No I wasn't, I was thinking that they would go for the A320 because it offered the best technology and economics. I bet they would have gone for the 737NG if it was availible at that time though.

One of the factors that probably influenced Boeing to choose the A320 family over waiting for what became the 737NG was less than good relationships with GE following the DC-10 crash in Sioux City, due to the catastrophic failure of the fan disc. The 737 family was available only with CFM (GE) engines while the A320/19 could be ordered with the IAE (PW & RR) engines. UA has pretty much stayed away from GE engines for its new order aircraft (PWs on the 777).

OOPS! I meant United not Boeing.

KALB

The original UAL A320 order of 1992 had many factors behind it, engine choice was not one of those prominent though if you factor in the SUX accident, remember they have a huge 737-300/500 fleet that were powered by CFM's as were their DC-8-71 fleet. One major issue that pushed them to Airbus was the simple capability of aircraft to do long haul nonstops across the US (particularly using the A319) , Boeing's competing product in this competition was the 737-400, which in it's standard configuration cannot do nonstops across country without severe restrictions in payload or fitting of an additional fuel tank inside the belly, which again would reduce capacity. The 737 Classics are also much slower at cruise speed versus the A32X. Additionally, there was a widely circulated UAL or Boeing Internal BBS generated memo posted on a USENET newsgroup that detailed some of the issues UAL had vs-a-vs Boeing and why they went with Airbus Industrie's A320 series. Arrogance and aloofness being a prominent point of discussion to begin with. I found it a bit entertaining how UAL felt Boeing had become increasingly arrogant and aloof with support for it's current aircraft let alone productive discussion of narrowbody types that could really give UAL an edge versus it's competition. UAL felt Boeing felt it didnt need to go a step better with the 737 Classic as it was, which Boeing offered in the RFP UAL put forth back then, which was viewed with disdain from UAL and served as a major reason why they went with Airbus on this procurement. It's -quite- a (damning I might add) document and I wish it were available to be seen again. It would stir up quite a bushel of memories. (G) It's funny how the encroachment of Airbus and their A320 series, with major Airbus wins at UA, NW, AC, CN and US and some major prodding from Southwest finally pushed Boeing to develop the 737NG. Ah! That 'awful' concept called competition. (LOL!)

Regards
MAC

If anyone here believes UAL wont order Airbus products other than A320's, then I've got a large bridge for sale.

This "urban myth" style mentality that UAL will "ditch the A330s" or "never order anything else made by Airbus" is simply astonishing to take with any level of seriousness. UAL is a strong contender to be an A380 operator, let alone retaining their A330 fleet.

A company doesnt go through a massive merger with the expressed intent of shedding capacity. Then again, I'm pretty sure I'm saying this to an audience with not too many business school graduates either. (LOL) Nonetheless, I am -quite sure- there are plenty here that still believe in the Easter Bunny. (G)

Just my two pesetas..
MAC

No matter if you are Airbus or Boeing fan or neither...consider the facts. The A330-300 is an almost-brand new aircraft that would be acquired by UAL at a bargain basement price. If they wanted a replacement with 764 etc it would be a minimum of 2 years before all of them are replaced?

Why wouldn't they keep them at least initially? Don't let your bias get in the way.

United knows that adding a huge Airbus aircraft would cost SO much more than adding a huge Boeing aircaft.

Now how does this explain Qantas (previously a Boeing-only operator) choosing the A380 and A330? Your posts are reeking anti-Airbus.

....And then you have to factor in the issues of payload and range restrictions the 767-400 have been rumored to have (-if true-) then factor in the time from order placement to delivery. Does UAL strike you as a carrier with unlimited funds and resources on it's hands to do such a stunt like that?

Going through a major merger costing billions, getting a huge fleet added and amalgamated into it's system, adding, restructuring hubs and routes, and then going nuts with a meat-axe to valuable aircraft resources already on hand or in the pipeline it can very well use to compete with, -just so it can look perfect and streamlined on paper-?

This always/inevitably leads to this being some sort of spurious point that UAL will be a "Boeing only" fleet when it comes to widebodies, with complete disregard for the very good economics the A330-300 makes for them and so forth, but as many posts on this thread have proven, "let the facts be dammned!" There are no facts behind the arguments that UAL will ditch the A330 nor look at other Airbus products at all.

