Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LOT Gives Boeing Ultimatum About 787 Compensation  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32834 times:

Good God, I wonder what this ( and some other airline's managers who are making "noise" against the 787 this days ) would do in the "Comet Age" when the design flaws were discovered making forensic analysis to the remains of the aircraft....The 787 is a whole new desing with a lot of innovation and some problems should be expected. The attitude of some managers at the airline industry is really annoying...


http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1380186288.html

Rgds.
G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
129 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32823 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Good God, I wonder what this ( and some other airline's managers who are making "noise" against the 787 this days ) would do in the "Comet Age" when the design flaws were discovered making forensic analysis to the remains of the aircraft....The 787 is a whole new desing with a lot of innovation and some problems should be expected. The attitude of some managers at the airline industry is really annoying...

That is no excuse whatsoever. We all know it is new technology with a lot of innovation but that does not mean Boeing is absolved of responsibility here. They delivered a faulty product that has cost the airlines operating it millions of dollars and that should be righted.

Good on LOT for making noise about this...



Next Flights: LHR-LBA (319-SK), MAN-ARN (736-SK), ARN-LHR (763-BA), LHR-CPH (CR9-SK), CPH-LHR (320-SK), LHR-IAH (744-BA)
User currently offlineJimJupiter From Germany, joined Sep 2011, 191 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32737 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
The attitude of some managers at the airline industry is really annoying...

Might it be just as annoying to see your whole medium to long term strategy go down the drain because of long delays and malfunctions that are not within your responsibility? Some smaller carriers are heavily affected by the problems of the 787 program, and those "some managers" have all reason to fear for their companies, employees etc. (Not saying that there aren't other serious problems e.g. LOT has to deal with...)

I hope they sort the issues out soon (same goes for DY), but I can understand managers going public about their troubles now.

[Edited 2013-09-26 03:56:09]


One is born, one runs up bills, one dies.
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32717 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 1):
That is no excuse whatsoever. We all know it is new technology with a lot of innovation but that does not mean Boeing is absolved of responsibility here. They delivered a faulty product that has cost the airlines operating it millions of dollars and that should be righted.

Good on LOT for making noise about this...

Maybe you are right.... maybe not...

I will expect how the "quiet" strategy of other airlines also affected by the 787 grounding ( like LA to mention one ) pays in their future negotiations with Boeing...

Rgds. !!

G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32600 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 1):
That is no excuse whatsoever. We all know it is new technology with a lot of innovation but that does not mean Boeing is absolved of responsibility here. They delivered a faulty product that has cost the airlines operating it millions of dollars and that should be righted.

   It is all about contracts and guarantees. And both contracts or guarantees do not care if it is about a 300 year old painting, or a modern civil airliner. If one of the parties who have committed themselves to that contract does not hold up its side of the bargain, then compensations are in place. And are usually already part of the contract when signed.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 3):
Maybe you are right.

Oh, I am sure he is.

So LOT is perfectly in her right to be angry with Boeing for not holding up their part of the bargain.

[Edited 2013-09-26 03:55:42]

User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 5, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32533 times:

LO has no long term sustainable strategy in long haul flying except to diaspora cities in North America using a high Density low cost model with proper low costs.

this time I see Boeing being used as a scapegoat for continued losses and ordering too many aircraft. Yes the Boeing 787 rollout is a disaster, but not anyway as bad as LO's over order of aircraft.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1535 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32522 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
The 787 is a whole new desing with a lot of innovation and some problems should be expected.

It has been in service for two years now, these problems should not be expected...



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineJimJupiter From Germany, joined Sep 2011, 191 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32463 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 5):
LO has no long term sustainable strategy in long haul flying except to diaspora cities in North America using a high Density low cost model with proper low costs.

Not saying it was a good strategy. 

Their annoyance may have multiple sources.



One is born, one runs up bills, one dies.
User currently offlinekellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 683 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32369 times:

Actually, the legal argument is normally on Boeings' side.

When the customer and Boeing sign an agreement for acquisition of an aircraft, there is normally a clause which absolutely prohibits "consequential" damages. This means things like flight cancellations, etc. The warranty normally extends to repairing or replacing the aircraft, not those types of damages.

But, Boeing could have made an amended agreement to keep LOT as a customer once the delays of the 787 became a major factor. But without seeing the agreement, no one can really tell what the actual terms are.


User currently offlinemilan320 From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 869 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 32029 times:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't other airlines also seeking compensation? Wasn't JAL, ANA and now I heard Norwegian seeking compensation? If so, why shouldn't LOT be entitled to seek it.


I accept bribes ... :-)
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12032 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 32015 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 5):
this time I see Boeing being used as a scapegoat for continued losses and ordering too many aircraft.

Eight is too many? According to the "experts" in the DY thread, they should have a few laying around "just in case".   



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2154 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 31803 times:

Quoting kellmark (Reply 8):
Actually, the legal argument is normally on Boeings' side.

When the customer and Boeing sign an agreement for acquisition of an aircraft, there is normally a clause which absolutely prohibits "consequential" damages. This means things like flight cancellations, etc. The warranty normally extends to repairing or replacing the aircraft, not those types of damages.

But, Boeing could have made an amended agreement to keep LOT as a customer once the delays of the 787 became a major factor. But without seeing the agreement, no one can really tell what the actual terms are.

100% true, but on the other hand LO might be jumping on DY wagon to seek compensation. I wonder how all this all pan out...(not that they will make it public BTW)

Quoting scbriml (Reply 10):
Eight is too many? According to the "experts" in the DY thread, they should have a few laying around "just in case".   

I dropped my laptop, thanks for the very funny comment! (great way to start the day)...

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1707 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 31814 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 10):
Eight is too many? According to the "experts" in the DY thread, they should have a few laying around "just in case".

 

These is absolutely NO doubt that this aircraft launch has been a disaster for Boeing and have caused the airlines involved serious headaches.

LOT does have its problems but this has been made considerably worse by having to ground their 787 fleet for a lengthy period.

Same for DY. Some people are so protective of Boeing they try and argue that it's the airline's fault for not having a spare 787 or two sitting around incase another goes tech. We're talking about one of the most technologically advanced airliners in the world. These aircraft should have been fit for purpose on delivery, not plagued by a raft of potentially serious faults and oversights that force groundings.

It will obviously affect smaller airlines more who do not have the extra capacity to replace aircraft that go tech but Boeing should do the decent thing here and compensate the airlines who have had losses as a direct result of having 787 problems. If not, this could well affect how these airlines order in the future and Airbus is a very good competitor who would be more than happy to take on some more customers!

[Edited 2013-09-26 04:50:24]


Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8731 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 31778 times:

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 11):
100% true, but on the other hand LO might be jumping on DY wagon to seek compensation. I wonder how all this all pan out...(not that they will make it public BTW)

LOT is seeking compensation since the grounding.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2154 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 31705 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 13):
LOT is seeking compensation since the grounding.

I know, but maybe they are following the old saying : "never kick a man unless he is on the floor", seeing that Boeing Execs are in Norway, maybe they are trying to make more pressure and get some "freebies".

Never hurts anyone to ask....LOL

TRB.



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 31535 times:

News about compensation to national carriers are for domestic consumption, just to show tax payers carrier is hard at saving their money. In reality Boeing never pays much, only requirement is to call as many news outlets they can and tell how difficult the compensation negotiations were with the carrier. Local media runs with story, tax payers are happy, Boeing is happy and carrier is happy. Because of non-disclosure agreements no one knows the actual amount. It could be dollar.

User currently offlinejox From Sweden, joined Jan 2003, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 31463 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

But Norwegian has nothing to do with the taxpayer's money... The flying public, yes - but DY is not state-owned.

User currently offlinepetera380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 31480 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This doesn't help:

B787: missing filters in Rolls-Royce engines at LOT Polish Airlines

blog.seattlepi.com/flyinglessons/2013/09/23/lot-dreamliners-spend-the-weekend-grounded/


User currently offlineLO231 From Belgium, joined Sep 2004, 2392 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 31398 times:

Not only LO suffered during grounding period, but also during wait period for I think 4 years of past original delivery date...

And now, according to Polish news, 2 dreamliners were grounded again as they discovered no fuel filters were even installed on two frames...

Thats why you see EuroAtlantic 772 and 763 on flight radar flying with LO flight nrs, I guess.. I think Poles are fed up with the dreamcrap, after it being all over news, they interviewed a pax coming in at WAW. He said situation was tence on board during whole flight, although it went uneventful... Its just scaring people off,

I know, all of us Anetters would fly on a burning flying carpet, if allowed and possible. And cheap. Imagine trip reports...



Got both LO 788 frames already, next LO E95 and 734 BRU-WAW-BRU
User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 30983 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 15):
News about compensation to national carriers are for domestic consumption, just to show tax payers carrier is hard at saving their money.

Care to provide some evidence to support such a crazy statement? Why would 'national carriers' be treated any differently from other airlines?

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 15):
In reality Boeing never pays much

No, in reality, it is a matter of public record that Boeing has already paid out many 100's of millions in compensation for the 787 debacle, and has made provisions for quite a lot more compensation yet to be paid. Boeing are legally obliged to account for such things in their published accounts and to warn the markets about possible future liabilities in their public financial statements.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 15):
Because of non-disclosure agreements no one knows the actual amount.

Any straight cash compensation payments cannot be hidden, regardless of the existence of a non-disclosure agreement, as they would have to be included in the published accounts of both Boeing and the airline. The only way for the parties to hide compensation payments would be when they are made in the form of discounts on future aircraft orders, spares, or other services.


User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 30638 times:

Quoting milan320 (Reply 9):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't other airlines also seeking compensation? Wasn't JAL, ANA and now I heard Norwegian seeking compensation? If so, why shouldn't LOT be entitled to seek it.

For DY the matter of compensation was never discussed, the meeting with Boeing was how they would help to ensure that the planes can fly with minimal delays...

Anyway, I posted this in the other thread:

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

Norwegian CEO Bjørn Kjos has issued an apology on Facebook re. the problems (in Norwegian). I have translated it:

"I want to apologise to all our passengers that have been affected by the unacceptable delays on our long haul routes recently. I understand how frustrating it must be to wait for hours for your plane to depart.

Last night Norwegian had a meeting with Boeing where the company gave a clear message that the situation is unacceptable. Boeing said that they will put together a dedicated team that will continuously follow Norwegian to ensure that any technical challenges that occur going forward are dealt with immediately. In addition, they will make sure that the necessary spare parts are available at all airports we fly to and from with the Dreamliner so that our passengers won't be hit by large delays".



