A350 Entry into Service Pushed Back 6-Months

[FM2436]

Interesting.

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/airbus-pushes-back-a350-eis-2014-1110?cid=nl_atw_dn&[email protected]

 

[UPNAWAY]

Not too bad considering the A380 was 2 years late and the Dreamliner 3 years late. Sounds like they learned some lessons from those. From a US perspective I bet they don't mind at all, I doubt they want to take delivery before solid economic improvements are seen.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Not too bad considering the A380 was 2 years late and the Dreamliner 3 years late. Sounds like they learned some lessons from those. From a US perspective I bet they don't mind at all, I doubt they want to take delivery before solid economic improvements are seen.

We'll never see the A350 at LCC. Once the delivery date gets closer, there will be some crises that make Tempe push them back 3 or 4 years. Then, they will slowly go the way of the 400 Airbus options that Wolf negotiated.

Besides, what will they use them for? They're afraid to go anywhere that an airplane with that capability becomes necessary. Remember the policy to "add one international destination each year"? How long did that last? Three years? And they pulled out of as many as they started (Stockholm, Birmingham, Oslo, Shannon, Milan.)

 

[dash8roa]

We'll never see the A350 at LCC. Once the delivery date gets closer, there will be some crises that make Tempe push them back 3 or 4 years. Then, they will slowly go the way of the 400 Airbus options that Wolf negotiated.

Besides, what will they use them for? They're afraid to go anywhere that an airplane with that capability becomes necessary. Remember the policy to "add one international destination each year"? How long did that last? Three years? And they pulled out of as many as they started (Stockholm, Birmingham, Oslo, Shannon, Milan.)

I feel the airbus A350 delay will be even longer.its their first foray into composite airframes.US seems to be holding off adding any new cities in europe,i.E. vienna,nice,prague,budapest,would all be good additions.They don't seem to give certain cities a chance to build up ridership.The far east seems to scare them,they folded on a route to china several years ago.

 

[ebwgs]

We'll never see the A350 at LCC. Once the delivery date gets closer, there will be some crises that make Tempe push them back 3 or 4 years. Then, they will slowly go the way of the 400 Airbus options that Wolf negotiated.

I hope you're wrong.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I hope you're wrong.

I may be. But given past practice, I doubt we will see the airplane.

Of course, there's even better odds that LCC will not even exist in 2017 in which case there will certainly be no 350s delivered to the ghost town.

 

[FWAAA]

I may be. But given past practice, I doubt we will see the airplane.

Of course, there's even better odds that LCC will not even exist in 2017 in which case there will certainly be no 350s delivered to the ghost town.

If US ends up combined in some fashion with AA down the road, there won't be a need for a miniscule fleet of A350s given the very large fleet of AA 777s (currently 47 and at least 60 by 2017) and the potential fleet of 100 787-9s (42 firm, 58 add'l purchase rights).

There isn't enough O&D to Japan or China from PHL, CLT or PHX to support nonstops as it is. If there was sufficient O&D to make them worthwhile, UA or JAL would already be flying those routes.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Not too bad considering the A380 was 2 years late and the Dreamliner 3 years late. Sounds like they learned some lessons from those.

Considering that originally the first Airbus to be called the A350 was to enter service in 2010, it'll be about 4 years late (as of now). That's not counting the earlier A330-Lite - a modification of the A330 to compete with the 787.

Jim

 

[SparrowHawk]

Actually I have a question for the pilots.

From the customer side the Airbus is a bit nicer in general than comparable Boeing equipment IMO.

I get the impression that is not or might not be case when flying the aircraft. Comments?

 

[fodase]

Actually I have a question for the pilots.

From the customer side the Airbus is a bit nicer in general than comparable Boeing equipment IMO.

I get the impression that is not or might not be case when flying the aircraft. Comments?

The only pilots that don't like the 320/330 series aircraft are the ones that haven't flown them, the 320's are the best most comfortable narrow body to operate by a mile, they are not perfect and I do prefer the Boeing flight management system and the 757 power, but other than that the airbus is far superior down to the side stick And cockpit tray

 

[BoeingBoy]

From the customer side the Airbus is a bit nicer in general than comparable Boeing equipment IMO.

Other than age for US (no 737NG's, 767 vs 330), it depends on what you call "comparable Boeing equipment". The A320 family has a wider cabin than the 737 so wider seats. The A330 and A350 are wider than the 767 but narrower than the 777. Then there's how a specific carrier configures them. The angled suites fit 4 across on the 330 but would have to be directly fore/aft to fit 4 abreast on the 767. The 777 would fit angled 4 abreast comfortably with wider suites, but 5 abreast angled would probably be a little tighter than the A330 and 6 abreast and angled probably wouldn't fit.

The A350 has a different cross section - between the A330 and the 777. So it will depend on how US configures it.

Jim

 

[ContUNITEus]

We'll never see the A350 at LCC. Once the delivery date gets closer, there will be some crises that make Tempe push them back 3 or 4 years. Then, they will slowly go the way of the 400 Airbus options that Wolf negotiated.

Besides, what will they use them for? They're afraid to go anywhere that an airplane with that capability becomes necessary. Remember the policy to "add one international destination each year"? How long did that last? Three years? And they pulled out of as many as they started (Stockholm, Birmingham, Oslo, Shannon, Milan.)

I agree with you a hundred percent. US Airways has a reputation to drama out of aircraft deliveries. I always observed the same pattern and thought of it the same way as you.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Actually I have a question for the pilots.

From the customer side the Airbus is a bit nicer in general than comparable Boeing equipment IMO.

I get the impression that is not or might not be case when flying the aircraft. Comments?

The only pilots that don't like the 320/330 series aircraft are the ones that haven't flown them, the 320's are the best most comfortable narrow body to operate by a mile, they are not perfect and I do prefer the Boeing flight management system and the 757 power, but other than that the airbus is far superior down to the side stick And cockpit tray

I couldn't agree more with fodase. The "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going" bunch just haven't flown the Airbuses. I was weaned on Boeings (KC-135) very early in my flying career, and flew the 727 and 737 for more hours than I care to think about. They are great airplanes. And you can't beat the 757 for having power to spare, while the 767 is the sweetest handling "big" airplane I've ever flown. But, once you get them figured out and accept that fact that Airbuses are different than anything else you've ever flown, the Airbuses are incredibly user-friendly, quiet, comfortable and very capable. In those four categories, Airbus leaves those old Boeings in the dust. Can't comment on the 777 or 747-400, but the fact that they have a control yoke instead of a side stick would make me choose the Airbus over even those.

 

[BoeingBoy]

As long as you don't mind being subservient to "Hal". Tell us how bad it has to get before the pilot actually flies the Airbus...

Jim

 

[FWAAA]

I'm still somewhat sensitive to the overly sensitive breakaway tail and, IMO, defective rudder control system that AB installed on the AB6 that contributed to a horrible disaster ten years ago today:

http://airlineforums.com/topic/51955-in-memoriam-aa587/page__view__findpost__p__844332