Airbus Order - 320s, 330's, 350's

[Boeing4me]

Got to love the quotes from John Leahey at Airbus. If I didn't know better I would swear that Joe Isuzu closed the Airbus deal this week.

Read these quotes and you will understand why the folks in the Sand Castle fell for the Airbus pitch.

Leahy and the 787

 

[jcw]

do you think they fell for a deal or could it possibly be they got a great deal since airbus is desperate for orders. I still don't understand how an aircraft order to upgrade the fleet can be viewed so negatively.

 

[delta777]

do you think they fell for a deal or could it possibly be they got a great deal since airbus is desperate for orders. I still don't understand how an aircraft order to upgrade the fleet can be viewed so negatively.

My guess is US Airways got one hell of a deal on the A350's. And it fits into their plans of simplifying their fleet. While i'm no fan of Doug Parker and Co., i commend them on holding out 'til the last minute to squeeze as many concessions out of Airbus as possible, smart move on their part. I don't doubt that the A350 will be a great airplane when it is finished. Boeing's 787 is essentially finalized for development, whereas Airbus has the advantage of building on any possible miscues of the 787 by being so far behind in the research and development stage. Either way, both planes will be leaps forward of whats out there now.

 

[DCAflyer]

I believe they will need 2 planes for each city pair.

That doesn't sound right to me. Our European aircraft run round trips in a day. They leave PHL or CLT at night flying redeyes and arriving in Europe early in the morning. Then they get serviced and provisioned, and make the return trip beginning in the early afternoon, return stateside in the afternoon. They get serviced again and do the same thing all over. So why would we need two aircraft for every city pair?

22 does seem like an odd nuber from what they are stating what their intentions are. But the said they have the options to add on to the order. Maybe the A332's will be around for a longer time. And they are supposed to be retro-fitting the 767 so that means they will be around for at least 5 more years.

I think the actual number of widebodies, when all is said and done, is supposed to be 41 (19 320's and 22 350's, plus possibly some of all of the 767's should they decide to use them for Hawaii or the Caribbean or for high traffic city pairs in the states). It makes no sense to replace the 330's any time soon.

 

[FutureUScapt]

That doesn't sound right to me. Our European aircraft run round trips in a day. They leave PHL or CLT at night flying redeyes and arriving in Europe early in the morning. Then they get serviced and provisioned, and make the return trip beginning in the early afternoon, return stateside in the afternoon. They get serviced again and do the same thing all over. So why would we need two aircraft for every city pair?

I believe he was referring to transpacific flights, would would require more 2 planes per route (it wouldn't hurt to have a spare or 2 either).

 

[BuffaloJoe]

That doesn't sound right to me. Our European aircraft run round trips in a day. They leave PHL or CLT at night flying redeyes and arriving in Europe early in the morning. Then they get serviced and provisioned, and make the return trip beginning in the early afternoon, return stateside in the afternoon. They get serviced again and do the same thing all over. So why would we need two aircraft for every city pair?

[

I was refering to the India, China, Japan flights. Just 12 Hour each way would need 2.

 

[ableoneable]

My guess is US Airways got one hell of a deal on the A350's. And it fits into their plans of simplifying their fleet. While i'm no fan of Doug Parker and Co., i commend them on holding out 'til the last minute to squeeze as many concessions out of Airbus as possible, smart move on their part. I don't doubt that the A350 will be a great airplane when it is finished. Boeing's 787 is essentially finalized for development, whereas Airbus has the advantage of building on any possible miscues of the 787 by being so far behind in the research and development stage. Either way, both planes will be leaps forward of whats out there now.

Though I am currently an asimilated airbus dude I was disheartened by the order. No doubt that pricing was the deciding factor. An excerpt from Boeing's WTO filing, published in Aviation Week, showed that in one instance Airbus was selling brand new A-319s for $19.5 million. That is more than half off the catelog price of $43 mil.

Though it is hard to argue against the business case for airplanes that were probably at least 30% cheaper than comparable Boeing models I am unconvinced that the A-350WXB is a viable product. An aircraft with an aluminum skeleton and composite panel skin does not seem to be a good solution.

Aluminum and composites have differing expansion and contraction properties. Composite panels will have to have thick edges where joins between panels exist and they will have to be thicker than they would be if the fusulage was a one piece tube. I don't see how this design can be lighter than the 787.

Unless the price of fuel ceases to be an issue in the future I don't think that the 350 is going to be able to compete with the 787.

