Hazy image of who owns the planes.

[Loose rivets]

I'm surprised that I didn't know this, and I'm also surprised that he has only got $3.1B.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/business/10flyboy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

[cactusbusdrvr]

He would have done well to push Airbus to develope a rival for the B 757. The A 321 does not have the range or payload to match the 757 at 190 to 215 seats.

[Thirty Eight South]

Doesn't have to. Why has the 757 line closed and the A320-A321 line still cranking out A/C at a rate of 30 (guessing) A/C or so a month?

You could argue the A321 squeezed the 757 out of business

[cactusbusdrvr]

True, but the A 321 can't match the range of the 757. I fly 180 minute ETOPS on the 757. The A 321 can't make PHX to HNL (over 6 hours flying) with 190 people, bags and fuel reserves. We have 72000 pounds of fuel available, granted the RB 211 is thirstier than the IAE engine but I thought the 321 only had about 55000 pounds available. Correct me on those numbers, please. I know that our East (US Air) operation uses the 321 from PHL to LAX which is a 5 hour sector but the jet won't get above 330 for a looong time. Most of the 321s do a high density East coast North to South route structure, which it is well suited for. The 757 has a ton of thrust available and I can get to FL 360 at close to max T/O weight within an hour.

If I could generalize, Boeing tends to overbuild, over engine their jets. Airbus is more efficient with specific fuel consumption because of smaller wings, smaller engines. Look at the comparison between a 737-700 or 800 and an A 319/320.

[Thirty Eight South]

It's true that the Airbus isn't the quickest out of the blocks, but its efficient at moving pax from A to B.

Also, it's not really a comparison between like A/C; the operational and engineering definitions are different. The point about the two different build philosophies is accurate, and they're designed in different eras.

The segmentation of route structures and operational flexibility are also factors that have changed over time - just look at the low cost sector options these days.

It's more of a beans counters argument - seat cost per mile ect, at the end of the day it's 'no bucks, no Buck Rogers'

[bri1980]

An extra dimension to this debate: didn't the 737-900 go some way to killing off the 757 production too??

[vapilot2004]

He has done much for this industry, made quite a nice profit along the way and has given much back in terms of both dollars and guidance.

His new museum (in conjunction with the Smithsonian - just south of Dulles) is spectacular. From the Enola Gay to Concorde to the SR-71 - this is a must see for anyone with a love for flying machinery. :ok:

[MarkD]

bri1980 - well put. The 757 wouldn't be *quite* as popular now either if it wasn't for Aviation Partners - look at how many went for freight conversion before "thin transatlantic" took hold at AA, CO etc.

If Airbus put a few CFM56-5C4 from an 340 onto a 321, assuming ground clearance and whatnot, it might shift more like a 757 which after all has 37,000-43,000 lbs of thrust each side :eek:

[chornedsnorkack]

I'm surprised that I didn't know this, and I'm also surprised that he has only got $3.1B.

Obviously then, Hazy does not own the planes. The planes are owned by ILFC shareholders.

It is said that sir Michael Bishop is the sole (100%) owner of a holding company which owns and leases to bmi and bmibaby all their planes. How many planes?

[WHBM]

“He lives and breathes the industry,” said John Leahy, the chief Airbus salesman. “When he was dating his wife, Christine, his idea of a exciting date was to go to the end of the runway and tell her about the DC-8 overhead.”
Well I sort of did this with Mrs WHBM :) as well (substitute 146s at London City near my house for the DC-8s). However I am not worth $3.1b. Where did you think I went wrong ?