Re: Airbus on a roll

Date:         01 Dec 96 04:08:55 
From: (H Andrew Chuang)
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
References:   1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.2569@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Malcolm Weir  <> wrote:
>H Andrew Chuang wrote (in reply to a post of mine):
>I sometimes wonder whether anybody ever reads any post in its entirety!
>Would Mr. H Andrew Chuang like to take note of the comment "for these
>markets the 767 and 757 make a lot of sense"?
>And by his own words, the A330-200 is a competitor of the 767, it is a
>good possibility based on the cockpit commonality with the short-haul
>fleet.  But you notice the order in which I listed these alternatives?

Nevertheless, you listed the A330/340 as alternatives while flatly ruled
out the B777 based on your opinions.  Furthermore, from your posting, I
inferred that you meant A330-300 and A340-300 which are directly
competing with the B777.  That's why I questioned your analysis.
At least, in the press, USAir has expressed interests in the B777 as
well as the A330/340.

>> >The 777 does seem to be just a bit of a status symbol to some people
>> >(for the airline that has everything)!
>> Nonsense!  The B777-200 is an ideal replacement for the L-1011 and the
>> DC-10.  The B777-200IGW can do anything that the MD-11 (and the A340)
>> can do.  The B777-300 is an excellent replacement for the
>> B747-100/200.
>None of which USAir have in their fleet!  I was responding to the person
>who hoped "USAir would still order some Boeings, perhaps 777s".

To me, your comment did not appear to be specific to the USAir
intent.  It was a general comment about the B777.  You certainly didn't
mean the B777 was a "status symbol to some people" at USAir, did you?
Mr. Wolf certainly appears to have an ambition to make USAir(ways) a
more international airline.  IMHO, that's why they are looking at larger

>[ And a minor nit: the B777-200IGW is still a "future" airplane.  There
>are none in service; so, while talking about futures, don't leave out
>the A340-8000, which has a longer range than the -200IGW.  So the
>suggestion that the -200IGW "can do anything that the A340 can do" is
>not 100% correct -- although from an airline perspective (esp. USAir),
>is probably as near as makes no difference! ]

Then why don't you point out that the -300 has not been built, yet?
I listed all the B777 models that Boeing currently offers.  I did not
list the proposed -100X and -200X.  Thus, I stand by my statement.
BTW, the A340-8000 was "launched" with the A330-200.  However, Airbus
has yet to find a customer for the ultra-long-range aircraft.
Originally, Air Canada intended to order a few -8000, but they decided
the aircraft was too small.  I doubt you'll see any A340-8000, but I
can assure you that you'll seen the B777-200IGW and the B777-300.