Today , Monday 18th , Lion Air will sign at the Elysee in presence of F Hollande and F Bregier a huge order of more than 200 A320s , which would be a mix of CEO and NEO.
This is not the first time an Airbus order is signed at the Elysee , as Qatar did so with N Sakorzy.
However a BIG coup for Airbus , and probably a nice discount for Lion Air.
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (3 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 19508 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1): « la page que vous avez demandée n'existe pas »
The link somehow got broken.
Here is a working version, although apparently of a slightly different article: Click!
That article quotes "more than 200 A320, many of them for the re-engined NEO version of the medium-haul plane"
I know that this has been rumoured for a while, but I'm still surprised, given that they already have orders for 201 MAX.
Looking at the current MAX vs NEO order breakdown, this order also means that, out of 11 disclosed airline customers for the MAX, three also ordered NEO. Not wholly expected.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26961 posts, RR: 83 Reply 5, posted (3 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 19379 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3): Either way, Airbus just stole a customer from Boeing.
These planes are destined for their subsidiary, Malindo Air, which is currently using 737-900ERs borrowed from Lion Air. The order has long been rumored to be going Airbus and I am of the opinion the likely reason for this is the same reason AA went to Airbus - Boeing cannot get them enough planes in the timeframe they need them (they want at least 100 planes within 10 years). Airbus might also have been able to line up financing for the deal (as they did for AA).
As for Lion Air, I expect them to remain a strong Boeing customer. For example, their other subsidiary, Batik Air, has ordered the 737-900ER and 787-8.
a380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1036 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 18888 times:
Isn't this all starting to feel a little like 2007? There is so much money made available by central banks for financing everywhere in the world that we are back to a level of orders and backlogs that seem a tad unrealistic. Airlines have planes up to the gills.
I mean Airbus and Boeing are running at record production levels (600 planes each last year give or take). And if we are to believe that all these planes will be delivered, it feels like both companies will have to double production in the next few years (average of 1000 orders for Boeing and 1100 planes for Airbus for the last two year). Has this ever occurred in recent aviation history? Something smacks of "irrational exuberance" here...
Are there other folks sharing a dose of skepticism here?
Most of this is "irrational exuberance" is fueled by the belief held by a growing number of the investor class that commercial aircraft are a safe harbor for their cash. The proof of the pudding regarding this theory will most likely be during the next significant economic downturn, when we find out whether governments like Indonesia will readily assist in returning these assets to their rightful owners should the necessity arise when the chips are down.
sxf24 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1228 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 18679 times:
Quoting a380900 (Reply 6): Are there other folks sharing a dose of skepticism here?
Absolutely. While there is currently appears real demand to support product rates, I really wonder it is all sustainable. The behavior of certain airlines with astronomical orders - Air Asia, LionAir, Norwegian - is really concerning. Even if they stay profitable, how does these airlines take delivery and pay for massive order books from both manufacturers. There are only so many places and people in Southeast Asia and Europe that are going to travel. And there are only so many banks and lessors willing and able to work with these airlines.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10895 posts, RR: 100 Reply 10, posted (3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 18517 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3): A customer who just last year ordered $22 billion worth of 737s?
Boeing Signs Record $22.4 Billion Lion Air Order for 737s
Then they will bid Boeing and Airbus off against each other.
Quoting a380900 (Reply 6):
Isn't this all starting to feel a little like 2007? There is so much money made available by central banks for financing everywhere in the world that we are back to a level of orders and backlogs that seem a tad unrealistic. Airlines have planes up to the gills.
I see why you have skepticism. However, all indications are interest rates will stay low for a while and thus the 'buy new' versus fuel expenses have shifted toward rotating fleets more often. In particular with high oil prices. I think we'll eventually see a glut. But there are enough older aircraft to replace and growth to keep the pace for a bit.
If the central banks turn off the money, we go into a depression. Or they keep it coming and we have some inflation, but mostly a re-balancing of trade deficits. The current trade deficits are unsustainable. But it will be a rolling process.
Until then, we'll watch MD-80s, 737 'classics,' old A320s, and other types rotated out for newer planes.
Oh, this will end abruptly. But not for a while. And we're talking NEOs. The 'step drop' in fuel burn will keep that line going. But we should also see the global middle class double over 13 years. That will increase the demand significantly. In particular for Lion Air (they're in one of the highest growth regions for the next decade).
MillwallSean From Brunei, joined Apr 2008, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 17962 times:
I remain deeply skeptical about Lionairs expansion plans, in fact about their entire organisation. they did try Australia a few years ago but ran into trouble despite offering money left, right and centre. Must have come as a surprise for them that everything cant be bought with cash.
They have ordered way to many planes for whats even remotely possible as I see it. the infrastructure in Indonesia wont catch up with the plane deliveries of Lionair. Malindo wants to be the third wheel between East and West Malaysia. 3 hours flight average fair RM 200.
I know both Boeing and Airbus happily accepts deposits, they would be fools not to and I know Exim bank in the US and the European equivalent does it best to assist with funding for airlines such as Lionair but to be honest this order just feels like a waste of time. I'm sure Airbus/Boeing oversells its lines a fair bit but why would an airline such as Lionair need to order so many planes when there is no credible plan to deploy them nor infrastructure to handle them in their homemarket...
And yeah I have flown them, a few times. Usually out of SIN. Nothing bad has ever happened and the flights are just fine.
But they are still banned by the EU which means my corporate travel insurance doesn't cover travel on Lionair and this is the same for virtually any western company since most re insurers etc are European based. Any targeting of foreign business customers is far far away.
Well congratulations to both parties non the less. An order is an order and im sure someone will be drinking champagne.
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3253 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 17586 times:
How many potential orders are we talking about for the A320 family between the recent Turkish, Lufthansa and Lion Air orders?
The resale value for used single aisle aircraft is bound to the floor. With so much capacity being poured out the assembly lines and made available to carriers, I'm guessing selling the aircrafts they're replacing will be tough. Parts, on the other hand, will be in high demand and the scrappers are going to be working overtime.
Unless the extra capacity is absorbed by extra growth in travel demand for these carriers, but somehow I doubt it. It just sounds too extravagant.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
Asiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1030 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 17403 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5): The order has long been rumored to be going Airbus and I am of the opinion the likely reason for this is the same reason AA went to Airbus - Boeing cannot get them enough planes in the timeframe they need them (they want at least 100 planes within 10 years). Airbus might also have been able to line up financing for the deal (as they did for AA).
Sounds just like you try to find excuses why Boeing does not get this order, but you are avoiding the real one.
The A320Neo is at least as compelling for the airlines as the 737MAX. New engines with larger fan diameter can give the A320Neo a few more percent fuel burn advantage vs 737MAX and airlines can load the luggage by containers instead of loading by hand. No surprise that A320Neo gets orders from AA as well as Lion Air and Norwegian. The plane is just as good for them as the 737.
seahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16516 times:
Sorry, I did not want to turn it into the usual A vs B war, but I think it is wrong to say that the larger engine diameter is an advantage without taking the whole plae desing into consideration. MAX and NEO should be so close that for most customers secondary features will be deciding.
Price, finance options
ability to take cargo in containers
delivery dates
Even if the MAX should be 3-5% more efficent in a best case scenario, this would be hardly a good enough reason to wait 5 or more years longer.
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3253 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 16463 times:
Quoting seahawk (Reply 23): Even if the MAX should be 3-5% more efficent in a best case scenario, this would be hardly a good enough reason to wait 5 or more years longer.
So, you're not only assuming that the MAX is up to 5% more efficient than the NEO, but also that the NEO backlog is so small that you can get one 5 years before a MAX and at a much higher discount?
If you're not a flame starter, then, I'm truly sorry, but your logic is seriously questionable here...
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
seahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 15768 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 24):
So, you're not only assuming that the MAX is up to 5% more efficient than the NEO, but also that the NEO backlog is so small that you can get one 5 years before a MAX and at a much higher discount?
I did not say that the NEO would be cheaper. The point was that both planes seem to be so close in capability that this does not make a difference. Many airline have taken up both types, I would think this is down to delivery dates.
Lion Air would probably wait longer for 400 737 to be delivered than for 200 737 + 200 A320. AA would probably also wait longer for an all Airbus order than for the mixed order.
chiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 931 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 16442 times:
Quoting seahawk (Reply 25): Many airline have taken up both types
May I remind you that those many airlines are earlier B737 only customers, now switching to the NEO.
One, and only one exception (as far as I know) goes against the tide: SilkAir
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3663 posts, RR: 36 Reply 21, posted (3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 16453 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 18): As for the 737 being "more efficient", I'd suggest that a) that would be hard to prove, and b) the meteoric sales of both types suggest that the difference is a wash....
The difference is indeed negligible. On some routes the B737-MAX will be the slightly better performing airplane, and on some routes the A320-NEO will be the better airplane. And in both cases there is not much difference, and things as seat-count and possibly taking up a little bit of cargo could shift the balance either way.
Quoting chiad (Reply 25): The majority for customers, after analysing the two competitors, regard the NEO a more suited product for them. And I think most airlines are very very very focused on the economics.
I guess all airlines are mainly focused on economics. And since the CEO's, the NEO's, the NG and the MAX are all selling like hot cakes, the overall economics must be very close to each other. Because no airliner says no to a structural 3-5% difference in economics, no matter in which airplane's favor that percentage would be.
Antoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1509 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 16144 times:
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 16): and airlines can load the luggage by containers instead of loading by hand
I don't think this is considered very much, if at all, when comparing the two models. Granted, I'm in the US, but I've not heard of an airline that loads its A320s with containers. It's doable, sure, but the bin just isn't large enough (except maybe on the 21) to make it any more efficient.
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
KD5MDK From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 15773 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10): I see why you have skepticism. However, all indications are interest rates will stay low for a while and thus the 'buy new' versus fuel expenses have shifted toward rotating fleets more often. In particular with high oil prices. I think we'll eventually see a glut. But there are enough older aircraft to replace and growth to keep the pace for a bit.
What we're seeing is a strong bet that operating costs are going to be higher than capital costs. Part of this is an extremely low cost of financing and part is high fuel prices. If either changes, there will be a big move in the other direction. As it is, airlines like DL which make a habit of using low capital costs to offset higher operational costs will be feeding on the unwanted narrow bodies that other airlines are casting off. I'm not sure who else follows that model, but it has to be attractive to anybody who has a very large existing MRO organization so maintenance isn't as daunting as it is for leaner operations.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3663 posts, RR: 36 Reply 24, posted (3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 15308 times:
Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 28): Granted, I'm in the US, but I've not heard of an airline that loads its A320s with containers. It's doable, sure, but the bin just isn't large enough (except maybe on the 21) to make it any more efficient.
LH is an airline that if I recall correctly uses containers on the A320, though not on all flights. But LH is not the only one, though I have no list of airlines which use containers on the A320-series for luggage and other cargo.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 72 Reply 25, posted (3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 15233 times:
As usual, a very funny thread when seen from a distance : Skepticism about the seriousness of the order or rather the number suggested from forumers who not very long ago hadn't shown any qualms when the MAX was perceived as winning the order...
I am not being over-antagonistic over this subject but may I remind some of the doubters of the economic figures of Indonesia : growth of 6% + per year and air Travel growing at 20% . I guess it's high time people in the West start waking up to the fact that there are a few countries that will , in the shortest term become economic giants ,displacing quite a few countries out of their ranking, and much more importantly down from their pedestal.
For those who do not realise what a 20% per annum growth means is as a matter of fact a traffic that doubles - and more - every four years.
If anything, at this rate of growth, in five or six years' time, the orders won't be as we see in the 200 range but more probably in the 500... and I'm hardly joking : the proof is already here tyo stare us in the face : the combined orders for B and A are for 400 + frames.
Think about that. And think also that India's air transport hasn't really woken up ... Yet.
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14996 times:
Yes, economies are growing strongly in this part of the world, but these mega orders do smack of publicity and ego massaging. Go for the headline massive order, as that will generate the massive headlines.
With Lion Air planning a Malaysian domestic carrier, the battle between them and Air Asia is going to be bloody...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 2433 posts, RR: 6 Reply 28, posted (3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 15110 times:
Here is the Airbus press release:
"Indonesia’s Lion Air has placed a firm order with Airbus for 234 A320 Family aircraft, comprising 109 A320neo, 65 A321neo and 60 A320ceo. The deal sees the carrier become a new customer for Airbus."
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 30, posted (3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14547 times:
Now makes for a total of 2179 firmly ordered NEO. Incredible. Leahy makes passing the 2000 order threshold look easy with three orders for more than 100 planes each within a week... (although Lion Air is the first of these to order over 100 NEO in one go).
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 72 Reply 32, posted (3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14458 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 30): LH is an airline that if I recall correctly uses containers on the A320, though not on all flights. But LH is not the only one, though I have no list of airlines which use containers on the A320-series for luggage and other cargo.
Most mainline airlines use the LD3 (45 inches) for the 320 family except the 318.
The 319 takes 4 : 2 in the forward hols, 2 in the aft.
For the 320 and 321, respectively 3
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 2433 posts, RR: 6 Reply 33, posted (3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14468 times:
Quoting anfromme (Reply 36): Now makes for a total of 2179 firmly ordered NEO. Incredible. Leahy makes passing the 2000 order threshold look easy with three orders for more than 100 planes each within a week...
