Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ A350/A380/A330 Order - Part Deux  
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29674 posts, RR: 84
Posted (7 years 9 months 5 hours ago) and read 16044 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As the current thread has just been locked due to length of responses, time for part two.

************

Quoting RichardPrice:

My point was that its another thing to consider when deciding which aircraft to buy...In short, is the extra comfort saleable enough to offset the higher costs on side by side new aircraft? I think you will agree that if Airbuses figures come anywhere close to what they have touted this past week, the answer to that question will be 'bloody hell no!'.

You are probably correct, at least in regards to many operators when it comes to decision time.

Quoting Zvezda:

On the other hand, between the A350 and the B787, I don't think the B777 has a lot of life left except as a freighter and the niche B777-200LR.

I do agree the 777-200 and 777-200ER are not "long for this world" once the A350-900 and 787-10 enter commercial service, but it will depend on how Airbus can position the A350-1000 in terms of performance and capabilities to determine if the 777-300 (especially) and 777-300ER are sent to the "boneyard", as well.

[Edited 2006-07-23 05:02:13]

176 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5266 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 hour ago) and read 15831 times:

From www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2891098/

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Actually it only took one day for Airbus to disburse bad news.

Mariner wrote:
Airbus announced this yesterday?

PlanesNTrains replies:

I wasn't vouching for WHEN Airbus said it, but rather THAT Airbus said it. In other words, don't blame the messenger.

________________________

Also Mariner, you took issue with this comment I made:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 252):
In other words, I don't see it as "Wow! The A380 rocks!"

And you replied:

"So, in review: the launch customer increases its order prior ro EIS - despite anger provoking delays, massive negative press and ample opportunity to cancel with very few penalties.

I am not given to over-statement, but in this case, given the above, it might be possible to suggest - only "suggest" - that perhaps - stress "perhaps" - the A380 might be capable of rocking.

Don't you think?"

Well, first of all, I said "In other words, I don't see it as a "Wow! The A380 rocks!" - PERIOD. The "PERIOD" being left off (I'm sure inadvertantly) changed the meaning of what I was saying into an absolute.

My point was that there are a number of factors that MAY have played into the A380 decision besides just the "WOW" factor. I listed them, and didn't give any of them more or less value than another, and I certainly wasn't bashing either Airbus as a whole or the A380 specifically.

And what's up with the "Don't you think?" salutation in both of your replies to me? It seems a little condescending, or is it just part of your signature now? If it's meant as sarcasm, I'm more than happy to exchange viewpoints without it.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months ago) and read 15771 times:

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
it will depend on how Airbus can position the A350-1000 in terms of performance and capabilities to determine if the 777-300 (especially) and 777-300ER are sent to the "boneyard", as well.

It would be surprising if the A350-1000 didn't decisively beat the B777-300ER in CASM. I think the only advantage the latter has is near-term availability.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months ago) and read 15640 times:

I have not read the whole first thread since I was not at my computer very often during the last days - had to work a lot and rather spend my free time at the lake than on the internet  Wink so excuse if this had come up before:

Since SQ has opt for additional A380 how are the chances that they will buy 747-8Is ? They will have a mixed A350 and 787 fleet so why no A380/747F fleet if they can fill these planes.
Would they have a need for the 747-8F ?

Will there be other airlines follow the example of SQ and operate the A350 and 787 side by side - maybe Lufthansa or some Asian carriers ? Air France could be doing that since they already operate 777s and A340s together.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineAGreatWayToFly From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15535 times:

BTW, how many 744s are left in SQ's fleet? When is the last 744 set to be phased out?

User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15529 times:

Might have been mentioned already but i assume the A330s be A) brand new and B) use Trent 700's?

Please correct if wrong.  Smile


User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3493 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15483 times:

I'm afraid I don't see where the A330 fits into this. It isn't really filling a gap in SQ's fleet, and they'll be recieving 787s in fairly short order...are they planning on replacing A340s to save costs?


Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 15429 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 3):

Since SQ has opt for additional A380 how are the chances that they will buy 747-8Is ?

It's a bit difficult to imagine more than 19 VLA in SQ's fleet, but I suppose it's possible. Don't forget they also have 19 B777-300ERs on order.

Quoting Columba (Reply 3):
Would they have a need for the 747-8F ?

Yes, very much so.

Quoting AGreatWayToFly (Reply 4):
BTW, how many 744s are left in SQ's fleet? When is the last 744 set to be phased out?

SQ currently have 27 JumboJets in passenger operations. The last one is scheduled to be retired in 2011.


