Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12172 posts, RR: 17
Posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5412 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Now that part 1 has reached over 300 posts, heres part 2 EK A350 Audit A350 Closes Gap On B787 (by PanAm_DC10 Apr 11 2007 in Civil Aviation)

This contest at EK is really starting to heat up now, and its turning out it could be a nail bitting finish for both Boeing and Airbus. Airbus really needs this order, to help close the gap on Boeing at the B787s lead

63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5276 times:

I still think if Ek really wanted the 787-10 they would have ordered it by now. This order will go to the A-350, since Airbus has a "we'll give you want you want if you order it" phillosophy when it comes to EK.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5265 times:

This is an interesting statement made by Clark. What does he really mean by closing the gap? XWB is closer to 787 but not matched it yet. Why is it publically announced.. to pressure Boeing for the Price they want or to pressure Airbus for a better price to make up for "XWB closing the gap but not quite there yet.

One thing is for sure Boeing is laughing because they can afford to price low having captured 540+ orders and are in an enviable business position of being able to force Airbus so low in pricing that they will struggle to get the 300 or 400 oders they need to get to recover investment in the XWB program.

What is interesting is do any XWB orders converted from A350 orders count as new orders in 2007 or are they 2005/2006 orders already accounted for??

Obviously the first assembly/flight is getting close for 787 and I find it very intruiging that for various reasons the 787-10 either for marketing (affecting 772ER) or engineering (unable to or not quite there) has not been anounced.

Is Boeing awaiting design freeze for A358/9 or are there issues with engineering the -10. Interesting especially as Airbus after about 7 versions of the A350 many folks on this site readily believe that the brochure version of the A350-1000 is a 777 killer. Boeing is either struggling with delivering the required performance of the -10 or is reluctant to release it and I believe Airbus will struggle to produce the A3510 as suggested.

So far the Airlines seem to agree with SQ still to firm up their A350 and what is that suggesting. SQ QF are doing very well screwing Airbus over delays and scoring cheap aircraft (more cheap optioned A380 and A330 as compensation)

In any event Boeing are in the strong position whenever they go to the negotiating table in the 787/A350 battle.

I still believe that EK want the 787-10 GEnX powered but if Boeing don't sharpen the pencil enough they could go A350. Airbus need this order (any order) more than Boeing.

The Paris Air Show will be very interesting thats for sure......


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5266 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 1):
I still think if Ek really wanted the 787-10 they would have ordered it by now. This order will go to the A-350, since Airbus has a "we'll give you want you want if you order it" phillosophy when it comes to EK.

And why not - if they're really going to order 100 copies that's $20B at list prices, however if they don't order you could be left with a very expensive white elephant


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5243 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 2):
Clark. What does he really mean by closing the gap?

That the gap between the old A350 & 787 is no longer there.


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5073 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 2):
What does he really mean by closing the gap? XWB is closer to 787 but not matched it yet.

This is semantics, but that would IMO be more a case of "narrowing" a gap, or indeed "closing" a gap. What Clark said is that the gap is "closed". Anyhow measuring any gaps, one way or another, isn't an exact science as different airlines will have different requirements.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5025 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 4):
That the gap between the old A350 & 787 is no longer there.

Says Airbus. Key word: says. They have nothing but a paper airplane with specifications that now match what Boeing is actually building with the 787. If that's good enough for EK, so be it. It is well within the realm of possibility that the in-service performance figures of both aircraft could leave a significant gap.

Lord knows it has happened in the past between Airbus and Boeing widebodies. Other than that, I don't know what else there is that needs to be said.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4996 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 4):
That the gap between the old A350 & 787 is no longer there.

Says Airbus.

It was clark who said it. Its hard to dispute information that none of us have seen, and its not like he is going to more gullable or supicious than you or I.


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4952 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 2):
What is interesting is do any XWB orders converted from A350 orders count as new orders in 2007 or are they 2005/2006 orders already accounted for??

They're already accounted for - have a look at how the AY order was booked in March they went from 9 XNB to 11 XWBs (I think - the differance was definitely +2) and the order sheet just shows +2.

Any cancellations will show up a negative in this year though!


