US Airways to Order About 90 Planes From Airbus, Person Says

Quote:

---

I know because I deal with the adversity of these airplanes constantly from the balance issues with the 321 and 319, or the fact that the 330 is slightly underpowered in the USAirways varient.

---

I know that you do, but still no facts.

Quote:

---

This airplane order should have went the other way. Did I forget to m ention that winter winds mean many unscheduled Vegas stops which creates crew time issues, aircraft out of place issues, and if it cancels due to mx you have to shuffle all over the place.

---

Winds can affect any aircraft in any region at any given time. WX is something that should not be an argument here. You're all over the place, I can't see what you are getting at.

Quote:

---

USAirways is looking to expand and do it fast. Airbus was not in the best intrest of that. Boeing offered earlier slots and the order was on the books untill last night when it dissapeared.

---

My reply had nothing to do with A350's, I was replying to your criticizm of the 32S.

Quote:

---

They had confirmed slots and garuntee on frames which they cancelled for that peice of garbage french airplane that is not even more than a theroy at this point and for all we know with the French track record this thing may take in upwards of over ten years to get in service for US so I think I am qualified to say what I say in this instance.

---

I will quote one of aviation world's well respected CEO's here- Tim Clark on the A350:

"We know as much as we need to know about the plane (the A350) to contribute to the decision process,Clark said."

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/art ... IRSHOW.XML

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Also as another note on the tech side of conversion. Avionics and very minimal airframe conversion work would have been done had the 737 been the choice narrow body.

---

It means much more; training mechanics, pilots etc, fa's who weren't previously trained on the 737 type. All this at a cost. This is why fleet commonality, once again, is very very important to the industry.

Jakub your defending a decision without stating any facts of you're own. Art was dead on when he said if they went with a Boeing product they would be able to do Transcon without a tech stop. This is one of jetBlue's biggest problems in the winter. The fact is the A320/321 can't do a fully loaded transcon with headwinds like the 737, that's fact. You're affection for Airbus gets in the way of seeing reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Jakub your defending a decision without stating any facts of you're own. Art was dead on when he said if they went with a Boeing product they would be able to do Transcon without a tech stop. This is one of jetBlue's biggest problems in the winter. The fact is the A320/321 can't do a fully loaded transcon with headwinds like the 737, that's fact.

---

I haven't read what Art wrote and I reflected upon Hiss' reply. Are all the 320/321's operations TRANSCONs? Maybe they fly on other routes?

Quote:

---

You're affection for Airbus gets in the way of seeing reality.

---

Cheap shot Tommy.

I see no other facts from people who just say "it's straight out garbage." I was using logics of having the same family of aircraft be a huge money saver.

Well do you want the facts. The 320 319 and 321 may not be a weight restricted airplane very often for departure but it is load limited on the airfram for landings meaning that we load and weight restrict our airbuses constantly not for departure in which they are normally okay unless it is the 320 or 321 but for landing. It is a peice of trash. We hurt more passengers with our airbus issues than anything. Also, I would venture to state that approx 80% of our crews are qualifyed 737 crews as a result of the 737 being the premire domestic airplane of the fleet till the frog jet landed and left warts across the fleet. Almost all of the mainline pilots have flown the 737 meaning that they would go in for the 5 dya recurrent and diffrences. As I said before, the 737 is a 737, technichal things are of minimal cost. Avionics diffrences is the biggest change in the MX department followed by the upgraded APU and slight composite diffrences in airframe. Cost diffrences are justifyed and minimal enough to mot nake as much an impact as the res transfer did in March. I can tell you that much. Youi ar partial to the Airbus as I see but the fact is coming from the person who lives eats and sleeps the technichal aspects, operational cost, issues etc of the entire fleet this order was a shot in the foot to the company in the long run. The only thing it helped in is we may be able to containerize some stuff if we choose to get the iption on the airbus narrow body orders from here in. Even that as a merit is debateable becauser in the case of the 321 to maintain optimum balance as well as critical we need 85% of the load for cargo etc aft and we also run into issues with a light bird because we cannot remove first class passengers from that cabin as a rule so what do you do. Oh not to mention the issues with CG on the 319 because of it's size as well. Shes slightly tipsy and as shown in the early days prone to slamming the tail against the ground on rotation. Has not happened in a while but you asked for my arguements. N ow the 737 on the other hand. You can load a 737 maxed out and CG is almost a non issue as long as you can do it without running out of trim. Keep that tail down and save money is my motto.

