Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Qatar A350 Deal In Doubt - CEO  
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5358 times:

An article on the BBC news site that includes an interview with Qatar Airways' chief executive, Akbar al-Baker has thrown up a direct quote in which the CEO throws doubt on the A350 order they placed earlier in the year:

Quote:

Mr Baker told Reuters that the airline could not purchase a plane that was "undefined" and would have to review its options.

"So many things will change that the aeroplane that we signed for last September is not there any more," the agency quoted him as saying.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5004380.stm

Sounds like interesting times ahead for the A350...

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5297 times:

That doesn't mean it is "in doubt".

http://news.morningstar.com/news/DJ/...ONESDJONLINE000218.html?Cat=USMkts

Quote:

Quote:

The head of state-owned Qatar Airways said Monday the airline was firmly committed to a $10-billion deal to buy A350 planes from Airbus (ABI.YY).

"We are committed to the A-350 deal, the only thing is there is a delay in delivery and we are waiting for them to tell us the final specifications of this airplane," Akbar al-Baker, chief executive of Qatar Airways told Dow Jones Newswires on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East which closes today in Egypt's Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh.

Obviously they need to look at the changes - if Airbus makes any. But he still says they are "firmly committed".


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4526 times:

To me, it seems as if QR is just continuing the criticism of ILFC and SQ......however, I do believe they will go with the A350 once they have a better understanding of what the A350 specs are........

ahhh...the beauty of competition....it keeps things honest and in check.. checkmark ......



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1717 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4422 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 12):
Ohhh really? Strange thing is that when ANA order the B787 it was still know as the B7E7 and it looked a lot different from its current version.

So you're thinking ANA signed an order based on those artistic impressions? I'm think that's probably not the way it happened.

Obviously the engineering and production assessments presented by Boeing were compelling and persuasive. It's equally obvious that isn't true for Airbus and the A350. In fact, it looks like they were so underwhelming that Airbus has had to cancel the A350 program and start over.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 69
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4413 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13):
You're correlating a graphic created by the marketing department to the designs created by the engineering department? Hardly persuasive..

What makes you think that the marketing department was not informed by the engineering department? It would be rather idiotic for Boeing to publish something what could be someones wet dream.

Thing is that when these images were released, and when ANA placed their order Boeing still did not have a final definition.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4408 times:

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 3):
Just because QR doesn't order Boeing aircraft it doesn't necessarily mean anyone is "anti-Boeing" or "anti-US".

I agree. And?

Quoting HS748 (Reply 4):
Of course he is. He couldn't possibly want Airbus because it's better for his airline, could he!

Exactly how could it be better for his airline when he doesn't know what it is? Does he have a crystal ball? Or is it something else...? Perhaps he believes because it's Airbus it must be better?

Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):
Ahhh, or course , as is every airline that buys Airbus.

Moving back to reality, have you any evidence to account for your statement?

Where did I question any other airline's decision? Mr. Baker is committed to Airbus for a product which he himself states no longer exists and that the revised version will be late by two years.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):
Care to explain their MOU on the 787, and the 777s?

QR chose the A350 over the 787. Why? The "existence of the Airbus A330 in Qatar Airways' current fleet and slightly more advantageous commercial terms." Mr. Baker, June, 2005.

As for the 777's, are they really getting them? "Qatar Airways has backed off from a commitment to order 20 Boeing 777 aircraft and now says it might instead buy A340 jetliners from the Chicago supplier's European rival, Airbus." WSJ, March 27, 2006.

It's one thing to say "we evaluated the Airbus and Boeing offerings and, for our airline, found the Airbus (or Boeing) offering better." It's quite another to say "Airbus tipped the scales on the original order and, even though the original product no longer exists, we said we'd buy Airbus and that's what we're going to do no matter what."


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4386 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 15):
It's equally obvious that isn't true for Airbus and the A350. In fact, it looks like they were so underwhelming that Airbus has had to cancel the A350 program and start over.

Some people in control of airlines seem to disagree with you, are they allowed to do that? I mean its obvious you are all knowing and all powerful, and that they are making the worst mistake since Custer said 'Hey, sure we can take them!'

And Airbus havent 'cancelled and started over', they are producing another design iteration - even if you play pure semantics its totally different.


