FleetBuzz.com
IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Qatar CEO absolutely TRASHES the A346 in interview!
Rating 3 V
ConcordeBoy
post Mar 17 2009, 05:55 AM
Post #1


Co-Founder - FleetBuzz.com
Group Icon

Group: FB Admin
Posts: 3,598
Joined: 11-August 05
From: New Orleans, LA, USA
Member No.: 4
Country: United States


"If I could, I would throw them away. These planes are not efficient at all."


...for us (subsonic) 4holer haters, that's just beautiful right there!
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=15907


--------------------
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aurora
post Mar 17 2009, 10:25 AM
Post #2


Senior FB Mafioso
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 5,668
Joined: 29-October 05
From: Central Standard Time North America
Member No.: 215
Country: United States


So why did he buy the aircraft in the first place? Its not like his airline is making money, is it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CoachBoy
post Mar 17 2009, 01:11 PM
Post #3


FB Street Captain
Group Icon

Group: Active Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 2-December 06
From: ATL
Member No.: 871
Country: United States


I once saw one of QR's taking off at LHR. It took an entire minute to get off the ground and used up the overwhelming majority of the runway. Horrible plane, poo-tube is a fitting nickname.


--------------------
I'm coach boy, 'cuz that's where I always sit.

Delta Skymiles Gold Medallion/Skyteam Elite, BA Silver/OneWorld Saphire
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mbflyer
post Mar 17 2009, 02:01 PM
Post #4


FB Street Captain
Group Icon

Group: Active Member
Posts: 597
Joined: 30-November 05
Member No.: 248



QUOTE (CoachBoy @ Mar 17 2009, 01:11 PM) *
I once saw one of QR's taking off at LHR. It took an entire minute to get off the ground and used up the overwhelming majority of the runway. Horrible plane, poo-tube is a fitting nickname.


Yet Lufthansa seems content with it; has anyone heard to the contrary?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stitch
post Mar 17 2009, 02:43 PM
Post #5


FB Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: FB Sponsor
Posts: 1,585
Joined: 17-May 07
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 1,353
Country: United States


LH chose to add more rather then switch to the 777-300ER so I can only assume they either like the plane or they like the price Airbus is selling them for.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jacobin777
post Mar 17 2009, 03:34 PM
Post #6


FB Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Active Member
Posts: 1,515
Joined: 17-November 06
From: SJC
Member No.: 789
Country: United States


QUOTE (Stitch @ Mar 17 2009, 07:43 AM) *
LH chose to add more rather then switch to the 777-300ER so I can only assume they either like the plane or they like the price Airbus is selling them for.



Don't forget LH got the "fuel burn delta" which Airbus was promising to customers who wanted to get the A346 over the B77W. IIRC, not all carriers got the deal.




--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kimshep
post Mar 17 2009, 04:33 PM
Post #7


Foundation Member, Partner & Admin From "DownUnder"
Group Icon

Group: FB Admin
Posts: 10,256
Joined: 11-August 05
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Member No.: 15
Country: Australia


We've often postulated, on the face of it, that "U-Turn Al" seems to have a .. ahem .. 'curious' and somewhat bizarre approach to airline management and control.

Why should we endorse his remarks on this issue as believable, on this occassion ? Has he recently undergone a 'logic' rewiring ?

After all with the plunging cost of oil, the A340-600 (as well as the B747-400 and most other 4 engined frames) is well under the operational cost and profitability of the time at which his airline originally purchased them. Sorry - but "Does not compute" !


--------------------
Proud 2002-7 QF Platinum / Emerald OneWorld, NZ/LH Silver Star Alliance and dirt level Blue AF SkyTeam Member

.::
Flying By The Seat Of Your .. Pants !
::.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jacobin777
post Mar 17 2009, 05:08 PM
Post #8


FB Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Active Member
Posts: 1,515
Joined: 17-November 06
From: SJC
Member No.: 789
Country: United States


QUOTE (kimshep @ Mar 17 2009, 09:33 AM) *
We've often postulated, on the face of it, that "U-Turn Al" seems to have a .. ahem .. 'curious' and somewhat bizarre approach to airline management and control.

Why should we endorse his remarks on this issue as believable, on this occassion ? Has he recently undergone a 'logic' rewiring ?

After all with the plunging cost of oil, the A340-600 (as well as the B747-400 and most other 4 engined frames) is well under the operational cost and profitability of the time at which his airline originally purchased them. Sorry - but "Does not compute" !


I do not see anything contradictory in his comments. no.gif When he got those over-bloated inefficient birds, he didn't have those B77W's in the fleet. Once they came in, it became fairly obvious to him as to which is the better plane (by a wide margin). yes.gif



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kimshep
post Mar 17 2009, 05:19 PM
Post #9


Foundation Member, Partner & Admin From "DownUnder"
Group Icon

Group: FB Admin
Posts: 10,256
Joined: 11-August 05
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Member No.: 15
Country: Australia


I do !

