Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Finnair To Sign For A350-900XWB.....FI  
User currently offline2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8041 times:

According to this week's electronic version of FI, Finnair will officially order A350-900XWBs as a conversion of their old A350-900 order.
No surprise here. However, the article also mentions that although the XWB is a significantly better aircraft and has a 20% higher price tag, AY will get them for the same price as the 2005 A350-900 order, which I imagine was already substantially discounted.
Will this be the case for all existing A350 firm orders? I imagine it will be.
Article also mentions that 2014 is now the more likely EIS date for the A350-900XWB, putting it 6 years behind the 787.
Will Airbus make any profit on any carrier/lessor with a firm existing A350 order?

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7981 times:

Links, quotes, anything???

Not that I'm doubting you, but if what you are saying about pricing is true.. well I won't bother saying it because someone will flame me for being anti-Airbus for making a business based statement.

[edit]
Alright, I'll make the comment this way: The plane is going to cost several billion more to develop than the one that Finnair originally agreed to buy, yet they are going to get the same pricing. If this is true, it makes me wonder about two things:

How much is Airbus going to make/lose on these conversions?
Whatever happened to Leahy's "I'll give up customers over margins" comment.

With that said I'm going to await confirmation before I really rip into this matter.
[/edit]

[Edited 2007-02-12 23:09:16]


I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7935 times:

Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter):
Article also mentions that 2014 is now the more likely EIS date for the A350-900XWB, putting it 6 years behind the 787.

I think saying that 2014 is now the more likely EIS date for the A350-900XWB, putting it 20 years behind the 772 is more relevant for the A359.

http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00000000400004/7/33/41402337.jpg
its bigger..


User currently offline2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7836 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 1):
Links, quotes, anything???

Not that I'm doubting you, but if what you are saying about pricing is true.. well I won't bother saying it because someone will flame me for being anti-Airbus for making a business based statement.

No links because it is the electronic version of FI which I subscribe to. I imagine it will appear on their web-site within 24hrs.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
I think saying that 2014 is now the more likely EIS date for the A350-900XWB, putting it 20 years behind the 772 is more relevant for the A359.

What is more relevant for the A358XWB? It's EIS will now be 2015/16 and I would imagine it's a direct 789 competitor some 5-6 years behind the opposition?
Boeing's Y3 proposal looks closer and closer to the XWB EIS by the day. I wonder whether Power 8 internal Airbus/EADS haggling will delay the XWB even further? The same article mentioned that Airbus hoped to have SQ's -900XWB LoI as a firm order "in a couple of months". Last December the line was they hoped to have it firmed in January 2007. Things appear to be quietly slipping with the XWB.
I guess next on the agenda will be some meaningful numbers for the airlines, which have seen little hard data presented to them. No doubt some hefty MTOW increases will be announced at some stage along with some more realistic range figures


User currently offlineAndaman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7812 times:

The A350 deal was mentioned here (Full year report 2006):

http://www.finnairgroup.com/en/index.html


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7742 times:

Link to the FI article here.

Quote:
Finnair says that it "will receive the aircraft it ordered at the originally agreed acquisition price". It adds that its negotiations with Airbus are expected to reach an agreement "in the near future on compensation awardable to Finnair for the delay in the A350 production schedule".

The Finnish carrier is one of 11 customers that signed a firm contract for the A350 before the revamp - none of which have yet been migrated to the new version. Airbus has 102 firm A350 orders. Others holding firm contracts including Air Europa, Alafco, CIT, Eurofly, International Lease Finance, Kingfisher Airlines, Pegasus, TAM, TAP Portugal, and US Airways.

Meanwhile, original A350 launch customer Qatar Airways continues to discuss the future of its commitment for 60 aircraft with Airbus.

Airbus vice-president of marketing customer affairs Colin Stuart expects Singapore Airlines to firm up its commitment for 20 A350-900s plus 20 options "within the next couple of months. We're in the process of converting it to an order," he says.



Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter):
AY will get them for the same price as the 2005 A350-900 order, which I imagine was already substantially discounted.
Will this be the case for all existing A350 firm orders? I imagine it will be.

