Re: AA & the Airbus A340

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date:         31 Mar 96 17:24:10 
References:   1 2 3 4 5
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>Thus, IMHO, if AA is going to order the B777, the majority of the
>order will be for the -100, provided Boeing is able to come up with
>a good solution for the weight problem ...

But the 777-100 won't have that many more seats than the 767-300 (but
substantially more cargo lift), and will be very close to the A300-600,
both of which AA already has.  The only reason for buying the 777-100
is tremendous range, and right now AA doesn't have any need for that
kind of range.  If they buy the 777 at all, I don't see why they would
pick the -100 -- and you make a convincing case for the bigger 777s
being too big for AA's operations, so it seems unlikely that we'll see
any AA 777s.

>>Another issue with the 777-100 is the matter of who wants to be the
>>pioneer operating ETOPS across the North Pacific.

>Asiana has been flying the B767-300ER between Seoul and Seattle for
>almost a year.

I knew Asiana had the 767-300(ER) and wondered where they used them,
but I didn't know they were using them across the Pacific.

>Asiana and EVA have also been operating to Honolulu with the B767
>from their respective homebase in Seoul and Taipei.

Same for Qantas and Air New Zealand.  However, except for a possible
small detour on a SYD-HNL route, all of those flights can be carried
out with 120-minute ETOPS, same as the North Atlantic.  I think both
Qantas and Air New Zealand also fly HNL-LAX in the 767, or did, and
that does require 180-minute ETOPS, but again, a number of pilots
have told me that's a piece of cake compared to the more northerly
latitudes of the Pacific which one would cross on a flight such as

Karl Swartz	|Home
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills