Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 11:52 am

If UA buys the A380-800, they may not buy the initial version. They may be more interested in the A380-800R higher-weight version that can carry more fuel for longer flights.

UA will probably buy about 20 planes with 10 options, and the A388R's will be primarily assigned to these routes:

JFK-NRT
JFK-HKG
ORD-NRT
ORD-HKG
SFO-NRT
SFO-PEK
SFO-PVG (maybe)
SFO-HKG
LAX-NRT
LAX-SEL
LAX-HKG

I don't think UA will assign the A388R to the LAX-SYD routes, given the relatively low loads on this route.
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2616
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:05 pm

Innovations on the A380;
- Full CCQ with the A318/319/320/321/332/333/342/343/345/346

- New FMS Interface - point and click and pull-out keyboard

- Onboard Information System which can display airport maps and charts on the LCD screens

- Navigation Displays to feature vertical profile for first time to increase safety

- 5000 PSI hydraulic system to save weight

- Use of Carbonfibre-Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) in primary structures

- Use of GLARE - better strength, impact resistance and burn-through properties than Aluminium

- Laser welding replacing riveting on stringers, making structure stronger, and with a weight saving of 10%

- Rolling research programme to incorporate any breakthrough technology into the A380 up to design being frozen.

The A380 is essentially an all-new design, which has delibreately maintained as much commonality with the rest of the Airbus family as possible - to save on operating costs for the airlines. Airbus is incorporating the latest technology where appropriate to save costs and weight, and to improve safety and durability of the aircraft.

The B747X/Stretch is a derivitave of a 30 year old design, very much modified, but a derivitave nonetheless.

United Airline,
You have no idea what you're talking about.

Boeing747-400,
Once again you have failed to produce a convincing argument to support your views. You have blundered on with the same flawed arguments and totally ignored everyone who has pointed out the obvious flaws in your reasoning. True to form as we approach the end of the tread, out comes the bad language and insults. And of course your now famous "you Airbus fans...."

The thing you always fail to realise is that most people you cross swords with here are not Airbus fans, merely people who are somewhat more objective than yourself, and able to participate in, and follow-through a reasoned discussion. When someone presents an alternative viewpoint to your own, rather than go back and look at your original argument and re-evaluate it, you appear to just blindly re-state your original opinion over and over again...

For all of us, there is always going to be someone with a greater knowledge and understanding of aviation than us. Presenting you with two choices;
You can either use their knowlege, learn from them and improve your understanding.
Or you can ignore and even criticise their views, and continue to hold your own views on "how thing are" no natter how much they differ from the reality.

With the above paragraph in mind, and your ambition to fly professionally, you're going to have to be much more open-minded, accept that you're not always going to be right and admit when you're wrong. I'm sure you've heard of CRM...

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
BA
Posts: 10516
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:14 pm

You have no idea what you're talking about.

LOL! I laugh everytime I read that statement. I don't know why, but it just sounds funny.

 Big grin Big grin Big grin
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: DeltaSFO

Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:15 pm

My sources have been PPrune's website with regards to payload and range discrepancies. I weigh the comments there with a great deal of salt but are quite worth looking at as most of the comments posted there are from professional pilots, other sources include Airliner World, Marc Shaeffer's order list, etc.

The PPRune comments were quite interesting I might add. Tied some of what I had heard quietly prior to any of it becoming public somewhat more real and "sticking" to meat of the subject. The sense of the aircraft being like a "sled" on departure were said frequently. Climb rates are sluggish compared to the -300ER, cruise speed is a bout the same give a knot or two. The power package offered is said to be "straining" on departure, very different from the -300ER.

Is Delta still using a stop in LAX for their 767-400s? Or are they nonstop now? What are the weight and payloads uploaded at ATL? Are they at MGTOW or reduced load? Do you have access to copies of manifests for this very route? Anything that shows Fuel burn or even fuel load? All of these would be quite interesting to look at as I -was- professionally trained in aircraft loadplanning in the AF and once you do the arithmetic, the numbers will be quite clear.

If you have access, please by all means let me know and I'll e-mail you privately for them.

Regards
MAC
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:24 pm

Widebody

That's my only gripe with Boeing, their long term and short term vision is just "out there". They've been all over the place, as the Wall Street Journal said during last year's stirke by engineers, many second and third generation Boeing engineers and workers have said or the comment eluded to saying "This is not your father's Boeing". Morale then was said to be absolutely in the tank, management bungling one decision after another, outsourcing becoming all too frequent an option for management, many have felt the core commercial airplanes objective now is taking second or third fiddle behind their military space operations branch now that they have taken over McDonnell Douglas's very lucrative space operations division. Boeing is definitely a widely diversified company but it seems the commercial airplanes side of things is using a much more throttled back approach to designing and innovating in recent years. They -used to- do incredible things but it seems they have entered what I can only say is a period of mass doldrums in many areas, truly new designs that take full aaadvantage of technology and the advances made with it seem to be way out there on the horizon. Their 777 is the single new design from ground up since the 767/757. 20 years is a long time when you look at it that way and it seems it will continue. I found the effort to discredit the A380 as a quite laughable and pathetic self defense tactic though, it exploded in their face. How's that for maintaining "shareholder value", the popular mantra well beaten and spoken of in Corporate America these days. (LOL!)

Regards
MAC
 
Guest

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:31 pm

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 7, 600 according to Boeing.com.

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



THOSE ARE MY REASONS CROSSWIND, AND THEY ARE NOT WRONG.

As for the A380 and 747X Stretch technology, the 747X has the newest navigation systems and screens as does the A330. All of Boeing's new aircraft have cockpit commonality. About the fuselage on the A380, I think Boeing also does those kinds of things too, beside, I think the fuselage on the 747X is going to be just fine.


The A380 is not really superior in technology at all.



You said I cant back up my posts, well, I just did.
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:44 pm

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh yeah? I have said what I wanted to say.  Smile

 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:53 pm

Widebody,

One thing I forgot to add in more complete terms..

Boeing's tactic of discredit in recent years (especially re: the A380) seems to be borne of a culture of arrogance that has existed there for a while, remember what I said about UAL's sense that Boeing was arrogant back in 1992? (Resulting in the A320 fleet purchase). It's part and parcel of that very culture of thought that has been commented upon by some viewers of how the aerospace giant of Seattle has conducted itself. It has long viewed Airbus as an irritant more than a competitor for many years due to Boeing's "insulation" from competition thanks to two other competitiors (McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed) which insulated Boeing in a way. The events of the last decade however have completely stood Boeing up on it's head trying to redefine itself after gobbling up it's biggest competitor in the US, and then facing the biggest commercial aerospace competitor it ever has in it's history. So, the effort to use whatever means via it's PR department to discredit it's new competitor seems to have been a run of "trial and error" to see if it can effect sales. Overall I view this effort to be a failure. Especially seeing how the 747X has yet to acquire a customer, the revision of market forecasts, etc. Boeing has a great thing with the 777 and I think they quietly are realizing that it's going to have to live with itself as not being the producer of the biggest airplane. It's a pride issue.

