Replacing the US 767-200s with A330-200s has always been the plan. It was originally scheduled to start much earlier (2010, 2011), but changed when Parker modified the Airbus order to move numerous 330-300/200 frames to later years. It certainly is conceivable that the US 767-200s could be replaced in the near term with AAs 767-300s. Both have nearly the same passenger capacity, but the -300 has/is being upgraded, including adding the equivalent of UA's Economy Plus seating. The real advantage, however would be the extra range benefit. Example (if the route stayed) the -300 would be any easy fully loaded flight PHL-ATH, versus the range restricted US 767-200s. I'd doubt however it would replace a US A330 on any but the lesser premium competitive routes, because of the superior Envoy seating. It would likely do well on CLT/PHL - South America, though.
American to take over USAirways Int'l flying
- Thread starter luvthe9
- Start date
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
wings as far as i know the 330s this yr are suppose to replace the 76s and i believe may be next yr too that the remainder of the 76 are to be replaced by 330s we shall see
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Been told by TLV station management that AA will start 777 aircraft routing MIA-TLV-PHL-TLV-MIA by the end of the year. They will also begin JFK-TLV later this year. (Evidently, AA and the Israelis have kissed and made up over the TWA mess.)
US has been "talking about" a second PHL-TLV flight for a few years. Is this it? Or, will this be the only PHL-TLV flight?
US has been "talking about" a second PHL-TLV flight for a few years. Is this it? Or, will this be the only PHL-TLV flight?
I would expect the new AA to begin flying to TLV from NYC and MIA before starting a second daily flight from PHL. NYC, LAX, SFO, MIA, BOS and even ORD all have higher TLV O&D than PHL. A stand-alone US would not have had sufficient connection potential in those cities, so the only option might have been a second daily flight from PHL. But now, new AA has hubs in NYC, LAX, MIA and ORD, making nonstops from those cities a possibility. New AA will be huge in BOS - perhaps a 787 would work from there.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
batteries not included
- Banned
- #23
PHL-TLV is one of US' most profitable routes, with no competition, JFK and EWR have UA, DL and LY flying out of one or the other airports.
A second PHL-TLV has been discussed and was thought to be coming this year sometime with the additional five A330-200s coming into the fleet.
A second PHL-TLV has been discussed and was thought to be coming this year sometime with the additional five A330-200s coming into the fleet.
I've been saying pretty much the same thing for months.
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,270
- 306
So the issue of the unpaid obligation to the TWA folks has been resolved? That would be great! I hate to ask, but is there a source for this?
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Has it been resolved? Hard to say definitively, but if the US station management in TLV is gearing up for two AA 777 flights beginning late this year, or early next year, one could infer that the problem has been resolved.
I'm not sure exactly what the problem was. I've heard it had to do with TWA walking out on some TLV employees paychecks. In the good ol' US of A, employees can be trampled with impunity by corporate America. In Israel, the laws may say otherwise.
At any rate, I'm sure the appropriate palms were easily greased, and now the problem disappeared. Shalom!
Boeing says it's all fixed and there should be no problems going forward - but I'm wary of a plane so reliant on such flammable batteries. When's the last time the batteries on any other Boeing type caught fire? I am not sold on the use of lithium ion batteries at 39,000 feet.Looks like we've been in complete agreement, as I've been saying it for a long time as well.
Even assuming that everything in your post is 100% accurate, what does that have to do with where new flights by new AA should be based?
No competition? Sure, no other airline flies PHL-TLV, but given the low numbers of PHL O&D passengers on that flight, on average, US faces lots of competition for most of the passengers on that flight, as connecting passengers generally have a choice. New AA has hubs where there are lots and lots of nonstop O&D passengers, and airlines generally thrive when they fly to/from places that passengers want to go.
No other airline besides US flies CLT-LON, but that's no reason to move a bunch of NYC-LON flights to Charlotte after the merger closes. Despite plenty of competition, Delta sees the importance of JFK-LON - it's the busiest European route from the USA. NYC is a gigantic international O&D market compared to PHL.
If PHL-TLV prints money like everyone says it does, then we'll see it continue post-merger. But pre-merger planes to begin a second daily flight from PHL are probably irrelevant now that new AA (post-merger US+AA) will have hubs at NYC, MIA, ORD and LAX. Like I posted earlier, pre-merger US had no other logical hub from which to fly a second flight to TLV. Post-merger, there are lots of places with a lot more traffic from which to fly to TLV (like MIA, NYC, BOS and others).
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,270
- 306
That thread is quite old; here is a more recent one:
http://www.airliners...V twa#ID4959200
There has also been some stuff on the AA page this year:
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/55129-aa-and-tlv/page__hl__%2Btel+%2Baviv+%2Btwa
Quote: " Boeing says it's all fixed and there should be no problems going forward - but I'm wary of a plane so reliant on such flammable batteries. When's the last time the batteries on any other Boeing type caught fire? I am not sold on the use of lithium ion batteries at 39,000 feet."
Boeing had 3 months to come up with a solution and the engineers feel they have the problem covered. Boeing would never stake its reputation on a band aid approach as some have said as that would do irreparable harm to the company.
This issue will be watched closely by Boeing,the FAA and the airlines.
If I have it correct, the batteries are only used for the APU, so the batteries come into play only when the plane is on the ground.
" Boeing says it's all fixed and there should be no problems going forward - but I'm wary of a plane so reliant on such flammable batteries. When's the last time the batteries on any other Boeing type caught fire? I am not sold on the use of lithium ion batteries at 39,000 feet."Boeing had 3 months to come up with a solution and the engineers feel they have the problem covered. Boeing would never stake its reputation on a band aid approach as some have said as that would do irreparable harm to the company.
This issue will be watched closely by Boeing,the FAA and the airlines.
If I have it correct, the batteries are only used for the APU, so the batteries come into play only when the plane is on the ground.
