allow Boeing to very publically embarrass Airbus twice (the measure of which is invaluable)
In your 5 year old child's sort of way, maybe. Public embarrassment is of variable value, and in non-American cultures means far less. Even beyond that, most businessmen realize that Boeing was grasping for straws at SQ
and managed to get one, and that an act of desperation is hardly an endearing quality.
but the aircraft are now placed with EK and, if nothing else, not costing Boeing much of anything.
Boeing paid for these aircraft at the height of trading. They paid a pretty penny is my guess, AND cut their sales cost to razor thin margins on the 777s. That makes them lose money from both pockets.
is paying a lease rate worth anything to Boeing now, at the bottom of the aircraft trading cycle, is easily arguable, and I don't see you providing dollar figures to support your side either. My educated supposition is that they're still well underwater on the lease vs. the cost of the aircraft, and they're gonna have to make it up later when the value of a 343 is even lower.
I'm sure Boeing has lost money on the Singapore trade-in deal, but Airbus probably lost more.
I disagree entirely here. Airbus has effectively lost zero dollars. They sold those aircraft at whatever rate to SQ
, got paid for them in full. That effectively cancels any negative benefit from their future actions...
...which weren't necessarily any worse. They may have undercut their margin target to outsell Boeing in those deals, but I rather doubt they "lost" any money on any of the planes. They may have a razor thin margin, but no matter what economic issues you have with them you can't argue that Airbus loses EADS money.
That aside they STILL SOLD 20 more frames, on top of the original 15, which were already paid for.
Boeing on the other hand undercut their margins on the 777-200ERs to begin with, ALSO forked out cash for planes at the same rate that Airbus got paid for them, and ALSO is losing incremental business by placing them at all.
You can't define efficiency in absolute term.
Nope. Which is also why your logic is as flawed as mine. In order to analyze the situation properly we'd have to take the entire set of carriers, routes, and yields into account and normalize them to include costs and potential incomes.
An A340-300 on a given route could potentially make airline "A" the exact same actual revenue as a 777-200ER on the same route, and could cost them the same per seat to operate within a nominal margin.
If there's no possibility of increased revenue from additional capabilites, then the additional capabilities add nothing to the realized value of the frame, and you've lost significant capital outlay to acquire those unused additional capabilities.
Ergo, the Northwest acquisition of A330s. Sure, it has legal implications and was influenced by a previous purchasing agreement. But there is no reason to believe that Northwest could realize additional potential by operating a 777-200ER on the routes they'll be operating A330s. They've analyzed the market, they know the score. Flying a 777-200ER with the same load and same cargo as an A330 in their case wouldn't yield the effective improvement in efficiency people scream about so often.
Same applies to the A340-300. There are many routes for which it is perfectly well suited and a 777 would do no better.
[Edited 2003-10-07 00:00:25]