A330-200''s for US Airways


Sep 14, 2002
Another note-worthy thing about the A330-200 is not only is it about 15ft shorter then the -300 model, it has the same rated engines and same gross weight take off as the -300. How? The weight savings from being shorter was put into the center fuel tank. The A330-300 model has two wing fuel tanks and a tail "trim tank". The A330-200 has two wing tanks, center tank, and a tail tank. So basically they added fuel capacity in place of passenger and cargo capacity.

From the Airbus web site.


Overall length: 193ft 7 inches
Wing span: 197ft 10 inches
Max. Ramp weight: 509,000 lbs
Max. Take off weight: 507,000 lbs
Max. fuel capacity: 36,750 us gallons.
Range (max. pax) 6,450-6,650 nautical miles.


Overall length: 208ft 1 inches
Wing span: 197ft 10 inches
Max. Ramp weight: 509,000 lbs
Max. Take off weight: 507,000 lbs
Max. fuel capacity: 25,760 us gallons.
Range (max. pax) 5600 nautical miles.

On 2/2/2003 11:46:30 AM X-U wrote:

customers must also understand that if they demand services that cost more than what they are willing to pay, the business is unsustainable and will vanish.


Most customers don't care if the company vanishes or not, because someone else will still be able to provide services at a cost they are willing to pay.

So, unions must also understand that if they demand compensation and benefits that cost more than the company can sell the product for, the business is unsustainable and will vanish...


Feb 1, 2003
eolesen wrote:

"Most customers don't care if the company vanishes or not, because someone else will still be able to provide services at a cost they are willing to pay."

Remember that when you are stooped over getting on you 3 hour Embraer flight. That's if there is any service at all to your airport. There's a reason SW and JB don't fly into the Eries, Atlantic Citys and Dubuques of the world. You will soon be flying on either a cattle car or a Cooper mini-car.


Airbus Clarification

ARLINGTON (theHub.com) - Last week we reported that US Airways and Airbus have reached an agreement in principle to restructure US Airways’ existing orders for A330 and A320 family aircraft. Under that agreement, US Airways would substitute a new firm order for 10 A330-200 aircraft and 19 A320 family aircraft for existing firm orders of one Airbus A330-300 and 37 A320 family aircraft. Some employees have asked about the delivery schedule of these new aircraft. The first aircraft could start entering the fleet in 2007, according to Dan McDonald, vice president of fleet planning.


Aug 20, 2002
On 2/1/2003 1:28:50 PM DakotaHC8 wrote:

Nice to see you keep this on topic retread.

Ill keep it simple, The EMB-170 is NOT a regional jet because there is really no such thing. It's just an airliner. just like a A-330/200, B737, CRJ-200, or Dash-8. You are the one that has fallen prey to the notion that there is a difference in either aircraft OR pilots by using the term "regional", not me. Once again I point out that the difference in the use of/pay for such aircraft lies in the contractual agreements tied to their use. But instead of blaming management or us you should instead look in the mirror. YOUR union HAS made tradeoffs in the past and present to best serve the interests of it's senior pilots, and thus helped create the situation we are in now. Your ALPA leadship has leveraged each bit of scope "relief" to obtain as much advantage/payoff that they could. Just because the majority of benefit from such negotiations will remain with pilots more senior than yourself does not make you a victim retread, it only means you get to walk in our shoes for awhile.

I take it personal as well that you think that JFJ is anything but a greedy ploy by the mainline pilots. You refer to "your" fleet, "your" routes, "your" flying as if ALG, PDT and PSA were not part of the very same company you work for. Obviously our pilots and the pilots for other subsidiary airlines such as Comair and Eagle take issue with mainline pilot's assumption that the airline revolves around them alone.

I know it's not "PC", but the situation the mainline pilots find themselves in today is of thier own making. Qiute simply if your leadership pushed years ago to get the flow thru argreement in place that had been developed, most of the current furloughees would have been former WO pilots, simply returning to the same jobs that they recently vacated.

Instead, now your pilot group demands that we make way for more than a thousand recent hires that came off of the street (many from Mesa and CHQ), all because you think it is "your flying", "your right", our "obligation". Truth is that your pilot group wanted us separate and held us arm's length, so now you get what you wished for. So stop pushing blame off on other pilot groups and accept the reality that your own leadership has created/allowed.

When multiple pilot groups exist within the same organization, there will always be pressure to transfer flying to the cheaper contract. I am as much a pilot for US Airways as you are, Dave is just as in control of my job as your own. You are amoung the many who may like to pretend otherwise. I dont "feel" bad about fighting for my rights within OUR organization because YOUR leadership has seen fit to exclude us up to now, leaving us to our own means.

Being self absorbed is one thing, airways pilots fostering it on an institutional level is another. We'll fly what OUR company buys for us, with no remorse about the effects at mainline because that is exactly the attitude we have endured from airways pilots for decades. You want my position, merge us date of hire buddy, if you have been flying and making money for USAir longer than I have it's all your's. Otherwise give the moral indignation a break and just deal with the situation that your ALPA dues payed for.
Many seem to share this opinion!

Latest posts