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

[Diesel8]

Airbus is not a second rate airframe and the dispatch reliability is eqaul to Boeing.

Not what you wanted to hear, the I am sorry!

Having spent considerable time with the A-320, starting with serial number 300, I have found it to be a great airplane, eas yto trouble shoot and maintain. Yep, its no Boeing, so put that sledgehammer away, will not need it.

U is a newcomer to the bus, if it was so awful, why does Airbus have higher order number than Boeing. Why does UAL and NWA purchase so many? Why do so many carriers the world over buy this product? Because it works!

Does CAL have better than average dispatch reliability, since they are predominately Boeing, more than likely not.

There are probably as many American parts in an Airbus as in a Beoing, so the argument of depriving Americans of jobs does not fly either, no pun intended. Sounds reamarkably like the Big Three automakers call for patriotism and buy American, of course they dropped that campaign, once people caught on to the fact, that most US cars are made in Mexico.

Signed,

One Happy Airbus Dude!

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Diesel8, Are you suffering from altitude sickness or what? The reason Airbus is taking a production numbers lead is because of the false perception of the aircraft being a bargain. CEO's and Beancounters are making these choices to make thier Balance Sheets look good at the time of initial purchase. They do not consider the long-term Rip-off methods that Airbus uses to sell after the purchase support. Sure you can sell a plane cheaper on the front end of a deal...when you are tearing your customer a new-one on the back end of the deal. CEO's and Beancounters are only thinking in Immediate terms...not 10 or 20 years down the line...as they should be doing!! It's all about how do things look during my watch? They are not thinking long term like your average airline employee is doing in regards to Longevity. Dispatch reliability may be on an equal plain for now...but you are not comparing this in an apples to apples manner when you reflect the tangible issue of age. Then you go onto make these less than completely informed comments about the country of origin of the parts that make up an Airbus product. I call BS on your observations Sir!! Airbus is a European product...every part I buy or borrow has other than US roots my friend. The FSC (Federal Stock Codes) denote origin on everything we buy!! The exceptions being some of the Communications gear...and the rubber on the wheels. Even the landing gear is European made. Does the company Messier-Dowty ring a bell? This is definately not an American company...They are in fact the same company that produced the MLG System on our previous F-100's...and History Shows the amount of issues we suffered through in regards to Landing Gear issues...and Hydraulic problems with that Bucket of Bolts Note that the Beluga Transport is not picking up parts in the USA to return them to final assembly in Hamburg or Toulouse. Lastly you made reference to Americans not losing jobs due to buying a foriegn made product. Again , I call BS!! You don't even realize that people are being idled within our own companies ranks beacuse of the Airbus deal. I will sight the Messier Landing Gear System again as a prime example. In past History..and still some to date. We have worked (Overhauled) all our own landing gears In-House Our shops in INT (Winston-Salem N.C.) did it all in regards to the Fokker, Boeing and MDC Aircraft. The Messier System is now completely Out-Sourced to it's vendor of origin. This is but a small example of my entirely supportable views. INT has suffered a number of lay-offs due to type-retirements. The Abolishment of those positions have also created a ripple effect in other cities , due to the High-Senority enviroment of the crew in INT bumping others out to the street. Just because you like your plane..and you are as thrilled to have a job as I am!! , This does not always bid well for Americans in the workplace..or the long-term health dynamics of our company or the other short-sighted suckers that bought into a Second-rate and heavily government subsidized aircraft family. You may try to pose the arguement that Out-sourcing saves money...to a small degree it does , but when the vendor cannot provide a replacement part on US soil?...and the option of grabbing a part off the shelf in INT and moving it to station X,Y or Z. Then you have a real problem. We have effectively lost control of our own destiny...and now we are at the Mercy of a vendor , that has no concept or care about our urgency...or ultimately our customers needs. It saddens me when a person like yourself can't grasp the need for control of these issues...hopefully my previous comments of time and distance factors of the source of spare parts did strike a cord with you? Obviously as heck from your reply...it was about a mile over your head. Planes are like any habit you may have aquired?..If you are going to have the habit?..You By-God better be able to support it!!

 

[N628AU]

AOG-N-IT, as usual is correct, even though I hate to admit because it will swell his head when he gets back to work tonight. Ask any US mechanic who has worked a repair caused by lav spills. Whether it be corrosion in the floor, or bulkhead walls, a common theme is found. Airbus did not apply any corrosion inhibitor to the sheetmetal making up these parts of the aircraft. Result: costly repair in both parts (most of which need to be shipped from Europe), labor man hours, and most of all, extended downtime resulting in loss of revenue. I sincerely hope a bean counter is on the ball in this case and billing Airbus for warranty claims. While it will not make up for the lost revenue, it will at the very least minimize cost impact.