What is Leahy's sales target for 2013? 700 orders? He is already more than halfway now, and the Bourget show has still to come.
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 35, posted (3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14119 times:
Quoting seahawk (Reply 24): I did not say that the NEO would be cheaper. The point was that both planes seem to be so close in capability that this does not make a difference. Many airline have taken up both types, I would think this is down to delivery dates.
Delivery dates should actually be in the MAX's favour at this point - its EIS is 2017, vs late 2015 for NEO, but Airbus now has almost twice as many orders for NEO as Boeing has for MAX.
Quoting chiad (Reply 26): May I remind you that those many airlines are earlier B737 only customers, now switching to the NEO.
One, and only one exception (as far as I know) goes against the tide: SilkAir
Boeing to date has 11 airline customers for MAX, of which three (AA, Norwegian and now Lion Air) also bought NEO, and only a single customer was a "steal" from Airbus. If you look at the same stats from the Airbus perspective I think it's easy to goess whose sales team is happier at the moment.
Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 28): I don't think this is considered very much, if at all, when comparing the two models. Granted, I'm in the US, but I've not heard of an airline that loads its A320s with containers. It's doable, sure, but the bin just isn't large enough (except maybe on the 21) to make it any more efficient.
From my experience, container capabilities are very heavily used in Europe, so I would epect this to be an important factor in deciding between MAX/NEO. I fly on EI short-haul quite frequently, and they virtually always load containers on their A320s, same with BA and LH the last time I flew on them and/or saw their A320s being loaded.
Besides the thread mentioned above, there's also a thread in TechOps from a good while ago that discusses the use of containers on A32S aircraft: A320 Cargo Containers (by Modesto2 Dec 15 2001 in Tech Ops)
I prefer a lot of new product launched at PAS2013 that an orgy of narrowbodies orders
But I guess we'll have A380, 777X ans 787-10 orders... and boeing might want to steal airbus show
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 2433 posts, RR: 6 Reply 37, posted (3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13964 times:
Quoting anfromme (Reply 41): Delivery dates should actually be in the MAX's favour at this point - its EIS is 2017, vs late 2015 for NEO, but Airbus now has almost twice as many orders for NEO as Boeing has for MAX.
Correct, but I'm sure there are still some NEO slots before 2020 left. 2200 orders is worth of > 4 years of production (2015-2019) but not all aircraft will be delivered before 2020. The recent TK order shows there are plenty delivery slots left:
13 in 2015
14 in 2016
6 in 2017
27 in 2018
25 in 2019
32 in 2020
chieft From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 255 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13753 times:
Basically an airline looks at the package the manufacturers offering them:
Operational points are important, of course, financials of course too, deliver-ability and for when to get the slots, but also things like maintenance contracts as return business and possibly options for the sale of the existing fleet. Airbus and Being purchased young aircraft from the competeing manufacturer from airlines in the past in order to get the deal.
You must have good points to convince an airline to change its entire fleet or to add a sub-fleet.
Bthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13502 times:
I'm wondering where all the A320ceo slots are coming from? As I understand it, A320neos will be start being produced in 2015 with full transition to neo production in 2018. So in 5 years they should have delivered all A320ceo.
Current backlog of ~2800 ceo and production rate of 330 per year = ~8.5 years of production? they'd have to produce 560 every year for the next 5 years to clear the A320ceo backlog before sole production of the A320neo.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 2433 posts, RR: 6 Reply 42, posted (3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13246 times:
Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 42): But I guess we'll have A380, 777X ans 787-10 orders... and boeing might want to steal airbus show
I would be surpised to see the 777X launched so soon. There are about 8 months between the 787-10X ATO (October 2012) and the official launch (June - July 2013); the 777X official launch should follow next year.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 2433 posts, RR: 6 Reply 44, posted (3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13134 times:
Quoting Bthebest (Reply 47): Current backlog of ~2800 ceo and production rate of 330 per year = ~8.5 years of production? they'd have to produce 560 every year for the next 5 years to clear the A320ceo backlog before sole production of the A320neo.
The A320 production rate will go up to 42 per month / 504 per year in the next couple of months.
airboe From San Marino, joined Jan 2011, 32 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12893 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 50): 42 per month / 504 per year in the next couple of months
Airbus only produce some 11 month a year due to holidays etc., - I do not recall the exact number though, but I am sure you can't say ("monthly production rate" *12 = Annual production) .
I think you can at Boeing, - but correct me if I am wrong.
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3253 posts, RR: 10 Reply 52, posted (3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12186 times:
Quoting seahawk (Reply 24): Lion Air would probably wait longer for 400 737 to be delivered than for 200 737 + 200 A320. AA would probably also wait longer for an all Airbus order than for the mixed order.
Yes. That, I agree with.
It is certainly not unusual for an airline placing a huge order of single-aisle airliners to hedge their bets by going 50/50 (-ish) between manufacturers. They reduce their exposure to any issue with the manufacturer and have more leverage over their current or future negotiations.
Especially if the difference between the 2 aircrafts is minimal and the fleets are large enough to override any commonality benefits.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
chiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 931 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 11792 times:
Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 55): In almost twice of the time frame since launching, isn't it ?
Not by a long shot!!
NEO was launched 12/01/10 - 838 days - 2,179 firm orders - 2.60 firm orders per day (Average)
MAX was launched 07/20/11 - 607 days - 1,185 firm orders - 1.95 firm orders per day (Average)
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 11362 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 58): It is certainly not unusual for an airline placing a huge order of single-aisle airliners to hedge their bets by going 50/50 (-ish) between manufacturers. They reduce their exposure to any issue with the manufacturer and have more leverage over their current or future negotiations.
Ordering 200 of each isn't hedging your bets, it's gambling your life savings and house on red and black! Madness...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2074 posts, RR: 6 Reply 60, posted (3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10746 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5): The order has long been rumored to be going Airbus and I am of the opinion the likely reason for this is the same reason AA went to Airbus - Boeing cannot get them enough planes in the timeframe they need them (they want at least 100 planes within 10 years).
But in the Easyjet thread you said, that lack of availability on Airbus' side could be the reason why the MAX has a chance therethey could buy 737s again. So how could lack of slots on both sides be responsible for deflections in both directions? IMO availability is overrated and is not a factor that will keep a market in balance over longer terms. See 77W/A346...
Quoting seahawk (Reply 24): The point was that both planes seem to be so close in capability that this does not make a difference.
Both aircraft are now long enough on the market to see in which direction the market share could tend to go. And opposite to your claim there is a difference. Since half a year the MAX's market share remains static. It is even lower today, than at the highest point 5 months ago. And it never passed the 40% threshold. The difference is so large, that we have to assume that the two aircraft are not close in capability (regarding the overall offering).
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27): And in both cases there is not much difference, and things as seat-count and possibly taking up a little bit of cargo could shift the balance either way.
Both aircraft now had a full year to bring in the orders for the most urgent customer needs. And the result is not balanced.
IMO the reported fuel flow gains by Pratt recently are one factor for the recent NEO orders and make the NEO even more irresistible than it was before.
I always said:
All factors counted in the CEO was able to achieve parity on the market, despite slightly worse fuel-burn-per-seat economics. And as the fuel burn of the NEO seems to improve more than the one of the MAX, the market parity would be distorted more and more. Just look where we are now!
Of course there are other factors than fuel burn, but they must favour the A320 already because they must be responsible for the split market in the past, when the A320 competed with a slight fuel burn penalty. So what we see now is the market performance of the A320 without that fuel burn penalty (my statements are based on the assumption, that the A320 maybe was 5% on average behind the NG and that the NEO maybe just have closed that gap vs the MAX).
Bthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 10471 times:
Quoting sirtoby (Reply 63): Current backlog of ceo at the end if February was 1878, not 2800.
1878 is actually neo backlog, but looking in more detail (I used wiki before for a rough number but it clearly needs updating) the ceo backlog is actually only 1811 - which means there's probably a few more slots available.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3663 posts, RR: 36 Reply 63, posted (3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 10241 times:
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 66): Both aircraft now had a full year to bring in the orders for the most urgent customer needs. And the result is not balanced.
You are correct with this statement. But it is better to review the numbers after 5 years or so.
And I guess that the engine choice which Airbus is offering compared to the B737-MAX can give them the edge on the A32S-NEO's. Actually, I am expecting them to have a small edge in their favor versus the competition. But I do not expect a long-term market share of 60-40 in favor of Airbus, but maybe a 53-47 or 54-46 is possible for Airbus to achieve. But maybe in 10 years it is again around 50-50? Who knows?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26961 posts, RR: 83 Reply 64, posted (3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9961 times:
For those arguing that the A320neo is demonstrably superior to the 737MAX and the market is responding appropriately, why did airlines like American, Lion Air and Norwegian Air Shuttle order the MAX as well as the A320neo and not just the A320neo? And why did SilkAir, whose current fleet is all A320 family aircraft, order the MAX and not the A320neo?
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 66): But in the Easyjet thread you said, that lack of availability on Airbus' side could be the reason why the MAX has a chance therethey could buy 737s again. So how could lack of slots on both sides be responsible for deflections in both directions?
A fair point, but one dependent on when an airline wants delivery of airframes. Airbus' announcement did not note the delivery schedule for these planes, but if the bulk of them is before 2020, that should favor Airbus since Airbus plans to start production of the A320neo around two years before Boeing does the 737MAX. So Airbus will deliver upwards of 1000 A320neo before Boeing delivers the first MAX, which should give Airbus not an insignificant amount of flexibility in delivery position assignments.
The more flexible a customer is in their delivery schedule, the more flexible the OEMs can be in accommodating it. AA, for example, wanted 360 planes within three years of EIS of the MAX - that would have required Boeing to dedicate a quarter of their MAX production capacity over that time just to AA to meet that. If this order had gone to Boeing, that would be another 375 planes (including their earlier order), so that would be 50% of MAX production going to AA and JT.
TheSultanOfWing From El Salvador, joined Dec 2012, 97 posts, RR: 0 Reply 65, posted (3 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9614 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
For those arguing that the A320neo is demonstrably superior to the 737MAX
I think people responded more to your argument:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5): I am of the opinion the likely reason for this is the same reason AA went to Airbus - Boeing cannot get them enough planes in the timeframe they need them (they want at least 100 planes within 10 years). Airbus might also have been able to line up financing for the deal (as they did for AA).
In other words, the NEO wouldn't sell to these airlines if it weren't for the financing and quicker availability; which is very debatable. It may have something to do with the quality of the actual plane as well.
But I think it is obvious in the majority of your posts which team you root for; something you subsequently deny.
Long time lurker here....
I feel like the A318 at times: I am probably worth more parted out than as a whole.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26961 posts, RR: 83 Reply 67, posted (3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8247 times:
Quoting TheSultanOfWing (Reply 71): In other words, the NEO wouldn't sell to these airlines if it weren't for the financing and quicker availability; which is very debatable.
Let's discuss that argument, shall we?
My argument mentioned two specific Airbus deals - American Airlines and Lion Air. Let us first discuss American Airlines:
American Airlines wanted to replace their MD-8x, 757-200 and 767-200 fleet within four years (2013-2017). That is close to 300 airplanes. They had ~55 737-800s on order, leaving them ~250 airframes to replace. To handle those replacements, they ordered 100 737-800s and 160 A319/A320/A321 for delivery from 2013-2017. But why not just order 250 737-800s? Why go from three narrowbody families to two when you could just go to one?
The A319-100 and A320-200 are of equivalent capability and economy to the 737-700 and 737-800 so I don't see a compelling reason to switch from Boeing to Airbus or to add the A319 and A320 from a capability or operating cost basis. I do believe the A321-200 is a better long-range platform than the 737-900ER, but I do not believe it is so much better that it justifies operating a sub-fleet of A321-200s.
So why did they add the A319-100, A320-200 and A321-200 when they already had a large 737-800 fleet (which would be getting even larger with another 100 frame order for the type) and could have added the 737-700 and 737-900ER to increase the fleet synergy?
Based on what American Airlines said, it was a combination of three factors:
1) Airbus could meet their delivery requirements for 160 A320 family airframes and 130 A320neo airframes (plus whatever delivery schedule for the 365 options).
2) Airbus agreed to fully finance those 160 A320 family airframes via leases.
3) Airbus offered them an excellent price on those 160 A320 family airframes.
As to Point #1, Boeing and Airbus have the same narrowbody family production rate post-2014 (42 per month), but Airbus was at 38 while Boeing was at 32 when the order was placed. And Airbus would be at 42 in late 2012, whereas Boeing would not reach that rate until mid-2014 (and would not be at 38 until mid-2013). So Airbus can deliver more planes per month than Boeing can and that might give them the ability to better meet a customer's delivery requirements.
As to Point #2, Boeing is said to have not been willing to fully finance a large 737NG/737MAX order due due to AA being in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Reorganization. So if AA had decided to order 250 737NGs, they would have had to secure financing for a large portion of them via other sources and the finance costs would have been higher.
As to Point #3, Boeing evidently sharped their price to be competitive with Airbus, so if Boeing had been willing to fully finance the entire deal... And Airbus subsequently lowered the price even more during the Chapter 11 reorganization process.
Now let's talk Lion Air.
