Being a relative aviation novice, i was wondering how successfull this aircraft is (in terms of sales, reputations, technical advances), particularly when compared with the 777.
How are sales of the newer 500/600 variants going and is the a330 a successfull replace ment for the 767?
Also does anyone know what airbus have in line for replacing the a300/310 line? i heard of a shortened 330 but nothing has become of it as yet
thanx
rb
By: skycruiser - 30th October 2004 at 07:35
i only gave that for one example, i know there is alot more to it than one deciding factor. Everybody is so quick to jump down one anothers throat in this forum! 😡
I think you want to chill out mate. I was putting a point across, not jumping down your throat.
Chill out.
By: skycruiser - 30th October 2004 at 07:35
i only gave that for one example, i know there is alot more to it than one deciding factor. Everybody is so quick to jump down one anothers throat in this forum! 😡
I think you want to chill out mate. I was putting a point across, not jumping down your throat.
Chill out.
By: 4 engines good - 29th October 2004 at 18:48
The thing is, it is difficult to define ‘better’. It all depends on whom is asserting the aircraft.
Some a/c might have a higher performance than others. But unless this is a serious drawback for the operating company, they’re not going to care. Aviation enthusiasts and pilots alike might, for example, marvel at the power and performance of the 757, which by most accounts is better than that of an A321. But if the 321 does the job at a lower cost then as far as the airline is concerned it is the ‘better’ aircraft for their operations.
I’m only guessing since I don’t know anyone in the industry, but unless the pilots have a serious issue with a particular model I would imagine the airlines are going to be more concerned with the economics of the aircraft than with whether the pilots enjoy the performance and flying experience of one model over the other.
By: 4 engines good - 29th October 2004 at 18:48
The thing is, it is difficult to define ‘better’. It all depends on whom is asserting the aircraft.
Some a/c might have a higher performance than others. But unless this is a serious drawback for the operating company, they’re not going to care. Aviation enthusiasts and pilots alike might, for example, marvel at the power and performance of the 757, which by most accounts is better than that of an A321. But if the 321 does the job at a lower cost then as far as the airline is concerned it is the ‘better’ aircraft for their operations.
I’m only guessing since I don’t know anyone in the industry, but unless the pilots have a serious issue with a particular model I would imagine the airlines are going to be more concerned with the economics of the aircraft than with whether the pilots enjoy the performance and flying experience of one model over the other.
By: Dantheman77 - 29th October 2004 at 18:28
There is a lot more to it than flight deck commonality. What about leasing costs, fuel burn, load carrying etc.
Why do so many airlines operate airbus and boeing??????
i only gave that for one example, i know there is alot more to it than one deciding factor. Everybody is so quick to jump down one anothers throat in this forum! 😡
By: Dantheman77 - 29th October 2004 at 18:28
There is a lot more to it than flight deck commonality. What about leasing costs, fuel burn, load carrying etc.
Why do so many airlines operate airbus and boeing??????
i only gave that for one example, i know there is alot more to it than one deciding factor. Everybody is so quick to jump down one anothers throat in this forum! 😡
By: skycruiser - 29th October 2004 at 15:58
if you ran an airline that used all airbus products for short haul work,then you wouldnt necisarlily choose the B777 as long haul choice, because of flight deck comanality(sp?) and the extra expense of training and engineering facilities and vice versa if you operated a boeing short haul fleet.
Thats my take on it….ohh and BTW this is my 100th post :o)
There is a lot more to it than flight deck commonality. What about leasing costs, fuel burn, load carrying etc.
Why do so many airlines operate airbus and boeing??????
By: skycruiser - 29th October 2004 at 15:58
if you ran an airline that used all airbus products for short haul work,then you wouldnt necisarlily choose the B777 as long haul choice, because of flight deck comanality(sp?) and the extra expense of training and engineering facilities and vice versa if you operated a boeing short haul fleet.
Thats my take on it….ohh and BTW this is my 100th post :o)
There is a lot more to it than flight deck commonality. What about leasing costs, fuel burn, load carrying etc.
Why do so many airlines operate airbus and boeing??????
By: Dantheman77 - 29th October 2004 at 00:01
So what we are saying here is in terms a 4 year old can understand:- Both the A340 and the B777 both have good points and bad points, at the end of the day it i believe it comes down to what the airlines want and which particular plane meets there needs (not just talking about price) if you ran an airline that used all airbus products for short haul work,then you wouldnt necisarlily choose the B777 as long haul choice, because of flight deck comanality(sp?) and the extra expense of training and engineering facilities and vice versa if you operated a boeing short haul fleet.
Thats my take on it….ohh and BTW this is my 100th post :o)
By: Dantheman77 - 29th October 2004 at 00:01
So what we are saying here is in terms a 4 year old can understand:- Both the A340 and the B777 both have good points and bad points, at the end of the day it i believe it comes down to what the airlines want and which particular plane meets there needs (not just talking about price) if you ran an airline that used all airbus products for short haul work,then you wouldnt necisarlily choose the B777 as long haul choice, because of flight deck comanality(sp?) and the extra expense of training and engineering facilities and vice versa if you operated a boeing short haul fleet.
Thats my take on it….ohh and BTW this is my 100th post :o)
By: Lawstud - 28th October 2004 at 21:21
Yes the A330/A340 is very sucessfully
The replacement for the A300/A310would be the A350. Full new aircraft and Airbus says they need only 2years to make it
Noz quite true -the A350 is planed to be a long range plane. The A300/A310 were mainly used for medium and short haul flight in Europe. AFAIK there is no similar version of the A350 as to the 7E7-3.