Next Flights: LHR-LBA (319-SK), MAN-ARN (736-SK), ARN-LHR (763-BA), LHR-CPH (CR9-SK), CPH-LHR (320-SK), LHR-IAH (744-BA)
User currently offlinemacc From Austria, joined Nov 2004, 1004 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 30582 times:

Quoting petera380 (Reply 17):
This doesn't help:

B787: missing filters in Rolls-Royce engines at LOT Polish Airlines

blog.seattlepi.com/flyinglessons/2013/09/23/lot-dreamliners-spend-the-weekend-grounded/

Whoah!
"A source tells me during testing at Boeing in Everett, Washington, mechanics at the plane maker removed the engine's fuel filters and failed to re install them. The planes were then delivered to the airline and began flying in passenger service - even though running the engines in this condition could lead to engine damage. "

Boeing really is working on its image!



I exchanged political frustration with sexual boredom. better spoil a girl than the world
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 30122 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 19):
No, in reality, it is a matter of public record that Boeing has already paid out many 100's of millions in compensation for the 787 debacle, and has made provisions for quite a lot more compensation yet to be paid.

You are quoting another news article. At the time of B787 grounding there were only 6 carriers, two Japanese carriers doesn't need to paid because Japan is the source of the source of the problem. Very few of remaining 28 were in commercial service. Why would Boeing pay $100s of Millions.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 19):
Why would 'national carriers' be treated any differently from other airlines?

Because for national carriers news is more valuable than cash.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 19):
Any straight cash compensation payments cannot be hidden, regardless of the existence of a non-disclosure agreement, as they would have to be included in the published accounts of both Boeing and the airline.

I rest my case. BTW how much BA paid for each B788.

[Edited 2013-09-26 06:11:13]

User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2026 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 29871 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 22):
At the time of B787 grounding there were only 6 carriers, two Japanese carriers doesn't need to paid because Japan is the source of the source of the problem.

Huh? You are kidding – right?  Wow!



Wer wenig weiss muss vieles glauben
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12416 posts, RR: 100
Reply 24, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 29874 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From the OP link:Polish national airline LOT has given Boeing until the end of the year to settle on compensation over faults with its 787 Dreamliners or face court action, the company's chairman was reported as telling a newspaper on Thursday.

How are we all getting so excited about that? LOT says they're owed money (which they direly need) and they'll go to court if not paid.   

We all know there have been issues with the 787.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 20
Reply 25, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 30775 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 22):
Why would Boeing pay $100s of Millions.

Because while the 787s were inoperable, lease/financing payments still had to be made, crews sat idle, and schedules had to be reworked at great expense on short notice.

It's absolutely worth Boeing paying up for that kind of stuff. The alternative could be a series of lawsuits under various consumer protection laws around the world that would result in detailed disclosures of 787 shortcomings no one wants publicized.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2154 posts, RR: 8
Reply 26, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 30717 times:

Quoting LO231 (Reply 18):
I know, all of us Anetters would fly on a burning flying carpet, if allowed and possible. And cheap. Imagine trip reports...

Signature material. I am glad this very ominous thread, has had a couple of very good jokes.

Back on topic, I wonder if Boeing is doing some damage control with other customers, what they dont need is an angry line of customers, blaming their new product for almost anything...

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 27, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 30730 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 23):
Huh? You are kidding – right?  

He must be. Because Japanese airlines have nothing to do with Japanese manufacturing firms. Even if they were the cause of the B787 problems.

But by far the most of the problems which faced the development, production of, and operations with the B787 were on Boeings own side, instead of the "side" of their suppliers.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 30694 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 25):
Because while the 787s were inoperable, lease/financing payments still had to be made, crews sat idle, and schedules had to be reworked at great expense on short notice.

All valid points and Boeing need to compensate. But throwing a number $100s of Millions!!! Boeing's liability is not unlimited.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 29, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 30596 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 28):
Boeing's liability is not unlimited.

It is limited to the extend of what has been written down in the purchase contracts the airlines and Boeing have signed together when they formalised the deal.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 30227 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 29):
It is limited to the extend of what has been written down in the purchase contracts the airlines and Boeing have signed together when they formalised the deal.

So lets assume the purchase price $100 Million a pop, Do you think the compensation clause for a single plane exceeds $100 Million. There were only 28 delivered to other airlines. I stand by my statement not paying Japanese.

Let me give an example of AI, AI had quite a few 77x sitting around, definitely B787s were more profitable to operate than a 77x. So a reasonable compensation for AI would be the difference between two for the period of grounding.

UA,QR,ET,LAN,LOT all had only handful of commercial flights at that time. Math for $100s of Millions doesn't add up.


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29850 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 29):
It is limited to the extend of what has been written down in the purchase contracts the airlines and Boeing have signed together when they formalised the deal.

In the big business world, what is written in the contract actually tends to be more of a start point for negotiations.

If Boeing cares about their on-going relationship with an airline, they will always be prepared to negotiate over whatever compensation claims the airline puts forward, whether they are within what's written in the contract, or not. Usually some sort of compromise will be reached, and that may or may not be outside the contractual obligations.

I suspect that Boeing realise that they have screwed up on this one and will be pretty generous with compensation offers, mainly in order to maintain good customer relations. They can, of course, mitigate the amounts offered, and help to retain the customer, by offering compensation mainly in the form of discounts on future products and services.

Of course, if the relationship irretrievably breaks down, and it all get litigious, then written contract terms will become the leading factor in any settlement. Boeing would, IMO, be mad to let things get that far.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 32, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 30):
So lets assume the purchase price $100 Million a pop, Do you think the compensation clause for a single plane exceeds $100 Million.

No, I don't think so. And nowhere have I said that a compensation could be worth $ 100 million for a single plane. But if in the contracts would have been written that the compensation could be $ 200 million per plane (extremely unlikely), then that is what is at stake here when LOT files her claims against Boeing.

It all has to do with contract law. Nothing more, nothing less.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 33, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29769 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 31):
In the big business world, what is written in the contract actually tends to be more of a start point for negotiations.

If Boeing cares about their on-going relationship with an airline, they will always be prepared to negotiate over whatever compensation claims the airline puts forward, whether they are within what's written in the contract, or not. Usually some sort of compromise will be reached, and that may or may not be outside the contractual obligations.

I suspect that Boeing realise that they have screwed up on this one and will be pretty generous with compensation offers, mainly in order to maintain good customer relations. They can, of course, mitigate the amounts offered, and help to retain the customer, by offering compensation mainly in the form of discounts on future products and services.

Of course, if the relationship irretrievably breaks down, and it all get litigious, then written contract terms will become the leading factor in any settlement. Boeing would, IMO, be mad to let things get that far.

Very well written. And I totally agree with your post.  


User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 765 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29717 times:

If the compensation Boeing had to pay out exceeded the value of the airframe, I am sure Boeing would offer to take back the airframe or the customer would accept whatever limit of liability Boeing agreed to. Boeing won't pay an airline to essentially operate the 787. Boeing owes LOT exactly what was agreed to in their purchase agreement. Nothing more and nothing less. I suspect many of these smaller carriers took on more than they can handle and are trying to shake Boeing down for more than their contracts allow for.

User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29708 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 30):
So lets assume the purchase price $100 Million a pop, Do you think the compensation clause for a single plane exceeds $100 Million.

I doubt anyone thinks that. And I'm not aware that anyone has tried to claim such a thing.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 30):
I stand by my statement not paying Japanese.

Fortunately for the shareholders (many of which are not Japanese, btw) of those Japanese airlines affected, your opinion will be irrelevant to the compensation discussions. I have absolutely no doubt that JAL and ANA, as some of Boeing's best customers, will both get significant compensation from Boeing.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 30):
Let me give an example of AI, AI had quite a few 77x sitting around, definitely B787s were more profitable to operate than a 77x. So a reasonable compensation for AI would be the difference between two for the period of grounding.

In the real world, it's far more complicated than that.


User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29531 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
But by far the most of the problems which faced the development, production of, and operations with the B787 were on Boeings own side, instead of the "side" of their suppliers.

The blame is really shared between suppliers and Boeing. Boeing for asking the impossible of their suppliers (shared risk), and the suppliers for accepting it.

Some of the quality control issues sound suspicious... Boeing should have procedures in place that prevent things like failure to reinstall a fuel filter. Other issues seem much more along the lies of infant mortality exacerbated by a small in service fleet.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2654 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29086 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 30):
I stand by my statement not paying Japanese.

Interesting. Then I guess that, by the same logic, UA won't be compensated either, because Boeing for sure shares some blame, and both Boeing and United are American...



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 29019 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 31):

You are the one who dragged me in to off topic discussion by claiming Boeing paid 100s of Millions of dollars and you have receipts for that. Can you provide actual B787 purchase prices and compensation details?

Otherwise lets stay on topic.

[Edited 2013-09-26 07:50:29]

User currently offlinedynamo12 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28610 times:

Boeing is more likely to respond I think with an engineering solution in these cases (increased customer engineering support). This is a win-win. The client get's improved dispatch reliability with minimal additional cost. Boeing get's more insight into the root cause of dispatch reliability and maintenance issues, which is valuable for continued development of the platform.

As others have pointed out, compensation for delays and compensation for consequential damages will be specified and limited in the agreement. I think the A380 may have had some delay compensation go out, perhaps a result of the greater difficulty in initial sales leading to sweeter agreements. Even things like SFC on the engine side may come with a guarantee, but it's not unlimited payments forever if they miss a fuel consumption target, likely to be more like for every point missed we take x% off sale price.

I would be very interested in the LOT court action they are threatening, and particularly the choice of venue in the contract.


User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 652 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28307 times:

Quoting kellmark (Reply 8):
Actually, the legal argument is normally on Boeings' side.

When the customer and Boeing sign an agreement for acquisition of an aircraft, there is normally a clause which absolutely prohibits "consequential" damages. This means things like flight cancellations, etc. The warranty normally extends to repairing or replacing the aircraft, not those types of damages.

But, Boeing could have made an amended agreement to keep LOT as a customer once the delays of the 787 became a major factor. But without seeing the agreement, no one can really tell what the actual terms are.