I saw an e-mail on one of the e-groups I subscribe to discussing the Airbus v Boeing issue, the author forwarded what appeared to be a professional and very pro-Boeing author came flat out and admitted that it is a pride issue, and that it's the only reason why it's so virulent a problem for some on that side to take. The thought of not being the "biggest" or the "best" is anathema and therefore a major psychological issue which fuels the ongoing bickering, bantering and bellyache-ing that goes on to this day and probably well into the future. I found it revealing and to be quite blunt, silly. Atune to being a truly die-hard fan of a baseball or football team that cannot accept defeat when it happens, or admitting one side was wrong. Personally, I dont take this sort of allegiance seriously as I understand the world around me and my place in it. And no, I'm not nor is my country the "center of the universe". Some may think the opposite, but to analogize, didnt Copernicus prove that our solar system is not the center of the universe as well? Same thought pattern should apply no? (G)

Regards
MAC
 
gt1
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2001 10:30 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:13 pm

This is quite a set of posts. I have couple of thoughts if you will: Unless I have missed it, nobody has mentioned that overnight, UA will take over the US trans-atlantic routes, and they probably don't have 10 spare intercontinental aircraft lying around. So initially, UA will have little choice but to keep the A330.
Second, UA will be buying not only the aircraft, but also a operational support program, training programs, parts, tooling, and fully qualified crews with which to operate the aircraft. So, as for additional costs, many of them have been paid already by US
Then, as UA gets a handle on the former US operation, and they adjust the schedule, and spread the support to the UA hubs, I would imagine we will see UA start to move aircraft around to get the best size airplane to the right market. Remember how DL used the ex PA A310's ?
Then I would suggest that once UA gets some hard data on of their own on the A330, they can make the strategic decisions on keeping them/buying more or buying a replacement.
All of which means that it is not at all out of the question for UA to operate the US A330's for some time.
On the subject of replacements, I am a big fan of the 762/763, but not the current 764. It is too different from the older 767's, but not near as good as the 777. It is a hybrid of old and new technology (too much old) and was built to appease the previous DL management's misguided view of fleet commonality. The 767-400ERX (465,000 MGTOW) should be a significant improvement to the existing -400, but still not a great addition to a large fleet of "old" 767's.

UA has always had an emotional attachment to Boeing and PW going back the days of their mutual parent company, hence the IAE engines on the A320, and PW engines on everything else that they could get them on. But with the purchase of the A320 (for transcon range) they showed Boeing that nothing was sacred. Add to that A320/A330 similarities, plus the PW4000 on the A330, and I think a stong case can be made for keeping the A330 at UA


 
Guest

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:23 pm

Just kinda funny to see the airline that started it's life as 'Boeing Air Transport'now is becoming the biggest Airbus-customer,but you see:

C'est la vie!!!!


Regards.
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

Fascinating Story On Boeing's New Profit Maker

Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:26 pm

Further to my comment about Boeing's space operations taking a much bigger role at the company, today's LA Times posted this facinating story on a huge new spy satellite program underway with them. They now have the contract to build a new spy satellite system beginning in 2005. Take a look.

http://www.latimes.com/news/state/updates/lat_spysat010318.htm

Regards
MAC
 
User avatar
coronado
Posts: 1278
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 9:42 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:42 pm

I predict UAL's status as largest single Airbus operator will be short lived. Higher fuel prices are forcing NWA to replacing its 176 strong DC-9 10/30/50 fleet much earlier than previously expected. 80 more 320's 20 321's 50 319's and perhaps 40 A318's are in NWA future.
This will put NWA AB fleet at over 300 aircraft!
The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 2:02 pm

Coronado,

Actually, NW has to seriously look at replacing their DC-9 fleet anyway not only for fuel burn reasons, but also the sheer old age of the DC-9 fleet.

Expect a big A318/A319 order to replace the DC-9's within the next few years.
 
User avatar
coronado
Posts: 1278
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 9:42 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 2:55 pm

No disagreement, Ray. I still think there will be some more A320' s added because NWA still uses its D-9 50 on some rather long, rather well trafficked routes.

My only question is powerplants. I think the 318 is a natural except for non standard power plant familily.
Could there be a purchase of 'abandoned' 717 purchase options from TWA>? NW is always rather frugal about its fleet needs and if the price is right, they may replace the shorter D9-10's with them instead of 318's. Wouldn't Boeing be looking to resell the 717;s delivery positions as soon as possbile? As TWA as bankrupt they have no need to take any more 717's. It all comes down to price for N WA decision!
The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 3:48 pm

MAC_Veteran...

As I'm sure you are aware, ATL-HNL currently stops in LAX because corporate can't agree with the pilots on rest facilities for the 767-400.

I will talk to some people more in depth to get an idea of what kind of loads they were flying from ATL to HNL when that flight was operating, but I doubt I can get those kind of hard numbers.

When, if ever, ATL-HNL goes nonstop again, I could probably talk somebody at ATL into shooting me a copy of the manifest.

The information I have indicates that the 767-400 program is going well at DL, aside from the usual new aircraft bugs. Still... in a way.... an A330 wearing the new flag livery would have looked gorgeous. And, given the disparity in cargo capability, the A330 would have done quite well at stations like SFO and HNL, which are #4 and #6 respectively in the whole Delta system in terms of cargo traffic.

DeltaSFO
It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 9:36 pm

The B 767-400ER is an ideal replacement for UAL's B 767-200s.

I think UAL will go for some in the future.  Smile
 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:43 pm

Boeing747-400,

I realise I'm flogging a dead horse here, but your stubbornness in the face of all the facts that are being thrown your way still amazes me...if I were you I'd read Crosswind's advice again.....he puts it plainly ........

You came out with....."....About the fuselage on the A380, I think Boeing also does those kinds of things too, beside, I think the fuselage on the 747X is going to be just fine. The A380 is not really superior in technology at all......"

Would you mind telling me what those kind of fuselage 'things' are, and where you have heard that they will be incorporated.....thanks very much....


MAC,

Thanks for the info, the pride thing is definitely a problem, though it's the same with all manufacturers, the aim is just not to let it get ahead of you.....

Crosswind,

Some good info on the A380, where did you come across it?

Rgds....
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:58 pm

Coronado,

Actually, I think NW's decision whether to buy the A318 depends on how well the A318 test program comes out and whether it meets Airbus' performance claims for the plane.

Another possibility for NW's DC-9 replacement would be a combination of BAe/Avro RJX, A319, and A320 planes. The RJX would fly the routes now flown by the DC-9-10, and the A319/A320 will fly other former DC-9 routes.
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2616
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Tue Mar 20, 2001 4:05 am

Most of the A380 info came from a very good article in Flight International a cople of months ago, plus bits of info that you pick up as you go along...

RayChuang,
Interesting idea about Northwest and the RJX, Northwest/Mesaba appear to like the RJ-85, so maybe the RJX could figure in their plans if it can deliver the improvements that BAE promise - mainly improvements to the engines.

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
Guest

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Tue Mar 20, 2001 6:45 am

If United has an emotional attachment to P&W then forget about them going for the GE90 777-200LR & 300ER. They will go for the 747X models with P&W 4000 series engines.
 
Guest

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Tue Mar 20, 2001 7:40 am

Widebody,

I am saying that Boeing has not released that much info on the 747X and 747X Stretch. I was saying that they are probably taking the right measures to see that the plane is very efficient and capable. I think Boeing's navigation and screen techology is just as good as Airbus's. I also think that the 747X design is as good as the A380. Boeing hasn't released as many details about the 747X, but Airbus has. So what makes you think Being isn't insuring the 747X and 747X Stretch have just a good technology as the A380?

Now, would you please stop personally critisizing me? You seem to think that since that kind of info has been released on the A380, that there's no way Boeing could have done it. I really don't understand that at all.



Have a nice day,

Boeing747-400
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4688
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: United Airline

Tue Mar 20, 2001 8:00 am

The B 767-400ER is an ideal replacement for UAL's B 767-200s

I have heard this comment many times on the forum and it makes me laugh harder each time. The -400 is a DOUBLE-STRETCH of the -200 and carries about 35 % more pax than the -200 does. If your logic is correct, then the A321 would be a good replacement for the DC-9. The best replacement for an old 767-200 is a new 767-200!
 
Guest

RE: CPDC10-30

Tue Mar 20, 2001 8:05 am

I think United Airline is entitled to his own view, no need to personally critisize him and laugh at him. I think that United is looking for an A330/B764 type size plane. I also think UAL will go for the 764, but not as a replacement for 762. I think UAL may also order the new 762 to replace the old 762 asl well!
 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Tue Mar 20, 2001 8:10 am

Stop taking this as a personal argument Boeing747-400, the 747X/Stretch will be as up-to-date as the A380, no doubt about that...Airbus problem is that they are being forced to take their technology that little bit further because of their self-inflicted weight restrictions.... Airbus don't need a 5000psi hydraulic system, but they've been forced to install it because they can't cut the weight down anywhere else.....the Boeing/Airbus designs have the same function, but Airbus have been forced into radical thinking.....as I said above, I believe the 747X is the better option because of its proven design......all I have said is that the A380 will have more revolutionary technology......NOT better technology...

Rgds.....
 
Guest

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Tue Mar 20, 2001 8:51 am

Now I agree with you.

I'm glad we were able to resolve this.  Smile

B744
 
Guest

RE: MAC_Veteran

Tue Mar 20, 2001 9:03 am

Topic: RE: MAC_Veteran

Username: MAC_Veteran
Posted 03-18-01 21:07 and read 283 times.
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."

I think DLSFO made a few good points. I have never heard one pilot who has flown the 764 say a bad thing about it. And what do you mean by "flabberghasting", what exactly?


"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:"


Get what worked out? The plane is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to be doing! Domestic routes? Again, look at CO, and DL has plans to send them to Europe too. Far more to what story? LOL! Again, you fail to realize just what the 764ER was designed for. And even the A333? You still fail to realize that the 764ER has more range. Stunning?.......

"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'."

You really are jumping at this plane. It has not even been in service for a year yet! Cement wedge? The 767 is only there to fill in between the 757 and the 777, and does not have to exactly equal the capacity of the A330. If it did, then it would run into the 777. Airbus does not have anything bigger than the A340, which is as big as the 777. Oh, and please explain to me the "trend" LOL! Cargowise, you are right, the A330 does have an advantage, although it is not as big as some people make it seem. I have to say you are wrong about the 767 having "higher operating costs".

"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."

I have seen stats (And no, not from Boeing.com) that say otherwise (Not concerning cargo), that show the 767-400 having general lower operating cost's. Yes, EI chose the A330 because of it's higher cargo capacity, but again, they chose the BEST example. This does not mean the 767s cargo cost's were way off there, but the A333 happened to provide the best.

"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."

I have done research, and I have found an answer a long time ago. It's hard to tell that you did not include any bias either (Just looking at your profile). MAC, I am not the type of person who is as narrowminded as some, and take one example as fact. I found that it really matters where you are operating. For small National European carriers, or most other small carriers, the A330 is the best choice, offering best cargo load, and PAX load. For larger carriers (Any of the US Majors, BA, CA, etc.) with a more complex route system, with a need for an aircraft that is capable of both medium and long hauls, with varying load capability's, the 767 is the best decision. I also find in some parts of the pacific region (Travel for example between Hong Kong and Taipei) that the A330 would benefit from it's large cargo market. Airlines holding off on the -300ER or any -400? I think your greatly mistaken. Look at Kenya, Balair, CityBird, Sobelair, Air2000, just a few which were all faced with the A330 and stuck with the 767. What were they thinking? Mabye you could explain why? It would really hurt to say why wouldent it? Aside from the A330's cargo advantage (If you look at it, only with a small range advantage, that's all the advantages it's got. I happen to believe that Airbus's low prices, and "deals" combining other aircraft, and Airbus's common cockpit.

The best, Tom















 
Guest

RE: King767

Tue Mar 20, 2001 9:09 am

I couldn't agree with you more! MAC's bashing of the 767 is starting to annoy me a lot. I think you put your posts well thought ou and I now put you on my respect list. MAC just can understand that the A330 has a real competitor now, and it's pissing him off.

Best Regards,

B744
 
Guest

From My Post.

Tue Mar 20, 2001 9:36 am

Seems I forgot to complete this sentence.
I happen to believe that Airbus's low prices, and "deals" combining other aircraft, and Airbus's common cockpit theory contribute a large part of thier success.

Also, MAC, I really think you hate to admit that the difference between the A332s and 764LRs MAX range is just 285nm.

Boeing747-400: Glad to see someone agrees  Smile

The best, Tom


 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Tue Mar 20, 2001 10:15 am

The -400 is a DOUBLE-STRETCH of the -200 and carries about 35 % more pax than the -200 does

Well, by that time, the B 767-200 might have been gone out of production. What makes you think that it is impossible to get a plane with 35% more capacity as a replacement? Huh?

Increased range, higher capacity.......... Isn't that better in some way? SOME of them can definitely be replaced by a mixture of B 767-400ERs as well as B 777-200s. But NOT ALL of course.

Remember, the B 757 was designed to replace the B 727.

Just my 2 cents.  Smile
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: DeltaSFO

Tue Mar 20, 2001 10:16 am


"As I'm sure you are aware, ATL-HNL currently stops in LAX because corporate can't agree with the pilots on rest facilities for the 767-400."


Is that the -only- issue though? I have heard the fuel and payload trials done on the ATL route have shown some problems with fuel burn and payload penalties. The crew rest issue is a widely known problem DL has been having of course, but I was cued in on aircraft specific problems


"I will talk to some people more in depth to get an idea of what kind of loads they were flying from ATL to HNL when that flight was operating, but I doubt I can get those kind of hard numbers. When, if ever, ATL-HNL goes nonstop again, I could probably talk somebody at ATL into shooting me a copy of the manifest."

I woukd -Greatly- appreciate this as it would either firmly establish or shoot the whole issue of penalties. The proof would lie in the manifests, establishing the payloads carried, whether or not they were money making, whther or not there were tradeoff's in fuel and/or cargo/passenger mixtures to balance the aircraft correctly and be able to make it to destination, all of which are fun, the old "WAM" formula coming into play here.