 

[delta777]

That doesn't sound right to me. Our European aircraft run round trips in a day. They leave PHL or CLT at night flying redeyes and arriving in Europe early in the morning. Then they get serviced and provisioned, and make the return trip beginning in the early afternoon, return stateside in the afternoon. They get serviced again and do the same thing all over. So why would we need two aircraft for every city pair?

I think the actual number of widebodies, when all is said and done, is supposed to be 41 (19 320's and 22 350's, plus possibly some of all of the 767's should they decide to use them for Hawaii or the Caribbean or for high traffic city pairs in the states). It makes no sense to replace the 330's any time soon.

I think you meant a total of 20 A330's, both -200 and -300 series. Along with of course the 10 767-200's LCC currently has, and the 22 A350's on order. Which brings the total widebody fleet up to 52. I'm assuming your keeping the 10 767's for a little while longer.

I know Parker stated that LCC wanted to serve Tel Aviv, assuming you had the aircraft to run the route. I thought the 767-200ER had the range to do this route, no? If i'm not mistaken, EL AL used to run theirs, and perhaps still does, i don't know, on the MIA-TLV route, which should be as long if not longer than PHL-TLV would be.

 

[TechBoy]

I think you meant a total of 20 A330's, both -200 and -300 series. Along with of course the 10 767-200's LCC currently has, and the 22 A350's on order. Which brings the total widebody fleet up to 52. I'm assuming your keeping the 10 767's for a little while longer.

It seems highly unlikely that the 767s will still be around when all the 350s have arrived. They will be quite old and relatively inefficient. So that puts the widebodies at 42 max. I suspect that the plan is to retire the 333s after a sufficient number of 350s arrive but hold open the option of keeping them if they can be profitably deployed. US can certainly expand their international presence but I have a hard time seeing them more than double that part of the business.

 

[zethya]

.....
I know Parker stated that LCC wanted to serve Tel Aviv, assuming you had the aircraft to run the route. I thought the 767-200ER had the range to do this route, no?....

As I have posted and explained several times - NO, not US Airways's 767s. The 330-200, when it's available, could easily do PHL-TLV however. PHL-Asia/India would require leased 340s, although a 332 could do PHL-NRT, with possible weight restrictions, if the Yields on such a relatively smaller (243 seat avg.) aircraft can be optimized. I suspect, based on their lack of recent vocal support and initiatives in aquiring near term capable aircraft, US is no longer interested in the China award to start service in 2007 and that will go to DL. US, however is favored to win the 2009 competition from PHL.

 

[CynicalResAgent]

This is from the press release.
"The A350 XWB will have significantly longer range and payload capabilities but much lower costs than the A330s and 767s they replace, opening up new profitable markets across the globe to Asia, the Middle East and India," Kirby added."

So it sounds to me like they intend to have the A350 replace the A330 and 767's

 

[DHG750R]

i agree, im not sure why evryone gets a chubby for the dreamliner...its still a long way from its first flight.

Boeing has a very good reputation of meeting or exceeding the performance projections.

Also, speaking of Airbus orders. Anyone have an idea what became of the remaining orders/options for the original USAirways' order , 120 firm/120 to be reconfirmed.... etc anyone remember the famous 400 aircraft order of the late 90's? Or did that go the way of MetroJet after Ch11 part 1 & 2 ?

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-technical.html

Qatar Airways frustrated by lack of Airbus A350 XWB technical detail


Look like another A350XWB customer
is not very happy....


Meanwhile the "737 replacement" may be taking wing about the same time US will actually see the new and improved A350...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...nt-by-2015.html

Boeing expects to deliver 737 replacement by 2015

(I know, apples and oranges, but it does show Airbus' foot dragging compared to Boeing. As I've said before, I'm Airbus fan, but it looks like the folks in Toulouse have, well, missed the bus)

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I suspect, based on their lack of recent vocal support and initiatives in aquiring near term capable aircraft, US is no longer interested in the China award to start service in 2007 and that will go to DL. US, however is favored to win the 2009 competition from PHL.

Why is US favored to win the 2009 competition from PHL?

 

[BoeingBoy]

One of the 2009 awards will most likely go to a new entrant carrier. If DL gets the 2007 rights it will leave US as the only network carrier without authority to serve China.

Since the DOT wants to do the 2007, 2008, and 2009 awards in the current fast track process, it should be known fairly soon who gets what.

Jim

PS - [edited to add] This Av Week article says that the 2009 awards may go to incumbent carriers.....

Delta a Shoo-in for China