AC A340-500s almost a done deal

[nycbusdriver]

SpinDoc replies:

The RB211 on the B757 is an excellent engine. Why US did not purchase additional 757's with this engine when they had the chance, no one will ever know.
SpinDoc replies:

Boeing offers a far superior airplane, but the initial ownership cost is higher than the Airbus. The only problem is, after the warranty runs out, the Airbus costs twice as much to repair and operate as a comparable Boeing product. Just like the EMB170/175/190 series, the Airbus is a throw away airplane. US will be lucky to get 20 years of service from the 319/20/21, and EMB170/190 before they have to be scrapped. A comparable Boeing can fly for 40 years.

Well, yes. The Boeing airplanes are probably built to last longer. But there's a trade-off here. In the 40 years that it takes a Boeing to wear out, the technology (read: efficiency) of the industry makes leaps. The last 727 came off the line in the late 1980's and is only about 20 years old. It will probably run at least another 20 years...but not with any passengers on board. Why? It's obsolete technology. The 747-100 is only about 40 years old right now, but those pigs were retired from U.S. passenger airlines decades ago. They're probably still flying somewhere, but not passengers.

The Boeing 737-200 is a great old workhorse. There are a lot of them out there that have a decade or more of life in them. They're sitting in the desert because no one wants this ancient technolgy, and they will likely sit out the last 15 years of the much-vaunted Boeing longevity in the deserts of Arizona. (Fat lot of good paying that Boeing premium did for those airplane purchasers.)

I don't think the industry NEEDS an airplane that is meant to last 40 years because the world will be a very changed place in 40 years.

 

[balloonguy]

Yea well I've seen an SIA A340 up on jacks in a hangar @ LAX. The landing gear came down on final no problem. Trouble occured when none of the landing gear doors opened!!!! What a mess!! Just imagine how much Airbus bent over SIA for the cost of all those composite landig gear doors?? So please don't compare any Boeing aircraft to a disposable, overrated, buy now (pay a lot for it later)easy terms, Airbus aircraft. Those Airbus prices sure look good on the bottom line from an accountants point of view.................that is for the first few years anyway. Don't worry, the bill is coming due at US Airways for all the 'buses we've had now awhile.

You know I don't recall any crashes in the US of any Airbuses except for the American A300 in New York. While I do seem to recall a number of Boeing crashes including the 737-300 Rudder Control Unit problem which caused the US Airways Boeing 737-300 to spiral and plummet to the ground in Pittsburg (Flt. 427) I believe.

The ride and the quality of the A340-500 is like night and day over the Boeing 777. Yugo (777) vs. Audi A8 (A340-500).

Well, yes. The Boeing airplanes are probably built to last longer. But there's a trade-off here. In the 40 years that it takes a Boeing to wear out, the technology (read: efficiency) of the industry makes leaps. The last 727 came off the line in the late 1980's and is only about 20 years old. It will probably run at least another 20 years...but not with any passengers on board. Why? It's obsolete technology. The 747-100 is only about 40 years old right now, but those pigs were retired from U.S. passenger airlines decades ago. They're probably still flying somewhere, but not passengers.

The Boeing 737-200 is a great old workhorse. There are a lot of them out there that have a decade or more of life in them. They're sitting in the desert because no one wants this ancient technolgy, and they will likely sit out the last 15 years of the much-vaunted Boeing longevity in the deserts of Arizona. (Fat lot of good paying that Boeing premium did for those airplane purchasers.)

I don't think the industry NEEDS an airplane that is meant to last 40 years because the world will be a very changed place in 40 years.

Excellent post. Agreed!!

 

[flyingcat]

Airbus and Boeing are not as straight as a comparison as many think. The 320 is wider than a 737. Boeing says it is not noticeable but decrease any room by an inch and watch the fireworks.

The 777 uses less fuel as long as the routes you fly are within ETOPS limits. The 340s engines, while not as powerful as the 777, do produce less ambient noise in the cabin.

P.S. please do not turn this into an A vs B thread I get enough of that crap on airliners.net :angry:

 

[FWAAA]

Buying a couple of used A340s strikes me as sheer lunacy - about as sensible as refurbishing a couple of 707s.