User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 907 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4914 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
Says Airbus. Key word: says. They have nothing but a paper airplane with specifications that now match what Boeing is actually building with the 787. If that's good enough for EK, so be it. It is well within the realm of possibility that the in-service performance figures of both aircraft could leave a significant gap.

As I've said in the original part of this thread. How is this any different than when Boeing promised things about the 787 (or when it was still the 7E7) and Airbus was offering up a re-engined 330? I mean, which was the bigger leap of faith?

I don't buy it for either one, that that is an excuse for not believing the manufacturer. Airbus hasn't missed much. The 380 as far as we can tell meets or exceeds it's guarantees other than the weight issue (which has been countered with other performance boosts). It has been delayed insanely, but who could have anticipated that debacle and you can better believe that Airbus will work extra hard not to have those events occur again. The 345 and 346 acvtually met their guarantees (other than a few heavy winged 346s. They just don't perform as well as the competition.

cheers.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4711 times:

Quoting Dank (Reply 9):
The 345 and 346 acvtually met their guarantees (other than a few heavy winged 346s. They just don't perform as well as the competition.

The news of suits regarding CG issues for the A346 suggests otherwise.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4661 times:

Perhaps making a really big twinjet is more difficult than we first figured. The 777-300ER may have been a really unique achievement that is difficult to repeat without huge risk. It's kind of like Concorde... except you know... successful.

User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4619 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 3):
And why not - if they're really going to order 100 copies that's $20B at list prices, however if they don't order you could be left with a very expensive white elephant

I think that Airbus would be foolish to repeat the mistake of launching another airframe that has a dissproportionate number of airframes relying on 1 customer, especially if it is EK and the problems they had negotiating everything post A-380 delivery debacle.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineHB88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 816 posts, RR: 31
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4590 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 10):
Quoting Dank (Reply 9):
The 345 and 346 acvtually met their guarantees (other than a few heavy winged 346s. They just don't perform as well as the competition.

The news of suits regarding CG issues for the A346 suggests otherwise.

The fact that there are no lawsuits might actually suggest otherwise.

This fwd weight issue is very murky and seems to have gone very quiet as soon as it appeared in the media. In any case it's hard to see much merit in an argument that loading an aircraft outside its certified weight and balance parameters (due to incorporating heavyweight business/first interiors) could found a claim against a manufacturer. But I guess if you were looking for problems in the 340-500/600 it's a pretty good sound-bite.

There's another thread on this which has degenerated into the usual A v B rubbish.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4550 times:

Quoting HB88 (Reply 13):

The fact that there are no lawsuits might actually suggest otherwise.

You are right. I should have been more accurate and said news of threatened lawsuits.

Quote:
This fwd weight issue is very murky and seems to have gone very quiet as soon as it appeared in the media. In any case it's hard to see much merit in an argument that loading an aircraft outside its certified weight and balance parameters (due to incorporating heavyweight business/first interiors) could found a claim against a manufacturer. But I guess if you were looking for problems in the 340-500/600 it's a pretty good sound-bite.

I always viewed this as initiation of negotiation through the press. It was only a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure they caught Airbus's attention. And the anonymous wannabe plaintiffs seemed to be suggesting that performance parameters were not met by Airbus. But information here suggests that it was due to incorporating Airbus promoted lower deck options. Perhaps Airbus didn't provide data regarding the impact of these features.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4469 times:

Quote:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 10):
Quoting Dank (Reply 9):
The 345 and 346 acvtually met their guarantees (other than a few heavy winged 346s. They just don't perform as well as the competition.


The news of suits regarding CG issues for the A346 suggests otherwise.


It is news of some airlines looking at the possibility of legal proceedings. That does not necessarily imply that there is any case to proceed with.
Other than that, I had until now been under the impression that the A340-500/600 did not meet their guarantees on fuel burn. If what Dank says is true, then it seems to be the case that every airbus aircraft past & present that I'm aware of has met its performance guarantees, which would be a slap to the face of another one of those often suggested but never proven airliners.net urban legend.

