|
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 929570)
You're talking about planes, right? :)
|
Originally Posted by sinca3
(Post 929649)
That leaves some questions on the table for Boeing.
Cheers http://resources0.news.com.au/images...ge-5519625.jpg |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 929662)
IMO the delay on the 787 and push back of our options gives DAL a perfect time line to replace the 75's. Also is there a possibility of a smaller 787 than the 787-8 (210-250 pax)? They would need a newly designed tube but everything else systems avionics etc would have been tried and true by then.....I think :rolleyes: Cheers ps...what's up with the ship on the beach? |
Originally Posted by sinca3
(Post 929672)
ps...what's up with the ship on the beach? Bare with me, I'll go find it because it makes you wonder what the heck is going on right now with them. Wish me luck though. If Airbus wins A321 orders from Delta that would be an enormous coup for Airbus and imo the new 320 family makes more sense when you consider the RASM-CASM goal. I don't really care about an A vs B or Bombardier vs Embraer or Lord help me RR vs GE vs PW... I just want the wisest choice and to me waiting on Boeing is a mistake. And as far as the 739, no way in hell do I want to see that thing without a 2L door to board from. I sat in the very last row of a 739 once and it took so long to deplane it wasn't funny. |
sinc, I'd be careful with the "source" :D on this one but this is where I read it...
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 694598)
RA continued:
JFK - plan is agreed to for T4.... need to buy out 2 of the 3 owners and get port authority financing. we will extend the piers out into where the remote parking is now. renovate terminal 2? build bridge. I missed part of that. This plan can be acted on as soon as 3-4 months. RJ's will be changed to 70 and 76 seaters.. minimize 50 seaters. Along with aircraft IFE and winglet enhancements, Front end IT will be improved drastically in 2010.... kiosks, res, and airports above and below wing. 2010 DL will put tremendous focus on A0 as opposed to D0. Misconnects **** passengers off more than anything... will put large investment into ensuring a/c get into the gates on time. We will try to save fuel whenever possible, but being on time is much more important. RA would prefer that the cost index be solely at the discretion of the CA and dispatcher to preserve on time. 787- boeing is a ship without a rudder... no update to him since 2008. No clue when it's going to fly or where the program is going. sounded quite frustrated and concerned with how much weight they are having to add to the plane.... 100 seat issue- Boeing and Airbus are dabbling in widebodies with no interest in narrowbodies... poor decision. We ideally need a 110-112 seater that can fly without any restriction 1200 miles.... 750 ideal stage length. ERJ190 is too small for this, but the closest current product. C-series- the engine is very questionable, RA has been very dissapointed with Pratt 2000 series gearings and doesn't think pratt will have a reliable GTF. Will NOT be the launch customer for it. --- that being said, as 9's come off line, China Eastern MD90's, although larger, will be the optimum 9 replacement until someone gets their butts in gear. RAH/F9/Midex- We have a legal obligation to continue to honor their contract. They will likely keep the operations very separate. RAh didn't have to pay anything to get those two airlines, they were simply the largest claimholders in BK. OH will shift back to CVG... shuttle america will shift to JFK. JAL- we have a small amount of Origin traffic out of japan. expanded distribution in asia is critical in gaining a larger market share. question about usair and ual: USair has no access to capital- just selling equities, however they have minimal debt maturities UAL- they are through the hard part, but dont have financing access except at very very high rates. We are not counting any carrier out in the future- not planning the operation around anyone failing. We will watch closely and use our high cash position to snatch up slots as they come availble with others pulling back. question about 744- it is in the permanent fleet plan- 11 will be flying in 2010, planning to stay with 16 total. Others will be in mod or CRAF flying. My hands are tired and mythbusters is on... enjoy! |
I have to agree this memo is suspiciously worded and the timing ain't right either. Delta put "For Sale" signs on the 777's when C2K was signed. We have been selling the 737-800's that we ordered and never took delivery of. That said, it is common for airlines to solicit this sort of information in order to stir the pot with the manufacturers, and perhaps motivate them to get off the dime and start developing something more advanced than 1970's technology.
