|
|
Originally Posted by flyallnite
(Post 1629768)
... so if it's way cheaper than a 777, burns less gas, and carries more, it's not making money because........????
|
IDK either. Maybe the routes suck, maybe the original price was too high. Maybe it just sucks. But George's numbers would indicate otherwise...
|
Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
(Post 1629761)
No we ever buy another 4-holer.
I'll give it about a 5% chance of happening. |
Would the A340 be a common category with her little sister? That could put some icing on the cake for RA.
|
Originally Posted by flyallnite
(Post 1629774)
IDK either. Maybe the routes suck, maybe the original price was too high. Maybe it just sucks. But George's numbers would indicate otherwise...
|
Originally Posted by Wilbur Wright
(Post 1629786)
Would the A340 be a common category with her little sister? That could put some icing on the cake for RA.
|
It is a common type with the 330. But I have a hard time believing it burns less than a 777.
|
Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
(Post 1629790)
It is a common type with the 330. But I have a hard time believing it burns less than a 777.
He said it burns more than a 777. But the added bonus WOULD be that since it is a common category we would need fewer pilots. :eek: |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1629792)
He said it burns more than a 777. But the added bonus WOULD be that since it is a common category we would need fewer pilots. :eek:
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1629785)
George's numbers are a pipe dream. (And I think his fuel consumption numbers are suspect) You can make a similar argument for those Air India 777s. (And that won't add yet another type to the fleet). But whatever. I'll believe it if I see it.
George is a pretty solid poster with a great track record, but nothing wrong with being skeptical. Believing it when you see it is always a good policy. Scoop |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:15 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands