Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RAM To Take Four 787s  
User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4728 times:

Royal Air Maroc to sign for four 787s plus one option.

Source: Air Transport Intelligence

(PS - this was posted in the other RAM thread but it appeared in the middle of a handbag fight, and is just going to be overlooked...)

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12285 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4515 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Good to see the B787 band wagon growing.

User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33195 posts, RR: 71
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4355 times:

Good news.

I wonder if they will use this to expand their long-haul network past just Montreal and New York City.



a.
User currently offlineSTARalliance24 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 378 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4331 times:

Los Angeles, Vancouver, San Fransisco, would be nice west coast destinations they could do. But thats my opinion.  Wink

User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4280 times:

I dont think Los Angeles. Vancouver or San Franscico are likely for RAM. perhaps, Rio de Janeiro may be re-introduced as that was served for many years by RAM 747s.

I wouldnt have thought a requirement for 787s was at all urgent as RAMs 7673 are amongst the newest in service and would not need replacing for a good 10 years or so.

New long-haul destinations for RAM other than Rio, might include a service to another French speaking long-haul destination, perhaps a joint service to Guadeloupe/Martinique.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33195 posts, RR: 71
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4262 times:

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 4):
New long-haul destinations for RAM other than Rio, might include a service to another French speaking long-haul destination, perhaps a joint service to Guadeloupe/Martinique.

RAM is in business to make money, not bleed it.



a.
User currently offlineYULMRS From France, joined Mar 2005, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4216 times:

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 4):
I dont think Los Angeles. Vancouver or San Franscico are likely for RAM. perhaps, Rio de Janeiro may be re-introduced as that was served for many years by RAM 747s.

I wouldnt have thought a requirement for 787s was at all urgent as RAMs 7673 are amongst the newest in service and would not need replacing for a good 10 years or so.

New long-haul destinations for RAM other than Rio, might include a service to another French speaking long-haul destination, perhaps a joint service to Guadeloupe/Martinique.

.

Nice joke  Wink CAS-NOU could be nice  Smile

Do we know which versions ? 783 788 ???????

I think some more arabic destinations could be introduced. Some 783 may also serve Paris, LYS or MRS ...



To any North American carrier, send us a regular flight in MRS !!!!!
User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4176 times:

Quoting YULMRS (Reply 6):
Do we know which versions ? 783 788 ???????

Whose says it can't be both  Wink ? Ok, with only 4, it wouldn't make too much sense to split the order. Expect the 788, as the 787 will likely be used to replace/supplement the 763s on the transatlantic routes.


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4000 times:

On the Boeing's site now:



http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...05/photorelease/q3/pr_050810h.html

The press release indicates that RAM has signed a MOU for "up to five" B787s and does not specify which model.

Well done to Boeing and RAM.  bigthumbsup 

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3988 times:

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 4):
wouldnt have thought a requirement for 787s was at all urgent as RAMs 7673 are amongst the newest in service and would not need replacing for a good 10 years or so.

Perhaps they are going to use the 787 for growth opportunities that the 767 does not have the range for?



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineSTARalliance24 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 378 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3921 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 9):
Perhaps they are going to use the 787 for growth opportunities that the 767 does not have the range for?

Hong Kong or Tokyo or Sydney perhaps?


User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 3007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3883 times:

Here's a somewhat amusing excerpt from the Boeing press release, a not-too-subtle dig at the recent comments by Airbus:

"Royal Air Maroc's Board of Directors agreed to purchase the Boeing 787s on July 29, following a long and well-defined competition that had been extended on two occasions. After declaring the tender to be clear and transparent, RAM's Board of Directors instructed the airline to directly engage Boeing in negotiations for the purchase of the 787 as the best solution for its long- haul fleet." (emphasis added)

This is great news for Boeing, and I am happy to see yet another early success for the 787, but frankly I think it would have been even classier if they had risen above the childish back-and-forth and just ignored the Airbus PR. I'm sure they wanted to preempt any possible criticism, but instead this just makes them look a bit defensive. Oh well, c'est la vie.



Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
User currently offlineZamaria From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3872 times:

Isn't this the same deal that Airbus decided not to bid on? Anybody know exactly why?

