The A330-900 makes sense only as a high density domestic airframe (for a carrier like United). Each case is different

Naw, it doesn't make sense at all for United to have a small sub-fleet of WB aircraft for domestic work that has separate pilot group from a business/operation point of view.... It only make sense from our point of view though....

yes those were the original two orders

but they have since ordered another 60 in 2023 and leased another 35 in 2024. So we must be willing to pay the price is the price currently.

Without 321xlr being good replacement for shallow Europe (looking that way) gotta think we are gonna need more than expected small WB lift. Might need some 330's to patch that hole, or use smaller 787's on that and fill the top lift with 350's. Either way, don't really see our needs being met by Boeing the way it looks now.

Sadly, yes. Boeing has been slowly going to cr@p for well over a decade. It won't be fixed in just a year or two.

Well, FAA to the rescue(?) again...

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/...158236.article

US regulators are formally seeking comment on proposed fire-safety conditions to accept the large aft centre fuel-tank design for Airbus’s long-range A321XLR twinjet.

...

But the US FAA is concerned that the tank’s location and design means it is directly exposed to potential post-crash ground fuel-fed fires, unlike centre wing tanks or optional auxiliary centre tanks.

[QUOTE/]
US regulators are formally seeking comment on proposed fire-safety conditions to accept the large aft centre fuel-tank design for Airbus’s long-range A321XLR twinjet.
[size=33px][/QUOTE][/size]

Can't help but wonder given the pi$$-poor regulating of Boeing they've been doing why they would worry about something that MIGHT happen in the event of a statistically unlikely event. I mean door plugs are pressurized on damn near every flight. Failing to bolt them in place makes every flight a potential disaster. How often are you going to have a crash that would be otherwise survivable but for the loss of integrity of an integral aft fuselage fuel tank?

[/size]

Can't help but wonder given the pi$$-poor regulating of Boeing they've been doing why they would worry about something that MIGHT happen in the event of a statistically unlikely event. I mean door plugs are pressurized on damn near every flight. Failing to bolt them in place makes every flight a potential disaster. How often are you going to have a crash that would be otherwise survivable but for the loss of integrity of an integral aft fuselage fuel tank?[/QUOTE]

to earn back their reputation as a diligent regulator?

to not let Airbus get ahead too much and to protect American jobs?

Good Points, obviously the "Regulatory FAA" hasn't been on their game for some time now. Very similar to our pilot shortage, they have very minimal experience in the FAA nowadays.

I hope we continue with Boeing and avoid the bus, my experience with Airbus is a bit discouraging, however, it was at a company run by a bunch of AA flunkies so that could have been the reason. I'm sure we will be ok no matter which way we go!

In Unity...

I heard it was in the case of a gear up landing they were concerned about the aft center tank. I can see that being something to look at more closely.

[/size]