Just to add a little something here,
The A320 series of USAirways' are decent performers and are certainly good aircraft overall. They aren't necessarily the best choice for USAirways from a performance standpoint. Fact is the 737NG's carry a higher payload , further. The small difference in cabin width is negligible. The commonality with the existing fleet and what we all imagine are deep discounts likely swayed the deal. ( both very valid reasons to get the Bus' )
When USAirways purchased the A321 in particular , they (USAirways & Airbus) promised an aircraft which would replace the 757's US consequently canceled the remaining 10 orders of the 757 along with 30 or so 737-300/400/500's. which were on order for the bad old days of the late 80's / early 90's

It didn't take long for all involved in the company to realize the A321 was not what was touted in terms of performance. By performance I mean , ability to carry the promised payload trans-con , from shorter runways ( I.E. DCA & LGA ) . Then there are the climb issues. When departing LAX, the A320 & A321 were unable to meet crossing restrictions when departing to the west - which is the prevailing direction most of the time ( meaning climb ratio) for the LAX SIDs. This forced a longer westbound climb to allow the eastbound turn at a higher altitude-while the aircraft burned additional fuel . This was at the cost of .... you guessed it Payload.

Bottom line. Will the company benefit from fleet commonality? Absolutely
Did the company make a killer deal ? most likely.

Will the Boeing vs. Airbus argument even end? no way.

The 757's haven't been replaced and or phased out for the simple reason. They have no replacement. Airbus cant come close . Boeing is getting closer but nothing ( except a 767-200 ) comes close on performance.


Having a mixed fleet is not always the desire , but you need to match the aircraft with the mission. Something that US hasn't always done a good job of. The A321's are best on a under 2000NM trip .

The 757's are best left to routes where performance is needed. Places like Vail / Eagle Colorado , trans-cons and transatlantic.

[quote=SP-LPB]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "T-Bird76":d7dc3

Jakub your defending a decision without stating any facts of you're own. Art was dead on when he said if they went with a Boeing product they would be able to do Transcon without a tech stop. This is one of jetBlue's biggest problems in the winter. The fact is the A320/321 can't do a fully loaded transcon with headwinds like the 737, that's fact.

---

I haven't read what Art wrote and I reflected upon Hiss' reply. Are all the 320/321's operations TRANSCONs? Maybe they fly on other routes?

Quote:

---

You're affection for Airbus gets in the way of seeing reality.

---

Cheap shot Tommy.

I see no other facts from people who just say "it's straight out garbage." I was using logics of having the same family of aircraft be a huge money saver.[/quote:d7dc3]

I think this article will sum up that the A350 is a failure before it's even taken off for its first flight. U.S is being penny wise and dollar foolish.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19310792/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

I think this article will sum up that the A350 is a failure before it's even taken off for its first flight. U.S is being penny wise and dollar foolish.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19310792/

---

Coming from the same source:

"Udvar-Hazy added that he would meet with Airbus co-Chief Executive Louis Gallois to discuss progress on the A350 on Wednesday, but declined to elaborate. ILFC originally ordered 16 A350s, but those are on hold following the redesign."

You're putting the nail in the coffin too early. If the redesign is going to be better ILFC will retain its 16 orders which were just a taste of what they are able to order in the future. I think that Udvar-Hazy is too street(industry) smart to look at something that is"failure before it's even taken off for its first flight," but guess what he had a look and he's got 16 frames. They are on hold however, but for a commitment to be made from "the man of the industry" is something to look at.

Listen to the voices of experts and not to the criticism of the media, which is becoming a trendy, but very easy to get drawn into.

Exactly, look at what Udvar-Hazy is saying, he just ordered 50 more, making that 74 firm from IFLC and hes STILL talking to Boeing about more.