User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4372 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 12):
Ohhh really? Strange thing is that when ANA order the B787 it was still know as the B7E7 and it looked a lot different from its current version.

But the definition hasn't changed. The appearance has nothing to do with a definition of a plane... still a tube with wings, now that was defined all along.... saving fuel 20% less, that was also defined all along... cross section for 8 abreast...... midsize plane <300.... composite fuselage, etc... know what I mean?

The A350 came in as a simple slap on new engines on a A330... changing it to be lighter by using Al-li... too new cabin, now they want to increase the cabin width... these are all huge project defnition changes so they have increased scope of the project.



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 69
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4344 times:

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 19):
But the definition hasn't changed. The appearance has nothing to do with a definition of a plane... still a tube with wings, now that was defined all along.... saving fuel 20% less, that was also defined all along... cross section for 8 abreast...... midsize plane <300.... composite fuselage, etc... know what I mean?

The A350 came in as a simple slap on new engines on a A330... changing it to be lighter by using Al-li... too new cabin, now they want to increase the cabin width... these are all huge project defnition changes so they have increased scope of the project.

Boeing Completes 787 Firm Configuration

EVERETT, Wash., Sept. 23, 2005 -- Members of the 787 Dreamliner team gathered today to celebrate the achievement of firm configuration for the all-new Boeing [NYSE:BA] airplane. This milestone marks the close of the joint development phase of the program and the full-scale start of detailed design.

"Firm configuration means the airplane's structural, propulsion and systems architectures are firm. They are not changing," said Mike Bair, vice president and general manager of the 787 program. "This allows us and our partners to proceed with detailed design -- down to the smallest parts and final composite ply layouts -- with great confidence.

"At the end of detailed design, we will know what each inch of the airplane looks like and how it interacts with every other inch of the airplane."

Commenting further on reaching firm configuration, Bair noted: "The team has done a fantastic job to get us through this important milestone. There are still great challenges ahead as we move toward the beginning of production, first flight, certification and our first deliveries, but we are confident in our abilities to meet our commitments to our customers."


http://boeing.com/commercial/787family/news/2005/q3/nr_050923g.html

The strange thing is that Boeing finalized the B787 in September 2005. Do you really think that ANA had all the info in regads to the B787 back in April 2004?

Don't forget that Qatar was to place it's firm order as soon as Airbus finalized the A350. While ANA just went straight ahead and place it before final freeze.

See the difference here?

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 3):
rage about an airline that re-evaluates its fleet plannings...

How is it reevaluating anything but its current order? Unless they compare the new 350 to the 787-10, they are reevaluating nothing but their current order.

Quoting HS748 (Reply 4):
He couldn't possibly want Airbus because it's better for his airline, could he!

I dont think that is the issue.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 6):
What is ludicrous is to be "committed" to an order for an aircraft which is not defined.

I question that too.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 7):
Well that didn't stop ANA from ordering the B787.

They are a launch partner and a longtime Boeing customer with the power and influence to define the plane they order. I do not get the impression the same scenario is in place for the 350 and Qatar, but I may be wrong.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 12):
Ohhh really? Strange thing is that when

Artist conceptions are just that.

And since when do looks mean anything to an airline? If they did then explain 159 A-380 sales.  duck 

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14):
Wouldnt that be false advertising for the marketing department to show off something known not to be correct? Unless of course it was pitched to ANA and they were aware that the specification was not final and could change.....

Artist conceptions are just that.

You buy the house in the blueprint not the house in the artist conceptual portrait of how it may appear.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 16):
Thing is that when these images were released, and when ANA placed their order Boeing still did not have a final definition.

Source? ANA knew the specs because they were the source of many of them and put them in the contract. Do you really think the 783 would exist without them and their input?

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 19):
But the definition hasn't changed

Exactly.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4295 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 20):
The strange thing is that Boeing finalized the B787 in September 2005. Do you really think that ANA had all the info in regads to the B787 back in April 2004?

You're talking about the engineering configuration. "Firm configuration means the airplane's structural, propulsion and systems architectures are firm."

That is completely different from the specifications which, as far as I recall, haven't changed.


User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4287 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 20):
Do you really think that ANA had all the info in regads to the B787 back in April 2004?