"The information I have indicates that the 767-400 program is going well at DL, aside from the usual new aircraft bugs. Still... in a way.... an A330 wearing the new flag livery would have looked gorgeous. And, given the disparity in cargo capability, the A330 would have done quite well at stations like SFO and HNL, which are #4 and #6 respectively in the whole Delta system in terms of cargo traffic."

Indeed it would have but the previous management would have none of the Airbus products in their fleet. The A333 would have been -quite- a profit maker, the exclusivity deal they signed and in many ways following to the letter even though they have stated they wont be bound to (but smart folks know they really are) after the EU complained, really is limiting Delta's choices. Had DL gone for the A333IGW, I believe DL's revenue numbers would have been spectacular with it. I know that DL does a considerable amount of freight work from it's East Coast hubs (JFK in particular) and it just would have blown away anything they had seen before, alas, it's their choice for what they 'stepped into' instead. (LOL) The 763's are great for them, but I really think when it came to the larger-than-763, less-than-a-777 market, they should have taken a look at the A333 or the A332.

Regards
MAC
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: King767

Tue Mar 20, 2001 10:27 am

"Also, MAC, I really think you hate to admit that the difference between the A332s and 764LRs MAX range is just 285nm"

A Major -BIG- difference though Tom:

The A330-200 is already flying, building a record of what it can and cant do, allowing Airbus to build in enhancements to it. The 767-400LR hasnt flown yet and it's earlier brother, the 767-400 -JUST- started revenue service not long ago. The lag time behind the Airbus product cost it product "maturity" time which the A330-200 definitely has the edge in. The 285 nm are text numbers only and not proven ones yet on the 767-400LR, it simply hasnt flown yet.

That period of time I am talking about are all the areas and issues that nag or irritate airline customers when a new model has been introduced. All experience it in one form or the other. The 767-400LR's engines have not been developed yet either, so we have no idea of engine burn or efficiency from RR or the GE-PW 'Engine Alliance'. The aircraft overall is still a few years off, sure, the experience gained from the current 767-400 will most likely be poured into this model, but the lag of time again serves it's competition much better, which by then may have an even more enhanced A330-200 on offer.

MAC
 
Guest

MAC

Tue Mar 20, 2001 10:43 am

Yes, you are right, the 764LR will be in service in 2004, unfortunately. Although I don't really see much in range increases for both models, there a limit to so for you can strech an aircraft's range. Anyway, if in the time between now and 2004 the A332 has any increase in range, there is no reason why the 764LR should be able to follow, although, again, I see any increase highly unlikely.


"Indeed it would have but the previous management would have none of the Airbus products in their fleet. The A333 would have been -quite- a profit maker, the exclusivity deal they signed and in many ways following to the letter even though they have stated they wont be bound to (but smart folks know they really are) after the EU complained, really is limiting Delta's choices. Had DL gone for the A333IGW, I believe DL's revenue numbers would have been spectacular with it. I know that DL does a considerable amount of freight work from it's East Coast hubs (JFK in particular) and it just would have blown away anything they had seen before, alas, it's their choice for what they 'stepped into' instead. (LOL) The 763's are great for them, but I really think when it came to the larger-than-763, less-than-a-777 market, they should have taken a look at the A333 or the A332."

Im sure DL did take a look at the A330 (mabye not as close), but when it comes down to it, excluding the fact that DL operates the largest 767 fleet, I think DL made the best decision, for the fact that the 764 is the most flexible choice. Anyway I think DK knew what they were looking for, and the 764 matched exactly. Sure the A330 would have been fine, but then again, why not the 764? Also, MAC, I have word from my friend that works at a TRACON, who know's someone who works for CO, that they are VERY impressed with the 764s performance on the Euro runs.

The best, Tom



 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: MAC_Veteran

Tue Mar 20, 2001 11:26 am

KING767

"Get what worked out? The plane is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to be doing! Domestic routes? Again, look at CO, and DL has plans to send them to Europe too. Far more to what story? LOL!"

-How long have they been in service? How long has the 764 been flying and certified to fly?
-Why is it taking so long for the international routes at Delta to be served with the 764? (-Aside from the pilot rest facility issues-)?

"Again, you fail to realize just what the 764ER was designed for. And even the A333? You still fail to realize that the 764ER has more range. Stunning?......."

The 233 tonne variant has a 5600 nm range flying 295 passengers plus baggage, now if you follow on that alone, the reported 245(?) tonne variant is supposed to be even -more- capable. Fingernail-biting time at Everett no?

Here's yet another source on the A330-200 versus the 767-400.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/f764332.htm#orders

"You really are jumping at this plane. It has not even been in service for a year yet! Cement wedge? The 767 is only there to fill in between the 757 and the 777, and does not have to exactly equal the capacity of the A330. If it did, then it would run into the 777. Airbus does not have anything bigger than the A340, which is as big as the 777."

Explain the A340-500 and -600, those are much larger variants of the A340. The 600 will be the longest plane ever when it enters service I might add. It also appears many A340-500 customers are switching to the -600.

"Oh, and please explain to me the "trend" LOL! "

The order numbers speak for themselves on the listed web URL above.

"Cargowise, you are right, the A330 does have an advantage, although it is not as big as some people make it seem. I have to say you are wrong about the 767 having "higher operating costs".

Not according to AerLingus, you want proof?

Fine: Aer Lingus uses their A330s an average of 13 hours daily (1995), they calculated the roundtrip cost per passenger at $408, compared with the 747-100 at $430, the MD-11 at $450 and $500 for the 767-300ER.

Those costs are not fiction, they are actual hard numbers AerLingus arrived at on it's own and published in Airways Magazine, Mar/Apr 1995 issue, page 40.

These numbers are according to Conor McCarthy, Aer Lingus' general manager for marketing strategy. I suppose he was fudging these numbers? Are you willing to say that Aer Lingus is "lying" over these numbers. They have experience with all the aircraft in question (whether they were owned or leased) and they -should- know. Wouldnt they?

What about your "otherwise" stats. I'd love to see them. Could you share them here?

"I have seen stats (And no, not from Boeing.com) that say otherwise (Not concerning cargo), that show the 767-400 having general lower operating cost's. Yes, EI chose the A330 because of it's higher cargo capacity, but again, they chose the BEST example. This does not mean the 767s cargo cost's were way off there, but the A333 happened to provide the best."

Ah! a backpeddle here! Just a slight one (LOL!)

"I have done research, and I have found an answer a long time ago."

Then please share it here before offering rhetorical answers without that supposed proof behind them. That's all I ask. I have offered proof and heck you can even go to the source themselves at AerLingus to confirm it.

"It's hard to tell that you did not include any bias either (Just looking at your profile)."

Which means what? I make no bones about who I like. No crime in that. I would endeavor you however to do some fact checking of your own and then offer your sources where you get your data from. I -have- offered mine.

"MAC, I am not the type of person who is as narrowminded as some, and take one example as fact. I found that it really matters where you are operating."

