Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aircraft ORDERS: When Are They Considered Firm?  
User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

To evaluate the Unfilled Order Lists both from AIRBUS and BOEING, and is necessary to define
clearly what kind of orders shall be filed there. We all agree that such orders must be firm,
therefore only reversible by mutual consent, acts of GOD and certain causes beyond Control of
the Parties. By evident reasons, any event which implies that an order ceases to be firm must
be acknowledged by filing a reversal or in exceptional cases, as a clearly noticeable observation
within the order list.

The implication of such are shown by the following example:

* AIRBUS had declared a total of 104 firm orders for their original aircraft A350
* By reasons not material here this model was withdrawn by Airbus and substituted 2006 by an very
..technically and delivery term-wise, very different A350XWB
..Contractually, due to above substantive differences, the purchase obligation of the Purchasers
..became extinguished.
* Therefore, AIRBUS should have filed an order reversal or introduced a note in the List stating that
..the order ceased to be firm until and when the purchaser accepted instead the A350XWB at a
..agreed price.
- AIRBUS did neither and today, many months later, even if the majority of these orders were still
..not reconfirmed by acceptance of the A350XWB and the customers are negotiating both with them
..and BOEING, they still appear in their List without comment. See
..http://www.airbus.com/odxml/orders_and_deliveries.xls
* Obviously, such is shareholder and potential-investor misleading and violatory of the US Stock
..market rules, therefore the SEC could impose punitive measures both by own initiative or in
..response of a shareholder complaint, without mentioning the possible shareholder suits. The latter
..being very upset due to the negative stock performance of Airbus' owner EADS, which, due his ample
..presence in the US, is subject in such case to US law.

The concepts applied above can be confirmed by any qualified SEC approved attorney


aminobwana

[

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2798 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

An aircraft order is firm when a formal sales contract is signed.

In regards to the A350, Airbus signed formal sales contracts with 14 customers for 156 frames. While Airbus has indeed canceled the original version of the A350, they have created an improved version and offered it for sale with the same model number - A350.

If Airbus had canceled the program in it's entirety, then they would have had to immediately record the cancellations. But since they didn't, they are working with the airlines to try and negotiate the orders for the old A350 to be transferred over to the new A350.

Also, those sales contracts have specific delivery slots and times attached to them. While an airline is perfectly within it's rights to cancel their order, they lose those slots and some of their pricing power. So unless they are absolutely sure they want the 787 or some other model, it is not in their best interests to cancel the order, nor is it in their best interests to have Airbus unilaterally cancel it for them.

And before you hold Boeing up as some shining example of morality, you should know that PR had on the books an order for four 747-400s that they were never going to take delivery of. However, they did not want to cancel outright because they would have lost their deposit. So for years they waffled, and Boeing listed four sales for the 744 that would never be consummated. Finally, this year PR formally canceled their 744 order and instead ordered two 777-300ERs. Boeing promptly deleted four 744s and added two 773ERs to their Master Order Sheet.

In the same stead, all four 748BBJ orders were for the original "shrunk" version. Boeing later decided to make the 747-8I the same length as the 747-8F. All four BBJ customers are getting a different plane then they bought, yet Boeing did not cancel those orders and then rebook them. Instead, they just renegotiated with the customers, who all said "more for the same price? Sure!".

So Airbus is doing nothing Boeing is not doing themselves, and neither company is doing anything wrong, immoral, unethical, or illegal.

And that is why the SEC is not investigating Boeing and the shareholders are not suing Boeing for malfeasance.

And that is why the EU securities commission is not investigating Airbus and the shareholders are not suing Airbus for malfeasance.

Question answered. Case closed. Moderators, lock the thread.

[Edited 2007-05-16 04:00:51]

User currently offlineKL808 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1584 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2792 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
And before you hold Boeing up as some shining example of morality, you should know that PA had on the books an order for four 747-400s that they were never going to take delivery of. However, they did not want to cancel outright because they would have lost their deposit. So for years they waffled, and Boeing listed four sales for the 744 that would never be consummated. Finally, this year PA formally canceled their 744 order and instead ordered two 777-300ERs. Boeing promptly deleted four 744s and added two 773ERs to their Master Order Sheet.

This is the same example I gave the OP on the other thread, with regards to TG's 8 A333's.

By the way sir its not PA its PR.

Drew



AMS-LAX-MNL
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2788 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KL808 (Reply 2):
By the way sir its not PA its PR.

Thank you. Correction made.


User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2760 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):

Well done! That should be enough to answer all his questions. Altough I dont think there were formal contracts for 156 A350s.

Firm orders, total : 13

Finnair (A359) x 11
Pegasus Aviation (A350) x 2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pending orders, total : 164

Bangkok Airways (A358) x 6
Qatar Airways (A350) x 80
Singapore Airlines ( A359) x 20 + 20
CAAC x 20
Yemenia (A358) x 6 + 4
GECAS (A358) x 10
Finnair (A359) + 4 (options)
Aeroflot (A350) X 22

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firm orders for previous versions, total : 91

TAP (A358) x 6, (A359) x 4
TAM (A359) x 10 + 5
US Airways (A358) x 20
Kingfisher (A358) x 5
Air Europa (A358) x 10 + 2
ALAFCO (A358) x 12 + 6
CIT (A358) x 5
Eurofly (A358) x 3 + 3
ILFC (A358) x 8, (A359) x 8 + 4



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1725 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2748 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 4):
Firm orders for previous versions, total : 91

I agree that's the correct number. There were also 9 firm orders from Finnair, since converted to A350XWB, so the total for the old A350 was 100 even.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2720 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Manni (Reply 4):
Altough I dont think there were formal contracts for 156 A350s.

I was looking at the A380 numbers on the Airbus March 2007 spreadsheet by mistake.  embarrassed 

The correct number from that spreadsheet is 104: 71 A358s and 33 A359s.


User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
An aircraft order is firm when a formal sales contract is signed.

Previous: I said very clearly that the rules are the same for BOEING and AIRBUS. This was the
only time I mentioned Boeing, other stating that customers are negotiating with both companies.

So, why you mention the cases of BOEING. I am not familiar with them, the problem lies in the
past, but anyway,if BOEING acted wrongly, they arre also liable. I do not represent BOEING !!

And why are you asking the moderators to freeze the topic ?? To avoid that I present the counter-
arguments to this post ??? To convey the impression to the moderator that I am related to BOEING ??

Quote:
In regards to the A350, Airbus signed formal sales contracts with 14 customers for 156 frames. While Airbus has indeed canceled the original version of the A350, they have created an improved version and offered it for sale with the same model number - A350.

I do not know if the 156 frames are real, anyway, in the Order List end april Appear 104
The A350XWB is a totally different aircraft as the A350, and realizing so AIRBUS planned to call it
A370 or A280,and even posted an advertisement on FT website under the latter designation, Then
they probably realized the tactical advantage to maintain the bsic name A350 and so it remained.

Quote:
If Airbus had canceled the program in it's entirety, then they would have had to immediately record the cancellations. But since they didn't, they are working with the airlines to try and negotiate the orders for the old A350 to be transferred over to the new A350.

As said, theprogran was cancelled totally, as the A350XWB has nearly no common relevant part with
the A350(Engine, wings, width,, frame, nose,, etc.etc), except the "350"
The acceptable way would have been negotiate with the customer the change of aircraft type before
terminating the A350, and even it could be accepted a nodest tolerance to allow these negotiation after the fact. But the
A350 was cancelled nearly 1 year ago and they still have no reached agreement a firm agreement for the change
except in a few cases


Quote:
Also, those sales contracts have specific delivery slots and times attached to them. While an airline is perfectly within it's rights to cancel their order, they lose those slots and some of their pricing power. So unless they are absolutely sure they want the 787 or some other model, it is not in their best interests to cancel the order, nor is it in their best interests to have Airbus unilaterally cancel it for them.[/quite]
What means specific delivery slots ?? The delivery dates of the A350XWB are years delayed regarding
the A350, and they are trying to obtain an preferred customer previously inexistent for 100 frames
(Emirates), etc.

[quote]And before you hold Boeing up as some shining example of morality, you should know that PR had on the books an order for four 747-400s that they were never going to take delivery of. However, they did not want to cancel outright because they would have lost their deposit. So for years they waffled, and Boeing listed four sales for the 744 that would never be consummated. Finally, this year PR formally canceled their 744 order and instead ordered two 777-300ERs. Boeing promptly deleted four 744s and added two 773ERs to their Master Order Sheet
In the same stead, all four 748BBJ orders were for the original "shrunk" version. Boeing later decided to make the 747-8I the same length as the 747-8F. All four BBJ customers are getting a different plane then they bought, yet Boeing did not cancel those orders and then rebook them. Instead, they just renegotiated with the customers, who all said "more for the same price? Sure!"..

So Airbus is doing nothing Boeing is not doing themselves, and neither company is doing anything wrong, immoral, unethical, or illegal.
And that is why the SEC is not investigating Boeing and the shareholders are not suing Boeing for malfeasance.[/quote]

It is unwarranted that you try to make me appear as unduly related with BOEING. As I told above, the
PAissue happend before I joined the Forum, I do not know any of it and even assuming you are 100% right,
than BOEING is to be hold accountable and doesnt justify the action of AIRBUS. As I am not intrested in
already settled old cases, but correct the situation today, I will not invest the time trying to be a policeman.

Quote:
And that is why the EU securities commission is not investigating Airbus and the shareholders are not suing Airbus for malfeasance.

I am not suggesting anybody to sue Boeing nor Airbus. I only noted tha any disgrunteld shareholder
coulddo it, especially if they assess that the malfaisance was intentional

Quote:
Question answered. Case closed. Moderators, lock the thread.

When you review this, you will admit that this phrase is inappropiate and I suggest an excuse

regards

aminobwana


User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

I correct the quote as copied below, where my answer was written in italic, because I marker [/quite] instead [/quote]

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
Quote:
Also, those sales contracts have specific delivery slots and times attached to them. While an airline is perfectly within it's rights to cancel their order, they lose those slots and some of their pricing power. So unless they are absolutely sure they want the 787 or some other model, it is not in their best interests to cancel the order, nor is it in their best interests to have Airbus unilaterally cancel it for them.

What means specific delivery slots ?? The delivery dates of the A350XWB are years delayed regarding
the A350, and they are trying to obtain an preferred customer previously inexistent for 100 frames
(Emirates), etc.[/quote]

sorry

Aminobwana


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2672 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
I said very clearly that the rules are the same for BOEING and AIRBUS.



And you then went on to say that Airbus was breaking the rules and Boeing wasn't.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
So, why you mention the cases of BOEING.

Because it is directly relevant to the claim you made against Airbus.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
And why are you asking the moderators to freeze the topic?

Because your comments are viewed by many as inflammatory towards Airbus which compels them to respond in kind to you and then the moderators have to come in and clean house.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
As said, theprogran was cancelled totally, as the A350XWB has nearly no common relevant part with the A350(Engine, wings, width,, frame, nose,, etc.etc), except the "350" The acceptable way would have been negotiate with the customer the change of aircraft type before terminating the A350, and even it could be accepted a nodest tolerance to allow these negotiation after the fact. But the A350 was cancelled nearly 1 year ago and they still have no reached agreement a firm agreement for the change except in a few cases

It was not "canceled totally". If it was, Airbus today would only be offering for sale the A320, the A330, the A340 and the A380. But no, there is an A350 in there and it's winning new orders as well as successfully converting pre-existing ones for the original version...

If somebody had bought the original 7E7 as first shown to the public, would you consider Boeing to have "canceled totally" that program when they launched the 787 with a new nose and new tail and a longer fuselage and all the other changes? And would you demand that Boeing cancel every order for the 7E7 and not allow Boeing to carry them while they negotiated to get the customer to take the 787 instead?

Or how about if LH had ordered the 747-Advanced? Would the same conditions as above apply to getting them to take the 747-8I instead?

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
It is unwarranted that you try to make me appear as unduly related with BOEING.

You are the one drawing that conclusion, not I. I am merely noting that the things you accuse Airbus of doing, so does Boeing. It is not a practice unique to Airbus by any means.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
As I told above, the PR issue happend before I joined the Forum, I do not know any of it and even assuming you are 100% right, than BOEING is to be hold accountable and doesnt justify the action of AIRBUS. As I am not intrested in already settled old cases, but correct the situation today, I will not invest the time trying to be a policeman.

The PR deal happened roughly one month before you joined (March 12, 2007) so it was "now" as much as Airbus' deals with the A350 are "now". But frankly, even if it happened last year, I do not believe it is fair or proper to catigate Airbus for doing something in the "here and now" while letting Boeing slide because they did it in the "there and then".

