Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JAL Chairman : 100% Reliance On Boeing "Abnormal"  
User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 906 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 22526 times:

A JAL Chairman has stated that he is not keen on being 100% reliant on Boeing products and has been in discussions in the past to introduce a new supplier.

This would represent a historic shift with Japanese airlines as for the most part they have relied on Boeing as their sole supplier. I wonder if this is hot air from the 787 mess or if he genuinely wants to introduce A into the fleet.

This duplicates many Airlines thoughts like LH, UA, AA, QF etc that don't want to rely on either just B or A.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100488815

94 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 22500 times:

It's probably current hot air but it is quite understandable. Airlines these days are straying away from being all-A or all-B, either intentionally or through mergers. Remember for a while NH experimented with the A320....but i'm not sure how that fared from them (do they still have any?)

But with JL, the "reliance" on the 787 under this grounding should be treated as yet another delay. While crappy, we all must realize that the 787 is a completely new piece of technology...I will never see JL order the A350 or A330. They simply do not serve the roles that the 77W already fills for JL.

Plus, having a single supplier does make some things roll swimmingly- no need to train crews to completely different cockpit setups.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20355 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 22161 times:

It is a very stark sign of how the 787 debacle has killed Boeing's goodwill with customers.

But I think that the number of new airliners being ordered is such that there is room for a third supplier. I wonder if anyone will step up to the plate and start offering at least a 737/A320 competitor, if not a 787/A350 competitor. Lockheed-Martin? Embraer?


User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 22012 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting phxa340 (Thread starter):
I wonder if this is hot air from the 787 mess or if he genuinely wants to introduce A into the fleet.

I would think he would want to introduce Airbus to the fleet. I don't think any Chairman of a legitimate company would buy an aircraft because they are mad at their biggest supplier. They have to make it work in their fleet and route network. If they can do it, why not give it a try? Who knows they may like the aircraft even more.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
we all must realize that the 787 is a completely new piece of technology...

As a big 787 fan that is good and all, but there isn't an excuse for what is happening. Sure all new aircraft go through teething periods, but nothing like this. Delays are one thing, but to have it enter service and be a big part of the fleet, only to have it grounded, is not a good thing. Though one has to wonder, if they had A350s on order how would this be any different?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
I wonder if anyone will step up to the plate and start offering at least a 737/A320 competitor, if not a 787/A350 competitor. Lockheed-Martin? Embraer?

I think the most likely has to be Embraer. They seem to be the strongest regional aircraft producer at the moment. To jump from the E195 to a Boeing/Airbus type narrowbody probably wouldn't be that big of a leap. The question then becomes though, how good will the aircraft be, how will airlines with established fleets react to a completely different type than they already operate, and how will Boeing and Airbus react to someone stepping into their territory. Certainly some interesting things to consider.
Pat

[Edited 2013-02-24 22:21:58]


All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3224 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21957 times:

he has raised a good point though.
In the past Japan was very much into relationships in who they did business with. But, that doesn't give anybody
any incentive to sharpen their pencils when its time to buy. And it would be a very very rare occurrence for a single
supplier to continuously for decades provide the best deal when asked every time. I think he is right to question it. He owes it to his companies stakeholders to extract the best possible deal for them. The chinese certainly know no such loyalty. I bet they got better deals too!


User currently offlinehorstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21895 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 4):
To jump from the E195 to a Boeing/Airbus type narrowbody probably wouldn't be that big of a leap.

once you are successful in building airliners, is it that much of a bigger step to an aircraft five times the size of what you have built before than it is to an aircraft just twice the size? I could really imagine embraer designing a long haul twin aisle aircraft. only problem, as you mentioned, is to make the customers buy the product.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21886 times:

What could Airbus offer JAL that could be of interest for them now ? I doubt that they would add A330s to their fleet given their huge 767 and 777 fleet. A320NEOs ? A350s ? Or even A380s ?
Many airlines have decided for a mixed 787/A350 fleet.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21809 times:

Quoting phxa340 (Thread starter):
I wonder if this is hot air from the 787 mess or if he genuinely wants to introduce A into the fleet.

It's highly doubtful this is blowing hot air. The article quotes the chairman as saying:

Quote:

"In a normal market there is tremendous risk from relying on one vendor. In order to provide good products at good prices, at lower prices a dual vendor system is a must."

...

The JAL chairman said he was involved in discussions about introducing another vendor when the accident occurred in January.