BAck when I was drafting and negotiating jet engine contracts with airlines, every contract we executed had such a clause. This was a walk-away provision and I think the airframers have the same clause.

That said, our contracts also had AOG and other dispatch reliability guarantees, that called for some form of compensation in the event the event occurred (typically a credit to be used toward the purchase of spare parts). This compensation would never make the airline whole, but it was something.

Of course, if there was a really big screw-up, we typically would provide more compensation than we were contractually required to do. Often, the airframer was the entity pushing for the compensation (at the request of the airline) and we were very reluctant to upset the airframer.


User currently offlineholzmann From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 178 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28291 times:

Question: when the 777 was initially being built, was it being built by experienced pros at the end of their Boeing career? What happened in the meantime? Did these pros retire without training their younger successors on how to build an airplane or are the 787's woes mostly a product of its outsourced nature?

To me, a missing engine filter is a problem with final assembly or a job done in Everett. Am I right?

If the culprit is a new generation of young, lazy, and incompetent employees at Boeing, then either one of two things needs to happen. Either fire them all or empower them with better pay and training. Bring back the "old guard" to show them how it's done. Or perhaps Boeing should send a few teams over to Germany to study how vocational education training (to become airplane builders/mechanics) is done properly.


User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 652 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28101 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
He must be. Because Japanese airlines have nothing to do with Japanese manufacturing firms. Even if they were the cause of the B787 problems.

But by far the most of the problems which faced the development, production of, and operations with the B787 were on Boeings own side, instead of the "side" of their suppliers.

It is a basic tenant of contract law that sellers are responsible for the performance of their subcontractors. If a part or service obtained from a subcontractor is faulty and such fault triggers a compensation requirement on the part of the seller, the seller cannot avoid the liaiblity by placing blame on the subcontractor. The seller pays the buyer and the seller may, depending on the contract, have the right to obtain compensation from the subcontractor.

We always tried to have our subcontracts aligned with our obligations to our customers, such that liability became a pass through, but that is not always possible for several reasons. First, a different group within the company was responsible for our supplier contracts and those of us on the sell side didn't always have visibility into what the buy side was negotiating. And, second, a supplier contract is often executed early in a program and the sales of the product often come later, such that by the time we would negotiate a contract with a buyer, the subcontracts were executed. The key is to have very broad rights of recovery from your suppliers, but the savy ones will not allow for unlimited rights of recovery.


User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 652 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 27967 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 19):
Any straight cash compensation payments cannot be hidden, regardless of the existence of a non-disclosure agreement, as they would have to be included in the published accounts of both Boeing and the airline. The only way for the parties to hide compensation payments would be when they are made in the form of discounts on future aircraft orders, spares, or other services.

Which is how compensation is provided 90% of the time.

That said, I am not sure that discounts are treated differently than cash compensation from an accounting basis.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3211 posts, RR: 26
Reply 44, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 27307 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting petera380 (Reply 17):
missing filters in Rolls-Royce engines at LOT Polish Airlines

While everybody is assessing blame, where are these low pressure filters located, and how often are the changed?

Also one report said hydraulic filters, and another fuel filters.. of course who can trust the news to get it right..


User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5225 posts, RR: 25
Reply 45, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 26508 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Good God, I wonder what this ( and some other airline's managers who are making "noise" against the 787 this days ) would do in the "Comet Age" when the design flaws were discovered making forensic analysis to the remains of the aircraft

The Comet was a much bigger leap in technology in its day than the 787 is today. The Comet was the very first passenger jet in a world of props, flying at altitudes then unheard of for passenger travel. The 787 is a huge leap in terms of materials used, but it is not as big a technological leap as was the Comet. Of course, some of what has happened could not have been foreseen, but I'm sure the airline's were justifiably confident that they wouldn't be dealing with as many problems at this point in the game.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineexFWAOONW From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 26510 times:

Quoting holzmann (Reply 41):
Question: when the 777 was initially being built, was it being built by experienced pros at the end of their Boeing career? What happened in the meantime? Did these pros retire without training their younger successors on how to build an airplane or are the 787's woes mostly a product of its outsourced nature?

I've heard Alan Mulally had a lot to do with how well the 777 entered service. Ford stole him from Boeing. I'm sure he was far from the only reason.

Quoting holzmann (Reply 41):
If the culprit is a new generation of young, lazy, and incompetent employees at Boeing, then either one of two things needs to happen. Either fire them all or empower them with better pay and training. Bring back the "old guard" to show them how it's done

The "old guard" was laid off during the last economic downturn and drop in A/C orders. You have to wonder how many came back. Lack of job security is an incentive to move on. That is one reason there is an "ex" in my screen name.



Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
User currently onlinemax999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 993 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 25368 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 31):
If Boeing cares about their on-going relationship with an airline, they will always be prepared to negotiate over whatever compensation claims the airline puts forward, whether they are within what's written in the contract, or not. Usually some sort of compromise will be reached, and that may or may not be outside the contractual obligations.

I suspect that Boeing realise that they have screwed up on this one and will be pretty generous with compensation offers, mainly in order to maintain good customer relations. They can, of course, mitigate the amounts offered, and help to retain the customer, by offering compensation mainly in the form of discounts on future products and services.

I completely agree here. I can think of two caveats to this though.

One is how Boeing defines the criticality of the client relationship. For Boeing, they may see their relationship with UA much more important than with LOT so they're more willing to give compensation to UA. Boeing could feel that there's more potential future sales from UA than they would receive from LOT so Boeing is more likely to be amenable to UA's claims.

Second is when word leaks out the amount and type of compensation each airline got. Because Boeing views its client relationships differently, some airlines will get more from Boeing and some less. This may be a reason why the smaller airlines like Norwegian and LOT, who probably are viewed with lower importance by Boeing, are screaming so loud about compensation. While the larger airlines like ANA and UA are quiet. It's likely that Boeing has been working harder to keep the latter two airlines happy while the smaller airlines are getting a different treatment.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 34):
Boeing owes LOT exactly what was agreed to in their purchase agreement. Nothing more and nothing less.

That's not how it works in the business world when it comes to client relationships. It's not so black and white...there are a lot of grays.



All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 947 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 25102 times:

Depending on which story you read, the engines were missing oil, fuel, or hydraulic filters....

Most of the accounts seem to have it as low pressure fuel filters.

Since missing fuel filters should trigger a warning, it doesn't seem like they could have flown far without them.


User currently offlinemax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 24917 times:

Quoting holzmann (Reply 41):
To me, a missing engine filter is a problem with final assembly or a job done in Everett. Am I right?

According to the article in Seattlepi the filters were removed in Everett and Boeing failed to reinstall them, so you're correct.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 47):
I hope that the A350 has an even rougher entry into service and hope that the FAA revokes its type certificate.

Why would you hope for that?


User currently offlinechiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1079 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 24599 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 6):
It has been in service for two years now, these problems should not be expected...

Not only has it been in service for two years, the B787 had 3.5 years before that (during the delay) to work out hick-ups.


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2154 posts, RR: 8
Reply 51, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 24518 times:

Quoting max550 (Reply 49):
Why would you hope for that?

The post was removed since its clearly flame bait.

Since we wont know how the compensation pans out, and all $$$ related is pure speculation, I wonder if Boeing is doing the proper fixes on the frames they have at the factory...they have a lot of planes on the pipeline.....

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined exactly 2 years ago today! , 276 posts, RR: 43
Reply 52, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 24167 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
I wonder what this ( and some other airline's managers who are making "noise" against the 787 this days ) would do in the "Comet Age" when the design flaws were discovered making forensic analysis to the remains of the aircra
Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
The attitude of some managers at the airline industry is really annoying...

So you're suggesting that airlines should consider themselves lucky and not complain, simply because their aircraft don't crash ?
Boeing presented a spec to the airlines, airlines bought a product and made plans to use it based on this spec
If Boeing did not deliver, then Boeing essentially lied to their customers, and the airlines have a right to complain. But as this happens for just about any new airplane, regardless of the manufacturer's name, I have a hard time understanding all the fuss on this forum.
In addition to normal early issues, I believe most of the aircraft currently delivered have seen some level of non-standard rework. These one-off tasks significantly increase the probablility of someone making a mistake, or forgetting a part. Of course, it's not excusable, but I am confident that once a higher proportion of standard build frames are in service, and once the airline staff is more familiar with the 787, the fleet reliability will come back to normal levels.



Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
The 787 is a whole new desing

So were the A380, the 777, the A320, the 747 and many more before that. There's nothing very exceptional about the 787. Oh, all the aircraft mentioned above had a few issues post-EIS...

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
with a lot of innovation

Irrelevant.
The airlines are not interested in technology, they want payload, range, low trip costs ie fuel efficiency (or speed in the old days), operational reliability, low routine maintenance costs. Technology is merely a mean to achieve those ends.
An aircraft jam-packed with the latest state-of-the-art gizmos, but which doesn't deliver the above listed items, is doomed to fail. See Concorde.
On the other hand, a 50 year old design with a high proportion of vintage tech from the 50s and early 60s can sell by the bucketload if it gets the job done. See the 737

Again, Boeing made promises to the airlines, and then made risky technological and organisational choices to make good on those promises. But those choices are Boeing's responsibility, and that the risks did not pay off is of no concern to the airlines.
Only if the airlines made route planning choices which are clearly incompatible with the 787 specs could they be blamed. But we have no way to obtain that information.

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 46):
I've heard Alan Mulally had a lot to do with how well the 777 entered service

And he also had a lot to do with the main decisions regarding the 787. The man is probably very competent, but the issues faced by both Airbus and Boeing in the 2000s are due to far wider reasons than any one individual.

[Edited 2013-09-26 11:04:29]


One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlineEGPH From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 19715 times:

I think LOT, and indeed any other airline which finds itself out of pocket due to faults by Boeing or any of Boeing's suppliers should sue Boeing if they see fit. It's not fair if they have a product that is not fit for purpose and they are having to spend copious amounts of money leasing aircraft to keep up with their schedules.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 3):
I will expect how the "quiet" strategy of other airlines also affected by the 787 grounding ( like LA to mention one ) pays in their future negotiations with Boeing...

Well... if they have any sense, when they are looking for more B787s... they will pick up an A350 brochure     


User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3038 posts, RR: 9
Reply 54, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 19523 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 3):

I will expect how the "quiet" strategy of other airlines also affected by the 787 grounding ( like LA to mention one ) pays in their future negotiations with Boeing...

