Why Airbus?

 
Old Apr 26, 2002, 8:28 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SFO
Posts: 1,045
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ahrz:
LH replaces old 737s by Airbus A320 family </font>
Hear me now and believe me later: Much to my dismay, Airbus is heavily (!) subsidized by their various government owners. That translates into bigtime pressure on carriers like LH to "consider" buying Airbus over Boeing. I predict that within ten years or less, there will be no more Boeing metal at LH with the possible exception of the 744 (depending on how the A38X gets off the ground (pun intended)). Or does anyone here know of a good reason why LH never bought an 777. The A340? Give me a break...

MrMillion is offline  
Old Apr 26, 2002, 8:44 pm
  #17  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 41,819
MrMillion: Boeing and other US defense contractors don't exactly operate in a free market either. Furthermore, American lobbying groups are much more effective --due in part to their longstanding existence and in part to the fact that they only need to direct their actions towards one government -- than their European counterparts. There was yet another "Economist" article on Boeing v. Airbus yesterday:

http://economist.com/printedition/di...ory_ID=1098829

moondog is offline  
Old Apr 26, 2002, 8:54 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago - Dissapointed Former TWA Gold Card Holder Current AA Disadvnatage Member and UA MPI Card Holder
Posts: 69
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MrMillion:
Hear me now and believe me later: Much to my dismay, Airbus is heavily (!) subsidized by their various government owners. That translates into bigtime pressure on carriers like LH to "consider" buying Airbus over Boeing. I predict that within ten years or less, there will be no more Boeing metal at LH with the possible exception of the 744 (depending on how the A38X gets off the ground (pun intended)). Or does anyone here know of a good reason why LH never bought an 777. The A340? Give me a break...

</font>
Totaly agree million....there is one reason alone that UA bought the Airbus:

BUY THREE GET ONE FREE FOR THE INITIAL ORDER!

Enough Said!

------------------
It was a love of the air and sky and flying, the lure of adventure, the appreciation of beauty. It lay beyond the discriptive of words of men-where immortality is touched through danger, where life meets death on an equal plane:where man is more then man. -Charles Lindberg
UATriStar is offline  
Old Apr 26, 2002, 8:56 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SFO
Posts: 1,045
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by moondog:
[/B]</font>
OK, read it. Now, please tell me why LH has never bought the 777 (heck, even BA has them)?

MrMillion is offline  
Old Apr 26, 2002, 9:47 pm
  #20  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NJ USA
Programs: UA MM *G. Continental *G
Posts: 860
Air France also has 777s even though the Airbus factory in in France!

Lufthansa is one of the few major European arline that does not operate a 777.

These do: BA, Air France, Alitalia, KLM, Aeroflot.
hsilbiger is offline  
Old Apr 26, 2002, 10:10 pm
  #21  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: EWR/PHL
Posts: 88
In the long-term, they might get down to 4 types.. 744, 777, 767/757, and the A318/319/320/321. These lines fill in most of the range/traffic possibilities.

The 737s may be the first to go in the next downturn.
abigail is offline  
Old Apr 26, 2002, 11:01 pm
  #22  
DH
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ashburn, VA (IAD/DCA/BWI)
Posts: 2,748
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Frequent Freak:
So will we see 321s to replace the 757s?</font>
Is A321 certified for trans-oceanic flights? One of the major reasons that 757 will be around is that it can fly trans-atlantic even though UA only uses for Hawaiian runs...

------------------
ValueConsumer.com Home of Tripple Dipping Online Shopping
DH is offline  
Old Apr 26, 2002, 11:47 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Programs: Alaska Tanzanite 100K
Posts: 3,854
I can tell you for a FACT that you'll never see an A318 or A321 in UA colors. :-)

I've been pretty reliable when it comes to United, so take my word for it.

A318 is *too heavy* and it's not cost efficient compared to the 737... the A321 is TOO Much like the 757, but it's economics don't compare. The A321 is also a different engine, different maintenance requirements, and I believe a slightly different cockpit... so it's not quite like the 757/767 cert (crews are cross trained for both)..

At USAirways, an A321 pilot flies *ONLY* the A321, not the A320 or A319.... not like a UA 757 or 767 pilot can go from one plane to the other..

-n
UAPremierExec is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2002, 12:09 am
  #24  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: West Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,469
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by UAPremierExec:
At USAirways, an A321 pilot flies *ONLY* the A321, not the A320 or A319.... not like a UA 757 or 767 pilot can go from one plane to the other..</font>
Incorrect. First, I am nearly 100% sure that the 319/20/21 cockpits are almost identical. They get certified for the 320 family which includes the 321/20/19 and 18 if US ever goes that route. They can easily switch between these planes. Well... easily but there are tailstikes as paullevi mentioned!

They just can't switch into the 330.

But you are right about the economics of the A318. It's frame is a mini 319/20. It's smaller in length but has the same wingspan. And with the large engines it is just a heavy plane.
chexfan is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2002, 2:27 am
  #25  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 41,819
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by UAPremierExec:
the A321 is TOO Much like the 757, but it's economics don't compare. </font>
In what sense don't they compare? I'm interested because there doesn't seem to be a lot of hard data on the web. However, I will say that Airbus makes some bold statements on its website about the 321 v. 757-200, whereas Boeing doesn't broach this issue in the slightest -- either Boeing is much classier than Airbus or it is unable to massage the data to its advantage.
moondog is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2002, 8:36 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: PBI
Posts: 754
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by hsilbiger:
Air France also has 777s even though the Airbus factory in in France!

Lufthansa is one of the few major European arline that does not operate a 777.

These do: BA, Air France, Alitalia, KLM, Aeroflot.
</font>

Well...KLM not quite yet, although they do have them on order. I believe they start taking delivery next year.
the wide chair is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2002, 4:18 pm
  #27  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Promoted to Chairman of the Most Wonderful Continental Airlines Highly Valuable OnePass Program Security and Ideological Purity Bureau
Posts: 4,129
IIRC, the economics of the 321 are rather poor. Among other things, the bird is unable to do fully-loaded nonstop transcons when strong headwinds are present.

IMHO, it's unlike that UA will bring the 753 onto the property. The 753 is, for all intents and purposes, a shuttle to Florida and the West Coast. CO uses them almost exclusively on EWR-Florida routes; NW will be using them on hub-Florida and hub-West Coast flights which previously utilized DC-10s.
avek00 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.