[Edited 2007-04-18 00:01:44]

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10039 posts, RR: 96
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4449 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
I had actually been under the impression that impression that the A340-500/600 did not meet their guarentees on fuel burn

There was a very good article in FI about 18 months to 2 years ago on the A345/6's turbulent EIS.

All of the operators interviewed said that the fuel burn on these aircraft was within the guaranteed specification.
LH were quoted as saying there was a specific route (not named) where they sometimes struggled to meet the specified fuel burn on their A346's, and were investigating trim/c of g changes, but on all other routes it performed just fine.

There were LOTS of criticisms of despatch reliability, which most certainly did not meet its specified target.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
which would fly in the face of another airliners.net urban lagend.

Indeed.  Smile

Regards


User currently offlineHB88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 816 posts, RR: 31
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4399 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
Other than that, I had until now been under the impression that the A340-500/600 did not meet their guarantees on fuel burn. If what Dank says is true, then it seems to be the case that every airbus aircraft past & present that I'm aware of has met its performance guarantees, which would be a slap in the face of another on of those often often suggested but never proven airliners.net urban legend.

As I understand it from cornering quite a few people at Airbus who know about it, the 340-500/600 did indeed meet its fuel burn guarantees. On the other hand, the EIS issues (covered well in the FI article noted above) were mainly dispatch reliability of which I have heard gossip that approximately 40% of those issues were attributed to the powerplants (probably never formally). There were for sure maturity issues with the aircraft initially at EIS, but the type has eventually proven to be a very good aircraft indeed. I don't think it is able to compete with the excellent 777, but then again while the 777 is a superb a/c in terms of reliability and fuel burn, IMO (and quite a few others share this opinion), it is an uncomfortable pig of an aircraft for pax - airlines love it, passengers hate it. Of course that's a generalisation, but I've always found them noisy and just cramped on long haul. The 330/340 series are fantastic a/c in terms of passenger comfort IMO. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

However the 340 fuel burn 'problem' is largely an article of faith on a.net and you will read it accepted uncritically in most threads discussing the 340-500/600.


User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 907 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4353 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 16):
There was a very good article in FI about 18 months to 2 years ago on the A345/6's turbulent EIS.

All of the operators interviewed said that the fuel burn on these aircraft was within the guaranteed specification.
LH were quoted as saying there was a specific route (not named) where they sometimes struggled to meet the specified fuel burn on their A346's, and were investigating trim/c of g changes, but on all other routes it performed just fine.

There were LOTS of criticisms of despatch reliability, which most certainly did not meet its specified target.

 checkmark  Spot on. The dispatch issues certainly have been problematic. As has been discussed previously, the issue that has hurt the 345/346s is not that they haven't done what they were supposed to do. But that they aren't as efficient as the Boeing competitor which translates to being a "gas guzzler" for some. When I look at my Honda Civic, I don't think of it as a gas guzzler even if there are more fuel efficient cars out there (I mean look at the 747 classics that the 346 replaces).

We are all subject to our own biases, without doubt (I still carry around a completely unintellectual softspot for the dc9/md80). It just irks me a bit when their is a small, but vocal following out there which would have you believe that every plane that AIrbus makes is complete crap; and the only reason that an airline would buy one is because Airbus is selling them on the cheap (or there is politics involved). And that Boeing's planes are always perfect and are bought because they are the right plane. And there are folks on the total opposite side. Human nature makes us more likely to accept statements from a given individual when they match our beliefs. Some will tell you that Leahy is full of crap and will then take Randy's statements at face value (We should all strive to have a filter that attempts to incorporate the motives of the speaker). Of course the salesmen are going to spin things in their favor. If they don't, they should be out of their job.

The other thing along thse lines is the notion that there is a perfect plane for everyone in each marketspace. What might be a good fit for LH, might not be a great fit for CO, etc. The SQ (well, as long as the LOI stands) decision to split their order between 787s and 350s is an example within the same airline. This usually goes along the lines of "airline x has to order the 789 because it is the better plane" well, it may be the better plane for 60% of the airlines, but for airline y it may not be. There are so many factors, the least of which is that very few airlines are start ups where they can start with a clean slate in terms of aircraft.

