AC A340-500s almost a done deal

[PHL]

I would hope they acquire more than 2. doesn't leave much room for backups when there are maint. issues. If it's a 3x/week flight, then i guess they can get away with 1 primary and 1 backup.

 

[luvthe9]

Hope ALPA has the balls to refuse to fly them, till the contract issue gets settled like United did with the 400's.

 

[AstroLounge]

Why should US care? Let the leasing companies worry about how long they last.

VERY GOOD POINT! I love when some Jacka** wants to argue about how "You should only buy BOEING.....because they are American made".....ask them what brand of auto they drive- ALMOST 9-10 will say , uhhm a BMW, Lexus and the list goes on (and most are NOT American). Airbus makes a nice airplane and many pax PREFER it!

 

[FWAAA]

They would/are being LEASED, not purchased, from a Leasing Company, or directly from AC.

Buy v. Lease - doesn't really make a difference in this case. Modify my post to "acquire" instead of "buy" if that makes you happier.

Used A340s have a market value not substantially greater than their aluminum value, like used 767-200s.

 

[etops1]

Buy v. Lease - doesn't really make a difference in this case. Modify my post to "acquire" instead of "buy" if that makes you happier.

Used A340s have a market value not substantially greater than their aluminum value, like used 767-200s.

just got a confirmation that they will be a340-500's not 300's . the paper got it wrong.

 

[EMBFA]

So which one would it be, the 300 or 500? Which is bigger? Which one do they have 10 of and which do they have 2? Would they really just get two?

 

[etops1]

So which one would it be, the 300 or 500? Which is bigger? Which one do they have 10 of and which do they have 2? Would they really just get two?

a/c has 2 500's. it will be the 2 500's if and only we get the rights to fly to shanghai. we will be doing the same thing aircanada does with the 500 now . they fly it exclusiviely between toronto and hong kong. we would be flying it exclusivlely from phl to shanghai pudong.

 

[FWAAA]

I would hope they acquire more than 2. doesn't leave much room for backups when there are maint. issues. If it's a 3x/week flight, then i guess they can get away with 1 primary and 1 backup.

True, but US won't be flying to China three times a week. If it is awarded authority next year, it will be for seven weekly frequencies. I can't imagine that any carrier would be awarded the rights if it proposed flying fewer than seven, since there are four incumbents (and probably some new entrants) who will all propose flying daily.

One factor the larger incumbents will probably claim is in their favor is that with large fleets of capable aircraft, they rarely have to cancel their premier restricted once a day longhauls like China or Japan flights, since they can always cancel another flight (like one of the several a day to places like London) if necessary to free up an aircraft for the China flight.

Additionally, those larger incumbents with large long-haul fleets often have a spare among their dozens of long-haul capable planes. If US proposes acquiring merely two (or even three) airplanes capable of flying to China, the other airlines will have just that much more fodder to use against US in their rebuttals.

 

[Breath_of_Fresh_USAirways]

True, but US won't be flying to China three times a week. If it is awarded authority next year, it will be for seven weekly frequencies. I can't imagine that any carrier would be awarded the rights if it proposed flying fewer than seven, since there are four incumbents (and probably some new entrants) who will all propose flying daily.

One factor the larger incumbents will probably claim is in their favor is that with large fleets of capable aircraft, they rarely have to cancel their premier restricted once a day longhauls like China or Japan flights, since they can always cancel another flight (like one of the several a day to places like London) if necessary to free up an aircraft for the China flight.

Additionally, those larger incumbents with large long-haul fleets often have a spare among their dozens of long-haul capable planes. If US proposes acquiring merely two (or even three) airplanes capable of flying to China, the other airlines will have just that much more fodder to use against US in their rebuttals.

If US were to code-share with a Chinese airline and they flew the route, say, 4x a week, and US 3x a week -- does that qualify to be awarded the route, I wonder?

I don't believe any of the Chinese airlines are Star Alliance members, though, are they? Do they belong to SkyTeam or oneWorld? I don't think any of them do (did a quick search and didn't see any, anyways). This could be an interesting arrangement...US code-sharing with one of the Chinese airlines...very interesting possibility.

 

[FWAAA]

If US were to code-share with a Chinese airline and they flew the route, say, 4x a week, and US 3x a week -- does that qualify to be awarded the route, I wonder?

I don't believe any of the Chinese airlines are Star Alliance members, though, are they? Do they belong to SkyTeam or oneWorld? I don't think any of them do (did a quick search and didn't see any, anyways). This could be an interesting arrangement...US code-sharing with one of the Chinese airlines...very interesting possibility.

Chinese airlines have their own limits on permitted flights (granted solely by the Chinese gov't, like the US airlines' rights are granted solely by the DOT). Chinese airlines don't get any of the rights to be granted by the DOT. Their allocation comes from a completely separate pool.

I realize that China Eastern has reduced its flying NYC-China to 3x or 4x a week, but that's a matter between it and the Chinese gov't; it's not like any USA-based airlines can claim the remaining unused frequencies.

In all previous China authority cases, the DOT has has no shortage of applicants willing to fly 7x/week, and IMO, 2008 will be no different. If US were to apply for 3x, then its application would be DOA.

Last I read, the Chinese airlines aren't even flying all of their permitted flights. Reasons for that probably include USA passenger preference for perceived safer USA-based airlines and perhaps, a shortage of capable aircraft owned by the Chinese airlines.

 

[A330US]

i know for sure US is getting the -500s, not the 300s. Plus heard news on the 737 replacement, and US is in a hard decision with either A32X or 737 because both have backlogs of orders, so us has to wait.

 

[ClueByFour]

US will not win approval with only 2 aircraft. The DOT is not stupid. It'll have to be 3 or more.

 

[N903AW]

US will not win approval with only 2 aircraft. The DOT is not stupid. It'll have to be 3 or more.

US would not win approval if we had a fleet of 20 A340s, 777s or 747-400s. Our service standards are so pathetic that they would offend the culturally sensitive Asian customer base that we would need to attract. Snack boxes, plasticware, and Calzones would be considered offensive to the Chinese.

DOT will award the China route authority only to those airlines that know how to provide a level of service that is expected - like United or American.

 

[flyingcat]

US will not win approval with only 2 aircraft. The DOT is not stupid. It'll have to be 3 or more.

The DOT does not care how many aircraft any airline has of any type. What matters is how many seats, frequency and gateway.

 

[luvthe9]

US would not win approval if we had a fleet of 20 A340s, 777s or 747-400s. Our service standards are so pathetic that they would offend the culturally sensitive Asian customer base that we would need to attract. Snack boxes, plasticware, and Calzones would be considered offensive to the Chinese.

DOT will award the China route authority only to those airlines that know how to provide a level of service that is expected - like United or American.

I kind of agree, 17 hours of the snack basket thanks TEMPE!!!!!!!