The new chairman is looking at fleet purchases in purely business terms, which is his responsibility to do for the board and shareholders.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1385 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21779 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 6):
What could Airbus offer JAL that could be of interest for them now ?

Unfortunately it's a subscription article, posted sometime earlier in the week on flightglobal...

JAL to consider Airbus aircraft for 777 replacement:
Japan Airlines, which operates only Boeing widebody aircraft, will consider Airbus aircraft as a viable option to replace its older Boeing 777s.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...rcraft-for-777-replacement-382514/


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3847 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21746 times:

It seems Japan's flag carriers unquestioned loyalty to Boeing has taken a hit.

Then again, being such invested and dedicated customers of the 787 and having to suffer the full blow of Boeing's bad luck/screwups will put any loyalty to the test.

They also knew they were the first customers and that there is always a risk in being that. They got the appropriate discount.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Lockheed-Martin? Embraer?

If Airbus and Boeing, who have been designing and manufacturing airliners non stop for the last few decades, struggle to get any new design out without any major hiccup and risking bankruptcy, I can't imagine any of these would fare any better with less experience in the field. The 787 is really pointy-tip-of-the-spearhead stuff. Even Airbus remained more conservative with the A350 design.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3671 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21746 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
The new chairman is looking at fleet purchases in purely business terms, which is his responsibility to do for the board and shareholders.

On the other hand, the quote sounds a lot like a negotiation to me. Boeing's not going to be inclined to give their best price if they don't seriously think there's any competition for a contract.

Unless he thinks Boeing's about to go under, I don't see what "risk" there is in relying on one vendor. The only risk is in that vendor thinking you're a bunch of chumps and overcharging you.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3847 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21652 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 10):
On the other hand, the quote sounds a lot like a negotiation to me.

A threat is only taken seriously if it is known to be real.

I doubt Airbus or Boeing go into negotiation in Japan not knowing what their respective chances exactly are. No matter what these airlines claim.
I think Airbus stood a better chance of selling KC-45s to the USAF than they do selling aircrafts to JAL and ANA. Everybody knows that and it probably skews the negotiations.

This exec is right, an Airbus order would, if anything else, shake both manufacturers up and help these 2 airlines be taken a little more seriously.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21548 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
I will never see JL order the A350 or A330. They simply do not serve the roles that the 77W already fills for JL.

A350-900 is a perfect replacement for JAL's fleet of 777-200ERs.

Quoting columba (Reply 6):
What could Airbus offer JAL that could be of interest for them now ?

See above, please.



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 1043 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 21109 times:

I feel Airbus should be looking at developing a light-weight A350 suitable for domestic and short-haul operations. Potential must be there with not only the Japanese big two but for China and the Middle East markets too.

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 21040 times:

I completely agree with the JAL Chairman's comment. It is Procurement 101: Do not ever let a supplier believe you will choose no one else. Which is why I shook my head in disbelief back when Bethune declared an exclusive Boeing relationship for CO. You need to keep your suppliers honest! And you can never predict when needs and situations change.

User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6086 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20984 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):

They still have the 320s but rpobably on their way out, also JAS operated A300 which later went to JAL with merger and retained for almost ten years.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7004 posts, RR: 63
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 20682 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 15):
JAS operated A300 which later went to JAL with merger and retained for almost ten years.

And I loved flying on them!   


User currently onlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 980 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 20654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I highly recommend this relevant summary: http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/intern...ackgrounders/japanbackgrounder.pdf

What's everyone's take on this: "Boeing-related work supports approximately 22,000 direct and indirect jobs in Japan, a figure equal to nearly 43 percent of Japan’s total aerospace-related employment."



FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 20441 times:

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 17):
What's everyone's take on this: "Boeing-related work supports approximately 22,000 direct and indirect jobs in Japan, a figure equal to nearly 43 percent of Japan’s total aerospace-related employment."

It should not have any impact on the fleet decisions of privately owned Japanese airlines. If it does (and that is how it appears), then it is a form of protectionism / unfair competition.

Airbus/EADS probably employs a larger proportion of Europe's aerospace-related workers, but I cant think of any major European airline that has a policy or practice of buying Airbus only.


User currently offlinenrt1011 From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 19698 times:

The Japan-US relationship is special and for the past 60+ years this has been a more important factor that price competitiveness. That being said, it is certainly against Procurement 101 as someone mentioned above. The future looks interesting for Japan Aviation but don't expect too much too soon. Japan moves at a glacial pace (I did live there for 8 years by the way)

User currently offlineecbomberman From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2011, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 19574 times:

The Japanese are not into blowing hot air out of the blue. They are not attention grabbers... Trust me....


VS343/346/744 CX744/L1101/343 MH332/333/733 BD32x/EMB 145 AK320 SQ310/77E/773/744 UA747SP/744 BA744 BI763ER/319 QF763ER
User currently offlinesu184 From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 240 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 19386 times:

Ummm, do I smell negotiations for new orders soon ( maybe 748i's ) and they want to get good concessions from Boeing based on 787 problems,,!!

User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3337 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 19217 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 18):
It should not have any impact on the fleet decisions of privately owned Japanese airlines. If it does (and that is how it appears), then it is a form of protectionism / unfair competition.

Are any of the investors in JL and NH also investors in Japan's aerospace industry and, if so, do they supply Boeing?



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 613 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 18682 times:

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 17):
I highly recommend this relevant summary: http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/intern...ackgrounders/japanbackgrounder.pdf

What's everyone's take on this: "Boeing-related work supports approximately 22,000 direct and indirect jobs in Japan, a figure equal to nearly 43 percent of Japan’s total aerospace-related employment."



reading this shows that beyond discussions there will be a lot of lobby activities from Boeing along the line of challenging American - Japanese relations. For Boeing it is important to avoid that Airbus gets a foot in the door. Because we all know: Once a foot in the door, a whole body will follow.
We know from cats: where the head passes through, the whole cat will slip through.

Regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 3068 posts, RR: 23
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 18079 times:

From my limited experience with Japanese culture, I'd regard the Chairman's comments as typical of the Japanese way of 'getting the message' across with complete politeness whilst avoiding confrontation.

It does not apportion blame to anyone, anything or any particular circumstance, but the message is clear that JAL are incredibly not amused.

It is completely antithetical to the Akbar Al Baker style of Qatar; Gentlemens' Club compared to bar room brawling.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
While crappy, we all must realize that the 787 is a completely new piece of technology

Absolutely no excuse in this modern age. No excuse, whatsoever.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 3):
As a big 787 fan that is good and all, but there isn't an excuse for what is happening.

  

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
I will never see JL order the A350 or A330. They simply do not serve the roles that the 77W already fills for JL.

I see the A359 as being a perfect slam dunk to replace the B772s.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 10):
On the other hand, the quote sounds a lot like a negotiation to me.

It's just not the Japanese way of doing things; they simply wouldn't be what they would consider to be so disrepectful, IMO.

Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 20):

The Japanese are not into blowing hot air out of the blue. They are not attention grabbers... Trust me....

Totally agree; let's see if Akbar Al Baker now gets on the bandwagon to stir the pot a little more....

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
25 LY777 : Are you joking? IB, TP, LX, U2, EI, to name a few, have an all-Airbus fleet... LH is also leaning towards an all-Airbus fleet (except their 748s) as
26 ktachiya : Really??? From the direction they are heading, it seems that they are in favour of giving more market share to ANA, the LCC's or even Skymark for int
27 carpethead : Other than a few old 763s, nothing needs replacing in the JAL fleet. Their entire narrowbody fleet is very new. The early model 772s are still a few
28 Post contains images KL911 : I say REKKOF ! That should not influence private companies in making their decisions. That is correct, and I wonder why Airbus has not a larger share
29 carpethead : That experiment has lasted over 20 years. They still have close to 20 remaining. Many were on their way out as the new 738s are delivered but seeing
30 sankaps : LCCs will always have one aircraft type -- but I do not think they have a *policy* of buying Airbus because they are European. Indeed EasyJet has ind
31 abba : I think that we have to see this in the bigger picture. Up through the 80'ties and '90'ties Japan was considered politically as the main culprit when
32 airbazar : This may seem obvious but Airbus is not the only non-Boeing supplier in the world. Could they be looking at regional jets to lower the costs of their
33 breiz : As explained in several threads, that's political. The earlier breakthroughs for Airbus were the orders from JAS (A300s) and ANA (A320s & A321s).
34 Revelation : Implicit in this is: can EMB make a decent ROI if they do move into this space? Indeed. I don't think so. We're talking four years late! Plenty of ri
35 sankaps : They could be, but the context / tone of the statement makes it seem more likely he is referring to alternatives / competitors to Boeing, and not to
36 Post contains images glideslope : Boeing never should have let Allan leave. McNerney Jr. does not listen to the engineers IMO. Too much "Just Do It".
37 777way : The defunct cargo airline Galaxy operated A300F, ANA subsidiary Peach went for A320, and theres Skymark with the A380 order. Also Air Asia Japan and
38 sankaps : I think the thread refers mainly to the two major Japanese airlines or "flag carriers",, JAL and ANA, and whether they feel (or have felt) pressure t
39 Aesma : I'll believe it when I'll see it, and I think it's the same for Airbus and Boeing. Airbus will never offer bargain prices because they know it'll only
40 breiz : Correct. I forgot the first ones, specially Peach which shows that ANA has no technical reason not to order and continue to use the A320. AirAsia and
41 AeroWesty : Except in his quote, he's talking about pricing in that paragraph. I don't believe he's referring to Boeing collapsing over the 787 affair.
42 777way : Might be but some posters seem not to know that many other Japanese companies use Airbus aircraft, so just to enlighten those.
43 jfk777 : JAL with A380's doesn't seem to be. Boeing has the right airplanes for them, A330 can't fly far enough and A380's are too big. The 777 is the "right s
44 airbazar : The way I see it the context is risk mitigation by not relying on a single vendor. Airbus may be the only alternative for long haul, wide body aircra
45 Post contains images cjg225 : As a supply chain grad student, I do want to point out that it's not an absolute that multisourcing is better. It all depends. Single-source supply ha
46 Post contains images KL911 : And the 4x A380's for Skymark.
47 Post contains links Paolo92 : There's Bombardier which looks interested in doing business there: Bombardier Targets ANA to Japan Airlines for New CSeries
49 777way : mentioned here
50 sankaps : Hmmm.... you raise a good point with WN. I do agree they have a special relationship with Boeing. I'd be curious though as to whether Airbus gets a c
51 AeroWesty : I would think whether or not Airbus gets the opportunity to bid for the business, WN would be in a position to know what the prices are for the best
52 sankaps : You are referring to the "Most Favored Nation" clause in the contracts, which basically guarantees that the price you are paying is no more, or in so
53 AeroWesty : Yes, that's where my curiosity lies. In my mind, those figures would have to be somewhat general knowledge in order for all of the parties we're refe
54 flyglobal : The way I would try as an Airbus sales Team: Friendly speaking in a sense: You get the 'typical discount' for the first 19 Planes. The 20st, 30st, 40
55 sankaps : The thing is every contract will have a strict confidentiality clause, so Boeing cannot just share the pricing they gave to X with Y. Boeing will hav
56 Stitch : It really isn't that hard to find out what an airline paid for an airplane contract since they have to post that information as part of their require
57 sankaps : I don't believe that is the case at all, do you have any factual basis to back up this assertion? Which is why when information "leaks" out (for exam
58 Navion : It is somewhat ironic that one of the possible causes of the 787 grounding is a Japanese designed and manufactured battery. The country of Japan is fa
59 Stitch : Certainly. Some examples: Delta's SEC filing in August 2011 detailed their annual aircraft purchase commitments for the next five years. That filing
60 DocLightning : Except they have to start somewhere. And Airbus also started basically from nothing and their very first project was very cutting edge. World's first
61 Azure : I agree with you, except that Airbus was born with the support of several governments which in fact bore all financial risks. If I am not mistaken, t
62 Post contains links anfromme : Well, there you have one significant risk when going with one vendor. There's the threat of vendor lock-in. Generally, it's very unusual for a compan
63 manny : What most people forget are even thought the 787 has had some problems its still way ahead of the competition and it will take some time for the compe
64 scbriml : Or denial? Aside from contradicting yourself, ask JAL and ANA how much the 787 fiasco has cost them thus far. We're rapidly approaching the 5th anniv
65 packsonflight : This makes sense, but I wonder who decides to shop only Boeing. I mean is the government ordering the airlines not to look at Airbus The Japanese air
66 Revelation : Nothing, except perhaps the involvement of the firms that created the Concorde (Sud, BAe) + MBB, as well as lots of government largesse both during t
67 spacecadet : Except that you 100% agreed with what I was saying at the beginning of your post, then did a 180 and disagreed with my direct quote here. Anyway, thi
68 PPVRA : I doubt Embraer would skip the 737/320 market and go straight for a long haul aircraft. And as of late, neither A nor B have been very bold with thei
69 trex8 : ??? Awful lot of Far east carriers who fly lots of A330s!! And JAL did inherit a big A300 fleet from JAS.
70 abba : The problem seems to be, that airplanes are rarely sold "clean". A lot of other things often enter the deal - such as training and a number of differ
71 sankaps : Thanks abba, you beat me to it. An aircraft purchase deal involves many more factors than just the imputed price. Spares, crew training, loaners, PDP
72 Post contains images scbriml : Huh? You said you didn't see what the risk in relying on one vendor was. Then proceeded to identify one of the many risks!
73 sankaps : True, and the basic principle of risk management is to spread your risks -- do not put your eggs in one basket. The chances of two suppliers failing
74 BEG2IAH : Neither JAL nor ANA are private companies.
75 abba : Could very well be the case, even if I believe - as far as I know Japanese culture - that would not be spelled out that directly.
76 777way : they arent? I could have sworn they are.
77 carpethead : Care to back up your bold statement. Yes, mostly for regional flying but very little of it is across the Pacific or to Europe. To add, NH & JL ar
78 sankaps : JAL and ANA are most definitely private companies, as private as any in the US.
79 B777LRF : But it's a tragedy you've already found the root cause of these incidents, without bothering to tell the FAA, JAA and Boeing. Or it could just be the
80 AeroWesty : It sounds like the confusion stems from that the term "private" can have different definitions. One use can be government-owned (public) vs. not gove
81 Post contains images Stitch : That is what they actually paid, because otherwise they're publishing false data in their filings and the SEC and shareholders tend to frown on that
82 alfa164 : Don't forget that Mitsubishi is getting into the RJ business. There might be a sound business case for using those regionally - and without disturbing
83 Post contains links BEG2IAH : Not sure why you think my statement is "bold". Here is some detail of their latest trades on the Tokyo Stock Exchange: JAL: http://quote.tse.or.jp/ts
84 AngMoh : In Japan, the tone of the message can be polite, but the content ruthless. Only in Japan we were told that we were completely incompetent as a suppli
85 anfromme : You're using only one of the two possible definitions (explained by AeroWesty) of the term "private company". The original reply you responded to was
86 sankaps : Exactly. Not government owned. In the context of the discussion that was being had about pressure on ANA and JAL to buy Boeing due to Japanese trade
87 BEG2IAH : There are no "two possible definitions" so I cannot pick whichever I prefer. There is only one definition of a private company - closely held. Right,
88 AeroWesty : To avoid confusion, public and private are usually qualified by a suffix. Such as, JAL and ANA are private-sector firms which are publicly-held. So in
89 sankaps : What has changed is that JAL has had a near-death experience, has a new CEO from outside the industry who was given a free hand to reform JAL, and wh
90 BEG2IAH : Absolutely, all valid points, which should've been brought from the beginning, instead of baseless and unfounded ownership story. You also said previ
91 Post contains images anfromme : You're tying down "private company" to exclusively mean "privately-held company", where it can also refer to "private sector company". Unless you add
92 sankaps : I guess some of us assumed (wrongly) that those commenting on this thread would know the context of the discussion and the recent history of JAL and
93 BEG2IAH : Yes, I insisted on correct terms because in business practice there is no ambiguity. The whole reason I pointed to a specific definition is one of th
94 jetblueguy22 : The thread has gone off topic and will be archived to future posts. All posts after the lock will be removed for housekeeping purposes only. Thanks Pa
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...
Emirates To Buy 100 777Xs If Boeing Builds Them posted Thu Nov 8 2012 07:25:44 by raptor1090
Seat Arrangements On Boeing 777: 2-5-2 Vs 3-3-3? posted Wed Mar 28 2012 15:53:54 by Tupolev160
New Paintjob On Boeing 787 ZA003 posted Fri Oct 14 2011 15:34:46 by Taniwha
Porpoising JAL 777-300 Caught On Video posted Wed Jan 5 2011 14:22:30 by Aaron747
AlJazeera: 'investigation' On Boeing Due Wed posted Tue Dec 14 2010 06:25:23 by mestrugo
Help On Boeing 747 Anniversary Pic posted Tue Aug 17 2010 08:36:16 by kl5147
Unidentified B777 On Boeing Flightline - Help? posted Tue Feb 16 2010 16:27:21 by Virginblue4
Paris Air Show 2009 Info. On Boeing Website posted Wed Jun 17 2009 12:25:22 by DL752
Q On Boeing 777 Seat/aisle Width posted Mon May 25 2009 06:08:14 by AustrianZRH
Open Season On Boeing 737-200s posted Tue Apr 28 2009 14:45:07 by Infomaniac