Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A320 A More Popular NB In SEAsia Than 737?  
User currently offlinetmoney From Myanmar, joined Nov 2011, 42 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1912 times:

Mingalabar!

I've been dying to ask: From IndiGo to Air Asia to PR to JetStar Asia, in Southeast Asia (India is included in this case) I see a lot more A320s utilized by more airlines than its Boeing counterpart. The only possible exceptions I could think of are LionAir and MH.

If there is a general consensus of this indeed being the case I'd like to know why and what factors come into play? Is it just economics or is there any bias from the general public as to Airbus being the better plane? (I know 727s/737s had had a rough ride in that part of the world with all the crashes during the late 80s-90s before the A320s [and safer standards/planes] came along.)

As usual, if this topic has been discussed before I'd be happy to be pointed to the thread, and I do not by any means intend to start an A vs B war. Thank you!

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

I think the A320 is more popular in all parts of the world not just Asia.

Airlines can choose between the different sizes to match their routes and there is little need for additional crew training.

If I was an airline I would be buying the A320 series. It's functional, adaptable and state of the art.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29672 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1921 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I expect it could be down to a number of reasons:

Availability (Airbus builds more A320s a year than Boeing)

Price (Boeing Average Sales Prices have generally been higher than Airbus')

Value Guarantees (The 737 holds it's value a bit better than the A320 and Airbus has been willing to guarantee A320 resale values)

Customer Preference (I expect truly independent studies would probably show the majority of customer's can't tell the difference, but "a.net wisdom" is that an A320 is noticeably more comfortable than a 737).



Quoting babybus (Reply 1):
Airlines can choose between the different sizes to match their routes and there is little need for additional crew training.

They can do that with the 737 family, as well.

[Edited 2012-11-16 11:32:09]

User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9375 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

Your two biggest LCCs Air Asia and Lion Air are split.

India: split. Air India/Air India Express is split 737 and A320. Jet Airways is 737. Indigo is A320. Spicejet is 737. GoAir is A320.

Malaysia: split. Malaysia 737, Air Asia A320

Thailand: Leaning A320. Most airlines are operating older airplanes, but Air Asia and the Thai subsidiaries are A320

Indonesia: Leaning 737. Lion Air and Garuda are 737.

Singapore: Leaning A320 with various airlines.

So in conclusion, you see mostly the typical dichotomy that is present in the rest of the world. The Air Asia group is what is pushing the region towards the A320, but I don't think it is fair to say it is mostly A320.

Quoting tmoney (Thread starter):
I do not by any means intend to start an A vs B war. Thank you!

I think you just did.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 1):
I think the A320 is more popular in all parts of the world not just Asia.

The math doesn't work out on that. Since the introduction of the A320, Airbus has delivered 5307 A318/319/320/321 against Boeing's 5998 737CL/NG.

There are probably more retired 737-300/400/500 than early A320's but I strongly doubt that it's ~700 higher and that doesn't include the 1277 737's that Boeing delivered before the A320 came on the scene.

Quoting babybus (Reply 1):
Airlines can choose between the different sizes to match their routes and there is little need for additional crew training.

Both the A320 and the 737 have different sizes and common type rating across sizes.

Quoting babybus (Reply 1):
If I was an airline I would be buying the A320 series. It's functional, adaptable and state of the art.

Are you suggesting the 737 isn't?

Tom.


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1250 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
The math doesn't work out on that. Since the introduction of the A320, Airbus has delivered 5307 A318/319/320/321 against Boeing's 5998 737CL/NG.



To be fair: when the the A320 came along it needed quite some time to establish itself and Airbus as a serious player in the market over against Boeing and MD that dominated aviation at the time. Before the A320, Airbus was a tiny one model framer (the A300 and the shorter A310). It is certainly not an overstatement to say that the A320 is the main reason why Airbus is where Airbus is today.


User currently offlinetmoney From Myanmar, joined Nov 2011, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day ago) and read 1918 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 5):
the main reason why Airbus is where Airbus is today
-- with the A320.

Yes, that is exactly what I want to know! But I would like to focus the topic here on Southeast Asia region especially.

Why is A320 more found in this particular region? (Yes, A320s probably outnumber 737s in Europe also but EU is also Airbus's hometurf, no? Equally, one expects more 737s in US because it's B's turf. While other aviation zones like China, S.Korea and Japan have a decent mix of A&B. And I need to be educated on the A:B ratio in Latin America and Africa.)

What is the demography's perception on A and B? We should note here that the middle-class economy is booming in the region and most of the flyers are first-timers.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
but "a.net wisdom" is that an A320 is noticeably more comfortable than a 737

That could be one thing too! As a testament to that I remember my dad once frowned and said "You should've gone on MI's Airbus!" when he found out I'm taking a CI 73H on my way back to US via TPE. But numerous times I've been on WN and equally the same amount on B6 & MI and I believe both aircraft models are comfortable in their own rights.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29672 posts, RR: 84
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day ago) and read 1922 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tmoney (Reply 6):
Why is A320 more found in this particular region?

If I had to pick one, I'd say it's price. Airbus has been more aggressive than Boeing to both gain marketshare and to support their higher production rates.

But as babybus noted, the A320 family is functional, adaptable and state of the art. So add in a great price on top of that, and it seems logical to me airlines would buy it.

Boeing is starting to become more aggressive on pricing themselves and they're starting to win new business (Silkair has recently decided to switch from the A320 to the 737NG and 737 MAX) and you can be sure Lion Air has received excellent pricing for the hundreds of 737NGs and 737 MAX they have ordered. And like the A320, the 737 family is also functional, adaptable and state of the art, so add in a great price on top of that, and it seems logical to me airlines would buy it, as well.

[Edited 2012-11-16 17:55:04]

User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1516 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Boeing has roughly twice the yield in its Commercial Aircraft Division as Airbus.

This could be due to Boeing being way more efficient than Airbus, but it isn't. Airbus has 107 Employees per delivery and Boeing Commercial 147 per delivery. ( I realise this could be heavily skewed by the amount and method of oputsourcing each company is involved in)

The other major possibility for such a discrepency is pricing. We know Airbus aren't happy with their pricing because they have said so, and they are also making comment about Boeings recent pricing cuts.

Asians are sharp traders, so I would not be surprised if it boils down to pricing.

Ruscoe


User currently offlinemusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

Hello all, will the ability of A320 to take containers be an advantage for them in asia especially when most airport are bigger and the need of cargo is stronger?


Lufthansa Group of Airlines
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 512 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

Quoting tmoney (Reply 6):

Actually, earlier this year or maybe it was last fall, I went through all the major airlines of Europe an the United States. Europe has more 737s than A320 flying in it and the USA, IIRC, was nearly a 50-50 split, but it was in favor of 737s.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 1916 times:

I think two main reasons : Support (more Asian MROs support 320 vs 737 capability, more 320 simulators are available vs 737 ones) and price. Airbus has strategically built a irresistible support network of all sorts for it regionally, over time - though at what cost is possibly an answer nobody knows.


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4143 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 15 hours ago) and read 1924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

On this subject, and only based on the MAX vs NEO, a set of up-to-date and - IMO - well documented and very visible set of graphic stats on the respective sales of both aircraft : Regional share MvN


Contrail designer
User currently offlinetonymctigue From Ireland, joined Feb 2006, 1933 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 15 hours ago) and read 1918 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pihero (Reply 12):
On this subject, and only based on the MAX vs NEO, a set of up-to-date and - IMO - well documented and very visible set of graphic stats on the respective sales of both aircraft : Regional share MvN

Going by the trends shown on that chart, it seems that if the A320 is not currently ahead, it certainly will be in a few years on all continents except North America. Perhaps this is the reason Boeing are coming out with more competative pricing. I can't imaging that Boeing will let Airbus has this one in a similar manner to what they have done with VLA market.

As an interesting sideshow, I can think of a certain European, no frills airline who have a historical preference for one particular aircraft type, have a record of high fleet turnover and a record of placing large orders so they can make a big song and dance about it who could swing Europe from an A320NEO to a B737MAX dominated market in one swoop!



Next Flights: 18/04/14 QF1011 MEL-HBA; 21/04/14 JQ712 HBA-MEL
User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1250 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 14 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 8):
Boeing has roughly twice the yield in its Commercial Aircraft Division as Airbus.



This subject has been discussed several times by now and it has been convincingly shown that this is a rather simplistic understanding of the situation.


User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9375 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 13):
Going by the trends shown on that chart, it seems that if the A320 is not currently ahead, it certainly will be in a few years on all continents except North America. Perhaps this is the reason Boeing are coming out with more competative pricing. I can't imaging that Boeing will let Airbus has this one in a similar manner to what they have done with VLA market.

I think it is a little early to make serious comparisons yet about projected market sizes. The MAX is closing in om the sales lead of the NEO. The NEO also is scheduled to enter service earlier.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 1915 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Quoting babybus (Reply 1):
If I was an airline I would be buying the A320 series. It's functional, adaptable and state of the art.

Are you suggesting the 737 isn't?

The 737 is based on a 1960s design, many features of which have changed very little over the years. If nothing else I think that makes the A320 slightly more "state-of-the-art".


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1017 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Quoting babybus (Reply 1):
If I was an airline I would be buying the A320 series. It's functional, adaptable and state of the art.

Are you suggesting the 737 isn't?

The 737 is based on a 1960s design, many features of which have changed very little over the years. If nothing else I think that makes the A320 slightly more "state-of-the-art".

Really?

Well your idol John Leahy doesn't seem to think so.

If you want to slip to what he has to say about the NG, start the video at about the 25:20 minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V61iuZV8Iwk


Oh, and one more thing... Check out the slideshow at minute 20:33 where Airbus shows their Orders and "Commitments". How much crap did we have to listen to regarding Boeing using the term.  

[Edited 2012-11-17 13:52:16]

[Edited 2012-11-17 13:53:01]


harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1914 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16):
The 737 is based on a 1960s design, many features of which have changed very little over the years. If nothing else I think that makes the A320 slightly more "state-of-the-art".

I don't want to go into the "what's more advanced" argument...that's been done. Search a.net.

However, the claim wasn't that the A320 is *more* state-of-the-art than the 737, the claim was that the A320 is state-of-the-art. The A320 is based on a 80's design.

Regardless of how you wanted to rank the two aircraft in state-of-the-art-edness, the A320 is a long way from the state-of-the-art.

Tom.


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 824 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1914 times:

Quoting musapapaya (Reply 9):
Hello all, will the ability of A320 to take containers be an advantage for them in asia especially when most airport are bigger and the need of cargo is stronger?

I think you hit on something here!

My understanding is the main advantage the A320 has over the B737 for LCC carriers is containerised cargo. This is more to do with turn times and aircraft utilisation rather than cargo volume.

I think Airbus gained the Sales advantage through the emergence of the LCC carriers. In the early 2000's LCC's were still very much an unknown quantity. Boeing was the incumbent with the established carriers and Airbus was an aggressive upstart (in relative terms) looking for sales from anywhere it could find them. This scenario created a situation where new entrants could quickly access modern fuel efficient aircraft at a reasonable price. Previously their only aircraft options were older, less fuel efficient hand me downs.

I can't see a similar type of market dynamic happening in the near future, so future market share between the two narrow bodies is probably going to come down to pricing.

Another interesting point to ponder is that of the LLC model and how it is dependent upon aircraft cost of ownership. The cost of ownership is based upon a cost dynamic consisting of upfront costs, running costs, maintenance costs, aircraft utilisation and residual values. If the residual value part of the equation falls over (oversupply of 7-9 year old narrow bodies) it will be interesting to see how this impacts on profitability. If it does the LCC model used by the likes of AirAsia (aircraft leases) may no longer work where as the LCC model used by Lion Air (aircraft ownership) would.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6590 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1914 times:


Far from mostly 320!

Quoting tmoney (Thread starter):
The only possible exceptions I could think of are LionAir and MH.

Garuda has 737s.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Availability (Airbus builds more A320s a year than Boeing)

This has always been the clincher for
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
The Air Asia group is what is pushing the region towards the A320, but I don't think it is fair to say it is mostly A320.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Are you suggesting the 737 isn't?

Blame Southwest & Continental   

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 18):
I don't want to go into the "what's more advanced" argument...that's been done. Search a.net.
However, the claim wasn't that the A320 is *more* state-of-the-art than the 737, the claim was that the A320 is state-of-the-art. The A320 is based on a 80's design.
Regardless of how you wanted to rank the two aircraft in state-of-the-art-edness, the A320 is a long way from the state-of-the-art.

It really depends on what defines as state-of-the-art. Minor and 'acceptable/reasonable' changes in the definition can make the 'most state of the art' argument go either way in a whiff.
It's an 80s design... that still is competitive today (and burns less fuel per ton payload than the NG), but... the 737, has a 60s fuselage... and the NG only has new wings and stretched out engines... does that make it bad? No... they both still make money for the operators... that's what matter!
Cabin? EFIS? Even the mood lighting and Cabin Information Display System... and then add in the myriad of options customers can have from the OEM, and 3rd party suppliers... and this "state-of-the-art" argument quickly becomes more lame than any lame joke made by a stand-up comedian about to have rotten fruits and pies thrown at him/her!