Like USAirways for example. They operate a large US based system and seem to be performing wonders with their new Airbus fleet. (G)

"For small National European carriers, or most other small carriers, the A330 is the best choice, offering best cargo load, and PAX load. For larger carriers (Any of the US Majors, BA, CA, etc.) with a more complex route system, with a need for an aircraft that is capable of both medium and long hauls, with varying load capability's, the 767 is the best decision. I also find in some parts of the pacific region (Travel for example between Hong Kong and Taipei) that the A330 would benefit from it's large cargo market. Airlines holding off on the -300ER or any -400? I think your greatly mistaken.

The economics are simply far too different for Asia. The 767-300 and 400 are fine for the Atlantic market, for the Asia market, especially high density city pairs like TPE-HKG, minimum A330-300 size seems to be the norm and on up to 747-400. If you dont use your slots wisely, you reap the whirlwind quite early. Which explains why the 767-300 is seen by only a few carriers out there. QF, BR, NH, JL, Air China. That's it. At that, only one, BR (EVA Air), operates the TPE-HKG route with 767s and possibly JL. BR is also -getting rid of- their 767-300s, replacing them with 8 A330-200s (contract signed today!), Qantas signed for A330-300 and -200 models as well in their A380 order (G).

"Look at Kenya, Balair, CityBird, Sobelair, Air2000, just a few which were all faced with the A330 and stuck with the 767. What were they thinking? Mabye you could explain why? It would really hurt to say why wouldent it? Aside from the A330's cargo advantage (If you look at it, only with a small range advantage, that's all the advantages it's got. I happen to believe that Airbus's low prices, and "deals"
combining other aircraft, and Airbus's common cockpit. "

Massive differences there that you just illustrated before regardign "route systems" and the like.

Firstly, Kenya Airways is by no means a carrier the size of US Airways or even DragonAir for that matter, they are the only truly scheduled passenger/cargo airline operation in the mix. Take a long look at the rest of the carriers you mention. They are all --charter carriers--. Cram'em'in and fly it operations. Huge difference in mission, and quite probably not a freight market whatsoever on their routes because they are charter operations which means the planes are sold for passengers only. Kenya Airways is the only true passenger carrier in that mix. The only one.

MAC
 
Guest

RE: MAC_Veteran

Wed Mar 21, 2001 8:34 am

"Why is it taking so long for the international routes at Delta to be served with the 764? (-Aside from the pilot rest facility issues-)?

The reason why DL is only operating 764s currently on domestic routes is because DL wants "pilot familiarization" before they expand with the 764ERs.

"The 233 tonne variant has a 5600 nm range flying 295 passengers plus baggage, now if you follow on that alone, the reported 245(?) tonne variant is supposed to be even -more- capable. Fingernail-biting time at Everett no?

Whats the matter with the 764LR? I have an answer! Nothing. Again, you think because an aircraft is not as powerful as another, you think that it won't be as successful? Please.... Fingernail-biting time? What makes you think so.

Explain the A340-500 and -600, those are much larger variants of the A340. The 600 will be the longest plane ever when it enters service I might add. It also appears many A340-500 customers are switching to the -600.

What does this have to do with it?


The order numbers speak for themselves on the listed web URL above.

All planes have slow starts. But I do think availability has something to do with it.

"Not according to AerLingus, you want proof?

Fine: Aer Lingus uses their A330s an average of 13 hours daily (1995), they calculated the roundtrip cost per passenger at $408, compared with the 747-100 at $430, the MD-11 at $450 and $500 for the 767-300ER.

Those costs are not fiction, they are actual hard numbers AerLingus arrived at on it's own and published in Airways Magazine, Mar/Apr 1995 issue, page 40.

These numbers are according to Conor McCarthy, Aer Lingus' general manager for marketing strategy. I suppose he was fudging these numbers? Are you willing to say that Aer Lingus is "lying" over these numbers. They have experience with all the aircraft in question (whether they were owned or leased) and they -should- know. Wouldnt they?


Again, these "airline" stats have nothing to do with an aircrafts overall operating stats. These stats are for Aer Lingus, not every airline. All airlines have different route systems, load factors, etc. Obviously, for a smaller national carrier like EI, the A330 would be the best choice for EI does not have a complex long-haul route system. For these kinds of airlines, larger planes are the best, for they can fit everything in and make $$$.


Ah! a backpeddle here! Just a slight one (LOL!)

I see nothing wrong with what I wrote.

Then please share it here before offering rhetorical answers without that supposed proof behind them. That's all I ask. I have offered proof and heck you can even go to the source themselves at AerLingus to confirm it.

What I stated were studies that I have read from various sources overtime and I could not possibly post it here. You don't have to believe it, it's something I know. Anyway, I don't think you can acutally look at something what EI came up with and judge a plane with it. All your showing us here is that the 763ER was not the best choice for EI, nothing more. You almost seem to make the 767 seem less economical than the A330? All I see is that for some airlines, an aircraft withn less cargo capacity is not as profitable as one with more.

Which means what? I make no bones about who I like. No crime in that. I would endeavor you however to do some fact checking of your own and then offer your sources where you get your data from. I -have- offered mine.

There is no crime. Face the fact that you are biased, we are all biased, but you appear to be more than others. What facts do I need to prove? I have done much fact checking over the length of my time in this wonderful hobby. The only statements I made that cannot be brought up with sources are the various studies taht I have observed overtime. All you are argueing with is a few airlines preferences which were made to thier OWN needs.

Like USAirways for example. They operate a large US based system and seem to be performing wonders with their new Airbus fleet. (G)

We are not talking about A320s here. Is US operating A330s on Trans-Cons? No. There might be a few flights in the future, the only reason being inbetween Atlantics, they have nowhere to go. US does not operate a large US heavy domestic system. The 767 is better suited for US domestic flights. Anyway? How many US A330 operators are there? Hmm? 1 with 1 more coming. And they both don't have a large heavy US domestic network.

The economics are simply far too different for Asia. The 767-300 and 400 are fine for the Atlantic market, for the Asia market, especially high density city pairs like TPE-HKG, minimum A330-300 size seems to be the norm and on up to 747-400. If you dont use your slots wisely, you reap the whirlwind quite early. Which explains why the 767-300 is seen by only a few carriers out there. QF, BR, NH, JL, Air China. That's it. At that, only one, BR (EVA Air), operates the TPE-HKG route with 767s and possibly JL. BR is also -getting rid of- their 767-300s, replacing them with 8 A330-200s (contract signed today!), Qantas signed for A330-300 and -200 models as well in their A380 order (G).

Yes, you are right, as I stated, the Asian market is very different demanding larger aircraft. Although, for one thing in Asia, the 767 would perform better in the domestic Japanese market, being that there is no light version of the A330.

Massive differences there that you just illustrated before regardign "route systems" and the like.

Firstly, Kenya Airways is by no means a carrier the size of US Airways or even DragonAir for that matter, they are the only truly scheduled passenger/cargo airline operation in the mix. Take a long look at the rest of the carriers you mention. They are all --charter carriers--. Cram'em'in and fly it operations. Huge difference in mission, and quite probably not a freight market whatsoever on their routes because they are charter operations which means the planes are sold for passengers only. Kenya Airways is the only true passenger carrier in that mix. The only one.


