Originally Posted by
ProleOnParole
Looks like they aren't expecting an early rebound for long-haul travel then?
Still it's puzzling to me as well, considering they are positioning their product as a premium offering and the A350s seem like the perfect way to establish themselves in this segment, whereas A339's key advantage, as I understand it, is cost-per-seat reduction partly through additional capacity, which depends on planes filling up, and shouldn't be a primary concern anyway now that the fuel prices have fallen.
Unless they were able to obtain some other benefits by agreeing to postpone the orders/switching them with another customer I can't really see the rationale for this. I'd think doing the opposite and prioritizing A350 deliveries even if it meant having to run them short-haul would make more sense for the airline.
Well I don't think the pandemic is ending any time soon and it doesn't really make sense to top up on passenger planes unless they got a great deal out of it. One would think they might want to do cargo if they want to get some business but that does not seem to be the case (no freighters). Personally would just take the 359 and operate it as a regional and not bother with more 339s. It simply doesn't make sense to have more aircraft at the current demand.