Quoting tmoney (Reply 6):
But I would like to focus the topic here on Southeast Asia region especially.

OK, I'd like to focus on where I am (see my flag).
Originally, Originally, the bias has been against the 320, due to poor runway pavement strengths which puts the 320 at a disadvantage over the 737 Classics. As operators begin to look at the NGs, they airports began strengthening the runways, taxiways and aprons, and suddenly, Airbus found that their 320s is competitive again!

Where I am, we operate ISA+15C temperatures... It has been found that the conditions does give the 320 a slight edge (climb gradients, runway length requirements, cruise burn). But, the numbers are still so damn close between them... that is, until fuel prices went up! I don't care what fanboys from each side say, but computerized flight planning software CFPs for flight release on the 738 and 320s in identical conditions and identical loads, is a lot more credible than whatever marketing, or employees of each OEMs say!

Another major deciding factor, is, ENGINES. A few years ago, GECAS was offering a ludicrous all in one package for maintenance of airframe and engines for the NG and 320... for I did not believe fuel price was going to go up, I would have scrapped the paperwork for the 320 V2500-A5...   

Quoting travelhound (Reply 19):
My understanding is the main advantage the A320 has over the B737 for LCC carriers is containerised cargo. This is more to do with turn times and aircraft utilisation rather than cargo volume.

This has actually been the disadvantage for the 320! The higher cargo hold means one can no longer handload the plane... requiring investments in belt loaders (or if you want containers, the container loaders)... Higher stairs too... simple things, but beancounters do look at it... The introduction cost of the 320 here, is a nightmare! But, once you get over it, the money flows in.

I've said it in other topics.. don't be surprised if the difference between going with NGs or 320s, is as simple as who pulled the best joke or who sneezed at the wrong time during the negotiations. These two planes, are damn competitive with each other!


When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently onlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 4683 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1914 times:

Another thing that no one has raised yet is the relatively short stage-lengths. Other than maybe something like SIN-PEK, I can't think of any markets where you need to extra range of the 737.


Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1916 times:

Have to fully agree with Mandala499, there's really very little difference between the two types' performance at average conditions. Which is why seemingly secondary matters such as the financing and support network heavily influence NB decision making these days. What if JL did not dance at the bar that day? But certainly his salesmanship is one of the things that has won the A320 its present market share in this region. I can very much assure you that the performance of 737 vs 320 is not one of the first things that an airline looks at when deciding on a NB choice.
Plus the point raised by RyanairGuru is valid too. There are only a very few flights in SE Asian region that requires the edge in payload/range performance. If you had many flights such as TRV-DXB, this becomes a very different argument.



The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlineAkiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 768 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1915 times:

What I know is that in the Philippine case, the A320 has won hands-down because of financing. Airbus has been more flexible with their payment options than Boeing has been, which is good for upstart Philippine carriers. This is despite the fact that historically, Boeing (and McDonnell Douglas) has had the upper hand here in terms of narrow-bodied aircraft.

User currently offlinewomenbeshoppin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Availability (Airbus builds more A320s a year than Boeing)

I would hope so, I wonder how many A320's boeing builds?

Sorry, I could not resist.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29672 posts, RR: 84
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2068 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting travelhound (Reply 19):
My understanding is the main advantage the A320 has over the B737 for LCC carriers is containerised cargo. This is more to do with turn times and aircraft utilisation rather than cargo volume.

A counterpoint would be the large 737 fleets of Southwest and Ryanair. Asian LCC Silkair is also switching from the A320 to the 737.

Containerized cargo's advantage for narrowbodies is most felt on O&D routes. If you have connecting passengers, you still need to unload the ULDs, find the bags that need to be transferred to another flight, then load the ULDs for that flight and send them on to the aircraft. So while you save time loading and unload the ULDs from the plane, you just shift the time spent swapping bags from being performed at the gate (during unloading) to being performed at the ULD processing facility.


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1250 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2039 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
So while you save time loading and unload the ULDs from the plane, you just shift the time spent swapping bags from being performed at the gate (during unloading) to being performed at the ULD processing facility.



That is true - but you don't need to keep the plane at the gate during that time.


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 824 posts, RR: 12
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2094 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
A counterpoint would be the large 737 fleets of Southwest and Ryanair. Asian LCC Silkair is also switching from the A320 to the 737.

I think it depends on the type of LCC model.