I imagine you are correct! I can imagine that QR will try for a discount on top of the price cited for the old A350!



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3406 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7730 times:

How do order something with expectations of it changing next week?

User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7625 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 5):
I imagine you are correct! I can imagine that QR will try for a discount on top of the price cited for the old A350!

They never actually ordered the original A350, so they may well have to renegoiate from scratch. No wonder its taking so long.

Quoting Flight152 (Reply 6):

How do order something with expectations of it changing next week?

?


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7610 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 7):
They never actually ordered the original A350, so they may well have to renegoiate from scratch. No wonder its taking so long.

Of course it was never an order, but one presumes that there was at least a price "on the table". If the article on AY's "reparations" is accurate, this could well be a precedent for some serious squeezing on price by the customers.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 1):
Whatever happened to Leahy's "I'll give up customers over margins" comment.

Never heard this one, but I suspect he'll get a chance to make good on that boast in the near future.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7443 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 8):
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 1):
Whatever happened to Leahy's "I'll give up customers over margins" comment.

Never heard this one, but I suspect he'll get a chance to make good on that boast in the near future.

Well Leahy did say that (or something similar and meaning the same thing), but I don't have the patience to find it in the mountain of threads here with his name   It was said not too long ago though, and it was (as far as I could tell) specifically dealing with the 350 orders and rebooking them with [edit]-new/+existing[/edit] customers.

[Edited 2007-02-13 02:29:12]


I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6985 times:

The Story is now on Flights online version.

Quote:

Finnair expects to conclude shortly negotiations with Airbus centred on compensation for delays to the delivery of its A350 order, and says that it will not have to pay extra for the twinjet despite the fact that the new XWB version is significantly improved over the original design.

The Finnish carrier opted to acquire nine Rolls-Royce Trent-powered A350-900s, with options on four more, at the end of 2005 - a few months before Airbus redesigned the aircraft and unveiled it as the A350 XWB last year.

After adopting the XWB specification, Airbus revealed that it was pushing the catalogue prices up by over 20% because it is a "much more impressive aircraft". The sticker price for the original A350-900 was $171 million, while the XWB version (which has more range than the original design and is 5% bigger) is priced at $215 million.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...eal-on-a350-delay-reparations.html


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10169 posts, RR: 97
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6923 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 1):
How much is Airbus going to make/lose on these conversions?

IIRC a large part of the E1Bn A350 write-down in the EADS Q3 accounts was to cover "losses" which will now accrue on the 100 frames that were "firm" ordered.

I can only guess that the intent is to strip that out as part of the decision to abandon the "old A350", so that the "new A350" can start with a "clean sheet" in the accounting process.

Regards


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3398 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6884 times:

I wouldn't pay too much notice of the 2014 date as isn't this the date that FInair are getting their planes rather than EIS - this suggests to me that the EIS may still be 2013 and there's a launch order to take up early slots (SQ perhaps?)

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31239 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6855 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
I think saying that 2014 is now the more likely EIS date for the A350-900XWB, putting it 20 years behind the 772 is more relevant for the A359.

It will help, but if Boeing gets the 787-10 out before the A359XWB enters service and it is capable of 772ER mission ranges with equal or greater payload, that's going to blunt a good bit of the A350XWB's momentum, especially with six years of 787 in service data available for airlines to use in their models.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11):
IIRC a large part of the E1Bn A350 write-down in the EADS Q3 accounts was to cover "losses" which will now accrue on the 100 frames that were "firm" ordered.

The one problem for Airbus, as someone else noted in another thread, is that Airbus is now setting somewhat of a "price ceiling" for the A350, especially if the 787 comes out strong in flight test and EIS.

Now, a strong EIS for the 787 will help Boeing a bit by allowing them to be a bit more firm on pricing, but airlines are going to be using that same data to try and knock Airbus down on price ("Boeing's numbers show we'll save $X on operating costs over our 767s/A330s. And their list is $Y cheaper. So you really need to make it worth our while to go with you over an established model.").


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6780 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
I think saying that 2014 is now the more likely EIS date for the A350-900XWB, putting it 20 years behind the 772 is more relevant for the A359.

It will help, but if Boeing gets the 787-10 out before the A359XWB enters service and it is capable of 772ER mission ranges with equal or greater payload, that's going to blunt a good bit of the A350XWB's momentum, especially with six years of 787 in service data available for airlines to use in their models.

The 787-10 would not nessessarily have to come out before the A350-900, as many of the earlier A359 slots are filled. That buys Boeing about a year in extra time. But there are important questions around the -10 like will it equal the 772ERs capabilities with a 9 abreast load.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6704 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
It will help, but if Boeing gets the 787-10 out before the A359XWB enters service and it is capable of 772ER mission ranges with equal or greater payload, that's going to blunt a good bit of the A350XWB's momentum, especially with six years of 787 in service data available for airlines to use in their models.

Don't forget that same inservice data will allow Boeing to tweak the derivatives. That's the real danger IMHO for Airbis. The 350XWB will be their first crack at this type of airliner, whereas Boeing will have gobs of key learnings already.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11):
IIRC a large part of the E1Bn A350 write-down in the EADS Q3 accounts was to cover "losses" which will now accrue on the 100 frames that were "firm" ordered.

Well seeing as Finnair is talking about a 20% discount (by way of holding the old price) and is seeking damages I can't help but wonder if 1B EU is too small? Using 'standard' 40% discounts Finnair is likely going be getting their 350XWBs for a paltry $108M each, not including penalties. Now seeing as Airbus and Boeing usually run 10% margins, I would *guestimate* the cost on the 350XWB (based on list price and standard discounts, etc.) to be around $114-$115M. Assume all said and done $10-$15M is lost on these conversion orders and that E1B will disappear very quickly. (Again don't shoot me for doing math LOL)

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 12):
I wouldn't pay too much notice of the 2014 date as isn't this the date that FInair are getting their planes rather than EIS - this suggests to me that the EIS may still be 2013 and there's a launch order to take up early slots (SQ perhaps?)

I would say that date doesn't mean anything one way or the other.. Seeing as 2014 is an entier year it could be a slip, or business as usual.. all depends on whether it's January or December LOL



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6626 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 15):
Well seeing as Finnair is talking about a 20% discount (by way of holding the old price) and is seeking damages I can't help but wonder if 1B EU is too small? Using 'standard' 40% discounts Finnair is likely going be getting their 350XWBs for a paltry $108M each, not including penalties. Now seeing as Airbus and Boeing usually run 10% margins, I would *guestimate* the cost on the 350XWB (based on list price and standard discounts, etc.) to be around $114-$115M. Assume all said and done $10-$15M is lost on these conversion orders and that E1B will disappear very quickly. (Again don't shoot me for doing math LOL)

The original listprice was apparently US$171 million, assuming a 40% discount (which is not a given right, and the worst case scenario for Airbus), AY might have agreed to pay US$111 million.

The new listprice is apparently US$215 million (that's a lot more expensive then the 787!). US$111 million would represent 51,6% of the listprice. That's a 48,4% discount (worst case scenario). To calculate the production cost of the A350 is difficult, but 40% would be a very good guess. In that case Airbus would still be making a profit of 8,4%. Mr. Leahy's statement not to give up margins isn't far stretched. Obviously they're going to make less, but it doesn't look they loose on it.

I wouldn't count on an extra penalty yet. The penalty might be offered in the form of 'more aircraft for the same price'.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6490 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 16):
The original listprice was apparently US$171 million, assuming a 40% discount (which is not a given right, and the worst case scenario for Airbus), AY might have agreed to pay US$111 million.

Manni, first of all thank you for taking my post as it was intended (i.e. a debate about costs and not an Airbus flame). Now the 40% discount is 'standard' based on some numbers that were floating around, but I will agree it's NOT a given. I do, however feel it's a good starting point. Your math is a bit off though. A 40% discount of $171 is $68.4 yielding a 'price' of $102.6M not $111M.

Quoting Manni (Reply 16):
The new listprice is apparently US$215 million (that's a lot more expensive then the 787!). US$111 million would represent 51,6% of the listprice. That's a 48,4% discount (worst case scenario). To calculate the production cost of the A350 is difficult, but 40% would be a very good guess. In that case Airbus would still be making a profit of 8,4%. Mr. Leahy's statement not to give up margins isn't far stretched. Obviously they're going to make less, but it doesn't look they loose on it.

Actually it's 47.7% of the 'new' list price. As for costs that's a bit less certain. I know that both Boeing and Airbus run around 10% margins, so one has to assume that a 40% discount on list is roughly around 10-15% margins (if one assumes 40% discounts are the norm.. move that figure around as you see fit). So assuming 15% margins on a 'normal' 40% discount you get a cost of: $113M ish.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31239 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EI321 (Reply 14):
But there are important questions around the -10 like will it equal the 772ERs capabilities with a 9 abreast load.

Well Boeing does have some "wriggle room" in that many carriers do not push a 777-200ER to max range. And those that do are starting to look at the 777-200LR (like DL). So even though Boeing has said they will launch the 787-10 with the same MTOW as the 787-9 (540,000lbs), with the 787-9 having a range between 8000 and 8500nm means that Boeing should be able to meet the mission performance the majority of nine-abreast 777-200ER operators are using the plane for and do so with better efficiency. And Boeing still has 20,000lbs of MTOW they can play with if they absolutely have to in order to try and meet any additional requirements some customers may have.

And Boeing also has six years to improve the 777-200LR and, failing that, lower her sale price to secure orders in combination with 787 models to blunt Airbus' attempts to sell the A350XWB-900.

Quoting Manni (Reply 16):
The new listprice is apparently US$215 million (that's a lot more expensive then the 787!). US$111 million would represent 51,6% of the listprice. That's a 48,4% discount (worst case scenario). To calculate the production cost of the A350 is difficult, but 40% would be a very good guess. In that case Airbus would still be making a profit of 8,4%. Mr. Leahy's statement not to give up margins isn't far stretched. Obviously they're going to make less, but it doesn't look they loose on it.

Agreed. I can't see Airbus launching this program just to loose money on the first 100 and set a precedent to lose it on the next 1000.

At that point, it would be better to kill the A350XWB program and just cut margins on the A340 to the bone and sell all you can.


User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 914 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6383 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Well Boeing does have some "wriggle room" in that many carriers do not push a 777-200ER to max range. And those that do are starting to look at the 777-200LR (like DL). So even though Boeing has said they will launch the 787-10 with the same MTOW as the 787-9 (540,000lbs), with the 787-9 having a range between 8000 and 8500nm means that Boeing should be able to meet the mission performance the majority of nine-abreast 777-200ER operators are using the plane for and do so with better efficiency. And Boeing still has 20,000lbs of MTOW they can play with if they absolutely have to in order to try and meet any additional requirements some customers may have.

And Boeing also has six years to improve the 777-200LR and, failing that, lower her sale price to secure orders in combination with 787 models to blunt Airbus' attempts to sell the A350XWB-900.

Hey Stitch, while I agree with this to a bit, I think the issue is that just because airlines are moving 772LRs to 772ER routes, and using 772ER at less than max range, that doesn't mean that a 787-9 that can do what these shorter 772ER routes are doing at max capabilities of the 787-9 means that a 787-9 is a good replacement. I believe that airlines are seeing that pushing a frame to it's ranges is less financially desirable, so a 787-9 stretched is not a good replacement for these 772ER routes (i.e. a 772LR at less than max range is more profitable, even given the higher acquisition costs, than a 772ER at max range).

On a topic that was brought up earlier, while Airbus may take longer to recoup development costs because they will have to sell some a350XWBs at the original 350 prices, keep in mind that Airbus clearly believes that they are going to sell a substantial number more planes by spending the extra development $s, which means that they can get away with lower margins.

cheers.


User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6315 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 17):
A 40% discount of $171 is $68.4 yielding a 'price' of $102.6M not $111M.

I'm sorry, you're absolutely right. I'll use a calculator next time.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 17):
So assuming 15% margins on a 'normal' 40% discount you get a cost of: $113M ish.

Add 40% discount to a margin of 15% and it would result in a cost of about 45% listprice. That would be US$96,75 million.

