A350 Jet Plans

[N109UW]

They basically blamed them and then it turned out it was Boeings fault.

[post="309616"][/post]​

You mean like when the old US management blamed the F/A's for all the cancellations last Christmas, and then the DOT blamed the company. I remember the company never apologizing to the F/A's in any public forum. I still have a tough time with that one. It was rough having passengers make some nasty comments to you as you were working a flight, and holding your tongue, because I didn't want to badmouth my company in the public eye.

 

[Breath_of_Fresh_USAirways]

Leave it to USAirways to jump in the sack with Airbus....when many other US Airlines are going Boeing in favor of the 787.

Many do not understand how bad an idea it is to go against the tide in regards to keeping aircraft flying

U has a history of flying odd-ball fleet types...that are or will become difficult to support. Airbus is no gem in regards to providing support in this country...and inter-dependence between carriers is all to often the only option to keep a given plane flying.

Hmmm, here are a few examples of Acft that U has had or have...that are hard to support...cuz few other US Airlines fly them..or flew them.

(1) A330-300.....NW only has a handfull of them...and its tough to support
(2) A321....other than Spirit and Air Jamaica we are solely dependent on Airbus..and they are dependent on US. The A321 presents just enough differences between itself and the remainder of the A320 family , to make itself a monumental pain in the arse. We should have opted for more B757's for a zillion reasons.
(3) F-100...with AA and the former Midway being the only other options beyond Fokker in AMS....plus it noted shortcomings , its spells DOG in many ways.
(4) F-28...pretty much the same as the F-100

Sure...everything has its share of pluses and minuses....but a carrier that still in an uphill fight , does not need to saddle itself with added problems...and being the first kid on the block with a new toy is not always the brightest idea.

Noting that AC is going with the 787 after a lengthy run with Airbus tell me something...and it should be painting a picture that others need to look at with very trained eyes.

[post="309591"][/post]​

Do ya think that by stepping up to the plate with a 1/4 Billion $ investment (loan) from Airbus, that might have anything to do with US signing up for the A350??? Boeing didn't even come to the game.

It's more like now we've made our bed and have to sleep in it. Airbus let both HP & US defer their narrow body deliveries, as well as the A330s that were on order. Airbus aided with many financial aspects of this "marriage."

Ten of the A350 on order can be converted back to A330 orders -- which I would expect to see happen long before 2011. Can you say replacement for the aging 767s?

Also, now with the combined fleet (even with all the lease returns), we are the world's largest operator of Airbus aircraft -- I think that should help with getting Airbus to be a bit more forthcoming with support for these birds. They have a huge stake in US -- in more ways than one -- and I believe they'd like to see us succeed.

Personally, I think the A380 is going to be the undoing of Airbus...but that's for another thread...

 

[700UW]

The Airbus money was not an investment it was a loan, a loan that will have to be paid back and buy more Airbus airplanes, it was a win win for Airbus.

US had to basically whore itself out of bankruptcy.

Boeing does not need to bribe US to business with it, they are gaining market share again.

 

[WorldTraveler]

NW and US also had significant performance guarantees in the A330s they purchased and the planes failed to deliver. Airbus is famous for promising the world and then not delivering. Their solution? We'll build more for you at even better rates. It's a market share game with Boeing with the airlines stuck in the middle.

That's why when DL had Airbus build replacement A310s for the ones acquired from Pan Am, they demanded walk away terms if the planes didn't deliver. The A310s didn't deliver and DL dumped them on very short notice.

 

[WorldTraveler]

NW and US also had significant performance guarantees in the A330s they purchased and the planes failed to deliver. Airbus is famous for promising the world and then not delivering. Their solution? We'll build more for you at even better rates. It's a market share game with Boeing with the airlines stuck in the middle.

That's why when DL had Airbus build replacement A310s for the ones acquired from Pan Am, they demanded walk away terms if the planes didn't deliver. The A310s didn't deliver and DL dumped them on very short notice.

 

[A330US]

Thats all correct
i think the A330-300 has better range than a 777-200ER, the A330s wing is huge, ad looks like a plane
777 looks exactly like a 767-400Er w/o CF6s

 

[FWAAA]

Thats all correct
i think the A330-300 has better range than a 777-200ER, the A330s wing is huge, ad looks like a plane
777 looks exactly like a 767-400Er w/o CF6s

[post="310088"][/post]​

I disagree. I think the range of the 777ER is much farther than the A330-300. Boeing says the 777ER has a max range with full pax of 7,730 nm (14,316 km), while Airbus says the A330-300 has a max range with full pax of only 5,650 nm (10,500 km).

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/...ifications.html

Unless there's a longer-range version, the 777 wins hands down.

Did you mean the A350? Its expected range (smaller version) exceeds that of the 777ER.

 

[A330US]

I disagree. I think the range of the 777ER is much farther than the A330-300. Boeing says the 777ER has a max range with full pax of 7,730 nm (14,316 km), while Airbus says the A330-300 has a max range with full pax of only 5,650 nm (10,500 km).

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/...ifications.html

Unless there's a longer-range version, the 777 wins hands down.

Did you mean the A350? Its expected range (smaller version) exceeds that of the 777ER.

[post="310103"][/post]​

the A350 will have range of the A340-500/600 and somewhat range of 777-200LR/300-Er

the A350 can go nonstop JFK-DXB, a 13-14 hour flihgt

 

[jcw]

That's right US Airways should have stopped flying instead of whoring it self out of BK.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

the 757 is one aweome aircraft, one that will never get old, the design of the 757 isold yet complex and advanced, even the 767-200ER, that is one nice plane as well.

[post="309649"][/post]​

The 757 is indeed an awsome aircraft, sad that it is out of production. Look like too many airlines decided that a 737-800/900 is close enough in capacity and cheaper to run. Hate to add more fuel to the (neverending) Airbus v Boeing debate, but what is the buzz on good and bad points regarding 738/739 v 321?


The industry buzz was that the blood between Boeing and US was very bad indeed as result of 427 (somehow it never got as bad between UAL and Boeing over 737 crash at COS...perhaps because it got much less publicity) and was one factor in the Airbus purchase

 

[Art at ISP]

The A330-200 has longer range than the A330-300, but it does not come close to the 777-200ER--which has much greater payload, and from what I understand, much better operating economics.

 

[A330US]

A330-200 has beter range than 300 ?
wow, thats awesome, didnt US order 200s but cancled them in BK

 

[nycbusdriver]

The 757 is indeed an awsome aircraft, sad that it is out of production.

[post="310193"][/post]​

I'm the rare pilot willing to say this:

I think the 757 is an overpowered P.O.S. Uncomfortable, drives like an old Mack truck, and the passengers get the sardine-syndrome in about 45 minutes. Cockpit flows? They're all over the place. Obviously designed by committees tasked with turning out two very different airplanes with one type rating.

Give me an Airbus any day. (Although I do enjoy the 767. The 767 is a sweet flying airplane, and lots more comfortable than the 757.)

 

[vc10]

In severe weather, there's no aircraft I'd rather be in than a 757. The thing is built like a brick ****house.

So far as I can tell, "overpowered" is a feature, not a bug. Of course, the 757 is a narrowbody, same upper-fuselage cross section as the 707, 720, 727, 737, etc. That's just the way it is. Only other criticism I'd have of the 757 is that it's slow.

I'm the rare pilot willing to say this:

I think the 757 is an overpowered P.O.S. Uncomfortable, drives like an old Mack truck, and the passengers get the sardine-syndrome in about 45 minutes. Cockpit flows? They're all over the place. Obviously designed by committees tasked with turning out two very different airplanes with one type rating.

Give me an Airbus any day. (Although I do enjoy the 767. The 767 is a sweet flying airplane, and lots more comfortable than the 757.)

[post="310264"][/post]​

 

[BoeingBoy]

Airbus has "repositioned" the A350 into more of a 777-200 competitor than 787 response. Commonality (parts content) with the A330 has nearly vanished as 90% of parts will be different. Size has gone up with the smaller -800 version seating 258 and the larger -900 version seating 316 in a typical 2-class configuration, part of the effort to match the 787's seat mile costs.

On the 787 "commonality" front, Boeing is aiming for 5-day differences training for the transition from the 777.

Jim