It's this fantasy of being a "Boeing only" idea that gets whipped up into a froth, -taking on a life of it's own-, that clouds these people's judgment in making such statements. For every point of logic, there will be an equal level of illogical statements argued for the point of just arguing them. That's how silly it's become (G).

Regards
MAC

I have to agree with CPDC10-30, what costs would UAL incur with the A380 that they wouldn't incur with the 747X Stretch? Don't give me your anti-Airbus bullshite Boeing747-400, I haven't heard an anti-Boeing post in a long while, because we wish it so.....

Widebody,

If UAL received an excellent discount on the A380 (which is a common thing Airbus is doing) combined with the mass scale economics the airplane could very well bring, the rest is easy to figure out. It would be a boon to UAL and Airbus to buy the A380. Especially if traffic forecasts continue to go the way they are.
Just look at the Dateline NBC special aired last week, terminals crowded with passengers, people bounced and bumped from here to Timbuk-freaking -tu, traffic skyrocketing. That reality of life right now seems to be completely oblivious on some here. To even the ridiculous point made that UAL would "never order the A380".

UAL could easily supplant or replace equipment it currently uses across the Pacific, especially if the US merger goes forward, all those passengers from that system now will need to be absorbed into UAL's. The math alone proves the acquisition of a VLA will become a necessity, not a possibility.

Increasingly, I believe the chances of Boeing launching the 747X seem to be dimming (only -one- customer for the 747-400ER, which is not a 747X variant) and I believe that short of a 'miracle order', will remain a paper project. They will probably keep the illusion of the 747X alive in terms of a marketing tool to price-pressure Airbus on the A380 more than anything else, while materially and more wholeheartedly going forward with the 777LR variants, which makes more business sense for them anyway. I think they have already resigned themselves to the fact that they will not produce a head on competitor to the A380 and do as much collateral damage they can to Airbus in terms of the "pricing war" than anything that actually will come through a set of hangar doors with the words "747X" gleaming on it. Later on they may reply with the Blended Wing design once the A380 enters service.

The A380 is very much alive and underway: the sure thing to bet on. Again, we are encountering the wonderful word called "denial" in some of these posts, hence why thoughtful logic is met with shrill illogic. (G)

It's the hate of Airbus we are dealing with.

Regards
MAC

I stated my opinions!!!! I thought the 747X Stretch would be better...

Fine, thats your view. But you didn't back it up with anything and it was appropriatley shot down.

CPDC10-30, the 764 is a newer plane than the A330!!!!!!

Duh! When did I say it wasn't?

No, it's the hate of Boeing you're dealing with

I love Boeing aircraft, particularly the 767 if you have ever read any of my previous posts. I hate narrow minded "if it ain't boeing I'm not going" xenophobic types that instantly dismiss any advantages that Airbus might possess.

"The A330-300 is an almost-brand new aircraft"

You must be mistken for the 764. ?????





No, my reasons about 747X Stretch and United were not shot down! I used the same reasons about the 7674 and A330 in UAL's fleet. Just read some of the above posts I made, you'll find the one about the 764 and the reasons are the same with the A380 and 747X Stretch.

What I meant is that the A330-300s in US possession are ALMOST NEW. Not the design itself. Now maybe my point would make more sense to you.

I'm still waiting to know why it is going to cost United MUCH more to go with the A380 than the 747X.

I get your view now.




Now for the 747X Stretch and A380, here ya go:



The reasons mentioned below are simple on why the 747X Stretch is better for United.

The 747X Stretch would be better in UAL's fleet for these reasons:


1.) Complies with equipment used to serve 747-400s, which saves them a lot of money so they don't have to purchase new things to maintain and service an A380.

2.) Cockpit commonality. The 747X Stretch cockpit complies with all 744s and also the 777, 764 cockpit. Therefore, United saves even more money on pilot training and familiarization with the aircraft itself.

3.) FA training, the interior of the 747X Stretch is like the 777 and 764, FA familiarization will cost more for the A380 because FA's would have to go through more weeks of training for the aircraft, which can cost the airline a lot of money.

4.) United's HUGE fleet of all-Boeing aircaft (aside A320), a few A380s don't fit in to well.