A general definition of performance and plane characteristics - most certainly yes. The characteristics of the 787 have not changed. engineering has but it still meet the original definition of when ANA signed.

The A380 was sold on the same manner... it was defined first, sold and launched officially... The airline is getting the A380 that they signed for when it was just a drawing.

Dont you see the difference between the 787, A380 versus the A350?



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1717 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4279 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 18):
Some people in control of airlines seem to disagree with you, are they allowed to do that? I mean its obvious you are all knowing and all powerful, and that they are making the worst mistake since Custer said 'Hey, sure we can take them!'

You are putting words in my mouth. In fact, I think Airbus is doing exactly what they need to do. They have realized their mistake and it looks like the may finally be bringing a competitive product to the table. Good for them.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 18):
And Airbus havent 'cancelled and started over', they are producing another design iteration - even if you play pure semantics its totally different.

Believe what you want. If the FI story is correct, Airbus is talking about a whole lot more than a "design iteration"; new fuselage, new wing, new appendage, new engines. That is starting over if I ever saw it.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineBoeingFever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4226 times:

Is QR serious about looking at there commitment to the A350? If so what are the delays on A350 if they completely scrap the current design and redo it? Are we talking months or years? Is QR trying to back airbus into a corner and get a better deal or are they seriously looking at changing some part/entire order to Boeing? I can't see QR backing out on such a larger order for such a new aircraft.


Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4216 times:

My god, Leahy and his team soon won't need to fly out to chase deals with potential customers, all he seemingly needs to do is call newspapers to find out how much discount they want. When will these public tantrums end?

I will say this though, we need to tie down this QR order. It's at the top of my order wishlist for new A350.


User currently offlineBoeingFever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4203 times:

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 26):
It's at the top of my order wishlist for new A350.

Let 17th-23rd of July tell us all alot. Until then I doubt any carrier will be placing firm orders or signing any papers until then.



Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4174 times:

Quoting BoeingFever777 (Reply 27):
Let 17th-23rd of July tell us all alot. Until then I doubt any carrier will be placing firm orders or signing any papers until then.

I fear there will be fanfare for the launch and little cheer as there will be no orders while customers digest figures and compare discounts.

I want to be wrong on this one, I really do


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4167 times:

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 28):
I want to be wrong on this one, I really do

Hang in there, now is the right time for Airbus to put pressure on the 777, well a few years ago would have been better, but they are on the right track now.

I am concerned about the lower end of the wide body market Airbus seems to be abandoning. They need a 330 and a 350-1000 type plane. This is still puzzling me.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4131 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 29):

I am concerned about the lower end of the wide body market Airbus seems to be abandoning. They need a 330 and a 350-1000 type plane. This is still puzzling me.

All will be revealed in time. I can only suspect that they are looking at the maturity of the market. Granted the 300 seater is growing but Airbus also have to salvage their A340 market sooner rather than later. Telling VS and LH et co. to hang on to the quads for another 10yrs while we attend to the 787 market is asking for trouble. AF wouldn't commit to one widebody manufacturer and see how many repeat A340's they've ordered lately.

so the two-pronged staggered attack is necessary, and in many ways a smart strategy.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4106 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14):
Wouldnt that be false advertising for the marketing department to show off something known not to be correct? Unless of course it was pitched to ANA and they were aware that the specification was not final and could change.....



Quoting WINGS (Reply 20):
The strange thing is that Boeing finalized the B787 in September 2005. Do you really think that ANA had all the info in regads to the B787 back in April 2004?

If ANA bought the plane for the artist's rendition of the 787, they would be fools. If they bought it for capacity, range, efficiency and performance, they are getting what they ordered. And any alterations made were made in consultation with ANA and other airlines. We know ANA was certainly following the design process from ANA's comments on weight issues.

Why QR didn't firm up their order, I don't know. Maybe they wanted to see the finalized design, or maybe they wanted to see Airbus win some key customers before they firm their order for the aircraft so they would have confidence in their aircraft choice. Regardless, QR committed to an aircraft design that is not going to be built in all likelihood.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6643 posts, RR: 78
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4081 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 6):
What is ludicrous is to be "committed" to an order for an aircraft which is not defined.