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 15413 times:

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 6):
I'm afraid I don't see where the A330 fits into this. It isn't really filling a gap in SQ's fleet, and they'll be recieving 787s in fairly short order...are they planning on replacing A340s to save costs?

The A330s are a more economical short- to medium-haul people mover than the B777-200ER is, that's what these birds are for - on medium length segments the difference might not be that large, but it still could make the difference between a slightly profitable and a slightly loss making flight... or it could be the difference between profits and large profits...  Wink

Although I do have to admit that I'm somewhat puzzled by the A330s arriving only in 2009/2010 - but, then again, I'm quite sure SQ knows what they're doing.

As for the A340s - while I certainly hope they'll stay, it really remains to be seen... as Antares noted in part 1 of this thread, something might be brewing in that area... so perhaps we'll know soon.



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineSIN_SQ From Singapore, joined Oct 2000, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 15388 times:

):

A330 is used as interim planes from 2009 to the first delivery of A350-900 XBW in 2012. So these A330 will have lifespan of serving with SIA for at least 5 years before they are completely replaced by A350 as all A330s are leased.

A340-500 are still with SIA as these are still the suitable planes to serve US cities from Singapore to take advantage of open skies between US and Singapore although we have B777-200LR. SIA has to be convinced that B777-200LR has to ply both ways non-stop without any technical stop.

This also explained why Emirates and Thai Airways use A340-500 to do these long range flights although Boeing has been promoting B777-200 LR to the clients aggressively.

[Edited 2006-07-23 12:07:59]

User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5564 posts, RR: 37
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 15341 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
It would be surprising if the A350-1000 didn't decisively beat the B777-300ER in CASM.

Yes, of course. When you build a new plane it has to be better than the older direct competitors, otherwise it does not make any sense. When the 350-1000 comes into service the 777-300ER will already be an relatively old aircraft.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 15312 times:

Quoting SIN_SQ (Reply 9):
A340-500 are still with SIA as these are still the suitable planes to serve US cities from Singapore to take advantage of open skies between US and Singapore although we have B777-200LR. SIA has to be convinced that B777-200LR has to ply both ways non-stop without any technical stop.

I don't think there's any question the 777LR can perform SQ's ULR missions without making technical stops, while also delivering a substantially higher payload. The question is whether it's worthwhile making the change, if versions of the 787 and/or A350 will be assigned the ULR missions in the not too distant future. One thing working in favor of the 772LR is that it shares engine commonality with the 773ER.


User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 39
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 15171 times:

Leskova,

My thoughts about the 777-200LR are purely based on observation.

When the suggestion of a short term lease for interim lift began to circulate in Singapore earlier in the year, they specifically identified a proposal for A330s.

However that suggestion was coupled to a similar lease for up to 14 new higher rated A345s that would allow a doubling of the non-stop to USA services plus the opening of some new cities, starting with San Francisco.

It is my view that Singapore Airlines would wring every last dollar of leverage out of this situation by pitting the higher gross weight A345s against the 777-200LR.

Therefore Boeing is still in with a chance. It will come down to willingness to deal. Or that part of the 'suggestion' wasn't proceded with. We should know reasonably soon. I wouldn't be astonished at a buy of some A330F either, for effective short to medium range lift around the region.

Singapore Airlines plays cards hard against chest. I am unaware of any recent 'suggestions' that cast any further light on its immediate plans.

Antares


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 15148 times:

Quoting Antares (Reply 12):
My thoughts about the 777-200LR are purely based on observation.

I'm aware of that - I just thought that you made quite a compelling arguement, whether it will come to anything or not... it was nice to, for once, read some speculation around here based on something else than "those planes kick ass" or "that livery would be gorgeous on those planes"...  Wink



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlinePavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15047 times:

Maybe the A350 wont be so direct competitor to the 787 as advertised.
The Airbus knows it has almost no chances in direct combat with 787.


User currently offlineCYatUK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 810 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 14966 times:

Quoting Pavlin (Reply 14):
Maybe the A350 wont be so direct competitor to the 787 as advertised.
The Airbus knows it has almost no chances in direct combat with 787.

I wouldn't think so.

Airbus will have the advantage to see the real B787 flying before their A350 flies hence they will be able to carry out enhancements to make it better.



CY@Uk
User currently offlineSEAPlane10 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 14931 times:

Quoting CYatUK (Reply 15):
Airbus will have the advantage to see the real B787 flying before their A350 flies hence they will be able to carry out enhancements to make it better.

Could you carry this logic even further....Boeing will have the advantage of having its airplane out first and have the ability to make continual improvements on it that by the time the A350 starts flying, the 787 has already been significantly upgraded?

