tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:06 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
My point is that these are comparable city pairs in terms of distance and in terms of large passenger volumes.

There are some considerable routes but when you have to manage 4 popular routes in your entire country/system its a very different story then when you have 15 of those same routes in the same network.

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
Fly 2 hours Cape Town to Johannesburg on a legacy carrier in Economy class and you get fed and watered and your baggage flies free.

Bags are free on WN and B6 and for FF on legacy carriers. I dont think I have ever paid for bags. I don't need a meal on a two hour flight especially if that means the airline's cost structure is higher and therefore my ticket is more expensive. I will brown bag it if I am hungry.

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
there aren't that many A330s flying in the USA because passengers can and will settle for much, much less.

No, because price is that much more important and US travelers don't care about the airline. First is price, second, second is departure time, third is total travel time. It costs more to fly wide body aircraft on domestic routes and so the tickets are more expensive.

Quoting koruman (Reply 46):

I can't find the rates that you quote. When I search one way NYC-LAX vs SYD-PER for any dates beyond three weeks from now I cannot find an instance where the NYC-LAX fare is not half of the price of the Qantas SYD-PER fare. I used kayak.com and I plugged in a random day each month for the next four months. Check out the number of hits when you try it. There are 5x as many flights between NYC-LAX then there is from SYD-PER and the price is usually a third compared to Qantas.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8138
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:39 am

By the way, it should be noted that Airbus was initially highly reluctant to build the A330-200 because they feared it would cut into A340 sales. It was only airline insistance on an A330 model that used the shorter fuselage of the A340-200 that finally got Airbus to build the A332--a model that has proved to be a huge best-seller because its range was highly desired by many airlines. Indeed, the reason why Hawaiian Airlines chose the A332 was that its very long range with ETOPS 180 certification made it possible to fly to most destinations around the Pacific rim from HNL easily--and the plane was the exact size HA wanted for such a long-range plane that will supplement HA's 767-300(ER) fleet.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18821
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:55 am

Europe had more routes in A333 range. Heck, *early* A333 range. In the USA, the A333 has worse economics than the 757; yes that was the competition to the early A333s. For frequency and fragmentation meant there wasn't a few flights per day to fill. There is a reason the 757 is concentrated in the USA. With few curfews and few slot limitations, the USA didn't need a widebody to do the job of a large narrowbody and when the 738 came out, that eliminated the short haul options, with very few exceptions, for the A330 family.

The A340-300 had the misfortune of being introduced when the USA was recovering from the 'Asian flu' economic crisis for longhaul travel. Two years later, the 777 was on the market. At the time, the US airlines had notably higher aircraft utilization than the competition and that led to a drive for very high efficiency (777-200ER). Now everyone has high utilization, so that regional variation has been lost.

I thought the A330 had more potential. But with Pratt blowing the PW4175 er... PW4170A, that pushed UA to look elsewhere. US had financial issues, which limited their A330 purchases. I personally think internal issues with the US airlines kept them from buying new aircraft, including the A330, for a few years. But now that all of the 'big three' have been through BK, they're growing but at a time when the 787/A350 look attractive.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
ogre727
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:43 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:13 am

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 49):

I disagree, although we might or might not like what he says, he is arguing on why us carriers stuck with other (older?) types. I find it interesting reading, if a little bit over the top. I find your post slightly rude (go back down under? Really?) when all he is doing is expressing his opinion. I too find the service in US carriers to be subpar (both in Y and in J) and this is related to aircraft choice, so dont stop the debate.
I am between the devil and the deep blue sea
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9309
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:09 am

I assume that the biggest reason for the A 330 to be less successful in the USA market was that in the past USA airlines bought USA made airplanes, that it is that simple.

The tanker competition between the B 767 and the A 330 just shows that if a foreign product wins a big military contract in the USA, the rules for the offer are changed in favor of the local product until the local product wins.

That the domestic USA air transport market is the biggest domestic market in the world is without doubt. That it is the most competitive is very much in doubt. If you need to keep out foreign competition, that alone speaks the tale in the country of " free markets".
You can compare as much as you want, let foreign competition in your market, at least foreign ownership, and than have a look what happens. Until than talk about a "competitive market" is just that, talk.
 
spink
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:01 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
The absurd decision to go with antiquated and inefficient 767 tankers rather than 330s basically eloquently summarises how in the USA self-harming decisions can sometimes be made for reasons which shouldn't even be factored into the equation.

The contract was awarded on economic costs and based on the requirements. The 330s both cost more and had higher operating costs while the 767s met all the contract requirements.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Worse still, US civil aviation exists in a horribly distorted anti-competitve bubble.

The US civil aviation market is the most competitive civil aviation market in the world. There are a staggering amount of competitors and would be competitors. If you think the US civil aviation market is anti-competitive, I would wonder what you think is a competitive civil aviation market.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Bankruptcy laws in most advanced countries see failed companies liquidated, but in the USA their weird bankruptcy laws not only encourage airline executives to believe in reincarnation, but they also permit the executives who preside over corporate failure not only to stay out of jail but to be able to steal their employees' earned entitlements and to continue to lead the airline they drove into bankruptcy.

The US bankruptcy system is quite widely considered the best bankruptcy system in the world. It actually preserves greater wealth for not only the creditors but also the employees and shareholders. In addition, US bankruptcy laws encourage innovation, entrepreneurs, and investment. US bankruptcy laws were largely created in direct objection to UK bankruptcy laws which were historically the most draconian and regressive in the world. The fact is that most of the world has been moving to much more US like bankruptcy laws because of the significant economic advantages of the US bankruptcy system.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
So in 2013 in the USA, 757 and 767 antiques do the work that more efficient A332 and A321 aircraft do in countries which promote genuine competition, and where failure does not equate to reincarnation.