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
I am not suggesting anybody to sue Boeing nor Airbus. I only noted tha any disgrunteld shareholder coulddo it, especially if they assess that the malfaisance was intentional

Which I showed it was not, so any such case would be dismissed out of hand.


User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2636 times:

Why you making statements again direct contrary evidence ??

But could be you should look at this firts 2 quotes first, to clarify things !!

Quote:
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
As I told above, the PA issue happend before I joined the Forum, I do not know any of it and even
assuming you are 100% right, than BOEING is to be hold accountable and doesnt justify the action
of AIRBUS. As I am not intrested in already settled old cases, but correct the situation today,
I will not invest the time trying to be a policeman.

The PA deal happened roughly one month before you joined (March 12, 2007) so it was "now" as
much as Airbus' deals with the A350 are "now". But frankly, even if it happened last year, I do not
believe it is fair or proper to catigate Airbus for doing something in the "here and now" while letting
Boeing slide because they did it in the "there and then".

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
I am not suggesting anybody to sue Boeing nor Airbus. I only noted tha any disgrunteld shareholder coulddo it, especially if they assess that the malfaisance was intentional

Which I showed it was not, so any such case would be dismissed out of hand.

[b]I am not trying even remotely to castigate AIRBUS.!!! If we were discussing with Airbus and not
between us in theForum, I simply would ask them to correct their reporting and not even mention i
t any more !!! If anybody in the forum has any influence with them, this would be very nice !!
But if such is not doable, I simply wish to convey to the Forum the facts, what the members do with
them is their own issue !!
But I would like that you understand the factual situation, which the lawyer of my company explained
to my disgruntled myself when I edited a Press release shortly after arriving to the US: by stating
publicly an eventual ot even 90%order
(without stating clearly a caveat) the Company conveys the impression of a success,which
induce investorsto buy stock, and when this announcement does not reach reality the stock price
tanks, any shareholder can rightly state that he was misled and sue the company. So, following the advise of the lawyer, I had to modify my text !!![b]

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
I said very clearly that the rules are the same for BOEING and AIRBUS.

And you then went on to say that Airbus was breaking the rules and Boeing wasn't.

Pls. tell me where I said or suggested that "Boeing wasn't " !!!

Quote:
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
So, why you mention the cases of BOEING

Because it is directly relevant to the claim you made against Airbus..

It is not ! If BOEING wronged, this do not excuse AIRBUS

Quote:
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
And why are you asking the moderators to freeze the topic?

Because your comments are viewed by many as inflammatory towards Airbus which compels them to respond in kind to you and then the moderators have to come in and clean house.

If stating mere facts upset the Airbus fanatics, i am sorry. I used an objective and moderate tone, which
fortunately you do too.

Quote:
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
As said, theprogran was cancelled totally, as the A350XWB has nearly no common relevant part
with the A350(Engine, wings, width,, frame, nose,, etc.etc), except the "350" The acceptable way
would have been negotiate with the customer the change of aircraft type before terminating the A350,
and even it could be accepted a nodest tolerance to allow these negotiation after the fact.
But the A350 was cancelled nearly 1 year ago and they still have no reached agreement a firm
agreement for the change except in a few cases

It was not "canceled totally". If it was, Airbus today would only be offering for sale the A320,
the A330, the A340 and the A380. But no, there is an A350 in there and it's winning new orders as
well as successfully converting pre-existing ones for the original version...

They are quoting a new model A280 or A370, under the fictive name A350., adding XWB

Quote:
If somebody had bought the original 7E7 as first shown to the public, would you consider Boeing to have "canceled totally" that program when they launched the 787 with a new nose and new tail and a longer fuselage and all the other changes? And would you demand that Boeing cancel every order for the 7E7 and not allow Boeing to carry them while they negotiated to get the customer to take the 787 instead?

I repeat, I do not care what BOEING or AIRBUS (!) did in the past, as long it is not material today. Even if I do not think that BOEING declared 7E7's as FIRM orders, if they did so, this changes nothing regarding AIRBUS. I simply try to achieve that AIRBUS correct its order book now !! I know that the shifting the problem to BOEING is perceived
by the poster as a good tactic, but I would advise not to pursue this line, as it is useless.

Quote:
Or how about if LH had ordered the 747-Advanced? Would the same conditions as above apply to getting them to take the 747-8I instead?

If LH would have cancelled the 747-advanced project publiclyand not got immediately (or very shortly after) substituted it by the 748i, but maintained it in his Firm order book without remarking the facts there,, I would certainly do exactly
the same

Quote:
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 7):
It is unwarranted that you try to make me appear as unduly related with BOEING.

You are the one drawing that conclusion, not I. I am merely noting that the things you accuse Airbus of doing, so does Boeing. It is not a practice unique to Airbus by any means.

OK. But as said, one wrong does not substitute other.

best regards

Aminobwana


User currently offlineWsp From Germany, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 10):
I simply try to achieve that AIRBUS correct its order book now !!

Buy a share and file a lawsuit. This way we can find out for sure if there is a judge that shares your view.


BTW. I highly doubt that US stock market rules apply to companies that are not listed on US stock exchanges. By your logic any foreign company that is listed anywhere would have to file with the SEC when it is merely doing business in the US.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4087 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2589 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 10):
They are quoting a new model A280 or A370, under the fictive name A350., adding XWB

Since it exists and Airbus are taking orders for it, its hardly a 'fictive' name, now is it?

Quite simply - Airbus has an alternative to the original design it has firm contracts for, it is presenting that alternative to customers so that they have a choice: take the alternative or cancel. Because the performance figures for the XWB are better than the original design, Airbus can justifiably supply the new airframe in lieu of the original, leaving customers with the cancel option.

Until someone does cancel, the orders are still firm and still exist.

Its that simple, theres no need to get bent out of shape about what Airbus are calling their product, its their prerogative as to what name they use.

Also, its worth noting that not one person here knows the contents or wording of the A350 customer contracts - its very possible that all this is covered under the signed contracts since the design was not firm at that time.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2569 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Moo (Reply 12):
Quite simply - Airbus has an alternative to the original design it has firm contracts for, it is presenting that alternative to customers so that they have a choice: take the alternative or cancel. Because the performance figures for the XWB are better than the original design, Airbus can justifiably supply the new airframe in lieu of the original, leaving customers with the cancel option.

Until someone does cancel, the orders are still firm and still exist.

 checkmark  - a perfect summary

Quoting Moo (Reply 12):
Its that simple,

That too  Smile

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 10):
I am not trying even remotely to castigate AIRBUS.!!!

From an observers viewpoint, it would appear from your general posting that your sole purpose for joining Airliners.net was to do just that. I've never seen you do anything else.
I may be wrong, and would apologise in that case, but if so, then you should be aware that this is the message that is coming across.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 10):
But I would like that you understand the factual situation, which the lawyer of my company explained to my disgruntled myself

The actions and events which are unfolding would appear to contradict your lawyer's view, seeing as how no shareholder (unless you're one) has expressed the slightest concern about the existing A350 contracts, and EADS are NOT being investigated, by anyone.
FWIW, if I were a shareholder, I would be concerned if the A350 contracts did NOT appear, as Airbus clearly has a potential liability that can arise from the non-fulfillment of these contracts. At least the order book gives me visibility that a contractual liability still exists.

Regards


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12868 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2520 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
If somebody had bought the original 7E7 as first shown to the public

ANA did order the 7E7!
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q2/nr_040426g.html



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2484 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 8):
What means specific delivery slots? The delivery dates of the A350XWB are years delayed regarding the A350, and they are trying to obtain an preferred customer previously inexistent for 100 frames

Even though the actual delivery dates have changed, the slots themselves may have not. If I am a customer who ordered 10 "old" A350s with the following slots: 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18 then as part of my negotiation I can demand those same slots for the "new" A350. If I cancel and re-order, I may be looking at slots 102, 103... or 202, 203... What was a four year delay now becomes a six or seven year delay...

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 10):
I repeat, I do not care what BOEING or AIRBUS (!) did in the past, as long it is not material today.

But it is material today. Securities law in this area has not suddenly changed. Even the Sarbanes-Oxley act, which many people like to wave around as a reason why Boeing, if the A350/A350XWB was their plane, would never leave orders on the books like Airbus has was passed in 2002. You are arguing the equivalent of "Boeing and Airbus defrauded shareholders in the past, but that doesn't matter. It only matters that Airbus is defrauding shareholders now". Excuse me for not being impressed...

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 14):
ANA did order the 7E7!

Well there ya go!  Smile


User currently offlineTi717 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 227 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2457 times:

My Vote is for the day the plane gets delivered. Big grin There lots of ways to get out of a contract it just depends on how much you want to pay.


Sir, don't you think we should turn on the runway lights?" "No, that's just what there expecting us to do!"
User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2401 times:

[

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 13):
The actions and events which are unfolding would appear to contradict
your lawyer's view, seeing as how no shareholder (unless you're one) has expressed the slightest
concern about the existing A350 contracts, and EADS are NOT being investigated, by anyone.

How do you know that nobody is concerned ?? The fact that there is no (publicly announced)
lawsuits does not imply such, as not many have the stomach to pay the costs and obviously
such is a last resource action.
And again, I want the Order book corrected (if not formally, in the mind of the Forum) and not lawsuits!

Quoting Moo (Reply 12):
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 10):
They are quoting a new model A280 or A370, under the fictive name A350., adding XWB

Since it exists and Airbus are taking orders for it, its hardly a 'fictive' name, now is it?

Nowhere is said that it doesn't exist, at least on paper.. , but only that the digits "350" are fictive,
because as stated in Reply 7
" the A350XWB has nearly no common relevant part with the A350 (Engine, wings, width,,
frame, nose,, etc.etc)"
This is what I said and nobody has objected it/

.
aminobwana


User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2392 times:

[quote=Stitch,reply=15]

Lets agree that we disagree !!

Only please refer to my complete postings in Replies 7 and 10, where
I state that the only goal of my Topic is to attain that that the
List of unfilled Orders shall contain only Firm orders which at the date
are not in danger of total or partial reversal, but as this would
be probably impossible given that the Forum has little influence
on AIRBUS and BOEING, simply allow the members to assess
the real significance of the figures there stated.

best regards

aminobwana
I


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4087 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2390 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 17):
Nowhere is said that it doesn't exist, at least on paper.. , but only that the digits "350" are fictive,
because as stated in Reply 7
" the A350XWB has nearly no common relevant part with the A350 (Engine, wings, width,,
frame, nose,, etc.etc)" This is what I said and nobody has objected it/

 Confused You said:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 10):
They are quoting a new model A280 or A370, under the fictive name A350., adding XWB

Your original comment, and my reply, had nothing at all to do with whether the aircraft phsyically existed, it had everything to do with the name.

You are claiming that the name 'A350' is fictive seemingly because you are of the opinion that they should be marketing the aircraft under something else. I dispute that - since they are infact using the name, its hardly fictive now is it.

Its no more fictional that you are.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2383 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 18):
Only please refer to my complete postings in Replies 7 and 10, where I state that the only goal of my Topic is to attain that that the List of unfilled Orders shall contain only Firm orders which at the date are not in danger of total or partial reversal, but as this would be probably impossible given that the Forum has little influence on AIRBUS and BOEING, simply allow the members to assess the real significance of the figures there stated.

And if that is the goal you wanted, so be it. But that goal is not how things are done in the industry. So you should have chosen a statement for a topic and not a question, which invites answers that may (and are) in contravention of your stated goal.

If the moderators had the ability to edit topics, I would recommend: "Aircraft ORDERS: How I Feel They Should Be Considered Firm".


User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2366 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
And if that is the goal you wanted, so be it. But that goal is not how things are done in the industry. So you should have chosen a statement for a topic and not a question, which invites answers that may (and are) in contravention of your stated goal.

If the moderators had the ability to edit topics, I would recommend: "Aircraft ORDERS: How I Feel They Should Be Considered Firm".

I agree that you title suggestion would have been better. Thanks

But should I have done so, but citing the example which motivated the topic, I would probably got the same replies!

Aminobwana


User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 915 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2355 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
And if that is the goal you wanted, so be it. But that goal is not how things are done in the industry. So you should have chosen a statement for a topic and not a question, which invites answers that may (and are) in contravention of your stated goal.

