and/or the DOT.

Lumberton · Sun Jan 21, 2007 6:13 am

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 175):
, I suspect UPS will roll the 10 A380Fs over to the A330F. Again, if this reasoning has been shot down already, I

I keep reading this here and on other aviation sites. What if they don't need the aircraft now? What if they decide to leave a few bucks with Airbus and get in the queue for the A350-900F XWB?

atmx2000 · Sun Jan 21, 2007 6:15 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 177):

The actual source is the airlines, the data provided is not incomplete, all airlines are equally portrayed. The data is collected by the US government (DOT Form 41 data).

Actually it is incomplete from the point of view of being able to analyze the data. It doesn't break down aircraft by model. As someone noted, the US's numbers are significantly higher than NW's. That should be telling you something is missing in the data. Nor does it break down seating configurations which have dramatic impacts on CASM.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 177):
Zvezda, it does not support your assertion at all, it just says the 330 has a lower CASM when crew costs are taken out, i.e. when comparing the actual cost of running the aircraft not including local industrial issues which manufacturers have no control over.

In short, the 330 has a lower CASM than the 777, when looking at the cost of running the aircraft, and even the DL 767-400ER, you have no source to back you comments up.

The manufacturer has no control over the actual seating configuration the airline uses, so your argument doesn't hold for the usefulness of the data for comparing airframe specific issues.

zeke · Sun Jan 21, 2007 6:46 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 179):
As someone noted, the US's numbers are significantly higher than NW's. That should be telling you something is missing in the data.

Fairly easy to explain. NW reported their fuel cost per gallon was $1.86, US reported $2.49. Also NW reported their crew cost per block hour was $1,072, US reported $1,511. AA gets a slightly better fuel price (I would suggest due volume), $1.85/gal, CO, DL reported $1.86/gal, UA reported $1.78/gal.

It is obvious that NW and UA also financed their aircraft differently.

NW reported the following

Flight Crew Expense $25,010
Fuel Expense $79,182
Total Flying Expense $104,460

Direct Maint. - Airframe $2,771
Direct Main. - Engines $90
Total Direct Maintenance $2,861
Maintenance Burden $670

Depreciation $14,510
Aircraft Rent $0

Total Aircraft Operating Expense $122,539

Available Seat Miles (mil.) 3,044.91

UA reported

Flight Crew Expense $16,233
Fuel Expense $43,173
Total Flying Expense $61,297

Direct Maint. - Airframe $7,683
Direct Main. - Engines $3,102
Total Direct Maintenance $10,785
Maintenance Burden $375

Depreciation $1,631
Aircraft Rent $3,249

Total Aircraft Operating Expense $77,498

Available Seat Miles (mil.) 1,332.35

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 179):

The manufacturer has no control over the actual seating configuration the airline uses, so your argument doesn't hold for the usefulness of the data for comparing airframe specific issues.

It is representative of the actual configuration, not some hypothetical configuration.

Would you prefer them to stack the seating numbers so the 777 seems better regardless of how they are actually operated ?

osiris30 · Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:59 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 180):
Fairly easy to explain. NW reported their fuel cost per gallon was $1.86, US reported $2.49. Also NW reported their crew cost per block hour was $1,072, US reported $1,511. AA gets a slightly better fuel price (I would suggest due volume), $1.85/gal, CO, DL reported $1.86/gal, UA reported $1.78/gal.

Can you please provide a link to where this information is coming from for my own future reference... such information could be invaluable.

leelaw · Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:43 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 168):
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 166):

Interesting that "empty" A380Fs shuttling into/out of XFW for interior installations and painting can't operate from the existing runway. How long is the runway extension?

Yes, thinking about it it doesnt make sense - the A380F OEW is over 24,000kg less than the A380.

Perplexing indeed. We never did get an answer as to why extending the runway at XFW is critical to accommodating the A380F for the production functions assigned to that location: cabin fit-out and painting?

billreid · Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:45 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 154):
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 148):

It depends on the mission. Very broadly speaking the 777-200ER/LR has lower CASM for longer routes and heavier loads while the A330 has lower CASM for shorter routes and lighter loads. The numbers are generally biased in favor of the A330 because seat densities are typically higher.

Do you have data to back yourself up ?

This is the actual stats for US airlines for Q1 2006

Please do not go where you are not knowledgeable.
The data filed with the DOT is very innaccurate at best. The b777 usuage will drive average CASM as will the A330. based on your chart all airlines would have been out of business long ago as you have the CASM off by a measily factor of 100 times. Additionall a short stage length greatly effects CASM so the numbers aren't worth anything.

As a rule the larger twin acft generally has a far superior CASM over the smaller. The A330 is disadvantage on this basis for same stage length against the B777. The numbers are skued because AA and UA also use the B777 on domestic resulting on a higher CASM.

Next time don't throw garbage at readers.

LTU932 · Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:02 pm

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 166):
Interesting that "empty" A380Fs shuttling into/out of XFW for interior installations and painting can't operate from the existing runway. How long is the runway extension?

From what I remember reading in the German media, it's a 500 metre or roughly 1650 foot extension in length. According to Worldaerodata.com, XFW's runway, as it is, is 8629 feet or 2630 metres long. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

zeke · Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:06 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 181):
Can you please provide a link to where this information is coming from for my own future reference... such information could be invaluable.

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Tables....s%20(Form%2041%20Financial%20Data)

Quoting BillReid (Reply 183):
The data filed with the DOT is very innaccurate at best.

Seems they have procedures in place for this.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/statisti...cy_compendium/form41_schedule.html

Quoting BillReid (Reply 183):
CASM off by a measily factor of 100 times.

Yes, my mistake, it is in US$ cents, not US$ dollars.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 183):

As a rule the larger twin acft generally has a far superior CASM over the smaller.

Why is it then the low cost airlines have the lowest CASM vs stage length of any airline in the USA ? Using your argument the large legacies should have a lower CASM as they operate the larger aircraft ?

Have a look at page 7 in http://web.mit.edu/airlines/www/Upda...ence%20of%20Legacy%20and%20LCC.pdf

Quoting BillReid (Reply 183):
The numbers are skued because AA and UA also use the B777 on domestic resulting on a higher CASM.

Are you suggesting the 330s are never used on domestic style routes ?

Quoting BillReid (Reply 183):
Next time don't throw garbage at readers.

Please feel free to join the debate, if you have data that in your view is more reliable, I am sure we would all be pleased to see the same. All we have at the moment from you is some fairly harsh words with no substance.

baron95 · Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:18 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 184):
XFW's runway, as it is, is 8629 feet or 2630 metres long.

If an empty A380F with minimum fuel for the TLS - XFW hop, can't opperate out of 8,600 ft runway in temperate climates, low altitude, then that aircraft project should REALLY be cancelled. How much runway would it require to take-off fully loaded from Bombay in the summer? 20,000 feet?

LHStarAlliance · Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:58 pm

http://www.stern.de/wirtschaft/unter...-Das-Aus-Frachter-A380/580768.html

Rheinbote · Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:56 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 186):
If an empty A380F with minimum fuel for the TLS - XFW hop, can't opperate out of 8,600 ft runway in temperate climates, low altitude, then that aircraft project should REALLY be cancelled. How much runway would it require to take-off fully loaded from Bombay in the summer? 20,000 feet?

1) XFW is to serve as a delivery center for the 380, covering Mid-East and Asian markets, IIRC. Flights will go out there at high gross weights.
2) pre-delivery testing is done as well, may involve high gross-weights, I don't know.
3) WX conditions are marginal for a good proportion of the year. Imagine general Seattle climate.
4) IIRC, there are overflight restrictions for the 380. The NEerly extension of the RWY C/L runs across the city center of Hamburg, which is sloping up on the Northern banks of the river Elbe. The RWY overrun extends into the river Elbe on the southern banks.
5) I think the lawsuits assume MTOW, anyway.
6) The important case is the A389. Under German law, it cannot be used as an argument in a lawsuit because not being launched yet, de jure it is 'fictional'. Hence in the lawsuit Airbus has to make best of the 380F to get the most towards the 389.

leelaw · Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:16 pm

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 188):

Thanx for the additional information.

Stitch · Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:21 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 185):
Are you suggesting the 330s are never used on domestic style routes?

NW does not appear to fly their A330s domestically, nor does US, based on their current timetables.

zeke · Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:03 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 190):

NW does not appear to fly their A330s domestically

The domestic style ones I had in the back of my head for NW are the short hops out of NRT (NRT-ICN, NRT-PEK etc) they do, I am sure they would do more, I am not that interested in digging through their timetables to find them.

jacobin777 · Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:30 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 190):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 185):
Are you suggesting the 330s are never used on domestic style routes?

NW does not appear to fly their A330s domestically, nor does US, based on their current timetables.

Though not "domestic", KL does fly their A330's AMS-LHR..which is quite a short hop of a mere 200nm...

2wingtips · Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:20 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 190):
NW does not appear to fly their A330s domestically, nor does US, based on their current timetables.

I believe NW has just retired their last domestic DC-10 and 330s are replacing these on the Minneapolis-Honolulu domestic service.

JAL · Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:22 am

This is bad news for Airbus if it's true!

scouseflyer · Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:39 pm

So is this cancellation still happening then?

semobeila · Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:49 pm

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 195):
So is this cancellation still happening then?

Was wondering the same! Should have happened last week already, anyone hear anything after that mysterious French newspaper article?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net