Anyway, sorry for my little soap box rant.

cheers.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4336 times:

Quoting Dank (Reply 18):
Spot on. The dispatch issues certainly have been problematic.

Its an issue that can pop up on any new aircraft. The 777 had serious issues when it was introcused with some airlines. I think all eyes will be on the A380 in its first few months of operations. Is the amount of route proving that they are doing normal? Perhaps they are being extra cautious considering how many of the flights have full passenger loads.


User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 907 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4314 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 19):
Its an issue that can pop up on any new aircraft. The 777 had serious issues when it was introcused with some airlines. I think all eyes will be on the A380 in its first few months of operations. Is the amount of route proving that they are doing normal? Perhaps they are being extra cautious considering how many of the flights have full passenger loads.

 checkmark  It seems like a lot to me. But I don't recall what things were like when other major widebodies have come on the market. Part of it, my guess, is that they are being extra cautious at this point (just as it seems like they may be ahead of the very much revised manufacturing schedule. They've got a lot (obviously) riding on the 380 at this point.

Cheers.


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4296 times:

I'm not looking to pin blame on any one area here, but I do have a question for the staunch A345/A346 defenders. Even if everything we on A.net about the performance disparity of the A340NGs to the 777NGs is wildly exagerated, why the order disparity over the last 2 years? There is obviously a market for planes with this kind of cabin capacity and range, as evidenced by the total number of sales over that time span...it's just that in relative proportions, it's essentially dried up for Airbus and exploded for Boeing.

I'm at a loss to find a better explanation other the 777NGs simply provide such a compelling business case that it's impossible to ignore unless you have a very specific route and cargo structure that only applies to a fraction of the industry. Not saying the A340 is junk or anything outrageous...just that I haven't seen a good explanation for why the order sheet imbalance other than it being seriously outclassed in general. I'd love to see a reasonable explanation advanced, but otherwise all this air spent on defending airplanes only a few airlines want seems like a lot of effort towards a lost cause.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4285 times:

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 21):
why the order disparity over the last 2 years?


Oil prices. When the bulk of A340-600 orders were made (and when the aircraft was designed), oil was considerably cheaper than it has been for the last two years. The change in prices made the 777 more attractive, as the fuel savings help offset the higher purchase price.

[Edited 2007-04-18 01:47:51]

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 16):
There were LOTS of criticisms of despatch reliability, which most certainly did not meet its specified target.

I know in our airline that has changed as well, yes we had problems at the start but then again we had problems with the 744, 330, 773, 772. Last year the 346 at our company had a higher dispatch reliability, and flew more hours per day than the 777 (in fact all airbus models did), and also had a higher dispatch reliability than the 747/744 and flew about the same number of hours per day as the 744.

Quoting Dank (Reply 18):
It just irks me a bit when their is a small, but vocal following out there which would have you believe that every plane that AIrbus makes is complete crap; and the only reason that an airline would buy one is because Airbus is selling them on the cheap (or there is politics involved).

 checkmark 

Same, also I get annoyed at people who claim to be know a lot about a 340 and have never worked in a company that operates them.

Quoting Dank (Reply 20):
It seems like a lot to me. But I don't recall what things were like when other major widebodies have come on the market. Part of it, my guess, is that they are being extra cautious at this point (just as it seems like they may be ahead of the very much revised manufacturing schedule. They've got a lot (obviously) riding on the 380 at this point.

That depends on the local CAA, I know for say QF with the 330 they had to fly them domestically for some time before being let out to the big world, and CX are the same, have to operate the aircraft locally for a bit before sending it further afield. SQ seems to be the same, before doing large over sectors with the 380, it will do sectors with a lot of enroute alternates first.

Many CAAs require route proving for new types to be conducted before allowing them to be operated in commercial operations.

Sometimes operators like to get some local experience on the aircraft to get the crew up to speed, and maybe even do a couple of hundred hours then swap an engine over, so both engines are not at the same hour level as another risk mitigating procedure.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 907 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4265 times:

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 21):
I'm not looking to pin blame on any one area here, but I do have a question for the staunch A345/A346 defenders. Even if everything we on A.net about the performance disparity of the A340NGs to the 777NGs is wildly exagerated, why the order disparity over the last 2 years? There is obviously a market for planes with this kind of cabin capacity and range, as evidenced by the total number of sales over that time span...it's just that in relative proportions, it's essentially dried up for Airbus and exploded for Boeing.