Most of the design architecture for such an aircraft already exists, and as long as the 787 is taking to launch, the heavy lifting is being done now. Scaling the product down shouldn't take much more effort. Southwest could live with a 737-800 size aircraft if it delivered on the promise of greatly enhanced fuel efficiency and dispatch reliability. No company other than Airbus could afford to launch such a wide ranging product line and even they would have to worry about their current product offerings, including the A350. Specifically, I'm talking about a completely new narrowbody, with a common cockpit to the 787, a composite fuselage and the ability to cost effectively switch engines as propulsion technology advances. If I were Boeing, I'd be looking at the 737-800 and larger airframe, to include the 757-300 size. Anything smaller would probably suffer from inefficiency of design by having too much wing/landing gear/engine. And that market might need to be ceded to Airbus, Bombardier, and Embraer, and even possibly CNAC in the next decade, and that might not be a bad thing for Boeing, especially if it means they can be the sole provider for 20 years forward of a completely integrated fleet of aircraft that can outperform anything on the market. Unfortunately, there is no aircraft produced in the world today that even comes close to the 757 in terms of payload, range and +performance+ Most routes flown today by that aircraft barely scratch the surface of it's capabilities. The 757 was designed as a 727 replacement, but they ended up with an amazing machine that has no equal. It will be interesting to see how this void is filled, if it ever is. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 929629)
Is this the story about free milk and a cow again? :D
|
Very interesting....
QANTAS TO LAUNCH SERVICES TO DALLAS/FORT WORTH FROM
SYDNEY, STRENGTHEN TIES WITH AMERICAN AIRLINES SYDNEY, 14 January 2011: Qantas today announced it will launch direct services from Sydney to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) from 16 May 2011, giving Australians unprecedented access to destinations across the United States. The route will see Qantas operate direct outbound flights from Sydney to DFW (as QF7), returning to Sydney via Brisbane (as QF8). DFW is the primary hub of Qantas' fellow oneworld alliance member, American Airlines, and the two carriers will soon seek to expand their commercial relationship. Qantas will offer four return flights to DFW each week, featuring a three-class Boeing 747 aircraft. Direct Sydney-San Francisco (SFO) services will be discontinued on 14 May 2011, but SFO will remain part of Qantas’ network as a codeshare destination. Qantas Chief Executive Officer, Mr Alan Joyce, said DFW will be an excellent addition to the Qantas network and enable Qantas to strengthen its relationship with American Airlines |
Originally Posted by flyallnite
(Post 929694)
Unfortunately, there is no aircraft produced in the world today that even comes close to the 757 in terms of payload, range and +performance+ Most routes flown today by that aircraft barely scratch the surface of it's capabilities. The 757 was designed as a 727 replacement, but they ended up with an amazing machine that has no equal. It will be interesting to see how this void is filled, if it ever is. But I don't think anyone will try to make a direct replacement because the 757 was knocked out by lesser airplanes such as the 738, 739 and I guess maybe even the A321. I mean to make something that equals the 757 might be a waste of effort if the smaller jets continue to hurt it. Think of all of the "757 routes" done or shared with 737s, MD88s and 90s and 320s now. And the high altitude stuff is taken up by 737-700s and A319s. Not saying the 757 is going away by any means, just saying since economics guides the decisions and given "shrinking" airplanes rarely works well (as in 787 to 757 size) I think there won't be a replacement as the 757s exit a long time from now. Unless the A321 or 738 replacement are given massive engines. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 929726)
Absolutely true. It's almost funny that the 757 is mentioned as a 727 replacement, the thing is truly in a class of its own. It's like replacing a 6'1" 215 lb QB that could throw okay with a 6'6" 250 lb QB that can run and juke and yet throw accurately down field. :D
But I don't think anyone will try to make a direct replacement because the 757 was knocked out by lesser airplanes such as the 738, 739 and I guess maybe even the A321. I mean to make something that equals the 757 might be a waste of effort if the smaller jets continue to hurt it. Think of all of the "757 routes" done or shared with 737s, MD88s and 90s and 320s now. And the high altitude stuff is taken up by 737-700s and A319s. Not saying the 757 is going away by any means, just saying since economics guides the decisions and given "shrinking" airplanes rarely works well (as in 787 to 757 size) I think there won't be a replacement as the 757s exit a long time from now. Unless the A321 or 738 replacement are given massive engines. I am hopeful that Boeing will consider this niche when they finally get around to designing the next narrowbody, and build down from it, not up to it. It's nice to fly something that you know will be around when your grandkids will be buying tickets. In terms of shrinking the 787 to 757 size, that's really not what I'm talking about. The 757 wasn't shrunk from the 767, but it was based heavily on it and uses the same cockpit, etc, as you know. Shrinking a fuselage and keeping the same wing, landing gear structure and engine placement is what makes for an inefficient design. That's the problem they've had with the A-318 and the B-737-600. It just burns too much gas for such a small load. I think something akin to a 787 based 757 would work just fine, so long as they baselined it at 757-200 size or possibly slightly smaller, and base the shorter or longer sub-variants off of that. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:25 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands