EADS Sees US Airways Emerging As a Strong Buyer...

[exjetgurl]

Well, don't worry about US Airways. I'd dare say the company has one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel courtesy of a few monkey wrenches.

Cripe, if you don't have faith in the fleet, why bother? Why stay? It's nice to see professional mechanics on an Internet forum stating the core product of the airline is flawed. We don't stand a rat's a$$. Where is the common sense? It ain't here. C-ya.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Exjetgirl, With the operative term being Ex..Who for a moment has ever said anything about the Airbus being un-safe? Surely to heck I didn't! There is no reason to throw up your hands in defeat...but there are numerous reasons to question the logic of an investment in something to bank the future on..that gives you only 1/2 life service and poor day to day support. We will never launch anything short of a perfect product ever. This you and the flying public can count on!! The issue is the cost of doing so in the long term aspect. If you cannot grasp that? Then maybe you are the one in the wrong business? Those of us whom deal with this seem to understand the difference between short term and long term gains. Fleet age and utilization..and generated passenger miles are the one and only issue at hand , when thinking about long term survive-ability of any given company in our business. The airbus move was about immediate gratification...and a one time balance sheet windfall. Wolf was not thinking long term in any regard with this move. Look back..it was about immediate filling of an order and what does it do for me?...and short term sprucing up of an already failing business plan. We will have to endure the long term ramifications of this way of thinking..But Endure We Shall. Get over it!!..Your narrow views about Airbus superiority are Hog-Wash...but we will prevail until the Real aircraft type replaces them down the road..and replace is exactly what will happen quicker than we care to admit or own up too!! Brute and Brawn has it's place...and Boeing understands this better than anyone. Maybe being on the winning side of a war or two provides a basis of knowledge? Ya think?. From my history books , the only thing the French and Germans have ever been forced to grasp is Retreat and Defeat. Thanks for yet another laugh!!! Before you persue another career?...get a clue in the meantime. Your logic is betting on a losing teams way of thinking....Let's hear it!! Go Steelers!! Right?

 

[ITRADE]

[P]I don't know if US could or should have even considered Boeing at the time (back in '96 - '97).[/P]
[P]#1 US was imbroiled in a breach suit with Boeing over 737-300 deliveries.[/P]
[P]#2 US and Boeing were imbroiled in lawsuits and investigations concerning the US427 crash. US said Boeing designed a faulty rudder. Boeing said the US pilot suffered a seizure and caused the crash.[/P]
[P]#3 Boeing was having horrible supplier problems. Parts were not getting to the plants in time; lines were delayed.[/P]
[P]#4 Boeing already had an orderbook that was as thick as a library dictionary. US could never have received the number of craft at the rate it would have wanted to get them. The order book and delivery schedule was only getting longer owing, in part, to #3.[/P]
[P]#5 The fleet commonality issue was still a bit unknown as the 737-900 which is about the size of the A-321 did not really appear for delivery until late 2001.[/P]

 

[Chock]

Exjetgirl,
Where were you last night when I had to change an Airbus Pack Flow Control Valve for the umpteenth time, due to another E.O. mod., and the valves not being worth a damn? And save the if you don't like it here, you can quit diatribe, because guess what? I do quit, and tomorrow is my last day!!!!!!!!!!

 

[avek00]

Honestly, the Airbus order was one Wolf's greatest achievements at U. Because of the order, US Airways will finally have a rational fleet with a degree of commonality. Dave Siegel's job would be ALOT harder right now if his predecessor did not take that action.

 

[DCAflyer]

There are many benifits that we receive from the Airbus fleet. While they may not have the life expectancy of the Boeings, they are extremely economical to operate. I don't have the figures to a 10-, 15- or 20- year analysis of cost savings versus aircraft cost, I believe the company has factored all of this in.

