Fabo.sk

well, I was biting my tongue not to compare to the Max though DC-9 is still a generation, or at least a half generation older concept than the 737.

To operate, once you own them - yes, sure.
But to sell, alongside the A220? No way.

weero

What do you dislike about it anyway? It's abysmal range?

Fabo.sk

I don't dislike it. I just acknowledge it's a 15 year older variant of a 50 year older type, compared to A220.

BA850

Polish link, but LOT to add 3 Embraer E195-E2s to the fleet:

https://www.rynek-lotniczy.pl/wiadom...5e2-20885.html

LOT’s render from LinkedIn:

oliver2002

3 new E295 coming into the fleet. Not 60 A220, but something nevertheless.

aster

Hopefully there will be a long-term shift to move away from Boeing to Airbus, though throughout the history of the airline you can tell that they have always been loyal to Boeing. Security-wise I can understand their decision, but eventually I would like to see a transition to Airbus. Embraer for smaller jets are always welcome.

Harper50505

I remember when LOT was loyal to Tupolev and Ilyushin! Dealing with Boeing or for that matter Embraer is, in the history of the airline a relatively recent event!

That said, I would like to seem them move to Airbus on short haul and then I will start flying with them again which I haven't done since they introduced the Max8.

kemor

Well, the article mentions the acquisition of 11 new 737Max, so you may not be flying with them at all.

Fabo.sk

LOT has been loyal to Boeing now for well over 35 years, which is very near as much as they were loyal to Ilyushin and Tupolev.

Despite LO being not super happy about the performance of their Boeing fleet vis-a-vis reliability, I'm quite sure that there are reasons why it remains the last major European airline, next to FR, who is happy to stay with option B.

Not sure if the talks about A220s were real, or part of negotiation strategy. We'll see. But unless Boeing pull their head of their behinds, soon, there will be no other option than to go for option A.

aster

Let's just say that flying Russian junk was never a choice as they were occupied back then (good riddance!). Scary to think how technologically backwards those planes were back then... and how fortunate it was to transition to Boeing.

Bad choice. They should have focused on Airbus and Embraer for short-haul aircraft. This could change though so let's not lose hope...

A lot of it has to do with geopolitics and security. Living next door to a terrorist entity entails that a flight onboard a 787 is a lot safer and has a certain degree of protection over flying Airbus aircraft. America would not take kindly to a 787 falling out of the skies (for whatever reason).

SK2751

Sorry, but I totally miss your point. How about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malays...ines_Flight_17 I do not recall "America" doing much in this case. Unless, there is some magic with the 787s that makes the government care, and 777 are just unlucky?

BA850

What additional degree of protection is afforded to a 787 over an A350? Is the implication that US or NATO forces would, if necessary, intervene to protect the former but not the latter? Come on

That’s not to say there aren’t political considerations when state-owned airlines make aircraft orders, but the idea that you’re safer flying in a Boeing over Poland than in an Airbus is nonsense.

Speaking of Airbus, and bringing this closer to the original topic, I’d very much like to see LOT order A220s, but I see the likelihood of that decreasing every time they place a piecemeal order for additional MAXs or Embraers (even if they’re leased). It rather smacks of a “try before you buy” approach - though I’d happily be proven wrong.

Fabo.sk

That's not quite fair. Technologically, the aircraft were comparable to their contemporaries. i.e. Tu-104 to Comet, 134 to Caravelle, 154 to the 727... Hell, the 204 which was designed in the 80s for EIS in early 90s is fully FBW.

The problem with those aircraft is long production runs, low production numbers, high fuel consumption (as that was just not a design priority) and compared to western designs, lackluster mid-life improvements. (i.e. MD-80 out of DC-9, 737 Classic out of Jurassics etc.)
That, and of course lack of any widebodies, especially long-range ones.

aster

That wasn't a lucky year for MH in any regard. Just a few months earlier they had lost a plane in mysterious circumstances, and then the Russian terrorist state took out another of their planes en route to Amsterdam, killing all 298 people onboard.

The cost for the perpetrators will rarely be a spectacular show for everyone to see because that's not the point. But politicians pay attention, many more are convinced to take a certain position that is then followed by actual policy changes, so there is a high price to pay for such actions.

The first ever hull loss of a 787 would be most unfortunate, gaining more media attention and ensuing political traction. Especially if you factor in the possibility of a different airline than MH. Hmm...

It was actually an understatement. They were never contemporaries at this stage, not even close. The technological leap with those first Boeing 767 deliveries was enormous, a complete game-changer.

Getting back to the recent efforts to replace some of their Embraer fleet, I too would prefer to see LOT switch to Airbus in what would be a long-term move away from Boeing. Eventually I think A350s should replace the 787 fleet and likewise all 737s should be phased out as well. But a good place to start would be the A220.

As a lot of these decisions are political I'm surprised Airbus isn't wooing the gov't with the possibility of participating in the aircraft's production in some way (or maybe they are?).

BA850

Perhaps, but it would mean a great deal of effort to woo a relatively small client. Airbus may well be content to let Boeing keep LOT if that’s the price.