US Airways back in bed with Boeing?

[flyingcat]

I honestly believe that US Airways and Boeing have something in the works -- but it's got to be EtOPs-type a/c for Hawaii/trans-atlantic routes, otherwise, for shorter-routes, it's more E190/195/175...

I don't see how Boeing can help. To commit to a major 737 order at this stage and for the numbers necessary will not make sense and will hinder us when WN purchases the 737 followup. The 757 would have been perfect but its no longer made so lessors not Boeing will help us. A 321-300 or whatever the designation is would be a better fit for our fleet.

If we do go back with Boeing it will be for the 787 or the follow up to the 737.

If only Boeing had made the 757-300 sooner.

 

[Flying Titan]

Cat,
I have to agree. Any new variant of the 737 just doesn't make sense for US. US is committed to the A320 family. If a newer, better A321 comes along, well that may be the answer. Otherwise, selectively picking up more used 757s probably makes the most sense since that type is already in the fleet. There is no point in adding yet another aircraft type unless it is to replace an entire type in the fleet - and I just don't see US dumping its A320 family.

As for widebodies, well the 787 may make sense if Airbus doesn't produce a competitive aircraft in its A350, thereby allowing US out of its commitment. Of course, the key there would be to use the 787 to replace all of the A330s and 767s - not to add another aircraft type to the mix.

 

[Breath_of_Fresh_USAirways]

Not disagreeing -- just applying some logic and deductive reasoning...

US Airways may be committed to the A320 family -- but there are no delivery positions available until 2008 and later...not that there are 737-XXX positions available any sooner than that, necessarily, but more than likely...

It is a widely held belief that the 737-800/900 family effectively "killed" the 757 program -- these aircraft are comparable replacements for the 757. And it would not be adding "another" fleet type for USA (I believe both US & HP currently operate 737-300/400 aircraft?)

I love the RR powered 757 -- BUT it's a fuel hog, the ones US & HP currently have in their fleets are getting old (except for the 3 ex-ATA birds) and require more and more mx, and are more and more unreliable, and there's not that many additional 757 birds to be had on the used market -- especially ETOPS ready and relatively young, too. The A321 doesn't have the legs combined with a capacity that makes it an effecient or effective aircraft for the Hawaiin missions and/or trans-Atlantic crossings. So, if US cannot get more 757's and the A320 family can't fulfill the mission AND US is interested in new, narrow-body aircraft in ETOPS roles, then that leaves Boeing and the 737-700ER and -900ER.

Also, if USA truly does not need any more "737" aircraft and is so totally committed to Airbus -- why not shed all the 737's and their leases during bankruptcy??? The A320 fam and the 737's having been operating side-by-side at both carriers fulfilling various roles for a number of years -- and it's going to continue.

Also, what about that little inpsection for "scribe marks"? How costly is that going to be on the current 737 fleet? It might make finacial sense to just throw in the towel on this one and get some new aircraft...

I would hope that Boeing can "tweak" the cabin of the 737, though, and get a few more inches to the pax -- the A320 fam is so much more comfortable -- even with only 1 extra inch of width per person -- it makes a huge difference.

I'm not saying US WILL get 737-700ER and/or 737-900ER or some other mix of new 737 aircraft -- but like the thread started -- it does seem that US is indeed "in bed with Boeing" again -- and that usually doesn't mean more used aircraft or more Airbus.

Regarding wide-bodies -- don't forget that US can convert 10 of those A350 orders into A330 orders -- which I would expect them to do -- expecially if Airbus does decide to redesign the A350 and postpone it's launch. (And US needs to get rid of those 767's, too -- it can't be effecient to keep a fleet-type of 10 aircraft around...) Since US already has A330's -- that would be a nice fit -- as opposed to adding 787's -- which is absolutely an incredible aircraft -- would be adding another fleet type -- is probably not the best idea at this point. But, if the A350 is postponed too long or doesn't meet certain criteria -- that 787 sure would be a welcome addition for passengers and US alike.

 

[Flying Titan]

Fresh -
You're correct that US/HP has been operating both the A320 family and the 733/734 side-by-side for years, but the carrier(s) have been moving toward the A320, not the 737s. It is not ideal to operate multiple types of aircraft designed to perform the same missions. For all intents and purposes, adding the 737NG to the mix would be adding a third type, as it shares very little in common with the 737 classic, operationally.

