Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4179 posts, RR: 35 Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9644 times:
Time to have a good laugh this morning - sorry, but airline execs seem to get lost more and more these days...
Quote: We are looking at the cost structure... we want the right aircraft and we won't start until the right mix of aircraft is finalized," Raja Mohamad Azmi, AirAsia X chief executive and 20 percent shareholder, told Dow Jones Newswires.
Azmi places the blame for such exorbitant leasing costs squarely on Airbus, primarily on the company's failure to deliver the A380 superjumbo in a timely fashion. This has caused larger airlines to retain current and leased aircraft until orders are delivered.. thus squeezing out smaller carriers with less cash, according to CNN.
Even if the A380 would have been in service by now, the amount of released planes and available for cascading down would be minimal, likely without any real pressure on leasing rates. Considering that a rumourred 20 parties looked at OS A330s the market demand is simply so high that every available frame is snapped up by a carrier. Market forces, and nothing else... little chance to blame it on the A380, but the blame game seems to be highly favoured these days.
Thorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9487 times:
I don't think that is so wrong. They were looking at A333s or 773ERs. Despite those not being direct competitors, both aircraft have seen sales due to the A380 and A350XWB delays. LH, TG have bought A333s to compensate A380 delays, EK leases several 773ERs for the same reason, SQ will get 19 A333s because their A350XWBs come so late.
PEET7G From Hungary, joined Jan 2007, 696 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9232 times:
He does have a point in his statement, although not as far as he went... We have to admit that due to late deliveries there is a vacuum for leased-in 773ERs and A330s and that category... Also I expect they might have been looking at the offloaded planes that should have now been available if the A380 was on-time.
What I do find more problematic is that the blame is only on the A380... the A350 fiasco is also related to this game, I mean... he does have some point, but it only adds to many other factors on the market and when you sum all them up THEN you get the real picture...
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8974 times:
Quoting Flying-Tiger (Thread starter): Azmi places the blame for such exorbitant leasing costs squarely on Airbus, primarily on the company's failure to deliver the A380 superjumbo in a timely fashion. This has caused larger airlines to retain current and leased aircraft until orders are delivered.. thus squeezing out smaller carriers with less cash, according to CNN.
Doesent he know airbus are giving them away? Its a scientific fact
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8954 times:
Quoting EI321 (Reply 3): Doesent he know airbus are giving them away? Its a scientific fact
Of course it is! Just like Bigfoot and the Abominable snowman... Lets not forget that Airbus paid Qantas to take those wretched A330's!
The article does have merit however. One of the best stop-gap measures for A380 delays has been the A330 as delivery customers are getting them at a discount (probably some kind of penalty arrangement) and Airbus can build them relatively fast... In fact wasn't there a thread about Airbus looking to ramp up production even more?
Aviator27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8534 times:
To put a dollar figure on these numbers. Shortly after 9/11, A320's were being leased for $125,000/month. By 2005, A320's were being leased for $300,000/month.
To blame Airbus is plausible. They built a product that became high in demand after 9/11 and thus sending lease rates up. Honestly though, it isn't their fault. The only way to decrease lease rates is to increase supply. This can upset some of their largest customers (who are leasing companies). So a balance must be found.
I know A330's are almost impossible to get on the open market at the moment. It is all market forces. Some executives want their cake and to eat it too. They want free markets to start new airlines/service but they don't want to deal with the residual effects of labor/equipment shortages driving their costs up.
KULatICT From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8344 times:
May be had Air Asia bought like 20 A380 in the first place, Air Asia X would have had 40 A330 50% off & about 20 A330 flying by now..... so Air Asia X should blame Air Asia for the shortsightedness... lol
Jfr From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5244 times:
Please remember that the Air Asia brain trust includes Dublin-based experts and investors with their fingers on the pulse of the airframe and engine markets. I would tend to lend Azmi's remarks considerable credence owing to the presence of this kind of talent in the Boardroom.
A380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1120 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3179 times:
The problem is not how many would have been delivered to this day. The problem is how many should have been delivered in 2009 and 2010 (whenever full production rate was supposed to be reached) and will not. Airbus has made everyone believe they would produce capacity and did not. It is clear it does have an impact on the lease rate of other airplanes...
And anyway, it's the guy's job: for the sake of his future, he probably would not venture in making comments that would be deemed stupid by his colleagues and competitors.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2452 times:
Quoting EvilForce (Reply 9): The guy's a moron. Why doesn't he blame OPEC for high fuel prices? Or China for buying so much aluminum it drives the raw cost of material up in aircraft. Air Asia made bad assumptions. Period.
Good thoughts but wrong target for fuel prices. I did know who was to blame but someone amBushed my memory! China definitely to blame, but how about the Pope for not advocating birth control, resulting in all that extra population putting pressure on resources?