Also, you should note that neither is EI the size of USAirways LOL! That statement backfired. Oh, also Uzbekistan has ordered 2 more 763ERs, forgot that one. Anyway, with those carriers out, you only have left the EU carriers, whose operations do not demand the flexibility of an aircraft like the 767.

-Tom























 
Shawn Patrick
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 7:30 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Wed Mar 21, 2001 9:05 am

Wow. This topic has been getting a lot of attention.
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: MAC_Veteran

Wed Mar 21, 2001 12:29 pm

The reason why DL is only operating 764s currently on domestic routes is because DL wants "pilot familiarization" before they expand with the 764ERs.

For how many months? Sheesh this thing has been in "familiarization" mode for -how long now-? That's the point I'm getting at, which belies something much more serious.

Continental already has their 767-200s on transatlantic service, no problems there. I think they have even done Dusseldorf service for a short time also, before going back to DC-10 or 762s. I havent followed their scheduling as closely as I've watched DL's though.

Whats the matter with the 764LR? I have an answer! Nothing. Again, you think because an aircraft is not as powerful as another, you think that it won't be as successful? Please.... Fingernail-biting time? What makes you think so.

For capability sakes for it being able to do it's job, that's why! If the thing is underpowered or climbs like a lead kite on an August afternoon, you bet I'd be worried, especially if I were a major client of the airline operating aircraft with challenges like this in front of it. Payload capability for either cargo or passenger operations with these problems tells me the likelihood of getting bumped due to payload restrictions are much higher. Which means if I'm in a critical business that needs people and things -asbolutely somewhere- there is no way in hell I'd schedule with an airline that has aircrafdt that run a higher than average risk of problems thanks to incomplete or inept design work. Think not in terms of just a pilot's enthusiasm, but the clientele that may depend on the services provided viewpoint is where I'm looking at it from. Especially in the "just in time" production economy many industries have adopted like the movement of parts in the auto industry relying on tight schedules. Do you know how much it would cost shutting down Ford's plant in Edison, NJ if a critical shipment of parts for Ford Ranger pickup trucks costs? Boo-Koo Bucks! Shutting down production over something simple as a transmission part or a specific screw can and has happened..the cost of shutting down their production at Edison runs close to $700,000! per day if that ever happened. Imagine that! If that shipment is stuck somehwere because an airline contracted to fly it -cant- because of capacity constraints, dont you think it will adversely affect the carrier contracted financially?..Immediately it will.

All planes have slow starts. But I do think availability has something to do with it.

This model, the 767-400, has been on offer for how many years?

Again, these "airline" stats have nothing to do with an aircrafts overall operating stats. These stats are for Aer Lingus, not every airline. All airlines have different route systems, load factors, etc. Obviously, for a smaller national carrier like EI, the A330 would be the best choice for EI does not have a complex long-haul route system. For these kinds of airlines, larger planes are the best, for they can fit everything in and make $$$.

For the "smallness" EI has, it posesses a very active cargo network that East Coast airports know very well about. Their flights to and from Boston are crammed with cargo in the belly and passengers up top, the same goes for their JFK and EWR operations. They carry MORE cargo with the A330 than the 747-100 ever could, which I found amazing but true.

What I stated were studies that I have read from various sources overtime and I could not possibly post it here. You don't have to believe it, it's something I know. Anyway, I don't think you can acutally look at something what EI came up with and judge a plane with it. All your showing us here is that the 763ER was not the best choice for EI, nothing more. You almost seem to make the 767 seem less economical than the A330? All I see is that for some airlines, an aircraft withn less cargo capacity is not as profitable as one with more.

It's not that I dont believe your sources, just post what you can and share them here to lend credibility to your argument, that's all. For completeness sake.

EI's experience is a unique one, a small airline that is now growing quite rapidly. But nonetheless, a VERY important model carrier, serving both the TransAtlantic market, some routes which are extremely heavy in revenue traffic, as well as a very busy and healthy domestic and regional international market. They make a great example to study.

EI has operated almost every major widebody jet type (except the 777, A340, and DC-10) out there and have racked up an impressive record of getting to know which type suits them best, while their own network has grown substantially over the years in cities served and revenue traffic generated for both cargo and passenger numbers. I do envision them becoming a much more prominent carrier over the Atlantic and possibly a foray to Asia if they order the A340NG once they outgrow the A330s. They also serve as a stunning success story of how the Airbus CCQ concept -DOES- work while building a very healthy and growing bottom line. That's the whole intention of Airbus' concept. They are a telling example that it -DOES- work!

There is no crime. Face the fact that you are biased, we are all biased, but you appear to be more than others. What facts do I need to prove? I have done much fact checking over the length of my time in this wonderful hobby. The only statements I made that cannot be brought up with sources are the various studies taht I have observed overtime. All you are argueing with is a few airlines preferences which were made to thier OWN needs.

Each one is a cse study though in aircraft capability, EI operates in a smaller niche, but quite significant nonetheless. If you were to expand the scale of things twice or 5 times what they serve now, the economies of scale they are able to achieve now with the efficient Airbus product that saved their -hide- back in the early 1990s, will only be magnified that much more. Think of it that way.

We are not talking about A320s here. Is US operating A330s on Trans-Cons? No. There might be a few flights in the future, the only reason being inbetween Atlantics, they have nowhere to go. US does not operate a large US heavy domestic system. The 767 is better suited for US domestic flights. Anyway? How many US A330 operators are there? Hmm? 1 with 1 more coming. And they both don't have a large heavy US domestic network.

Air Canada operates a growing A330 fleet, US operates the largest A330 fleet in the US to date and -does- domestic flying with them (San Juan from Philly). SkyService in Canada is a chater operator that also operates them but that's a 1 or 2 aircraft fleet max, Canada3000 operates a growing fleet of -200s and I think a -300 or two from YVR, TAM Brasil operates a growing A330-200 fleet across the Atlantic and to the States. Northwest's recent 24 A330-300 order will bring a very large A330 fleet to the States as well. Northwest has a massive domestic network, as does USAirways. NWA will be operating them on both TransAtlantic and transcon flights that need more lift than the 753's. I envision the US fleet operating as is, overwater with forays into domestic service as the fleet is expanded if the merger is rejected. If UAL gets them, they will continue with UAL and serve many missions, from continuance of former US service to international destinations in Europe, to possibly serving as a large regional feed widebody into their NRT hub in Tokyo, relieving 747-400s for expansion of service or additional routes when capacity doesnt dictate their use within Asia.

Also, you should note that neither is EI the size of USAirways LOL! That statement backfired. Oh, also Uzbekistan has ordered 2 more 763ERs, forgot that one. Anyway, with those carriers out, you only have left the EU carriers, whose operations do not demand the flexibility of an aircraft like the 767

If you look at EI, it is a scheduled operation, much more in common with USAirways in that it operates a hub/spoke system, can move passengers and cargo at the same time. Over a similar amount of mileage (EI goes even further with LAX-DUB nonstops using the A332 btw), the two operate similar aircraft and fleet strategies, fleet commonality/family concept A330/A32X series which has been proven to work here, at US, LH, CX, etc. But getting back to just EI and US, both have very heavy routes across the Atlantic, probably providing a considerable amount of profit earnings in addition to their own domestic services. One is just a smaller version of the other in some ways if you look at equipment types and network strategies. With Charter carriers though, it's a totally different ballgame, you have to pack them in from front to back or lose, the burden being on the tour and travel vacation companies to produce people to show up. They are the ones who hold the entire risk, for if no one shows up, the aircraft is still bought and paid for no matter who shows up, 1 person or 290. The downside is, no cargo can be carried, so the airplane is not being used to it's full potential, but there again, the cost of the trip is being paid by the tour/travel company. 767s also are lighter than A330s, which help with landing fees, which of course would be borne by the tour and travel operator in their contract with the charter airline, bringing lower costs. This is possibly another reason why 767s are more popular than A330s with some charter carriers, but in recent trends, LTU has gone from 767-300 to A330-200/300, rumors abound that Condor may be going this route as well.

The bottom point is, the A330 to me is a more capable airplane better suited to high capacity, scheduled markets requiring better payload delivery for both cargo and passenger operations. Even if you are a charter operator, you either try to cater to both if you can (laws and certificates/contracts permitting), or you go with the cheapest, lowest weight alternative on one hand if that's all you care about, or you think -big- and also offer the flexibility of a fleet that other airlines can actively -lease- from you (as is the case with Lufthansa and Condor Flugdeinst) that best match the needs. The combinations are incredible.

There are many more variables to each of these but that's the simplest way of putting it why you see charter carriers opt for one type over another, versus full fledged passenger carriers which 'freight a lot' opting for other means.. it all boils down to the corporate operating model the carrier pursues and what they want to cater to.

Regards
MAC




-Tom
 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

MAC_Vet And King767

Wed Mar 21, 2001 4:18 pm

First of all....

Great debate, guys! I'm glad we're able to discuss this in a levelheaded manner.

As a point of clarification, I believe the 767-400's mission at Delta has always been high density domestic runs. This is why the -400s were fitted with domestic First Class cabins rather than Delta BusinessElite. Delta's primary requirement for this aircraft was to be able to make ATL-HNL nonstop with a full load on a typical hot Atlanta day. Whether the 764 has lived up to that requirement is quite the hot topic as we can all see.

Yesterday at the ticket counter, a LAX-based 764 Captain happened to come up to my position requesting an ID90 on another carrier. I chatted him up on this topic, and he said that while he has never flown ATL-HNL on the 767-400, he has not heard anything about weight restrictions. He stated that the takeoff run is a bit longer than the -300 and that the aircraft takes a little getting used to at first, since it is naturally heavier than its little brothers, the -200 and -300.

He also said, however, that the true test of the 767-400 will come when it takes over DFW-HNL from the L-1011 and when ATL-HNL goes nonstop again, which is widely expected after the new contract is agreed upon and takes effect. The L-1011 really earned its name in the last years with its performance on these routes. In addition, the 777 continues to impress with its excellent performance in the oppressive summer heat of Georgia.

So the 767-400 question really has not been answered yet.

As for the rhetorical question of a Delta A330... who knows? You can never rule anything out, and our current management's style has shown that nothing... nothing is sacred. Like they always say, the only thing that is for sure in our industry is that nothing is for sure.

Yes, I have been known to make some fairly partisan comments on the issue of how Airbus does business, but I can say that I for one would like to see Delta get some Airbus products into the fleet, if for no other reason than to further corporate relations with European goverments. Not to mention that the machines coming out of Toulouse and Hamburg these days are every bit on par with what's coming from Renton and Everett.

I don't think it would be horrendously inefficient to operate the 767-400 and A330-300IGW side by side. The 767-400s could continue to operate the legs that they currently run: ATL-SFO, SFO-HNL, SLC-SFO, ATL-LAX, LAX-HNL, LAX-OGG, ATL-MCO, ATL-TPA, ATL-MIA, ATL-DFW, etc., and the A330s could take over the flagship service currently flown by the 777s... ATL-LGW, ATL-CDG, ATL-SNN-DUB, as well as pick up the heavier markets of ATL-FRA, ATL-ATH and ATL-MAD and the premium transcontinental flights of JFK-SFO and JFK-LAX, freeing up the 777s for ATL-NRT, JFK-NRT, LAX-NRT, and LAX-NGO, and one-upping AA and UA in terms of equipment operated on the two most profitable domestic routes in U.S. aviation.

DeltaSFO
It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
 
Guest

RE: MAC_Veteran

Thu Mar 22, 2001 12:13 am

For how many months? Sheesh this thing has been in "familiarization" mode for -how long now-? That's the point I'm getting at, which belies something much more serious.

I believe that there is no problem, think what you like. Again, I have heard from a CO pilot that CO is very impressed with the 764s performance.

For capability sakes for it being able to do it's job, that's why! If the thing is underpowered or climbs like a lead kite on an August afternoon, you bet I'd be worried, especially if I were a major client of the airline operating aircraft with challenges like this in front of it. Payload capability for either cargo or passenger operations with these problems tells me the likelihood of getting bumped due to payload restrictions are much higher. Which means if I'm in a critical business that needs people and things -asbolutely somewhere- there is no way in hell I'd schedule with an airline that has aircrafdt that run a higher than average risk of problems thanks to incomplete or inept design work. Think not in terms of just a pilot's enthusiasm, but the clientele that may depend on the services provided viewpoint is where I'm looking at it from. Especially in the "just in time" production economy many industries have adopted like the movement of parts in the auto industry relying on tight schedules. Do you know how much it would cost shutting down Ford's plant in Edison, NJ if a critical shipment of parts for Ford Ranger pickup trucks costs? Boo-Koo Bucks! Shutting down production over something simple as a transmission part or a specific screw can and has happened..the cost of shutting down their production at Edison runs close to $700,000! per day if that ever happened. Imagine that! If that shipment is stuck somehwere because an airline contracted to fly it -cant- because of capacity constraints, dont you think it will adversely affect the carrier contracted financially?..Immediately it will.

Again, I really think you are blowing up the 764s "underpoweredness". Inept design work? Please, that's not at all true. Of course I realize such a potential problem, but so far I have seen that this does not exist. Anyway, the "true" long-haul 764, the LR will feature Trents and the GP7200 which will eliminate any "underpowered" problems.

For the "smallness" EI has, it posesses a very active cargo network that East Coast airports know very well about. Their flights to and from Boston are crammed with cargo in the belly and passengers up top, the same goes for their JFK and EWR operations. They carry MORE cargo with the A330 than the 747-100 ever could, which I found amazing but true.

Yes, this is exactly what I said, the A330 is best for these kinds of "smaller" national carriers.

Air Canada operates a growing A330 fleet, US operates the largest A330 fleet in the US to date and -does- domestic flying with them (San Juan from Philly). SkyService in Canada is a chater operator that also operates them but that's a 1 or 2 aircraft fleet max, Canada3000 operates a growing fleet of -200s and I think a -300 or two from YVR, TAM Brasil operates a growing A330-200 fleet across the Atlantic and to the States. Northwest's recent 24 A330-300 order will bring a very large A330 fleet to the States as well. Northwest has a massive domestic network, as does USAirways. NWA will be operating them on both TransAtlantic and transcon flights that need more lift than the 753's. I envision the US fleet operating as is, overwater with forays into domestic service as the fleet is expanded if the merger is rejected. If UAL gets them, they will continue with UAL and serve many missions, from continuance of former US service to international destinations in Europe, to possibly serving as a large regional feed widebody into their NRT hub in Tokyo, relieving 747-400s for expansion of service or additional routes when capacity doesnt dictate their use within Asia.

