AA in talk with airbus for 100 narrow body aircraft

[FWAAA]

Good to see you returning to subjects you are more familiar with, Eric. Your effectiveness in speaking on a subject goes up dramatically when you can speak from facts....

WT, there's no need to post immature nonsense like this, unless you really are just 13 years old.

When you stick to discussing the topic instead of constantly swiping at other posters, your perceived maturity level (and others' tolerance for your long-winded diatribes) increases dramatically.

 

[MCI transplant]

The C919 isn't the same aircraft, MCI. It's a new (stolen?) design competing with the 737 and A320.

And the ARJ21 referenced in your link has yet to be delivered. They had a wing snap during static testing last year, which stopped the certification process dead in its tracks. If the Chinese had to stop certification, it had to be pretty damn serious.... 😉

<_< ------- I believe McDonald Douglas licensed Chinese to reproduce a few MD-80 airframes. I believe TWA was flying a few of them, and may even have transitioned to AA. It appears the ARJ21's "borrowed" more than a lot from that venture.

 

[fltguymk]

WT, there's no need to post immature nonsense like this, unless you really are just 13 years old.

When you stick to discussing the topic instead of constantly swiping at other posters, your perceived maturity level (and others' tolerance for your long-winded diatribes) increases dramatically.

I am beginning to believe we should just turn over this Forum to E and WT. They always know what is best/factually correct/anything and everything when it comes to AA.

 

[Duke787]

I hope they get them because what they dont want to pay us on the front end we can get on the back end with OT.

Like Pratts are known for oil leaks Airbus is known for hydraulic leaks. We were sad to see the A-300 leave, we figured we would lose a lot of OT however the 767's and 757s are proving to be nearly as bountiful.

I agree with you Bob, that we should help the company out as much as possible in these challenging times, by working as much OT as the company needs. Our local union said that maint productivity system wide is up to it's highest levels sense 2003.

Plus it would be nice to have experiance on an A320 a very popular a/c around the world. Just in case AA continues not to value our work and we can go to a company that does.

 

[787nightmare]

Many mechs I've spoken with (exUnited, Frontier, NWA)say the A320 is a decent enough aircraft(and it does have some neat designs on it, I wk'd them while at NWA), but the construction of the aircraft just isn't what a Boeing is. The Boeings have a beefy structure engineered in them, which equates to durability. Operators of Airbus aircraft also have to invest in NUMEROUS special tooling for removal of components/fasteners on those planes. Clearly, a lot of companies and folks in EU wanted to get in on the tooling gravy train with Abus aircraft. Also, many of the customers that have ordered A318/19/20/21s have been getting very favorable pricing on those planes. Which might explain why you see so many at start up carriers. I believe, but have no real proof, that Abus makes offers to carriers that they simply can't get with Boeing.

IMO,(all but announced in press release)...Boeing will make a 737 replacement. The plane will be constructed in similair fashion as the 787 was, but much more of it will in-house. And I believe it will look much like the a scaled down 787 in styling. Said to be a CFRP fusleage, but with alum/alloy wings w/ CF hi-lift, control surfaces. Probably be twin aisle, as carriers have been pleading for. And from what I read, GE, RR and Pratt engines will be offered as choices.(party over for GE-CFM/snecma monoploy) Boeing has quietly admitted they screwed up outsourcing as much as they did on the 787. They now have valuable(and expensive)experience with this type of construction/process.
But it will be interesting to see how much stays in WA. Boeing wants OUT of the state of WA. Asap...Boeing stated they invision a central assembly plant(not in WA, though the state politicians are lobbying hard for them to build the plane here....<good luck with that>...)with it's partners having plants close by to support the program.
Hand writing's been on the wall for years around here.

 

[FA Mikey]

I am beginning to believe we should just turn over this Forum to E and WT. They always know what is best/factually correct/anything and everything when it comes to AA.

You are 1/2 right

 

[Hopeful]

IMO,(all but announced in press release)...Boeing will make a 737 replacement. The plane will be constructed in similair fashion as the 787 was, but much more of it will in-house. And I believe it will look much like the a scaled down 787 in styling. Said to be a CFRP fusleage, but with alum/alloy wings w/ CF hi-lift, control surfaces. Probably be twin aisle, as carriers have been pleading for. And from what I read, GE, RR and Pratt engines will be offered as choices.(party over for GE-CFM/snecma monoploy) Boeing has quietly admitted they screwed up outsourcing as much as they did on the 787. They now have valuable(and expensive)experience with this type of construction/process.
But it will be interesting to see how much stays in WA. Boeing wants OUT of the state of WA. Asap...Boeing stated they invision a central assembly plant(not in WA, though the state politicians are lobbying hard for them to build the plane here....<good luck with that>...)with it's partners having plants close by to support the program.
Hand writing's been on the wall for years around here.

Problem is, it will be years before a 737 replacement his the tarmac, let alone a redsigned 737.
As for Boeing moving out of WA....Nothing will happen until the lawsuit against the NLRB by Boeing is successful. In the end it probably will be if it gets to the Supreme Court. Then you will begin to see a shift of manufacturing to South Carolina.