Yes, NZ has remained fairly quiet publicly about the massive impact of 789 delays on their short to medium timeframe longhaul strategy, yet their 77W fleet has increased in size no doubt at a very good price to more than just replace the 744 fleet.



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlinepeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 17237 times:

I wonder if their lawyers could argue they should get compensation on the grounds that Boeing didn't actually deliver the whole aircraft, as their were pieces missing.

User currently offlinewroord From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 915 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 16917 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 5):
LO has no long term sustainable strategy in long haul flying except to diaspora cities in North America using a high Density low cost model with proper low costs.

JFK, ORD, YYZ and PEK are hardly diaspora cities. Every major airline flies there. Just that they happen to have a sizable Polish population (except PEK) does not make them a purely diaspora destination.

this time I see Boeing being used as a scapegoat for continued losses and ordering too many aircraft. Yes the Boeing 787 rollout is a disaster, but not anyway as bad as LO's over order of aircraft.

On what basis you keep writing about Lo over order of aircraft. They need 5 for their current and they have plans to expand their network so they bought enough to cover it. You do not start a destination and then look for an aircraft to fly there. You plan ahead and order ahead so when you take delivery you can start flying there.
LO has right to fly to SZX, and they are planning NRT, ICN and PVG, so I do not see any over supply of frames.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 6):
It has been in service for two years now, these problems should not be expected...

Everyone expect a few tweaks with the new aircraft, but 787 seems to have more than average.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 11):
100% true, but on the other hand LO might be jumping on DY wagon to seek compensation. I wonder how all this all pan out...(not that they will make it public BTW)

They are not jumping on any DY wagon, they were first seeking the compensation when Boeing came up with delivery delays. This is an ongoing process. They just got frustrated as QR got some money and so did ANA and JAL and than Boeing said that we are done with compensation talks. You can't treat smaller airlines in a different way just because they did not order 20 planes.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 13):
LOT is seeking compensation since the grounding.

Since the delivery schedule was rescheduled several times.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 4689 posts, RR: 4
Reply 57, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 16213 times:

Quoting EGPH (Reply 53):
It's not fair if they have a product that is not fit for purpose

And here-in lies a lawyer's dream  

Various Consumer Protection and Sales of Goods laws prevent the seller from limiting their liability, even if expressly limited on the face of the contract, if there is a breach of an implied warranty of - among of things - fitness for purpose. The contract cannot seek to exclude these implied warranties.

Of course consumer protection statutes don't govern the relationship between Boeing and LOT, but these principles are fairly well settled in most jurisdictions. Even if there is not specific statutory warranties available to the airline, a crafty lawyer should be able to make out an argument on the basis of implied warranty by common law.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15625 times:

Quoting holzmann (Reply 41):
If the culprit is a new generation of young, lazy, and incompetent employees at Boeing, then either one of two things needs to happen. Either fire them all or empower them with better pay and training. Bring back the "old guard" to show them how it's done. Or perhaps Boeing should send a few teams over to Germany to study how vocational education training (to become airplane builders/mechanics) is done properly.

In my mind it's a change of corporate culture. Executive salaries have risen far more than salaries for the rest of the workforce. They justify this by claiming they are geniuses, which logically means every one else is nowhere near as talented. The lack of respect for technical and scientific prowess is the end result. Workers are just 'resources' who cost too much.


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 605 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15034 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
The 787 is a whole new desing with a lot of innovation and some problems should be expected. The attitude of some managers at the airline industry is really annoying..

If you or me were one of the first few customers to buy a "chevy volt" or a "toyota prius" when they started coming off the assembly line and had to park it because of persistent problems & not meeting the reliability promises i am really wondering if your or me would accept the company dishing out the explanation you just gave...."you should expect problems and expect it to stall anywhere anytime because it has highly innovative cutting edge technology". The first thing we would ask for is money back and probably sue the company. Granted that an airplane is a whole lot more complex than a simple car but the analogy and logic holds true for both...especially for a plane costing 100s of millions of $. Customers, be it a car customer or an airplane customer cares less about technology and wants problem free products that are reliable without burning a hole in their pocket unless of course they are a bunch of teenage techno geeks who go gaga over the latest iphone!!


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 60, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 14738 times:

Quoting wroord (Reply 56):
On what basis you keep writing about Lo over order of aircraft. They need 5 for their current and they have plans to expand their network so they bought enough to cover it. You do not start a destination and then look for an aircraft to fly there. You plan ahead and order ahead so when you take delivery you can start flying there.
LO has right to fly to SZX, and they are planning NRT, ICN and PVG, so I do not see any over supply of frames.

The problem is that the current network isn't profitable. Increasing the size of the long haul fleet by 60% is commercial suicide when your current fleet is heavily loss making for five years in a row.

They have a similar sector length to Wizz, and a cost per pax €105 more. They have a similar sector length to Aer Lingus and a cost per pax €50 more.

Between 2008 and 2011 lots cost per passenger fell slower than their fall in revenue per passenger.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 61, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13891 times:

Another example of LOT yield issue was Hanoi. Load Factor was 90%, yet 75% of LOT's Hanoi pax were sold in Europe excluding Poland.

Even though full it didn't survive and this route was seen as a test of their new model of connecting passengers.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 13351 times:

As far as the fuel filters go, they did a pre-delivery inspection. The fuel filters not being there now should be an internal issue at LOT...not a Boeing issue. I wouldn't even address it if I were Boeing. As far as other issues regarding grounding of 787's, that would deserve compensation IMO.

User currently offlineCrossChecked From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 254 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 12784 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Good God, I wonder what this ( and some other airline's managers who are making "noise" against the 787 this days ) would do in the "Comet Age" when the design flaws were discovered making forensic analysis to the remains of the aircraft....The 787 is a whole new desing with a lot of innovation and some problems should be expected. The attitude of some managers at the airline industry is really annoying...

Imagine YOU had bought a Prius when this technology was first released. The car broke down and was unuseable for some time. Would you go after Toyota for compensation or sit back and let it happen?

Yeah. Thought so.



Cabin crew, doors to manual and cross check.
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11964 times:

Boeing went to market making PROMISES about performance. It gave airlines what is currently a lemon in many peoples eyes. Can you not expect those customers to now not hold Boeing accountable for the failure to deliver a reliable product?

Innovation is no excuse for not delivering on promise. In the end, it either delivers what was promised or it will need to compensate unhappy customers, although it will be interesting to see how those contracts were worded to see what can be gained.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 65, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11671 times:

Quoting CrossChecked (Reply 63):
Imagine YOU had bought a Prius when this technology was first released. The car broke down and was unuseable for some time. Would you go after Toyota for compensation or sit back and let it happen?

Good analogy, wrong example. First of all unlike Boeing, Toyota or its Dealers never going to acknowledge there is a problem with their car. Its always your fault. When people(not too many) were complaining about unintended acceleration for years, Toyota and its dealers could have changed gas pedals as complaints came in. They never did because that acknowledges the problem. Internal documents show Toyota knew about the issue years back. Being very tight lipped doesn't make your products high quality.


User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 66, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11620 times:

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 64):
Innovation is no excuse for not delivering on promise.

Even less if one of the promises was to decrease maintenance cost with the innovation.


User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11629 times:

I just posted in the DY thread that one of Norwegian's 787s has suffered a hydraulic failure in BKK and is currently grounded. It should have flown to BKK and passengers are being booked with other airlines.

I translate an article from the website of the Norwegian state broadcaster.



Next Flights: LHR-LBA (319-SK), MAN-ARN (736-SK), ARN-LHR (763-BA), LHR-CPH (CR9-SK), CPH-LHR (320-SK), LHR-IAH (744-BA)
User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 558 posts, RR: 3
Reply 68, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11587 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 62):
As far as the fuel filters go, they did a pre-delivery inspection. The fuel filters not being there now should be an internal issue at LOT...not a Boeing issue. I wouldn't even address it if I were Boeing. As far as other issues regarding grounding of 787's, that would deserve compensation IMO



Yes they did, but they may have not expected to check for Parts missing which are not supposed to be removed?

So to give you an example:
When you bring your car to inspection and ask to change the brake pads. Then you are asked for a test drive and confirm brake function - so you do, drive around the corner, confirm your brake functionality, everything is ok, so you pay the bill.

Now after 100 miles, your car broke down with an engine failure, because the guys changing the brake pads unfortunately have removed the engine oil, but failed to refill it completely.
So your opinion in this similar to the 787 LOT case is, that as you confirmed the test drive, there is no valid liability case to sue the garage?

Strange opinoin.

Regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11492 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 65):
Toyota or its Dealers never going to acknowledge there is a problem with their car.

Really?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24294019


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 70, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11326 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 69):
Really?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-2...94019

So you are saying issuing a recall for a 2004 model in 2013 is proactive. Regarding recall process, when National Highway Traffic Safety Administration receives complaints about the safety of a particular vehicle, they open an investigation and if necessary force the manufacturer to issue a recall. That doesn't imply it was voluntary on manufacturer's part. American auto manufacturers are more forthcoming to issue a recall than their Japanese counterparts who resist to issue a recall most of the time.

Please do your research, before throwing a zinger.


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11259 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 70):
So you are saying issuing a recall for a 2004 model in 2013 is proactive.

No, I'm simply saying that the fact that they have issued a recall today disproves your statement that they are

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 65):
never going to acknowledge there is a problem with their car

as quite clearly, they have just done exactly this.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 72, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11241 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 71):
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 70):
So you are saying issuing a recall for a 2004 model in 2013 is proactive.

No, I'm simply saying that the fact that they have issued a recall today disproves your statement that they are

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 65):
never going to acknowledge there is a problem with their car

as quite clearly, they have just done exactly this.

When LOT complains about B787, Boeing responds. When a Toyota owner complaints to a Toyota dealer, they ignore.

Issuing a recall after NHSTA gets involved is like Boeing addressing customer complaints only after NTSB gets involved.

Do you see the difference?


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11166 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 72):
Do you see the difference?

I do. But that doesn't make either of your statements true.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 74, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11119 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 73):
I do. But that doesn't make either of your statements true.

There is no way I can prove a off topic issue here. Start a new thread in non-aviation or stop complaining.


User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 75, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10999 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 74):
There is no way I can prove a off topic issue here. Start a new thread in non-aviation or stop complaining.

You started that "off topic issue", by the way...


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10981 times:

Quoting Unflug (Reply 75):
You started that "off topic issue", by the way...