I doubt that you would find many people who would say that the 772LR and 773ER don't, in general, outperform the 345 and 346, respectively. That is very different than saying that the 345 and 346 don't meet their performance targets. Their performance targets are under those of the 772LR and 773ER (but had the benefit of coming to market earlier; although, they came to market at a bad time as it turns out). It is also very different than saying that they are "gas guzzlers," which has a connotation of them being pieces of junk (and suggesting that their performance is completely awful and one could not make money off it). Acquisition costs of the 345 and 346 tend to be lower (that's different than saying that Airbus isn't making money off them). However, as fuel prices have increased, the total cost to operate the aircraft has swung more towards favoring the plane with the higher acquisition cost, but better fuel economy (since acquisition cost has become a smaller portion of the cost of operating the type). For a carrier like LH, the cost of switching to a new type, appears to outweigh the benefits of lower operating costs (and hence the follow-on order for 346s). Same thing with SQ, if they thought that the 772LR would be that much more profitable than the 345, it would outweigh the losses they might have in selling the planes, or relegating them to shorter routes a la EK.

The simple answer is that while the 777NGs are generally better planes than their Airbus counterparts. But that doesn't prove that the 345 and 346 are lousy planes, and certainly doesn't say that they don't perform as advertised. The other odd leap that is made, is that the 343 is obviously a crap plane as well; which it isn't.

cheers.


25 Post contains images Dank : Beat me to it! cheers.
26 Lemurs : Of course, but that was always going to be true for the airframe. I guess the sales tradeoff was more aluring when the cost distribution for operatin
27 Zeke : If you look at the 340 and 777, I think both airframes are with about 40 different operators at the moment, so both airframes have a fairly good mark
28 2wingtips : Evidence? You, as a pilot, know what the 777-300ER deal was between CX and Boeing? Isn't that confidential? Should you be revealing this information?
29 Zeke : Yes the details are confidential, but unlike yourself I know what the difference was (but not for the ILFC component or the finer points of the engin
30 Lemurs : Yes, but this is a question of the refresh here, not the entire life of the airframe. The comparable NG offerings. The 343 is still responsible for t
31 2wingtips : Mentioning that the Boeing price was cheaper is absolutely confidential and you shouldn't have done it. Simple as that. Without knowing the finer poi
32 Post contains images Magyar : Why? Is it because you worry about hurting CX or just because they are uncomfortable for "Boeingland"? Let Zeke's bosses (and Zeke) worry about this
33 Zeke : It would have been improper for me to say publicly that Boeing offered the 773ER for US$1.10, and Airbus offered the A346 for US$1.20, but I didn't,
34 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Why would they price low? The large backlog and high customer demand gives them more pricing power, i.e. less discounting. That would be a better rea
35 2wingtips : And yours aren't? You are the one that mentioned that Boeing was offering large 748I discounts, when it is clear 40% is standard for many large deals
36 EI321 : How do you know this? How do you know for certain it was confidential? You could wave a black flag infront of some people and they will try to tell y
37 Zeke : What was reported in the "Seattle Times" at the time ... "This year's breakthrough sales wins clearly depended also on pricing. Boeing sales chief Sc
38 2wingtips : Well you tell me where CX has disclosed this information? It is rare for this information to be publicly disclosed and Zeke appears unable to see his
39 Zeke : They are called launch discounts, they are given as compensation for the risk of the project, and assumed technical difficulties when introduced. Wel
40 Stitch : Heck, the Seattle Times now lists the AVITAS discount along with the list price. They didn't at the time of the CX order, but did note the discount ra
41 NorCal : Boeing used to be pretty arrogant when it came to pricing, sometimes demanding list from customers. This is why they lost customers like F9 and B6 to
42 Post contains images GBan : You seem to have a huge burden on your shoulders. I wonder whether you are a priest - or do you have German ancestors?
43 EI321 : Preaching what? Is that the LH order? What is the normal level and what are LH paying?
44 Flysherwood : Fortunately for Boeing, they are in a position to afford giving discounts and are in a much better position to get into a pricing war with Airbus. Th
45 Stitch : And it is also what generally happens when a company with a fully-amortized product faces competition from a new and more effective product that marg
46 Keesje : I could conclude you see Zeke saying Boeing was offering large 748i dsicounts as a direct personal attack in a very unfriendly tone. My advise: keep
47 Post contains images Swissy : What is wrong here guys...... so Zeke is giving us some insight in regard of CX great, so what B offered the T7 at a better price then A.............
48 Flysherwood : You hit the nail right on its head!!! And if Boeing is discounting aircraft, it is because they are able to afford to, whereas Airbus cannot. Those m
49 2wingtips : And you believe Zeke? My advice on the CX 773ER/346 competition is that he is very wrong. But that's as far as I'm prepared to go.
50 Post contains images 2wingtips : Thanks for your advice Keesje. I'll treasure it along with all that you say on a.net
51 Post contains links and images TeamAmerica : Please note the 30 UFO 787's being discussed: Apparently 30 UFO 787s NOT A US Carrier (by Popski87 Apr 18 2007 in Civil Aviation) Consensus seems to
52 Post contains images Flysherwood : I am not so sure that Mr. Clark could keep his mouth shut that long!
53 Swissy : I have no reason not to believe him........ So you are saying / you have proof he is wrong....... then give us some insight (no need to disclose any
54 Post contains images Sparklehorse12 : Some of the justifications I read on the forum that are used as some kind of evidence that Airbus are rubbish or Boeing are rubbish is just really cr
55 Post contains images Baroque : Seconded in spades. Seems a fair enough point to this observer. And as someone noted this thread states it is about the A350. So however good or bad
56 Flysherwood : Airbus cannot afford to get into a pricing war with Boeing. The price of the Euro, the costs of the A380 disaster etc... So if AA, UA, DL, BA place o
57 EI321 : Aviation companys dont work like supermarkets. They will offer a price, but only one which would provide the profit they are prepared to accept, and
58 Stitch : Interesting that the British Pound just cleared $2 USD today. So BA will get a nice break in buying whatever plane they want since I assume they will
59 Astuteman : Is this correct though? How much of the 787 workshare is undertaken in dollar denominated facilities. How might that compare to said workshares for t
60 Flysherwood : I do not consider EK to be in their league just yet. And it has nothing to do with size, but with how long they have been around. EK still needs to d
61 Stitch : I am operating under the assumption that the unit of currency for BA is the British Pound. So they will be converting Pounds to Dollars at favorable
62 Swissy : I could not agree more with you and it annoys me to no end that if pros. within the industry share facts from the industry being criticised for passi
63 Atmx2000 : One would presume that the price of the A350 will be revised to account for non-dollarzone costs.
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...
Will Airbus's "XWB-A350" Be Delivered On Time? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 23:20:39 by OU812
Aeroflot A350/787 Choice : Announced On Thursday? posted Tue Mar 28 2006 20:15:12 by FCKC
Airbus Closes In On A330F Launch posted Mon Jun 26 2006 22:10:08 by Columba
Bending Wings On B787 posted Tue May 3 2005 06:48:21 by Grantcv
Boeing In Discussions With MAS On B787 posted Tue Mar 29 2005 00:04:57 by NYC777
Interesting Error On Northwest's Part... posted Thu Oct 30 2003 19:45:49 by GoAround
Boeing Closes In On 7E7 Family Development Plans posted Fri Apr 4 2003 02:20:15 by AvObserver
CX: CEO Comment on A380/B747-8 & A350/B787 Plans posted Wed Mar 28 2007 03:44:24 by Manni
Lufthansa´s Mayrhuber On A380, 747-8 And B787/A350 posted Wed Sep 27 2006 10:54:16 by Keesje
EK: A350/B787 Decision Not For 6 Months posted Wed Jul 19 2006 06:35:24 by PanAm_DC10