Airbus Order Theory
05-09-2024, 09:33 PM
#31
Production Test Pilot
Joined APC: May 2013
Position: Production Test Pilot, Boeing
Posts: 111
Don't see 330's making too much sense unless we're reeeally worried about 787 having delivery issues. Now, the 350, especially 350 1k gives us a 777 replacement and range no other jet has. An airframe to introduce rumored new luxury Polaris product. As well as the all so important fleet diversification we need. Imo, a successful formula for future is 50/50 737/320 family, and 50/50 787/350 family. Variants of such to try to puzzle together 756 replacement. Hope we get 350!!
05-10-2024, 03:47 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,552
Naw, it doesn't make sense at all for United to have a small sub-fleet of WB aircraft for domestic work that has separate pilot group from a business/operation point of view.... It only make sense from our point of view though....
05-11-2024, 05:58 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 662
No. These were:
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/p...atlantic-route
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/p...21neo-aircraft
From the second link:
Herndon, Virginia, 29 June 2021 - United Airlines has placed an order for 70 Airbus A321neo aircraft, positioning the airline to grow its presence in the single-aisle market in alignment with its “United Next” initiative. The new order complements existing orders from United for 50 A321XLR aircraft, bringing the total commitment from the airline to 120 A321 aircraft.
50 A321XLR in 2019
70 A321neo in 2021
(Bold mine)
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/p...atlantic-route
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/p...21neo-aircraft
From the second link:
Herndon, Virginia, 29 June 2021 - United Airlines has placed an order for 70 Airbus A321neo aircraft, positioning the airline to grow its presence in the single-aisle market in alignment with its “United Next” initiative. The new order complements existing orders from United for 50 A321XLR aircraft, bringing the total commitment from the airline to 120 A321 aircraft.
50 A321XLR in 2019
70 A321neo in 2021
(Bold mine)
but they have since ordered another 60 in 2023 and leased another 35 in 2024. So we must be willing to pay the price is the price currently.
05-11-2024, 01:13 PM
#34
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2023
Posts: 34
Without 321xlr being good replacement for shallow Europe (looking that way) gotta think we are gonna need more than expected small WB lift. Might need some 330's to patch that hole, or use smaller 787's on that and fill the top lift with 350's. Either way, don't really see our needs being met by Boeing the way it looks now.
05-11-2024, 01:18 PM
#35
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,183
Without 321xlr being good replacement for shallow Europe (looking that way) gotta think we are gonna need more than expected small WB lift. Might need some 330's to patch that hole, or use smaller 787's on that and fill the top lift with 350's. Either way, don't really see our needs being met by Boeing the way it looks now.
05-12-2024, 01:26 AM
#36
Production Test Pilot
Joined APC: May 2013
Position: Production Test Pilot, Boeing
Posts: 111
Well, FAA to the rescue(?) again...
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/...158236.article
US regulators are formally seeking comment on proposed fire-safety conditions to accept the large aft centre fuel-tank design for Airbus’s long-range A321XLR twinjet.
...
But the US FAA is concerned that the tank’s location and design means it is directly exposed to potential post-crash ground fuel-fed fires, unlike centre wing tanks or optional auxiliary centre tanks.
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/...158236.article
US regulators are formally seeking comment on proposed fire-safety conditions to accept the large aft centre fuel-tank design for Airbus’s long-range A321XLR twinjet.
...
But the US FAA is concerned that the tank’s location and design means it is directly exposed to potential post-crash ground fuel-fed fires, unlike centre wing tanks or optional auxiliary centre tanks.
05-12-2024, 08:21 AM
#37
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,183
[QUOTE/]
US regulators are formally seeking comment on proposed fire-safety conditions to accept the large aft centre fuel-tank design for Airbus’s long-range A321XLR twinjet.
[size=33px][/QUOTE][/size]
Can't help but wonder given the pi$$-poor regulating of Boeing they've been doing why they would worry about something that MIGHT happen in the event of a statistically unlikely event. I mean door plugs are pressurized on damn near every flight. Failing to bolt them in place makes every flight a potential disaster. How often are you going to have a crash that would be otherwise survivable but for the loss of integrity of an integral aft fuselage fuel tank?
US regulators are formally seeking comment on proposed fire-safety conditions to accept the large aft centre fuel-tank design for Airbus’s long-range A321XLR twinjet.
[size=33px][/QUOTE][/size]
Can't help but wonder given the pi$$-poor regulating of Boeing they've been doing why they would worry about something that MIGHT happen in the event of a statistically unlikely event. I mean door plugs are pressurized on damn near every flight. Failing to bolt them in place makes every flight a potential disaster. How often are you going to have a crash that would be otherwise survivable but for the loss of integrity of an integral aft fuselage fuel tank?
05-12-2024, 11:40 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,088
Can't help but wonder given the pi$$-poor regulating of Boeing they've been doing why they would worry about something that MIGHT happen in the event of a statistically unlikely event. I mean door plugs are pressurized on damn near every flight. Failing to bolt them in place makes every flight a potential disaster. How often are you going to have a crash that would be otherwise survivable but for the loss of integrity of an integral aft fuselage fuel tank?[/QUOTE]
to earn back their reputation as a diligent regulator?
to not let Airbus get ahead too much and to protect American jobs?
05-12-2024, 11:55 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2023
Posts: 379
Can't help but wonder given the pi$$-poor regulating of Boeing they've been doing why they would worry about something that MIGHT happen in the event of a statistically unlikely event. I mean door plugs are pressurized on damn near every flight. Failing to bolt them in place makes every flight a potential disaster. How often are you going to have a crash that would be otherwise survivable but for the loss of integrity of an integral aft fuselage fuel tank?
Good Points, obviously the "Regulatory FAA" hasn't been on their game for some time now. Very similar to our pilot shortage, they have very minimal experience in the FAA nowadays.
I hope we continue with Boeing and avoid the bus, my experience with Airbus is a bit discouraging, however, it was at a company run by a bunch of AA flunkies so that could have been the reason. I'm sure we will be ok no matter which way we go!
In Unity...
05-12-2024, 05:54 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 162
I heard it was in the case of a gear up landing they were concerned about the aft center tank. I can see that being something to look at more closely.
[/size]
[/size]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