Lion Air has a fleet of 15 737-800s and 67 737-900ERs with an additional 103 737NGs on order. They also have on order 201 737MAX. So it appears Lion Air likes the 737 in it's current and future form. Lion Air also has 150 purchase options for the 737MAX, so they could have exercised all of those options (plus place additional firm) in place of ordering the 174 A320-200neos and A321-200neos if the delivery dates were the same. But perhaps those purchase options had later delivery dates assigned to them and therefore Airbus was able to better meet Lion Air's needs.
Now I have not seen a delivery schedule for the A320-200, A320-200neo and A321-200neo, but it stands to reason most, if not all,. of the A320-200s will be arriving before 2015 when production is scheduled to switch over to the A320neo. Lion Air has received 83 of their 307 737NG orders and they received 24 last year. Assuming that delivery rate going forward, they would complete their order in another 9 years, so I would guess that delivery rate will be increasing since I would expect Lion Air would not want to keep taking 737-900ERs in 2017 when they could get 737-9s.
Now we know Boeing has at least 170 737NG delivery slots available since Ryanair has agreed to fill that many with their latest order. As of yet do not know where those slots fall in terms of date, though FR has taken delivery of all their previously-ordered frames. So if they want delivery slots in 2013-2015 (and they have been negotiating with Boeing for years, so there is no reason to believe Boeing has not been holding production slots in that timeframe for them), Boeing might not be able to meet Lion Air's delivery requirements in whole for the 737NG, hence Lion Air also ordering the A320-200.
As to financing, the US Export-Import Bank has been financing Lion Air's 737-900ER orders, but I do not believe they have provided financing for all of Lion Air's 737-900ER commitments and I don't know if they have financed any of their 737 MAX commitments (though they may only do so as delivery dates approach). And Lion Air's more recent Ex-Im bonds have been below 2%, which means those buying said bonds will not be seeing much of a return on their investment and that might be depressing demand for those bonds with investors. This might require Lion Air to raise their yields, which increases their borrowing costs.
So with Airbus having been willing to finance all of American Airlines A319-100 and A321-200 orders to land a deal, is it really so ridiculous to think they might have been willing to finance some or all of Lion Air's A320-200, A320-200neo and A321-200neo orders? Or help secure the financing for those planes with third parties?
Quoting TheSultanOfWing (Reply 71): But I think it is obvious in the majority of your posts which team you root for; something you subsequently deny.
That you make this statement is clear that during your lurking you have read very few of my 26,304 posts, much less all of them.
excalibur From France, joined Dec 2007, 56 posts, RR: 0 Reply 68, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8165 times:
First, congrats for Airbus, outstanding order!
I would like to say that sometimes people here should relax a little bit more and enjoy our common passion: aviation!
No need to be so nervous about every order! Airbus won this one and I am pretty sure Boeing will do very well next time.
Quoting a380900 (Reply 72): On a side note: are the NEO and the MAX getting new avionics?
I second a380900 on this and I really hope Boeing will upgrade the 737 cockpit with the -MAX. This is for me its biggest drawback compare to the 320 family. Cockpit comfort and systems automatization. Does anyone have more info on this? Will Boeing adopt a standard "787" cockpit throughout the all Boeing family someday? 787, 777 and 737 could very well share the same cockpit layout.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9261 posts, RR: 96 Reply 69, posted (3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7482 times:
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 66): Since half a year the MAX's market share remains static. It is even lower today, than at the highest point 5 months ago. And it never passed the 40% threshold. The difference is so large, that we have to assume that the two aircraft are not close in capability (regarding the overall offering).
I think availability may not universally be an issue, but i'm pretty sure its a factor in a lot of cases.
The -MAX debuts some 18 months to 2 years after the NEO.
If we argue production rates of c. 500 per year for each then on availability alone I would expect the NEO to sport an ongoing 750 - 1000 frame advantage
As it stands at the moment the backlog difference is almost exactly 1000 - i.e. 2 years of output, and broadly commensurate with the EIS difference.
I.e. I don't think the market has yet demonstrated that it thinks one of these airframes is prohibitively worse than the other.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 2433 posts, RR: 6 Reply 70, posted (3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7424 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 75): I.e. I don't think the market has yet demonstrated that it thinks one of these airframes is prohibitively worse than the other.
And others have switched A to B. Airbus has a two year head start to delivery of the NEO over the MAX.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 73): you have read very few of my 26,304 posts
Wow, make my 10,242 look like chump change. Oh, I readily admit I've probably only read 4 or 5 thousand of them... We do have some different interests.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 40): We could have a very boring order-less Le Bourget Airshow
Unlikely. Many small airlines do all the negotiations at once and the Paris air show is a great event to do so. It might be less spectacular, but unless my rumor mill is 100% wrong, not orderless.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 75): As it stands at the moment the backlog difference is almost exactly 1000 - i.e. 2 years of output, and broadly commensurate with the EIS difference.
I agree with your numbers. But Airbus should pull a bit ahead as their product becomes more 'known' than the competition and then I expect that lead to fade until the NEO vs. MAX is at about 1000 orders difference.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 69): but maybe a 53-47 or 54-46 is possible for Airbus to achieve. But maybe in 10 years it is again around 50-50? Who knows?
Agreed. In my opinion, it will be a race for 28,000 airframes over 20 years with some of that number going to Bombardier, Embraer (note, I'm not counting 100 seats and below, so on the E-195), Irkut, and COMAC (despite the delays).
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22874 posts, RR: 87 Reply 76, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6454 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 73): 1) Airbus could meet their delivery requirements for 160 A320 family airframes and 130 A320neo airframes (plus whatever delivery schedule for the 365 options).
2) Airbus agreed to fully finance those 160 A320 family airframes via leases.
3) Airbus offered them an excellent price on those 160 A320 family airframes.
Yes, perhaps, to all those things, but they are fairly constant with any order.
Airbus could meet the delivery schedule? That's going to affect an airline's decision. Famously, those (magically appearing?) 2008 delivery slots for the 787 swayed Qantas to that aircraft.
Airbus agreed to fully finance - that's been true for yonks. Quite apart from anything Airbus Finance does, the ultimate guarantor, it can open the door to a big bunch of European financiers, and has done so with other orders such as the first Singapore A380's which leases were sold on.
Airbus offered an excellent price? Well - duh. Qantas again - there was little to choose between the 787 and the (then) A350 in terms of price.
None of these are extraordinary or unusual, so I'm not sure why any of 'em even rate a mention.
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 1944 posts, RR: 56 Reply 77, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6173 times:
Re the bickering of Airbus vs Boeing I think we all shall be glad that the growing Asia places all these orders with us, the "old world" (I include Europe and North America in this ).
Weather Airbus or Boeing gets the order the stream of parts is spread over all our countries and we get jobs, there was a major part of the TV news that this order saves 5000 jobs over 10 years for a France which is in dire straits. Aerospace used to be a trouble industry for Europe for decades, now it is the example for what other sectors should be doing, cooperate under good leadership.
We shall be proud of being aerospace bigots .
The real malaise will be when the tide turns and the orders goes ex "old world" like for high tech goods (everything produced in Asia, they then buy our planes for the money ).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26961 posts, RR: 83 Reply 78, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6141 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 82): None of these are extraordinary or unusual, so I'm not sure why any of 'em even rate a mention.
I think it is worth a mention within the context of two customers with large Boeing narrowbody fleets that they continued to add to for years now deciding to add current-generation Airbus aircraft to their portfolio. Especially when at least one of those customers mentions that one OEM was willing to finance the deal to a level where the other OEM was not. And where one OEM has significantly more delivery positions over the delivery period than the other OEM.
But if those issues didn't play any role in either order, I'd be genuinely interested in what you believe did play a role.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22874 posts, RR: 87 Reply 80, posted (3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5894 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 84): But if those issues didn't play any role in either order, I'd be genuinely interested in what you believe did play a role.
As I tried to point out, I'm sure those issues - one or all of them - did play a role. All manner of things play a role.
It is said that the Republic order for the A319Neo is at a spectacular price - far better then any launch customer discount - because (a) Airbus didn't have any orders for the A319Neo at that point and (b) Leahy had publicly said that the A319Neo destroyed the business case for the C Series.
So you could argue that the CEO of Republic was one very smart negotiating cookie or that Republic was the beneficiary of Leahy's mouth - depending on your agenda.
In the end it doesn't amount to a hill of beans - it takes two to tango and they both got something they wanted.
The point is that this Lion order went to Airbus. What wasn't been said, or even supposed, is what Boeing was - or might have been - offering.
planesmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 739 posts, RR: 0 Reply 81, posted (3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5836 times:
Where aircraft financing is concerned, there seems to be an over-simplification by some contributors. Commercial aircraft financing isn't limited to the colours of the rainbow, or even the shades of grey. And thats before considering tax and currencies.
In a 160 aircraft order, there may be an across the board finance package, or it may be in tranches. Airframes and engines may be funded differently. There will be trigger events, based on profitability, load factors, credit grading changes, etc. Financing can be time-based, with both the costs and participants changing at prescribed intervals. There will be buyback formulae, based on cycles, hours and other qualitative assessments. There are thousands of these variables.
American aircraft manufacturers were traditionally quite arrogant. Not that many years ago the only currency you could purchase in was USD.
Then along came a new manufacturer, funding in multiple currencies, based on components, customer domicile, finance domicile, and even baskets of currencies based on the customers actual revenue flows.
A manufacturer that sent teams to customers existing financiers, to discuss risk, currencies, tax effectiveness, etc. The logic - if we can increase their return, they can reduce their margins, and we become more attractive.
US-based manufacturers enjoyed a natural advantage selling to US-based customers, though this has eroded over time, as financing creativity has increased exponentially.
As much, if not more time and money is expended on finance selection, as selecting the right aircraft.
By and large, Boeing, Airbus and their customers, have access to the same finance sources. The devil though is in the detail.
I realise this is an aviation forum, not a finance forum.
goosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 241 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5838 times:
All these airlines ordering hundreds of aircraft booking up production lines far into the future leads me to think there might be a business in selling your production slots to other new airlines etc? Easy Jet must be wondering if they will ever get the chance to order new planes if they leave it any longer.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26961 posts, RR: 83 Reply 84, posted (3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5579 times:
Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 88): All these airlines ordering hundreds of aircraft booking up production lines far into the future leads me to think there might be a business in selling your production slots to other new airlines etc?
DL and FR have done that in the past - something Boeing now seems to be explicitly restricting in their new deals.
LJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4169 posts, RR: 1 Reply 85, posted (3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5479 times:
Quoting Bthebest (Reply 47): I'm wondering where all the A320ceo slots are coming from? As I understand it, A320neos will be start being produced in 2015 with full transition to neo production in 2018. So in 5 years they should have delivered all A320ceo.
Remember that Airbus has an order for 67 A320s from Kingfisher/Kingfisher Red which won't be delivered. Thus they have 67 slots extra.
Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 88): All these airlines ordering hundreds of aircraft booking up production lines far into the future leads me to think there might be a business in selling your production slots to other new airlines etc? Easy Jet must be wondering if they will ever get the chance to order new planes if they leave it any longer.
There was untill FR took advantage of it and now both Boeing and Airbus make sure this cannot be done easily.
travelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1409 posts, RR: 5 Reply 86, posted (3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5370 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 80): To celebrate this order Airbus painted their A321 sharklet testbed in the Lion Air livery.
So I might becoming a bit senile being 30+ and all, but euhmm, watching the Airbus video linked below I noticed chevrons on the engine at 0:16 seconds. So, what the fuchsia, I didn't know that, what gives?!
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4656 posts, RR: 4 Reply 92, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4703 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 73): Ghad, three large NEO orders and no certainty on the engines!
LH is likely to choose PW again, and while no official engine selection for the TK order has been announced, Airbus might be giving us a hint with these pics titled A320NEO PW THY and A321NEO PW THY respectively:
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2669 posts, RR: 59 Reply 93, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4292 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 69): I think availability may not universally be an issue, but i'm pretty sure its a factor in a lot of cases.
The -MAX debuts some 18 months to 2 years after the NEO.
If we argue production rates of c. 500 per year for each then on availability alone I would expect the NEO to sport an ongoing 750 - 1000 frame advantage
As it stands at the moment the backlog difference is almost exactly 1000 - i.e. 2 years of output, and broadly commensurate with the EIS difference.
I.e. I don't think the market has yet demonstrated that it thinks one of these airframes is prohibitively worse than the other.
As usual, spot on, astuteman. Couldn't have put it better myself!
IMO we are seeing the near-identicality of the current NB's continued into this new generation. They will each have their own merits in select categories, of course, but otherwise they are as near to parity as it is possible to get considering they are from two different continents, and have honestly, have been built with different design philosophies. Truly remarkable, if you ask me!
Quoting a380900 (Reply 66): On a side note: are the NEO and the MAX getting new avionics? I guess they should be... HUDs?
I'm not positive on the NEO. Considering Airbus is trying to keep it 'minimum-change' based, I'd be surprised if they did a whole-package upgrade. However, certain tweaks are bound to be allowed on. On the MAX, Boeing is upgrading. From: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2500
""In keeping with our commitment to customers to continuously improve the 737, we also are making an investment in the future capability of the 737 MAX flight deck with the new, more advanced displays," said Wyse.
The 737 MAX flight deck will have four new large displays with significant growth capability while maintaining a common look-and-feel with the Next-Generation 737 display formats that preserves commonality with training across the 737 family."
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 60): IMO availability is overrated and is not a factor that will keep a market in balance over longer terms.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 60): Both aircraft are now long enough on the market to see in which direction the market share could tend to go. And opposite to your claim there is a difference. Since half a year the MAX's market share remains static. It is even lower today, than at the highest point 5 months ago. And it never passed the 40% threshold. The difference is so large, that we have to assume that the two aircraft are not close in capability (regarding the overall offering).
So. . . . based on this logic, you're suggesting that the current generation of aircraft are "not close in capability"?!? Afterall, based on the exact same time-frame (2010-Feb. 2013), current-generation orders are:
737NG: 1,117 / 59.8%
A32Xceo: 750 / 40.2%
vs.
A32Xneo: 1,878 / 61.3%
737MAX: 1,184 / 38.7%
Personally, I'd argue the opposite, as I did above. These aircraft (both generations) are darn near parity.
FlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 94, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3563 times:
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 93): So. . . . based on this logic, you're suggesting that the current generation of aircraft are "not close in capability"?!? Afterall, based on the exact same time-frame (2010-Feb. 2013), current-generation orders are:
So during the three years you mentioned, Airbus has sold 327 more A320 series planes. That's almost the production of 9 months (455 deliveries in 2012). Naturally, we're looking this right now after a big frenzy of Airbus orders, so possibly the next mega MAX order will balance things. Or alternatively, in Le Bourget Airbus will widen the gap even more...
Airbus is getting close to 10000 A320 orders by the way. It would seem to me that they need to ramp up A320 production.
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 395 posts, RR: 0 Reply 96, posted (3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3138 times:
Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 50):
Quoting seahawk (Reply 51):
The more interesting question will be the engine choice on those NEOs.
Ill guess they'll go Leap-X, but of course stranger things have happened...
My guess is the GTF which will reflect their now preference for two different suppliers; possibly to hedge their bets.
Quoting TheSultanOfWing (Reply 65): But I think it is obvious in the majority of your posts which team you root for; something you subsequently deny.
Most folks on here do have a preference for one airframer (and engine maker for that matter) over another. My impression is Stitch do lean more towards B whereas e.g. astuteman clearly favors A more. However both these gentlemen do give due credit to the "less favored" manufacturer where credit is due. Then there are certain other not so-gentlemanly members who would virtually all the time twist facts against "their enemy" but Stitch is not one of them.
sturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 314 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2651 times:
Quoting Alpage (Reply 83): It seems that Airbus will roll over Boeing in Le Bourget as it did the last time in 2011.
I think I read an article where Leahy stated that the target for the year remains unchanged at around 700 despite the recent mega orders, and he's almost halfway there. That means we will either have another glut at Le Bourget and a boring year after that, or it might be a lacklustre Le Bourget (in terms orders) but a steady trickle of orders throughout the year.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 2433 posts, RR: 6 Reply 98, posted (3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2629 times:
Quoting sturmovik (Reply 97): I think I read an article where Leahy stated that the target for the year remains unchanged at around 700 despite the recent mega orders, and he's almost halfway there.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10895 posts, RR: 100 Reply 99, posted (3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2576 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 80): It is said that the Republic order for the A319Neo is at a spectacular price - far better then any launch customer discount - because (a) Airbus didn't have any orders for the A319Neo at that point and (b) Leahy had publicly said that the A319Neo destroyed the business case for the C Series.
There is no doubt that F9 received a great deal and Airbus has their A319 launch customer. While I am still not a fan of the A319NEO nor -7MAX, I understand that deal.
Quoting A342 (Reply 92): LH is likely to choose PW again, and while no official engine selection for the TK order has been announced, Airbus might be giving us a hint with these pics titled A320NEO PW THY and A321NEO PW THY respectively:
That is encouraging. I'm still waiting on the press release. IMHO, Airbus wanted the engine orders held off and announced at Le Bourget to keep the 'press momentum' going.
Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 94): so possibly the next mega MAX order will balance things. Or alternatively, in Le Bourget Airbus will widen the gap even more...
Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 94): It would seem to me that they need to ramp up A320 production.
That they are with the 4th assembly line!
Quoting seahawk (Reply 95): My gut feeling says they could go PW.
Lion Air could... but I won't be shocked if they go with the LEAP-X.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2279 posts, RR: 1 Reply 100, posted (3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2433 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 44):
The A320 production rate will go up to 42 per month in the next couple of months.
AFAIK this has already been reached, or at least the target was to reach it by end of 2012.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 69): I think availability may not universally be an issue, but i'm pretty sure its a factor in a lot of cases.
The -MAX debuts some 18 months to 2 years after the NEO.
If we argue production rates of c. 500 per year for each then on availability alone I would expect the NEO to sport an ongoing 750 - 1000 frame advantage
As it stands at the moment the backlog difference is almost exactly 1000 - i.e. 2 years of output, and broadly commensurate with the EIS difference.
Apart from the EIS difference, I also see a production rate difference that could play to Boeing's detriment. IIRC boeing is producing around 36 per month right now, ramp up to 38 in Q2 2013, 42 in 1st half 2014. So they won't match Airbus's (current) production rate until 1st half 2014, which makes for an extra "lag" too.
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 395 posts, RR: 0 Reply 101, posted (3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2254 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 100): Apart from the EIS difference, I also see a production rate difference that could play to Boeing's detriment. IIRC boeing is producing around 36 per month right now, ramp up to 38 in Q2 2013, 42 in 1st half 2014. So they won't match Airbus's (current) production rate until 1st half 2014, which makes for an extra "lag" too.
But annual production for A & B are X11 & X12 respectively, so that narrows the difference quite a bit. That being the case, allow me to modify your sentence thus:
.....boeing is producing around 432 per year right now compared to Airbus' 462 at (42 a month X 11 months), ramp up to 456 from Q2 2013 and 504 from 1st half 2014....
As such A's monthly output would have to be at almost 46 to match B's 42 from first half of 2014.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2003 posts, RR: 10 Reply 102, posted (3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2209 times:
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 93): As usual, spot on, astuteman. Couldn't have put it better myself!
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 93): Personally, I'd argue the opposite, as I did above. These aircraft (both generations) are darn near parity.
And there is all there is to say for the A vs B NB battle.
One thing I might add. Considering that
* both manufacturers are in the comfortable position that demand seems to be (easily) outstripping supply
* both models have similar backlog waiting time
one could argue that market share is now s direct function of production rate.
And since both will be at around 42 per month next year, market share difference will be a wash (until further rises are announced/realized).
Off course the more preferred model will be able to generate better margins . . . .
Rgds,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 72 Reply 103, posted (3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2086 times:
Quoting neutrino (Reply 101): But annual production for A & B are X11 & X12 respectively, so that narrows the difference quite a bit. That being the case, allow me to modify your sentence thus:
.....boeing is producing around 432 per year right now compared to Airbus' 462 at (42 a month X 11 months), ramp up to 456 from Q2 2013 and 504 from 1st half 2014....