How much does it cost Airbus to build a widebody aircraft? Let us first agree that Airbus (and Boeing) do not sell aircraft at a loss, initially. Reportedly (take the report for what it's worth) Intrepid will be paying about US$75 million for their A330F (that's a 55% discount, the A330F lists at US$165 million). There's little doubt that Airbus will still be making money on that deal, afterall they're going to increase production to keep up with the demand. I'd say a 45% cost is far to much, and the cost (atleast for widebodies) is likely a lot lower then our estimates.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31239 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For an "established" program like the 767 and A330, discounts approaching or even exceeding 50% probably do not result in a revenue-negative transaction. Especially since there are so many "intangibles" (training, parts, spares, etc.) that are factored into these deals that we generally don't have any hard data on.

So UPS getting a huge discount to keep the 767F line going and Intrepid getting a huge discount to get the A330F line started are not untoward in such cases.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5322 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 20):
Add 40% discount to a margin of 15% and it would result in a cost of about 45% listprice. That would be US$96,75 million.

Why. If they have 15% margins (being generous there) on a 40% discounted price, why are you discounting the margin? Remember Airbus has booked money aside for losses resulting from existing 350 orders.

Thus a normal selling price would be $129M (assuming 40% discount or $86M on list). 15% margins on that number would be around $19.35M (ish), yielding a cost of approximately $109.65M (again these are all really rough number).

Ofcourse actualls may be higher or lower, but based on what we've seen published are not unreasonable IMHO.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
I think saying that 2014 is now the more likely EIS date for the A350-900XWB, putting it 20 years behind the 772 is more relevant for the A359

I still say first taxi tests in 2015. This is going to be painful for EADS .  dollarsign 



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3424 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

I agree with Mani, that it is likely Airbus tossed out the "we can pay you for not taking the A350mk IV you ordered since we will not be building it, or I guess we can just park a few A350 mk VI infront of your HQ instead for the same cost"

Airbus put in one of their statements that they were setting aside $800 million for compensation for the canceling of the A350XNB. Doing the math, that is ALOT of millions perframe and thus is "cheaper" for Airbus to swap out the A350XNB for the A350XWB one for one for no extra cost. Airlines will be highly tempted to keep this deal if offered since 787 slots are hardly freely avalible, they keep thier prime A350 slots, and they might fish out a few more million a frame if it slips or changes configurations again. More importantly If a big name carrier wants its frames, and wants it now, a smaller carrier like Finair can make a good bit of money horse trading or selling slots.

The places that Airbus will have trouble now though is EK and the like. They will be demanding the same price as those "other guys" and when airbus informs them that they can't get first year slots, and the price is millions more.... More or less they will be driven right into boeings hands since there are plenty of slots in the A350's open production slot time period, and the 787 is already a cheaper plane than the A350 in terms of list price.

Interestingly I think russia will ALSO be a bad bit of trouble for the A350xwb. while its certain they have a lock on Areoflot's order, can you help but wonder how much the A330 bridging aircraft will cost airbus? How much trouble the A320F conversion program can cause them, and lets not forget the ink isn't dry. What will the russians demand next? While russia had a top notch areospace industry and they are still capible of it, I would question any move airbus makes to move any actual production of thier parts on a new design at this time. Plenty of stuff for existing lines to cut the russians teeth on the airbus way of doing things, and plenty of insulation on an existing program against budget nuking failures. So give the russians some production for the china A320 subassemblies if they want more and call it a day.