5.) For all these extra costs, if they kept them, United will most likely use these aircraft on current 744 and 777 routes, therefore, the extra range is not needed. The fuel burn is about the same as 747X Stretch. The A380 offers very little more capacity and less cargo capacity. The 747X Stretch will also cruise faster, the A380 has a range of 8, 150 N.m., according to Airbus.com, the 747X Stretch has a range of 8, 850 according to Boeing.com.

These are facts I have thought of and also read about.

Thank you. I respect your opinion much more when it is backed up.

Thank you. I did make a mistake, the range of 747X Stretch is 7, 800 N. M.

But, in one of my posts, I stated this:

"I think United will go for the 747X Stretch for the same reasons I mentioned above, just comparing with A380. "

That was the post right after about the 764 and A330. I thought you may have read it already.

I don't think UA will buy the 767-400ER, the more I think about it. They'd rather buy a lot more 777-200's.  

Right now, UA, NW, JL, KE and CA are the airlines that will determine whether we'll see a lot more A380's or see a lot of 747X's. The reason is simple: trans-Pacific routes tend to sport very high load factors (and will continue to do so), and if the A380-800 were flying now on the SFO-HKG route that plane would still be completely full.

Thanks for the article. I think Lufthansa is second.

Firstly, never have I posted anti-Boeing, nor will I ever......

Secondly, as for your 747XStretch/A380 arguments, don't you think many of them could apply to Air France, Sinagapore, Virgin, Qantas? What went wrong there?

Those airlines did not have near as many large Boeing aircraft as United does, they also operated large amounts of big Airbus's too.

So, many of my reasons of 747X Stretch being better for United do not really apply with most of those airlines.

Besides, since those airlines did order the A380, what makes you think everyone else is going to?

MAC_Veteran. I got word from a UA A320/19 first officer that a reason UA's Airbus fleet has IAE engines rather than CFM is because of the fall out with GE over the Sioux City crash. Why else would an airline not order an engine that preserves fleet commonality?

Well for what it's worth, Capt. Al Haynes was at my school giving a speech about UA 232 a while back, and he said that he, his crew and the airline, did not blame GE, MD, or any other manufacturer over the accident. He said that the problem could have happened on any plane, with any engine, anywhere in the world, with any crew, and any airline. Some things happen because of bad luck!

From a business standpoint, I don't think United is so petty that they would stop ordering engines from a proven company. United picked the 320 engines because they offered United the best benefits for their type of flying, in their system, at the time they were purchased. They have tons of people that work the numbers time and again.....trying to get the best deal....and I'm sure they did.

"....And then you have to factor in the issues of payload and range restrictions the 767-400 have been rumored to have (-if true-) then factor in the time from order placement to delivery. Does UAL strike you as a carrier with unlimited funds and resources on it's hands to do such a stunt like that?"

First of all, let me state that I agree that UA will not want either A330 or 764, but between the two, I would say that the 764 is a more logical choice for the reason I posted earlier. Anyway, you accusations of "payload and range restrictions" is complete bullshit. Do you happen to realize that as we speak CO is operateing 764ERs across the pond? And did you happen to realize that the A330-300 has less range than the 764ER? Now if we were talking about the A333, you would not say a word about it's "lack of range", something I would not make a big deal about.
-Tom

KING 767

The payload restrictions and "underpowerd-ness" of the 767-400 are reportedly by pilots at Delta, especially their HNL service. What sort of payload restrictions does CO have in place for their current overwater routes? Do they restrict passenger or cargo payload in any way on their flights? I had a charming read of their inflight magazine that touted the 767-400 when they were first introduced and I must say it was a flabberghasting exercise of PR and half-truth telling I've ever seen.

Eventually this will probably get worked out. But, this can explain for the lengthy amount of time these airplanes seem to be stuck on domestic routes.

