Any truth to the rumor...

[bigbusboy]

Aren't the A350s coming until 2013 and later? That is an aweful long time to be running a weight restricted operation that may or may not have to stop for fuel even with the restrictions. This really doesn't make sense.

 

[Richard]

MOD NOTE: Please do not start duplicate threads on the same topic. These two have been merged.

Thank you.

 

[roosterfish]

US AIRWAYS ANNOUNCES RICKSHAW SERVICE TO CHINA
Roosterfish Business Journal

TEMPE, Ariz., January 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/--
The anticipated award of US Airways service between Philadelphia and China is official, and flights will begin in early 2009 and arrive 7 months later by foot, US Airways spokesperson said Friday.

The daily Philadelphia-to-Beijing service will be the first China flights for Tempe, Ariz.-based US Airways (NYSE:LCC), the dominant carrier at Philadelphia International Airport. It will also be the first time an airline uses rickshaws as an alternative due to lack of aircraft, high fuel prices, and bad decisions from executives who won't pay their employees a living wage.

Lance Armstrong announced today in a press conference that he will be the pilot on the inaugural flight/triathlon.
🙄

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

I believe the logic supporting the 330 over the 340 goes something like this: two 330's can fly side by side and consume less fuel on the China stage length than one 340.

Now I have no idea if that is true or not. But it is exactly what a person at the flight ops management level told me recently.

I'll say this right away: Should this ever come to pass, those A-330 crews are going to be under a tremendous amount of pressure every time they strap one of those babys on and point it towards China.

I can't wait for the first diversion to Vladivostock. Think that'll make the papers?

 

[bigbusboy]

And the A350 is still only on the drawing board. Guaranteed it will have production delays and delivery date set backs just like the A380 and now the 787. There is something SERIOUSLY WRONG with this decision. :down: :down: :down:

 

[dariencc]

I'll say this right away: Should this ever come to pass, those A-330 crews are going to be under a tremendous amount of pressure every time they strap one of those babys on and point it towards China.

Don't think so. Why would our experienced international crews feel pressure because of a possible enroute fuel stop? If the situation calls for it, they'll stop. If it doesn't, they won't.


Looks like you are projecting your own "deer in the headlights" approach to flying onto crews that don't share it, Captain.

 

[FWAAA]

I predicted a few weeks ago that Parker would do this.

Anybody know the longest currently scheduled flight on an A330-200? Airbus says the range of the -200 is 6,750nm with maximum passengers (dunno how many bags/cargo, etc), so if that range is accurate, it can definitely make it.

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

Don't think so. Why would our experienced international crews feel pressure because of a possible enroute fuel stop? If the situation calls for it, they'll stop. If it doesn't, they won't.


Looks like you are projecting your own "deer in the headlights" approach to flying onto crews that don't share it, Captain.

Dariencc - are you a rookie? There are a zillion reasons why airplanes divert. A planned fuel stop is nothing - I've done many of those. These China flights will be conducted overhead some of the most inhospitable real estate on the planet. It is that unplanned diversion that will be problematic - and will put continual pressure on the crews. And I venture that an A330 would make considerably more diversions than an A340. There is a huge difference between having four engines, verses two.

No, no "deer in the headlights" here. But unfortunately, there's a bit of "head in the sand" there.

 

[prechilill]

Dariencc - are you a rookie?

I believe he just can't pass up any opportunity to sling a little mud.

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

USAirways will never fly any PHL-China nonstop route. Much less with an A330.

You folks can't even reliably fly PHL-LGW with the same worn-out aircraft.

This exercise is a silly diversion of management and company resources when you're scrambling for life right now.

Whatever happened to Chip's 'impressive' umpteen-billions of 'unencumbered' cash when this marriage was consumated?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I believe the logic supporting the 330 over the 340 goes something like this: two 330's can fly side by side and consume less fuel on the China stage length than one 340.

Specific models, routes, seating configurations, and loads can definately change the figures, but LH has found that their A330-200's burn (on average) 4.4 liters of fuel per 100 passenger kilometers transported (metric equivalent of passenger miles), while the A340-300 burns 4.0 liters per 100 PKT's. See LH 2006 environmental report

Novair, a Scandinavian charter operator, says their A330-200's average 2.3 liters per 100 PKT's. Presumably they would have a higher average passenger load factors than LH, being a charter operator (which would lower the consumption per 100 PKT's figure), although I do not know that to be a fact.

Jim

 

[SegmentKing]

I wouldn't be surprised if USAirways farms the flight out to United with a 777.

Problem is, our passengers will be so impressed with their product they'll never book US again!

 

[bigbusboy]

Specific models, routes, seating configurations, and loads can definately change the figures, but LH has found that their A330-200's burn (on average) 4.4 liters of fuel per 100 passenger kilometers transported (metric equivalent of passenger miles), while the A340-300 burns 4.0 liters per 100 PKT's. See LH 2006 environmental report
Jim

Well this certainly suggests fuel isn't the reason. Thanks Jim for taking the time to do a little research. Maybe the logic to this decision goes something like this: commiting to A340s right now wouldn't fit into any fleet plan of any possible M&A scenario. Of course this assumes US won't be sitting out the upcoming merger frenzie. Or, maybe DP just isn't willing to pay market prices for new/used A340s. Who knows? It just doesn't sound good.

 

[sharktooth]

A planned fuel stop is nothing - I've done many of those.

Unless tankering, I would expect every flight you did would end in a planned fuel stop, not that your statement meant anything.

No, no "deer in the headlights" here. But unfortunately, there's a bit of "head in the sand" there.

Real easy to do. I think you accidentally added a letter "t" to the beginning of your last word.

 

[zethya]

Specific models, routes, seating configurations, and loads can definately change the figures, but LH has found that their A330-200's burn (on average) 4.4 liters of fuel per 100 passenger kilometers transported (metric equivalent of passenger miles), while the A340-300 burns 4.0 liters per 100 PKT's. See LH 2006 environmental report.....
Jim

The only problem with LH's numbers, which have been published for several years, is that they really do not have unquestionable credibility unless the 332 and 343 are advertised as having been tested with identical missions, such as departure/arrival airport, route, loads, etc.. I would speculate, for example, that the 332 would outperform the 343 on any short climb out required, relatively short distance route (< about 3000nm). PHL-PEK is obviously not one of those. My feeling is that if US attempts to pull this off with the 332, their credibility as a potential world class carrier will essentially be eliminated - assuming the DOT, under pressure from airlines which competed for and subsequently challenged the route award, don't cancel the Authority. I wrote to Parker and the Washington office yesterday and suggested a public clarification of his current plan because of it's potential negative impact on the already distressed Stock price.