United777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6727 times:
I really hope this topic does not start a bad debate and make people hate each other but after reading that news Thai Airways will order the A340-500/ -600 I was thinking about this.
What does the A340-500 /-600 have the Boeing 777-200LR /-300ER doesn't! The 772LR is aimed at the A345 and the 773ER at the A346. It seems like more airline are picking the 340 series! Iberia Airlines picked the 340 over the 777-300ER. The new 340 aircrafts have many more customer than the new 777s. Yea the 772LR comes out a few years after the A345 but it has more range. The 777 has always been picked over the A340 by airlines and passengers! Do the new 340s have new interiors to compete with the award winning 777 interior.
Also the airlines that have ordered the 340-500 and A340-600 have ordered more aircraft than the airline that have ordered the 777-200LR and 777-300ER.
Do you think Boeing should be worried that all potential 777LR and 773ER customers are already order the 340-500 and A340-600?
I'll have to say in my personal opinion the A340-600 has a very bright future more than the 777-300ER. I know some might not agree with me of course.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6575 times:
I don't think anything is wrong with the 777NG. First, neither plane is in service. That inhibits some carriers from ordering the types. Second these aircraft have already garnered a respectable number of order considering to the best of my recollection:
Firm 773ER orders:
The last Yahoo! press release I saw quoted an executive from Thai saying that the Airbus 340s would be $100 million each. After reading, I assumed they had to be getting 343s judging by the price. Again to the best of my recollection, the standard 777-300 (not ER) is the most expensive product Boeing sells at over $200 million catalog. I think we can safely assume that the 773ER will cost more.
Airbus gave Thai an incredible deal apparently. That is no shortcoming of the 777.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36 Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6497 times:
I still think it has a lot to do with the economy. Of the top 6 airlines in the US, Delta, Continental, United, American all use the 777, and US and NW don't. If the economy for the US carriers was better, then you would probably see some of these aircraft going to them, but that isnt going to happen any time in the near term
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16543 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6458 times:
Oh please, Countries like Thailand are gobbling up US Military equipment exports.
And Spain is one of the Nations Supporting the coalition to disarm Saddam's regime.
They "could" boycott Boeing's Commercial aviation division, but no way they would not buy American made military equipment.
US Military technology is far superior to anything EADS or Russia produces, and that advantage is one reason why Boeing can ride this economic downturn and Airbus (EADS) will have to go back to the well (subsidies).
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2687 posts, RR: 59 Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6422 times:
Actually, I hold the exact opposite viewpoint you do.
If we look at the sales of the A340NG vs. the 777LR, we notice that the A340-500 is beating the 777-200LR by a significant margin, while the A340-600/777-300ER battle is virtually a dead heat. However, one must first take into consideration that the A340NG has been offered for nearly 3 years longer than the 777LR. This immediately should add credence to the Boeing twin.
Next, let us also look at the specific orders. When we do, we find that, so far, both aircraft have captured 'expected' orders (i.e., orders from previous A340/777 operators, respectively):
At first glance, this tells us that current operators are sticking with a particular airframe. However, it should be noted that Virign Atlantic, Qatar Amiri (and I've heard rumors of China Eastern) are using their newly ordered aircraft, not as expansion, but to replace their current fleet. This should immediately tell us that there is something wrong with the A340-300, as a 10 year old aircraft should not need replacement (a la MD-11).
Now, we must look at those orders that we could consider 'decisive.' In other words, customers who have either both A340 & 777, or neither aircraft in their current fleet.
Singapore (17 A343, 772ER, 8 773) orders 5 A345.
Air France (14 + 4 A343, 18 772ER) orders 10 773ER.
EgyptAir (3 A342, 5 772ER) orders 2 A346.
Pakistan Int'l orders 3 772ER, 2 772LR, 3 773ER.
EVA Air orders 3 772LR and 4 773ER (+ 8 UFO 773ER).
South African orders 6 A343 and 6 A346.
Here we again see a virtual dead heat. Three customers have gone A340, while three have gone 777. One last note is that Singapore ordered the A345 before the decision to replace the A343 fleet, and before the specifications for the 777-200LR was finalized. At the time, the -200X was very much an under-performing airframe. Not so with the -200LR. There has been constant talk of SQ going ahead with a -200LR order to replace the -500. It can only be speculated if this will actually occur or not.
Finally, we have Emirates, who is a 777 operator (an A330) and has ordered the A340-500, and is expected to sign a 777-300ER order at Paris. This airline is difficult to gauge, as they seem willing to buy just about anything that comes out. However, they are also one of the more performance-oriented airlines, which can be very telling.
Overall, I don't see the A340NG capturing too many more significant orders. I will discuss both Thai and Cathay at a later date, as they are both interesting cases. However, after we have looked at the current customer list, it should be apparent that those current A340 customers who are in a position to order the A340NG have done so, while most major 777 operators have yet to ante-up to the 777LR, mostly due to the later development schedule and current economic climate. When the time comes, 777LR orders should soar.
P.S. - Much more to say, but this is getting rather long.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2687 posts, RR: 59 Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6332 times:
Neither a poor U.S. world image nor GE exclusitivity are large factors in 777LR sales. The former, as this rarely affects multi-billion dollar contracts to begin with, unless it is from politically controlled entities. The latter, as GE has proven that performance and maintanence issues far outweigh training. This has been witnessed with JAL and ANA, as well as comments from CX stating they didn't consider engine commonality a factor (CX is strongly rumored to be close to a deal for the 777-300ER) while SQ has flat out stated that this is a non-issue. Also remember that the A340NG have virtual engine exclusitivity as well - for an engine family not available on the A340-200/-300.
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6302 times:
The Iberia deal is in itself instructive. Airbus had to give significant concessions to get the deal, far beyond the price of the aircraft itself. Specifically, Airbus has guaranteed a resale value to Iberia should Iberia opt to sell the fleet.
Why is that significant? Because the A340, while more expensive to operate, costs less than the 777. For Iberia, that means that if things are slow, and they fly the planes less, they spend less money. In short, the 340 'eats less' when sitting unused on the ramp.
When times are good, and you are flying more, then the hourly costs will become more significant.
Iberia has the best of both worlds. In the short term, they hedge by buying Airbus. If flying picks up, they have the option of getting out of the 340's without significant financial consequences.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5855 times:
This should immediately tell us that there is something wrong with the A340-300, as a 10 year old aircraft should not need replacement (a la MD-11).
The thing that went wrong with the A-340 was that the "Superfan" program died. Airbus was counting on a vastly superior engine to sell this bird. When that failed to materialize, the A340 was a sitting duck for the 777.
Airbus hopes the -500 and -600 fulfill the original promise of the A340. As to the 777LR - from what I've heard- the economic advantages of a twin over a quad start to fade over the kind of distances these planes operate. Yet the 777 will probably have more cargo volume, so we will have to see....
Anyway, Boeing is now taking the same risk with the 7E7 as Airbus took with the A340. Because it has a more or less conventional configuration - most of the 7E7's savings will have to come from newer materials and better engines. If Boeing's suppliers and the major enginemakers can't make it happen - Boeing could end up giving much less then they are promising now. Its a risky game......