Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeings Sales! Can High Oil Prices Help?  
User currently offlineCo7772wuh From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

I am not an aviation expert or engineer . However , I am curious if high fuel costs make Boeing aircraft more attractive to Airlines looking to aquire new aircraft . Since , from what I have read in articles and on threads on Airliners.net , that Boeing aircraft are more fuel efficient than other a/c manufacturers ?

Dave

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 691 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2232 times:

I think that there are 3 aspects to this. The new Boeing 737NG aircraft are very fuel efficient and the new 787 will be even more so. That will increase their attractiveness. But there is another aspect to this. If oil prices go up, generally the US dollar goes down, and that will make Boeing even more competitive with Airbus, as the Euro strengthens in comparison.
Of course, oil prices rising in general also hurt the profitability of all airlines, so then the market for new aircraft overall will be reduced as carriers have less capability to finance them.


User currently offlineRamerinianair From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2193 times:

Boeing has better economics than the Airbus products. Unfortunately, Airbus has some circumstances in which they can afford to discount their aircraft very steeply. Some airlines choose to pay less now and gradually pay over time for things like higher gas consumption, more maintenance, less dispatch reliability and such. Every aircraft is different but, it seems that many start-up airlines and LCCs are attracted to the low purchase prices.
SR



W N = my Worst Nightmare!!!!!
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

Quoting Ramerinianair (reply 2):
Boeing has better economics than the Airbus products


I wouldn't say this was true throughout the line. Some Boeing products have better economics, some Airbus products have better economics. Some Airbus products that come to mind as having clearly superior economics are the A321 (vs 739), the A332 (vs all 767 variants) and the A333 (vs 767 and 772A).

I would say the A319 and A320 have fairly similar economics to their Boeing rivals the 73G and 738.

I think the 772ER, 773ER and 772LR have better economics than their A340 competitors.

I don't think you can draw a clear comparison between the 744 and A380 as the A380 holds 139 more passengers than the currently offered 744ER per manufacturer specs.

I won't speculate on future prodcuts.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5732 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2073 times:

Actually, Brons2, I would challenge you to find an Airbus that has superior operating economics.
The A346 is horrible compared to the 777, supposedly.
The NG 737s are a few percent cheaper than the A320s. Granted, the A320 came out during the production of the 737-3/4/5, and was more efficient than that generation (so, props to Airbus there), but not anymore.
And finally, the 787 is available for order and is cheaper to fly than the average Ford Escort.  Smile
The exception would be the A380, with its large number of seats to spread its high operating cost over. If you can fill it, it'll be dirt cheap to fly. Infortunately, here in the States, we have voted smaller airplanes with more frequency over large airplanes with less freqneucy. Shame too- I'd prefer a DC-10 to a 737 any day.
Also, Boeing actually claims that the 767 burns less fuel than the A330s. See their website, as the burden of proof is on them.
Further, the 787 will burn less fuel than the A350, due to Airbus's choice to make the 350 a 'minimal change' design, opting only for bleedless engines and little of the other revolutionary technology the 787 will offer.

TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, I think high fuel prices will drive the market to produce more efficient airplanes (like the 787 and A350). The question is, will airlines be around to buy them?
Maybe regulation is the answer. It worked until 1978. Yeah, prices were high, but we had well over 100 airlines, and lots of jobs. Now we have about ten worth mentioning. Maybe 15. And two... uh... three of them are in bankruptcy, LIVING off my tax dollar! Not the effect deregulation was supposed to have.
I am not sure what the answer is- regulated industry is hardly my idea of ideal.


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

I found some numbers on the web giving the A320 burning 2700 liters per hour per engine, and the 737NG about 2900. The Boeing and Airbus pages give the respective max speed : 0.785 and 0.82.

It would give an advantage to the A320 I guess.


User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1972 times:

Quoting Co7772wuh (reply 0):
Since , from what I have read in articles and on threads on Airliners.net , that Boeing aircraft are more fuel efficient than other a/c manufacturers ?


Don't just read threads on a.net...then you wouldn't ask such a question...  Insane


Quoting Ramerinianair (reply 2):
Boeing has better economics than the Airbus products


...and you win the February NONSENSE COMMENT AWARD...congratulations...  Yeah sure


Quoting Ramerinianair (reply 2):
nfortunately, Airbus has some circumstances in which they can afford to discount their aircraft very steeply.


Yeah, actually they can give them away for free almost any time...  Yeah sure


Quoting Ramerinianair (reply 2):
Some airlines choose to pay less now and gradually pay over time for things like higher gas consumption, more maintenance, less dispatch reliability and such.


Better get some facts from reality rather than from a.net cheergirls before you talk...  Wink/being sarcastic


Quoting Ramerinianair (reply 2):
Every aircraft is different but, it seems that many start-up airlines and LCCs are attracted to the low purchase prices.


