US Airways, Still an Airbus Company

[PCL_128]

A second line just for US Airways 20 airplane order, wow! What's Boeing going to do without us!

The bottom line is Airbus made a deal US Airways couldn't refuse. They are paying old A350 launch customer price (a warmed over A330- read much cheaper than 787) for a new A350xwb (777 sized aircraft not 787 size). They probably got such a good deal they added 2 more to there order for a total of 22. It's business you'd do it too.

The problem is that Airbus hasn't shown itself to be very dependable lately. The A380 is so far behind schedule that no one dares even venture a guess as to when the first one will actually fly revenue service. If Airbus can't do better with the A350, then USAir could be very far behind everyone else that's taking 787 deliveries on schedule starting next year. A cheap price tag doesn't mean much when they can't make deliveries on time.

 

[Green]

The current plan with this order is to keep 20 757s solely to do the mainland to Hawaii flying.

so are we going to park all the other 757´s? Doesn´t that result in a significant shrinking of the fleet if we park all 737´s, 767´s, A 330-300´s, and most of the 757´s?

 

[35khighpjc]

So the Airbus is not as good as the Boeing in your mind?

If you must fly an airbus, in god you must trust.

If it ain't a boeing, i ain't goin'!

Just my $.02

-paul

 

[Lampshade]

If you must fly an airbus, in god you must trust.

If it ain't a boeing, i ain't goin'!

Just my $.02

-paul

And you have flown a cessna and a beech. Chime in when you get Bus or Boeing experience.

 

[Eagle757shark]

so are we going to park all the other 757´s? Doesn´t that result in a significant shrinking of the fleet if we park all 737´s, 767´s, A 330-300´s, and most of the 757´s?

Yes US Airways plans on parking all of their 757s except 20. They have some of the oldest 757s in the world. Many of their 757s were initially at Eastern. Go to this link under the question and answer section, you will learn exactly what US Airways plan is for their aircraft: www.justplanenews.com click on the link "About Us Special Edition 6/18/07."

 

[PHXFLYR]

PHXFLYR, I dunno man. I've never flown the Boeing, but the Bus is pretty nice duty. The newer 737's are probably nicer than the ones AWA has but ask a regular passenger (or a flight attendant for that matter) which one they prefer riding on and they'll chose the Bus hands down. And if you don't think the passengers preference counts when buying aircraft, then why did the turbo props get sent to the desert most commuters? Passengers thought they were WWII surplus. Now evidently the 50 seat jet isn't the answer to everybody's prayers. Huh, imagine that.

Of course, with that said it does suck to buy from the Frenchies when we could be buying American. That 787 sounds like an incredible aircraft. I'd bet my lunch money the Airbus guys offered to bend over their desks and let Doug go to town on them. They need some big sales numbers to at least give the appearance of Airbus desirability to the rest of the industry. I'm sure for the give away price, Doug was only too happy to oblige.

Your right about passenger comfort. Airbus has it hands down over the Boeing. Even I enjoy the Airbus more than the Boeing when it comes to non-reving around the system. But all the creature comforts in the world can't make up for dependability and that's where Boeing beats Airbus hands down,at least based on my experience.And mind you the Boeings I fly now are on average 20 years old whereas the Airbus' were less than half that age and in many cases brand new. Your probably right about what you say regarding the price Parker got. But he'll land up paying for it in the long run in terms of incresed mx costs as the aircraft age over and above what he would have paid for an aging fleet of Next Gen Boeings. Not to mention cancellations and loss of revenue. The Airbus takes much more pampering than the Boeing does to get the job done day in and day out on a regular basis.


PHXFLYR

 

[Caveman]

I'm not privvy to all the behind the scenes MX work here at JetBlue so I have no idea how much pampering the A320 requires to keep it flying. However, during my short exposure to the Airbus I've been very impressed with it's reliability and dispatch rate. In a year of flying it I can only remember one deferred APU and I've never had to cancel for MX. I can't even think of any MX delays off the top of my head. I'm sure there must have been a couple for minor stuff, but they don't come to mind right now. I have to disagree with PHXFLYER, in my experience the A320 has been extremely reliable.

I have no Boeing experience so I can't compare the two, but I can't imagine the Boeing is significantly more reliable as has been suggested. The A320 is pretty close to 100%. How can the Boeing be significantly better than that?

The Airbus is starting to grow on me the more I fly it. It certainly is different, but the more I get used to it the more I like it. Besides, in the area that counts most (pilot comfort), I have it way better than my 73 brethren.

This is no different than a Ford vs Chevy debate except for the nationalistic aspect. I think the Airbus would have more loyal fans if it were a domestic product. I hate to see U.S. airlines sending multi-billion dollar orders to Europe. I'd much rather be discussing the merits of Boeing vs Douglas. Still, the A320 is a great airplane.

Edited for spelling.

 

[The Victors]

I'm not privvy to all the behind the scenes MX work here at JetBlue so I have no idea how much pampering the A320 requires to keep it flying. However, during my short exposure to the Airbus I've been very impressed with it's reliability and dispatch rate. In a year of flying it I can only remember one deferred APU and I've never had to cancel for MX. I can't even think of any MX delays off the top of my head. I'm sure there must have been a couple for minor stuff, but they don't come to mind right now. I have to disagree with PHXFLYER, in my experience the A320 has been extremely reliable.