 

[737823]

Problem is, it will be years before a 737 replacement his the tarmac, let alone a redsigned 737.
As for Boeing moving out of WA....Nothing will happen until the lawsuit against the NLRB by Boeing is successful. In the end it probably will be if it gets to the Supreme Court. Then you will begin to see a shift of manufacturing to South Carolina.

That's just too bad for the IAM-represented employees for not offering concessions to make them competitive. It's also the fault of the high taxes and irresponsible government in the Puget Sound area. Don't get me wrong-Seattle is a great place but if Boeing can relocate to South Carolina more power to them.

Josh

 

[Hopeful]

That's just too bad for the IAM-represented employees for not offering concessions to make them competitive. It's also the fault of the high taxes and irresponsible government in the Puget Sound area. Don't get me wrong-Seattle is a great place but if Boeing can relocate to South Carolina more power to them.

Josh

Ohhh? Is there another American commercial airplane manufacturer somewhere that we need to compete with?
You must mean compete with Airbus whose wrokers enjoy stricter work rules, more time off, etc? Is that what you mean? Compete with Airbus?

HOW ABOUT THIS PRO MANAGEMENT BOY...................HOWSABOUT BOEING BUILD AN AIRLINER A LITTLE SMALLER THAN THE 737 TO COMPETE WITH THE A319 OR EVEN A LARGER REGIONAL?
HOW ABOUT THAT FOR BEING COMPETIVE?
WHY AREN'T YOU CRITICIZING THE BOEING EXECUTIVE FOR MAKING A SMALLER HAUL AIRCRAFT?

Once again, another another pro management ilk rears his ugly head...It's always labor's fault...isn't it?
Management never makes mistakes and bad decisions..always labor....typical anti-worker mantra..

Guess what? it was proven on VIDEO that a Boeing executive made the statement that they picked a right to work state BECAUSE of the strike! It was payback!

That is agains the law..
Had the arsewipe executive said nothing,,,the plant would be up and running already...

I guess you have no problem with the strong unions in Europe with their stricter and more worker/safety friendly rules.....

it's funny how the critics are saying Boeing has a right to build a plant where they want,,,which they do.. But doing so in retaliation is against the law.

 

[eolesen]

I'm sure it was only the strike that triggered the decision to find a RTW state... All the additional political support for the tanker bid that was garnered by offering to stimulating another region's economy had NOTHING to do with that decision....

 

[777 fixer]

I talked with a friend at one of the manufacturers about this.... his take is AA is using Airbus as a whipping horse to get Boeing to move on the 797, and there's always more to the story with most of the Airbus orders and MOU's announced here this week. AA still seems to have decent access to financing. I suspect B6, AirAsiaX and Taca have some access, but that's probably not the case for the other carriers....

There's some truth to the opinion Boeing got shellacked this week, but Airbus has a habit of saving up orders for the Paris event, whereas Boeing tends not to flaunt their order book in the same way.

Airbus offering up a reengined A320 should tell us they are still feeling the affects of the A380 debacle and have their plate full with the A350. If Boeing had not made such a mess with the 787 program they would be in a much better position to stick to Airbus by offering up a whole new design. Unfortanelty it appears the MD way of doing business has infected Boeing.

 

[777 fixer]

Now that RyanAir has taken the plunge with Comac, that's being seen a more viable option than it was two weeks ago. Again, I'm a skeptic there -- the leap of faith they took on Fokker 20 years ago shouldn't be forgotten, and Comac has yet to deliver anything yet.

Along with not having delivered an aircraft yet they do not have the product support network that Boeing and Airbus has. Something you do not set up overnight.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Airbus offering up a reengined A320 should tell us they are still feeling the affects of the A380 debacle and have their plate full with the A350. If Boeing had not made such a mess with the 787 program they would be in a much better position to stick to Airbus by offering up a whole new design. Unfortanelty it appears the MD way of doing business has infected Boeing.

Can't say re: the "MD" way but for certain was the foolish (to put it mildly) attempt to conduct R&D far from home in a foreign country while trying to run a production line in Renton. A company MUST do its own R&D then then PROVEN design can be produced anywhere else - step one was ignored by Boeing's educated idiots, throwing a family-sized monkey wrench in all successive steps.

I'm not convinced the 78 will meet Boeing's standards - it will probably just "barely" get its "OK" papers from the FFA and anymore, that's not a helluva compliment.

If this isn't a "hurry up" ploy on the part of American, what does anyone know about the 320/321 aircraft? Are they prone to cracking like the 300 and 310 series?

Much new fixturing to be built for the geared fan motor from Pratt if they go this way - should be interesting.

 

[eolesen]

If this isn't a "hurry up" ploy on the part of American, what does anyone know about the 320/321 aircraft? Are they prone to cracking like the 300 and 310 series?

A guy I know in capacity planning at one airline says they're lamenting the decision to dump the 757 in favor of cheaper 321s. They just don't have the same mission capability, and the service life is clearly going to be 5-9 years shorter than the Boeings...

 

[FWAAA]

Some airliners.net kiddies have claimed that the A321NEO will have substantially longer range than the current short-legged A320 and A321; I'll believe that when I see it. I truly doubt that A321NEOs will fly from the west coast to Hawai'i, but perhaps i'm just too skeptical.