There are plenty of other carriers that made similar decisions, based on the (then) proven efficiency of the frame, based on available ULH aircraft and routes. That includes some highly premium Asian and EU carriers.

Bear in mind that, in the context of this discussion, "inefficient" becomes a relative term, only when a subsequent more efficient product emerges. And changes in the floor price of oil still need to be considered here.

There is a finite difference between "most efficient, more efficient, efficient" .. and the yawning chasm that marks "inefficient" my friend. It is folly to confuse them as definitions.

I daresay that in 20 years time .. even the vaunted currently most theoretically-efficient B787 will be regarded as 'in-efficient' by comparison. But that doesn't make it so, in these times. Nor does it apply to the A340-600 just yet.


--------------------
Proud 2002-7 QF Platinum / Emerald OneWorld, NZ/LH Silver Star Alliance and dirt level Blue AF SkyTeam Member

.::
Flying By The Seat Of Your .. Pants !
::.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
keesje
post Mar 17 2009, 05:30 PM
Post #10


FB Street Captain
Group Icon

Group: Active Member
Posts: 501
Joined: 7-December 07
Member No.: 2,139
Country: Netherlands


Would this be an Airbus vs Boeing Topic?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jacobin777
post Mar 17 2009, 07:08 PM
Post #11


FB Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Active Member
Posts: 1,515
Joined: 17-November 06
From: SJC
Member No.: 789
Country: United States


QUOTE (kimshep @ Mar 17 2009, 10:19 AM) *
I do !

There are plenty of other carriers that made similar decisions, based on the (then) proven efficiency of the frame, based on available ULH aircraft and routes. That includes some highly premium Asian and EU carriers.

Bear in mind that, in the context of this discussion, "inefficient" becomes a relative term, only when a subsequent more efficient product emerges. And changes in the floor price of oil still need to be considered here.

There is a finite difference between "most efficient, more efficient, efficient" .. and the yawning chasm that marks "inefficient" my friend. It is folly to confuse them as definitions.

I daresay that in 20 years time .. even the vaunted currently most theoretically-efficient B787 will be regarded as 'in-efficient' by comparison. But that doesn't make it so, in these times. Nor does it apply to the A340-600 just yet.


I do understand your point kimshep, however don't forget, English isn't the first language of many. They might not know the intricacies of the English lexicon. His quotes might also have been taken out of context. He just might have been talking about them in comparison to the B77W's. yes.gif


QUOTE (keesje @ Mar 17 2009, 10:30 AM) *
Would this be an Airbus vs Boeing Topic?


Probably.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kimshep
post Mar 18 2009, 12:43 AM
Post #12


Foundation Member, Partner & Admin From "DownUnder"
Group Icon

Group: FB Admin
Posts: 10,256
Joined: 11-August 05
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Member No.: 15
Country: Australia


QUOTE (Jacobin777 @ Mar 18 2009, 06:08 AM) *
I do understand your point kimshep, however don't forget, English isn't the first language of many. They might not know the intricacies of the English lexicon. His quotes might also have been taken out of context.


I appreciate your point, as a general comment ~ but do not forget also that Oxford, Cambridge, Yale and Harvard all make a very comfortable fees by educating most Middle East / Arabic entrepreneurs and royalty.

While English mightn't be his first language (although in Qatari and International business rounds, it probably is), I'd say his command and understanding of the English language might be superior to the majority of most. cool.gif


--------------------
Proud 2002-7 QF Platinum / Emerald OneWorld, NZ/LH Silver Star Alliance and dirt level Blue AF SkyTeam Member

.::
Flying By The Seat Of Your .. Pants !
::.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jacobin777
post Mar 18 2009, 01:58 AM
Post #13


FB Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Active Member
Posts: 1,515
Joined: 17-November 06
From: SJC
Member No.: 789
Country: United States


QUOTE (kimshep @ Mar 17 2009, 05:43 PM) *
QUOTE (Jacobin777 @ Mar 18 2009, 06:08 AM) *
I do understand your point kimshep, however don't forget, English isn't the first language of many. They might not know the intricacies of the English lexicon. His quotes might also have been taken out of context.


I appreciate your point, as a general comment ~ but do not forget also that Oxford, Cambridge, Yale and Harvard all make a very comfortable fees by educating most Middle East / Arabic entrepreneurs and royalty.

While English mightn't be his first language (although in Qatari and International business rounds, it probably is), I'd say his command and understanding of the English language might be superior to the majority of most. cool.gif


Non-sequitur mate. We have no idea where Mr. Bakr did his studies (at least I don't). Anything else is mere speculation.

Also, look at the way he handled the B787 order..that was a complete travesty as well. The bottom line is he's got a huge Airbus order book and money talks. yes.gif



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 3rd September 2010 - 12:18 PM
BoeingAvaition Top 100Aviation Top 100 Skyline Photography Seattle Deliveries Skyline Photography Airbus
Tim Dauber's Photography
Sloganizer
FleetBuzz.com