I have no Boeing experience so I can't compare the two, but I can't imagine the Boeing is significantly more reliable as has been suggested. The A320 is pretty close to 100%. How can the Boeing be significantly better than that?

The Airbus is starting to grow on me the more I fly it. It certainly is different, but the more I get used to it the more I like it. Besides, in the area that counts most (pilot comfort), I have it way better than my 73 brethren.

This is no different than a Ford vs Chevy debate except for the nationalistic aspect. I think the Airbus would have more loyal fans if it were a domestic product. I hate to see U.S. airlines sending multi-billion dollar orders to Europe. I'd much rather be discussing the merits of Boeing vs Douglas. Still, the A320 is a great airplane.

Edited for spelling.

You dont "FLY" an airbus, it flies you.

 

[Caveman]

You dont "FLY" an airbus, it flies you.

Good point. I'd much rather fly a Piper than be flown by an Airbus.

 

[The Victors]

Actually I would too. Exactually how do you turn the autopilot off on that thing? (p.s. I haven't flown a piper in a while...I thought I'd explain that since you seem a little slow on understanding sarcasm)

 

[Caveman]

You can't turn the autopliot off on an Airbus. (Heavy sarcasm alert)

 

[The Victors]

we have a winner!!!!!!!

 

[PlaneDrvr]

I'm not privvy to all the behind the scenes MX work here at JetBlue so I have no idea how much pampering the A320 requires to keep it flying. However, during my short exposure to the Airbus I've been very impressed with it's reliability and dispatch rate. In a year of flying it I can only remember one deferred APU and I've never had to cancel for MX. I can't even think of any MX delays off the top of my head. I'm sure there must have been a couple for minor stuff, but they don't come to mind right now. I have to disagree with PHXFLYER, in my experience the A320 has been extremely reliable.

I have no Boeing experience so I can't compare the two, but I can't imagine the Boeing is significantly more reliable as has been suggested. The A320 is pretty close to 100%. How can the Boeing be significantly better than that?

The Airbus is starting to grow on me the more I fly it. It certainly is different, but the more I get used to it the more I like it. Besides, in the area that counts most (pilot comfort), I have it way better than my 73 brethren.

This is no different than a Ford vs Chevy debate except for the nationalistic aspect. I think the Airbus would have more loyal fans if it were a domestic product. I hate to see U.S. airlines sending multi-billion dollar orders to Europe. I'd much rather be discussing the merits of Boeing vs Douglas. Still, the A320 is a great airplane.

Edited for spelling.

Well, working at JB, you have to keep in mind the oldest Bus you are flying is only about 6-7 yrs. old. In the U.S. you have to look at AWA, NWA as they received the first ones, and have the oldest 320 in the U.S.

Have never flown the Bus, so can't be that critical; however, the main problem that I have is that I believe Airbus when a little to far in the 'computer/automation' area. Boeing has always believed, and still does, that the Pilot should always be able to "fly" the airplane and most of all should always be the 'ultimate authority in what the airplane does.' The 'socialists frenchies' believe that "power has to be taken away from the individual" and "left to a higher authority" (like Gov't, or in the case of Bus, a computer). Very different philosophy.

As far as long term reliability and durability; all I can say is that I have flown a lot of 35+yrs old Boeing and Douglas airplanes, and they flew pretty much every flight, even with a few (sometimes more) 'yellow stickers' on them. I think that Boeing still builds a better 'basic airframe' and that's the key; you can replace most the the parts on an airliner (and most are replaced many times over the years), but if the airframe doesn't hold up, well time will tell when we have a large # of 30-35 yr old Airbi out there.

Another problem that Airbus has always had is that their airplanes often do not perform at originally promised, and fall short of a Boeing counterpart. But, they are 'cheaper'

The main thing that I look at from a pilot's perspective; when things are not going as planned, and 'a lot' of the $hit on the plane is not working, (like a really, really bad day), I still feel pretty comfrontable having my hands on a BOEING. That means the most to me.

Also, like I have said before, if the 787 does even 80-85% of what Boeing claims, and flys as scheduled and first planes delivered on time; then Boeing will fly even higher, as Frenchie is sinking on the weight of an A380 anchor. Airbus will not go away, but there will be plenty of them out there, as Airbus will be back to "Giving them away" like they did with the first ones.

Just my $0.02, for what's it worth, now "bus fans" rant away.

DA

 

[The Victors]

The "Bus" was basically designed for "pilots" in third world countries with no experience so that even, they, couldn't f**K it up. Again, it isn't flown, it's programed. If you try and fly it, it calls you a "RETARD".

 

[PlaneDrvr]

The "Bus" was basically designed for "pilots" in third world countries with no experience so that even, they, couldn't f**K it up. Again, it isn't flown, it's programed. If you try and fly it, it calls you a "RETARD".

Good Point and well said. Especially true concerning the 'third world countries' but I think now to be politically correct, I think you have to call them "lesser developed countries" lol (yes, so much lesser developed). I just took the view that the planes were design by 'socialist' (the Frenchies), and they believe the individual should not be trusted to make important decisions, the Gov't, or in this case, a Gov't designed computer is better able to make important decisions.

Just my $0.02, for what its worth.

DA