The fact that the current owner in this rumour is dumping them in favor of 777s and 787s is enough to convince me. If you want a small subfleet of long-range aircraft, call Boeing and buy a couple of 777s.

Before anyone posts the inevitable "but the lines are sold out" nonsense, consider that El Al ordered two 777-200ERs in late 2005 for delivery this year. Order them now, and you'll have them in late 2008.

 

[flyingcat]

Before anyone posts the inevitable "but the lines are sold out" nonsense, consider that El Al ordered two 777-200ERs in late 2005 for delivery this year. Order them now, and you'll have them in late 2008.

The sold out is refering to the 787 not the 777.

 

[delta777]

You know I don't recall any crashes in the US of any Airbuses except for the American A300 in New York. While I do seem to recall a number of Boeing crashes including the 737-300 Rudder Control Unit problem which caused the US Airways Boeing 737-300 to spiral and plummet to the ground in Pittsburg (Flt. 427) I believe.

The ride and the quality of the A340-500 is like night and day over the Boeing 777. Yugo (777) vs. Audi A8 (A340-500).
Excellent post. Agreed!!

And what brings you to this conclusion? I've heard 777's called many things, but a Yugo it is not. What exactly about the A340-500 ride is better than the 777? It's a narrower plane, nor does it have the flush overheads of the 777, so the cabin looks and indeed is more restricted than the 777. As for your comment about quality, i suppose that is why Air Canada dumped the few they had for 777's? Feel free to quantify your opinions with facts.

 

[FWAAA]

The sold out is refering to the 787 not the 777.

I agree with you, but I've read plenty of nonsense (even in mainstream media) about 777s being unatainable, as well.

 

[algflyr]

Well, if this is a stop-gap aircraft until we get additional 330's and/or the 350, could it be a training issue? I don't believe the 777 is a common type as the 757/767. Is it? Also, is the 330 and 340 a commom type?

 

[zethya]

Buying a couple of used A340s strikes me as sheer lunacy - about as sensible as refurbishing a couple of 707s.......

Before anyone posts the inevitable "but the lines are sold out" nonsense, consider that El Al ordered two 777-200ERs in late 2005 for delivery this year. Order them now, and you'll have them in late 2008.

They would/are being LEASED, not purchased, from a Leasing Company, or directly from AC. Further, Airbus may be providing an incentive for the deal in exchange for a firm 350XWB commitment. If US followed your reasoning about waiting until 2008 for a long range aircraft (777) to prove experience, they may as well kiss the China route goodbye right now. Finally, US likely chose the 340 over the 777 because they have essentially committed to an all Airbus long haul fleet with the 330/200 and 350XWB. Lastly, the 340/500 (if that is what they get) has a range advantage of about 1300nm over the 777-200ER providing US with more flexibility to visit southern Asia if China fails.

 

[Breath_of_Fresh_USAirways]

Well, if this is a stop-gap aircraft until we get additional 330's and/or the 350, could it be a training issue? I don't believe the 777 is a common type as the 757/767. Is it? Also, is the 330 and 340 a commom type?

I'm pretty sure that the A330/340 is a common type rating with only "differences" training required. The 777 is a whole new type rating. I also wonder if this would allow US to slap the A340 more easily onto the Ops certificate, too.

Also, if nobody else wants those aircraft -- I would hope that US is getting a really sweet deal on them on a short term lease (3-5 years?).

Maybe the operating inefficiencies are outweighed by the training savings and lease payments?

 

[A320 Driver]

I heard today from a high up airbus sim trainer that the 5 Air Canada A340-500s are almost a done deal for USAirways. These must be the airplanes that US will use for their long haul flights!

I think this "high up" sim trainer was just...HIGH!


A320 Driver 😀

"Give me a hit off of that before you put it out"

 

[BuffaloJoe]

I think this "high up" sim trainer was just...HIGH!
A320 Driver 😀

"Give me a hit off of that before you put it out"

Holy Smokes, Parker is now a sim trainer?

For All You Do DoUgIe, this BUDS For You!

Cheers!

 

[N903AW]

Boeing says it is not noticeable but decrease any room by an inch and watch the fireworks.

With the changes that US is making from within, cramming more seats in, reducing seat pitch, etc., I would say that fireworks is an understatement...try nuclear armageddon. :down:

 

[700UW]

Well it made the paper:

AIRLINE TALKING WITH AIR CANADA, OTHERS
US Airways seeks
long-range jets
Airbus A340-300s would let carrier fly nonstop to China
STEVE HARRISON
sharrison@charlotteobserver.com
US Airways is negotiating with Air Canada to buy at least two Airbus A340-300 long-range aircraft that it could use to fly to China.

The Tempe, Ariz.-based airline announced last month that it intended to apply for the right to fly to China with the U.S. Department of Transportation. The announcement was unusual because US Airways didn't announce what cities it would serve and because it doesn't have an airplane that could fly far enough to serve the country. US Airways also doesn't have any Asia service.

US Airways spokesman Phil Gee said the airline is talking with Air Canada and a number of other airlines about acquiring used planes. He said US Airways hasn't received a proposal yet from Air Canada and that no deal is "imminent."

The A340-300, with seating for 295 people, would be the airline's biggest plane ever.

The Airbus A340 is a wide-body plane with four engines that some airlines, including Air Canada, are trying to sell because it's relatively expensive to fly, especially now that fuel prices are high. Air Canada has 10 A340-300s and two A340-500s, which can fly more than 10,000 miles nonstop.

"Those planes aren't in favor now," said airline analyst Mike Boyd of Evergreen, Colo. "But (for US Airways) it could be a very economical plane to get ahold of, though it might not be economical to run."

Air Canada spokesman John Reber said the airline wants to phase out its A340s with new Boeing 777 and 787 planes, but he declined to discuss possible buyers.

United earlier this year won an intense competition for the newest China flight. It will begin flying from Washington-Dulles to Beijing this month.

The U.S. DOT will award another China flight this year. Delta Air Lines has already applied to fly from Atlanta to Beijing, and other airlines are expected to apply.

It's expected that US Airways would fly to China from its international gateway in Philadelphia or from its home base in Phoenix. Charlotte is the airline's busiest hub.

And another:

US Airways to seek Philadelphia-China flightsBy Tom Belden
Inquirer Staff Writer
In what would be the region's first direct air service to Asia, US Airways plans to announce today that it will seek federal approval to start flying next year nonstop between Philadelphia International Airport and China.

Chief executive officer Doug Parker is expected to join Mayor Street in unveiling the plans at a City Hall news conference, airline and local officials said.

US Airways told the U.S. Department of Transportation last month that it planned to join other airlines in competing for the next available U.S.-to-China route, department spokesman Bill Mosley said yesterday.

But the airline had not said previously whether it wanted to start the service from Philadelphia or one of its other hubs, Phoenix or Charlotte, N.C.

US Airways can expect spirited competition for the route, which can be to any major city in China.

Delta Air Lines Inc. filed an application in January to fly nonstop between Atlanta and Shanghai, China. Since then, four other carriers - American Airlines, Continental Airlines Inc., Hawaiian Airlines Inc. and Northwest Airlines Corp. - also have expressed interest in having nonstop flights between one of their hub cities and China.

Delta is the only airline that specified which Chinese city it would like to serve.

Airlines usually enlist the support of local political and business leaders to lobby the Transportation Department on behalf of the carrier's hub city. Among the arguments US Airways Group Inc. can make is that Philadelphia is the nation's largest metropolitan area that does not have direct service to China.

U.S.-to-China airline routes are among the most coveted in the world, because demand is strong from business and leisure travelers, but the number of flights is limited.

Unlike domestic airline routes, international ones are governed by treaties between countries that name which airlines can serve them and how many weekly flights they can have. Under a six-year agreement with China signed in 2004, U.S. carriers will be allowed to offer 195 new flights a week, phased in over the terms of the pact.

In January, United Airlines won a battle with American, Continental and Northwest for the right to start nonstop service between Washington Dulles Airport and Beijing. United plans to start the service March 28.

US Airways would need to acquire a new long-range jet to fly between Philadelphia and China because its largest plane, the Airbus A330, does not have the range to go nonstop. Beijing, China's capital, is 6,900 miles by air from Philadelphia.

 

[etops1]

well i guess it's the 300 version instead of the 500 version. wonder why they are opting for the 300 instead of the 5.