Therefore, one way out of the Airbus widebody commitment for US would be to convert the orders to narrowbodies. This would save face for Airbus and could provide an opening for a good deal for US. Regarding the 757 vs. A321 issues, you are correct. IIRC, Airbus is working on an A322 which would essentially be an A321 with better performance.

As for the A330/A350, if US can get a cheap enough deal on the plane, then it should go through with the orders. The A330 is a good plane and the A330-200 variant would provide the extra range that it currently doesn't have with the A330-300. Whichever plane it orders (A330/A350 or B787), US should make that the standard for its widebody fleet. As you rightly point out, there is no benefit to having just ten of a particular aircraft type in a fleet.

 

[TheWatcher]

Are the 767 and 757 not sister ships...............

 

[700UW]

Pilotwise they are.

 

[TheWatcher]

Pilotwise they are.

isnt that half the battle?

 

[Flying Titan]

Unfortunately, Boeing's not making either anymore. However, for the time being, maybe that's an argument for keeping those aging 767s a little longer. Still, I think the negatives outweigh the positives in that argument - mtc, fuel burn, etc.

Seems to me that for widebody ops, transitioning to a single type is the most efficient plan going forward. Whether its the A330/A350 (at an attractive purchase price) or the B787, the key is to head in that direction.

If the A322 develops, then it may eventually make sense as a replacement for the B757, as well.

 

[700UW]

The 767 is still in production, and the KC767 if order by the USAF will keep the line going.

Boeing has delivered three commerical 767s all ready this year and four more or on order.

As matter of fact a KC767 just rolled off the line for the Italian Air Force.

 

[SoftLanding]

Unfortunately, Boeing's not making either anymore. However, for the time being, maybe that's an argument for keeping those aging 767s a little longer. Still, I think the negatives outweigh the positives in that argument - mtc, fuel burn, etc.

Seems to me that for widebody ops, transitioning to a single type is the most efficient plan going forward. Whether its the A330/A350 (at an attractive purchase price) or the B787, the key is to head in that direction.

If the A322 develops, then it may eventually make sense as a replacement for the B757, as well.

The A322 would likely be our choice; extra room for pax, would be able to fly high/hot (South America), and have the range to replace the B757 on thin European routes.

 

[FCYTravis]

And that KC767 controversy is the only thing that provides a shred of hope for another new 767. That airframe is a 30-year-old dinosaur. No question that if it wasn't for politics, we'd have Airbus tankers for the Air Force already.

 

[ClueByFour]

And that KC767 controversy is the only thing that provides a shred of hope for another new 767. That airframe is a 30-year-old dinosaur. No question that if it wasn't for politics, we'd have Airbus tankers for the Air Force already.

First 767 went into commercial service in 1982. First A320 went into service in 1988. If US ditches the 767s because of the age of the airframe design, it stands to reason the 320 series won't be far behind.

Assuming that Airbus cannot get their crap together on the 350 (likely), the best solution for US is to replace the existing 733/734 fleet with some combination of A320 series (sorry, BoeingBoy) and E190/195 (sorry ALPA), keep the 757s for long thin ETOPS missions and go with the 787 for everything else. Failing that, convert the 350 orders to 332 orders for longer/thinner oceanic ops and accept the inferior performance of the 330.

 

[flyingcat]

The 767 is not an option for airlines. Absolutely no airline is going to be ordering 767s in big numbers at this date without dumping them in a few years. The 767 for all due purposes is an endangered species when it comes to frontline pax service. The charters and cargo carriers will be their primary market. The 787 is a much better deal and is around the same list price.

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

<_<

 

[FCYTravis]

First 767 went into commercial service in 1982. First A320 went into service in 1988. If US ditches the 767s because of the age of the airframe design, it stands to reason the 320 series won't be far behind.

I wasn't speaking of ditching existing planes, I was talking about new acquisitions.

But anyway, the 767 is an entire design generation old, having been surpassed in technology by the A330 and 777. The A320 may be getting long in the tooth, but it's still a "current-generation" narrowbody - until the 737-Next Next Generation