Such as Southwest, Ryanair and WestJet?  Wink/being sarcastic


Quoting AA737-823 (reply 4):
The A346 is horrible compared to the 777, supposedly.


Oh really? I didn't know the A346 competes with all B777 variants...  Laugh out loud


Quoting AA737-823 (reply 4):
The NG 737s are a few percent cheaper than the A320s. Granted, the A320 came out during the production of the 737-3/4/5, and was more efficient than that generation (so, props to Airbus there), but not anymore.


It's total nonsense to compare "fuel burn" or "economics" of "naked" aircraft. There are some dozens of reasons for an airline to choose an aircraft type, including engine choice, commonality with existing fleets, spares support, route structure, cabin layout, cargo aspects and so on and on.
Purely saying the "B737 is cheaper to operate than the A320" or the other way round is bull.


Quoting AA737-823 (reply 4):
Also, Boeing actually claims that the 767 burns less fuel than the A330s. See their website, as the burden of proof is on them.


Yeah, that's like saying the Fokker 50 burns less fuel than an MD-11...typical manufacturer's blablabla. Airbus are not much better with their statements...


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1899 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I see big sales for Dash 8-Q400s and the demise of the 50-seat CRJ/ERJ.


Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineAMSSpotter From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 271 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1873 times:

And yet another A-versus-B-thread was born...  Crying

I have actually considered starting a thread "Could high oil prices boost A380 sales?" a few days ago but decided not to in order to avoid another A v. B thread. Now that a similar thread HAS been started, I might as well motivate my question:

Although I do know that, currently, the combination of higher frequency - smaller aircraft is preferred over lower frequency - larger aircraft, couldn't the industry be just "forced" to switching back to lower frequency - larger aircraft?! I mean: when oil prices remain as high as they currently are, won't the industry be forced to offer less convenience (lower frequencies BUT better economics) in order to get profitable again and to be able to keep offering low fares at the same time(?) It might give A380- AND (although maybe to a lesser extent) 747-sales a big boost...

[Edited 2005-02-25 02:21:18]

User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1605 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1853 times:

Quoting Co7772wuh (reply 0):
I am not an aviation expert or engineer .


neither are you an expert at avoiding A vs B pointless threads.


User currently offlineRamerinianAir From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1790 times:

OK UDO, maybe this is such a sore topic to you because you know Boeing has the upper hand. You want to be a hard nose and quote me like that, I can quote you back!!!
I remember typing Every aircraft is different during my post. This means that the statements may not across the board. I guess I have to make my disclaimer a little better know before the a.net Gestapo comes after me!
You asked for facts . . .
Type Fuel burn liters per km ... vs. .... Type Fuel Burn
B717 3.2 ....................................... A318 3.9
B73G 4.3 ....................................... A319 4.4
B738 4.4 ....................................... A320 4.8
B739 4.5 ....................................... A321 5.6
B757 5.3 ....................................... A321 5.6

B772 10.9 ............................... A346 ...... 14
2600 meters req. runway ............... 3300 meters req. runway
20000 kg cargo capacity ............... 19500 kg cargo capacity
B764 8.7 ................................. A333 ....... 9.3
17000 kg cargo ..............................10000kp cargo
2600 m runway req. ........................2605 m req. runway
What else would you like to compare??? I was being nice but, since you insisted!
The LCCs I were referring to include, Spirit, EasyJet, AmericaWest, Frontier et al.
And for my friend 737-800, He said The A346 is horrible compared to the 777, supposedly.
He NEVER said that all variants compete with each other.
As for Airbus' discounts, they have the ability to give VERY steep discounts due to the Subsidies-I wasn't going to say it but since you started.
SR
P.S. - Take the facts for February non-sense of the month! Also, look at the orders for Boeing compared to the orders for Airbus for this year!



W N = my Worst Nightmare!!!!!
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Quoting RamerinianAir (reply 10):
OK UDO, maybe this is such a sore topic to you because you know Boeing has the upper hand. You want to be a hard nose and quote me like that, I can quote you back!!!


You know nothing about me. In contrast to certain cheergirls in here I'm not a one-sided supporter of either A or B. If you had been longer around on that forum you would know that. Then you would know my preferrence of B777 over A340, just to name one example. All you say about me is ridiculous and you just make a fool of yourself.


Quoting RamerinianAir (reply 10):
I remember typing Every aircraft is different during my post. This means that the statements may not across the board.


Better re-read your own post and my exact replies before you try to defend yourself...  Insane


Quoting RamerinianAir (reply 10):
I guess I have to make my disclaimer a little better know before the a.net Gestapo comes after me!


Bringing up an expression like "Gestapo" shows me you are either not very intelligent or simply uneducated. Very sad that you have to use insults in order to "discuss"...