I am not trying to be contentious. I really just can't see how either manufacturer could really have any advantage. Each time something new gets introduced, one producer has the "advantage"; that is until the other decides to introduce something...and the cycle continues...  Smile


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3423 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 14834 times:

Quoting SIN_SQ (Reply 9):
This also explained why Emirates and Thai Airways use A340-500 to do these long range flights although Boeing has been promoting B777-200 LR to the clients aggressively.

And EK has purchased the 772LR.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineATLflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14647 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 17):
And EK has purchased the 772LR.

When will EK receive their 777-200LRs?


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3423 posts, RR: 67
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14621 times:

Quoting ATLflyer (Reply 18):
When will EK receive their 777-200LRs?

Mid-2007, I believe, but I'm not absolutely sure.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14551 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 8):
I do have to admit that I'm somewhat puzzled by the A330s arriving only in 2009/2010 - but, then again, I'm quite sure SQ knows what they're doing.

SQ will begin retiring their B777s in 2009, hence they don't need the A330s any sooner than that.

Quoting SIN_SQ (Reply 9):
A340-500 are still with SIA as these are still the suitable planes to serve US cities from Singapore to take advantage of open skies between US and Singapore although we have B777-200LR. SIA has to be convinced that B777-200LR has to ply both ways non-stop without any technical stop.



Quoting Leelaw (Reply 11):
I don't think there's any question the 777LR can perform SQ's ULR missions without making technical stops, while also delivering a substantially higher payload.

Correct. The reason why SQ still have their A340-500s is that they cannot resell them at a price that would make a replacement deal attractive. I'm surprised that SQ didn't get Airbus to buy their 5 A340s and then lease them back to SQ to for several years as part of the deal announced at Farnborough.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4493 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14435 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 20):
I'm surprised that SQ didn't get Airbus to buy their 5 A340s and then lease them back to SQ to for several years as part of the deal announced at Farnborough.

Airbus may have refused


User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3406 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13639 times:

I know I'm getting flamed for this later, but I think that Airbus is going to practically give them the A330s. These aircraft cannot have that much value right before their replacement arrives except for maybe Airbus using them to launch a freighter conversion program. I'm curious to see what penalties are in place if the performance specs that have been discussed are not met. I would also assume that SQ's displeasure with the A380 has been resolved as well. Maybe a major disount on top of what they are already getting their planes for?  scratchchin 

User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 866 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13639 times:

Quoting SIN_SQ (Reply 9):
A340-500 are still with SIA as these are still the suitable planes to serve US cities from Singapore to take advantage of open skies between US and Singapore although we have B777-200LR. SIA has to be convinced that B777-200LR has to ply both ways non-stop without any technical stop.



Quoting Leelaw (Reply 11):
I don't think there's any question the 777LR can perform SQ's ULR missions without making technical stops, while also delivering a substantially higher payload. The question is whether it's worthwhile making the change, if versions of the 787 and/or A350 will be assigned the ULR missions in the not too distant future. One thing working in favor of the 772LR is that it shares engine commonality with the 773ER.



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 20):
Correct. The reason why SQ still have their A340-500s is that they cannot resell them at a price that would make a replacement deal attractive. I'm surprised that SQ didn't get Airbus to buy their 5 A340s and then lease them back to SQ to for several years as part of the deal announced at Farnborough.

Agreed, there isn't any doubt that the -200lr can do the required missions better than the 345. But, as you've stated there is more than just picking up some -200lrs. There is the question of whether the -200lr can do the mission at enough more profit/flight than the 345 to make up for the increased cost of acquiring the -200lr, and potential loss on selling the 345s (interestingly, this issue didn't seem to come up so much in the AC deal with Boeing, which is suprising, clearly they were going to save money on operations, but the losses on selling what they currently have and buying a whole new line of planes in the 777 mitigates that somewhat). On the surprising that they didn't buy the 345 or lease them with this new deal, couldn't the same be said that if they were serious about the -200lr, they would have done the deal when they signed up for the 787-9s? obviously, the -200lr is a better choice for them all other things being equal (imho, the 345 is a nice looking bird, though), but maybe they have decided it isn't worth it for them now (potentially waiting to see what comes of the longer range 787s and 350s).

cheers.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29674 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
It would be surprising if the A350-1000 didn't decisively beat the B777-300ER in CASM.

Of that, I have no real doubt, though I am sure Boeing and GE will continue to work hard to improve the design.

Quote:
I think the only advantage the latter has is near-term availability.