I believe there is far more to the story than anyone wishes to acknowledge. Just compare the range and capabilities of the 767-400 to the A330-200 and even the A330-300 IGW, which are now on order by Cathay Pacific. The latter model offers some stunning numbers to compare:

767-400ER
Performance and Stats:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767-400er/product.html

A330-300 233 Ton variant (there is a heavier variant available)
Performance:
http://www.airbus.com/products/A330-300_perf.asp

A330-300 Stats:
http://www.airbus.com/products/A330-300_specif.asp

A330-200
Performance:
http://www.airbus.com/products/A330-200_perf.asp

A330-200 Stats:
http://www.airbus.com/products/A330-200_specif.asp

The A330-200 is hands down beating the pants off the 767-400. The facts are irrefutable. The A330-300 IGW now opens the door to further cement a wedge on the higher end of this market market vs-a-vs the 767-400. I believe the trend will go this way. Cargo wise, the A330-200 and -300 both by far also outstrip their Boeing competitor. This is the secret why costs are far more reduced on these aircraft, which I will detail below. The Boeing model's lack of competitive cargo space is it's expensive 'Achilles Heel'.

The A330-300 experience at Aer Lingus is a telling example of how costs figure so prominently in this operating genre. AerLingus, chose the A330-300 over the 767-300ER (they leased them in for a time), MD-11 (they have leased them in from World Airways several times), the L-1011 (another leased model they have operated from time to time), the 747-100/200 (operated the -100 for several years); AerLingus found the 767-300ER to posess the HIGHEST operating costs per seat mile of all the competing products in their RFP.

This is no bullshit, this is what their own analysis concluded.

If they were to look at the -300ER as a baseline example of what to expect costwise, then it's no wonder the airlines are holding off considering the -400 or any other -400 products as well. That is what I conclude, and it shows yet another example why Airbus is cleaning Boeing's clock in this market. I venture to ask you to do some research on the various models and conclude independently of any bioas just exactly the true statistics of these competing models and then reply.

Rotsa' Ruck!

MAC

KALB

Personally, I think there could have been a part to play in this, but sincerely, I feel overall it was more a business decision (meaning better financial and support terms) than that incident overriding all, but surely it could have been one of those irritating things that must have inspired UAL to go with IAE. GE has had a bit of a run of issues in recent months (remember the CF6-6D engine in question at SUX was manufactured in the early 70s, and the inspection of which came via UAL's heavy engine maintenance, which was a major point of contention in the legal side of that case(who was more responsible than who? etc) and even FAA AWD issued on certain large turbofan types like the CF680C2, I havent heard of the CFM56 though being called into question.

The IAE engine is known for it's ruggedness, but it's also known for some sort of problem in hot and high locations. The grouping of companies that form IAE are quite agressive in their marketing and probably offered UAL a unique opportunity to prove itself, which if we take a memory jog back then, the CFM56 was pretty much the dominant engine on the A32X, so maybe this in part was IAE's "big break" for them. I'm not sure how popular they were then, but now it appears they have almost even (or approaching) market parity with the CFM product. UAL might have said to itself, "all these issues we have had with GE, a new competitor on the block, we've got great terms and support promised, let's try them out". It does appear that IAE's sales have taken off (literally) since UAL opted to have them. So again, I think it probably was a combination of factors, some moreso than others, financial and support being the primary ones I believe, with these "irritants" playing a considerable role as well. I guess it's the degree of play these all had is where we disagree. The pilot's perspective is appreciated, but he's also -not- the guy writing the check out to IAE or CFM either. Management is. (G) That's taking things from a slightly larger perspective. (G)

Regards
MAC

Boeing747-400,

....."Besides, since those airlines did order the A380, what makes you think everyone else is going to?..."

Never have I said any airline will order the A380, just that it can't be ruled out for any major long haul operator........what makes you so 'certain' that everyone else is not going to order it?

Widebody

It's quite evident that Boeing747-400 is -wishing and hoping- that other airlines wont order the A380. That's the root issue at heart here. The words "self fulfilling prophecy" applies (G).

Personally, I believe that short of a miracle order, possibly from KoreanAir for the freighter variant, the 747X may quite conceivably remain a "paper airplane". Factor in the economic changes of recent months, and that explains some of the 'hedging' these carriers are going through. It also affords more time by the two manufacturers to sweeten their respective bids.

I believe we -may- and I stress -may- hear something regarding UAL's future aircraft plans once the proposed US/UAL merger's fate is more concrete.

-Lufthansa is now saying the summer timeframe for their selection.

