A340's and American carriers

chunk · Post by **chunk** » 10 May 2005, 13:37

I stand corrected. However Bethune did have an 'exclusivity' agreement with Boeing...somehting which recently had to be removed as it was illegal. There is still some plicy in place though!

B744skipper · Post by **B744skipper** » 10 May 2005, 14:00

On A.net there was a discussion going on about Continental and the A340 last week, you can find it here.
There is a lot of information regarding this subject, which will clarify lots of questions.

Reply 19 wrote:CO actually ordered a mix of A333s and A343s for their route system back then, A333 with the Atlantic in mind and the A343 with the Pacific in mind - as discussed, none of these aircraft were ever delivered as the orders were cancelled in the bankruptcy proceeding. When CO got back on track and began expanding on longhaul routes, they went on their used DC10-30 buying spree (the DC10-30s were cheap and plentiful at the time) and, as stated above, under Gordon's direction, settled on an all Boeing fleet. CO has just about totally refreshed its fleet since the Texas Air days, only the 737-3T0s remain from that era.

Here is a modified Airbus A340, in Continental color scheme:

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 10 May 2005, 20:43

B744skipper wrote:
chunk wrote:erm...you think so? I put this somewhere else before but take Continental as an example. Bethune went from Snr. Exec at Boeing to the CEO position at CO...and promptly cancelled A340 orders....maybe not politically motivated but not exactly competitive tendering is it???
I do not want to spoil your day, but CO A340 orders where cancelled before Bethune arrived, because Continental went into bankruptcy and cancelled many orders then (at least the Airbus ones, for the A330/A340, just like NWA had).
After Continental got out they decided to buy lots of cheap DC-10 airframes to operate (expand) on the international routes. And after that Continental (or Bethune) decided to go for an all Boeing fleet, instead of ordering (again) some Airbusses.

but then why did NW go for the 330? It doesn't make any sense. The 340-500 has way better range then the 330's, and with NW flying in and out of Asia, it seems stupid! And they are putting their 742's into asia if I am not mistaken, they have to replace them sometime. I know that they will put a 330 on the route which can carry less passengers then a 340, and has a smaller range. Plus atleast with a 340 replacing the 742's there is atleast a fair seat capacity.

nwa757 · Post by **nwa757** » 10 May 2005, 23:59

heathrow wrote:but then why did NW go for the 330? It doesn't make any sense. The 340-500 has way better range then the 330's, and with NW flying in and out of Asia, it seems stupid! And they are putting their 742's into asia if I am not mistaken, they have to replace them sometime. I know that they will put a 330 on the route which can carry less passengers then a 340, and has a smaller range. Plus atleast with a 340 replacing the 742's there is atleast a fair seat capacity.

Northwest ordered the A340-300 not the -500 as it was not avilable at the time. The A330 is much more fuel efficient than the A340 is and has longer range (than the A343). Also the A330-300 is already bigger than the DC-10, so it would be pretty dumb to replace it with an A345.

ryanvsnow · Post by **ryanvsnow** » 11 May 2005, 04:52

Correct me if I'm wrong on this but isn't the majority of Airbus owned by the government? And if so, Boeing being a private company (with the exception of stock holders) would not have the funds to sell their A/C as cheap as Airbus.

B744skipper · Post by **B744skipper** » 11 May 2005, 08:59

@heathrow, when Continental cancelled their Airbus orders Northwest Airlines decided to convert the A330/A340 order to an A319/A320/A330 order. The A319/A320's where delivered when the original order should have been delivered, and the A330 order was delayed until 2003 and later (the aircraft being recently delivered).

So Northwest Airlines decided to convert the order in a way that there would be no more A340's. Also keep in mind that the orders where placed in the late eighties, so as nwa757 says, there where no A340-500's or so available.

Post by **sn26567** » 11 May 2005, 09:56

ryanvsnow wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong on this but isn't the majority of Airbus owned by the government?

Wrong. Airbus is owned at 80% by EADS and 20% by BAe Systems (British Aerospace), both private companies.

EADS NV itself is owned at 30% by DASA DaimlerChrysler Aerospace (so it is partly American), at 15% by French group Lagardère Matra Aérospatiale, and only at 15% by the French government. Construcciones Aeronauticas SA (CASA) of Spain has a share of some 5% and the rest is on the stock market.

More detailson the structure of EADS

ryanvsnow · Post by **ryanvsnow** » 11 May 2005, 16:45

Copy that thanks for the correction.

Squalo · Post by **Squalo** » 11 May 2005, 18:31

Does a340 not compete with 777? I would think maybe 777 having 2 engines and possibly less fuel burn along with the high price for oil may have something, anything to do with it?

8) S q u a l o 8)

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 11 May 2005, 19:55

sn26567 wrote:EADS NV itself is owned at 30% by DASA DaimlerChrysler Aerospace (so it is partly American), at 15% by French group Lagardère Matra Aérospatiale, and only at 15% by the French government. Construcciones Aeronauticas SA (CASA) of Spain has a share of some 5% and the rest is on the stock market.

I've got a "breaking new" for you:

Dassault Aviation is going to buy the 15% owned by Lagardère.

Regards

Seb.

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 12 May 2005, 00:32

I knw the 345 was not around in the 80's, but wouldn't they have seen this modern option later on and considered changing their order a bit?