Yet if the A350-1000 ends up carrying less payload, that may help the 773ER. I have to believe the 773ER will have more usable floor-space due to it's (almost surely) larger size so that might help a bit in areas where demand requires those seats yet flying two smaller planes to meet it would result in a higher overall CASM. Such a scenario will be the exception, I imagine, but it is one of the reasons why I feel the entire passenger 777 family line will not be extinguished by the A350 family entering service.


25 Scbriml : Far from it. As we have seen, the A330 continues to be a very popular plane. Yes, some airlines will replace A330s with 787s or A350s, but that's goi
26 Zvezda : That only works if the CASM are very close. If the A350-1000 has decisively better CASM than the B777-300ER (which I expect), then it is more profita
27 Leelaw : Once the 787s and A350s start coming in service in large numbers circa 2010-2015, the residual values of the A330s will begin to decline precipitousl
28 Post contains images PlaneHunter : Who told you that? The Airbus? PH
29 Mariner : It is meant purely to show that my statements are not definitive and it is an invitation to respond - not extended to everyone, although anyone can.
30 Post contains images Glideslope : Given the underachieving performance of Airbus airframes since the 346, I do believe you have your point backwards. Here you are having the "Extra Wi
31 Post contains images PlaneHunter : Ah, so you believe that new planes' CASM will become worse and worse compared to today's... Your threory doesn't make any sense... Actually that stat
32 RJ111 : Which Airbus planes have gone into service since the A346 exactly?
33 Post contains images DistantHorizon : Well, they anounced otherwise. But what do they know?
34 Katekebo : I think it is way too early to write off the B777-300ER and send it to the desert. It's logical that the A350-1000 is more efficient being 10 years y
35 Post contains images Jacobin777 : you should let EK know about their 434 seater 2-class 77W or 378 3-class 77W.....I doubt the A350 will come anywhere close to that....Airbus states "
36 EBJ1248650 : It appears the one big enhancement already in hand is the wider fuselage. That seems to be the big selling point. Airbus won't do well to keep adding
37 Post contains images Halls120 : It will also depend on whether Boeing is content to cease improving the 773 and 772LR. Unless they are planning to bring out Y3 out earlier than they
38 Post contains links Halibut : Isn't Boeing going to continue improving the 777-200LR ? Airbus Saved By Airline Industry?Monopoly,no Way! (by Halibut Jul 23 2006 in Civil Aviation)
39 YUL332LX : Since you're probably referring to the A380, the aircraft is already meeting/exceeding all performance specs according to all sources (including SIA!
40 Post contains links Chiad : It seems like Airbus has not been updating their information on their web page about the A350 specifications. http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilie
41 RichardPrice : The question is - how far can they improve it? And yay, you advertise your own bashing thread!
42 Post contains links 787engineer : The new A350XWB page is already up, although the link on their site might lead you to the "old A350". Here's the link to the XWB: http://www.airbus.c
43 Zvezda : I apologize for not being more clear. I didn't mean to suggest that airlines will replace B777-300ERs with A350-1000s (though SQ might perhaps). Rath
44 Trex8 : the LR was offered for several years before TG decided to get the A345, though it was before EIS of the LR, but then the LRs EIS was put off for a wh
45 Glideslope : The 346 is a Fuel Hog, and the only operators who fly it have no choice, and politically can't comment. It's a Dog. Until the 380 goes EIS the number
46 Trex8 : SA, TG were politically forced to take the A346???? When the A346 was proposed and even when it came out and when prices of fuel was what it was then
47 SQ452 : I was wondering why SQ has ordered the A350, and the 787... My guess is SQ is hedging their bets. Were the A350's firm orders or all options??
48 Post contains images Jacobin777 : thanks for the update......
49 YUL332LX : Still, you're talking about ONE single aircraft type (A346/345) as oppose to: As for the A380, the aircraft is meeting/exceeding all predicted specs
50 LawnDart : Forgive me my ignorance, but how is an aircraft that has a narrower mass to push through the air less efficient? Would you mind posting fuel burn sta
51 Jacobin777 : I respectfully disagree with your guess...the B787-9 and A350-900 which SQ have potentially ordered have different mission profiles.....just like the
52 Post contains images Dank : Bingo. Now if we were talking 787-9 and 350-800, things might be different. it will be interesting to see how airlines like LH and EK will go. EK say
53 Katekebo : Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to length/diameter ratio of the fuselage (not lift/drag of the wing).
54 Katekebo : Because a longer, thinner diameter tube needs thicker walls than a bigger diameter, shorter tube to be strong enough to withstend bending forces. Ess