-Taiwan based China Airlines is rumored to be getting at least 9 A330-300s firmed up this summer and I expect something "else" to be part of that deal as well (read that as potential A380 buy, Airbus VP John Leahy was very aggressive in their August 1999 A340 purchase). ...And of course watch EVA Air if they respond to this.

-If KoreanAir opts for the 747X freighter, how will KE's competitor, Asiana, respond? Remember they operate Airbus products as well.

Just a few of the possibilities, So, we'll see.

Regards
MAC

Widebody,

I don't think no one is going to order it. I never said that.




MAC_Veteran, I am actually supplying reasons on why the 747X Stretch is better for United. I'm not saying any Anti-Airbus shit, like you think I am, I am stating my view, and I don't give a shit on what you think of it.


You just don't like Boeing, face it. You seem to think that I don't want to see the A380 fly, WRONG. You also seem to think that I hate Airbus because I think the 747X Stretch is better than A380. I like Airbus, but I hate it when Airbus fans cry because some people like Boeing better.

Boeing 747-400:

You like Airbus...?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

You killed me...

Back on topic:
Will UA ever buy A380? Remember they are one of the airlines in the group that helped Airbus develop the plane. This means they are definately interested. As for fleet comonality being the reason AU will choose Boeing: sounds very convincing, but then again, the same could be said about Qantas: an all-Boeing fleet, yet they bought the A380... And don't say this is because of heavy price-discounting by Airbus, because you can bet Boeing cuts its prices just as deep when it comes to finding launch customers.

As for the A330s: I hope they'll stay, although I must admit they don't really fit in UA's fleet. Oh well, time will tell.

Boeing 747-400,

I know you didn't say that everyone wasn't going to order it, I never said that everybody was going to order it.......you get my point........

As for anti-Boeing, never have been and I never will be....good company, going through a bit of re-definition at the moment.......btw, I know you're going to take this the wrong way, but anytime you're asked an honest question, where it's clear you don't know the answer, you come out with this 'anti-Boeing argument'......it's as plane as day.....

I noted in another post you said 'the A380 is nothing new'.....how much do you know about the A380 to say this? What do you define new? What about the new hydraulic system, never used before on a commercial airliner? What about the new lightweight GLARE fuselage panels that are to be used for the first time on a commercial airliner? What about the new terrain mapping system, that has never been used before on a commercial airliner? Or are you one of these wannabe's who gives out because it's shape isn't right, or it looks ugly, or it's not painted the right colour?

I'm a genuine aerospace enthuasiast, no bias towards any side, but there is nothing I hate more than reading bullshite on this site.......

What makes you think I don't like them?

Just because I like Boeing better? Just because I think the 747X Stretch is better for United?


You are obviously a very immature person. How can you say I don't like Airbus, just because I like Boeing better?

You make no sense at all.

Widebody, I meant the design was very old, not the A380 itself. So when people say the 747X isn't new because of the design of the basic 747, look at the A380 as well. Boeing did design many different planes like the A380, they did it a long time ago as well. Just because I thought some of them looked better than A380, that didn't mean that the A380 is ugly! You are the one that is taking things wrong, not me.

You meant the design was old? And what do you define as the design? The shape?

The double-decker design of an airliner! Like the 747, only with an upper dec that goes all the way. Like the NLA, which was designed before the A380. The overall design of the A380 is old, just like the 747. The body, and shape.

What makes me think you don't like Airbus? Oh I don't know, just about every post from you on these forums...

Maybe the fact that every time someone criticizes Boeing or their products, or someone suggests that a certain carrier might switch from Boeing to Airbus, your replies start with 'You sick Airbus fans yaddayaddayadda', 'keep on dreaming, all you Airbus fans', 'you Airbus fans always bash Boeing',... You get the recurring theme here.

You might as well just admit it, that's not a shame. At least be fair, in stead of saying one thing and doing the other.

Greetings from the heart of Europe.  

I think you just proved my above point......what in the name of God does the shape an airliner have to do with its design? When people say the 747 is an old design, they mean the structure, the materials, the design philosophies, the systems......not what it's like to bloody look at.......

Boeing 747-400,

Can you think of another way to cram 5-600 people into a plane, without going outside the 80 x 80 m. box? In a conventional aircraft, I mean?
The body and shape have NOTHING to do with how new an aircraft is.