The A350, he has 16 on hold.... That is nothing, and its on hold!

Also, just look at what the true experts (the airlines) are saying... Boeing 787 orders are what now, 648 firm? Airbus A350 firm? 127.

Airlines have spoken, the 787 is the winner.

You need to get your head out of Airbuses ass and see the facts, sorry, but that is the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nwafan20

Also, just look at what the true experts (the airlines) are saying... Boeing 787 orders are what now, 648 firm? Airbus A350 firm? 127.

---

How long has the A350XWB been on the market? Do you expect to market a plane in 6 months or so, whith data still being specified?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nwafan20

You need to get your head out of Airbuses ass and see the facts, sorry, but that is the truth.

---

You need to start seeing the industry in a more critical way. Not from a standpoint of one aircraft manufacturer. You are not even letting Airbus prove what the aircraft is able to do, but of course saying that it's garbage is easy. Very premature and yet so extreme in beliefs that it drives me to think that you're level of thinking is very primitive. I'll break the news to you now, there need to be more than 1 aircraft manufacturers around the world, there can't be one. Airlines need to be considered as the true beneficiaries of competition. I will stand by many decisions made by airlines around the world to order 787's, for example NH, CO, QF. Yet you find it as a horrible ice breaker and it's hard to comprehend that there can't be ONLY 1 plane manufacturer. In the case of US I am glad of the choice they made, because this is the product they needed. Find some respect for those in charge of the company. There is team of people working in choosing an aircraft not a single guru. US got the deal best for them, so be it. All in all wherever you look around this board the place is filled with malcontents, people who show they're true character by simply complaining like old ladies. JetBlue, 9 hour delay, oh they airline is gone it sucks, dead! Well guess what terminals are filled with passengers willing to give their business to them. Things happen, but you make such a huge hype of a single incident, that you don't remember the positives but rather give way to negatives. One day this one-mindedness will have its outcomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nwafan20

You need to get your head out of Airbuses ass and see the facts, sorry, but that is the truth.

---

You see it your way try to see it the other way... Very blunt response, however I won't reply to its low level.

[quote=SP-LPB]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "T-Bird76":07966

I think this article will sum up that the A350 is a failure before it's even taken off for its first flight. U.S is being penny wise and dollar foolish.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19310792/

---

Coming from the same source:

"Udvar-Hazy added that he would meet with Airbus co-Chief Executive Louis Gallois to discuss progress on the A350 on Wednesday, but declined to elaborate. ILFC originally ordered 16 A350s, but those are on hold following the redesign."

You're putting the nail in the coffin too early. If the redesign is going to be better ILFC will retain its 16 orders which were just a taste of what they are able to order in the future. I think that Udvar-Hazy is too street(industry) smart to look at something that is"failure before it's even taken off for its first flight," but guess what he had a look and he's got 16 frames. They are on hold however, but for a commitment to be made from "the man of the industry" is something to look at.

Listen to the voices of experts and not to the criticism of the media, which is becoming a trendy, but very easy to get drawn into.[/quote:07966]

Its funny Jakub how your grasping at air here... 600 orders to less then 100, I'm no math major but it seems the industry has spoken, 500 plus airframes more then the A350. Numbers don't lie mate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SP-LPB

How long has the A350XWB been on the market? Do you expect to market a plane in 6 months or so, whith data still being specified?

---

October 6, 2005 the A350 was launched(I don't care about the XWB, the orders for that were mostly transfered to the XWB)

The Boeing 787 (still called the 7e7 at this point) was fully launched on April 26, 2004.

Lets do the math:

787: 38 months, 648 orders

A350: 21 months: 127 orders

MATH CLASS TIME!!!

787: 648/38= 17.053 orders/month

A350 127/21= 6.04 orders/month

It doesn't take a math wizz to figure this out. Even the largest Airbus supporters admit the 787 is a superior plane.