I know for Jetstar containerisation on the A320 plays a big part in the airline achieving half hour turn cycles. They only have origin and destination traffic, so what you suggest doesn't represent a problem for them. For QANTAS its fleet has turn cycles of approximately 50 minutes so containerisation has little or no advantage. I'm not sure of the numbers behind the economics, but the cost of ground handling is higher with the 737, but fuel costs are lower because the aircraft isn't carrying containers.

On the flip side Tiger Australia doesn't use containers on its A320's so there are obviously many deviations of the rule.

I think AirAsia's model is very similar to Jetstars where aircraft utilisation and turn times is very important.

Southwest have a different model to RyanAir and Silkair. They own their aircraft and keep them for the full life of the aircraft. RyanAir is like Jetstar and AirAsia who sell or hand their aircraft back to lessors at around the seven year mark.

I'd suggest Silkair are more of a hybrid LCC than a true LCC. Probably an earlier version of the model Virgin Australia are now using (Could the change to B737 have anything to do with a further tie up with Virgin Australia).

LionAir is different again. From what I can see they have adopted the Southwest model over the RyanAir model. From what I have seen and heard they are planning to keep their aircraft for the full economic life.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29672 posts, RR: 84
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2086 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting abba (Reply 26):
That is true - but you don't need to keep the plane at the gate during that time.

You do if you want to load the baggage of connecting passengers.  


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1516 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2065 times:

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 23):
the A320 has won hands-down because of financing. Airbus has been more flexible with their payment options than Boeing has been,

Last figures I saw were approx 9billion in customer financing for Airbus and approx 4billion for Boeing.

The future could be interesting because J.L. wanted to get into more Vendor Financing whereas Tom Williams VP of Airbus products has cautioned against it. Will be interesting to see how the figures develop.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9834 posts, RR: 96
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2059 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 29):
Last figures I saw were approx 9billion in customer financing for Airbus and approx 4billion for Boeing.

????

In EADS Q3 results, Airbus gross customer financing exposure was a whole E81m.

See slide 27 of 37

http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/inve...ements-and-Presentations/2012.html

The only E9Bn was what was on the balance sheet as a liability for non-current customer financing exposure - i.e. what Customers had paid Airbus that Airbus now have to deliver on.
Which is WIP essentially.

Does beg the question of how much Exim take up the customer finance role on behalf of Boeing which won't show up in their accounts

Rgds


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8638 posts, RR: 75
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2058 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 12):
On this subject, and only based on the MAX vs NEO, a set of up-to-date and - IMO - well documented and very visible set of graphic stats on the respective sales of both aircraft : Regional share MvN

That is a very visual way of presenting the data, job well done.

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 23):
What I know is that in the Philippine case, the A320 has won hands-down because of financing.

I thought it had more to do with availability. The reason I also understand why Silkair went away from the A320.

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 23):
Airbus has been more flexible with their payment options than Boeing has been, which is good for upstart Philippine carriers.

Not sure where you got that from.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 30):
In EADS Q3 results, Airbus gross customer financing exposure was a whole E81m.

I see they EADS are following the footsteps of a number of other large EU companies and obtaining their banking licence, it is going to put another twist on the repayable loan debate. As an EU bank, EADS Bank would have access to the European Central Bank at even lower financing rates.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1516 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2018 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 30):
In EADS Q3 results, Airbus gross customer financing exposure was a whole E81m

Yes but what about the leases for aircraft purchases.?

I just had a quick look at 2011 and EADS (? Airbus portion) of loans to customers for aircraft purchases is about 500 million,

However, there are at least 3 other customer financing commitments.1. Operating leases 2. finance leases and indirectly, (1&2 = head lease payments by EADS of 782 million with sublease income from customers of 443 million)
3. operating leases with EADS as the lessee, to provide such things as facilities and cars etc for the customer, and 3 alone to 968 million.

So what value of aircraft does 782 million in headlease represent? Don't know but a lot.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 30):
The only E9Bn was what was on the balance sheet as a liability for non-current customer financing exposure

Yes I am aware of the difference.

Ruscoe


User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8089 posts, RR: 7
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2006 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Asia has had a huge influx of A320 because a generation ago they didn't have LCC airlines. In Japan Peach, Air Asia Japan and Jetstar Japan didn't exist 2 years ago. Air Asia was much smaller. Jetstar Hong Kong didn't exist. Jetstar Singapore didn't exist until 5 years ago. The influx is combination of increasing incomes in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia and dereguation.