55 Post contains images SQ452 : Good point Jacobin777, but just thinking about SQ's aircraft profile, and how they do things, it doesn't seem to fit their profile to have two aircraf
56 Atmx2000 : Structurally less efficient, meaning it is heavy. It burns something like 20% more fuel. I think there are a few of problems here. One is Airbus hasn
57 Dank : First, commanality is going to lose some of it's benefits if they take out their options on both the 787-9s and the 350-900s because there will be 40
58 PlanesNTrains : Maybe I've spent too many years hearing people use "Don't ya think?" in a sarcastic manner. As to the A380, I am really excited to hear the real perf
59 Zvezda : Actually, the A340-300 beat the B777-200ER to market by several years, the A340-500 beat the B777-200LR to market by several years, and the A340-600
60 Columba : Well better tell that LH as they have stated that the A340-600 is the most fuel efficient aircraft in their fleet and they seem to have no problems w
61 Post contains images PlaneHunter : Probably in direct comparison to the B77W, but that's it. Why don't you present some numbers instead repeating other users' questionable verbalisms?
62 Zvezda : Of course they would. Purchase price is a large component of CASM. If airliner A costs more but has a lower DOC than airliner B, then the airline wil
63 Scbriml : Can you share some numbers to back up this claim? I'd really like to see them.
64 PlaneHunter : It seems I wasn't clear enough by using "inferior" - what I meant was that SIA wouldn't order an aircraft which probably doesn't meet operational nee
65 Miami1 : Anybody got any ideas about the fact that the A350 aircraft might go to Tiger Airways ! Ive got a feeling that SQ are planning to take that budget car
66 Zvezda : Oh! You meant inadequate, not inferior. Yes, of course, SQ would not order an inadequate airliner. No competent airline would.
67 Columba : I think the A380s would stay with SQ ! Therefore it would make sense to keep the A350 with mainline. P.S. Any particular reasons why you spelled Boei
68 Chiad : " target=_blank>http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam....html Thanks 787engineer. But I hoped for something more than just a commercial. Let's see what
69 SQ452 : That would be nice! They might have to give a little more seat pitch in econ though for tall people like me. How is Tiger Airways doing out there? Be
70 Antares : Tiggerr will get wide bodies in the near term. Maybe different ones to suit the feeding program SQ is said to be planning for its pet. Antares
71 Post contains images SQ452 : I'd actually be more inclined to think that when they start phasing out the 777's (which are still relatively new) that some will probably come Tigers
72 PlaneHunter : True, but certain people seem to believe that a low price may cause airlines to order aircraft which lack specific operational capabilities. Price co
73 PhilSquares : SQ doesn't need to take over Tiger, they already own a significant amount. Tiger is doing just what it was created for. I learned a long time ago, ne
74 Antares : Philsquares, If you can share it, what are you hearing about a lease on newer A345s similar to the A330 lease, and the competition that must be on bet
75 Post contains links Leelaw : They are new firm orders. However, the Signapore Airlines press release announcing the order tells a slighltly different story than the Airbus press
76 Brendows : It's the A345 that burns about 20% more fuel on longer missions compared to the 772LR on longer missions with the same payload. The A346 burns somewh
77 Post contains links PhilSquares : There has been nothing on the 345 at all. The real issue with the 345 isn't the lease but some cabin limitations and payload limitation. The 772LR is
78 KL808 : Now that we have read this, I can't see how MH or TG can relinquish their slots in order for their neighbour arch rival to increase the gap in servic
79 A342 : I guess you mean A350 ? Anyway, call me crazy, but some British charter/holiday carriers would disagree. Well, Boeing also states 365 for a 3-class 7
80 Astuteman : No, not dense, PhilSquares. That's what SQ said they were. But an option uptake IS a new order. If options showed up on Airbus's website, they'd have
81 OldAeroGuy : I doubt it since the rest of their economic comparisons were done with 9 A/B.
82 Leelaw : Whatever, it's mostly a matter of sematics rather than being dense, options are not added to the firm order backlog, and not considered an "order" by
83 A342 : And what does that say ? Never forget, this is marketing ! Everyone tries to make its product look as good as possible. And BTW, seating figures (for
84 Atmx2000 : The length of the A359 is about the same as the 772ER. That strongly suggests that the only way they will have the same capacity with the former havi
85 A342 : Well, the A333/343 is also "about the same length" as the 772, but despite of the 8-abreast in Y, it has "about the same capacity". Give or take a fe