As for the A321, the biggest issues with parts commonality are in regards to the main landing gear (many parts not common, as this is a totally different gear assembly from the A319-320, a prime example are the axle sleeves), and the fuel system. Remember, the 321-100 has range limited to 2000NM, while the -200 US flies gets extended range from addtional fuel tanks. I won't even begin to address the performance issue, in which case the A321 could not get out of it's own way if it tried.

While a nice plane from a passenger, and most likely a pilot perspective, the Airbus is a logistical nightmare.

 

[sfb]

Uhhhhh does that hard-and-fast curfew at DCA for the 737's apply to Delta's 0630 737-800 Shuttle flight to LGA? Or are you speaking of only the older 737's? The noise levels for the 737NG's and A320 family are very similar.

As for the expected service lifetime of the aircraft -- this does indeed matter from the standpoint of depreciation and residual value when the airframe is taken out of service. While old aircraft have little value now given current market conditions, the question remains as to how much value a 20-year-old A319 will have as compared to a 20-year-old 737-700.

My understanding was that there are some significant part differences between the A320 family of aircraft -- particularly the A321. I'd heard that was one reason why jetBlue was unlikely to order any of the A321's, even for its more popular routes.

And laptop power ports aren't exclusive to the Airbus -- CO has them on their 737NG aircraft, and AA has them on the entire fleet (except the old TWA aircraft) -- even the armada of MD-80's.

For those of you who care about your union brothers and sisters, remember that all those aircraft manufactured in Toulouse and Hamburg represent U.S. union jobs lost in Long Beach, Seattle, Wichita, etc. Especially Long Beach, IMHO.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/10/2002 5:39:31 PM N628AU wrote:

Remember, the 321-100 has range limited to 2000NM, while the -200 US flies gets extended range from addtional fuel tanks. I won't even begin to address the performance issue, in which case the A321 could not get out of it's own way if it tried.

While a HUGE fan of the 320 and 319, I share some of your opinion of the 321. It REALLY could have used another couple feet of wing. Boeing doesn't seem to constrain itself with that level of commonality (ref the 767-400). I just wish Boeing wasn't so constrained by it's insistance to keep the 737 as what I refer to as the MS-DOS jet. They have to keep it backwards compatible to Guppy 1.0 for SWA. A clean sheet design with a cabin 6 wider (like the 320), a longer landing gear (with gear doors) and a more aerodynamic 757 style (quieter) nose would have been nice.

----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[757fixer]

When the 757 first came out Boeing offered a -100 version.They soon gave up on it due to lack of intrest from the airlines.Maybe they should reconsider it.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

BusDriver , I share your views in regard to Boeings lack of foresight. You would have thought with Airbus breathing down thier necks since the mid to late 70's..Boeing would have expanded thier minds to meet the challenge in a much better capacity. The term complacent comes to mind. Boeing un-like the company they absorbed (McDonnell Douglas) always left room to alter or extend an existing airframe. Like I spoke of during earlier segments of this thread..MDC made great strides..and lasting impacts on the industry with the DC-8 and DC-9 series...even the DC-10 was nicely evolved beyond the origional -10 Series. This airframe would have seen even greater utilization and larger sales figures...had the McDonnell end of the marketing and sales department known how to address Airlines instead of approaching them like they were thier military contracts. The book Birds of Prey happens to address these very issues.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/10/2002 9:37:41 PM 757fixer wrote:

When the 757 first came out Boeing offered a -100 version.They soon gave up on it due to lack of intrest from the airlines.Maybe they should reconsider it.
----------------
[/blockquote]

I'd heard that. Any other info on the specs? The prob I'd see with the 757-100 is too many dang wheels (not cheap enough). I wouldn't think they'd reconsider it either. Boeing could care less if pilots go deaf

 

[757fixer]

Go to the 757 page at aerospaceweb.org.They say it was to have been a 150 seat version.I'll post more info when I find it.

 

[ref80]

[BR][STRONG]Busdrvr wrote:[/STRONG] The prob I'd see with the 757-100 is too many dang wheels (not cheap enough).[BR][BR][BR][STRONG]Busdrvr wrote:[/STRONG] FWIW, there has not been an A320 crash due to anything other than stupid pilots.[STRONG]Also:[/STRONG] I always like to ask dumb friends which A/C has the widest cabin: 727, 737, or 757. Haven't gotten a correct answer yet![BR][BR][BR][STRONG]Busdrvr wrote:[/STRONG] For longer haul, the 757 just isn't as comfy as a widebody, and the economics of an ETOPS 757-100 prob aren't good.[BR][BR][BR][BR]

---

[BR][BR][BR][BR]I fail to see your logic([STRONG]busdrvr[/STRONG]) about the 757 having too many dang wheels. 757 has a superior landing gear system for the type of aircraft it is designed for. Boeing just doesn't add extra wheels (for aesthetic purposes)unless they are needed for weight bearing loads. It seems you think the extra wheels are for customization purposes.Again you are skewed in your logic.[BR][BR][BR]Sorry to see you are surrounded with so many stupid and dumb friends, I enjoy all of my friends![BR]The 757 has the 727 & 737 beat by 1 inch at 11ft.7in. What is your answer?[BR][BR]Also CO,UAL,AA and probably NWA(not to mention many foreign airlines) have ETOP's certified 757's. UAL regularly uses 757's on their SFO&LAX-HNL,OGG&LIH routes. So it has to be cost effective!