-Z


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5796 posts, RR: 47
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3852 times:

Quoting Zamaria (Reply 12):
Isn't this the same deal that Airbus decided not to bid on? Anybody know exactly why?

Airbus claimed that RAM's tender is unclear. No one knows what that means but it seems that RAM was more inclined to Boeing regardless of who put in a proposal.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineSwisswings From Switzerland, joined Feb 2005, 60 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3716 times:

RAM may increase flights to its present North American destinations (New York and Montreal) with the 787 Dreamliner. I do not think that they will increase the number of destinations served in North America, though.
As mentioned before, RAM could use them too on their key routes to France (high volume) as well as to Jeddah or reopen its South American link to Rio de Janeiro.


User currently offlineSwisswings From Switzerland, joined Feb 2005, 60 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3703 times:

Reading another thread, RAM's CEO seems to mention Atlanta as an additonal NA destination. It may give them access to Delta's major network in the US. Never stop learning...

User currently offlineMeafly From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3678 times:

Didn't Airbus withdrawal their bid on Aug. 5th? The release says the MOU with Boeing was signed July 31st. Something doesn't add up.

User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3648 times:

Quoting Meafly (Reply 16):
Didn't Airbus withdrawal their bid on Aug. 5th? The release says the MOU with Boeing was signed July 31st. Something doesn't add up.

Well if they signed an MOU then, it would make sense that Airbus would subsequently withdraw their bid. Do these talks happen on weekends then?


User currently offlineFCKC From France, joined Nov 2004, 2348 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3272 times:

As already mentionned in another topic , Airbus didn't make any tender to win this order , SIMPLY because RAM want to have the new plane in fleet in 2008.
Of course Airbus is absolutly unable to deliver the A350 at this date , the sooner would be 2010-2012.
To win this order , Boeing made slots for RAM for 2008 delivery , as they absolutly want this order , as they consider RAM as a prestigious African airline.
I guess they will NOT reopen the RIO route , as this route has been opened with a 747 , only as a caprice of the previous King (HassanII) to carry members of the Royal family , but it was a vaste of money.
Think the new King is quite more reasonable.
Atlanta is a surprise , but why not.
Fort de France or Pointe a Pitre is a joke.No Morrocans go there.


User currently offlineMeafly From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3088 times:

Perhaps Airbus should of stated [that] themselves. Instead, from what I've read, they instead claimed that they wouldn't compete due to RAM being unspecific in their tender. That claim has been fully rejected by the airline. It seems they just were trying to muddy the waters so this wasn't perceived for what it, in fact, is.....another clear win for the 787 over the A350. And, they pursued this track after it was clear Boeing had already won the deal. This has been one of the stranger stories I read about an airplane deal. Didn't Airbus also rub India the wrong way not too long ago?

User currently offlineMeafly From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2989 times:

For those who read French, here's a good article that explains what transpired:

http://www.lagazettedumaroc.com/articles.php?id_artl=7159&r=2&sr=937


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...
Vietnam Airlines Plan To Buy Four Boeing 787s posted Fri Jun 3 2005 11:56:08 by Squirrel83
U.S. Gov. To Take Over Four Pension Plans At Uni posted Sat Apr 23 2005 20:09:52 by Rsmith6621a
Tarom To Take On Some Four More NG Boeing 737-700? posted Fri Dec 12 2003 21:59:40 by Connector4you
Branson's Pledge To Take Away VS Profits posted Tue Dec 5 2006 15:14:27 by Singapore_Air
Arkia Israeli To Take Over Axis Airways posted Wed Nov 8 2006 15:19:26 by LY777
Xinhua: Airbus To Take 51% Stake In China Plant posted Mon Oct 9 2006 08:14:01 by N328KF
Mesa F/A School Tomorrow...what Bags To Take!? posted Tue Oct 3 2006 04:41:25 by Flyboy80
777-200LR Why So Long To Take To Skys? posted Sat Sep 9 2006 16:35:38 by Joffie
Mesaba Urges Labor To Take Cuts Or Else! posted Fri Sep 8 2006 14:13:14 by MSPGUY
A Reason To Take A Train? posted Mon Aug 21 2006 00:38:54 by Greg3322