Most of the US airlines operating 757s and 767s are doing so because it is more economical to do so. The vast majority of these frames are fully paid for and the actual operating costs are in many cases less than buying new planes. In the case of the 757s, the primary reason they have continued to be operated is because there wasn't until recently an adequate replacement, esp for many of the route that they are used on. Now that the 321 and 739er are able to operate the routes that the 757s were used on, you are seeing a move to replace many of them for domestic use (it wasn't until later model 321s that they could even reliably do US transcons). Still a paid for 767 is generally much cheaper to operate than a leased or mortgaged 332.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
There are simply not enough consequences for bad management, and there is not enough incentive to retire dinosaurs like the 747, 757 and 767. Hawaiian Airlines is probably the only airline recognisable to those of us in the rest of the advanced world as a properly-run airline, and, surprise, they are replacing their 763s with A330s. Plus, of course, they have a CEO with airline experience outside the USA, whereas I cannot name a single other US airline executive who would be employable outside North America.

Oh man, you must think that Delta management is insane them for scooping up all the DC9s that they can then. As far as consequences for bad management in the US airline industry, there are plenty of consequences. I think you simply do not understand much if anything about the largest aviation market in the world.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:03 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 54):

The five largest fleets in the world are in the US. The market is open skies with many countries with nearly no slot restrictions. Many airports give large incentives to get foreign carriers in. Check out Boston and Denver. Some carriers are 25% foreign owned. Find a significant route that does not have at least three large carriers on that route. Very competitive. Very very low (no) profit.

I agree with the rule for the lack of foreign ownership. Many military deployments are carried out on commercial carriers. Critical to national security for the forseable future.

tortugamon
 
spink
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:53 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 46):
jetstar: A320, LCC product, $460 return
Virgin Economy: A330, IFE, food, drinks but baggage for purchase, $530 return,
Qantas Economy: A330, IFE, food, drinks and baggage included, $550 return
Virgin Business Class: as economy but better food, bigger seat, $2000 return
Qantas Business Class: as per Virgin, $2500 return.

For the similar US market, you are telling me that the "choice" is:

Legacy Economy class: LCC product plus soda, US$480=A$531
Legacy First Class: $3086.

I don't know where you are getting your prices but those are very much not the prices I see on SFO based transcons. I can almost always snag a first class ticket for 1K or less. SFO-NYC return can be had for $1400 in first class on VA pretty much anytime. 1 stop flight first class flights can be had for ~1K. If you have money to burn for a NYC to LAX/SFO flight you can always op for the varies premium services on these routes with the equiv of full international business hard product with full lie flat seating at ~4K a pop.

You are also forgetting a major dynamic of US travel and that is the multitude of routes available. SFO-NYC can be done direct, via DEN, via SLC, via ORD, etc. Pricing will vary widely based on direct or not, level of service, airports, and time of day. SFO/LAX to/from JFK in first has some of the highest pricing in the world for the stage lengths, just an FYI which is driven by both the entertainment and financial sectors that are willing to spend big $ for international biz class configuration on these routes.

Also if you know what you are doing in booking you can get some pretty great domestic flights, I've been on many 777 international config 777s in first class with full lay flat seats for under 1K for transcons.
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2551
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:19 am

The problem the a330/340 family had was timing.
When launched in the late 80s/early 90s the 333 barely had the range for ORD-DUB (EI used to take weight restrictions on certain days) and the 332 didn't yet exist. The A340 was pretty good but the carriers who hadn't already ordered 767s, or had large fleets of 747s had serious financial problems which prevented them from doing so. Once stabilised these airlines (TW, NW, US, CO) did place orders but most were cancelled or deferred because the airline couldn't pay for them, or were otherwise bankrupt.
When airlines came to replace their 747 fleets the A340 (even in 345 and 346) guise were not competitive with the 777 family which had itself improved in range and operating costs since introduction. Airbus won very little of this business globally.
Where airbus has had success is with growing carriers, or carries who were later in the replacement cycle. Airlines like NW, Hawaiian. The A333. Was not more than capable of transatlantic and some transpacific missions, but was lighter than the 777. Unless you really need the range of the 777, or already had them in our fleet the 330 was probably a better choice.

We see a similar situation at BA. Their fleet of 744s offered range and capacity in the 80s and 90s but when it came to replacing TriStars and DC-10s the chose the 767 and 777 to replace 742s, because the 333/343 of the time just was not as good.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:25 am

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The contract was awarded on economic costs and based on the requirements.

Yes, both times through.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The 330s both cost more and had higher operating costs while the 767s met all the contract requirements.

Correct, after the requirements were changed to favour the 'home team'. First time through, it was the other way around. But don't get me wrong - I don't necessarily disapprove of this sort of support for the 'home team'. I wish we could be a little more supportive of our own industries over here sometimes, instead of spending our hard-earned taxes overseas.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The US civil aviation market is the most competitive civil aviation market in the world.

It probably is but, unfortunately, the competitiveness has mostly been on price, especially in recent years. It would be better for passengers if there could be more competitiveness on product quality. But there are signs that this might be beginning to change - the introduction of flat beds on transcons is one example.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
If you think the US civil aviation market is anti-competitive

Well it's definitely still anti foreign-owned competition, despite the fact that the US agreed to have relaxed foreign ownership rules long before now as part of the Open Skies agreement.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The US bankruptcy system is quite widely considered the best bankruptcy system in the world.

In the US, maybe. Not sure I agree that that's how much of the rest of the world sees it. There have been many many complaints from other countries that the US system skews competition in favour of US companies that can write-off debt by going Chapter 11 and then just continuing trading as if nothing happened.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
In addition, US bankruptcy laws encourage innovation, entrepreneurs, and investment.

Correct. But it also encourages excessive risk taking.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
I agree with the rule for the lack of foreign ownership. Many military deployments are carried out on commercial carriers. Critical to national security for the forseable future.

Even if 90% of the current US domestic fleet ended up under foreign ownership, there would probably still be enough capacity to carry the entire US armed forces, if required. You've got an awful lot of aircraft over there, you know.  
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9750
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:28 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 54):
I assume that the biggest reason for the A 330 to be less successful in the USA market was that in the past USA airlines bought USA made airplanes, that it is that simple.

The tanker competition between the B 767 and the A 330 just shows that if a foreign product wins a big military contract in the USA, the rules for the offer are changed in favor of the local product until the local product wins.

I will not derail this thread, but this question came up in the tanker threads and I'm not sure that those with opinions like yours ever fully answered the question, but here goes.
At the time of the tanker debate, the USA as a country was the largest user of Airbus a/c in the world, have not checked recently but they still may be - UA, DL, B6, US and a few LCC's - and this does not count AA who are getting back in the game, so where exactly is the USA protectionism in purchasing a/c from an OEM other than Boeing?
Is there anyway that you can say that Europe the home of Airbus is the largest operator of Boeing a/c?