Because Airbus are lighter, there is a huge cost savings in fuel alone. Part commonality is another major benefit we get from Airbus, not to mention consistency in galley locations and arrangements. The Airbus fleet is quieter and we are able to fly them into and out of certain airports after curfew, case in point, DCA. There is a hard and fast 2200 to 0700 curfew at DCA for the 737's but not for the Airbus aricraft.

The Airbus are extremely comfortable aircraft from a passenger standpoint.

I am not in favor of going with an all Airbus fleet. I believe we should still keep 737s and 757s, and even 767s on the property. But I do believe the Airbus definitely have their place at U as being the dominant series in our fleet.

 

[TomBascom]

But isn't there a valid POV that says the plan is to throw them away after X years and that compares costs on that basis? Some people go with disposable razors others buy blades -- both sets of economics have attractions.

 

[ChairPrefRes]

I also see business flyers requesting Airbuses on routes because of computer power ports...which are nonexistant on our Boeing equipment I believe...Batteries dont last 4.5 hours on a transconn...Many of our most frequent flyers work while they commute...

 

[UAL777flyer]

I think Boeing realizes now that their arrogance in the mid to late 90's hurt them, as well as costing them a fortune in aircraft orders. I don't think they ever truly thought that carriers like US and US would opt for Airbus narrowbodies. Especially when at that time, Airbus still had a lousy reputation for supporting their product. But, as usual, Airbus could offer below market prices because of the heavy subsidies they were getting. So Boeing lost out bigtime. I think that had Boeing been more responsive to what the carriers wanted in a narrowbody, and tucked away some of their arrogance, things may have turned out differently.

 

[TomBascom]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/10/2002 1110 AM ChairPrefRes wrote:

I also see business flyers requesting Airbuses on routes because of computer power ports...which are nonexistant on our Boeing equipment I believe...Batteries dont last 4.5 hours on a transconn...Many of our most frequent flyers work while they commute...
----------------
[/blockquote]

You bet! This is a huge and largely unexploited differentiating factor between U and the competition.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Power-ports....This is nothing special or unique to only the Airbus design folks. This was a package wisely selected by the company itself. Airbus has very little to do with actual interior design..and nothing to do with the manufacturing process regarding cabin equipment. I understand why the business traveler would appreciate this...but the same thing could be done to any aircraft in our fleet. Need an example? Remember the days before the Air-Phones were added to the back of the middle seats? Basically..you are singing praises to a Manufacturer...when they actually had very little to do with it. Got a few extra bucks laying around? Powerports can be on everything from B737's to the Tugs doing the push-back, if we desire?

 

[ITRADE]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/10/2002 1125 AM TomBascom wrote:
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/10/2002 1110 AM ChairPrefRes wrote: [BR][BR]I also see business flyers requesting Airbuses on routes because of computer power ports...which are nonexistant on our Boeing equipment I believe...Batteries dont last 4.5 hours on a transconn...Many of our most frequent flyers work while they commute... [BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]You bet!  This is a huge and largely unexploited differentiating factor between U and the competition.
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Probably one of the big winners on the Shuttle routes...[/P]

 

[Steiner]

AOG-N-IT, how much commonality are you actually seeing between the Airbus'? Are you ending up with sets of early A320, mid A320 and late A320 parts? How are your black box removal NTF rates?

 

[DCAflyer]

Airbus executive foresees optimum jet deliveries, expansion in U.S.

By David Bowermaster
Seattle Times aerospace reporter


STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
Philippe Camus, co-CEO of Airbus parent EADS, speaks in Seattle yesterday.



The leader of Boeing's European rival made a rare visit to Seattle yesterday and reaffirmed his belief Airbus will deliver 300 jets in both 2002 and 2003, even though some aerospace analysts predict as few as 250 airplanes will roll out of Boeing factories next year.
Philippe Camus, co-chief executive of the European Aeronautic Defence & Space, the parent company of Airbus, also said EADS is evaluating sites for a Mississippi factory that will customize European-built helicopters for the U.S. Coast Guard, and the company is looking for other ways to expand its industrial footprint in this country.