Juul,

Just about every post I make is not against Airbus, you think, just because I like Boeing so much more than Airbus, than I must hate Airbus. WRONG. No, I don't say, "oh you dreaming", etc. The only times I say that are when some Airbus fan says something like "Southwest is going to order A380s" or something completely BS like that.

Greetings from the heart of America.

B744





No, you didn't prove my point. The technology on the 747-400 is now the newest. But people still think it is an old plane, because of the design. So if you are including systems and avionics, it is not an old plane. But some people think the 747X is not a new design, well, it is newer than the A380. The technology is the same, but a plane like the 747X hasn't ever been designed, until now, unlike the A380.

United will keep the A330-300s inherited from US Airways because these P&W 4000 series engines have more thrust (68,000lbs) in the A330 models vs. the 767-400 model which I think is about 60,000lbs?

Boeing747-400, You are now talking through your arse....."But some people think the 747X is not a new design, well, it is newer than the A380. The technology is the same, but a plane like the 747X hasn't ever been designed, until now, unlike the A380......"

What do you know about the A380 design? What do you know about its systems, its materials etc.? And point out to me why the 747X is newer than the A380.......in what way is it newer????

What do you know?!?!

I have explained it many times, the stucture of the 747X is newer, there is no plane designed like it. Therefore, the A380 structural design has been designed and thought of for a long time. The 747X is a plain new design. I haven't ever seen anything like the 747X and Stretch, but I have seen other designed like the A380.

Boeing747-400,

I'll try to make this as clear as possible for you......firstly, I agree with Boeing on the 747X Stretch, it would be stupid of them to develop a brand new aircraft, especially with such a proven design......if I had an airline, I'd go with the 747X, I wouldn't want to rely on Airbus to come good on all of their promises......the A380 is incorporating an awful amount of brand new technology, it's all not going to go right....

However, with all due respect, you are basing your opinion on artists impressions of future aircraft...... Boeing never wind tested any of the designs they thought up, there was no need........anybody can sit down with a crayon, and come up with a nice picture, Airbus do it too......FYI, the 747X and Stretch are based on the basic 747 structure, the basic shell is the same, with some extension and reinforcement.....some of the systems will be the same, some won't.....they pick the best the market has to offer, however there won't be much revolutionary stuff, simply because there is no need.....Airbus on the other hand, have taken it upon themselves to come up with a new aircraft, and they have to take the problems that come with it......one of Airbus' biggest problems in the beginning was that when they designed the virtual aircraft, its systems, structure etc., it was grossly overweight, and because of this, they needed to incorporate some revolutionary technology.........the hydraulic system will now be 5000psi, instaed of the traditional 3000psi...this allowed Airbus to make all the pipes and ducting smaller, and thus save a great deal of weight........the 747X will not have this, because there is simply no need......Airbus also pumped much cash into the development of GLARE, a new lightweigt glass-fibre composite, from which the upper fuselage panels will be made....again, this will save a great deal of weight........the 747X will not have this, because again, there is no need......

As for the aircraft as a whole, it is not completely designed...most of the engineers working on the A340-600 will now move across to the A380, and the design will be completed......just because an artist drew a picture of the A380 10-15 years ago, does not mean it was designed, it was simply what it was....an artists impression.......

My point is, the A380 will incorporate technology that the 747X will not have........it does not mean it is superior to the 747X, it means that technologically, the A380 has more.......Airbus are creating a whole new design, and therefore are prepared to spend more, Boeing are updating an existing aircraft, and will try to keep their costs to a minimum........it doesn't mean one is better than the other, both manufacturers are just approaching the market from different angles......

Simple as that....

Rgds...

Oh come on!

The last 10 posts have made me piss myself!

So, OK, according to Boeing747-400s logic, the original designer of the 777-200 wunderplane was in fact Hawker-Siddley of the United Kingdom, who in the early 70s proposed a long-range, 300 passenger capacity jetliner powered by two souped up Rolls RB211 turbofans.

I think not.

I can't believe that you are actually considering that a 30 year old design with a fuse plug and some snazzy winglets is a new design compared to the world's first double decker jet.

