Great pic Kabir! There is an article on Joe Pries in this month’s Airliner.

I believe that it can, Mongu. Didn’t Qantas choose the 330 as it’s replacement aircraft for the 767? Also, EI has used the 330 trans-Atlantic, as have US Airways. And, if I’m not mistaken, KLM have selected the 330 on medium range routes also. Most of those companies were staunch Boeing customers. The 767 has a good reputation as a work horse.

I firmly believe that a lot of politics (noth economical and political)are played when companies are deciding which aircraft type to select.

And on my birthday no less.

Yes, I agree that the A380 will be up and running first; however, I really don’t see why we are placing them in competition with each other. Both aircraft (seem) targetted at different markets. In my mind the B7E7 is chiefly for north Atlantic routes and perhaps some Asian routes (I could be wrong). The A380 on the other hand seems to be looking at long haul over a very wide distance and high density, such as: Cape Town-London, Singapore-London, Los Angeles-Sydney. The only medium haul route I can see the A380 on is NYC-London/Paris/Frankfurt, or the middle-east to Europe. Otherwise, I think that you would use smaller aircraft.

Also, I think that Boeing is focussing on US customers, UA, AA, NW, etc. for trans-Atlantic and trans-continental traffic. They are having enough trouble filling 777’s let alone A380s, though hopefully their fortunes will have turned around by then.

Don’t forget that Boeing is hurting financially, perhaps they don’t have the resources at the moment to undertake production of a brand new aircraft the likes of A380 with Airbus so early out of the gate. Like Andrew said, it would take quite a while to get any new project off of the ground of any magnitude.

I’ve flown the DC10 of CO and CP. It’s not a bad aircraft, but compared with more modern flight it is a bit dated. For instance, when you take off, you really feel that old rumble of take-off, where the ceiling panels shake. Good fun though.

It seems to me that one of the core factors in the success of no-frills is the non-business traveller, more the leisure traveller, going to see granny on the weekend, or a quick trip to Paris, Berlin or San Fran in the States. The average joe that doesn’t need to worry about frequent flyer programs, or seat pitch. The kind of person that flies once in a blue moon. You indicate that their is a growing middle class in Asia, no doubt it seems only logical, however, are these people flying? I point to a fact that you stated in an earlier e-mail that Air India has only thirty-something planes for a population of some billion plus people. Perhaps more the question is how to convert people’s way of thinking in this part of the world to fly? Low cost would seem like an obvious choice. How do you make it an attractive alternative? Or, perhaps it’s a case of people not travelling as much as in Europe. Is continental travel as much a part of the landscape in India and the rest of Asia for the average Joe?

Not stating that frequent flyers don’t use low frills, but my assumption is that more often than not they use a major.

162 people on a 747!!!! Things are not good.

I agree that airlines want to improve the “system” for their passengers, but at the end of the day it’s another form of brand loyalty, much like frequent flyer programs.