Eastern was the first major USA carrier to purchase Airbus a/c, since then the USA has been one of the largest consumers of Airbus products, no need to take anyone's word on it, simply go and check the facts.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:46 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 60):
At the time of the tanker debate, the USA as a country was the largest user of Airbus a/c in the world, have not checked recently but they still may be

To be fair, you're abusing statistics here to prove your point. Given that the US aviation market has, historically, been so much larger than other aviation markets, you can't make any meaningful comparison on absolute numbers of aircraft. You need to look at the ratios for each manufacturer. I'm sure that you'll find that in the EU, the split of A:B isn't that far off 50:50. Whereas in the US ...

But who cares, really? Given that significant chunks of Boeing aircraft are now made outside the US, and significant chunks of Airbus aircraft are made in the US, everyone is benefitting from sales of both manufactures product. It's bragging rights, nothing more.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:57 am

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The contract was awarded on economic costs and based on the requirements. The 330s both cost more and had higher operating costs while the 767s met all the contract requirements.

Obviously.

That would explain why 767s are being built for airlines at a record pace, but airlines don't order A330s any more..............

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 59):
It probably is but, unfortunately, the competitiveness has mostly been on price, especially in recent years. It would be better for passengers if there could be more competitiveness on product quality.

There are important cultural differences here between US consumers and consumers everywhere else in the developed world.

In Australia or the UK or France the price on a price tag is the price you pay for the item, and if the vendor doesn't include the tax in the price he is prosecuted. But in the USA, from the first time people ever buy their first candy they learn that the price on the tag is not the final price. It is therefore easier for airlines to pull stunts like "unbundled pricing" or for hotels to introduce "resort fees".

The end result seems to have been that American aviation consumers are far more price-sensitive than their peers elsewhere and don't care that they are riding in an antique aircraft which lacks the IFE and other comforts which are standard in similar markets overseas on identical sector lengths.

We have seen in this thread the contributions of people who really do think that it is not absurd to be taking delivery of brand-new 767-200ERs for the USAF from 2017 when no self-respecting airline has actually ordered a 767-200ER since the early 1990s!

It is that ability to ignore logic and to go against what is standard practice in every peer market elsewhere which creates a situation in which DC-9s and 757s continue to wheeze their way across the skies.
 
wdleiser
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:32 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:05 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 46):

I do believe you mean an extra 8$ for a meal to be included.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:15 am

Quoting wdleiser (Reply 63):
I do believe you mean an extra 8$ for a meal to be included.

Actually, no, I mean what he wrote in Reply 42.

Time after time I find myself with tight connections through a hub in the USA and no chance to purchase food between flights. And as was written in Reply 42, the prevailing argument is "if you are taking a 2 hour flight into a hub at 3pm, followed by a four hour flight from 6pm to your destination, if you really want a hot meal buy a First Class ticket".

It's extraordinary how expensive it is to try to obtain decent full-service standards in the USA. And, returning to the original topic, whereas in my country (Australia) the airlines can only compete on Transcontinental flights with widebody aircraft, in the USA consumers seem to tolerate 737 and 757 aircraft on really long sectors. In fact, next January United are flying me on a 891 mile sector on an Embraer!
 
777Boeing777
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:25 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:30 am

Quoting opethfan (Reply 19):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
Why does a European airline buying a 777 have any relevance on why a US company would not buy an A330?

I think MIflyer12 was taking the protectionist train of thought. Or was at least mentioning that train of thought.

I think protectionism is less of a factor in US airline aircraft purchases than it is across the pond. I personally wish it were not, but here the U.S. government does not have majority ownership/stakes in UA/DL/HA/US, so they are free to purchase from whom they want.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:38 am

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 65):
but here the U.S. government does not have majority ownership/stakes in UA/DL/HA/US, so they are free to purchase from whom they want.

Care to enlighten us as to how that is any different from the EU? I can't think of any major EU airlines which are still under government majority ownership.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9750
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:40 am

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 61):
To be fair, you're abusing statistics here to prove your point. Given that the US aviation market has, historically, been so much larger than other aviation markets, you can't make any meaningful comparison on absolute numbers of aircraft.

Ahh no, the size of the USA aviation market does not change the fact that they are the largest user of Airbus a/c.
The claim is made that the USA will not purchase foreign a/c because they are protectionist, when those claims are made, do you see anyone saying that based on the size of the USA market they can serve and provide a stable market for multiple OEM's?
Quoting Speedbored (Reply 61):
But who cares, really? Given that significant chunks of Boeing aircraft are now made outside the US, and significant chunks of Airbus aircraft are made in the US, everyone is benefitting from sales of both manufactures product. It's bragging rights, nothing more.

Ok, now you say the above, then you have the comment below.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 61):
You need to look at the ratios for each manufacturer. I'm sure that you'll find that in the EU, the split of A:B isn't that far off 50:50. Whereas in the US ...

So is this about bragging rights, AA split their order between Airbus and Boeing to get a/c in a reasonable length of time, do you see Airbus committing to increasing production to 100 plus A32X per month to be able to satisfy USA airlines?
Increase production is the only way for Airbus to affect the ratio of units within USA carriers, you already have posters claiming that the USA service is poor because they are using older a/c, so if WN decides to change its fleet to the latest Airbus product, how long is that supposed to take, we are talking roughly 500 a/c.

The protectionist mantra on commercial aviation in the USA lost traction after Eastern purchased A300's, even with "gentlemens agreements" and other legal wrangles, the USA still managed to become one of the larger users of Airbus a/c, soaking up a lot of their production capacity, I truly do not see the protectionist facts but like in the tanker threads, I'll let it go and move on.
My understanding of protectionism is that you prevent the product from being deployed in the protected market.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:49 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 67):
My understanding of protectionism is that you prevent the product from being deployed in the protected market.

Then you'd be misunderstanding.

Protectionism isn't just about completely shutting someone/something out of a market, it's most often about applying bias to favour one side. That is why it's more important to look at ratios rather than absolute numbers.

For what it's worth, I do think that things are beginning to even up now as new aircraft sales ratios in the US are getting closer to global sales ratios.
 
777Boeing777
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:25 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:06 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
The absurd decision to go with antiquated and inefficient 767 tankers rather than 330s basically eloquently summarises how in the USA self-harming decisions can sometimes be made for reasons which shouldn't even be factored into the equation.

Better to go with something you know, and something you know which actually works correctly on day 1. The USAF has no time to wait for troubleshooting on issues on, say, a .......... bug in the fuel-boom. Not going to go over well with the F-15 or F-16 pilot who needs to be refueled yet is told, "uhhh, sorry, our fuel boom doesn't work right now."

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Worse still, US civil aviation exists in a horribly distorted anti-competitve bubble. Bankruptcy laws in most advanced countries see failed companies liquidated, but in the USA their weird bankruptcy laws not only encourage airline executives to believe in reincarnation, but they also permit the executives who preside over corporate failure not only to stay out of jail but to be able to steal their employees' earned entitlements and to continue to lead the airline they drove into bankruptcy.

Just to be sure, you're talking about U.S. airlines, and NOT the U.S. Government? Could of fooled me.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
So you end up with a market where legacy airline service standards on flights 2-9 hours are the worst in the advanced world, where in spite of a vast market there is a "one-size fits all" crappy coach product regardless of your "choice" of legacy carrier.

I find U.S. carriers coach product rather nice. I'll take a UA, DL or WN flight in coach over a Ryanair or sleazyJet flight any day.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
They even have surly and inattentive flight attendants, because US service industry service standards appear to be dependent upon tipping.

Not all U.S. flight attendants are surly and inattentive. The vast majority of them are very professional. I fly on a regular basis and have never experienced a flight attendant similar to what you describe. Tipping? Where did you pull that one out of?

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
So in 2013 in the USA, 757 and 767 antiques do the work that more efficient A332 and A321 aircraft do in countries which promote genuine competition, and where failure does not equate to reincarnation.

Which is why UA, DL, and AA are holding onto their 767's, and upgrading them because doing so is a better investment than adding a whole new type to the fleet. Glad to see those antique 757's and 767's doing so well and in large numbers in fleets from FedEx, UPS, etc., when they clearly could have ordered the A330F and the phantom A321 frieghter. Didn't FedEx recently place a significant order for the aforementioned "antique" 767?" Carriers like DL and UA are opting for the 739ER and UA the MAX to replace their 757's. They could have easily gone the A321 route, but they didn't.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
There are simply not enough consequences for bad management, and there is not enough incentive to retire dinosaurs like the 747, 757 and 767.

That same 31 year old 767 which keeps getting orders? That same 757 which is still in service by many airlines? That same 747 that is still in demand in cargo or pax versions, which for many missions has no competition?

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Hawaiian Airlines is probably the only airline recognisable to those of us in the rest of the advanced world as a properly-run airline, and, surprise, they are replacing their 763s with A330s. ......... they have a CEO with airline experience outside the USA, whereas I cannot name a single other US airline executive who would be employable outside North America.

How is this relevant to running an airline? Those of us in the real world recognize a properly-run airline as one that is properly managed financially, not headed by someone who held a job in another country.
 
777Boeing777
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:25 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:08 pm

Quoting hOmSAr (Reply 25):
Other than UA, the only airlines in a position to order new widebodies were also airlines that had signed single-supplier agreements with Boeing for new planes.

And I am sure it had nothing to do with the 777 being a vastly superior product to the A340, right?
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 6621
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:10 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
Why does a European airline buying a 777 have any relevance on why a US company would not buy an A330?

Airlines pick aircraft, and aircraft families, to support specific missions. That some European* carriers bought 777s suggests that the A330/340 family wasn't the only economically viable aircraft in the 250-300 passenger range.

* and South American, and African, and Mexican, and Japanese, and Chinese, and Russian...

It gets back to the OP's premise that the A330/A340 wasn't successful. Based on a lot of factors cited in this thread - AA and DL as MD-11 customers in the early 90s, financial constraints in the early 2000s once the A330 had established itself, the 764s bought by DL and CO since they had other 76x types in the fleet - I'll say the A330 didn't do too badly in the U.S.

I'm not implying protectionism - I'm pointing to evidence that refutes it. U.S. government military bidding is a whole different matter and the multi-bid tanker acquisition exposed some of the worst features of military contracting.
 
777Boeing777
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:25 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:22 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 37):
Simple really.

I exempted Canada because in terms of aviation it is so close to the USA that the norms have largely translated over.

But Australia and South Africa are markets with comparable distances to the US domestic market and a number of routes ( e.g. MEL-SYD, CPT-JNB) with similar traffic volumes to major US domestic sectors.

In terms of Australia, the flights between the main markets (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Cairns, Adelaide and Perth) are similar in length and volume to many US mainline flights, and the smaller airports like Canberra, Gold Coast, Newcastle et al are like secondary US stations.

The same is true in South Africa, where the Cape Town/Johannesburg/Durban triangle is similar in length and volume to many US markets.

But there the similarity ends.

In the USA, every legacy carrier basically delivers a cloned copy of its "competitors'" (sic) service standards. And those standards are conspicuously lower than those of Qantas, Virgin Australia, SAA and BA/Comair.

It's a funny "market" in a huge economy which produces identical products from every vendor. All of which have gone bankrupt within little more than a decade, which suggests that the clones are working to a very, very flawed model.

And returning to the issue of 330 and 340 aircraft, if the US aviation market was a competitve one we would obviously see more variety in what was on offer.

The Audi end of the market would fly 738/320 and 777/330 aircraft domestically with full-service, including meals, IFE and bags, just as Qantas and SAA do.

The Volkswagen end of the market would also fly 738/330 aircraft, but with some passengers on the cheapest Economy Saver fares able to opt out of meals and baggage on flights shorter than 2 hours, just as Virgin Australia does.

And the second-hand General Motors/Ford end of the market would operate narrowbody aircraft, and possibly 767s, with food and baggage charged separately and no IFE, just as Ryanair does.

