First A330 NEO
02-02-2019, 06:58 AM
#81
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
THIS ^^^
I always found it very hard to believe that with the inherited order from NW as a launch customer, Boeing all of a sudden couldn’t accommodate delivery slots for us. RA was clearly ****ed at Boeing and he let that show and then we cozied up to Airbus. Don’t get ne wrong, I love Airbus products, but I think the 787 is an aircraft we should be flying, perhaps not the -9 since we have the A359, but the -8 and -10 for sure.
I always found it very hard to believe that with the inherited order from NW as a launch customer, Boeing all of a sudden couldn’t accommodate delivery slots for us. RA was clearly ****ed at Boeing and he let that show and then we cozied up to Airbus. Don’t get ne wrong, I love Airbus products, but I think the 787 is an aircraft we should be flying, perhaps not the -9 since we have the A359, but the -8 and -10 for sure.
In the end, the relationship with Airbus paid more dividends, than the Boeing deal ever could. Hell hath no fury as Delta scorned either, so the 787 probably will never show up in the fleet.
02-02-2019, 07:03 AM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
THIS ^^^
I always found it very hard to believe that with the inherited order from NW as a launch customer, Boeing all of a sudden couldn’t accommodate delivery slots for us. RA was clearly ****ed at Boeing and he let that show and then we cozied up to Airbus. Don’t get ne wrong, I love Airbus products, but I think the 787 is an aircraft we should be flying, perhaps not the -9 since we have the A359, but the -8 and -10 for sure.
I always found it very hard to believe that with the inherited order from NW as a launch customer, Boeing all of a sudden couldn’t accommodate delivery slots for us. RA was clearly ****ed at Boeing and he let that show and then we cozied up to Airbus. Don’t get ne wrong, I love Airbus products, but I think the 787 is an aircraft we should be flying, perhaps not the -9 since we have the A359, but the -8 and -10 for sure.
02-02-2019, 07:50 AM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
It was a nightmare for carriers that got it initially and is still having issues for carriers with the T1000 engines. It seems to be coming into its own now, but not having them thus far has not been a bad thing for the company overall. Not that I would mind us getting some, I just don't think it's a massive oversight to not take the initial order.
02-02-2019, 08:09 AM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,591
Only that we don't have them.
It was a nightmare for carriers that got it initially and is still having issues for carriers with the T1000 engines. It seems to be coming into its own now, but not having them thus far has not been a bad thing for the company overall. Not that I would mind us getting some, I just don't think it's a massive oversight to not take the initial order.
It was a nightmare for carriers that got it initially and is still having issues for carriers with the T1000 engines. It seems to be coming into its own now, but not having them thus far has not been a bad thing for the company overall. Not that I would mind us getting some, I just don't think it's a massive oversight to not take the initial order.
02-02-2019, 08:22 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
That is correct, supposedly the issue is fixed now, but aircraft in service with prior fix engines are being grounded until they can be replaced. My understanding is that is a big part of why they are having trouble providing enough engines for new airframes.
02-02-2019, 08:26 AM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Only that we don't have them.
It was a nightmare for carriers that got it initially and is still having issues for carriers with the T1000 engines. It seems to be coming into its own now, but not having them thus far has not been a bad thing for the company overall. Not that I would mind us getting some, I just don't think it's a massive oversight to not take the initial order.
It was a nightmare for carriers that got it initially and is still having issues for carriers with the T1000 engines. It seems to be coming into its own now, but not having them thus far has not been a bad thing for the company overall. Not that I would mind us getting some, I just don't think it's a massive oversight to not take the initial order.
02-03-2019, 01:48 PM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Position: 175 CA
Posts: 1,285
I don't care what we fly as long as I am paid and the company is making more money than the competition.
I don't know much about running an airline or determining which airplane is better, but what I do know is pilots are bad airline managers. The few who have done it were terrible. My wife works in the OCC and it is surprising how little pilots know about how the rest of an airline functions.
Just remember that lots of people spend thousands of hours determining which aircraft is correct to buy. They have more facts than we can find on Wikipedia. And just because the 787 is right for one airline doesn't mean it is right for us. From what I know of United and American, it makes me feel better knowing we aren't doing the same thing as they are.
I don't know much about running an airline or determining which airplane is better, but what I do know is pilots are bad airline managers. The few who have done it were terrible. My wife works in the OCC and it is surprising how little pilots know about how the rest of an airline functions.
Just remember that lots of people spend thousands of hours determining which aircraft is correct to buy. They have more facts than we can find on Wikipedia. And just because the 787 is right for one airline doesn't mean it is right for us. From what I know of United and American, it makes me feel better knowing we aren't doing the same thing as they are.
What about British Airways, Air France, JAL, ANA, Air Canada, All the Chinese airlines, Singapore.. Qatar..?
Delta bought a warmed up 40 year old airplane because Atlanta's feelings got hurt, not because it was a good business decision. Maybe when sanctions keep Iran from taking their 330neo's, Delta can pick up the other half of the order book.
02-03-2019, 01:55 PM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
What about British Airways, Air France, JAL, ANA, Air Canada, All the Chinese airlines, Singapore.. Qatar..?
Delta bought a warmed up 40 year old airplane because Atlanta's feelings got hurt, not because it was a good business decision. Maybe when sanctions keep Iran from taking their 330neo's, Delta can pick up the other half of the order book.
Delta bought a warmed up 40 year old airplane because Atlanta's feelings got hurt, not because it was a good business decision. Maybe when sanctions keep Iran from taking their 330neo's, Delta can pick up the other half of the order book.
02-03-2019, 02:39 PM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 774
The door is functional. Agents in the US are just too much of a liability to risk crashing the jet bridges into the wing/engines.
Case in point (two jetbridges)
02-03-2019, 04:16 PM
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
Totally different than the 757 whose 2L door is identical to the 1L, designed to be used as often as possible (probably 80-90 % of the time).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