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1994 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 33):
Asia has had a huge influx of A320 because a generation ago they didn't have LCC airlines

I would not limit that huge influx to LCC airlines only. Asia is now booming, and therefore a number of new airlines have emerged, and some older airlines have grown huge in size of their fleets and the passengers they accommodate. And since these airlines are (sometimes) brand new, they had no direct heritage of operating Airbus or (especially) Boeing airplanes traditionally.

In the older markets Airbus had to win over traditional Boeing (and McDonnell Douglas) to persuade them to buy the products from the new company that Airbus was at the time. In this mostly new market Airbus came in as a well established company with a well established product line. The playing field here in S-E Asia was (and partially still is much more a level one that is in some other parts of the world, especially in the US and the EU.

[Edited 2012-11-19 04:31:32]

User currently offlinespeedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1996 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
Containerized cargo's advantage for narrowbodies is most felt on O&D routes. If you have connecting passengers, you still need to unload the ULDs, find the bags that need to be transferred to another flight, then load the ULDs for that flight and send them on to the aircraft. So while you save time loading and unload the ULDs from the plane, you just shift the time spent swapping bags from being performed at the gate (during unloading) to being performed at the ULD processing facility.

Then why do European network carriers generally use containers on their A320s, while charter and low-cost airlines do not?



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29672 posts, RR: 84
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 35):
Then why do European network carriers generally use containers on their A320s, while charter and low-cost airlines do not?

A possible reason could be that they also operate widebody aircraft, which only use containers, so since they need to load and unload LD3s with connecting passenger's baggage, they might as well do so with LD3-45s.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6590 posts, RR: 75
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1968 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
Containerized cargo's advantage for narrowbodies is most felt on O&D routes. If you have connecting passengers, you still need to unload the ULDs, find the bags that need to be transferred to another flight, then load the ULDs for that flight and send them on to the aircraft.

It depends... effective ULD planning can make ULDs so much more effective. Eg: which bags go to which ULD.
Would be nice for those carriers who charge for the number of bags and kgs purchased by the passenger.   
Move the work from the aircraft ramp to somewhere else? Ain't that the point?   

Quoting travelhound (Reply 27):
I know for Jetstar containerisation on the A320 plays a big part in the airline achieving half hour turn cycles. They only have origin and destination traffic, so what you suggest doesn't represent a problem for them. For QANTAS its fleet has turn cycles of approximately 50 minutes so containerisation has little or no advantage. I'm not sure of the numbers behind the economics, but the cost of ground handling is higher with the 737, but fuel costs are lower because the aircraft isn't carrying containers.

Jetstar has little connecting traffic, but they do put connecting bags in one ULD... makes it much easier to handle connections.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 27):
I think AirAsia's model is very similar to Jetstars where aircraft utilisation and turn times is very important.

Except Air Asia does not use ULD on the 320s.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 27):
I'd suggest Silkair are more of a hybrid LCC than a true LCC.

Silk Air is a FULL SERVICE carrier.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 27):
LionAir is different again. From what I can see they have adopted the Southwest model over the RyanAir model. From what I have seen and heard they are planning to keep their aircraft for the full economic life.

Lion's model is actually conventional "modern milk-run" model. It is definitely NOT a Southwest model. It as parts of it, and parts of other models.



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
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...
Why More Charter Airlines In Europe Than US? posted Mon Jul 10 2006 22:37:06 by BWI757
Why More Aviation Intrest In Miami Than Atlanta? posted Sun Oct 5 2003 02:33:08 by Flairport
McNerney Hints At New NB In Response To A320 NG posted Mon Apr 26 2010 02:08:46 by keesje
Why Is 747-8F More Popular Than The A380F? posted Tue Jul 21 2009 14:02:09 by WeirdLinguist
New Embraer Jets, Superior In Comfort To 737/A320? posted Mon Apr 6 2009 09:41:09 by Cba
Why Is STN More Popular Than LTN? posted Sat Jun 10 2006 19:25:42 by CRJ900
Why Is The Dash8 More Popular In The Caribbean posted Wed Aug 17 2005 20:41:36 by 8B775ZQ
There More Room On A Amtrak Bus Than In UA Planes posted Fri Dec 24 2004 19:58:29 by 747400sp
A320 Narrower/wider Than 737/757? posted Mon Feb 17 2003 02:11:16 by Timz
More Spirit Expansion In The West posted Tue Aug 28 2012 11:23:24 by SANFan