NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5219 posts, RR: 49 Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6367 times:
They announced the order a few months ago. They needed a larger capacity airplane and the 77W won out over the A346. It seems they finalized it just recently.
MCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8557 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6325 times:
Didnt they already order the 773ER. I believe these may be options.
AA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3348 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6252 times:
Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 3): Didnt they already order the 773ER. I believe these may be options
I think they announced their intention, but I don't think it was ever signed. I believe this is the official finalization of the orders.
Great news for TAM- the 77W is an excellent a/c. Also great for Boeing who has had a relatively slow start to the year, hopefully sales for the 777 will gain some momentum after the BA (4), DJ (7) and TAM (4) orders.
LipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11230 posts, RR: 61 Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6085 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 1): Why JJ would buy B777 if they're supposedly happy with A330?
Besides the fact they need a larger plane, Boeing approached Tam with a fantastic deal: Tam needs widebodies to run new flights to Paris (from GIG) and Milan and the market does not offer anything for immediate lease.
Boeing provided the M11 deal (3 M11 during 16 to 20 months in order that Tam could begin GIG-CDG and new MXP route by the end of march) with a very good price.
Also financing thru Eximbank, creating a new credit line in favor of Tam.
Felipe
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
BoeingFever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 56 Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5563 times:
TAM CEO and CFO while talking with investors one day after announce the deal with Boeing and at time of 3Q results has been announced. I took part on the conference call.
Felipe
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2210 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5540 times:
Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 1): Why JJ would buy B777 if they're supposedly happy with A330?
The 777-300ER is far far away from being a competitor of the A330. Largest A330 seats ~295 while 777-300ER seats ~360.
Quoting PM (Reply 8): Indeed, SQ just ordered A330s after buying 777-300ERs.
SQ didn't order A330s. They leased them from Airbus.
Also, SQ's acquiring of A330s is only because they got a give away deal by Airbus in compensation to the A380 delays.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5165 times:
Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 10): TAM CEO and CFO while talking with investors one day after announce the deal with Boeing and at time of 3Q results has been announced. I took part on the conference call.
Then we should quantify what constitutes a fantastic deal. The long-haul aircraft trade is a sellers market these days, especially when it comes to the 777. I have a healthy degree of skepticism when anyone claims they have secured a fantastic deal lately.
Quoting PM (Reply 12): Oh, so they aren't highly suitable planes for SQ's route network? Shame.
What's the expression? Fourth time is the charm. If the A330 was quite the slam-dunk, I'm sure we would have seen them in SQ colors years ago. Let's be honest, and consider all the factors surrounding the lease arrangement for the A330....
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4145 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13): What's the expression? Fourth time is the charm. If the A330 was quite the slam-dunk, I'm sure we would have seen them in SQ colors years ago. Let's be honest, and consider all the factors surrounding the lease arrangement for the A330....
AFAIK, it's unprecedented for an OEM to manufacture aircraft for delivery to an operating lessee on a short-term operating lease where the OEM also acts as lessor (i.e. OEMS have traditionally "leased" new-build aircraft to customers only via "capital leases"). Why was this transactional structure necessary in the case of the Airbus/SQ lease deal? Perhaps it has something to do with an unacceptably high residual value risk for SQ or a third-party lessor of the aircraft in question?
LipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11230 posts, RR: 61 Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2789 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13): Then we should quantify what constitutes a fantastic deal. The long-haul aircraft trade is a sellers market these days, especially when it comes to the 777. I have a healthy degree of skepticism when anyone claims they have secured a fantastic deal lately.
If they could run the flights in the short term (GIG-CDG and GRU-MXP) with planes with the same CASK/CASM as the planes they should receive only in 18 months, with a good price (otherwise i doubt Tam would change from Airbus), a good long-term financing option, and considering it all Tam is not an investment grade company but it's now generating revenue on a route with very good and healthy yields, i should describe as a fantastic deal.
Just to remember, there are a MHRO closer to it's hub able to deal with M11 also.
The Deal could be fantastic for one airline and terrible for another. In this case i agree with you that a 777 deal nowadays is very good for Boeing, but Tam use to be Airbus customer only.
Felipe
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
Hardiwv From Brazil, joined Oct 2004, 8780 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2447 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13): Then we should quantify what constitutes a fantastic deal. The long-haul aircraft trade is a sellers market these days, especially when it comes to the 777
Lipe is correct. Boeing approached TAM with a very good deal. It was a win-win deal.
By ensuring TAM as a customer, Boeing would make the biggest airline in the region (TAM) become its customer - note that until then TAM was an Airbus customer. The deal has a major significance for Boeing. The second biggest airline in the region (GOL) is already an all-Boeing operator.
The deal with TAM was a breakthrough for Boeing, and it has major significance, especially taking into account the downfall of the previous main Boeing operator (RG).
Lemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2036 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13): Then we should quantify what constitutes a fantastic deal. The long-haul aircraft trade is a sellers market these days, especially when it comes to the 777. I have a healthy degree of skepticism when anyone claims they have secured a fantastic deal lately.
Doh...other's beat me to it, but yeah...the adjective is in the mouth of the beholder here. If TAM says it was a great deal for them, it was a great deal. United may have laughed at such an offer, but they're not TAM. It's like a regional fast food chain having someone offer to buy franchise rights for 20 stores when the whole chain is only 20 stores now. Fantastic deal for them...McDonalds wouldn't even notice.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5219 posts, RR: 49 Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1663 times:
Ok TAM and Boeing has officially concluded the order for 4 x 77W and that was the UFO 777 order that was posted on Thursday on Boeing Weekly Order and Delivery web site.
LipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11230 posts, RR: 61 Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1619 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Lemurs (Reply 18): United may have laughed at such an offer, but they're not TAM
Agree 100%. Tam can sell a US$ 1,200 R/T ticket as a deeply discount Y fare on a 10 hours flight, something that it's almost impossible for mostly routes operated by United. And during the day, can run a 3 hours flight for a US$ 350,00 O/W deep discount fare using the same planes.
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 19): Ok TAM and Boeing has officially concluded the order for 4 x 77W and that was the UFO 777 order that was posted on Thursday on Boeing Weekly Order and Delivery web site.
Thanks for the news, and IMO, TAM will confirm at least 2 of the 4 options they have if the market continues to grow like nowadays. And will be not a surprise if they decide to confirm all options.
Felipe
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
TradewindL1011 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 179 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1412 times:
Here's the official Boeing press release including a photo release:
PEET7G From Hungary, joined Jan 2007, 693 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1238 times:
Quoting Thorben (Reply 22): To me it seems like that, too. That order has been finalized five times now. Does Boeing need that in order to pretend having a lot of orders?
Stop the bashing... Boeing never announced a firm order with TAM on these 77Ws... they only had a statement when TAM announced their INTENTION to order these planes... on an other note, it is quit clearly written in the news release that the finalized deal is for 4 orders and 4 options and that the 4 orders are already accounted for in the orders list as an unidentified customer... This is the first time they finalized the order, deal with it...
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5219 posts, 
From Panama, joined Apr 2005, 3580 posts, 
From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3348 posts, 
From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11230 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6753 posts, 
AFAIK, it's unprecedented for an OEM to manufacture aircraft for delivery to an operating lessee on a short-term operating lease where the OEM also acts as lessor (i.e. OEMS have traditionally "leased" new-build aircraft to customers only via "capital leases"). Why was this transactional structure necessary in the case of the Airbus/SQ lease deal? Perhaps it has something to do with an unacceptably high residual value risk for SQ or a third-party lessor of the aircraft in question?
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Hungary, joined Jan 2007, 693 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