This is something we have decided to do, Camus said. Now the organization is evaluating opportunities.

The Mississippi plant will employ more than 100 people, Camus said. The helicopter work is part of a multibillion dollar program to modernize Coast Guard ships, aircraft and communications. EADS is a member of a Lockheed Martin-led team that beat Boeing for the contract.

Camus' visit was the final leg of a brief West Coast tour during which he called for greater trans-Atlantic aerospace cooperation and improved foreign access to the U.S. defense market.

EADS was formed three years ago through the merger of three of Europe's largest aerospace companies: Aerospatiale Matra of France; DaimlerChrysler Aerospace of Germ- any; and CASA of Spain — formerly government-owned ventures that have been privatized in recent years.

The government of France still owns 15 percent of EADS, and the government of Spain owns another 5 percent. DaimlerChrysler is the largest shareholder, with 30 percent of the company. EADS shares trade publicly on European stock exchanges, but not in the U.S.

EADS owns 80 percent of Airbus; BAE Systems of England owns the remaining 20 percent.

Camus, 54, came to EADS from Aerospatiale, where he was chairman and CEO. Rainier Hertrich, formerly of DaimlerChrysler Aerospace, is his co-CEO at EADS.

Discussing the troubled airline industry, Camus said even if some customers delay or cancel orders, Airbus has enough cushion to hit its 2003 delivery target.

We have in the order book already confirmed orders for 2003 for more than 300 aircraft, so we are not just dreaming about potential orders, Camus said.

He also dismissed persistent assertions that EADS — and, by extension, Airbus — is a tool of European governments.

We are reporting (our results) completely like any other listed company, he said.

There is no relation between the governments and EADS that would be different than the relationship between the U.S. government and Boeing.

Camus hopes to generate more support for EADS by reminding people of the company's already substantial relationship with the U.S. EADS purchases $6 billion of goods each year from U.S. suppliers.

We are already a major player in the U.S. economy, he said. That is something we have to reinforce.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Stiener, If you had daily dealings with our fleet like I do. You would see breaks in commonality here and there. During the assembly process and history...certain things are found to be in need of upgrade before a given aircraft even leaves the assembly line. This is why we use Effectivity Codes when researching a given need for a particular aircraft. For purposes of illustration...I will use our A330-300 for a quick example. The FMGEC Computers installed on Tail numbers 670-673 are of one type..and the remainder due to later delivery dates to us...are of an upgraded design. This holds true for not only Airbus..but Being as well. Researching a part for our eldest B757's (The Ex-EAL examples) may have this item...where the rest have been altered or upgraded on the newer airframes. This is not always the Primary manufacturers doing either. Aircraft are divided up into multitudes of sub-systems...and each sub-system is usually built and supplied by a seperate vendor. Airbus/Boeing are not the maker or the responsible party for an Avionics package or a Landing Gear for example. They do have a direct hand in the insurance of design specification and the certification process for that sub-system. To say that if you have seen one Airbus or Boeing type..that you have seen them all! Would be a foolish statement. Within our own young fleet of A319's and A320's...there is a point where complete commonality goes out the window...Thus creating a need for two different items on the shelf...to accomplish the same function. The theory of commonality and rationalization is a good idea...but it's more fiction than fact when you break it down item by item. Many times I have called NW..or they us about a need for a widget for the A319/320...and many times we fail to connect on a precise part number by mear Dashes or Dots...We are obligated to say thanks for trying...but that number does not work for us...un-less the burden of proof of Inter-Changeability can be prooven satisfied by exact documentation. (I.E. the FAA form 8130) People may wonder? Why does everything not directly exchange? After-all NW flies A319/320's with CFM56's just like we do. Well some of this has to do with how Airline X packaged thier order to begin with..an option list much like Ford or GM offers you at the car lot. Then some changes occure during the actual assembly process...some are altered to keep you buying more and more as well.[----- Insurance of continued revenue.