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/11/2002 821 AM ref80 wrote:

I fail to see your logic([STRONG]busdrvr[/STRONG]) about the 757 having "too many dang wheels". 757 has a superior landing gear system for the type of aircraft it is designed for. Boeing just doesn't add extra wheels (for aesthetic purposes)unless they are needed for weight bearing loads. It seems you think the extra wheels are for customization purposes.Again you are skewed in your logic.

Not at all. The Too many wheels comment is short for the fact that the 757 is a more expensive A/C. The only 757 models that sell are those that offer something more than you can buy on a maxed out 737. Seems like the 757-200 may even be obsolete soon. Boeing builds Jets to be stretched, buy doing so, the bottom jet in a family is usually overbuilt.


Sorry to see you are surrounded with so many stupid and dumb friends, I enjoy all of my friends!
The 757 has the 727 & 737 beat by 1 inch at 11ft.7in. What is your answer?

I'm happy to say I now consider you one of my friends

[url="http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737-900/product.html"]http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737-900/product.html[/url]

Also CO,UAL,AA and probably NWA(not to mention many foreign airlines) have ETOP's certified 757's. UAL regularly uses 757's on their SFO&LAX-HNL,OGG&LIH routes. So it has to be cost effective!

I said the 757-100 would prob wouldn't be cost effective. I think some people would fly to HNL on an RJ if the ticket was $5 cheaper (then sue us for DVT)
----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[Lakeguy67]

To AOG-N-IT, 40% of the content of an Airbus is built by an employee who lives, breaths and works in the US.

 

[ref80]

[P]Bottom line [STRONG]Busdrvr[/STRONG] is that [STRONG]you get what you pay for.[/STRONG] With Boeing having a airframe which is not time limited and Airbus with a time limited airframe, of course you are going to pay more initially, but will recoup this expense later on with a aircraft that will continue to service your needs. Your analogy of a passenger flying on a ticket which costs $5 dollars less on a RJ to HNL, has nothing to do with ETOPS certification and whether or not it's cost effective in a 757. The [STRONG]more[/STRONG] pax you are able to fly for an extended distance is what brings your costs down. Therefore RJ's with a 50-70 pax capacity are a proven cost effective aircraft for distances of no more than 1,000 miles(and 1,000 is a stretch),than you began to lose big time. Narrow body transport category aircraft are here to stay in the transcon,transatlantic and any destinations approaching 3,000 miles whether it be a Boeing or a Bus.[/P]
[P]As far as 1 inch goes in cabin dimensions between the 727,737 and 757 is trivial. What was your point in this?The earlie[STRONG]r[/STRONG] 737 rmodels did have the exact dimensions as the 727,[STRONG] so what![/STRONG][/P]

 

[Black Wind]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][STRONG][/STRONG][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/11/2002 10:46:29 AM Lakeguy67 wrote:
[P]To AOG-N-IT, 40% of the content of an Airbus is built by an employee who lives, breaths and works in the US.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][STRONG]too bad the damn spares arent[/STRONG][/P]
[P] [/P]
[P] [/P]
[P] [/P]
[P] [/P]
[P] [/P]

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/11/2002 1121 AM ref80 wrote:


Your analogy of a passenger flying on a ticket which costs $5 dollars less on a RJ to HNL, has nothing to do with ETOPS certification and whether or not it's cost effective in a 757.

No the point is price is currently the discriminator on most tickets. I'd say with confidence that most folks would prefer a widebody for long flights.

As far as 1 inch goes in cabin dimensions between the 727,737 and 757 is trivial. What was your point in this?The earlie[STRONG]r[/STRONG] 737 rmodels did have the exact dimensions as the 727,[STRONG] so what![/STRONG][/P]

The 707, 720, 727, 737, and 757 share the same Fuselage plug (12'4). The only 737s reported at 11'6 are the 737-100s, 737-200s (who still flies those?)I've heard people say that the Guppy is just too narrow for long haul flying. If that's the case, then the 757 would be too. Any differance in interior dimensions are due to changes in interior panels, and very generous measurements (measuring slight indentations in the panels to get the absolute widest tiny cross section Boeing even has some old drawings which have the 727 at 11'8'' wide. The answer to my question is that they are all the same.
----------------
[/blockquote]