Not really. The revamped A350 won't be a worse plane than the one which they originally signed up for.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 10):
If you are planning on ordering 60 of a model, commonality concerns are less of an issue. And if I am not mistaken 60 787s would be a bigger fleet than what QR currently has in fleet or on firm order from Airbus.

Of course it can be advantageous to operate an all-Airbus fleet.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 17):
Mr. Baker is committed to Airbus for a product which he himself states no longer exists and that the revised version will be late by two years.

Though revamped, the product still exists. And two years aren't necessarily an issue.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 21):
How is it reevaluating anything but its current order? Unless they compare the new 350 to the 787-10, they are reevaluating nothing but their current order.

I was also referring to the people who constantly rant about the dropped B777 plans.


PH



Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 30):
Telling VS and LH et co. to hang on to the quads for another 10yrs while we attend to the 787 market is asking for trouble

Which is why the 380 was not timed well in my opinion

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 30):
Airbus also have to salvage their A340 market sooner rather than later

But, the larger the plane, the smaller the market. Not taking on the 787-8 and -9 first may be a mistake.

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 32):
I was also referring to the people who constantly rant about the dropped B777 plans.

Gotcha



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4002 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 33):
Quoting EbbUK (Reply 30):
Telling VS and LH et co. to hang on to the quads for another 10yrs while we attend to the 787 market is asking for trouble

Which is why the 380 was not timed well in my opinion

Well maybe hindsight will tell us that the current A380's materials and powerplants are obscelete (or will be), who could have forseen that new materials and new tech engines would have such a (frenzied) growth spurt at the time the plane was given the green light

At least the whale flies now and to enhance the design with new materials is the only way forward. yes more investment, yes much much earlier than envisaged but too late to turn back now.

Boeing will have to do the same with the 777, or are already. The 747-8? Please A350 all over again


User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3757 times:

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 32):
Though revamped, the product still exists. And two years aren't necessarily an issue.

"So many things will change that the aeroplane that we signed for last September is not there any more." Mr. Baker.

"We are committed to the A-350 deal, the only thing is there is a delay in delivery." Mr. Baker.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3679 times:

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 32):
I was also referring to the people who constantly rant about the dropped B777 plans.

I don't think there has been much ranting about that until recently. I presumed they were getting a good deal on A346s for one reason or another that was making it worthwhile to reconsider the 777 selection, which made more sense since they were getting A346s anyway. Now I'm not sure they know what they are doing.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
25 PlaneHunter : All involved parties know well that Airbus won't turn the A350 into a four-engined narrowbody. The revamped A350 will be different, but it will still
26 DeltaDC9 : Doubt it, the 787-10 and -11 if offered will take its place for most missions. And all they need is uprated bleedless engines, not a whole new plane.
27 BoeingFever777 : No orders, fanfare for launch of what? Airshows are about orders and big announcements and especially at Farnborough.
28 EbbUK : That is exactly what I would wish for, though I am feeling a little pessimistic of late. Reading too many a.net posts by americans about the demise o
29 AC320 : Unfortunately most replies in this discussion lead back to an original that had to be removed for violating the rules, leaving the continuity in piece
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...
Qatar Airways May Review A350 Deal posted Sun May 21 2006 19:31:58 by Lumberton
A350 Ad In Flight International Magazine posted Fri Oct 20 2006 00:18:10 by ConcordeLoss
New Qatar Livery Unveiled In Berlin posted Sun Apr 9 2006 00:50:38 by Thatplaneguy
Could Airbus Lose The Qatar A350 Order? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 15:50:15 by BoeingBus
Airbus Expect 50 Chinese A350 Orders In 2006 posted Wed Oct 26 2005 13:22:18 by PanAm_DC10
Trent 1700 A350 - Article In FI posted Tue Oct 11 2005 11:04:13 by Astuteman
Second Qatar Airways A330 In Special Colors posted Fri Sep 2 2005 09:38:23 by Udo
No Need For The USAir A350 Deal posted Thu Jun 16 2005 22:35:35 by Beauing
Qatar Airways Is In 'advanced Discussions' posted Fri May 6 2005 12:45:48 by Squirrel83
Burke Lakefront Airport Future In Doubt posted Tue Nov 9 2004 07:15:29 by FrequentFlyKid