Not clear if it is 8 orders lost or 8 planes lost.Hope for Boeing it's "only" 8 frames.The article (sorry only in French) say "8 commandes annulees" = 8 orders lost.They also said the nameS of the customerS have not been revealed , letting suppose these cancellations come from more than one customer.
The first name coming to my mind is Kenya Aw , which is supposed to take a decision before yearend to order or not A330s.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11670 times:
These are eight frames from ALAFCO which were purchased by SV.
So Boeing's update shows 8 new orders for SV and 8 cancellations for ALAFCO, so the order book remains unchanged.
EstorilM From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 124 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11284 times:
cloud4000 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 639 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9513 times:
Losing eight orders is not surprising given Boeing's delays on the 787, with the delivery schedule slipping even further. Like many people on this forum have said before: it's okay to lose orders now, only to get them back later when a better product is released. So losing eight orders now may lead to 16 later. That's an acceptable trade-off, in my opinion.
RubberJungle From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2010, 287 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9080 times:
The amount of garbage on the breathless newswires about this "cancelled" order is staggering.
Not least because Saudi Arabian had already said where it planned to source the aircraft, and this was confirmed again by Boeing itself days before the order update:
"The airline completed an arrangement with Boeing and Kuwait-based leasing company ALAFCO to transfer orders for the eight Dreamliners from ALAFCO to Saudi Arabian Airlines."
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5151 posts, RR: 49 Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8935 times:
Ok befoer everyone get's in a huffy. This was a simple transfer of an order from one buyer to another. The net remains the same Ther eare some people here on A.net and in the media who love to crow about the 787 losing orders. Well this was not a cancellation it was a transfer. It was a badly kept secret that everyone knew about: that SV was going to buy 8 of the 787 orders from ALAFCO.
ZKCIF From Lithuania, joined Oct 2010, 225 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8861 times:
Boeing orders table clearly shows -8 and 8 new this week. essentially, SV took over the ALAFCO order (or a part of it). It is the same as if you take eight Euro from one pocket and put the coins into another pocket. Do you become richer? No. Poorer? No.
That's it.
TrevD From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 327 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8669 times:
Yes...essentially an assignment of Alafco's order to Saudia. Likely an accommodation Boeing is making for Saudia so they can step into Alafco's positions rather than requiring Alafco to stay in the deal up until delivery and then sell to SV but contractually requires the termination of one contract concurrent with the signing of the other.
As for impact to the program, you'd have to look at it as a positive having a major customer like Saudia on-board.
BlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3119 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8198 times:
If the facts behind the story are indeed the ALAFCO/Saudi transfer, then the article isn't well written (it isn't just in English that journalists can't write, apparently).
The plural "commandes" and "annulations" speak to more than one customer and more than one cancellation. Had it been about Boeing receiving one cancellation from one customer, the singular would/should have been used, irrespective of the number of frames involved (much like English).
Where it does get confusing is where the article claims that these cancellations (to use their words) came in the span of 7 days. While it would be unfortunate to say the least for Boeing to get cancellations from 8 customers in a week, I don't think that it takes 7 days to do the paperwork to transfer 8 aircraft from one customer to another either.
PanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3987 posts, RR: 93 Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5426 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW COMMUNITY MANAGER
Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 10): So badly written article, or bad week for Boeing?
Poor article, from the Boeing statement linked in reply # 5 by Rubberjungle
"The airline completed an arrangement with Boeing and Kuwait-based leasing company ALAFCO to transfer orders for the eight Dreamliners from ALAFCO to Saudi Arabian Airlines."
tropical From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2008, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4719 times:
Quoting RubberJungle (Reply 5): The amount of garbage on the breathless newswires about this "cancelled" order is staggering
This and other recent incidents involving both Boeing and Airbus.
The media sometimes appears to thrive on such stories tbh, and seems all too happy to promote alarmist scenarios, presumably for tha sake of selling copy.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1590 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4492 times:
Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 10): The plural "commandes" and "annulations" speak to more than one customer and more than one cancellation.
I've always had subject verb agreement difficulty. Specially in American English, the singular verb has the "s" and the plural verb does not. And the noun is the reverse.
In any case, my question is whether the original ALAFCO order would have been leased to Saudi anyway. If that was the case, then this transfer would have been doubly moot.
So a customer decided to buy instead of lease . . . and the leaser happily obliged for a nominal fee.
luftaom From Australia, joined May 1999, 423 posts, RR: 9 Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3338 times:
Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 10): I don't think that it takes 7 days to do the paperwork to transfer 8 aircraft from one customer to another either.
Don't underestimate the time it can take lawyers to agree on things like this. Particularly when there are three different parties not all of whom are in similar time zones.
I wouldn't be surprised if the substantive parts of the contracts/assigment deeds amounted to 70+ pages (excluding schedules and annexures).
7673mech From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 632 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2295 times:
Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 10): Where it does get confusing is where the article claims that these cancellations (to use their words) came in the span of 7 days. While it would be unfortunate to say the least for Boeing to get cancellations from 8 customers in a week, I don't think that it takes 7 days to do the paperwork to transfer 8 aircraft from one customer to another either.
You would be surprised how long things take when legal departments get involved.
Eight days is rather fast. Everyone needs to watch out for their own interests and it takes awhile!
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Nov 2004, 2347 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2303 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2010, 287 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Oct 2010, 225 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3987 posts, 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Sep 2005, 788 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