86 Stitch : The 787-9 is not large enough to directly replace the 777-200ER in terms of payload. The 787-10 will, but Boeing has yet to offer it. Boeing might ha
87 Post contains images Airbus A380 : Anyone else noticed? It's the 'old' A350 with the new A350XWB cockpit windows.
88 Post contains images Scbriml : Indeed. In the original thread I posted a smaller version of this pic thinking it was an A333. It's either the case that the guy working overtime on
89 RichardPrice : I think its important to note that many countries, including the US, have either a ban currently, have had a ban previously or have an ongoing WTO li
90 Stitch : Fair enough, but the news articles at the time were reporting that France specifically threatened trade retaliation if TG cancelled their A380 orders
91 OldAeroGuy : Yes, and that's why the A350XWB-1000 data are probably for 9 A/B. Do you think the economics would look better at 8 A/B/
92 Post contains links BoomBoom : Analysts are not so enthusiastic. The fact that Singapore airlines only bought into one of the three models offered highlights an underlying problem,
93 Dank : " target=_blank>http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2006...r.htm This is already being discussed in another thread (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/g
94 Manni : Oh dear, these 'analysts' find anything to serve the home public with 'saleable' stories. If they can't even get the names of the aircraft right, how
95 Post contains images BoomBoom : Looks like you found a new "Great Satan". Open season on Paul Nisbet!
96 Manni : You can do better than that BoomBoom. Read the article and pay attention while doing so. The man contradicts himself and can't even get the names for
97 Post contains images Astuteman : Was this comment referring to SQ's purchase of the A350X, or the 787? It's hard to tell really.......
98 Post contains images Scbriml : Please tell me exactly what that has to do with the fact the SQ just decided they needed to buy & lease 48 Airbus widebodies. Or are you suggesting A
99 Post contains images Dank :
100 Zvezda : If these 48 widebodies and extra-widebodies are compensation for the WhaleJet delays, then SQ are driving a harder bargain than I would have thought.
101 Post contains images Scbriml : Exactly! Any sane person knows that.
102 PhilSquares : Not quite given, but close to it. Supposedly the 330 lease won't cost SQ a single dollar in the end. I wouldn't expect to see any money coming from A
103 Post contains images Astuteman : If you're talking about the "whole deal", as far as I'm concerned, in the absence of any supporting evidence, this is purely the peddling of rumours,
104 Scbriml : Certainly wouldn't dispute that. Exactly! My beef is the endless stream of claims that Airbus gives its planes away or even actually makes a loss on
105 Joni : AFAIK these compensation issues are usually sorted out with discounts in spare parts, pilot training etc. "supposedly"? Does this mean you don't have
106 PhilSquares : Refresh my memory and please point me to where I wrote that! Your assertions about the 380/350 sales being profitable leave me somewhat lost for word
107 Post contains images Astuteman : In fairness, you didn't. In my defence.. A caveat was in place..... This has to be one of the most frustrating, oft-repeated misconceptions to plague
108 PhilSquares : Again, please don't write things that are not attribuable to me. I neither wrote nor implied what you are saying. However, if every airframe was sold
109 Post contains images Astuteman : This would only be correct if Airbus sold 1 250Bn copies (or is that 1.25 Tn?). The way that programmes are accounted for does not work like that. Ex
110 BoomBoom : "AFAIK", does that mean you don't have a source?
111 Revelation : Yes, and on the other hand, getting a blue-chip airline like SQ to take more A380s was very important to Airbus, and both parties knew it.
112 Zvezda : I was involved in one negotiation with Airbus for compensation and the deal ran more or less along those lines. An A319 failed its acceptance flight
113 BoomBoom : Of course that doesn't mean the SQ compensation was structured in the same way.
114 PhilSquares : We're way off topic here, but I don't really need a lesson in accounting. For every transaction, there are several ways to do the accounting. Astutem
115 Post contains images Scbriml : You mean like the majority of the theories and knowledge on a.net? Can you offer anything to clarify either way? Or is this indeed another unfounded
116 Post contains images Astuteman : Can't argue with that, at all. Fair comment - I've no more to add anyway. Regards
117 Post contains links and images BoomBoom : I mean like the majority of your theories and knowledge: Airbus In Pickle Over A350-2 Redesign Or Not 2? (by Halibut Apr 17 2006 in Civil Aviation) H
118 Post contains links A342 : Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 91): Yes, and that's why the A350XWB-1000 data are probably for 9 A/B. Do you think the economics would look better at 8 A/B
119 Post contains links FLALEFTY : http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...ly_story.jsp?id=news/SING07246.xml It looks like SQ's A350s will be used to "go long", while their B787s will b
120 Post contains images Scbriml : Since it seems you really have to be spoon fed: Airbus 2005 Revenue - €22.179b Earnings - €2.307b Margin - 10.4% Boeing 2005 Revenue - $22.7b Ear
121 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : I think I read your posts pretty well. Your comment in Reply 79 was: "Similarly, I think the 350 seats for the A350-1000 in a 3-class config are with
122 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I've only been stating this this ad nauseam.... guess I was correct on something....(finally.......lol)...
123 Post contains images Dank : Maybe I don't get why there's this insistence on the two types being mutually exclusive (not a crack at you, but at the fact that sadly repetition wa
124 Post contains images Jacobin777 : "word"......
125 Oz777 : No where have I seen that SQ have 'ordered' the A350 and additional A380's. They have signed a LOI (letter of intent) but the order has not yet been c
126 Antares : Oz777, The 787s are covered by a similar LOI. A similar device was in place when the A380 'order' was announced in 2000, many months before the contra
127 Glacote : What specific advertised performance figure does it miss exactly? Your point is very true: we got plenty of information regarding the progress and pr
128 Post contains images BoomBoom : No, I'm a volunteer. Now I have to ask you the same question about this: At least I back up my statements with a link to an article.
129 PhilSquares : Do you have a link for that? I think you'll find the press release had the market value at that amount. If you do a little search, you'll find refere
130 Stitch : Let me just state up-front I don't care whether (nor really believe that) Airbus has a "credability issue" either with customers specifically or the
131 Post contains images Stitch : And even if it doesn't directly apply to SQ's case, thanks for the "general" explanation, Astuteman. Interesting and informative reading.
132 Post contains images Astuteman : I'm glad you appreciated that lengthy tome (BTW, those principles apply to every transaction that either B or A undertake - it's standard accounting.
133 Post contains links Mariner : That's interesting. Got a link? I thought even the notorious Gellmam Report only claims a 40% discount on the early A380 sales. The rumors are that B
134 Post contains links BoomBoom : Nice try at damage control. But it appears you are looking at gross profit margins for the two companies and not the margins for individual planes. L
135 Post contains links and images Joni : Not exactly, I read that on some articles a while ago. But since I'm a nice guy, I dug up a new source: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...iness_
136 Post contains links A342 : I originally thought this, also because www.flightglobal.com showed the A350 cross-section with 8-abreast. But thanks for your correction ! I have a
137 Post contains images BoomBoom : Sorry, posters are responsible for documenting their sources, it not up to the readers to do their work for them.
138 Post contains images Astuteman : You believe there's another reason for one manufacturer's higher profit margin, besides a higher margin on individual planes?
139 Rheinbote : Right, more so as part of the margin is from hedging against low Dollar vs Euro exchange rates.
140 Post contains images Scbriml : Yes, gross profits for two companies that build planes. The figures, taken from the respective companies 2005 reports, clearly show that Airbus had b
141 BoomBoom : Where's the link?
142 Post contains links and images Scbriml : Airbus 2005 http://eads.net/web/lang/en/1024/con...F00000040950509/0/75/41289750.html Boeing http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060228/ba10-k.html Current intern
143 Joni : I don't remember who the original poster was but I recall the relevant figures were already quoted to you. Besides, pointing you to the relevant webs
144 Post contains links Pygmalion : Chunk of a paper EADS stock analysis report published Mar 31, 2006 So the 10% margin wasn't all airplane production operating profit margin. Airbus co
145 Post contains images BoomBoom : Awwwww. Why didn't you say so back in April? Is this the a.net equivalent of "the dog ate my homework"? Have you ever heard of one-time charges and o
146 BoomBoom : Problem is, the figures aren't relevant to the discussion of whether Airbus commands a greater profit margin for their planes than Boeing. See above:
147 Zvezda : The figures are relevant, but they are not conclusive. It's a bit like saying Joe runs the marathon faster than Mike, therefore Joe must be a faster
148 Joni : We've had this exact same discussion before. Because Airbus' reported margin was higher, it was suddenly necessary to analyze all the one-time charge
149 Post contains images Astuteman : Let me see now:- Operating margin = operating income minus operating cost....... So you don't think operating cost reductions are relevant to operatin
150 Post contains images BoomBoom : Property taxes aren't. Payroll taxes aren't. Too bad were talking about individual aircraft sales.
151 Post contains images Astuteman : In which case why have you bothered to reply with this? Which are, in any event part of "cost" and therefore affect margin.. If your talking about an
152 Post contains images BoomBoom : My point exactly.
153 Post contains images Astuteman : ??????????? I'll leave you to argue it out amongst yourselves...... Regards
154 Post contains images Jacobin777 : gosh..looking at a lot of these comments..I only have one thing to say... ....
155 Glacote : I would have like the tax argument go further down the road. To suggest that the US tax structure (including the WTC condemned export tax breaks for B
156 Post contains images BoomBoom : Nah, it's the taxpayer subsidies... If they had a more modern, more optimized manufacturing process, Airbus could figure out the wiring harnesses.
157 Zvezda : Yes, the CFRP fuselage greater reduces Boeing's exposure to exploitation by the unions.
158 Dougloid : One thing I've not heard in this discussion is the dangers of working with CFRP. At Douglas we were required to wear a respirator when drilling in the
159 Post contains images Trex8 : at last , a cogent argument as to why Boeing has "outsourced" so much 787 production to non US companies, they are trying to circumvent OHSA rules!!!
160 RichardPrice : What the hell will the Japanese taxpayer subsidies do to the 787 margin then?!
161 Zeke : Not as silly as it sounds, just need to look at where more western airliners that are OH&S aware send their aircraft to be stripped and repainted.
162 Post contains images Stitch : That could be true. Boeing has invested a great deal of time and money in improving their production processes and their margins have climbed signifi
163 Post contains links BoomBoom : “At the time of the last peak [of the aerospace cycle] we had 115,000 employees in Boeing Commercial Airplanes. There are now about 55,000,” McNe
164 Zvezda : The problem here is an apples to oranges comparison. Accounting is a system of measuring. Differences in accounting rules are just like differences i
165 Dougloid : This one you have to do phonetically. Imagine you are in Dixie, it is passing close to 100 degrees in the shade, and you are drinking a mint julep wi
166 Astuteman : I don't believe the accounting principles used by Boeing and EADS differ substantially enough to make the kind of difference you're suggesting. Compa
167 LPLAspotter : Someone tell me: Are the original orders for the A350 by TAP and TAM, for example, automatically changed to the A350AWX? If so, I would think the ABX
168 Stitch : All A350 customers will be offered the A350XWB. According to those customers, Airbus is offering the A350XWB at the same price as the A350, even thou
169 Zvezda : I've prepared corporate financial statements under both US and EU rules. If one company (either Airbus or Boeing) had to prepare both US and EU finan
170 Post contains images Astuteman : In which case, for education's sake, I'd be interested to know specifically what you think the the differences in accounting methodology were, and ex
171 LPLAspotter : Thanks Stitch! I've been wondering about that. LPLAspotter
172 Post contains images Baroque : C'mon Glacote, we've moved off the 35h weeks, now we are on to the 3 hour lunches. Zvezda might be correct in detail, in that the numbers would be di
173 Zvezda : Examples of differences in accounting methodology between the US and EU that would be relevant to the relative profitability of Airbus and Boeing inc
174 Post contains images Astuteman : Thanks for that, Zvezda. So, taking the questions to the next level:- What are the differences in the way depreciation are handled? What are the diff
175 Post contains links Keesje : No, this seems not to be the case. Airbus says they will renegotiate prices & Leahy expects to lose one or two customers as a result. Airbus has 100
176 Stitch : Kingfisher has said they will take the A350XWB if the price quoted is the same as they agreed upon for the A350NSWB (http://www.financialexpress.com/
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...
SQ's Second A380 Order -- In Jeopardy? posted Fri Sep 22 2006 16:20:42 by N328KF
The A380 First Flight Thread Part Deux posted Wed Apr 27 2005 12:38:41 by Planespotterx
SQ's Interim Lift A330 posted Tue Nov 21 2006 14:42:05 by Boeing767-300
Lufthansa To Announce Longhaul-order Part 2 posted Fri Nov 17 2006 10:44:20 by Johnny
Caribbean Aviation News Part Deux... posted Tue Oct 31 2006 18:13:34 by Captaink
QR 2 Or 4 A380's On Order? posted Wed Sep 20 2006 16:09:43 by Manni
FI: Airbus Offers Emirates A350/A380 Mix In Place posted Tue Aug 1 2006 07:29:24 by Atmx2000
EK And SQ Considering A380 Cancellations? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 15:24:25 by Zvezda
Qatar: Reaffirms A350, A380 Delay, Adds Lagos posted Wed Jul 12 2006 12:02:20 by QatarA340
SQ Delays A380 Service Until 2007 posted Fri Jun 16 2006 18:32:00 by PolymerPlane