No, I was responding to a Toyota Prius analogy in post 63.


User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 652 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11026 times:

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 55):
I wonder if their lawyers could argue they should get compensation on the grounds that Boeing didn't actually deliver the whole aircraft, as their were pieces missing.

Sure. That would be breach of contract.

IME with the industry, these issues are typically settled by the business people, not the lawyers. We get called in only if there is an impass or, more commonly, to paper the business settlement and to close the open issues resulting from the business settlement that the business people did not address.

Quoting EGPH (Reply 53):
I think LOT, and indeed any other airline which finds itself out of pocket due to faults by Boeing or any of Boeing's suppliers should sue Boeing if they see fit. It's not fair if they have a product that is not fit for purpose and they are having to spend copious amounts of money leasing aircraft to keep up with their schedules.
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 57):
And here-in lies a lawyer's dream

Various Consumer Protection and Sales of Goods laws prevent the seller from limiting their liability, even if expressly limited on the face of the contract, if there is a breach of an implied warranty of - among of things - fitness for purpose. The contract cannot seek to exclude these implied warranties.

Of course consumer protection statutes don't govern the relationship between Boeing and LOT, but these principles are fairly well settled in most jurisdictions. Even if there is not specific statutory warranties available to the airline, a crafty lawyer should be able to make out an argument on the basis of implied warranty by common law.

You're quite right that consumer protection laws typically do not apply to commercial transactions between two sophisticated parties.

Every jet enigne contract I wrote included an express waiver of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. I strongly suspect the same is true for aircraft contracts.


User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 10915 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 76):
No, I was responding to a Toyota Prius analogy in post 63.

That analogy was not off topic, it was used to explain an on topic opinion. I rather think it gets off topic with this claim:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 65):
First of all unlike Boeing, Toyota or its Dealers never going to acknowledge there is a problem with their car.

But never mind, better let this side-discussion end.


User currently offlinedelta777jet From Germany, joined Jun 2000, 1198 posts, RR: 3
Reply 79, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10861 times:

LOT can complain as much as they want, if their agreement says that compensation is due they will probably get it. If not, that's their bad luck. I also think that Boeing could not care less about LOT since last they only ordered from Embraer and future orders can also not be expected so why to offer anything on goodwill basis ? With big luck and if LOT takes Boeing to court, LOT would may be not financially survive the court process.


Fly easyJet
User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 80, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10371 times:

Quoting delta777jet (Reply 79):
LOT can complain as much as they want, if their agreement says that compensation is due they will probably get it. If not, that's their bad luck.

Not necessarily. If the product is far off the mark they may be in a legal position to return it and get the money back. If that is the case Boeing will have to negotiate, no matter what's written in the contracts about limited compensation.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10255 times:

Quoting Unflug (Reply 80):
Not necessarily. If the product is far off the mark they may be in a legal position to return it and get the money back. If that is the case Boeing will have to negotiate, no matter what's written in the contracts about limited compensation.

Is there any precedence to this argument? Only hypothetical scenario I can only think of a is when most CAAs revoke airworthiness certificate.


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 605 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10246 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Seattletimes has a detailed article on this story - http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...gy/2021897491_787norwegianxml.html

User currently offlinewroord From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 915 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 9883 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 62):
As far as the fuel filters go, they did a pre-delivery inspection. The fuel filters not being there now should be an internal issue at LOT...not a Boeing issue

The airline usually does not touch the engine, especially on a new just delivered frame.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 60):
The problem is that the current network isn't profitable. Increasing the size of the long haul fleet by 60% is commercial suicide when your current fleet is heavily loss making for five years in a row.

Part of the problem was outdated fleet of long distance fleet. They were trying to have advantage over other airlines by being first in Europe to fly them. Due to the grounding of 787 that went down the toilet as during the grounding other airlines took deliveries.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 84, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9853 times:

Quoting delta777jet (Reply 79):

The ramifications go beyond LOT. Boeing wants to be selling these things for 20+ years. If it looks like they are dumping problems on customers, (especially when the product is worth over a 100 million bucks), it will definitely hurt sales efforts.

Boeing dropped a lot of balls on the 787 project and they will have to do a lot more good will before the negative effects on the custmers from having to wait 3+ years for planes, on which they based significant fleet decisions, and the bad taste that brought, go away.

The delays have been so profound, they've been given a name; "The 787 Effect", which most pundits and not a few airlines are saying has contributed to the slow intitial sales of the CSeries.

Some of the first 787s are still being worked on...years after they left the factory floor. Frankly, I'm surprised more customers aren't voicing their displeasure...not with the plane, but with the company.

I suspect Boeing has decided to suck it up and be pretty generous with compensation to sooth those first customers...especially this last screwup. Not putting filters on engines...? That's pretty lame and doesn't help them get their reputation back one bit.

My guess is we'll be hearing stories like this, (hopefully less frequently as time goes on), for the next year as bugs continue to get smashed...and frankly, I find it very hard to blame the customers for being less than happy.



What the...?
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 85, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9818 times:

Quoting wroord (Reply 83):
Part of the problem was outdated fleet of long distance fleet. They were trying to have advantage over other airlines by being first in Europe to fly them. Due to the grounding of 787 that went down the toilet as during the grounding other airlines took deliveries.

The 767 isn't outdated - many other airlines continue to make money with what is a reliable workhorse of the sky.

Poland doesn't have the traffic base for Asia. To fill the aircraft, LOT will have to fill the aircraft with bottom of the barrel yield from tour groups as LOT has zero name recognition in Asia, and an unfairly negative perception in Europe.

LOT doesn't have the cost base to make this work.

And this is exactly where I started in this thread. Boeing is being blamed as a cover for a much bigger issue - a structural issue in the airline that allowed for a 60% increase in longhaul fleet size to fly to routes that are notoriously difficult to make money on for a mega carrier. For LOT, the lack of quality feed and rock bottom home yields alongside the structurally high cost base for a low salary economy just doubles the issue.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 4689 posts, RR: 4
Reply 86, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9788 times:

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 77):
Every jet enigne contract I wrote included an express waiver of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. I strongly suspect the same is true for aircraft contracts

But that doesn't mean that the validity of the term couldn't be challenged. Whether they would be successful or not I cannot say, but it is an interesting question.

Of course the difference between consumer contracts is that the law recognises that you and me aren't going to read through 48 pages of fine print before checking the box saying we read the terms and conditions, whereas the airlines have an army of lawyers working for them before they sign on the dotted line. Therefore maybe this is just good ol' L'Estrange v Grauchob and caveat emptor.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineangmoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9606 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 70):
American auto manufacturers are more forthcoming to issue a recall than their Japanese counterparts who resist to issue a recall most of the time.

This is totally and utterly incorrect. I have worked for an american supplier and we (I was part of the design team) supplied a component which could cause a fire in the exhaust system of the car. The Japanese customer wanted a recall and our US head office insisted that the problem should be fixed the best way possible but no matter what it could not be through a recall. The customer won and a recall was issued. In Japan, issuing a recall is a sign of customer service and car buyers see it as customer service, so a recall does not have the negative connotation it has as in other countries.

For the same reason I don't think ANA or JAL will make noise in public about any issues on the 787 as long at Boeing is working closely with both to resolve them and progress (even if it is slow) is being made.
For DY it is different because first DY is hit very hard in the local press by dissatisfied customers and they need to be seen to "do something" and make noise to Boeing. Scandinavians are very good at complaining...
For LOT, they are broke and any additional income will help.


User currently offlineIPFreely From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9556 times:

Quoting delta777jet (Reply 79):
LOT can complain as much as they want, if their agreement says that compensation is due they will probably get it. If not, that's their bad luck. I also think that Boeing could not care less about LOT since last they only ordered from Embraer and future orders can also not be expected so why to offer anything on goodwill basis ? With big luck and if LOT takes Boeing to court, LOT would may be not financially survive the court process.

Boeing would be very short sighted if they follow your advice. Which is why it won't happen.

If Boeing produces a product that does not meet promises made it is their responsibility. Regardless of the fine print of any agreement. Even if they do not care about any future sales to LOT, they do care about future sales to other airlines. And if Boeing refuses to stand behind their product for one airline, any and all other airlines will take notice and Boeing's reputation will suffer big time.


User currently offlineThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 791 posts, RR: 8
Reply 89, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9111 times:

Quoting delta777jet (Reply 79):
LOT can complain as much as they want, if their agreement says that compensation is due they will probably get it. If not, that's their bad luck. I also think that Boeing could not care less about LOT since last they only ordered from Embraer and future orders can also not be expected so why to offer anything on goodwill basis ? With big luck and if LOT takes Boeing to court, LOT would may be not financially survive the court process.

That is uniformed rubbish. Are you seriously saying that Boeing couldn't give a damn about a customer operating it's flagship aircraft with orders for 3 more just because they ordered some Embraer's to renew its shorthaul fleet? This isn't high school. Boeing maintains relationships with all operators of it's aircraft regardless of whether deliveries are pending or orders are in the pipeline. Why would any rational corporation want to disillusion and isolate customers who will potentially send business their way in the future no less, a customer with orders still to fill? That's like BA telling me to get stuffed because I've got no future bookings with them and I've just booked a flight with Virgin.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 85):
And this is exactly where I started in this thread. Boeing is being blamed as a cover for a much bigger issue - a structural issue in the airline that allowed for a 60% increase in longhaul fleet size to fly to routes that are notoriously difficult to make money on for a mega carrier. For LOT, the lack of quality feed and rock bottom home yields alongside the structurally high cost base for a low salary economy just doubles the issue.

I truly think you are reading way to much into this. LOT has stated it will seek compensation since day 1 of the grounding. Boeing hasn't stepped up to the mark yet so LOT are rightly making more noise on this issue. When in comes to Polish aviation, you seem to overlook the booming financial centre of Warsaw, a stock exchange that accounts for more then half of CEEs listings and of course, a country who's growth has remained positive throughout the GFC. Warsaw and Poland as a whole are attracting a larger corporate market and as such the business traveller. Regardless of whether LOT has significant brand recognition in Asia, the potential is there to reach out and take advantage of this growth and garner feed from other Star Alliance and partner airlines. You also overlook that the remaining 787s are not even in production yet so no expansion is imminent and as such, restructuring will hopefully be yielding positive results by any such time. LOT is currently undergoing significant change for the better and building a solid platform for its new products. It would be foolish not to plan for the future.