But since you are, let me tell you some home truths. Anyone can draw a model of a double decker airliner. OK, MD did 10 years ago with the MD-11. But did MD suddenly turn round and give the plans to Airbus? No. So they had to design it themselves. There you are. End of argument. Airbus designed the A380. MD suggested a double decker concept.

Therefore the relationship is like this:

Hawker Siddley Proposal - Boeing 777 - NO RELATIONSHIP!!
MD 12 - Airbus A380 - NO RELATIONSHIP!!

Boeing 747-400


" MAC_Veteran, I am actually supplying reasons on why the 747X Stretch is better for United. I'm not saying any Anti-Airbus shit, like you think I am, I am stating my view, and I don't give a shit on what you think of it. "

What "sage vocabulary" to use in a discussion. This is becoming quite laughable.


"You just don't like Boeing, face it."

That's an absolute crock!

Boeing makes excellent products and they will continue to, my only disagreement with them is their management perspective which seems askew and tossed about, reactive and not proactive. That is the curse that has plagued Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, in many ways it's it's own worst enemy.

"You seem to think that I don't want to see the A380 fly, WRONG. You also seem to think that I hate Airbus because I think the 747X Stretch is better than A380. I like Airbus, but I hate it when Airbus fans cry because some people like Boeing better."

Your own verbiage and 'discussion' seems one to very easily conclude that you dont want the A380 to be ever considered by UAL or other carriers, so what are people to deduce? That you WANT these airlines to order the A380? Me 'tinks not. You have to read what you write in order to understand why people get this impression of what you are posting because quite frankly, the rhetoric espoused leads people to deduce that very feeling.

Every point showing the A380 could be or should be considered is met with this quasi-denial based 'argument' that isnt taking note of very real market conditions around it, particularly the fact that NO ONE has ordered the 747X to date and it's not looking good for it to ever happen.

MAC

The payload restrictions and "underpowerd-ness" of the 767-400 are reportedly by pilots at Delta, especially their HNL service.

MAC... nice to see you're back. Well expressed thoughts you've presented.

But what are your sources on that 767-400 information.

Every 767-400 pilot here that I've talked to has stated in no uncertain terms that any talk of performance problems is BS.

The 767-400 makes ATL-HNL and back no problem.

Granted, the A330 is vastly superior as far as cargo capacity go, but I think these things that are being said about the 767-400 are inaccurate.

Take care
DeltaSFO

Must say I agree with MAC on the Boeing decisions of late......what is the story, what is their future VLA plan? We've heard of 747-500/600, NLA's, 747X/Stretch and BWB's.......all this when they have it in plain text on their website that they don't expect a need for over 330 VLA's over the next 20 years......

They should have had Airbus crying at this stage, I don't understand why they don't......in Teahan's article, they mention Airbus twice......they don't state their clear objectives, it's as if they're doing it in reaction to Airbus......

Boeing747-400:


I have explained it many times, the stucture of the 747X is newer, there is no plane designed like it. Therefore, the A380 structural design has been designed and thought of for a long time. The 747X is a plain new design. I haven't ever seen anything like the 747X and Stretch, but I have seen other designed like the A380.

You are right. In fact, the design of the A 380 is evolved from the A 340-300. I have seen other designs like the A 380 as well.

Everything on the B 747X have been improved and they are equiped with State of the Art Technologies.

 


Des

You are right. In fact, the design of the A 380 is evolved from the A 340-300. I have seen other designs like the A 380 as well.

They are also evolved from the Wright Flyer  

I HIGHLY doubt that United will go for the 747X. If no other airline is showing interest for them, why would United?

Also, United was a long partner in the designing of the A380. They are obliged to it. Now I'm not saying that its impossible for United to get the 747X, because nothing is impossible.

For all we know, they can go insane and buy DC-3s from African countries.   (DC-3 is a great plane, not dissing it).

However, it is quite unlikely.
Overall if you think about it, the 747X isn't much of an improvement over the current 747s. Its still a 747.

It is quite likely that United will order the A380 in the coming years, since they have shown lots of interest and have participated in its development.

As for United keeping the A330s, there is a VERY good chance of keeping them according to my next door neighbor who is a pilot.

United has looked at the 767-400ER before it came out, but was rather disappointed in its performance.

Since United is an Airbus operator, there is a very good chance that they would keep them. If they were all Boeing, like American and Delta, that would be a different story.