The weird thing in America is that in spite of having the world's biggest market, the anti-competitive model forces every domestic economy passenger to endure the second-hand Ford model. Even the airlines which own the equivalent of Audis and BMWs effectively take out the seats and the stereo and make everyone sit on the floor of the car.

When you're doing that to every passenger, and when there are no consequences for economic failure other than corporate reincarnation by deleting your employees' pensions, there is no real incentive to replace the 744s with A380 and 77W aircraft or to replace domestic 757s with 321s or domestic 767s with 330s.

Eh?
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:29 pm

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
I find U.S. carriers coach product rather nice.

Not sure that I'd go as far as calling any carrier's 'cattle class' offering 'nice' these days, anywhere in the world. But maybe I'm just getting too picky in my old age.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
I'll take a UA, DL or WN flight in coach over a Ryanair or sleazyJet flight any day.

I'd agree with that but I most definitely would not hold up Ryanair or Easyjet as a standard to aim for. Ryanair is at the top of my 'never again' list. There are, however, a number of airlines outside the US that have far more pleasant economy class offerings than any US carrier I've flown with (and I have flown a lot of them).

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
Not all U.S. flight attendants are surly and inattentive. The vast majority of them are very professional.

I find that flight attendants tend to give as good as they get wherever in the world you are. If you are polite and respectful towards them, they'll be pleasant to you in return. Simple hellos, pleases and thank-yous go a very long way. I also find that at least pretending to pay attention during the pre-flight safety briefing can often make a big difference to how attentive they'll be to you. It's my experience that flight attendants mostly only become 'surly and inattentive' when they have too many rude and obnoxious passengers to deal with.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:43 pm

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
Better to go with something you know, and something you know which actually works correctly on day 1. The USAF has no time to wait for troubleshooting on issues on, say, a .......... bug in the fuel-boom.

Yet they have bought the F-35 instead of the Typhoon or Rafale, even though it has failed to deliver on its claimed performance and the "Lightning II" can't even fly in....storms.

Not too many people would buy a newly manufactured car which was a 30 year old design. Yet the USAF is going to get 179 new 767-200ERs after 2017! The 767-200ER was last delivered to an airline in 1994, until Continental for some reason ordered a few more in 1998. So this aircraft which was already obsolete and unwanted in 1994 is now getting a whole new run of 179 more to be built, after the parameters were twisted to ensure its success in the bidding process. You couldn't make it up. And the poor US taxpayers have to pay $5 billion to build this obsolete junk - remember, no airline has spent a single dollar buying new 767-200ERs for the last 15 years - and then more again to fly these inefficient gas-guzzlers.

And again, this goes right to the heart of the thread. The USA is a place where 767-200ERs which have been obsolete and unsellable for 19 years already are considered more than a match for the A330 which is still being delivered to class-leading airlines overseas.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
I find U.S. carriers coach product rather nice. I'll take a UA, DL or WN flight in coach over a Ryanair or sleazyJet flight any day.

I said legacy carriers, yet your reply was Ryanair or Easyjet. Have American standards fallen so far that legacy carriers need to compare themselves to LCCs?

Would you fly a 1000 mile or 2000 mile domestic flight to UA/DL coach standards in preference to SAA or Qantas standards? So you wouldn't miss the cooked meal and AVOD and included baggage, or the ice cream service? And please don't say that people don't like airline food. Qantas' economy class curries and casseroles are so popular that the people in Business Class often request them.

Quoting spink (Reply 55):
The US bankruptcy system is quite widely considered the best bankruptcy system in the world

First I've heard of it. I have British, Australian and New Zealand nationality and my spouse is French, and US bankruptcy laws are a figure of contempt and disdain in all four of those countries.

I find it fascinating that some of my comments are construed as "anti-American". Rather like Speedbored's views, I'm actually the one sticking up for American consumers, who are currently being dumped upon with a pseudo-monopoly situation in which the various legacy carriers gang up against them to prevent genuine choice and to enforce universally awful standards onboard antique and obsolete aircraft:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 59):
It probably is but, unfortunately, the competitiveness has mostly been on price, especially in recent years. It would be better for passengers if there could be more competitiveness on product quality


[Edited 2013-07-31 05:53:33]

[Edited 2013-07-31 05:56:16]
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9750
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:44 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 64):
whereas in my country (Australia) the airlines can only compete on Transcontinental flights with widebody aircraft, in the USA consumers seem to tolerate 737 and 757 aircraft on really long sectors. In fact, next January United are flying me on a 891 mile sector on an Embraer!

Well AA was one of the last holdouts offering dedicated widebody service transcon - 767-200 - and guess what, they are getting rid of those a/c and replacing them with Airbus A319 / A321. while more efficient widebody a/c are available.
DL used to run a lot of widebody a/c between New York and Florida as those a/c did turns on international runs, those have been diminished and more narrow body a/c are in play.
Frequency offered by competitors is one of the reasons why the legacy carriers could not maintain service in markets by attempting to maintain high utilization rates on their wide body a/c with domestic turns.
Add in the fact that most of the domestic pax were in Y whose space was roughly the same as the narrow body competitors and you have a loosing situation in terms of market share.
The few business pax who do not care about the fares look even fewer on a larger a/c than a smaller one whose operation cost is much lower.
 
evomutant
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:47 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:46 pm

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
I find U.S. carriers coach product rather nice. I'll take a UA, DL or WN flight in coach over a Ryanair or sleazyJet flight any day.

Sleazyjet? Really?  

Struggling to see how U2 are in any way inferior when it comes to onboard service to WN. In fact with U2 now having assigned seating I'd say the opposite. And I've flown both a lot.
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:57 pm

I suggest we change the heading on this thread to "Why was the A330 so successful in the US."
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9750
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:07 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 74):
after the parameters were twisted to ensure its success in the bidding process.

Suggest you leave the tanker bit alone, as the question may be asked, which one are you talking about, the US AirForce generals and politicians who fudged the process to give Airbus a win resulting in a re-bid of the entire process or those who fudged it to give Boeing a win?
If you have a point to put over on the USA not purchasing modern day a/c there are many more items you can use to justify which have much less baggage and contradictory points, like poor management resulting in carriers going bankrupt, or the Chpt.11 process, etc etc etc.