The 767 may still be profitable, but those margins are dwindling. Why do you think BA, QF, AA et al are all in the process of retiring aircraft / phasing out the fleet as a whole? Come to think of it, a vast number of operators are upgrading their fleets in the form of 767 -> 787. At the end of the day the 787 is a replacement for the 767. When you look at carriers such as ANA, you have to remember a number of theirs are near new, low cycle frames and subsequently require less maintenance compared to 16 year+ frames. Even ANA however are replacing its older 767s with 787s.

ThomasCook



A380 Crew
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 90, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9020 times:

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 77):
Every jet enigne contract I wrote included an express waiver of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. I strongly suspect the same is true for aircraft contracts.

In a lot of countries it does not matter if you write a waiver for implied warranties into the contract, the implied warranties apply, you can not waive them.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8992 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 90):
In a lot of countries it does not matter if you write a waiver for implied warranties into the contract, the implied warranties apply, you can not waive them.

Probably true but not applicable here. Customer has to file a lawsuit in US, most likely in Cook County, Illinois (I am guessing based on Boeing HQ). Agreements have jurisdiction restrictions.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8941 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 91):
Probably true but not applicable here. Customer has to file a lawsuit in US, most likely in Cook County, Illinois (I am guessing based on Boeing HQ). Agreements have jurisdiction restrictions.

I do not want to go in a long discussion of laws, but when you export often the rules of the importing countries apply, all the same what you write into the contract and what the rule of the exporting countries are and that includes were you file the claim.
I only want to mention that things are not as black and white as you look at them.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12878 posts, RR: 12
Reply 93, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8874 times:

I suspect that the sales and service contracts between the airline makers and airlines - both based in the USA and elsewhere - have strong financial liability limits and mandatory arbitration or mediation clauses to keep compensation disputes out of court. That means private negotiations between the parties, but in the end, Boeing and with possible sharing with component makers, have to pay reasonable compensation for selling of a product with serious problems that limit its intended and expected use.

User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8775 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 91):
Probably true

No probably about it. There are very many countries where it is not possible to waive legal rights, or for contract terms to alter the application of legal rights.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 91):
but not applicable here

How exactly do you know this? Have you seen any of the contracts between DY and Boeing?

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 91):
Customer has to file a lawsuit in US

Again, how can you possibly know this without having seen all of the contracts?

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 91):
most likely in Cook County, Illinois (I am guessing based on Boeing HQ)

Actually most unlikely, in my experience. And I have seen many, and been involved in the negotiation of some, of these sorts of contract. While all of the manufacturers have preferred legal jurisdictions, contracts can be written to be construed according to just about any legal jurisdiction if that makes the difference between closing the sale or losing it to the competition. In those contracts I've been privy to, the most common locations for potential litigation have been New York or London (English law).

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 91):
Agreements have jurisdiction restrictions.

Or, more accurately, a contract will specify under which legal jurisdiction's laws it is to be construed.


User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 652 posts, RR: 1
Reply 95, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8280 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 86):
But that doesn't mean that the validity of the term couldn't be challenged. Whether they would be successful or not I cannot say, but it is an interesting question.

Of course the difference between consumer contracts is that the law recognises that you and me aren't going to read through 48 pages of fine print before checking the box saying we read the terms and conditions, whereas the airlines have an army of lawyers working for them before they sign on the dotted line. Therefore maybe this is just good ol' L'Estrange v Grauchob and caveat emptor.

They could, but, in my (quasi) educated opinion, they would likely be unsuccessful, largely because of the army of lawyers you mention will work against the party who tries to argue against a contract term. That said, in my experience, there is rarely more than one lawyer on each side working the contract. Rarely is outside counsel involved.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 90):
In a lot of countries it does not matter if you write a waiver for implied warranties into the contract, the implied warranties apply, you can not waive them.

True, but I suspect Boeing is not going to sign a contract with a governing law of one of those countries. We'd not agree to continental law -- if not the law of a U.S. state (preferably NY), we'd agree to the law of England, making sure to waive to Unfair Contract Terms Act.

Also need to waive the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 91):
Probably true but not applicable here. Customer has to file a lawsuit in US, most likely in Cook County, Illinois (I am guessing based on Boeing HQ). Agreements have jurisdiction restrictions.

They probably use IL law as their starting position, but I suspect they are willing to compromise to other common law jursdictions. You don't want to sign a contract under continental law (especially French law -- very buyer friendly).

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 92):
I do not want to go in a long discussion of laws, but when you export often the rules of the importing countries apply, all the same what you write into the contract and what the rule of the exporting countries are and that includes were you file the claim.
I only want to mention that things are not as black and white as you look at them.

Typically the seller is not exporting the material. Delivery terms are usually ex works the seller's facility (INCOTERMS 2010). That's why you see the airline fly the aircraft away from Boeing's facility.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 93):
I suspect that the sales and service contracts between the airline makers and airlines - both based in the USA and elsewhere - have strong financial liability limits and mandatory arbitration or mediation clauses to keep compensation disputes out of court. That means private negotiations between the parties, but in the end, Boeing and with possible sharing with component makers, have to pay reasonable compensation for selling of a product with serious problems that limit its intended and expected use.

When I was writing engine contracts, I wanted the contract to have very limited rights of recovery for the airline, because I wanted my business people to be to come in and offer more generous compensation than called for in the contract. Makes for good will and allows the business people to be the heros.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 94):
Actually most unlikely, in my experience. And I have seen many, and been involved in the negotiation of some, of these sorts of contract. While all of the manufacturers have preferred legal jurisdictions, contracts can be written to be construed according to just about any legal jurisdiction if that makes the difference between closing the sale or losing it to the competition. In those contracts I've been privy to, the most common locations for potential litigation have been New York or London (English law).

Agreed. You have standard fallbacks. Not only do you set the governing law, but also the dispute resolution procedure. Often arbitration, but not always.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 96, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8185 times:

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 95):
Typically the seller is not exporting the material. Delivery terms are usually ex works the seller's facility (INCOTERMS 2010). That's why you see the airline fly the aircraft away from Boeing's facility.

But Boeing for example is still the OEM and could be still liable according to certain rules in the importing country.
It does not always matter who does the importing or exporting but who manufactured the stuff.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 97, posted (6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8016 times:

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 95):
They probably use IL law as their starting position, but I suspect they are willing to compromise to other common law jursdictions. You don't want to sign a contract under continental law (especially French law -- very buyer friendly).

Thanks for clarifying. Most international contracts I was involved had one (in rare cases two) agreed upon jurisdictions. For some reason few here think Boeing can be used anywhere in the world.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 98, posted (6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7988 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 97):
Thanks for clarifying. Most international contracts I was involved had one (in rare cases two) agreed upon jurisdictions. For some reason few here think Boeing can be used anywhere in the world

.

Usually the dominant partner in the relationship has a say as to where the legal home of the contract Each side prefers home advantage.

A contract can only have one legal jurisdiction.

Sometimes there is a clause within a contract that allows for arbitration in a neutral arbitration court. In Asia, that is usually Hong Kong or Singapore. This is really important in markets where the judiciary is often biased towards home team (China), or where they are less squeaky clean (India and Russia)



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12878 posts, RR: 12
Reply 99, posted (6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7872 times:

For USA based contracts, it will usually be the Federal District courts in NY City or (Southern and Eastern Districts), Delaware or State Courts, especially those for NY City - NY County (Manhattan) due to their strong experience, deep precedence of court decisions on contract law and pro-corporate courts. Some companies may put them in the home state they are based in like for Microsoft in Washington State. Some international deals will be done under UK Law or that of their crown territories or commonwealth countries like Bermuda, Bahamas, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, as their laws are based on well established UK law.

User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 100, posted (6 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6715 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 98):
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 99):

Thank you both for your insights. My experience is with IT industry and ability to sue anywhere in the world for any amount is unheard of, at least I haven't seen many contract. I was surprised to see such statements and want to clarify.


User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 652 posts, RR: 1
Reply 101, posted (6 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6688 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 96):
But Boeing for example is still the OEM and could be still liable according to certain rules in the importing country.
It does not always matter who does the importing or exporting but who manufactured the stuff.

In a commercial transaction, the parties are free to set the governing law and dispute resolution procedures as they see fit.

The only possible exception I could see is if the customer is state owned and that country treats the supply of aircraft to its state owned carrier as a public procurement. They may insist on their law being the governing law and the OEM can decide if they want to contract under those terms. I have experience with public procurements and they are much more onerous than commercial transactions and many OEMs opt not to participate. Boeing, for example, will not enter into a direct contract with Turkey for the sale of military hardware because SSM, the Turkish procurement agency, is miserable to deal with (they'll seel through thr FMS channel only).


User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 652 posts, RR: 1
Reply 102, posted (6 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6852 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 99):
For USA based contracts, it will usually be the Federal District courts in NY City or (Southern and Eastern Districts), Delaware or State Courts, especially those for NY City - NY County (Manhattan) due to their strong experience, deep precedence of court decisions on contract law and pro-corporate courts. Some companies may put them in the home state they are based in like for Microsoft in Washington State. Some international deals will be done under UK Law or that of their crown territories or commonwealth countries like Bermuda, Bahamas, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, as their laws are based on well established UK law.

You wouldn't want to contract using UK Law, as that would include Scottish law, which is more like a continental law system (France, Germany, etc.) than a common law system. We typically use the "Law of England and Wales" to avoid having Scottish law be implimented.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 103, posted (6 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6638 times:

You are still in black and white, like international law would be simple.

Lets say the contract brakes the rules of a country the goods are exported to, lets say the rules include a warranty you can not waive in that country. You use in the contract a set of laws, lets say English and the place of arbitration is London.

The customer sues the OEM in the country the goods are exported to. The lawyers of the OEM wave the contract, claiming the lawsuit is brought in the wrong place.
The court rules that the contract does not apply because the clause waving the warranty is illegal in that country.
Bingo the OEM is in trouble, all the same what the contract says.

Happened to me.

[Edited 2013-09-29 08:28:50]

User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (6 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6557 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 103):
You are still in black and white, like international law would be simple.

I agree that international law is not simple but I think you're getting a bit mixed up between commercial law and consumer protection law.

The sort of laws you seem to be describing are laws designed to protect consumers in relatively low value transactions, usually where the transaction involves a non-negotiable contract.

Commercial law on the other hand, especially where a contract has been negotiated, rather than imposed by the vendor, have fewer statutory protections. In these cases, the law treats the parties to the contract as sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to look after their own interests and to not have entered into the contract without taking legal advice.

You are also mistaken in your assertion that the aircraft have been 'exported'. Apart from light aircraft, which would probably count as consumer products, almost all commercial aircraft are not delivered to the customer - they are collected from the manufacturer. There are a number of reasons for this, one of which is to simplify matters legally - for example, to avoid extra-contractual legal jurisdictions coming into play.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 105, posted (6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6335 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 104):
I agree that international law is not simple but I think you're getting a bit mixed up between commercial law and consumer protection law.

I do not get mixed up!!!!!!!!

I am talking about industrial equipment. I do not produce consumer equipment.
Some countries, the USA included, do not like contracts made to get around there internal rules.
Some rules you can not waive, all the same how well you chose your set of laws and place of arbitration.

My experience leads me to a simple rule, never forget to take the rules of the country the stuff is exported to in account.
You can try to formulate a contract around them, but do not be sure that it holds.

It it does not matter who exports the aircraft. When an Airplane is build in one country and registered in the next country it is exported.

[Edited 2013-09-29 10:05:44]

[Edited 2013-09-29 10:19:12]

User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6278 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 105):
Some rules you can not waive

We're not talking here about waiving rules, we're talking about what laws end up applying to a particular aircraft sale.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 105):
My experience leads me to a simple rule, never forget to take the rules of the country the stuff is exported in account.

And you'd be quite right to do that if you are exporting goods to a country in order to deliver them to a customer.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 105):
It it does not matter a shit who exports the aircraft. When an Airplane is build in one country and registered in the next country it is exported.

I'd advise you to edit that first sentence otherwise your post will probably be deleted.
I'm not sure that 'exported' is quite the right description but let's not get bogged down with semantics. The important point regarding what laws apply to the contract is the contract itself, and where the customer takes delivery of the aircraft (which is usually at the manufacturers location). If the customer, post delivery, chooses to take the aircraft to a different county then that is entirely up to the customer. It does not, however, bring any more laws into play on the sale/contract.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 107, posted (6 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6153 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 106):
uoting mjoelnir (Reply 105):
Some rules you can not waive

We're not talking here about waiving rules, we're talking about what laws end up applying to a particular aircraft sale.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 105):
My experience leads me to a simple rule, never forget to take the rules of the country the stuff is exported in account.

And you'd be quite right to do that if you are exporting goods to a country in order to deliver them to a customer.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 105):
It it does not matter a shit who exports the aircraft. When an Airplane is build in one country and registered in the next country it is exported.

I'd advise you to edit that first sentence otherwise your post will probably be deleted.
I'm not sure that 'exported' is quite the right description but let's not get bogged down with semantics. The important point regarding what laws apply to the contract is the contract itself, and where the customer takes delivery of the aircraft (which is usually at the manufacturers location). If the customer, post delivery, chooses to take the aircraft to a different county then that is entirely up to the customer. It does not, however, bring any more laws into play on the sale/contract.

If you fly an USA produced airplane on a USA registration to another country than it is not an export, but when you register an USA made aircraft in another country it is exported from the USA and imported in the country of registry.
It does not matter if the air framer exports it or the lessor or the airline using the airplane.

What do you think export means? And lets talk about semantics, because semantics are important.

I produce equipment, I sell it, even if it is moved second hand to the USA (imported there) and it is stated in the first contract of sales to the original owner that this equipment is not for sale or use in the USA, I can be made responsible for it on USA soil as the OEM. And trust me I carry heavy insurance for such occurrence.

I import equipment into Iceland, I always have to laugh when the OEM makes a big process about limiting his liability, it will not interest an Icelandic court where the contract states you should arbitrate the contract, the end user (industrial) will get his warranty according to Icelandic rules. The court will not be interested who imported the equipment.
There are things you can not waive even in the best made contracts.

The best way is not to need to go to court, it costs a lot of money and can give surprising results.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 108, posted (6 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5974 times:

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 102):
You wouldn't want to contract using UK Law, as that would include Scottish law, which is more like a continental law system (France, Germany, etc.) than a common law system.

Always (at least) two sides to the story. Sounds as the buyer would like continental law.


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 109, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5862 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 106):
I'm not sure that 'exported' is quite the right description but let's not get bogged down with semantics. The important point regarding what laws apply to the contract is the contract itself, and where the customer takes delivery of the aircraft (which is usually at the manufacturers location). If the customer, post delivery, chooses to take the aircraft to a different county then that is entirely up to the customer. It does not, however, bring any more laws into play on the sale/contract.

Can the Certification entities be a target for compensation ?? I'm asking because (I guess) the airlines put some degree of their trust in a new airframe because is ( tested and ) certified by regulators of the industry who are, supposedly, the best experts in the area and should discover all the design flaws before EIS. I work in the certification industry and we have very clear disclaimers for the legal issues involving the limitations of our responsabilities if something goes wrong after the equipment is delivered. Thanks in advance for your inputs !!


Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 652 posts, RR: 1
Reply 110, posted (6 months 3 weeks ago) and read 5435 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 107):
I import equipment into Iceland, I always have to laugh when the OEM makes a big process about limiting his liability, it will not interest an Icelandic court where the contract states you should arbitrate the contract, the end user (industrial) will get his warranty according to Icelandic rules. The court will not be interested who imported the equipment.
There are things you can not waive even in the best made contracts.

Iceland may well take that stance, but is that judgment going to be enforceable outside of Iceland?

A judgment is only as good as the winning party's ability to enforce it. If the OEM has no assets in Iceland for the winning party to attach, then that party is going to have to come to a jurisdiction which has personal jurisdiction over the OEM to enforce the judgment. While there is a treaty concerning the enforceability of judgments across borders, the party against whom the judgment is being enforced will get to argue the contractual choice of law/forum in that proceeding.


User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 652 posts, RR: 1
Reply 111, posted (6 months 3 weeks ago) and read 5403 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 108):
Always (at least) two sides to the story. Sounds as the buyer would like continental law.

In my experience, airlines did not push to have continental law govern the contract. If an airline insisted on it, we would probably have walked away from the deal.

I'd be interested in knowing what governing law Airbus uses as its standard in contracts.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 112, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4873 times:

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 111):
If an airline insisted on it, we would probably have walked away from the deal.

Why? What in continental law is so dangerous to you that you rather walk away? You have me intrigued as there is no shortage of companies operating successfully under it.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 113, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4716 times:

What happened to the 787 that diverted to KEF last night? Still there, or back in WAW?


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 372 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4693 times:

Think its about an air pressure indication.

User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 115, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4223 times:

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 110):
Iceland may well take that stance, but is that judgment going to be enforceable outside of Iceland?

In my case it was a USA court that told me that regarding the case it did not matter what was written in my contract with the first buyer of the equipment, and were that arbitration should take place. I was the OEM and that was that.
To elaborate, the equipment was according to the contract not for resale to the USA, that was because of different safety standards. My insurance paid in the end.

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 110):
A judgment is only as good as the winning party's ability to enforce it. If the OEM has no assets in Iceland for the winning party to attach, then that party is going to have to come to a jurisdiction which has personal jurisdiction over the OEM to enforce the judgment. While there is a treaty concerning the enforceability of judgments across borders, the party against whom the judgment is being enforced will get to argue the contractual choice of law/forum in that proceeding.

You would not need assets in Iceland, try somewhere in the EEA

That will be my last comment regarding that.

[Edited 2013-09-30 10:33:48]

User currently offlinekonrad From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3746 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 113):
What happened to the 787 that diverted to KEF last night? Still there, or back in WAW?
Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 114):
Think its about an air pressure indication.

It was a transponder issue. The passengers were picked by a 734 and E95 sent from Warsaw.

The issue must have been promptly fixed as the 788 is question (SP-LRA) flew to Warsaw yesterday morning as a ferry flight. It went out to JFK yesterday evening and is now en-route back to WAW as LO27.

As a general comment to this thread: I find it significant, that the two airlines that are protesting most about the problems with Dreamliners entry into the service are those who had most ambitious plans based on this aircraft.

In case of Norwegian it was the starting of long-haul flights AND introducing a new untested type into the fleet at the same time. In case of LOT it was switching over to 787 in about two months and returning all 767, thus running all its long-haul operations on this untested type without any backup or any other long-haul aircraft left in the fleet. The plans for the summer called for 33 return flights to US/Canada with only 5 aircraft, just 2 days per week per whole fleet of downtime for maintenance and fixing the bugs. It was a lunatics plan.


User currently offlineThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 791 posts, RR: 8
Reply 117, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Quoting konrad (Reply 116):
In case of LOT it was switching over to 787 in about two months and returning all 767, thus running all its long-haul operations on this untested type without any backup or any other long-haul aircraft left in the fleet. The plans for the summer called for 33 return flights to US/Canada with only 5 aircraft, just 2 days per week per whole fleet of downtime for maintenance and fixing the bugs. It was a lunatics plan.

You seem to be misinformed regarding LOTs 787 EIS. Their first 787 was delivered in November and commenced a 'Dream Tour' on the 14th December for 1 month joined by SP-LRB half way through. Long haul operations started in January to Chicago initially with the grounding of the 787 taking place the same day - roughly half way through this first ORD sector. SP-LRC was subsequently delivered in May and JFK services commenced on June 1st after the grounding of the type was lifted. Throughout the time when the 787 has been permitted to fly, LOT have done a vast amount of training flights, including the Dream Tour, for crew familiarisation and promotion. LOT did/still does training flights like WAW-GDN/POZ/KRK et al including touch and go's, holds etc.

You may be interest to know that LOTs latest 787 was only delivered in August and their last 767 left the fleet 7 days ago; on the 24th September positioning to SNN.

I don't see this as a 'lunatics plan', I see it is a steady transition.

ThomasCook



A380 Crew
User currently offlineRussianJet From Kyrgyzstan, joined Jul 2007, 7623 posts, RR: 23
Reply 118, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3251 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's truly bizarre to suggest that simply because the product is new and contains many novel technologies, the airlines shouldn't complain about it not working as it should. It's sold to fulfil a purpose, and sold at a huge price. If it fails to deliver, they have every right to kick up a fuss.

If I bought a new complicated piece of equipment and it didn't work as advertised, or had parts missing or whatever, there's no way in hell I'd accept an excuse along the lines of "oh well it's a new product so you can expect it not to work".