Quote:

---

You need to start seeing the industry in a more critical way. Not from a standpoint of one aircraft manufacturer. You are not even letting Airbus prove what the aircraft is able to do, but of course saying that it's garbage is easy. Very premature and yet so extreme in beliefs that it drives me to think that you're level of thinking is very primitive. I'll break the news to you now, there need to be more than 1 aircraft manufacturers around the world, there can't be one. Airlines need to be considered as the true beneficiaries of competition. I will stand by many decisions made by airlines around the world to order 787's, for example NH, CO, QF. Yet you find it as a horrible ice breaker and it's hard to comprehend that there can't be ONLY 1 plane manufacturer. In the case of US I am glad of the choice they made, because this is the product they needed. Find some respect for those in charge of the company. There is team of people working in choosing an aircraft not a single guru. US got the deal best for them, so be it. All in all wherever you look around this board the place is filled with malcontents, people who show they're true character by simply complaining like old ladies. JetBlue, 9 hour delay, oh they airline is gone it sucks, dead! Well guess what terminals are filled with passengers willing to give their business to them. Things happen, but you make such a huge hype of a single incident, that you don't remember the positives but rather give way to negatives. One day this one-mindedness will have its outcomes.

---

I do look at the industry as a whole. I may have a favorite airplane maker, but I do admit Boeings mistakes, and Airbuses successes. I am in no way cheer-leading Boeing such as you are.

Boeing, up till the 777 were screwing around, not doing anything of importance, that was a bad mistake

Airbus' A330 has been a huge success and its a good airplane.

I would be the first to tell you that the industry couldn't survive on one aircraft maker alone. I am in no way hoping that Airbus fails, I am just realizing the truth, that the A350 isn't the God-plane that Airbus wants it to be.

When did I ever say JetBlue was bad for the 9 hour delay? I don't think of them any differently. They made a mistake, it was a big one, but so what? Every airline does it. That is slander, saying that I said something I didn't.

The A350 does NOT fit US' market, they wanted planes fast, that isn't what Airbus is providing.

I see the market both ways, your the one who has a one-sided mentality. All you are doing is cheer-leading Airbus.

Once again I'm not going to go as low as you do, bringing an excessive amount of malice into this discussion. Leaning toward straight out insults is easy to do and is very childish IMO. But I need to polemize with a few things you wrote.

Airbus A350XWB is a redesign which means that the airframe is completely different. It's not a 330-makeover blunder anymore, it's a new aircraft. As you said the orders haven't been coming for the A350 in the early stage. Boeing had perfect timing as operators around the world were looking to replace their 767's. Therefore the program received tons of attention and support as Airbus was in lala land with the A380. This is a huge asset for Boeing, perfect timing.

Now Airbus has a lot of problems going around with the A380, but the there's a need to respond to Boeing's machine. They hastily redesign the A330 making it the A350. New engines and improved wings that was it, so criticism rains out. Good well deserved. But Airbus went back to the drawing board, as you said a year later. The aircraft was redesigned. Four days later an important MOU is announced for 20 frames with Singapore Airlines, a customer to the 787. That tells me something that, airlines are putting confidence in this product, but they are doing it carefully as it's still being developed. Give Airbus a chance to market its product, as it is doing it quite well. And yes, orders didn't come in as rapidly also do to a simple fact that the airplane was underdeveloped. Slap Airbus for that.

Just as a reply to being a math wizz, remember this thread from far back?
http://nycaviation.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 3&start=15

Quote:

---

I see the market both ways, your the one who has a one-sided mentality. All you are doing is cheer-leading Airbus.

---

Yes, you clearly do..., so I do not cheer Airbus again I will quote myself, clearly simple reading and comprehension required here:

Quote:

---

Airlines need to be considered as the true beneficiaries of competition. I will stand by many decisions made by airlines around the world to order 787's, for example NH, CO, QF.

---

My JetBlue statement was a regression, I tried to show you how numerous people on these boards have a tendency to hop on a anti- anything bandwagon. It's very silly to say the least.

How do I cheer-lead Boeing like you Cheer-lead Airbus. I have admitted some Airbus products are good.

Again, you didn't prove your point with any facts, your just stating opinion. Give us some facts and maybe you would have a bit more respect on this subject. I showed you the math, all you did was give opinion.