Quoting koruman (Reply 74):
The USA is a place where 767-200ERs which have been obsolete and unsellable for 19 years already are considered more than a match for the A330 which is still being delivered to class-leading airlines overseas.

Is the USA a large user of Airbus A330's NW now DL and US use them, other carriers UA and AA had selected the 777. In relation to 4 engine frames, they got rid of 747's years ago and replaced them with large twins, the bulk of 767 purchases especially the -300 was done during that time frame.
Is the issue them not using widebody a/c on their domestic market?
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 1080
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:07 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 24):
What, specifically, is worse about a US domestic flight than a European domestic flight? You have more food service options in the US. You have better IFE on most long flights in the US. In F, you generally have better seats in the US.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 24):
Quoting koruman (Reply 46):
So you are effectively saying:

'Yes, there's lots of choice in the USA. You can have an LCC+soda experience or else you can pay an extra $2000+ to have a meal included."

I think one of the biggest problems here, that I see, is despite the class system. In the US, you get the "bells and whistles" by flying F instead Y. You consider domestic F in the US far inferior to similar products in Australia (which I will address momentarily). I have flown on many major global airlines, and there is nothing that will convinve me that a coach seat with the middle blocked out (a la most foreign carriers) is comparable to a large F seat in the US. You say they are the same, and they aren't. The reason most people buy up is for more room, and having greater pitch and width is why people buy F seats. The other services that you extol (IFE, Food and bags) are also given to these passengers. I refuse to fly F on foreign domestic flights (unless it is part of a longer itinerary) to be crammed into a regular coach seat with 31"-32" pitch. Therefore, we do differentiate based upon what people want are willing to pay for. I think the argument for the role of elite status and airline credit cards is also valid to include in the discussion - thanks for bringing it up, hOmsAr. That is another major way to get your services included. Before you attempt to force another American stereotype (which if you look at many Europeans really doesn't make sense), I am 6'0" tall and 160 pounds - I am NOT fat.

At the end of the day, the US air market is like none other in the world, for better or worse. As such, it operates completely differently. Any comparison to Australia, SA, Canada or China is simply apples to oranges and specious. While I love listening to the pedantic US bashing, empirically, there is simply no reason in continuing down that road. There are way more people, flying on way more carriers, with way more frequency, to way larger cities, for way lower fares and with way more factors to consider (FF programs, Credit cards, LCC vs. legacy, regulatory environment, etc.) than anywhere else in the world. So, let's get back to the relatively calm waters (I can't believe I'm saying this) of Airbus vs. Boeing! (That last bit was sarcasm for those who will miss it, invariably).
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175/190, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2618
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:14 pm

With the exception of HA, US carriers generally no longer operate widebodies on domestic flights.
I would love to see the UA of the 1990s back with gaggle of DC-10, 767 & 777 domestic flights, but fat chance of that happening.
Despite this, the A330 has done well enough in the US/North American market. The A330 has been a big hit in Asia wit the exception in Japan over the 763, so I doubt Airbus is complaining. (not to mention both the 777 is also hit in this market)
 
PDPsol
Posts: 1226
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:09 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:23 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 30):
Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Bankruptcy laws in most advanced countries see failed companies liquidated

You are right that BK props up companies at the expense of shareholders. It does preserve value though and in an industry like airlines with steep barriers to entry, it does protect consumers in some way. I agree though that it is not a perfect system.

This is so far off-topic from the A330/340 issue this thread is dedicated to, but, whatever...

US bankruptcy laws do not "prop up companies at the expense of shareholders." Perhaps you should do a bit of research into the US bankruptcy system before offering opinions on the topic.

Our bankruptcy laws do not embrace the concept of "failed companies" willy-nilly. Rather, our laws are designed to maximize total firm value/enterprise value for the benefit of a all claim holders in descending order along a company's capital structure. The system is designed to protect continued operations and associated cash flows from immediate creditor claims, allowing maximum value for all creditors [and even shareholders if enough value exists].

Our bankruptcy system puts creditors "in the drivers seat", allowing them to guide corporate restructuring and negotiations with commercial creditors and vendors.

If creditors and the assigned Federal bankruptcy judge determine claim holder interests are best served with an asset liquidation, then assets are, indeed liquidated.

Several carriers in the United States have had assets sold via a "363 sale" in bankruptcy, including PA assets, TW assets, etc., etc.

If anything, the current AA bankruptcy process illustrates how creditors, not the old pre-bankruptcy management, make restructuring decisions in bankruptcy. Think of the management team are mere "chauffeurs", operating as instructed and accountable to the creditors' committee and the Federal bankruptcy judge. As everyone appreciates, the AA creditors will convert into the controlling shareholders of the combined AA/US...
 
brilondon
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:27 pm

Sorry I am joining the party late in this discussion, but what would you consider a success? I just think that the airlines did not have a need for that type of airliner at that time. I would broaden you look at the Asian market at that time as well. Why was the A340 not bought in numbers by Japan or at the time Hong Kong at that time as well. I think it has more to do with the timing of the need for such aircraft. By the time the need has arisen, there were alternatives in the B777 and 787 and the A350.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
777Boeing777
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:25 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:51 pm

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 59):
There have been many many complaints from other countries that the US system skews competition in favour of US companies that can write-off debt by going Chapter 11 and then just continuing trading as if nothing happened.

You obviously have no clue about US Bankruptcy law. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is very structured, and often has someone appointed by the court to oversee it. Ex. AA didn't go on as if "nothing happened.".
 
2122M
Posts: 1226
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:54 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 74):
And again, this goes right to the heart of the thread. The USA is a place where 767-200ERs which have been obsolete and unsellable for 19 years already are considered more than a match for the A330 which is still being delivered to class-leading airlines overseas.

So I've been a long time reader of the message boards here on A.net, but this thread actually convinced me to go ahead and buy in so I could offer my 2 cents.

By my quick research, there have been 446 new orders for various versions of the 767 since 1994. Granted, this is less then the A330, but hardly makes it "unsellable" despite being 10 years or so older. The new 767-300 freighters are very popular with the consolidators right now and I imgaine it will continue to sell well for a few more years at least.

As for the rest of your anti-US tirade, I think it just boils down to the US being a far more complex and competitive market, and US consumers do not want to pay more for premium service.
 