25 Osiris30 : Well that is the real question isn't it.. whether or not Airbus can hold pricing now that pricing such as this is being made public.. Time and financ
26 EI321 : But they only occur when a sale is desperatly needed. Your not seriously suggesting that any airline will order an aircraft under the premise that th
27 Mariner : If the price becomes too onerous for Airbus, I guess they can always walk away. mariner
28 Osiris30 : Man if you don't think EK, QF and every other major tier 1 airline won't try and get the same pricing, I really don't know what else to say. The simp
29 Mariner : manufactuers was simply - Every launch customer gets steeper discoutns than the follow up airlines and Emirates is not a launch customer for the A350.
30 XT6Wagon : What I am "on about" is that Airbus has a problem. They are painting themselves into a bad corner. 1. They are trading lease deals and massively disco
31 Osiris30 : That's what Leahy was saying.. the question is, is it more onerous to walk away (i.e. penalties) or to keep it and eat it..
32 Mariner : Certainly, that is a question. But it is Airbus who decide. There is no requirement that they must sell aircraft at a price that is "painful" to them
33 Manni : The monies booked are for compensation purpose not to cover losses. Which means we can exchange our estimates but to keep going back and forward on i
34 Stitch : Not necessarily. If the order can make them a profit, and space is available, they really have nothing to lose by agreeing to the order. I agree that
35 Osiris30 : Loss on an old order is compensation. Better to lose some on an order than pay more in compensation for cancelling it. This isn't about that. Launch
36 Manni : Because Airbus did not meet the obligations set out in the original contract. When EK starts negotations there is no such contract to begin with. No
37 2wingtips : Reportedly! Where? That's a ludicrous price. All I've ever seen reported on the QF tender, was that it was a very tough negotiation. Although, the co
38 Post contains images Osiris30 : Apparently it is.. because you seem to think aircraft and pizza follow the same market dynamics . In all seriousness, it's not the penalties that EK
39 Dank : The key here is where else to go. (let's ignore all the complicating factors such as current fleet comonalities, date of availability, etc.). Airline
40 XT6Wagon : clearly there is a big difference in how it affects others when you fail to decouple the compensation from the new order. If airbus said... here is yo
41 Post contains links and images Manni : The offer QF got from Boeing and Airbus has been discussed several times. I looked around a bit in the various topics, have a look, it will keep you
42 Post contains images Astuteman : At the end of the day, the price an airline will be willing to pay will not be dependent upon what other EXISTING A350 customers pay, but it will be
43 Post contains images Stitch : Airlines will probably try to use similar deals as a starting point, but in the end, it has to make sense for them. Even if you could get an A350XWB
44 Lumberton : EK may not be the best example to use to support Airbus' ability to walk away from an A350 negotiation. They are probably Airbus' most important cust
45 Post contains images Rpaillard : Well, if it was, at that time, the right bird for them and they could now have an even better one at the same price, I found it pretty wise   Well,
46 Post contains images Osiris30 : That was all I was trying to point out. Nothing more, nothing less. [rotfl] Well done Manni (they need a tip of the cap icon here). As I said above i
47 Stitch : The biggest pricing pressure on the A350XWB right now is the fact they've only sold a dozen or so. If they can convert all of their A350 orders over t
48 XT6Wagon : Stitch, one of the "game changer" aspects of the 787 is that boeing being more firm on price, still leaves them with a fairly inexpensive plane compar
49 Stitch : As the 787 EIS approaches, there will be pricing pressure on the A330 line. Part of the blip in A330 sales is no doubt driven by advantageous pricing
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...
Portugal To Sign For BE-200? posted Mon Jun 12 2006 15:05:55 by Flying-Tiger
Royal Jordanian To Sign For At Least Seven ERJ190s posted Wed Mar 15 2006 16:42:48 by Leelaw
Report: TAP Portugal To Sign For 14 A350s posted Tue Oct 11 2005 13:10:25 by PanAm_DC10
Finnair To Shop For Long-range Planes? posted Thu Nov 23 2000 20:50:08 by Joni
NAS To Sign Deal For 19 Aircraft Soon. posted Thu Feb 1 2007 08:55:01 by Manni
Finnair To Reconsider A350 Order posted Thu Oct 5 2006 21:35:06 by Findigenous
AF To Sign A €500M Loan. What For? posted Thu Aug 31 2006 17:47:25 by Rpaillard
Last-Ditch Bid To Save SQ Order For A350 posted Mon May 8 2006 12:36:12 by Leelaw
Official: Aribus Is To Adopt A380 Cockpit For A350 posted Thu Mar 30 2006 17:32:54 by AirA380
Finnair Select RR Trent 1700 For A350 posted Mon Mar 20 2006 10:35:50 by PanAm_DC10