Yep. I mean there is a continum of how firm an order might be considered (maybe we should count percentage of the price that has been paid by the carrier, and use some threhold value as "firm"). People complain here all the time about how each manufacturer counts orders and commitments. But the orders listings only show signed contracts (not letters of intent, etc.). It is the convention and both manufacturers play the same on this. One might not like the way these things go, but their isn't some conspiracy here to defraud the airlines or EADS shareholders. The orders haven't been cancelled by either party (both have reasons to want to keep the orders on the books). Airbus won't add new orders to the total if an airline converts and they will delete orders if airlines fail to convert.

cheers.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 21):
But should I have done so, but citing the example which motivated the topic, I would probably got the same replies!

You indeed probably would have, but at least your intent in making the statement would have been clearer and that would have affected some of my initial posts as I was operating under the assumption you were asking a question and I was trying to answer it. Then we got derailed on semantics and it unfortunately spiraled from there.  Smile


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2252 times:

Referring to the original question(s):-

Quoting Aminobwana (Thread starter):
* AIRBUS had declared a total of 104 firm orders for their original aircraft A350
* By reasons not material here this model was withdrawn by Airbus and substituted 2006 by an very
..technically and delivery term-wise, very different A350XWB
..Contractually, due to above substantive differences, the purchase obligation of the Purchasers
..became extinguished.
* Therefore, AIRBUS should have filed an order reversal or introduced a note in the List stating that
..the order ceased to be firm until and when the purchaser accepted instead the A350XWB at a
..agreed price.

A signed order is a contract binding both sides - and is normally both an asset and a liability to both parties. The manufacturer is assured of receiving the agreed price, but is bound to design and deliver the aircraft on time. The purchaser has the right to receive the aircraft but is, of course, bound to pay for it.

In this instance there is no room for doubt that Airbus will be unable to deliver the 'old new' A350 on time. Therefore, if nothing is done, they will eventually be in breach of contract; but, technically, that point will not be reached until the contracted delivery date. So the orders now represent a future liability to Airbus. From the airlines' points of view, the orders can now be classed as a future asset - the right to receive compensation for loss of business when the contracted delivery dates are reached and passed.

However, there would appear to be no reason for haste. On the face of it it could very well suit both sides to leave the status quo in place for a while. Airbus will be spared the need to pay out cash now, in 2007, when there are many other demands on their resources; and the airlines effectively have 'money in the bank,' EITHER the right to receive cash in due course OR the option of taking the compensation in the form of 'new new' A350s or other Airbus types at reduced prices.

In business terms I would expect that compensation amounts have been agreed between Airbus and the airlines, but are being 'let lie' at the moment (subject to accumulating interest on the amount outstanding). The 'orders' are still technically 'in being' and there is nothing legally wrong with Airbus leaving them on their order list.

The 'bottom line,' though, is that no-one should run away with the idea that the outstanding 'old new' A350 orders are anything other than a liability to Airbus now. They represent debts pure and simple - with will eventually have to be paid out, either in cash or in the form of heavily-discounted prices for aircraft that the airlines may or may not decide to order in the future.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
25 Dank : Nav20 (sorry, I cut the quote short). I think you hit the nail on the head. That while Airbus has no intent to deliver the purchased older 350s, they
26 Post contains images Astuteman : A VERY good point that hasn't been picked up on before......... . That's also exactly how I see it, and the orders on the spreadsheet give visibility
27 PanAm_DC10 : The question of the original poster has been answered more than adequatly. Thread locked. Thank you.
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...
FlyBe 146 - When Are They Retiring? posted Sun Oct 29 2006 21:07:14 by Cumulus
Beoing 747-800 Orders.. Who Are They? posted Fri Oct 20 2006 05:20:35 by QF744
A380 & GE2700 When Are They Flying Together? posted Thu May 12 2005 22:06:56 by SAS330GOT
TGU And GUA Airports - When Are They Moving? posted Mon Apr 11 2005 05:48:58 by 2travel2know
Since When Are They Allowed Here... posted Sat Nov 27 2004 06:09:25 by JrMafia90
Primaris Airlines - When Are They Flying? posted Fri Nov 19 2004 20:19:23 by SQNo1
Druk Air (Bhutan) - When Are They Getting A319? posted Fri May 28 2004 18:45:28 by Swissgabe
Blackstar & Voyager. When Are They Going To Fly? posted Wed Jun 20 2001 20:09:03 by United Airline
Historical Aircraft - How Are They "Allowed"? posted Fri Oct 20 2006 18:45:03 by BWI757
Varig - So Which Routes Are They Cutting And When? posted Wed May 10 2006 16:51:31 by Noelg