777Boeing777
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:25 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:05 pm

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 73):
Not sure that I'd go as far as calling any carrier's 'cattle class' offering 'nice' these days, anywhere in the world. But maybe I'm just getting too picky in my old age.

Yes, you're getting to picky. What do you expect in economy class? You get what you pay for. If you buy a cheap ticket, you get the bare minimum. Even with the bare minimum on newer UA, DL and WN a/c is pretty good.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 73):
I'd agree with that but I most definitely would not hold up Ryanair or Easyjet as a standard to aim for. Ryanair is at the top of my 'never again' list. There are, however, a number of airlines outside the US that have far more pleasant economy class offerings than any US carrier I've flown with (and I have flown a lot of them).

I recently flew several flights on QR and LH. Coach in QR was as comfortable as coach in UA, DL, AA or WN. The only difference I noticed was I got a USB port on QR in which i could charge my phone. Big deal. I flew business class on 2 LH flights (FRA-NAP, NAP-FRA), both on A321's, and any US carriers coach class was comparable if not better than LH business class. Same seats, etc. The only difference is that LH does not use the middle seat in business.

[Edited 2013-07-31 07:29:33]
 
777Boeing777
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:25 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:14 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 74):
Would you fly a 1000 mile or 2000 mile domestic flight to UA/DL coach standards in preference to SAA or Qantas standards? So you wouldn't miss the cooked meal and AVOD and included baggage, or the ice cream service?

Would I? Absolutely! I have done it many times and will if the need arises. If I need to fly IAD-LAX or IAD-SFO or IAD-SEA, I can choose UA, VX, or AA. Honestly, I couldn't care less about getting a cooked meal that was made several hours before, and shoved in a warmer and dropped on the tray table in front of me. On transcon or shorter domestic routes, I'll bypass the Qantas kangaroo burger in coach and bring on a meal from Chipotle, Five Guys or any other restaurant in the airport.
 
777Boeing777
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:25 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:22 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 74):
The USA is a place where 767-200ERs which have been obsolete and unsellable for 19 years already are considered more than a match for the A330 which is still being delivered to class-leading airlines overseas.

Yes, true, the 767-200ER's are now obsolete, but those obsolete aircraft were built 10-15+ years ago, and the KC-767 shares only one similarity with those old a/c, the 767-200 airframe. Everything else about the aircraft, flight deck, engines, etc, are all modern, and ther are no bugs in the fuel-boom. It actually works. It says quite a bit about a 30+ year old aircraft that keeps on going and still remains very popular and highly reliable.
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2674
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:23 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 24):
What, specifically, is worse about a US domestic flight than a European domestic flight? You have more food service options in the US. You have better IFE on most long flights in the US. In F, you generally have better seats in the US.

Two weeks ago I flew IST-SIP on Turkish and we got a meal (sandwich + salad + dessert) and drinks during this short (~1 hour) flight and free checked baggage. Last year I flew United on ORD-HNL and I got a bag of peanuts and a can of piggly wiggly soda during the whole 9 hour flight. Need I say more?

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 24):
Better that than rampant and widely accepted discrimination in hiring and retention which occurs at every one of the Asian airlines I suspect you are holding up as models.

So? You don't like some good looking FAs? Discrimination or not, a lot of the USA based carriers have FAs that are just lazy. They sit in the back and socialize with each other for a good portion of the flight. I don't blame them either, since the free food and liquor is no longer offered they really don't have much to do.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 69):
I find U.S. carriers coach product rather nice. I'll take a UA, DL or WN flight in coach over a Ryanair or sleazyJet flight any day.

Except you should compare Spirit to those two.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:26 pm

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 83):
You obviously have no clue about US Bankruptcy law. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is very structured, and often has someone appointed by the court to oversee it. Ex. AA didn't go on as if "nothing happened.".

I'm sure that I know a lot more about Chapter 11 than you think, having been involved with a number of Chapter 11 business change projects. Or do you really think that big businesses would pay thousands of dollars a day for assistance from someone with 'no clue'.

Chapter 11 allows companies to dispose of debt at far below its real cost, to dispose of costly or under performing assets, and to impose reductions in operating costs (such as rents, lease costs, wages etc.). Yes, I agree that it all requires the approval of the courts and creditors but it does allow the company to continue to trade, often with little or no difference as far as the outside world is concerned. As far as competitors are concerned, for example, the Ch. 11 company continues to trade and compete with them but now with a significant advantage due to the reduced cost base.

In the case of AA, it continues to fly and carry passengers on pretty much the same routes and frequencies as it did before. From the customers and competitors perspective, it's carrying on as though nothing has happened except that it now has a vastly reduced cost base and will be better placed to compete, unfairly so in my opinion. But that's what the law allows.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14220
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:31 pm

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 87):
Yes, true, the 767-200ER's are now obsolete, but those obsolete aircraft were built 10-15+ years ago

It's not an issue of the airframe being obsolete. If you look at the areas of the world where the 767 was popular--places like the US and Japan--the 330/340 did not sell well. That's not because the 330 isn't a better airplane. It is.

That said, a 5 year old 767 is/was a better deal than a new 330, just like for a lot of carriers in Europe 10 years later a 5 year old 330 was a better deal than a new 777. The story of the 330/340 not being "successful" in the US is really a story of big 767 operators not needing the aircraft, which has nothing to do with its merits and everything to do with the timing of fleet renewal at various US carriers.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7847
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:34 pm

Quoting luckyone (Reply 16):
Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
Aside from the DL/NW merger and US no other US airline invested

Delta is the third largest operator of A330s in the world.

Yeah, but DL never ordered them, so the point still stands that at the time in the 1990s, out of the 7 airlines, only 3 decided to order the A330 and when TWA merged, the number dropped to 2.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 18):
More recently with USairways and Hawaiian A330's have sold well in the USA since the 767 is too small and old, the 777 is just too big.

And that both airlines have recently been trending to Airbus. HA bought the A330s as interim capacity while the A350s arrive. As for US, self explanatory.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 34):
Quoting steeler83 (Reply 33):
I hope I'm okay with asking this here, but why did US purchase the A330s?

They felt it was the right plane for their east coast to Europe routes.

And part of their Airbus buying spree.

