Not as bad as the crosswind landings we used to make in Guernsey in the Saab 340…Pure fun.

Ian,

When are we going to have some banter over a cold beer????

Besides.. SARS was a unique unforseeable event, no one could plan for that type of crisis.
If thats the only event where the A340-600 shines… I pity its owners

I agree. An unforseeable event isn’t really worth talking about. No airline plans to lease or buy an aircraft so in the event of another 9/11 or SARS it might be better than another type.

So where did all that pax carrying capability get Cathay during the SARS crisis? In deep pooh that’s where. When only freight would fly on the route we didn’t have cargo 744’s operating while pax aircraft cost money sitting around or operating with no passengers on them. We could operate the A346 with much more freight than a conventional 744 and make a profit with no need to carry a single passenger.

What about 9/11 impact on Virgin, in the SH@T aswell. Using SARS is a bit lame. 😉 Come on Ian.

In fact we still carried cargo in the 744 pax aircraft and yes it was running at a profit. For your information we still made 1.7 billion profit during 2003, so during SARS we still made a healthy profit. I bet most airlines would have folded had they been in our shoes, thank god for the best management team in the industry. We are also on target to make a massive profit this year.

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.

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??????

nice shot, a change from the norm.

Or by the fact that airlines need adequate performance to suit their needs rather than ultimate performance!

Cathay we looking for an adequate performance not an ultimate performance, one of the problems was the MZFW was over 2 tonnes heavier than Airbus had quoted, therefore we couldn’t get the required fuel loading and subsequently not being able to use the aircraft for the proposed plan.