Does AC operate an extensive HEAVY Trans-Con network? No. SkyService is a charter carrier, and so is C3000. TAM is out of the market we are talking about. NW does not operate an extensive HEAVY domestic network, neither does US. Although off the topic, if the 330s do actually serve with UA, it will be only for a short time.

The bottom point is, the A330 to me is a more capable airplane better suited to high capacity, scheduled markets requiring better payload delivery for both cargo and passenger operations. Even if you are a charter operator, you either try to cater to both if you can (laws and certificates/contracts permitting), or you go with the cheapest, lowest weight alternative on one hand if that's all you care about, or you think -big- and also offer the flexibility of a fleet that other airlines can actively -lease- from you (as is the case with Lufthansa and Condor Flugdeinst) that best match the needs. The combinations are incredible.

There are many more variables to each of these but that's the simplest way of putting it why you see charter carriers opt for one type over another, versus full fledged passenger carriers which 'freight a lot' opting for other means.. it all boils down to the corporate operating model the carrier pursues and what they want to cater to.


Ok, I respect what you are saying. I do agree that the A330 is best in heavy situations, although I still stick with the future advances of the 767. I look at it like the 767 really does not have to prove it is as capable capacity-wise as the A330, for it is backed with the 777. Increasing the 767s capacity past the 764 would run into the 777. The 767 is best for less-heavy, or higher frequency heavy routes, and performs at it's best with large mega-carriers who need a flexible aircraft to carry out various needs. Although it's good to see that alot of smaller national carriers have found the 767 to be thier best fit.
Well, there not much more to discuss, and I am glad too that we have gone about this on a civil manner.

The best, Tom




 
RIX
Posts: 1590
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Thu Mar 22, 2001 1:47 am

Most of this thread looks to be a 330 vs 764 discussion... Well, 330 is BY DESIGN bigger, has more passenger and cargo capacity and more range. Is it in the same time cheaper to operate (not seat/mile but absolutely)? If yes, then I'm amazed how 764 could be ever ordered. If not, what is all this "330 is better" about?! They are still different aircraft for close but different markets, and any of them is ordered if it fits better the airline needs. 330 has much more orders than 764? OK, so 330 market is much bigger than of 764. The same, by the way, about orders for 777 and 340 (before someone says I am "Boeing biased"). So many posts deadly eager to convince everybody that this is definitely better than that... Isn't it there a better way to enjoy life?  Smile
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Thu Mar 22, 2001 1:55 am

Folks,

Getting back on topic  Smile , I personally think UA will buy more and more A319/A320 models over the next few years, despite the downturn in the economy.

The reasons are simple:

1. The fuel burn on a 727-200 is way higher than the A319/A320 on a seat-mile basis. This is especially important in light of the increasing cost of Jet A fuel.

2. The 722's engines will not meet the upcoming ICAO standards for noise and exhaust emissions that are coming in the middle of this decade.

3. The 722's airframe life is definitely way up there. It's going to get more costly to do a Heavy Maintainance overhaul than to buy a new plane altogether.

I expect UA to have an additional 150-200 A319/A320 planes by 2007-2008 time frame. This will allow UA to dedicate all their current 737-300/500 fleet to United Shuttle operations on the West Coast, which means UA can continue to fly the 733/735 on United Shuttle until well after 2015 even if that means cannibalizing parts from other 733/735's.
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Thu Mar 22, 2001 2:41 am

They should go for a few B 757-200s as well as 300s along with the Airbus A 319/320 to replace their B 727s.
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Thu Mar 22, 2001 3:12 pm

Actually, which one is bigger? The B 727 or the A 320? I strongly believe that they should replace SOME of the B 727s with B 757s so as to increase capacity.

 
ILUV767
Posts: 3053
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Thu Mar 22, 2001 3:30 pm

United Airline:

At United, both aircraft seat 138 passengers, in the same layout.
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Thu Mar 22, 2001 3:53 pm

Thanks David!  Smile
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Thu Mar 22, 2001 3:55 pm

Actually I still believe that UAL will still be a major operator of Boeing's products.

They just have about 100-200 Airbuses.

 Smile
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Fri Mar 23, 2001 8:14 pm

Sorry to re-open this topic again.

One more thing I would like to add it.

As you all know, US Airways has some A 321s on order and they do own some in fact. I believe they will go overnight along with the MD 90s.

For the B 737s, I think AA should exchange TWA's B 737s with US's B 737s. Why? Coz UAL wants P&W Engines and TWA's 737s are equiped with P&W engines. AA should get the B 737s from US which are equiped with Rolls Royce Engines

What do you guys think?

 Smile
 
Guest

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Fri Mar 23, 2001 9:49 pm

United Airline:

What the h**l are you talking about? US doesn't have any MD-90s, TWA doesn't have any 737s and I've never heard of a RR-powered 737...
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Sat Mar 24, 2001 2:29 am

Hey guys:


Sorry everyone but I didn't type those by myself. Someone did it for fun.

I believe someone has been posting those crap for me. I was at the School Library and I guess some of those fools came along and typed those crap.

US Airways DOES NOT operate ANY MD 90s while TWA DOES NOT have ANY B 737s.

There isn't ANY RR powered B 737s either.

Once again, I apologize and I shall take care of my computer well next time and shall be giving them a snap pretty soon.


Best Regards:
Des
 
Guest

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Sat Mar 24, 2001 2:41 am

Yeah right, that's what they all say... Big grin

No seriously, whoever did this knew what he / she was talking about: all you have to do is change the 9 into an 8 and the 3 into a 5 and it perfectly makes sense...
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client

Sat Mar 24, 2001 6:32 am

Yeah you are right. The 9 should be changed to 8 while the 3 should be changed to 5.

TWA does have operate any B737s. But 717s. And I believe AA will keep them.

Sorry to re-open this topic again.

One more thing I would like to add it.

As you all know, US Airways has some A 321s on order and they do own some in fact. I believe they will go overnight along with the MD 90s.

For the B 737s, I think AA should exchange TWA's B 737s with US's B 737s. Why? Coz UAL wants P&W Engines and TWA's 737s are equiped with P&W engines. AA should get the B 737s from US which are equiped with Rolls Royce Engines

What do you guys think?



should be changed to


Sorry to re-open this topic again.

One more thing I would like to add it.

As you all know, US Airways has some A 321s on order and they do own some in fact. I believe they will go overnight along with the MD 80s.

For the B 757s, I think AA should exchange TWA's B 757s with US's B 757s. Why? Coz UAL wants P&W Engines and TWA's 757s are equiped with P&W engines. AA should get the B 757s from US which are equiped with Rolls Royce Engines

What do you guys think?


So what do you guys think about this?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

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