Quoting tristan7977 (Reply 38):
American Airlines A330 in new livery! Little off topic but just thought I'd share.

That looks sweet. I wonder how it would look with the chrome paint instead.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
777Boeing777
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:25 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:43 pm

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 89):
Or do you really think that big businesses would pay thousands of dollars a day for assistance from someone with 'no clue'.

not all businesses make sound decisions.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 89):
will be better placed to compete, unfairly so in my opinion.

Unfairly? Really? So, you think Chapter 7 would be better. Interesting.
 
jns13
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:54 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:46 pm

Quote:
The end result seems to have been that American aviation consumers are far more price-sensitive than their peers elsewhere and don't care that they are riding in an antique aircraft which lacks the IFE and other comforts which are standard in similar markets overseas on identical sector lengths.

This sort of counters your own argument, and is precisely the point everyone is trying to make. Yes there's a cultural difference, ergo, U.S. consumers, for the most part, will pay the least possible, regardless of airline or product. Why do you think Southwest has been so successful? And why do you think Virgin America hasn't?

Also, I don't know if it's necessarily relevant that US carriers operate older 757s etc. over newer Airbuses (even though that isn't really the case); it's just as economically viable to keep older aircraft maintained and refurbish them rather then trashing the fleet every few years and spending billions on unnecessary upgrades.
 
CF-CPI
Posts: 1448
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:54 am

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:56 pm

Quoting Independence76 (Reply 8):
Airbus tried to talk to AA about replacing their MD-11's with A340-300's, but the deal and talks never went beyond a very rare wood model of an A340 in AA's colors given as a gift to the airline's management. AA, like UA and CO, went on to buy the 777.

At the time, AA had decided that new orders would consist of only twinjet aircraft, since two engines vs four cut in half the probability that a flight would be delayed or cancelled due to an engine issue. That left it as 777 vs A330, and I do believe that the 777 was perceived as more robust on AA's routes: DFW-NRT was a must. This being said, I sure would like to get a hold of one of those A340 models!

CO did order the A330/A340 back in the Lorenzo era (artist impressions of the aircraft in the red meatball were circulating). The A340 was perceived as an IAH-NRT ship, for example. This was before the 777 was even announced. Lorenzo was eventually gone, CO was in bankruptcy (again), and Bethune arrived on the scene in the early 90s. He wiped the order sheet clean as part of the reorg, and being a former Boeing man, got CO hooked up with the 777.
 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:02 pm

Northwest had ordered A340's in the late 1980's and cancelled them at the very last minute before delivery. We already had the door mockups in the training center and the ORD f/a base had been trained on them when the deal fell through. Those airframes later migrated to Virgin Atlantic. I have often wondered if any of them were actually photographed painted in NW colors. I have never seen any such pictures.

This was all occurring just about the time that the Checci/Wilson rape of Northwest's assets began. They stripped all of the equity out of the company and left it nearly a bankrupt shell. I blame Steve Rothmeier and the Board of Directors for that whole debacle as they could easily have placed a poison pill defense to protect the company from such a raid and they did not. It was only thorough the efforts of the NW employees taking massive pay cuts and striking new deals with our creditors that we brought the airline back from the brink...at least for a few years.
Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
 
doulasc
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:12 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:17 pm

The Airbus A340,its just a A330 with two extra engines,thats the only difference I see.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7670
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:32 pm

Airlines buy planes fit for market they serve. Not because of national interest. Aren't bulk of planes in USA are RJs(please correct me if I am wrong) made by Canadian/Brazilian companies. One cannot design and build a plane(A350) just suitable for ME3 and ask every other airline to live with it.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:45 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 62):
The end result seems to have been that American aviation consumers are far more price-sensitive than their peers elsewhere and don't care that they are riding in an antique aircraft which lacks the IFE and other comforts which are standard in similar markets overseas on identical sector lengths.

This seems to bother you for some reason. I enjoy flying longhaul on Qantas and over the Pacific I prefer it to United or Delta but it's funny how both of those airlines make money internationally while Qantas can't seem to stop the bleeding--even if they did switch LAX-AKL from a 744 to an A332 (the route I usually fly).

Quoting koruman (Reply 62):
We have seen in this thread the contributions of people who really do think that it is not absurd to be taking delivery of brand-new 767-200ERs for the USAF from 2017 when no self-respecting airline has actually ordered a 767-200ER since the early 1990s!

The military doesn't care about per passenger fuel burn because that's not important to the mission. The tanker fleet flies much less in any given year than an equivalent airline fleet so fuel efficiency is less important anyway.

---

Airline bean counters in the US love what the A330 has become, I'm sure, but timing and the economy played a big role in which airlines had the money to buy A330s and which didn't. Certainly the 764 and 772 also played roles in preventing A330/A340 sales to certain carriers.
 
User avatar
msp747
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 6:42 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The A340/A330 Successful In The US

Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:57 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
Hawaiian Airlines is probably the only airline recognisable to those of us in the rest of the advanced world as a properly-run airline, and, surprise, they are replacing their 763s with A330s

The fact that Hawaiian is purchasing A330's must be the only factor you are considering in calling them a "properly run airline" while trashing on the rest of the US carriers. You bash on all the other American legacy carriers for going through bankruptcy, but then overlook that Hawaiian too went through bankruptcy just a few years ago. And Hawaiian will nickel and dime you just like the other carriers. I had to pay bag fees on my flight from OGG to HNL, even though I was traveling on a first class DL ticket. And Hawaiian is even moving away from their widebody only service between the islands and the mainland with their purchase of the A321. I don't see you criticizing that move. Or is it because they bought modern Airbus planes to do it, instead of antique Boeing aircraft?

I don't know what airline you are flying when you do all this domestic travel in the US, but you are taking the worst possible outcome and making it sound like every flight is that way. On DL flights, I get IFE on almost every flight over a couple of hours. I also have the choice to buy food on board, if I want. However, like many other posters have said, I'd much rather grab Chipotle or Five Guys or something from an actual restaurant than pay extra for my plane ticket so a sub-standard meal is included on my flight. Even when airlines provided food, their meals were never anything to write home about. Half the time I would pass on them altogether. Also, I avoid paying bag fees on DL because I have their credit card. The only time I have to pay those is if I fly a different airline.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos