Awa Us A350?

[Marko Ramius]

Makes sense

The 767/757 and the A300/310 are basically dead airframes. While all except the 757 are still in production, and have their fans it's clear that both Boeing and Airbus have their futures tied to different airframes. So carriers have to adjust their fleet plans accordingly. Between the Star Alliance presence, Hawaii, and UsAirways' European routes there exist potential for growth with the A350 out of Airways' hubs as well as connect a few of the bigger Star cities to PHX/LAS like FRA, MHT, etc. Down the line of course.

 

[Boeingman]

Taking nothing away from the Airbus as an airplane, is there any reason at all why the hypothedical merged airline should want to own an ultra long range airplane like the A350, other than the maker will essentially give them away for free?

Exactly. Or the manufacturer is trying to seed an order for an airframe no one has expressed intrest in.

I thought Airbuses logic was to invest in the A-380 saying that Boeing's 787 won't sell. Maybe they are having a change of heart?

 

[Tomct]

Well when that a-319,320 takes you into the trees, you will be thinking .......should have stayed with boeing!

 

[414Flyer]

Exactly. Or the manufacturer is trying to seed an order for an airframe no one has expressed intrest in.

See Eastern Airlines and the A-300

 

[JetMonkey]

Well when that a-319,320 takes you into the trees, you will be thinking .......should have stayed with boeing!

Dude, I like Boeings to, but they'll take you into the trees just as well. But what I really want to say is you need to read up on that accident.....it was pilot error, the aircraft did exactly what it was designed to do.

 

[mullet]

Well when that a-319,320 takes you into the trees, you will be thinking .......should have stayed with boeing!

Are you drunk or just stupid?
Is the Ford vs Chevy debate next?

 

[I.P. Freley]

Are you drunk or just stupid?
Is the Ford vs Chevy debate next?

LOL

Don't forget Mopar!

 

[I.P. Freley]

See Eastern Airlines and the A-300

True, but at the time Airbus was trying to break into the airliner business and had to take drastic steps to make their first airplane competitive against the established market leaders.

Someone called the A300/310 a "dead airframe". I am not sure, but isn't the A350 based upon the same tube as the A300? It was my understanding that all twin-aisle Airbuses (Airbii?) are based upon that original airframe, just different lengths, wings, engines and now, cockpits. I am not including the A380 in this, of course.

Anyone know?

 

[Wiskey Driver]

I have flown the B-727,737,757,767, Airbus A-319,320, and 321. My father spent 26 years with Boeing. The Airbus is an AWESOME airplane. Now, what experience do you speak from?

With that said, I don't even need to say a word!!!! Well said

WD.

 

[321 busdriver]

Exactly. The aircraft did NOT malfunction. Had the pilots stayed above 100 feet, which was required for this demonstration flight, the aircraft would have gone to toga thrust when it approached a stall. The pilots went below the floor and consequently got into a landing mode. The subsequent accident report correctly put the blame on the pilots. As I posted earlier, I have flown the B-727, 737, 757, 767, A-319, 320, and 321. The airbus is an AWESOME airplane, but when mismanaged, as JetMonkey has said, can find the trees as well as any other aircraft.

Dude, I like Boeings to, but they'll take you into the trees just as well. But what I really want to say is you need to read up on that accident.....it was pilot error, the aircraft did exactly what it was designed to do.