As such A's monthly output would have to be at almost 46 to match B's 42 from first half of 2014.
Is that wishful thinking or fact ?
The 11 months production per annum, for Airbus is another A.net myth.
Think that the 2012 total output was 455 frames, the rate going up from 36 / month to 38 in August and 42 by year's end ( I believe it was reached in December ).
So in fact the 2013 output won't be matched by Boeing - in your own post before mid 2014.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6211 posts, RR: 74 Reply 104, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1958 times:
Quoting sxf24 (Reply 11): Tough to bid Boeing against Airbus when LionAir has a contract with Boeing.
It isn't actually...
737-900ERs 2007-2010 is set to be replaced 2014-2017, that'll be about 40 or so.
737-900ERs 2010-2012 is set to be replaced 2017-2020, that's about another 20 and more.
737-800s 2010-2012 will need replacing 2017-2020.
With zero or some minor growth, the original 178 NG order, will feed the company only until 2015.
The next NG order and MAX will feed the company under 2014 size until 2020 or 2025.
Lion now aims Malindo to have 100 aircraft pretty quickly, and also aims Batik to have about 50 pretty quickly too. Hey, that's 150 aircraft needing to be ordered already! 234 aircraft? Well that'll feed that 150 fleet size for about 10-15years including replacements.
The above is just to describe why the numbers make sense. And using Stich's model... definitely makes the Airbus order not a surprise.
So, this Airbus order is not a surprise whatsoever. There is no way Boeing can feed enough aircraft for Lion Air group.
Some might say, why want to replace the early 900ERs soon? Well, believe me... they need to be replaced!
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 13): I remain deeply skeptical about Lionairs expansion plans, in fact about their entire organisation. they did try Australia a few years ago but ran into trouble despite offering money left, right and centre.
I met one of the directors of Lion Air a while back... they are targetting 1000 aircraft for the group by 2020 if they can, depending on Indonesia's infrastructure, Batik Air growth, Malindo's growth, and any other country they can go into. Otherwise, the current orders will simply be replacement orders with some growth.
The difference between Lion now and the Lion of 2007, they now know the difficulty and challenges they're facing, which was something they underestimated before. A lot of management change, a lot of people change has happened, the inertia is still great but I believe (I'm a Lion ultraskeptic), this time round, they're doing their homework.
Back then, it's not just Australia... they just believed the first guy that came to them and said we'll help... also in Malaysia pre-Malindo. As far as I remember at one stage they picked partners who were blacklisted by the Malaysian DCA. They've been burnt before and learning their lessons I hope.
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 16): Sounds just like you try to find excuses why Boeing does not get this order, but you are avoiding the real one.
Take it from an Airbus guy... From what I know and what I can guess... There are some problems with the 737-900ERs on the single class config for Indonesian conditions, that is payload penalties due to climb limit at our temps. These planes are filled to the MZFW almost all the time. The 738s are enjoying a better performance (and often carry more cargo than the 737-900ERs), and the 320 will complement that, especially on some of the longer sectors. While on the above 200 seater front the 737-900ER wins on fuel burn hands down, the 321s will go to the more runway restricted and climb limit restricted missions (again, dump those myths about 321s can't climb, it can take off and do the initial climb better than the 737-900ERs in some situations for the same payload). Given Indonesia's situation, the infrastructure favors the 737 but the environmental conditions favor the 320s... having both in large numbers, ensures that Lion has the flexibility to use the best one for the mission demand.
So on the performance and economics end, it's not about one better than the other, it's about using the best of each to suit the airline's benefit.
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3663 posts, RR: 36 Reply 107, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1904 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 104): Some might say, why want to replace the early 900ERs soon? Well, believe me... they need to be replaced!
Beside what you already wrote further down in your post, is there a special reason that they will need to be replaced that soon?
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 104): So on the performance and economics end, it's not about one better than the other, it's about using the best of each to suit the airline's benefit.
As it always is and should be. Thanks for your clear explanation (as usual). .
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6211 posts, RR: 74 Reply 108, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1863 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 106): What is Lion doing to those airframes which make them last only seven years, instead of simply doing a cabin refresh?
Nothing wrong in the cabin actually... Lion originally only planned to keep them for 5 years before putting them on the used market.
Whilst there has been no crashes for the 737-900ER fleet, the number of tailscrapes, hard landings, runway excursions, etc... and writeoff(s) from those incidents, explain the desire to keep them for less than 10 years.
One must also remember, when they first got their 737-900ERs, Lion was still 'quite dodgy'. This is now feeding to the reliability, maintenance costs, and fuel burn of the aircraft (they keep banging them from time to time, even the newer ones)... the first factor is dropping, the latter two are rising.
The disturbing factor is, this is not limited to their older frames.
Some are coming up to the 25,000hrs or 30,000hrs mark within the next year or two, with similar number of cycles... the upcoming maintenance bills are going to be huge, and they're out of warranty!
Creep improvements are also now noticeable to begin to cause minor/benign headaches
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3663 posts, RR: 36 Reply 109, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1822 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 108): Creep improvements are also now noticeable to begin to cause minor/benign headaches
OK. That all explains a lot. Do you know if they have improved their handling of the aircraft? Or has it also something to do with the infrastructure they are flying from and to?
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2279 posts, RR: 1 Reply 110, posted (3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1358 times:
Quoting neutrino (Reply 101): But annual production for A & B are X11 & X12 respectively, so that narrows the difference quite a bit.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 103): The 11 months production per annum, for Airbus is another A.net myth.
Think that the 2012 total output was 455 frames, the rate going up from 36 / month to 38 in August and 42 by year's end ( I believe it was reached in December ).
Actually, Airbus started 2012 producing stated 40/month, and ended the year producing 42. Let's assume 41 average. 41 x 11 = 451 which pretty much matches the output of 455 frames. So it would seem I was wrong and neutrino's statement of 11 months of net output is right. In which case Airbus produced 38 a/c per calendar month in 2012. So actually Boeing are only about 2 aircraft per calendar month behind, and would match Airbus output sometime mid-2013.
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Feb 2009, 82 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 258 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Mar 2013, 47 posts, 
From Brunei, joined Apr 2008, 1122 posts, 
From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2157 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1030 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 112 posts, 
From Norway, joined May 2006, 931 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3663 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1932 posts, 
And that shows an Airbus in Lion Air colors. Interesting. 
From Canada, joined May 2010, 412 posts, 
From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 3306 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1489 posts, 
From San Marino, joined Jan 2011, 32 posts, 
From Romania, joined Sep 2005, 333 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1490 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 795 posts, 
From El Salvador, joined Dec 2012, 97 posts, 
From India, joined May 2007, 314 posts, 
(I'm a Pratt fan.) 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22874 posts, 
). 
From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 648 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6211 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