Quoting RamerinianAir (reply 10):
You asked for facts . . .
Type Fuel burn liters per km ... vs. .... Type Fuel Burn
B717 3.2 ....................................... A318 3.9
B73G 4.3 ....................................... A319 4.4
B738 4.4 ....................................... A320 4.8
B739 4.5 ....................................... A321 5.6
B757 5.3 ....................................... A321 5.6

B772 10.9 ............................... A346 ...... 14
2600 meters req. runway ............... 3300 meters req. runway
20000 kg cargo capacity ............... 19500 kg cargo capacity
B764 8.7 ................................. A333 ....... 9.3
17000 kg cargo ..............................10000kp cargo
2600 m runway req. ........................2605 m req. runway


Fuel burn alone is irrelevant. Re-read my postings above and you find out that there are dozens of reasons that make up an aircraft choice.
Comparing aircraft "naked", without taking aspects of a specific airline into consideration is nonsense, simple as that.

Comparing B764 to A333 is really ridiculous...the same goes for B757 and A321. It always depends on the operation profile of a specific airline.
Btw, haven't you yet realized that B764 and B757 are dead, while A333 and A321 still sell quite well?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Grow up or learn more about aviation, then we can talk again.


Quoting RamerinianAir (reply 10):
He NEVER said that all variants compete with each other.


Saying a single variant is "horrible" compared to a whole aircraft family can only give me a laugh...  Big thumbs up


Quoting RamerinianAir (reply 10):
As for Airbus' discounts, they have the ability to give VERY steep discounts due to the Subsidies-I wasn't going to say it but since you started.


Amen. Always the same blahblah, I won't waste my time to reply to that any more. It's true Airbus get subsidies but they cannot discount any order due to that. They are a profitable company responsible for their shareholders.
And don't forget Boeing's subsidies for military projects...


Quoting RamerinianAir (reply 10):
- Take the facts for February non-sense of the month!


No chance, that award went to you...  Wink/being sarcastic


Quoting RamerinianAir (reply 10):
Also, look at the orders for Boeing compared to the orders for Airbus for this year!


So what? They have been really successful so far. And? Their recent success is not only due to the "better fuel burn" as you might suggest...



Regards
Udo


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1713 times:

Ramerinianair,

What else would you like to compare??? I was being nice but, since you insisted!

Your post was begining well, but this is the most childish statement I've seen for a long time.


I have to make my disclaimer a little better know before the a.net Gestapo comes after me!

And this one the most stupid.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7481 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1648 times:

Ramerinianair

What is your source.

Is that fuel burn per passenger.


User currently offline5NEOO From Nigeria, joined Nov 2003, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1572 times:

Am I supposed to believe that the 764 can carry more cargo than the A333 (from a weight perspective that is)?


Admit it, you could care less about the continent Africa!
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1545 times:

Type Fuel burn liters per km ... vs. .... Type Fuel Burn
B717 3.2 ....................................... A318 3.9
B73G 4.3 ....................................... A319 4.4
B738 4.4 ....................................... A320 4.8
B739 4.5 ....................................... A321 5.6
B757 5.3 ....................................... A321 5.6




Hmmm ...

Airbus numbers give 23860 liters, 5500 km and 150 pax + baggages for the A320.

It gives 4,3 liters/km and 0,03 liter/km/pax.

Where did you get your numbers from ?

[Edited 2005-02-25 17:08:47]

User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1524 times:

Quoting Sebolino (reply 15):
Where did you get your numbers from ?


Good question, I'm really waiting for our would-be expert to speak up...  Wink/being sarcastic


Regards
Udo


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will High Oil Prices Ever Force A Ch. 7 Filing? posted Mon Jun 20 2005 16:07:07 by Quickmover
Why Piece Concepts In Times Of High Oil Prices? posted Wed Sep 29 2004 18:24:00 by Bustaphil
High Oil Prices Threaten Asian Airlines posted Sun May 16 2004 10:50:08 by 777ER
Fortune Magazine: "High Oil = Low Prices?" posted Fri May 5 2006 23:12:53 by Airwave
NWA CEO Anderson: Gov't Help For Oil Prices posted Wed Jul 7 2004 19:25:37 by Mikey711MN
Freighter Airlines And High Fuel Prices posted Sat Jul 29 2006 19:15:42 by WN230
Can Anyone From DL Help With This? posted Sun Apr 9 2006 22:52:11 by TymnBalewne
Oil Prices Finally Catching Up To Fares? posted Wed Feb 15 2006 07:52:17 by 777fan
Hype Of Oil Prices Has Calmed Down! posted Sat Oct 8 2005 00:15:41 by EK156
How Do Airlines Recover From The Oil Prices? posted Tue Aug 30 2005 23:39:33 by Slashd0t