By: Lawstud - 28th October 2004 at 21:21
Yes the A330/A340 is very sucessfully
The replacement for the A300/A310would be the A350. Full new aircraft and Airbus says they need only 2years to make it
Noz quite true -the A350 is planed to be a long range plane. The A300/A310 were mainly used for medium and short haul flight in Europe. AFAIK there is no similar version of the A350 as to the 7E7-3.
By: wysiwyg - 2nd October 2004 at 21:21
Not in October. Won’t know about November for another couple of weeks.
By: wysiwyg - 2nd October 2004 at 21:21
Not in October. Won’t know about November for another couple of weeks.
By: skycruiser - 2nd October 2004 at 15:28
Yes in Torrance. Wish we were still in Santa Monica! Would be great to meet for a beer…it’ll give me a chance to raise your blinkers too!
How about honkers!!! Are you coming here soon???
By: skycruiser - 2nd October 2004 at 15:28
Yes in Torrance. Wish we were still in Santa Monica! Would be great to meet for a beer…it’ll give me a chance to raise your blinkers too!
How about honkers!!! Are you coming here soon???
By: wysiwyg - 2nd October 2004 at 14:59
Yes in Torrance. Wish we were still in Santa Monica! Would be great to meet for a beer…it’ll give me a chance to raise your blinkers too!
By: wysiwyg - 2nd October 2004 at 14:59
Yes in Torrance. Wish we were still in Santa Monica! Would be great to meet for a beer…it’ll give me a chance to raise your blinkers too!
By: skycruiser - 2nd October 2004 at 14:31
QUOTE=wysiwyg]Would it not be an idea to try them both so you can see the difference rather than base on conversation over the garden fence? So many Boeing-only pilots, so many misconceptions.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, the 777 is the best fleet for golfing layovers 😀 . Secondly, all my mates that have flown both types, all, yep all, have said that the 777 is the one to go for.
Max FL on the A340 is FL411. We manage efficiency levels a B744 can only dream about without having to radiate ourselves above the tropopause!!! The A340-600 can be a bit of a guzzler (in fact it will almost burn fuel like a 744!) at much lower levels but it’s not usually a problem as we generally get our level immediately while the Boeings are burning down their weight in the high 200’s!.
Out of Hong Kong and alot of ports you won’t always get your FL due to separation, therefore you won’t be at your optimum therefore you might become a little fuel critical, this happens all the time with our A340s. Being a few thousand feet of optimum in the 744 is a tiny fuel penalty. We only have to burn down our weight as we are so bloody heavy, I wait to see if a max weight A380 climbs right up to 330+ :confused:
Quote – “Having a bit more speed always has an advantage”…and that would be that you have to work on average 2 more trips a year to fulfill contractual flying hours! No thanks..
The speed is in reserve, so no need for those extra 2 trips. In fact my A340 buddies do more trips a year than us 744 boys. They do the aussie and New Zealand flights so they are not crossing enough time zones therefore they need less days of after a trip.
Out of interest, if I had to fly an A330 my conversion course would be 3 hours. How long would your B777 conversion be? 😉 :p 😉
About 3 weeks compared to 6 weeks if I did an Airbus course. 😀 😀 😀
You need a bit of time to recover as you have to have your brain removed before the Airbus course.
Only kidding, this joke was told to me by a mate who had to go to the bus from the 400. 😀 😀 😀
Out of interest, are you still staying in Torrance in LAX, we are over in Beverly Hills. Might be there at the same time, so might have a chance for some more banter and a beer. 😀
By: skycruiser - 2nd October 2004 at 14:31
QUOTE=wysiwyg]Would it not be an idea to try them both so you can see the difference rather than base on conversation over the garden fence? So many Boeing-only pilots, so many misconceptions.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, the 777 is the best fleet for golfing layovers 😀 . Secondly, all my mates that have flown both types, all, yep all, have said that the 777 is the one to go for.
Max FL on the A340 is FL411. We manage efficiency levels a B744 can only dream about without having to radiate ourselves above the tropopause!!! The A340-600 can be a bit of a guzzler (in fact it will almost burn fuel like a 744!) at much lower levels but it’s not usually a problem as we generally get our level immediately while the Boeings are burning down their weight in the high 200’s!.
Out of Hong Kong and alot of ports you won’t always get your FL due to separation, therefore you won’t be at your optimum therefore you might become a little fuel critical, this happens all the time with our A340s. Being a few thousand feet of optimum in the 744 is a tiny fuel penalty. We only have to burn down our weight as we are so bloody heavy, I wait to see if a max weight A380 climbs right up to 330+ :confused:
Quote – “Having a bit more speed always has an advantage”…and that would be that you have to work on average 2 more trips a year to fulfill contractual flying hours! No thanks..
The speed is in reserve, so no need for those extra 2 trips. In fact my A340 buddies do more trips a year than us 744 boys. They do the aussie and New Zealand flights so they are not crossing enough time zones therefore they need less days of after a trip.
Out of interest, if I had to fly an A330 my conversion course would be 3 hours. How long would your B777 conversion be? 😉 :p 😉
About 3 weeks compared to 6 weeks if I did an Airbus course. 😀 😀 😀
You need a bit of time to recover as you have to have your brain removed before the Airbus course.
Only kidding, this joke was told to me by a mate who had to go to the bus from the 400. 😀 😀 😀
Out of interest, are you still staying in Torrance in LAX, we are over in Beverly Hills. Might be there at the same time, so might have a chance for some more banter and a beer. 😀
Sign In
September 26, 2004 at 4:42 pm