Everything should have been ironed-out in development and testing, prior to delivery.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 119, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3147 times:

Konrad, that's how a long haul airline works and is not lunacy. If their twenty year old 767s can operate such a schedule, so should their 787s. Winter is used for aircraft maintenance, summer is used for making money. All mid sized airlines do the same. Aer Lingus has and always had a similar type schedule using the A330. Just look at the utilisation levels of the A330 and 747 - proof aircraft aren't parked.

It's just that the 787 operation is especially tech prone - in my twenty years in and around the aviation business, I've never seen such a delay ridden fleet introduction. 95% dispatch rate at the especially created for the 787 two hour tolerance is a far different beast to even the disastrous A346 96% dispatch rate at a 15 minute tolerance.

The 787 will iron out its issues, but until then, airlines will moan and groan. It wil prove itself to be a great aircraft.

Most airlines globally don't have the pleasure of the rasks of BA or ANA that allows for a spare aircraft due to fleet size. Most long haul airlines don't have any long haul fleet parked for hot spares. Not even ANA can afford five 787s I wager.

We all eagerly await proper dispatch figures for the 787 - proper 15 minute tolerance ones. Randy must be eating
Crow over complaining about the 99.3% A320 stats!



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineLO231 From Belgium, joined Sep 2004, 2392 posts, RR: 23
Reply 120, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 30):

Polish news reported a loss of around 100 million PLN which is nothing near millions of dollars, but dont forget LO waited years after first planned delivery date, leasing ridiculous 763s from the likes of Varig, SP-LPE, which I once flew on.... EWR-WAW flight, 8 hours delay, C class, not allowed into then VS operated Lounge at EWR, they closed it at 9pm after their flight left and we got silly compensation of a Meal voucher, while Y class pax could enjoy McD to say the most....

But flew with Cpt. Wrona, who was later flying the faulty 763 with no wheels... So my day was made...

And SP-LPE showing us flying from RIO de Janeiro all the way to Warsaw on the screens, didnt help either...



Got both LO 788 frames already, next LO E95 and 734 BRU-WAW-BRU
User currently offlinedelta777jet From Germany, joined Jun 2000, 1198 posts, RR: 3
Reply 121, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2652 times:

Quoting ThomasCook (Reply 89):
When in comes to Polish aviation, you seem to overlook the booming financial centre of Warsaw, a stock exchange that accounts for more then half of CEEs listings and of course, a country who's growth has remained positive throughout the GFC. Warsaw and Poland as a whole are attracting a larger corporate market and as such the business traveller. Regardless of whether LOT has significant brand recognition in Asia, the potential is there to reach out and take advantage of this growth and garner feed from other Star Alliance and partner airlines. You also overlook that the remaining 787s are not even in production yet so no expansion is imminent and as such, restructuring will hopefully be yielding positive results by any such time. LOT is currently undergoing significant change for the better and building a solid platform for its new products. It would be foolish not to plan for the future.

Thomas Cook I wonder if you work for LOT ? In general about performance of country you are right Warsaw and Poland were economically growing the last years, but LOT even lost more money during that period. Even in rich countries like Switzerland airlines can go bankrupt, so this has nothing to say. LOT never made money in all these years and to axe good routes and also inflight service is not a good way towards competing with full service airlines and low cost airlines if your prices are high and your product is rubbish. By the way, now the outlook is not so entirely positive about Poland anymore also the stock exchange is at risk to loose foreign investors like happened in other developing regions. I wonder what kind of feed your are talking about ? You probably mean the feed from LOT to LH ? Probably you also heard the axing of good routes to Germany and even Switzerland which LOT will cancel to play only to LH Group hands ? How that will generate more feed for longhauls is a mystery for me. But probably you have some insights to something which nobody else has. As we speak LOT is asking for more money from the tax payers for bailout as they performed better than expected and are on the plan. Better than expected means in LOT language that they lost less than anticipated.



Fly easyJet
User currently offlineLO231 From Belgium, joined Sep 2004, 2392 posts, RR: 23
Reply 122, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2643 times:

delta777jet, you are right... LO is losing customers, like me, to the likes of LH and KL... Axing profitabele routes to get help from the government is the most ridiculous idea... Last I was in Warsaw, during my stay there they changed their luggage policy, so on outbound two bags of 14 kg, inbond when checking in with the same bags but 19 kg I hear I have to take one onboard, because now its one piece up to 23kg, nothing more, resulting me with a handlagguga trolley of 12kg, fluids in the likes of deo etc throwing away and 12 kg bag sitting above my head waiting to kill me during turbulence instead of being in a hold like on the outbound...

Something's wrong...



Got both LO 788 frames already, next LO E95 and 734 BRU-WAW-BRU
User currently offlinewroord From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 915 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2273 times:

Quoting konrad (Reply 116):
In case of LOT it was switching over to 787 in about two months and returning all 767, thus running all its long-haul operations on this untested type without any backup or any other long-haul aircraft left in the fleet.

I agree that LO should have gotten a lease for a newer 767 or A330 knowing 787 deliveries will be delayed. Using the outdated 767s for extra 5 years tarnished their reputation even further with frequent delays, cancelation and substandard product. Trying to change the image based on the completely new frame was a bit of wishful thinking especially that the management must have heard about launching pains for A380.


User currently offlineLO231 From Belgium, joined Sep 2004, 2392 posts, RR: 23
Reply 124, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2130 times:

Quoting wroord (Reply 123):

But LOT and Polish government are in love with Boeing with longhaul frames..., embraers were just a small deal, while 787 and F16's were to guarantee dismissal of visas to the Us.... Canada did it, and they have DH4 flying domestically.... Just sayin'



Got both LO 788 frames already, next LO E95 and 734 BRU-WAW-BRU
User currently offlineLO231 From Belgium, joined Sep 2004, 2392 posts, RR: 23
Reply 125, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2071 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 84):

You are so right...

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 85):

BestWestern, been to Warsaw lately? I visit every 4 months or so... Every corner in Warsaw has a Vietnamese or Chinese restaurant nowadays,,,, cheap, delicious, Poles dont seem to cook anymore! Asia has a great potential! Watch QR and EK invading WAW, or watch flight radar...



Got both LO 788 frames already, next LO E95 and 734 BRU-WAW-BRU
User currently offlineLO231 From Belgium, joined Sep 2004, 2392 posts, RR: 23
Reply 126, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2056 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 85):

767 not outdated? Maybe the likes of Delta with sharklets or whatever you call them. Flew with cpt. Wrona EWR-WAW on SP-LPE , ex Varig in STar Alliance colours back then, showing inflight map from GIG to WAW... In C class, old seat, two small meals, FA was apologizing.....

They d d good with 787, I just hope it will work..... And give me EWR back, LOT!



Got both LO 788 frames already, next LO E95 and 734 BRU-WAW-BRU
User currently offlineLO231 From Belgium, joined Sep 2004, 2392 posts, RR: 23
Reply 127, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2055 times:

Quoting wroord (Reply 123):

wroord,

787 will work but I'm a believer that they should get some compensation from Everett... Flew on -LRA and-LRB in January on BRU promotional flights... Crews were exstatic with their new product.... I went to the aft galley, they were proud to show off the trash bin, flattening the trash so they didnt have to close the lavaory on longhaul like on 763...

I swear, FAs are the most enthousiast LO people in the skies.... And no grandmas allowed on 787... Only young cheerful folk.... I wish you were all there.... I. Think I had 3 wines on a 2 hour flight.... And got a 787 model on arrival...
Chec. You tube with piotrkrusz....



Got both LO 788 frames already, next LO E95 and 734 BRU-WAW-BRU
User currently offlineThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 791 posts, RR: 8
Reply 128, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

Quoting delta777jet (Reply 121):


I work for neither LOT nor my (user)namesake. LOT have to cut their cost base. Painful decisions have to be made to compete with both the likes of Wizzair and Ryanair as well as on the longhaul front. Their new shorthaul service proposition is nothing radical and inline with many CEE flag carriers. They have focused on offering higher quality products as part of their BoB menu that customers will feel represent better value for money; such as the Starbucks offering. Routes had to go to satisfy the EC, whether those routes where dictated or chosen in house I do not know. Whether those routes where as 'good' as you say, I also do not know. No route by route profitability stats are available (that I know of), akin to any other airline.

Quoting wroord (Reply 123):

How could LOT have done what you propose when the delay to 787 certification was a rolling, fluid situation? They could not commit or invest in another product when they had no solid time frames to deal with from Boeing.

Thanks.



A380 Crew
User currently offlineLO231 From Belgium, joined Sep 2004, 2392 posts, RR: 23
Reply 129, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1939 times:

Quoting ThomasCook (Reply 128):

You have some connections with Poland I believe... I was born there but partial in my opinions... I love LO, they brought me to BRU with TU3 in 1990 when I moved, yet again, nice niche airline to fly with.... 4 languages on a 2 hour flight BRU-WAW.... Happy FA's, trying to get you drunk before you lan, always a pleasure... Pity for Ryanair, that just moved to WMI, with people landing between the cows, with no connection to the city...

At least Wizzair goes to Chopin...



Got both LO 788 frames already, next LO E95 and 734 BRU-WAW-BRU
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...
Boeing Not Concerned About 787 Problems posted Thu Jul 20 2006 15:21:49 by EI321
Boeing's Bair: Talks With QR Continue About 787 posted Mon May 29 2006 08:15:20 by Leelaw
Media Reporting About 787 posted Mon Aug 12 2013 07:41:57 by AA777
Boeing Launches The 787-10 Dreamliner posted Tue Jun 18 2013 02:07:14 by moderators
Should Boeing Compensate The 787 Customers? posted Fri Feb 1 2013 19:26:58 by Gonzalo
AI Gets Boeing Loan For (1) 787 posted Thu Oct 4 2012 08:46:17 by rotating14
When Will Boeing Know If 787 Design Details Worked posted Sun Jul 22 2012 08:14:19 by 2175301
ANA Wants Boeing To Make 787 Windows Darker posted Wed Jun 20 2012 02:46:25 by sankaps
Delamination Prompts Boeing To Inspect 787 Fleet posted Sat Feb 4 2012 19:03:00 by RNOcommctr
Boeing To Deliver 787 To ANA Sept 26th posted Fri Aug 26 2011 09:31:33 by DFWHeavy